Technology firm Dyson fined after worker injured by a machine sustained head and chest injuries when he was struck by a 1.5 tonne milling machine.
The worker, at Dyson’s Wiltshire factory, was hit while moving the machine, which fell on top of him. He only escaped being crushed under the weight of the machine because it landed on two toolboxes and the handle of another machine. The incident happened on August 27, 2019.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found Dyson Technology Limited failed to provide suitable and sufficient information, instruction, and training to those undertaking the task. They also failed to adequately assess the task and devise a safe system of work to ensure the machine was moved safely.
Milling machine accident (coutesy of HSE)
The investigation found that two employees were moving a large CNC milling machine within the engineering department of Dyson’s site at Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury. The employees lifted the machine using a five-tonne jack and were in the process of replacing two fixed roller skates with several wooden blocks when it fell.
One of the employees was struck by the machine and sustained a wound to his head and injuries to his chest.
At Swindon Magistrates’ Court Dyson Technology Limited of Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury, Wiltshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £1.2m and ordered to pay costs of £11,511.
“This incident could have been fatal. Those in control of work have a duty to assess the risks, devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction, and training to their workforce.
“Had a suitable safe system of work been in place this incident and the related injuries could have been prevented.”
HSE inspector James Hole
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) require employers to put in place arrangements to control health and safety risks. As a minimum, employers must have the processes and procedures required to meet the legal requirements, including:
a written health and safety policy (if they employ five or more people)
assessments of the risks to employees, contractors, customers, partners, and any other people who could be affected by work activities – and record the significant findings in writing (if they employ five or more people). Any risk assessment must be ‘suitable and sufficient’
arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures that come from risk assessment
access to competent health and safety advice either internally or externally e.g. a consultant
providing employees with information about the risks in their workplace and how they are protected
instruction and training for employees in how to deal with the risks
ensuring there is adequate and appropriate supervision in place
consulting with employees about their risks at work and current preventive and protective measures
Director fined following a waste exports prosecution investigation by the Environment Agency. The EA successfully prosecuted a former company director for illegally exporting banned household waste including nappies, clothing, textiles, tins and electrical items from a site in Droitwich, Worcestershire, to Indonesia in 2019.
At Kidderminster Magistrates Court on Wednesday 10 August 2022, Tianyong Wang, 43, of Solihull, Warwickshire, was fined £1,200 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000.
He had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing in April 2022 to causing his dissolved company, Berry Polymer Limited, to export the waste to Indonesia. Shipping documents described the waste as plastic, which can be exported to Indonesia for recycling.
Howard McCann, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that between 27 June and 5 July 2019, Wang had caused his company to export some 382 tonnes of household waste in 22 sea containers from its site in Droitwich via the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton to Indonesia.
Included in the waste were about 1,590 nappies or sanitary items, plus 1,338 electrical items and about 33,639 tins/cans.
One of the 22 containers of waste investigated (courtesy of the Environment Agency)
Other contaminants included numerous items of clothing, textiles and rags, unopened plastic bags, glass, wood, golf balls, toys, a used toilet brush and contaminated food and drink cartons.
Mr McCann told the court that the defendant was the sole director of Berry Polymer Limited, a company which was dissolved on 24 August 2021, at the time of the offending.
Wang had agreed to sell some 500 tonnes of plastic bottle waste to a broker at £270 per tonne. A purchase order confirmed the load site of the waste as “Berry Polymer Limited, 20 The Furlong Droitwich WR9 9AH.” Berry Polymer invoiced the broker £103,210.20 for 382.26 tonnes of “plastic bottles.”
The offence was discovered by Environment Agency officers who conducted initial inspections of some of the 22 containers at the ports of Southampton (17 containers) and Felixstowe (5) on 4 July 2019.
These inspections recorded significant evidence of contamination, flies and, in some containers, a rotting decomposing smell. The containers were deemed unfit for export at that stage and prevented from onward shipment to Indonesia.
Five of the containers were transported to the Environment Agency’s inspection facility at Felixstowe for full examination, one of the bales examined was so bad that an officer was physically sick. Ultimately all the containers were returned to the site in Droitwich for reprocessing.
When interviewed, Wang, who was abroad at the time, said the material supplied was not as described because his company’s usual bale inspection had either not happened or was sub-standard.
In sentencing, District Judge Strongman said this was a “blunder” by Wang, which had cost him his business and his reputation.
This prosecution sends out a strong message that we will investigate and where necessary prosecute anyone found to be involved in illegally exporting waste.
Waste crime can have a serious environmental impact and puts communities at risk. It undermines legitimate business and the investment and economic growth that goes with it.
We support legitimate businesses and are proactively supporting them by disrupting and stopping the illegal waste exports.
Sham Singh, senior investigating officer for the Environment Agency
In this case the defendant was charged with offences under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 (TFS). The export of waste collected from households to non-OECD (Organisation for Economic and Development) countries is prohibited by Article 36 of the Waste Shipment Regulations. The offence of transporting waste to a non-OECD country in breach of the prohibition is created by Regulation 23 and the directors’ offence by regulation 55(1) of the TFS Regulations 2007. The offence is one of strict liability – strict liability offences are crimes which require no proof of intent. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to environment, health and safety.
A shipment of waste starts at the point of loading in the country of dispatch and continues until the waste has been recovered at the facility in the country of destination. This is why the export is not regarded as an attempt, despite the containers being prevented from leaving Felixstowe and Southampton.
For waste to be categorised as green list such as plastic waste, it must have been collected separately or been properly sorted.
Properly sorted means that the sorting is sufficient to remove contaminants to the point where any contamination that remains is so small as to be minimal and does not prevent the waste from becoming green list waste. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A worker injured by lathe suffered lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face. Kent Auto Developments Limited, a classic Mini car part manufacturing and engineering firm based in Romney Marsh, was fined following an investigation and prosecution.
On 10 August 2020, the worker was completing the process of polishing brake drums rotating on a manual metalworking lathe. The worker was applying emery cloth by hand, a practice condoned by the company, when he was drawn into the machine which resulted in lacerations to his forearm and injuries to his neck and face. Similar occurrences in Great Britain have resulted in other serious injuries to workers such as severed limbs.
An investigation by the HSE found that the business had failed to implement a safe system of work in that employees had routinely polished brake drums with an emery cloth by hand on the lathe. This task is known to be dangerous due to the potential risk of entanglement of the cloth in the rotating parts of the lathe, which can result in serious personal injury. If the requirement to use emery cloth on a lathe is unavoidable, then tool posts and holding devices should be used.
At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court, Kent Auto Developments Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 4(2) of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6,349.34 in costs.
“We still see incidents like this, where unsafe work practices with machinery lead to injury, despite the existence of specific guidance published by HSE.
“Workers coming into contact with machinery is the fourth biggest cause of workplace fatalities in Great Britain, with 14 people killed in the year 2020/21. Over 50,000 non-fatal injuries were reported by employers in the same year.
“Employers should ensure that measures are taken to prevent workers from sustaining injury, where it is evident that persons are at risk of becoming entangled in machinery. It’s important that, when people do get hurt, the relevant authorities are notified so that action can be taken to prevent recurrence.”
HSE inspector Sam Brown
Work related deaths and certain injuries are required to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive under RIDDOR. All deaths to workers and non-workers, with the exception of suicides, must be reported if they arise from a work-related accident, including an act of physical violence to a worker.
Specified injuries to workers
The list of ‘specified injuries’ in RIDDOR 2013 replaces the previous list of ‘major injuries’ in RIDDOR 1995. Specified injuries are (regulation 4):
fractures, other than to fingers, thumbs and toes
amputations
any injury likely to lead to permanent loss of sight or reduction in sight
any crush injury to the head or torso causing damage to the brain or internal organs
serious burns (including scalding) which (i) covers more than 10% of the body, or (ii) causes significant damage to the eyes, respiratory system or other vital organs
any scalping requiring hospital treatment
any loss of consciousness caused by head injury or asphyxia
any other injury arising from working in an enclosed space which (i) leads to hypothermia or heat-induced illness, or (ii) requires resuscitation or admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours
Specified work-related accidents must be reported
Over-seven-day incapacitation of a worker
Accidents must be reported where they result in an employee or self-employed person being away from work, or unable to perform their normal work duties, for more than seven consecutive days as the result of their injury. This seven-day period does not include the day of the accident but does include weekends and rest days. The report must be made within 15 days of the accident.
Over-three-day incapacitation
Accidents must be recorded, but not reported where they result in a worker being incapacitated for more than three consecutive days. If you are an employer, who must keep an accident book under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1979, that record will be sufficient.
Non-fatal accidents to non-workers (e.g. members of the public)
Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances. There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.
Occupational diseases
Employers and self-employed people must report diagnoses of certain occupational diseases, where these are likely to have been caused or made worse by their work: These diseases include:
carpal tunnel syndrome;
severe cramp of the hand or forearm;
occupational dermatitis;
hand-arm vibration syndrome;
occupational asthma;
tendonitis or tenosynovitis of the hand or forearm;
any occupational cancer;
any disease attributed to an occupational exposure to a biological agent.
Dangerous occurrences
Dangerous occurrences are certain, specified near-miss events. Not all such events require reporting. There are 27 categories of dangerous occurrences that are relevant to most workplaces, for example:
the collapse, overturning or failure of load-bearing parts of lifts and lifting equipment;
plant or equipment coming into contact with overhead power lines;
the accidental release of any substance which could cause injury to any person.
Gas incidents
Distributors, fillers, importers & suppliers of flammable gas must report incidents where someone has died, lost consciousness, or been taken to hospital for treatment to an injury arising in connection with that gas. Such incidents should be reported using the Report of a Flammable Gas Incident – online form.
Registered gas engineers (under the Gas Safe Register,) must provide details of any gas appliances or fittings that they consider to be dangerous, to such an extent that people could die, lose consciousness or require hospital treatment. The danger could be due to the design, construction, installation, modification or servicing of that appliance or fitting, which could cause:
an accidental leakage of gas;
incomplete combustion of gas or;
inadequate removal of products of the combustion of gas.
The Environment Agency has published the results of a consultation on TCM attendance changes. The Environment Agency consulted with stakeholders to hear their views on proposed options and changes to the attendance requirements for technically competent managers (TCMs).
The consultation explained:
how the current technical competence attendance requirements work
options for proposed changes to the methods of calculating TCM attendance and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements
proposed implementation timescales
The responses to the TCM attendance changes consultation will help shape a second, more detailed consultation. This will provide further details for option 1: attendance linked to charge bands, and other rules associated with the attendance requirements for technically competent managers. The EA aim to publish the next consultation in summer 2023.
The EA received a broad range of views which will help develop guidance on the attendance requirements for technically competent managers. The EA received 75 responses to the consultation:
32 from site operators and companies with permits
18 from trade associations and other organisations and groups
12 from consultants
5 from local authorities
8 from individuals and members of the public
Those responding generally agreed that new guidance was needed to explain the attendance requirements for TCMs and provided views on the 3 options preferred for calculating the attendance requirements:
option 1: attendance linked to charge bands – 36%
option 2: standard baseline attendance for all waste facilities – 16%
option 3: tailored baseline attendance for waste operations and waste installations – 30.67%
no preference – 14.67%
Two respondents (2.67%) did not provide an answer to this question.
Many of those responding highlighted the potential for environmental benefits should TCM attendance increase at poor performing sites. However, the extent of this benefit would depend on the specific circumstances. Approximately 75% of those responding supported the adjustment of the attendance requirement based on operator performance, with those in deteriorating or poor compliance bands requiring increased TCM attendance.
Changes proposed to TCM attendance requirements at waste sites
Some of those responding stated that applying attendance requirements for the Environmental Services Association (ESA)/Energy & Utility (EU) Skills technical competence scheme would undermine the purpose of this scheme, but there was general support for other proposals on the 48 hour attendance cap, 24 hour operations, multiple regulated facilities and mothballed sites.
For permit transfers, some respondents highlighted situations where transfers were ‘administrative’ and in those instances they did not support previously agreed TCM attendance requirements reverting back to those required by the guidance.
For closed landfills nearly 40% of respondents agreed with the proposals, whilst 50% did not have a view. The Environment Agency concluded that it anticipate the majority of the 50% who did not have a view do not operate activities involving closed landfills.
Most of those who responded did not have a view on the proposals for mobile plant attendance requirements. Around one third supported the proposals on mobile plant and less than 10% disagreed.
Nearly half of respondents supported a 12 month implementation period for the new guidance. Because, for example, this would give operators time to understand the new guidance and train or recruit additional TCMs if required.
The Agency received a broad range of views which will help develop the attendance requirements for TCMs guidance and it intends to launch the next consultation in summer 2023. It will include further details of the favoured option and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements.
Operators who apply for an environmental permit for a waste operation must be members of (and comply with) a government approved technical competency scheme. Most existing waste environmental permit holders must also comply with a government approved technical competency scheme through the conditions in their permits.
The Environment Agency used to calculate attendance requirements using the OPRA risk appraisal guidance. However, except for the sections relating to attendance levels for technically competent managers, this guidance has been withdrawn.
The Agency is now considering changes to the requirements for attendance by TCMs at environmental permit sites. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
HSE inspectors refused entry to a construction site resulting in a prosecution of the man who was in control of the premises. The inspectors were denied entry to the construction site in Scotland to deal with unsafe work activities.
In 2021 multiple concerns about unsafe work at a construction site in Irvine had been sent to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). On 16 March 2021, two HSE inspectors attended the construction site and observed unsafe work at height taking place on a steel structure.
The inspectors tried to gain entry to the site, but the gates were locked. They spoke to the person in control of the site, Baldev Singh Basra, but he refused to unlock the gates and let them in. Despite explaining the powers to enter a premise given to HSE inspectors as part of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Mr Singh Basra still refused entry to the site.
After officers from Police Scotland attended and gained entry to the site, the HSE inspectors were able to take enforcement action to stop the unsafe work. Two workers were then found to be on the roof of the structure with no safe means of getting down. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service attended the site and rescued the workers from the structure.
At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, Baldev Singh Basra of Irvine pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for contravening a requirement of an inspector – namely refusing entry to a premise where unsafe work was taking place. He was fined £1,500.
HSE inspectors have extensive powers to inspect sites for safety offences
Following the sentencing, HSE Principal Inspector Graeme McMinn said: “Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority have the right to enter any premises which they think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing health and safety at work and any relevant statutory provisions.
“They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous. In this case, the priority of the inspectors was to deal with the unsafe work activity, and they could not allow the person in control of the site to refuse them entry to stop the unsafe work.”
Inspectors appointed by an enforcing authority under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), such as the HSE, have extensive powers to carry into effect any of the relevant statutory provisions. The powers set out in sections 20(2) and 25 HSWA include powers to:
Enter any premises which inspectors think it necessary to enter for the purposes of enforcing HSWA and the relevant statutory provisions. They may only enter at a ‘reasonable time’, unless they think there is a situation which may be dangerous. If they have reasonable cause to apprehend serious obstruction, they may take a police officer;
Order areas to be left undisturbed, take measurements, photographs and recordings, take samples and take possession of, and carry out tests on, articles and substances that appear to have caused (or be likely to cause) danger;
Require the production of, inspect and take copies of relevant documents;
Require anyone they think might give them relevant information to answer questions and sign a declaration of the truth of the answers;
Require facilities and assistance to be provided; and
Seize and make harmless (by destruction if necessary) any article or substance which they have reasonable cause to believe is a cause of imminent danger of serious personal injury.
HSE education video – When an inspector calls
Inspectors are also given any other power which is necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the relevant statutory provisions. It is an offence to obstruct an inspector in the execution of their duties.
In June, a roadmap for flood and climate-resilience was published. The Environment Agency (EA) launched the roadmap setting out practical actions to be taken over the next four years to tackle the growing threat of flooding from rivers, the sea, and surface water as well as coastal erosion.
The FCERM Strategy Roadmap builds on existing progress and sets out how we can be better prepared for the unavoidable impacts of climate change by ensuring the country is resilient and ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change. The Environment Agency will be delivering the Roadmap with many partners including local authorities, local drainage boards, farmers, environmental groups, infrastructure providers and the insurance sector.
Delivery of the actions in the Roadmap will improve climate-resilience and will:
Ensure that new homes will be safe from flooding.
Maximise the use of nature to enhance flood and coastal resilience while aiding nature recovery.
Improve the flood resilience of our roads, railways, and other vital national infrastructure.
Ensure the delivery of environmental improvements and sustainable growth as part of flood and coastal projects.
Enhance our flood forecasting and warning services to help people be better prepared to respond to flood events.
Support building back better to reduce the damage and disruption caused by flooding.
Work with communities and local partners to develop long term plans to manage future flooding and coastal change and adapt to future hazards.
Climate-resilience
The Roadmap was launched by the Environment Agency’s Chief Executive, Sir James Bevan, and Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow, at the Flood and Coast Conference. It directly supports the implementation of the £5.2 billion capital investment programme which will better protect many hundreds of thousands of properties from flooding and coastal erosion by 2027.
“This roadmap sets out how we can build a more resilient nation. It will work alongside our record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027 to help better protect communities.
Climate change will only bring more extreme weather and this roadmap will spur on the timely action required to manage flood and coastal risk, help reduce the costly impacts and manage the risks to people’s homes and businesses across the country.”
Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow
flood and climate-resilience will impact all sectors
“Climate change is happening now, and its impacts will continue to worsen. Rainfall patterns are changing, causing more frequent flooding, and while we continue to protect and prepare coastal communities from rising sea levels, it is inevitable that at some point some of our communities will have to move back from the coast.
We all need to adapt and become more resilient to these challenges, and this roadmap sets out actions that will be taken to do this over the next four years.
It will ensure that we make our communities more resilient to flooding and coastal change, so that when it does happen, it causes much less harm to people, does much less damage, and ensures life can get back to normal much quicker.”
Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency
Roadmap key elements
Key actions from the roadmap include:
Developing a new national assessment of flood risk from rivers, the sea and surface water that will provide better data and mapping to inform future risk and investment decisions.
Working with coastal groups to update the policies and actions in Shoreline Management Plans so they reflect adaptation to a changing climate.
Working with national infrastructure providers, including National Highways and Network Rail, on joint investment opportunities to ensure national infrastructure is resilient to future flooding and coastal change.
Working with Ofwat to ensure that water company assets are resilient and contribute to better flood risk outcomes.
Working with Natural England, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and other partners to collate evidence and case studies to help mainstream nature-based solutions that enhance flood and coastal resilience and nature recovery.
Working with Flood Re and the insurance sector to develop a communications programme for homeowners to signpost advice and support on the benefits of property flood resilience.
Developing new training materials with the Town and Country Planning Association to help improve skills and capabilities on flood risk and development planning.
Working with the Environment Agency’s supply chain to ensure all flood and coastal projects adopt low carbon technologies that contribute to zero carbon targets.
Continuing to improve the Environment Agency’s digital tools for people to check their flood risk and sign up to flood warnings.
Working with Department for Education, schools, and children’s charities to improve young people’s knowledge of flood risk and climate change.
The publication of the Roadmap comes after the Environment Agency announced that it had exceeded its target in delivering the government’s £2.6 billion investment in flood and coastal defence schemes since 2015, better protecting more than 314,000 homes.
The Environment Agency is now working alongside partners to deliver on the government’s record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027, which will better protect hundreds of thousands more properties as well as avoid £32 billion of wider economic damages.
An Environment Agency report highlights an urgent need to work with nature and lays bare the scale of change needed to halt England’s biodiversity and climate crisis.
Published in July, the report sets out how significant changes will be needed to how land is used in England, with the need for significant landscape scale interventions and the use of nature-based solutions to help wildlife recover, and for humans to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
The ‘Working with Nature’ report compiled by Environment Agency scientists sets out the global challenges facing the basics for life on Earth – clean water, climate regulation and food. It describes the potential loss of complex natural ecosystems that provide such essentials as an existential risk to human survival.
Referencing Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, considered by many to be the most important piece of environmental writing of the 20th century, Environment Agency chief executive, Sir James Bevan, spoke about the ‘silent spring’ that awaits humanity unless action is taken by businesses, government and individuals to prevent further damage and rebuild the natural environment. The report was unveiled at an event hosted by the Green Alliance, ahead of the COP15 Biodiversity Conference taking place later this year. Internationally, the G7 leaders have committed to the global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022 will review the progress towards previously agreed Biodiversity targets.
“The biodiversity crisis joins the climate crisis as an existential risk to our survival, but as this report sets out the solution is not to retreat but to work together to build a nature-positive response.
Nature provides the basics for life – clean water, clean air and food. With major pressures on land use across England, nature-based solutions must be a major part in our response to protect these essentials whilst rebuilding our natural world.”
Sir James Bevan, Environment Agency Chief Executive
England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world due to its long history of industrialisation and land use changes over millennia. There is an urgent need to work with nature as large areas of habitats have been lost with 99.7% of fens, 97% of species-rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes destroyed or degraded.
The impacts on species have also been severe, with a quarter of mammals in England and almost a fifth of UK plants threatened with extinction.
Nature in England has also been impacted by pressures on land use. The report sets out the impact of the last 50 years of agricultural production and points to the likelihood of a need of further intensification and increased yields from agricultural land. It also charts the impacts of urbanisation, forestry and the need for large areas of land for climate change mitigation.
To address the major declines in biodiversity that will only be accelerated by a changing climate, the report sets out a need for more land to be dedicated to nature conservation to act as refuges for nature and to mitigate against climate change – such as coastal wetlands to combat flood risks. However, with such demand on land, it will need to provide multiple benefits to people and nature.
The Environment Agency has a leading role to play in restoring or recreating new wildlife-rich habitat in England. Recent projects include peat restoration at Great Fen, Cambridgeshire, which will save 325,000 tonnes of CO2 from being released each year while restoring habitats for threatened fenland species and protecting surrounding towns, villages and farmland from the risk of flooding after heavy rainfall.
The report identifies such nature-based solutions as a crucial tool in restoring nature and achieving multiple other benefits. By working with nature, including tree planting, peat restoration, species reintroductions and natural flood management, it suggests there are opportunities to restore biodiversity, whilst providing other benefits such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and clean and plentiful water.
The report also says action will also be required to address the levels of consumption in wealthy countries, which contribute to the loss of biodiversity, and that sustained effort will be required from many people and organisations at forums like the COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle the effects of global consumption, production and supply chains. If you require advice on environmental issues, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A fatal incident investigation has been launched by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the death of a 27-year-old worker at a steelworks in Scunthorpe. The incident happened on Saturday 16 July at a business premises on Brigg Road, Scunthorpe.
Emergency services responded to reports of a fall from height and the worker was pronounced dead at the scene.
After initial enquiries were made by the HSE and Humberside Police, it was established that the HSE will lead the investigation into the circumstances of the incident.
Fatal incident
“Our thoughts are with the family of the person who died. We are determined to understand the full facts of what happened on Saturday. Doing so may take time, but we will remain in close contact with the family.”
Jane Fox, HSE principal inspector
The HSE has a protocol in place with police regarding the investigation of workplace fatalities such as this fatal incident – Work-related Deaths: A Protocol for Liaison. The document sets out how workplace related deaths are investigated and importantly by which organisation.
The Protocol is a high-level document which is supported by, and should be read in conjunction with, the Work-related Deaths Protocol Practical Guide which sets out a straightforward step-by-step approach to the joint investigation of work-related deaths. The purpose of the protocol and supporting guide is to ensure effective joint investigation of work-related deaths in England and Wales. Since its introduction in 1998, the protocol has become a tried and tested approach to effective liaison between the signatory organisations when investigating a work-related death. By
signing the protocol, signatories confirm their commitment to the joint investigation approach, appreciating that the public want to be confident that those investigating work-related deaths are doing all that they can to co-ordinate activities, and to cooperate with each other in the best interests of public safety and of those affected by work-related deaths. If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A warehouse explosion leads to prosecutions of a retail company and an electrical contracting company after an electrician suffered serious burns to 15 per cent of his body.
On 22 September 2018, an electrician was using a metal spanner to repair an electrical fault at B&M Retail Ltd warehouse, in Speke. The spanner he was using came into contact with a live busbar (metallic strip) linked to the power distribution causing an electrical explosion.
Explosion
The 35-year-old electrician sustained serious injuries which included burns to his arms, hands, thighs, legs, and face in the explosion. He was placed in an induced coma for two weeks and had to undergo several skin grafts. As a result of the incident the electrician was unable to work for five months.
“I am very conscious of the scars and always think people are staring at me or talking about me behind my back. To me, my arms look like Freddy Kruger’s from Nightmare on Elm Street. I now can’t play with my little boys as much as I used to and I’m worried about hurting myself, and they are worried about hurting me. I have paranoia of being touched. I do worry about the future as I know the pain will never go away and might get worse, leaving me unable to work and support my family.”
Work projects must be adequately planned in advance (stock image)
HSE investigation into the explosion
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the victim, who was employed by Daker Ltd, had been attempting to connect a generator to B&M’s Low Voltage supply in order to allow B&M to operate some of its core site functions whilst high voltage maintenance was being undertaken. This work was complex involving several contractors and required co-ordination of different working parties with specific time limited requirements. There was insufficient planning between parties beforehand including who was in charge of each site, coordination of work and exchange of relevant documentation prior to the explosion which could have been avoided.
B&M failed to appoint a suitably competent person to plan and carry out the work to connect temporary generators to their distribution board at the premises
Electrical contractors Daker Ltd.’s work methods fell well below the required standards. Electrical work commenced without proper planning. The power supply to the circuit was not stopped prior to the incident and live working was allowed to take place, this meant that the power supply could be switched on or off at any point, putting workers at risk of electric shock.
Following the explosion, B&M Retail Ltd of Speke, Liverpool pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) and Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At Liverpool Crown Court, the company was fined £1,000,000 and ordered to pay costs of ££4,978.
Daker Ltd of Bolton pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £100.
“This incident has had life-changing consequences on the victim and his family. It could have been avoided if the companies involved had taken the time to appropriately plan and coordinate tasks to ensure the circuit was dead, eliminating the risk of electrocution to workers. Working with electricity is a high-risk activity and safety must be a priority.”
Roger Clarke, HSE Inspector
Use of contractors
The explosion in this case was the result of poor planning and coordination between the various parties involved in the project. Anyone engaging contractors has health and safety responsibilities, both for the contractors and anyone else that could be affected by their activities. Contractors themselves also have legal health and safety responsibilities. When contractors are appointed, it is important to ensure that everyone understands the part they need to play in ensuring health and safety (client, principal contractor, sub-contractors, etc).
Use of contractors in itself does not result in poor health and safety standards, but poor management can lead to injuries, ill health, additional costs and delays. Working closely with the contractor will reduce the risks to your own employees and the contractors themselves.
Remember that contractors may be at particular risk – they may be strangers to your workplace and therefore unfamiliar with your organisation’s procedures, rules, hazards and risks. Even regular contractors may need reminding. The level of control needed will, of course, be proportionate to the complexity of the task. Where a task is complex then more control will be required, and planning plays a key role in this. On sites with major accident hazards, consider turnarounds and span of control – given the potentially very high numbers of contractors on-site (compared with the numbers in routine operations).
A northeast steel company has been fined for safety breaches after inspectors visited a site in Bishop Auckland, County Durham.
Acting on concerns raised, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited the steel supplies site in 2019, finding wholly inadequate management of health and safety. It also came to light that; two workers had been injured on separate occasions whilst operating machinery at the premises. In June 2019, an employee was struck and injured by a work piece and suffered an injury to his right hand. In July 2019, an agency worker suffered a finger amputation whilst manually removing a piece of metal near the unguarded blade of another machine.
An investigation by HSE found the company had failed to prevent access to the dangerous moving parts on both machines. These machines were metal rebar forming machines and had been used at the site for a number of years. In addition to the guarding faults, the HSE also found the emergency stop and safety devices wired out on one of the machines.
Furthermore, the machinery risk assessments were substandard, and staff were trained to operate the machines in an unsafe manner. The company also had a forklift truck in daily use, despite it having defective brakes.
“Companies have a duty of care to those they employee and HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action.”
HSE inspector Clare Maltby
Work equipment must be suitable for the task and maintained (stock image)
Work 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
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 LOLER, pressure equipment must meet the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations and personal protective equipment must meet the PPE Regulations.
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 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 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
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). 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
Risk Assessments
Employers are required by law to protect your employees, and others, from harm. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the minimum an employer must do is:
identify what could cause injury or illness in your business (hazards)
decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how seriously (the risk)
take action to eliminate the hazard, or if this isn’t possible, control the risk
Assessing risk is just one part of the overall process used to control risks in the workplace. For most small, low-risk businesses the steps that employers need to take are straightforward. Risk management is a step-by-step process for controlling health and safety risks caused by hazards in the workplace. An employer can undertake the risk assessment themselves or appoint a competent person to help. The five steps of a risk assessment are:
Identify hazards
Assess the risks
Control the risks
Record your findings
Review the controls
Identify Hazards
Look around your workplace and think about what may cause harm (these are called hazards). Think about:
how people work and how plant and equipment are used
what chemicals and substances are used
what safe or unsafe work practices exist
the general state of your premises
Look back at previous accident and ill health records as these can help you identify less obvious hazards. Take account of non-routine operations, such as maintenance, cleaning or changes in production cycles. Think about hazards to health, such as manual handling, use of chemicals and causes of work-related stress. For each hazard, think about how employees, contractors, visitors or members of the public might be harmed.
Some workers have particular requirements, for example young workers, migrant workers, new or expectant mothers and people with disabilities. Ensure that you involve your employees as they will usually have good ideas.
Assess the risks
Once you have identified the hazards, decide how likely it is that someone could be harmed and how serious it could be – this is assessing the level of risk. In assessing the level of risk, decide:
Who might be harmed and how
What you’re already doing to control the risks
What further action you need to take to control the risks
Who needs to carry out the action
When the action is needed by
Control the risks
Look at what you are already doing, and the controls you already have in place to ensure the safety of workers and others. Consider:
Can I get rid of the hazard altogether?
If not, how can I control the risks so that harm is unlikely?
If you need further controls, consider:
redesigning the job
replacing the materials, machinery or process
organising your work to reduce exposure to the materials, machinery or process
identifying and implementing practical measures needed to work safely
providing personal protective equipment and making sure workers wear it
Put the controls you have identified in place. It is important to remember that you are not expected to eliminate all risks but you need to do everything ‘reasonably practicable’ to protect people from harm. This means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or trouble.
Record your findings
If you employ 5 or more people, you must record your significant findings, including:
the hazards (things that may cause harm)
who might be harmed and how
what you are doing to control the risks
The HSE has a number of example risk assessments on its website as a guide for employers. Employers should not rely purely on paperwork, as the main priority should be to control the risks in practice.
Review the controls
You must review the controls you have put in place to make sure they are working. You should also review them if:
they may no longer be effective
there are changes in the workplace that could lead to new risks such as changes to:
staff
a process
the substances or equipment used
Also consider a review if your workers have spotted any problems or there have been any accidents or near misses. You should then update your risk assessment record with any changes you make.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
