|
Lifeways Community Care fined £100k after fatal scalding
Lifeways Community Care Ltd, a care home provider, has been fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £45,000 after a disabled teenager was lowered into a bath of scalding water and died later from her injuries.
Yelena Hasselberg-Langley, 18, suffered severe burns when she was lowered into the excessively hot bath at a supported living home in Oxfordshire.
Ms Hasselberg-Langley was totally dependent on the company for her 24-hour care. She was registered blind, was paraplegic and had epilepsy.
On 27 August 2007 she was lowered into a bath of excessively hot water and suffered severe burns. She was admitted to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford before being transferred to the specialist burns unit at the Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead. Ms Hasselberg-Langley died on 31 August 2007.
Lifeways, pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA.
This was prosecution followed a joint investigation initially led by Thames Valley Police (TVP) with technical assistance from HSE. The TVP report was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided that they would not pursue criminal proceedings against any of the individuals involved. The HSE then continued with the criminal investigation.
The court heard that the HSE investigation found that although the bath was fitted with a special valve to prevent scalding, this valve had never been set. In addition to this, staff had no training in the risks of scalding and there was no bath thermometer.
Following the incident, Lifeways Community Care Ltd, was issued with an Improvement Notice by HSE requiring them to establish proper procedures to minimise the chance of a similar incident occurring.
HSE Inspector, Nina Judkins, said:
"It is difficult to imagine a more vulnerable resident than Yelena. The risk of scalding to people who are so vulnerable that they cannot prevent harm to themselves is a well-known danger in the care industry. The consequences of scalding can, in addition to causing excruciating pain, be fatal - as so shockingly seen in this case.."
Ed - Specific guidance on the risks from scalding risks from hot water in health and social care can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/LAU/lacs/79-5.htm.
Aviance fined £90k after Heathrow airport death
Aviance UK Limited, a major airport services company, has been fined £90,000 after a man was crushed to death under a vehicle at Heathrow Airport in 2008.
Aviance pleaded guilty to breaching the duty in s2(1) HSWA, at the City of London Magistrates' Court, on 27 November 2009 but they were committed to the Crown Court at the Old Bailey for sentencing where they were fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £18,800 costs.
The court heard that on 25 March 2008, Mohammed Taj, 52, from Hayes, a vehicle maintenance specialist was repairing a defective vehicle used to pull baggage trolleys, also known as a baggage tug, which had broken down near Heathrow Airport's Terminal 1.
The vehicle was raised 60cm in the air on a single trolley jack as its only means of support. The worker was underneath the tug when the trolley jack moved backwards, dropping the tug onto him. He died at the scene shortly afterwards from head injuries.
The HSE investigation showed that the maintenance van supplied by Aviance UK routinely carried a trolley-jack but never carried axle stands or other means of support which should be used.
Aviance UK did not have an adequate system for ensuring that the maintenance van returned to the workshop for axle stands, or that defective vehicles were recovered and proper vehicle hoists used.
HSE inspector, Stephen Kirton said:
"Mr Taj's tragic death could have been avoided if axle stands were routinely carried in the company maintenance van and were used by staff. Mr Taj could be alive today if just £30 had been spent on a pair of axle stands. Working under poorly supported vehicles has been recognised by HSE as serious problem for many years. We've recently published guidance in this area which clearly states that people should never work below vehicles supported only by jacks. This should be read by all managers in the motor vehicle repair industry."
£280k+ fines after oil worker is paralysed
Three companies have been fined a total of £283,332 after a man was paralysed from the waist down while working at Shell’s Stanlow oil refinery in Cheshire.
The HSE prosecuted three companies in connection with an incident. Shell UK Oil Products Ltd, Dalprop Ltd (formerly S.G. Blair and Co. Ltd) and Hertel UK Ltd were fined at Warrington Crown Court on 4 January 2010.
The case related to an incident on 9 February 2007 when Stephen Rizzotti was working for S.G. Blair and Co on a refurbishment project at the plant. The company was removing part of the concrete lining of the 'cracker' unit.
Mr Rizzotti, who is a father of three, suffered a broken back, two broken legs, a broken pelvis and other injuries when a container carrying 500kg of waste materials fell 30 feet on top of him. The court heard that the incident was caused by the materials being suspended above a walkway.
Mr Rizzotti led an active life before the incident, including running two junior football clubs. But now the 42 year old has to use a wheelchair and is rebuilding his life after being seriously injured at the oil refinery.
HSE Inspector Alan Graham said:
"This incident was totally avoidable and has had a devastating impact on Mr Rizzotti and his family.
"The scaffolding should have been constructed so that the lifting equipment was away from areas where people had to walk. The landing area should also have been suitably protected. This case clearly demonstrates why it's so important for companies to put the safety of their employees first."
Mr Rizzotti joined SG Blair and Co as a labourer in 1991 and had progressed to become the Human Resources Manager. He said:
"I can't remember anything about what happened. Half a dozen people had gone into the building before me but then, as I went in, the waste materials fell on top of me. It was touch and go at first but thanks to the doctors I survived. Now I have to get on with my life in a wheelchair. I have a simple message for all companies - safety has to be paramount."
Shell UK Oil Products and Dalprop pleaded guilty to contravening Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. Shell was fined £116,666 and ordered to pay costs of £16,204, and Dalprop was fined £83,333 with costs of £11,115.
Hertel UK installed the scaffolding and platforms used for the project. This included the boards around the lifting equipment, which became dislodged causing the container carrying waste materials to fall.
Hertel UK pleaded guilty to contravening Section 3(1) of the HSWA. The company was fined £83,333 and ordered to pay costs of £16,204.
Ed - Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states: "Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is carried out in a safe manner."
£80,000 fine following young man's crush death
Macob Administration Limited, based in Bridgend, was charged by the HSE after 23-year-old. Lance Taylor from Thornbury, Bristol, was killed whilst working on a construction site at Chestnut Walk in Abbeymead, Gloucester on 11 February 2005.
Mr Taylor was driving a mini digger - which he was not qualified to operate - and unintentionally hit a lever as he leaned out of the cab window. The digging arm of the vehicle was raised, crushing his head between the cab and the arm. He suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead on site.
Gloucester Crown Court heard Macob Administration Ltd pleaded guilty to breaches under Regulation 9(1) and 28(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £40,000 for each charge and ordered to pay costs of £29,798.14.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Martin Lee, said:
"This terrible incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by equipment and vehicles on sites if the workers using them don't have adequate training or are not versed in safe working procedures. Mr Taylor and other site workers were not all properly trained to use the equipment they were handling and, just as seriously, vehicle keys were routinely left in the machines. As a result, the vehicles were accessible to anyone on site, regardless of their qualifications.
It is imperative that on any construction site using plant and machinery there are systems in place to control access to the vehicles. Construction site managers need to know which workers on site are qualified to operate the machinery and that their control systems are working effectively."
Ed - guidance on health and safety issues relating to safety of vehicles at work can be found on the HSE website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/index.htm and HSE publication HSG144 "Safe use of vehicles on construction sites" is at: http://books.hse.gov.uk/hse/public/saleproduct.jsf?catalogueCode=9780717662913
BAE systems fined after explosion kills Lancashire worker
The HSE has prosecuted BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions and Ordnance) Ltd following Lynda Wilkins' death at the company's explosives plant on Central Avenue in Chorley.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that Mrs Wilkins was working with lead styphnate, a sensitive primary explosive, on 2 March 2005 when she was killed. HSE has been unable to establish the exact cause of the explosion as Mrs Wilkins was working alone.
The HSE investigation found that the company allowed unsafe working procedures to develop by providing too little supervision and monitoring.
BAE Systems, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure the safety of its employees and was fined £80,000.
It was also ordered to pay £118,000 towards the cost of the prosecution, in addition to the fine, at Liverpool Crown Court on 14 January 2010.
HSE Inspector Colin Hutchinson said:
"This was a tragic incident and my sympathies go to Lynda Wilkins' family. Although we have been unable to conclude what caused the explosion, it is clear that BAE Systems' failings contributed to her death. The substance she was using is known to be extremely sensitive and must be handled carefully. BAE Systems failed to ensure the process was properly supervised and monitored.”
Fatal Plunge
A Bolton house-building company has been fined £7,500 after one of its workers fell to his death. DC Kennedy Homes Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after Ian Smith, 64, was killed when he fell from an unstable ladder.
Manchester Crown Court heard that Mr Smith was working on a project to build six new semi-detached houses in Dale Gardens, on Easedale Road in Bolton, on 19 December 2007 when he fell 5m to the ground.
The HSE’s investigation revealed that DC Kennedy Homes had allowed work to be carried out on the first and second floors before the stairs had been fitted. The ladder used to reach the second floor had not been secured and was missing its rubber feet.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA by failing to ensure Mr Smith’s safety. The company was ordered to pay costs of £7,500.
Polly Tomlinson, HSE Principal Inspector for Greater Manchester, said:
“This was a tragic incident that could easily have been prevented if DC Kennedy Homes had put more thought into the safety of its employees. The ladder Ian Smith used was dangerous as the rubber feet were missing and it wasn’t tied to the wall to stop it slipping. But more importantly, Mr Smith should never have been expected to use a ladder in the first place. If the work had been planned properly, the stairs would have been fitted before work was carried out on the first and second floors of the house. Instead Mr Smith had to use a ladder to access the second floor, putting his life at risk. Other employees were also put in danger by the unprotected open edges.”
Bristol landlord fined for asbestos exposure
Frank Bruce and Company Ltd, of St George, Bristol has pleaded guilty to health and safety offences at Bristol Magistrates in relation to refurbishment work at Lawrence Hill Industrial Park in the city during February and March 2009.
The court heard that HSE inspectors visited industrial units where the defendant had organised refurbishment work involving the removal of a large quantity of asbestos insulation board without taking statutory safety precautions.
This led to exposure of the workers to the asbestos and the contamination of the units being renovated.
The court heard the company plead guilty to breaches under Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) [CDM] Regulations 2007 by failing to appoint a CDM-coordinator or principal contractor for notifiable construction work and Regulation 4 (10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations by failing to review or implement a plan to manage materials containing asbestos.
The company was fined £18,000 for breaching the regulations and ordered to pay £6,679 costs.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett said:
"The decision not to have large quantities of asbestos insulation board removed by licensed contractors before the general refurbishment work began, put the workers at risk and contaminated the site. The work was stopped and the defendant paid to make the site safe, but this doesn't change the fact that seven construction workers were exposed to asbestos, which we know can cause fatal diseases. Landlords and property developers need to be very wary of organising construction work themselves if they haven't got appropriate experience of managing health and safety in building projects."
Ed-
There are around 500,000 buildings built before 2000 that could contain asbestos according to HSE estimates. If managed properly and kept in good condition, asbestos need not pose safety concerns.
Landlords need to arrange for 'Type 3' surveys to be done before refurbishment or demolition and pass this information on to builders before asking them to start work. Some asbestos products - such as Asbestos Insulation Boards or Asbestos Insulation - can only be removed by specially licensed contractors.
Aviation company fined £2,400 after painter fall
Air Livery Plc, based at Southend Airport, Essex, has been prosecuted by the HSE following a fall at its base at Filton, Bristol, on 10 October 2007.
Robert Lupton, 44 was working with a colleague to wrap a plane's wing in plastic sheeting to protect it from paint stripper. He stepped out on to the wing flap - nothing was in place to prevent falls - and fell five metres to the hangar floor below. He broke his left elbow and badly damaged ligaments. He has been unable to work since the accident.
The company pleaded guilty to breaches under Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Heights Regulations 2005. Air Livery was fined £2,400 and ordered to pay costs of £9,162.54 at Bristol Magistrates Courts.
The HSE investigation found that it was usual practice for workers to work on wings without scaffolding or fall protection, did not have adequate training for working at height and had not implemented or enforced their risk assessment which led to unsafe ways of working becoming standard practice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector, Christine Haberfield, said:
"Air Livery should have taken the steps necessary to protect its workers by putting fall protection in place and checking to ensure that workers were using it. Everything may have appeared OK on paper but the practice on the ground encouraged painters to work ahead of themselves and without adequate protection. In this respect this was an accident waiting to happen - which it did, of course, to Mr Lupton."
Collapse of East London building leads to £10k fine
Clothing importer, Citytex UK Ltd, has been fined £10,000 after part of its building collapsed in February 2007, with more than 20 people inside.
Citytex UK Ltd, of Greatorex Street, Tower Hamlets was sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court after previously pleading guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the HSWA.
The company was also ordered to pay costs of £35,000 and ordered to pay £200 each, to four people who were in the building when it collapsed. No one was killed or injured in the collapse.
The court heard that on 13 February 2007, the buildings on Commercial Road, Tower Hamlets, were undergoing construction works. The company's employees were working throughout the building while builders were on the site.
Work was being carried out on a wall at first floor level at the front of the building. A large gap had been made in the brick work and chimney breasts had been removed.
At approximately 4.30pm the front elevation collapsed, dropping large amounts of debris onto the pavement nearby. The scaffolding at the front of the property fell onto a lamppost preventing the bulk of the rubble landing on passers-by and on the road.
The road, which is a major thoroughfare, was closed for several days whilst rescuers searched the rubble for any victims.
The investigation by the HSE found that plans for the work had been drawn up by architects and structural consultants. The Managing Director of the clothing company was acting as the principal contractor and was being assisted by his teenage son. There was no construction phase plan and the architect was not aware that any work was being carried out on the first floor and HSE had not been notified that any improvement work was taking place.
HSE Inspector, Sarah Snelling, said:
"More than 20 people were in this building when it collapsed and it was sheer luck that no one was seriously injured or even killed in this incident. Construction work must be planned and carried out by competent builders. If not, it can lead to a number of risks including collapse. If Citytex UK Ltd had complied with its legal duties by appointing a Planning Supervisor, and a competent Principal Contractor, then the risks would have been substantially reduced."
Huge fire risk – small fine
A.M Widdowson & Son Ltd of Mill Lane Industrial Estate has been prosecuted for creating a massive fire risk by illegally storing huge quantities of highly flammable aerosols. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(2) of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) and Section 2(1) HSWA.
The company were fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,900.
The court heard that the company stored large amounts of LPG for around seven months. It failed to notify the authorities of its operations on site, did not complete a risk assessment and then failed to implement many good practices recognised by industry.
HSE Inspector, James Wright, said:
"The arrangements this company had in place for the storage of aerosol products fell well below what HSE would expect to find. On this occasion, with the amount of LPG being stored on site, there was a real risk of a major fire, which would have posed a threat to employees on site and those in the surrounding area. The company also failed to notify the HSE that they were operating a site which came under the COMAH Regulations.”
Ed-
Regulation 6(2) of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) states: - "Within a reasonable period of time prior to the start of the operation of an establishment, or in the case of an existing establishment by 3rd February 2000, the operator of the establishment shall send to the competent authority a notification containing the information specified in Schedule 3, except that this paragraph shall not require the notification to contain information already contained in a notification sent pursuant to paragraph (1) if that information is still valid".
More information about aerosols and LPG can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/hid/spc/spcenf77.pdf
More information about the COMAH regime can be found here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/COMAH/index.htm
Plastics firm fined after worker loses four fingers
A plastics-recycling company in Liverpool has been fined £2,500 after a worker had four fingers cut off by a guillotine. The HSE prosecuted Centriforce Products Ltd following the incident at the company's premises on Derby Road near the city's docks on 26 May 2008.
The court heard that Wesley Dickinson, 22 from Walton, had been trying to remove a jam in the guillotine when his fingers became trapped. Doctors were able to reattach two of his four fingers and he now has very limited movement in his right hand.
Centriforce pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 at Liverpool Magistrates' Court. The company was ordered to pay £2,438 towards the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine.
HSE Inspector Martin Paren said:
"This incident has had a devastating impact on Mr Dickinson, who is only in his early 20s. He cannot return to his old job and will not be able to do manual work in the foreseeable future, due to the limited strength and movement in his right hand. The company should have had a guard on the guillotine to prevent workers from reaching the blade. An automatic mechanism should also have been in place so that the power was cut if the guard was opened. Instead Mr Dickinson wrongly assumed that a colleague had switched the guillotine off, and he had four fingers cut off as a result. This extremely serious incident demonstrates how important it is for manufacturing companies to have automatic safety systems, so that the risk of workers being injured is significantly reduced."
Ed - Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states: "Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken...which are effective to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone
Company fined £4,500 after telehandler overturns
The HSE has prosecuted Meldrum Construction Services Ltd after one of its workers was seriously injured when a forklift truck telehandler he was operating overturned at its site at Holly Hall, Sandhoe, near Corbridge, in Northumberland, on 16 July 2008.
The company, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) HSWA at Tynedale Magistrates' Court in Hexham. It was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,342.20 and a victim surcharge of £15.
The court heard that Tom Lincoln, 39, of Dudley, Northumberland, was lifting roof trusses onto the roof of the development when the forklift truck telehandler that he was operating overturned. The machine fell onto its side throwing Mr Lincoln against the machine's window and controls.
Mr Lincoln was not trained to use the machine and was not wearing a seat belt when the incident happened. He suffered multiple fractures to his right arm, leaving him with limited mobility in his shoulder. He still requires medical treatment and is unable to return to his job.
After the case, HSE Construction Inspector John McGill, said:
"Mr Lincoln has suffered long term injuries as a result of this serious incident. Meldrum Construction Services Ltd failed to ensure that Mr Lincoln had the necessary training to use the machine and had not reviewed its processes to ensure that unauthorised personnel did not have access to specialist machinery on site. While the company had produced a risk assessment and a system of work for lifting the roof trusses, neither were sufficient, and had failed to identify the dangers that workers would face."
Following the incident, the company changed its working procedures to make sure that only trained staff were able to access and operate site machinery.
Ed - On average forklift trucks are involved in 24% of all workplace transport incidents
Builder fined for using dangerous scaffolding
A Driffield builder whose negligence put his employees and sub-contractors at risk has been fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £2,244 costs for using unsafe scaffolding. Angus William Naylor pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 at Bridlington Magistrates Court. Mr Naylor, of Main Street, Driffield is a partner in the firm trading as WM E Naylor & Son.
The court heard that during a routine inspection in Driffield on 29 April 2009, the HSE witnessed people working on scaffolding that was unsafe and posed a risk of serious, if not fatal, injuries.
An investigation revealed that between 2 April and 29 April employees working at the new housing build off Sylvan Lea were put at risk of falls of up to 5m. The internal and external scaffolding was poorly erected and there was no edge protection in place.
Following the hearing HSE Inspector, Geoffrey Clark commented:
"Falls from height remain the largest cause of fatal and serious injuries in the construction industry. The scaffolding at the Sylvan Lea construction site was dangerous and people should not have been allowed to use it. The risks of working at height, and the measures required to avert these risks, particularly with scaffolding, are well documented. We hope today's prosecution serves as a reminder to all companies using scaffolding that they need to ensure that it is erected by trained and competent persons, and that it is fir for purpose."
Firm fined £16,000 after worker's 5-metre plunge
The HSE has prosecuted ECH Ltd - trading as Maple Timber Frames and registered in Preston, Lancashire - after an incident on 18 November 2008.
A self-employed timber frame erector subcontracted to the company, was working at height on a self-build project at Warwick Park, Tunbridge Wells, when he fell some five metres to the bottom of an inadequately covered stairwell. He suffered multiple fractures, including his skull. A colleague working with the injured man was unharmed in the incident.
At Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court, ECH Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) HSWA. The company was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 towards the HSE investigation costs.
Melvyn Stancliffe, Inspector of Health and Safety, said:
"I would echo the magistrates' statement that these were reckless breaches of the law. The injured man is extremely lucky - despite the severity of his injuries. This sort of fall could easily have killed him. It is all the sadder because it should have been prevented if ECH Ltd had heeded simple safety advice. Falls are the biggest cause of serious and fatal accidents in the construction industry and there is considerable advice, much of it free, available to dutyholders to help them ensure their employees and sub-contractors are provided with a safe working environment."
‘Maid Marion’ leads to confiscation order
Nottinghamshire Police have seized and will be destroying the vehicle used to carry the waste dumped on land near Baulker Lane, Clipstone, in Nottinghamshire on 13 and 21 March 2009.
Karl Smith pleaded guilty at Mansfield Magistrates’ Court to two charges relating to the illegal dumping of waste. The 60-year-old was also ordered to pay £200 in costs and given a three year conditional discharge.
Kiran Cassini, prosecuting for the Environment Agency told the court that Baulker Lane borders Sherwood Forest and that due its isolated location has become a fly-tipping hotspot.
The fly-tipping initiative, called Operation Maid Marion, used covert cameras around the area in an attempt to identify the persons responsible. On 13 March 2009, Mr Smith’s Ford Transit lorry was recorded driving into the Sherwood Forest area with a lorry-load of waste, including PVC window frames and timber. Thirty minutes later the lorry was filmed leaving the area with no waste on board.
Again, on 21 March 2009, Mr Smith’s vehicle was recorded entering the same site carrying waste items including a wooden table, PVC window frames, plastic bags and other waste. It was filmed leaving shortly afterwards.
Mr Smith refused to cooperate with the Environment Agency and was eventually arrested by Police on 27 May 2009.
Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer involved in the investigation said: “Fly-tipping is antisocial and pollutes the environment, it also adversely affects the amenity value of the area. We hope this sentence serves as a reminder to would be fly-tippers that the operation will continue where and when appropriate. “
In mitigation, Mr Smith told the Court that he was sorry for his actions and that he had taken steps to remove the illegally dumped waste but this did not stop the court ordering the confiscation of his vehicle in addition to the other punishments handed down.
Luxury hotel fined for discharging poor quality sewage effluent into stream at Lamorna Cove
The owners of a luxury hotel and holiday complex at Cornwall's famous Lamorna Cove have been ordered to pay £9,338 in fines and costs for polluting a stream with poorly treated sewage effluent
The case was brought by the Environment Agency.
Set on a hillside above Lamorna Cove, The Cove Hotel offers spectacular views of the surrounding Cornish coastline. Owners Aparthotel (UK) Ltd have re-developed the site since acquiring the business in 2004 and added a number of self-catering apartments in 2008.
The hotel has its own treatment plant that treats waste water from the site and discharges effluent into a small stream that runs down to the beach. The effluent must comply with standards laid down by the Environment Agency in the hotel’s discharge consent.
During the summer of 2009 effluent from the Cove Hotel treatment plant dropped below the required standard over three consecutive months (June, July and August). The failures were discovered by Environment Agency officers during routine sampling.
A court heard the sample taken in June was particularly poor and when analysed was found to be two thirds the strength of raw sewage. Samples failed all three chemical tests used to assess the quality of treated effluent – Ammonia, Suspended Solids and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD).
Ammonia is toxic to fish and small creatures living in streams – even in quite low concentrations. Suspended solids can clog stream and riverbeds and encourage a rapid increase in bacteria. BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen bacteria use when feeding on sewage effluent. Fish can suffocate and die if the BOD rises too high and there’s a sudden drop in dissolved oxygen levels.
‘These were significant failures that were avoidable. The Cove Hotel has undergone major re-development in recent years with money spent on luxury facilities and additional accommodation for guests. Unfortunately money was not spent on improvements to effluent treatment and the old plant simply couldn’t cope with the increased volume of waste,’ said Ian Stephenson for the Environment Agency.
Aparthotel (UK) Ltd of The Cove Hotel, Lamorna, Penzance, Cornwall was fined a total of £7,000 by Camborne Magistrates after pleading guilty to three offences of breaching the conditions of its discharge consent by discharging sub-standard effluent into the Lamorna Stream contrary to Section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991. The company was also ordered to pay £2,338 costs.
Aparthotel received a formal caution for a similar offence in October 2008. The treatment works failed its discharge consent again in April 2009.
Bristol 'man with a van' receives jail sentence
The case was brought by the Environment Agency and Bristol City Council.
Gregory Moreton stored various wastes including builders rubble, polystyrene packaging, old fridges and televisions at a business park in the Kingswood area of the city despite being repeatedly asked by the Environment Agency to clear the site.
On September 8, 2008 the Agency received an anonymous report of a man with a white transit van breaking fridges and other scrap at the Moravian Road Business Park. When officers visited the site they found various wastes including drums of old oil, bottles and cans and two old bathtubs. Waste was also being burnt on site.
The landlord of the site was told he was committing an offence and given until September 23, 2008 to remove the illegal waste. The landlord arranged for Moreton to clear the waste in exchange for free use of the yard. Moreton contacted the Environment Agency and claimed the fridges and freezers had been fly-tipped at the business park, but admitted burning some waste.
He was advised not to burn any more waste and told he would need to produce waste transfer notes to demonstrate the various materials removed from the site had been taken to an appropriate disposal facility. Evidence was found in a freezer which confirmed that Moreton had deposited the waste.
Most of the waste had been removed when Agency officers returned to the site. However, oil drums were still present and one was leaking black oil onto the ground. Partially burnt pieces of wood were sticking out of a metal brazier. Burnt tyres were also seen. Officers noticed that more waste had been brought onto the site.
A search on the internet revealed that Moreton traded under the name ‘Fridge Man’ repairing electrical appliances. He continued to illegally store and sort waste at the site until March 2009.
‘The defendant repeatedly ignored our advice and tried to mislead Agency officers by claiming wastes had been fly-tipped. Old fridges and freezers are classified as hazardous waste because they contain ozone depleting substances. Old televisions are potentially harmful because they contain high levels of lead. The disposal of these wastes is more strictly regulated to reduce their environmental impact, encourage recycling and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill,’ said Syan Ventom for the Environment Agency.
Appearing before Bristol magistrates Gregory Moreton, 54, of Orland Way, Longwell Green, Bristol received a four week custodial sentence after pleading guilty to three offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 including operating a waste site without an environmental permit, failing to remove controlled waste and failing to provide documentation for consignments of hazardous waste.
Moreton also received a four week prison sentence, to run concurrently, for a fly-tipping offence. The fly-tipping prosecution was brought by Bristol City Council. Mr Moreton is appealing both sentences.
Fat, feathers and blood pollution
Grossly polluting blood and abattoir waste from a turkey plant turned a drain red for 500m at Grainthorpe, Lincolnshire because of poor site management Skegness Magistrates’ Court heard.
Lincs Turkeys Ltd was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £3,410 after the court was told that the company had committed the same offence in 1997 and had a history of non-compliance with conditions of its consent to discharge resulting in warning letters.
Miss Claire Bentley, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, said that on the day of the offence in October 2008 South Drain had been running red and blood was seen trickling down the bank next to the factory and a yellow/pink substance was seen pouring out of a manhole.
Officers called to the scene described piles of fat, feathers and what looked like poultry meat in the water.
Miss Bentley said the incident had been foreseeable. ‘There were no maintenance records for the site drainage system despite the number and proximity of manholes on site to the South Drain.’
Magistrates heard that the grossly polluting waste liquid came out of a manhole 50m upstream of a point where cleaned-up waste liquid was allowed to be discharged by the company under a discharge consent from the Environment Agency.
Agency officers alerted management at the site to what was happening and advised the polluted drain be dammed off and then pumped out.
Operations Director for the company Mr Michael Houghton told investigating officers that he believed the pollution had happened because of a blocked drain resulting in the manhole cover lifting and the blood and abattoir waste flooding into South Drain.
Samples taken from 150m downstream of the discharge showed levels of BOD at 752 milligrams per litre. Typically clean river water will have a BOD of less than 3 milligrams per litre.
Ammonia levels at this point were 25.9 milligrams per litre (levels of ammonia above 5 milligram per litre will, in most cases, have a toxic effect on aquatic life) and suspended solids were 362 milligrams per litre (the higher the reading for solid matter in suspension, the more likely it is that it will settle and smother aquatic life).
Mark Cawthorne, operations manager for the company, said in mitigation that the company sincerely apologised for the incident and has taken steps to prevent future pollution incidents including spending £80,000 on the current treatment plant.
After the hearing Environment Agency officer Emma Benfield said: ‘Lincs Turkeys Ltd caused a serious pollution which could have been avoided if routine checks had been made to the site's foul water drainage collection system. This case highlights the importance of having an up-to-date site drainage plan and staff being made aware of what to do in the event of a spillage.’
Ed
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) is a measure of the biologically degradable substances in a watercourse. It is important because as the organic substance breaks down oxygen is removed from the watercourse. The higher the measurement, the more polluting its effect on the watercourse and at high levels aquatic life can suffocate.
Egg company shells out after court case
An egg processing business has been fined for illegally spreading waste on land near its factory.
Britovo Limited pleaded guilty at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court to one environmental offence relating to potentially polluting activity at its plant near the town.
The company, of Springfield Farm, Cold Cotes Road, Kettlesing Head, Harrogate, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 towards prosecution costs.
Paul Harley, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, said environment officers visited Britovo’s plant at Kettlesing Head, near Harrogate, in June 2008 after receiving a complaint.
The egg processing involves breaking eggs, which are then blended and pasteurised to produce egg products for sale.
Liquid waste from the process includes egg protein and the plant is washed through with caustic soda and chlorine to sterilise it. The resulting waste and dirty water is treated before being spread on nearby farmland.
Washings from the egg processing are classed as controlled waste, for which the company required an environmental permit or an authorised exemption from the Environment Agency
When environment officers visited the plant on 10 June 2008, they noticed a sour smell and told the company the practice of spreading waste water on land there had to stop until the company either obtained a permit or proved its operation was exempt from needing a permit. Exemptions apply to some agricultural and food by-products which can have benefits to land.
Mr Harley said the company indicated it would apply for an exemption but supporting technical documents were out of date and the application was refused. A subsequent application for an exemption in July 2008 was granted, allowing Britovo to spread 14,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The court heard high protein levels in the waste water could adversely affect local watercourses and the wildlife living in them.
The company was aware in April 2007 that it needed to apply for an environmental permit exemption but its failure to do so, and the fact it saved money by this omission, were aggravating features of the case, said Mr Harley.
Agricultural contractor fined for polluting stream with diesel
A Holsworthy man has been ordered to pay £3,000 in fines and costs after diesel oil escaped from his agricultural contractor's yard into a stream
The case was brought by the Environment Agency.
On April 17, 2009 Agency officers visited Wayside Yard, Redpost, Bridgerule near Holsworthy and saw a large metal fuel tank stored outside. The tank was fitted with a stop valve, connecting hose, electrical pump and nozzle. Fuel was leaking from the stop valve.
A small stream at the rear of the tank had an oily sheen on the surface. The officers also saw several 200 litre drums in a concrete yard behind the main storage tank. At least one of the drums appeared to be overflowing with oil.
On 20 April 2009 the yard operator, Malcolm Newton, was contacted by the Environment Agency and strongly advised to clean-up the site. He was sent a copy of the latest Oil Storage Regulations leaflet.
Soil and water samples taken from the yard and nearby stream were found to be contaminated with a ‘heavy lubricating type oil.’ Malcolm Newton said the drums stored on the site contained waste tractor oil. The main tank was used to re-fuel his agricultural contracting vehicles.
‘Site operators must ensure they are compliant with the Oil Storage Regulations and take all reasonable steps to minimise the risk of pollution from spillages and leaks. This is even more important when, as in this case, oil is being stored in close proximity to a watercourse,’ said Robin Duffy for the Environment Agency.
Malcolm Newton, of 40 Southlands, Bridgerule, Holsworthy was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs by Barnstaple magistrates after pleading guilty to one offence under the Water Resources Act 1991.
Four arrests in new year scrap yard crackdown
The Environment Agency has had four men arrested in a raid on an Essex industrial estate. The raid was just one of 30 operations the Environment Agency is currently mounting to target illegal waste sites.
The estate, in Rettendon, Essex, has a history of illegal waste activities, including the unlicensed storage, deposit and treatment of scrap metal and scrap cars. Following a six month surveillance and intelligence gathering operation, Environment Agency officers and Essex Police swooped on the site, and found unlicensed skips full of waste, several hundred scrap vehicles still containing hazardous substances such as oil and brake fluid, and piles of other scrap metals.
Illegal vehicle scrap yards present a danger to the environment, as acids, oils and other vehicle fluids are left untreated, often draining into the ground or even watercourses. These illegal sites also undercut legitimate businesses who take measures to safeguard the environment.
Sarah Chare, Head of the National Enforcement Team at the Environment Agency, said:
“Illegal car scrap yards are a huge problem for the environment, as there are no safeguards in place to prevent pollution. We managed to shut down hundreds of illegal sites last year, and will continue to crack down on unlicensed operators who put the environment at risk. We are ensuring that waste crime does not pay, and we regularly prosecute unlicensed operators, who can receive prison sentences, fines, injunctions and even have the assets gained through the proceeds of crime seized.”
In addition to being tough on illegal operators, the Environment Agency works with trade associations to bring scrap yards into compliance. Working in collaboration with local authorities, the car recycling industry and trade associations as part of the Waste Crime Innovation Programme, the Environment Agency will continue to target these sites and encourage legal businesses to report rogue operators.
Skip operator fined £10,000
Joseph Michael King has pleaded guilty at Harlow Magistrates’ Court to running a waste site at Hythe Station Road, Colchester between 23 April and 30 July 2009.
The court heard that King runs a skip hire business called King’s Skips or King’s Skip Hire and has a permit to carry waste but not to store or treat waste at the site. Mrs Anne-Lise McDonald, prosecuting, said before a permit can be granted a site has to conform to conditions to protect the environment.
Illegal waste transfer activities at the site first came to the attention of the Environment Agency in April 2009. An investigation officer saw rubbish stored in skips and noticed that a makeshift incinerator had been made from two skips sandwiched together.
‘She left her business card and later received a call from King who said he had not realised he needed a permit’, said Mrs McDonald. ‘The officer explained the need for a permit and advised that he clear the site and apply for one’.
When the officer returned to the site a week later there was some evidence of waste being removed but there were skip lorries and waste being stored outside the gates. On a further visit a couple of weeks later there were more skips outside the gates and still waste on the site.
King was interviewed in early June by Environment Agency officers when he said the site would be cleared but more than a month later waste was still being stored on site..
Mrs McDonald said that as King had a waste carriers registration he should have been aware of the need to be permitted.
King told the Environment Agency that he wanted to operate legally but was unaware of the requirements.
After the hearing Agency officer Jenny Martin said: ‘The environmental permitting regulations are in place to protect people and the environment from activities which could cause harm.
‘By avoiding the costs involved in obtaining a permit and working to the standards required, Mr King undermined the legitimate waste industry.’
King pleaded guilty to:
Between 23 April 2009 and 30 July 2009 on land at Hythe Station Road, Colchester, Essex, you did operate a regulated facility for the deposit and storage of waste without being authorised by an environmental permit granted under Regulation 13 of the of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.
Contrary to Regulation 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.
Britain’s stupidest flytipper?
One of Britain’s stupidest flytippers has been ordered to serve a 12 month community penalty order after he got caught flytipping seven times in seven months.
Ian Goldsmith, of St Anns, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to seven charges of flytipping at various locations around Nottinghamshire. The 47-year-old was also ordered to pay £582 in compensation to Nottingham City County and Broxtowe Borough Council, along with £700 in costs to the Environment Agency. The community order required Mr Goldsmith to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work in the community. He also narrowly missed a driving disqualification, as the Court wanted the him to carry on working in order to pay the compensation and costs.
Prosecuting for the Environment Agency, Kiran Cassini told Nottingham Magistrates' Court that Mr Goldsmith had been captured on camera on four separate occasions dumping waste tyres at Racecourse Road, Colwick, in September 2008. He was also witnessed flytipping tyres in St Anns. Further dumps were caught on camera in February and March 2009 at Coventry Lane, Broxtowe.
The investigation began in September 2008 when a hidden camera was retrieved from Racecourse Road, Colwick. Mr Goldsmith was shown removing tyres from a car and throwing them onto the ground on four different dates. On 6 October, Mr Goldsmith was then witnessed by a local resident dumping tyres at Robin Hood Chase, St Anns.
Shortly afterwards Nottingham City Council, using the Operation Maid Marion flytipping partnership, called upon the expertise of the Environment Agency’s Environmental Crime Team which conducted its own investigation. Mr Goldsmith was filmed dumping tyres at Coventry Lane, Broxtowe, on 23 February and 2 March 2009.
The court heard that Mr Goldsmith was arrested in May 2009. When interviewed he admitted dumping the tyres on all seven occasions on behalf of a local tyre company.
Investigating Officer, Mark Thomas of the Environment Agency’s Environmental Crime Team said:
“Ian Goldsmith is a serial tyre flytipper and has been responsible for a sustained campaign of flytipping until his arrest in May 2009. The crimes took place mainly in beauty spots across Broxtowe and the City of Nottingham, committing the majority of his offences in broad daylight, later under the cover of darkness. This was a joint effort between Nottingham City Council and the Environment Agency as part of Operation Maid Marian. The inquiry indicated the tyres came from a commercial premises and I would advise all businesses that they have a legal responsibility to ensure the waste they produce is passed to a legitimate carrier or disposer”.
Cllr Katrina Bull, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change at Nottingham City Council, said:
"Dumping rubbish is illegal and can be very dangerous. It also makes neighbourhoods look untidy and unsafe. Along with the Environment Agency we work hard in Nottingham to clampdown on flytipping and have a team of dedicated officers who work hard to keep the city free of waste. Our partners are committed to working together, sharing information and using the latest technology to crack down on flytippers to make the county a better place for residents and visitors alike. Unfortunately a minority still continue to flytip and members of the public need to be aware that they have a duty of care under the Environmental Protection Act to prevent the escape of their waste and not to allow unlicensed waste carriers to remove it."
In mitigation, the Court was told that Ian Goldsmith was sorry for his actions. In passing sentence, the Court stated that the offences were very serious and that his actions showed a callous disregard for Environmental Laws. The Court however did take into account Mr Goldsmith’s early guilty plea and the fact that he had cooperated with the Environment Agency.
Fine for illegal chicken slaughterhouse
A chicken processing company has been fined for illegal operation of its West Yorkshire slaughterhouse.
At Bradford Magistrates’ Court today Yorkshire Poultry Products Limited pleaded guilty to one offence of operating its slaughterhouse at Hammerton Street in Bradford other than as authorised by an environmental permit.
The company, of Hammerton Street, Bradford, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £2,867.38 and a victim surcharge of £15.
Jill Fogg, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court Yorkshire Poultry Products had been made aware of the regulations requiring it to apply for an environmental permit.
The company, which sources, processes and supplies chickens to the catering industry, began the application process in 2005 and again in 2006 but did not pursue the matter.
New laws came into force in April 2008, meaning any slaughterhouse processing more than 50 tonnes of carcasses each day would require an environmental permit.
Miss Fogg said the permitting system regulates potentially polluting processes, with conditions to reduce or prevent odours, and efficiently use water and energy. Applying for a permit is subject to a fee and then a yearly charge while it remains in force.
The Environment Agency wrote to Yorkshire Poultry Products to try to establish its site’s capacity and inquiries revealed a new production line installed in 2005 had increased the maximum capacity.
Environment officers visited the premises in February 2009 and checked records which showed that on five occasions in January 2009 the company was processing more than 50 tonnes of chickens.
Miss Fogg said this indicated that not only did the company have the capacity to process more than 50 tonnes of chickens but was actually doing so.
In interview, Yorkshire Poultry Products accepted the figures in the records inspected but claimed the Environment Agency had made a lucky choice with those particular days’ records.
However, the company agreed the capacity of the site and said in the past six months this figure had crept over the threshold at which a permit was required and they had no older records of production levels.
Miss Fogg told the court the company had since applied for and been granted a permit but operating without one, despite advice one was required, was an aggravating factor.
The court heard the company had no previous convictions for environmental offences and gave it credit for a timely guilty plea.
Wine company fined for waste packaging offences
One of the country’s top wine importers was today ordered to pay more than £35,000 in fines and costs for failing to meet all of its obligations under the Waste Packaging Regulations.
The case was brought by the Environment Agency.
The Great Western Wine Company in Bath imports and sells wine to the public, restaurants, shops and other wine merchants across the UK.
Under the Packaging Waste Regulations all businesses with an annual turnover in excess £2 million and handling more than 50-tonnes of packaging a year are obliged to register with the Environment Agency or a recognised compliance scheme.
The purpose of the regulations is to encourage businesses to behave responsibly and ensure a percentage of the packaging they handle is recovered and recycled. This, in turn, helps reduce the amount of material going to landfill.
Businesses purchase Packaging Recovery Notes (PRN’s) to demonstrate they are compliant with their recovery and recycling obligations. PRN’s are issued by specialist companies recycling packaging waste.
On January 22, 2009 The Great Western Wine Company was contacted by the Environment Agency to establish whether it was required to register. With an annual turnover of £4.7 million in 2003 rising to £7.7 million in 2007 it was evident the company should have registered. The amount of packaging handled in those years was 315 tonnes and 637 tonnes respectively.
It is estimated the company avoided more than £22,000 in fees and costs for the years 2004 - 2008 by failing to comply with the regulations. The company has since joined and paid a compliance scheme.
‘The defendant company is a successful and well-established business handling relatively large amounts of packaging. It should have been aware of its responsibilities under the Waste Packaging Regulations and taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance,’ said Mark Pritchard for the Environment Agency.
The Great Western Wine Company Ltd, of The Wine Warehouse, Well Road, Bath was today fined £29,700 and ordered to pay £1,999 costs by Bath magistrates after pleading guilty to nine offences under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (2005 and 2007) including failing to register and take reasonable steps to recover and recycle packaging waste and failing to furnish a certificates of compliance in 2004 and 2008.The company was also ordered to pay £3,856 compensation.
Recycling company fined
Sita Metal Recycling Ltd has been fined £4,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £4,456 in the first prosecution of its type by the Environment Agency for breaching new regulations designed to reduce the overall environmental impacts of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
The offences came to light in an audit carried out by an officer from the Norwich office of the Environment Agency, Norwich Magistrates’ Court heard.
Sita pleaded guilty to four offences, following a hearing to determine a point of law.
The regulations, introduced in 2006, are designed to make sure that electrical and electronic equipment is either repaired and refurbished and put back on the market or dismantled with parts being recycled or disposed of safely.
Producers of the equipment are not required to collect their own WEEE, but join schemes which do so on their behalf.
WEEE contains different materials such as metals and plastics. It is necessary under the regulations to record and report how much of each type of material has been recovered or recycled.
Companies that treat or export WEEE must be approved by the Environment Agency.
Approved authorised treatment facilities issue evidence notes documenting either the refurbishment or treatment of WEEE that takes place in the UK. Approved exporters issue evidence notes documenting the export of untreated WEEE which is exported.
Mrs Anne-Lise McDonald, prosecuting, said that there had been a number of different offences and errors made by Sita which ‘showed a lack of management focus’.
The company exported treated WEEE but the it had not been approved to export. Between 1 July 2007 and 31 December 2008, it exported 1,967 tonnes of WEEE.
Sita issued evidence for the treatment of WEEE before it was approved to issue evidence. The company was approved in April 2008.
Sita was charged with two sets of offences.
• In 2007 and 2008 the company issued evidence for the treatment of WEEE that was subsequently exported not through an approved exporter; and
• In 2008 the company issued evidence for the treatment of WEEE which was received prior to Sita being an approved authorised treatment facility (AATF).
In mitigation, Mr Stephen Tromans QC said, it was a genuine mistake. He said it happened during a period of management change. He said there was no direct impact to the environment or commercial benefit.
Ed Sita pleaded guilty to:
1. Between 1 July 2007 and 31 December 2008 as an operator of an Approved Authorised Treatment Facility you failed to comply with Regulation 49(1) and Condition 11 of Part 2 of Schedule 8 of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 in that you treated Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment which you subsequently exported not through an approved exporter.
Contrary to Regulation 49(1) and 73(7)(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006. Fined £1,000
2. On 18 March 2009 you issued an evidence note reference 0003752 under regulation 47(2) of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 in relation to the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment received by you between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2008 which was not in a relevant approval period.
Contrary to Regulation 46(1) and 73(8)(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006. Fined £1,000
3. On 18 March 2009 you issued an evidence note reference 003750 under regulation 47(2) of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 in relation to the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment received by you between 1 February 2008 and 29 February 2008 which was not in a relevant approval period.
Contrary to Regulation 46(1) and 73(8)(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006. Fined £1,000
4. On 18 March 2009 you issued an evidence note reference 003751 under regulation 47(2) of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 in relation to the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment received by you between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2008 which was not in a relevant approval period.
Contrary to Regulation 46(1) and 73(8)(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006. Fined £1,000
New guidance for local authorities to help improve health and safety in the waste and recycling sector
New guidance is now available to help local authorities understand the importance of a sensible approach to health and safety when it comes to procuring and managing waste and recycling services, in a bid to help reduce death and injury. The recycling industry has nine times more fatal accidents than the national average and four times as many workers suffer injuries.
The HSE identified that a contributing factor may be that some local authorities are unclear what their legal duties are and mistakenly believe that putting a service out to contract relieves them of all health and safety responsibilities.
The new online guidance gives practical information on how to make health and safety an integral part of the procurement and contract management process.
The HSE will be running a series of regional events giving LA representatives the opportunity to hear more about the guidance, share experiences with others and seek advice on potential management solutions.
Speaking at the first of these events, Judith Hackitt, HSE Chair said:
"Waste and recycling is a sector which is experiencing considerable growth as we all strive to do more to respond to environmental challenges. This makes it doubly important that we take action to respond to the fact that the number of accidents in this sector continues to be high, despite recent improvements, One of the keys to further progress is getting the client/contractor relationships working well. The guidance will help local authorities understand the full extent of their role when managing waste and recycling contractors. HSE wants to see occupational health and safety become an integral but common sense part of the specification, procurement and management of waste and recycling contracts."
Case studies of councils that are already working well with their service delivery partners in waste and recycling are also available online.
One such example is Wirral Borough Council which, working with Biffa Waste Services, has created a partnership approach to managing the borough's waste and recycling services. The working relationship they have allows health and safety issues to be dealt with flexibly and efficiently. They have also built in checks to ensure the system is working correctly.
HSE will begin targeted inspections of local authority waste services departments later in the year. Inspectors will be looking closely at the working relationships LAs have with contractors and at any changes that have been made to improve the health and safety standards.
The new guidance and more details about procuring and managing contracts is available at www.hse.gov.uk/waste/services
The Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH) Forum represents the main stakeholders in the waste and recycling industry and provides information, identifies solutions and stimulates action across the industry to ensure the health, safety and well-being of those working in the industry and those affected by its activities.
On 14 January 2009 the WISH Forum launched its strategy to improve performance in the industry. The strategy has five key objectives, relating to reducing accident numbers, ill health, management, safety culture and competence
www.hse.gov.uk/waste/wish.htm
Updated guidance on managing asbestos risks
Updated guidance is now available to help those responsible for managing the risks from asbestos best protect those workers who may disturb it.
'Asbestos: The survey guide' is aimed at those who commission asbestos surveys, the surveyors who carry them out and those who use them such as architects and demolition or removal contractors.
It replaces the MDHS 100 guidance and sets out the role of surveys in ensuring that builders or maintenance workers have all the information they need to minimise their risk of exposure to asbestos and put the right precautions in place.
Regulation 4 of Control of Asbestos Regulations contains an explicit duty on those who are responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic premises to assess and manage the risks from asbestos.
It is a legal requirement that information about the location and condition of asbestos containing materials within a building is available to contractors and tradesmen undertaking any work in the building.
'Asbestos: The survey guide', was developed by the HSE with input from a range of other organisations. It gives advice on how to select a competent surveyor - recommending the use of ABICS certified or UKAS accredited organisations and what the client should expect from them.
It also contains greater detail on conducting refurbishment and demolition surveys, what asbestos containing materials look like and where to find them and new guidance on the use of surveys in the rented domestic sector.
Said Steve Coldrick, HSE's asbestos programme manager:
"Around 4000 people die from asbestos related diseases every year - more than die in road accidents. Asbestos is still a real risk if it is not managed properly. The regulations set out who is responsible for managing the risk in non-domestic buildings and what this should involve. This up-dated and user-friendly guidance clearly sets out the role of the survey in managing asbestos and really helps people make sense of it and relate it to real-life situations. We've worked with more than 30 organisations to develop it. We wanted those people who were most likely to use the guidance suggest what they would find most useful."
The guidance is available to download free of charge at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/index-hsg-ref.htm
Ed-
The guidance has been prepared to help people carrying out asbestos surveys and those with specific responsibilities for managing the risks from asbestos under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CAR 2006). However, it is also designed to provide guidance in situations where surveys may be carried out for other purposes e.g. for 'managing' asbestos in domestic premises under wider health and safety legislation and for meeting the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM). It complements and supports other guidance on managing asbestos.
HSE Myth of the Month
It's ok to get a general handyman to work on gas appliances
The reality
Gas and cowboys don't mix! Anyone who is employed to work on gas appliances must be listed on the Gas Safe Register. If the person you're using isn't registered then they might not be safe and they are also breaking the law.
Incorrectly fitted or badly repaired gas appliances can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning, gas leaks, fires and explosions. By using a Gas Safe engineer, you can make sure that they're qualified to do the work safely - just check the back of their ID card!
|