WORKER UNDER VEHICLE DIES
Dennis Eagle Limited, a Warwick-based manufacturer of refuse collection vehicles, has been fined £166,000 and ordered to pay costs of £22,612 by Stafford Crown Court for offences relating to the death of a worker.
Simon Rose, 39, from Burntwood in the West Midlands, a field service engineer for the company, based at the Aldridge Service Centre, was fatally injured whilst working on a ‘DENNIS’ refuse vehicle in East Staffordshire Borough Council’s Millers Lane, Burton depot on 24 May 2006. The vehicle had been reported to have an intermittent problem with the parking brake sticking on, when it should have released. Simon Rose was working under the vehicle, using wheel chocks that were inadequate, when the parking brake released and the vehicle moved forwards over him.
An investigation into the death of Mr Rose revealed that he was an experienced engineer who was competent in problem-solving and was working in a logical way to solve the handbrake problem. However, Dennis Eagle Ltd had failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment resulting in inadequate information and instruction on how to proceed safely in this situation and in other varying conditions faced by Simon Rose and other field service engineers who work from service centres across the country. Supervision of the company’s field service engineers was also found to be inadequate.
No chocks had been provided to allow employees to work safely under vehicles so Mr Rose was using two pieces of brick as an alternative. Dennis Eagle Ltd was charged, under s2 HSWA, with failing to ensure the safety of field service engineers, including Simon Rose.
Speaking after the case HSE Inspector Lyn Spooner said:
“This case demonstrates the importance of not leaving workers to their own devices. Simon Rose was a very experienced and competent engineer, who was working logically to solve a problem. However, in the absence of suitable safe systems of work to provide adequate instruction and in the absence of the provision of adequate equipment (chocks), Simon was forced to improvise, which he had probably had to do on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, this time, it proved fatal. Regrettably, had Dennis Eagle complied with legal duties, his death would had been avoided, which is of little solace to Mrs Rose and her two young children.”
Ed - isn’t this all too obvious?
£2 Fine for fatality
North West Aerosols Ltd from Aintree, Liverpool, were prosecuted following a major fire on their premises in December 2005 where one man was killed and three others received serious burns. The company was not represented in court as they have since gone into voluntary liquidation, but the case was proven in their absence for 2 breaches of s2 (1) HSWA, in that they failed to ensure the health and safety of employees by providing necessary information, instruction, training and supervision and that they failed to provide and maintain safe working systems for filling aerosols.
Liverpool Crown Court Judge Graham Morrow described it as a very serious incident and said had the company not been in liquidation he would have been considering a fine in the region of £250,000, but had to take into account the company’s financial position. The company has been fined a total of £2 and ordered to pay £1 costs. The court heard that at 7.45am there was a release of flammable LPG, as production started in the morning, the gas ignited creating a fireball in the factory that initially extended half way across the adjacent Hanson Road. Many cans of aerosol exploded in the fire and were jettisoned around the factory and over Hanson Road. Christopher Knoop died from his injuries and 3 other people all received serious burns.
HSE Inspector Keith Morris said:
“HSE investigations concluded the company had not adopted good industry practice for the change-over of propellants, and had not provided self-sealing quick-release coupling or flame-retardant clothing for all the maintenance staff. There was no specific procedure for the changeover of propellants in the gashouses, and there were significant errors in the procedures for start-up and shutdown. On the day of the incident, a trainee engineer had been delegated to start up the production line. The sad circumstances of this incident should remind the whole chemical industry to ensure they have clear and accurate procedures that cover all aspects of plant operation. All employees must be properly trained and supervised for their work. Had the company done this then Chris Knoop would not have died and Gary Brine, Kevin Armstrong and Graham Ryder, would not have been seriously injured.”
The practice North West Aerosols Ltd followed for changeover of fill gas propellants resulted in open ends left in LPG pipework for extended periods. Opening of a single manual valve would lead to a release of LPG into the gashouse. It was reasonably foreseeable that, sooner or later, someone would inadvertently open the wrong valve causing a release of LPG.
Ed - The HSE is calling for the aerosol industry to ensure that LPG piping systems are securely sealed.
Fatal Fall
Saint Gobain Building Distribution Ltd were fined a total of £120,000 and ordered to pay £51,000 costs by Lincoln Crown Court after being found guilty of breaching health and safety law. Boston-based Calders and Grandidge Limited (part of Saint Gobain) manufacture and supply wooden telegraph poles. In 2005 they decided to supply metal poles as a new product line. On 5 August, the day before the first full load of such poles were to be dispatched, Mr Sargeant was concerned about the height of a load and climbed onto a vehicle to attempt to lower it. While doing so, he fell approximately 15 feet and suffered fatal head injuries.
HSE inspector Jo Anderson said:
“Every year 2000 workers are seriously injured after falling from their vehicle and last year four workers actually lost their lives after falling from their truck or lorry. It is vital that those who work in the transport industry take this issue seriously. On 5 August, the workers had been left to their own devices to work out a method to load the poles. Mr Sargeant became concerned about the clearance beneath bridges of a load. He cut the bands around one of the pole packs and the load shifted causing him to fall. The height of the load exceeded the height of the pins fitted to the trailer to hold the load in place.
This incident highlights the need for employers to recognise the risk of drivers falling when loading and unloading vehicles. They need to put measures in place to prevent this sort of incident from happening again. Had the correct measures been in place Mr Sargeant may not have died. Companies must have procedures in place to identify new or changed products and the impact that their introduction will have on existing systems and procedures. In this case, there was no procedure in place and therefore no risk assessment was undertaken for the loading of metal poles, despite it being recognised as a problem, as workers were finding it difficult to load the metal poles with the equipment provided which was suitable for timber poles”.
Ed - The charges were brought under reg 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for failing to have arrangements in place to manage the introduction of new products and systems and reg 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for failing to perform a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the loading of steel poles onto trailers .
The charges brought under s2(1) HSWA was for failing to provide a safe system of work for the loading of steel poles onto trailers the were discharged by the judge at a previous hearing after the jury failed to reach a decision.
Ladder Accident causes Injury
A 5m fall left Rhondda carpenter David Morgan with serious injuries which may well have ended his career. Mr Morgan, from Tonyrefail, fell from an extension ladder whilst he was working on a loft conversion carrying a 8ft x 4ft piece of chipboard weighing approximately 25kg, suffering a severely broken ankle, broken wrist, and facial injuries where the wood hit him after he fell. Loft conversion company Allied Welsh Ltd, of Del Guerra Court, pleaded guilty at Bridgend Magistrates’ Court to a charge under s2(1) HSWA and has been fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,600 at Crown Court.
HSE inspector Steve Richardson said:
“The company did not have a safe and suitable method of getting materials from ground level up to the loft space where they were working. Our investigation showed that the company had previous advice from HSE, but did not heed it on this occasion, and there was a systematic failure to provide a safe working practices in this particular area. Mr Morgan has been seriously affected by this incident, even after all this time, and his case must serve as a warning to others to make safety priority while working at height, and using ladders.”
HSE is running its ‘Shattered Lives’ campaign, to highlight the devastating consequences of slips, trips and falls in the workplace. In Wales last year, one person died as a result of a fall from height, while there were a total of 2,599 injuries as a result of a slip, trip or fall, costing Welsh society more than £41.5million.
Second Floor Fall
Bussey and Armstrong Ltd, of Brinkburn Road, Darlington, pleaded guilty to a breach of s2(1) HSWA. The company has been fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,193 at Darlington Magistrates’ Court. The company was also orded to pay £5,000 compensation to the injured worker and a £15 victim surcharge.
On March 29, 2007 at a new build residential property in West Park, Darlington, an employee was carrying out joinery work on the second floor using a saw horse as a working platform so that he could reach the roof joists. He was working next to an unguarded stairwell and lost his balance falling into the stairwell and 5.4 metres to the concrete ground floor. He sustained serious injuries, including crushed vertebrae and a fractured pelvis.
HSE Inspector Jonathan Wills said:
“It is totally unacceptable that so many lives of employees who work from height continue to be put at risk. Falls from height remain the most common kind of accident causing fatal injuries. Last year, 45 people died and more than 3,000 suffered a serious injury after a fall from height in the workplace. All companies must assess the risks from work that they are undertaking at height, ensuring that the work is planned properly and appropriate measures are
taken so that workers are not exposed to risk of falling. This case illustrates why risks should always be properly assessed. This incident could have been avoided, and a man not seriously injured if a safe working plan was in place.”
One Last Fall?
Spray-Craft Coating Limited from Irchester, Wellingborough has been fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,100 costs by Wellingborough Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to breaching reg 4 (1)(a) and 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent falls in their workplace and failing to ensure work was properly planned.
On 19 May 2007, a 57 year old man was removing a fan on the roof of a spray booth, located in a workshop when he fell 2.6 meters resulting in serious injuries, including fracturing his left wrist and shoulder. He suffered bleeding to the brain and was in an induced coma for two weeks.
HSE inspector for Northamptonshire Peter Snelgrove said:
“It is totally unacceptable that so many lives of employees who work from height continue to be put at risk. Falls from height remain the most common kind of accident causing fatal injuries. Last year, 45 people died and more than 3000 suffered a serious injury after a fall from height in the workplace. All companies must assess the risks from work that they are undertaking at height, ensuring that the work is planned properly and appropriate measures are taken so that workers are not exposed to risk of falling. This case, involving a small company of three employees, illustrates why risks should always be properly assessed. This incident could have been avoided, and a man not seriously injured if Spray-Craft had put a safe working plan in place.”
Ed - reg 4(1) (a) WHR states “Every employer shall ensure that work at height is properly planned”,
reg 6(3) WHR states: “Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practica ble, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”
Scaffold Warning
The HSE informs us that defective and poorly erected scaffolding poses significant risks to both construction workers and members of the public and each year a high number of people are killed and seriously injured as a consequence of poor standards being adopted by the industry.
HSE Inspector Niall Miller said:
“People die and suffer major injuries from falls from height across Scotland every year. There have been a number of major scaffold collapses in Scotland in the last few years resulting in serious injuries to workers or to the public. Material falling from scaffolding during construction or use is also a serious concern. Erecting and working on safe scaffolding is not just a company’s legal duty – it is imperative to the wellbeing of its staff and business.”
Aberdeen City Council Chief Executive Douglas Paterson stated:
“Aberdeen City Council welcomes the opportunity to work in partnership with the HSE and the construction industry to improve standards in the city and throughout the North-east. We all must take responsibility to ensure that such risks are adequately controlled and as a council we are pleased to be playing our part.”
Harris Transport Lose Appeal
Harris Transport lost their appeal against the £28,000 fine handed to them on 23 January after an incident left an employee permanently disabled. The company now have to pay the fine in full and have incurred additional court costs of £5,300, Southampton Crown Court heard on 2 June.
Lee McMahon, from Southampton, suffered severe injuries to both legs when he was run over by a forklift truck whilst working at Harris Transport in Southampton. An HSE investigation discovered a systemic breakdown in Harris Transport’s health and safety management.
The incident occurred despite Lee McMahon wearing appropriate high visibility clothing. At the time, very dark conditions were reported, because the workplace lighting was deficient, and there had been general maintenance problems with the forklift trucks. There was also no separation between vehicles and pedestrians, creating a dangerous situation in an environment where the lack of lighting restricted visibility. Additional factors were that peripheral equipment on the forklift trucks created a number of blind spots and drivers had little or no training with new forklift trucks.
Ray Kelly, the HSE prosecuting Inspector said:
“This case illustrated starkly how easily normal work places can become accidental scenes when health and safety management systems breakdown. Some 15 months after the accident, Mr. McMahon, the injured person, is still in great pain, is unable to work and never likely to again. The HSE were very disappointed that Harris Transport Ltd felt the need to challenge the original penalty, which had followed a very serious accident, resulting in the permanent disablement of one of their employees, an accident that could have very easily resulted in his death.”
Weetabix Fined
On 23 August 2006, a 58 year old man from Kettering was attempting to clear a rotary valve blockage while operating machinery at the Weetabix factory. He was exposed to moving parts of the valve and caught his hand in the machine, which resulted in a loss of his fingertips.
Weetabix Ltd of Burton Latimer near Kettering has been fined £3,500 and ordered to pay £1,490.40 costs, at Kettering Magistrates Court today after pleading guilty to breaching reg 11 (1) PUWER for failure to prevent access to a dangerous machinery part.
HSE Inspector Peter Snelgrove said:
“This incident has resulted in a worker suffering a significant hand injury which could have been avoided. Weetabix should have ensured that machinery was adequately guarded. There is plenty of advice and guidance available to help employers meet their legal responsibilities and keep their workers safe.”
Mutlinational Company Fined
Schenker, based in Feltham, Middlesex has been fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £19,000 in costs, at Basildon Crown Court after pleading guilty of breaching s2 and 3 HSWA and reg 5(1) PUWER
On 17 March 2006, Mr Mark Treadwell from Benfleet, was standing on the back of a truck in front of a loading dock at the company site at Fenton Way, Southfields Industrial Estate in Basildon. He was trying to ensure the dock levelling equipment was laid flat as the driver manoeuvred the truck into place. Mr Treadwell’s head was crushed between the truck and a wall when the truck reversed. He suffered severe crush injuries including facial lacerations, a fractured nose, brain stem bleeding, blurred vision, speech and balance problems, and a perforated eardrum.
HSE Inspector Julie Rayner said:
“This tragic incident makes it clear to employers that they need to take positive action to maintain equipment. Had the company involved properly maintained the loading dock and carried out adequate risk assessments, this terrible incident could have been avoided. HSE will not hesitate to take action against those who fall short of the law in such a way.”
Ed Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1999 = PUWER
Serious Burns to Employee
During the process of opening up an evaporator, there was an uncontrolled release of large quantities of hot liquid, which hit Terry Young, a welder sub-contracted to Brewchem, and four of his colleagues. After being rushed to an emergency shower, Mr Young was airlifted to hospital where he was kept for seven days and treated for serious burns to his face, neck and arms. Another Brewchem worker was also taken to hospital for treatment for slight burns and shock. The other 3 workers were uninjured.
The incident occurred during cleaning and maintenance work on evaporator plant, which concentrates liquids by boiling off water. Brewchem International Ltd, a company that installs and maintains pipework systems, was contracted by Tate & Lyle UK Ltd to open up the evaporators at the site for high-pressure jet cleaning. At City of London Magistrates’ Court on Friday 13 June, Syral UK Ltd, a food processing company, pleaded guilty of breaching s2 (1) and s3 (1) HSWA. They were fined a total of £30,000, (£15,000 for each breach) and ordered to pay costs of £6,500. Brewchem International Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s3 (1) HSWA. They were fined £10,000 with an order to pay costs of £2,000.
HSE inspector Paul Hems said:
“The two companies involved in this incident failed to provide a safe system of work during the maintenance operations. This led to the hospitalisation of two workers, and the incident could easily have injured more. Multiple failings in the planning and control of the maintenance work by Tate & Lyle led to an avoidable incident taking place. Brewchem International Ltd, who provided the personnel carrying out much of the work, had inadequate arrangements in place to ensure operations directly managed by Tate & Lyle were carried out safely.”
Garage Fined after Burns
Alexanders of Twickenham Ltd, a car MOT, service and repair business, was found guilty at the City of London Magistrates Court of breaching s2(1) HSWA in that it failed to ensure the safety at work of its employees.
The company has been fined £20,000, the maximum fine possible in a Magistrates’ Court for the offence. They were also instructed to pay costs of £16,905.
On 12 December 2005 Biagio Malacaria, a mechanic employed by Alexanders, was working on a car’s fuel system, which involved draining fuel from the vehicle. During this process, his overalls were set alight and he was engulfed in flames. The flames were extinguished by two colleagues, one of whom was also injured in the process. Mr Malacaria was taken to The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, but died from pneumonia as a result of his injuries on 6 January 2006.
HM Inspector of Health and Safety Andrew Withers, said:
“This is a case where a man died as a result of serious injuries he suffered after working with woefully inadequate equipment, and it is shocking that the employer had not realised the danger created by petrol being moved and stored in open containers near obvious sources of ignition. The company failed in its duties in a number of ways including having no risk assessment for fire and explosions, a lack of safety measures for this type of work and failing to ensure that all staff were suitably trained. I hope this case encourages other employers who have to control the risks created by petrol to double check their arrangements and ensure they are adequate and sensible. There is plenty of free advice on our website - www.hse.gov.uk - to assist them in protecting both employees and members of the public”.
Freight Worker Dies
Prosecution procedings were brought after Mr Martyn Simm, a lorry-driving employee, was killed when a sliding metal gate weighing 0.4tonnes fell onto him as he was closing it, on the company’s site in Chesterton,Newcastle-under-Lyme.
At Stafford Crown Court, Berser International Cargo Services Ltd, was fined £22,000 with costs of £18,000 having pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to a charge brought under reg 5(1) of the Workplace Health, Safety & Welfare Regulations 1992.
The company had admitted breaching health and safety legislation, by failing to ‘maintain equipment and devices (including the access gates to the premises) in efficient working order and in good repair’.
HSE inspector Rachel Bradshaw said:
“Basic maintenance of equipment is often ignored by employers and lives are put at risk as a result. There was a very obvious defect on this gate that a simple visual check would have identified. A few moments work and simple modifications would have prevented this tragedy from occurring.”
Ed - Reg 5(1) WHSWR - The workplace and the equipment, devices and systems ... shall be maintained (including cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. Obvious really!
Flamable Liquids
Leicester-based Parmeko Plc was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,910 costs at Leicester Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to contravening s2(1) HSWA by failing to ensure the safety of an employee whilst he was handling acetone, a flammable liquid.
On 2 October 2007, Naran Hirani, 50, was using acetone to clean components at the factory. He poured some acetone into a one litre plastic jug, and used a small brush to clean debris and oil from transformers. At this point, a fire occurred. HSE’s investigation found that the acetone was being used without any attention given to fire risk arising from uncontrolled vapour release near sources of heat, flame or sparks. In this case a solder pot running at up to 400°C was positioned at just over an arm’s length from the acetone.
HSE Inspector Munera Sidat said:
“This incident could have been avoided if Parmeko had put a safe system of working in place to help protect employees when handling this sort of highly flammable and toxic substance and made employees aware of the dangers associated with acetone. If this had been the case here, Mr Hirani would not have suffered such a painful incident.”
Worker Burnt
On 20 August 2007, 62-year-old Foundry Manager, Gordon Fowkes, was burnt by a blowback of molten metal as he removed a mould plug during a routine casting operation at Harrison Castings Ltd. He suffered serious burns to his hands and arms requiring several skin grafts. At one stage he was in theatre for five hours and was in hospital for five days. He has since returned to work with the full support of his employer.
The company, which operates from Gough Road, Leicester, has been fined a total of £5,300 and ordered to pay £2,134.10 costs and £2,000 compensation to Mr Fowkes, by Leicester Magistrates’ Court, after pleading guilty to breaching reg 6 (1) PUWER by failing to carry out an assessment on the suitability of gloves provided for staff use, and also breaching reg 10 (1) of the same Act by failing to ensure that personal protective equipment provided to employees was properly used. The latter charge arose after an HSE Inspector visiting the company noted personal protective equipment was not being worn. HM Inspectors Munera Sidat said:
“This was an incident that could have been easily prevented if Harrison Castings had provided Mr Fowkes with the correct type of gloves. Instead of foundry gloves which provide heat resistance, he was wearing rigger gloves which offered him very little protection. Not only did the molten metal permeate straight through the material, but the gloves were also so short that the liquid went up his jacket sleeves, making his burns worse. I hope this will serve as a reminder to employers and to managers who have specific responsibility for protective equipment that the safety of their staff is paramount and they have a duty to ensure the right equipment is provided for the right job.”
Missing Guard cause loss
Rimac Fabrications Ltd from Watling Street, Cannock was fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,737 at Stafford Magistrates’ Court after the company pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety law. At the same hearing, Edbro Machine Tools Ltd, based at Burntwood Business Park, also pleaded guilty, was fined £1,000 for two breaches of health and safety legislation and ordered to pay costs of £1,745.
Rimac Fabrications Ltd were charged under s2(1) HSWA following its investigation into an accident that occurred, on 27 June 2007 at Rimac’s site. A Rimac employee suffered the loss of all four of his left hand fingers while helping to operate a swaging machine. Rimac failed to maintain parts of the machine and this failure left operators unprotected from moving parts of the machine. As the employee reached into the machine to remove an item of work, four fingers were sliced off his hand when, the machine was operated by another employee.
Rimac had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the machine during the 2 years it had been on site. Such an assessment should have identified the risks represented by the machine and should have identified the need for improved guarding on the machine.
In the same case HSE brought charges against Edbro Machine Tools Ltd for breaching reg 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 by failing to ensure that the machine satisfied essential health and safety requirements relating to machine guarding when it was supplied to Rimac in April 2005. Edbro was also charged under reg 12 (1)(b) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 for failing to ensure that a machine supplied to Rimac had a technical file which included a list of the essential health and safety requirements and other standards which were used when the machine was designed.
HSE investigating inspector Andrew Bowker said:
“The dangers of using press machines without suitable safeguards are well known. Serious injuries such as amputation can result when limbs, or parts of limbs, become trapped by moving parts. Allowing machines to be operated with critical parts not working and without suitable and appropriate guards and safe systems of work is reckless and blatantly ignores the safety of employees. Manufacturers and suppliers of such machines should also be well aware of the dangers and need to ensure that machines are manufactured and supplied as a product conforming to legislation and minimising risk to operators or bystanders. HSE publishes Approved Codes of Practice, guidance and numerous information leaflets to give practical advice on machinery guarding, therefore, there is no excuse for duty holders failing to control the risks and protect employees. In this case Mr Tynan a conscientious long-serving employee of Rimac Fabrications limited suffered hand injuries that will affect his life forever.”
Inadequate Guarding
Geraint Jones and Susan Jones, both of Amlwch, were working for Rehau Ltd at their Anglesey factory during February and March 2006 when the separate incidents took place. Geraint Jones received hand lacerations and Susan Jones received lacerations and fractures to both hands after they were drawn into a danger area whilst feeding plastic into the machine.
Rehau Ltd from Walford, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, pleaded guilty to two separate offences under reg 11 (1) PUWER at a hearing at Holyhead Magistrates’ Court. The company were fined a total of £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £3340.92.
HSE Inspector David Wynne said:
“Our investigation showed that one machine did not have any physical guarding and the other machine was being operated without adequate safety devices. Safety guards and devices on machines are put there for a very good reason – the safety of the machine operators - and they need to be appropriate for the risk. Anyone with responsibility for machinery guarding in the workplace should refer to the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance ‘Safe Use of Work Equipment - Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998’ to ensure that their safeguarding measures comply with the law.”
Another missing guard
Sharward Steel Fabrications Ltd of Wimbledon Avenue in Brandon, has been fined £1000 and ordered to pay costs of £1345.10 by Bury St Edmunds Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to s2(1) HSWA.
On 24 October 2006, a 16-year-old Sharward Steel Fabrications employee from Brandon, was working with the director of the company cutting sheet metal on a guillotine. The director John Ward was then called away to answer a phone call, and the young employee continued cutting the sheet metal. There was no front guard on the machine, so he managed to push the metal far under the blade and accidentally pressed down the foot pedal, which brought the guillotine down and took the end of one of his fingers off.
The HSE investigation identified that the machine was not adequately guarded as the director had previously removed the guard and the investigation also identified a lack of training and supervision for such a young person.
HSE Inspector, Julie Jarvey said:
“The dangers of using these machines without suitable safeguards are well known. Serious injuries such as amputation can result when limbs, or parts of limbs, are able to access dangerous parts of the machine. This serious incident could and should have been prevented by the company by ensuring that the dangerous parts were adequately guarded. Young persons
are particularly vulnerable and companies need to ensure proper risk assessments and training is carried out for this type of employee. This case illustrates how things can go wrong when risks are not properly controlled and HSE will not hesitate to take action against those who fall short of the law in such a way.”
Capita Preferred Bidder
The HSE has announced CAPITA as its preferred bidder in the competition to provide a new gas installer registration scheme in Great Britain. This scheme will replace the one currently operated by CORGI. The new scheme, which will start in April 2009, is set to bring improved domestic gas safety and benefits to both consumers and gas installers.
Geoffrey Podger, Chief Executive, HSE said,
“I would like to thank CORGI for their contribution over the years to the installer registration scheme; and I look forward to CAPITA bringing a fresh approach to gas safety and improved value for money to the new scheme.”
The new scheme will strengthen and improve the governance and performance management arrangements between HSE and the new scheme provider. CAPITA will have incentives to continuously improve gas safety and services to gas consumers and installers. But there will also be financial implications should they not meet the agreed performance indicators.
While the number of gas related fatalities has fallen over recent years, tragic incidents still occur. The new scheme is designed to give the provider a key role in coordinating industry action to raise public awareness of gas safety risks and especially carbon monoxide poisoning and so reduce further deaths and incidents.
CAPITA will be required to establish and promote a new independent brand which will be an excellent opportunity to promote gas safety messages. Over the next few months the preferred bidder, CAPITA will be involved in detailed discussions with HSE to firm up the contractual arrangements due to be signed this autumn.
Gas Worries
Lee David McHugh and Stephen Andrew McHugh, from the Wirral, Merseyside, who operated from a shop, ‘Embers Fires’, in Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, were, on Friday 27 June each sentenced by Shrewsbury Crown Court to 12 months imprisonment for each breach of Prohibition Notices, with the sentences to run concurrently, for their part in the poor installation of gas appliances throughout Shropshire, which, the Court heard, posed a serious risk to occupants and property. Both men had also falsely claimed to be CORGI registered gas installers.
HSE contacted over 200 households in order to determine which appliances supplied by Lee McHugh had been fitted by Stephen McHugh. In one instance, Lee McHugh had also taken part in the installation work.
HSE investigating inspector Mr Lindsay Hope said:
“HSE is very pleased that the McHugh brothers have finally been brought to justice for their dangerous and illegal behaviour. The 10 specific instances brought to the attention of the Court, citing installations in Shrewsbury, Church Stretton, Little Stretton, Newport, Pontesbury and Monkmoor, were not isolated; the malpractice was ongoing over a very long period. HSE had served Prohibition Notices on both brothers but they continued to flout safety legislation.
Stephen McHugh was carrying out gas work knowing that he was not registered with CORGI. He chose to ignore this and continued to carry out work, putting the public at risk from both carbon monoxide poisoning and gas explosion. We would urge anyone who thinks that they may have a gas appliance installed by Stephen McHugh and probably purchased through Lee McHugh’s shop ‘Embers Fires’ in Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury to urgently have the installation checked by a bona fide registered installer. This case serves as a reminder to the general public that anyone they ask to undertake gas work must currently be registered with CORGI. If the installer does not have a valid CORGI identity card, you should not let them into your property. Currently you can check an installer’s registration on the CORGI website. This case should also be a warning to traders to only undertake work for which they are qualified and competent and also that they must currently be registered with CORGI.”
Lee McHugh had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to 10 specimen charges of breaching reg 3(7) and 4 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998; falsely claiming to be a CORGI registered gas installer and contracting work to an unregistered installer, a breach of s33(1) (g) HSWA for failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice and a breach of s3(2) HSWA by exposing his customers to risks to their health and safety.
Stephen Mc Hugh had also pleaded guilty to 10 specimen charges of breaching reg 3(3) and 3(7) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998; undertaking unregistered gas work and falsely claiming to be a CORGI registered gas installer, a breach of s33(1)(g) HSWA for failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice HSE served Prohibition Notices on Stephen McHugh to stop fitting gas appliances until he was CORGI registered and on Lee McHugh to stop commissioning gas-fitting work to an unregistered installer. There were numerous breaches of the Prohibition Notices, relating to work carried out in Shrewsbury, Little Stretton, Church Stretton, Newport, Pontesbury and Monkmoor. Stephen McHugh obtained CORGI registration on 24 July 2007 but was issued with a further Prohibition Notice by HSE on 11 September 2007 and subsequently suspended by CORGI.
Food Manufacturer Fined
On 12 June 2007, a 44-year-old Loughborough man employed at Authentic World Cuisine Limited, which produced a range of sachet Asian meals for supermarkets, sustained multiple injuries when the door of an autoclave (known as a retort, or pressure cooker) exploded under pressure midway through a cooking cycle. The detached circular steel door struck him and sent him 8m across the factory causing multiple fractures. He also sustained burns from the hot contents of the vessel. As a result of the incident, his leg was amputated, he spent more than five months in hospital and is now looked after at home whilst he rehabilitates.
The company which manufactured at Castle Business Park, Pavilion Way, has been fined £4,000, by Loughborough Magistrates Court, after pleading guilty to breaching reg 12 of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 for failing to ensure that the company’s pressure vessel (autoclave) was maintained in a state of good repair.
Roger Amery one of HM Inspectors who deals with Leicestershire said:
“Major injuries in the food industry arising from the sudden or explosive release of pressure are, I am pleased to say, infrequent events. But this incident shows just how serious the consequences can be when things do go wrong and just how much energy is contained within industrial pressure systems. There might easily have been one or several fatalities in this explosion. The injuries that did result were very severe with long term consequences for the man who had the misfortune of being in the path of this door when the system exploded. I hope this will serve as a reminder to employers and to managers who have specific responsibility for plant and equipment, that as well as ensuring periodic statutory examinations are made, it is equally important to ensure that all maintenance on pressure vessels is undertaken competently and that the protection systems are kept in good working order at all times.”
Ed - reg 12 requires that the user of an installed system and the owner of a mobile system shall ensure that the system is properly maintained in good repair, so as to prevent danger.
Don't Overcompensate
The HSE have announced its support for the two year, European Campaign for Safety and Health at Work - the theme of which will be risk assessment. The key aim of the campaign is to demystify the risk assessment process to show that it is not complicated, bureaucratic or a task only for experts.
Minister for Health and Safety, Lord McKenzie of Luton said,
“We are delighted to be supporting this Europe-wide campaign for the next two years. In Britain there are over 200 fatalities at work each year, thousands more die as a result of work-related injuries and ill-health. The great majority of this harm can be prevented by taking practical precautions. A straightforward risk assessment is key to identifying those precautions.”
Geoffrey Podger, HSE Chief Executive said,
“Our message to employers is to keep your risk assessment simple and fit for purpose, make it a living document and involve all the major people in acting on it. Risk assessment is not a bureaucratic paperwork exercise; it is about practical steps you need to take to protect people and get the job done safely.”
Importing Asbestos
The Health & Safety Executive has granted Able UK Ltd of Teesside an exemption under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, to allow them to import asbestos into the United Kingdom contained in the French ship Q790 (formerly the air craft carrier Clemenceau). The company applied for the exemption in order to dismantle the ship at their Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre (TERRC), in Hartlepool. HSE has imposed strict conditions governing the removal of asbestos from the vessel. The exemption does not come into force until the company has been granted a Waste Management Licence by the Environment Agency for the site.
Caravan Inspections
These inspections are designed to provide reassurance to holidaymakers, and to remind site owners of their obligations to provide a safe and secure environment for their clients. Inspection teams will visit a minimum of 30 sites in each of 6 Local Authority areas within North Wales, looking at issues relating to traffic management and gas safety at each site.
Inspectors will be looking to see that, wherever practical, sites have clearly marked areas for vehicles which are separate to those used by pedestrians. This is to prevent the likelihood of incidents occurring between vehicles and pedestrians. They will be looking for evidence of speed calming measures, such as signs and traffic humps.
The use of gas at campsites is also a key area of concern. Inspectors will be looking at the way in which gas is stored and used on sites. They will also be looking to ensure that those sites which rent out caravans have the appropriate gas safety certification, and that certificates are displayed in the caravans.
When people go camping or caravanning there is often a holiday atmosphere prevalent, which could result in site users being less than vigilant about safety issues. By undertaking these inspections, there is reassurance that camping and caravan sites are operating safety.
Jenny Prendergast, Chair of the North Wales Health and Safety Task group, said:
“It is important that we are getting out the message about safety on holiday. If sites are not providing adequate vehicle management then there is a real risk that accidents may occur. Obviously, these sites have a high number of families using them and this means young children in high spirits, who could be vulnerable to accidents.”
Gary Martin, Inspector for the HSE, said:
“This inspection programme is designed to ensure that sites have adequately addressed the risks associated with both traffic and gas usage. Although landlords are aware that they require a Gas Safety Certificate by law, many who let out caravans are not aware that they are bound by the same rules. Likewise, site owners have to ensure that they meet their duty of care in terms of the piping, or storage, of gas onsite.”
Machine Maintenence
Grampian Country Pork Halls Ltd of Aberdeen, has been fined £2,000 by Livingston Sheriff Court, after pleading guilty to a breach of s2 (1) HSWA, by failing to provide and maintain plant and systems of work that are safe and without risks to health.
When HSE Inspectors visited Grampian Country Pork Halls Ltd, Broxburn, they found serious faults with a piece of machinery, which had the potential to cause a fatal electric shock to anyone coming into contact with it. An immediate Prohibition Notice was served, preventing the machinery – a metal detector on a food production line – from being used.
Within the food industry in particular all equipment must be cleaned thoroughly, however with electrical equipment, and particularly when there is a significant amount of water present, electrical injuries such as electric shocks or electric burns are a very real possibility so it is vital that necessary precautions be taken.
HSE found that the Grampian Country Pork Halls Ltd ‘s maintenance regime was insufficient and failed to uncover obvious faults, and following an incident where an employee received an electric shock, Grampian Country Pork Halls Ltd failed to identify the cause.
HSE Inspector Lindsey Reid said:
“A fatal incident could have occurred in the circumstances which we found on site at Grampian Country Pork Halls Ltd in Broxburn. When we conducted a routine inspection at the plant following the electric shock incident, we discovered that the metal detector was still in a dangerous condition and immediately prevented its use. The company’s inspection system was inadequate so they failed to identify serious faults. This resulted in machinery remaining in operation in a very dangerous condition where workers would only have been aware of the fault by touching the equipment.”
Furniture Manufacturing
HSE inspector, Graham Watson, said:
“Furniture manufacturing in the North East has an accident rate four times higher than in general manufacturing with each accident costing an estimated £5,500. Breathing in harmful wood dust can cause asthma and even cancer. Taking simple steps, and installing suitable extraction, can control dust exposure, which in turn will protect employers and their workers provided it is used correctly and is adequately maintained.”
One North East firm which is already benefiting from taking advice from an HSE inspector about control of dust is Chester-le-Street-based Ambic Ltd, a school furniture manufacturer.
Director, David Potter, said:
“We sought advice from a specialist consultant who made several recommendations including improvements to the dust extraction system, which made for a cleaner, clearer working environment. This has actually speeded up the manufacturing process as well as being part of our health and safety drive. One of the processes produced so much dust it was difficult to actually see the work in hand; because the atmosphere is so clearer now it’s much easier and means work gets done quickly and accurately. In the near future we will be moving to a new factory specifically designed for our needs. We have therefore been working closely with our health and safety consultant to make sure we take full advantage of the opportunity this presents to secure further improvements in health and safety.”
In addition to the risk posed by dust, manual handling accidents can occur across a wide range of activities in the woodworking industry. The potential for injury is present during:
• handling of timber and board material
• machining and assembly
• handling and storage of the finished product.
Graham says inspectors will also be warning employers about the risks involved in buying secondhand woodworking equipment.
“There are lots of bargains to be had at auctions. If you look around you will find that woodworking machinery can even be bought on internet auction sites at what look like knock-down prices. If you are tempted to bid for a ‘bargain’ machine at an auction sale or on the internet be very careful. What you think is going to be a cheap deal could turn out to be very expensive indeed. You might have to fit extra guards or braking. Before you can use the machine you have to be sure it is safe and complies with PUWER. You owe it to yourself and your employees to get this right. If an inspector visits and finds a machine that doesn’t comply, you could be faced with a notice that stops you using it until it is put right or ultimately, with prosecution for using unsafe and illegal equipment.”
HSE’s Myth of the Month
Adults can’t put plasters on children’s cuts
We’ve often heard of teachers, volunteers and carers being told to ask parents for permission, or even requiring parents to drive over and put the plaster on themselves. This persistent myth causes a lot of unnecessary hassle and worry.
There is no rule that says a responsible adult can’t put a plaster on a child’s minor cut. Some children do have an allergy to normal plasters. If you know a child is allergic you can use the Hypo-allergenic type of plaster. The important thing is to clean and cover the cut to stop it getting infected.