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.
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.”
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.
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
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
An investigation by the Environment Agency into Severn Trent Water has resulted in an Enforcement Undertaking by the water company. The investigation revealed that raw sewage from a blocked sewer had been discharged into a brook near Gloucester – impacting about 1.7km of the watercourse.
The case has ended in the water company agreeing an Enforcement Undertaking (EU) with the Environment Agency and giving Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust £327,500.
An EU is a voluntary offer made by companies and individuals and can be accepted where the Environment Agency has reason to believe an offence has been committed.
It usually includes a payment to an environmental charity to carry out improvements. The Environment Agency received reports of dead fish on 19 August 2021 at School Lane, Quedgeley, near Gloucester.
An inspection revealed hundreds of dead sticklebacks and thousands of dead invertebrates plus several eels and a number of bullhead fish.
The Agency officer also observed what he believed to be sewage fungus growing in the watercourse for about 1km up to Meerbrook Way. The smell of sewage was strong, and the fungus was covering the entire width of the brook.
Further investigations revealed that where the brook exited the A38 at Meerbrook Way, the officer saw what he believed to be a discharge of crude sewage coming out of the bankside into the brook.
An ecological impact assessment concluded that 1.7km of Dimore Brook had been affected and that the vast majority of aquatic animal life had been killed by the sewage discharge.
Between Fisher’s Bridge and the Gloucester-Sharpness Canal, approximately 50 dead European eel, 20 bullhead, 3 chub and 400 three-spined sticklebacks were observed. Environment Agency officers said that Severn Trent had responded to the incident in a timely manner.
Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust is using the funds in a three-year programme to improve various projects close to the impacted area.
Ian Skuse, the investigating officer for the West Midlands Environment Agency, said:
Protecting the environment in the West Midlands and taking action against those that damage or threaten this is our utmost priority.
While we will always take forward prosecutions in the most serious cases, Enforcement Undertakings are an effective enforcement tool to allow companies to put things right and contribute to environmental improvements.
They allow polluters to correct and restore the harm caused to the environment and prevent repeat incidents by improving their procedures, helping ensure future compliance with environmental requirements.
Sophie Wootton-Lee, head of external affairs at Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, said:
The money received as a result of this incident will be spent close to where it took place, to benefit the wildlife and people who live in and around the wetlands near Gloucester.
For Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust this is essential – spending the money close to where the damage has occurred, to try and mitigate some of that impact.
The project is complex and will deliver a range of elements, including habitat creation and restoration.
We’ll also be looking to increase the habitat provided in the area for an iconic Gloucestershire species, the European eel, by creating pond complexes, reedbeds, scrapes and carrying out wet ditch restoration.
Emma Hardy, Minister for Water and Flooding said:
Pollution incidents like this are unacceptable and have a devastating impact on the environment and local communities.
This Government will never look the other way while water companies pump record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas.
We will strengthen regulation, crack down on water companies and begin the work of cleaning up Britain’s waterways. As an immediate step, the Water (Special Measures) Bill will strengthen regulation including new powers to ban the payment of bonuses for polluting water bosses and bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers.
Background to the Enforcement Undertaking
An Enforcement Undertaking is available to the Environment Agency (EA) as an alternative sanction to prosecution or monetary penalty for dealing with certain environmental offences.
It is a legally binding voluntary agreement proposed by a business (or an individual) when the EA has reasonable grounds to suspect that an environmental offence has occurred.
Accepting an Enforcement Undertaking is always at the discretion of the EA. However, if accepted the EU helps firms and individuals who have damaged the environment or operated outside of legislative requirements to complete actions which will address the cause and effect of their offending, including making a payment to an appropriate project.
EUs can be offered for offences including polluting rivers, breaching permit conditions designed to protect communities, or failing to register and comply with recycling/recovery obligations. The Environment Agency then carefully considers whether the actions offered by the offender are acceptable.
Why use Enforcement Undertakings?
Businesses will voluntarily secure compliance now and in the future, without attracting a criminal record.
The environment, local community and those directly impacted by the offending can benefit through actions being offered in an EU.
They allow the EA to deal with the less intentional and polluting offending in a more proportionate way than prosecution through the criminal courts.
The Environment Agency reserves the right to prosecute or impose a monetary penalty, where offenders fail to comply with the terms of an Enforcement Undertaking offer.
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.
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.
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.
In this article we look at why you need a waste audit and the benefits from it. In the United Kingdom, businesses and organisations are increasingly recognising the critical role that waste audits play in their sustainability efforts. A waste audit is a detailed analysis of an entity’s waste stream, identifying what types of waste are being produced, in what quantities, and how they are being managed. This process is not only a regulatory requirement but also a step towards environmental responsibility and cost efficiency.
It is estimated that the UK generated 40.4 million tonnes of commercial and industrial (C&I) waste in 2020, of which 33.8 million tonnes (84%) was generated in England. The latest estimates for England only, indicate that C&I waste generation was around 33.9 million tonnes in 2021.
The UK’s stringent waste management regulations, governed by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, mandate businesses to classify, segregate, and store waste appropriately. Waste audits provide tangible evidence of compliance with these legal requirements, helping businesses avoid potential fines and legal issues. Moreover, they ensure that Environmental Management System (EMS) certification standards are met, which can be crucial for maintaining corporate reputation and consumer trust.
Waste audit steps
Conducting a waste audit involves several steps, starting with understanding the different types of waste produced by the organisation. It is essential to set a specific time frame for the audit, ideally during a typical operational period to get an accurate representation of the waste generated. The audit can highlight inefficiencies in waste management practices and identify opportunities for reducing waste production, promoting recycling, and improving overall environmental performance.
For businesses looking to conduct a waste audit, there are resources available that provide guidance on the process. These include six-step guides that cover everything from understanding your waste to implementing changes that can reduce waste collection and disposal costs while minimising the amount of waste sent to landfills. Companies may also engage specialist consultants to undertake the audit and report on its findings.
The benefits of waste audits extend beyond regulatory compliance. They can showcase a company’s eco-friendly credentials, secure new customers, access better loans, win prestigious awards, and even cash in on selected grants. In the UK’s business landscape, being green is no longer just a trend, it is a real competitive advantage!
Waste audits are an indispensable tool for businesses aiming to improve their sustainability. They provide a systematic approach to understanding and managing waste, leading to significant environmental and financial benefits. As the country continues to strive for a greener future, waste audits will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of corporate environmental strategy.
Common Findings in UK Waste Audits: Insights and Implications
Waste audits are a critical component of waste management strategies across the UK, providing valuable insights into the types and quantities of waste produced by businesses and organisations. These audits often reveal common trends and issues that, when addressed, can lead to significant improvements in waste management practices.
One of the most frequent findings in waste audits is the high volume of recyclable materials that are incorrectly disposed of as general waste. This not only includes common items like paper, cardboard, and plastics but also electronic waste and certain types of glass. The mismanagement of these recyclable materials not only impacts the environment but also represents a lost opportunity for businesses to reduce waste disposal costs. More importantly, it may also be illegal and put the company at risk of prosecution by enforcement authorities such as the Environment Agency.
Another common observation is the lack of proper segregation at the source. Many businesses fail to implement effective waste separation practices, leading to contamination of recycling streams and increased processing costs. Education and training for staff on how to correctly segregate waste can mitigate this issue and enhance the efficiency of recycling programs.
Food waste is another significant component of the waste stream, often due to over-purchasing, improper storage, and lack of composting options. This not only contributes to the environmental problem of methane emissions from landfills but also represents a substantial financial loss for businesses.
In addition to these, waste audits frequently identify the presence of hazardous waste in general waste bins. This includes items like batteries, chemicals, and medical waste, which require special handling and disposal methods to prevent harm to the environment and human health.
The findings from waste audits can serve as a catalyst for change, prompting businesses to adopt more sustainable waste management practices. By addressing the common issues identified, companies can improve their operational efficiency, comply with regulatory requirements, and contribute to a more sustainable future.
For businesses looking to conduct their own waste audits, there are numerous resources and professional services available to guide them through the process. These services can provide tailored advice and solutions to help businesses optimise their waste management systems and achieve their sustainability goals.
Waste audits consistently uncover areas where businesses can improve their waste management practices. By acting on these findings, businesses can not only reduce their environmental impact but also realise financial savings and enhance their reputation as responsible corporate citizens.
Measuring the Impact of Waste Audits in UK Businesses
Businesses are increasingly aware of the importance of sustainability and waste reduction. Measuring the impact of these efforts is crucial for understanding their effectiveness and for making informed decisions on future waste management strategies.
Here are some key methods that businesses can employ to measure the impact of their waste reduction efforts:
Waste Audit Analysis
Conducting regular waste audits is a foundational step. By analysing the types and quantities of waste produced, businesses can identify key areas for reduction and track progress over time.
Recycling Rates
Monitoring the percentage of waste that is recycled is a straightforward metric. It provides insight into how much waste is being diverted from landfills and can be a strong indicator of the success of recycling programs.
Employee Engagement
Gathering feedback from employees can offer a qualitative measure of the waste reduction culture within a business. Engaged employees are more likely to follow sustainable practices and contribute to waste reduction goals.
Financial Savings
Tracking cost savings from reduced waste disposal fees can quantify the financial impact. Additionally, savings from reusing materials or selling recyclable waste can be factored into this metric.
Environmental Impact
Calculating the reduction in carbon footprint or other environmental metrics can demonstrate the broader impact of waste reduction efforts. This can include measurements like greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling and reusing materials.
Sustainability Reporting
Creating detailed sustainability reports that include waste reduction metrics can help businesses communicate their progress to stakeholders and customers, enhancing their reputation and potentially leading to increased business opportunities.
Waste Audit Benchmarking
Comparing waste reduction metrics against industry benchmarks or past performance can provide context for the impact of a business’s efforts. This can help set realistic goals and drive continuous improvement.
Certifications and Awards
Achieving certifications or awards for environmental performance can serve as a measure of a business’s commitment to waste reduction and sustainability. These recognitions often have criteria based on measurable waste reduction achievements.
Waste audit conclusions
The benefits of waste audits extend beyond regulatory compliance. They can showcase a company’s eco-friendly credentials, secure new customers, access better loans, win prestigious awards, and even cash in on selected grants.
By employing these methods, businesses can effectively measure the impact of their waste reduction efforts, demonstrating their commitment to sustainability and reaping the associated benefits. For more detailed guidance on implementing these measures, businesses can contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
