Monday, 10 November 2014

HSE Myths

Online delivery driver no longer able to carry shopping upstairs

Issue

Enquirer’s regular supermarket online delivery driver says he can no longer carry shopping upstairs due to health and safety issues. Enquirer understands that delivery people must be careful and wouldn't want anyone to hurt themselves, but the driver stated this new rule also helped them do more deliveries.

Panel decision

The supermarket chain have made clear that this change in service is in fact a trial in a limited number of locations and has not been prompted by health and safety at all. There are no health and safety reasons why bags cannot be delivered upstairs. The driver should have made clear to the customer that a trial process was underway and asked for customer feedback not used the health and safety excuse.

University’s hot air vents covered with anti-homeless cages

Issue

A university has covered hot air vents with anti-homeless cages citing health & safety reasons.

Panel decision

Whilst there may be some small health risks e.g. from carbon monoxide exposure in the exhaust gases from the boiler vents, the main concerns appear to relate to possible fires near the vents and the potential for blockages of the vents to shutdown boilers which are critical to ongoing research work.

Getting the right balance between these issues for the university and being sensitive to the needs of others is challenging and the real reasons for covering the vents was not fully explained initially. As with many mythbuster cases, clear and open communications from the outset can help explain the real reasons behind decisions and avoid the appearance of simply quoting ‘health and safety’ as a convenient catch all excuse

Coach driver unable to turn off inside overhead lights

Issue

Enquirer was travelling on a coach when the driver made an announcement that he could not turn off two small LED overhead lights due to health and safety reasons. There were still blue LED lights running the entire length of the coach at ground level along the walkway.

Panel decision

Overhead lights are provided to assist passengers who, for example, may want to read at night. Their use should be at the discretion of the passenger and there is no health and safety reason why they could not be switched off. If there was some other reason why the lights on this particular coach could not be turned off the driver should have provided a proper explanation instead of wrongly using ‘health and safety’ as an excuse

Vector Aerospace fined after workers’ health suffers

An international aerospace company based in Hampshire has been prosecuted after 13 employees were found to be suffering varying degrees of a debilitating nerve condition.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Vector Aerospace International Limited, of Gosport, after investigating reports that workers were being diagnosed with Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS).

In total, 13 cases emerged of employees who had worked at the same site for between five and 45 years. Two of them were diagnosed at Stage 3 – showing the most severe and painful symptoms.

Portsmouth Magistrates were told that Vector Aerospace, which has a workforce of some 2,700 internationally and 1,100 at Gosport, had surveyed the tools being used by workers in 2007. At that stage they had taken the decision that no controls were needed.

As a result, and despite later reviewing their risk assessment, that error was not identified and the recognised risks of vibration from the use of around 1,600 tools by 400-450 employees on the site was never controlled. The absence of mitigating measures for the workers led to some being exposed to vibration levels likely to have exceeded the legal limits.

HSE also found that the staff on site using such tools had not been provided with any information or training about the risks posed from the work they were carrying out. The 13 cases were identified in 2013/14 after improved health surveillance was eventually introduced.

The court heard that serious cases of HAVS result in circulation problems, leaving hands white and dead in the cold and with extreme pain on warming. Nerve damage means those affected find it hard to carry out finer day-to-day tasks needing dexterity and grip.

Vector Aerospace International Ltd of Fleetlands, Fareham Road, Gosport, Hampshire, was fined a total of £50,000 and ordered to pay £2,514 in costs after admitting three charges under the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Alec Ryan said:

“Vector Aerospace had the resources to protect its employees from the well-known effects of excessive exposure to vibration but failed to do so over a significant number of years.

“As a result, 13 employees developed symptoms of HAVS which can affect all aspects of their lives. HSE’s intervention in 2013 was as a result of the company bringing in health surveillance for the first time. Although this identified these cases, it came too late for these workers.

“The company failed to assess the risks and implement the necessary controls. Employers have a duty to provide effective measures to ensure the health of their staff is not seriously or permanently harmed by the work they are asked to do.”

Roof fall put worker in hospital
A West Yorkshire green energy firm and a solar installer have been prosecuted for safety breaches after a labourer was severely injured when he fell nearly seven metres from a roof.
The 27-year-old worker, who had no experience of installing solar panels, lost his footing when rain began to fall while he was on a barn roof in Lepton, Huddersfield. He slipped onto his back and went sliding down the roof. He tried to grab a bracket but failed to get a grip and slid feet first over the edge.

The man, from Leeds, landed in bushes below and broke seven ribs, his collarbone and suffered a bruised lung. He has since returned to work.
The incident, on 27 June 2013, was investigated by the HSE, which identified serious safety failings by Peter King, trading as Kingson Roofing, Building and Construction, of Ossett; and Investment Renewables Ltd, of Wakefield.

Kirklees Magistrates heard that Mr King was subcontracted by Investment Renewables to install 56 solar panels on the barn roof. He was one of three men working on the installation though only one had any experience.

The workers used a four-lift tower scaffold to reach the sheet metal pitched roof and had installed 13 of the panels when it started to rain.  The labourer lost his footing on the wet surface shortly after and slid over the edge as there were no safety measures in place to prevent or mitigate falls.

HSE found Investment Renewables had not adequately assessed the risks arising from the solar panel roof installation, and had also failed to ensure its sub-contractor, Mr King, had done so.

As a result, no safe system was in place for the work itself and neither of the defendants had provided or arranged for edge protection to be installed to guard against roof falls.

In addition Investment Renewables had not supervised the work to ensure their sub-contractor was operating safely.  Peter King hadn’t planned the job, didn’t provide the right equipment and hadn’t trained two of his workers properly.
Investment Renewables Ltd, of Wakefield Road, Grange Moor, Wakefield, was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £404 in costs after admitting breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Peter King, Kingson Roofing, Building and Construction, of Wesley Street, Ossett, Wakefield, was fined £10,000, also with £404 to pay in costs, for a breach of the same Act.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andy Denison said:

“This worker’s fall and his subsequent painful injuries could easily have been prevented had basic safety precautions been put in place. Each party failed in its responsibilities to protect the workers from danger by assessing risks and providing a safe system of work.

“Mr King had obviously not planned the job thoroughly – he had only looked at a photo of the building and not even visited the site. Investment Renewables also failed to make sure the work was safely planned and did not supervise it.

“Despite clear guidance from HSE and the solar panel industry, companies continue to work on roofs without suitable precautions, posing an entirely unacceptable risk of serious injury, or even death, to employees.”

Contractor in court for worker’s injuries in roof fall

A former Tiverton building firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker suffered severe arm injuries when he fell through an unguarded fragile roof light.
Paul Osmond, of Hele, Exeter, broke his right arm and injured his left shoulder in the incident at a warehouse in Bancombe Court, Martock, on 31 January this year. He fell 4.5 metres onto a concrete floor after stepping onto the skylight.
The incident was investigated by the HSE, which prosecuted Philip Saunders Building Contractors at Yeovil Magistrates’ Court.

The court heard that Mr Osmond and a fellow workman were tasked with installing a new roof over an existing tin one.

No mention had been made of the fragile skylights before the work began and no arrangements had been made to install netting to lessen the impact of any falls.

The duo arrived at the site early in the morning while it was still dark. Both warehouses were locked so there was no means way of gaining access to install safety netting anyway.

When Mr Osmond stepped onto the skylight it gave way, sending him crashing to the floor below. His arm required surgery and was in plaster for six weeks, rendering him unable to work.

HSE’s investigation found no safe system for covering the skylights had been shown to Mr Osmond or his colleague, such as placing netting or scaffolding underneath to prevent falls.

Philip Saunders Contractors Ltd, of Tiverton, which is now in liquidation, was fined £12,500 and ordered to pay £2,850 in costs after pleading not guilty breaching the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

HSE Inspector James Lucas, speaking after the hearing, said:

“Although Mr Osmond’s injuries have caused him a great deal of pain and discomfort, he was fortunate his injuries were not more serious or even fatal.
“This incident could easily have been prevented if the job had been planned properly and safety netting or scaffolding installed.

“Falls from height are the biggest cause of workplace deaths and it’s crucial that employers make sure work sufficient measures are put in place to protect staff from the risks. There is no excuse for employers failing to safeguard workers who have to work at height.”

Scaffold firm owner ‘put lives at risk’

The owner of a Surrey-based scaffolding firm has been prosecuted after he and an employee were captured on camera balancing on a single rail some nine metres above ground.
The photos of the incident at a three-storey office in Horley on 4 February 2014, taken by a shocked member of the public, were sent to the HSE, which investigated.   Redhill Magistrates heard how Jason Hewett, 44, the owner of Crest Scaffolding Services, had put his own life and the lives of two scaffolders in jeopardy by failing to have any fall prevention measures in place.

HSE, which brought the prosecution against Mr Hewett for safety breaches, told the court that one photo clearly depicts two workers balancing on a single pole with no guardrails to prevent them from falling from a dangerous height. Neither of them wore a harness.

A second photo shows two scaffolders working from boards but, once again, there was not one guardrail to be seen and no harnesses were in use to protect the men.

Jason Hewett, of Benhams Drive, Horley, Surrey, was fined £265 and ordered to pay £511 in costs after admitting a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Amanda Huff said:

“Jason Hewett put his own life at risk and the lives of two other workers by carrying out this scaffolding job in a totally unsafe manner.  Anyone falling from nine metres would likely be killed and that type of disregard for safety is totally unacceptable.

“Mr Hewett failed to follow basic safety precautions and heed the professional guidance available to scaffolding companies. Where practical when erecting scaffolding, they should work from a fully-boarded scaffold and guardrail. If this is not possible, all scaffolders should wear clipped-on harnesses.”

Firm fined over building collapse scare

A Harrow-based building firm has appeared in court after a botched demolition sent masonry crashing into the kitchen of a neighbouring property, narrowly missing an occupant who had just left the room.
Axis Build Ltd, of Drummond Drive, Stanmore, was sentenced for safety failings following the part collapse of a home it was demolishing in Adelaide Close, Stanmore, on 6 June 2013.

Westminster Magistrates were told that debris, including large slabs of brickwork from an end wall, fell on top of the next door property because the firm had failed to properly plan the demolition job to prevent part of the building collapsing in an uncontrolled manner.

An investigation by the HSE found the incident could have easily been avoided had Axis Build Ltd used competent people, such as a structural engineer, in the planning process.

The court heard although there had been no injuries, an occupant of the neighbouring house had been in the kitchen only moments before masonry had crashed through a skylight.

Axis Build Ltd, registered in Chesham, Bucks, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £1,338 in costs after admitting breaching the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations by failing to plan the demolition in such a way as to avoid danger, or reduce it to as low a level as possible.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Jack Wilby said:

“With this type of demolition, where an excavator eats into the building from one side to the other, there is likely to be a free-standing wall at one end that should be supported,  particularly, where this wall is close to a boundary wall.

“The removal by Axis Build of parts of the building without supporting a remaining wall led to the uncontrolled collapse of that wall. This resulted in immediate danger to both the employees and other people – in this case the residents of the house next door.”   “The competence of those assessing the risks of the job was just not good enough.   You need someone who understands the integrity of domestic buildings and how they are held together.

“The resulting clear-up operation put further lives at risk as workers went up on to a roof without adequate means to prevent them from falling from that roof.”

Companies prosecuted for safety failings after worker crushed

Two Derbyshire companies have been fined for safety failings after a worker was crushed whilst dismantling steelwork.
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court heard that the 47-year-old man from Chesterfield was employed to dismantle surplus steelwork and associated fittings for MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd at premises in Cotes Park Lane, Somercotes, when the incident happened on 3 May 2011.

He was employed by Instant Installations Ltd, which had been contracted to supply labour for the dismantling work for MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd’s newly-acquired building, next to its existing Somercotes factory.

He and other colleagues were using a scissor lift type of mobile elevating work platform and other equipment to remove surplus steelwork including some of the steel beams on which the overhead travelling cranes ran.

An investigation by the HSE found both companies failed to plan the dismantling work and to record the arrangements for carrying out the work.

MMD Mining Machinery Developments had failed to notify HSE of the construction project, only doing so six weeks after the incident. In order to gain access to the steelwork to remove bolts, Instant Installations Ltd used a scissor lift that had been leased by MMD Mining Machinery Developments.

However, the scissor lift was also used to lower steel beams at height by resting them on the guard rails of the platform. The scissor lift was not designed for such work and an appropriate lifting device or crane should have been used.
Having removed single section beams (each typically weighing 430kg) using the scissor lift, the injured person and a colleague worked from the scissor lift and attempted to remove a compound crane beam. This was longer and heavier, weighing in excess of a tonne, which was more than twice the scissor lift’s safe working load.

After removing bolts keeping the beam in place using a cherry picker, the injured person raised the scissor lift underneath the compound beam without the stabiliser legs deployed.

When the guard rail rested up against the beam, the lift’s alarm sounded, informing the workers the lift was overloaded. Repeated attempts to place the handrail of the platform against the underside of the unfastened compound beam led to the beam becoming unstable and it toppled towards the factory floor.

The compound beam had been positioned centrally on the scissor lift, and the injured person was operating the platform controls from a position between the compound beam and the handrailing.

As the beam toppled towards the factory floor, the injured person was struck by the falling compound beam, causing him serious head and chest crush injuries. He remains off work.

The compound beam falling to the ground also caused the elevated platform to sway significantly, leaving the co-worker fearful of being thrown from the lift platform.

MMD Mining Machinery Developments Ltd was fined £ 26,666 and ordered to pay £8,013 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching regulations 21, 29(1) and 29(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Instant Installations Ltd, of Station Lane, New Whittington, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,013 after admitting breaching regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and regulations 29(1) and 29(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Grayam Barnes said:

“This incident, which saw completely inadequate equipment being used to remove heavy steel beams at height, could easily have resulted in a fatality.
“It is the duty of employers to ensure that the correct work equipment is provided to carry out the work they have been tasked with.

“The failure of MMD Ltd in not notifying this work as a construction project also precluded them the opportunity to seek competent advice for the construction work.

“The failure to make the statutory notification meant they then carried the statutory duties of the ‘client’, ‘CDM co-ordinator’ and ‘principal contractor’.

“This incident demonstrates they were not competent to undertake those roles.

“Had they sourced and properly made such appointments then it is unlikely this incident would have occurred.

“This work was not properly planned out by either company and that lack of planning has led to a worker suffering very serious injuries which he is still recovering from more than three years later.”

South London waste firm’s ‘dismal’ safety record

A waste firm in south-east London has been prosecuted after repeatedly putting its employees at risk of injury, or even death, from use of heavy machinery that was often left in a dangerous condition.
Westminster Magistrates heard that the HSE had to serve Greenwich-based Murphys (Waste) Ltd with a total of ten enforcement notices between 2009 and early 2014. The most serious breaches related to defects in machines which presented a ‘risk of death or serious personal injury to employees and people on site’.

HSE told the court the latest two failures, relating to a loading shovel and a 360 degree excavator, had prompted the prosecution of the company in light of their poor safety record.

During an annual inspection by an engineer in Oct 2013, several defects were found with the loading shovel. The worst was extensive damage to the bolts fixing the front bucket to the machine, which could have led to the bucket falling off and crushing anyone nearby.

Murphys (Waste) Ltd was advised not to use it until repairs were carried out but were later found to have kept it in use until a visit by HSE in January 2014, when a prohibition notice was served to halt any further use of the vehicle.
In a visit just days later, HSE identified an excavator was being used but had neither its left-side mirror or rear mirror in place, severely restricting visibility of the driver while moving about the site, again posing a risk to other workers. HSE served a further prohibition notice on the company preventing its use.
The court was told that on top of these two breaches, the company had been inspected by HSE six times over five years resulting in eight enforcement notices. Two of these had related to defects on a shovel loader and one had required the firm to introduce a proper system for maintenance of the vehicles.
Murphys (Waste) Ltd of Horn Lane, Greenwich, SE London, was fined a total of £6,000 and ordered to pay £1,287 in costs after admitting two offences under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

After the hearing, HSE inspector John Crookes said:

“Murphys (Waste) has a dismal record of compliance with safety legislation and seemed to be content with repeatedly exposing its employees to unnecessary danger.

“This is a waste management company that takes bulk material from construction sites and uses heavy earth-moving plant. The risks associated with the waste industry are well-documented and widely recognised, but it is one of the most dangerous sectors.

“No company in the industry should be failing to address these risks and no worker should be regularly exposed to such uncontrolled dangers.  All work vehicles and equipment must be kept in an efficient condition and in good state of repair.”

Waste and recycling is one of the industries in which employees are most likely to be injured by their jobs according to the latest 2013/14 HSE statistics with 486 major/specified injuries.

Monday, 3 November 2014

Injury and ill-health statistics highlight workplace dangers

Figures recently published show that while Britain continues to be one of the safest places to work in Europe, too many workers are still being injured or made ill by work. 
Injury and ill-health statistics released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) show that an estimated 28.2 million working days were lost due to work related ill health or injury in 2013/14. 

As a result, the cost to society from such injuries and new cases of ill health due to current working conditions is an estimated £14.2 billion (2012/13 figures based on 2012 prices), according to the latest annual statistics published by HSE today. 

Judith Hackitt, the chair of HSE, says that behind every number is the reality of a real person being killed or suffering injuries or ill health while simply doing their job. 

The statistics show that, in 2013/14, there were; 
  • 133 fatal injuries – a fall from 150 the previous year.
  • 77,593 other injuries reported under The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR). That equates to 304.6 injuries per 100,000 employees.
  • An estimated two million people in 2013/14 suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by current or past work. 
Judith Hackitt said: “These latest figures remind us what health and safety is really about. We should remind ourselves what these numbers actually mean – the number of times in the last year someone went out to work and either did not return home to their loved ones or came home with life changing injuries.
“The health numbers also demonstrate the scale of harm being done to people’s health while at work, too often leading to premature death.

“Jobsworths using ‘elf n safety as a convenient excuse for all manner of things, and those claiming health and safety is a burden, need to reflect on this. Britain has one of the best health and safety systems in the world, but that is cold comfort to those who have suffered loss or suffering that is so easily avoided with sensible and proportionate risk management.

“We all need to commit to focussing on what really matters – ensuring more people return home from work every day and enjoy long and healthy working lives.” 

The industries in which workers are most likely to be injured by their jobs have not changed significantly – with construction (1900 major/specified injuries), agriculture (292 major/specified injuries), manufacturing (3159 major/specified injuries) and waste and recycling (486 major/specified injuries) among the higher risk sectors. 

HSE Myth Busters

Customer not allowed a coffee with a child’s meal deal

Issue

On a recent visit to a fast food outlet the enquirer was refused a coffee with a child’s meal deal on health and safety grounds, even though the meal was for his adult self.

Panel decision

The decision to refuse a hot drink as part of a children’s meal deal package was purely commercial and had nothing to do with health and safety – especially since the customer made clear that the drink was for an adult’s consumption not a child. Yet again we see poor customer service and inflexibility hiding behind health and safety as a convenient catch all excuse.

Primary school staff asked not to take any drinks onto the playground during breaks

Issue

For health and safety reasons staff at a primary school were asked not to take drinks, including cold ones, out onto the playground during breaks to safeguard the children.

Panel decision

This is one of the most extreme cases the panel has dealt with in relation to disproportionate restriction of drinks around children. It relates not only to hot drinks, but includes cold drinks on highly improbable grounds including the possibility of a child suffering an allergic reaction. Occupational health and safety law does not ban teachers from having a cuppa and even less a refreshing cold drink, whilst on playground duty, and to suggest it does is just preposterous. If the head wants to impose ridiculous rules on staff, he/she should not use health and safety as a convenient cover.

All office lights must have a working bulb

Issue

Enquirer has been informed that for health and safety reasons all of the lights in their open plan office must have working bulbs in them. Due to a pre-existing eye condition the enquirer has switched off a strip light above their work station for the last three years but this will not now be allowed.

Panel decision

The panel has identified numerous reasons why the facilities management team in this workplace may want to have all lights on but none of them have anything to do with real health and safety risks. The complainant has valid (medical) reasons for asking for the strip light to be removed from above her workstation and simple common sense suggests that her request should

HSE writes “open letter” to the structural timber industry

Open letter to all parties involved in the design, specification, procurement and construction of timber frame structures
The purpose of this letter is to explain HSE’s expectations in relation to the management of fire risks prior to and during the construction of timber frame structures. The letter has been produced in cooperation with the Structural Timber Association (STA), which represents the industry’s manufacturers and suppliers. STA and HSE are working together to promote a better understanding of fire risk management throughout all parts of the supply chain, including those outside STA’s membership.  The standards to be achieved are the same regardless of trade body membership or otherwise. 

HSE’s approach to off site fire risks during the construction phase of timber frame structures

Fire precautions during the construction of timber frame structures fall within HSE’s remit.  For any project, regardless of the construction method, duty holders have legal responsibilities to ensure the safety and health of workers and those who might be affected by their work activities, including those arising from fire risks.  Serious incidents have arisen where fires involving timber frame structures under construction have affected neighbouring buildings. Consequently, HSE has worked with the STA to produce guidance on reducing the risk of harm to people in buildings adjacent to the construction site.

Summary
 
All those making design and procurement decisions that significantly affect fire risk should consider and reduce the risk and consequences of fire during the construction phase through DESIGN. Failure so to do may constitute a material breach1 for which HSE will apply its Fee for Intervention scheme those duty holders who have contributed to the breach.

Detailed Explanation

Regulation 11 of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM)requires risks to be considered and eliminated/reduced so far as is reasonably practicable through the design process.  This duty is imposed on anyone who makes decisions affecting the design, including, for example, architects, structural engineers, clients, suppliers, principal and other contractors and even those involved in the planning approval process where they specify particular construction methods or products. 

The primary legal responsibility for assessing off-site fire risk rests with those making design and procurement decisions before work starts on site.  Designers and manufacturers of timber frame structures duties under CDM Regulation 11 cannot be passed on to the Principal Contractor.  Risk should be designed out as far as is reasonably practicable and information about residual risk passed to the Principal Contractor.  The Principal Contractor is obliged to consider and manage risks arising from the activities under their control at the site stage.   

The STA’s publication ”Design guide to separating distances during construction”http://www.structuraltimber.co.uk/information-centre/information-centre/technical-library/site-safe/ has been produced with HSE’s input and provides guidance on assessing the off site fire risk from timber frame structures under construction.  Although the title of the document “Design Guide to Separating Distances During Construction” might imply that the guidance is for use during construction, it is intended to be used at the design and procurement stages of a project. 

HSE commends the STA for the substantial work carried out to produce this guidance, promote its use and make it freely available to all rather than being restricted to STA members.  Although following the guidance is not compulsory, it does provide a practical means of complying with legal requirements. If an alternative approach to the guidance is used, a competent person with fire engineering qualifications and experience will need to determine the risks and to identify appropriate controls.  The persons involved should justify their decisions and recommendations in terms of risk, rather than cost.

Evidence from recent HSE inspections indicates that the risk of harm to occupants of neighbouring buildings from fire during the construction phase is not always effectively managed through either of the options above, and that not all duty holders understand what is required of them.

For a proposed structure, the STA guidance enables minimum separation distances to be determined.  Where space does not provide the separation distances required for a Category A structure, it provides guidance on selecting alternative timber frame structures to provide an adequate level of fire protection to neighbours during the construction phase. If a Category B or C structure or alternative fire engineered solution is needed, then it should be specified when the timber frame is being procured. Everyone in the supply chain has a responsibility to work towards this end.  Anyone in the supply chain who makes a decision, which significantly affects fire safety during construction, should be prepared to justify that decision.  If fire safety considerations are left to a late stage in the design development of the project, there is an increased potential that the solutions will be inconsistent in approach and less effective if there is a fire, and more time consuming and expensive to implement.

Appropriate mitigation methods should always be developed before construction work starts on site. 

In practical terms HSE expects:
  • An assessment of the particular site and its constraints when the method of construction is being considered.
  • For timber framed structures, assessment can be undertaken using STA’s ‘Design guide to separating distances during construction’.
  • The assessment should identify that where there is insufficient separation distance to allow a Category A structure, the appropriate level of Category B or C to match the site constraints (unless an alternative fire engineered solution is developed by a competent person) should be recommended.
  • The appropriate category frame should be specified to the manufacturers. 
  • Timber frame manufacturers, including non-STA members have a significant role to play in ensuring appropriate specification and procurement of frames. Manufacturers should be advising their customers of the guidance and requirements. Use of the STA audit checklist may assist manufacturers in compiling records to demonstrate the steps they have taken to discharge their obligations under CDM Regulation 11 and record who has made specific decisions.
  • Any specific information and instructions that must be followed to guarantee the specified category or approved solution to be achieved on site must be passed to the Principal Contractor.
  • The Principal Contractor must adhere to the conditions required to achieve the specified category of structure.
  • The Principal Contractor must devise and apply appropriate fire precautions during the build, including control of hot works, provision of fire warning and extinguishing systems, provision of means of escape etc. 
HSG 168 was published in October 2010 and version 1 of the STA’s (then UKTFA) guidance was published in Dec 2011. Sufficient time has elapsed that knowledge and application of the guidance should now be embedded.  HSE inspectors expect duty holders to comply with CDM Regulation 11 using this guidance to assist.  Where a duty holder chooses not to follow the STA guidance but to implement a fire-engineered solution, standards of the equivalence to the guidance should be adopted. Duty holders should expect that in the latter circumstances, if lower standards are adopted then HSE may consider there to have been a material breach of health and safety law attracting charges under our Fee for Intervention Scheme

Simon Longbottom

Head of Construction Sector and Policy

Dangerous roof work caught on camera

A builder has been fined after two of his workers were photographed on a house roof in Burnley without safety measures in place.
Mohammed Yasin, who trades as Southfield Property Maintenance, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at a semi-detached house on Matlock Grove on 10 April 2014.

Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard a passing HSE inspector spotted the men
installing a dormer window for a loft conversion at the property. Mr Yasin, 39
was inside the house and his two workers were close to the chimney on the outside, without any scaffolding or other safety measures to prevent them from being injured in a fall.

Mohammed Yasin, of Larch Street, Nelson, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £400 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jacqueline Western, said:
“It’s astonishing that Mr Yasin was prepared to carry out a construction project that involved major roof work, without putting safety measures in place to protect the people he employed.

“While he worked safely inside the house, the lives of two men were being put at risk as they clambered about on the roof. The work simply shouldn’t have been allowed to go ahead without the use of scaffolding or other safety equipment.

“The risks from working at height are well known in the construction industry. It is therefore only luck that no one was injured on this occasion.”

Firm fined over worker’s severe burns

A County Durham firm has been sentenced after a worker suffered serious burns to his face, hand and arm when he was struck by a jet of hot molten plastic.
John Calcutt was helping clear solidified plastic from a large plastic injection moulding machine at Ebac Ltd, in Newton Aycliffe, when the incident happened on 9 September 2013.

The 47-year-old, from Spennymoor, was struck across the left side of his face and his left hand and arm by the hot liquid plastic as it was ejected from the machine causing serious burns.

He was airlifted to hospital and kept in for three days. He is still receiving treatment and physiotherapy but has returned to work at Ebac Ltd.

The HSE prosecuted Ebac Ltd at Darlington Magistrates’ Court for serious safety failings after an investigation into the incident.

The court heard that at the start of the day’s shift a blockage was identified at the machine’s injection unit, where the raw material is fed into the machine, melted and mixed before being pumped into the mould cavity.

Mr Calcutt and two colleagues attempted to clear the blockage. Their focus was on clearing the blockage to get the machine working.

Mr Calcutt had not received any training in relation to clearing blockages on the machine and none of those involved in the task were wearing any form of eye or face protection.

HSE found that Ebac Ltd had not carried out an assessment of the risks to employees while clearing blockages on the feed / injection system and did not ensure workers were using personal protective equipment as required.
Ebac Ltd, of Ketton Way, AycliffeIndustrial Park, Newton Aycliffe, was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay £770.10 in costs and £750 Victim Surcharge after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, said:

“This incident could have been easily prevented if Ebac Ltd had a safe system of work in place for dealing with blockages.

“The potential for ejection of hot molten plastic is highlighted in the industry’s own guidance and this was a foreseeable risk that should have been part of the risk assessment process for clearing blockages.

“The company should have also had monitoring in place to ensure that its employees were using the appropriate personal protective equipment that had been provided.

“Instead, the firm’s failures mean a worker has suffered serious injuries.”

 

Monday, 27 October 2014

Drinks firm Diageo sentenced after two workers injured

Drinks company Diageo Scotland Ltd has been fined for safety failings after two workers were injured in falls at separate plants in Moray.
Robert Edward, then 51, fell nearly four metres from a portable ladder while clearing a blockage inside a chute in a grain silo at Burghead Maltings in King Street, Burghead, on 1 January 2012.

He was found unconscious on the floor by another worker and taken to hospital with concussion, a cut to his head and a dislocated finger. He had restricted movement in his hand but has returned to work.

Two months later, on 16 March, at Glenlossie Dark Grains Plant in Thomshill, Elgin, Peter Douglas, then 43, was standing on the engine bonnet of a loader shovel to wash the roof when he slipped and fell more than two metres to the ground.

Mr Douglas was taken to hospital suffering from a bleed to the brain and a shattered bone in his left leg. His short term memory has been affected, however he has returned to full-time employment.

Elgin Sheriff Court heard that an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed that Diageo had failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the use of ladders in unsafe circumstances when clearing blockages at Burghead Maltings.

Diageo Scotland Ltd provided platform ladders for access but these were difficult to manoeuvre across the pipes and conveyors covering areas of the silo floor and to get them past the lights and ducting on the ceiling.

At the Glenlossie plant, HSE inspectors found that instructions on how to wash the shovel were passed down from one employee to the next during initial training to be a loader shovel operator. There was neither a risk assessment nor any written instructions for the cleaning of the machine as it was assumed by Diageo that this would be done solely from the ground.

Diageo Scotland Ltd, of Lochside Way, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh, was fined a total of £18,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for the Burghead incident, and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for the Glenlossie incident.

Following the case, HSE Principal Inspector Niall Miller, said:

“Both of these incidents, which could have proved fatal for the workers involved, could have been avoided had Diageo Scotland Ltd ensured its employees were adequately protected from the risks associated with their jobs.

“At Burghead Maltings, Diageo’s management was aware of the blockage issue; however they failed to identify that a safe method of working was not in place and that unsafe practices for clearing blockages had developed.

“At Glenlossie, a discussion with a loader shovel operator on how it was washed would have identified the dangers to employees. The risk assessment on the use of the loader shovel should also have considered the risks associated with its cleaning.

“In both cases Diageo had provided work at height training, which included risk assessment training, and believed their employees should be competent to plan and carry out work at height. However, it is not sufficient for health and safety instructions merely to be given to workers; employers must also ensure those instructions are carried out.”

Mental health service provider fined following patient fall

Mental health services provider North Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust (NEPUFT) has been fined for safety failings after a resident service user with a history of trying to abscond fell from the first floor window of a secure unit in Harlow.
The 18 year old, who does not wish to be named, suffered two fractures to her back and a dislocated right knee after falling a distance of three-and-a-half metres from her dormitory bedroom window at the Derwent Centre on Hamstel Road on 27 July 2013.

NEPUFT was prosecuted after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the fall.

Colchester Magistrates’ Court heard the incident could have been prevented had a window restrictor on her bedroom dormitory window been properly set to the requisite 100mm.

North Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust, of Stapleford House, Stapleford Close, Chelmsford, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £615 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Kim Tichias, said:

“The risks of vulnerable patients falling from windows are well known. There have been a number of similar accidents in recent years, including fatalities, and any windows that are accessible to vulnerable people should be restrained so that they cannot be opened far enough to allow people to fall out.

“This incident is all the more serious because it involves a member of the public who was in this environment specifically to ensure her safety and well-being.

“Furthermore, the Trust was aware of the risks but had not put adequate safety measures in place in a timely manner. A window restrictor, correctly set to allow a maximum opening of 100mm, would have prevented this incident and the serious injuries suffered.”

College in court over employee’s life-long injuries

Burnley College has been fined £20,000 after an employee was severely injured when he fell three metres while changing an air filter on an extraction system.
The sixth form and further education college was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found it had failed to ensure the work was carried out safely, despite specialising in teaching health and safety courses.

Preston Crown Court heard that the 63-year-old engineering technician from Burnley, who has asked not to be named, had needed to put his left foot on a cabinet and his right foot on the top rung of a stepladder to reach the filter.
As he did this, on 28 May 2013, the stepladder toppled from under him and he fell sideways, hitting a bench on his way down. His back was broken in several places and he also sustained a fractured breastbone.

The employee required morphine for 12 days to manage the pain, was off work for five and a half months, and is likely to need to take pain killers every day for the rest of his life. He can now only walk short distances and has had to give up hobbies such as fell walking and DIY, which he carried out for his 85-year-old mother.

The court was told the extraction system had been installed at short notice after the college secured a new contract to train nearly 300 employees from the aerospace industry on working with sheets of carbon fibre.

The unit was needed to remove the carbon fibre dust generated by drilling and other processes but it was installed above a narrow gap between a cabinet and a fixed workbench. This meant the employee was unable to use the college’s mobile elevated work platform to reach the filter, which needed to be changed regularly.

The HSE investigation found his supervisor had witnessed him removing the filter in exactly the same way just over a week earlier, but had failed to take any action to ensure the work was carried out safely in future.

The college had not given the employee any training on working at height, and had failed to produce a single risk assessment on work at height activities since moving to a new building in 2009.

Burnley College, of Princess Way in Burnley, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £7,600 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Rose Leese-Weller said:

“It’s astonishing that Burnley College failed to ensure basic health and safety systems were in place when it employs lecturers who specialise in this area.
“Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of safety while working at height would have known straddling a cabinet and the top rung of a stepladder was dangerous, but this practice was allowed to continue by the college.

“The extraction system was installed quickly and without thought for the employees who would need to change the filters. The technician therefore had no choice but to reach them in this way.

“If the college had carried out a proper risk assessment in advance then the unit could have been installed in an area where it could be reached by the mobile elevated work platform, without an employee’s life being put in danger.”

Employer sentenced after worker crushed to death

A employer has been fined for safety failings which led to a worker being killed after he was thrown from a forklift truck and crushed. 
David Westwater, 22, of Denny, had only been working for Basil Pinkney, in his small scaffold refurbishment business in Coatbridge, for two weeks before the incident happened on 28 August 2012. 

Airdrie Sheriff Court heard that Mr Westwater was driving an unladen forklift truck down a sloping access way to the front gate to see his girlfriend when she arrived to pick him up at the end of his shift. 

He made a sharp left hand turn, causing the vehicle to tip over. Mr Westwater, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was thrown to the ground and the vehicle’s protective cage fell onto his head trapping him beneath it. 

Alerted by the screams of his girlfriend, a colleague rushed to use another forklift truck to raise the vehicle to free Mr Westwater. He had suffered multiple head injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics. 

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed Mr Pinkney had failed to provide a safe system of work at the site, in that he failed to have in place a system to ensure that only suitably trained employees drove forklift trucks. 

Mr Westwater had not received any formal training on driving forklift trucks. He had been given about 20 minutes’ in-house training but this fell far short of the standard required by HSE. He had not been given adequate training in relation to the requirement to wear a seatbelt or in relation to the hazards involved in carrying out sharp turning manoeuvres. 

The court was told that during a site visit several years earlier, a HSE inspector had seen a forklift truck driven by a non-qualified driver and Mr Pinkney, who trades as B D Pinkney & Co,  was told to ensure that only those properly trained to drive the vehicle should use it. Despite this, at the time of the incident some employees who were required to drive the forklift trucks, had not undergone any external training. 

Basil ‘Bill’ Pinkney, 69, t/a B D Pinkney & Co, Unit 4, Northburn Road, Coatbridge, was fined £24,500 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  

Following the case, HSE Acting Head of Operations Barry Baker, said: “The tragic death of Mr Westwater could easily have been prevented. Basil Pinkney had previously been told to ensure that only employees who had been properly trained should drive his forklift trucks. On the date of the incident there were three trained forklift drivers on site so there was no need for Mr Westwater to even be on a forklift.
  
“Every year there are serious and sometimes fatal incidents involving forklift trucks. It was entirely foreseeable that there was a risk of death or serious injury in allowing an inexperienced and untrained driver to operate a forklift truck.
  
“Mr Westwater should not have been allowed to operate any of the forklift trucks on site until he had been properly trained to do so.” 

Firm sentenced following worker’s death in explosion

A horticultural company has been fined after a worker died and three others were seriously injured in an explosion while emptying a pressurised tank used to heat greenhouses.
Peter James, aged 67 of Southmead Terrace, Crewkerne, died of head injuries six days after the incident. Two of his workmates had been asked to open the tank in preparation for upgrading work at a nursery at Bradon Farm, Isle Abbots, near Taunton on 11 May 2010.
 
The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Mr James’ employer, Cantelo Nurseries Ltd, at Taunton Crown Court.
 
The court heard that two workers were asked to unbolt a hatch cover from a pressure vessel while there was still pressure in the system. This caused a devastating release of pressure that sent the hatch cover flying across the room followed by a large jet of water that swept everyone off their feet. 
 
 In addition to Mr James’s fatal injuries, the three other men standing nearby suffered severe injuries.

Arek Kuchczynski, aged 29, was unconscious for two weeks following the incident and remained in hospital for many months after suffering injuries to his head and skull, and damage to his forearm, requiring three operations and a skin graft.

Roger Mees, a 43 year old horticultural manager, suffered serious trauma to his head including a broken jaw, heavy bruising to his face, damage to his teeth, a cut across the nose, black eyes and a two-inch deep cut to his lip. Horticultural technician Radoslau Dimitov, aged 25, also suffered a fractured arm.

HSE’s investigation found that the work was not properly planned, that workers had not been properly trained or supervised, and that at least one of them spoke very little English, which made it difficult to understand instructions.
The court was told the hatch should not have been removed until all the pressure had been safely released from the system.
 
Cantelo Nurseries Ltd, of Bradon Farm, Isle Abbotts, Taunton, pleaded guilty to two breaches of health and safety legislation and was fined a total of £80,000 and ordered to pay £59,812 in costs.
 
HSE Inspector Christine Haberfield, speaking after the hearing, said:
 
“This tragic incident has cost one man his life and changed the lives of many other people forever. There were simple, sensible and proportionate steps, such as releasing the pressure in the tanks, that could – and should – have been taken to do the work safely.

“All that was needed was a little thought beforehand to ensure that the work was properly planned, carried out by competent people and supervised. Had this been done, this tragedy could have been avoided.

“All employers must ensure any task of this nature, indeed any maintenance or repair task, is properly planned and considered to ensure that sensible precautions can be taken. That includes ensuring all sources of energy are isolated before work begins.”


Worker ‘lucky to be alive’ after cutting through mains cable

A labourer from Liverpool could have been killed when he cut through a mains electricity cable, a court has heard.
The 22-year-old from Prescott had been told the electricity supply had been disconnected but was thrown across a basement when his angle grinder made contact with the live wires.

Construction firm Vermont Capitol Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at a building site on Shaw Street on 2 August 2013.

Liverpool Magistrates’ Court heard that the company was clearing the site before building a block of around 60 student flats at the end of a row of Grade-II-listed Regency terraced houses, dating from the 1830s.

The end terrace had been partially demolished after becoming structurally unsound, leaving just the façade and basement on the building site.

The court was told the worker had been asked to remove old pipes and cables from the cellar but Vermont Capitol had failed to ensure the mains supply into the building had been disconnected, despite informing the site manager that it had.

There was a flash as the labourer cut into the cable and he suffered injuries to his elbow and shoulder after being thrown across the room. His protective clothing prevented him from suffering burns or being more badly injured.

Vermont Capitol Ltd, of Argyle Street in Liverpool, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £980 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by failing to identify the live mains cable.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Chris Hatton said:

“This young worker is extremely lucky to be alive after suffering an electric shock from a mains cable likely to be carrying at least 240 volts of power.

“The team on the site had been told all of the utilities entering the site had been disconnected and so the worker had no way of knowing he was actually cutting into a live electricity cable.

“It’s vital that developers take the risks seriously from gas pipes and electricity cables and get written confirmation that supplies have been disconnected before starting work. Otherwise lives will continue to be put at risk.”

Scrap metal firm fined over lead poisoning

A Darwen-based scrap metal firm has been fined for health and safety failings after workers suffered from lead poisoning.
One 48-year-old man from Darwen, who has asked not to be named, was admitted to hospital after blood tests revealed he had seven times the normal amount of lead in his body, putting him at risk of nerve, brain and kidney damage, and infertility.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found employees had been regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust for a number of months.

Preston Crown Court heard on 20th October 2014, that the firm had been contracted to dismantle metal structures and machinery by a lead battery manufacturer in 2009.

This involved work at the battery factory in Over Hulton as well as at Frank Barnes’ own site at Albert and Hope Mills on Cross Street in Darwen.
The owners of the battery firm provided an induction on working with lead, and regularly monitored each employee for exposure.

On 24 November 2009, the 48-year-old employee was found to have high levels of lead in his blood and was suspended from working with lead at the battery factory, as is required by law.

Frank Barnes was also told the employee should not work with lead materials at the Cross Street site, but this advice was ignored. The warning was repeated in January 2010 when another blood test revealed the lead levels in his blood were still high but, again, this was ignored.

HSE was alerted in early February by the GP of another employee whose blood also had high levels of lead.  A HSE medical inspector made it clear to the firm that any workers with high blood readings should be taken off that type of work until their levels had reduced.

Despite this, again no action was taken and employees continued to be exposed to lead fumes and dust, leading to the 48-year-old employee being admitted to hospital later that month.

When HSE visited the site in March 2010 they found two other workers, who should have been suspended from lead work, had been allowed to continue working with lead-containing materials and had not been given suitable protective equipment.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £29,639.65 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Michael Mullen said: “This is one of the worst cases I have dealt with as an inspector. Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd consistently failed to respond to clear advice concerning employees with high levels of lead in their blood and these employees continued to be exposed to lead fumes.

“Workers were not warned about the risks they faced, nor given suitable protective masks or clothing.

“The scrap metal company had a duty to adequately assess and manage the risk of exposure of its employees to lead. However there was no assessment and no effective controls in place in relation to the work.

“This case should act as a clear warning to others who fail to heed health and safety laws that they could find themselves in court.”

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

HSE Myth Buster - Hot drinks not to be taken through the gate when boarding aircraft

Issue

Tannoy system announced that hot drinks could not be taken through the gate when boarding aircraft due to H&S regulations.

Panel decision

Occupational health and safety law does not prohibit passengers from carrying hot drinks past the boarding gate. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) enforced legislation also does not prohibit this practice. There may be a number of sensible reasons why either an airport operator or aircraft operator decide not to allow passengers to carry hot liquids past the boarding gate. It would have been helpful had the announcement explained this rather than simply using ‘health and safety’ as the catch all reason.

Firm sentenced after worker’s leg injured by chainsaw

An East Kilbride firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker was injured when a chainsaw hit him on the leg as he slipped while felling trees.  
Hugh Dorricot, then aged 26, was not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and was not adequately trained to use a chainsaw when the incident took place at Gartsherrie Burn, near Gartsherrie Road, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, on 9 March 2010.

Airdrie Sheriff Court was told that Mr Dorricott was working for Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd to clear vegetation and trees from an embankment beside Gartsherrie Burn, which sloped at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. As he began to fell one of the trees, Mr Dorricott felt the ground move away from beneath his feet causing him to fall backwards and start sliding down the embankment. As he fell, the moving chainsaw cut through his trousers and into his lower left leg.

He was taken to hospital with a deep cut near his knee and underwent an operation to repair the wound. He has since recovered and returned to work.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that a risk assessment produced by Enviroclean for using a chainsaw stated that all employees must be properly instructed, trained and supervised, and that personal protective equipment, including chainmail leggings, must be worn.
However, HSE Inspectors discovered that at the time of the incident no employees of the company were certified as competent to use a chainsaw, and that Mr Dorricott was not wearing adequate personal protective equipment. In addition, he was not made aware of the risks involved in carrying out the job.

Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd, of Hawbank Road, East Kilbride, was fined £7,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE Inspector Jennie Stafford, said:

“Hand-held chainsaws are dangerous machines which must be handled with the greatest care. That is why it is a legal requirement to ensure that users are adequately trained by a competent person.

“It is clear this incident could have been avoided had Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd taken reasonably practicable steps – ensuring that only trained and competent users were allowed to operate the chainsaw; discussing the risk assessment with workers, clarifying the system of work and enforcing the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment.

“However, the company failed to do this and instead, Mr Dorricott suffered a painful injury.”

 

Tuesday, 7 October 2014

Derbyshire school fined after grandmother falls from stairs

A school has been prosecuted for safety failings after a pupil’s grandmother fell off the side of an unguarded staircase.
Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court heard 68-year-old Christine Bywater had been at Repton School watching her grandson play football.

She had gone to the pavilion for refreshments with the rest of her family but on leaving the building by the outside steps, she lost her balance when she moved from a wooden staircase to a stone one.

Mrs Bywater, of Shrewsbury, fell over the parapet on the stone staircase to the ground some two metres below and fractured three bones in her neck. She also broke the index finger on her right hand and lacerated her scalp in the incident on 30 November 2013. She is still recovering.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found there were handrails fitted to the wooden stairs leading from the pavilion to the stone staircase while the stone staircase had a 40 centimetre-high parapet running along the edge of the stairs but no handrail.

Repton School, of Repton, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1), contrary to Regulation 12(5), of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £534 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Edward Walker said:

“This was a foreseeable incident which could easily have been avoided had reasonable measures, such as the fitting of guard rails, been taken.

“Published guidance exists regarding appropriate edge protection and dimensions for handrails which the school could have used to identify the appropriate standard.

“The school has since fitted wooden rails to the previously unguarded edge, but it should have done this before someone suffered a painful injury.”

Firm prosecuted after worker loses fingertip in unguarded drill

A West Midlands fabrications company has been fined after an employee lost the tip of his finger in an unguarded drill.
Black Country Magistrates’ Court heard the 32-year-old man, from Dudley, was drilling holes into metal components at H&H Alloy Sales Ltd when the incident happened on 18 December 2013.

As he pushed a piece of metal which was not moving properly, his hand shot across it and his middle finger became caught on the drill bit. His glove became entangled so he was unable to pull it out.

He had to have the tip of his middle finger amputated and was off work for three months. However, when he returned in March this year, he suffered considerable discomfort and surgeons decided to amputate the finger further, to the first joint. He only went back to the factory three weeks ago.

An HSE investigation found the company had a documented safe system of work for the drill which stated that as part of the preparations for work, the guard should be placed in position and then checked by the operator to make sure it is correct. However, the guard had been removed at some point previously and never replaced. It was subsequently re-fitted after being found in a box.

H&H Alloy Sales Ltd, of Titford Lane, Rowley Regis, was yesterday (2 Oct) fined £13,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,391 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Judith Lloyd said:

“The incident was entirely preventable. The underlying cause was that it was custom and practice to use the drill without a guard in place. Instruction for employees was lacking and there was no system in place to check that guards were being used correctly, despite having a written procedure.

“It was reasonably practicable to guard the drill and it had in fact been guarded in the past. Wearing gloves without an appropriate guard significantly increased the risk of entanglement, something the company had been provided with advice on during a previous inspection.

“Following the incident the job was completed on a programmable automatic drilling machine which begs the question, why didn’t the company use this method from the start? If it had, a man would have been spared a painful injury.”

Firm in court over worker’s drill injury

 
A manufacturer has been fined for safety failings after a worker’s hand became entangled around a factory drill.

Stormguard Ltd, which produces a range of drainage products, was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation found it had ignored warnings by its own health and safety officer about how the machine was being used.

Macclesfield Magistrates’ Court heard the 36-year-old worker from Macclesfield, who has asked not to be named, had only been working at the Chester Road factory for a couple of weeks when the incident happened on 16 October 2012.
He was using the drill to produce metal sills, used to deflect rainwater from the bottom of doors, when the glove on his right hand became caught, pulling his hand around the rotating drill bit.

The third finger on his right hand was dislocated and fractured, and his little finger was also fractured.

The HSE investigation found that the guard on the drill was inadequate and that it had become common practice for workers to wear gloves while using the drill, despite the risk of gloves becoming entangled being well known in the manufacturing industry.

The court was told that Stormguard’s own health and safety officer had identified inadequate guarding on the drill in a written report over a year before the incident. He also raised the issue of workers wearing gloves while using drills. However, no action was taken to tackle these issues.

Stormguard Ltd, of Chestergate in Macclesfield, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £4,377 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Deborah Walker said:

“There was simply no need for this incident to have happened, especially as Stormguard’s own health and safety officer had raised the issue with the company.

“The employee was lucky to escape with relatively minor injuries, but they could easily have been much worse. Workers at the factory were regularly using the drill without an adequate guard and while wearing gloves so there was a high risk that someone would be injured.

“There’s absolutely no point in manufacturers hiring health and safety officers if they’re not going to listen to their advice. Risk assessments should be acted on – not put on a shelf to gather dust.”

Gas fitter sentenced after illegally removing boiler

A Suffolk-based self-employed builder has been given a prison sentence and community service after leaving a householder in danger when he left a gas supply pipe open and uncapped after illegally removing a boiler as part of a central heating installation project.
An investigation by the HSE into the incident on 11 October 2012 found that Keith Vickerstaff was not Gas Safe registered and was not qualified to carry out any works involving the removal or installation of gas appliances.

It was discovered that Mr Vickerstaff had been reported to Gas Safe’s predecessor, CORGI, in 2007 for a similar offence of carrying out unregistered gas work.

Ipswich Crown Court heard that Mr Vickerstaff removed a gas boiler and left an open ended, uncapped, gas supply pipe. It was later classed as ‘immediately dangerous’ by a Gas Safe investigator, who checked the work after Mr Vickerstaff abandoned the job, despite taking a considerable deposit for installing full central heating.

Keith Vickerstaff, 49, of Wainwright Way, Kesgrave, Ipswich was given a six months prison sentence suspended for 18 months and 180 hours of unpaid community work after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 3(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the case, HSE Inspector Anthony Brookes, said:

“It is sheer luck that nobody was injured as a result of Mr Vickerstaff’s shoddy and illegal work. His actions endangered householders and their neighbours and put them at serious risk of injury and even potentially death.

“He took money for work that he was not competent to do and left the occupants of the house thousands of pounds out of pocket and with an extremely dangerous gas supply that could have caused a fire or explosion at any time.”

Safer sites – targeted inspection initiative September 2014

Health as well as safety’ is the message during this year’s Construction Initiative as poor standards and unsafe practices on Britain’s building sites are targeted during a nationwide drive aimed at reducing ill health, death and injury in the industry.

From 22 September until 17 October, HSE Construction Inspectors will carry out unannounced visits to sites where refurbishment projects or repair works are underway.

This is the ninth annual Initiative and building on previous campaigns, HSE Inspectors will ensure high-risk activities particularly those affecting the health of workers, are being properly managed.

What the initiative does

The main aims of the initiative are:
  • to achieve an improvement in industry standards, in particular at small sites
  • to increase awareness of HSE’s expectations of the industry
  • to demonstrate that HSE will use the enforcement tools at its disposal to prevent immediate risk and bring about sustained improvements

What inspectors look for

During inspections, HSE inspectors will consider whether:
  • risks to health from exposure to dust such as silica are being controlled
  • workers are aware of where they may find asbestos, and what to do if they find it
  • other health risks, such as exposure to noise and vibration, manual handling, hazardous substances are being properly managed
  • jobs that involve working at height have been identified and properly planned to ensure that appropriate precautions, such as proper support of structures, are in place
  • equipment is correctly installed / assembled, inspected and maintained and used properly
  • sites are well organised, to avoid trips and falls, walkways and stairs are free from obstructions and welfare facilities are adequate
HSE uses the inspection initiatives to reinforce its message to the construction industry that poor standards are unacceptable and liable to result in HSE taking enforcement action