Marple Polymers Processors Limited fined £27,269 after conveyor was started whilst it was being cleaned

Rubber processing company Marple Polymers Processors Limited was fined £27,269 (inc.costs) after a worker’s arm was trapped in machinery.

The circumstances were: 

• The company’s system of work on this machine relied too heavily on effective communication between employees who were working on the machine in a dark and noisy environment.
• On 4 January 2018, an employee  was cleaning a stationary conveyor belt on a Banbury mixing machine.  
• The machine had not been isolated.
• Unaware cleaning was taking place, another employee started the conveyor belt system. 
• The original employee’s left arm became trapped between the conveyor belt and the tension idler causing serious injuries to their arm and hand.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury could have easily been prevented had a robust safe system of work been in place which included, for example, the isolation of power to the machine whilst cleaning was carried out.  Employers should properly assess the hazards associated with the operation of machinery and put in place effective control measures which employees understand and follow when operating, maintaining and cleaning machinery”.

Harbro Limited fined £12,000 after finger amputation due to inadequate guarding

 Harbro Limited was fined £12,000 after an employee’s hand became entangled in a ‘Superbruiser’ mixing machine.

The circumstances were:

• Harbro Limited had failed to provide fixed or moveable guarding on the inspection hatch of the Superbruiser machine.
• On 2 November 2018 put his right arm through the inspection hatch to feel along the edge of the rotating roller for embedded metal.
• The glove came off his hand.
• His hand was caught between two rollers. 
• He employee sustained crush injuries to his second, third and fourth fingers. 
• Consequently, his middle finger was partially amputated and he was unable to work for approximately two and a half months.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury was easily preventable and the risk 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. The risks of undertaking such work are well known in the industry and it is disappointing that a safe system of work was not followed in this case.”

Omega PLC fined £56,000 after finger amputation because of poorly guarded machine

Kitchen manufacturing company Omega PLC was fined £56,000 (inc.costs) after a worker severely injured their finger in unguarded machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on an edge-banding machine.
• The machine was inadequately guarded at the front. 
• Employees would climb onto the machine bed from the unguarded front and were able to access the area of danger when carrying out activities such as routine maintenance and to clear blockages
• On 8 May 2018, the worker was processing wood panels.
• A panel became stuck in the process. 
• When the worker accessed the inner part of the machine to clear the blockage, his hand entered the milling block area.
• This caused a severe laceration to the middle finger on the left hand resulting in amputation.

The HSE inspector said:
“Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery. This incident could so easily have been avoided by implementing correct control measures and ensuring that safe working practices were followed.”

Lantern Engineering fined £22,500 for lack of control of metalworking fluid

Lantern Engineering Ltd was fined £22,500 (inc. costs) after workers were exposed to metal working fluid (MWF). 

The circumstances were:

• MWF is hazardous to health, and exposure can cause health conditions including irritation of the skin/dermatitis, occupational asthma, bronchitis and irritation of the upper respiratory tract.
• In February 2016 the HSE visited Lantern.
• A water mixed MWF was in use in the majority of machines including saws, machine centres and milling machines. 
• None of these machines had local exhaust ventilation (LEV) and some door seals were observed to be in poor condition.  
• The MWF sumps to some machines were in visibly poor condition, with fines, swarf and/or tramp oil being present.
• As a result enforcement was taken requiring the company to provide health surveillance and manage MWF. 
• In September 2016 an employee was diagnosed with occupational asthma. 
• Further enforcement was taken in December 2016 with an Improvement Notice issued to develop a system for managing MWF.

The HSE inspector commented:
“The company’s failure to manage MWF exposed employees to risk. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”.

Fire Protection Group and Chivas Brothers Limited each fined £50,000 after inspector was crushed by insufficiently isolated machine

Fire Protection Group and Chivas Brothers Limited were each fined £50,000 after an alarm inspector was crushed when machinery started during his activity.

The circumstances were:

• On 22 February 2017, an employee of Fire Protection Group (FPG) was working at Chivas Brothers Limited (CBL) undertaking a visual inspection of fire suppression systems at CBL’s bottling plant.
• FPG and CBL had duties to ensure that there was an appropriate exchange of important health and safety information in advance of, and during, the work activity. 
• They failed to ensure that all the systems on the Kardex Remstar Shuttle XP500 machine were isolated before removing the covers.
• Only part of the machine was isolated from power sources.
• Side panels that act as fixed guards preventing access to dangerous moving parts inside of the machines were removed so that the FPG employee could gain access inside to carry out the inspections.
• The FPG employee was crushed and trapped when the extractor device of the machine was activated. 
• He sustained crushing injuries to his right side.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury was easily preventable. The risk should have been identified. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures, such as permits to work when machinery is safely isolated, to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Iver Recycling (UK) Limited fined £207,125 for widespread poor management of health and safety risks

Iver Recycling (UK) Limited was fined £207,125 (inc.costs) after HSE inspectors discovered widespread poor management of health and safety risks at their site in West Drayton, London.

The circumstances were:

• On 21 March 2019, inspectors attended Iver Recycling to carry out a routine inspection.
• They discovered widespread risk to employees and poor health and safety management of the site.
• HSE revisited the site on 1 April 2019 with electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and civil engineering specialists to assess the site. 
• In total, HSE issued nine Prohibition Notices and seven Improvement Notices. 
• Conditions were so bad that an investigation was conducted to help understand the underlying causes of the conditions seen. 
• The investigation concluded that a lack of competent advice, risk assessment and poor management had led to deterioration of conditions on site, despite previous enforcement being issued by HSE.
• Iver Recycling (UK) Limited failed to appear at the hearing on 16 September 2021, and the case was heard in their absence.

The HSE inspector said:
“Companies should be aware that if they fail to operate their businesses in a manner which protects the health and safety of those who work there, HSE will pursue those responsible to the highest possible level. The conditions seen at this site should not occur in 21st-century Britain.”

Solarframe Limited fined £35,346 after worker was crushed by falling material during forklift truck operations

UPVC manufacturer Solarframe Limited was fined £35,346 (inc.costs) after a worker was crushed under falling materials during forklift truck operations.

The circumstances were.

• On 19 July 2017, a forklift truck (FLT) was being used in activities to catalogue and sort UPVC materials that were stored on long metal stillages in the yard.
• Solarframe had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
• Therefore there was no identification of the risk of lifting equipment making contact with other items located nearby.
• There were insufficient measures to segregate pedestrians from moving vehicles at the site.
• The FLT in use was too large for the planned activity. 
• The stillages were stacked on top of one another on top of a wheeled dolly.
• The height of the stillages was too great, which presented a danger of them becoming unbalanced.
• The FLT was being used to pull out the dollies and stacks and lift each individual stillage down so the contents could be inspected and tidied.
• The FLT driver began to restack the completed stillages onto a pile on the dolly, when the tips of the FLT forks protruded beyond the dolly and caught underneath the stillages stacked behind it. 
• The stillages became unbalanced and fell on to a 56-year-old worker who was in the yard looking for materials.
• He sustained a double broken pelvis, a broken and dislocated left arm, broken ribs left and right side, punctured lung, broken scapula, double broken clavicle, double fractured jaw, fractured cheekbone which involved the eye socket, and two trapped vertebrae in the back of his neck. 
• He was kept in an induced coma for three weeks following the incident.

The HSE inspector said:
“The worker’s injuries were life changing and he could have easily been killed. This serious incident could so easily have been avoided if basic safeguards had been put in place. Assessing the risks involved in work activities allows businesses to foresee what might occur.  It is then straightforward to implement simple control measures and safe working practices.”