Chicken Company fined £230,000 for two incidents

Defendant	2 Sisters Food Group			Ipswich Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA x2			25 October 2011
Fine	£230,000	Costs	£24,350

2 Sisters Food Group, a major European food business, producing raw and prepared chicken products has been fined a total of £230,000 after two incidents at its Suffolk factory, one of which led to an employee losing four fingers, part of his thumb and some of the palm of his right hand.

Night shift supervisor Shaun Alexander, 42, from Kesingland in Suffolk, was helping a member of his team to clean equipment at the 2 Sisters Food Group's plant at Flixton, near Bungay, in December 2009 when his hand was pulled into two rotating cogs and crushed. A safety guard had been removed from the machinery.

A month later, in January 2010, fork lift driver Malcolm Raven, 54, from Lowestoft, was left in charge of a pre-slaughter area for chickens. He entered an enclosure to clear a blockage in the system and his arm was trapped and broken. The company had fitted a by-pass device to over-ride a safety control that would have prevented this happening.

2 Sisters Food Group, based at West Bromwich in the West Midlands, was prosecuted by the HSE over both incidents. The company admitted breaches of s2(1) HSWA in relation to each incident and was fined a total of £230,000 with costs of £24,350.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Julie Jarvey said:

"Both these incidents were wholly avoidable. Shaun Alexander was failed by the company's lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, absence of safe working practices and effective measures stopping access to dangerous equipment.  He will have to live with the consequences of someone else's mistakes for the rest of his life.

"Malcolm Raven's injuries could have been much more serious. Similar failings were shown up in his case, made worse by the fact that he hadn't been properly trained for a task that was outside his normal working duties."

Ed - The company was fined £90,000 for the offence in December 2009 involving Shaun Alexander and £140,000 for the January 2010 involving Malcolm Raven.

Cemex fined £200,000 after man killed in explosion

Defendant	CEMEX UK Operations Ltd			Leamington Spa Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA x2			17 October 2011
Fine	£230,000	Costs	£172,000

CEMEX UK Operations Ltd - a multinational cement firm - has been fined £200,000 following the death of a worker in an explosion at its Rugby premises.

The HSE prosecuted CEMEX UK Operations Ltd, which makes cement and building products for the construction industry, after the death of 28-year-old Peter Reynolds, of Rugby, on 15 January 2008.  The force of the explosion was so great that it blew Mr Reynolds out through the side of the building onto the road 10m below. An ambulance crew attended but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Leamington Spa Crown Court heard the married man was treating waste cement dust in the bypass dust plant at the company's Rugby Cement Works in Lawford Road.

While he was clearing a blockage in the lower mixer, there was a violent explosion of steam and dust from inside the machine.

The HSE's investigation into the incident found that CEMEX had recognised the potential for blockages to cause explosions as steam pressure built up within the mixer, but took no action to prevent them.

The court also heard the company had failed to review its risk assessment following a previous incident in May 2006, when another man was injured using the same machine. This explosion bent a metal-cladded external wall, pushing it out by 50cm.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Neil Craig said:

"This was an entirely avoidable tragedy, which has left a young family without a husband and a father. If CEMEX had investigated the previous incident properly, Mr Reynolds would still be alive today.

"CEMEX's protection against the build up of pressure was for the plant to be continuously vented when processing waste cement dust, but it frequently blocked. These blockages then caused steam to build up to a high pressure.

"The company could have made a number of changes to the mixer to reduce the flow of dust and improve the venting and cooling systems, or devised a new system of work. However, no action was taken and employees were expected to operate this dangerous piece of machinery.

"Employers must make sure that they take proper precautions to protect their workers, especially when there is the potential for explosion."

 

Leicester firm fined after death of worker

Defendant	Parker Plant Ltd			Leicester Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA			27 October 2011
Fine	£180,000	Costs	£47,500

A Leicester manufacturer of quarrying plant and equipment has been fined after a worker was crushed between two nine-metre steel structures which were being lifted with an overhead travelling crane.

The structures were part of a 500 tonne concrete batching plant installation which had been manufactured for a project in the Sudan.  Michael Tilley, 55, was killed instantly when one of the 1.5 tonne structures became dislodged and fell on his head during a lifting operation.

The HSE prosecuted Parker Plant Ltd after carrying out an investigation into the 13 December 2008 incident at the company's Canon Street site in Leicester.

Leicester Crown Court heard Mr Tilley and a colleague had been attempting to load the large parts of structural steelwork into a shipping container using an overhead crane. The parts would not fit into the container so they were being placed on the ground next to it. The pair had been directed to place one steel section on top of the other and were releasing the lifting chains from the load when the top section slid off the bottom one and trapped Mr Tilley between the two, causing fatal head injuries.

The HSE told the court that neither Mr Tilley nor his colleague had received the proper training on how to plan and manage such a complex lifting operation, nor had they had any information on the size, weight or centre of gravity of the load which would have enabled them to sling the load correctly.

They had been working with an incorrect diagram that showed the two steelwork structures fitting on top of each other, which in fact was not possible. The structures were not strapped together meaning the load was unstable and liable to fall unexpectedly. The work was not properly planned or supervised and the lifting equipment provided to do the job was defective.

Sue Thompson, one of the HSE's Principal Inspectors said:

"This fatal incident was utterly preventable and occurred as a direct result of Parker Plant Ltd's approach to the safety of its workers.

"This company failed to provide the proper training for the work they were undertaking, and if that work had been adequately planned and supervised this tragedy would not have happened. Because of this company's failures, one man lost his life and another will have to live with the after effects of witnessing such a horrific incident."

 

Trafford contractor fined £145k over worker's death

Defendant	J Mills (Contractors) Ltd			Manchester Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA			31 October 2011
Fine	£145,000	Costs	£7,700

A Trafford firm has been fined £145,000 after an employee plunged 10m through a fragile roof onto a concrete floor, and died two years later from his injuries.

J Mills (Contractors) Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to put any safety measures in place to stop 32-year-old Alan Kerwin falling while he was replacing a skylight on a warehouse in Ashton-under-Lyne.

 

 

The warehouse roof Alan Kerwin fell through

 

Manchester Crown Court heard that the father-of-one from Lower Broughton, Salford, sustained several serious injuries in the fall on 31 March 2007, including a fractured skull.

Mr Kerwin developed post-traumatic epilepsy as a result of his injuries, and was never able to return to work.  He died from an epileptic seizure in April 2009.

The court heard that Mr Kerwin's line manager had received advice from the HSE just one week before the incident which could have saved his life. An HSE inspector explained to him how to safely manage work on fragile roofs, but this advice was not acted upon.

The incident occurred at Kayley Industrial Estate on Richmond Street in Ashton-under-Lyne, where Mr Kerwin was working a Saturday shift. He was on the roof with two of his colleagues when he placed his weight on the delicate cement surrounding the glass.

The cement shattered, and Mr Kerwin fell through the gap. The HSE investigation found J Mills had not carried out a risk assessment or put any safety measures in place to protect him.

J Mills (Contractors) Ltd, of Higher Road in Urmston, admitted breaching Section 2(1) HSWA by putting workers at risk. The company was ordered to pay £7,700 in prosecution costs in addition to the fine on 31 October 2011.

After the hearing, David Norton, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"This is a tragic case in which someone has lost their father as a result of an entirely avoidable incident.  Falls from height remain the biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of serious injury. But Mr Kerwin was allowed to walk across a roof without anything in place to stop him falling.

"Just one week before, Mr Kerwin's line manager was advised by a colleague of mine about the dangers of working at height, and how to protect employees. If he had acted on this advice then I'm confident Mr Kerwin would still be alive today."

 

 

Chemical firm in court over major incident in Cheshire

Defendant	Thor Specialities (UK) Ltd			Chester Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA x2			14 October 2011
Fine	£25,000	Costs	£15,000

A chemical manufacturer has appeared in court following a major incident at its factory in Cheshire which put workers' lives in danger.

Thor Specialities (UK) Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after a chemical reaction got out of control at its plant on Wincham Avenue in Wincham, Northwich, releasing toxic and flammable substances into the production area.

Chester Crown Court heard the consequences of the incident on 23 August 2007 could have been fatal.

The court was told an employee at the factory had been adding a solid chemical into a vessel containing a liquid chemical. He wrongly assumed he could increase the rate at which the chemical was added when they initially failed to react. The chemicals then reacted rapidly, leading to an uncontrolled 'runaway reaction'.

None of the workers were in the production hall when the alarms - set off by the incident - began to ring, but one of them returned to investigate. He was driven back by the fumes and fled from the building.

The HSE investigation concluded the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of the chemical reaction and ensure that suitable control measures were in place.

It also found the employee had not received adequate training, instruction and supervision on the operating procedures, and did not appreciate the danger of increasing the quantity of the chemical.

Thor Specialities (UK) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) HSWA by putting workers at risk. The company, which produces chemical products for the newspaper, cosmetics, and construction industries, was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £15,000.

Speaking after the hearing, the investigating inspector at HSE, David Hair, said:

"It is only luck that none of Thor's staff were in the production hall at the time of the incident as it's unlikely they would have been able to escape unharmed without help.  They would have been at serious risk from toxic chemical exposure, or a flash fire or explosion, if the flammable vapours released had ignited. They could easily have suffered permanent injuries or even been killed.

"Chemical factories must make sure safety is their top priority. Unfortunately, on this occasion, Thor failed to ensure its safety procedures remained at the highest of standards."

Ed - Thor Specialities operates as a Top Tier site under the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations. (COMAH) It therefore has a legal duty to prevent major accidents and limit the effects of any incidents on people and the environment.

Under the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999, hazard sites are classified as industrial sites that manufacture, process or store dangerous chemicals and substances in quantities that could pose a risk to workers, people in the vicinity of the site, and the environment in the event of a major accident. These 'major accidents' include fires, explosions or incidents in which dangerous substances are released. The regulations also state operators of sites with dangerous substances above specified quantities have to take all necessary measures to:

o    prevent major accidents; and

o    in the event of such accidents, limit the effects on people and the environment.

For certain sites, with particularly high quantities of dangerous substances, operators must also describe their control measures to prevent major accidents in a 'safety report'. More information is available at www.hse.gov.uk/comah/index.htm

 

Fife farming company fined after worker loses two toes

Defendant	Thor Specialities (UK) Ltd			Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA x2			11 October 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	Nil-SCOT

A farming company has been fined after a worker had to have two toes from his right foot amputated, when he became entangled in machinery inside a grain reception pit.

On 4 September 2009, due to heavy rain, the grain reception pit at the premises of R Todd & Company at Blacketyside Farm, Fife, had filled with about twelve inches of water. Peter Ednie, 26, from Kirkcaldy, Fife, after discussions with Robert Todd, was trying to empty rainwater from the pit using a bucket. His foot became caught in the unsheathed part of a screw auger inside the pit.

A screw auger is a type of conveyor used to transport grain between the different parts of a grain drying system and consists of a large screw which rotates inside a steel tube. Part of it has to be exposed to collect grain and transport it.  Although the screw auger was switched off and not rotating, the power to it had not been isolated before Mr Ednie entered the pit.

While Mr Ednie passed the buckets of water to a colleague standing outside the pit, Mr Todd was cleaning a nearby grain drying bin. This required him to unload the bin and remove left over grain by activating a different screw auger conveyor that ran from the drying bin to the storage bin.

But when he went to the control panel he mistakenly activated the switch for the screw auger inside the grain reception pit where Mr Ednie was working. The auger started to rotate, trapping Mr Ednie's right foot.

Mr Ednie's small toe had been severed and his fourth toe was badly injured. He underwent surgery to have the fourth toe amputated and a metal splinter was also removed from his foot. His foot still feels constantly cold, he has no feeling in his third toe. This means he sometimes finds it difficult to walk due to the pain in his foot and also walks with a limp.

Mr Ednie was not able to return to work for six weeks and now no longer works for the company.

An investigation by the HSE found that there was no risk assessment in relation to any activity that required employees working inside the grain reception pit.

A generic risk assessment document obtained during the HSE investigation did state that no unguarded machines should be cleaned unless they were switched off, but did not explain that power to the machinery must at all times be isolated. It was also found that at no point during his employment had Mr Ednie been given the opportunity to read or consider this risk assessment.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Harry Bottesch said:

"If R Todd & Company had carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and provided a safe system of work for the task of cleaning inside the grain reception pit, then this incident would not have happened.

"Power to the screw auger in the grain reception pit should have been isolated before an employee attempted to enter and clean it, it was not sufficient to simply turn the machinery off."

 

Contractor fined for working without asbestos licence

Defendant	Fadil Adil			City of London Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007			6 October 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£7,654

 

A building contractor from South East London has been fined for running a construction site which led to workers being exposed to asbestos-containing materials.

Fadil Adil, of Coniston Road, Bromley, was prosecuted by the HSE for the way work was carried out on a construction site he was in charge of, on Bromley High Street between 21 and 29 June 2010.

The project involved the demolition of a building which had a restaurant on the ground floor and flats above. Asbestos insulating boards in the restaurant's ceiling were broken up during the demolition which Mr Adil was overseeing. Three workmen demolished the building using sledgehammers and hand-operated breakers, meaning they could have been exposed to asbestos fibres.

The HSE investigation found that the defendant did not have a licence to work with asbestos, nor was he trained in construction management. At no point did the defendant carry out an asbestos survey, nor did he provide any guidance to the workmen regarding the presence of asbestos.

HSE Inspector Ian Seabrook said:

"Sadly, this kind of incident is all too familiar because the defendant's actions meant that his colleagues were more than likely exposed to asbestos fibres.  The dangers of asbestos are well known; it is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK with around 1,000 tradesmen dying each year from asbestos-related diseases.

"Anyone working with these sorts of materials has to commission an asbestos survey to ascertain the level of work needed and then have asbestos removed in a controlled manner by a licensed contractor."

At the City of London Magistrates' Court Fadil Adil pleaded guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. He was fined £19,300 and ordered to pay costs of £7,654.

 

Louth man fined after joiner injured in scaffold fall

Defendant	Andrew Mark Judge			Skegness Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 4(1)(c) Work at Height Regulations 2005, s3(1) HSWA 1974			19 October 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£3,739

 

A man from Louth has been fined after a joiner broke his leg falling from scaffolding in the town.

Self-employed Mario Mazzarella was working on scaffolding built for him by Panther Scaffolding at the Helal Restaurant on Mercer Row in Louth on 9 November 2009, when a bus collided with the structure that had been built out over the road, causing him to fall more than four metres to the ground. Passengers on the bus were unharmed.

Andrew Mark Judge, trading as Panther Scaffolding, was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to ensure that the workers, who erected the scaffolding the day before, worked in a safe way and that the finished scaffolding was a safe structure for its user and vehicles moving through the town.

After the hearing HSE inspector Martin Giles said:

"The scaffolding should have been erected in a safe manner, and the finished scaffold should not have jutted out over the road at a height where it could be a danger to passing traffic. The failure to provide adequate scaffolding was caused by inadequate planning before work started and a failure to check that the finished scaffold was safe before handing it over.

"Work at height remains a major cause of injury and fatalities in the workplace and for this reason it is important that, where such work is undertaken, then appropriate planning, supervision and safety measures are essential. This becomes even more critical when a job involves work in places like the centre of Louth which expose the public to the risks from scaffolding work."

Mr Judge, 44, of Old Main Road, Scamblesby, Louth, pleaded guilty to breaching reg 4(1)(c) Work at Height Regulations 2005, and s 3(1) HSWA at Skegness Magistrates' Court. He was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £3,739 costs.

 

Company fined after scaffolding tube hits passer by

Defendant	Ashacre Limited			Worthing Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 10(2)Work at Height Regulations 2005			18 October 2011
Fine	£15,000	Costs	£5,936

A Worthing-based company has been fined after a pedestrian was hit by a scaffolding tube as she walked down an alley in Worthing.

The HSE prosecuted Ashacre Limited over the incident which happened on Monday 7 February 2011.

The injured person was walking down the alleyway that runs between the Union Place car park and Chapel Road when she was hit by the 5ft steel scaffold tube, suffering a deep gash to the head and a bruised arm.

Worthing Magistrates' Court heard the scaffold tower was being dismantled after it had been erected to clear a blocked gutter and downpipe at the back of the Connaught Theatre in Worthing.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Denis Bodger said:

"This is a serious incident that could easily have resulted in a fatality. When erecting and dismantling scaffolding there is always a risk of someone dropping materials or tools, however carefully they are working. Precautions therefore need to be taken to ensure that if anything does fall from the scaffold it can not strike anyone."

Ashacre Limited of A2 Yoeman Gate, Yoeman Way, Worthing, West Sussex, pleaded guilty to of breaching section 10(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The firm was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,936.

 

Suffolk firm fined after worker crushed to death

Defendant	H G Gladwell and Sons Ltd			Ipswich Crown Court
Offence(s)	S2HSWA x2			31 October 2011
Fine	£14,000	Costs	£20,437.40

A factory worker was killed when his neck was crushed by a pneumatic hatch on a pet food mixing machine, a court has heard.

H G Gladwell and Sons Ltd, which manufactures animal feed and pet food at Copdock Mill just outside Ipswich, was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to ensure the sliding hatch on the top of the machine was safe.

Ipswich Crown Court heard that mill operator/supervisor Terrence Gardiner, 61, who lived in Ipswich was believed to be attempting to retrieve an plastic jug that had fallen into the machine when the incident happened on 19 May 2009.

His workmates found Mr Gardiner lying face down on top of the mixing machine with his head and right arm trapped by the pneumatic hatch. He was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.

H G Gladwell & Sons Ltd of Copdock Mill, Ipswich, admitted breaching the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Regulation 11 by failing to ensure effective measures were taken to prevent access to the hatch, but this failure was not the cause of Mr Gardiner's death.

The company was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £20,437.40 costs

Glyn Davies, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"There were measures the company could have put in place to prevent access to the top of the mixer, such as sufficient guarding, a remotely positioned operating switch or a grille over the sliding pneumatic hatch itself.

"They singularly failed to implement any of these straightforward protective measures. It is vital that manufacturing firms make sure that dangerous parts on their machines are identified and properly guarded. As we have seen here today, machines like these can be incredibly dangerous and no company should take these unnecessary risks."

 

 

Workers exposed to deadly asbestos fibres

Defendant	J C Irvine Limited			Swansea Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 23(1)(a) CDM Regs 2007,  Reg 5CoAR 2006			27 October 2011
Fine	£12,000	Costs	£2,148.50

A building contractor has been sentenced after its workers were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos fibres during refurbishment work at premises in Swansea.

The HSE prosecuted J C Irvine Limited following an investigation which revealed that work on the refurbishment of the former Ace Electrics building in The Strand was being carried out without an asbestos survey.

Swansea Magistrates heard that, between the dates of 27 April 2010 and 12 May 2010, asbestos containing materials were disturbed by construction workers employed by the defendant, releasing asbestos fibres into the air.

The HSE was informed that employees were carrying out work in a contaminated building, and inspectors visiting the site on 12 May 2010 served an immediate Prohibition Notice.

The subsequent investigation found that J C Irvine Limited failed to ensure that the refurbishment work was planned in such a way as to reduce the risk to health and safety. It also failed to ensure that its employees were not exposed to asbestos fibres.

J C Irvine Limited of Oldway, Bishopston, Swansea pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 23(1)(a) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,148.50.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Hayley Healey said:

"Construction and maintenance workers are in the most at-risk groups from asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and regular where asbestos products have not been adequately identified or managed.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder to those in the construction industry of the importance of ensuring that an asbestos survey, and its findings, are available prior to work being carried out and that the correct control measures are in place to ensure that exposure to asbestos is prevented, so far as is reasonably practicable."

Ed - There are four main diseases caused by asbestos, all of which can develop much later after exposure - they are mesothelioma (always fatal); lung cancer (almost always fatal); asbestosis (not always fatal, but can be very debilitating) and diffuse pleural thickening.

 

Food firm sentenced over Wigan worker's injuries

Defendant	Bakkavor Foods Ltd			Trafford Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 11 PUWER 1998			21 October 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,026

A food processing firm has been sentenced after one of its employees suffered serious injuries to her arm at a Wigan factory.

The worker, who has asked not to be named, needed a metal plate in her left arm after it became caught in a potato blanching machine at the plant on Dobson Park Way in Ince.

Bakkavor Foods Ltd, which packages salads and fresh vegetables, was prosecuted by the HSE for failing to ensure the dangerous parts on the machine were guarded.

 

 

The potato-blanching machine which caused the worker's injuries

Trafford Magistrates' Court heard the 22-year-old hygiene worker from Platt Bridge dislocated her elbow and broke three bones in her arm after it became caught between a conveyor belt and rollers on 28 June 2010. She was off work for eight months.

The HSE investigation found that the machine had been used without a guard for more than a decade, and that the rollers were regularly cleaned while they were still spinning.

Bakkavor Foods Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company, of West Marsh Road, Spalding, Lincolnshire, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,026 in prosecution costs on 21 October 2011.

Speaking after the hearing, Helen Mansfield, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"A young worker has suffered a life-long injury that could easily have been prevented if Bakkavor had put more thought into the safety of its employees. Sadly the machine had been operated without a guard for more than ten years, making it almost inevitable that someone would be injured if they came into contact with the dangerous moving parts.   The company has now installed a simple mesh guard over the rollers which means they can be cleaned without the risk of workers' arms being dragged in."

Ed - On average, 34 workers are killed and nearly 5,000 suffer major injuries in the manufacturing industry in Great Britain every year. Information on preventing injuries is available at www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

 

Dorset manufacturing firm fined after worker injured

Defendant	Verplas Ltd			Bournemouth Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S2(1) HSWA			17 October 2011
Fine	£10,000	Costs	£2,407

A Dorset manufacturing firm has been fined after a lorry delivery driver was run over by a fork lift truck.

Kelvin Davey, 61, from Verwood, Dorset, had both his ankles and lower legs broken when the fork lift truck reversed into him at Verplas Ltd's Dorset site on 9 March 2010.

Bournemouth Magistrates' Court heard that there was not enough separation of the work area used by both pedestrians and fork lift trucks at the premises.

Although Mr Davey has now returned to work at the company, which manufactures ventilation accessories for the white goods industry, his injuries were initially thought to be severe enough to have ended his career.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Ian Smart said:

"Even though Mr Davey was very experienced, this potentially career-ending injury still occurred.  The message is that if firms have limited space they still have to organise their operation so that they don't have conflicting activities going on in the same place. Pedestrians and fork lift trucks don't mix."

Verplas Ltd of Unit 7, Verwood Industrial Estate, Blackhill, Verwood, Dorset, pleaded guilty to S2 (1) HSWA and were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,407.

 

Stonemason - as seen on TV - is prosecuted

Defendant	Atelier 109 Limited			Peterborough Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	S33(1)(g) HSWA			25 October 2011
Fine	£5,000	Costs	£1,400.10

 

A Cambridgeshire stonemasonry business has been fined over dangerous stone dust after the firm appeared on a BBC television programme.

Atelier 109 Limited, of Main Road, Etton, near Peterborough, featured in March 2010 in the BBC2 series, Mastercrafts, presented by Monty Don - but an eagle-eyed viewer contacted HSE to express concern over what he saw: inadequate precautions to protect workers from dust that can cause serious lung diseases.

HSE inspectors visited the company's workshop in May 2010 and served an Improvement Notice compelling Atelier to take action immediately to cut exposure to stonemasonry dust to within the legal limit.

When a further check was made, it was clear that, although improvements had been made, the ventilation system still had not been thoroughly examined and tested, so a second Improvement Notice was served on 12 February 2011.

When HSE inspectors visited the premises for a third time on 16 June this year they found that the action recommended had not been carried out, despite earlier tests revealing that dust levels for employees were between 100% and 300% of safe levels.

Atelier Limited pleaded guilty at Peterborough Magistrates' Court to one charge of breaching section 33 (1) (g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,400.10.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Alison Ashworth said:

"Atelier were happy to get their moment on television, but rather less quick to protect their employees from a wholly avoidable risk that can have serious consequences and cause respiratory diseases.

"We understand the pressure that small businesses are under and this company was given ample opportunity on a number of occasions to make the necessary improvements. HSE only brought this prosecution when it became clear that the company was dragging its heels and failing to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserved.

"If you are a company and are issued with a notice requiring improvements to be made you can be expect to be prosecuted if you do not comply."

Ed - I don't normally report cases in detail where the penalty is less than £10,000 - however with the unusual facts of this case I think this proves a salutary warning to anyone fancying taking a 'broadcaster's shilling' and bearing all before the TV cameras.  Like many of us I wince when TV broadcasts show serious health and safety violations - or even crass stupidity that results in avoidable accidents and incidents!

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
Pauls Malt Limited	S2(1) HSWA,	£8,000	Nil - Scot	Worker had leg amputated following entanglement in machinery in a grain silo.
CW Dobbs and Son Ltd	Reg4(1) W(HSW)Regs 1992	£7,000	£2,588	Worker hit by reversing vehicle causing a broken leg.
Dugdale Nutrition Ltd	Reg 11 & 19 PUWER	£7,000	£3,614	Worker's hand trapped in machinery
Variable Message Signs Ltd	Regs 6(1), 7(1), 11(1) COSH 2002 x3	£5,500	£4,291.25	Failure to control risk of developing occupational asthma - use of rosin based flux to solder
Leese's Ltd	Reg 28(e) PUWER	£4,500	£818	Employer suffered severe leg and foot injuries from reversing telehandler.
Kristian Varnam	S7(a) HSWA	£3,500	£2,742	Contractor didn't prevent landlord climbing to observe his work.  Landlord died after falling through fragile roof.
Arrow Flexible Packaging Ltd	Reg 11 PUWER	£3,500	£1,000	Worker lost 2 fingers in an unsuitably guarded plastic bag punching machine
Anthony Brownson	Reg 36(3)(a) Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1999	£3,000	£2,089.25	Landlord failed to obtain gas safety checks on his properties
Niva UK Limited	S33(1)(g) HSWA	£2,000	£5,062	Breach of Improvement Notices relating to handling of heavy loads at a laundry.
Rochefort Shugar Ltd	S3(1) HSWA	£1,500	£2,500	Letting agent exposed workers to asbestos
Mark Pratten	S7 HSWA	£1,500	£1,000	Employee attempted to lift worker in a brick clamp and inadvertently caused him severe crush injuries
Colin Howles		£350	£600	Roofer put his own and employees at risk - unguarded roof work.

 

Environment Agency prosecutions

United Utilities prosecuted for licence breach

Defendant	United Utilities Water plc			West Allerdale Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	24(4)(b) Water Resources Act 1991 x4			27 October 2011
Fine	£32,000	Costs	£3,703.28

The Environment Agency has prosecuted United Utilities Water Plc for 4 offences of failing to comply with the requirements of an abstraction licence.

The company pleaded guilty to all charges at West Allerdale Magistrates Court and was fined £32,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,703.28

 

The Court heard that United Utilities has a licence authorising it to take water from Crummock Water, West Cumbria, which is used to provide drinking water for the Cockermouth and Workington area.  A requirement of this licence is that the company must discharge a uniform and continuous flow of water into the River Cocker downstream of its abstraction. This is intended to ensure that at all times the flow of water and river level is maintained to avoid harm in an environmentally sensitive location; the river is part of the River Derwent Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation.  
 
On four occasions in June and July 2010, United Utilities failed to meet this requirement and the river level dropped.  Although there was no evidence of harm, the offences occurred during the 2010 drought and the reduction in flow had the potential to place the river ecology under additional stress.  At the time the company was trying to maximise the amount of water in the lake by controlling the discharge to the river close to the statutory requirement and reduce the likelihood of applying for a drought permit. However the company did not have an adequate system in place to monitor the flow effectively and also failed to respond to calls made by the Environment Agency's Incident Communications Service advising of low river level alarms and the need to increase the discharge to the river.

 

In mitigation, United Utilities stated that on three of the four occasions, they had sent the required volume of water into the River Cocker, albeit not in a uniform and continuous flow. In sentencing, the court acknowledged that no environmental damage had been caused.

 

Speaking after the court case, Bill Darbyshire, North West Drought Manager, said:

 "Water is a precious resource and the Environment Agency  plays a key role in ensuring that public water supplies and other essential uses of water are maintained  without impact on the water environment.  United Utilities failure to ensure the river flow was maintained in the Cocker could have had a serious impact on aquatic life.  We seek to balance the needs of people and the environment through abstraction licence controls.. We also have drought plans for every region in England and Wales that set out how we manage access to water and the environment under drought conditions and we work with water companies to support the development and implementation of their own drought plans."

Ed - the charges were that

on 17 June, 27 June,4 July and 7 July 2010 at Crummock Water United Utilities Water plc did not comply with a requirement  to discharge into the River Cocker every day a uniform and continuous flow of water of not less than 6 million gallons contrary to section 24(4)(b) Water Resources Act 1991

 

Fosters Cleaning Services fined over illegal waste

Defendant	Fosters Cleaning Services Limited			Derby Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			13 October 2011
Fine	£20,000	Costs	£4,246

 

On 13 October 2011, at Derby Magistrates' Court, Fosters Cleaning Services Limited were found guilty following a trial, of operating an illegal waste storage facility on rented land at Heanor Gate Industrial Estate, Derby.

The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £4,246 in costs, along with a £15 victim surcharge. 

 

The charge was brought by the EA under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. 

 

Prosecuting for the Environment Agency, Kiran Cassini told the court that between April 2010 and August 2010, Fosters Cleaning Company deposited and stored controlled waste on land without the necessary environmental permit in place.

 

The Agency initially visited Fosters Cleaning Services in July 2009 and advised the director of the company that controlled waste should not be brought back to the site and must be removed.  This was followed up with a warning letter. 

 

Agency officers visited the site again between April 2010 and August 2010 and observed waste deposited and stored in skips and on the ground.  The waste included tumble driers, wood, commercial waste, scrap metal, tyres, and a gas cylinder. 

 

During those visits it was clear that fresh deposits had been made and that earlier deposits had been removed from the site.  

 

On 26 October 2010, Mr Eric Foster, director of the company, was interviewed under caution.  He stated that as a cleaning company, a small amount waste collection was necessary.  He said that the storage was due to tip opening times and logistical problems.  He disputed that the warning letter in July 2009 had been received, and said that illegal operations had now ceased.

 

Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency officer in charge of the investigation said:

"Illegal waste operations have the potential to cause direct pollution of the environment and potential to harm human health. We will not hesitate to take action when we find evidence of such unauthorised activity taking place."

 

Bristol company fined for waste packaging offences

17-Oct-2011

Defendant	Maurice Lay Distributors Ltd			Bristol Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995 (x6)			13 October 2011
Fine	£11,985	Costs	£2,262

A company importing and distributing kitchen units and electrical accessories has been ordered to pay more than £18,000 in fines, costs and compensation for breaching waste packaging regulations.

Maurice Lay Distributors Ltd, of Fourth Way, Avonmouth admitted a total of six offences and asked for another nine to be taken into consideration whey they  appeared before Bristol magistrates.

 

Businesses with an annual turnover of more than £2 million and handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year are obliged to recover and recycle a percentage of any packaging they use.

 

The purpose of the Packaging Regulations is to encourage businesses to take responsibility for any packaging they use, reduce the amount of packaging produced and cut down on  the amount of material going to landfill.

Obligated business are not required to physically recover and recycle the packaging themselves. However, they must register with the Environment Agency or join a Compliance Scheme. Proof of compliance is demonstrated through the purchase of documents known as Packaging Recovery Notes from accredited re-processors.

 

Magistrates heard that Maurice Lay Distributors, who supply retailers all over the UK, were first contacted by the Environment Agency in 2000 when the company confirmed it handled less than 50 tonnes of packaging.

 

In August 2009 an Environment Agency officer visited the company's Avonmouth premises in connection with separate environmental legislation when it became apparent the business was obligated under the Packaging Regulations. Despite being advised to urgently join a compliance scheme, the company didn't do so until the following year.

 

Information provided by the company showed it had an annual turnover of up to £22.9 million and handled up to 164 tonnes of packaging a year. By failing to register it had saved £5,430.

 

Maurice Lay Distributors Ltd was fined a total of £11,985 for six offences under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995, ordered to pay £2,262 costs and £3,864 compensation.

 

'Businesses handling large amounts of packaging must behave responsibly and ensure they comply with the Packaging Regulations. This company had been aware of the regulations for over 10 years so there was no excuse for its non-compliance,' said Mark Pritchard for the Environment Agency.

 

 

Rochdale company fined for illegal operations

28-Oct-2011

Defendant	Roeacre Limited and Peter Cordwell			Bristol Magistrates' Court
Offence(s)	Reg 12(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010			26 October 2011
Fine	£11,985	Costs	£2,262

A Rochdale company and its director have been ordered to pay £14,484 in fines and costs, after they pleaded guilty to operating a waste transfer station at Klondike, Rochdale without the relevant environmental permits to make their operations legal.

The Environment Agency brought the prosecution against Roeacre Limited and its director Peter Cordwell following numerous complaints from local residents, including reports of excessive noise from metal workings. The Environment Agency visited the site in April 2010, records showed that the site didn't have an environmental permit in place to operate as a waste transfer station. During visits to the site, officers witnessed large wagons unloading skips containing metals, cardboard, wood, plastic and tyres.

 

Further visits and meetings with Mr Cordwell resulted in the company applying for the right environmental permit. However, this application was unsuccessful as the site had problems getting planning permission from the local authority. It is a requirement of the legislation that a permit cannot be granted until the required planning permission is in place.  

 

On numerous occasions, Mr Cordwell was advised by the Environment Agency that by operating without a permit he was committing an offence. Despite this advice, he continued to run the site.

 

Jennie Powsney, prosecuting for the Environment Agency said, "Mr Cordwell was aware that he was required to have a permit as he operates another waste management site elsewhere in Rochdale. The operations were of a considerable scale involving large amounts of waste estimated at around 400m3.

"The site is near to Stanley Brook, Buckley Brook and the River Roch, and as such the operations had the potential to cause harm to these rivers. Had a permit been in place for the operators, conditions would have been imposed to control the potential risks."  

 

Ed - the charges - That on or before 12 October 2010 you did knowingly permit another person to contravene Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(b) of the said Regulations in that you knowingly permitted a person to operate a regulated facility on land owned by you and known as the Klondike, Chichester Street, Rochdale, OL15 2AU except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit.

 

Other cases in brief

Defendant	Offences	Penalty	Costs	Details
AtoZ Skip Hire and Recycling Ltd	Reg 12 Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, s33(1)(c), 34(1)(c) EPA 1990.	£8,000	£6,000	operating a waste transfer facility, burning and depositing controlled waste, and failing to provide written descriptions of controlled waste imports
Sean Donald Taheny	Directors Disqualification Act 1986	35 week Suspended Sentence 200 hours community work		Operating illegal waste site - also struck off from being a company director
Paul Chapman	Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010	12 month conditional discharge		Breach of Env Permit conditions
Sagahd Khan	Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010	26 weeks suspended sentence 250 hours community work	£3,530	Illegal storage and breakup of scrap cars
Williams Recycling (UK) Ltd	Reg 23B(2) and 58 Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007	£5,000	£6,655	Attempt to export waste without pre-notification; misescribed waste - breach of the duty of care
M W White (Norwich) Ltd	S34 EPA 1990	£5,000	£6,655
Belmont Farms Ltd	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 x3	£5,000	£17,500	Failure to control smells from pig units and breach of enforcement notice
Huddersfield Skip Services Ltd	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007	£4,000	£3,257	Failure to comply with Env Permit and Enforcement Notice
Stephen Hillas		£4,000
British Ceramic Tile (BCT) Ltd	Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010	£2,000	£2,000	Polluted watercourse

 

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.
S7(a)	It shall be the duty of every employee 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.
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)

 

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

S1A

(1) In the circumstances specified in sections 7 and 8 the Secretary of State may accept a disqualification undertaking, that is to say an undertaking by any person that, for a period specified in the undertaking, the person- (a) will not be a director of a company, act as receiver of a company's property or in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a company unless (in each case) he has the leave of a court, and (b) will not act as an insolvency practitioner. (2) The maximum period which may be specified in a disqualification undertaking is 15 years; and the minimum period which may be specified in a disqualification undertaking under section 7 is two years. (3) Where a disqualification undertaking by a person who is already subject to such an undertaking or to a disqualification order is accepted, the periods specified in those undertakings or (as the case may be) the undertaking and the order shall run concurrently. (4) In determining whether to accept a disqualification undertaking by any person, the Secretary of State may take account of matters other than criminal convictions, notwithstanding that the person may be criminally liable in respect of those matters.

 

Environmental Protection Act 1990

S33

(1) Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below and, in relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not- (a) deposit controlled waste or extractive waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste or extractive waste to be deposited in or on any land unless an environmental permit authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence; (b) submit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be submitted, to any listed operation (other than an operation within subsection (1)(a)) that- (i) is carried out in or on any land, or by means of any mobile plant, and (ii) is not carried out under and in accordance with an environmental permit. (c) treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste or extractive waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

S34

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste or, as a broker, has control of such waste, to take all such measures applicable to him in that capacity as are reasonable in the circumstances- (a) to prevent any contravention by any other person of section 33 above; (aa) to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 6 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations;  (aa)to prevent any contravention by any other person of regulation 9 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 or of a condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those Regulations; (b) to prevent the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person; and (c) on the transfer of the waste, to secure- (i) that the transfer is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes; and (ii) that there is transferred such a written description of the waste as will enable other persons to avoid a contravention of that section or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 7 of those Regulations or any condition of a permit granted under regulation 10 of those regulations and to comply with the duty under this subsection as respects the escape of waste.

 

Water Resources Act 1991

24

A person shall be guilty of an offence if- (a) he contravenes subsection (1) or (2) above; or (b) he is for the purposes of this section the holder of a licence under this Chapter and, in circumstances not constituting such a contravention, does not comply with a condition or requirement imposed by the provisions, as for the time being in force, of that licence.

 

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

4(1)

Every employer shall ensure that every workplace, modification, extension or conversion which is under his control and where any of his employees works complies with any requirement of these Regulations which- (a)  applies to that workplace or, as the case may be, to the workplace which contains that modification, extension or conversion; and is in force in respect of the workplace, modification, extension or conversion

 

Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998

Reg 36(3)(a)

A landlord shall 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);

 

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

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.
19	(1) Every employer shall ensure that where appropriate work equipment is provided with suitable means to isolate it from all its sources of energy. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the means mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless they are clearly identifiable and readily accessible. (3) Every employer shall take appropriate measures to ensure that re-connection of any energy source to work equipment does not expose any person using the work equipment to any risk to his health or safety.
28	Every employer shall ensure that, where self-propelled work equipment may, while in motion, involve risk to the safety of persons- (a)it has facilities for preventing its being started by an unauthorised person; (b)it has appropriate facilities for minimising the consequences of a collision where there is more than one item of rail-mounted work equipment in motion at the same time; (c)it has a device for braking and stopping; (d)where safety constraints so require, emergency facilities operated by readily accessible controls or automatic systems are available for braking and stopping the work equipment in the event of failure of the main facility; (e)where the driver's direct field of vision is inadequate to ensure safety, there are adequate devices for improving his vision so far as is reasonably practicable; (f)if provided for use at night or in dark places- (i)it is equipped with lighting appropriate to the work to be carried out; and (ii)is otherwise sufficiently safe for such use; (g)if it, or anything carried or towed by it, constitutes a fire hazard and is liable to endanger employees, it carries appropriate fire-fighting equipment, unless such equipment is kept sufficiently close to it.

 

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002

Reg 6(1)	An employer shall not carry out any work which is liable to expose any employees to any substance hazardous to health unless he has (a) made a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk created by that work to the health of those employees and of the steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of these Regulations and (b) implemented the steps referred to in sub-paragraph (a).
7(1)	Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.
11(1)	Where it is appropriate for the protection of the health of his employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to a substance hazardous to health, the employer shall ensure that such employees are under suitable health surveillance.

 

Work at Height Regulations 2005

Reg 4(1)(a)	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.
10	(1) Every employer shall, where necessary to prevent injury to any person, take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object. (2) Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1), every employer shall take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent any person being struck by any falling material or object which is liable to cause personal injury. (3) Every employer shall ensure that no material or object is thrown or tipped from height in circumstances where it is liable to cause injury to any person. (4) Every employer shall ensure that materials and objects are stored in such a way as to prevent risk to any person arising from the collapse, overturning or unintended movement of such materials or objects.

 

Control of Abestos Regulations 2006

5	An employer shall not undertake work in demolition, maintenance, or any other work which exposes or is liable to expose his employees to asbestos in respect of any premises
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.

 

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 coordinator, designer, principal contractor or contractor unless he has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the person to be appointed or engaged is competent.
22	(1) The principal contractor for a project shall- (a)plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety, including facilitating- (i)co-operation and co-ordination between persons concerned in the project in pursuance of regulations 5 and 6, and (ii)the application of the general principles of prevention in pursuance of regulation 7; (b)liaise with the CDM co-ordinator in performing his duties in regulation 20(2)(d) during the construction phase in relation to any design or change to a design; (c)ensure that welfare facilities sufficient to comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 are provided throughout the construction phase; (d)where necessary for health and safety, draw up rules which are appropriate to the construction site and the activities on it (referred to in these Regulations as "site rules"); (e)give reasonable directions to any contractor so far as is necessary to enable the principal contractor to comply with his duties under these Regulations; (f)ensure that every contractor is informed of the minimum amount of time which will be allowed to him for planning and preparation before he begins construction work; (g)where necessary, consult a contractor before finalising such part of the construction phase plan as is relevant to the work to be performed by him; (h)ensure that every contractor is given, before he begins construction work and in sufficient time to enable him to prepare properly for that work, access to such part of the construction phase plan as is relevant to the work to be performed by him; (i)ensure that every contractor is given, before he begins construction work and in sufficient time to enable him to prepare properly for that work, such further information as he needs- (i)to comply punctually with the duty under regulation 13(7), and (ii)to carry out the work to be performed by him without risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the health and safety of any person; (j)identify to each contractor the information relating to the contractor's activity which is likely to be required by the CDM co-ordinator for inclusion in the health and safety file in pursuance of regulation 20(2)(e) and ensure that such information is promptly provided to the CDM co-ordinator; (k)ensure that the particulars required to be in the notice given under regulation 21 are displayed in a readable condition in a position where they can be read by any worker engaged in the construction work; and (l)take reasonable steps to prevent access by unauthorised persons to the construction site. (2) The principal contractor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that every worker carrying out the construction work is provided with- (a)a suitable site induction; (b)the information and training referred to in regulation 13(4) by a contractor on whom a duty is placed by that regulation; and (c)any further information and training which he needs for the particular work to be carried out without undue risk to health or safety.
23	(1) The principal contractor shall- (a) before the start of the construction phase, prepare a construction phase plan which is sufficient to ensure that the construction phase is planned, managed and monitored in a way which enables the construction work to be started so far as is reasonably practicable without risk to health or safety, paying adequate regard to the information provided by the designer under regulations 11(6) and 18(2) and the pre-construction information provided under regulation 20(2)(b); (b) from time to time and as often as may be appropriate throughout the project update, review, revise and refine the construction phase plan so that it continues to be sufficient to ensure that the construction phase is planned, managed and monitored in a way which enables the construction work to be carried out so far as is reasonably practicable without risk to health or safety; and (c )arrange for the construction phase plan to be implemented in a way which will ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of all persons carrying out the construction work and all persons who may be affected by the work. (2) The principal contractor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the construction phase plan identifies the risks to health and safety arising from the construction work (including the risks specific to the particular type of construction work concerned) and includes suitable and sufficient measures to address such risks, including any site rules

 

Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007

Reg 23B

(1) This regulation applies to waste specified in Article 37(5) that is- (a)destined for recovery in a country to which the OECD Decision does not apply; and (b)the export of which is not prohibited under Article 36. (2) A person who transports such waste commits an offence if he does so- (a)without the procedure of prior written notification and consent as described in Article 35 having been complied with in accordance with Article 37(5); or (b)in breach of Article 37(4) (requirement for consignment only to facilities operating or authorised to operate under the applicable national law of the country of destination).

 

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010

Reg 12(1)	A person must not, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit - operate a regulated facility; or cause or knowingly permit a water discharge activity or groundwater activity is an exempt facility
36(1)	If the regulator considers that an operator has contravened, is contravening, or is likely to contravene an environmental permit condition, the regulator may serve a notice (an "enforcement notice") on the operator under this regulation.
38(1)	It is an offence to- contravene regulation 12(1); or knowingly cause or knowingly permit the contravention of regulation 12(1)(a)

 

 

Other news

Asbestos checks reveal compliance picture at non-LA schools

Checks on how schools outside of local authority control are managing asbestos have revealed that most have adequate arrangements in place - though 17 per cent fell below acceptable standards in relation to management procedures.

The HSE inspected a random sample of 164 independent, voluntary aided and foundation schools and academies between November 2010 and June 2011. It served notices on 28 schools requiring them to improve arrangements for managing asbestos, and provided informal advice to a further 110.

Enforcement action was taken over failures such as training staff and producing written management plans, rather than because staff or pupils were considered at significant risk of exposure.

Compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations (2006) in England, Scotland and Wales was broadly similar to that found in a survey and inspection programme involving local authority-controlled schools in 2009/10.

Asbestos which is in good condition and remains undamaged and undisturbed does not pose any significant risk to health if it is managed in compliance with the legal requirements and according to HSE's published guidance.

Geoff Cox, the Head of HSE's public services sector, said:

"Most schools were able to demonstrate good levels of awareness and compliance with the asbestos regulations and that's encouraging, but this inspection initiative did highlight that there is still confusion in some schools over roles and responsibilities.

"We took action where schools had fallen below acceptable standards and we are working across the education sector to raise awareness and find ways to make it clearer for schools to understand their legal responsibilities.

"It is important to stress that asbestos which is properly managed, remains undamaged and is not disturbed is not a cause for concern. Those most at risk of disturbing asbestos are tradesmen or general maintenance workers so it is essential they know where asbestos is and that there work is carefully planned and managed."

Ed-

1.     A full list of schools inspected and the results of the inspection is available online at www.hse.gov.uk/services/education/asbestos-management-1011.htm

2.     Inspectors took enforcement action in 28 of the 164 schools (17%) - serving a total of 41 Improvement Notices (INs):

o    17 were served for a failure to provide adequate training

o    14 for a lack of a written asbestos management plan

o    8 for a failure to implement a suitable system to manage the risks from asbestos

o    2 for a failure to undertake a survey/assessment of the presence of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs)

3.     In 2009/10 HSE and the Department of Children, Schools and Families (now DfE) jointly administered an online questionnaire on asbestos management in local authority-controlled schools, focusing primarily on the management arrangements in system-built schools. The findings were published on HSE's website in September 2010. These showed that of the 152 authorities in England with responsibilities for schools, 110 provided satisfactory responses requiring no further action by HSE. Follow-up inspections made by HSE inspectors to the remaining 42 authorities found that there was generally good compliance with the duty to manage asbestos and that action had been or was being taken in response to HSE advice. Enforcement action was taken in 10 authorities. For more information visit www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/hse-asbestosinschools.htm