Delegate of the month

Husband and Wife Peter and Tracey Somerfield you are our Delegates of the month
We start the New Year 2015 with two delegates of the month Peter and Tracey Somerfield attended our NEBOSH National Certificate in Occupational Health & Safety at our Colchester venue and where nominated by our Tutor of the course Andy Newborough. Peter who is a Maritime Consultant for Somerfield Maritime like the knowledge of the tutor, and the relaxed atmosphere during the course, he likes reading, rugby, shipping and dining out. Meanwhile wife Tracey is a Staff Nurse for the NHS and works at the Mulberry Rehabilitation Unit in Norwich. Tracey said “I enjoyed the group work, every day was punctual and the tutor explained everything clearly and answered all of my questions accordingly. It was enjoyable” She also went on to say “I did the course with my husband; he researched various companies who provided the course and chose CRS for their location, reputation and feedback provided. Research and booking was done online”.
Peter and Tracey have two children and a golden retriever – Archie. All at CRS wish them a Happy New Year and good look with their exam results.
If you would like to be nominated for our Delegate of the month and be entered into our prize draw for the chance to win our £50 M&S voucher for 2015 please contact your tutor. Our winner of the £50 M&S Voucher was David Edwards

Fuel firm fined after tanker explosion causes horrific burns

A national oil and environmental services company has been fined £25,000 after two workers were badly burned in a tanker explosion.
One of the men suffered life-changing injuries that left him in a critical condition and mean he is now unable to expose his skin to direct sunlight. The 32-year-old from Eccles, who has asked not to be named, spent three and a half months in hospital and is unlikely ever to be able to return to work.
Adler and Allan Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at its site in Walkden on 5 March 2013, after an investigation found its procedure for cleaning out the tanker lorry had been unsafe.
Manchester Crown Court heard that the workers had been using the tanker to remove fuel from disused pumps at Plant Hill police station in Manchester. After dropping off a load of waste petrol, they returned to Adler and Allan’s site on Harcourt Street to clean out the inside of the tanker.
They reversed the vehicle into the yard and opened the rear door on the tanker, before using a pressure washer gun. As they did this, there was an explosion that engulfed both men and resulted in a large fire that destroyed the side of a neighbouring building.
One of the workers sustained burns to his face. The other was taken to intensive care in a critical condition. He needed four skin grafts and is likely to require ongoing treatment for the foreseeable future.
The court was told petrol vapour had been allowed to escape into the yard when the tanker door was opened, with a spark from the pressure washer or another ignition source at the site causing the explosion.
Adler & Allan Ltd, of Station Parade in Harrogate, was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £8,166 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on 12 December 2014.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector David Norton said:
“Two men were badly burned, with one suffering horrific, life-changing injuries, because their employer didn’t do enough to make sure they stayed safe.
“Adler & Allan is experienced in dealing with flammable substances but its risk assessment for cleaning out the tanker did not identify fire or explosion as a potential danger. NEBOSH Fire Safety & Risk Management Course

Congratulations David Edwards you are our Winner

CRS are pleased to announce that David Edwards from Wales is our Winner of the £50 M&S voucher, David was our Delegate of the month December, his name was pulled out of the hat at our prize draw which took place earlier this week at our offices. David who has just left the Royal Navy after 24 years the last 16 as a Chief Petty officer marine engineer was surprised by the phone call notifying him he was the winner he said “fantastic” when Ros asked him what he would be spending the voucher on he said “something for myself, perhaps a Christmas Jumper”. He has promised to send us a picture when he makes the purchase. David is also celebrating some other exciting news he has just started a new job in Civvy street for IQE – Cardiff as a Shift Facilities Engineer. David went to on say that his employers are really impressed in the knowledge he now has after attending our NEBOSH course in Bristol in which our tutor Rodger Hope delivered, his employers has in the past used other training providers for their staff but none have returned from the course with such knowledge and enthusiasm as David. IQE will now certainly be sending other members of their organisation to CRS for their NEBOSH training.
All the team at CRS wish David good luck in his new role, and look forward to meeting with him again when he decides to further his career with the NVQ Level 5 Diploma, maybe.

Shop fitting firm fined for Oxford Street hoarding collapse

Shoppers were crushed when a large hoarding collapsed in the heart of Oxford Street less than 24 hours after it had been erected, a court has heard.
Four people were injured, three seriously, in the incident on 7 March 2012. They included 25 year-old Charlotte Hammond, from Romford, who sustained an open fracture of her right ankle that required extensive surgery.
The hoarding, which was some 3.6m high and weighed nearly a tonne, had been put up the previous day by Wiltshire-based Oracle Interiors Ltd to fence off a clothing store that was being refurbished.
The shop fitting firm was prosecuted yesterday (3 December) after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious flaws with the temporary structure.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard the hoarding was held in place by a single timber brace. As such it was inherently weak and wasn’t designed or installed to sufficiently withstand gusts of wind or knocks from passing shoppers, both of which should have been factored in.
An estimated 20 people were trapped by the hoarding when it came down, although most managed to escape unharmed as emergency crews and fellow passers-by rushed to help.
Injuries sustained by the other victims, none of whom want to be identified, included broken bones in the back and crushed nerves in an arm.
Oracle Interiors Ltd, of Lysander Way, Salisbury, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £13,069 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Combined NEBOSH National General and Construction Course

Middlesex property developer and Buckinghamshire builder to pay £180K over death at former RAF site

A Middlesex property development firm and a Buckinghamshire contractor have been ordered to pay a total of over £180,000 for safety failings after a worker was killed whilst driving a dumper truck during construction works at a former military base in Buckinghamshire.
Geoffrey Crow, 48, from Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire, sustained fatal crush injuries in the incident at the former RAF Chenies site on 13 February 2012. The dumper fell into a deep and completely unguarded excavation, overturned and landed directly on top of him. He was killed instantly by the five-tonne machine.
Harrow-based Lois Gastoneaux Ltd and Michael Brett, a self-employed contractor working on the site at the time, were sentenced recently (20 November 2014) after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious safety breaches in their operations. St Albans Crown Court heard that Mr Crow was working at ground level whilst others were working to excavate a deep basement for a swimming pool at a new build property belonging to the sole director of Lois Gastoneaux Ltd, Mr Kevin Andrews. The dumper went into the large excavation, which was up to 6.5 metres deep, shortly after he had freed the vehicle when it became stuck near the unguarded edge.
The HSE investigation found that despite operations being underway for some three weeks at the site, there were no measures in place to prevent people or vehicles falling into the excavation, or to prevent any collapse of the excavation faces onto those working below ground.
Additionally none of the five workers on site, including Mr Crow, were used to operating plant machinery, such as excavators and dumpers, as large as those they were asked to use here. Neither did they have relevant construction experience despite being tasked with digging such a large excavation. The seat belt on the machine Mr Crow was driving was not operational at the time of the incident, and his colleagues also stated they would not usually wear seatbelts when operating the machines. The court was told the range of issues were all contributory factors in the death, and that standards at the site fell well below those expected.
Lois Gastoneaux Ltd, from Harrow, Middlesex, was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £28,033 in costs after pleading guilty to / being found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulations 37(6) and 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
Michael Brett, of Lodge Lane, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs after pleading guilty to / being found guilty of breaching Regulation 37(6) and Regulation 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
Speaking after sentencing HSE Inspector Stephen Manley, said: “Working with construction plant can be extremely dangerous, which is why appropriate safety measures must be in place at all times to protect workers and others onsite. In this instance, Mr Crow died as a direct consequence of the lack of controls of the risks involved in the excavation operations. There was no protection whatsoever to ensure workers, whether driving machinery or otherwise, did not fall into the deep excavation. A number of people were at work with Mr Crow and they were all at risk of serious harm through the absence of physical controls, as well as poor maintenance of equipment and a lack of training and information provided to workers. “There are clear industry standards setting out how to identify and manage risks, and guidance is widely available. So there is no excuse to let operations continue without having the proper health and safety measures in place.”
CRS says “A NEBOSH Certificate in Construction Health and Safety is a great entry point for managers of construction firms” – contact us at advice@crsrisk.com for more details.

Season's greetings - with 'silly' health and safety stories

At Corporate Risk Systems (CRS), we know what season it is by the nature of the silly stories that appear in the press. Each summer, we read ‘elf n safety bans donkey rides on the beach. In the summer, it’s health and safety which imposes all manner of draconian rules on what can and can’t be worn as part of school uniform – our regular readers will remember the ban on mini-skirts for health and safety reasons.
For many, the countdown to Christmas is measured by the number of contestants left in Strictly or X-Factor, or by how soon we hear Slade and The Pogues.  For we HSE folk, it’s measured in seasonal silly stories and it’s already well and truly started; fairy lights that can’t be put on lamp posts (not only silly it’s actually a recycled story –remember the one about the bunting when the Tour de France was in town)?
Sometimes stories do arise because some Scrooge-like character somewhere has decided to opt out of the season of goodwill, but rather than give the real reason, it’s much easier to hide behind the easy excuse of health and safety.
But Christmas and ‘health and safety’ now seem to go together like presents and gift wrapping. Stories which are clearly about something completely different get wrapped up with a health and safety headline to grab attention. The easy excuse for the jobsworths has now become the easy headline for the lazy sub-editors.
So as you countdown the days to Christmas, here’s a little game we will be playing in our offices and you’re all very welcome to join in:

• How many seasonal stories in the press mention health and safety as a reason for something being cancelled or restricted?
• Did the people in the story mention health and safety or did the sub-editors simply use it for ease in the headlines?

For a bit of fun, we’ll be keeping our own tally, and if you spot any yourself please do let us know. We’re waiting for someone to tell me that Santa’s heavy sack is a health and safety risk. It hasn’t happened yet – but then there are still two weeks to go!
Season's greetings from all of us at CRS

Rochdale company fined £10K over worker's severe chemical burns

A Rochdale fabric firm has been fined £10,000 after an employee fell into a vat of bleach and suffered severe chemical burns over most of his body. PW Greenhalgh and Co Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation into the incident at its factory at Newhey Bleach Works found there was not a safe system in place for using the bleaching equipment.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard recently (21 November 2014) that the 47-year-old worker from Shaw, had climbed onto the container on 3 June 2014 to try and free some cloth which had become entangled between mangle rollers. As he did this, he slipped and fell into an open container of the corrosive solution used to bleach fabric. He suffered serious chemical burns to his lips, arms, chest, groin and legs as well as a large cut to his eyebrow and the bridge of his nose. The worker was airlifted to Wythenshawe Burns Unit and he was off work for more than three months due to the extent of his injuries.
The HSE investigation found that PW Greenhalgh had not carried out a risk assessment for using the bleaching equipment. It was common practice for employees to climb onto the containers, which did not have lids, when the machine became jammed. Staff had also not received any specific training on working with hazardous substances.
Following a visit to the factory, HSE issued four enforcement notices relating to unsafe working practices. The company has since carried out suitable risk assessments and implemented safe systems of work, using lids, handrails and fitting permanent stepladders to all the bleach containers.
PW Greenhalgh and Co Ltd, of Newhey Bleach Works in Newhey, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £718 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Emily Osborne said: “An employee has suffered severe chemical burns because PW Greenhalgh and Co’s safety procedures weren’t good enough. Workers were expected to climb onto vats of bleach to clear blockages from the bleaching equipment as a safe system of work had not been devised. The company knew employees were working with hazardous substances but it failed to take any action to tackle the risks. If the measures the company implemented following the incident, such as installing fixed stepladders and lids on the containers, had been there at the time then the employee’s injuries could easily have been avoided.”
Karen Fryer, Head of Consulting at Corporate Risk Systems Limited (CRS) urged companies to assess risks in a proactive manner.  “Risk assessment does not have to be difficult or onerous”, she said.  “If an organization does not have the time of the experience to do it for themselves, it should contact a skilled consulting firm to assist and support them”.

Bridgend care home to pay £196K in fines and costs following elderly resident's death

A care home company failed to ensure an elderly resident’s safety when she managed to overcome a restrictor device to open a window and fall from her first floor room. The care home owner, Hafod Care Association Ltd, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently (19 November 2014) at Cardiff Crown Court following the incident on 5 November 2010.
The court heard that 92-year-old Olga Llewellyn was a resident at Brocastle Manor Care Home in Ewenny, Bridgend when she sustained fatal injuries falling from her bedroom window between 4am and 7am. Her body was found by care home staff. An investigation by HSE found that all the windows in Brocastle, were fitted with the same type of window restrictors, which were unsuitable for use in a care home because they could be easily over-ridden, so that the window could open wide.
Hafod Care Association Ltd, of Culverhouse Cross, Cardiff, pleaded guilty to one charge under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £96,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 in costs.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Janet Viney, said: “This tragic incident could easily have been avoided if Hafod Care had fitted suitable window restrictors. The care home had been open for more than two years and although window restrictors were fitted, they were unsuitable because they could be easily over-ridden. Falls from windows are a very well known risk in the health and care sectors.  For example between 2005 and 2010 there were 21 fatal accidents from this cause across the UK. It is therefore essential that care homes take measures to ensure vulnerable residents are kept safe. They should carry out a risk assessment and where it identifies that individuals are at risk from falls from windows then adequate restrictors should be fitted. These should restrict the opening to 100mm, be robust and not able to be over-ridden without the use of a specialist tool or key. In this case the risks were particularly high because of the very low (650mm) window sill height, which would allow someone to accidentally fall from the window when opening or closing it.”
CRS has expert skills in care home safety – contact us for a review at your care residence(s)at advice@crsrisk.com

Legal update: Explosives Regulations 2014, Acetylene Safety Regulations 2014

CRS regularly updates our clients and contacts on new HSE legislation when it is published – this time, on new laws governing explosives and acetylene.  HSE has worked with stakeholders since 2010 to review existing health and safety related explosives legislation. One of the key aims of that review was to consolidate, modernise, and, where practicable, simplify the legislative arrangements.
Explosives Regulations 2014 (ER2014)
ER2014 consolidates and therefore revokes a number of explosives regulations. It brings together the requirements of health and safety related explosives legislation into a framework based around common topics such as authorisation, safety, security and placing on the market. As a result of the consolidation the Approved Code of Practice to the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005 (L139) has been withdrawn. Guidance relating to the security of explosives (HSE Circular 1/2005), and guidance on the placing of civil use explosives on the market (L66) have also been withdrawn. Further information on the new regulations is available 
Acetylene Safety (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2014 (ASR 2014)
ASR2014 consolidates a range of legislative instruments including regulations and orders into a single set of regulations.  These regulations simplify and where appropriate, modernise legislative arrangements for compressed acetylene gas whilst maintaining pre-existing safety standards. Further information on Acetylene is available

Thames Water order to pay £361K after worker's death

Thames Water has been ordered to pay more than £361,000 in fines and costs after a worker was killed by a reversing excavator at a treatment works in Walthamstow. Raymond Holmes, 59, of Rayleigh, sustained multiple crush injuries in the fatal incident at the utility company’s Coppermill Lane site on 30 April 2010, and died at the scene.
Mr Holmes was undertaking profiling work as part of team cleaning a large sand filter bed, a process that involved the use of several items of large mobile plant machinery, including the excavator that struck him. Thames Water was sentenced recently (8 December 2014) after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious failings with the way the machines and workers were allowed to operate.
Southwark Crown Court heard that Mr Holmes, an employee of Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL) for more than 30 years, was using laser levelling equipment to measure the depth of the sand bed on foot. He was struck by an excavator working close by after the driver reversed without seeing him or realising he was there.
HSE established that although TWUL recognised the need for control measures to mitigate the risk of a collision between plant and workers, the company failed to implement sufficient measures on the day. Those working in the beds, including Mr Holmes, had also received no formal instruction or supervision to ensure they understood the safe systems of work. HSE also found that nobody was required to wear hi-visibility clothing, and that the excavator involved  was not equipped with effective rear view mirrors or any form of reversing aid or alarm. The court was told that had the work been better planned and managed, with effective control measures in place, Mr Holmes’ death could have been avoided.
Thames Water Utilities Limited, of Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading, was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay a further £61,229 in costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After sentencing, HSE Inspector Nick Patience commented: “Raymond Holmes sadly lost his life because basic safety standards were not in place to protect him and other workers. Working alongside mobile plant can be extremely dangerous, and it is vital that effective control measures are in place at all times to ensure collisions are avoided. Although Thames Water had identified the potential risks, the company failed to ensure the necessary precautions and safe systems of work were in place, understood by all and monitored on that fateful day.”
Laura Wyer, Raymond’s daughter, speaking on behalf of the Holmes family, commented: “When we heard the news that my father had been killed it was not only completely devastating, but incomprehensible that he was killed at work. We had never thought his job was in any way dangerous and couldn’t understand how it was allowed to happen. If only a few simple procedures had been implemented then he would still be here today. My father was a very jolly, easy going man who had a huge amount of time for both myself and my mum, and also my husband Robert, who he saw as the son he never had. He was only a few years from retiring and both he and my Mum were already looking forward to the time they would have together. If just a little more thought and time is taken by employers then workers would not need to lose their lives for simply doing their job. Working in a safe and healthy environment should be a right – it must never be referred to as a burden on an employer to ensure this. “

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) ACOP and guidance 4th edition published

The 4^th edition of this Approved Code of Practice and guidance is aimed at employers, duty holders and anyone who has responsibility for the safe use of work equipment, such as managers and supervisors. It sets out what is needed to comply with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
The Regulations, commonly known as PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not.
Download the new version of this ACOP and guidance, known as L22, free from the link at http://books.hse.gov.uk/hse/public/saleproduct.jsf?catalogueCode=9780717666195
Summary of changes since the last edition:

• The guidance material has been revised and updated, and there are small changes to some ACOP paragraphs to clarify and update information
• Time-limited information has been removed or updated, and more use has been made of lists
• The edition updates references to legislation and links to further guidance

Four prosecuted after Staffordshire roof fall death

A developer, a scaffolding company, its director, and a roofing worker have been sentenced after a worker fell around seven metres to his death in Staffordshire. Stafford Crown Court heard on 2 December 2014 that, on 29 December 2010, experienced roofer Phillip Lonergan was installing the roof on a new warehouse being built by E2 Developments Ltd on land at Cotton Lane, Fauld, Tutbury. He was standing on the edge of the roof when he slipped and fell through a gap of more than 50 centimetres between two scaffolding rails erected to form temporary edge protection. Mr Lonergan, 36, of Burton-on-Trent, died in hospital the same day from head injuries.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the edge protection had been provided by Nottinghamshire-based Albion Tower and Scaffold Ltd. The company’s director, Lee Cotterill, who had no formal qualifications as a scaffolder, had overall control of the design, planning and construction of the edge protection and personally signed it off as being safe. The edge protection was in the form of two scaffolding guardrails running around the roof edge, which were attached to horizontal scaffolding tubes. However, British Standards only allow a minimum of two guardrails to be in place when the angle of the roof is ten degrees or less. The roof Mr Lonergan was working on had a pitch of 20 degrees.
Roofer Peter Allum was approached by E2 to install the roof panels and he, in turn, offered a number of roofers the work, including Mr Lonergan. He was supplied with the roof plans showing the 20-degree angle in October 2010 but failed to deal with the risks posed by the inadequate edge protection.
The investigation also found E2 Developments was not aware of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 which required the company, as the client, to notify HSE of the work and appoint a competent scheme co-ordinator and principal contractor.
E2 Developments Ltd, of Hopley Road, Anslow, Burton-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 14(1), 14(2) and 22 of the Construction, Design and Management Regulations 2007 and was fined a total of £66,000 with costs of £13,200.
Peter Allum, 41, of Beamhill Road, Burton-on-Trent, admitted breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,500 with £1,500 costs.
Lee Cotterill, 53, of Marple Drive, Aston-on-Trent, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay costs of £4,000.
Albion Tower and Scaffold (East Midlands) Ltd, of Common Lane, Watnall, Nottinghamshire, was fined £53,000 and ordered to pay £15,500 in costs after pleading guilty to the same offence.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Lindsay Hope said: “Each defendant failed to ensure Mr Lonergan and other roofers could work safely. In each case their failure was a significant cause of Mr Lonergan’s death. The temporary edge protection should have had a third guardrail to reduce the space for a person to slide through. It should also have had netting around the edge, or toe boards. No such safety measures were in place. The edge protection was therefore inadequate to reduce the risk of serious harm – something that should have been obvious to both Albion and its director Lee Cotterill. E2 was provided with architects’ plans showing the roof was at a 20-degree pitch but failed to plan, manage or monitor the work in order to eliminate the risk of a fall. One of the directors had never heard of the regulations his company should have been working to. It was therefore very difficult for the company to discharge its duties under those Regulations if directors were ignorant of them. Peter Allum was aware of the obvious risk of harm posed by the inadequate rails, but did nothing about it. As an experienced roofer he could, and should, have tackled the issue.”
CRS says “More than a fifth of all construction deaths are caused by falls from or through roofs. If you are a director, manager or worker involved in working at height, now might be the time to review your procedures for doing so – we’re here to help if you wish. Contact Ian Cliffen at advice@crsrisk.com to arrange a no-obligation discussion”.

County Durham firm fined after driver seriously injured

A County Durham stair-lift manufacturer has been prosecuted for safety failings after a delivery driver was seriously injured when he was struck by a reversing fork lift truck. The 62-year-old, from Gloucester was working for a haulage contractor when the incident occurred on 7 November 2013 as he delivered to Meditek Ltd, in Newton Aycliffe.
He was in the “goods in” area of the factory and, having completed his paperwork, was heading back to his vehicle when he saw a fork lift truck reversing towards him. He instinctively moved to his left, towards his trailer, in an attempt to avoid it, but the fork lift turned in the same direction, knocking him to the ground and running over both of his feet. He suffered de-gloving of the big toe on his left foot and severe bruising and grazing to both feet and legs. He had to undergo surgery to repair his toe, but this was unsuccessful and the toe was amputated on 9 December 2013.
Darlington Magistrates’ Court was told recently (10 December 2014) that an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that although the driver of the fork lift truck failed to ensure that there was no one behind him before he reversed, at the time of the incident the management of vehicles and pedestrians was inadequate. In particular delivery drivers were allowed to walk around the loading area watching while their lorry was loaded. Although there was a risk assessment covering the “goods in” and “goods out” areas, it did not consider the foreseeable risk that people in those areas might be struck by a moving vehicle.
The court was also told that while some improvements were made by the company immediately following the incident, an Improvement Notice was still necessary to ensure external areas of the workplace were organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate in a safe manner. The company complied with the notice by reviewing its management of pedestrians and vehicles across the factory, and by simply preventing delivery drivers from standing in the loading and unloading areas while the fork lift truck was operating.
Meditek Ltd (Meditek), of Northfield Way, Newton Aycliffe, was fined £3,300 and ordered to pay £790.60 in costs and £1,000 compensation after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the case, HSE inspector Victoria Wise said: “Meditek cooperated fully with HSE’s investigation and accepted that this incident was easily preventable had it identified the risks to pedestrians in the loading area associated with moving vehicles. The close proximity of the delivery driver in an area where a fork lift truck was reversing was unsafe. The risks associated with pedestrians and vehicles working in proximity to each other are well known and there is plenty of advice available on how to reduce those risks. This delivery driver suffered a serious injury because of the company’s failures.”
CRS urges physical separation between pedestrians and vehicles in motion wherever possible, and particularly in working areas such as “goods in” and “goods out”.

Consulting workers on health and safety - L146 revised 2nd edition

This revised 2^nd edition booklet provides the law and guidance on how to consult and involve your employees and their representatives on health and safety matters at work under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (as amended) and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (as amended). It explains the relationship between the two sets of regulations and how they affect you and your workforce; in some workplaces you may have to consult under both sets of regulations.
It should apply to the majority of workplaces. However, the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 apply to offshore workplaces. There are also specific requirements to consult your employees or their health and safety representatives in other health and safety legislation which applies to specific industries. Extensive details of further sources of information and industry-specific advice are provided.
It will be of help to employers, trade unions, appointed health and safety representatives, representatives of employee safety, and members of health and safety committees. This second edition, originally published in 2012, has been subject to some minor amendments and corrections to reflect changes to linked HSE guidance and revisions/revocations to other, related pieces of legislation. The guidance remains substantially the same.
Download a free copy here http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l146.htm?eban=govdel-publications&cr=07-Nov-2014

Grimsby construction company fined £10K over worker's serious injuries

A Grimsby construction company has been fined for safety breaches and ordered to pay compensation, after a worker suffered serious leg injuries while installing piles for a new school science block. Groundworker Jamie North, 49, from Grimsby, sustained multiple leg fractures during the pile cropping work at Caistor Grammar School, Lincolnshire, on 5 March 2013.
Mr North required two operations and had a steel frame and screws fixed on his leg. He also developed a blood clot which required further treatment after a 21-day stay in hospital. He was off work for a year and is still undergoing treatment on his ankle. He can no longer work in the construction industry.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified that Topcon Construction Ltd failed to ensure that work equipment used for cropping piles was used only in suitable conditions, and failed to dismantle a reinforced concrete pile in a manner to prevent danger.
Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard recently (10 November 2014) that Mr North was working on the construction of the new school building which required the installation of pre-cast concrete driven foundation piles. The six-metre long piles were driven into the ground using a piling rig, in an upright position, until they were set. The excess part of the piles, which extends out of the ground, was then to be cropped using a hydraulic pile cropper.
HSE found the pile cropper hired by Topcon was only suitable for piles with a single, steel reinforcing bar running through the length of a pile. Another cropping machine, a power cropper, had been recommended for the school construction job by the hire company but the advice had been disregarded. Magistrates were told the pile cropper being used was not powerful enough to cut through the concrete and four steel bars so was used to nibble the concrete away to expose the steel bars, which were then cut through with a disc cutter. The piles were then pushed to the ground in an uncontrolled manner. As Mr North was guiding the cropper over one pile, a colleague pushed another pile over but he had not cut through one of the bars. The pile twisted and fell onto Mr North.
Topcon Construction Ltd of Louth Road, Grimsby, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,980 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching regulation 4(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and regulation 29(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Topcon Construction Ltd must also pay Mr North compensation of £10,000 for his injuries.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said: “Topcon Construction Ltd failed to heed two warnings that the pile cropper they had ordered was not suitable for the job, hence the need to adopt the high-risk ‘tree-felling’ method of pushing the piles over. They should have foreseen that the felling of piles, in an area that workers could wander into, presented a high risk of injury. Mr North suffered very serious leg injuries in an incident that could have been prevented, had the work been better planned and managed.”
CRS says “In the construction industry in 2013-14, there were 42 fatal injuries to workers; 14 of these to the self-employed”.

Leighton Buzzard road-marking firm fined for worker's burns

A road worker suffered minor burns when a road marking vehicle caught fire and exploded in Bristol, a court has heard. Neil Higgins from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire was laying road markings with a team at Imperial Park, Hartcliffe, on 25 June 2013 when the explosion happened. The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Redland Road Marking Ltd at Bristol Magistrates Court.
HSE’s investigation found that gas-heated cauldrons on top of the vehicle were unsuitable for the work because the pipework was not properly connected and the equipment had no flame failure devices. In addition, the pipework had not been fitted by a competent person. Mr Higgins’ employer, Redland Road Marking Ltd, of Hillside Road, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching work equipment regulations and was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,123 in costs.
HSE Principal Inspector Helena Tinton, speaking after the hearing, said: “This is not the first time there has been a fire of this nature on a road marking vehicle and the operators need to ensure that the equipment has been installed by a competent person and regularly maintained. It is a matter of good fortune that nobody died as a result of this incident.”

1.3 million tradespeople at risk from dangers of asbestos

Tradespeople, including construction workers, carpenters and painters and decorators, could come into contact with deadly asbestos on average more than 100 times a year according to a new survey commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive.  And an average of 20 tradespeople die every week from asbestos related diseases. As well as illustrating how often tradespeople can be exposed to asbestos, the survey revealed some common myths believed by those at risk, with 1 in seven (14 per cent) believing that drinking a glass of water will help protect them from the deadly dust and one in four (27 per cent) thinking that opening a window will help to keep them safe. Only a third (30 per cent) of those asked, were able to identify all the correct measures for safe asbestos working, whilst more than half (57 per cent) made at least one potentially lethal mistake in trying to identify how to stay safe. 

Asbestos can be found in walls and ceilings, or the structure of a building, as well as a host of other places like floor tiles, boilers, toilet cisterns, guttering and soffits. It can be disturbed by basic maintenance work like drilling holes and sanding and once disturbed, the microscopic fibres can prove lethal if breathed in, causing lung disease and cancer.
This new research shows that while more than half (53 per cent) knew that asbestos could be in old buildings built before 1970, only 15 per cent knew that it could still be found in buildings built up to the year 2000. And although many of those surveyed could pinpoint some asbestos-containing materials, others were clueless, with only 19 per cent recognising it could also be hidden in common fixtures such as toilet seats and cisterns.
CRS encourages all tradespeople to think about asbestos on every job so they are prepared to deal with the danger.
Mark Harper, Minister responsible for Health and Safety, said: “The number dying every year from asbestos related-diseases is unacceptably high. Despite being banned in the construction industry, asbestos exposure remains a very serious risk to tradespeople.  We … encourage people to be aware of the risks, think twice, and take precautions to stay safe.”
Philip White, HSE’s Chief Inspector for Construction, said: “Asbestos is still a very real danger and the survey findings suggest that the people who come into contact with it regularly often don’t know where it could be and worryingly don’t know how to deal with it correctly, which could put them in harm’s way.”
Former electrical consultant Simon Clark, who in 2012 was diagnosed with mesothelioma – the life-threatening and aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos – when he was just 52, said: “When I was younger I didn’t think of the dangers of asbestos and I must have been exposed to it frequently. Since being diagnosed, I’ve had to give up my work and let some of my employees go – which is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. It is vitally important that everybody knows when they might be exposed and takes the correct steps to protect themselves.”

Fine for Rotherham company over worker's severed fingers

A Rotherham manufacturing firm has been prosecuted for safety breaches after an employee’s fingers were crushed and severed in an unguarded machine. The incident at Heaps, Arnold and Heaps Ltd, which makes metal products, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which found a vital safety device had been deliberately removed from a 250-tonne press.
Rotherham Magistrates were today recently (24 November 2014) that the 43-year-old worker, from Doncaster, had been asked to work on the machine, which presses lead work-pieces into required shapes. He was unaware a safety device, or interlock, had been removed while he had been on holiday. The employee put his hand into the machine during a routine cleaning operation but the press activated without warning and his fingers were crushed by the ram. He lost the index and middle fingers and suffered further crush injuries to his left hand. He is undertaking a phased return to work but still needs medical and physiotherapy treatment.
HSE’s investigation identified the safety interlock had been deliberately removed so that the machine could be operated while the protective guard was open. In addition HSE found inadequate management systems and a lack of competence relating to the required machinery guarding standards.
Heaps, Arnold and Heaps Ltd, of Quintec Court,, Barbot Hall Industrial Estate, Rotherham, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £687 in costs after admitting a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Jane Fox said: “This serious injury was entirely preventable.  A safety device had been deliberately taken off with the full knowledge of management. There were no systems in place to check the safety of machines and this employee was certainly not told that the machine had been left in a dangerous condition. Safety devices, such as guards and interlocks, are installed on machines for very good reason – and that is to prevent workers from coming into contact inadvertently with dangerous moving parts. Regulations and safety standards have been in place for many years on this issue and are well-recognised by the majority of companies. Sadly, this was not the case here and an employee of long-standing now has to endure the consequences for the rest of his life.”
The CRS SafetyShare service is the ideal, low-cost, high-value approach to improving health and safety management and health and safety standards at smaller firms such as this one. Firms can take as little or as much of a safety professional’s time as they need for one low, fixed annual fee which is payable in monthly instalments if you wish. We become management’s eyes and ears to make sure good standards are achieved and maintained – much cheaper and more sensible than paying fines. Contact CRS at advice@crsrsk.com 

Droylesden firm ignores prohibition notice and is fined £10K

A Tameside gate manufacturer has been fined £10,000 after it ignored a formal warning about installing guards on two circular saws. Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after it continued to expose its workforce to danger by operating the saws for one month after being ordered to take them out of use at its workshop on the Greenside Trading Estate in Droylsden.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard recently (5 December 2014) that two inspectors had spotted the unprotected saws during an unannounced visit to the site on 14 April 2014. They issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws not to be used until guards had been fitted. When HSE inspectors returned to the site a month later, they found the saws still in use and no attempt had been made by the firm to fit guards.
Openshaw Bespoke Timber Gates Ltd, of Greenside Lane in Droylsden, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £729 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sarah Taylor said: “When we first visited the factory in April, we were immediately concerned by two of the saws which were not guarded and could easily have resulted in an employee losing a finger. We therefore issued a Prohibition Notice requiring the saws to be taken out of use but the company failed to take any action until we returned to the site one month later, despite it being a legal requirement. The firm has since subcontracted its wood cutting work to an outside firm so the saws are not needed. If it had done this when we first served the notice, or fitted guards to the saws, then it would have avoided having to pay a court fine.”
CRS says: “It’s careless and ridiculous for a firm to ignore a Prohibition Notice as this one did. We think the court was quite right to punish it with a stiff fine. This is a warning that other firms should take note of.”

ISO 14001 draft revisions approved, as Certification top 300,000

Revisions to ISO 14001 have moved into the final stages after 92% of member bodies of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) approved the draft.
The revised standard aims to align environmental management systems more closely with an organisation’s strategy. It places greater emphasis on reducing environmental impacts across the whole life-cycle of products and services including supply chains and in the development and use of products and services. 
The new standard will also require organisations to consider impacts from a changing environment and provide a framework for organisations to manage the risks and maximise opportunities from trends such as scarcity of natural resources and climate change. 
Martin Baxter, executive director of policy and engagement at IEMA said the draft changes fully reflected members’ views. The next meeting of the international working group drafting the standard will be held in February 2015 in Tokyo to consider the comments and produce the final version.  
The ISO said it expects the new standard to be published by the end of 2015.

ISO 14001 certifications top 300,000

The latest data from International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) on the uptake of 14001 reveals that the number of certificates issued worldwide in 2013 exceeded 300,000 for the first time.

The rising popularity of 14001 comes ahead of the expected implementation next year of the new version of the global standard for environment management systems (EMS).

IEMA can report that the figures it has seen from ISO show a global year-on-year increase globally of almost 17,000 certificates between 2012 and 2013, from 284,654 to 301,647.

The UK is fourth in the league table of nations with the most number of certificates, just behind China, Italy and Japan. The UK was fifth in 2012. There was an increase of 996 14001 certificates in the UK between 2012 and 2013.

Martin Baxter, IEMA’s executive director, policy and engagement and the UK’s appointed expert to the 14001 revision working group, commented: “It’s fantastic to see that the total number of ISO 14001 certificates has not only continued to grow year-on-year, but that the total figure has reached a real milestone of over 300,000 certificates worldwide. With less than one year to go before the new version of the standard is expected to be implemented, I expect to see a continued trajectory of growth.”

Proposed changes to 14001 include: a better understanding of the context of the organisation when establishing the scope of the EMS and a clearer definition of the role and responsibilities of top management.

News of the almost 6% rise in 14001 certifications in 2013 came as Baxter presented details of the revised standard at IEMA’s EMS national forum. Delegates benefited from gaining insight on the changes and details on the opportunities arising from the new requirements

If you need some support implementing ISO 14001 or are looking at how to make the transition to the new standard next year, CRS offer a range of course and consultancy support; For more information on our range of services contact Ros Stacey on ROS.STACEY@CRSRISK.COM or 01283 509175.

Source: Environmentalist

ISO 14001 Risks and Opportunities £2.3 Billion in Climate Change Adaption: Flood Protection to save £30 Billion

This is the largest and most ambitious flood and coastal erosion risk management investment programme ever undertaken in England. The certainty of this longer term funding settlement provides the opportunity to achieve more for communities, the economy and the environment.

The infographic shows what the programme will achieve and how reducing flood risk will benefit infrastructure, business and commerce, agriculture, and the environment
This 6 year investment programme lists projects, schemes and improvements to flood defences and other critical services that will receive some government funding. This programme was developed in consultation with the regional flood and coastal committees and all risk management authorities in England. It covers the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2021.
Use the interactive flood and coastal erosion risk management investment programme map to find out what schemes and projects risk management authorities are planning to do in your area, to reduce the risks and consequences of flooding.
CRS’s Head of Environment, Richard Ball commented ‘The Government and Environment Agency’s announcement of a long term plan on flood protection demonstrates the new risks and opportunities model in ISO 14001: 2015; in which all organisations with ISO 14001 will need to look at Strategy Environmental Risk and opportunities.

Source: DEFRA

Plasterer breaks back in fall at Cheshire mansion

A Cheshire building firm has been fined after a plasterer broke his back when he fell three metres during the construction of a six-bedroom house.

CB Homes Ltd, which was the main contractor for the development in Little Budworth, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found the company had failed to make sure adequate guard rails were in place on the first floor landing to prevent falls.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard today (28 November 2014) that the 58-year-old from Wrexham, who has asked not to be named, had been fitting plasterboard when he fell from the open landing on 22 May 2013. He suffered two cracked vertebrae along with damage to his spine, hips and legs.

The court was told CB Homes had been managing a project to build seven new homes at Mondrem Green on Chester Road. The company had hired a plastering firm to plaster the inside of the houses but failed to make sure this work could be carried out safely.

The plasterer had needed to use a ladder to reach the first floor, and there was no guard rail in place along the open edge on the landing. He was carrying a piece of plasterboard when he lost his footing and fell to the ground floor below. 

CB Homes Ltd, of High Street in Tarporley, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,376 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to two breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Find out more about our NEBOSH Certificate in Construction Health & Safety Course

Construction firm in court over worker’s multiple injuries

A Glasgow-based construction company has been fined for serious safety failings after a worker was severely injured when he was crushed under nearly two tonnes of plasterboard.

Stuart McNaught, a joiner for William Fulton Building Services Ltd, was putting up plasterboards inside an extension at a house in Cochno Road East, Duntocher, when the incident happened in icy conditions on 6 January 2011.

Dumbarton Sheriff Court was told today (21 November) that his employer, William Fulton, had brought more plasterboards sheets for the job and was using a forklift truck to lift the load onto the site.

Mr Fulton drove the unsecured load of 82 plasterboard sheets, weighing 1925kg, down the road towards the extension and began to lower them into a courtyard. The court heard that the forks were iced up and the road had not been gritted.

Mr McNaught, then 36, and another employee were in the courtyard below the forklift and watched the boom extend over a demolished wall. As the workers began to guide the load from the forklift to the ground Mr McNaught, who was not wearing a hi-vis vest and could not see Mr Fulton, noticed the plasterboard move. As he tried to get out of the way, he slipped. The load fell off the forks and landed on Mr McNaught trapping him.

On hearing his screams, the other site workers tried to lift the plasterboard but as it was too heavy, Mr Fulton drove the forklift into the courtyard to lift the boards off Mr McNaught.

He was taken to hospital with a broken rib, pelvis, punctured lung and fractures to his right ankle and both legs. He returned to work after five months but continued to suffer from chronic pain and resigned a year later. However, he returned to the company in April this year.

William Fulton Building Services Ltd was prosecuted after a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the company failed to address how the plasterboard could be lifted and moved safely, particularly at the time when the site was badly affected by ice.

The court was told William Fulton had not received basic training in using a forklift truck. A trained operator would have considered the safest route and ensured that people would not be working in the area while material was being unloaded. He would also have recognised that there was ice on the forks of the truck which would make the load more likely to move.

William Fulton Building Services Ltd, of Drymen Road, Bearsden, Glasgow, was fined £8,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. NEBOSH National Certificate in Construction Health & Safety