Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Exeter firm fined over worker's injury

A visiting worker suffered severe leg injuries when he was hit by a reversing telehandler vehicle at a waste transfer site near Exeter.

Andrew Grist, of Newton Abbot, suffered a detached calf muscle, a near severed toe and broken bones in his foot and was off work for six months after the incident at Kenbury Wood Waste Management Centre.

Leese's Ltd, the site operator, was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £818 costs by Exeter magistrates today (18 October) following a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The court heard that the telehandler was one of a number of similar vehicles working on the site. The telehandler had a blindspot because of its size, but there was no device, such as a reversing camera, fitted to the vehicle which could have prevented the incident. Site operators are required to ensure drivers of vehicles which might cause a risk of injury have all round visibility.

Mr Grist had got out of his vehicle on the site, believing he had received a "thumbs-up" signal from the operator of the machine emptying his lorry. He understood this to mean he could leave the site and get his lorry ready to go. It was at this point he was struck by the telehandler.

HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:

"This incident could easily have resulted in a fatality at the site. All employers should ensure that vehicles they provide for use by their employees do not have blind spots.

"Site operators should ensure that only vehicles that have had blind spots eliminated are allowed to operate on their site."

Leese's Ltd, of Oak Tree Place, Manaton Close, Matford Business Park, Exeter pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 28 (e) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Proposals on Revised Control of Asbestos Regulations

This consultation sets out HSE's proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations to implement the changes required to comply with the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the UK Government's transposition of Directive 83/477/EEC as amended by 2003/18/EC on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work. The reasoned opinion confirms the European Commission's view that the UK has not fully implemented Article 3(3) of the Directive which provides for the exemption of some types of lower risk work with asbestos from three requirements of the Directive: notification of work; medical examinations; and record keeping.

The required changes mean in future fewer types of lower risk work will be exempt from the three requirements. Views are sought on: the proposals; the guidance to be produced to explain how the changes will work in practice; and the impact on business.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

New portal for finding CDM-compliant construction contractors

Safety Schemes in Procurement (SSIP) has introduced a new internet portal that aims to improve standards of health and safety in the construction industry and simplify the process of contractor assessment.

SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.

Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry.


Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”

According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.



The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.

£144,000 to pay after “tragic death” of worker in jammed press

A County Durham car-components manufacturer has been fined £100,000 after a maintenance engineer was crushed to death whilst clearing a jam on a production line.

Paul Clark, 52, a multi-skilled fitter at Tallent Automotive, died on 8 July 2009 after becoming trapped between a moving carriage and the support structure at the end of its tracks while working alone in an isolated area of the plant.

Durham Crown Court heard on 30 September that Mr Clark had been working in the press shop of the company’s Newton Aycliffe plant, which manufactures parts for the car industry.

The Court was told that a de-stacker – a pneumatically-powered carriage that is part of a large, 2500-tonne press, which produces chassis components – had jammed and stopped halfway along its tracks. The carriage was used to move empty magazines previously containing metal blanks away from the press. Mr Clark had been attempting to find the fault with the pneumatics and had opened the interlocked safety gates to gain access inside the fenced enclosure of the machine.

However, although opening these gates isolated the equipment from the electricity supply, it did not isolate the pneumatic power element of the machine. Moreover, the equipment for controlling movement of the carriage was located between the tracks the carriage ran on, which meant Mr Clark had to work in an extremely dangerous area to try to establish the cause of the jam. He was trapped when the de-stacker moved suddenly and died as a result of traumatic asphyxia due to crush injuries.

Martin Baillie, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, told SHP there had been no safe procedures for carrying out work within the de-stacker area. Although electrical hazards were recognised by the company, risks from the pneumatically-operated equipment were not.

The inspector said: “This tragic death could have been avoided had the company put in place a safe system of work that ensured that risks from all energy sources had been identified and made safe before employees could gain access to the enclosure where the equipment was located.

"It is vitally important that safe isolation procedures are developed and used before attempting to make repairs to equipment.

"In this instance, Tallent Automotive instead relied on the training and experience of individuals. This was a significant cause of the incident that led to Mr Clark’s death."

The inspector concluded: “This is an engineering company. They should know about these things. They had the expertise and knowledge, but did not recognise the hazards associated with the de-stacker being pneumatically energised. Other workers also routinely enter the enclosure, so they too were at risk.”

The firm said in mitigation that the company who had manufactured the de-stacker unit had gone out of business during the machine’s installation. Consequently, Tallent had not received the pneumatic drawings, information and documentation that would have informed its risk assessment and which it would have been able to give to workers to show how the pneumatic supply worked and how they could safely make any necessary adjustments.

Tallent said took safety very seriously, had a good safety record and employed a full-time health and safety manager. It has since adapted the equipment so that nothing like this can happen again.

Tallent Automotive was fined £100,000 after pleading guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. The company was also ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £44,000.