Bin lorry kills member of the public

Defendant	Team Waste (Southern) Ltd			Lewes Crown Court
Offence	S3 HSWA 1974			12 April 2011
Fine	£250,000	Costs	£50,000

 Team Waste (Southern) Ltd has been fined £250,000 after a bin lorry ran over and killed a member of the public.

 

The refuse vehicle which struck Mrs Smith

Lewes Crown Court heard that on the 5 March 2007, Anne Smith, 61, from Brighton, was hit by a refuse vehicle as it reversed up Cranbourne Street in Brighton city centre at 6.20am. The driver did not realise he had struck Mrs Smith until her body lay about 3m in front of the vehicle. Mrs Smith died shortly afterwards.

The HSE investigation found that the driver reversed the refuse collection vehicle without a banksman or reversing assistant, contrary to Team Waste's operating policy. The vehicle also had defective CCTV at the rear and the audible reversing siren was turned off. The driver believed such alarms were prohibited before 7.00am.

Team Waste (Southern) Ltd failed to ensure that control measures identified in their own risk assessment were put into practice.

HSE's Inspector Sharon Humphrey said:

"Team Waste (Southern) Ltd failed to ensure the safe collection of rubbish. As a result of its failure an innocent woman has died unnecessarily. This has had devastating consequences for her family.  Waste collection on public streets can be a high-risk activity if not properly planned. The law requires employers to assess the risks to its employees and members of the public.  This incident could have been prevented had simple, low cost and readily available precautions been put in place."

Labourer's fatal fall

Defendant	Robertson Construction Central Ltd			Glasgow Sheriff Court
Offence	S3 HSWA 1974			12 April 2011
Fine	£200,000	Costs	Nil - Scot
Defendant	Stirling Stone Ltd
Offence	S2 HSWA 1974
Fine	£200,000	Costs	Nil-Scot

 

James Kelly, a labourer employed by Stirling Stone Ltd, was fatally injured in a fall from a scaffold tower.  He was working on the third level of the scaffold loading tower that had been erected as part of construction work taking place at Glasgow Academy, Colebrook Street, Glasgow. Stirling Stone had been contracted as stonemasons on the site by Robertson Construction Central Ltd.  A single guard rail was found on the ground close to where Mr Kelly was discovered.  The incident occurred in April 2007.

Following the incident, HSE inspectors discovered that there was no safe system of work in place for loading materials onto the loading tower, nor had suitable assessment of the risks involved been made. The investigation also revealed that the loading tower did not have sufficient guard rails and toe boards and that neither company had ensured that the tower and access scaffolding was properly inspected on a regular basis.

Both companies were found guilty of health and safety breaches at a trial. At the sentencing hearing before Glasgow Sheriff Court, Robertson Construction Central Ltd was fined £200,000 for breaching S3(1) HSWA and Stirling Stone Ltd was fined £200,000 for breaching S(1) HSWA.

John Shelton, HSE Inspector for Construction, said:

"What happened to Mr Kelly was entirely preventable and would not have happened if the proper steps had been taken.  Loading up operations at scaffold loading towers are repeated on construction sites across Scotland probably thousands of times a day.  There is no excuse for the contractors not to have agreed procedures as to how this work was to be done and ensured that this routine work was carried out safely.  Where vital edge protection is removed temporarily to allow loading up to take place steps must be taken to ensure persons cannot fall during that work."

Greenwich Hospital censured after pupil is injured

Body	Greenwich Hospital	Crown Censure
Offence	S3 HSWA 1974	8 April 2011

 

Greenwich Hospital has been censured for safety failings at The Royal Hospital School in Holbrook, Suffolk. The school is owned by the Royal Navy's Crown charity, Greenwich Hospital.  The Secretary of State for Defence is the sole trustee.

On 28 March 2011, Greenwich Hospital accepted a Crown Censure from the HSE following an investigation into a climbing incident at the school on 3 March 2009.

Twelve pupils at the school were taking part in a PE class that involved using a climbing wall. One of the pupils, a 15-year-old girl, fell 6m in an uncontrolled descent from the top of the wall onto a wood gymnasium floor below. The pupil suffered a fractured spine requiring a two-week stay in hospital. She also had to wear a body cast for several weeks and continues to receive medical treatment for her injuries.

The School, in accepting the censure on behalf of Greenwich Hospital, admitted that "at the time of the accident the risk assessment, written operating procedure, written procedures or records for examination, inspection and maintenance regime relating to climbing activities / climbing wall and related equipment were not suitable or sufficient so as to ensure that risks were reduced to the lowest level reasonable practicable."

They also admitted that "the nature of the equipment was mixed with some equipment (which was not used on the day of the accident) being unserviceable, that climbing wall supervisors had not received refresher training and that there was no monitoring or system set up for access to technical advice."

Crown Censure Chair, HSE's Divisional Director Heather Bryant said:

"HSE recognises that climbing walls can play an important part in the education of young people - and encourages schools to provide them - but it is essential that they follow industry guidance to ensure that pupils are not exposed to unnecessary risks. I am pleased that the school will be resuming the climbing wall activity in due course once the necessary precautions are in place."

The Crown Censure proceedings relate to the discharge of duties as an employer, under Sections 3 and 48 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Ed:

As a Crown Body, Greenwich Hospital has immunity from prosecution in a criminal court but is still subject to the duties set out in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Crown Censure is an agreed administrative procedure applicable to Crown employers in lieu of HSE criminal proceedings.

Greenwich Hospital owns and operates the Royal Hospital School which is a co-educational boarding and day school for pupils aged 11 to 18. Greenwich Hospital is a Crown Charity with its own governing charter and statutes. Under the Charter and subsequent legislation the Hospital has its own independent identity but beyond that the Hospital does not have its own legal personality. Contracts, other legal documents and proceedings relating to Greenwich Hospital are therefore entered into the name of the Secretary of State acting in his capacity as the sole trustee of Greenwich Hospital.

Man dies from drinking dishwasher fluid

Defendant	East Sussex County Council Limited			Lewes Crown Court
Offence	S3 HSWA			4 April 2011
Fine	£50,000	Costs	£27,670

 

A man with learning difficulties has died and five others suffered agonising internal injuries after confusing dishwasher fluid with orange squash and drinking it on a council-organised trip.

East Sussex County Council was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident on 7 December 2004.

The adults from St Nicholas Centre, Lewes, were on a visit to Plumpton Agricultural College to use the sporting facilities. The drink, which should have been orange squash but which actually contained sodium hydroxide, had been prepared at the day centre and taken with them.

Lewes Crown Court heard how the six immediately became distressed, started vomiting blood and began fitting after swallowing the industrial cleaning chemical.

Colin Woods, 60 died on 5 April 2006 - 17 months after sustaining his initial injuries.  Other members of the group suffered burns to their mouths, throats and stomachs and most had to undergo repeated surgery. Three will never be able to swallow normally again.

The HSE investigation found the council had failed to ensure the dishwasher fluid was safely locked away. It admitted leaving the liquid out in the unlocked kitchen of the day centre.  Although the dishwasher fluid was marked as corrosive, its container was similar in appearance to that of the orange squash.

The court heard that surviving service users were considered too traumatised by the incident to be interviewed about who mixed the drink.

HSE inspector, Andrew Cousins, said:

"This is one of the worst incidents I have investigated in all my time as a health and safety inspector - it is impossible to adequately imagine the suffering and terror that the victims must have felt as this tragedy unfolded.  The terrible thing is that this incident and its horrific consequences could so easily have been prevented by simply locking away the container of sodium hydroxide. 

Instead, Mr Woods died a slow, painful and unnecessary death and others have suffered terrible, preventable injuries - some painful and permanent - because the council failed in its responsibility to take proper care of them. It is imperative that authorities properly protect vulnerable people in their care."

East Sussex County Council pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) HSWA.  It was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £27,670.

Bucks company and mechanic fined after forklift death

Defendant	Morgans Plant Hire			Aylesbury Magistrates Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA, reg5(1) PUWER			28 April 2011
Fine	£50,000	Costs	£15,000
Defendant	Matthew Edwards
Offence	S7(a) HSWA
Fine	£2,000	Costs	£2,000

 

A Bucks plant hire company and one of its mechanics have been fined after a forklift truck overturned, killing the driver.  Morgans Plant Hire Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation into the death of employee Keith Nappin, who died at its site in Thame Road, Buckinghamshire, on 10 April 2007.

Aylesbury Magistrates' Court heard 42-year-old Mr Nappin worked as a heavy goods driver for Morgans Plant Hire Ltd.  On the day of the incident he was operating a fork lift truck, transporting and loading digger buckets onto flatbed lorries, when the fork lift overturned and Mr Nappin suffered fatal injuries.

The HSE investigation found Morgans Plant Hire Ltd failed to ensure that the fork lift truck was in good working order when Mr Nappin came to use it.

Company mechanic Matthew Edwards, of Aylesbury, had previously incorrectly modified the brakes on the forklift truck which Mr Nappin was operating. By doing this he failed to ensure the health and safety of his co-worker.

Morgans Plant Hire Ltd, based in Oakley, Buckinghamshire, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) HSWA 1974 and  reg 5(1) PUWER 1998. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

Matthew Edwards pleaded guilty to contravening section 7(a) HSWA.  He was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,000.

After the hearing, Peter Burns, HSE Inspector, said:

"When Keith Nappin went to work on 10 April 2007, his family expected him to return home safely, but the failings of his employers mean he'll never go home again.  This prosecution serves to show just how important it is for companies to take their health and safety obligations seriously. HSE will not hesitate to prosecute any firm that fails to do so."

Pet food giant fined £50,000 after steam scalds workers

Defendant	Nestle Purina Petcare (UK) Limited			Cambridge Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA, reg 13 Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000			20 April 2011
Fine	£50,000	Costs	£22,634.15

 

Petcare giant Nestle Purina has been fined after five workers suffered severe burns when a steam pressure system malfunctioned.  The five men were all working on the maintenance of a hydrostat - a high-pressure food-processing machine - when they were hit by an uncontrolled release of steam and boiling water at Nestle Purina's plant on Cromwell Road, Wisbech.

Cambridge Crown Court heard Gary Coe, David Garner, Mark Mawby, Christopher Newell, and David Naylor suffered severe burns to their faces, arms and hands as a result of the incident on the 4 August 2006.

The workers were treated in hospital, with one man needing cosmetic surgery to his arm. The HSE found the hydrostat control systems had been replaced prior to the maintenance work but no proper assessment of the risks associated with these modifications was undertaken.

Nestle Purina Petcare (UK) Limited, based in Croydon, Surrey admitted breaching S2(1) HSWA and reg 13 of the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 by failing to ensure the steam pressure system its employees were working on was safe.

The firm was fined £50,000 with £22,634.15 costs.

After the hearing HSE inspector, Peter Burns, said:

"This incident highlights the need for companies to plan and implement all projects with a clear health and safety oversight. In particular, there are strict rules and regulations around the modifications and repairs of high pressure systems that are in place to protect workers operating or maintaining these machines.  Had Nestle Purina followed these regulations properly, this incident may have been avoided and these five men may not have suffered the injuries they did."

Cannock firm fined after worker crushed

Defendant	Hydraline Engineering Ltd			Stafford Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA, reg3 MHSWR			18 April 2011
Fine	£40,000	Costs	£20,000

 

A Cannock engineering firm has been fined after an employee was crushed to death while working under a plant vehicle.  The HSE prosecuted Hydraline Engineering Ltd, of Unit 33 Martindale, Cannock, Staffordshire, following the death of 46-year-old employee Mark Palmer on 7 March 2008 at Wells Farm, Bradley, Stafford.

The company modifies construction equipment such as excavators and wheeled loaders, and Mr Palmer, from Cannock, was working on a wheeled loader at Wells Farm when the incident took place.

Mr Palmer was working under the vehicle's arms when the hydraulic system lost pressure. This caused the loading arm to fall, fatally crushing him against the vehicle frame.

Stafford Crown Court heard how Hydraline had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, meaning there were insufficient control measures in place to stop the arm falling in the event of a loss of hydraulic pressure.

The HSE investigation also found Hydraline had given Mr Palmer insufficient training with regard to the risks when working with hydraulic machinery. Instead he had picked up knowledge while on the job.

Hydraline pleaded guilty to breaching Reg 3(1) MHSWR 1999 and S 2(1) HSWA.

The company was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs by Stafford Crown Court.

HSE inspector Wayne Owen said:

"It is a tragedy for Mr Palmer's family that his death could have been prevented if Hydraline Engineering Ltd had taken the time to properly consider the risks.  When carrying out work under hydraulically-supported loads, it is vital that a thorough risk assessment is carried out beforehand and that suitable control measures are taken to minimise the significant dangers created by this type of work.  Had the company provided a suitable load tested support device, this would, in conjunction with a safe system of work, have stopped the loading arm falling onto Mr Palmer - and prevented his death."

Gateshead steel firm fined £40,000 for crush injury

Defendant	Spartan UK Ltd			Gateshead Magistrates Court
Offence	regs 8(1) 13 19(3) PUWER reg 3(1) MHSWR			12 April 2011
Fine	£40,000	Costs	£9,757.99

 

A Gateshead steel firm has been fined a total of £40,000 after a worker's feet were crushed in a rolling mill.  Alan Dixon, 62, from Gateshead, was part of a team carrying out routine maintenance at Spartan UK Ltd's site in the Teams area of the town.

The HSE brought the prosecution after investigating the incident which took place on 28 August 2009.

Gateshead Magistrates heard the maintenance team was removing large mill rollers used to reduce the thickness of slabs of steel at very high temperatures to make them into flat plates.

The rollers were removed weekly to be cleaned. This involved Mr Dixon standing on the outgoing side of the mill with his feet in between several hot conveyor rollers in order to attach a hydraulic ram to aid the removal of the rollers.

However, on this occasion a co-worker in the control room was unaware Mr Dixon was standing on the mill and activated hydraulic side arms used to position steel plates through the mill rollers.

Before he could escape, one of the sidearms moved inwards crushing Mr Dixon's right foot and part of his left foot against the conveyor rollers.

Unable to place his crushed feet on the hot conveyor rollers, Mr Dixon grabbed on to the mill and in doing so, received burns to his forearms.

He was rushed to Queen Elizabeth hospital, but surgeons had to amputate his right leg below the knee. He is still undergoing treatment to repair his left heel and may need a future operation to relieve pain. It is unlikely he will be able to work again.

Spartan UK Ltd, of Ropery Road, Teams, Gateshead was fined a total of £40,000 and ordered to pay £9,757.99 in costs after it pleaded guilty to 3 breaches of the PUWER and a breach of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

After the case, HSE Inspector Jonathan Wills, said:

"Alan Dixon suffered extremely painful and permanent leg injuries because Spartan UK Ltd failed to ensure dangerous parts of the mill could not be activated while workers were carrying out maintenance work in those areas.  The rolls were removed almost every weekend, yet the company failed to assess the risks associated with the process, and failed to provide instructions on how it should be done safely.  Spartan UK Ltd also failed to take adequate measures to ensure workers were protected from the intense heat radiating from the hot conveyor rollers on which the maintenance team had to stand."

"Simple and inexpensive measures would have prevented this incident from occurring. All workers involved in the process could have had individual keys to be inserted before the mill could be restarted."

Ed

Spartan UK Ltd was fined:

£11,500 for breaching reg 8(1) PUWER;

£9,000 for breaching reg 13 PUWER;

£10,500 for breaching reg 19(3) PUWER

£9,000 for breaching reg 3(1)(a) MHSWR

Full details of these provisions and the others referred to are listed at the end.

Land Rover fined for failing to assess risk

Defendant	Land Rover			Solihull Magistrates Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA			27 April 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£60,606

 

Vehicle manufacturer Land Rover has been prosecuted by the HSE for failing to take into account the risks associated with workers at its Solihull plant using vibrating hand tools.

Land Rover pleaded guilty to the charges brought against it in relation to activities at its plant in Lode Lane, and was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £60,606 costs.

The firm was prosecuted after a HSE investigation in 2007 into the working practices concerning two employees in the weld destruct section where air chisels were used to undo welds on cars to test the strength of them.

Two cases of Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome had been reported in December 2006. The subsequent investigation found that vibrating hand tools were being used across the plant with a lack of assessment and management of risk and when a health surveillance regime was then made effective, other cases came to light.

Solihull magistrates also heard there was no system in place to measure how long was being spent using the tools by each employee or the levels of vibration. The recommended amount of time for one of the tools to be used was one hour per day per person, but it had been in use for three hours per day.

In all, ten employees were thought to be affected by ill health attributable to the use of vibrating hand tools at the Solihull plant.

The lack of assessment of risk or time spent working with the tools appears to be an oversight on the company's behalf. There was no previous record of this happening and an improvement notice was served in 2007 which was complied with. None of the employees appear to have been prevented from continuing in the job.

Land Rover pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

HSE inspector Gareth Langston said:

"Land Rover had systematically failed to assess and manage the risk arising from using these tools. Some employees were found to be using vibrating hand tools for periods of time far in excess of the recommended limits.  The fact that sister plant Jaguar had addressed the issues, does suggest that this particular instance was an oversight on the part of the company. However, lessons need to be learned by employers - to ensure that working practices are suitably assessed for any risk.

Employers must ensure that the use of vibrating hand tools is properly managed, and it is unacceptable that Land Rover did not do this - as this is a disabling condition involving pain and significant loss of hand function, and is usually irreversible in later stages."

Car firm fined after fatal head injury to worker

Defendant	Cannon Automotive Limited			City of London Magistrates Court
Offence	regs 8(1) 13 19(3) PUWER reg 3(1) MHSWR			28 April 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£13,100

 

Balbir Rayatt, a worker, suffered fatal head injuries when he was struck by a steel barrier while carrying out maintenance on a machine.  Mr Rayatt worked as an engineering and maintenance manager for car mat manufacturer Cannon Automotive Limited in Tottenham, London.

On the 20 May 2008, Mr Rayatt suffered fatal head injuries when the heavy steel fabrication barrier fell on him while carrying out repairs on a rubber-mixing machine.

The HSE investigation revealed the barrier had been stored vertically and unsecured against rubber compound powder containers. The court heard the firm failed to assess the risks and implement a suitable and sufficient safe system of work for the maintenance of the mixer.

City of London Magistrates' Court heard Cannon Automotive Limited did not supervise, manage, monitor, audit or review its arrangements regarding maintenance operations on the mixer to ensure they met the health and safety standards.

Cannon Automotive Limited of Tottenham, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA. It was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £13,100.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Neil Fry said:

"This tragic death was utterly preventable. Poor standards and failure to keep working environments in a good condition are a major cause of these types of incidents and also occupational diseases.  Maintenance is a process that affects every aspect of safety and health and when a tragedy such as this occurs it demonstrates the importance of planning when carrying out maintenance work.  Unfortunately it is too late for Mr Rayatt, but I would hope employers in London and around the UK will take note."

Tamworth firm fined for man's burns

Defendant	Enviro-Strip (UK) Ltd			Burton-on-Trent Magistrates' Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA; Reg5(1) Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002			18 April 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£6,491

 A worker suffered serious burns from a flash fire after opening an oven door at a factory unit in Tamworth.  The incident happened at Enviro-Strip (UK) Ltd's premises in Wilnecote. The firm strips paint and coatings from metal parts for the automotive industry.

During the HSE prosecution, Burton-on-Trent Magistrates' Court heard that the incident happened when 24-year-old man, who has asked not to be identified, was supervising the opening of the specialised oven, used to remove paint from metal in a low-oxygen environment.

 

The specialised oven which caused the worker's injuries

He suffered acute burns on his face, arm, neck and left hand when the resulting flash fire from the 400°C caught his upper body, on 19 March 2010. He was airlifted to hospital and put into an induced coma and kept on a high dependency ward for four days. He is back at work but cannot stay out in sunlight as his skin is now too sensitive.

The HSE investigation found a safety device designed to prevent the door from being opened at temperatures above 260 degrees had been deliberately bypassed.

The court heard the company failed to consider the risk of fire and explosion from the paints inside the oven, the effect of introducing additional oxygen by opening the oven door, and at what temperature it was safe to open the oven.

Enviro-Strip pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) HSWA 1974 and Reg 5(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. The company was fined £20,000 in total and ordered to pay £6,491 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Gail Pannell said:

"This was a very serious, entirely preventable incident that could easily have been fatal and left a man on a life support machine. He is extremely lucky to have recovered from his injuries.  When working with potentially dangerous substances at high temperatures, companies must carry out proper risk assessments and set up a safe system of work.  This includes checking that safety devices are fit for purpose and suitably maintained."

Worker's hand severed by machine

Defendant	RDB Fabrication and Engineering Ltd			Halifax Magistrates Court
Offence	Reg11 PUWER			7 April 2011
Fine	£12,000	Costs	£2,000

 Metal fabrication company RDB Fabrication and Engineering Ltd has been fined after a 22-year-old worker's hand was severed by a machine.  Jamie Raynor's left hand was amputated when the top pressing tool of a hydraulic press brake he was operating came down on his wrist.

Mr Raynor, of Queensbury, Bradford, worked on a casual basis was asked to come in on a Saturday because the company was busy.

 

The firm's press brake machine which severed Mr Raynor's hand

The HSE investigation found the press brake, used to bend sheet metal, was fitted with an electronic motion guard to stop the machine moving if a part of a person entered the danger zone. However when Mr Raynor reached into the machine to reposition a part, it failed to operate and stop the movement of the tool.

Halifax Magistrates' Court heard this was the first time he had worked on the machine and had been given less than ten minutes' instruction on its operation.

HSE inspector, Paul Newton, said:

"A young man has had his life changed forever by a terrible, avoidable accident.  The dangers of working with press brakes are well known in the industry and there have been many instances of workers being seriously injured. That's why these machines are fitted with guards to prevent access to the danger zone. In this case, the company's failure to ensure these guards were effective had tragic consequences.

"Contact with moving machinery is one of the main causes of fatal injuries to workers and the third highest cause of major injuries. I hope this serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of safeguarding their employees."

RDB Fabrication and Engineering Ltd admitted breaching Regulation 11(b) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to ensure the machine was adequately guarded.

The company, which was based at Queens Road, Halifax at the time of the incident, but now operates from Mill Street, Wibsey, Bradford, was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

Builder jailed for putting profit before safety

Defendant	John Howe			Bradford Magistrates Court
Offence	S3 HSWA Regs 3(3), 7(1), 7(3), 26(5) (a) Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998			11 April 2011
Prison	4 months	Costs	£2,000

 

Bradford builder John Howe has been jailed for trying to cut costs by doing his own gas and electric installation in a granny flat he was working on.

John Howe was taking so long finishing the construction the owner called in another builder who advised him power connections in the flat may be dangerous.

Bradford Magistrates' Court heard today that Mr Howe, trading as J Howe Plumbing and Construction, was paid around £28,000 to build a granny flat/bungalow at the back of a house in Crestwood Close, Bradford, belonging to Mr Khalid Rehman.

The defendant started work in May 2009 but by June 2010 Mr Rehman called in another builder after Mr Howe failed to turn up several times on site and finish the work.

Mr Howe had installed a gas boiler in the loft and gas hob in the kitchen and left them connected to the mains supply, despite not being a Gas Safe registered engineer. He also undertook electrical work and left it in an unsafe state.

Mr Rehman then asked Bradford Council's Building Control to investigate and the HSE were notified.  Tests by HSE and a Gas Safe registered engineer showed gas work was unsafe and the boiler could have been a danger to life or property if operated.

An electrical test concluded Mr Howe's work posed an unacceptable risk of injury or death.  The HSE served a Prohibition Notice on Mr Howe on 25 November 2010 preventing him from carrying out any domestic gas work until he becomes competent and Gas Safe registered.

Bradford Magistrates jailed Mr Howe, of Bush Mill Fold, Queensbury, for 4 months after he pleaded guilty to 5 breaches of health and safety legislation and Gas Safety Regulations.

After the hearing, Inspector Andy Denison, who investigated the case for HSE, said:

"Mr Howe selfishly chose to put a future resident of this property in danger, and it could very easily have ended in tragedy. It is fortunate that his incompetent work was discovered by another builder and reported.  This was a good result from partnership working with Bradford Council and its building control experts. We uncovered a classic example of a builder trying to cut corners on a project and putting profit before safety. Mr Howe should have called in the registered professionals to ensure the necessary work was done safely."

Plymouth workers exposed to asbestos

Defendant	CLC Contractors Ltd			Plymouth Magistrates Court
Offence	Regs 4 & 11(1)(a) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006			18 April 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,000

 

CLC Contractors Ltd of Vincent Avenue, Shirley, Southampton, was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,064 in costs in a case brought by the HSE following asbestos exposure at a site in Plymouth.

The incident happened in May 2009 when employees of CLC Contractors,  were working on the refurbishment of three student blocks at the College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth.

CLC had agreed with a specialist asbestos removal company that they would work simultaneously in parts of the building already cleared by the asbestos removal workers.

However, the builders began work in an area of the building which had not been cleared of asbestos. Four employees were exposed to fibres and had to go through a specialist decontamination process.

The company pleaded guilty to exposing four employees to asbestos under Regulation 11 (1) (a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. They were fined £5,000 for each charge.

HSE inspector, Barry Trudgian, said:

"This incident could have been avoided if an adequate risk assessment had been made before the work started and communicated clearly to the workforce.  Exposure to asbestos can have serious long-term consequences for your health and precautions must be taken to minimise any risks when working on buildings."

Company fined after unsafe work on roof

Defendant	Dan Shea			Staines Magistrates Court
Offence	regulation 25(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007			18 April 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£6,497

 

A Hampshire roofing boss has been fined after workers were spotted removing roof tiles without scaffolding or safety barriers to prevent them falling.  Dan Shea, who also traded as Blackmoor Roofing, of Liss bought used roof tiles from a demolition company dismantling a house in Esher, Surrey on the understanding his firm would remove them before the building was dismantled.

The HSE told Staines Magistrates' Court that on 8 February 2010, a neighbour who lived opposite the property in Wayneflete Tower Avenue, witnessed workmen removing roof tiles from the house in an unsafe manner and alerted HSE.

One man was reportedly standing on the wet roof with no safety barriers or scaffolding, another was in the raised bucket of a digger taking tiles from the roof, while a third was on top of a long ladder throwing wall tiles down to ground level.

HSE discovered Mr Shea had sent three Polish labourers to the property to remove the tiles, though he later claimed they started work earlier than agreed. HSE has been unable to contact any of the workers since the incident.

The court heard HSE attempted to reach Mr Shea on more than five occasions to discuss the incident but he failed to answer correspondence, phone calls or attend interviews to discuss the matter.

Mr Shea pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 25(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,497.

Denis Bodger HSE's Inspector said:

"It is incredible that Mr Shea's workers were using an excavator bucket to get onto a wet roof and were allowed to remove tiles without anything to prevent them from falling. In this instance the risk of falling was also increased by the fact that it was wet from rain and sleet."

 Worker suffers broken back in roof plunge

Defendant	Fluetech Ltd			Staines Magistrates Court
Offence	Reg 6(3), 7(2)(a)(b), Work at Height Regulations 2005,  Reg 3(1) MHSWR			12 April 2011
Fine	£13,500	Costs	£3,873

 A Halifax man's life was shattered after he plunged from the roof of a two-storey house because the firm he worked for paid scant attention to safe systems of working at height, a court has been told.

The worker broke his back in the seven-metre fall from the roof of a house in Cookridge, Leeds, on 19 February 2010. He was in hospital 15 days and suffered serious back injuries that will affect him the rest of his working life.

His employers at the time, Fluetech Ltd, pleaded guilty today at Leeds Magistrates' Court to three health and safety offences in a prosecution brought by the HSE. The company was fined a total of £13,500 and ordered to pay costs of £3,873.

 

The house with the dormer extension to the rear

The court heard that the worker was on the roof and just about to install a flue liner down the inside of the chimney. He had put up a roof ladder and stepped onto it when it gave way, sending him falling all the way to the ground below. He did not know there was a dormer extension on the other side of the roof so the roof ladder had failed to hook over the ridge properly.

The HSE investigation showed the company failed to assess the risks properly before the work started, failed to find out there was a dormer window on the rear of the roof, failed to make sure workers were provided with the correct equipment for the job and to take suitable measures to ensure workers were not exposed to risks to their safety.

Inspector David Welsh said:

"This worker has suffered horrendous and life-changing injuries as a result of the company's numerous failures. What makes matters worse is that, after the man was taken to hospital severely injured, the company allowed its employees to finish that job and subsequently similar jobs, all using the same unsafe systems of work.  The company relied far too much on using portable ladders alone. At this job, they should have used scaffolding or a tower scaffold to prevent the roof ladder falling all the way to the ground.  The company was very poor at assessing and managing the risks of working at heights. Anyone who works in the construction industry knows that falls are the commonest cause of death and serious injury in the workplace."

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
Dowding and Mills UK Ltd Mike Wilde	S3 HSWA	£6,000	£1,498	Worker injured falling through fragile roof.  Site occupier and worker's employer prosecuted
Mike Wilde	Reg 4(1) Work at Height Regulations 2005	£1,000	£300
Coventry Construction Limited	S2 HSWA	£6,000	£8,000	unannounced HSE inspection found inadequate guarding of drills and guillotines, poor control measures for spraying and storing flammable paint - causing potential fire and explosion risks - and inadequate storage of oxygen and acetylene cylinders
Martin Nealon, trading as CFR Flat Roofing	Reg 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005	£5,985	£1,800	Work at height in unsafe fashion leading to prosecution and prohibition notice.  Workers 8-10m above ground.
DCU, Newlincs Services Ltd	S2 HSWA	£5,000	£3,580	3 employees affected by CO poisoning in a DCU
Asif Iqbal	Reg 11 PUWER	£4,000	£1,305	Failing to guard dangerous machinery
East Coast Viners Grain LLP	S2 HSWA	£4,000	N/A Scot	Worker fell 5m on to concrete floor unsafe system of work, absence of control measures
Triton Building Restoration Ltd and Fire Escape Ltd	S3 HSWA	£5,000     £3,500	£11,339     £11,300	labourer fell from a roof 18m during building work
IFT Services Ltd	S2 HSWA	£4,000	£2,000	Employee had been working from a cage attached to a telehandler but had climbed out onto a scaffold board to continue removing nails from old panels. There was nothing in place to prevent a fall.
Russell Lee Flook	s2 & s3 s33(1)(k) HSWA	£3,000	£1,000	Employee fell 4m and died subsequently, provision of false information
Anthony Trevor Hughes	Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 x 5	£2,625	£7,500	The range of offences included making basic errors when installing gas appliances and pipe work at three separate properties in Holyhead and Bangor, and not being registered with the official accreditation scheme.
Michael Murton	Regs 5, (1), 11(1)(a), 16 CoAR 2006, S33(1)(c) EPA 1990	Conditional Discharge and 12 mnth suspended sentence	£10,000	Developer put workers at risk by failing to identify the presence of asbestos before allowing them to start work on a nightclub in Wrexham; disposing of asbestos in manner likely to cause harm to human health.
Richard Grant	Reg 9 (1) Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000	Conditional Discharge	£500	Garage director fined for ignoring safety notice - failure to have pressure system examined

 

Offences and other legislation referred to in this month's edition:

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

S2(1)	It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees
S3(1)	It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such as way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety
S3(2)	It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
S7(a)	It shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.

Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998

7(1)	Any person installing a gas fitting shall ensure that it is properly supported and so placed or protected as to avoid any undue risk of damage to the fitting.
7(3)	No person shall install a gas fitting in a position where it is likely to be exposed to any substance which may corrode gas fittings unless the fitting is constructed of materials which are inherently resistant to being so corroded or it is suitably protected against being so corroded.
26(5)(a)	No person carrying out the installation of a gas appliance shall leave it connected to the gas supply unless - the appliance can be used safely.

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

5(1)	Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
11(1)	Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken which are effective: (a) to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or (b) to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

3(1)	Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work

Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000

9(1)

Subject to paragraph (7), the user of an installed system and the owner of a mobile system shall- (a)ensure that those parts of the pressure system included in the scheme of examination are examined by a competent person within the intervals specified in the scheme and, where the scheme so provides, before the system is used for the first time; and (b)before each examination take all appropriate safety measures to prepare the system for examination, including any such measures as are specified in the scheme of examination pursuant to regulation 8(3)(b).

13

The employer of a person who modifies or repairs a pressure system at work shall ensure that nothing about the way in which it is modified or repaired gives rise to danger or otherwise impairs the operation of any protective device or inspection facility

Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002

5(1)	Where a dangerous substance is or is liable to be present at the workplace, the employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to his employees which arise from that substance.

Work at Height Regulations 2005

4(1)	Every employer shall ensure that work at height is properly planned, appropriately supervised, and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe
6(3)	'Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.
7(2)(a)(b)	An employer shall select work equipment for work at height which- (a) has characteristics including dimensions which- (i) are appropriate to the nature of the work to be performed and the foreseeable loadings; and (ii) allow passage without risk; and (b) is in other respects the most suitable work equipment, having regard in particular to the purposes specified in regulation 6.

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006

6(1)(a)	An employer shall not carry out work which is liable to expose his employees to asbestos unless he has made a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk created by that exposure to the health of those employees and of the steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of these Regulations
8(1)	Subject to regulation 3(2), an employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he holds a licence granted under paragraph 2 of this regulation
11(1)(a)	Every employer shall prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable.
16	Every employer shall prevent or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the spread of asbestos from any place where work under his control is carried out.

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

25(1)

Every contractor carrying out construction work shall comply with the requirements of regulations 26 to 44 insofar as they affect him or any person carrying out construction work under his control or relate to matters within his control

 

Environment Agency offences

Drainage Co prosecuted for disposing of waste down drains

Defendants	(1) A and D Drains Services Ltd (2) David Rodriguez			Preston Crown Court
Offences	4 x illegal disposal of waste        4 x false paperwork			19 April 2011
Fines Tot	c£18,000	Costs	£22,500	Confiscation £15,900

Drainage company prosecuted for disposing waste down drains

A and D Drains Services Limited and its director, Mr David Rodrigues were sentenced at Preston Crown Court after pleading guilty in January to eight charges, each brought by the Environment Agency - four in relation to illegal disposals of liquid waste and four in relation to creating false paperwork to cover up its illegal actions.

Whilst sentencing, the High Court Judge recognised the seriousness of the case where the company was paid and trusted by its customers to dispose of waste liquids lawfully, but instead put the waste down the drain systems. They were therefore penalised accordingly.

The Judge imposed a £15,900 confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the company and it's director, David Rodriguez, were also ordered to pay fines of £40,000 which included £22,500 costs to the EA all of which must be paid within 12 months, or Mr David Rodriguez will face 12 months imprisonment.

Jennie Frieze prosecuting for the EA said: "This is the first ever prosecution of this type brought about by the Environment Agency in the North West under the Proceeds of Crime Act and is also the first ever prosecution of a drainage company for such a crime. The sentencing reflects the seriousness of the waste crimes the company committed.  This case took a huge amount of work by the Environment Agency leading to the prosecution of 269 illegal disposals of liquid wastes, as well as a prosecution for illegitimate behaviour whereby the company tried to cover up their illegal actions.  The liquids disposed of included wastes from septic tanks, petrol stations (hazardous waste) and industrial sites and like all unlawful disposals of waste, has the potential to cause harm to the environment and human health."

 Skip Hire company fined for burning waste

Defendants	Bilston Skip Hire Services Limited			Wolverhampton Magistrates Court
Offences	Regs 12 & 38(1)(b)  Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 and Reg 38(2)  Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010			11 April 2011
Fines Tot	£40,000	Costs	£5,000

On 11 April 2011, at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court, Bilston Skip Hire Services Limited of Wolverhampton was fined in relation to offences of burning waste.

Bilston Skip Hire Services Limited who operate a household, commercial and Industrial Waste Transfer Station was fined £40,000 for the two charges and required to pay costs over £5,000 for burning controlled waste on their site at unit 10, New Enterprise Centre, Monmore Road off Culwick Street, Wolverhampton.   The company had continued to burn over a 12 month period causing nuisance and for commercial gain despite warnings and being told to stop the practice by the Environment Agency.

On 31 August 2009, Environment Agency officers were called to the area following complaints of smoke and discovered that it was coming from the Bilston Skip Hire site. 

On 19 April 2010, following several complaints of smoke and odour officers witnessed a fire burning on site.  After further complaints received on 21 May 2010, the site was visited and officers witnessed a large fire burning, mostly scrap wood, with a stockpile nearby.  The fire appeared to have been burning for some time.  Further fires were reported and investigated throughout July and August 2010.  

West Midland Fire & Rescue Service were called out to the site on a number of occasions and commented that the incidents were not only an unnecessary drain on operational resources but unknown fumes were given off as pollutants; welfare of the site's employees, local residents and attending crews were also a  concern.

The Magistrates when sentencing commented that it was a prolonged breach of the rules concerning fires, the Directors were fully aware that fires were not permitted, they were large fires and caused distress and inconvenience to Monmore Stadium, local residents and the Wholesale Market

Speaking after the case, Environment Management Team Leader, Doug Freakley said: "I am very pleased with the result on behalf of the residents of Monmore.  This company ignored repeated warnings from the Environment Agency to stop burning waste.  They blighted the local environment with smoke from fires and have wasted our time and that of other agencies responding to these unnecessary events".

In mitigation the company apologised and readily admitted liability, the business was struggling financially following the recession.

 

Waste doesn't have to cost a fortune?

Defendants	(1) Edna Trotter (2) Colin Trotter both of H&E Trotters			Carlislie Magistrates Court
Offences	Regs 12 & 38(1)(b)  Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007			11 April 2011
Fines	(1) £20,000 (2) £10,000	Costs	£1,397 £1,397

H&E Trotters who pleaded guilty to waste offences have been fined £32,794 for operating their facility without the correct environmental permissions in place.

Carlisle magistrates heard that during a routine site visit in April 2010, EA Officers discovered 18 skips containing waste materials, including soils, metals, mixed waste and rubble stored at Gilwilly Industrial Estate.  Further investigations revealed that no permits were in place for waste to be stored at this site, directly breaching environmental regulations.

H&E Trotters is a well established family business in Cumbria, providing waste services to households and companies across the county. The business runs two correctly permitted sites located at Carlisle and Calthwaite, and were familiar with the regulations which they should be complying with.

Ruth Evans, Investigating Officer for the Environment Agency said, "In this case the site operators were putting themselves at an advantage over their competitors by failing to comply with legal requirements for the storage of waste. Environmental regulations are in place to make sure that waste is stored and treated to high environmental standards. This ensures the waste we all create is handled in a way that does not cause harm to the environment or individuals.

operated a regulated facility except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

Wallsend man sentenced for repeated waste offences

 

Defendant	John Dawson			Newcastle Crown Court
Offences	S33 EPA 1990 unauthorised keeping of controlled waste x3			19 April 2011
Penalty	12 weeks prison susp 12 months	Costs	£5,000

 

John Dawson has received a 12 week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months at Newcastle Crown Court for repeatedly illegally storing and dismantling old cars.  He was also subjected to a residency condition at his home address for 12 months.

On 21 March 2011, John Dawson of Vine Street, Wallsend pleaded guilty to three offences brought by the Environment Agency at Newcastle Crown Court. He was also ordered to pay costs of £5,000 to the Environment Agency, which brought the case.

The offences date back to 2004 and relate to Dawson's business, Prudhoe Auto Dismantlers, on Prudhoe Industrial Estate.

Diana Maudslay, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that Dawson had held a waste management licence for the site since August 1992 but in 2004 refused to pay the fees for the renewal of the licence. Despite repeated correspondence Dawson did not pay the fee, but did continue to operate his site, which was then considered illegal due to the non-payment of his fees.

In 2006 the Environment Agency charged Dawson with three counts of unauthorised keeping of controlled waste. Dawson pleaded guilty to one of the charges and was ordered to pay a £500 fine, £500 costs and outstanding subsistence fees to the EA.

The court heard that the other two offences from 2004 and 2005 were not proceeded with at the time. However Dawson continued to refuse to pay his fees for subsequent years.    EA officers continued to visit the site throughout 2007 and 2008 and saw that cars were still being stored and broken up on the site.

On 26 November 2008 Dawson locked the site gates when he saw two EA officers approaching and denied them access to the site, stating they could not go on to the site without a warrant.

Ed - this is incorrect in waste law - by the way.

Mexborough company fined £20k running illegal waste site

Defendant	Grove Environmental Ltd			Doncaster Magistrates Court
Offences	Reg 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting  (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 x2; s33(1)(c) EPA 1990;			18 April 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£11,000

Grove Environmental Ltd  a Mexborough company has been fined fined £20,000 after admitting three charges relating to illegally operating a waste site, including one charge of storing hazardous waste including asbestos and oils in a manner likely to cause pollution to the environment.

The company pleaded guilty was also ordered to pay costs of £11,000 to the EA on top of a payment of £5,000 already voluntarily made by the company.

Barry Berlin acting on behalf of the EA told the court that the company committed deliberate breaches of environmental law for commercial advantage and that, as a result, it was able to undercut competitors in a savage market.

Passing sentence, District Judge Jonathan Bennett said that the company had committed a "reckless breach of the law". He commented that the company had "lucrative contracts" and that the way they operated the site had created an "unfair market".

The judge said that the company had been given previous warnings and had failed to heed advice given about the running of the site.

The court heard that EA visited the Grove Environmental site on Whitelea Grove Trading Estate, Mexborough on 15 and 18 August 2008 and found large amounts of waste being stored.

The company did have an environmental permit, but waste was being stored on un-permitted parts of the site and it also contained types of waste which the company was not permitted to keep.

Asbestos, in the form of Chrysotile white asbestos fibres, was also found at the site, along with crushed cement-bonded asbestos which was being illegally stored. The court heard that this not only put site employees at risk, but the environment officers who regulated it too.

The officers also noticed pools of oil on soft ground and a large amount of electrical items, for which a WEEE permit (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is needed. This kind of waste should be handled and stored in such a way that component parts, such as plugs or fuses, could be reused. The electrical items had been baled together, making it, the court heard, very difficult to reuse or recycle them.

A further visit by environment officers on 20 May 2009 confirmed that waste was still being stored on un-permitted parts of the site, and that, in addition, types of waste the site was not allowed to take was being stored.

In mitigation the company blamed one of its directors and said a family illness had been responsible for a deterioration of the way the site was operated. It said that the company had been restructured and the site put right.

Ed

Grove Environmental Recycling Limited pleaded guilty to three charges:

1. Between 14 August 2008 and 19 August 2008 Grove Environmental (Recycling) Limited operated a regulated facility namely a waste operation involving disposal of waste on land at Whitelea Grove Trading Estate, Mexborough which was not authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

2. Between 14 August 2008 and 19 August 2008 Grove Environmental (Recycling) Limited kept, treated or disposed of controlled waste namely liquid waste, putrescible waste, oil waste or asbestos waste, in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health, contrary to section 33(1)(c) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

3. On or before 20 May 2009 Grove Environmental (Recycling) Limited operated a regulated facility namely waste operation involving disposal of waste on land at Whitelea Grove Trading Estate, Mexborough which was not authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999

Dairy farm owner fined for slurry pollution

Defendant	Peter Willes			North Devon Magistrates Court
Offences	S85 WRA 1991 x2 & s33 EPA 1990			18 April 2011
Fine	£19,500	Costs	£4,190

Peter Willes pleaded guilty to three environmental offences following a fire on a Hartland farm in which wastes including plastics, a fridge, tyres and light bulbs were burnt.

He admitted allowing controlled waste to be deposited without a permit at Beckland Farm on February 2, 2010, and causing slurry and milk to enter a stream on or before the same day, and a further charge of allowing effluent in another stream on or before February 11 last year.
Beckland Farm is one of the largest farms in North Devon with a dairy herd of over 2,000 cattle and a cheese factory. Over £1 million has been spent at Beckland Farm over the last couple of years to expand the herd.

Beckland Farm is situated in the Hartland area of North Devon, bordering the Tintagel-Marshland-Clovelly coast SAC and Marsland to Clovelly SSSI, and upstream of Beckland Woods, popular walking areas.

On January 30,  2010, off-duty Environment Agency officer Sean McKay noted that the stream bed in Beckland woods was thickly coated with algae, a symptom of pollution caused by nutrient enrichment. He also spotted a farm waste tip on the nearby farm managed by Peter Willes.  Two days later, he was called to a fire at the farm and saw that waste on the tip site had been lit . A variety of hazardous wastes such as veterinary wastes, metal halide bulbs, strip lights, an upright fridge, tyres, plastics and fibreglass had been burnt.

The Environment Agency returned on February 11, 2010 to discover silage was leaking from the farm to another stream. Colonies of blood worms were present, a sign of prolonged pollution.

'No drainage survey was carried out when the dairy was expanded to identify risks and to divert water polluted with cattle faeces to the slurry tank. In addition, an enormous silage store had been built without complying with the guidelines. This had resulted in prolonged discharges of silage effluent and slurry to two separate streams, both of which were extensively affected,' said Sean McKay for the Environment Agency.

Peter Willes was fined £19,500 and ordered to pay £4,190 costs by North Devon Magistrates after pleading to causing polluting matter to enter controlled waters, an offence under the Water Resources Act 1991, and depositing controlled waste on land at Becklands Farm, Hartland, Devon, contrary to Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Thames Water fined for Surrey canal sewage spill

Defendant	Thames Water			Woking Magistrates Court
Offences	S85 WRA 1991			15 April 2011
Fine	£12,500	Costs	£5,388

Thames Water has admitted a charge of allowing polluting matter to enter the Basingstoke Canal and was fined £12,000, made to pay £5,388 costs by Woking Magistrates' Court. The charge was brought under the Water Resources Act 1991.

Environment officer Ruth Clayden was called to the canal at Boundary Road, Woking, at around 8am on 7 September 2009. She walked under the road bridge and noticed a discharge coming from the surface water outlet, which was entering the canal on the right hand bank looking downstream.

The water was cloudy, with a strong smell of sewage and a number of fish were seen either dead or gasping for air on the surface. Readings taken upstream of the discharge point at 9.55am showed: Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels were 44.8% and Ammonium levels were 3.24mg/l.

A reading taken near the discharge point at 10.05am showed DO levels were 5% and Ammonium levels were 33.27 mg/l.

Fisheries officer Dominic Martyn arrived at 11.20am and walked further downstream with the environment officer. More readings were taken and 35 dead fish were seen over a 200m stretch from the discharge point. This number contained roach, bream, perch and gudgeon.

Thames Water were contacted and arrived late morning as they were working on a blocked sewer in Victoria Way, which was cleared soon after. The environment officer took another reading at the discharge point and the ammonium reading was recorded as 12.51 mg/l, a decrease since the blockage had been cleared.

Ruth Clayden walked downstream again in the afternoon and although fish seemed fine at the end of the stretch of the affected water, roughly 420m downstream, they were still gasping near the discharge point so it was decided that Thames Water should install aeration equipment.

The Environment officer attended the scene with a colleague the following day and more readings were taken.  These showed DO levels were still low. Thames Water contractors confirmed aeration equipment did not arrive until 6.30pm the night before and had been switched off overnight.

On 9 September 9 Thames Water gave Ruth Clayden some readings over the phone which showed DO had marginally increased. It was decided to deploy two more aeration kits and the EA gave permission for Thames Water to tanker several loads of clean water from the nearby Goldsworth Park balancing pond.

On the morning of 10 September Thames Water advised that the readings still showed the pollution was still bad but a further reading taken on site by Ruth Clayden at 2pm showed the equipment was having a positive effect on DO levels.

Thames Water advised that they had counted 230 dead fish.  The aeration equipment was removed in the afternoon of September 11 due to rising oxygen levels and the canal was monitored over the weekend.

Readings taken by Ruth Clayden on Monday 14 September showed DO readings were now at a level not to cause any harm to fish in the canal.

During an interview under caution on Simon Rawles, Thames Water's Area Network Manager, accepted the company was responsible for the sewers in the Woking area. He admitted a blockage was found in the foul sewer where two drain rods, which have since been removed, had collected fat, oil and grease.

He said once this blockage had been cleared the pollution had stopped. Although foul sewers and surface water sewers in the surrounding area were investigated, no structural defects or misconnections that could be connected to the pollution incident could be found.

Packaging Waste fines

Defendant	RFE International Ltd			Milton Keynes Magistrates Court
Offences	Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 x6			1 April 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£5,388

Fitness product importer and supplier, RFE International Ltd, has been fined for failing to comply with packaging regulations in 2007 and 2008.  The company was fined a total of £15,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £1,670 by Milton Keynes Magistrates Court.  It admitted six offences over two years and asked the court to consider a further 12 offences.

The court heard that an EA officer visited the company on a routine audit during which it became apparent that the company may be obligated under the Packaging Regulations. The company then provided information that showed it was obligated.

Mr Gareth Phillips, finance director of the Milton Keynes-based company, told EA officers that the company handled 278 tonnes of packaging in 2006 and 341 tonnes in 2007 but had not registered to join the recycling scheme because they were unaware of the packaging regulations.

It has been estimated that the total cost avoided by not complying with the scheme was about £12,172.

Mrs Anne-Lise McDonald prosecuting, told the court: "The aim of the packaging regulations is to achieve a more sustainable approach to dealing with packaging by ensuring businesses take responsibility for the packaging used in their operations.  This in turn reduces the amount of packaging produced and the amount going to landfill."

Magistrates were told that for each year of not being in a scheme there were three offences: not being registered, failing to recover and recycle packaging and not providing a record of recycling. 

The regulations apply to any company which handles in excess of 50 tonnes of packaging a year and has an annual turnover of more than £2m.

In mitigation, Mr Adam Pearson representing the company said the company had joined a scheme as soon as they became aware of the regulations.  He said this was not a flagrant disregard of the regulations or a deliberate act.

He asked the court to consider a further 12 offences for 2003-2006.

Waste company fined for repeatedly flouting regulations

Defendant	Westcombe Waste Ltd			Yeovil Magistrates Court
Offences	Environmental Permitting Regulations x2			8 April 2011
Fine	£5,015	Costs	£4,982

Westcombe Waste Ltd  the operator of a Somerset waste transfer station has been ordered to pay almost £10,000 in fines and costs for failing to install anti-pollution equipment at a site near Somerton.

The company's site receives waste from an associated skip hire company, Westcombe Waste Management. Both companies are run by the same family and directors. The site immediately adjoins a landfill, also run by Westcombe Waste Ltd.

To minimise the risk of pollution, the site's Environmental Permit requires the operator to ensure all transfer station waste is deposited and sorted on an impermeable hard standing with sealed drainage, a silt trap and oil interceptor. This is to catch any polluting run-off from the waste.

The permit also requires any waste handling and sorting to be carried out in a building. This is to contain waste materials and minimise the risk of pollution and prevent any unnecessary noise and dust causing a nuisance to nearby houses. When the site was inspected in 2008 there was no building, drainage or acceptable hard standing in place.

Despite these omissions, the site was already taking-in and processing waste and people living in nearby properties were complaining about the noise. The lack of a drainage system meant run-off from the skip waste area was becoming contaminated and soaking into the old landfill.

The operator said the infrastructure had not been put in place because he was in dispute with the local planning authority over a condition within the planning permission.

In April 2009 the EA served a notice on Westcombe Waste Ltd requiring it to carry out the necessary engineering works, as required under its Environmental Permit. The company was given six months to comply. It failed to meet this deadline by over nine months.

'This prosecution is the result of many years of non-compliance and protracted disputes through the planning system. We've tried to work with the site operator, but after exhausting every other possible option, we were left with no choice but to prosecute,' said Jonathan Tofts for the Environment Agency.

A court heard the transfer station and landfill were once classified as the worst two performing sites of their kind in the country, but are now among the most improved.

Heineken fined for environmental breaches

Defendant	Heineken UK Limited			Selby Magistrates Court
Offences	Regulations 12 and 38(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 x2			18 April 2011
Fine	£2,300	Costs	£8,225

Heineken UK Limited have been ordered to pay more than £10,000 after admitting at Selby Magistrate's Court to breaching its environmental permit at its Tadcaster Brewery site.

The company was fined £500 on each of three charges of breaching its permit and £800 on failing to notify the EA of the breach, without delay.  The company was also ordered to pay costs of £8,225.

The court heard that Heineken's Tadcaster brewery site is regulated through an environmental permit. On 5 August 2008 faults at the site's plant which resulted in 32,600 litres of cider being diverted to the nearby effluent treatment plant.

The effluent treatment plant was built for the use of Heineken, but is operated by a third party.   Faults on the system which should have been detected weren't as the company had earlier bypassed the plant's electronic monitoring system.

The court heard that the company's permit requires it to notify the EA without delay of any issues such as those with the monitoring system, but it failed to do so until six days later.

The court also heard that on 8 August 2008 32,000 litres of beer were lost to the effluent treatment plant when an employee selected the wrong operating mode on a vat full of beer.

There were no training materials or written procedures provided to staff on how to operate this system properly. There were no notices or safeguards in the selection process however the company has since disabled this part of the system.

The EA wasn't notified of this incident until three days later.

On 31 August, 2009, 11,000kg of yeast was diverted to an emergency tank after a pipe worked loose. An unknown amount of yeast was lost over a period of four hours. There was no inspection regime for this piece of equipment, so it was not maintained in good condition. 

In mitigation, the company was given credit for its early guilty plea and the fact that there was no impact on the environment.