Health and Safety in the news this week

Schools asbestos 'scandal' still threatening lives – report

Decades of lax attitudes towards tackling deadly asbestos in schools is a national "scandal" threatening the health of former, current and future schoolchildren, a wide-ranging investigation has found.

The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) said examples of the problem in schools underlined "systematic failings" in the way it was dealt with by successive governments.  The JUAC said Whitehall had a "scandalous disregard for life" by permitting inadequate surveys and campaigning against compulsory detection that it said would help prevent future cases of asbestos cancer mesothelioma.

The report said successive governments failed to require schools to keep asbestos records and inform parents about the material in their child's school.  It said:

"This has enabled the culprits to evade responsibility for asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma, allowing them to escape with impunity.  Nothing can be done to put right past asbestos exposure, but we must do more to protect future generations of school children and staff."

Asbestos can be found in wall panels, ceiling tiles, floors, fire breaks, columns, door frames, and ceiling and wall voids but it can also creep into classrooms and corridors if it is disturbed, such as through having children crashing into affected areas.  The UK currently has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world and it is steadily increasing.  According to the Health and Safety Executive, more people in the UK die from the disease than in road accidents. 

The report identified one asbestos victim, Sarah Bowman, who developed the disease in her 40s, more than three decades after leaving Braincroft Primary and William Gladstone schools in the Brent area of London.  She was said to have been too ill to attend the National Union of Teachers (NUT) conference in Brighton this weekend where the report was presented.

The report found the risk to children - including Ms Bowman's son, who attended one of the schools several years later - was underestimated because risk assessments and tests were designed for adults working with asbestos, and not for long-term exposure of children who are known to be more vulnerable.

JUAC said government documents released under Freedom of Information rules suggested full and comprehensive new laws to reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos were dismissed by politicians on cost grounds.

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), described the report as "shocking".

She said: "It is outrageous that staff and pupils are still dying from being exposed to asbestos in schools.  ATL has been campaigning about this for years. Action must be taken by the Government now."

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: "Only through the safe, planned removal of all the asbestos which still remains in place across the UK, will the deadly menace of asbestos be lifted from future generations."

Experts say the true scale of the problem is not known, because no comprehensive survey has been done to establish which buildings are affected.

Asbestos campaigner Hank Roberts, presenting the report at the NUT conference, said: "It is disgraceful. This document shows absolutely everything you can think of has been going wrong - negligence, deceit, lying.  Saying it is safe is an absolute lie."

A Department for Education spokesman said: "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of children and staff in our schools.  Since 2010, billions has been invested to improve the condition of the school estate, with a further £23 billion on school buildings to come over this Parliament.  This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and that the amount in school buildings continues to reduce over time.  We have also published new guidance on managing asbestos in schools, and have transformed the way in which we collect information on asbestos to better our understanding."

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

 

HSE prosecution round up:

Automotive company fined after worker loses finger

A Birmingham-based automotive company has been fined after a worker lost his finger.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard how a welder at Lander Automotives Limited was expected to work on a variety of jobs as required by production.  While he was working on a machine the employee’s glove became entangled in the drill bit.  He suffered partial amputation to the third finger on his right hand.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 17 June 2015 found that the company failed to provide adequate training, a safe system of work, a risk assessment or method statement.

Lander Automotive Limited, of Clapgate Lane, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,574 and a £120 victim surcharge.

Solar panel specialists in court for roof light fall failings

 

A solar panel firm has been £153,000 after a worker was seriously injured in a fall through a fragile roof light at a private home in Kent.

The worker, from Ashford, fractured his shin and a vertebra in the incident at Elvington Lane in Hawkinge on 30 April 2013.

The roof light the 32-year-old man crashed through was on an outbuilding housing a swimming pool.  Although the water partially cushioned his fall, he made a heavy impact with the side and flooring around the pool, and was unable to return to work until January this year and only then on a part-time basis.

Glasgow-based P V Solar UK Limited was sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that more could and should have been done to prevent the fall.

The court had heard in a hearing in January 2016, when the company pleaded guilty to three health and safety offences, that the injured worker was part of a three man team working on the pool building to replace faulty solar panels that were initially installed by the same company in April 2011.

The fragile roof also contained eight roof lights and he fell through one of these as he walked on the roof while carrying a panel.

HSE established that a scaffold tower, ladder and safety harness had been provided for the panel replacement work.  However, none of the installation team had received any formal training or instruction on how to use them.  This effectively rendered the equipment useless.  Other measures could also have been taken, such as providing full scaffolding or hard covers for the rooflights.

HSE established that although the initial installation work in 2011 was completed without incident, the safety equipment provided on that occasion was also lacking, which again placed workers at risk.

The court had also been told that P V Solar was served with a Prohibition Notice by HSE to stop unsafe work on a fragile roof in Bristol in May 2011.  The company was therefore well aware of the need to ensure that adequate provisions were in place to prevent or mitigate falls during work at height.

P V Solar UK Limited, of Cambuslang Road, Glasgow, was fined a total of £153,000 and ordered to pay a further £29,480 in costs after pleading guilty to three separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Melvyn Stancliffe said:

“The injured worker suffered serious injury in the fall and could have been killed.  He and his colleagues were effectively left to their own devices with equipment that was not wholly suited for the task at hand.  In short, better equipment, training and supervision should have been provided.  Working on or near a fragile roof or materials is not a task to be undertaken without proper planning, and without having the appropriate safety measures in place at all times. There is considerable free guidance available from the HSE regarding the precautions needed when working at height, including on or near fragile roof coverings.”

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

 

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

Gym manager queried customer’s complaint on gym users topping up personal water bottles from cooler

Issue

A customer made a complaint about other gym users filling up personal water bottles from a water cooler instead of using the disposable cone cups provided. The customer stated that this was against health and safety regulations as germs could be spread this way.

Panel opinion

It is important for gym users to keep hydrated and there are no health and safety reasons why they cannot do so using their own bottles rather than the paper cups provided.  Other establishments which do ban gym users from using their own bottles are likely to have other motives for doing so – but it is not a health and safety issue.

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

Cross-industry push to combat cancer risk from dust

A pan-industry approach to controlling mineral dust in the workplace could help to reduce the UK’s occupational cancer burden, according to IOSH.

Around 800 people in Britain a year die from lung cancer caused by prolonged exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) at work, says the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), with 900 new cases being diagnosed annually.

Experts from across UK industry were brought together by IOSH in London on 14 March 2016 to debate whether a more collaborative approach to tackling silica dust at work can make a difference.

Representatives from the Health and Safety Executive, the Office of Road and Rail, Crossrail Ltd, the Mineral Products Association and Unite the Union were expected to be among those taking part in a roundtable discussion on the issue, facilitated by IOSH, at The Shard.

Shelley Frost, executive director of policy at IOSH, said:

“Silica dust exposure is a cross-industry issue.  Tackling it, therefore, requires a cross-industry approach.

We believe that we can beat occupational cancers if we work together to control the risks of exposure to the causes.  Joined up thinking, rather than each sector doing its own thing, has the potential to make a real difference in tackling this major occupational health issue.”

Ahead of the debate, IOSH conducted research with professionals working in the construction, rail, public services and mineral product sectors on silica dust exposure to identify common barriers to effectively controlling the issue.

A lack of understanding or awareness of silica dust as a hazard was the main cause highlighted. Resistance from employees to using controls, ineffective implementation of control measures in practice and employers not prioritising RCS as a significant hazard were also hampering efforts, they said.

Professor John Cherrie, from Heriot-Watt University and the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, who was due to take part in the discussion, said many employees are currently being exposed to RCS above the acceptable limit in the UK and throughout the world.

He said:

“Construction is the biggest industry where people can get exposed to respirable crystalline silica, but anyone working in a workplace that uses mineral products may face exposure.  It could be in foundries, at brickworks and quarries or premises where stone products are manufactured.

Dust can often be accepted as something that just naturally occurs as part of work processes, and it shouldn’t be.  If you can see dust you need to do something about it.

Getting people to change their attitude to dust and take this issue seriously is key.  This discussion is a real opportunity to shape how we deal with silica dust across industry in the years to come.”

The roundtable discussion was held to mark the launch by IOSH of new guidance for businesses on the issue of RCS.  The issue is one of five common agents associated with work-related cancer registrations and deaths in the UK that IOSH is raising awareness of through its No Time to Lose campaign.  Asbestos, diesel engine exhaust fumes, solar radiation and shift work are also being highlighted as part of the campaign, which aims to get work-related cancer more widely understood and help businesses take action. 

According to research by Imperial College London, 8,000 people die from cancer and around 14,000 contract the disease each year in the UK because of exposure to a work-related carcinogen.

Shelley Frost said:

“Whether you are an employer or employee, industry body or policy-maker, safety and health professional or occupational hygienist – we all have a part to play if we are to eliminate work-related cancer.”

For more information, visit www.notimetolose.org.uk.

Source: www.iosh.co.uk

 

HSE prosecution round up:

National Crane Company fined £750,000 for two deaths after collapse

A national crane hire company has been sentenced for failings that led to the death of two men as a crane collapsed in London.

Southwark Crown Court heard crane operator Jonathan Cloke, 37, died after falling from the crane as it collapsed.  It fell onto Michael Alexa, 23, a member of the public, and also killed him.

The court heard how sections of the tower crane, which was on a housing development in Thessaly Road, Battersea, separated when 24 bolts failed due to metal fatigue.

The 24 bolts were a significant safety feature on the crane’s slew ring, which connected the mast (tower) to the slew turret.  This allows the arms of the crane (jib) to rotate through 360 degrees.  When the bolts failed the slew turret and jib separated from the mast and fell to the ground.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident, in September 2006, found Falcon Crane Hire Ltd did not investigate a similar incident which happened nine weeks before, when the bolts failed on the same crane and had to be replaced.

HSE found the company had an inadequate system to manage the inspection and maintenance of their fleet of cranes.  Their process to investigate the underlying cause of components’ failings was also inadequate.  It told the court the particular bolts were a safety critical part of the crane.  The court also heard the bolts failing previously was an exceptional and significant occurrence, which should have been recognised by Falcon Crane Hire.

Lilliana Alexa, Michael’s mother, said on behalf of her family:

“Michael was a lovely son, a wonderful big brother and a devoted father.  His son has had to grow up without the love and support of Michael, who adored him.  He was denied that opportunity because his life was taken away and with his, ours too.

The memories of that day will never leave our family.  We heard the crash and felt the ground shake.  I found Michael and it’s an image that haunts my nightmares.  If only we had stopped to chat or parked the car somewhere else he would still be alive.  We know we are not to blame but it does not stop us all feeling guilt.

We cannot comprehend how our beloved son, brother, father and friend who was so full of life has gone.  The whole crane industry must learn from our tragedy and the devastation it has caused.  We do not want another family to endure the same pain of losing their child.”

Mike Wilcock, HSE Head of Operations, said:

“Jonathan and Michael’s deaths were tragic, needless and entirely avoidable.  These two men need not have died had Falcon Crane Hire taken the right, decisive action when the bolts failed the first time.  The company fell far short of its health and safety obligation.”

Falcon Crane Hire Ltd were fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,000 for breaching Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act.

Family partnership fined after worker fell through skylight

A family partnership in Pembrokeshire has been fined after a worker fell through a skylight forming part of the roof of a cattle shed to the concrete floor below.

Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court heard how the Rees family partnership of Gwynne (father), Margaret (mother) and Richard (son) had contracted the company Evans Agri Contracting (EAC) to carry out a one day silage harvest.

An employee of EAC became involved in sheeting the silage by lowering plastic sheeting from the roof of the cattle shed. The sheeting from the cattle shed roof was not part of the silage harvest contract but a job the Rees partnership was carrying out independently. The employee of EAC was assisting members of the Rees family partnership and was under their direction.

It was while doing this that the twenty-four year old worker tripped and fell through a skylight at least four metres to the concrete floor. He suffered a broken right arm and elbow and heavy bruising.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 17 June 2014 found that the work on the roof had not been planned and there was no safe system for the prevention of falls off or through the fragile roof.

Rees family partnership, of Dinas, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1121.55.

 

Chemical company fined £200,000 following toxic chemical release

A chemical company was sentenced today in Leeds Crown Court for safety breaches when a very toxic chemical was ejected under pressure.

A company maintenance technician unintentionally opened a valve on top of an isotanker at Syngenta Limited’s Huddersfield plant resulting in the release of between 3.5 and 3.8 tonnes of paraquat dichloride solution. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the firm over the incident.

Syngenta Ltd of Leeds Road Huddersfield pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 of the Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 and Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £200 000 with £13 041 costs by Leeds Crown Court.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Angus Robbins commented: “This incident could have been prevented if Syngenta had properly assessed the real risk of the value being opened while the tank was under pressure”

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

 

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

Family told by undertaker that shoes are not allowed on deceased’s body for funeral

Issue

Family arranging a funeral told by undertaker that the deceased would not be allowed to wear shoes as it was against health and safety regulations.

Panel opinion

Health and safety at work legislation does not stop undertakers enclosing shoes in coffins. Depending upon whether the deceased is to be buried or cremated after the funeral, there may be other reasons for not allowing shoes but this should have been explained properly to the enquirer. It is certainly not a health and safety matter.

 

Consultants out and about…

Michael spotted this man precariously standing on the window ledge, despite having the safety of a scaffold tower right behind him!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

Update on Didcot Power Station collapse

This is a joint statement on behalf of Thames Valley Police and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the partial building collapse at Didcot power station on 23 February.

“The priority of the multi-agency response remains the recovery of the missing men so they can be returned to their families.  Specialist officers from Thames Valley Police continue to support the families at this difficult time and we are providing them with regular updates on the progress.

The site owners RWE have overall responsibility for the safety of buildings and structures on their site.  They must produce a plan for a safe method of working before the next stage of the recovery can begin.  Once this is received and approved by HSE, emergency services are on hand to recover the missing men.

Preparation at the site, for the recovery, is taking place and will continue.

We are working hard to identify as soon as possible what caused the building to partially collapse, to provide answers and prevent such a tragedy happening again.”

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE prosecution round up:

Man fined for potentially exposing members of the public to asbestos

A man from County Durham has been fined for potentially exposing members of the public to asbestos fibres during the refurbishment of a residential property on South Parade, Croft on Tees, County Durham.

Darlington Magistrates’ Court heard how Peter Wade of Staindrop, was converting an integrated garage into a bedroom at the property. While he was visiting the property for a quote, the home owners mentioned the possibility of asbestos in the garage.

While working in the loft space of the garage, the garage ceiling collapsed and Peter Wade proceeded to pull the remainder of the ceiling down, break it up and place in waste bags. It was not until he removed the material that he discovered it contained asbestos.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 14 March 2015, found that Peter Wade failed to ensure an asbestos survey was carried out prior to any work taking place.

Peter Nigel Wade (trading as P.N. Wade Building and Civil Engineering contractor), of Winston Road, Staindrop, County Durham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, and was fined £267 and ordered to pay costs of £1,765.

Barnstaple gas engineer prosecuted following unsafe asbestos removal at a tenants’ home

A gas engineer removed potentially dangerous asbestos material during a gas boiler replacement putting himself and others at risk from exposure to asbestos fibres.

Brian Hockin, aged 58, was removing an old warm air heating system at a residential property on Williams Close, Wrafton when he disturbed a quantity of asbestos insulation board that surrounded the warm air boiler.

The tenants of the property raised their concerns with Brian Hockin that he had disturbed asbestos but he continued to remove the material bagging it and removing it from the property and storing it at his yard.  The tenants were so concerned that they contacted Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted Brian Hockin at Barnstaple Magistrates’ court.

During the hearing the court heard that Brian Hockin used no safety measures to prevent the spread of asbestos and that he used no protective clothing or protective breathing apparatus when he was removing the asbestos.

Brian Hockin of Bickington, near Barnstaple, pleaded guilty of breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and was fined £450 and ordered to pay £921.40 in costs.

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

“Brian Hockin’s negligence could result in serious health effects to both him and anyone else who may have come into contact with the asbestos material that he disturbed.

Given Mr Hockin’s vast experience as a gas engineer he should have realised that there is a very good chance that a 30 year old gas boiler could be insulated with asbestos insulation board but he made no checks before working around the material.

He then compounded matters by ignoring concerns raised the tenants that the material that he had disturbed was asbestos and carried on removing the material.

Tradesmen should always be aware that asbestos can be found in any industrial or residential building built or refurbished before the year 2000.

Tradesmen should make enquiries as the presence of asbestos before starting work and if they suspect that they have come across asbestos during work they should stop work immediately and confirm what the material is and arrange for it to be dealt with by properly trained asbestos removers in a safe manner.”

Company fined after worker falls through roof

A Cornish clean energy company has been fined after a worker fell through a fragile roof.

Bodmin Magistrates’ Court heard how a senior roofer working for Clean Earth Energy Limited was installing solar panels at Homeleigh Garden Centre in Launceston.  While traversing the roof, the cement fibre sheeting he was walking on gave way and he fell approximately fifteen feet. He suffered multiple injuries including several fractured vertebrae.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 15 August 2015 found the work was not properly planned or appropriately supervised.

Clean Earth Energy Limited, of Bess Park Road, Trenant Industrial Estate, Wadebridge, Cornwall, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,704.

HSE inspector Nicole Buchanan said after the hearing:

“Working on fragile surfaces is a particularly high risk activity in which many serious accidents occur. Duty holders should do everything possible to protect their workers from the risk of a fall.”

Major construction firm fined £1million after death of worker

Construction firm Balfour Beatty has been fined after a worker lost his life whilst repairing a central reservation barrier damaged in a road traffic collision.

Canterbury Crown Court heard how, on 1 October 2012, a team was sent out by Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty PLC, to install temporary traffic management in order to repair barriers on the A2 at the location of a collision site.

The crew were trying to remove the footings of a post that had snapped off, using a lorry mounted crane. The lorry mounted crane slipped from the concrete footing, and swung back towards the barrier, hitting the worker on the head. Larry Newman, aged 37, sustained severe head injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, of Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, was fined a total of £1million, and ordered to pay £14,977 in costs after pleading guilty to offences under Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Cousins said: “This was an entirely preventable incident that could have been averted by simply creating and implementing a safe system of work.  If a suitably sized excavator had been used to remove the footing mechanically it would have prevented this tragic loss of life completely.

“Employers have a responsibility to create safe systems of work for hazardous activities that their workers may be undertaking.  The workers should be trained in safe systems of working and adequately supervised. Safety needs to be proactively managed and not just left to chance”.

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

All tools on building sites need to be a maximum of 110V

Issue

The enquirer was tasked with carrying out sound insulation tests in houses on a construction site.  The site manager asked him if his equipment was battery operated to which his reply was "no, it will need to be plugged into a 230V socket".  He asked if there was 230V power in the plots and the site manager said yes it was available but all "tools" on site need to run off a maximum of 110V as this was the company policy.

Panel opinion

The enquirer appears to have been planning to work in a completed (or nearly) completed house with the electrical system installed and compliant with requirements for electrical installations.  This is a significantly lower risk from when the house is under construction.  Whilst health and safety law does not ban 230v tools on construction sites, HSE strongly advises that 110v tools are preferable given the wet, dirty and dusty nature of construction sites and the possibility of mechanical damage to cables and tools.  

In this instance a standard which is reasonable for a live, temporary, construction site is being applied to a different (domestic) environment where the risks would be much lower and the electrical system permanent and compliant with the latest standards.  If a site or company decide to impose a higher (disproportionate) standard in this lower risk environment they can but it is not health and safety law that requires this.

Consultants out and about…

Seen by Rob out and about in Croydon this morning!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

Considerate Constructors to Get Competence Star Rating

Considerate constructors will get a star rating for their competence after a new system was launched by The Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS) to boost standards and reward best practice.  Now, companies along with their contractors, clients and workforce will be better able to demonstrate CCS competencies including everything from the success of health and safety policies to green initiatives and engagement with the local community.

The new star rating – based on a level from one to five – has been developed to better reflect how well a site is run.  It will highlight how businesses are complementing their work through onsite appearance, respect for the local community, safety of those involved directly and indirectly, and how companies are operating with more sustainable, environmentally friendly business practices.

Edward Hardy, CCS’s chief executive, says the new five-star system provides a clearer indication of competency and is an easier, more “quantifiable way” for the industry, the public and the local community to understand how construction businesses are performing to the CCS’s rigorous standards. Star ratings will be clearly displayed at each site with posters and certificates issued. Companies need to register sites to be scored by a nominated “monitor” whose analysis will be translated from the traditional 50-point marking system into a star rating out of five.

Hardy believes the new rating system from the CCS will help the construction industry develop a more positive image in communities while its consideration for the wider environment is rightly celebrated. The simple identification of a site’s competency for passers-by will also encourage companies to act more responsibly and drive internal practices to become more considerate constructors.

Source: www.bdcmagazine.com

HSE prosecution round up:

Insulation company fined for health and safety failings – COSHH and PUWER

A Welsh insulation company that produced natural insulation products have been fined for health and safety failings.

Wrexham Magistrates’ Court heard that Natural Insulation Ltd (formerly Black Mountain Insulation Limited) failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment for the processing of hemp. They also failed to adequately guard machinery.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the concerns raised anonymously found that the COSHH assessment was not suitable and sufficient.

The company formerly at Tir Llwyd Industrial Estate, Kinmel Bay, Rhyl, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), and Regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £59,000.

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

 

Waste Management firm in court after young man crushed to death

 

Derbyshire waste firm Rainbow Waste Management Limited has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after a worker was crushed by the bucket of a motorised loading shovel.

On the 7 June 2013, 24 year old Ashley Morris, known as Will, was working at Rainbow Waste Management’s site in Swadlincote.  Mr Morris sustained fatal injuries to his head and spine when the bucket of the loading shovel that he was operating crushed him.

Derby Crown Court heard that in the 10 days leading up to the incident, CCTV cameras at site captured over two hundred examples of unsafe working practices.  These practices included dangerous operations with the shovel such as workers being lifted in the bucket and workers having to take evasive action to avoid contact with moving vehicles.

Rainbow Waste Management Limited of Robian Way, Swadlincote, Derbyshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £136,000 and ordered to pay £64,770 in costs.

HSE Principal Inspector Elizabeth Hornsby said: “Rainbow Waste failed to put in place basic legal requirements of training and supervision. The death of this young man was entirely avoidable.”

 

Company fined after worker injured by machinery

A Swansea company which manufactures plastic sheeting has been fined after an employee suffered serious injury when his hand was caught and dragged into machinery.

Swansea Magistrates’ Court heard that the employee was part of a maintenance crew at ITW Limited, and was repairing a break in the plastic sheeting.

The court was told the employee was rethreading broken plastic sheeting into a pinch roll when his gloved hand was caught and dragged into the rollers. The first finger on his right hand was so badly damaged it was surgically removed below the knuckle.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 30 May 2012, found that there was inadequate guarding along the length of the production line, despite ITW Ltd having identified the risks.

ITW Limited, of Queensway, Fforestfach, Swansea, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,018.

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

The Myth

Health and safety regulations now ban the use of ladders.

The Truth

This story reappears regularly.  In fact there is no ban on ladders so long as they are used safely.  The Working at Height Regulations 2005 are aimed at ensuring that people do use ladders safely. This is to reduce the number of workers seriously injured or killed falling off ladders every year.  Each year an average 13 workers die this way and 12,000 are seriously injured.  However there is no ban on ladders so long as they are secured and used appropriately.

Source: www.tuc.org.uk