Melba Products fined £130,000 after employee's finger was severed in unguarded blender

Plastics manufacturer, Melba Products Limited, was fined £130,387 (inc. costs) after an employee’s finger was severed due to inadequately guarded machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on the hopper/blender of a blow moulding machine.
• Melba Products Limited failed to carry out a risk assessment of the blender. 
• They had failed to put in place appropriate control measures to prevent access to dangerous parts 
• They had also failed to implement a suitable system of training and supervising of new starters.
• The injured employee had only been operating the machine for one week prior to the incident.
• The blender had not been sufficiently guarded to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. There was a large gap of approximately 4 x 5 inches towards the top of the hopper guard.
• On 5 November 2018, the 36-year-old employee of Melba Products Limited had been refilling the hopper of a blow moulding machine with plastic granules from bags.
• Work gloves that had been inside one of the bags fell into the hopper and through the guard. 
• Whilst reaching through a large gap in the top of the hopper guard to retrieve the gloves, his middle finger contacted dangerous parts of the blender.
• This resulted in it being severed down to the knuckle of his second finger.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury was entirely preventable and could have been avoided by ensuring the machine was being operated safely, with a suitable guard in place. Adequate supervision should also have been in place to ensure the machine was being used safely by newer operatives. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

VSMPO Tirus fined £200,000 for failure to provide support for material being cut which allowed 1.5 tonnes of material to fall onto an employee's leg.

Titanium supplier VSMPO Tirus Limited was fined £207,293 (inc.costs) after an employee sustained multiple fractures to his leg because of a failure to support material being cut.

The circumstances were:

• On 20 September 2017, an employee was cutting titanium on a metal cutting band saw.
• The sheets being cut were significantly larger than the machine bed.
• VSMPO Tirus had failed to suitably and sufficiently assess the risk of material falling from the machine bed.
• They had failed to put in measures to control the risk.  An extension to the machine bed or stanchions with back stops would have prevented the material from falling from the machine bed.
• Almost 1.5 tonnes of titanium plate fell from the bed the band saw trapping the employee's leg underneath.

The HSE inspector added:
“A simple, cost-effective solution could have prevented this horrendous injury.”

Failure to isolate machines caused arm injury and £200,000 fine

Chemical company, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd (Reckitt Benckiser Ltd), was fined £208,261 (inc.costs) after a worker had his left arm crushed in a bottle filling machine.

The circumstances were:

• On 9 September 2017, the worker was carrying out a recalibration task.
• The machine had not been isolated.
• The machine caused a crush injury to his left forearm.
• He also sustained tendon damage to the forearm, wrist and hand.

The HSE Inspector said: 
“Non-routine maintenance tasks must be carried out by trained personnel working to standard safe operating procedures."

 

Employee trapped inside equipment because of a lack of isolation

Manufacturer of carbon-based products, SGL Carbon Fibres Limited (SGL), was fined £12,000 following an incident where an employee sustained soft tissue injuries to his right hip and a fracture to his lower right leg.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred during maintenance on a Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser (RTO).
• There was a general permit to work.
• However, no risk assessment was undertaken to identify any specific risks beyond the general ones mentioned on the Permit to Work documentation.
• Also, pre-existing relevant procedures were not implemented.
• As a result, the task was not clearly supervised, informed by a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and consequent work instructions, with appropriate supervision and monitoring to ensure the identified safe system of work was implemented.
• On 25 April 2016, and employee was inside the RTO when he become trapped between a moving poppet valve and the valve seat.

Hose manufacturer fined after inexperienced employee was caught in unguarded machinery

Wirral-based Novaflex Ltd., that manufactures composite hose products was fined £29,000 (inc.costs) after an inexperienced agency worker was injured when he was pulled into a spinning lathe, sustaining open fractures to his right arm.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred between a pitch wheel and mandrel on a lathe.
• The lathe had been modified which made operators work closer to the entrapment hazard.
• The company had not identified the risk of entrapment or the necessary controls required to avoid it.
• As a result, Novaflex had failed to effectively prevent access to dangerous parts of the machinery.
• They also failed to provide a safe system of work for the task 
• They had not provided adequate instruction and training to ensure its workers were competent to operate the machinery.
• On 20 November 2018, a worker at Novaflex Ltd was operating the lathe when the sleeve of his sweatshirt caught between a pitch wheel and rotating mandrel, pulling his arm into the machine. 
• This resulted in an open fracture of the ulna (long bone found in the forearm) and the radial shaft of his right arm, leaving it permanently weak, making day-to-day tasks difficult and stressful. He also suffered severe bruising to his body and skin abrasions.

The HSE inspector said:
“Those in control of a workplace have a responsibility to identify and devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers.”

Woodworking company fined £59,000 after worker became entnagled in unguarded driveshaft

Woodworking company, Peter Ramsey & Sons (Denholme) Timber Ltd, was fined £59,484 (inc. costs) after a worker became entangled in an unguarded drive shaft and suffered serious injuries.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a wood planer.
• A new conveyor line had been installed and the planer then had an unguarded rotating driveshaft.
• No risk assessments had been carried out which, if done correctly, would have identified the risk posed by this.
• On 8 March 2018, a worker reached over the driveshaft to reach some wood.
• His hi-vis jacket and t-shirt became entangled, drawing him into the machine. 
• He sustained a torn tendon in his left fourth finger, a broken left wrist, a break to his little finger and nerve damage to his left arm.

The HSE inspector commented:
“The company should have produced a detailed risk assessment when the conveyor was added to the existing machine. This could have identified that there was an unguarded rotating drive shaft which required guarding to prevent access. This injury could have been easily prevented, and the risk should have been identified.”

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.”

C & R Powder Coating and Welding Fabrication Ltd., was £30,338 after worker was hit by 350kg of plastic sheeting

 Poole-based C & R Powder Coating and Welding Fabrication Ltd., was fined £30,338 (inc.costs) after polycarbonnate sheets fell from an inadequate trolley, hitting a worker.

The circumstances were:

• On 27 July 2017, the worker was checking the straps on a wheeled A-frame trolley.
• The trolley contained ten 6m long polycarbonate sheets, each weighing 35kg.
• The trolley was unsuitable for the storage and transport of the plastic sheets because it was not sufficiently long enough. 
• Also, it had no means for ensuring the straps being used would stay in place.
• The load unexpectedly slipped, hitting him and pushing him to the ground.
• Colleagues had to lift the sheets off him.
• He suffered shattered lumbar vertebrae and had to be kept in a lying down position on his back for two weeks in hospital.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out safe working practices and ensuring work equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used. Accidents like this can happen with plastic sheets but equally with wood board, steel plate or stone slabs. Any flat profile material should be secured against falling or slipping out as the consequences can be a serious injury or even a fatality.”

Leeds and Bradford Boiler Co Ltd fined £127,690 after accident during a crane lifting operation.

Leeds and Bradford Boiler Co Ltd was fined £127,692 (inc. costs) after a machinist broke his upper arm and suffered crush injuries to his lower arm during a lifting operation on a machine tool.

The circumstances comprised the following:

• The accident occurred on 2 November 2018 whilst the employee was fitting a 2-tonne metal plate to a vertical borer so it could be machined.
• The plate was not sitting flush with the table due to dirt or debris.
• There was no assessment or safe system of work for lifting operations or what to do in this situation.
• He raised one side of the metal plate above the machine table using an overhead crane with C shaped hook so that he could clean underneath with a rag.
• While he was doing this the cover plate slipped off the lifting attachment trapping his arm underneath. 
• He has had to undergo several long operations on his lower and upper arm and is unlikely to regain full function in his right arm.

The HSE inspector commented: 
“Lifting operations and foreseeable activities including cleaning should be properly assessed and planned. Other employees were also at risk of injury by falling metal plates. This incident could so easily have been avoided by using suitable lifting accessories, implementing safe working practices, and ensuring these are followed through appropriate supervision and monitoring.”

HSE publishes occupational fatal injury rates for 2019-20

The HSE has published its report on fatalities for April 2019 to March 2020.

Whilst the rate in the last century saw a substantial drop, this century has been broadly flat. 
Note that the HSE state that the downturn in the economy due to Covid19 in the last part of the date range may have affected the data.

There were 11 killed with the majority in Construction (4). followed by Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (20) and then Manufacturing (15).

The predominant cause is falls from height, followed by being struck by a moving vehicle.

Construction has seen an increase in the number of fatalities (40) from last year (31). although the 5-yearly average is 37.

The rate of fatalities per 100,000 workers is skewed by the low number of workers in the 65+ bracket.

The importance of competent H&S advices

There have been two recent prosecutions which show how critical it is to obtain competent health and safety advice when you outsource this:

In the first one, Self-employed consultant Clive Weal was fined £1,400 for  providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified to advise his clients in relation to hand arm vibration, work place noise and the control of substances hazardous to health. This resulted in the inadequate recommendation of ‘anti vibration gloves’ as an appropriate control measure and the failure to identify that paints containing isocyanates can cause asthma. See  https://bit.ly/3gtHv2W for details.

In the second one, consultant company S & Ash Ltd was fined £12,716 after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) following their health surveillance.  The employer was fined £147,658.  See https://bit.ly/31grSpk for details.

As a starting point, you need to confirm that your consultant is suitably qualified, with CMIOSH1 or MIIRSM2 as being indicators that he or she meets the initial and continual requirements of a professional body.

For reference, I'm CMIOSH.

As a requirement of membership, you have to operate only within areas of your own competence.  One of my 5 Principles is that I do this, and if your requirement is outside my level of competence, I tell you there and then. And if I can, I will recommend a suitable alternative provider.

1 Chartered Member of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

2 Member of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management

Perrys Motor Sales fined £147,658 and consultants, S & Ash Ltd fined £12,716 after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome

Motor sales company, Perrys Motor Sales Ltd (PMS) were fined £147,658 (inc.costs) and Occupational Health & Safety Consultants, S & Ash Ltd fined £12,716 (inc.costs) after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). 
S & Ash Ltd. were previously known as Sound Advice Safety and Health Ltd.

The circumstances were:

• An employee of PMS was a small to medium area repair technology (SMART) repairer. 
• He regularly used handheld power tools to undertake small scale vehicle body work repairs.
• S & Ash Ltd was engaged by PMS to provide HAVS health surveillance for employees.
• S & Ash Ltd failed to provide suitable and accurate advice to PMS of the HAVS risks.
• S & Ash Ltd  failed to inform the employee of the results of his health surveillance, even when specifically requested to do so by him.
• PMS had failed to adequately assess and control the foreseeable risk to SMART repairers. 
• Following the diagnosis, PMS took no action to protect the employee from further damage to his health.
• The employee developed HAVS.
• His condition was not reported under RIDDOR.

TheHSE inspector said:
“Vibration can cause long-term painful damage to hands and fingers. The motor vehicle repair trade must understand the importance of suitable risk assessments and having a robust occupational health and safety management system. Employers should ensure that the results of health surveillance are acted upon and employees are protected from the risks from HAV when working with handheld power tools. Occupational health providers are in a unique position in safeguarding the health of employees and must provide accurate reports to employers following HAV health surveillance. Employers must act on these reports.”

West Design Products Ltd, fined £95,184 after worker's fingers were crushed by unguarded machine

Plymouth based West Design Products Ltd, who manufacture and edit craft paper for retail, including printing, punching and cutting, were fined £95,184 (Inc.costs) after a worker suffered serious injuries when her hand was caught in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a paper punching machine used to punch holes so that paper sheets can be bound.
• Paper is inserted into a slot underneath a Perspex guard and the punch operation is activated by pressing a foot pedal on the floor. 
• There was no interlocking switch attached to the guard to prevent the use of the machine when the guard was removed. 
• There was also no shroud for the foot pedal to prevent accidental activation.
• On 14 September 2017, 22-year-old employee Charlotte Sargent was operating this machine.
• Neither Miss Sargent or her supervisor were suitably trained. 
• They had not been shown the operating manual or the safe system of work for the Punch machine before the incident.
• Whilst adjusting the settings of the machine, Miss Sargent placed her fingers between the die plates to tighten them in place. 
• Her foot inadvertently hit the unshrouded foot pedal. 
• The die plates moved up, crushing her fingers between the plates and a metal bar. 
• This led to the partial amputation of both her middle and index finger on her left hand.

The HSE inspector said:
“Miss Sargent’s injuries have been life changing. This incident was foreseeable and preventable.
Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Treanor Pujol Ltd. fined £341,325 for two accidentts including a fatality

Concrete manufacturer Treanor Pujol Ltd was fined £341,325 (inc.costs) following two separate incidents, including the death of an employee and series injuries to a second worker.

The circumstances of the first incident were:

• It was the nature of production for machines to routinely pass each other on adjacent lines.
• Treanor Pujol Ltd failed to identify the risk of crushing posed by the passing machines.
• On lines 11 and 12 the gap between the passing bed cleaner and saw machines was very small – between 65 and 93mm at different parts of the frames. 
• They failed to devise a safe system of work to control this risk.
• They failed to provide adequate training in such a procedure to employees.
• On 5 June 2014 Treanor employee Mathew Fulleylove, 30, was operating a mobile saw unit on Line 12.
• Another employee was operating a mobile bed cleaner on Line 11.
• Mr Fulleylove was standing on the footwell of the saw unit as the other machine passed on the adjacent production line. 
• As the bed cleaner came past, Matthew’s head was crushed between the frames of the two machines and he was killed instantly.

The circumstances of the second incident were:

• The accident occurred on a hooks machine, which embeds hooks into precast concrete.
• The machine was not fitted with working interlocked guards which prevent access to hazardous areas.
• On 12 April 2018, the machine was being operated when a fault developed.
• While an employee was attempting to reset the machine his elbow leant on a concrete dispenser box and a metal shutter.
• The metal shutter closed, trapping his hand resulting in a fracture and partial de-gloving of his left hand. 

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigators also identified several electrical safety failings:

• These included electrical equipment not being suitably constructed or protected from the environment. 
• It was left in wet, dirty, dusty and corrosive conditions, which resulted in rapid deterioration and safety features becoming inoperable over time. T

The HSE inspector said:
“Treanor Pujol Ltd should have identified the risk of crushing between passing machines on the production lines. The company should have taken steps to reduce and control the residual risk, organising production to minimise the likelihood of machines passing each other on adjacent lines, as well as devising and implementing a safe system of work. This should have included a designated place of safety where operators were required to stand as a machine passed. The operator’s manual for the bed cleaning machine stated an exclusion zone around the machine at 655mm should be implemented. If this had been in place, it would have addressed the significant crushing hazard and prevented the death of Mr Fulleylove.

In regard to the second incident, the company should have ensured that the dangerous parts of the Hooks Machine could not be accessed by anyone whilst they were moving by way of suitable guarding arrangements. Duty holders should ensure they carry out site specific risk assessments to identify any issues relevant to a particular location, task or piece of equipment. It is important to ensure where safe systems of work are required, employees are properly trained and monitored to ensure the correct way of working is followed.”

H&S consultant fined £1,400 for providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified.

Self-employed consultant Clive Weal was fined £1,400 for  providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified to advise his clients.

The circumstances were:

• Mr Weal provided inadequate and flawed advice to small and medium sized enterprises on the management and control of risk in relation to hand arm vibration, work place noise and the control of substances hazardous to health.
• Weal incorrectly identified risk from exposure to hand arm vibration as ‘low’.
• As a result, he advised the use of ‘anti vibration gloves’ as an appropriate control measure. 
• He also failed to identify that paints containing isocyanates can cause asthma. 
• The poor and incompetent advice resulted in a lack of remedial action being implemented to prevent employees being exposed to levels of noise, hand arm vibration and chemical substances that may have a damaging impact on their health.

The HSE specialist inspector said:
“Employers are more likely to use external consultants to provide assistance in complex situations where a higher level of competence is required.

How consultants achieve competence is up to them, however they will have to be able to satisfy employers that they have a sufficient level of competence for the job in hand.

Being a member of a relevant professional body, which sets competence standards for its members and operates continuing professional development schemes is one way of helping; as is presenting evidence of relevant experience such as references from previous clients; or obtaining qualifications.

Where health and safety consultants are found to be in breach of legislation, HSE will hold persons to account for their failings.

Spartan Promenade Tiles Limited fined £10,000 after employee was caught in in-running nip

Cochester-based tile manufacturing company, Spartan Promenade Tiles Limited, was fined £10,000 + costs after a worker was drawn into the in-running nip.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on the tail drum of a conveyor.
• On 18 February 2019, an employee was removing sand from the inside of a conveyor belt in an attempt to fix the machine. 
• The company failed to suitably assess the risks, implement a safe system of work, and control the risks. 
• Employees were not trained in the use of isolation or lock off procedures for the machinery on site.
• Employees were not made aware that such procedures existed.
• There were no arrangements for the supervision or monitoring of employees to ensure they were correctly isolating and locking off machinery before completing maintenance tasks. 
• There was no functioning emergency stop in the vicinity of the conveyor tail drum. 
• The guard on the conveyor tail drum had been removed.
• The machine had not been isolated or even switched off.
• The employee’s left glove became caught in the in-running nip of the conveyor tail drum, pulling his hand and arm into the machine. 
• The emergency stop button in the building did not work, so a colleague had to run to another building to alert the operator at the control panel to turn the machine off.
• The employee suffered three breaks to his left arm and crush injuries to his forearm.

The HSE inspector said
“This injury could have been easily prevented and the risks should have been identified. Employers need to properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery, and adequately train their workers to use isolation and lock off procedures if they carry out maintenance work.”

IFG Drake Ltd fined £390,843 after employee was killed by an inadequately guarded machine

IFG Drake Ltd was fined £390,843 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered fatal crush injuries whilst working on a machine at the site in Huddersfield.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a synthetic fibre manufacturing machine.
• The machine was not adequately guarded. 
• Problems occur with laps, which are when fibres stick to the rollers of the machine and begin to wrap around them.
• It had become custom and practice for employees to reach around the inadequate guarding in place to deal with problems of this nature.
• On 24 March 2017, Mr Javeed Ghaffar, was working on this machine. 
• A lap had occurred on the stretch godet section of the machine.
• Mr Ghaffar was removing this lap by reaching past the guard whilst the machine was running.
• He became entangled in the machine.

The HSE inspector  commented:
“This was a tragic and wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of the company to provide adequate guarding against dangerous parts of the machine. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”

Modus Workspace fined £1.1 million + costs after worker fell from ladder

London-based relocation and refurbishment company Modus Workspace Limited, was fined £1.1 million plus costs of £68,116 after a worker was seriously injured when he fell from height.

The circumstances were:

• Modus Workspace Limited were the principal contractor at a site in Hemel Hempstead. 
• On 5 September 2016, an engineer was testing a sprinkler system for leaks. 
• Modus failed to provide reasonably practicable measures to prevent a fall from the internal roof and was therfore not meeting their obligations as principal contractor.
• This applied to both the engineer and other contractors working on the roof.
• He climbed onto an internal roof and used an extension ladder to inspect the leak.
• The ladder slipped away from him.
• He fell almost three metres into the gap between the internal roof and the external wall. 
• He suffered severe blood loss, amounting to around half of his bloodstream. He required a blood transfusion and needed 14 stiches to his head.  
• He also sustained a fractured vertebrae and suffered soft tissue damage.

The HSE inspector said: “This case highlights the importance of taking reasonably practicable measures when planning and managing the risks regarding work at height within the construction industry. Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities and injuries in this country and the risks and control measures associated with working at height are well known. The engineer’s injuries were life changing and he could have easily been killed. This serious incident and devastation could have been avoided if basic safety measures had been put in place.”

Phillips 66 fined £1,2 million after accident with high pressure, high temperature steam

Oil refinery company, Phillips 66 Ltd was fined £1.2 million + costs for safety breaches after two workers in North Lincolnshire suffered life-changing injuries from an uncontrolled release of high pressure and high temperature steam.

The circumstances were:

• Phillips 66 Limited’s had a safe system of work which included isolating plant.
• On  30 October 2013, two workers were  re-assembling high pressure steam pipework following maintenance of a steam turbine driven pump.
• A number of personnel involved in the implementation of the company’s safe isolation procedure of the steam system failed to complete all the required checks and verifications.
• During the re-assembly, the two workers were exposed to an uncontrolled release of high pressure, high temperature steam of around 250oC.
• One worker, who was 53 years old, received burns to his lower back and legs.
• The other, a 20-year-old apprentice, received extremely serious burns to his torso, chest, arms and legs. At the time of the incident, these injures were life threating.
• The company was fined £1.2 million and ordered to pay £20,450 in costs

The HSE inspector said:
“Safe systems of work procedures are in place to ensure the health and safety of workers. Companies should ensure that all relevant employees and personnel who are involved in their operation and execution are suitably trained and competent to complete their roles within the system. Where a significant risk gap leads to an incident which results in injury to workers, HSE will take the appropriate enforcement action irrespective of the size of the organisation.”

E.G.L. Homecare fined £85,000 after worker's arm was caught in exposed rollers

E.G.L. Homecare Limited were fined £85,314 (inc.costs) after an agency worker was caught in a poorly-guarded machine.

The circumstances were:

• The machine was a press which was part of a line that glued sponge to abrasive sheets to make scourer sponges.
• There was no tunnel guard to prevent access to the rollers of the machine.
• On 19 June 2019 a worker was operating the machine where he had to remove the sheets of scourer sponges from the conveyor onto a pallet.
• He attempted to remove dirt from a press roller.
• His right hand got dragged into the nip point of two in-running rollers up to his shoulder. 
• He was diagnosed with forearm compartment syndrome, a painful condition caused by bleeding or swelling within an enclosed bundle of muscles. 
• He had an operation on his arm and had to stay in hospital for six days.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident could have been avoided had the company properly assessed the guarding arrangements on the machine when it was installed. Unfortunately access to in-running rollers is a common cause of injury but it can be easily avoided by providing effective control measures such as the provision of tunnel guards.”

What will happen to CE marking because of Brexit?

The CE mark was introduced to facilitate trade between EU countries.  

It is likely that after the end of 2020, this mark will be replaced by the UKCA mark for equipment made and staying in the UK.
Of course, the primary function of the CE mark within the UK is no longer relevant, but the secondary function of signifying that the equipment meets certain requirements will be met by the new mark.

Note that:

The UKCA mark has still to be ratified by Parliament
The UKCA mark must not be used until at least 1st January 2021.

The situation after 2020 is likely to be:

• Equipment made within the UK and remaining within the UK will have the UKCA mark.
• Equipment made within the UK and shipped to the EU will have the CE mark.
• Equipment made within the EU and imported into the UK will have the CE mark.

There is, as yet, no definition of requirements for equipment made outside the UK and EU and imported into the UK.  However, it is logical that the UKCA mark and the actions behind it will be required.

The dates are correct at the time of writing this, but the delays caused by the Covid19 pandemic may change these.

T M Telford Dairy fined £600,000 after 2 employees were showered in hot, acidic cleaning fluid

Yogurt manufacturing company T M Telford Dairy Ltd was fined £614,379 (inc.costs) after two employees suffered serious injuries following the release of an acidic cleaning solution.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred when removing valves.
• There was no risk assessment in place.
• There was no safe system of work in place for the safe removal of valves.
• The two engineers involved had had no formal training in lock-off and isolation procedures. 
• Nor had they received training in use of permits to work.
• The two men were  working on a faulty valve on a CIP (cleaning in place) system.
• The valve blew off under pressure.
• Cleaning fluid containing 1% nitric acid at 650C surged out, hitting the roof overhead and spraying the employees.
• Whilst trying to escape from the acidic cleaning fluid, one of the engineers fell from a hooped ladder and sustained a head injury.

The HSE inspector said: 

“Those in control of work have a responsibility to assess the risks and implement safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in a safe system of working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the injuries sustained by the employees could have been prevented”.

Chesterfield Poultry Ltd fined £300,000 when lack of emergency stop cause loss of worker's thumb

Poultry processing company Chesterfield Poultry Ltd was fined £305,046 (inc. costs) for safety breaches after an agency worker had her thumb severed on a moving part of a processing line.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on an overhead conveyor for transporting chicken bodies.
• There was no emergency stop by the injured person's work station.
• On 24 April 2017, the worker was rehanging chickens on a hook on the conveyor.
• One of the chicken's feet came out of the hook.
• The worker  went to insert the foot back into the hook.
• Her thumb got stuck, and she was pulled around with the conveyor.
• She was unable to stop the conveyor.
• Further around the line there was a fixed upright post attached to a drip tray.
• As she got to this point her thumb met the post and her thumb was traumatically severed.

The HSE inspector Tarn commented:
“The moving shackles passing the fixed pole – that supported the drip tray – created the danger zone that the worker was drawn into. Companies must ensure that measures are in place to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery and provide a means to stop machinery should an emergency happen.”

De La Rue International Limited fined £300,000 after employee was caught in paper-making machine

De La Rue International Limited were fined £311,191 (inc.costs) after an employee suffered life changing injuries at their paper mill site near Bath.

The circumstances were:

• De La Rue International Limited had not provided a safe system of work for the removal of broken paper from the paper-making machine. 
• Specifically there was no safe system of work for removal of paper from the after-dryer section of the paper-making machine when the machinery was operated in reverse.
• On 16 March 2017, an employee was helping colleagues to remove paper from the machine.
• He was standing in the gap between the size press and the after-dryer section of the machine.
• A fixed guard had been removed.
• He expected the spar drum to come towards him.
• However, it moved in the opposite direction.
• By the time he realised this, the spar drum had turned and his head became trapped between a spar and the base of the fixed guard.
• He required a nine-hour operation in hospital for facial reconstruction.

The HSE inspector said:
“Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers in the safe system of working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to the incident, the life changing injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.

UK Mail fined £400,000 for 2 forklift truck accidents

UK Mail was fined £409,356 (inc. costs) after two employees were injured by fork lift trucks in two separate incidents.

The circumstances were:

• UK Mail failed to ensure that there was effective segregation of pedestrians and vehicles. 
• There were no pedestrian walkways for employees to navigate across the warehouse safely.
• On 20 October 2016 an operations administrator was struck by forklift truck whilst sorting the returned parcels and sustained a fractured skull and bleed between the skull and brain. 
• On 20th March 2017 a warehouse operative was inspecting a parcel and a fork lift truck hit the left side of her body. She suffered nerve damage to her left arm and superficial leg and hip injuries

The HSE inspector said:
“The company failed to properly manage workplace transport in the warehouse area. The systems of work in place were not safe. Adequate control measures were not identified or implemented, and effective segregation was not in place, nor, even adequate workways.  The incident heightens awareness of the need to properly assess and control the risks to employees from workplace traffic movements and a reminder that these types of failures can lead to life-changing injuries.”

Lymington Precision Engineers fined £24,000 for failing to control risks from metalworking fluids.

Engineering company Lymington Precision Engineers Co Limited was fined £24,447 (inc.costs) for failing to control the risk of its employees developing dermatitis following exposure to metalworking fluid.

A visit by the HSE found the company had failed to ensure that adequate measures were in place for the control of exposure to metalworking fluids, exposing their employees to the risk of contracting dermatitis.

The HSE inspector said:
“This case could so easily have been avoided by simply implementing correct control measures and appropriate working practices. Appropriate controls could include provision and use of well-fitting overalls, use of gloves in contact with contaminated work pieces, avoidance of the use of airlines for cleaning activities, and the provision of an effective skin care regime. Control of exposure to hazardous substances is a legal requirement on employers and HSE provides guidance on how control can be achieved.”

It is interesting that no mention is made of the requirement for local exhaust ventilation (LEV).  This could have arisen because either:

• The LEV was adequate, in which case the company had taken the primary steps to control respiratory ill health from metalworking fluids,
• The HSE's press release (from which this blog is derived) failed to mention a key requirement, or
• There is a mismatch in HSE stances on metalworking fluids in applying indg365.pdf.

For those in the Bristol area, do come along to the IOSH Bristol and West presentation on the health risks, assessment and control of metalworking fluids and mild steel welding fume, given by an HSE occupational health specialist.

The date and time are 11th June 2020, from 13:00 to 15:00 and the location is the BAWA Club, Filton, BS34 7RG.  

It's free and IOSH Bristol and West go out of our way to make you welcome.