Gearbox firm fined over Oldham worker's crush death

Defendant	Renold Power Transmission Limited			Manchester Minshull Street  Crown Court
Offence	S2(1) HSWA 1974			25 May 2011
Fine	£180,000	Costs	£8,946

A gearbox manufacturer has been fined £180,000 after a worker was crushed by a 740kg slab of metal at its Rochdale plant, and later died from his injuries.

Nigel Lindley, an employee at Renold Power Transmission Ltd, was assembling a large metal gear case at a factory on Station Road in Milnrow when one of the sides collapsed on him.

The company, which produces parts for escalators, power stations and water treatment works, was prosecuted by the HSE following an investigation into the fatal incident.

 

The metal gear case which crushed Mr Lindley

Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard the 47-year-old from Oldham had been using an overhead crane to move two sections of the metal case into place on 27 November 2008. He removed the chains from one of the sides so he could align them properly and secure them together.

Mr Lindley knelt down to hammer a connecting dowel through the sections when one of the sides fell on him. He died from severe crush injuries.

The HSE investigation found the metal case was the largest ever produced at the site, but employees had not been told how to assemble it safely. The court was told Renold Power Transmission failed to properly assess the risks, or to provide training for operators or supervisors.

Phil Strickland, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:^[3]

"Workers at the site were not told how to safely assemble large gear box cases and so had to make it up as they went along. This ultimately led to the death of Nigel Lindley.  The risks of workers being crushed by heavy objects is well known in the engineering industry but Renold Power Transmission failed to treat the danger seriously by carrying out a proper assessment and providing training.  One of the metal sections should been laid flat on the floor so the other side could have been safely lifted into place using the overhead crane. If this had happened then Mr Lindley would still be alive today."

Renold Power Transmission Ltd, of Renold House in Wythenshawe, admitted breaching S 2(1) HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. It was ordered to pay £8,946 in prosecution costs in addition to the fine.

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "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."

 

Sussex chemical company fined after serious spill

Defendant	Solvent Resource Management Ltd			Brighton  Crown Court
Offence	Reg4 COMAH 1999			20 May 2011
Fine	£150,000	Costs	£20,000

A chemical company. Solvent Resource Management Ltd, has been fined £150,000 after a tank collapsed, releasing a large amount of waste solvents and water at a chemical plant in Rye, East Sussex.

Brighton Crown Court heard that on Wednesday 11 March 2009 at approximately 2.10am, a steel tank which had been damaged by internal corrosion collapsed onto a retaining wall. This led to around 340 tonnes of solvent and contaminated waste water being released into the surrounding area, which was potentially hazardous and highly flammable.

At the same time, a valve was knocked off an adjoining tank, which in turn released approximately 90 tonnes of contaminated waste water on to the site and neighbouring property.

Due to the potentially, hazardous nature of the incident, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service took the precaution of placing a 300-metre cordon around the site for two days.

The HSE investigation, which was assisted by the Environment Agency, found Solvent Resource Management Ltd had failed to manage the examination and inspection of the tanks at the site.   An HSE Inspector who attended the scene issued a Prohibition Notice preventing the use of other tanks in the damaged area until they could be examined by a competent Tank Inspector and an Environment Agency Inspector.   A separate Improvement Notice was also issued, requiring the inspection of the remaining storage tanks and putting in place a suitable inspection regime.

HSE's Inspector Trevor Jones said:

"The consequences of not operating a plant in accordance with accepted international standards can be catastrophic both to people and the environment. It was only timing that prevented this incident being more than a significant disruption to local residents and businesses.

"If the company had put in place suitable and effective measures to manage the tank inspection programme, according to its contents and use, then this incident would have been prevented."

Solvent Resource Management Ltd of Hanson House, Castle Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire, pleaded guilty to Regulation 4 of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999. The company was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,000.

Ed - The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) implements the EC Seveso Directive into UK law. The Directive was enacted by the European Parliament following the major accident at Seveso, Italy and modified following the major warehouse fire in Basle, Switzerland. For further information please visit www.hse.gov.uk/comah/guidance

 

Farming company fined after worker electrocuted

Defendant	Velcourt Limited			Salisbury  Crown Court
Offence	S3(1) HSWA 1974			17 May 2011
Fine	£120,000	Costs	£45,000

 

A farming company has been fined after a man was electrocuted while working on farmland near Ludgershall in Wiltshire.

Salisbury Crown Court heard Edward Pybus, 21, from Northallerton in Yorkshire, was harvesting crops at Chute Farm, Upper Chute when he received the fatal shock on 6 August 2007.

Farm managers Velcourt Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE as the firm was responsible for both the recruitment of casual farm workers, including Mr Pybus, and for managing health and safety on site.

The combine harvester Mr Pybus was driving had a problem with the grain discharge spout and so it was left extended while he was cropping a field called Forest Lane Field. The field had 11,000 volt overhead power lines running across it.

During cropping the harvester had picked up stones and soil. Mr Pybus stopped the machine in order to clear it not realising the grain spout was touching one of the power lines.

As Mr Pybus got out of the harvester and stepped onto the ground, he received a fatal electric shock of 6,300 volts.

The HSE investigation found Velcourt Ltd failed to adequately inspect, monitor, supervise or audit health and safety management at the farm.

HSE discovered Velcourt had also failed to ensure the farm manager received adequate health and safety training. As a result, no risk assessments had been carried out at the farm for working in fields with overhead power lines, nor had the farm workers received adequate training on how to work safely.

In addition, no assessment of the risks of operating the combine harvester model being used by Mr Pybus had been carried out. If one had, it would have found the machine's height with the chute extended 5.7m exceeded the legal minimum height of overhead lines in fields of 5.2m and the actual height of the lines in Forest Lane Field of 5.6m.

HSE inspector, Liam Osborne, said:

"Velcourt chose to give Edward one of the largest and tallest machines on the market on his first ever commercial harvest operating a combine. No consideration was given at all to whether it could reach the overhead lines in the fields where he was electrocuted, or anywhere else for that matter.  

The HSE traced the root causes of this terrible incident to basic failures in Velcourt's safety management system. At no stage during the selection of their combines did Velcourt ask what the risk would be of touching overhead lines.

Velcourt's farm contract manager was given inadequate safety training, particularly in identifying hazards, and what measures to take to reduce them. There was little to no review or monitoring of how well Velcourt were managing the substantial risks farmers face in the high-pressure work of harvesting.

Had these basic, commonsense and entirely reasonable low-cost measures been put in place, Edward would still be here. We implore those who put their workers into hazardous jobs to think about the risks involved, then plan and control the work properly."

Velcourt Limited, of The Veldt House, Much Marcle, Ledbury, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £45,000.

 

Company fined after Crawley employee paralysed

Defendant	Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd			Lewes  Crown Court
Offences	S2(1) & S3(1) HSWA 1974			5  May 2011
Fine	£120,000	Costs	£81,927

A Hertfordshire-based electrical company has been fined £120,000 after a man was left paralysed when he was knocked from a scissor lift.

The HSE prosecuted Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd after the incident happened on the 25 January 2007 at Manor Royal Industrial Park in Crawley.

Lewes Crown Court heard the company had been subcontracted to design and build the mechanical and electrical systems in a number of new buildings.

A cable installer, who does not want to be named, was working in a scissor lift with two colleagues tying cables into overhead trays when they collapsed, knocking the man out of the lift and causing him to fall eight metres to the floor below.

The man, from Hartlepool, suffered severe spinal injuries and is now paralysed from the waist down.

HSE told the court that Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd had failed to ensure the safety of its employees while carrying out the installation of the cable tray systems.

Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd admitted breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined a total of £120,000 with full costs of £81,927.

After the hearing, HSE's Inspector Denis Bodger said:

"This tragic incident would have been avoided if the company had ensured all parts of the cable tray system had been properly designed and installed, including how it was attached to the building.  During installation, when components were failing or showing signs of failure, Skanska took no action.

"When construction work is subcontracted, whether it's design or installation work, it is essential companies have adequate systems in place to manage this effectively.  The fine reflects the seriousness of the omissions by this company. Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil Ltd employed people to do highly hazardous work and yet failed to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety.

"It is essential that employers consider all aspects of difficult and dangerous work; health and safety is not just a phrase, it is a considered approach to protecting people in the workplace."

 

Contractor fined £100,000 after worker fatality in Belgravia

Defendant	Nadeem Aftab			Central Criminal Court Old Bailey
Offences	S2(1) HSWA 1974			24  May 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£61,590

A foreign construction worker was buried alive while working on a property in London's Belgravia.

Arlindo Visentin, 58, from Brazil, was helping three other workers build a basement at the private property when he was crushed by a wall of gravel and clay weighing between three and five tonnes that collapsed.

Contractor Nadeem Aftab, Mr Visentin's employer was today fined in connection with the tragic incident that happened during the construction of a basement at a house in Wilton Row, Westminster.

The HSE prosecuted Mr Aftab of Rosebury Road, Fulham, who pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £61,590.

The Central Criminal Court heard that on 13 June 2007 Mr Visentin was working in the basement area when the collapse took place, completely burying him with clay and gravel, causing fatal crush injures.

The HSE investigation found the temporary works required to support the earth during the underpinning operation were not adequately planned.  The earth that remained following the underpinning of the walls was not properly supported, and at the time of the incident no measures were in place to prevent falls into the excavation.

Mr Aftab failed to make sure the workers on site were trained, qualified and competent to carry out underpinning.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector, Lisa Chappell said:

"Mr Visentin spoke very little English and did not share a common language with any of the other workers or with Mr Aftab.  This incident highlights the need to have effective worker consultation and communication with all employees to ensure they understand the control measures that should be in place to prevent harm.

"Basement conversions involving underpinning are significant engineering projects and should be planned and managed by competent people. As a part of this, a competent temporary works engineer should design an appropriate sequence of works, and the work should be actively managed by a person who had the necessary knowledge, training and experience to ensure it is carried out safely."

 

Steeplejack firm fined after death of worker

Defendant	Central (High Rise) Ltd,			Leicester Crown  Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA 1974 reg 4(1)(b) WHR 2005			13  May 2011
Fine	£100,000	Costs	£32,000

A Nottingham firm has been fined £100,000 after one of its workers was killed and another injured in two separate falls.

Central (High Rise) Ltd, based at Thoresby Avenue, Sneinton, Nottingham, was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to protect its employees.

Brian Collins, 52, from Mansfield, was setting up abseiling equipment to paint one of the chimneys with two other workers at Sutton Bridge Power Station, when he fell through an open grating in a platform on the chimney on 13 March 2008. He fell 34m and died at the scene.

In a separate incident, on 14 August 2009, two employees were performing maintenance on the rocks below Nottingham Castle. To reach some debris on a ledge, they attempted to abseil down but did not use a safety line. The first worker reached the ledge safely, but the second worker, who has asked not to be named, experienced an uncontrolled descent, falling between 8-10m to the ground and breaking a bone in his back.

Leicester Crown Court heard the company had failed to make sure the work at both locations was carried out safely putting several employees at serious risk. At the castle, the company also failed to ensure the work was properly supervised.  At the power station, it had also failed to make a proper assessment of the risks and to properly manage and monitor the work.

Central (High Rise) Ltd pleaded guilty to one charge in relation to the death of Mr Collins (s2(1) HSWA) and one charge in relation to the incident at Nottingham Castle (reg 4(1)(b) WHR 2005). As well as the fine, the company was ordered to pay £32,000 costs.

HSE inspector Martin Giles said:

"The work at the power station required careful planning and assessment of the risks involved. Tragically, the company failed to make sure the rigging of the ropes was done safely and the result was the needless death of an employee.

"At Nottingham Castle, the two men should not have been allowed to abseil with the ropes they used, but Central failed in its duty to properly supervise the work to make sure it was carried out safely. Luckily the injured man has since made a full recovery but his injuries could easily have been much worse."

 

Care home sentenced after resident's bed rail death

Defendant	Deevale Homecare and Services Ltd			Mold Crown  Court
Offences	S3(1) HSWA 1974, reg 3(1) MHSWR 1999			23  May 2011
Fine	£70,000	Costs	£21,818.56

A Llangollen nursing home has been fined following the suffocation of an elderly woman after she become trapped between her mattress and bed rails intended to stop her falling.

Elizabeth Roberts, 89, was found suffocated in her room at the Headlands Nursing Home on 30 August 2008. Her upper body had slid down to the floor between the bed mattresses and bed rails where she had become trapped.

Mold Crown Court heard Mrs Roberts had suffered from a previous entrapment incident three weeks before but no alternative bedding arrangements had been made.

An HSE investigation revealed care staff at the home engaged bedside rails after Mrs Roberts repeatedly fell from her bed, however employees had not been provided with up-to-date training on the safe use of bed rails, in particular the risk of entrapment created.

HSE found the home also failed to complete a suitable and sufficient risk assessment on the use of bed rails for Mrs Roberts, which should have identified that they may have been unsuitable in her case. There was no company policy on the safe use of bed rails and no system for routine inspection, monitoring and maintenance.

Deevale Homecare and Services Ltd of Grosvenor Road, Wrexham, who own and operate the Headlands Nursing Home in Llangollen, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and Regulation 3 (1) Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

HSE inspector Sarah Baldwin-Jones said:

"This is a terrible incident and one that could have been easily avoided.  It is essential that home owners and care staff consider whether bed rails are the most appropriate method of preventing a patient falling from bed.

"There are many alternative options such as the use of low profile beds, which should be considered. When using bed rails, homes should take adequate steps to assess the potential risks created. This should consider the bed occupant as well as the set up of the bedding arrangements.

"To assist home owners, free guidance on the safe use of bed rails has been made widely available for a number of years. This home could have taken the simple steps provided in the guidance to train care staff and implement a safe system of routine inspection and maintenance at their home. Had this occurred at the Headland Nursing Home, Mrs Roberts' death could have been prevented."

Ed - The risk of entrapment created by bedding arrangements and bedrails is detailed in the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Device Bulletin DB2006 (06) Safe use of Bed Rails.

 

Firms fined £130,000 after worker's electric shock

Defendant	C and P Bird Brothers Ltd			Luton Crown Court
Offences	S3(1) HSWA Reg 21 CDM Regs 2007			31  May 2011
Fine	£40,000	Costs	£5,500
Defendant	Peter Bird
Offences	S3(1) HSWA
Fine	£5,000	Costs	£2,500
Defendant	Morspan Construction Limited
Offences	S3(1) HSWA Reg 19(1)(c) CDM Regs 2007
Fine	£60,000	Costs	£5,500
Defendant	Michael Skayman
Offences	S3(1) HSWA
Fine	£25,000	Costs	£4,750

Two companies, a director and a sub-contractor have been fined a total of £130,000 for health and safety failings after a construction worker suffered serious burns following an electric shock from an overhead power cable.

Self-employed steel erecter Mark Rushbrook, was constructing two new poultry units at Sunny Farm in Swineshead, Bedfordshire. He was using a scissor lift to clad the gable end of a steel frame when it came into contact with a power cable and he suffered an 11kv electrical shock.

Mr Rushbrook, 24, from West Winch, King's Lynn, Norfolk, sustained burns to his stomach and hands, and internal muscle damage in the 25 June 2009 incident.

The HSE charged a number of parties after its subsequent investigation found the gable end of the structure was within just 4.3m of an overhead power line.

HSE told Luton Crown Court on Friday 27 May the defendants failed to indentify the potential risks of working near overhead voltage lines and had not put necessary precautions in place, including notifying the relevant authorities.

Farm owner C and P Bird Brothers Ltd, admitted breaching Section 3(1) HSWA  for which it was fined £20,000 and Regulation 21(1) CDM Regulations 2007 for which it was fined £20,000.  It was ordered to pay £5,500 costs.

Peter Bird, a director of C & P Bird Brothers Ltd admitted breaching Section 3(1) HSWA and was fined £5,000 with £2,500 costs.

The company which designed and manufactured the steel frame, Morspan Construction Limited of 21 Gold Tops, Newport, Gwent, was also the main contractor and admitted breaching S3(1) HSWA for which it was fined £30,000; and Reg 19(1)(c) CDM Regulations 2007 for which it was fined £30,000. In addition the company was ordered to pay £5,250 costs.

Self employed steel erector and sub-contractor on the project Michael Skayman of Edenside Drive, Attleborough, Norfolk, also admitted breaching Section 3(1) HSWA and was fined £25,000 plus £4,750 costs.

HSE Inspector John Berezansky said:

"As construction work is a high risk activity with significant numbers of major and fatal injuries, good planning, communication and cooperation are needed constantly. Unfortunately, all the defendants in this case failed to achieve this.  That Mr Rushbrook's injuries were not fatal is only a matter of luck. A lax attitude to health and safety is not acceptable, especially when so many incidents are completely avoidable by taking common sense actions and precautions. The safety standards for working near overhead power lines are well-known and readily available."

Ed - HSE advice on how to prevent safely near overhead power lines can be found at in guidance document INDG389 see http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg389.pdf

 

Company fined after security guard dies from CO poisoning

Defendant	Precis Holdings Ltd			Central Criminal  Court Old Bailey
Offences	S4(2) HSWA 1974			24  May 2011
Fine	£60,000	Costs	£24,515
Defendant	Obioma Chukwudi
Offences	S3(2) HSWA 1974
Fine	£30,000	Costs	£15,000

A London construction company and a security company manager have been fined after a security guard died from carbon monoxide poisoning while at a work.

The HSE prosecuted Precis Holdings Ltd and Mr Obioma Chukwudi for their parts in the incident.

The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) heard that Victor Etu, 36, was working as a security guard at Dover House, Morden Road, Mitcham. The semi-derelict building was due to be turned into a self-storage facility, with Precis Holdings Ltd managing the refurbishment. Precis Holdings Ltd contracted Crimeforce Security Ltd (a company which has since been dissolved), to provide 24-hour security to the site, who engaged Mr Etu as a self-employed security guard.

A petrol-powered electricity generator had been provided by Precis Holdings Ltd to power a portable heater and lights, as there was no electricity supply to the building.

On the 16 February 2008, Mr Obioma Chukwudi, the manager of Crimeforce Security Ltd, attended the site at about 1.45pm. He had not heard from Mr Etu who was on the night patrol shift and had been due to call in at 6am. Mr Etu was found lying on the floor in an office on the second storey of the building. The generator was found in another room off the same corridor. An ambulance was called and Mr Etu was declared dead at the scene.

The post mortem examination stated that Mr Etu died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

The HSE investigation showed that Precis Holdings Ltd failed to take reasonable measures to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the generator provided for their use was safe and without risks to the health of the security guards.

Mr Chukwudi failed to take effective steps to ensure that the petrol generator provided for the use of security guards was not operated within the building and he did not carry out or implement the findings of a risk assessment for the provision of a 24-hour security presence. He also had not provided Mr Etu with appropriate information, instruction and supervision in respect of the use of the generator.

HSE Inspector, Loraine Charles said:

"Mr Etu's death in such distressing circumstances would have been completely avoidable had either Precis Holdings Ltd or Mr Chukwudi given sufficient thought to the implications of putting Mr Etu to work, alone, guarding this large empty building - or taken effective steps to prevent the operation of the generator inside the building."

Precis Holdings Ltd of Park Lane, Westminster pleaded guilty to breaching Section 4(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £24,515.

Obioma Chukwudi of Iona Cresent, Slough, Berkshire, pleaded guilty to  breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.

 

Cardiff steel firm fined after worker's hand disfigured

Defendant	Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd			Cardiff Crown Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA 1974			13  May 2011
Fine	£50,000	Costs	£10,715

Cardiff-based steel company Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd has been fined after a worker sustained a serious hand injury while operating machinery at its city centre plant.

The 41-year-old employee from the Newport area, was working as a production operator at the company.

On the 11th of September 2009, the man was measuring the size of solid hot steel stock passing through the company's section mill using large steel callipers, when his hand got caught in the rollers of the machinery.

Cardiff Crown Court heard the man suffered severe burns to his right hand and lost two fingers in the incident. He has since returned to work but, due to his injuries, has taken another role at the firm.

An HSE investigation found the system of work Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd employed to measure hot material was not as safe as was reasonably practicable.

The company of Castle Works, East Moors Road, Cardiff pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA.

It was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £10,715 in costs.

HSE inspector Steve Curry said:

"Had Celsa ensured correct and safe working practices, the serious injuries suffered by this employee may have been avoided.  This was a completely unnecessary incident. There were alternative measures the company could have used for this task.  At the time of the incident, this method of measuring steel product was a recognised practice within company procedures.  This has since been changed so as not to require close approach by employees, however it has come a little too late for one worker."

 

Property firm fined after worker's scaffold fall

Defendant	Nabiganj Investment Company Limited			City of London Magistrates Court
Offences	Regs4 (1)(a), 10,  14(1) & 16(1) CDM Regs 2007			27  May 2011
Fine	£37,500	Costs	£5,459.90

A London property development company has been sentenced after a migrant worker suffered severe head injuries when he fell from scaffolding at a Hackney warehouse.

The 46-year-old fell more than 5m from an incomplete tower scaffold - being used to remove floor beams from two levels of a warehouse on Homerton High Street, Hackney, on 13 October 2009.

An HSE investigation found the client Nabiganj Investment Company Limited who employed the man as a principal contractor, failed to implement a number of measures that could have prevented the incident.

HSE inspectors found asbestos in debris from the demolition work and discovered that no asbestos survey had been conducted prior to work starting.

City of London Magistrates heard at least six Chinese migrant workers who spoke very little English had been demolishing floors and moving debris around, potentially exposing themselves to asbestos fibres. The worker who fell from the scaffold suffered life-threatening injuries to his head, pelvis and spine and can now only walk with difficulty.

Nabiganj Investment Company Limited of Alexandra Park Road, London pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4 (1) (a), Regulation 10, Regulation 14(1) and Regulation 16(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was fined £37,500 and ordered to pay costs of £5,459.90.

The court heard that the firm has had previous enforcement action imposed on it relating to other sites, including two Improvement Notices for failure to comply with client duties under Construction Design and Management Regulations and two Prohibition Notices for work at height.

Speaking after the sentence, HSE Inspector Eileen Gascoigne said:

"A vulnerable worker was left with devastating injuries as a result of the consistently poor attitude to safety this company has displayed.  This is an experienced property development firm, it has had previous enforcement action taken against it by the HSE relating to similar issues during construction work. Once again in avoiding its responsibilities, it has put the safety and health of at least six vulnerable workers at unnecessary risk." ^[2]

 

Firm fined for failing control wood dust risk

Defendant	Millbrook Furnishing Industries Limited			Southampton Crown Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA			26  May 2011
Fine	£27,000	Costs	£25,000

A Southampton-based decking company has been sentenced after failure to control the risks of exposure to wood dust and adhesives at its Totton plant.

Millbrook Furnishing Industries Limited was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to control or assess the substances which are known to cause ill health and severe allergic reactions between August 2006 and April 2008.

The firm build hot tub deckings at its Calmore Industrial Estate site using Western Red Cedar wood, bonded with isocyanate-based glue.

Southampton Crown Court heard HSE investigated after a Millbrook employee suffered anaphylactic shock in February 2007 and reported the incident to the safety watchdog months later.

The 45-year-old worker was taken to hospital with severe breathing difficulties after using an adhesive and being exposed to wood dust while sanding frames at the site but Millbrook Industries failed to carry out its own investigation into the cause of the employee's ill-health.

The firm continued to use the same materials despite not assessing the risk of using isocyanate glues and Western Red Cedar wood, or taking the necessary preventative measures.

It failed to identify materials likely to cause allergic reactions and provided no health surveillance for employees building the hot tub decking. HSE Inspectors also found that local exhaust ventilation was inadequate to control exposure to the harmful wood dust and glue vapours. Protective face masks were provided on the site, however these were not always worn.

For months the company continued to place employees at risk until HSE was approached in October 2007 by the employee who had taken ill. Enforcement notices were then served.

HSE Inspector Dennis MacWilliam said:

"In this case, a lack of understanding regarding the hazards associated with adhesives and wood dust, plus a clear failure to control exposure meant Millbrook Industries failed in it duty to its employees.  Not conducting a risk assessment meant the firm did not identify which employees were exposed to these substances and in turn employees were not told about the risks of working with such substances.  Staff had access to overalls, gloves and masks on site, but unbelievably there was no training, guidance or rules provided regarding their use.  Work of this nature must be properly planned and an effective and safe system needs to be in place to protect workers when exposing them to isocyanates and wood dust. Had this been done then employees' health would not have been put at risk."

 

Ipswich manufacturer fined £25,000 after worker injured

Defendant	Crane Ltd			Stevenage Magistrates Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA, reg4 PUWER			9 May 2011
Fine	£25,000	Costs	£3,387.25

A Hertfordshire employee suffered multiple injuries after two quarter tonne steel flange rings fell on him.

A 39-year-old machine operative from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, was working at the premises of pipe coupling manufacturer, Viking Johnson on Wilbury Way, Hitchin, when the incident happened on 7 May 2009.

Stevenage Magistrates' Court heard how the employee was rolling smaller flange rings - a circular steel disc used to connect pipes - out of a metal storage rack, when the 250kg rings fell. The larger rings landed on his pelvis, causing internal injuries and multiple fractures.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the metal rack in which the rings were resting was not suitable and the firm had failed to assess the risk of rings falling on an employee while taking them down.

Crane Ltd, Viking Johnson's parent company of West Road, Ipswich, manufacturers of valves and fittings for building services, admitted breaching Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations - for which it was fined £15,000 - and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, with a fine of £10,000. The company was ordered to pay £3,387.25 in prosecution costs.

HSE Inspector Sandra Dias, said:

"This was a serious and entirely preventable incident which left this employee with horrific injuries. I hope other employees are taking note of this case.  Although Crane Limited had a health and safety system in place, they failed to recognise it was not adequate. Therefore the safety of its employees was compromised when handling the flange rings as Crane failed to properly assess risk and failed to provide adequate work equipment."

 

Unregistered gas fitter fined after putting lives at risk

Defendant	Clive Farrant			Chelmsford Crown Court
Offences	S3(2) HSWA, Gas Safety (Installation & Use)  Regs 1998 x9			10 May 2011
Fine	£23,000	Costs	£5,000

An unregistered gas fitter misled customers into believing he was a legally registered gas engineer and then carried out work that put lives at risk.

Clive Farrant, 57, from Chelmsford, used a false CORGI registration number in adverts and paperwork when trading as Essex Plumbing Connection. He also committed offences as a director of Secret Heat Ltd. Both companies were registered to his home address.

Investigations by the HSE found Mr Farrant had carried out gas work at several properties and left them all in a dangerous condition.

He worked at a number of homes in and around Chelmsford, Essex, between July 2006 and June 2009. During the same period, he also instructed another unregistered engineer to carry out work at properties in Tadley, Hampshire and in and around Chelmsford.

It is a legal requirement for any gas engineering business or self-employed gas engineer carrying out domestic or commercial gas work to be registered under the Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998.

Mr Farrant of Hawthorne Walk, South Woodham Ferrers, admitted ten out of 11 charges relating to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Gas Safety Regulations 1998 when he appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court. He was fined £23,000 with £5,000 costs.

After the sentencing, HSE Inspector Samantha Thomson, said:

"There is no excuse for illegally carrying out work on gas appliances - and to falsify documentation in order to defraud customers is not only a terrible thing to do but also a very serious offence.  It is illegal for any unregistered person to carry out such work. When unqualified workers try to bypass the law in this way they are not only putting themselves at risk of prosecution, a large fine and a lengthy time in prison - they are also putting their customers' lives at risk.  Working with gas appliances is difficult, specialised and potentially very dangerous. Only qualified and registered engineers should attempt it."

 

Heinz fined over finger loss at Wigan baked bean factory

Defendant	HJ Heinz Company Ltd			Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court
Offences	Reg 3(1)(a) MHSR 1999, reg 9(1) PUWER 1998			27 May 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£4,496.50

Food giant Heinz has been fined £20,000 after a worker suffered serious injuries to his left hand at a baked bean factory in Wigan.

The 65-year-old worker lost his index finger, suffered severe nerve damage to two other fingers, and received deep cuts to his hand.

HJ Heinz Company Ltd, which has an annual turnover of more than £700 million, was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident at its Kitt Green plant on Spring Road in Wigan on 11 April 2008.

 

The machine which caused the worker's injuries

Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court heard that the employee was making a new metal part for a baked bean packaging machine when the incident happened. The worker was using emery cloth to polish the component on a metal-working machine while it was rotating, when his gloved hand was pulled in.

The court was told that Heinz should have identified safety measures for the work in advance, such as providing an alternative way to polish the metal component so that emery cloth did not need to be used.

Heinz, which employs approximately 32,500 people around the globe, pleaded guilty to two health and safety offences after it failed to carry out a risk assessment for the work or to provide adequate training.

The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £4,496.50 in prosecution costs.

Deborah Walker, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"This worker has suffered severe injuries to his left hand, which will affect him for the rest of his life, because Heinz didn't make sure he was working safely.  He had been employed by Heinz for more than twenty years, but was not given any refresher training on safe working practices in that time. The company also failed to assess the risks of the work he was carrying out, and make sure suitable safety measures were in place. The risk of emery cloth being pulled into rotating metalworking machines is well known. Manufacturing companies should make sure employees are following the latest health and safety guidance on this issue."

HJ Heinz Company Ltd was charged with breaching Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Regulation 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

 

Asbestos exposure at sheltered housing leads to fine

Defendant	Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd			Nottingham Magistrates Court
Offences	Regs 7, 8, 11(1), 16 and 24(1) CoAR 2006			9  May 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£5,741

A Nottinghamshire building firm contaminated an elderly resident's possessions with asbestos during bathroom renovation work at sheltered housing in West Bridgford.

Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd of Mansfield also left asbestos-containing materials outside the building in the open air, putting the public at risk.

The HSE prosecuted the firm after it carried out work at the home of 96-year-old Mrs Ann Jenkins in Musters Road on 4 February 2010.

The company was removing asbestos insulation board (AIB) which had been used to box in pipework behind the bath but many of Mrs Jenkins' possessions, including clothing and furniture was contaminated with asbestos fibres and had to be destroyed.

The dangerous work was spotted by the warden at the complex, who stopped the activity immediately and took Mrs Jenkins - who had been sitting very close to the bathroom - to a safe place. After staying with her family, Mrs Jenkins was relocated to another flat.

HSE told Nottingham Magistrates' Court the firm knew it was dealing with asbestos-containing material and though both partners had asbestos awareness training they failed to manage it appropriately, exposing employees; Mrs Jenkins; and members of the public to asbestos fibres.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Frances Bailey said:

"This company showed a wilful disregard for the health and safety of its employees and the public. Abbott and Mason knew the panels contained asbestos and should have dealt with it safely.  Their actions caused a great deal of worry and stress for Mrs Jenkins, who has since passed away.  The distress caused to her and the risks to the health of the public and the company's employees could have been easily avoided had the company taken sensible steps to ensure the right procedures were followed and the spread of potentially dangerous material was prevented."

Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd, of Carter Lane, Mansfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 7, 8, 11(1), 16 and 24(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined a total of £20,000. The company was also ordered to pay full costs of £5,741.

 

Manchester property firm fined after workers put at risk

Defendant	Options Properties Ltd			Trafford Magistrates Court
Offences	Regs 7, 8, 11(1), 16 and 24(1) CoAR 2006			27  May 2011
Fine	£18,000	Costs	£4,115

A Manchester property company has appeared in court after two workers were spotted on the sixth floor of a city apartment block without proper equipment to prevent them falling.

 

The two workers on the Options Properties Ltd site

Options Properties Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after the men were found to be working 65 feet up next to a sheer drop at the Madison Apartments in Trafford on 14 May 2009.

Trafford Magistrates' Court heard the men worked for a company called P&R Structural Glazing Ltd, hired by Options Properties to fit glass balconies to the properties in the newly-built apartments.

The men had originally been working on scaffolding, but this was removed by Options Properties, leaving them with just a harness attached to a guardrail to stop them falling to the ground below.

The inspector who visited the site was so concerned that he immediately issued Prohibition Notices on both companies, ordering them to stop work immediately.

Investigating HSE Inspector Ian Betley said:

"It beggars belief that Options Properties Ltd risked the lives of these two men for the cost of a few extra days of scaffold hire.  There is no way of knowing whether the guardrail and harness set up would have held these men on the balcony. Had one of them slipped, he would have taken his colleague with him and they could both have fallen to their deaths.  I would advise other companies to have a proper work plans in place and to stick to them until the job is completed."

Options Properties Ltd, of Princess Street, Manchester, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to ensure that the work was properly planned and supervised and carried out in a safe manner. They were fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,115.

 

Paper firm fined after worker suffers severe hand injuries

Defendant	The Crimped Paper Works Limited,			Buxton Magistrates Court
Offences	Reg 11(1) PUWER 1998			20  May 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£3,956

A paper firm has been fined after a Derbyshire worker suffered severe and permanent hand injuries.

Maintenance fitter David Millband, 46, of Chapel-en-le-Frith, was seriously injured when his right hand was caught in a reel-fed machine at The Crimped Paper Works Limited, Bowden Lane, Chapel-en-le-Frith, on 16 February 2010, which makes paper baking cases.

He lost three fingers, partially severed his thumb, suffered injuries to his little finger and underwent two surgeries. He went back to work on light duties approximately four months after the incident but was made redundant when the company went into administration in January.

The HSE which investigated the incident, today told Buxton Magistrates that Mr Millband had been carrying out a visual check of the reel-fed machine when he noticed that the paper had come loose. When he opened the door of the machine, it kept running and his fingers became caught. The doors to the machine had interlocks for safety, but these had been overridden.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Fiona Coffey said:

"The incident was completely preventable. The company had a legal duty to prevent access to the dangerous parts of their machinery, but provided engineers with keys which could override the interlocks. There had been a similar incident five months earlier which had resulted in lesser injuries but, while the company had purchased a new system for the interlocks, they had not made this operational by the time of the second incident.

"The risks of overriding interlocks are well documented by the HSE and Mr Millband's employers failed to ensure that measures were taken to prevent access to the dangerous parts of the machinery. As a result, a man has suffered a life-changing injury and has been unable to perform everyday tasks ever since."

The Crimped Paper Works Limited, of Chapel-en-le-Frith, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £3,956.

 

Recycling firm fined after worker's jaw smashed

Defendant	Ampthill Metal Company Ltd			Mid Beds Magistrates Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA			10  May 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£21,718.05

A worker at one of the UK's leading metal recyclers in the UK had his jaw shattered by the locking mechanism of the waste container on the vehicle he was driving

Heavy goods driver Dean Bridges, of Becketts Close in Maulden, had his jaw broken in several places and lost three teeth while attempting to open the rear door of the RO-RO (Roll-on Roll-off) container he was driving at Ampthill Metal Company Ltd's Station Road industrial Estate site in Ampthill, Bedfordshire.

 

The skip door handle which caused Mr Bridges' injuries

The injury happened as Mr Bridges removed the locating pin from the handle holding the rear door of the container shut. The handle sprung out, striking Mr Bridges in the face

Bedford and Mid Beds Magistrates' Court heard Mr Bridges received 47 stitches and needed his jaw to be wired. He was unable to work for two months or eat solid food for three after the 22 September 2009 incident.

An HSE investigation found the company had failed to ensure Mr Bridges' safety and found three similar incidents had occurred at the company's premises between 2002 and 2008, all involving workers being struck by container doors or container door handles.

Ampthill Metal Company Ltd pleaded not guilty to breaching Section 2(1) HSWA.  After a two day trial, which the firm was found guilty by magistrates and fined £15,000 with £21,718.05 costs.

After the hearing HSE inspector, Emma Rowlands, said:

"The risk of being struck by skip container doors within the waste industry is well known. Mr Bridges suffered serious facial injuries as a result of this incident, which was entirely preventable."

 

Aerospace firm fined after worker suffers hand injuries

Defendant	Meggitt Aerospace Ltd			Loughborough Magistrates Court
Offences	S2(1) HSWA			10  May 2011
Fine	£14,000	Costs	£6,758

An aerospace firm has been fined after a Leicestershire worker suffered severe and permanent hand and wrist injuries.

The 53-year-old worker from Loughborough, had to have three fingers and his thumb amputated after his left hand was crushed in a cooling press at Meggitt Aerospace's site in Ashby Road, Shepshed, on 10 May last year.

He was hospitalised for several weeks and has not been able to return to work.

The HSE, which investigated the incident,told Loughborough magistrates that the worker had been making aircraft components and was in the process of removing a round mould without handles from the press.

As he did so, the bottom part of the hydraulic press (known as a platen) moved up, trapping his hand.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Dr Richenda Dixon said:

"The incident was completely preventable. Reaching into the danger zone between powered platens is inherently unsafe and there is foreseeable risk of crush injuries to the hand or arm.  The press was one of a bank of a dozen, for which there were no individual controls. All 12 were old and had not been well maintained. In addition, the mould being used had no handles to help with its removal so there was no safe system of work in place for unloading the presses.  The company simply did not appreciate the risks this machinery posed to the wellbeing of its workforce. As a result a man has suffered a life-changing injury and has been unable to perform everyday tasks ever since."

Meggitt Aerospace Ltd, of Atlantic House, Aviation Park West, Bournemouth International Airport, Christchurch, Dorset, pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) HSWA. The company was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £6,758.

 

Car park owner jailed for prohibition notice

Defendant	Nicholas Eastwood			Truro  Crown Court
Offences	S3(2), s33(1)(g) HSWA			25  May 2011
Penalty	9 months imprisonment	Costs	£6,758

A landowner has been jailed for ignoring safety issues at a car park at The Burrows in St Ives.

Truro Crown Court heard that following a complaint, inspectors from the HSE  visited a site owned by Nicholas Eastwood in February 2008.

They found part of the land being used as a car park near the edge of a valley slope, with a steep 30m drop to houses below.

HSE issued a Prohibition Notice preventing pedestrian and vehicle access 5m from the edge of the slope and Improvement Notices requiring suitable protection from falls.

No subsequent action was taken by Mr Eastwood and on 6 August 2009 emergency services were called to the site because a car was spotted hanging over the edge of the slope. Householders living below the site were evacuated whilst the car was removed.

Nicholas Andrew Eastwood of The Burrows, St Ives, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 3 (2) and 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He given a custodial sentence of nine months for breaching Section 33(1)(g).

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Barry Trudgian said:

"As the incident in August 2009 showed, there was a very real risk of a car going over the edge of Mr Eastwood's land which could have had very serious consequences, not only for the driver but also for residents and members of the public passing below. By simply installing a barrier, as he was requested to do, he would have significantly reduced this risk.

"Employers who ignore these notices, and continue to put people at risk, should expect to be prosecuted."

 

Landlord receives suspended sentence

Defendant	Steven James Boote			Coventry Magistrates Court
Offences	S33(1)(g) HSWA and Reg 36(3) Gas Safety (Installation and use) Regulations 1998.			5 May 2011
Penalty	6m prison suspended 12months 200hrs community service	Costs	£30,000

A Nuneaton landlord has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence for repeatedly failing to carry out annual gas inspections on one of his properties.

Steven James Boote, of Rock Close, Galley Common, Nuneaton, was found guilty of breaching Regulation 33(1)(g) HSWA 1974 and Reg 36(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and use) Regulations 1998. He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for a year, and 200 hours community service, and was ordered to pay £30,000 in costs.

Coventry Magistrates' Court heard how in October 2009 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) discovered that Mr Boote had failed to carry out annual gas safety checks since 2005 at a property he owned on Rothesay Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry. This meant he did not provide a legally required gas safety certificate for the property.

The court heard the tenant had also not had heating or hot water for two years due to the condition of the gas appliances and of the property itself.

Mr Boote was issued with an Improvement Notice, ordering him to carry out the required checks and to provide the gas safety certificate. He failed to comply with it.

Following the case, HSE inspector Gareth Langston said:

"Mr Boote completely disregarded the warnings about the state of his property - and showed an appalling lack of concern for the safety of his tenant. All he seemed to care about was money.  All landlords must have a valid gas safety certificate in place. A gas leak or faulty appliance can cause an explosion or lead to carbon monoxide poisoning, potentially killing their tenants.

"Tenants have the right to check the gas certification when they move in to rented accommodation. Landlords have an obligation to make the certificates freely available to tenants who ask for them, and if they don't they should be reported to the authorities."

 

 

Workers exposed to asbestos at Derby building site

Defendant	Wayne Priestley			Derby
Offences	S2(1) & S3(1) HSWA			27  May 2011
Penalty	300 hours community service to be undertaken within 12 months	Costs	500

A contractor has been prosecuted for exposing workers to asbestos in Derby.

Wayne Priestley, 47, of The Beeches, Lincoln Road, Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, had been employed to remove asbestos-containing materials from the former Allens Printers building in Webster Street ahead of its demolition.

Quarnmill Construction Ltd, the principal contractor on the site, provided a survey of the building to Mr Priestley detailing the location of the asbestos. The survey stated that in several places a licensed contractor was required to remove some of the material. Quarnmill Construction has already been prosecuted for their health and safety failings in this case.

Mr Priestley assured Quarnmill the asbestos removal was within his capability, yet he had no licence to carry out this type of work. Interviewed by the HSE Mr Priestley denied seeing that particular instruction within the survey.

HSE found that between 6 and 9 October 2009 Mr Priestley used two of his employees from a local amenity site that he managed, plus two men he had met socially, to carry out the work. He took them to the site on the first day and gave them some basic instructions, but did not remain to supervise the work. Neither did he share the contents of the asbestos survey with them.

He left them with a crowbar, overalls and masks, all of which were inadequate for the task.

The stripped material was first put in a small, open skip, but was then transferred to a sealed skip to be taken away. This meant the workers handled asbestos twice during the removal process.

It also resulted in the driver of the skip removal lorry being exposed to asbestos fibres as the material he collected was not appropriately identified or wrapped.

The HSE investigation also found that no risk assessment was carried out before work started. Mr Priestley only provided one to Quarnmill afterwards.

An HSE scientist revealed the Webster Street site was badly contaminated by asbestos debris, and large fragments of asbestos insulating board remained stuck to walls and ceilings where panels had been broken away during the removal work.

Wayne Priestley pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) HSWA for numerous safety failings relating to the exposure. He was ordered to serve 300 hours of community service within a 12 month period and ordered to pay costs of £500.

HSE inspector Carol Southerd said:

"Wayne Priestley has shown a shocking disregard for the well-being of his workforce, and that of a skip removal driver.  His unsuitability was eventually discovered after a consultant checked the HSE website and reported him, but by this time it was too late. Mr Priestley's men had been on site for three to four days and the site was thoroughly contaminated with damaged asbestos debris. The workers had been exposed to asbestos throughout this time."

Ed- On 23 March 2011 Quarnmill Construction Ltd, of Derby Road, Aston on Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 for allowing failings at a site it controlled. The company was fined £13,000 with costs of £2,700.

 

Developer prosecuted over dangers at Trafford mansion

Defendant	Prestige Homes Construction Company Ltd			Manchester Minshull Street Crown  Court
Offences	Reg 6(3) WHR 2005 Reg 27(1) CDM Regulations 2007			6 May 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£4,792

A property developer has been prosecuted after being ordered to stop work three times over safety fears at a construction site in Greater Manchester.

The HSE first issued Prestige Homes Construction Company Ltd with a Prohibition Notice on 7 May 2008, following a routine inspection of the site of a new six-bedroom mansion on Stanhope Road in Bowden.

Inspectors discovered the site was unsafe, with open edges around the foundations increasing the risk of workers being injured in a fall. After the Prohibition Notice was issued, a follow-up visit found that scaffolding had been provided and met the required standards.

 

Inspectors found large amounts of rubble around the site making access dangerous

However, during another routine inspection nearly fifteen months later, on 28 July 2009, inspectors found large amounts of rubble around the site making access dangerous. They immediately issued a second Prohibition Notice, ordering work to stop until the site had been made safe.

But when inspectors revisited the construction site on 13 August 2009, they discovered the scaffolding was in a dangerous condition. There were missing guardrails and toe boards, and gaps in the platforms. HSE issued a third Prohibition Notice and took the decision to prosecute as well.

Prestige Homes, of Bury New Road in Manchester, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,792 after admitting two health and safety offences at Minshull Street's Manchester Crown Court on 6 May 2011.

Ian Betley, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"The lives of several construction workers were put at risk because Prestige Homes failed to make sure the site remained safe. We gave the company two chances to improve standards but, in the end, we had no choice but to prosecute.

"Falls from height remain the biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of injury. We found missing guardrails on two separate occasions that meant it would have been dangerous to work on the site.

"The amount of rubble we spotted when we inspected the site in July 2009 also made it very difficult to carry out work safely. It was only by chance that no one was seriously injured."

Prestige Homes Construction Company Ltd was charged with breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to take sufficient action to prevent falls, and Regulation 27(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by failing to keep the construction site in good order.

 

Operator fined after girl thrown from funfair ride

£10k 13/5

Defendant	Wilkinson			Birmingham Magistrates Court
Offences	S3(1) HSWA			13 May 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,708

A fairground operator has been sentenced after an 11-year-old girl suffered a serious head wound when she was thrown from a ride at a Birmingham park.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard the girl was in a car on a ride, called DJ Jump, at the fair at Pype Hayes Park when the lap bar failed. She was also unable to put on the secondary safety measure, a lap belt that may have prevented her being thrown from the ride.

During the HSE prosecution of fairground operator and owner of the DJ Jump ride, Robert Wilkinson, the court heard the girl was thrown from the moving car and suffered a five centimetre head wound that required ten stitches. She also sustained numerous cuts and bruises.

The HSE investigation into the incident on 19 April 2009 found the lap belts in the ride cars were poorly maintained and most had been so badly damaged they were unusable.

Mr Wilkinson, of Lime Lane, Pelsall, Walsall, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,708 costs.

HSE inspector Gareth Langston said:

"This was a preventable incident that resulted in a serious injury to a child who had been enjoying herself on a family day out.  Fairground operators must make sure not only that the main system to keep passengers safely in the ride is properly serviced, but also that back-up can be used for long enough to stop the ride safely if the main system fails.  Back-up safety systems, such as lap belts, must be maintained adequately at all times. Mr Wilkinson failed to do this."

Ed - Guidance on safe practice at fairgrounds and amusement parks is available from http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/etis5.htm

 

Oldham company in court over electric shock risk

Defendant	Townfield Manufacturing Ltd			Trafford Magistrates Court
Offences	S33(1)(g) HSWA x2			5 May 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£3,979

An Oldham company has been sentenced after it ignored two formal warnings, putting its workers' lives in danger from poorly maintained and dangerous electrics.

Townfield Manufacturing Co Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after inspectors uncovered a series of cracked socket casings, exposed conductors and live wires on a visit to its premises in Mount Pleasant Street.

 

An example of the dangerous electrics at the factory

During the same visit on 15 December 2009, inspectors also found that staff at the company were forced to work in gloves and coats because of the near-freezing conditions in the workshop, which had no heating system.

Townfield, which manufactures kitchen equipment for takeaway restaurants, was served with two improvement notices, requiring it to make the electrics safe and provide a reasonable working temperature.

But when HSE inspectors revisited the site on 17 February 2010, they found that the wall sockets were still unsafe and the company had only provided workers with one stand alone heater, which had barely lifted the temperature.

Speaking after the hearing, the investigating inspector at HSE, Sarah Taylor, said:

"This is one of the worst cases of dangerous electrics I have ever seen. The employees at this firm were at serious risk of injury or even death.

"The temperature of the factory was also a serious issue. It is simply not acceptable to expect staff to work in conditions so cold that you can see your breath in the air. This is not only bad for their welfare, but also potentially damaging for their health."

Townfield Manufacturing Ltd was found guilty of two breaches of Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, by failing to comply with the improvement notices which had been issued.

The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,979 towards the costs of the prosecution following a trial at Trafford Magistrates' Court in Sale on 5 May 2011, after failing to attend the hearing or enter a plea.

 

Foreman crushed by excavator

Defendant	Hydro Plant Ltd			City of London Magistrates Court
Offences	S3(1) HSWA			19 May 2011
Fine	£7,000	Costs	£3,979
Defendant	Michael Denis Cunningham
Offences	S7 HSWA
Fine	£700	Costs	£1,000

Fines totalling £18,700 have been handed down after a foreman died when an excavator bucket filled with concrete fell on him at a London construction site.

Euro Earthworks Ltd general foreman, Gerry Fox, was crushed by an excavator bucket when it fell from the arm of the 12 tonne excavator being driven by a colleague.

The HSE prosecuted Hydro Plant Ltd, the plant hire company which had provided the excavator and Michael Cunningham, the excavator operator, for safety breaches after the August 2007 incident.

Hounslow based Euro Earthworks Ltd, the principal contractor and Mr Cunningham's employer, also faces charges but has entered administration and did not appear at court.

City of London Magistrates' Court heard that on 28 August 2007, Mr Cunningham, who now lives in Eastbourne, failed to manually insert a pin into the 'quick hitch' (a device attached to the excavator arm used for the rapid changing of attachments) which was necessary to safely lock the bucket in place.

HSE's investigation found Mr Cunningham failed to take reasonable care for the health and safety of fellow employees by positioning the bucket, which was filled with concrete, directly over Mr Fox and site supervisor Tim McCarthy who narrowly missed being hit by the bucket.

The court heard Hydro Plant Ltd did not have a suitable regime of inspection for the plant it hired out to ensure safety conditions were maintained. It also supplied the equipment without adequate safety warning signs, written information and instructions or CE marking.

Euro Earthworks Ltd failed to adequately plan, manage and monitor the construction work, while Hydro Plant Ltd neglected to ensure the quick hitch and all attachments supplied with the excavator were maintained in an efficient state, working order and in good repair.

Magistrates also heard HSE issued advice on the safe use of quick hitches on excavators in March 2007. Euro Earthworks Ltd was aware of this advice and had made amendments to its written risk assessment, but still failed to take reasonably practicable steps that would have prevented the incident.

HSE Inspector Loraine Charles said:

"This tragic incident was entirely preventable. There had already been a significant number of incidents involving buckets becoming detached from quick hitches, in particular semi-automatic quick hitches where operators had failed to insert the safety pin.  Mr Cunningham can have been in no doubt that he should not have operated the excavator without the quick hitch's safety pin in place and that he should not have manoeuvred the bucket over people. As hirers of the work equipment, Hydro Plant Ltd should clearly have paid much closer attention to the requirements placed upon them by health and safety law to ensure that use of the equipment was safe."

Hydro Plant Ltd, of Wadsworth Close, Greenford, Brent pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) HSWA. The company was fined £7,000 ordered to pay costs of £10,000

Michael Denis Cunningham, of Latimer Road, Eastbourne pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7 HSWA. He was fined £700 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000

Ed - Euro Earthworks Ltd, of Boston Manor, Brentford, Hounslow is charged with breaching Section 2(1) HSWA will be tried in its absence at the City of London Magistrates' Court on 7 July 2011.

 

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
Giant Scaffolding Ltd	Reg 4(1) WHR 2005	£15,000	£5,000	Working at height without proper safety harnesses
Gareth Roser	Reg 4(1) WHR 2005	£750	£643
James Alexander Dunsmore	Reg3(3) Gas Safety Installation and Use Regulations 1998	120 hours community service		Installed gas central heating without being Gas Safe registered - unsafe installation.  Ordered to pay £750 compensation
M I Engineering Company Ltd	S2(1) HSWA	£7,500	£3,321	Load on sling slipped - injured worker - amputated thumb - no risk assessments undertaken
Andrew Freeman	Reg 11(1)(a) PUWER	£7,500	£3,437	Quarry owner failure to guard machinery
Gaskells Demolition Services Ltd	Reg 29(1) CDM Regulations 2007	£5,000	£3,000	Demolition work in Thorton Cleveleys - building collapsed onto road.
M & R Granite & Marble Ltd	S3(1) HSWA	£5,000	£2,079	Unloading stone slabs - fell on worker crushing him.
Monzer Mahmoud Alrayes	S3(1) HSWA	£5,000	£2,079
Metaltech Precision Ltd	S2(1) HSWA	£5,000	£4,940	Fork lift truck load fell and injured worker - leg injuries
Raicam Clutch Ltd	Reg 4(1) WHR 2005	£5,000	£4,952	Worker fell 3.5m from roof
Firstan Limited	Reg 11(1)(a) PUWER	£5,000	£2,521.20	Packaging printer - worker's arm dragged into machine
Playpower UK Ltd	S3(1) HSWA	£4,700	£2,382.40	Worker severed 4 fingers when circular saw kicked back
James Reay	Reg 9(2) WHR 2005	£4,000	£2,083.30	Worker fell through fragile roof
Elizabeth Reay	Reg 9(2) WHR 2005	£4,000
Blackstone Developments (South West) Ltd	S33(1)(g) HSWA	£3,750	£836.50	Insufficient compliance with Improvement Notice re workplace ventilation at wood working premises
Malcolm Ely	S3(2) HSWA	£2,250	£1,000	Inadequately constructed loading platform - moved, opened a gap - injured party fell through.  Contractor prosecuted
UK Oil and Gas Ltd	Reg 3(3) and 26(1) Gas Safety (Installation) Regulations	£6,000		Undertaking Gas work whilst unregistered - director prosecuted personally for company's breach
Martyn Crute	S37(1) HSWA	£2,000	£41,000
Hugh Pattison	S2(1) HSWA	£800	£200	Worker fell 3m through garage roof
Arthur Boswell	Reg 6(3) WHR 2005	£260	£3,275	Working at height without proper precautions

 

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.
S3(2)	It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
S4(2)	"It shall be the duty of each person who has, to any extent, control of premises to which this section applies or of the means of access in such premises to take such measures as it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the premises, available for use by persons using the premises, and any plant or substance in the premises or, as the case may be, provided for use there, is or are safe and without risks to health."
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."
S33(1)(g)	It is an offence for a person to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice (including any such notice as modified on appeal).
S37	Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly

 

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.

 

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

Reg 4(1)(a)	No person on whom these Regulations place a duty shall appoint or engage a CDM co-ordinator, designer, principal contractor or contractor unless he has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person to be appointed or engaged is competent.
Reg 10	Every client shall ensure that every person designing the structure; and every contractor who has been or may be appointed by the client, is promptly provided with pre-construction information.
14(1)	Where a project is notifiable, the client shall appoint a person ("the CDM co-ordinator") to perform the duties specified in regulations 20 and 21 as soon as is practicable after initial design work or other preparation for construction work has begun.
16(1)	Where the project is notifiable, the client shall ensure that the construction phase does not start unless the principal contractor has prepared a construction phase plan which complies with regulations.
19(1)(c)	Where a project is notifiable, no contractor shall carry out construction work in relation to the project unless notice of the project has been given to the Health and Safety Executive under regulation 21 of the said Regulations
21(1)	The CDM co-ordinator shall as soon as is practicable after his appointment ensure that notice is given to the Executive containing such of the particulars specified in Schedule 1 as are available.
27(1)	Every part of a construction site shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be kept in good order and every part of a construction site which is used as a place of work shall be kept in a reasonable state of cleanliness."
29(1)	The demolition or dismantling of a structure, or part of a structure, shall be planned and carried out in such a manner as to prevent danger or, where it is not practicable to prevent it, to reduce danger to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

 

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."
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.

 

Gas Safety (Installation & Use) Regulations 1998

Reg 3(1)	No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so.
3(3)	No employer shall allow any of his employees to carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting or service pipework and no self-employed person shall carry out any such work, unless the employer or self-employed person, as the case may be, is a member of a class of persons approved for the time being by the Health and Safety Executive."
3(7)	No person shall falsely pretend to be a member of a class of persons required to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive.
4	Where an employer or self-employed person requires any work in relation to a gas fitting to be carried out at any place of work under his control or where an employee or self-employed person has control to any extent of work in relation to a gas fitting, he shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the person undertaking that work is, or is employed by, a member of a class of persons approved by the Health and Safety Executive

 

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006

Reg 7	(1) An employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he has prepared a suitable written plan of work detailing how that work is to be carried out. (4) The plan of work shall include in particular details of - the nature and probable duration of the work; the location of the place where the work is to be carried out; the methods to be applied where the work involves the handling of asbestos or materials containing asbestos; the characteristics of the equipment to be used for - protection and decontamination of those carrying out the work, and protection of other persons on or near the worksite; the measures which the employer intends to take in order to comply with the requirements of regulation 11; and the measures which the employer intends to take in order to comply with the requirements of regulation 17.
8	(1) Subject to regulation 3(2), an employer shall not undertake any work with asbestos unless he holds a licence granted under paragraph (2) of this regulation. (2) The Executive may grant a licence for work with asbestos if it considers it appropriate to do so and - (a) the person who wishes the licence to be granted to him has made application for it on a form approved for the purposes of this regulation by the Executive; and (b) the application was made at least 28 days before the date from which the licence is to run, or such shorter period as the Executive may allow.
11(1)	Every employer shall- (a)prevent the exposure of his employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable; (b)where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent such exposure- (i)take the measures necessary to reduce the exposure of his employees to asbestos to the lowest level reasonably practicable by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment, and  (ii)ensure that the number of his employees who are exposed to asbestos at any one time is as low as is reasonably practicable.
16	Every employer shall prevent or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduce to the lowest level reasonably practicable the spread of asbestos from any place where work under his control is carried out.
24(1)	Every employer who undertakes work with asbestos shall ensure that raw asbestos or waste which contains asbestos is not (a)stored; (b)received into or despatched from any place of work; or (c)distributed within any place of work, except in a totally enclosed distribution system,  unless it is in a sealed receptacle or, where more appropriate, sealed wrapping, clearly marked in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) showing that it contains asbestos."
36(3)	A landlord shall... (a) ensure that each appliance and flue to which that duty extends is checked for safety within 12 months of being installed and at intervals of not more than 12 months since it was last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to these Regulations or not); (b) in the case of a lease commencing after the coming into force of these Regulations, ensure that each appliance and flue to which the duty extends has been checked for safety within a period of 12 months before the lease commences or has been or is so checked within 12 months after the appliance or flue has been installed, whichever is later; and (c) ensure that a record in respect of any appliance or flue so checked is made and retained for a period of 2 years from the date of that check, which record shall include the following information: i. the date on which the appliance or flue was checked; ii. the address of the premises at which the appliance or flue is installed; iii. the name and address of the landlord of the premises (or, where appropriate, his agent) at which the appliance or flue is installed; iv. a description of and the location of each appliance or flue checked; v. any defect identified; vi. any remedial action taken; vii. confirmation that the check undertaken complies with the requirements of paragraph (9) below; viii. the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check; and the registration number with which that individual, or his employer, is registered with a body approved by the Executive for the purposes of regulation 3(3) of these Regulations.

 

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.
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.

 

 

Other news from the HSE

HSE introduces new RIDDOR reporting arrangements

Businesses will still be able to notify fatal and major incidents and injuries by phone following changes to reporting arrangements announced by the HSE on 10 May.

From 12 September 2011, all other reportable work-related injuries and incidents under RIDDOR (the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995) will move to a predominantly online system, with a suite of seven forms available on HSE's website to make the statutory reporting process quick and easy.

Said Trevor Carlile, HSE's Director of Strategy:

"More than half of reportable injuries are already notified to HSE through the website and this proportion has been increasing steadily over the past seven years. Taking advantage of the growing use of the internet allows HSE to be more efficient in the way it works. We do recognise, however, that people reporting a traumatic event still need that personal interaction so the notification of fatal and major incidents and injuries will still take place by phone."

In a move to improve efficiency further and deliver value for taxpayers, HSE's Infoline telephone service, which currently provides a basic information service to callers, will end on 30 September 2011.

Businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety can use HSE's website - a huge knowledge bank where people can access and download information free of charge and use interactive web tools.

The HSE website features information on the most frequent health and safety enquiries such as those on RIDDOR reporting, First Aid and the health and safety responsibilities of new businesses. It currently receives 26 million visits every year and is regularly updated and improved to help businesses and members of the public quickly access the information they need.

HSE's website:

• is already overwhelmingly the most popular option for accessing health and safety information, with 100 times more visitors than Infoline has callers
• is rated as 'very good' or 'good' by 93% of users
• has recently been enhanced with a suite of new resources for businesses including:
• o interactive risk assessment tools for low-risk organisations
• o Health and Safety Made Simple^[1] - straightforward step-by-step guidance on what small and low risk businesses need to do to achieve a basic level of health and safety compliance
• o expanded Frequently Asked Questions to answer common queries.

HSE continues to provide information and guidance to employers and workers in a range of other ways: through direct work with organisations and trade associations, face-to-face at workshops and safety training days and via books and e-bulletins. A comprehensive suite of health and safety advice is also available via the Government's website for businesses "Businesslink.gov", and DirectGov.

The seven online RIDDOR reporting forms will be:

• o F2508 Report of an injury
• o F2508 Report of a Dangerous Occurrence
• o F2508A Report of a Case of Disease
• o OIR9B Report of an Injury Offshore
• o OIR9B Report of a Dangerous Occurrence Offshore
• o F2508G1 Report of a Flammable Gas Incident
• o F2508G2 Report of a Dangerous Gas Fitting

Chief Nuclear Inspector publishes interim 'lessons learnt' report.  Early analysis of Japanese accident makes 26 recommendations for UK

18 May 2011

An interim assessment of the implications of the nuclear crisis in Japan concludes there is no need to curtail the operations of nuclear plants in the UK but lessons should be learnt.

The UK's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, Mike Weightman^[2] has published a report, requested by the UK Government, in which he calls for action to be taken to learn from events at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station.

His report identifies 25 recommended areas for review - by either industry, the Government or regulators - to determine if sensible and appropriate measures can further improve safety in the UK nuclear industry. These include reviews of the layout of UK power plants, emergency response arrangements, dealing with prolonged loss of power supplies and the risks associated with flooding.

The 26th recommendation calls for plans to be published by the middle of June detailing how each of these 25 matters will be addressed.

Mike Weightman, executive head of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, said:

"The extreme natural events that preceded the accident at Fukushima - the magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent huge tsunami - are not credible in the UK. We are 1,000 miles from the nearest fault line and we have safeguards in place that protect against even very remote hazards. Our operating and proposed future reactor designs and technology are different to the type at the Fukushima plant.

"But we are not complacent. No matter what the differences are, and how high the standard of design and subsequent operation of the nuclear facilities here in the UK, the quest for improvement must never stop. Seeking to learn from events, and from new knowledge, both nationally and internationally, must continue to be a fundamental feature of the safety culture of the UK nuclear industry.

"The Japanese people are still dealing with the aftermath of this terrible event. The full facts are not clear. I depart for Japan next week to lead a fact-finding mission on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with support from nuclear experts from across the world. This will help inform my final and more comprehensive 'lessons learned' report which I will publish in September."

The report published today was requested by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change within days of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami of 11 March that led to the crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi. This is the interim report requested by Chris Huhne. The full, more comprehensive report will be published in September.

Ed-The interim report, 'Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK Nuclear Industry', is available at www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/

Environment Agency Prosecutions

Smelly waste company fined

Defendant	Hinkcroft Transport Ltd			Croydon  Crown Court
Offences	Environmental Permitting Regulations ( England and Wales) 2007 and 2010 x2			28 April 2011
Fine	£65,000	Costs	£22,837

Hinkcroft Transport Ltd, of Landmann Way in New Cross, has been fined £65,000 and ordered to pay £22,837 in costs by Croydon Crown Court. The company faced two charges under the Environmental Permitting Regulations ( England and Wales) 2007 and 2010 of operating a waste transfer station except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit.

The court heard that the company breached various conditions of its permit. The main breaches led to the creation of persistent foul odours causing misery for nearby residents over a two-year period. The site handles a mixture of waste materials including construction, metal and degradable household and commercial waste.

The South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) incinerator run by Veolia is located opposite and Hinkcroft accepts waste from it when maintenance works or unplanned closures take place.

During these times Veolia usually diverts 25-30% of the waste it receives to Hinkcroft. This is a major cause of odour from the site because of overcapacity and the need to work longer hours.  Hinkcroft also resorted to shredding mixed degradable waste to increase handling capacity, which it did not have permission for, but this exacerbated the odour problems.

Waste tonnage returns between July 2008 and June 2009 show Hinkcroft exceeded its 95,000 tonne permit limit for degradable household, commercial and industrial wastes by more than 22,000 tonnes. Between July 2007 to June 2008 it exceeded it by more than 44,000 tonnes.

Fifty nine permit breaches were recorded against the company across 41 site visits between January 2008 and December 2009, most of which were carried out following residents' complaints. Residents  complained of feeling sick, not been able to open windows because of the smell and that the site was not taking their concerns seriously.

Lewisham Deptford MP Joan Ruddock also complained of the odour and dust affecting residents in Greenland Mews and a meeting was held with the company and its director to discuss the compliance issues and  general site management.

The Environment Agency held drop-in sessions for residents in May 2009, where a statement issued by the company acknowledged it had caused dust and odour problems and gave details of measures to reduce emissions. During an on-site meeting with the company in July 2009 an unpleasant odour from rotting waste was detected.

The Environment Agency became aware that the company was shredding putrescible waste on site and informed the management that this was not a permitted activity and was likely to increase odour emissions.

However, the company's unlawful shredding activities continued and an enforcement notice was issued in November 2009. This was followed up with another meeting where the enforcement notice was discussed, but despite interventions by the Environment Agency, breaches of the environmental permit continued until at least February 2011 causing further suffering and misery to local residents.

On sentencing His Honour Judge Brasse said the case involved serious breaches of the permit which affected the amenity of the local area and interfered with the resident's enjoyment of their homes and the local environment.

He said the problems were compounded by poor management but that Environment Agency staff worked hard to change the situation and should be congratulated. His Honour said the company had invested substantial amounts of money and that the risks of odour had now reduced.

Environment officer Jess Lockett said: "Waste companies that persistently breach their permit conditions are putting the environment and human health at risk whilst undermining legitimate businesses.

"The smells from this site, and the company's activities, adversely affected the quality of life for residents living nearby.

"Despite our attempts to remedy the problem through warning letters, meetings with the company and enforcement notices, the company demonstrated a blatant disregard for its permit conditions, the environment and the misery caused to local residents.

"This case demonstrates that the Courts will hold companies to account for breaches of their environmental permits, particularly when they have an adverse effect on the lives of the local community."

 

Composting company to pay £33,000 for smells

Defendant	County Mulch			Bury St Edmunds Magistrates' Court
Offences	Regulation 38(1)(b) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.			26 May 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£13,873

 

Operators of a composting site in Bury St Edmunds have today (Thurs 26 May) been fined £20,000 for causing smells sometimes described as like 'vomit, diarrhoea and dog excrement'. The company was also ordered to pay full costs £13,873.

County Mulch pleaded guilty to allowing the offensive smells off site between 10 August 2009 and 5 February 2010 which some witnesses said drove them indoors and to shut their windows.

Mrs Anne-Lise McDonald, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, said the smells had breached the company's environmental permit.

She said that neighbours had a right to expect that operators' activities at such a site would not detract from their quality of life.

Bury St Edmunds Magistrates' Court heard that during 2009 the Agency received 206 odour complaints about the composting site at Shepherds Grove Industrial Estate, Stanton, Bury St Edmunds compared to 21 in 2007 and 5 in 2008. In 2010 there were 50 complaints between 1 January and 4 February.

She said the company had failed to properly investigate the smells and to manage the site infrastructure to control them. "The site continued to take waste when it was having difficulties processing the amount of waste on site and the offence went on for several months."

Environment Agency officers variously described the smells as 'a strong diarrhoea foul rotting smell' which was offensive, persistent and localised at one corner of the industrial estate; 'a strong smell of vomit' which was 'quite horrible' on the site; and 'odorous dark brown liquid, smelling like dog excrement' flowing across the site yard.

Mrs McDonald told magistrates that smells off site were detected up to two miles away in Walsham-le-Willows where one retired resident said the smell had worsened in 2009. She said it had spoiled her daily life and recreation and the smell had made her stomach turn over for a minute.

One retired couple from Hepworth, about a mile away, said that in 2009 the smells became more frequent and was 'putrid, overpowering and suffocating'. They were worried about their health because of it and one of them had been prescribed a drug to ease the nausea brought on by the smell.

Mrs McDonald said Agency officers had frequently found composting liquor and sludge stagnating on the floor of the buildings and in the yard.

On one particular visit on 11 August an officer saw the reception and processing shed was very full and apart from recent deposits, much of the waste in the reception building was old and decomposing and had either been on site for too long or had been in transfer for too long.

"The building was so full the officer had trouble passing by the odorous material. The floor in the building was in poor condition with sludgy liquid pooling around the piles and there was a foul odour."

An odour review, commissioned by County Mulch on the advice of the Agency, identified a number of sources of emissions from the operations and equipment including ineffective biofilters, poor fan sequencing, no air extraction or abatement in the shredding and screening areas, and no odour abatement on the leachate collection tank and lagoon.

Mrs McDonald said that even after this there were smells coming from the composting site for another few months. In February 2010, even though there was a reduced amount of waste there, the site was fairly dirty with some areas covered in compost sludge and there were a number of odours, odorous steam venting from the biofilter, steam rising from many locations and the concrete area in the reception building was in poor condition resulting in effluent ponding in areas around the waste and adding to the smells.

Site Manager for County Mulch Mr Ian Redford said monitoring was not recorded on site but for off-site visits he would complete an odour monitoring sheet.  He said if odours were detected, up until November 2009 they would carry on processing.   After that date some parts of the system would be shut down. He was aware the site was becoming overloaded in 2009 and reported it to senior managers.

Technical Manager for County Mulch Mr David Williams, who was operations manager in September 2009, said he also was aware that the site was becoming overloaded and had instructed the start of a nightshift to increase site efficiency.

Mrs McDonald said the company had been prosecuted twice before for environmental offences.

In determining the sentence the court took into account the aggravating mitigating features and also the liquidity of the company.

The court found that they were culpable because they failed to remedy the issues on site.

In mitigation, Mr Paul Sheridan, solicitor for County Mulch, said the management and shareholders of the company had changed since the offence was committed.  He said the company had taken measures to prevent odours and had produced odour management plans during the time of the offence.

After the hearing Environment Agency officer Tim Wojcik said: "Companies such as County Mulch perform an important role in diverting waste from landfills but still have a responsibility to operate in a way that does not impact negatively on their neighbours. 

"A great deal of Environment Agency resource has been spent in monitoring the site's activities, advising the company and liaising with the public over this issue.   Since that time significant changes have occurred within the company management and on the site in an attempt to improve odour control. The Environment Agency is continuing to work with the company."

 

Water co fined for polluting Plym Estuary with sewage

Defendant	County Mulch			Bury St Edmunds Magistrates' Court
Offences	Regulation 38(1)(b) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.			10 May 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£13,873

 

South West Water was today ordered to pay £23,400 in fines and costs after sewage escaped from one of its structures and polluted the Plym Estuary. The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

In May 2010 Environment Agency officers carried out a survey of surface water outfalls along the western shore of the Plym Estuary. They found three outfalls in an area known as Arnolds Point, one of which, the Lipson Stream, was discoloured. A sample from this outfall was 'grossly contaminated' with sewage. Large amounts of sewage debris was visible around this outfall and along the surrounding foreshore.

South West Water was alerted and, following an investigation, the pollution traced to the water company's Bernice Terrace combined sewer overflow that forms part of the sewerage system serving approximately 500 homes in the Mannamead area of Plymouth.

At first it was thought the pollution was caused by a blockage in the combined sewer overflow site, but it was later found to have been caused by the loss of a weir plate that would normally have kept sewage within the foul sewer.

South West Water was unable to say when the weir plate was lost. The structure lies beneath a busy road junction on a commuter route into Plymouth which makes access difficult.

Under the terms of two discharge consents for the site, South West Water is only allowed to discharge sewage during storms and periods of high rainfall. On both the occasions Agency officers found crude sewage coming out of the Lipson Stream when the weather was dry.

A court heard the area where the pollution was found is regularly used for water sports and by people digging for bait. The lower Plym Estuary will be used as an Olympic training camp for sailing in 2012.

'The discharge of crude sewage caused serious contamination of part of the estuary and foreshore.  A water sample taken from the outfall at Arnolds Point contained extremely high levels of sewage bacteria,' said Sarah Taylor for the Environment Agency.

'This case underlines the importance of adequate and regular inspections and maintenance of structures in the sewage system.'

South West Water, of Peninsula House, Rydon Lane, Exeter was today fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £3,400 costs by Plymouth magistrates after pleading guilty to one offence under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 of discharging polluting matter into the Plym Estuary at Arnold's Point, Plymouth.

 

River Pollution

Defendant	Demolition Network Limited			Tameside Magistrates' Court
Offences	S85 WRA 1991 (presumed)			27 May 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£16,635

Demolition Network Ltd has been found guilty at a trial for an oil spill which caused serious pollution to the Peak Forest Canal, Hyde in March 2009. They were fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £16,635 at Tameside Magistrates.

The company were demolishing a site off Ann Street, Hyde. Shortly after works start to clear soil from the top of a tank which had been earmarked for removal, black oil (heavy fuel oil) started leaking into the canal, eventually affecting a 3.5 km stretch.

Although the company acted responsibly, and contacted the Environment Agency to alert them to the pollution, as well as appointing specialist contractors to clean up the oil, this incident could have been avoided if the company had taken full account of pre-demolition reports prepared for the site and the Company could also have sought advice from the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is investigating a number of similar incidents across the north west.

There was a significant environmental effect, with 3.5 km of canal covered with a film of oil; one duck covered in oil was found dead at the side of the canal and two dead fish were observed.  The canal was closed for about six weeks until works were completed.  A boatyard was also affected as it could not accept customers during the period of the works.

Stuart Lester, Environment Agency said, "Operators working near drains or watercourses should take every precaution when dealing with storage tanks where the state and contents are unknown.

"This was a serious incident, which could have been avoided if the company had carried out the right checks and sought advice and guidance."

 

Yorkshire Water fined over beck pollution

Defendant	Yorkshire Water			Tameside Magistrates' Court
Offences	Regs 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			6 May 2011
Fine	£7,500	Costs	£1,581.67

Yorkshire Water has been fined £7,500 after sewage was found in a beck which runs into a North Yorkshire bathing beach.

The company admitted a charge of failing to comply with its environmental permit following the incident in Runswick Beck, Runswick Bay on 26 April 2010.

The EA brought the case which was heard before Scarborough magistrates who ordered the company to also pay £1,581.67 in court costs.

Barrister Holly Webb, representing the EA told the court that a member of the public alerted officers to sewage fungus which was visible on the bed of the beck. The EA also found that the water has a grey tinge and there was a smell of sewage.

The sewage was traced to a Yorkshire Water pumping station at Runswick Bay where sewage solids were visible and the odour was stronger.  Yorkshire Water was alerted and it confirmed that there was a fault with the pumps and discharge had been stopped.

An EA officer took water samples and carried out a biological survey of the beck immediately downstream of the pumping station. He found dead snails and midge larva, and the only living creatures were pollution-tolerant worms.

A second site further downstream found that there was still strong pollution and 43 per cent of the midge larvae discovered, were dead.

The court heard that sewage fungus in the beck was still present when officers inspected on 14 May.

In interview, Yorkshire Water accepted that the gauge in the pumping station's telemetry system had not been working properly which meant that no alarm was triggered when the pumps malfunctioned.

In mitigation, Yorkshire Water said it acted quickly once it was informed by the EA of the problem and entered an early guilty plea. Yorkshire Water also said it had made considerable investment in its infrastructure since the incident.

Ed - Yorkshire Water was charged with:

On or before the 26th of April 2010 did cause a water discharge activity, namely the entry of waste into the Runswick Beck, Runswick Bay, North Yorkshire other than in accordance with an environmental permit.
Contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

 

Unsuitable cars exported to Poland

Defendant	Maciej Widelski			Cambridge Magistrates' Court
Offences	Reg 13 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			19 May 2011
Fine	£5,000	Costs	£7,892

End of Life Vehicles that should have been taken to a permitted waste site for depollution were taken to an unpermitted site in Waterbeach before being transported to Poland, Cambridge Magistrates' Court have been told.

A site at Waterbeach Station was raided on 7 October 2010 by the EA and British Transport Police after video footage showed Maciej Widelski trading as Smalfork UK running an illegal waste site there.

Mrs Miriam Tordoff told the court that the land had been let to Widelski by a third party unbeknown to Network Rail, which owns the site.

Prosecuting for the Agency, she said the site had been used to store cars bought at auction on behalf of Polish customers before they were shipped to Poland .  At least 50% of the cars that were stored there were suitable only for breaking.

Widelski pleaded guilty to operating an illegal site and was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £7,892.

Mrs Tordoff told the court that about half the vehicles taken to the site were classed Category B for breaking for spare parts only. A Code of Practice for the Disposal of Motor Vehicle Salvage states that they are meant to be crushed once few or no salvageable parts were left. 

She said the purpose behind the Code of Practice was to make it difficult for criminals to ring vehicles or return dangerously repaired vehicles to the road.

Officers from the EA inspected the vehicles and saw that many were in a very poor condition and were considered to be waste.

The auction company's terms and conditions of purchase and use for Category B vehicles stated that anyone transporting vehicles away from site would need a waste carriers' licence and any site in the UK receiving the vehicles should have a waste management licence.

She told the court that these licences had been replaced with environmental permits since 2010, but Widelski did not have any.

The site was unsuitable for the storage of waste vehicles as the drainage was not contained.

Widelski told investigators that he buys about 3,000 vehicles a year for his customers. He claimed that those at the Waterbeach site are stored pending onward transport and no parts are taken from any of the vehicles. He said no fluids were drained from them except fuel for his own use. He said he did not think he needed a permit.

 Ed - Maciej Widelski T/A Smalfork UK pleaded guilty to:

Between 9 July 2010 and 8 October 2010 on land known as the Upside Goods Yard, Waterbeach Station, Clayhithe Road, Waterbeach, Cambridge you did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the storage and treatment of waste motor vehicles, without being authorised by an environmental permit granted under Regulation 13 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

 

Leicestershire man fined for disposing of waste illegally

Defendant	Thomas Edward Neal			Leicester Magistrates' Court
Offences	Reg 12(1) & 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			6 May 2011
Fine	£5,000	Costs	£2,290.84

On Friday 6 May 2011 at Leicester Magistrates Court, Mr Thomas Edward Neal pleaded guilty to operating a regulated facility without an environmental permit, on his site at New Hayes Farm, Barrow Road, Leicestershire.

Mr Neal operated as a sole trader and ran a skip hire business trading as 'Dusty Bins Skip Hire'.  Mr Neal operated a regulated facility where he deposited, stored and treated controlled waste such as wood, plastic, scrap metal, cardboard, rubble and other associated waste at New Hayes Farm when there was no environmental permit in force.

The court fined Mr Neal £5,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £2,290.84.  

On 8 September 2010 EA Officers attended New Hayes Farm following an anonymous report of illegal waste activities taking place.  The officers saw evidence of waste materials being sorted and stored on site. The officers also witnessed a number of skip containers in the name of 'Dusty Bins Skip Hire' present on the site, which contained mixed amounts of household and commercial type wastes.  There were also amounts of contaminated brick and concrete rubble which had been levelled out to form roadways.  There was also a crusher that was being used to crush brick, rubble and concrete. There was no Environmental Permit in place to authorise any of these activities. 

On 17 September 2010, EA officers attended New Hayes Farm and saw that most of the waste had been removed but some controlled waste still remained onsite.   Officers revisited the site on 24 September 2010, and observed that all waste had now been removed off site.  Mr Neal was able to provide copies of waste transfer notes that confirmed that all the waste had been lawfully disposed of.  

 

Boss of car breakers yard prosecuted for scrappage scheme offences

Defendant	Laurence McGauley			Exeter Crown Court
Offences	Reg 12(1) & 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			25 May 2011
Fine	Conditional Discharge	Costs	£5,204

The owner of a Devon car breaking business has been ordered to pay £5,204 for failing to dispose of scrappage vehicles properly.

Under the scrappage scheme, car owners were encouraged to trade in their old cars and buy  new vehicles at discounted prices from car dealers who could then claim a £1,000 subsidy from the government. All vehicles accepted under the scheme had to be destroyed.

Woodbury Car Breakers was licensed to accept scrappage vehicles and was registered with the DVLA. Owner, Laurence McGauley was required to issue a 'Certificate of Destruction' for each car that arrived at his site. Any spare parts could then be removed and a vehicle sent for destruction within approximately four days.

In 2009 Laurence McGauley entered into commercial arrangements with two garages - one in Exeter and the other in Yeovil - to dispose of scrappage scheme vehicles.

Over a 13 month period he purchased a total of 234 vehicles from these garages, but soon ran out of space at Woodbury and ended up storing cars at premises on the Greendale Business Park at Woodbury Salterton. This 'overflow' storage area did not have a permit. By taking end of life vehicles to a new and unlicensed site, McGauley was committing an offence.

When an Agency officer visited Greendale Business Park in November 2009 he found 167 vehicles being stored there. McGauley agreed to remove and dispose of all the scrappage  vehicles at Greendale over the coming months. However, when the deadline for removal arrived (June 2010), several vehicles were still being illegally stored on the site.

'All vehicles contain polluting materials such as oil, brake fluid, antifreeze and batteries so it is important authorised car breakers have suitable facilities to prevent pollutants escaping into the environment,' said Richard Tugwell for the Environment Agency.

'By illegally storing large numbers of scrappage vehicles, the defendant intended to obtain a commercial advantage over his competitors through having access to a large number of good quality second hand cars,' said Richard Tugwell.

Appearing before Exeter Crown Court, Laurence McGauley of Ham Lane, Gilbrook, Woodbury was ordered to pay £5,204 costs and given a three year conditional discharge after pleading guilty to six offences under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010.

 

West Yorkshire waste criminal ordered to pay back £2,000

20/5

Defendant	Mark Butterworth			Bradford Crown Court
Proceedings	Proceeds of Crime Act			20 May 2011
Penalty	8 months suspended prison 100hrs community service Home curfew Bound over	Costs	£5,204	Confiscation £2,000

A West Yorkshire man has been ordered to pay back £2,000 today (20 May) after he was prosecuted by the Environment Agency for running an illegal waste site near Todmorden.

Mark Butterworth, aged 49, of Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Cornholme, admitted the waste offence and was given an eight month prison sentence suspended for 12 months by Bradford Crown Court on 19 May 2010.

But the defendant was back at Bradford Crown Court again today where he was told to pay back £2,000 which had been acquired through his illegal activity. Butterworth has three months to comply with the confiscation order otherwise he faces 34 days in prison.

The case was brought by the Environment Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act following a financial investigation into the profit which Butterworth made from his crimes.

It found the only property of financial worth which belonged to the defendant was several waste skips and as a result, the court ordered that Butterworth hand over the value of the skips.

In the original court case, Butterworth admitted 11 charges in relation to the unlicensed waste transfer station at Springwood Mill in Pudsey Road, Cornholme, between February 2007 and January 2008

As well as his suspended sentence he was also ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work and he was made subject of a curfew between 10pm and 6am for three months. Butterworth was also bound over for 12 months in the sum of £1,000 to keep the peace, with the warning not to bring or store waste on the site.

The Environment Agency took the action after receiving complaints about the site. They wrote to wrote in February 2004 to Springwood Trading Limited which was run by Butterworth, warning that waste activities at Springwood Mill were illegal.

In August 2006 the Environment Agency was informed that a planning application for a waste transfer station at Springwood Mill had been refused. An environment officer wrote to Springwood Trading Limited, warning that a waste management licence could not be issued until planning permission was granted and no waste transfer activities were permitted without a licence.

Environment officers observed numerous breaches of environmental legislation throughout 2007 and 2008.

In November 2008 the Environment Agency served notice on Butterworth and the company, giving a month to clear the site, which did not happen.

Speaking after the case Environment Agency financial investigator Neil Campbell said: "Not only do we use environmental law to prosecute those who abuse the environment but we also use the Proceeds of Crime legislation to ensure that criminals are deprived of the benefits of their illegal activity. "
 

Ed  - In May 2010 Mark Butterworth admitted the following 11 offences:
1.  On 22 February 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the keeping of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

2.  On 11 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the keeping of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

3.  On 11 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the depositing of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other when no waste management licence authorising the said deposit was in force.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(a) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

4. On 11 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the treating of controlled waste, namely skip waste, by sorting on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

5. On 13 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the depositing of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other when no waste management licence authorising the said deposit was in force.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(a) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

6.  On 13 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the treating of controlled waste, namely skip waste, by sorting on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

7.  On 17 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the deposit of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other when no waste management licence authorising the said deposit was in force.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(a) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

8. On 28 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the keeping of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

9. On 28 September 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the depositing of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other when no waste management licence authorising the said deposit was in force.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(a) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

10. On 9 October 2007 in the district of Halifax did knowingly permit the keeping of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990

11. Between 3 January 2008 and 22 January 2008 did knowingly permit the keeping of controlled waste, namely skip waste, on land at Springwood Mill, Pudsey Road, Todmorden other than in accordance with a waste management licence.
 Contrary to section 33(1)(b) & 33(6) of the Environment Protection Act 1990