|
A Suffolk plastics manufacturer has been fined after electrical fittings
at its production site were found to be dangerous.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) uncovered serious issues with the
construction and maintenance of the electrical systems at Techplas in Sudbury
on 9 and 10 October 2011 after investigating a separate unrelated issue.
Bury St Edmunds Magistrates' Court heard on 3 January 2013 that HSE
inspectors found:
|
|
Techplas Limited, of Unit 1A Milner Road, Chilton Industrial Estate,
Sudbury, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £5,930 in costs after pleading
guilty to breaching Regulation 4 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.
After the hearing HSE inspector Saffron Turnell, said: "The state
of the electrical systems at Techplas was simply appalling and it is only a
matter of luck that nobody had been injured or electrocuted.”
Source: HSE release HSE-E-001/13
|
Monday, 11 February 2013
Appalling state of electrics
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Lovely testimonial from Deburring Services
Finding SSS was like finding the golden nugget.
They have eased the burden of health and safety, the whole process was professional, cost effective and on-time. We will certainly recommend them.
When we go forwards to ISO 14001, we will use SSS.
John Wood
Deburring Services Ltd.
They have eased the burden of health and safety, the whole process was professional, cost effective and on-time. We will certainly recommend them.
When we go forwards to ISO 14001, we will use SSS.
John Wood
Deburring Services Ltd.
Thursday, 18 October 2012
HSE Fee for Intevention budget
Information received under the Freedom of Information Act shows that the HSE have set a budget equivalent to £12 million per year for fees gained under the Fee for Intervention (FFI) process started on 1st October 2012.
Whilst I don't have a problem with the concept that companies who are at fault should pay, there is something wrong with this budget. At the FFI rate of £124 per hour, £12 million requires 96,000 hours or 55 man years per year. Or if we take a guess and say that each intervention will take 5 hours, then there needs to be 19,200 interventions per year.
Whilst the HSE are never going to hit this budget, it is reasonable to expect that inspectors would be set targets and would change from being proactive to escalating the levels of problems they see. This will kill off the concept of reducing the health and safety burden on industry.
Whilst I don't have a problem with the concept that companies who are at fault should pay, there is something wrong with this budget. At the FFI rate of £124 per hour, £12 million requires 96,000 hours or 55 man years per year. Or if we take a guess and say that each intervention will take 5 hours, then there needs to be 19,200 interventions per year.
Whilst the HSE are never going to hit this budget, it is reasonable to expect that inspectors would be set targets and would change from being proactive to escalating the levels of problems they see. This will kill off the concept of reducing the health and safety burden on industry.
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Dangerous decanting operation led to devastating inferno
Workers fled for their lives when a fire, which broke out when a flammable vapour ignited, quickly spread to other containers of dangerous solvent mixtures, causing some of them to explode.
Seven of Doncaster firm Solvents With Safety’s workforce were present at the time, but all managed to escape unharmed after a quick-thinking supervisor ordered them to evacuate the site and called the emergency services. The initial blaze was described as escalating to a raging inferno within minutes.
Doncaster magistrates heard that employees were transferring highly-flammable toluene from a bulk container into a smaller drum ahead of the incident, at the company’s Plumtree Farm Industrial Estate on 16 June 2010. They were attempting to fill the drum using a pipe from a container; however, the pipe they used was too short. Consequently, the liquid was dropped from the pipe into the drum, as part of a process called ‘splash filling’, which is known to generate static electricity – a potential ignition source. At the time of the operation, which was not carried out in a bunded area, there would have been a flammable vapour over the surface of the toluene, the flash point of which is just 4 degrees C. It is thought that the build-up of static electricity in the drum ignited the vapour and sparked a fire, which completely ravaged the premises.
An HSE investigation found the ‘splash filling’ method to be wholly inappropriate and it posed a clear safety risk that wasn’t properly assessed. “The Solvents With Safety workforce was extremely lucky to escape unharmed from this incident,” said HSE inspector, Jayne Towey. “The size and scale of the fire was immense; it took hold in minutes and caused total devastation to the company’s premises. Lives were needlessly put at risk because there would have been no blaze at all had the company taken more care with the decanting operation.”
The safety of workers was further compromised by the fact that the pipe used to fill the containers wasn’t earthed, and because the PPE worn by workers was not anti-static.
Solvents With Safety was also fully aware of the dangers of splash filling, given that the HSE had twice written to it about this very issue, first in May 2006 and, again, in December 2007. In its response to this advice, the company assured the regulator that anti-static PPE would be provided.
Pleading guilty on 3 October to breaching reg.6(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Solvents With Safety Ltd was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £6860 in costs.
Describing the splash-filling method as “fraught with risk”, inspector Towey said the generation of static charge could have been prevented by the provision of a longer filling pipe. “This was a reasonably practicable measure to take,” she explained, “and the company was well aware of the dangers on the back of earlier HSE advice. Companies working with dangerous substances must take extreme care at all times and in all aspects of their operations. That clearly didn’t happen on this occasion and it could have had far-reaching consequences.”
Source: SHP
Thursday, 4 October 2012
HSE fee recovery scheme started 1 October 2012
The HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, Fee for Intervention (FFI),
came into force on 1 October.
Under the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012, the HSE will charge employers who break the law for the costs associated with the regulator’s related inspection, investigation and enforcement activities. The Regulations are designed to shift the cost of health and safety enforcement from the public purse to businesses that contravene health and safety laws. Under FFI, when an HSE inspector visits a business and identifies a “material breach” of health and safety law, the business will have to pay a fee based on a rate of £124 per hour.
The fee will be applied to each intervention where a material breach is identified and any other associated work. Where the material breach is identified during a visit, costs for the whole visit are recoverable, from as soon as the HSE inspector enters the site to when they leave. The fee will also cover all work to ensure that the breach is remedied, as well as any investigation or enforcement action up to the point where the HSE’s intervention has been concluded, or prosecution proceedings begin.
A “material breach” is defined as a contravention of health and safety law that requires an inspector to issue a written notice to the duty-holder. This may be notification of a contravention, an Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or a prosecution, and must include the law that the inspector’s opinion relates to; the reasons for their opinion; and notification that a fee is payable to the HSE.
Businesses in compliance with their legal obligations will not have to pay a penny, according to the regulator, which hopes that FFI will act as a further incentive for duty-holders to operate within the law and help level the playing field between compliant and non-compliant employers.
HSE chief executive Geoffrey Podger said: “The most basic safety mistakes in the workplace can devastate lives and result in real costs to industry. It is right that those who fail to meet their legal obligations should pay HSE’s costs rather than the public purse having to do so.”
Legal experts have questioned aspects of the FFI scheme, during the lead-up to its statutory introduction. David Young, head of the health and safety team at Eversheds, said the different health and safety prosecution regimes in England and Scotland – where, in the latter, HSE legal costs are not retrievable through the courts – could have an impact on investigations of businesses north of the border. He said: “This may cause concern to those companies with interests north of the border, which could find themselves in the position of being investigated but not prosecuted on the basis that fees can be recovered up to the point of commencement of prosecution, but not after.”
Young also reiterated concerns that the scheme may create added tensions between inspectors and businesses, especially given the charges that could be involved. He explained: “From my experience, most recent cases include average HSE inspector rates of around £66 per hour, so this will be a significant increase, particularly as it will be payable without a prosecution. For any business to effectively double its charge-out rate to absorb minor sundry items would be impossible, yet that is the very real case that UK business face from 1 October. I imagine that relationships between businesses and some inspectors will become uneasy for a while until the practical application of FFI is clearer.”
Following a draft publication issued in the summer, the HSE has now published a full downloadable guide to the FFI scheme on its website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.pdf
Details on what the Executive identifies as the most basic safety mistakes in the workplace can also be viewed at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fee-for-intervention/basic-safety-mistakes/index.htm
Source: SHP
Under the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012, the HSE will charge employers who break the law for the costs associated with the regulator’s related inspection, investigation and enforcement activities. The Regulations are designed to shift the cost of health and safety enforcement from the public purse to businesses that contravene health and safety laws. Under FFI, when an HSE inspector visits a business and identifies a “material breach” of health and safety law, the business will have to pay a fee based on a rate of £124 per hour.
The fee will be applied to each intervention where a material breach is identified and any other associated work. Where the material breach is identified during a visit, costs for the whole visit are recoverable, from as soon as the HSE inspector enters the site to when they leave. The fee will also cover all work to ensure that the breach is remedied, as well as any investigation or enforcement action up to the point where the HSE’s intervention has been concluded, or prosecution proceedings begin.
A “material breach” is defined as a contravention of health and safety law that requires an inspector to issue a written notice to the duty-holder. This may be notification of a contravention, an Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or a prosecution, and must include the law that the inspector’s opinion relates to; the reasons for their opinion; and notification that a fee is payable to the HSE.
Businesses in compliance with their legal obligations will not have to pay a penny, according to the regulator, which hopes that FFI will act as a further incentive for duty-holders to operate within the law and help level the playing field between compliant and non-compliant employers.
HSE chief executive Geoffrey Podger said: “The most basic safety mistakes in the workplace can devastate lives and result in real costs to industry. It is right that those who fail to meet their legal obligations should pay HSE’s costs rather than the public purse having to do so.”
Legal experts have questioned aspects of the FFI scheme, during the lead-up to its statutory introduction. David Young, head of the health and safety team at Eversheds, said the different health and safety prosecution regimes in England and Scotland – where, in the latter, HSE legal costs are not retrievable through the courts – could have an impact on investigations of businesses north of the border. He said: “This may cause concern to those companies with interests north of the border, which could find themselves in the position of being investigated but not prosecuted on the basis that fees can be recovered up to the point of commencement of prosecution, but not after.”
Young also reiterated concerns that the scheme may create added tensions between inspectors and businesses, especially given the charges that could be involved. He explained: “From my experience, most recent cases include average HSE inspector rates of around £66 per hour, so this will be a significant increase, particularly as it will be payable without a prosecution. For any business to effectively double its charge-out rate to absorb minor sundry items would be impossible, yet that is the very real case that UK business face from 1 October. I imagine that relationships between businesses and some inspectors will become uneasy for a while until the practical application of FFI is clearer.”
Following a draft publication issued in the summer, the HSE has now published a full downloadable guide to the FFI scheme on its website at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse47.pdf
Details on what the Executive identifies as the most basic safety mistakes in the workplace can also be viewed at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/fee-for-intervention/basic-safety-mistakes/index.htm
Source: SHP
Thursday, 27 September 2012
Employee drenched in corrosive chemical
A
worker who had racked up nearly half a century of employment for a
Tyneside electroplating company retired just months after an incident in
which he suffered serious burns from a highly-caustic chemical.Michael Reid, 66, of North Shields, was employed as an electroplater at DMI (UK) Ltd when the incident happened on 30 January 2011. Magistrates heard how, as part of an electroplating production process, the company used a stripping tank filled with a solution of sodium hydroxide at 5 per cent. Every couple of months, as part of maintenance, the tank had to be topped up with the chemical at 32-per-cent concentration.
The concentrated solution was pumped from a barrel into the tank, via a hose. But, rather than using a permanent fixing, such as a jubilee clip, the hose was attached to the pump with tape. While Mr Reid was topping up the tank, the hose disconnected from the pump and he was doused in the chemical.
He suffered serious burns to his legs and body and spent two weeks in hospital, where he underwent several skin grafts. Mr Reid had worked for the company since 1963 and retired in July 2011. He never returned to work following the incident.
HSE inspector Shuna Rank explained to SHP that the company did not carry out a risk assessment of the procedure and, consequently, it did not have a safe system of work for checking hoses, or joints. She pointed out that Mr Reid had not been provided with a suitable work apron, which, had he been wearing, would have protected him, to some extent, from the spray. The investigation also revealed that DMI (UK) had failed to provide sufficient training for Mr Reid and other employees in the handling of sodium hydroxide. Said inspector Rank: “Sodium hydroxide continues to burn when on the skin. Although Mr Reid changed his clothes, he didn’t shower and he didn’t go straight to hospital. It was only the next morning that he realised how serious his injuries were and he went to hospital.”
While his co-workers responded promptly to the incident by drenching Mr Reid in water, the company’s failure to train workers in the risks associated with the highly-corrosive chemical meant they, too, didn’t appreciate the severity of the incident, added the inspector.
Appearing before North Tyneside magistrates on 21 September, DMI (UK) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, for failing to provide a safe system of work for topping up the stripping tank. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4081 in costs.The company took immediate action following the incident to rewrite its work methods and provide suitable protective equipment. It also provided its workers with additional training on the risks associated with chemicals involved in electroplating.
Following the case, inspector Rank said: “This incident should never have happened. Had the hose been properly attached to the pump it would not have occurred and basic systems to check and maintain equipment could have prevented it. In addition, employees should have received training to ensure they were fully aware of the risks associated with handling concentrated sodium hydroxide.”
Source: SHP
Friday, 7 September 2012
Changes to Waste (England and Wales) Regs.
The Waste (England and Wales) Amendment Regs. 2012 changed reg.13.
For some reason, they have removed the definition in 13(2) of the 2011 regs., which states that co-mingling with subsequent separation is still separation.
What I think they mean is that waste for recycling must be kept separate from waste for landfill. I don't think they really mean that waste paper must be kept separate from glass, metal, etc., in the recycling stream. Many waste organisations (including my local council) find it more economical to co-mingle recycling waste and then separate it later rather than collect separately.
Amended regs
13.—(1) This regulation applies from 1st January 2015.
(2) Subject
to paragraph (4), an establishment or undertaking which collects waste
paper, metal, plastic or glass must do so by way of separate collection.
(3) Subject
to paragraph (4), every waste collection authority must, when making
arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal, plastic or glass,
ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection.
(4) The duties in this regulation apply where separate collection—
(a)is
necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations in
accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Waste Framework Directive and
to facilitate or improve recovery; and
(b)is technically, environmentally and economically practicable.”.
2011 regs
13.—(1) An establishment or undertaking which collects waste paper, metal, plastic or glass must, from 1st January 2015, take all such measures to ensure separate collection of that waste as are available to the establishment or undertaking in that capacity and are—(a)technically, environmentally and economically practicable; and
(b)appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, co-mingled collection (being the collection together with each other but separately from other waste of waste streams intended for recycling with a view to subsequent separation by type and nature) is a form of separate collection.
(3) Every waste collection authority must, when making arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal, plastic or glass, ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)