|
Girl crushed to death
Carlton Main Brickworks Limited has been fined £25,000 and ordered to pay costs of £22,833 after being convicted of failing to provide and maintain a suitable barrier around the boundary of a quarry where a 13-year old schoolgirl died.
On 26 April 2007, Amber Worth from Brierley, in Barnsley, and her friends gained access to Carlton Main Brickworks Limited at Carlton Brick, Clayburn Road, Grimethorpe, Barnsley, which had no security fence or barrier. She was killed almost instantly when a boulder weighing almost half a tonne became dislodged and fell on top of her.
The operator pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA for its failure to provide and maintain a suitable barrier around the boundary of the quarry, which is situated behind the brickworks.
HSE Inspector Richard Noble said:
“This is a tragic case where a young girl died as a result of the company not securing its premises. I hope today’s prosecution will act as a stark warning to other owners of quarries and construction sites that they have a responsibility to provide a secure, adequate barrier to prevent people getting in.
“In this case, the company was next to a housing estate, where children could easily gain access. A metal palisade fence has now been installed, but had the proper measures been put in place, this terrible incident could have been avoided.”
Fatal scaffold collapse
Two construction firms involved in a major scaffolding collapse at Milton Keynes have been ordered to pay £126,000 for their role in the incident which left one man dead and two others seriously injured.
John Robinson, and his son Mark, were working on the Jury's Inn site in Witan Gate, Milton Keynes on 11 April 2006, alongside Ivan Penkov. All three men were on the 40m high scaffolding when it collapsed.
They fell to the ground and were trapped under rubble until rescue workers could reach them.
Father of three, John Robinson, 49, was taken to hospital suffering from serious injuries to his left leg. Three days later he died from a pulmonary embolism, as a result of the damage to his leg.
John's son Mark Robinson suffered a punctured lung, broken vertebra and ribs and significant cuts and bruising in the fall. He was unable to work for a period after the incident.
Ivan Penkov suffered serious fractures to his legs and arms and spent a month in hospital recovering. He has undergone a number of operations and has had to re-train as a draftsman.
In Huntingdon Crown Court the principal contractor on the Jury's Inn site, McAleer & Rushe Limited of Cookstown, N.Ireland was fined £90,000 and ordered to pay costs of £42,000. The cladder on the site, Lee Smith Carpentry Limited of Romsey, Hampshire was fined £36,000 and ordered to pay costs of £28,000 for breaching reg 3 MHSWR 1999, regulations 4 and 12(4) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and regulation 4 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.
The court heard that a combination of failures led to the scaffolding collapse. The scaffolding was not strong or stable enough for the work being carried out. Inspection of the scaffold was also inadequate, despite specific instructions from HSE and McAleer's health and safety manager.
HSE Principal Inspector Stephen Hartley said:
"John Robinson lost his life in this incident and two others have had their lives changed forever as a result. It's a wonder that more people weren't hurt. It is totally unacceptable for companies to disregard the safety of their workers. If the scaffolding had been designed, erected and managed properly, this incident would never have happened."
McAleer & Rushe Limited had pleaded guilty to breaching ss2(1) & 3(1) HSWA..
John Robinson's widow, Christine Robinson, said: "John was a kind, caring man who lived for his family. My children and I have not come to terms with his death; we don't understand why it had to happen. This incident should never have happened if both companies had ensured the safety of those working for them. Every day I miss John so much - my best friend, my soul mate and my future."
Scaffolder fined after worker fell 10 metres through roof
The HSE has prosecuted Mark Wilson, trading as MWS Scaffolding Services, in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, after uncovering breaches of health and safety law on a site in Waltham Forest, north east London.
Mr Wilson was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,566.80 at City of London Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA after a worker fell more than 10 metres through a roof.
On 21 November 2008 a scaffolding employee, working under the direct supervision and instruction of Mr Wilson was attempting to fix scaffolding at Mothercare World in Argon Road, Edmonton when he fell.
MWS Scaffolding Services was contracted to provide frame scaffolding protection at the store to allow a roofing contractor to gain access to repair leaking roof lights.
The court heard that the employee fell through the unprotected fragile roof light and landed more than 10 metres below in the open store. The employee suffered a broken leg, cuts and was unable to work for more than three months.
HSE Construction Inspector, Dominic Elliss, said:
“Mr. Wilson’s failure to properly assess these works and then ensure that suitable and sufficient health and safety measures were in place resulted in the serious injury of one of his employees. The risks and precautions for work near to fragile material are well known with 15 deaths at work in 2005/06 resulting from similar falls. A failure to adequately assess the risks in this case meant that simple measures such as the provision of sufficient boarding and clear and robust instruction and supervision of his employees were not undertaken.”
Failings led to drowning of seven-year-old
The HSE has said that serious management failings led to the death of a young boy, who drowned in a swimming pool at a Dundee leisure centre.
The seven year-old, Luke Hutton, died in September 2007 at the Olympia Leisure Complex, Dundee. At the end of a public swimming session, another child raised the alarm that Luke was missing and his body was then found in a covered wave pool following a 40-minute search.
At Dundee Sheriff Court the organisation Dundee Leisure Limited of 30 and 34 Reform Street, Dundee, was fined £40,000 having pleaded guilty to charges under Section 3(1) HSWA. This company runs certain Council leisure facilities in Dundee.
HSE Inspector Peter Dodd said: "HSE recognise the undoubted benefits of children learning to swim and the skills this equips them with. Cases such as this are rare, but it illustrates what can happen when a non-swimmer is not given the full attention they require to enable them to use these facilities safely. Dundee Leisure failed to have robust measures in place to ensure the safety of their clientele at all times. The lifeguards working at the Olympia Centre were not adequately trained to ensure that every part of the wave pool was properly supervised, particularly in relation to a potential blind spot within the area. ".
Fine for risking asthma
Koyo Bearings (Europe) Ltd has pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA and has been fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £15,280 costs by Barnsley Magistrates Court.
The court heard that between 12 December 2007 and 8 May 2008, employees at the company were exposed to a metal working fluid mist, which was being emitted from more than 100 metal work machines.
The company used water-based chemicals during the manufacture of bearings for the automotive industry. The process involved spraying the metalworking fluid onto fast rotating tool pieces at high pressure. This created a mist but nothing in place to contain or extract the mist away from workers.
Exposure to metal working fluid mist is a known cause of occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA). Since 2005 there have been 15 reported cases of these illnesses by employees at Koyo Bearings - the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.
HSE Inspector Mark Welsh said:
"Today's verdict shows that the working practices at Koyo Bearings (Europe) Ltd were inadequate and dangerous. We found that a combination of employees breathing in metal working fluid mist, along with no filter system and inadequate training, resulted in the entire workforce at being put at risk.
Research shows that exposure to metal working fluids in this way can cause serious respiratory conditions, and the large number of cases of illness of this type at the company is shocking.”
Big Night Out brings injuries and fines
The owner of a faulty fairground ride has been fined £2,000 after it collapsed during Suffolk's annual Big Night Out injuring eight people. The independent fairground examiner who gave it a clean bill of health was also fined.
Several cars on the Hellraiser ride – a ground-level spinning machine – came loose and crashed into each other shortly on 2 November 2007. Fire-fighters had to free two people trapped by the cars and several others were injured, including three teenagers. A 24-year-old woman was taken to hospital with broken ribs and damage to her spine, amongst other injuries.
An investigation by the HSE found the crash was caused by poor maintenance, which should have been spotted by the independent fairground inspector.
Walter Shufflebottom the owner of the Hellraiser ride, and Independent fairground examiner Frederick Meakin and his company Fairground Inspection Services were all before Ipswich Crown Court for sentencing. All three had entered guilty pleas at an earlier hearing.
Mr Shufflebottom admitted failing to maintain the ride in good order and thereby risking the health and safety of people he did not employ – (s3(2) HSWA) and was fined £2,000.
Fairground Inspection Services Limited (FIS) admitted failing to examine the ride properly again risking the health and safety of people it did not employ (s3(1)HSWA) and was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.
Mr Meakin was prosecuted personally as a director of FIS – in the sense that it was his neglect that had given rise to the breach of the law by FIS. He was fined £2,000 with £1,000 costs. (s37 HSWA)
HSE Inspector Martin Kneebone, who led the investigation into the ride's collapse, said:
"This incident could have proved fatal. High standards of maintenance and inspection are absolutely essential to ensure the safe operation of any ride.
“The Hellraiser ride was in a very poor state of repair and should not have been operating at the event. The Big Night Out could have so easily ended in tragedy. Some of the key structural components had deteriorated to such an extent that they were no longer safe and had been inappropriately repaired over a significant period of time. Neither the owner of the ride nor the examiner took appropriate action to remedy this problem, which ultimately resulted in the ride collapsing. This incident should remind all amusement ride owners and ride examiners that public safety is of paramount importance."
EAT fined following fall
The HSE has prosecuted EAT Ltd of Unit 32-34, Fourth Way, Wembley Industrial Estate, Brent. The company has pleaded guilty to breaching reg 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500 by the City of London Magistrates' Court.
The court heard that on 28 January 2007, warehouse worker Chirag Ray, 31, of Wembley, Brent, was seriously injured at EAT Limited's Central Production Unit in Wembley. Mr Ray was preparing pallets for delivery to the company's retail shops. He was working in a raised man-riding cage, which was not properly fixed to the forklift truck. Whilst raised to height of approximately 4.6 metres, the cage slipped off the forks and fell. Mr Ray was unconscious in hospital for two days and suffered swelling to the brain, a broken hand, broken elbow, cracked ribs and a dislocated knee.
The HSE investigation showed that EAT did not have adequate measures in place to control the risks of working at height. The cage used was not suitable for order picking and the work was being carried in an unsafe manner. Evidence also showed that a colleague working on the ground narrowly escaped injury as the cage fell.
HSE inspector, Ravi Govin-Pillay said:
"Falls from height are the single biggest single cause of fatal injuries at work. Each year there are around 60 people killed and 4,000 major injuries caused by falls in the workplace. On this occasion, Mr Ray was seriously injured and lucky to escape death. One of his colleagues narrowly avoided serious injury. The risk of harm from falling from the working platform was clearly foreseeable. Had this work been properly planned or supervised, then this needless incident would have easily been prevented.”
Crushed to death
James Huntley & Sons Ltd of Sholing, Southampton has been fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £34,373.80 after pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA reg 3(6) MHSWR .
Barry Collins, 24, from Millbrook, Southampton was killed when he and his brother, Joey visited the site run by metal recyclers James Huntley & Sons Ltd in Sholing, Southampton on 2 August 2007. They were examining a vehicle for its parts and entered the site by the open back gate whilst the grab claw crane operator was elsewhere. The grab claw crane was used to move scrap around the site.
Barry Collins was inside the van when the crane operator came back to start work. Despite his brother, Joey, trying to tell the crane driver that Barry was in the van, the operator misunderstood and thought he was being asked to pick up the van.
As the crane picked up the vehicle Barry Collins was in, he suffering major neck and shoulder injuries and was instantly crushed by the crane’s five-finger grab. He died at the scene.
At the time of the incident, there were no warning signs around and outside the site to indicate which areas were out of bounds to members of the public and there were no published site rules or formal systems of work.
HSE Inspector Roger Upfold said:
“This was a truly tragic miscommunication that led to a man’s death. Had simple measures been in place to control site access and let members of the public know where they should and shouldn’t go, this awful incident would probably never have happened. Recycling sites are dangerous work environments. As such, warning notices, communication of site rules, and the use of high visibility clothing, should all be used to set clear expectations for the behaviour of visitors.”
Trapped hand
I S Maintenance Limited, of Smithies in Barnsley pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,085 costs by Sheffield Crown Court.
The court heard that I S Maintenance employee Craig Chappell, of Wombwell, Barnsley, who was 29 at the time, had been polishing a metal component on a lathe, when his hands became caught and were pulled into it. He had been using an emery cloth and wearing gloves, entangling him further into the machine, which was set to rotate at 1,200 revs per minute.
Although Mr Chappell managed to free his hands from the gloves, he suffered serious injuries to his left hand, including three broken metatarsal bones, muscle damage and severe bruising, as well as muscle injuries and bruising to his right hand.
The HSE investigation revealed that the company had neither carried out the necessary risk assessments, nor had they implemented any safe systems of work to prevent such an incident. Mr Chappell had been employed by the company as a fitter in October 2007 but had no experience of operating metal working lathes and was not given the appropriate instruction or cleaning tools to carry out the task.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Denise Fotheringham commented:
"We found serious health and safety failings at the company, which resulted in Mr Chappell suffering severe, long-term injury to both hands. Mr Chappell is still unable to clench his left fist or lift heavy items, which has affected his career, given his background in manual work. I hope this serves as a warning to other employers who have machinery on their premises, as they have a duty to protect their staff. Had the correct precautions been in place, this incident could have been avoided."
Contractor banned from working with asbestos
Bestoff Services Ltd – of 1 Lane End, West Hyde, Rickmansworth – has been banned from working with asbestos after the HSE revoked its licence. This followed two serious safety breaches, including one criminal offence.
A hearing to consider the firm's safety failings was told how HSE inspectors had:
successfully prosecuted the firm in March 2009 after a survey it carried out failed to spot asbestos in a building and two workmen were exposed to asbestos fibres. Bestoff Services was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,091.70
uncovered further evidence of health and safety offences following the prosecution and had to issue a prohibition notice preventing asbestos removal work from continuing at Victoria Hospital, Swindon
Greg Haywood, head of HSE’s asbestos licensing unit, said:
“Bestoff Services fell a long way short of the standards of professionalism and safety that we demand of licensed removal contractors, and because of their failings they are now banned from working with asbestos. HSE will not hesitate to revoke licences to work with asbestos where contractors’ performance falls short. It is essential that licence holders apply the highest possible controls with effective leadership and management. “
The company has not appealed the unanimous decision by the licence review board of HSE’s asbestos licensing unit to revoke its licence under Regulation 8(5) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
The board judged that the performance of Bestoff Services Ltd represented a serious deviation from the standards required of licence holders, as set out in the approved code of practice.
Sheffield company fined after hydraulic leak fireball
The HSE has warned manufacturing companies to inspect their machinery regularly after a hydraulic fluid leak caused an explosion at a Sheffield factory, seriously injuring two agency workers.
The warning follows the successful prosecution of Tinsley Bridge Ltd, of Tinsley Park Spring Works, Sheffield. The company pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £1,517 costs at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court.
In June 2008 two agency workers suffered serious burns after oil from a hydraulic bending machine leaked from a high pressure hose onto a hot metal bar and exploded, causing a fireball.
John Wingfield, 37, was blown across the factory floor by the force of the explosion and suffered burns, Neil Ducker, 44, also suffered burns to his neck and arms in the blast.
The court heard that a risk assessment had been carried out prior to the incident, which had recommended the need for a regular safety inspection of the hydraulic hoses, but no follow-up action was taken by the company.
After the hearing HSE Inspector Tim Johnson commented:
"Today’s hearing underlines the importance of carrying out regular safety checks to all machinery and metal-working equipment. Despite a previous risk assessment identifying the need for regular hose inspections, the company failed to act on the recommendations. Two men suffered serious and unnecessary injury because of this failing, and I would remind employers that they need to ensure that work equipment is maintained in a safe condition to prevent accidents at work."
Unsafe scaffolding leads to prosecution and fine
A sharp eyed safety inspector was lied to after he stopped to investigate unsafe scaffolding he noticed as he was driving by Skegness Magistrates Court heard when sentencing Bracknell Roofing Co Ltd, of Suffolk Way, Sevenoaks in Kent. The company was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,572.80.
HSE inspector Steve Woods was driving past the Coach & Horses Inn in Billinghay, Lincolnshire, on 11 June 2008 when he saw three employees of Bracknell Roofing Co Ltd using an unsafe tower scaffold to repair a flat roof.
The roof and tower scaffold had no edge protection, inadequate boarding which was not properly attached and it was propped up on bricks and blocks. A manager had visited the site and allowed work to continue only 45 minutes before Mr Woods arrived and found dangerous safety defects.
Bracknell Roofing Co Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching regs 4(1) and 8b(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Steve Woods said: "This inadequate tower scaffold was owned by Bracknell Roofing and had been taken out of their depot just for this job. The three men on site refused to give me the name of the company and also gave false names and contact details. Falls from height remain the most common kind of workplace fatality. The men were at risk of serious injury either from falling off the roof or the tower scaffold. The case shows the need for companies to ensure that work at height is properly planned and supervised and that equipment provided is suitable and maintained in good condition. In this case the equipment that should have been used was easily available and could have been provided by the company if adequate planning of the work had been undertaken. The unsafe working practice should have been stopped by the company manager when he visited site."
Ed – It is clearly to the inspector’s credit that he saw through the lies and was able to identify the company. In these circumstances I am surprised that action was not taken against the liars for obstructing the inspector in the execution of his duty. HSE inspectors can call in the police to assist them. The police have a power of arrest in order to identify an individual if they are not satisfied that they have been told their correct identity.
Employer without compulsory insurance fined
Dipak Kumar Kantial Solanki, who owns Melbourn Stores, 49 High Street, Melbourn, was asked to produce a current Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) certificate when an Environmental Health Officer from South Cambridgeshire District Council visited the store in April 2009.
Mr Solanki failed to present a certificate and he was issued with an ELCI "notice to produce" by the HSE. Despite this, Mr Solanki still failed to present the document.
All employers who are required to have an ELCI certificate must produce a copy if requested to do so by a HSE inspector.
Mr Solanki pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to have insurance at Cambridge Magistrates' Court.
HSE Inspector Andrew Saunders said: “This case should serve as a warning to all employers about how seriously HSE takes this issue. Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance is designed to protect employees and ensure they are covered if there is an accident in the workplace. Failing to have this insurance potentially leaves members of staff doubly vulnerable in the event of an accident or ill health."
Property developer fined for putting workers at risk
The HSE has prosecuted Lahrie Mohamed of South Woodford, London, after uncovering breaches of health and safety law on two sites in Waltham Forest, north east London.
Mr Mohamed was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,103 after pleading guilty to breaching regulations 4(1) (a) and 9(1) (a) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations for offences committed at 78-80 Spruce Hills Road and breaching regulations 9(1) (a) and 4(1)(a)of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 for offences committed at 67-67a Chingford Mount Road.
The court heard how Mr Mohammed failed on both sites to appoint a competent contractor and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that proper arrangements were in place for work to be managed safely - putting workers and neighbours at risk.
Open flames were used at Chingford Mount Road site, which is close to a petrol station, but there were no fire extinguishers on site. Inspectors also found that scaffolding at the property was substandard or missing and had insufficient guard rails, while 240 volt power tools were used in areas where the cables were likely to be damaged, creating a risk of electrocution and fire. Domestic quality cables were also run through damp areas. HSE inspectors ordered works to down tools after visiting the site.
HSE Construction Inspector Sarah Snelling said: "Mr Mohamed put the lives of the men working on his sites at serious risk by failing to appoint competent contractors to carry out and manage the work. As a long-standing property developer and professional landlord who owns over 100 properties in and around Waltham Forest, Mr Mohamed should have had the knowledge and resources to ensure the work was carried out safely and legally."
Ed - reg 4(1)(a) of the Construction (Design & Management) states: "No person on whom these Regulations place a duty shall appoint or engage a CDM co-ordinator, designer, principal contractor or contractor unless he has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person to be appointed or engaged is competent."
reg 9(1)(a) of the Construction (Design & Management) states: "Every client shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the arrangements made for managing the project (including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources) by persons with a duty under these Regulations (including the client himself) are suitable to ensure that the construction work can be carried out so far as is reasonably practicable without risk to the health and safety of any person."
Company fined after wall collapses on Wigan worker
Hughes Brothers Building & Joinery Ltd has been prosecuted following an incident at its site on Millers Lane in Platt Bridge.
The company, based in Hope Carr Way in Leigh, pleaded guilty to a charge under s2(1) HSWA at Trafford Magistrates Court. It was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,517.
The court heard that the worker - Scott Hutchinson of Golborne - was helping to demolish offices at the site on 15 July 2008 when a wall collapsed on him. He suffered multiple injuries including fractures to his left leg, collar bone and arm, and injuries to the vertebrae in his upper and lower back and is has yet to return to work.
HSE Inspector Tom Merry said:
"This employee was seriously injured because the company failed to manage the demolition of the building properly. The risk assessment that the company produced did not fully indentify the dangers workers would face. A Hughes Brothers manager briefly told his employees what he wanted, but failed to stay on the site to check his instructions were followed. More shockingly, only one of the workers had previous experience of demolition work but he did not stay on the site the whole time. The others had neither the experience nor qualifications needed to demolish buildings.
Director fined personally for repeated negligence
Paul Richard Llewellyn James, 58, of Cranford, Northamptonshire, pleaded guilty personally to two breaches of Regulation 11(1) PUWER 1998 committed by his company but attributable to his neglect brought under Section 37 HSWA. The charges were brought by the HSE related to separate incidents where two employees were severely injured. Mr James was also ordered to pay £17,500 in court costs.
The court heard that Mr James was a director of James Environmental Ltd when both incidents occurred at the company's premises at Islip Furnace Industrial Estate, Kettering Road, in Islip. Mr James put the company into voluntary liquidation three days after the case was committed to the Crown Court.
The first incident occurred on 26 August 2006 when employee Zeke Mabbutt, from Burton Latimer, Kettering, was cleaning near an unguarded roller on a conveyor belt. He had been instructed by Mr James to put his hand in between the belts on the conveyor and scoop out the rubber debris that was sticking to the roller with the machine running.
When reaching into the conveyor to clean the roller, Mr Mabbutt's right arm was drawn in by the belt and was crushed as it was forced around the roller. His injuries were so severe his arm had to be amputated just below the shoulder.
A second incident occurred at the premises on 3 October 2007 when Mr Mabbutt's replacement at the firm, Danny Bedford, reached into the conveyor belt by the roller to clear some shredded tyre. He did this as he had seen Mr James and other employees clear debris in this way.
The guard which covered the roller was not properly fixed in place and as Mr Bedford reached in to snatch the debris out, he too had his arm pulled in by the belt and around the roller. Although Mr Bedford did not lose his arm he is still undergoing medical care on it.
In sentencing Mr James, Judge Charles Wide QC said:
"It is perfectly clear to me from accidents suffered by Mr Mabbutt and Mr Bedford that you had a slap-dash approach to safety. These very serious matters amount to cost-cutting for profit."
Neil Craig, HSE Principal Inspector said: "Paul James' blatant disregard for health and safety has had disastrous consequences for these two young men. You would think that after Mr Mabbutt's accident he would have made absolutely sure that it would not happen again. But 14 months later Mr Bedford was injured in almost exactly the same way. As managing director, Paul James was instrumental in both of these incidents. For this reason HSE took the decision to prosecute him as an individual rather than proceed against his company. The outcome of today's proceedings should serve as a stark reminder to company directors that they can be held personally liable and cannot hide behind their corporate entities."
Dickensian failures
Aberdeen Sheriff court has heard how an Inverurie papermill worker lost his arm despite over a century of law seeking to protect factory workers from in running nips.
The court fined International Paper (UK) Limited of Inverurie, £6,000 after they had pleaded guilty to breaching s2 HSWA.
The injured person was employed as a machine assistant in January when a paper break occurred which meant the paper had to be re-fed - known as tail feeding. While attempting to throw the sheet of paper into the machine the man was pulled into the workings by the paper which appears to have wrapped itself around his left arm.
Investigating HSE Inspector John Radcliffe said:
"This was a very serious incident and a Dickensian-style event considering the age of the legislation in place to protect workers. Had a colleague of the injured worker not acted as quickly as he did in stopping the machine, there could have had fatal consequences as his whole body could have been pulled into the machine. Investigation of the incident by HSE identified that the safety barrier provided was completely inadequate as a means of preventing access to the dangerous parts of the machine.
There has been a legal requirement to safeguard the dangerous parts of machinery in Great Britain since the 19th Century and incidents of this serious and traumatic nature should not be occurring in the 21st century. The expected safeguarding standards for machinery in the paper industry have been well publicised following a history of serious machinery incidents."
Companies fined after concrete collapse at Terminal 5
Two construction companies have been fined £105,000 after one man died and another was seriously injured when a concrete slab collapsed at Heathrow Airport in 2005, despite an earlier recall of defective equipment.
The HSE prosecuted the principal contractor, Laing O'Rourke Infrastructure Limited, of Anchor Boulevard, Dartford in Kent; and SGB Services Limited, a supplier of construction equipment, based in Kingston Road in Leatherhead, over the incident.
Both companies pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) HSWA and SGB Services Ltd also pleaded guilty to breaching section 6(1) (c) of the Act.
At a sentencing hearing at Isleworth Crown Court, Laing O'Rourke Infrastructure Limited was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £75,000 in costs. SGB Services Ltd was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £30,000 in costs.
The court heard that both men were part of a team building a multi-storey car park at Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 construction site. On 3 August 2005, 27-year-old Mathew Gilbert, who was a carpenter from Plymouth, and 21-year-old engineer's assistant Parminder Singh, from Slough were standing on a concrete slab, when it collapsed and fell 17 metres to the level below.
Mr Gilbert died in the collapse and Mr Singh suffered serious life-changing injuries; he suffered a broken back, a broken leg and a broken jaw. He has extensive scarring and pain in his back when walking and sitting.
The construction of the car park required the use of Threaded Shoring Adaptors, also known as TSAs which were used to secure parts of the temporary works structure. The HSE investigation revealed that the collapse of the concrete slab was due to the catastrophic failure of two TSAs, which were found to be part of a sub-standard batch manufactured for SGB Services Ltd two years previously.
By supplying a batch of sub-standards TSAs in 2003, SGB Services Ltd failed to ensure that the TSAs they supplied were able to carry maximum loads. Furthermore, the company resupplied the same sub-standard TSAs to construction sites in 2005, despite having implemented a recall programme, which was intended to remove all defective TSAs from circulation.
The HSE investigation also found that Laing O'Rourke Infrastructure Ltd failed to have adequate systems in place to inspect the quality and condition of the TSAs before they were used in safety-critical applications, and had failed to remove sub-standard TSAs from use when warned.
HSE Inspector Karen Morris said:
"The tragic death of one man and the serious injuries suffered by his colleague could have been prevented if both companies had had more robust systems in place. It is vital that safety-critical components are inspected before use to ensure that defective equipment is not used. It is also crucial that recall programmes are carried out effectively and thoroughly, so that defective components can not under any circumstances be brought back into circulation. This case demonstrates an extremely serious failure of both the principal contractor and the supplier to ensure the materials they supplied for the work were fit for purpose."
Ed - s6(1)(c) HSWA states: "It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work to take such steps as are necessary to secure that persons supplied by that person with the article are provided with adequate information about the use for which the article is designed or has been tested and about any conditions necessary to ensure that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times..."
Packaging firm fined £1,000 after worker injured
Integrated Packaging Ltd, of Dukesway South, Team Valley Trading Estate, Gateshead, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,374.25 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge after pleading guilty to a breach of health and safety legislation at Gateshead Magistrates' Court.
The incident took place on 25 October 2008, when an employee was working at a Kohmann 1440 window patcher machine. The machine stamps pieces of polyester film onto pre-cut openings on cardboard cartons to create a window.
The employee reached into the machine to remove a jammed item that had become stuck on the suction table conveyor belt but his hand became caught between the suction table conveyor belt and the delivery table conveyor belt. He suffered a friction burn and fracture to his left wrist.
HSE Inspector Paul Miller said:
"Employers who require their staff to operate machinery need to establish how this work can be undertaken safely. They must also put in place adequate safeguards and safe working practices to ensure employees are not exposed to dangerous parts of machinery. Management has a vital role to play in keeping employees safe whilst at work."
Fine after driver's arm amputated during Kent delivery
A stone company has been fined after a delivery driver had to have his left arm amputated when slabs, weighing 220 kg fell on him.
The HSE prosecuted Colin Parker (Masonry) Ltd following an incident on Bedlam Court Lane in Minster, Ramsgate. The company pleaded guilty to breaching ss2(1) & 3(1) HSWA. The company was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £10,603 by Margate Magistrates' Court.
The court heard that the driver was unloading three stone slabs from his lorry, while parked next to a stonemasons', when part of the stack collapsed on him on 25 September 2008. The HSE criticised the company for not having a system in place to allow drivers to remove individual slabs safely.
HSE Inspector Caroline Penwill said:
"This was a horrific incident which led to a delivery driver having to have his left arm amputated at the roadside. Colin Parker (Masonry) has now introduced a 'toast rack' system which separates each delivery of slabs with metal poles. But at the time of the incident, drivers had to untie a whole stack just to remove one slab. The company also failed to provide proper guidance for its drivers which meant, in this case, the stabilising legs on the lorry weren't fully extended despite it being on a slope.
It's vital that companies think more about the safety of their staff while they're out of the office on deliveries or carrying out work. We've got to stop incidents like this happening again in the future."
Veetee Rice fined after employee is killed
A rice manufacturing company, Veetee Rice Ltd of Medway City Estate in Rochester, Kent has been fined £140,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,500 for health and safety breaches after one of its employees died when his leg became entangled in a machine.
Veetee Rice Ltd had pleaded guilty to contravening regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
On 11 September 2006 employee Balwinder Singh Aulkh accessed a rice silo and his leg became trapped in the underfloor screw conveyor. He died from his injuries.
The company had failed to ensure that dangerous parts of the machinery could not be accessed by members of staff, or that dangerous moving parts were stopped before anyone entered the danger zone.
Mike Walters, HSE Principal Inspector in Kent, said:
"This incident could so easily have been prevented if Veetee Rice Limited had ensured that a suitable system was in place to prevent access to the silo unless the screw conveyor was electrically isolated.
"If the company had fitted a simple padlock on the access hatch to the rice silo - which could have cost as little as £10 or £15 - then this tragic incident would not have happened. The level of fine and costs awarded in this case should act as a stark warning to all employers to take their responsibility for health and safety seriously.
Worker crushed to death
Butcher's Pet Care Ltd, of Baker Group House, Crick, a pet food manufacturer has been fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £28,380.91 costs at Northampton Crown Court after one of its workers was crushed to death at its factory in November 2003. The company pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA.
John O'Connor, 38, from Rugby, was killed when a palletising machine at the company's factory on Crick Industrial Estate crushed him.
The machine is used to take cans of pet food from conveyor belts and stack them in layers on pallets. It is fully automatic and operated by sensors. The machine should have been fully enclosed with an interlock system to prevent anyone gaining access until the power is shut off.
HSE's investigation found that Mr O'Connor entered the caged area via a gap in the fencing created by the stair rails, to reposition a jammed pallet. When the pallet was freed, it set the machine in motion, trapping and killing Mr O'Connor.
HSE Inspector for Northamptonshire Neil Craig said:
"This tragic loss of life could have been so easily avoided if Butchers Pet Care had fulfilled their duty in law to protect the health and safety of their employees. This was far from this being an isolated incident. The unfenced gap between the stair rails had been there for nearly two years and it had become common practice for employees to nip through it to fix problems on the machine in an effort to keep the production line running. Any of the workers could have suffered the same fate as Mr O'Connor. I can only hope that this tragedy and the conviction of Butchers Pet Care Ltd will serve to remind employers to check that measures to protect workers are not just in place, but are effective.”
Ed -
This matter is related to the case against Philip Thompson, Operations Director at Butchers Pet Care Ltd who was fined £10,000 personally on Monday 12th October 2009 for failing to ensure the palletising machine was properly guarded.
Chemical burns prompt HSE prosecution of Leicestershire firm
Anglo Adhesives and Services Ltd, of Dalby Road, Melton Mowbray have pleaded guilty at Melton Magistrates' Court to breaching Regulations 5 (1) and 6(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002.
The company also admitted breaching s3(1) HSWA for failing to ensure people not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety.
The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,500
The court was told that on 2 September 2008, agency workers Wayne Saddington and William Christie Burton Gillespie were working at the Leicestershire factory and were asked to mix up a batch of adhesives. They were given instructions on a job card which told them to clean out a plastic barrel, add two solvents then use an electric mixer in a solid resin to mix them together.
However, as they began mixing, the flammable vapour above the liquid ignited, sending a flame shooting upwards. It set fire to Mr Saddington's hi-visibility tabard and singed the hair and burnt the faces of both men.
HSE Inspector Will Pascoe said:
"Mr Saddington and Mr Gillespie had only been working at the company for a matter of weeks. They were not experienced in working with flammable liquids and were not aware of the danger they were putting themselves in. The company should have given them proper instructions, there should have been a risk assessment and a safe system of working. They should have been told to use a metallic drum which should have been earthed and they should have used a mixer that was suitable for use in an explosive atmosphere. Mr Saddington and Mr Gillespie were incredibly lucky not to have suffered more severe injuries. I hope this case serves as a warning to other companies not to put the lives of their workers in danger.”
Ed -
Regulation 5 (1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 states: "Where a dangerous substance is or is liable to be present at the workplace, the employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to his employees which arise from that substance."
Regulation 6 (1) states: "Every employer shall ensure that risk from dangerous substances is either eliminated or reduced so far as is reasonably practicable"
Tulip fined
Food manufacturing firm Tulip Limited has been ordered to pay £94,523 in fines and costs after one of its employees had three fingers crushed in a packing machine.
Ludmila Jurkevica, 27, from King's Lynn, was attempting to clear a blockage in a Multivac packing machine at the company's site in Beveridge Way, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, when the incident happened on 27 November 2007.
The HSE prosecuted Tulip Limited, which is based in Seton House, Warwick, over its role in the incident. The investigation found the machine did not have the required guarding and the company had not provided sufficient training.
On 17 June 2009, the company pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA. It admitted failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of the machinery and failing to make a sufficient risk assessment of the Multivac machine.
At Norwich Crown Court the company was fined £65,000 and ordered to pay costs of £29,523.
HSE Inspector Steven Gill said:
"This was a nasty incident which could have been avoided had the company checked how safe the machinery was and taken precautions to protect staff. Machines like these can be incredibly dangerous and cause serious injury. No company should take these risks lightly. The defects in the guarding had been identified in the company's own safety audit reports but nothing was done about them. Companies should have systems in place for not only identifying defects, but ensuring that any defects are remedied. There should also be systems in place to ensure that workers, including workers whose first language is not English, have appropriate instruction and training on the use of machinery."
Gravel company gets buried!
A gravel company that deposited waste soils illegally at the Cotswold Water Park site in Gloucestershire has been fined £10,000. The company director was also given a 12 month conditional discharge.
Moreton C Cullimore (Gravels) Limited, and its company director, Roger Neville Cullimore, pleaded guilty to charges of depositing waste without a waste management licence or exemption certificate.
The company was also ordered to pay £5,500 prosecution costs to the Environment Agency.
Gloucester Magistrates’ Court heard that Environment Agency staff visited land owned by the company at Manor Farm, Cotswold Water Park in 2006, where they found a large amount of waste including soil, bricks ceramics and stones dumped in and around a number of lakes.
The company and the director claimed that the waste was to be used in the environmental repair of locations around the lakes in the park. The types of wastes stored on site could have been used in the environmental repair of similar locations, provided that the business had applied for and been granted exemptions from a waste management licence for the deposits. However, no exemptions were in place between June 2006 and March 2007, the period which officers visited the site and found the waste dumped. The company had applied for exemptions for some of the affected locations in December 2005, but these were not acceptable as they lacked essential information and the correct planning permissions were not in place at the time.
Following investigations by the Environment Agency, in August 2007 Mr Cullimore and the company secretary Mr Arthur Ransom submitted written statements under caution. Mr Cullimore stated that he had consented to the deposit and keeping of waste materials. He also provided a summary of the transfer notes on the waste loads deposited on the land at Manor Farm between 6 June 2006 and 15 July 2006.
Environment officer Jack Knight said: “This is a classic reminder to businesses of the need to ensure all the necessary permissions are in place before carrying out works involving waste materials. In this case the company knew of the need for permissions, but they broke the law by dumping the waste without first getting consent.”
Confiscation of £176,000 from waste criminal
A waste criminal prosecuted by the Environment Agency has been ordered to pay back over £176,000 of illegal profits he made from his illegitimate activities.
William John Peter Reidy, who was sentenced to a 16 month prison sentence in 2007 for illegal dumping of waste – including asbestos - was ordered to sell land and properties in order to pay £176,519.10 to the Environment Agency, at Bradford Crown Court.
The court gave Reidy six months to pay, or face a prison sentence of 27 months should he fail to pay on time.
The Proceeds of Crime Act (PoCA) application, used in cases where an offender has benefited financially from their crimes, was brought by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), after a referral from the Agency.
SOCA investigators estimate Reidy, of Cheltenham Road, Bradford, benefited by £1,721,760 from his crimes.
Environment Agency officers investigated Reidy’s activities after they became aware of illegal tipping on council-owned land at Low Moor, Bradford and put the site under surveillance. The investigating team then traced vehicles seen dumping the waste back to Reidy’s company.
Officers estimated that in total, around 200 lorry loads of demolition waste had been dumped illegally whilst customers were given false documentation which allegedly proved that their waste had been disposed of legitimately.
Paul Glasby, Environmental Crime Officer at the Environment Agency, said: “This is a great result. Waste crime is unacceptable. It puts people and the environment at risk and undermines legitimate businesses. Confiscating the proceeds of criminals – including assets used in waste crime such as trucks and heavy equipment – can often break their ability to re-offend.”
Ian Cruxton SOCA's Deputy Director of Proceeds of Crime said:
"William Reidy founded a business on illegal activity, and exploited people's good faith for his own benefit. He should not be able to keep the money he took fraudulently from other people's pockets. The court has deemed Mr Reidy's profits to be the proceeds of crime and so SOCA, and our partners in the Environment Agency, have made sure he won't enjoy them."
Council and contractor in court over bridge pollution
Durham County Council and its contractor have been convicted of polluting a stretch of river in an incident which is believed to have killed thousands of fish.
The council and Sealane Inshore Limited (“Sealane”), of Somerford Buildings, Norfolk Street, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear had denied polluting Bollihope Burn in Weardale on 27 September 2007.
They appeared before District Judge Roy Anderson at Leeds Magistrates’ Court where Durham County Council was convicted and given an absolute discharge but ordered to pay £5,000 costs. Sealane was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 costs.
The court heard that the council had hired Sealane to repair a road bridge across Bollihope Burn in September 2007.
The council applied for consent from the Environment Agency to divert the burn under the bridge but its contractors started work before consent was granted. When the Environment Agency granted consent to divert the watercourse, officers imposed a condition that prevented the use of stone and riverbed material to divert the watercourse.
However, when officers inspected the bridge during the work, they found that this had not been complied with and instructed Sealane to stop what they were doing until the condition was complied with.
The work involved using concrete to strengthen the bridge and should have been carried out in dry conditions. However, when interviewed by the Environment Agency, the managing director of Sealane admitted that some water had passed across the area where concrete was being poured.
The court heard that cement is highly alkaline and will increase alkalinity in the water, which can be fatal to fish.
Mr Lee Fish, the barrister prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency, said that water in the burn was described as “a heavy chalky white” colour and dead fish were seen and reported to the Environment Agency at 8.30am on 28 September 2007.
Environment officers attended that day and took pH readings which showed high alkalinity levels in the water downstream of the bridge.
Dead fish were seen in a 1.5 km stretch of the burn downstream of the bridge.
It is estimated that up to 4,000 fish were killed in Bollihope Burn and Mr Fish said that pollution from the cement was the only plausible explanation for the deaths which occurred within 24 hours of work on the bridge taking place.
The court found that the council was ultimately responsible for the work although it did not carry out the work itself.
The defendants argued that they took action without the necessary consent in place because the work was an emergency.
However the district judge dismissed this argument, saying that the work was done to avoid an emergency rather than “in” an emergency. He also said that it would have been a bizarre coincidence if the fish had been killed by pollution other than that caused by the bridge work.
Both defendants had pleaded not guilty which resulted in a three-day trial at Darlington and Bishop Auckland magistrates’ courts last month.
After the hearing, environment officer for the Environment Agency Helen Courtney said: “This case highlights the need for organisations and their contractors to take great care with the environment. A lot of work has been done over the decades to restore rivers in the North East to their original condition and just one pollution incident can have a devastating effect which can wipe out years of progress.”
Packaging waste fine for metals business
A metal sheeting company has been fined for packaging waste offences.
Coverworld Limited pleaded guilty at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court to four offences, relating to a period from 2004 to 2007, and asked for a further eight offences to be taken into consideration.
The company, of Mansfield Road, Bramley Vale, Chesterfield, should have been registered with the Environment Agency and was obliged to recover and recycle a portion of its packaging waste, as well as filing a certificate at the end of each year to confirm it had met these obligations.
However, Coverworld - which handles wooden, plastic and cardboard packaging as part of its business manufacturing metal roofing and cladding - did not register with the Environment Agency until 2008.
The court heard a routine check by the Environment Agency in summer 2008 established that the company should have been registered in previous years.
When Coverworld supplied turnover and packaging details indicating it was obliged to have been registered since 2004.
Trevor Cooper, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, said Coverworld’s explanation for failing to comply with the packaging waste regulations was that it had been “unaware” of their existence and registered as soon as it became aware.
By failing to register, Mr Cooper said Coverworld had avoided fees and other costs of at least £9,900.
In addition to the total fine of £9,600, the magistrates ordered the company to pay compensation to the Environment Agency of £3,254 to cover the unpaid registration fees, as well as full prosecution costs of £1,868 and a victim surcharge of £15.
The court heard aggravating features of the case were that the offences had continued over a long period of time and that the company had saved money by not complying with the regulations.
The magistrates gave credit to Coverworld for an early guilty plea and accepted its mitigation that the company had no previous convictions for environmental offences and these offences had not been committed intentionally for financial gain.
Washington private school fined £10,000 for two sewage plant failures
The Environment Agency has prosecuted the owners of a West Sussex private school for twice failing to operate its private sewage treatment works correctly.
Malden Trust Ltd, who run Windlesham House School in Washington, appeared before Haywards Heath Magistrates Court on Thursday 19 November. The company pleaded guilty to two offences and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs totalling £890.
The failures of the sewage treatment plant that serves the school was discovered by the Environment Agency on 10 June and 22 September 2009. Malden Trust Ltd has a consent that allows carefully monitored levels of treated sewage and trade effluent to be discharged to the ground via a soakaway.
The school is located in the South Downs which is a highly protected conservation area and National Park.
Ruth Stemp of the Environment Agency said: “Routine samples taken at the school showed that the permitted discharge levels were over four times the required figures in June and then over 13 times the consent in September this year. Prosecution is always a last resort for us, but unfortunately the incident occurred twice with significant breaches resulting in potential harm to groundwater in a sensitive area of the Downs. We were left with no other choice but to take action against the company. The sewage treatment plant must be carefully monitored and maintained to ensure that the possibility of pollution to the local environment does not take place.”
The Bursar of the school said the management deeply regretted the incidents and apologised for them. He said the first offence had been a simple case of failure in procedures and the second offence had been caused by a breakdown of equipment.
The Chairman of the court acknowledged the early guilty plea and said that if the company had been convicted after a not guilty plea the fine would have been twice as high.
Fine for illegal landfilling at Scholar Green
A farm owner from Scholar Green, Stoke on Trent, has been fined £4,500 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 at Stoke on Trent Crown Court for illegally depositing controlled waste on his own land. The illegal tipping of this waste could have caused environmental damage to the local area.
Robert Darlington pleaded guilty to three charges, brought against him by the Environment Agency, for waste which was deposited and disposed of on farmland at Bank Farm, Scholar Green, Stoke on Trent between January 2007 and March 2008.
The Environment Agency gave Mr Darlington advice on the depositing and keeping of waste on his land in May 2006. Despite receiving this advice he failed to take action to ensure he complied with environmental regulations, and took the decision to tip waste in three areas of land around his farm.
Much of the waste was buried in an apparent attempt to raise the level of the land, and consisted of construction, demolition and excavation waste, including plastic drain pipes, concrete paving slabs and plastic insulation.
The Environment Agency visited Mr Darlington on numerous occasion, but he failed to stop his activities despite these visits and the mounting evidence been gathered about his illegal activity.
Mr Darlington admitted to importing 12 loads of controlled waste in addition to waste which had come from within the farm. The land has since been reinstated and returned to agriculture at some considerable cost to Mr Darlington.
Development site runs into pollution problems
Carillion JM Limited has been fined £7,000 and Wilson Bowden Developments Limited fined £10,000. Carillion was also ordered to pay £3,398 costs and Wilson Bowden £5,098.
Both companies pleaded guilty at Derby Magistrates’ Court to one charge each relating to the pollution of waters surround the development site of Castlewood Grange, near South Normanton. The charges were brought by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991.
For the Environment Agency, Counsel Richard Bradley told the court that the two companies had various responsibilities for the site; Wilson Bowden owned the site and Carillion were the principle contractors with overall reasonability.
The Castlewood Grange development site is situated to the south of the A38 and east of the M1 at junction 28, near South Normanton, Derbyshire. The land was then being developed for office and industrial units and the total area is approximately 111 hectares. A tributary of the Maghole Brook rises within the site and then enters Halfmoon Pond in the grounds of Brookhill Hall.
Work started on the site on 18 June 2007. On 8 August 2007 the Environment Agency received a complaint from the owner of Brookhill Hall stating that the pond was silting up as a result of the construction works at the Castlewood Grange site.
On 10 August 2007 the pond was inspected. The water was clear but had a coasting of soft yellow sediment. The Castlewood Grange site was also inspected and it was seen that topsoil had been stripped from large areas of the site. There was no settlement lagoon to treat run-off from the site.
On 15 August the site was revisited and found to be generally very muddy and there was evidence of silt run-off from the haul road into the Brook. The Brook had been dammed with clay and yellow/ grey coloured water was accumulating behind the dam. Tests were carried out to show the quality of water downstream of the site. High amounts of suspended solids were found which can have an effect of animals, fish and fauna.
The balancing pond, which should have been used from the beginning of the works, was put into use around 17 October 2007 to treat run-off from the site. A discharge consent has now been applied for and granted to authorise the discharge of treated site drainage.
Carillion was the principal contractor for the site and stated in an interview that it had overall responsibility. Wilson Bowden owned the site and should have ensured the terms of Carillion’s contract were being compiled with – which included treating the site run-off.
Speaking after the case Neil Ratcliffe, an Environment Agency Officer involved in the investigation, said: “This case clearly shows the need for thorough planning and adequate pollution prevention measures. This incident could have been easily avoided and the pollution could potentially have harmed plants, fish and invertebrates. Suspended solids in water can stunt aquatic plant growth and affect oxygen levels, as well as destroying the habitats of insects and invertebrates, which are a source of food for fish and birds.“
Waste broker fined for breach
At Teesside Magistrates’ Court yesterday Innovation Waste Management Limited (“IWM”) pleaded guilty to an environmental offence by misdescribing waste which was subsequently sent to a scrapyard.
The company, of Woodside Business Park, Birkenhead, Wirral, was the waste broker for the disposal of storage drums, which should have been washed but in fact contained hazardous waste residues which caught fire and were potentially hazardous to scrapyard staff.
In July, waste disposal business UK Resource Management Limited (“UKRM”) and chemical manufacturer William Blythe Limited (“Wm Blythe”) were fined £15,000 and £5,000 respectively, and each ordered to pay £4,750 prosecutions costs, after admitting their involvement in the transfer and disposal of the drums.
IWM admitted the offence after it failed in its duty as a waste broker to provide an adequate written description of the waste. As broker, it was responsible for the legality of arrangements to dispose of the waste, said Barry Berlin, prosecuting for the Environment Agency.
In this way, IWM was part of the chain of responsibility for the correct disposal of the contaminated drums, as were UKRM and Wm Blythe.
In October 2006, in an arrangement brokered by IWM, UKRM received 160 metal drums, with plastic liners, from Wm Blythe’s site at Church, Accrington, Lancashire, where it manufactures metal salts based on arsenic, copper, tin and zinc.
UKRM’s waste management licence allowed it to keep and treat various wastes, with a condition that waste drums were washed before crushing, to remove hazardous waste residues. On that day its drum washing machinery had broken down but UKRM chose not to wait until the drums could be crushed and disposed of safely.
The drums were taken to a scrap metal dealer in Darlington, who rejected the drums and alerted the Environment Agency after several drums were observed igniting when handled. The court heard it was only by “sheer luck” that the drums did not ignite when crushed at UKRM’s facility.
The court heard aggravating features included IWM’s failure to ensure the waste’s paperwork was in order, so that all those involved in transporting and handling the waste knew exactly what type of material it was.
The waste transfer notes did not mention chromic acid, which is corrosive, carcinogenic and toxic, and harmful to the skin, eyes and respiratory system and reacts with organic material to catch fire.
In mitigation, the court heard the breach was negligent rather than reckless and no-one had been harmed by the offence.
The court was told that the company had fully co-operated with the Environment Agency’s investigation and had taken action since to improve its systems to prevent a similar incident in the future.
IWM was fined £3,150 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge. The company also agreed to pay £4,750 towards the Environment Agency’s prosecution costs.
Speaking after the case, Environment Agency regulatory officer Andrew Dobson said: “Waste brokers arranging movements of waste on behalf of others take responsibility for its safe and proper disposal, despite never physically holding the waste themselves. Innovation Waste Management were aware that the drums involved in this incident were contaminated but failed to fully identify the nature of the residual material and therefore could not alert others in the waste management chain of its dangerous nature. The Environment Agency has already successfully prosecuted the waste producer and a waste management company for their involvement in this incident, which shows how seriously these matters are regarded.”
Liquid waste spreading incident costs £ 4,000
Liquid waste spread on a field to fertilise it at Priory Farm, Braisworth grossly polluted a tributary of the River Dove having a catastrophic impact on macroinvertebrates and restricting some crop growth on the land.
Bury St Edmunds Magistrates’ Court fined the company responsible, Enviro-Waste Ltd, a total of £17,000 with £17,159 in costs for two offences relating to the spreading.
Mr Richard Banwell prosecuting told the court the company had spread too much waste from a number of different sources, not all listed on an exemption to spread, in heavy rain and had allowed it to run off the field into the stream.
Enviro-Waste Thetford, Norfolk pleaded guilty to polluting the stream and disposing of controlled waste at Priory Farm, Braisworth, Eye without a waste management licence.
Magistrates heard that the company had applied to the Environment Agency for an exemption to spread the liquid waste at the farm in October 2007 and along with the application they submitted an agricultural benefit statement and a pollution risk assessment which stated that the risk to ditches and rivers was low. On that basis the exemption was granted.
However, calls from members of the public alerted the Agency to the fact that liquid waste was being spread and was running into the stream. They found the field was waterlogged with an unpleasant smell in the air and a large amount of brown liquid was running off a corner of the field. The Enviro-Waste tanker operative was asked to stop spreading immediately.
Mr Banwell said there was evidence that an estimated 3,666 tonnes of waste was spread on the field. Enviro-Waste Ltd had permission to spread 250 tonnes of liquid waste per hectare in a period of one year. They spread an estimated 270-285 tonnes per hectare in a period of just 14 days.
‘The farmer states that the field was of very good quality before spreading occurred. He states that after spreading the field was in a mess and he couldn’t even plough it. There are today isolated rows of land where crop growth is severely restricted,’ he told magistrates.
Waste transfer notes held by the company showed that the liquid spread on the field came from 33 different sources. Only 11 had been listed in their application for the exemption, for which agricultural benefit assessments were carried out.
Agricultural consultant Peter Danks of Reading Agricultural Consultants later concluded: ‘It is apparent from the evidence examined that the land-spreading activities of Enviro-Waste Ltd had a significant adverse impact on the soils of Priory Farm and that any drainage from the field at the time of and immediately following land spreading would have been heavily contaminated with sludge.
‘It is my opinion that the pollution detected by the Environment Agency at Braisworth in October 2007 and the crop failure seen in the field in August 2008 were the result of careless injection of liquid waste by the defendant’.
He listed the reasons as too much liquid applied at an excessive rate, permeable gravel covering land drains, and a failure to take into account forecast weather.
Mr Banwell said the pollution was caused by poor practices, a failure to follow guidance in the Water Code and spreading during heavy rainfall.
He said Enviro-Waste has previous convictions for pollution and has been given several warnings for spreading waste on agricultural land not in accordance with a similar exemption.
Mr Michael Batty representing Enviro-Waste told the court that the farmer had been compensated with £10,000 for damage to his field.
An Environment Agency biologist concluded that the incident had caused a major impact on the macroinvertebrate community over a relatively short length of the watercourse. It is likely to recover.
After the hearing investigating Environment Agency officer Jamie Fairfull said: ‘Enviro-Waste damaged the environment and breached legislation in its actions. We allow waste to be spread on the land if it is shown it will have some benefit to agriculture but in this case actual harm was caused to the farmer’s field and the local watercourse.
‘We support re-use and recycling of waste but in cases like this, where legislation and working practices are not followed causing environmental harm, we will not hesitate to take action.
‘We are grateful to the people who reported this incident. The public are our eyes and ears and greatly assist us in our task of safeguarding the Suffolk environment.’
Fined £10,000 for burning leylandii!
A Devon man has been ordered to pay £1,162 in fines and costs for depositing and burning waste wood including leylandii branches on a huge bonfire in the Dartmoor National Park. The case was brought by the Environment Agency.
On April 21, 2009 an Agency officer visited Mary Tavy near Tavistock to investigate reports of illegal waste burning. As he entered the village he saw a large fire burning on land adjacent to Horndon Road. The fire contained waste wood and branches. Large amounts of smoke were drifting towards nearby houses.
Inquiries revealed the site was used by Roy Turner, a local tree surgeon. When questioned Turner said he routinely used the land to store and dispose of waste wood from his business by burning. He admitted an Environment Agency officer had previously warned him not to import waste to the site for disposal.
Turner also admitted transporting waste from his business to the site without registering as a waste carrier despite being advised by the Agency that he needed to.
‘It is important waste is stored and disposed of correctly to control any risk of harm to the environment and human health. This defendant had ample opportunity to become compliant, but chose to ignore the advice he was given and continued to operate outside of the law,’ said David French for the Environment Agency.
Appearing before Plymouth magistrates, Roy Turner, of Bal Lane, Mary Tavy, Tavistock was fined £300 and ordered to pay £862 costs after pleading guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 including depositing and disposing of controlled waste, namely leylandii tree trimmings, at Mary Tavy on land that did not have an environmental permit, and a further offence under the Control of Pollution Amendment Act.
Stress Awareness
The HSE is supporting National Stress Awareness Day as statistics reveal more than 11 million working days were lost to work related stress last year.
This startling figure translates as a £4 billion cost to society and HSE wants companies to be made aware of the real cost, not only to people but also to business.
The theme of this year's International Stress Management Association (ISMA) campaign is 'stressing the positives' and HSE is urging employers to take positive steps against work related stress by using its Management Standards.
The Management Standards highlight the components of good job design that keep stress levels in check and enhance productivity.
HSE also wants managers and supervisors across Britain to test their management skills with a self-assessment questionnaire.
And to help managers develop further, more tools are being produced that provide a third party view of their performance from staff, managers and peers.
HSE Chief Executive Geoffrey Podger said:
"We must make a conscious effort to deal with work related stress as we lost over 11 million working days to stress last year and more than 400,000 people reported suffering from work related stress.
Pressure is part and parcel of all work and helps to keep us motivated, but excessive pressure can lead to stress which undermines performance, is costly to employers and can make people ill.
There is no doubt that managers have a key role to play in helping to reduce work related stress by using the Management Standards.''
The HSE is seeking volunteers to test the prototypes of the new tools mentioned. For more information, visit www.hse.gov.uk/stress/volunteer.htm.
To read the latest guidance on work-related stress, visit HSE's stress website www.hse.gov.uk/stress
Nuclear power statement
The UK nuclear safety regulator (HSE's ND), the French nuclear regulator (ASN), and the Finnish nuclear regulator (STUK) are currently working to assess the EPR Pressurised Water Reactor designs.
In carrying out individual assessments, we have all raised issues regarding the EPR Control and Instrumentation (C&I) systems, which the proposed licensees and/or the manufacturer (AREVA) are in the process of addressing.
Although the EPR design being developed for each country varies slightly, the issues we raised with the current C&I system are broadly similar, our aim being to collectively obtain the highest levels of safety from the EPR.
The issue is primarily around ensuring the adequacy of the safety systems (those used to maintain control of the plant if it goes outside normal conditions), and their independence from the control systems (those used to operate the plant under normal conditions).
Independence is important because, if a safety system provides protection against the failure of a control system, then they should not fail together. The EPR design, as originally proposed by the licensees and the manufacturer, AREVA, doesn't comply with the independence principle, as there is a very high degree of complex interconnectivity between the control and safety systems.
As a consequence of this, the UK nuclear safety regulator (HSE's ND), the French nuclear regulator (ASN), and the Finnish nuclear regulator (STUK) have asked the licensee and manufacturer to make improvements to the initial EPR design. The licensees, and AREVA, have agreed to make architectural changes to the initial EPR design which will be reviewed by the regulators.
It is for the licensees and the manufacturer, AREVA, to respond to its regulator's issues. However, as designs are similar, it is likely that the solution will be similar, although not necessarily identical, taking into account individual licensees' requirements and national regulatory requirements or practises. As an example, in providing defence-in-depth, different solutions could be proposed to back-up safety systems. In all cases, however, the solutions will lead to equivalent high levels of safety.
This is a good example of how independent regulators working closely together can promote a shared understanding and application of existing international standards, and promote the harmonisation of regulatory standards and the build of reactor designs with the highest levels of safety.
HSE's Director of New Nuclear Build Generic Design Assessment, Kevin Allars, commented:
"I am delighted that we have been able to issue this statement jointly with ASN and STUK as it demonstrates the close working that exists between us. It also demonstrates how close working between regulators can help us develop a shared understanding of international standards, and apply them consistently. This harmonisation of regulatory standards provides greater certainty for industry and helps ensure high levels of safety for society as a whole.
"In the UK, we developed the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process to help us identify potential problems at the design stage, when it is more likely that the reactor company will be able to identify solutions. The fact that we have been able to identify the C&I issue so early in our assessment process demonstrates that GDA is working."
HSE reports on nuclear reactor designs
Interim assessment reports for two nuclear power station designs being considered for construction in the UK have been made public.
The HSE has published the reports on Step 3 of its Generic Design Assessment of the designs put forward by EDF/AREVA and Westinghouse.
The GDA process enables the HSE and the Environment Agency (EA) to assess new nuclear power station designs before an application for a site licence has been received.
The reports concerning EDF/AREVA’s EPR design and Westinghouse’s AP1000 reflect progress to date and highlight issues to be resolved during the next phase, a detailed assessment which will conclude in June 2011.
Following its Step 3 assessment, HSE believes both designs could be suitable for construction on licensed sites in the UK once satisfactory progress is made in a number of technical areas.
Kevin Allars, HSE’s Director of New Build GDA said:
“These are, in effect, mid-point progress reports on our assessment of both designs. Although we have made good progress, initial resource shortages in some technical areas and insufficient information from the design companies in others, has limited the extent of assessment sampling that we have been able to do. There is still a significant amount of detailed assessment work for us to do and we now have the technical specialists we need to carry out our assessment. We are now at the stage where we are identifying issues that will either need to be resolved by the design companies, or plans put in place to resolve them.
“If we are to complete the GDA on time, we need the design companies to work with us and provide the high quality and timely information we need.
“With additional resources now in place, and with the full co-operation of the design companies, I am confident that we can complete GDA by the target date of June 2011.”
With step 3 of the GDA complete, the HSE will move to step 4 which will see the assessment progress from a questioning and information exchange, to one of clarifying issues and resolving them. This is a thorough examination of the evidence from the safety analysis and security plans and will provide a high level indication to whether the proposed design is likely to meet the UK’s regulatory requirements.
The EA will hold a formal public consultation on their assessment findings starting in May 2010. Comments and issued received from the public will then be considered and will help inform its decisions about the acceptability of the designs.
At the end of the GDA process in 2011, the regulators will set out their conclusions about the acceptability of the designs and issue, if appropriate, a design acceptance.
The Step 3 reports can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/reports.htm
HSE agrees proposals for new tower crane regulations
Detailed recommendations for a statutorily-based tower crane register have been agreed by the HSE Board following a three-month public consultation. These details will now be put to Ministers for approval.
HSE received 100 responses; from trades unions, construction contractors and other stakeholders.
The new Regulations, developed by the HSE are intended to come into force in April 2010 and cover conventional tower cranes on construction sites.
The register is in response to increasing public concern about tower crane safety. Eight people have been killed in incidents involving tower cranes since 2000, including one member of the public.
The new proposed regulations, which are designed to be easy to follow:
• place the duty to notify on the employer
• require notification of the relevant information within 14 days of thorough examination of the crane
• require cranes already erected when the Regulations come into force to be registered within 28 days
• allow electronic notification via the HSE website.
Details that would have to be notified to HSE are:-
• the site address where the tower crane is being used
• the name and address of the crane owners
• details needed to identify the crane
• the date of its thorough examination
• details of the employer for whom the examination was made
• whether any defects posing a risk of serious injury were detected.
All details notified to HSE would be contained in a register that will be open to public scrutiny. Registrations would be subject to an administration fee of £20.
Philip White, HSE Chief Inspector of Construction said:
"There have been a number of high profile and tragic failures of tower cranes in recent years and there is widespread interest in finding ways to improve safety. The public consultation has helped us to develop a proportionate response to an established risk. We have learnt a great deal from recent incidents and are working together with hirers, suppliers, manufacturers and stakeholders to ensure that anything we have learnt is acted upon."
Around 1800 conventional tower cranes are thought to be operated in Britain, with around 1300 in use at any one time.
Following Ministerial approval, the HSE plans to send out information to all duty-holders over the next few months.
The register is part of a package of measures which involves HSE and the construction industry continuing to work together to address issues around tower cranes: creating a competency requirements framework for crane erectors and dismantlers; undertaking more research into the effect of wind loading on cranes; consideration of the adequacy of crane design standards; greater research to improve understanding of crane accidents at an international level; greater promotion of the industry safe crane campaign to improve public confidence in crane safety.
HSE consults on EU artificial light regulations
The HSE has released a consultation document outlining how it plans to implement a European Union (EU) Directive to protect workers from hazardous sources of artificial light.
Intense sources of artificial light in the workplace, particularly from UV radiation and powerful lasers can harm the eyes and skin of workers and need to be properly managed.
The Directive aims to ensure that standards are set and harmonised across the EU so all workers are protected from harm arising from exposure to hazardous sources of artificial light.
Workers in Great Britain are generally well protected from hazardous sources of light and the majority of businesses know how to manage these risks effectively. The draft regulations are designed to ensure that businesses do not face unnecessary additional burdens where there is no risk of harm to workers.
Common sources of light in the workplace such as office lights, photocopiers and computers will not be affected by the regulations.
The Chair of HSE, Judith Hackitt, said:
"HSE wants to ensure all workers benefit from this Directive and the draft regulations present a good opportunity to meet our aim. These regulations will impact on a small number of at-risk businesses who use hazardous light sources as part of their work activities and who are not already protecting their workers by managing the risks.
Interested parties and businesses are invited to comment on the draft regulations, before the beginning of February 2010. HSE aims to introduce the regulations by 27 April 2010.
Ed-
1. HSE's consultation document and proposals can be found on our website, by visiting: http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd227.htm
2. Further information on the EU directive can be found at: www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/europe/euronews/dossiers/aor.htm
3. Submissions can be made on the website, via email at opticaldirective@hse.gsi.gov.uk, or by post to Garry Knight, 5N.3 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside L20 7HS.
Myth: Health and safety rules stop classroom experiments
The reality
Hands-on lessons are an essential part of learning. They bring science to life and also teach kids how to handle dangerous substances safely.
Classroom demos can be spectacular - just ask HSE Chair Judith Hackitt. Earlier this year she 'set her hands alight' - safely - to show science and sensible risk management in action!
There's no reason why health and safety should stop schools carrying out science experiments. They can help children learn how to manage risk - and all that's required in most cases are a few sensible precautions.
|