UKCA and CE marking rules change again.

 

Like with most of the Brexit situation, the UKCA mark is a confusing mess.  Originally, the UKCA mark was supposed to replace the CE mark for equipment which originated in the UK and stayed here, with this coming into force at the end of 2020.  

Then it changed so with the UK Government making provision for the UKCA mark, but having it being complimentary to the CE mark and not replacing it.   The default would be the CE mark, but the UKCA mark is there in case there are circumstances where the CE mark cannot be used.  An example of this would be if a company had made use of a UK Approved Body.

Now it has changed back again.

The default mark from 1st January 2021 is now the UKCA mark, but you are still allowed to use the CE mark until 1st January 2022.

This applies to all equipment placed on the UK market, with the exception of Northern Ireland who will still use the CE mark. 

See support for machinery manufacturers on CE marking from Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.

Plastic tubing manufacturer Metelle UK fined £100,000 after worker was caught in an exposed clamp of a poorly-guarded machine

Emtelle UK Limited, a manufacturer of plastic tubing and blown fibre tubing for telecoms and water piping, was fined £100,000 after an employee suffered serious injuries to his left hand when it came into contact with the exposed clamp of a socket machine.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a socket machine.
• The risk assessment had not included working with shorter lengths of pipe.
• The guards were inadequate for shorter lengths and it was possible to reach the dangerous parts of the machine which included a clamp.
• On 3 November 2016, an employee working on this machine, placing a pipe into a socket.
• The shorter length of pipe fell out
• He reached to catch the pipe to prevent it being clamped and his left hand came into contact with the exposed clamp causing serious injury.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out correct control measures and safe working practices. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

Leadec Limited fined £2M after employee was killed during high pressure water jetting operation

Specialist industrial services company Leadec Limited was  fined £2,030,000 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered a fatal injury whilst cleaning waste-water pipes.

The circumstances were:

• Leadec used high-pressure water jetting equipment to clear paint residue from pipes in the paint shop at a car manufacturing site.
• Whilst Leadec  recognised the risks of operating high-pressure water jetting equipment, they had failed to put in place appropriate measures to mitigate the risks.
• They had not implemented or enforced the use of various control measures such as a pressure regulator or an anti-ejection device.
• Training and supervision were inadequate.
• On 18 June 2017, an employee was using this process. 
• The above control measures were not in place.
• The employee was struck by the end of flexi-lance, causing a fatal injury.

The HSE inspector said:
“Companies must understand that high risk activities require a thorough risk assessment process and robust management systems to protect their employees from risk of serious or fatal injuries. It is not good enough for companies to assume they are doing all they can to control the risk just because there have been no previous incidents. Joseph McDonald’s death could have been prevented had Leadec Limited had the necessary control measures and management systems in place to protect its employees.”

Landlord and mechanic ignored prohibition and improvement notices and received a string of penalties including 2 suspended sentences.

Mechanic and landlord Mustafa Kemal Mustafa was disqualified as a director for six years, received two suspended custodial sentences, 300 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £8,000 in costs and after refusing to comply with enforcement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Kent Fire and Rescue Service.

The circumstances were:

• In 2017 HSE received concerns that workers were accessing the dangerous unguarded flat roof of The Convent of Mercy in Swanley. 
• Mr Mustafa was the landlord of The Convent, a house of multiple occupancy (HMO). 
• The premises were also being used to store car parts for Smartworld; a car repair and sales business owned by Mustafa Kemal Mustafa. 
• HSE issued seven enforcement notices, covering unsafe working at height, dangerous electrical installations, flammable risks and machinery guarding.
• Mr Mustafa deliberately ignored prohibition and improvement notices served by the HSE and continued to put himself, workers and members of the public at risk.

The HSE inspector said:
“HSE is dedicated to ensuring that business owners and landlords operate within the law and provide safe accommodation for tenants and a safe place to work for employees. We do not tolerate disregard for health and safety and consider the non-compliance of HSE enforcement notices as a serious offence. In this case Mr Mustafa chose to flagrantly ignore the support, guidance and warnings from HSE to assist his compliance with the law and continued placing people at serious risk of injury or even death. Wherever possible we continue to work with companies to improve health and safety. However, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action where necessary and prosecute individuals and businesses who ignore warnings and the law.”

Latest situation on the UKCA mark

Like with most of the Brexit situation, the UKCA mark is a confusing mess.  Originally, the UKCA mark was supposed to replace the CE mark for equipment which originated in the UK and stayed here, with this coming into force at the end of 2020.  

Now it has changed to the UK Government making provision for the UKCA mark, but having it being complimentary to the CE mark and not replacing it.   The default would be the CE mark, but the UKCA mark is there in case there are circumstances where the CE mark cannot be used.  An example of this would be if a company had made use of a UK Approved Body.

See support for machinery manufacturers on CE marking from Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.

Mr Bagel’s Limited fined £9,000 after employee loses hand whilst clearing a blockage

Mr Bagel’s Limited. a bakery,  was fined £9,000 (inc.costs) after an employee amputated his right hand on a bagel production line.

The circumstances were:

• The mixer on the bagel production line did not have adequate measures in place to prevent access to the dangerous parts.
• Machine blockages are common events, but Mr Bagel’s did not have a safe system of work for clearing them.  
• A safe system of work would have included isolating the machine before attempting to clear the blockage.
• On 2 October 2017, an employee was attempting to clear dough that had become jammed. 
• As the dough was cleared, the machine restarted dragging the victim’s arm into the danger zone. 
• His hand was amputated at the wrist.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury was easily prevented. Machine blockages are routine events; the risk to a person from clearing them should have been identified. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Scapa fined £135,000 after fatal accident due to unguarded in-running nips

Scapa UK Limited , which manufactures adhesive tape, was fined £135,192 (inc.costs) after a worker was fatally injured while operating a rewind/slitting machine.

The circumstances were:

• The rewind/slitting machine draws a large roll of adhesive material and slits it into narrower rolls.
• The risk assessment for the machine was inadequate because it failed to identify the in-running nips and other hazards on the machine. 
• Scapa previously received advice in 2012 from both HSE and an external consultant in relation to the guarding of machinery on site, but had failed to take action to ensure the necessary guarding.
• As a result, it still had unguarded in-running nips.
• In addition, operators were not provided adequate information and training on the risks posed by this machine.
• On 10 April 2018, Mr Brett Dolby was operating the machine.
• He was drawn into an in-running nip and suffered fatal injuries

The HSE inspector said:
“This tragic incident could easily have been prevented if the company had properly assessed and applied effective control measures to minimise the risks from dangerous parts of the machinery. The dangers associated with in-running nips are well known, and a wealth of advice and guidance is freely available from HSE and other organisations. Employers should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”