Editorial

Welcome to June's edition of Brunswicks Regulatory News.

The list of death and destruction brought before the court this month is particularly lengthy - it makes depressing reading.  The disparity in penalties with regard to work related deaths is extreme this month  - but it also goes to show that each case is dealt with on its merits by the sentencing court.

It is also interesting to see the Environment Agency getting much tougher penalties for environmental crime.

Health and Safety Prosecutions

Shell UK ordered to pay £1.24 million over Norfolk gas blast

Defendant	Shell UK Limited			Ipswich Crown Court
Offences (7)	S2(1), s3(1) HSWA 1974; reg 4 COMAH 1999; s23(1)(a) EPA 1990; reg 32(1)(b) Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (x3)			20 June 2011
Fine	£1,000,000	Costs	£242,000

 

Energy giant Shell UK Limited has been ordered by Ipswich Crown Court to pay a total of £1.24million in fines and costs over the explosion and fire at its Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk on 28 February 2008 following a joint prosecution by the HSE and EA.

Experts from the HSE said it was only good fortune that no one was killed or seriously injured in the blast.

 

The damage caused to Bacton Gas Terminal by the explosion

The explosion blew the concrete roof off a buffering tank within the plant, hurling concrete and metal debris over a large area and sucking a nearby drain out of the ground. The court heard the blast happened shortly before 6pm in the plant's water treatment plant.

Ten appliances from Norfolk Fire Service attended the scene and the court heard it was fortunate at the time of the explosion that daytime plant personnel were returning to offices to prepare for shift handovers.

Investigators traced the cause of the explosion to a leak of highly flammable hydrocarbon liquid into a part of the plant responsible for treating waste water before discharging it into the sea.

 

The leak was caused by the failure of a corroded metal separator vessel, which allowed water contaminated with the highly flammable condensate to enter a concrete storage tank where it was heated by an electric heater. The heater's elements were exposed within the tank, raising the surface temperature significantly causing the explosion and fire.

Bacton is operated by several energy companies and houses gas processing plants along with the Interconnector system feeding gas between Britain and Europe.

Due to the large quantities of hazardous substances present on the site, Shell Bacton is classified as a top tier site under the Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) regulations.

The court heard that during the incident there was an unauthorised release into the North Sea of 850 tonnes of fire water and fire fighting foam which ought to have been prevented.

Shell UK had failed to close the sea gate until about an hour after the fire started. It also failed to notify the EA as required, meaning that valuable advice on environmental protection during the incident or its aftermath was not available to either Shell or the fire service - an emergency response priority first identified in 2004. The delay in notification also meant an assessment of environmental harm was not possible.

At an earlier hearing Shell pleaded guilty to 7 charges covering safety, environmental control and pollution-prevention failures at the plant which led to the blast.

After sentencing, HSE Inspector Steve Johnson, said:

"The fact no-one was seriously hurt in this incident was solely down to good fortune as the company's internal report acknowledges. Shell UK neglected basic maintenance leading up to the explosion.  Our investigation found key components had been failing for some years and the company knew this, yet there had been no appreciation of the potential for an incident such as this.

"In particular there had been no attempt to assess the risk that arose from condensate entering the water treatment plant despite the fact that the plant was not designed to handle highly flammable liquids like condensate.

"The investigation revealed significant failings in the safety management system operating on the plant and hopefully other operators will take note of the outcome of this incident and maybe review their own procedures."

Environment Agency Environment Manager for Norfolk and Suffolk Marcus Sibley said:

"We are disappointed that a company such as Shell with its experience in the fuel industry should have operated in this fashion.  This is a high risk industry and that is why we expect high standards.  The explosion could have led to a major environmental disaster as other highly flammable materials were stored nearby."

Ed - You can find the text of each of the statutory provisions breached later in this edition.  The fines imposed by the court were as follows:

Count	Offence	Penalty
1	Reg 4 COMAH	£150,000
2	S2(1) HSWA	£150,000
3	S3(1) HSWA	£140,000
4	S23(1)(a) EPA 1990	£140,000
5	Reg 32(1)(b) PPC (E&W) Regs 2000	£140,000
6	Reg 32(1)(b) PPC (E&W) Regs 2000	£140,000
7	Reg 32(1)(b) PPC (E&W) Regs 2000	£140,000

 

Sentences after worker killed in 12 metre fall

Defendant	RWE nPower plc			Cardiff Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA			3 June 2011
Fine	£250,000	Costs	£30,000
Defendant	AMEC Group Limited
Offence	Reg 11(1) MHSWR 1999
Fine	£200,000	Costs	£30,000

 

Energy company, RWE npower plc and contractor AMEC Group Ltd have been prosecuted after a maintenance worker fell to his death at a South Wales power station.

This followed an incident when an agency worker Christopher Booker from St Athan, fell around 12m through an unprotected opening in a platform at Aberthaw Power Station in the Vale of Glamorgan in the evening on 10th June 2007.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that work was being carried out to insert equipment into a large deep pit in the water cooling system to hold back the seawater when the tide rose. Sections of the floor gratings at the top of the pit had been removed to allow the work to proceed.

Mr Booker was working with eight other workers who had been called in to carry out urgent modification work on the equipment in order to ensure an effective seal of the pit.

 

 

 

The unguarded opening through which Mr Booker fell

As the natural light faded, electric lights were turned to face those doing the grinding work which left the top of the pit in near darkness. Mr Booker fell through the opening in the walkway to the floor below. He died of multiple injuries to his chest and pelvis.

The HSE investigation showed that a large opening in the walkway was left unprotected after the floor gratings had been removed, and inadequate precautions had been taken to protect people working near it.

The investigation also identified that there was confusion and misunderstanding between RWE npower and principal contractor AMEC Group Ltd as to who was responsible for controlling the work at the time of Mr Booker's death.

RWE npower Plc, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA and were fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £30,000 costs.

The principal contractors, AMEC Group Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 11(1) MHSWR 1999. They were fined £200,000 with costs of £30,000.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Caroline Bird said:

"This tragic case highlights the consequences of failing to do something as simple as adding protection to an opening in a walkway.  Inadequate planning and a poor choice of safety control measures meant that a very obvious hazard remained.

"Both companies had a duty of care to Mr Booker that they failed to meet - with catastrophic consequences. This awful incident could so easily have been prevented had the correct safety measures been taken.

"Employers have a duty to manage the risk of falls from height, including providing protection around the edge of openings. It is completely unacceptable this sort of risk was not managed."

Ed - you don't often see prosecutions for breach of reg 11 - check out the provision in our table below.

 

Firms fined after worker killed on M25

Defendant	Carillion Highway Maintenance Limited			Southwark Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA			6 June 2011
Fine	£200,000	Costs	£50,000
Defendant	Traffic Management (North East) Limited
Offence	S2(1), s3(1) HSWA
Fine	£2,000	Costs	£120,000

 

Construction firm Carillion Highway Maintenance Limited and its traffic management subcontractor have been fined after a worker employed by another subcontractor was killed while working on the M25 motorway.

Christopher Lewis, was carrying out fencing work close to the Holmesdale Tunnel section of the M25 near Enfield, when he was crushed between a van and a safety barrier after a lorry jack-knifed on the motorway.

During the HSE prosecution Southwark Crown Court was told Carillion was carrying out repairs to overhead lighting in the tunnel in August 2004.

To allow the repair work to take place, Carillion arranged with Traffic Management (North East) Limited (TMNE) to set up an overnight contraflow. CD Fencing and Construction Services Limited were removing and restoring wire rope safety fencing in the central reservation.

The court heard after the repair work had been completed, Mr Lewis and colleague Simon Reid, both employees of CD Fencing, were in a closed lane waiting to reinstate the safety fencing so the traffic management equipment could be removed, allowing the tunnel to re-open.

Mr Lewis and his colleague were preparing their materials and equipment for the task when a lorry jack-knifed in the contraflow system. The lorry hit cones and a stationary CD Fencing van, sending the van careering towards the hard shoulder. The lorry passed within a metre of Mr Reid.

Mr Lewis was later found pinned between the van and a safety barrier at the rear of the hard shoulder. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Gavin Shaw, an employee of TMNE, was knocked over by a traffic cone and suffered a broken wrist.

Carillion Highway Maintenance Limited pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 3(1) HSWA and was fined £200,000 with £50,000 costs.  Traffic Management (North East) Limited was found guilty of breaching s2(1) and s3(1) HSWA and fined £2,000 with costs of £120,000.  The company is in administration. The jury did not agree on the charge against CD Fencing Ltd s2(1) HSWA.  It was formally acquitted when the prosecution concluded it was not in the public interest to proceed to re-trial.

The driver of the lorry had been previously convicted of driving without due care and attention in a case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service.

After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Andy Beal said:

"Although the lorry driver was not blameless, Carillion and TMNE failed to do enough to protect Mr. Lewis and others working in the road that night.  Speed limits were too high, there was a poor cone layout through the contraflow and there was inadequate management of subcontractors.

"Had both firms met their legal responsibilities, this collision could have been avoided. The risks associated with work on high speed roads are well known and it is vital traffic management systems are correctly set up and well established safe guards are followed when people are working within them."

 

Engineering company sentenced over worker's death

Defendant	Melloy Limited			Cardiff Crown Court
Offences (3)	S2(1) HSWA, reg 9(2)(b) LOLER 1998 and reg 3(1) MHSWR 1999			15 June 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£75,000

 

Melloy Limited, an engineering company has been fined £100,000 after a worker was crushed to death at a factory near Pontypridd.  They were also compelled to pay a further £75,000 in costs.

The HSE prosecuted Melloy Limited after shift co-ordinator Paul Thorngate, 44, was crushed by a falling crate of aluminium car parts, while working overtime at the company's Treforest Industrial Estate premises.

He was working alone in the heat treatment area of the factory on the evening of 10 November 2006, but was fatally injured when the wire rope hoist that was supporting a suspended crate of parts failed, causing it to fall upon him.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that Mr Thorngate, who had worked for the company for 27 years, was one of several men who would work overtime at weekends or nights as a lone worker.

On the night of the incident, a metal basket containing aluminum brake parts was being hoisted into a furnace for high temperature treatment. The crane raised and lowered its cargo by extending and shortening a wire rope. However, Mr Thorngate was killed when the rope supporting the weight snapped, and the basket landed on top of him.

The court heard that after the company relocated to Treforest in May 2005, the hoist mechanism was reassembled at the new premises. The HSE investigation found the firm failed to ensure the hoist was examined by a qualified specialist after reassembly, and was done without first conducting a suitable risk assessment.

Following the incident, it was discovered that the wire rope had broken, as it had been seriously damaged from rubbing against the frame. The safety devices on the hoist were also incorrectly adjusted.

Melloy Ltd of Treforest Industrial Estate in Pontypridd, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(2)(b) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

HSE inspector, Janet Viney said:

"This tragic incident that has left a family without a father could have been easily prevented had the failed hoist been thoroughly examined when it was moved from one factory to another.  If a competent person had examined the hoist, the changes which were made to accommodate its new position would have been recognised and the safety mechanisms would have been adjusted."

 

Bupa care home company fined after resident death

Defendant	Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Ltd			Wolverhampton Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA			23 June 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£50,000

 

A Bupa care home company has been fined £100,000 after an elderly resident died after falling from a hoist while being moved.

Irene Evans, 91, suffered head injuries in the incident at Parklands Court Nursing Home, Park Road, Bloxwich, on 31 January 2007. She died in hospital ten days later.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard two carers at the Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Ltd operated facility, had placed Mrs Evans into a sling to move her from the bed to a chair.

The sling is placed under the individual and is attached by means of a series of hooks, loops or clips to a patient hoist which is then operated to lift and transfer the individual.

Whilst the hoist was stationary one carer turned away to pick up the elderly resident's slippers and the other carer was behind the mast of the hoist. The elderly lady fell forwards to the ground and suffered a five-inch wound across her scalp and bruising to her head. She was taken to hospital but did not recover and died more than a week later.

An HSE investigation into her death found the sling loop fixings attached to the hoist were wrongly adjusted.  A safety pommel, which would have prevented Mrs Evans from falling, had not been used.

The court also heard staff at the home had not received any information, instruction or training in the use of the sling, the pommel or the sling loop fixings. The sling loop fixings were not recorded in the risk assessment or the care plan for Mrs Evans and there was no safe working procedure for the sling.

Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Ltd, of Bridge House, Outwood Lane, Horsforth, Leeds, pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA.   The company was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £50,000 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Amy Kalay said:

"Mrs Evans's death was a wholly preventable tragedy caused by unacceptable management failings on the part of Bupa.  Managers of the nursing home failed to make an adequate assessment of the manual handling requirements for this elderly lady who was in their care. In particular, they did not give the carers sufficient information, instruction or training on how to use the sling properly.  Working in a care home is a specialised job, which involves dealing with vulnerable people. Care homes must ensure that they have the correct training in place for all their employees."

 

Company fined after gas cylinder explosion kills worker

Defendant	Oak Farm Gas Company Ltd			Uxbridge Magistrates Court
Offences (3)	S3(1) HSWA and regs 4(3), 8(1) PUWER 1998			17 June 2011
Fine	£90,000	Costs	£50,000

 

An Edgware gas company has been fined after an explosion killed a worker and severely injured a member of the public.

The HSE prosecuted Oak Farm Gas Company Ltd, (trading as Mr Fizz), after the incident at a site in New Denham, Buckinghamshire.

The gas firm specialises in the supply of high-pressure carbon dioxide, nitrogen and gas mixtures for licensed trade drink dispensers.

The court heard that Kerry Daly, 21, of Uxbridge in Hillingdon, was employed at Mr Fizz solely to fill empty gas cylinders with various types of pure and mixed gas. The high-pressure cylinders were normally brought to the workshop from customers' premises.

On the 19 June 2009, Maurice Kelly, a 45 year-old driver from Ealing brought a gas cylinder to Mr Daly from a pub in East London. As the valve fittings on the cylinder did not match those on the high pressure filling station, Mr Daly, who was working alone in the workshop, phoned a colleague to ask his advice.

Though Mr Daly was advised not to fill the cylinder he still attempted to do so and the cylinder exploded. Mr Daly was severely injured and died later that evening from his injuries. Mr Kelly had his leg amputated below the knee and suffered injuries resulting in him losing some function in both hands.

The HSE investigation showed the equipment at Mr Fizz's workshop was totally unsuitable for filling a low pressure gas cylinder. Mr Daly's training consisted solely of verbal instruction and there was no documentation of this, nor any written risk assessments.

HSE's Inspector Will Pascoe said:

"This incident was completely preventable. If sufficient training and instruction had been given then Kerry Daly's death would not have happened and Maurice Kelly would not have suffered life-changing injuries.  Anyone who examines, refurbishes, fills or uses a gas cylinder should be suitably trained and have the necessary skills to carry out their job safely. Employees should understand the risks associated with the energy stored in high pressure gas cylinders and this incident should serve as a reminder of the dangers that this may pose."

Two firms guilty over Legionella risk

Defendant	Aegis Limited			Wolverhampton Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA			28 June 2011
Fine	£40,000	Costs	£80,000
Defendant	Eaton Limited
Offences (2)	S2(1) HSWA 1974, s3(1) HSWA 1974
Fine	£80,000	Costs	£45,000

 

Fines and costs totalling nearly £250,000 have been imposed on two firms after workers and members of the public were put at risk of exposure to the potentially fatal waterborne Legionella bacteria.

The HSE prosecuted multinational automotive parts manufacturer Eaton Ltd and water treatment services provider, Aegis Ltd after an investigation in 2006.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard HSE inspectors found Eaton Ltd had failed to properly manage the water cooling systems used in manufacturing processes at its plant in Thorns Road, Brierley Hill.

Aegis Ltd, which had been contracted to provide water treatment services (now trading from its Tamworth address as Aegis Water Treatment Ltd), was also found to have failed significantly in its duties.

There was no comprehensive and up-to-date risk assessment in place and neither company had taken reasonable steps to control the potential spread of Legionella by assessing the risk or properly cleaning and maintaining the water cooling system.  Employees had not been properly supervised. The management failings by both companies were present over a prolonged period of time.

Eaton Ltd, pleaded guilty and was fined £80,000 for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Section 3(1) of the Act and ordered to pay £45,000 costs.

Aegis Ltd was found guilty at a trial in May and today was fined £40,000 for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and ordered to pay £80,000 costs.

After the hearing HSE Principal Inspector Paul Billinger said:

"It is vital that companies who use water cooling treatment as part of their manufacturing processes have plans in place to make sure the level of Legionella bacteria in their systems does not become unsafe.

"Neither Eaton Ltd nor Aegis Ltd, which was specifically contracted to manage the water system, took the Legionella risk seriously. They failed to deal with their own risk assessment and service agreement in respect of cleaning the system.

"These were persistent and systemic failures, which put people's health at risk."

Ed - This arose from an investigation by the HSE into the circumstances surrounding the death of an employee from Legionnaires disease in April 2006. That investigation did not provide sufficient evidence to allege any link between the activity undertaken by Eaton Limited and the cause of his death. However, the investigation did reveal evidence to demonstrate that both companies had failed to take such steps as were reasonably practicable to control the risk of the spread of legionella bacteria, principally by failures to assess the risk and to clean and maintain properly the water cooling system.

 

Companies fined after worker left with severe brain injuries

Defendant	Hoistaway Limited			Bristol Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974			24 June 2011
Fine	£70,000	Costs	£14,616
Defendant	S3(1) HSWA 1974
Offence	Miller Construction (UK) Ltd
Fine	£40,000	Costs	£17,232

 

Two firms have been fined by Bristol Crown Court after a man suffered severe head injuries when a scaffolding tube fell on him from 15 stories.

Richard Chodkiewicz, 53, was working for Hoistway Ltd on a lift installation at the construction site for a new Radisson Blu hotel in Marsh Street, Bristol, when the incident happened on 22 July 2008.

The court heard that three men had been working on the lift installation, with Mr Chodkiewicz and a colleague at the bottom of the shaft. Another man was positioned 18 stories up, at the top of the shaft, and was raising a 7lb scaffolding tube tied to a length of piano wire up the shaft.

Mr Chodkiewicz had come away from the lift shaft but had returned before the tube had been lifted from the shaft. The tube had reached the 15th floor, when the piano wire became untied and the tube fell onto him, hitting his head. He survived, but has suffered permanent brain damage as a result of his injuries.

An HSE investigation following the incident found that both Hoistway Ltd and the main building contractor on site, Miller Construction (UK) Ltd, had failed to ensure that a safe system of working was in place for the installation of lifts on the site.

After the hearing, Steve Frain, HSE Inspector, said:

"The contractors involved should have had effective arrangements in place to ensure that Mr Chodkiewicz was not in the bottom of the lift shaft while anything was being raised or lowered. Even a smaller object falling on him from that height could have killed him or his colleagues.  As it was, he was struck with such force by the pole that he now has severe brain damage and requires 24-hour care."

The investigation also found that there had been inadequate site management and insufficient risk assessments carried out before the work was undertaken. Openings had been left unguarded and not enough had been done on the site to prevent the risk of falling objects.

Hoistway Ltd, based in Martock, Somerset, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA and was fined £70,000 with £14,616 costs. Miller Construction (UK) Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA and was fined £40,000 plus £17,232 costs.

Care home fined £65k over Preston mother's death

Defendant	Sue Ryder Care			Preston Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			27 June 2011
Fine	£65,000	Costs	£35,000

 

The owners of a Preston care home have been fined following the death of a 40-year-old mother-of-one, who became trapped between a mattress and a bed rail.

Charlotte Young, who suffered from Huntingdon's disease, was found unconscious on 3 June 2008 at the Sue Ryder Care Home in Cuerden Hall, Bamber Bridge, and died later that morning in hospital.

 

 

The care home bed which caused Charlotte Young's fatal injuries

Sue Ryder Care, which is one of the largest providers of palliative care in the UK, appeared in court after an investigation by the HSE found the home failed to manage the risks associated with the equipment used on Mrs Young's bed.

As her condition made her prone to involuntary movements, a specialist cushioning system was used along with the bed rails. However, Preston Crown Court heard the equipment was not used correctly by staff, creating a risk.

The HSE investigation found Mrs Young was able to knock her bed rail out of position because it was not the right size for her bed. This created a gap between her bed rail and mattress in which she became trapped and was unable to breathe.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector David Shorrock said:

"A mother has lost her life because of a systemic failure on the part of Sue Ryder Care at Cuerden Hall.

"Because the home was oblivious to the risks associated with this kind of equipment, they had no proper risk assessments in place. The maintenance of the equipment was also poor and staff were not trained to spot any problems which could have arisen in Mrs Young's case.

"I would urge care providers to carry out regular risk assessments on all their equipment to make sure the way it is being used is fit for purpose and continues to meet the needs of residents."

Sue Ryder Care, of King Street in Sudbury, Suffolk, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA after it failed to manage the risks associated with the use of bedrails. It was ordered to pay £35,000 towards the cost of the prosecution.

 

Death due to safety failings at textile firm

Defendant	Westwood Yarns Ltd			Bradford Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974			8 June 2011
Fine	£60,000	Costs	£20,625

 

A textile worker at Huddersfield's Westwood Yarns factory was killed after being crushed in a huge baling machine, a court heard.

 

 

The baling machine at Westwood Yarns where Gary Lee was crushed

Gary Lee, 40, was cleaning a baling machine when it re-activated. He received multiple crush injuries as he was first trapped horizontally by the force of one plate before a vertical compressing ram also operated.

The HSE, said management safety failings at Westwood Yarns' Washpit Mills factory in Holmfirth were responsible for the tragedy.

Bradford Crown Court heard that Mr Lee, who had worked at the company since he was 18, had received no proper training in how to clean the baling machine but had tackled the task on 3 January 2008 when asked to do the job.

A colleague heard shouts minutes after Mr Lee had begun cleaning the machine and rushed over to hit the emergency stop button. He found Mr Lee with severe crush injuries and he was later pronounced dead at the scene.

The HSE investigation suggested Mr Lee of Dunford Road, Holmfirth, may have inadvertently obscured an electronic sensor, which re-activated the operation of the baling compressors as the machine had been left in automatic mode. It should instead have been shut down completely.

HSE inspectors found a lack of supervision and consistency in work processes at the factory. Also a lack of equipment meant some procedures could not be carried out properly.

Immediately after the incident, an enforcement notice was served on the firm requiring improvements to ensure the cleaning operation of the baler was carried out safely.

Inspector Kirsty Townend, who carried out the investigation, said:

"This was an entirely preventable tragedy. The dangers of baling machines are notorious in the industry but are still all too common. At Westwood Yarns, there was a common misunderstanding that isolation and lock-off at the mains were not required.

"No one seemed to appreciate fully how the baling machine worked from a safety perspective, so dangerous assumptions were made which led directly to Mr Lee's death.

"The company fell well short of its duty to protect employees from a known hazard. Employees were working in a system that allowed poorly controlled work practices to develop, and ineffective monitoring meant these were not picked up and corrected."

 

Housing association fined after pensioner's death

Defendant	Gentoo Group Ltd			Newcastle Crown Court
Offence	Reg5(1) MHSWR 1999			30 June 2011
Fine	£40,000	Costs

 

A North East housing association has been fined after a pensioner died in his home from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Gentoo Group Ltd, of Emperor Way, Sunderland - formerly known as Sunderland Housing Company Ltd - was prosecuted by the HSE after 80-year-old George John Rutherford was found dead in his Penshaw home in 2007.

Newcastle Crown Court heard that Mr Rutherford had rented the property in Allendale Crescent for many years.  He died as a result of CO poisoning on 17 June 2007. An inquest was held in November 2008 when Coroner Derek Winter recorded a verdict of accidental death.

Mr Rutherford's landlord Gentoo Group Ltd was charged with failing to properly maintain the coal fire at his home.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) MHSWR 1999 and was fined £40,000 with £25,000 costs at Newcastle Crown Court .

After the case, HSE Principal Inspector Bruno Porter said:

"The judge accepted that although it cannot be said that Mr Rutherford's death occurred as a result of the company's breach there was at the very least a 'not insignificant risk of death'.  The judge added that this was not an isolated breach, on the contrary it appears that this was a 'continuing systemic failure'. However, he bore in mind that the company has a good health and safety record and as an organisation take health and safety and the safety of both employees and all tenants very seriously."

"The risk of dying from carbon monoxide exposure caused by a faulty solid fuel appliance is estimated to be up to ten times higher than that from a gas appliance but the risks are generally not as well known.  As with gas appliances, burning solid fuel such as wood, coal or smokeless fuels, poses no danger as long as certain simple precautions are taken. The appliance needs to be installed and maintained correctly, and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

"Landlords and providers of social housing must make sure that solid fuel appliances are regularly maintained - chimneys must be swept regularly and they must make sure the tenant is capable of, and is actually carrying out, any safety-critical cleaning.

Sentence after trainee's forklift fall

Defendant	CL Electrical Solutions Ltd			Plymouth Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974			14 June 2011
Fine	£7,000	Costs	£5,000
Defendant	HT Gardner Distribution Ltd
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£11,300

 

A trainee electrician suffered severe injuries when a metal cage he was using fell 20ft from the fork lift truck supporting it.  Tom Davis, 18. suffered a fractured pelvis in the incident which happened in August 2009 while Mr Davis and his colleague were employed by Plymouth based CL Electrical Solutions Ltd.

Plymouth Crown Court heard both trainees were working at the premises of HT Gardner Distribution Ltd in Plympton when instructed to change a number of lightbulbs on the warehouse ceiling.

HT Gardner Distribution Ltd provided a forklift truck for which neither man had received any training, though the firm's own instructions stated only trained drivers should use forklifts. It also provided a cage that was strapped to the forklift that was unsuitable for the task.

Whilst his colleague drove the fork lift around the warehouse, Mr Davis was positioned inside the cage, changing bulbs in any roof lights not working.

During one of these manoeuvres, the forklift toppled over onto its side, narrowly missing crashing into a pillar and slamming the cage into the floor.

Inside the cage, Mr Davis fractured his pelvis in two places, suffered facial injuries that required stitches, a broken front tooth and lacerations to his elbow.

Both firms were prosecuted by HSE. At a hearing at Plymouth Magistrates Court in April, CL Electrical Solutions Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s2(1) HSWA and H T Gardner pleaded guilty to a breach of s3(1) HSWA. The Magistrates' committed the defendants to crown court for sentencing after stating that there had been "a catalogue of breaches on the part of individuals in both Defendant companies" and having taking on board the serious injuries sustained by Tom Davis.

HT Gardner Distribution Ltd was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,300 and CL Electrical was fined a total of £7,000 with £5,000 costs.

HSE Inspector, Helena Allum, said:

"Changing light bulbs is such a common job the safety implications can be overlooked, but in high roofed workplaces, falls from height are a very real and serious risk.  This job was not properly risk assessed and as a result both companies chose the wrong equipment for the job and came up with a loose system of work. The two young trainees, inexperienced in work at height and not trained to use a forklift, were then left to get on with it."

 

Glass giant fined £20,000 for workers' injuries at Bristol site

Defendant	Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd			Bristol Magistrates Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974			9 June 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£5,646

 

Two workers were badly injured after a trolley load of glass panes fell on them at one of the UK's most well-known manufacturers Bristol Magistrates court has heard.

Ashley Emes and Nick Stone were both working for glass manufacturer, Pilkington UK Ltd, at its Imperial Park site in the city's Hartcliffe district when the overloaded trolley collapsed with the sheets of glass landing on the two men.

The court was told by prosecutors for the HSE that the 1,500kg capacity trolley had earlier been overloaded with glass weighing 1,780kg by two of the injured men's colleagues.

The load was unevenly distributed with most of the weight on one side of the trolley, so when Mr Emes, 24, and 35-year-old Mr Stone attempted to move the trolley it collapsed and the glass fell on top of them, shattering as it did so.

Mr Emes from Longwell Green, Bristol, suffered a broken leg and needed 72 stitches applied to his neck. He has had a number of operations on his knee and has not yet returned to work. Mr Stone, from Weston-super-Mare, suffered severe cuts, bruising and tendon damage, and only returned to work six months after the incident, which happened on 30 June 2010.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector, Mehtaab Hamid, said:

"This horrific incident could have been avoided if Pilkington had a system in place to ensure its staff knew the loading capacity of the trolley, the weight of the loads being put on it, and how to load it correctly.  Employers have a duty to ensure their staff have the information and training necessary to carry out their duties safely, and higher standards should be expected from such a large and well known company."

 

Carlisle firm fined over death at tractor pulling contest

Defendant	AW Blake Ltd			Preston Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA			6 June 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£15,000

 

An engineering firm has been sentenced following the death of a Dutch father-of-three in a high-speed crash at a tractor pulling competition in Lancashire.

Jan van Alphen was competing in the Euro Challenge Cup in Great Eccleston when his tractor was crushed. A 12 tonne box of weights, attached to the trailer he was pulling, hit the back of his tractor on Sunday 26 August 2007.

The HSE prosecuted Carlisle-based AW Blake Ltd, which owned and maintained both the trailer and weight box, following an investigation into the death.

Preston Crown Court heard the 58-year-old had been pulling the specially designed trailer at approximately 60 miles an hour when the control mechanism failed. The weight box on the back on the trailer crashed through safety buffers and into Mr van Alphen's tractor as he tried to slow down.

It took fire and ambulance services an hour to free him from the wreckage before he could be airlifted to hospital, where he died from severe crush injuries.

 

 

Jan van Alphen on his tractor

Mr van Alphen, who had been involved in the tractor pulling motorsport since its introduction in the Netherlands in 1979, had won dozens of national and European championship titles. He was married with three children.

The HSE investigation found engineers had attempted to repair a fault in the trailer's control mechanism on three separate occasions during the previous day. The mechanism should have caused the weight box to move up the trailer rails slowly until it reached the buffers.

Despite the recurrent fault, the trailer was still put back into use on Sunday at the Great Eccleston Showground.

The investigation also concluded the trailer would not have met the rules of the European Tractor Pulling Committee or the British Tractor Pulling Association. Tests showed that the emergency brakes, although fitted, could not stop the weight box quickly enough.

AW Blake Ltd, of Ivegill near Carlisle, pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) HSWA. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 in prosecution costs.

 

 

The remains of Mr van Alphen's tractor following the crash

Liz Evans, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"Mr van Alphen was an experienced tractor-pulling competitor but he lost his life because AW Blake Ltd didn't do enough to look after his safety. It was given three warnings the previous day that the control mechanism wasn't working properly, but did not take the trailer out of use at the event.

"The company also failed to follow the guidelines set down by the governing body for tractor-pulling. The motorsport is a potentially high-risk activity and so it's vital the rules are followed to the letter.

"It's tragic the excellent health and safety record of tractor pulling events has been tarnished by the failings of one company. I hope lessons will be learnt from this so that both the public and drivers can continue to enjoy tractor pulling events safely in the future."

 

Girl trapped in swimming pool results in council prosecution

Defendant	Castle Point Borough Council			Basildon Magistrates Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			15 June 2011
Fine	£18,000	Costs	£7,500

 

Castle Point Borough Council has been prosecuted by the HSE following an incident where a 7 year old girl was trapped by a water outlet at the Waterside Swimming Pool on Canvey Island.

On 2 May 2009, the girl was using the swimming pool with her great grandfather at Waterside Farm Leisure Centre. Her hair was sucked into the water sampling outlet on the side of the pool, trapping her underwater for two minutes and 36 seconds. Her great grandfather had to pull a clump of hair from her head in order to free her. She was unconscious when she was finally taken out of the water, limp and blue in colour, but came round once laid on the poolside.

HSE told Basildon Magistrates' Court today that Castle Point Borough Council, which owns and runs the swimming pool, had not managed the risks to members of the public using it. In particular the council failed to ensure that the sample outlet had two vents so if one became blocked the other vent would take the pressure off the suction.  There were too few lifeguards on duty and of the two that were working, one was cleaning and the other could not see the whole pool due to the glare from sunlight reflecting on the water.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Nicola Surrey said:

"This incident was extremely traumatic for the young girl and her great grandfather and it could have had far more serious consequences. Managed properly, swimming pools are a place for fun and exercise yet the council put pool users at risk of entrapment by not properly maintaining the water outlets."

 

National Film and Television School fined after volunteer is paralysed

Defendant	The National Film and Television School			High Wycombe Magistrates Court
Offences (2)	s3(1) HSWA 1974 reg 5(1) MHSWR 1999			7 June 2011
Fine	£17,500	Costs	£4,787

 

The National Film and Television School has been fined after a volunteer was left permanently paralysed after falling 2.25 m from a mock staircase on set.

The school, which provides education in film and TV production, was prosecuted for safety breaches that led to the 2008 incident at Beaconsfield Film Studios in Buckinghamshire.

The HSE prosecuted the school for not having a safe system in place to prevent falls. High Wycombe Magistrates' Court heard it was evident the school did not have adequate management arrangements for the effective planning and execution of the student film it was producing at the time.

Magistrates heard on 20 October 2008, the 34-year-old woman, who does not wish to be named, was working as a volunteer costume designer for the production. She was attending to an actor's costume before filming, when she fell from an unguarded platform edge at the top of a staircase that formed part of the set.

The woman was critically injured, fracturing vertebrae in her back and was diagnosed with permanent paralysis from the waist down. She has been left in chronic pain.

The HSE investigation found there was no edge protection at the top of the stairs. Actors, carpenters and other students were at risk of falling while carrying out assembly, decoration and lighting work from the staircase.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Rauf Ahmed said:

"This terrible incident was clearly preventable if a safe system of work had been put in place by The National Film and Television School during the initial production stages.  A variety of methods can easily be used to prevent people or objects falling on theatre sets, depending on the visual appearance desired. It could be as simple as having edge protection at the end of a platform, or having safety restraint harnesses attached to people.

"Of course, last minute creative changes can occur during filming which it why it is essential an existing safe system of work is in place, with the main objective being to stop incidents like this happening."

 

£17k

Appliance recycling firm fined after worker injured

Defendant	Environcom England Ltd			Grantham Magistrates Court
Offences	S3(1) HSWA 1974 x 2			15 June 2011
Fine	£17,000	Costs	£5,915.20

 

A worker was injured by a falling stack of cookers and washing machines at one of the UK's largest electrical equipment recycle firms.

Environcom England Ltd recycles waste electrical equipment for some of the biggest electrical retailers in the country, but Grantham Magistrates' Court heard how a Polish agency worker suffered bruising to his back and chest after an unsafe stack of appliances fell on him.

When the HSE investigated the incident at the firm's processing plant at Spittlegate Level, Grantham, that happened on 15 September 2009 it discovered appliances were piled five or six high, making the stacks unstable.

The incident was reported to HSE in late November but when an inspector visited the site on 3 December to investigate the incident, appliances were still stacked dangerously high. A Prohibition Notice was served immediately to prevent unsafe stacking.

Environcom England Ltd, of Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching 3(1) HSWA 1974. They were fined £7,000 for the offence on 15 September and £10,000 for the further offence on 3 December. The firm was also ordered to pay full costs.

HSE inspector Judith McNulty-Green said:

"The worker was extremely fortunate not to have been more seriously hurt and the company could have done so many things to prevent his injuries.  Heavy machines like cookers and washers should never have been stacked so high. If they had been stacked on their side it would have provided a broader and more stable base and stacking them against a wall would also have given much more stability.

"If the goods were kept behind a barrier or in a container, a collapse like this would not have injured anyone. Better still they could have co-ordinated delivery of goods better so the stacks did not build up in the first place."

"The range of simple, common sense measures that could have been taken to prevent heavy stacks of machine toppling over just goes to underline what basic mistakes Environcom made - its failures and this sentence should be a warning to other recycling firms to take safety seriously."

 

Ex-serviceman's arm severed at Hull recycling site

Defendant	Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd			Beverley Magistrates Court
Offence	Reg 11 PUWER 1998			1 June 2011
Fine	£12,000	Costs	£6,408

 

A Hull man, who returned unscathed from active service with the Army in Bosnia, was maimed for life at work as a 'civvy' back home, a court has heard.

Ray Wright, 34, had his right forearm severed in a baling machine incident while working at the Transwaste Recycling site at Hessle Dock in April 2009.

 

 

The baling machine used to compact waste cardboard at the former Hessle Dock site of Transwaste Recycling & Aggregates

The HSE when prosecuting site operators, Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Limited, told Beverley Magistrates' Court the original protective guard to the baling machine had been damaged and replaced with a makeshift one.

As the replacement was not designed for the machine, it allowed access to the baling ram when the machine was operating.

The court heard Mr Wright tripped on a scaffold tube in front of the machine and put his arm out to break the fall. However, his arm went into the baling chamber and was severed between his wrist and elbow. Surgery to re-attach the limb was unsuccessful and he now has a prosthetic limb.

Mr Wright, who operated the machine regularly, had been used to working alone on site as a few weeks earlier the company had moved the business to a purpose-built facility in Melton, East Yorkshire, leaving only baling machine and an operator at the site in Hessle Dock.

HSE told magistrates that Mr Wright had been working alone at the site at the time, and had struggled to get help after the incident.

In shock and badly injured, he attempted to ring for help on his mobile phone but dropped it to the ground and the battery fell out. Unable to replace the battery he ran to get help from a neighbouring company. He spotted a van driver and alerted him to his plight lifting his severed arm to show the disbelieving driver he was severely hurt and in desperate need of help. Moments later, he passed out and an ambulance was called.

HSE Inspector Chris Chambers, who investigated the incident, said:

"This was a devastating injury and is one that will have a life-long impact on Mr Wright. But equally shocking is that it could so easily have been avoided had the company made sure the dangerous moving parts of this machine were properly guarded, by the device supplied with the machine - not by some totally unsuitable alternative.

"The firm operates in a high-risk industry which recognises the well-known dangers of baling machines and the history of serious and fatal injuries associated with their use. Worker safety should be paramount. All companies should make sure guards and protective devices are the correct ones and are maintained in efficient working order.

"Our investigation revealed a health and safety consultancy business, used by the firm for several months prior to the incident, had undertaken a risk assessment on the machine but this failed to identify the obvious guarding defects. We would strongly advise companies wanting to appoint consultants to use the Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR), set up this year, to find a suitably-qualified consultant in their area."

Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd., of Melton Waste Park, Gibson Lane, Melton, East Yorkshire, was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6,408 costs after admitting a breach of the PUWER regs.

 

Demolition company fined for failing to meet basic gas and electricity safety regulations

16 June 2011

Defendant	Kane Haulage Ltd			City of London Magistrates Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			16 June 2011
Fine	£11,700	Costs	£6,936.50

 

A demolition company has been fined following a dangerous occurrence involving the release of over half a tonne of gas. It also carried out work while electricity supplies to the buildings undergoing demolition remained live.

Kane Haulage Ltd of St Albans in Hertfordshire, was contracted to carry out demolition work at Oldfield Trading Estate in Sutton in preparation for the construction of a new self storage facility on the site. Although some work had been undertaken by the utility companies EDF Energy (EDF) and Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) to disconnect the electricity and gas supplies at the site, neither had completed the process. Meters had been removed from various building units on the estate but the electricity and gas supplies up to the meters remained live.

City of London Magistrates Court heard that EDF engineers were called to the site on a number of occasions between May and July 2009 as a result of damage to live cables, EDF had warned Kane Haulage not to continue with work until all the electricity supplies had been disconnected. Despite this warning, demolition work continued and EDF made a complaint to the HSE when it was again called to the site on 15 September 2009.

Prior to this on the 13 September 2009 a resident of Oldfield Road reported the smell of gas in his garden and garage to SGN. The source of the gas smell was traced to the demolition site where up to 20 severed live gas pipes were found. The polyethylene pipes had been bent over and tied with wire or duct tape, releasing gas at full pressure when they were untied. Steel pipes had been filled with mud which had dried out and cracked allowing gas to escape.

Kane Haulage Ltd of St Albans, Hertfordshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined a total of £11,700 and ordered to pay costs of £6,936.50

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Loraine Charles said:

"It is almost miraculous that there were no injuries, given the level of risk generated by the unsafe way in which Kane Haulage Ltd carried out this demolition in relation to the live electricity and gas services.

"Despite repeated warnings that both gas and electricity supplies to and through the site remained live, Kane Haulage proceeded with demolition works, thus exposing workers on the site, residents of the surrounding properties and users of the busy A217 dual carriageway bordering the site to very serious risks."

 

Man's fingers severed at Telford factory

6 June 2011

Defendant	Swancote Foods Limited			Telford Magistrates Court
Offence	Reg 11 PUWER 1998			6 June 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£5,614

 

A food manufacturer has been fined after a cleaner lost two fingers in a potato processing machine at its Telford site.

The 38-year-old man was reaching inside an outlet pipe to remove a piece of raw potato at Swancote Foods' Horton Wood premises on 15 February 2010 when he touched a rotating screw, which severed the first two fingers on his left hand.

The HSE investigation into the incident found the guard on the machine had not been maintained properly.

Swancote Foods, of Floods Ferry Road, Doddington, March, Cambridgeshire, which supplies cooked potato ingredients to manufacturers of prepared foods, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) PUWER 1998.

The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,614 costs by Telford Magistrates' Court.

The employee has returned to work at the factory, but to a different job and suffers restricted movement and reduced grip in his hand, which means that everyday tasks are difficult for him.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lyn Mizen said:

"This was a very serious incident, which was entirely preventable. As a result of Swancote Foods' failings, a man has suffered permanent, life-changing injuries to his hand.

"Companies must ensure that they have robust procedures in place to provide and maintain suitable, effective guarding."

 

Marine company put diver's life at risk

27 June 2011

Defendant	Kenneth Dunstan t/a Mylor Marine Maintenance			Truro Magistrates Court
Offences (4)	Regulations 6(2)(a), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) and 6(3)(d) of the Diving at Work Regulations 1997			27  June 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,000

 

The owner of a Falmouth marine company has been fined £10,000 for a raft of safety breaches which put one of its diver's lives at serious risk.

Kenneth Dunstan, trading as Mylor Marine Maintenance of Marlowe Bridge, was found to be in breach of four diving safety regulations, one of which presented such a serious risk that diving was stopped with immediate effect.

Truro Magistrates' Court heard how the breaches were discovered during a spot inspection on the Fal Estuary on 5 May 2010. On that day, Benjamin Taffinder of Portscatho, Truro, an employee of Mr Dunstan, had been engaged in underwater maintenance work on moorings in the St Mawes area of the estuary from a purpose-built mooring maintenance vessel.

HSE inspectors boarded the vessel where there were three crew members, including Mr Dunstan and Mr Taffinder, with Mr Dunstan working as a deck hand/labourer.

The inspectors discovered the dive was being carried out without essential equipment. Mr Taffinder was only using one cylinder of breathing gas, when a secondary supply is mandatory and he only had a mouthpiece demand valve when a full face mask was required.

In addition, there was no standby diver, a lifeline or a line for voice communications, meaning Mr Taffinder would be unable to summon help or receive immediate assistance if he got into difficulty underwater.

The inspectors also discovered Mr Taffinder was only qualified to carry out recreational dives, not commercial ones, and did not possess a valid certificate to prove his medical fitness to dive. There was also no diving plan for the work being carried out, which should have included a risk assessment and a project plan.

The failings were so serious that Mr Dunstan was issued with a Prohibition Notice stopping any further diving until the immediate concerns surrounding the lack of a standby diver were addressed. The inspectors also issued three Improvement Notices setting out other issues that needed to be addressed.

Magistrates were told Mr Dunstan had been issued with a Prohibition Notice in 2004 after he had been found to be carrying out diving operations without a valid certificate of medical fitness to dive. He later complied with this notice.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Bill Chilton said:

"Working underwater can be unforgiving should anything go wrong. Therefore, diving projects need to be planned, the equipment needs to be suitable for the task and the divers and their support team need to be competent.

"Failures in any of these crucial areas create a risk of death or serious injury and Mr Dunstan fell far below the standard required of a diving contractor for managing the risks involved in diving projects. He had been made aware of these important standards in 2004, but four years later he was still not adhering to them; in fact, he was so far below the benchmarks that we had no choice but to prosecute."

Kenneth Dunstan of Saltbox Road, Mylor Bridge, Falmouth pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(2)(a), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) and 6(3)(d) of the Diving at Work Regulations 1997 and was fined at total of £10,000 (£2,500 for each charge) with costs of £2,000.

 

Refurbishment firm fined over asbestos exposure

Defendant	John Todd Limited			Shrewsbury Magistrates Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			3 June 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£10,000

 

A refurbishment company exposed two of its workers to dangerous asbestos-containing materials at a site in Oswestry, a court heard.

The HSE prosecuted John Todd Ltd, of Middletown, Powys over the incident at Mile Oak Industrial Estate, Maesbury Road.

The firm had been commissioned to refurbish a building on the estate but when licensed asbestos removal contractors arrived on site on 18 October 2010, they found two self-employed workers and company director John Todd had already started to remove the material.

Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court heard the company had taken no precautions to prevent the spread of fibres. Asbestos insulation boards had been prised off and timber studding with broken fragments of asbestos had been placed into an unprotected skip, together with broken floor tiles which also contained asbestos.

The HSE attended the site and immediately stopped all work due to the risk to those working there.

John Todd Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Nic Rigby said:

"John Todd Ltd showed an absolute disregard for the health and safety of workers on the site by allowing work with asbestos to take place fully aware it was present.

"It is well known throughout industry that exposure to asbestos fibres can cause premature death, yet this company chose to expose its workers to this risk.

"The court recognised the severity of this appalling situation today. Exposure to asbestos can kill and we will not hesitate to take enforcement action against anyone found to have worked unsafely with the material."

 

Worker cheats death - dragged through 125mm gap

Defendant	Compass Engineering Ltd	Barnsley Magistrates Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974	2 June 2011
Defendant	Kaltenbach Ltd
Offence	S6(1)(a) HSWA 1974
Committed	For sentencing to Crown Court

 

A worker sustained horrific injuries but miraculously escaped with his life after being dragged through a gap no wider than a CD case on a poorly guarded processing machine in Barnsley.

Two companies have been prosecuted by the HSE following an investigation into the incident at Compass Engineering, on Whaley Road in Barugh Green.

Barnsley Magistrates' Court heard that Matthew Lowe got caught on a computer controlled conveyer system for moving heavy steel beams, after peering into an outlet point to check a line of work.

 

 

The gap on the machine head that Matthew Lowe was forced into after peering into the space to check a line of work

His clothing snagged on the machine and he was forced though an opening just 125mm wide on the machine head, suffering injuries that have caused lasting physical and psychological damage.

His trauma included rupturing his stomach and bowel, breaking his back in two places, shattering his pelvis, and fracturing both hips, his right arm and several ribs.

The HSE investigation into the incident on 19 December 2008 found there was no guarding in place to protect the worker from dangerous moving parts - a serious safety failing for both his employer and the machine supplier, Kaltenbach Ltd, whose UK head office is based at Brunel Road, Bedford.

The court was told that both parties were responsible for ensuring sufficient guarding was in place. The machine ultimately belonged to Compass Engineering after it was bought from new, but Kaltenbach installed and signed-off the equipment as being fit and ready for use.

HSE investigators also established that Matthew, then aged 23, was inexperienced in operating the machinery after being moved from a different line at the factory because of a lull in his regular workload. However, it was the lack of guarding that was deemed the decisive factor.

Compass Engineering Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA . Kaltenbach Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 6(1)(a)  HSWA.   Magistrates have committed the case to Sheffield Crown Court for sentencing.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Chris Chambers said:

"It almost defies belief that Mr Lowe's body could contort in such a way to fit through the opening it did, and it's even more astonishing that he survived to tell the tale.

"Granted he will never fully recover from the trauma he endured, but he could easily have been killed, and I could easily be commenting on another life needlessly lost because of basic safety failings.

"Compass Engineering Ltd have at least had the good grace to stand by Mr Lowe and provide continued support, but both they and Kaltenbach ultimately failed to protect the young worker when it mattered most.

"Had appropriate guarding been in place the incident would never have occurred in the first place. I hope today's prosecution serves as a firm reminder to all involved in manufacturing and processing of the need to properly restrict exposure and access to dangerous moving parts."

Other cases in brief

 

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
JDS Trucks Ltd	WHR 2005 x2; MHSWR 1999.	£9,900	£4,613	Employee fell from lorry cab roof whilst using a ladder - fall 3m
Brendan Flynn Construction Limited	S3(1) HSWA	£8,000	£14,760	Cladding fell from building - injured 2 passers-by - incorrectly attached
Johnson Scaffold Services Ltd	S2(1), s3(1) HSWA	£7,500	£7,000	Wind blew down scaffolding - not properly errected
Clark & Fenn Skanska Ltd	Reg 8(1) LOLER 1998	£5,000	£11,348	Workers injured when scissors lift overturned - failure to plan and supervise lifting operation
Mike Wye and Associates Ltd	Reg 21(2) Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 x3	£3,500	£588	Failure to provide hot running water for employees handling lime
Non-Flam (Sawdust) Co Ltd	S2(1) HSWA 1974	£1,000	£8,000	Finger and thumb amputation caused by in-running nip.  Absence of guarding.
KSR (UK) Ltd.	Reg 11 PUWER 1998	£3,000	£8,000
Mentha and Halsall Shopfitters Ltd	Reg 8(1) PUWER 1998	£3,000	£3,498	Employee finger severed by rotating saw whilst shop fitting - failure to train
Allenbrooks Developments Ltd	S2(1) HSWA	£1,500	£2,320	Joint owner fell through roof of unit - 10m fall - and died.
Graeme Scott	S7 HSWA 1974	£240	Scotland	Trench collapse - prosecution of foreman (employer now in liquidation)

 

Other Health and Safety News

'Restore sanity' to health and safety rulebook

People who have fallen foul of barmy bureaucratic decisions for 'health and safety reasons' are being urged get involved in a root and branch review of regulations.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling, launching the Red Tape Challenge on health and safety regulations, said the Government would act on public views about which laws needed to be scrapped. He called for the public, businesses and the voluntary sector to help restore common sense to the safety rule book.

The Red Tape Challenge gives the public, businesses, charities and volunteer groups the chance to have their say about which regulations should be scrapped, simplified or saved as they are.

A three-week focus on health and safety will get underway on 30 June with the future of around 200 regulations under debate. Ministers will use the views generated to remove unnecessary rules from the statute book. Suggestions made by the public will also be considered by the Lofstedt review of health and safety regulations.

Chris Grayling said:

"This is the opportunity that every beleaguered business leader, incredulous community group or outraged newspaper reader has been waiting for - a chance to directly change the laws underpinning Britain's health and safety culture. The Coalition is the first administration in history to make a firm commitment to leaving office with fewer regulations than we inherited when we came to power.

"We have already started sweeping reforms to health and safety, but need the experience and insight of those most affected by red tape to help us root out needless bureaucracy and restore common sense to the heart of the system.  The purpose of health and safety regulation must be to protect people at work, not interfere unnecessarily. We will listen and we will act on what people have got to say, so it's never been more important for people to make their voice heard."

The regulations subject to public scrutiny fall under four themes:

• general health and safety
• major hazard industries
• higher risk workplaces
• dealing with hazardous chemicals and materials

To have your say visit redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk 

 

Ed:

1.     The Red Tape Challenge was launched by the Prime Minister on 7 April, giving the public a chance to have their say on the more than 21,000 regulations that affect their everyday lives.

2.     The first five themes in the spotlight of the Red Tape Challenge campaign are:

o    Retail (in the spotlight from April 7);

o    Hospitality, food and drink (in the spotlight from May 6);

o    Road transportation (in the spotlight from May 19/20);

o    Equalities (in the spotlight from 9 June); and

o    Health and Safety (in the spotlight from 30 June)

3.     The campaign will also have six cross cutting themes that affect all businesses and are open throughout the whole of the campaign. The six cross cutting themes are:

o    Employment law;

o    Pensions;

o    Company law;

o    Equalities;

o    Health and Safety; and

o    Environment legislation

4.     The Government has established an Independent Review of Health and Safety legislation to make proposals for simplifying the existing raft of health and safety legislation. This review - under the chairmanship of leading risk management specialist Professor Ragnar Löfstedt - is due to make recommendations to ministers by Autumn 2011.

 

New figures published of fatally injured workers

 

New official statistics have been published today (28 June) showing the number of workers killed in Britain last year has increased.

The HSE has released provisional data for the year April 2010 to March 2011, which shows the number of workers killed was 171 an increase on the previous year, when 147 died - the lowest number on record.

The rate of fatal injury is now 0.6 per 100,000 workers, up from 0.5 per 100,000 workers the previous year.  

Judith Hackitt, the HSE Chair, said

"The increase in the number of deaths in the last year is disappointing, after an all time low last year. However, we must remember that we still have one of the lowest rates of fatal injury anywhere in Europe.  The fact that 171 people failed to come home from work to their loved ones last year reminds us all of what we are here to do. It is a stark reminder of the need to ensure that health and safety remains focused on the real risks, which exist in workplaces not on trivia and pointless paperwork.

"We all have a role to play - employers, employees and regulators - and leadership is fundamental to maintaining and improving our performance even further. In a world of work which is constantly changing we must all continue to review what we do and how we do it and strive to become even more effective at managing risks which cost lives."

Based on available data (2007), Britain continues to have the lowest rate of fatal injuries to workers among the five leading industrial nations in Europe - Germany, France, Spain and Italy - for a six year period.

Figures published today also show the rate of fatal injuries in several of the key industrial sectors:

• 50 fatal injuries to construction workers were recorded - a rate of 2.4 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of 61 deaths in the past five years and an increase from the 41 deaths (and rate of 1.9) recorded in 2009/10.
• 34 fatal injuries to agricultural workers were recorded - a rate of 8.0 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of 35 deaths in the past five years and a fall from the 39 deaths (and rate of 10.4) recorded in 2009/10.
• Nine fatal injuries to waste and recycling workers were recorded - a rate of 8.7 deaths per 100,000 workers, compared to an average of 8 deaths in the past five years and an increase from the 3 deaths (and rate of 2.8) recorded in 2009/10.

 

Ed - :

1.     The average rate of fatal injury over the last five years has been 0.7 per 100, 000 workers

2.     In each of the last five years, the number of fatal injuries has been:

o    2009/10 - 147 workers died - finalised figures

o    2008/09 - 178 workers died

o    2007/08 - 233 workers died

o    2006/07 - 247 workers died

o    2005/06 - 217 workers died

 

HSE launches consultation on safety in the adventure activities sector

 

Outdoor activity providers, sports clubs and teachers are among those being asked for their views on proposals to change the health and safety requirements for young people's adventure activities.

The Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) will be abolished, and a 12-week long public consultation on its replacement with a code of practice begins today.

The current arrangements for regulating adventure activities require that providers of activities for under-18s in four areas - caving, climbing, trekking and water sports - have a licence issued by AALA before they can operate.

Safety performance in the sector is good and there have been no prosecutions brought under the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 2004. On this basis, HSE considers the provision and use of adventure activities to be low risk.

Peter Brown, HSE's programme lead for AALA, said:

"The aim of these proposals is to reduce bureaucracy whilst still ensuring that outdoor activities providers meet their health and safety responsibilities to those taking part and their employees. However, we want to hear from those who have firsthand experience of the regime to guide us in what final plans should be taken forward."

The recommendation to abolish AALA and the associated regulations was made in the Government-commissioned report Common Sense, Common Safety.

The current licensing regime operates under the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995 and the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 2004.

Young people taking part in adventure activities are already protected by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The licensing regime essentially duplicates that protection but covers only the four specified adventure activities.

The new code of practice will help providers understand how to comply with legal requirements under HSWA. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, it could take the form of a statement of general principles applicable to all existing and emerging activities, or be more specifically aimed at a narrower range of activities.

The code will sit above existing non-statutory schemes such as those run by some national governing bodies (NGBs). The consultation includes consideration of the degree to which participation in an NGB scheme should be taken as sufficient reassurance of safety standards.

Ed-:

1.     The licensing regime covers only activities in four defined areas (trekking, water sports, caving and climbing). It does not cover these defined activities when provided by schools for their own pupils, provided by voluntary groups for their own members, or carried out by young people accompanied by their parents or legal guardians. Adventure activities undertaken by anyone over the age of 18 are also outside the scope of the licensing regime.

2.     The consultation is limited to post -AALA arrangements in England only and is without prejudice to any decisions by the Scottish and Welsh administrations on how they implement the recommendation, which will be made in due course.

3.     Removal of AALA will lead to an estimated saving of £1.7 million in the adventure activities sector in England over 10 years.

 

Laws and regulations quoted in the prosecutions

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 a 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.
6(1)(a)	It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work.
s7	It shall be the duty of every employee while at work- (a) 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; and (b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with."

 

Environmental Protection Act 1990

S6(1)	No person shall carry on a prescribed process after the date prescribed or determined for that description of process by or under regulations under section 2(1) above (but subject to any transitional provision made by the regulations) except under an authorisation granted by the enforcing authority and in accordance with the conditions to which it is subject.
S23(1)(a)	It is an offence for a person- (a)to contravene section 6(1) above

 

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Reg 21(2)(a)	Washing facilities shall not be suitable unless they are provided in the immediate vicinity of every sanitary convenience, whether or not provided elsewhere as well.
21(2)(b)	Washing facilities shall not be suitable unless they are provided in the vicinity of any changing rooms required by these regulations, whether or not provided elsewhere as well.
21(2)(c)	Washing facilities shall not be suitable unless they include a supply of clean hot and cold, or warm, water (which shall be running water so far as is practicable).

 

 

Diving at Work Regulations 1997

Reg 6(2)(a)	The diving contractor shall ensure that, before the commencement of the diving project, a diving project plan is prepared in respect of that project in accordance with regulation 8 and that the plan is thereafter updated as necessary during the continuance of the project.
6(3)(a)	The diving contractor shall ensure that there are sufficient people with suitable competence to carry out safely and without risk to health both the diving project and any action (including the giving of first-aid) which may be necessary in the event of a reasonably foreseeable emergency connected with the diving project.
6(3)(b)	The diving contractor shall ensure that suitable and sufficient plant is available whenever needed to carry out safely and without risk to health both the diving project and any action (including the giving of first-aid) which may be necessary in the event of a reasonably foreseeable emergency connected with the diving project.
6(3)(d)	The diving contractor shall ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that any person taking part in the diving project complies with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and observes the provisions of the diving project plan.

 

Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

8	(1) Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is- (a)properly planned by a competent person; (b)appropriately supervised; and (c)carried out in a safe manner. (2) In this regulation "lifting operation" means an operation concerned with the lifting or lowering of a load.
9(2)(b)	Every employer shall ensure that, where the safety of lifting equipment depends on the installation conditions, it is thoroughly examined after assembly and before being put into service at a new site or in a new location

 

Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999

Reg 4

Every operator shall take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences to persons and the environment

 

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Reg 3(1)	Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.
Reg 5(1)	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.
Reg 11(1)	Where two or more employers share a workplace (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) each such employer shall: a.     co-operate with the other employers concerned so far as is necessary to enable them to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon them by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997; b.     (taking into account the nature of his activities) take all reasonable steps to co-ordinate the measures he takes to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 with the measures the other employers concerned are taking to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon them by that legislation; and c.      take all reasonable steps to inform the other employers concerned of the risks to their employees' health and safety arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

 

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Reg 4	(1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adapted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided. (2) In selecting work equipment, every employer shall have regard to the working conditions and to the risks to the health and safety of persons which exist in the premises or undertaking in which that work equipment is to be used and any additional risk posed by the use of that work equipment. (3) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is used only for operations for which, and under conditions for which, it is suitable. (4) In this regulation "suitable" means suitable in any respect which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person."
8(1)	Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have available to them adequate health and safety information and, where appropriate, written instructions pertaining to the use of the work equipment.
9(1)	Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.
11(1)	Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) 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.

 

The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000

Reg 32(1)(b)

It is an offence for a person- (a)... (b)to fail to comply with or to contravene a condition of a permit;

 

Work at Height Regulations 2005

Reg 4(1)(b)	Every employer shall ensure that work at height is - (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised and (c) 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.
8(e)	Every employer shall ensure that, in the case of a ladder, Schedule 6 (Requirements for Ladders) is complied with.
9(2)	Where it is not reasonably practicable to carry out work safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions without passing across or near, or working on, from or near, a fragile surface, every employer shall: a.    ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that suitable and sufficient platforms, coverings, guard rails or similar means of support or protection are provided and used so that any foreseeable loading is supported by such supports or borne by such protection; b.    where a risk of a person at work falling remains despite the measures taken under the preceding provisions of this regulation, take suitable and sufficient measures to minimise the distances and consequences of his fall.

 

Environment Agency Prosecutions

Illegal waste site owner jailed and to forfeit c£700,000

Defendant	Tony Gray aka Wade Levi Smith			Norwich Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			24 June 2011
Penalty	2.25yrs imprisonment	Costs		Confiscation	£698,427

 

The owner of a vehicle breakers yard operating illegally has been sent to prison for two and a quarter years by Norwich Crown Court.

Tony Gray, also known as Wade Levi Smith, aged 56, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to running the site without a permit or licence at The Builders Yard, Wheatley Bank, Wisbech.

 

He had also earlier pleaded guilty to tax evasion and abstracting electricity illegally at the site and he asked the court to also consider an offence of money laundering.  The court sentenced him to two and a quarter years on each of six offences to run concurrently.

 

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 he was also ordered to pay £698,427 under a confiscation order.

Out of that sum £69,414 is to be paid in compensation to HM Revenue & Customs and £1,980 to Eon.

Failure to pay that sum would lead to a four year prison sentence in default.

On 30 June 2009 in a joint raid the EA with Norfolk Police officers and HM Revenue and Customs entered and searched the site. Gray was arrested.

Mr Sailesh Mehta, prosecuting for all three agencies, said around 800 scrap vehicles were found in various states of dismantlement along with other stored polluting items associated with the scrap business. There was evidence of contamination from oil and batteries and many vehicles still contained hazardous fluids.  £122,000 in cash was found hidden in three locations which was forfeited within the £698,427.

 

The site which covered 250m by 35m had offices and sheds as well as the house where Gray lived.

 

Whilst officers were at the site a car transporter arrived to collect a vehicle. The driver said he had been delivering there for four to five years. There was evidence of cars being taken to the site by at least three other companies.

 

Mr Mehta said aerial photographs taken in January 2009 showed hundreds of vehicles on the site, many piled two or three high. The site extended from the main buildings near the entrance at Wheatley Bank to the opposite end of the site next to the A47.

 

Gray told investigating officers he had owned the Wisbech site for 18 years and ran a business called A47 Salvage buying cars and scrapping them. He said he did not know he needed a licence to operate a waste site.  Mr Mehta told the court that Gray had run the yard successfully for years without paying any tax on the income between 2003-9. He unlawfully took electricity to run the business between 2006-9 and also converted about £17,000 of the proceeds through money laundering.

 

He said that in June 2009 when Gray was interviewed about the offences he said he had been in the scrap yard business for 17 or 18 years.

"His purchases of cars between March 2005 and August 2009 totalled over £400,000. His receipts from sales on e-bay and sales of scrap metal from June 2007 to December 2008 totalled nearly £230,000," said Mr Mehta. HMRC calculated from this and other records that Gray owed about £69,000 in income tax.

 

Mr Mehta said the meter at the site had been tampered with so that the business could use free electricity. An EDF electrician said the tampering had happened a long time ago.

Gray asked the court to take into consideration an offence of money laundering.

"Not all of Gray's business activity could be uncovered because no proper records have been kept," Mr Mehta told the court.  He said offences at the site covered a number of years and may not have stopped but for the prosecution.

The court was told that Gray was sent to prison for eight months in April 2010 for removing vehicles from the yard in breach of an order issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

 

After the hearing Environment Agency crime team leader Phil Henderson said: "We are pleased that the court recognised the seriousness of these offences and sentenced accordingly.  Our use of the proceeds of crime act will demonstrate to criminals that we will not only prosecute them for environmental offences but pursue them for all monies gained while illegally dealing in waste."

 

Ed - the list of offences is worth noting:

Gray pleaded guilty to:

Environment Agency:

1. On or before 5 April 2008 on land at The Builders Yard, Wheatley Bank, Wisbech in the County of Norfolk, PE14 7AZ, you did deposit controlled waste when there was not in force a Waste Management Licence granted by the enforcing authority pursuant to Sections 35 and 36 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 authorising the said deposit.

 Contrary to Section 33(1)(a) and 33(6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

2. On or before 5 April 2008 on land at The Builders Yard, Wheatley Bank, Wisbech in the County of Norfolk, PE14 7AZ, you did keep controlled waste when there was not in force a Waste Management Licence granted by the enforcing authority pursuant to Sections 35 and 36 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 authorising the said keeping.

 Contrary to Section 33(1)(b) and 33(6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

3. Between 6 April 2008 and 1 July 2009 on land at The Builders Yard, Wheatley Bank, Wisbech in the County of Norfolk, PE14 7AZ, you did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the deposit, storage and treatment of waste motor vehicles, without being authorised by an environmental permit granted under Regulation 13 of the of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.
 
 Contrary to Regulation 12 and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

 

HM Revenue & Customs:

1. Between 6 April 2003 and 5 April 2007 with intent to defraud, cheated Her Majesty the Queen and the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs of public revenue by failing to declare income from a trade, profession or vocation.

Cheating the Public Revenue contrary to Common Law

 

2. Between 6 April 2007 and 5 April 2009 dishonestly failed to disclose to the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs information concerning income from a trade, profession or vocation which he was under a legal duty to disclose intending by such failure to make a gain for himself.  Dishonest failure to disclose information with an intention to make a gain contrary to section 1(1) and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006

 

Crown Prosecution Service:

1. Between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2009 dishonestly used without due authority a quantity of electricity.

Abstracting electricity, contrary to section 13 of the Theft Act 1968

Taken into consideration

 

1. Between 6 December 2003 and 30 June 2009 converted criminal property, namely cash, knowing or suspecting it to represent in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly, the proceeds of criminal conduct.

Converting criminal property from England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

 

Longest ever jail sentence for waste crime

Defendant	Hugh O'Donnell			Isleworth Crown Court
Offences	See text			24 June 2011
Penalty	4yrs imprisonment (22 mnths environment crimes)	Costs

 

An 'organised crime boss' has been jailed for 4 years for running a massive illegal waste site near Reading and laundering millions of pounds in profits - the longest prison sentence ever handed out for waste crime.

A three year investigation by the EA ended in 2009, when police arrested Hugh O'Donnell and two accomplices.

 

The judge commended the Environment Agency for presenting an overwhelming case for conviction against a criminal operation that "was large scale and highly organised".

 

Illegal waste site

With the assistance of Thames Valley Police, the EA raided an illegal waste site in October 2008, which spread over land the size of five football pitches at Aldermaston, near Reading in West Berkshire - seizing an unlicensed handgun and ammunition, other weapons, stolen vehicles, plant equipment and over £50,000 in cash.

 

O'Donnell was subsequently imprisoned in 2009 for 4.5yrs for possession of the illegal firearm, which was recovered following an Environment Agency search.

 

Upon his release from prison for that offence O'Donnell was, as a matter of coincidence, sentenced in Isleworth Crown Court the following day to 4 years in prison for money-laundering and 22 months for waste offences to be served concurrently.

 

Judge Edmunds QC said: "This was deliberate, calculated offending on an industrial scale .. for profit.  You carried on in the teeth of attempts to stop you, and with the clear intention of making as much criminal profit as you could before you were stopped.  The attitude shown to the enforcement authorities was dismissive and obstructive."

 

Amongst the aggravating features were: deliberate breach of the law, a direct motive of financial profit, numerous failures to respond to advice or a court injunction to persist.

 

Angus Innes, Environment Agency Principal Solicitor, said: "O'Donnell's illegal waste business netted millions of pounds in profit by taking skips or lorry loads of construction and demolition waste into the Aldermaston site to be dumped in an illegal landfill.  This investigation has been one of the biggest and most complex ever undertaken by the Environment Agency, using intelligence and forensic science to proactively target an organised criminal gang running an illegal waste site.  Waste crime puts the environment and human health at risk and undermines legitimate waste businesses.  This sentence sends out a message that waste crime is a serious offence and you can and will be sent to jail."

 

O'Donnell, who had previously been jailed for six months for waste offences and subsequently for the non-payment of fines, used his accomplices Peter Lavelle and  Robert Evans to set-up and run the day-to-day operations of a string of phoney businesses - whilst trying to avoid detection by using alias's and intimidation.

 

Use of forensic techniques

The EA's regional and national Environmental Crime Teams used forensic techniques such as DNA and handwriting analysis, smartwater tracking, fingerprinting, mobile phone and laptop interrogation to track members of the gang.

 

Activity on the site stopped in late 2008 after the arrest and subsequent imprisonment of O'Donnell for possession of the illegal firearm. The land had been ranked as the South East's highest risk and highest priority illegal waste site.

 

Joint-working with the London Regional Asset Recovery Team [RART] helped identify how the proceeds of these criminal activities were acquired and then laundered though the various trading names or aliases used by O'Donnell and his associates.

 

Restraint orders, preventing the disposal of over £1m worth of assets, have also been in place for the last two years.

"We will immediately proceed with a Proceeds of Crime application to the court,"

 

Mr Innes said.

"The Environment Agency wants to make sure that serious waste crime doesn't pay - we don't just catch criminals ... we want to confiscate the assets they've gained from crime."

The investigation also involved Thames Valley Police and often included other Agencies such RART, VOSA and the Traffic Commissioner, West Berkshire Council, Forensic Science Service and Hampshire Police.

 

Contaminated 'non-hazardous' construction waste

Given the huge size of the landfill, the Environment Agency also undertook a comprehensive and industry standard assessment for potential contamination.

 

This was a major undertaking in 2009 and it showed that the landfill compromised of over 65,000t of contaminated 'non-hazardous' classed construction waste. This information will be used to better understand how to manage the land in the future.

 

O'Donnell Evans and Lavelle have been banned from being company directors for 10, 7 and 7 years respectively.

 

Evans was imprisoned for 2 years for money laundering and 14 months for waste offences.   Lavelle received 18 months for money-laundering, and 14 and 12 month respectively for waste offences - all to be served concurrently.

 

 

Business are encouraged to learn from United Utilities' mistakes

Defendant	United Utilities plc			Liverpool Magistrates Court
Offences	See text			7 June 2011
Fine	£145,000	Costs	£28,428

 

United Utilities have been fined £145,000 at Liverpool Magistrates' Court for illegally discharging partially treated sewage into the River Mersey.

The discharge came from the company's Liverpool Waste Water Treatment Works, Sandon Dock, Liverpool. In addition to the illegal discharge the company also pleaded guilty to repeatedly failing to meet strict water treatment quality standards. 

 

The EA was informed by the company of the illegal discharge at Sandon Dock in January 2010. United Utilities has since undertaken remedial action, including a refurbishment programme, to improve the situation.

 

The illegal discharge came from an overflow pipe which should only have been used in an emergency. This overflow was discharging partially treated sewage into the River Mersey, because the treatment plant could not deal with all the effluent it was required to. The overflow bypassed the quality sampling point used to asses compliance with the expected standards. United Utilities was not authorised by the EA for this discharge pipe and did not monitor it.

 

Keith Ashcroft, Environment Agency Area Manager, said: "The company has failed to comply with legislation intended to protect the environment.  Our priority has been to improve the performance of this site. We are continuing to monitor United Utilities to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to resolve this issue and get the best possible performance from the existing waste water treatment works.

"There has been great work undertaken by many in the North West over the last 150 years to return the River Mersey to a healthier state and it is vital that we all continue to build upon these improvements.

"We urge all companies not to be complacent and to learn from this case. We would encourage all industries to ensure that the proper monitoring and process controls are in place to minimise their environmental impact and ensure that they comply with environmental standards required by law to protect and improve the environment."

 

As soon as the EA was informed of the existence of the overflow it required United Utilities to put monitoring in place. This now allows for the quality and quantity of the discharge to be measured. It also enables United Utilities to show the benefits of their refurbishment works.

 

Water from the River Mersey and the sea dilutes the partially treated sewage and whilst there is no evidence of actual harm to the environment and wildlife, there is potential for localised impact in the area of the river near the outfall pipe. 

 

The environmental performance of Liverpool Waste Water Treatment Works has been subject to previous enforcement action by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency are working closely with United Utilities to ensure a long term solution is developed to protect the river and coast and welcomes plans for an extension to the Liverpool Waste Water Treatment Works enabling the company to meet environmental standards.

 

Ed:

United Utilities pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to nine offences and the hearing on 7 June 2011 was a sentencing hearing.

 

For the illegal discharges the company pleaded guilty to two offences: -

The first one being that, on or before 5 April 2010 United Utilities caused sewage effluent to be discharged  into the River Mersey. This is contrary to Section 85(3)(a) and Section 85(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991.

 

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010  were introduced in April 2010 and replaced the above offence; the second offence is therefore that during the period 6 April 2010 and 17 November 2010 United Utilities caused a water discharge activity other than under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit contrary to Regulation 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

 

United Utilities had also pleaded guilty to seven offences of failing to meet the quality standards for the discharge of secondary treated sewage effluent required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations 1991. These offences occurred in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

 

The company is required to limit the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) loading in the discharge it makes to the River Mersey. The higher the BOD and COD present in the discharge then less oxygen may be present in the water.  If the oxygen in the water is reduced significantly this could be harmful to aquatic life.

 

As these offences also spanned the period when the Environmental Permitting Regulations were introduced the company pleaded guilty to 3 offences under the Water Resources Act 1991 and 4 offences under Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. 

 

At the sentencing hearing the company  also asked the Court  to take into consideration two further similar offences under the Regulations which have occurred in 2011. 

In mitigation, United Utilities stated in court today:
• Their efforts have been continual and they communicated problems as soon as possible

• The Environment Agency has been kept informed throughout

• They have taken costly steps to improve the current works, and have spent £75 million to date 
• They are planning a long-term, £200 million extension to the treatment works 
• There is no evidence of ecological harm or harm to human health 

 

 

Major fuel and money laundering front man jailed

Defendant	Nigel Eric Barrett			Chester Crown Court
Offences	See text			29 June 2011
Penalty	28 months imprisonment	Costs

 

Diesel pollution of the Grand Union Canal, Bedfordshire in April 2005 led to the prosecution on of Nigel Eric Barrett who was sentenced to more than two years imprisonment for his part in a criminal conspiracy.

Chester Crown Court heard that Barrett, who was more recently arrested in France and extradited back to England, was involved in a conspiracy to launder red diesel and sell it to haulage companies, netting millions of pounds and defrauding the Inland Revenue.

 

He was identified as the front man for the illegal operation, renting premises in Bedfordshire where the fuel laundering took place and is the sixth member of an organised crime gang involved in the £10m fuel duty and money laundering scam.

 

The court sentenced him to 28 months for money laundering and a further six months to run concurrently for the large diesel spill in Leighton Buzzard which caused the pollution. He pleaded guilty to both offences.

 

Barrett was also disqualified from being a company director for a period of five years and given a Serious Crime Prevention Order preventing him from handling or dealing with hydrocarbon oils and fuel derivatives for a period of five years.

 

Charlotte Kenny, presenting the case for the EA and HMRC, said the EA began to investigate when there was a pollution on 27 April 2005.  Diesel from a spillage at Gogs Farm, Old Linslade Road, Leighton Linslade, Bedfordshire caused a major pollution on the Grand Union Canal, just before the May Day Bank Holiday.

 

The canal had to be closed to boat traffic and British Waterways went to considerable effort and expenditure to clean diesel from the canal in time for the Bank Holiday.  Investigation of that pollution led to the discovery of a large illegal fuel laundering operation which was being carried out at Gogs Farm, where it appeared that a valve on one of the storage tanks at the site was left open accidentally or deliberately resulting in the loss of several thousand litres of diesel.

 

The site was a wholly illegal operation and totally unregulated and involved laundering low duty fuels to remove the chemical marker.  The laundered fuel was then sold on as legitimate duty paid road diesel.
 
Diesel was stored within the building at the farm in four storage tanks and a total of 60,000 litres of fuel was removed from the site by HMRC contractors.

The operation was being conducted by a network of individuals  in a large scale enterprise which had involved the formation of companies, leasing of premises, night time deliveries of fuel and laundering of proceeds through shell companies. The scope of the operation involved individuals from across the country from Northern Ireland to Manchester, Bedfordshire and London.

 

Masterminds of the operation included Brian MacAtavey who was a director of a company previously prosecuted by the Environment Agency for a large diesel spill in Leighton Buzzard.  On 18 March 2011, following a three-month trial in 2010, he was sent to prison for four years, disqualified from being a company director for a period of five years and given a Serious Crime Prevention Order preventing him from handling or dealing with hydrocarbon oils and fuel derivatives for a period of five years.

 

Other minor players had been sentenced earlier, most receiving suspended prison sentences.

 

Early in 2007 officers from HMRC made contact with the EA when it became clear to them that there was a link between an investigation they had been conducting involving suspected fuel fraud and the evidence the Agency had obtained in relation to the diesel spillage at Gogs Farm.
 
From this point on the two organisations were able to assist each other in their investigations, and a joint prosecution was finally launched at the end of 2009.

During the prosecution Barrett skipped the country and failed to attend court.

 

A European Arrest Warrant was issued and Barrett was located in France in January 2011 from where he was extradited to the UK.

 

Barrett faced charges of conspiracy to fraudulently evade excise duty in respect of hydrocarbon oils as imposed by section 6 of the Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979, in contravention of section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.  Contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

He also faced a charge of pollution of controlled waters under Section 85 (1) of the Water Resources Act (1991).

 

Investigating officer Liz Williams said after the hearing: "The case is a good example of teamwork between Government agencies. The Environment Agency and HMRC pooled their knowledge and worked closely together during the investigation and subsequent prosecution."

 

She said the original pollution was designated as Category 1, the most serious type of incident, due to the quantity of diesel discharged to the canal.  The cleanup operation, which involved three days of tankering diesel directly from the canal followed by several weeks of monitoring and the removal of diesel and concentrated acids from Gogs Farm, was coordinated by the Environment Agency and involved Bedfordshire & Luton Fire & Rescue Service, British Waterways, HMRC and various contractors. 

 

Daffodil farm fined for polluting Cornish streams

Defendant	Nocton Ltd			Truro Magistrates Court
Offences	See text			28  June 2011
Penalty	£45,000	Costs	£5,671

 

One of the UK's largest cut flower and bulb growing companies has been ordered to pay more than £50,000 in fines and costs after farm pesticides escaped into a stream and killed a number of fish.

The EA was alerted on June 8, 2010 after a local resident reported hundreds of dead and dying fish in the Mill Leat at Penponds near Camborne.  Fish casualties included brown trout and eels. The pollution was traced to Pendarves Farm where Agency officers discovered evidence of a chemical spillage in the farm yard. They noticed the farm was using inadequate storage facilities for pesticides and other chemicals.

 

Pendarves Farm is operated by Nocton Ltd that specialises in the production of daffodil and narcissi flowers and bulbs and is a major supplier of UK and European supermarkets.

 

Agency officers found agricultural chemicals stored outdoors in a structure insufficiently protected from the elements. They found a 'significant amount' of powder spilled on the ground in a yard. Surface water from the yard where the spillage was observed drained into an open ditch that could flow into to the Pendarves Stream.

 

Water sampling and ecological monitoring revealed that a toxic chemicals had escaped from the farm and harmed aquatic life in three local watercourses - the Pendarves Stream, the Mill Leat and the Roseworthy Stream. In total, approximately five miles of watercourse were contaminated by the chemicals.

 

A water sample taken from the farm ditch on 9 June 2010 contained a total of 13 pesticides. One chemical, the insecticide Chlorpyrifos, was present at a concentration of over 4,300 times the maximum allowable limit. In a stream sample it was present at 13 times the maximum permitted concentration.

Chlorpyrifos is classified, under the EU Water Framework Directive, as a 'Priority Substance' that is potentially harmful to human health and the environment and must not be allowed to pollute surface waters.

 

The EA concluded the pollution was not caused by a single, catastrophic spillage, but as a result of a gradual accumulation of small quantities of pesticides and chemicals running off the yard at Pendarves Farm and into a ditch. Heavy rain on June 7, 2010 flushed the toxic cocktail of chemicals from the ditch into nearby streams wiping out aquatic life.

 

'Pesticides can be highly toxic even at low concentrations and have a potentially devastating impact on the aquatic environment as this case clearly shows. The pollution at Pendarves Farm was caused by poor practices and was therefore avoidable. It is important farm chemicals are stored, handled and disposed of responsibly in accordance with relevant legislation, codes of practice and manufacturers instructions,' said Chris Barnes for the Environment Agency.

 

Appearing before Truro magistrates, Nocton Ltd, of Estate Office, Nocton, Lincoln, Lincolnshire was fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £5,671 costs after pleading guilty to an offence under the Environmental Protection Regulations of knowingly permitting an illegal discharge to a controlled water.

 

 

Haulage company fined £27,500 for using waste to fill lake

Defendant	Thomas (Haulage) Limited			Wellingborough Magistrates Court
Offences	See text			23  June 2011
Penalty	£27,500	Costs	£7,796

 

A haulage company illegally deposited more than 10,000 tonnes of waste soil to fill in part of a lake to allow a miniature railway to be re-routed, Wellingborough Magistrates' Court was told.

Thomas (Haulage) Limited, which operates a permitted waste transfer site 700m away from Billing Aquadrome, near Northampton, pleaded guilty to depositing controlled waste without a permit or exemption during January and February 2010 and failing to comply with its Duty of Care.

 

Mrs Miriam Tordoff, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court officers visited Billing Aquadrome on 19 February 2010 following an anonymous report that waste had been deposited. 

 

The officers witnessed a Thomas Haulage Limited lorry dumping waste around the lake and, although the ground was mostly covered by snow, could see an area of lake measuring 80 metres by 40 metres had been filled with soil and stone.

 

A second visit took place on 24 February 2010. This time, the snow had melted and officers estimated an area measuring 150 metres by 50 metres was covered in waste soils to a depth of approximately 1.5 metres. The waste contained wood, plastics, metal and masonry.

 

Mrs Tordoff said officers made a third visit to the site on 1 April 2010 and this time saw the waste soil included items such as bricks, a tyre, metal, glass, plastics and a gun cartridge.

 

Tip tickets obtained from Thomas (Haulage) Limited show that about 604 loads of waste were delivered to Billing Aquadrome by its drivers between 12 January 2010 and 19 February 2010. Mrs Tordoff told the court that, at approximately 19 tonnes per load, this equated to around 11,476 tonnes.

 

John Thomas, of Thomas (Haulage) Limited, told investigating officers the company had been approached by Billing Aquadrome to fill in part of the lake and surrounding land so it could re-route a miniature railway.

 

He said the company did a lot of work for Billing Aquadrome, supplying crushed concrete and top soil. He said they had not charged for this work and, by depositing the waste at the Aquadrome, had avoided paying landfill fees.

 

He also admitted the company had failed to comply with its Duty of Care by not checking to see if Billing Aquadrome was authorised to accept the waste which had come from building projects around the area.

 

Mrs Tordoff told the court the company accepted the material used was waste and could only be deposited in accordance with an environmental permit or exemption. It also accepted there was no permit or exemption in place.

 

After the hearing Environment Agency team leader Greg Oakes said:   
"Businesses that are involved in the disposal of waste have a duty to ensure it is taken to the right place.

"Although there is no suggestion that the waste deposited in this case was contaminated, as a permitted waste operator, Thomas (Haulage) Ltd knew exactly what was required but chose to ignore it's legal obligations.

"Other waste operators should take notice of this case and not make the same error in judgement as the Environment Agency will take enforcement action."

Ed:

Thomas (Haulage) Limited pleaded guilty to:

1.        Between 11 January 2010 and 20 February 2010 you did deposit a quantity of controlled waste, namely waste soils, when there was not in force an Environmental Permit granted by the regulator pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 authorising the said deposit.

Contrary to s33(1)(a) and (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

2.  Between 11 January 2010 and 20 February 2010 you, being a person who carries, keeps, treats and disposes of controlled waste, failed to comply with the Duty of Care imposed by Section 34(1) and (5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in that on the transfer of such waste, you 
(i) failed to ensure that there was transferred such written description of the waste as would have enabled other persons to avoid a contravention of Section 33 of the said Act and to comply with the Duty under Section 34(1) of the said Act as respects the escape of waste, and
(ii) failed to ensure that transfer notes were completed and signed on your behalf in accordance with Regulation 2 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, or at all. 

Contrary to section 34(1)(c)(ii) and (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

 

Stick by your permit or you could face a fine

Defendant	Spotmix Limited			Sefton Magistrates Court
Offences	See text			24  June 2011
Penalty	£24,000	Costs	£3,800

 

Spotmix Limited a Bootle waste management company has been fined £24,000 and ordered to pay £3,800 costs at South Sefton Magistrates' after it pleaded guilty to breaching permit conditions relating to the storage and treatment of waste at their site.

 

The company has environmental permits to store and process non-hazardous household, commercial and industrial waste at two plots on Acorn Way, Bootle. The permits require the waste to be deposited, stored and processed within the buildings on site. This is to ensure that dust, litter and other emissions are adequately contained and do not cause pollution or other problems outside the site.

 

From December 2009 to March 2010, the company was accepting more waste than could be handled in the buildings on site. They started to use areas of the site which were in the open and which did not have the necessary containment measures in place. They also used another adjacent site to store their waste, which does not have an environmental permit or infrastructure needed to ensure environmental protection.

 

The site was visited on numerous occasions by Agency officers. After the initial visit the company did not act with sufficient urgency to rectify the permit breaches or to clear the waste from the un-permitted area. It took two further visits from the EA and an enforcement notice before their operations were eventually brought back into compliance with the permit conditions.

 

Doug Gore, EA Investigating Officer, said: "Thankfully these permit breaches did not result in environmental harm. But, at the time of the offences, the company was accepting more and more waste with little regard to the controls which apply to their operations.  Spotmix should have stopped accepting waste which they couldn't handle in their buildings, or they should have used another permitted facility to store and process their excess waste.   

"Prosecution is a last resort. The Environment Agency is here to work with and advise businesses so they remain within the boundaries of the legislation that is there to protect human health and the environment."

 

Ed:
The charges against Spotmix Limited were:

1.That on or before 3 March 2010 at premises known as Plot 1, Acorn Way, Bootle, Merseyside, you contravened condition number 1.1.1 of Environmental Permit number EAWML 50429, in that you carried out waste transfer operations outside a waste transfer building, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

2. That on or before 3 March 2010 at premises known as Plot 9, Acorn Way, Bootle, Merseyside, you contravened condition number 2(a) of Environmental Permit number EAWML 53481, in that you deposited, kept and treated waste outside designated areas, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

3. That on or before 3 March 2010 at premises known as Plots 10 & 11 Acorn Way, Bootle, Merseyside, you did contravene Regulation 12 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 in that you 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.

 

Water company fined for polluting Devon river

Defendant	South West Water			Truro Magistrates Court
Offences	Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 x2			6  June 2011
Penalty	£20,000	Costs	£8,000

South West Water was today ordered to pay £28,000 in fines and costs for discharging poorly treated sewage effluent in the River Yeo near Crediton.

On 19 June 2010 a member of the public alerted the Agency to pollution on the River Yeo near Crediton sewage treatment works.

 

An Agency officer saw sewage effluent gushing from a treatment works outfall into the main river causing gross pollution of the River Yeo. A sample of the effluent was tested and found to exceed permitted limits for ammonia and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).

 

On 21 June 2010 another Agency officer visited the River Yeo. The illegal discharge from the treatment works had stopped, but the riverbed was covered with a carpet of sewage fungus from bank to bank. There were dead fish in the river including 38 bullheads, 5 stone loach and a young salmon/sea trout.

 

Sewage fungus was visible in the river for a distance of some 700 metres downstream of the outfall. An ecological survey revealed that riverlife had been severely affected by the pollution.

 

An investigation by the Agency showed that the treatment process at the Crediton works started to go wrong in April 2010. South West Water carried out maintenance to repair it, but should have been aware when the plant, that was operating at reduced capacity, developed further problems. These first became apparent on 7 June, causing pollution of the watercourse.

Unable to treat all of the sewage arriving at Crediton, South West Water tankered it away by road to its works Countess Weir, Exeter at a cost of up to £14,000 a day.   At its peak, 14 tankers were continuously travelling between the two sites from June 19, 2010 until the treatment works was fully operational again on July 1, 2010.

 

'One of the fundamental principles of self monitoring is for site operators to report any issues or problems to the Environment Agency. Despite ongoing difficulties with its treatment process and a deterioration in effluent quality, South West Water failed to notify us of the problems it was experiencing at a site that serves as the main treatment works for Crediton,' said Mischka Hewins for the Environment Agency.

 

'South West Water was fully aware that the River Yeo is a sensitive watercourse, yet no checks were made on the condition of the river while poor quality effluent was being discharged from the treatment works. The number of fish killed was probably higher as we only counted dead fish visible in shallow water. In all likelihood, more fish casualties would have been out of view in deeper water,'

 

South West Water was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 costs by Exeter magistrates after pleading guilty to two offences under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 including discharging noxious or polluting matter into inland freshwater and operating a sewage treatment works while in breach of its site permit.

 

Pig slurry pollution

Defendant	Elsham Linc Ltd			Lincoln Magistrates' Court
Offences	See text			1 June 2011
Penalty	£13,400	Costs	£4,779

Pig slurry polluted a tributary of the Dale stream at Market Rasen when parts of a storage lagoon bank collapsed, Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard.

Elsham Linc Ltd, of Elsham Top, Brigg, Lincolnshire pleaded guilty to causing gross pollution with the liquid waste in July 2010 and was fined £13,400 and ordered to pay full costs of £4,779.

 

The pollution had a serious impact on invertebrates killing almost entire colonies of them, Miss Claire Bentley told the court.  Prosecuting for the EA she said that samples taken from the point where the waste went into the tributary showed very high levels of ammonia and more than four miles (6.6km) downstream the level was still toxic.

 

Company Director Mr Samuel Godfrey told investigating officers that it appeared badgers had burrowed into the retaining bank of the storage lagoon and the slurry had leaked out when some of the bank collapsed as a result.

He said the lagoon banks had been checked once a month before the incident. 

To prevent recurrence of the incident the company has changed the slurry storage system to a steel tank.

Miss Bentley told magistrates that storage of slurry in an earth banked lagoon was not a fail safe system. She said preventative measures were inadequate for preventing a pollution.

"The defendant failed to carry out a risk assessment of the slurry storage system," she said.  She said that a ditch, built only two metres away from the lagoon for surface water drainage, merely served to increase the risk of a pollution happening.

"The defendant failed to carry out regular checks of the surface waters around the farm and of the lagoon embankment," said Miss Bentley.

In mitigation Mr Richard Taylor, solicitor for the defendant, said that this was an exceptional case and the company is a family-run business which operates 14 sites and has never had a similar problem."

 

Ed:
Elsham Linc pleaded guilty to:

On or about 20 July 2010, you did cause the entry into inland freshwaters, namely a tributary of the Dale, of poisonous noxious or polluting matter, namely slurry effluent, at North Moor Farm, Caistor Road, Middle Rasen, Market Rasen

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

 

£10,000 fine for 'gross' oil pollution

Defendant	D.J. Taylor (Anglian Oils) Ltd			King's Lynn Magistrates' Court
Offences	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			3 June 2011
Penalty	£10,000	Costs	£4,427

 

Vegetable oil that polluted a ditch leading to the Cut-off Channel in Downham Market was more polluting that crude sewage, King's Lynn Magistrates' Court heard.

D.J. Taylor (Anglian Oils) Ltd admitted causing the gross pollution and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £4,427.

The company operates a household, commercial and industrial waste transfer station taking in and treating waste edible oils and fats and supply vegetable oils.

Miss Claire Bentley, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, said the pollution was foreseeable as problems had been previously highlighted in a 2008 audit of the company.

 

"The pollution appears to have been a consequence of poor site management," she said. "The defendant admitted that staff were not trained to an appropriate level which led them to disposing of oil contaminated water to surface water drains on site."

 

Detergents used for washing down vehicles in the yard had been another cause of the pollution, she said.  An interceptor in the drain was being relied on for treatment, when it should have only been used as a precautionary system for low risk uncontaminated drainage.

 

She said the 2008 audit had stated that interceptors should not be used as treatment facilities for contaminating discharges and also advised that detergent used for vehicle washing stops interceptors working properly.

Environment Agency officers were alerted to vegetable oil in the ditch in June 2010 but were unable to substantiate the report.

 

Miss Bentley told the court that in August officers on a routine visit to premises used by the company found evidence that contaminated water had got into a surface water drain in the yard.

They found a polluted lagoon that collected surface water drainage  from the site and the pollution flowed into the watercourse making it a dirty white colour.

 

The company knew about the state of the lagoon and said they had cleaned up the drains but were waiting to clean up the lagoon itself.

Miss Bentley told magistrates that at the site there were contaminated empty storage containers and wooden pallets stored next to a rainwater gully strip. There were also milky-coloured puddles in the yard and inside the factory building.

 

Water samples were taken from the ditch which later showed that there was gross pollution. In the surface water drain on site the measurement of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) being used in the breakdown of the pollutant measured 18,500 mg/l, from the outfall measured 2,280 mg/l and from 110 metres downstream was 1,010 mg/l. Typically clean river water will have a measurement of less than 3 mg/l.

Untreated or crude sewage would normally be expected to show a BOD in the range of 250 to 400 mg/l.

 

In September 2010 a large section of the yard was still heavily contaminated with oily debris, Miss Bentley told the court. "There did not appear to have been much change to the yard arrangements since the previous audit of March 2008 where concerns regarding the external storage area and reliance on interceptors had been raised."

 

There was still evidence in the surface water sewer of contamination.

Company director and manager Mr Ashley Taylor told investigating Environment Agency officers in January 2011 that notice had been taken of the 2008 audit and the company had been using a biodegradable detergent for washing vehicles which they thought was environmentally friendly.

But, he said, the detergents emulsified the oil and interceptors could not retain emulsified oil.

 

He admitted that the company had not understood how an interceptor worked even though they had installed one.

Since the pollution they had installed two water storage tanks to store the oil contaminated process water which was sent off for treatment and the interceptors were checked regularly. They had also stopped washing vehicles on site.

 

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Anna Pearce said: "This incident could have been avoided had the company improved the management of their site when issues were pointed out to them in 2008.

"This case also demonstrates how important it is for businesses to fully understand the drainage infrastructure they have on site and to communicate that understanding to their staff." 
 
Ed:

D.J. Taylor (Anglian Oils) Ltd pleaded guilty to:

On or about 4 August 2010, you did cause the entry into inland freshwaters, namely a ditch connected to the Cut-off Channel, of poisonous noxious or polluting matter, namely vegetable oil, at Units 2 & 3 Bexwell Business Park, Bexwell, Downham Market, Norfolk

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

 

Scrap fine for land owner

Defendant	Graham Watchorn
Offences	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.			7 June 2011
Penalty	£10,000	Costs	£2,740

Graham Watchorn who helped run the family business at the Hythe in Colchester admitted taking scrap to Chippetts Farm, Daisy Green, Lexden Heath for about eight years and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay full Environment Agency costs of £2,740.

 

Miss Claire Bentley, prosecuting for the Agency, said Watchorn should have been aware of needing a permit or having a registered waste exemption to store waste as he has worked at the family scrap yard business for 17 years.

"The waste activity was financially motivated. The defendant has admitted that valuable waste was stored at the farm for security reasons and other waste was being stored waiting for prices to go up," she said.

 

Because Watchorn operated without a permit he saved on the costs involved in making the site suitable which would allow him to undercut competitors, Miss Bentley told the court.

 

Magistrates heard that the illegal scrap storage was brought to the attention of the Environment Agency who visited the site on 14 April 2010. They went around the side of the farm and saw piles of assorted car waste, cable and hardcore and there were signs that some waste had been burned.

Waste was stored in various containers and on the ground, some of it unmade. Included was an estimated 1,000 wheel rims in a huge pile in a field.

Watchorn was sent a letter requesting removal of all the waste by 7 May. On 10 May most of it had gone the court was told.

Watchorn told investigating officers he did not think he needed waste transfer notes to take scrap from the yard to the farm, which he did about once a week.

He said that he took material there for safe keeping as the family business had been broken into several times.

 

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Jennifer Martin said: "Environmental Permits and Exemptions have controls that are there to protect the environment and human health. Anyone storing, treating or disposing of waste materials without an Environmental Permit or registered Exemption is breaking the law and at risk of prosecution."

Ed:

Graham Watchorn pleaded guilty to:

On or before 14 April 2010 at Chippetts Farm, Daisy Green, Lexden Heath, Colchester, Essex, you did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the storage of waste, without being authorised by an environmental permit granted under Regulation 13 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

Contrary to Regulation 12(1)(a) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.