Monday 14 March 2016


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.”


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”.


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment