Prosecutions | Ashbrooke Management Consultants

12 October 202412 October 2024

Explosion prosecution

An explosion prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has highlighted the risks associated with handling solvents and the DSEAR rules. A solvents manufacturer has been fined following an explosion at its factory in the Scottish Borders.

The blast at Rathburn Chemicals in Walkerburn on 10 January 2020 resulted in a laboratory, which was part of the factory, being demolished.

It was likely caused by excessive pentane vapour, generated by the company’s distillation process, overheating and being ignited by the site’s extraction system causing an explosion. Fortunately, no one was injured by the explosion.

A HSE investigation found Rathburn Chemicals had an inadequate system in place which failed to control the amount of steam and heat being generated during its distillation process. The company also failed to adequately detect any signs of overheating which could lead to flammable vapour being ignited.

The HSE has published guidance on how to eliminate or reduce the risk of explosion in such circumstances which is available free on their website – The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 – Fire and explosion.

Rathburn Chemicals (Manufacturing) Limited, of Caberston Road, Walkerburn, Peeblesshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and Section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £3,000 at Lothian and Borders Sheriff Court on 20 September 2024.

HSE inspector Isabelle Martin said:

“This was a serious incident and it is fortunate that no one was injured by the blast. The explosion could have been avoided had Rathburn Chemicals simply carried out the correct control measures and safe working practices.

“This case also highlights the risks from distilling flammable substances, the need for reliable control measures and adequate training of employees. Companies looking for further advice on this issue can find readily available guidance on the HSE website.”

What is DSEAR and how to prevent an explosion?

DSEAR stands for the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002.

Dangerous substances can put peoples’ safety at risk from fire, explosion and corrosion of metal. DSEAR puts duties on employers and the self-employed to protect people from these risks to their safety in the workplace, and to members of the public who may be put at risk by work activity.

What are dangerous substances?

Dangerous substances are any substances used or present at work that could, if not properly controlled, cause harm to people as a result of a fire or explosion or corrosion of metal. They can be found in nearly all workplaces and include such things as solvents, paints, varnishes, flammable gases, such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), dusts from machining and sanding operations, dusts from foodstuffs, pressurised gases and substances corrosive to metal.

What does DSEAR require?

All employers must:

find out what dangerous substances are in their workplace and what the risks are associated with them
put control measures in place to either remove those risks or, where this is not possible, control them
put controls in place to reduce the effects of any incidents involving dangerous substances
prepare plans and procedures to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies involving dangerous substances
make sure employees are properly informed about and trained to control or deal with the risks from the dangerous substances
identify and classify areas of the workplace where explosive atmospheres may occur and avoid ignition sources (from unprotected equipment, for example) in those areas.

If you require health and safety advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

21 September 202421 September 2024

Dangerous machinery leads to fine

A North London food manufacturer has been fined £150,000 for failing to prevent access to dangerous machinery.

The failings came to light following a routine inspection by Britain’s workplace regulator – the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in October 2023.

During the visit to Wembley-based Oriental Delight (UK) Limited, the HSE inspector identified multiple failings related to the guarding of machinery. Three machines were deemed unsafe due to interlocking safety devices being defeated and guards being completely removed.

However, it was not the first time the food company had come onto HSE’s radar, with prohibition notices being issued in both 2016 and 2019.

Identical dangerous machinery failings were again found at the inspection in October 2023, demonstrating that the company had not only failed to sustain improvements, but had effectively ignored the HSE’s previous enforcement action by continuing to use these machines in an unsafe manner.

On 4 September 2024, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Oriental Delight (UK) Limited pleaded guilty to three breaches of Regulation 11(1) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,020.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Marcus Pope said:

“This case sends out a clear message to the food manufacturing industry that HSE will not hesitate to prosecute when inspectors find serious health and safety failings, particularly when previous enforcement and advice has been provided. Once again, we see how critical it is that all employers make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Dangerous machinery regulation

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment aimed at preventing dangerous machinery. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:

suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses

Some work equipment is subject to other health and safety legislation in addition to PUWER. For example, lifting equipment must also meet the requirements of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 and personal protective equipment must meet the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).

If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment and ensure no dangerous machinery is used. This means you must:

ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous machinery before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety

When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008). You must check it:

has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

10 September 202410 September 2024

Landlord ignored gas safety duties

A landlord ignored gas safety duties and was given a suspended sentence of 26 weeks and electronically tagged for 4 months after putting the lives of her tenants at risk by not maintaining gas appliances at a property in Kent.

Dawn Holliday, 62, refused to undertake gas safety checks even after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) took enforcement action against her.

Ms Holiday claimed to have no money for undertaking maintenance to the property, leaving the tenants with a very temperamental boiler that banged and often left the occupiers with no heating or hot water, as well as a condemned cooker for several years. However, an HSE investigation found that Ms Holliday was receiving full rent from the tenant for the property on First Avenue in Eastchurch, when the enforcement action was taken.

Despite the Improvement Notice served on Ms Holliday to undertake gas safety checks, she ignored this and further requests from HSE. She also claimed the tenants had moved out and had not been paying rent, the investigation found this claim to be completely untrue.

On the 2nd September 2024 at Sevenoaks Magistrates Court, Dawn Holliday, of Golden Leas Holiday Park, Plough Road, Minster on Sea, pleaded guilty to three charges under Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Section 21 and Gas Safety (Installation & Use) 1998 36(2) and 36(3) and was sentenced to imprisonment of 26 weeks, suspended for a period of 12 months, District Judge Leake also imposed an electronically monitored curfew on Ms Holliday at her address for a period of 4 months with the curfew hours of 20:00-06:00 and awarded HSE £750 in costs. Additionally, the Judge made a remediation order pursuant to section 42 of the 1974 Act, for Ms Holliday to undertake the gas safety inspection required of her by the 6th December 2024 thereby complying with her gas safety duties.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Joanne Williams said:

“We are dedicated to ensuring that landlords operate within the law and provide safe accommodation for tenants. We do not tolerate disregard for health and safety and consider the non-compliance of HSE enforcement notices as a serious offence. In this case Ms Holliday chose to flagrantly ignore the support, guidance and warnings from HSE to assist her in compliance with the law and continued placing her tenants at serious risk of injury or even death. Wherever possible we will continue to work with landlords to improve health and safety. However, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action where necessary and prosecute individuals who ignore warnings and the law.”

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 imposes gas safety duties on dutyholders to ensure that gas installations and appliances are installed safely and are maintained and inspected. Dutyholders can include employers as well as landlords or others in control of premises.

If you require health and safety advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

2 September 20242 September 2024

Farms are not playgrounds

A recent prosecution case highlights the dangers for children in agricultural environments and that farms are not playgrounds. In the case, video footage taken by a neighbour captured the moment a farmer allowed one of his grandchildren to illegally ride in his tractor and ultimately led to his conviction.

Howard Walters, 78, was given a 12-month community order after he was spotted with the child in the tractor cab as he fed cattle on his farm in South Wales.

Walters had already been issued with a prohibition notice by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in November 2020 after admitting to inspectors he allowed his pre-teen grandchildren to ride in his tractor. However, just two months later, he was filmed by his neighbour flagrantly breaching the terms of that notice.

A HSE inspector who investigated Mr Walters says the law is “very clear”. Children under 13 are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on or in any agricultural machine, including the tractor cab.

At the time of committing the offence, Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, was already the subject of a suspended prison sentence for unrelated environmental offences. In a case that was heard on 27 August 2024 at Swansea Crown Court, he was fined £500 for breaching the terms of that sentence. As part of his community order, Walters must attend 25 days of rehabilitation.

Agriculture remains one of the most dangerous industries in Britain, with on average around 29 people killed each year. Being killed by vehicles remains the most significant cause of work related fatality over the last five years.

Unfortunately, children are among those deaths with it often being the case that they are family members, with many killed by farm vehicles. Guidance is available for farmers on how to prevent accidents to children on farms.

Howard Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, pleaded guilty to breaching section 33(1)(g) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was given a 12 month community order and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.

HSE inspector Simon Breen said:

“The law around children being allowed in the cabs of any agricultural vehicle is very clear. For any child to ride on agricultural machinery like a tractor is unsafe and illegal. The fact this farmer chose to ignore a prohibition notice for putting his grandchildren at risk is all the more staggering. We will take action against those who break the law. The solution is very simple – young children should never ride in agricultural vehicles.”

The HSE has published detailed guidance about child safety on farms and in agriculture which is available on its website.

How farmers can keep children safe on farms

Children must not be allowed in the farm workplace (young children should enjoy outdoor space in a secure fenced area).

Any access to the farm workplace by children under 16, for example for education, or knowledge / experience, must be planned and fully supervised by an adult not engaged in any work activity.

Children under the age of 13 years are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on any agricultural machine. It is illegal.

Properly trained, instructed, and supervised older children may, in tightly controlled circumstances, be able to help with some straightforward low risk tasks.

If you require health and safety advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

23 August 202423 August 2024

Employee looses legs in accident

A company has been fined £160,000 after an employee looses legs in accident whilst working at its site near Warrington.

On 20 June 2022, Andrew McAuley, from Runcorn, an employee of William Stobart & Son Limited was picking orders at the firm’s warehouse in Appleton Thorn.

The 64-year-old was working in close proximity to a forklift truck (FLT) which was being used to load pallets of slate tiles onto a waiting truck. The FLT was carrying two pallets, one on top of the other. The top pallet was not secured to the one below, and when the driver turned the vehicle, both pallets became detached from the forks, with the upper pallet striking Mr McAuley, crushing his legs.

Mr McAuley had to have both legs amputated below the knee. He has been left dependent upon a wheelchair and unable to drive or climb stairs, leading to the need for extensive adaptations to the family home.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that William Stobart & Son Limited failed to ensure this area of the warehouse was organised so that vehicles and pedestrians were segregated and circulated in a safe manner and loads were secured so far as was reasonably practicable.

William Stobart & Son Limited, of Ashville Way Industrial Estate, Sutton Weaver, Runcorn, Cheshire pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay £4,478 costs at a hearing at Warrington Magistrates Court on 30 July 2024.

Accident preventable

After the hearing HSE Inspector Lorna Sherlock said:

“Mr McAuley has been left with devastating and life changing injuries. The company failed to implement a safe system of work for loading and unloading activities, thereby exposing employees, and others, to the risk of being struck by loads or workplace vehicles. This case illustrates the consequences of failing to segregate vehicles and pedestrians, and to properly secure loads. This injury could easily have been prevented. Employers should make sure they assess work activities sufficiently and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from workplace transport.”

Employee transport safety

Employers who operate depots must ensure that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken covering the transport risks. When considering the risks from vehicle manoeuvring, employers must ensure that vehicles have large enough windscreens (with wipers where necessary) and external mirrors to provide an all-round field of vision. It is often worthwhile adding extra mirrors to reduce blind spots for drivers. Side mirrors can allow drivers of larger vehicles to see cyclists and pedestrians alongside their vehicles and can be effective in improving visibility around the vehicle from the driving position. These mirrors are fitted to larger road-going vehicles as standard.

Drivers should not place items in the windscreen area or in the way of mirrors or monitors, where they might impede visibility from the driving position. The area of the windscreen that is kept clear by the wipers should not be obscured, and nor should the side windows. Windows and mirrors will also normally need to be kept clean and in good repair. Dirt or cracks can make windows or mirrors less effective.

Some types of vehicles (such as straddle carriers, large shovel loaders and some large quarry vehicles) often have poor visibility from the cab. Visibility can be poor to the side or front of a vehicle as well as behind and loads on vehicles can severely limit the visibility from the driving position.

Lift trucks and compact dumper vehicles in particular can have difficulty with forward visibility when they are transporting bulky loads. Employers should recognise these risks in their risk assessment and think about ways to minimise them.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) may help drivers to see clearly behind or around the vehicle. CCTV can cover most blind spots and the cost of fitting CCTV systems has fallen since the technology was first developed. Companies who have fitted CCTV have found that it can reduce the number of reversing accidents, so the systems usually pay for themselves in a few years.

Colour systems can provide a clearer image where there is little contrast (for example, outside on an overcast day). However, black-and-white systems normally provide a better image in lower light or darkness, and usually come with infra-red, which can be more effective than standard cameras at night.

Monitors should have adjustable contrast, brightness and resolution controls to make them useful in the different light conditions in which they will be used. Drivers may need to use a hood to shield any monitor from glare.

If possible, fit the camera for a CCTV system high up in the middle of the vehicle’s rear (one camera), or in the upper corners (two cameras). This will provide a greater field of vision and a better angle for the driver to judge distance and provide. It also keeps the camera clear of dust and spray, and out of the reach of thieves or vandals.

However, CCTV systems do have some limitations which employers should consider:

If the vehicle leaves a darker area to a more strongly lit area (for example, driving out of a building) the system may need time to adjust to the brightness.
A dirty lens will make a camera much less effective.
Drivers may find it difficult to judge heights and distances.

Drivers should not be complacent about safety even with CCTV systems installed. They should be trained in proper use of the equipment and employers have a duty to provide such training and instruction.

Reversing alarms may be drowned out by other noise or may be so common on a busy site that pedestrians do not take any notice. It can also be hard to know exactly where an alarm is coming from, and people who are less able to hear are also at greater risk. Alarms can also disturb nearby residents. However, reversing alarms may be appropriate (based on the risk assessment) but might be most effectively used with other measures, such as warning lights.

Additional advice on transport safety can be found in the HSE Guide to workplace transport safety (HSG 136, 2014) which is available free on the website.

If you require health and safety advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

6 August 202410 August 2024

Big fines for water firms

Big fines for water firms as Ofwat imposed penalties of £168 million in relation to failure to manage waste water at three companies.

Ofwat has today (6 August 2024) proposed that three water companies will be fined a total of £168m for failing to manage their wastewater treatment works and networks, as part of the first batch of outcomes from its biggest ever investigation.

Water companies fined

The penalties proposed for consultation will see Thames Water fined £104m, Yorkshire Water fined £47m and Northumbrian Water fined £17m.

The penalties relate to their management of wastewater treatment works and wider sewer networks including their operation of storm overflows. These are designed to release water in exceptional circumstances, when the sewerage system is at risk of being overwhelmed, such as during unusually heavy downpours or snowfall, to prevent sewage flooding into people’s homes.

Big fines for water firms’ failures

Ofwat has found that all three firms have:

Failed to ensure that discharges of untreated wastewater from storm overflows occur only in exceptional circumstances which has resulted in harm to the environment and their customers.
Shown a strong correlation between high spill levels and operational issues at wastewater treatment sites which points to these companies not having properly operated and maintained their wastewater treatment works.
Failed to upgrade assets, where necessary, to ensure they meet the changing needs of the local area they serve.
Been slow to understand the scope of their obligations relating to limiting pollution from storm overflows and failed to ensure that they had in place the necessary information, processes and oversight to enable them to properly comply with those requirements.

However, the scale of the breaches Ofwat has found, differs between each of the wastewater companies. Investigations by the regulator found that:

Thames Water had 67% of its wastewater treatment works with FFT permits found to have capacity and operational issues. 16% of its storm overflows associated with its wastewater treatment works were found to be in breach.
Yorkshire Water had 16% of its wastewater treatment works with FFT permits found to have capacity or operational problems. 45% of its storm overflows associated with its wastewater treatment works were found to be in breach.
Northumbrian Water had 3% of its wastewater treatment works with FFT permits found to have capacity or operational problems. 9% of its storm overflows associated with its wastewater treatment works were found to be in breach.

Therefore, in addition to the proposed big fines for water firms, Ofwat is also consulting on proposed enforcement orders which will require each company to rectify the problems Ofwat has identified to ensure they comply with their legal and regulatory obligations.

Companies will not be able to recover the money for any proposed penalties from customers and Ofwat will ensure that customers are not charged twice where additional maintenance is required.

Ofwat’s Chief Executive David Black said:

Ofwat has uncovered a catalogue of failure by Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water in how they ran their sewage works and this resulted in excessive spills from storm overflows. Our investigation has shown how they routinely released sewage into our rivers and seas, rather than ensuring that this only happens in exceptional circumstances as the law intends.

The level of penalties we intend to impose signals both the severity of the failings and our determination to take action to ensure water companies do more to deliver cleaner rivers and seas.

These companies need to move at pace to put things right and meet their obligations to protect customers and the environment. They also need to transform how they look after the environment and to focus on doing better in the future.

Looking to the future we want transform companies’ performance under our new price control that starts in April next year, so we reduce spills from sewage overflows by 44 per cent by 2030 compared to 2021 levels.

These proposed findings are the first three cases Ofwat has open in its wider investigation to reach this stage. This investigation is a priority for Ofwat, and it will continue to work as quickly as possible on the eight further cases.

Enforcement notices have been issued to the three water companies fined:

Ofwat can impose big fines on water firms, the value of which can be up to 10% of relevant turnover. For each company, the fines applied in this investigation equates to (i) Thames Water – 9% of turnover, (ii) Yorkshire Water – 7% of turnover, and (iii) Northumbrian Water – 5% of turnover.

The big fines for water firms were issued under Section 22A Water Industry Act 1991 provides details of how financial penalties are calculated and imposed with accompanying guidance.

These penalties are separate to the commitments that have been set out as part of PR24 draft determinations for all wastewater companies which will see £9.5bn overall enhancement expenditure for storm overflow improvements to meet their new performance commitment targets.

Big fines for water firms are likely to continue when the sector is facing unprecedented challenges, with climate change, population growth, urbanisation, and emerging pollutants all putting pressure on the environment across England and Wales. To help address these challenges, a new Evidence and Performance team has been created within Ofwat to enhance Ofwat’s environmental assessment and monitoring capabilities.

If you require advice on environmental protection, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

6 August 20246 August 2024

Recycling company fined £3 million

Recycling company fined £3 million after a man died and another was seriously injured while decommissioning a North Sea gas rig.

Stephen Picken, 62, and Mark Kumar were working for Veolia ES (UK) Limited at an onshore facility in Great Yarmouth.

Both men were working as demolition operatives also known as “Top Men”, undertaking the decommissioning and dismantlement of offshore structures.

Recycling Activity

On 17 October 2019, the two workers were removing an overhanging piece of metal pipework (known as a skirt pile), weighing in excess of 27 tonnes, from a jacket (a structure placed in the sea, designed to support oil and gas rig platforms), when it gave way. The pile struck the mobile elevating work platform (MEWP) containing the men, throwing them to the ground about 12 metres below.

Stephen Picken died at the scene and Mark Kumar suffered serious life-changing injuries.

Investigation

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious failings with the planning and the risk assessment which did not adequately cover the planned works. Shortcomings in supervision of the incident were also identified. The company did not risk assess the skirt pile being removed as it was considered low risk. As a result, there was no cutting plan or safe system of work for the skirt pile.

Demolition, dismantling and structural alteration work must be carefully planned and carried out – HSE has guidance on this which is available free here.

Recycling company fined £3 million

Veolia ES (UK) Limited of Pentonville Road, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At a sentencing hearing at Ipswich Crown Court, on 22 July 2024, the company was fined £3,000,000 and ordered to pay £60,000 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector David King said:

This incident, in an emerging industry, highlights the level of controls required to safely demolish what are large, dangerous structures. Veolia did not meet these standards and tragically one life was lost, and another forever changed. The Health and Safety Executive’s mission is to protect people and places. Organisations that endanger their employees by failing to meet the required standards, should be aware that we will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action.

If your business requires health and safety advice, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

24 July 202424 July 2024

School technician lost a finger

A local authority has been sentenced after a school technician lost a finger while operating a machine.

A school technician at The Forest School in Horsham, lost his right index finger when it was sliced off by a circular bench saw on 13 June 2022.

The 29-year-old, who worked in the design and technology (DT) department, had been operating the saw to cut pieces of wood that were set to be used for a DT lesson. The school technician lost a finger in the accident.

While pushing one of the sheets of wood through the saw, the technician who was 27 at the time, felt a pain in his right index finger and immediately turned off the machine. As he looked down, he saw his finger lying on the bench.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found West Sussex County Council, the local authority in charge of the school, failed to ensure that the technician was trained to use the bench circular saw, as a result the school technician lost a finger. Whilst the technician had used the saw many times previously, he had not been trained on how to use it safely.

West Sussex County Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The local authority was fined £16,000, ordered to pay £4,294.60 in costs and a victim surcharge of £190 at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on 3 July 2024.

HSE inspector Russell Beckett said:

Workers must be trained properly when using high risk woodworking such as bench circular saws. This incident could have been prevented had West Sussex County Council provided [the technician] with proper training.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

The above incident where a school technician lost a finger highlights the importance of training and other issues for workers using equipment. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:

suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training – in the current case, the school technician lost a finger having not received any training in the safe use of the circular saw.
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses

If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:

ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg circular saw machine), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it – in the current case where the school technician lost a finger, the local authority should have restricted access to those workers who had received training.
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety

has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life

If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

22 July 202422 July 2024

Dairy farmer pollution prosecution

A Wellington dairy farmer pollution prosecution following incident after slurry entered watercourse.

A farmer has been given 14 weeks in prison suspended for a year and ordered to pay £10,000 costs after he persistently allowed slurry to run off into a stream near his farm.

David Bartlett, aged 70, of Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, appeared for sentencing before District Judge Brereton at Taunton magistrates’ court on Thursday 18 July.

He had previously pleaded guilty to three offences relating to pollution to the Westford stream, a tributary of the River Tone. He was also ordered to pay £154 victim surcharge.

In a case brought by the Environment Agency, the court heard that the farm had a long history of failing to properly contain slurry and had been warned several times in the past for causing pollution of the Westford stream.

In October 2022, Agency officers installed remote monitoring equipment on the stream which confirmed regular pollution events were continuing to occur.

Using the data from the remote monitoring, officers went to the monitoring site in December 2022 where they found significant amounts of sewage fungus contaminating the bed of the watercourse, an indication of persistent pollution.

Pollution resulted in poor quality of water

Continuing upstream towards Upcott Dairy Farm, colonies of bloodworm were evident. These are a species of pollution tolerant organism associated with poor water quality. No invertebrate life forms were noted when stones in the stream bed were turned over, further indicating the poor quality of the water.

Near the farm, one of the officers saw a nearby ditch had suddenly started to discharge a significant amount of effluent with the appearance and smell of slurry. The source was quickly traced to an overflowing underground slurry tank on Upcott Dairy Farm.

Officers also investigated the system used for applying slurry to fields. Typically, farmers will use slurry to provide nutrients to their crops or grass. Bartlett was using a simple pipe to dispose of slurry in a single location.

Although not discharging slurry at the time of the pollution event inspection, it was clear there was significant contamination of slurry around the end of the pipe and evidence that slurry had tracked down the field toward the Westford stream.

A subsequent visit found slurry being pumped on to waterlogged land with no attempt to use the slurry for crop benefit. The slurry was several inches thick in the field indicating it had been pumped over a prolonged duration in the same location.

Toward the bottom of the field there was a significant build-up of mud and slurry either side of the gateway crossing the stream. This too presented a risk of further runoff pollution into the stream.

Pollution survey revealed stream affected for 2.5km

A biologist’s survey and report confirmed that the Westford stream had experienced repeated, acute and sustained chronic pollution events by slurry. Lack of slurry storage had led to slurry being pumped inappropriately on to a single patch of land where it was likely to run-off and cause pollution.

Bartlett had failed, despite repeated warnings, to install slurry storage facilities that would allow slurry to be stored during winter when ground conditions were unsuitable.

The report stated there had been “a significant negative impact on the aquatic invertebrate community and water quality along 2.5km of Westford stream.”

Bartlett submitted a statement to the Environment Agency in which he made limited admissions, implying others, such as his neighbour and the local authority were responsible. He denied deliberately pumping slurry into the watercourse.

Judge Brereton said there were significant aggravating features in the case, including Bartlett having previously been warned over causing pollution, his failure to carry out proper checks or make structural improvements by way of an adequate, compliant slurry storage system which is capable of storing slurry having received funds from the Rural Payments Agency to pay for infrastructure that would improve the environment and not cause significant, sustained pollution incidents.

Dairy farmer repeatedly ‘failed to acknowledge’ advice

David Womack of the Environment Agency said:

This farmer has, over the years, caused numerous pollution incidents and he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the advice given or to improve the facilities for storing or properly using slurry.

For over 30 years there has been legislation in place requiring all livestock farmers to have storage facilities capable of storing a minimum of four months’ slurry production. The 2018 Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Regulations now also require farmers to plan all applications of slurry in order to reduce the risk of pollution. Pumping slurry on to waterlogged land is unlawful and is likely to cause diffuse pollution.

We hope Mr Bartlett will now work with us to voluntarily improve the facilities at Upcott Dairy Farm. If he doesn’t, we won’t hesitate to use other legislative powers to reduce the risk of further pollution

Pollution prosecution charges

The charges against the defendant were:

On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, did cause an unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter from Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, Somerset, into inland fresh waters contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that organic matter, namely cattle slurry, was not applied to agricultural land that was waterlogged, flooded or snow covered in that you applied organic fertilizer to waterlogged ground contrary to Regulation 3(a) and 11 of the Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that for each application of organic or manufactured fertilizer to agricultural land, the application was planned so as not to give rise to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution contrary to Regulation 4(1)(a)(ii) and 11 of the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018.

Prevent pollution with effective slurry management

Effective slurry management is crucial for both environmental sustainability and farm productivity. Here are some best practices for slurry management in the UK:

Assess Nutrient Content: Use tools like the Nutrient Management Guide (RB209) to determine the nutrient content of your slurry. This helps in applying the right amount to meet crop needs.
Proper Storage: Ensure you have enough well-maintained storage to hold slurry until conditions are optimal for spreading. Covering slurry stores or allowing a natural crust to form can reduce ammonia emissions.
Application Timing: Spread slurry when crops can best utilize the nutrients, typically during the growing season. Avoid spreading during wet conditions to prevent runoff and water pollution.
Application Methods: Use low-emission spreading techniques such as trailing shoe or injection methods to minimize ammonia loss and improve nutrient uptake by crops.
Safety Measures: Always prioritize safety when handling slurry. Ensure proper ventilation and avoid entering enclosed slurry spaces due to the risk of toxic gases.
Compliance with Regulations: Stay updated with local regulations and take advantage of available grants and support schemes, such as the Slurry Investment Scheme (SIS), to improve your slurry management practices.

Implementing these practices can help you manage slurry more effectively, benefiting both your farm and the environment.

If you require environmental advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

17 July 202417 July 2024

Company Director Fined

A company director fined after an employee was struck by an object while manufacturing large steel cable drums for the offshore industry.

The man, who is now 54, had been working for Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited when the incident happened on 19 November 2022. Although the company had manufactured steel drums previously, they had never manufactured drums of this size – with these ones weighing in excess of seven tonnes.

However, during the process, the jacking set-up failed at the company’s site in Harfreys Industrial Estate in Great Yarmouth which resulted in a catalogue of serious injuries including fractures to the man’s face and skull, and him losing the sight in one eye.

He was airlifted to hospital, placed into an induced coma and spent just under three weeks in hospital whereby he needed facial reconstruction surgery.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited failed (i) to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment; (ii) control risks from welding in confined spaces; and (iii) to provide the full training required.

The investigation also found that company director, David Fowler, failed to provide safe systems of work in relation to metal fabrication work, despite previous HSE interventions regarding failure to risk assess activities in the fabrication workshop.

Had the company put in place correct measures, such as suitable risk assessment, safe systems of work and planning for jacking activity, the incident could have been prevented.

The HSE publication, Health and safety in engineering workshops provides valuable practical advice and can be downloaded free at: Health and Safety in engineering workshops.

Following a sentencing hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on 20 June 2024, DJ Williams issued their written judgment on 5 July as follows:

Company Fined

Code-A-Weld (Great Yarmouth) Limited, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £24,000 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs.

Director Fined

David Fowler, of Harfreys Industrial Estate, Bessemer Way, Great Yarmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs.

HSE Statement

Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the life-threatening injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.

HSE inspector Natalie Prince

If you require advice for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.