1102BRN.pdf (778.00 kb)

 Company fined after fatal warehouse roof fall

Defendant	Tullis Russell Papermaker Ltd		Hearing	22 Feb 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Kirkaldy Sheriff Court
Penalty	Fine	£260,000	Costs	Nil - Scotland

A Fife papermaking company Tullis Russell Papermarker Limited has been fined £260,000 after a worker fell almost 50 feet through a fragile roof to his death.

Thomas Sturrock, 32, from Methil, was working as part of a team for a contractor, cleaning the roof at Tullis Russell Papermaker Ltd's warehouse in Markinch, Fife, on 29 September 2008.

Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court heard that Mr Sturrock's co-workers on the roof heard a cracking sound before becoming aware that Mr Sturrock had fallen through the roof. Workers in the warehouse below also heard a loud noise and saw that Mr Sturrock had fallen through the roof to the concrete floor below.

An ambulance was called and paramedics pronounced Mr Sturrock dead at the scene. A post mortem examination established that Mr Sturrock would have died immediately following the fall.

The HSE investigation found that when Tullis Russell Papermakers instructed the contractor to carry out the cleaning work, it failed to make sure the work was properly planned and organised, and when the contractor's employees were at work, they did not control, monitor and review the way the work was taking place.

The contractor had advised Tullis Russell Papermakers the team would be using crawling boards on the fragile roof. However, such boards were not used and in order to carry out the cleaning work, workers accessed the roof by stepping onto it. The company took no steps to check that crawling boards were in fact being used as agreed and failed to bring the unsafe work practices to a stop in spite of its internal procedures stating that work carried out by contractors should be monitored daily.

Following the case, HSE Inspector Mac Young said:

"Thomas Sturrock might be alive today if simple safety measures had been put in place. If Tullis Russell had ensured the contractor's activities were monitored then it is possible the incident with Mr Sturrock may have been prevented.  Tullis Russell Papermakers had a duty to ensure the safety of everyone on their site - whether working directly for them or not. Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place."

 

Power company fined £120,000 after worker is crushed to death

Defendant	EPR Ely Ltd		Hearing	11 Feb 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Cambridge Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£120,000	Costs	£30,735

Gary Darnell from Ely was working as a driver at EPR Ely Ltd's site on the Elean Power Station in Sutton in Cambridgeshire on 16 September 2008 when he suffered fatal injuries from a 700kg bale of straw which fell on to him.

Cambridge Crown Court heard the 53-year-old received fatal injuries from mechanical asphyxiation when, during an unloading operation, using an overhead gantry crane, the bale of straw fell from a lorry on to Gary.

EPR Ely Ltd of Woodbridge which produces electricity from burning straw at its Elean Power Station was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,735.

The investigation and prosecution by the HSE found a number of failings regarding the movement of straw bales around the loading and storage area.

HSE Inspector Gavin Bull said:

"Incidents like this are entirely preventable - it is tragic that Gary Darnell lost his life.  Companies need to make sure that they do not put drivers at risk from unsafe loading procedures. They should have systems of work in place keep drivers or other workers away from places that might be unsafe. If necessary they should use a banksman to assist the driver, or have other equipment such as effective CCTV to make loading operations safe."

Dstl given Crown Censure

CROWN CENSURE - the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

An agency of the Ministry of Defence has been censured over safety failings that led to the death of a Government scientist.

On 21 February 11, the HSE completed a Crown Censure with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) following an investigation into an incident on 14 August 2002.

Dstl employees, including Terry Jupp, were carrying out classified tests on explosive compounds at Shoeburyness, an establishment owned by MOD and operated by QinetiQ Ltd, when a mixture ignited. Chemist Mr Jupp, 43, from Hertfordshire, suffered 85 per cent burns in the explosion and died a week later in hospital.

Dstl's Chief Executive, Dr Frances Saunders, attended the Crown Censure meeting on Friday 18 February and accepted the findings on behalf of the agency and the MOD.

By accepting the censure, Dstl has formally acknowledged there were health and safety failings, such as inadequate or poorly followed risk assessments when the possibility of explosion or ignition were clearly foreseeable. Mr Jupp and colleagues were not protected by a screen or personal protective equipment. Inadequacies were also highlighted in dynamic risk assessment and communication issues were shown to have impeded safety procedures.

The HSE's Susan MacKenzie said:

"Terry Jupp died needlessly. Even at the time of the incident, Dstl had well documented safety procedures, which, had they been followed fully, would have prevented or considerably reduced the severity of the incident.  The evidence brought to light by HSE's investigations would be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction of the MOD in civilian courts. This Crown Censure is the maximum enforcement action that HSE can take and should serve to illustrate how seriously we take the failings that led to the death of Mr Jupp."

HSE has taken this enforcement decision now after considering all evidence, including that from the August 2010 inquest into Mr Jupp's death. The Crown Censure proceedings relate to the discharge of duties as an employer, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The initial investigation into Mr Jupp's death was led by the MOD Police acting in co-operation with HSE in line with agreed national protocols regarding workplace fatalities. The Crown Prosecution Service brought gross negligence manslaughter charges against two Dstl managers but both cases were dismissed before a trial, one in 2005 and one in 2007.

Ed - Dstl is part of the MOD and as such cannot face prosecution from the HSE in the same way as non-Government bodies. Crown Censures are agreed procedures applicable to crown employers, including the MOD, in lieu of HSE criminal proceedings.

Cardiff company fined over failure to protect staff

Defendant	Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd		Hearing	2 Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Cardiff Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£80,000	Costs	not stated

Cardiff-based steel company Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. has been fined after a worker sustained serious burns while carrying out electrical maintenance work at its city centre plant.

Henry Truszkowski, 51, an electrician from Pontypool, was working alone when he came in to contact with exposed, live electrical conductors and suffered a 33kV shock.  Mr Truzkowski was cleaning the conductors and circuit breaker units in a control room at Celsa's Castle Works plant on 31 July 2008.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that normally, when carrying out maintenance, the room would be securely isolated to prevent the re-energising of the conductors.

However the HSE investigation found on this occasion, that had not happened and as a result, when Mr Truzkowski touched the conductors, he received the massive electric shock.

He was hospitalised for several weeks and is yet to return to work.

HSE found Mr Truszkowski's employers, Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd. had failed to ensure the necessary precautions had been taken to prevent employees coming in to contact with the electrical conductors.

Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd, of Castle Works, East Moors Road, Cardiff pleaded guilty to failing to properly safeguard high voltage electrical conductors under Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Today the company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay full costs.

HSE inspector Steve Curry said:

"Had Celsa Manufacturing (UK) ensured correct and safe working practices were in operation, the serious injuries Mr Truszkowski suffered may have been avoided.  This incident need not have occurred, and must serve as a notice to other employers of the need to control risks from high voltage electrical equipment."

Ed - The HSE website contains information on the responsibilities of employers to manage risk and also includes guidance on how to carry out a risk assessment. The site is at http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/index.htm

 

Camden council fined following toddler death

Defendant	Camden Council		Hearing	4 Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Southwark Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£72,000	Costs	£65,000

Camden Council was fined after the death of a toddler who was killed when sections of a boundary wall fell onto him.  Two-year-old Saurav Ghai was walking along Southampton Road in Gospel Oak with his childminder on 18 January 2007 when the incident happened.

During the HSE prosecution, Southwark Crown Court heard how the pair were walking in high winds when a section of the boundary wall from the Wendling Estate collapsed, falling onto them.

They were taken to the Royal Free hospital, but Saurav died shortly after. His childminder suffered injuries.

Camden Council pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing after being charged with breaching section 3(1) HSWA 1974. It is responsible for maintaining the wall that collapsed.

The court fined the council £72,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £65,000.

HSE Inspector Michael La Rose said:

"Saurav should have been able to walk down the street without his life being put at risk, tragically this wasn't the case.  His parents are now facing life without their son because this council simply failed to maintain a wall which was in a poor condition.  This tragic incident should serve as a reminder to all organisations to keep their building stock safe, including boundary walls."

Ed - Information on risk assessments can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/casestudies/index.htm

 

Other

Nottingham City Council fined for asbestos failings at depot

Defendant	Nottingham City Council		Hearing	28 Feb 2011
Offence	Reg 4(10) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Reg 5(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999		Court	Southwark Crown Court
Penalty	Fine	£30,000	Costs	£12,000

Nottingham City Council has been fined £30,000 for failing to manage the risk of asbestos after around 150 people were exposed to the potentially lethal material at one of its depots.

The HSE prosecuted the council after a visiting contractor spotted debris on the floor of a building at the Woolsthorpe depot in Bilborough and suspected it may be asbestos-containing material.

When the discovery was made on 23 May 2009 the building was occupied by the council's Street Scene team, part of the council's neighbourhood services section responsible for maintaining and improving the city's environment. The building was used as offices, garages, a mess room and storage.

The HSE investigation found that when the city council purchased the depot in February 2005, an asbestos survey was carried out and the majority of the asbestos removed. However, due to the design of the building there was no guarantee that all the asbestos had been removed particularly, from joints in the roof. The council took the decision to contain any remaining asbestos in the building by painting the affected areas.

The specialist company that managed the asbestos removal gave the city council a plan which told them where any remaining asbestos was located and how to manage its condition. The city council failed to follow this plan. Health and safety inspections of the depot took place but these did not identify that the city council's own policies on the management of asbestos had not been implemented. This included failing to identify that Street Scene's management had not been properly trained in these policies.

The HSE's investigation found that for more than four years during which the asbestos deteriorated, the council did nothing to prevent the exposure to asbestos of those working in, or visiting, the building.

HSE principal inspector Frank Lomas said:

"The latest health and safety statistics show that more people are dying as a result of asbestos related diseases than are killed in accidents at work. This situation will not change unless organisations take their duty to manage asbestos seriously.  The council failed to identify that its own asbestos policy had not been implemented at the depot. It's all well and good having policies in place but they are meaningless unless they are put into practice and in this case, around 150 people were needlessly exposed to a potentially fatal substance."

Nottingham City Council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Nottingham magistrates today fined the council £15,000 for each offence and ordered them to pay costs of £12,000.

Ed -

Regulation 4(10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "The dutyholder shall ensure that -

the plan is reviewed and revised at regular intervals, and forthwith if -

there is reason to suspect that the plan is no longer valid, or

there has been a significant change in the premises to which the plan relates;

the measures specified in the plan are implemented; and

the measures taken to implement the plan are recorded."

Regulation 5(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states: "Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the nature of his activities and the size of his undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures."

 

Company fined after man suffers horrific burns to legs

Defendant	O'Keefe Construction Ltd		Hearing	15  Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Sevenoaks Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£6,329

O'Keefe Construction Ltd has been fined after a teenager suffered horrific burns to his legs at its depot in Sevenoaks, Kent.

The court heard that on 26 October 2009, an 18-year-old was in a shed at the site, spraypainting a lighting tower. The employee used thinners in the process and inadvertently spilled some on his trousers.

When he walked across the shed to go to his locker and find a change of clothes, he walked near a gas burner which was being used to heat the workshop. His clothes caught fire and he ran outside where he was helped by colleagues who hosed him down and put out the flames.

The worker suffered burns to both legs, his left arm and his hand. He was in hospital for 16 days, six of which were spent in intensive care. Since then the employee has undergone skin grafts and has been unable to work for six months.

An investigation by the HSE found the spray shed had several health and safety failings. Paint containers should have had their lids on and been stored in fire-resistant boxes.  The company should also have been aware that the mixing of paint and thinners in the shed would lead to a potentially explosive atmosphere, so a gas burner with an open flame should not have been used in the same space.

The company had executed a risk assessment, but had not implemented the measures identified. A further management action plan, dated three years after the original assessment, re-iterated these measures, but they had still not been put in place at the time of the incident.

Caroline Penwill, HSE Inspector, said:

"The process of risk management involves assessing the risks that arise in the workplace and putting sensible health and safety measures in place to control them.   In this case, the company had assessed the risks from paint spraying and had identified measures to control the risks, but had not put them in place. It is important that the findings of a risk assessment are acted upon. Had the company done so, then this terrible incident could have been prevented."

Ed - Guidance on explosive atmospheres which can occur when spray painting can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/dsear.htm^[2]

 

Farmer fined after falling bales kill friend

Defendant	Ian Nourish		Hearing	22  Feb 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Market Harborough  Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£5,076.30

A Leicestershire farmer has been prosecuted after a family friend was killed while helping out on his farm.  David Wykes Baker, 65, of Billesdon, was helping out on friend Ian Nourish's farm when he was killed on 20 January 2009.

Mr Baker was helping to move wrapped round silage bales from a stack at Bleak House Farm near Illston on the Hill, Leicester, when three fell, crushing him underneath. He suffered severe head and chest injuries and died at the scene.

An investigation by the HSE found that although Mr Nourish was using the right equipment to unstack the bales - a tractor with spike attachment - the way he removed them left the stack unstable. This resulted in three bales falling onto Mr Baker who was standing nearby.

Market Harborough Magistrates' Court heard how Mr Nourish should have ensured his friend was kept away from the stack while the bales were being moved.

He also failed to remove the bales in reverse order to which they were stacked, which would have prevented the structure collapsing.

HSE inspector Alison Cook said:

"Mr Baker's death shows how easy it is for an everyday activity on a farm to lead to tragedy.  Farming remains the most dangerous occupation in Britain, with 38 workers killed last year. Although only 1.5 per cent of the working population works in agriculture, the industry accounts for one in five work-related deaths every year."

Ian Nourish, of Illston on the Hill, Leicester, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 when he appeared before Market Harborough magistrates. He was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £5,076.30 costs.

Guidance on safe working with bales in agriculture can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg125.pdf^[1]

 

 

Manufacturing company fined after safety breaches

Defendant	Hendry Hydraulics Ltd		Hearing	14  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER x2		Court	South Northumberland  Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£6,621

A manufacturing firm has been prosecuted after health and safety failures at its Northumberland premises.

Hendry Hydraulics Ltd was prosecuted after HSE inspectors visited Hendry Eurohoist Cylinders in Ashington and served two Prohibition Notices.

South Northumberland Magistrates' Court heard the notices were served because the locking mechanism on the doors to two CNC (computer numerically controlled) lathes, designed to prevent workers coming into contact with dangerous moving parts, had been deliberately bypassed.

On 11 March 2010, two HSE Inspectors saw a machine being set up with a spare key inserted into the locking mechanism of the interlock safety device. This meant the machine was capable of operating at full speed with the doors open.

This was observed just four months after an HSE Inspector had stopped work on the same two lathes because safety interlocks had been defeated.

Further investigations revealed the company had provided workers with a spare interlock key to bypass the safety devices.

Hendry Hydraulics Ltd, of Pinefield Industrial Estate, Elgin, Morayshire, pleaded guilty to two breaches of Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined a total of £20,000 (£10,000 for each offence). The company was also ordered to pay costs of £6,621.

After the case, HSE Inspector Sally Brecken said:

"Companies have a legal duty to ensure there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This company had already been served a Prohibition Notice in 2009 regarding the defeating of interlocks on machinery.  These enforcement notices are served only when there is a risk of serious personal injury.

"However, despite the warning, the company failed to maintain standards and when we returned to the site in March 2010 we saw safety devices being defeated for a second time.  This has now led to a prosecution but could easily have led to a serious injury. Employers should ensure that advice is followed and standards are maintained."

Ed - Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations1998 states: "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."

 

Care home in court after resident dies from drinking toilet cleaner

Defendant	Palms Row Healthcare Ltd		Hearing	15  Feb 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Sheffield Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£15,000	Costs	£14,472.02

A Sheffield care home operator has admitted breaching safety laws after an elderly resident died after inadvertently drinking toilet cleaner.

Retired accountant, Derek Johnson, 80, died on the same day he was found to have drunk the dangerous chemical.  The liquid had been left unattended for several hours in his room at Newfield Care Home, Cat Lane, Sheffield. He had been living at the home for just over a month before his death in July 2009. He was frail, registered blind and had symptoms of dementia.

The HSE prosecuted the care home operator, Palms Row Healthcare Ltd, because they put vulnerable people, including Mr Johnson, at risk by failing to properly manage the use of cleaning fluids.

Sheffield Magistrates' Court heard that Mr Johnson began vomiting blue liquid and was taken to Northern General Hospital where he died just hours later. The liquid was later found to be toilet cleaner which had been noticed in his room earlier that day but not removed.

The HSE investigation found the company had an inadequate system to control such chemicals and to prevent access to areas of risk by vulnerable people. Inspectors discovered that trolleys carrying hazardous substances were often left unattended, sometimes for considerable periods, and there were no proper procedures in place for cleaners to check trolley contents were intact.

The investigation also showed it was too easy for vulnerable residents to get into areas such as the laundry and kitchen which should have had controlled access.

Following the incident, HSE served Palms Row Healthcare with three Improvement Notices as well as bringing the prosecution.

HSE Inspector Carol Downes said:

"Mr Johnson's death was a terribly tragic one, particularly as it could have been easily avoided by simply locking away the chemicals.  There was no excuse for Palms Row Healthcare's failure to protect the vulnerable people in its care. It is imperative that care home owners consider the risks to people they are looking after and manage those risks to prevent incidents like this."

Palms Row Healthcare Ltd., of Westbourne Road, Sheffield, admitted breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,472.02.

 

 

Worker left in a coma for two months after fall

Defendant	MacDonald Joinery & Construction Ltd		Hearing	9  Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Teeside Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£15,000	Costs	£6,228.75

A Sheffield construction company has today been fined after a worker suffered serious injuries while working on the refurbishment of a Teesside store.

MacDonald Joinery & Construction Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at the former Rosebys store, at Teesside Retail Park, Stockton on 2 September 2008.

Teesside Magistrates' Court heard that Carl Major, 31, of Retford, Nottinghamshire, had been stripping out fixtures and fittings when he was hit on the head by a falling lighting pelmet. He was knocked off the step ladder he was using and fell around 3m onto a concrete floor.

Mr Major suffered serious head injuries and was in a coma for two months. He later developed epilepsy and still requires medical treatment. He has been unable to return to work.

The HSE investigation revealed that prior to him beginning refurbishment work at the store, MacDonald Joinery & Construction had failed to provide Mr Major with the necessary information and instruction to enable him to carry out his work safely.

Although the company had produced a risk assessment and a system of work for working at height in the store, neither were sufficient as they failed to look at how the lighting pelmet and the wall to which it was attached were constructed. As a result of this the company failed to identify the dangers its workers would face.

MacDonald Joinery & Construction Ltd, of Westthorpe Fields Business Park, Westthorpe Fields Road, Sheffield, pleaded guilty of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6228.75 at Teesside Magistrates' Court today (9 Feb 2011)

After the case, HSE Principal Inspector Rob Hirst, said:

"Mr Major has suffered long term injuries as a result of this serious incident, yet it could have easily been prevented if suitable and sufficient safety measures had been provided."

 

Wimbledon carpenters fined for risking employees' safety

Defendant	Pentcroft Ltd		Hearing	10  Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	City of London Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£15,000	Costs	£3,203.80

A South London carpentry firm's lack of safety precautions consistently put the health and safety of its workers at risk a court heard today.

Wimbledon-based Pentcroft Ltd were sentenced at the City of London Magistrates' Court after an HSE investigation found that the company allowed their employees to use woodworking machinery without ensuring that they were adequately trained, informed of safe working practices, and supervised.

The court heard that Simon Lear, an employee at Pencroft's carpentry and joinery workshop, cut off part of his right hand index finger in March 2010 when using a circular saw.

Just one month after that incident, an HSE Inspector witnessed another employee using a spindle moulder, a potentially dangerous machine, without safety precautions in place.

The HSE's investigation found Pentcroft Limited failed to give Mr Lear and his co-workers safety training and information, or provide adequate supervision. It also became apparent the company had no knowledge of the formal training that wood machinists should receive.

Pentcroft Ltd, of Garratt Lane, Wimbledon, pleaded guilty to breaching / was found guilty of breaching, Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £3,203.80 costs.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Clare Hawkes, said:

"Woodworking machines have a long and serious accident history which is well known in the industry. It is the employers' job to ensure that workers have sufficient information and training to work safely and that they are properly supervised. It is also the employers' responsibility to enforce safety rules, not the employees.  There is a wealth of guidance on HSE's website about how to work safely on woodworking machinery, there was no need for Pentcroft Ltd's employees to be exposed to risks of injury."

 

Birmingham firm fined for unsafe work at height

Defendant	Spanclad Construction Ltd		Hearing	17  Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	Worcester Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£15,000	Costs	£5,271

A Birmingham construction firm has been prosecuted by the HSE for putting its staff at risk when working at height.

An HSE inspection on 16 October 2009 revealed that three employees from Spanclad Construction Ltd, of Nursery Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, were replacing skylights at Adroit Modular Buildings plc in Worcester at a height of over 5m, with no protection from falls as they walked to their place of work across a fragile roof.

Worcester Magistrates' Court heard that the workers had to walk along 60cm wide staging boards on the building roof to the skylights.

The boards had no guard rails, there was nothing for the workers to hold onto and there was no safety protection underneath - such as netting, soft landing bags or a birdcage scaffold - to prevent them from falling through the fragile roof onto the concrete floor.

This work had already been in progress for at least three days when an HSE inspector attended the site following an unrelated incident involving another company.

Spanclad Construction pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £5,271 costs.

HSE inspector Paul Humphries said:

"Walking on staging boards with no handrails, while on a 5m high fragile roof and near fragile skylights, without bags, nets or any similar protection underneath, or any other fall arrest system in use, poses a significant risk to the safety of workers, should they trip or step off the boards or onto the roof or a skylight.  This is an unacceptable work practice, particularly as clear guidance on working at height is available from HSE."

Ed -  HSE guidance on working at height is available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/campaign/wahthebasics.pdf ^[2]

 

Food firm fined after worker hospitalised

Defendant	QV Foods Ltd		Hearing	3  Feb 2011
Offence	S2 HSWA		Court	King's Lynn Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£15,000	Costs	£4,606

A Lincolnshire food company which packs vegetables for supermarkets has been fined £15,000 after a worker ended up in hospital when hit by a falling crate.

QV Foods Ltd, of Manor Farm, Holbeach Hurn, was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident at its factory on 22 May 2009.

Kings Lynn Magistrates' Court heard that a 43 year-old was labelling boxes in the factory yard when she was hit by a wooden crate of potatoes which fell from a forklift truck as it was being emptied into a skip.

She fractured her right knee and suffered severe bruising to her back. She was hospitalised and was unable to work for several months but has since returned to the factory.

QV Foods Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA. It was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,606.

HSE inspector Judith McNulty-Green said:

"This was an entirely preventable incident, but the company failed to make sure work stations were a safe distance from moving vehicles and materials being handled that might fall. Health and safety is about making sure real risks are thought through and control measures put in place so any dangers are properly managed.  Had the company taken the time to think through a safe system of work, an employee may not have suffered such a painful injury."

 

Food producer prosecuted for repeated safety failings

Defendant	Studleigh-Royd Ltd		Hearing	10  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER x2		Court	Barnsley Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£14,000	Costs	£8,387.70

A Hull-based food manufacturer has been fined £14,000 for repeated safety failings after two workers in Barnsley suffered severe injuries in separate incidents just three months apart.

The first incident, on 29 December 2009, resulted in employee James Hardcastle, 32, having his left hand amputated after it became trapped in the rotating knives of an industrial tenderiser.

Weeks later, on 4 March 2010, a fellow worker severed the ends of two fingers on his right hand while feeding plastic film into a machine designed to seal food into packaging.

Both incidents at Cranswick Convenience Foods, on the Valley Park Industrial Estate in Wombwell, could and should have been avoided according to the Health and Safety Executive, prosecuted its operating company Studleigh-Royd Ltd for safety breaches.

The company, based at the Sutton Fields Industrial Estate in Hull, pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

 

 A knife used to over-ride a guard on the tenderising machine

Barnsley Magistrates' Court heard that in relation to the incident involving Mr Hardcastle, the tenderiser machine was poorly guarded, with workers able to access dangerous moving parts simply by using a metal object, like a knife, to override a guard interlocked by a magnetic sensor.

Bypassing the interlocked guard made it quicker and easier to feed meat into the machine, but in doing so operators put themselves at risk.

That was the case when Mr Hardcastle was operating the machine - his gloved hand was drawn into the machine and his arm became trapped between rotating knives. Engineers had to free him by dismantling the machine, but his left hand later had to be amputated.  The HSE reported that an adequate knowledge and understanding of the requirements covering work equipment combined with a proper risk assessment would have identified the need for improved guarding.  The guarding was also deemed inadequate on the sealing machine that injured the second Barnsley worker, who does not want to be identified. He too was able to access a danger zone with his right hand and his fingers were caught between a sealing head.

Studleigh-Royd Ltd was fined £8,000 relating to the offence involving Mr Hardcastle and £6,000 on the second offence. They were also ordered to pay £8,387.70 in costs in connection to both incidents.

HSE inspector Alison Crank said:

"James Hardcastle will be forever scarred by the horrific injuries he sustained at Cranswick Convenience Foods. The incidents that led to his and another employee's injuries three months later were completely avoidable. Studleigh-Royd has rightly been held to account for not doing more to ensure its machinery was effectively guarded to protect its workforce."

 

Chemical firm sentenced after worker suffers toxic burns

Defendant	Abacus Chemical Ltd		Hearing	10  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER x2		Court	Chester Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£12,000	Costs	£14,000

 A chemical company has been sentenced after a worker suffered toxic burns to his arms and chest at an Ellesmere Port factory.

The employee at Abacus Chemical Ltd was mixing two chemicals together on 7 May 2009 when they exploded, causing him to be drenched in a hot, toxic chemical solution.

The company was prosecuted in a joint case brought by the HSE and EA following the incident at its plant on Oil Sites Road in Ellesmere Port.

Chester Magistrates' Court, (sitting in Knutsford), heard that the company had mixed 22 kg of sodium cyanide pellets with hydrogen peroxide to make them less toxic. By taking this action, Abacus avoided having to pay a licensed hazardous waste company to dispose of the pellets at a cost of less than £300.

Abacus Chemical Ltd, of Greenfield Business Centre, Greenfield, North Wales, pleaded guilty to three health, safety and environmental offences on 3 February 2011. The company, which no longer has an operating site, was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £14,000 in prosecution costs.

The court was told that the company did not have a permit to mix the chemicals, failed to carry out an assessment of the risks, and did not provide protective clothing or adequate equipment.

The employee required skin grafts to his arms and chest, and has suffered permanent scarring. He has not returned to work since the incident.

The HSE investigation found that the chemicals reacted in an exothermic explosion, most likely caused by nearly five times the amount of hydrogen peroxide than was needed being mixed with the sodium cyanide pellets.

Dr Jo-Anne Michael, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"A man has suffered permanent scarring and others have been put at risk of breathing in toxic fumes, because Abacus failed to take the appropriate measures for handling chemicals.  The company should have conducted a risk assessment in advance, used protective clothing and suitable equipment, and monitored the reaction process to prevent an explosion.  The chemical industry has the potential to be extremely hazardous and so it's therefore vital that the proper health and safety measures are in place."

The force of the chemical explosion produced a thick white cloud but firefighters were not warned that they might be exposed to toxic fumes when they attended the site.

Tracey Rimmer, Team Leader for the EA, said:

"This prosecution was brought about as Abacus Chemicals Ltd failed to have an Environmental Permit in place for the actions that they were undertaking.  The Environment Agency works to protect and improve the environment. Sites that operate without a valid permit in place have the potential to cause serious harm to the environment."

Abacus Chemical Ltd's director, Michael St. Amour, was also cautioned for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, and the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005.

Lichfield food firm prosecuted after conveyor incident

Defendant	Soleco UK Ltd		Hearing	8  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER		Court	Tamworth Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,587

A Lichfield supplier of prepared salads has been prosecuted after a man broke his arm in a moving conveyor.

Tamworth Magistrates' Court heard that Zubair Hussain was cleaning a conveyor, which had been installed six months previously as part of a £1m upgrade.

The 29-year-old's forearm was broken in four places and his thumb and index finger were also fractured when his right arm was pulled between the running roller and conveyor belt.

An HSE investigation found the conveyor was inadequately guarded.

Mr Hussain spent 19 days in hospital as a result of the incident and has since had two operations and will need further surgery in the future.

The court was told the cost of fitting a guard to the machine after the incident was just £600.

HSE prosecuted Soleco UK Ltd, trading as Florette, of Wood End Lane, Fradley Park, following the incident on 19 March 2010. The firm pleaded guilty today to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,587 costs.

HSE inspector Christia Killen said:

"This was a preventable incident that has caused permanent, debilitating injuries to Mr Hussain.  If Soleco UK had operated a more rigorous purchasing policy system for checking and commissioning new equipment, its supplier could have fitted the guards before the machine was put into use.  Once Soleco UK had discovered that the conveyor was not properly guarded, nobody should have used the machine until the fault had been corrected."

Ed - HSE guidance on buying new machinery can be downloaded from http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg271.pdf^[2]

 

Firms sentenced over worker injury

Defendant	LCS Interiors Ltd		Hearing	11  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER		Court	City of London Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£30,000

Two construction companies have been fined a total of £45,000 after a worker suffered severe injuries to his hand.

The HSE investigated Kent Commercial Finishings Ltd and LCS Interiors Ltd after the incident on 14 July at a development at Wilton Plaza in Westminster.

Labourer Sean Forsythe, 22, from Streatham in London, was cleaning a screed pump, which is used to move concrete from a mixer to the floor of a building.

City of London Magistrates' Court heard that the hose he was using to clean the pump got caught in the rotating blades of the mixer, pulling his hand into the machine.  Mr Forsythe suffered severe cuts to his right hand, leaving him with permanent damage.

The investigation by HSE found the screed pump had no safety grill to stop the blades when it was lifted - a grill is a guard when lifted, stops the blades from rotating. Magistrates heard a few months earlier another grille had broken off a pump but was not replaced- despite a written procedure being in place.

HSE prosecuted Kent Commercial Finishings Ltd of Monkhurst House, Sandy Cross, Heathfield, East Sussex - who were the contractor who hired the screed pump. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of work Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £3,000.00 and ordered to pay costs of £2,000.00 at an earlier sentencing.

LCS Interiors Ltd of Little Burrow, Welwyn Garden City was responsible for the weekly inspection of the plant and machinery and was also prosecuted. The company was found guilty at the Old Bailey of breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector, Monica Babb said:

"Mr Forsythe has been left with long term damage to his right hand - because a safety grille was not in place, a completely avoidable incident.  It is simply not acceptable the companies involved in this incident failed to take action when a crucial piece of safety equipment broke. Had staff been adequately supervised and if the equipment had been properly maintained, this incident would not have happened."

£10,000

Tissue firm fined after employee suffers crush injury

Defendant	Intertissue Ltd		Hearing	24  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg11 PUWER		Court	Neath & Port Talbot Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£1,365

A Neath toilet roll manufacturer has been fined after a worker suffered a serious injury while operating machinery at their Baglan Energy Park premises.

Phillip Evans, 43 from Maesteg, was employed by Intertissue Ltd as a core operator, and was assisting his shift supervisor in clearing a wraparound of paper from the steel roller of a rewinding machine - used to layer the tissue paper.

Neath Port Talbot Magistrates' Court heard a compressed air gun was used to cut the wraparound of paper and pull it free from the roller. The shift supervisor was at the controls of the rewinding machine and pressed the 'jog' button - which moves the rollers around at a reduced speed.

Mr Evans' hand was caught between the upper and lower rollers of the machine. Three fingers of his left hand were crushed resulting in permanent damage to his hand.

The HSE investigation found Intertissue Ltd of Brunel Way, Baglan Energy Park in Neath, had failed to take effective measures to prevent access to a dangerous part of machinery.

The company pleaded guilty to a charge under Regulation 11(1) of the Provisions and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,365 costs.

Following the hearing, HSE inspector Stuart Charles said:

"This man has suffered debilitating injuries in an entirely preventable incident.  Intertissue Ltd failed in its duty to ensure workers were able to operate machinery safely in their day-to-day roles. This is a well known hazard throughout the industry and had suitable measures been in place this incident would not have happened.  Mr Evans's injuries would have been avoided if simple precautions, in this case, a machine guard had been in place."

 ^[

Company fined after failure to manage asbestos

Defendant	Berry Estates Development Limited		Hearing	8  Feb 2011
Offence	Regs 5, 7 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006		Court	Maidstone Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£3,391
Defendant	Bernard Berry
Offence	Regs 5, 7 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
Penalty	Fine	£5,000	Costs	£3,391

 

A construction company has been fined after failing to carry out work correctly or properly manage asbestos while demolishing an old church in Snodland, Kent.

Maidstone Magistrates' Court heard that the HSE received a complaint from a member of the public about demolition works taking place on the corner of Holborough Road in the town.

The site was owned by Bernard Berry of Berry Estates Development Limited that was also carrying out the demolition of the building.

On 23 April 2010, two HSE inspectors attended the site and discovered the majority of the building had already been demolished but debris containing asbestos was blocking the pavement on one side and had also spilled out onto the pavement on the other side.

Principal contractor, Mr Berry, could not provide paperwork such as a demolition plan, method statements or risk assessments when asked. No asbestos survey had been completed prior to the demolition and site security was very poor. A Prohibition Notice was served preventing any further work onsite.

After the notice was served Mr Berry commissioned a pre-demolition asbestos survey, which highlighted a number of asbestos containing materials across the site.

An HSE investigation showed that the building was being knocked into pedestrian areas and broken up with an excavator. It showed no evidence of employee training, no personal protection or respiratory equipment and no plan of work on site. It also revealed no provision to prevent dust spreading during demolition and crushing.

David Fussell, HSE Inspector, said:

"The company failed to take any measures aimed at controlling the workers' exposure to asbestos and reduce any future incidence of related diseases.  This is a shocking case as it was foreseeable that a building of this age may have had asbestos-containing materials in the building fabric, as the subsequent survey highlighted.  If the company had carried out a survey and prepared a plan of work prior to demolition, the risk of exposure to the workers onsite or the general public could have been avoided."

Berry Estates Development Limited, of Red Hill, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 7 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, at Maidstone Magistrates' Court today (8 February 2011). It was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,391.

Bernard Berry, director of the company also pleaded guilty to breaching the same regulations at Maidstone Magistrates' Court today. He was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,391.

Ed -

• 1. Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "An employer shall not undertake work in demolition, maintenance, or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose his employees to asbestos in respect of any premises unless...he has carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos, what type of asbestos, contained in what material and in what condition, is present or is liable to be present in those premises."
• 2. Regulation 7 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 states: "An employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he has prepared a suitable written plan of work detailing how that work is to be carried out."
• 3. Regulation 16 of the same regulations, which states: "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."
• 4. More information on asbestos surveys please see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/campaign/duty/surveys.htm

 

Pensioner died after being thrown from wheelchair on minibus

Defendant	Age UK t/a Age Concern Westminster		Hearing	3 Feb 2011
Offence	S3 HSWA		Court	Central  Criminal Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£5,000

 

An elderly woman died of her injuries after being thrown from a wheelchair while in an Age Concern Westminster minibus, a court heard today.

Olive Sarti, 88, was taken to hospital with a head injury and a broken neck after the incident on Shirland Road, London on 20 September 2006.

The HSE prosecuted Age Concern Westminster after an investigation that found the minibus driver had performed and emergency stop which resulted in Ms Sarti being hurled from her wheelchair.

The elderly lady was taken to hospital with a broken neck and head injuries. She died two months later on 11 November 2006. The post mortem examination confirmed the injuries sustained on September 20 were a contributing factor to Ms Sarti's death.

The Old Bailey heard that Age Concern Westminster employees had not secured Ms Sarti in her wheelchair, and workers had not been given adequate training by to the charity to ensure wheelchair users were safe while travelling.

HSE Inspector Michael La Rose said:

"This fatal incident was foreseeable. There was MHRA guidance easily available to Age Concern Westminster on how to transport wheelchair users safely.  This organisation fell well below expected standards and Olive Sarti's death could have been avoided if Age Concern Westminster workers had received adequate training.  The seatbelt laws have long been established in British law. Age Concern was aware that people transported in wheelchairs should have these effectively secured and the wheel chair user should have an adequate seatbelt."

Ed-

• 1. Although Age Concern England and Help the Aged merged to become Age UK in May 2008, many local organisations continue to operate as Age Concern.
• 2. Guidance is available in the form of "MHRA guidance Safe Use of wheelchairs in cars taxis and minibuses". The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an Executive Agency of the Department of Health. The primary function of the Device technology & Safety Division of the Agency is to safeguard public health by investigating adverse incidents involving medical devices and where necessary issuing warnings to the users of devices including healthcare professionals and the public.

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offence	Penalty	Description
Konecranes UK Ltd	Reg 8(1)(c) Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998	Fine £8,000 Costs £7,529	Falling girder 15m long - failure to plan operation
Mambury Farm Ltd	Reg 6(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine £8,000 Costs £5,000	Farmworker fell through fragile roof
Linpac Packaging Ltd	Reg 11(1) PUWER 1998	Fine £5,000 Costs £2,553	3 fingers severed when clearing machinery jam, failure to plan
Malpass Direct Ltd	S2 HSWA Reg 11(1) PUWER 1998	Fine £5,000 Costs £4,005.20	Teenage employee injured in mincing machine - failure to supervise trainee
Russell Smith Ltd	S3 HSWA	Fine £5,000 Costs £5,000	Fatal incident - trench collapse, worker killed by asphyxiation
(1)Lumsden & Carroll Construction Ltd (2) James Kennedy	(1) Regs 22(1)(a) &  34(2)(c)  CDM Regs 2007 (2) Reg 13(2) CDM Regs 2007	(1) Fine £5,000 Costs £3,643.07 (2) Fine £2,000 Costs £1,821.53	Pumping concrete with 12m boom struck 22kV overhead cables. Failure to plan work effectively
Jex Engineering Company Ltd	Reg 11(1) PUWER 1998	Fine £4,000 Costs £3,250	Worker's hand entangled in an unguarded drill
Michael Wilson	Reg 5(1) PUWER 1998	Fine £4,000 Costs £2,000	Worker broke back falling from defective ladder
Alliance Technical Services Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine £3,334 Costs £4,000	Steeplejack fell 8m from church roof when ladder anchor gave way.
Premier Security Glazing Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine £2,500 Costs £2,644.90	Worker fell 3.5m from scaffolding - unsecured board
Andrew Hyder	Reg 9(2)Work at Height Regulations 2005	Fine £2,400 Costs £2,478.60	Fall through scaffolding 5m fall - absence of precautions
SMP Security Ltd	Reg 5(1) Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002	Fine £2,000 Costs £6,000	Failure to carry out proper risk assessment worker suffered 2nd degree burns - using flocking machine
Ian Behagg	Regs 28(1) & 28(2)  CDM Regs 2007	Fine £2,000 Costs £1,051	Builder left building at risk of collapse
Ian Allan Building Contractors Ltd	S2 HSWA	Fine £1,500 Costs £1,500	Worker fell 4m from unsafe scaffolding
Libra Demolition Limited	Reg 22(1)(a) CDM Regs 2007	Fine £1,500 Costs £10,000	Failure to plan and manage work on asbestos containing materials

 

Environment Agency prosecutions

 

Poulty producer fined for chronic pollution

Defendant	Paul Flatman Ltd		Hearing	25 Feb 2011
Offence	S85 WRA 1991 and reg 12(1)(b) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.		Court	Harlow  Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£20,000	Costs	£7,789

Colchester poultry processor Paul Flatman Ltd has been fined a total £20,000 for polluting more than a kilometre of a stream over two years.  The company was also ordered to pay full costs of £7,789.

The chronic pollution caused by trade effluent from a treatment plant badly affected all life forms in the stream which feeds into the River Colne, Harlow Magistrates' Court was told.

The company had been advised by the EA several times since December 2006 to stop the discharge polluting the water and given deadlines by which to solve the problem, Miss Claire Bentley told the court.

Prosecuting for the Agency she said the company had failed to solve the problem and since 14 October 2008 samples taken of the discharge from the treatment plant had high levels of ammonia with no signs of improvement.

The company had a permit allowing it to discharge treated trade effluent into the stream but the discharge was not within the conditions of the permit.
  
Miss Bentley told the court: "There appears to have been a lack of focus in the management of the site. Despite being given reasonable time, the defendant has failed to either get the discharge compliant or to make alternative arrangements for dealing with it such as tankering."

She said the lack of action was prompted by financial motives. "The company admitted that it did not have the finance to invest into remedial work", she added.

Paul Flatman, director of the company, told investigators that he had obtained quotes for work to be done but that it would be too expensive.

A new ammonia treatment plant was installed in June 2010 but the discharge from the plant was still grossly polluting and two months later an Environment Agency officer saw brown foam coming from the new treatment tank.

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Adam Clarke said: "Discharge consent permits are used to protect the environment, when the permit limits are not complied with the aquatic environment is put at risk.  In this case we gave deadlines for the company to come back into compliance or change the method they used to treat and dispose of the trade effluent but they did not. Our priority is to ensure that the environment is protected and that permits are complied with."

Ed - Paul Flatman Ltd pleaded guilty to:

1. Between 14 October 2008 and 18 March 2010, you did cause poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, to enter controlled waters, namely a tributary of the River Colne at Packards Lane, Wormingford, Colchester, Essex.

Contrary to section 85(1) and section 85(6) Water Resources Act 1991.

2. Between 9 June 2010 and 12 October 2010, you did cause the entry into inland freshwaters, namely a tributary of the River Colne, of poisonous noxious or polluting matter, at Packards Lane, Wormingford, Colchester, Essex.

Contrary to Regulation 12(1)(b) and regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

 

Defendant	•(1) Stuart Halford •(2) Steven Birch •(3) Graham Robinson		Hearing	24 Feb 2011
Offence	S33 Environmental Protection Act 1990		Court	Stafford Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	•(1) £18,000 •(2) £600 •(3) £1,200	Costs	•(1) £14,000 •(2) £300 •(3) £300

Top of Form

On 23 February, at Stafford Magistrates' Court Stuart Holford (formerly of Holford Contracts Ltd), Graham Robinson and Steven Birch (who worked for the company at the relevant time), were convicted after a three day trial.

Stuart Holford had, on the first day of the trial, pleaded guilty to two offences of keeping and depositing waste at the farm, and asked for a third offence to be taken into consideration on sentence.  The other two defendants, Robinson and Birch, both pleaded 'not guilty' but each was convicted of one offence of disposing of controlled waste by burying the waste at Grindley House Farm, Stowe by Chartley, Staffordshire.

The penalties imposed are noted above, other than the £15 victim surcharge is was required to pay.

For the EA barrister Christopher Stables told the court that the company, which has since gone into liquidation, operated from Grindley House Farm, which was the company's registered office. The company's business activities included a number of contracts for the removal and disposal of waste materials.

In October 2007, the company was paid to dispose of a total of 364 tonnes of food waste, and thereafter took delivery of the waste at the farm.  The expectation had been that the company would dispose of the waste responsibly and properly at an authorised landfill site.  

On Good Friday, 21 March 2008, two witnesses saw farm manager Graham Robinson and employee Steven Birch burying the waste foodstuffs in a large pit which they had dug at Grindley House Farm which was land that had no Waste Management Licence. This was reported to the EA on 7 October 2008.

On the 27 November 2008, Environment Officers Clare Payn and Duncan Rock visited Grindley House Farm. They located an area about 2m from a newly built barn, which a  witness had identified as the burial site and told the Managing Director of Holford Contracts Limited that they intended to excavate the area to determine if waste products had been buried there.

A date was agreed and the company agreed to provide equipment to enable them to carry out the excavation.

They returned on 1 December 2008 to find that two small holes had been dug in their absence revealing no buried waste.  They asked that further excavations be carried out but Farm manager Graham Robinson told them that the equipment had been moved off site that morning, so no further excavation could be carried out that day. A new date was set for 4 December 2008.

On 2 December 2008 the Agency received an anonymous tip-off alleging that excavation work was in progress at Grindley House Farm. Environment Officers went to the farm to find an excavator levelling the ground where they planned to carry out their own excavations. They reminded the company that the site must not be disturbed.

The officers returned on 4 December 2008 and began the excavation which took place throughout that day and into 5 December 2008. 

During the excavations on both days large quantities of packaged, tinned and bottled foodstuffs were unearthed together with coffee capsules, pallets and shrink wrapped goods. There was a great deal of putrefying  liquid and food waste as substances had leaked from damaged packages and had been underground for approximately 8 months by that stage.

Mr Robinson and Mr Birch both denied having been involved in any way in the burial of these materials.

On 21 May 2009, Holford Contracts Ltd agreed through their solicitors to answer formal written questions under caution, having declined to come for interview.

In their response, they alleged that the food stuffs had arrived without paperwork and been stored temporarily in a shed only to be buried later by an employee who had not been authorised to do so by the company. This employee was called to give defence evidence at the trial but his evidence was inconsistent in a number of important respects with the facts which were known to the officers and proved to the court during the trial.  This evidence was disbelieved by the court.

Speaking after the guilty verdicts, Clare Payn, the Environment Agency officer in charge of the investigation said: "Controlled waste such as waste foodstuffs produces liquid that can harm the environment. We will not hesitate to take action when we find evidence of such unauthorised activity taking place."

In mitigation, it was said that the employees had been subject to a harsh regime at the farm, and were, following conviction, of limited means.

 

Significant fines for waste law violations

Defendant	•(1) Grundy Excavations Limited •(2) David Cross		Hearing	21 & 25 Feb 2011
Offence	S33 Environmental Protection Act 1990		Court	Knowsley Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	•(1) £12,500 •(2) £9,000	Costs	•(1) £14,000 •(2) £5,895

On 25 February 2011, Grundy Excavations Limited of Widnes, was fined after the company pleaded guilty in Knowsley Magistrates Court, to keeping waste on land without a waste management licence in place.  The company was fined £12,500 and ordered to pay over £1,400 in costs to the Environment Agency.

Previously, on 21 February, David Cross was prosecuted in respect of Citi Skips Limited's operations at Birkenhead Recycling Centre, Birkenhead, for the same offence.

Mr Cross was prosecuted in his capacity as a company director consenting to the offence committed by the company. He was ordered to pay a £9,000 fine and £5,895 costs to the Environment Agency.

 

£10,000 fine for Worksop company

Defendant	Nottinghamshire Recycling Limited		Hearing	17 Feb 2011
Offence	Regulation 38 (1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 x2		Court	Worksop  Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£5,000

On 17 February 2011 in Worksop Magistrates Court, Nottinghamshire Recycling Limited based in Worksop pleaded guilty to two charges relating to the unauthorised deposit and storage of waste at the Worksop Recycling Centre, Shireoaks Road, Worksop.

The Court ordered the company to pay a fine of £10,000 and a contribution towards prosecution costs in the sum of £5,000. Nottinghamshire Recycling Ltd were also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15.

The charges were brought by the Environment Agency under Regulation 38 (1) (a) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 and 2010.

For the Environment Agency, solicitor Michael Robinson told the court that Nottinghamshire Recycling Limited operated a waste transfer business at a site in Shireoaks Road, Worksop.

Part of the site had the benefit of an Environmental Permit and part was covered by four registered exemptions, formal authorisations that a permit was not required provided activity was kept within stated limits.

Despite repeated warnings from Environment Officers the company continued to store wastes outside of the Permitted area and in breach of the exemptions. The offences were committed between 11 June 2008 and 24 May 2010.

The area where the wastes were stored was not suitably engineered to deal with the types of waste deposited there. Some of these wastes generated dust and odour as well as liquids which could cause pollution.

There was a large volume of treated wood waste stored on site which had also been of concern to Nottinghamshire Fire Service as it had the potential to catch fire.

The Environment Agency served a Notice requiring the removal of the problematic wastes but the company did not comply.

 

Scott Bader to pay for xylene leak

Defendant	Scott Bader Co Ltd		Hearing	4  Feb 2011
Offence	Reg 38(2) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010		Court	Worksop  Magistrates Court
Penalty	Fine	£10,000	Costs	£7,656

Chemical manufacturer Scott Bader has been fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £7,656 costs after xylene leaked undetected from its Wollaston Hall site near Wellingborough.

The hydrocarbon, leaked into an Anglian Water sewer via a surface water drain after pressure forced the xylene mixed with water from corroded pipe-work and into a bund which did not contain it, Wellingborough Magistrates' Court heard.

Mrs Miriam Tordoff, prosecuting for the EA told the court that the company held an environmental permit which set a limit for an emission of xylene into the sewer of 100 parts per million. The permit also says there should be no solvent layer or droplets visible on the surface of the water.

On 9 April after complaints of strong smells from staff at a nearby factory, an Anglian Water inspection found that the sewer on site was 'visibly contaminated with an oily substance', she said. Analysis of a sample subsequently showed xylene was present at a concentration of about 3,900 parts per million. Scott Bader estimated that about 50 litres of the chemical mix had leaked into the bund, but said that they estimated that only half a litre went into the sewer.

Scott Bader activated a valve to stop any further chemical getting into the sewer downstream.

Although there had been no adverse environmental impact, the company had breached its permit limit and pleaded guilty at Wellingborough Magistrates' Court to a charge relating to that breach.

Mrs Tordoff explained that over time acidic vapours from one of the reactor vessels at the chemical plant had been escaping through a faulty butterfly valve into a fusion tank which was not designed to cope with them. The valve was supposed to isolate the reactor system from the fusion system. The vapours corroded a section of pipe creating a hole of 5-10mm diameter.

When the reactor vessel was pressurised, the xylene/water mix was forced out through the hole into the bund. The sealant on the bund wall had degraded and Scott Bader accepted that the nature of the block-work of the bund wall clearly allowed the liquid to seep through. The surface water drain was directly adjacent to the bund wall.

Scott Bader admitted being in breach of its permit because of a series of errors or failings. An employee who saw the leak from the pipework did not report it as he believed it to be the contents of the fusion tank which are not very dangerous and would not constitute a high level incident.

The EA also highlighted poor management systems for inspecting the integrity of bunds which are a key protection system and the failure to identify the risk of not isolating the two systems properly.
  
The company has since removed the Fusion process equipment, repaired the bund and has planned improvements to the surface water drainage system on the site. 

Scott Bader is a chemical manufacturing business making a large range of chemical bases for products such as paint, varnishes, resins, adhesives and speciality coatings.

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Kevin Burton said: "This incident has highlighted the importance for companies to thoroughly assess the risks from all of their activities. It is also vitally important that key environmental protection systems such as bunds are inspected and maintained to the highest standard, ready to contain leaks or spillage at any time."

Anglian Water also prosecuted the company for breach of its trade effluent consent.

 

Prison sentence for dumping tyres

Defendant	Mark Watts		Hearing	14  Feb 2011
Offence	Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 and section 59 of the Environmental Protection  Act 1990		Court	Mold Crown Court
Penalty	Prison	12 months	Costs	Nil

Depositing and storing used tyres illegally on rented land at Abercynllaith and at Broad Oak Business Park, Whitchurch has resulted in a twelve month prison sentence for a Burntwood man on Monday, 14 February 2011.

Mark Watts, aged 41, of Burntwood, Staffordshire was sentenced  at Mold Crown Court for charges relating to the illegal deposit and keeping of controlled waste.

For the Environment Agency, counsel Jonathan Salmon told the court that Mr Watts, who had a history of operating waste management facilities, had operated a business under the name of Storm Recycling from approximately August 2008, being paid to remove and dispose of waste tyres from tyre fitting businesses across Shropshire and North Wales.

In 2008 and 2009, he carried out the unauthorised deposit and keeping of used tyres at two locations. The first was at Abercynllaith, Penybont, Oswestry and the second at  Unit 8 Broad Oak Business Park, Whitchurch. Neither site was authorised to accept this sort of waste.

Despite warnings from the EA and land agents he continued to deposit tyres at these two sites.

By carrying out waste operations at Broad Oak and Abercynllaith without an Environmental Permit, Mr Watts avoided the costs of a Permit as well as proper handling and disposal costs, undercutting lawful competitors and maximising his profit. A waste operation such as this would also require planning permission which in this case had not been applied for or granted.

Mr Watts was served with two Notices to remove the tyres under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act but neither Notice was properly complied with leaving many thousands of tyres to be removed at the expense to the landowner.

Speaking after the case Helen Cripps, an Environment Agency Officer involved in the investigation said: "Had these tyres been set alight, perhaps through vandalism or by accident, the fire would have been very difficult to put out and would have produced a vast range of substances, many of which could harm the environment or human health. All producers of controlled waste should ensure that they only give their waste to registered waste carriers who use Duty of Care waste transfer notes and most importantly ensure that their waste is going to a permitted or exempt facility".

In mitigation, defence counsel, speaking for Mr Watts, said that the defendant was very remorseful and that he had been affected by family illness and problematic financial circumstances.

HHJ Judge Parry when sentencing said that Mr Watts had acted deliberately and had been motivated by financial gain.

 

Judge sends woman offering crematorium services to prison

Defendant	Emma Bents		Hearing	2  Feb 2011
Offence	Environmental Protection Act 1990 s33 (?)		Court	Mold Crown Court
Penalty	Prison	12 months	Costs	Nil

A Derbyshire women has been sentenced to four months in prison for the illegal collection, disposal and handling of pets and clinical waste. She was sentenced to a total to eight months in prison for charges also brought by Trading Standards and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Emma Bent, 35, traded as Peak Pet Cremations.  She collected animals from the Ambivet Group in the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire area, to be cremated on land she rented. She was not registered to do so. She pleaded guilty to four charges under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Peter Rutherford, Environmental Crime Team Leader, said: "Her unlawful activity resulted in pet owners being left very distressed and saved her large sums in costs that legitimate businesses would have had to pay. It also polluted the environment and was likely to cause harm to human health."

In sentencing the Judge said that despite her personal circumstances he felt that the case merited an immediate custodial sentence. He said that the case had impacted personally on the owners of the dogs, who had suffered as a result of these illegal actions.

On 15 August 2009, a local man walking his dog along a bridle path came across a terrible stench, and found the bodies of four dogs in a drainage ditch off Bridle Lane, lower Hartshay, Derbyshire. He reported this to the RSPCA.

The RSPCA notified the police, Local Authority and the Environment Agency.  An investigation started and the owners of the dogs were identified through micro-chipping. It was discovered that Bent had provided the families with ashes they thought were from their dogs.

When interviewed Bent claimed that someone had broken into the shed on her land and taken the dogs. She also claimed that she thought she had given the ashes of one of the dogs to the owner. 

Bent operated her business from Primrose Farm in the picturesque Derbyshire village of Denby. It was here that Bent operated an incinerator for pet cremations. In addition to the farm she used a nearby field illegally to store and burn animal bodies and clinical waste such as needles and medicines. This site was illegal, she had no licence to carry out this type of activity.

On 3 September 2009, the EA along with officers from Derbyshire County Council Trading Standards and Derbyshire Police, searched the nearby field used by Bent. Within it were areas of scorched earth, live animals - including two horses, chickens and birds - and large amounts of burnt animals and clinical waste. Among the burnt waste were the remains of cats and dogs.

The material being burnt was close to the animals in the field and to nearby houses.

A small green metal shed was also found in the field. Officers found over 100 bags of clinical waste within 21 green plastic sacks. The bags contained decomposing animals and body parts and clinical waste such as used syringes, hypodermic needles and medicines.

In interview she accepted that she unlawfully stored and burnt clinical waste in several places in the field. When shown photos of animal remains, in the scorched earth, she said they were maybe rabbits and foxes. She was told that a vet had examined them and found that they were the skulls of cats and dogs. She agreed but maintained that she did not know that she had burnt such animals.

In mitigation, the defence counsel said she pleaded guilty and she made no money out of it.

Peter Rutherford added: "The pets we found that should originally have been cremated were individually cremated and the ashes returned to their owners. The other animals recovered were cremated together.  This was an extremely distressing case for all those involved, both pet owners and the staff who had to go through all the bags to obtain evidence for this prosecution."

Ed - Ambivet Limited, Mundy Street, Heanor, Derbyshire, as the producer of clinical and hazardous waste to Emma Bent was under a duty of care, under section 34 of the 1990 Act, to ensure that their waste was appropriately disposed of to an authorised person. It failed in its duty and accepted a formal caution for its admitted breach.

 

Formal Caution issued to Sellafield - 15 February 2011

Sellafield Ltd has accepted a formal caution from the Environment Agency, in relation to a leak of radioactive liquid which was reported in January 2009.

This action has been taken following the conclusion of a detailed investigation into the incident, during which the EA also issued Sellafield Ltd with an enforcement notice to address the shortcomings that led to the leaks occurring in the first place.

Although the leak caused no impact to the environment or local people, the Environment Agency made sure Sellafield Ltd took action to ensure this does not happen again.

The leak of radioactive liquid, in the form of a steady drip, came from a pipe designed to drain condensation from a ventilation duct. This caused contamination to a small area of ground within the Sellafield site. No contamination from this incident has escaped from the site. Members of the public do not have access to the Sellafield site, and have not been put at risk as a result of this incident.

Stuart Page, Nuclear Regulator from the EA said: "The Environment Agency expect operators of nuclear facilities to employ the highest standards in controlling their wastes. Our investigation has revealed that Sellafield Ltd fell well short of these standards in this situation. While the environmental impact of the incident was minimal, a formal caution is warranted to reflect the seriousness with which we view such failings. 

Following the enforcement notice that we issued to the company in July 2009, Sellafield Ltd has made a number of improvements to its management arrangements, and we have confirmed by inspection that these improvements have gone a long way to addressing the failings that we identified. More work has still to be completed, and we are keeping the company's progress in these areas under close and frequent review."

Sellafield Ltd carries out a variety of activities at this site, including spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and nuclear waste processing and storage.  Much of the site is being decommissioned.

 

Other cases in brief

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offence	Penalty	Description
Anthony Bealby	Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990	Fine £6,500 Costs £3,500	Burying asbestos waste on his farm
Richard Aylett	Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regs 2007.	Fine £6,000 Costs £3,250	Unlawful waste management of waste at farm
Naveed Sohail	Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 x4	Fine £4000 Costs £8,200	attempting to export hazardous electrical and storing hazardous e-waste without an environmental permit
Henry Woods Waste Management Ltd	Reg38 (1) (a) Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010	Fine £3,000 Costs £2,000	Operating waste business without a permit
Echo 2 Limited	Reg 5 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulations 2007.	Fine £2,600 Costs £4,568.34	importing fireworks containing a harmful chemical - hexachlorobenzene.
John Fletcher	Reg 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.	Fine £1,500 Costs £1,000	Operating waste business without a permit
(1) Darren Lee (2) Springfield Skip Hire Ltd	Reg 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 Section 34(5) and (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Regulation 3 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991	(1) Fine £1,500 (2) Fine £3,500   (1) Costs £1,000 (2) Costs£2,000	Operating waste business without a permit

Report reveals fundamental management flaws lay behind Buncefield disaster

Fundamental safety management failings were the root cause of Britain's most costly industrial disaster, a new publication reveals.

The report into the explosion and five-day fire at the Buncefield Oil Storage Depot in December 2005 tells for the first time the full story of the HSE and EA  investigation.

Drawing on previously unpublished material held back until the criminal prosecution was completed and the appeals processes exhausted, The Buncefield explosion: Why did it happen? identifies several failings including:

• Systems for managing the filling of industrial tanks of petrol were both deficient and not fully implemented
• An increase in the volume of fuel passing through the site put unsustainable pressure on those responsible for managing its receipt and storage, a task they lacked information about and struggled to monitor. The pressure was made worse by a lack of necessary engineering support and other expertise.
• A culture developed where keeping operations going was more important than safe processes, which did not get the attention, resources or priority status they required.
• Inadequate arrangements for containment of fuel and fire-water to protect the environment.

Gordon MacDonald, the chairman of the COMAH Competent Authority Strategic Management Group which published the report, said:

"Major industrial incidents are thankfully rare - this report will help make them even less frequent by sharing some key insights and lessons with the wider high hazard industries. Companies that work in a high hazardous industry need to have strong safety systems in place, underpinned by the right safety culture. Buncefield is a stark reminder of the potential result of a poor attitude towards safety. The local community was devastated and the environmental impact of the disaster is still evident today. With estimated total costs exceeding £1billion, this remains Britain's most costly industrial disaster."

In July 2010, five companies were fined a total of £9.5million for their part in the catastrophe.

The 36-page report highlights a number of process safety management principles, the importance of which were underlined by the failings at Buncefield:

• There should be a clear understanding of major accident risks and the safety critical equipment and systems designed to control them.
• There should be systems and a culture in place to detect signals of failure in safety critical equipment and to respond to them quickly and effectively.
• Time and resources for process safety should be made available.
• Once all the above are in place, there should be effective auditing systems in place which test the quality of management systems and ensure that these systems are actually being used on the ground.

At the core of managing a major hazard business should be clear and positive process safety leadership with board-level involvement and competence to ensure that major hazard risks are being properly managed.

Ed - The Buncefield explosion: Why did it happen? is available online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/investigation-reports.htm