Ramsgate company fined £69,000 after employees develop Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome

Cummins Power Generation Ltd., of Ramsgate,  were fined £69,149 (inc. costs) on 22 July 2014 after one of its employees was diagnosed with Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), a debilitating condition that cannot be reversed.

The circumstances were:

• Some employees used hand-held tools which had a high level of vibration.
• Cummins Power Generation had failed to manage the exposure of their employees to the serious risks of vibration for more than ten years.
• The company failed to assess their workers’ level of exposure to vibration until the HSE began its investigation. By this time some employees were either at or beyond the trigger levels for developing symptoms. 
• The firm also failed to put preventative measures in place until HSE served an improvement notice.
• As a result one employee in particular was diagnosed with advanced HAVS in both hands.  Although he still works with the company he has to ask for the help of a colleague whenever a task requires the use of a hand-held power tool. He is also unable to enjoy previous hobbies of golf or swimming.
• A further four employees of Cummins Power Generation Ltd were also diagnosed with symptoms consistent with early stage (HAVS).

The HSE Inspector said:

“HSE guidance on HAVS was published as long ago as 1994 so vibration risk has been widely known for many years – ‘white-finger’ was a common industry term for HAVS.  Cummins Power Generation failed to manage this risk over a significant period of time, from early 1998 to early 2009, across its sites in both Ramsgate and Margate. Hand-arm vibration can have a significant impact on a worker’s health. If the use of power tools is not controlled correctly by engineering and manufacturing companies, workers can develop HAVS to a degree that will have a permanent disabling impact on their working and social lives. Measures can include purchasing tools with the lowest vibration levels, introducing better systems of work when possible to avoid exposure all together, making sure workers know how to use tools properly and regular health surveillance to detect any early signs.”

SPS Aerostructures fined £190,000 after 24 workers develop hand-arm vibration problems

SPS Aerostructures Ltd., a Nottinghamshire aerospace engineering company was fined £190,000 (inc.costs) on 21 July 2014 after 24 workers were diagnosed with hand-arm vibration symptoms.

The circumstances were:

• In 2005, the company’s health and safety committee asked it to carry out a suitable risk assessment for exposure to vibration, and act on the result.
• An assessment of the company’s tools took place in 2006 which identified that some, including drills, grinders and hammers, posed a high risk from exposure to vibration. 
• However, they were not taken out of service and no controls were put on their use until 2010.
• Some employees used their own tools, which were also not assessed and therefore no controls put in place.
• Although SPS Aerostructures provided some health surveillance for employees, it was not sufficient to identify symptoms early and refer individuals to occupational health specialists for timely diagnosis and management.
• The workers developed either Hand Arm Vibration syndrome (HAVS) or carpal tunnel syndrome from being exposed to high levels of vibration for several years.
• Some of the employees at SPS Aerostructures Ltd had to undergo operations and some had to be removed from the work they were doing. 
• One was given work without any vibration exposure but was later made redundant. He is a skilled metal sheet worker, and is now unable to work in this field.

The symptoms of HAVS syndrome include blanching and numbness in the fingers, especially in the cold, as well as pins and needles, which can be extremely painful. This is due to damage to the small blood vessels and nerves supplying the hands. Sufferers can have difficulty picking up small objects and performing tasks such as doing up buttons. As sufferers cannot be exposed to cold without pain it can restrict some work and hobbies such as fishing, cycling or gardening.

Sufferers of carpal tunnel syndrome also experience pain and pins and needles, especially at night, and a reduction in grip. An operation is normally needed to release the nerve, although this is less successful if they have been exposed to vibration.

The HSE Inspector said:

“SPS Aerostructures Ltd was, from 2005, regularly being made aware that employees were suffering from vibration-related symptoms. They were being supplied with this information directly from staff and from their Occupational Health Nurse. However, they chose to ignore this information and allowed employees to work unrestricted with high risk tools, or their own tools. The company was slow to implement improvements even after HSE’s involvement and had to be issued with an Improvement Notice in 2011 to ensure compliance. Adequate assessment of the risk from vibration, provision of tools with lower vibration levels, and a good system of work would have ensured workers were not over-exposed to vibration. A better health surveillance system would also have identified problems earlier, and symptoms could have been managed to prevent them getting worse.”

Is it necessary to retrain a new employee who is also a forklift truck driver?

A client recently asked if it was necessary to retrain a person who had a valid forklift truck training certificate when he joined the company before allowing him to drive a forklift truck.

The key points on which the employer must satisfy himself are:

• Was the training on the category of forklift truck and the types of operations the driver would be exposed to at the new employer?
• Was the training carried out by a competent trainer?

If the employer is satisfied with these, further training is not necessary.

It is worth referring to L117 Rider-operated lift trucks - Operator training and safe use

32 Employers should not allow anyone to operate, even on a very occasional basis, lift trucks within the scope of this ACOP who have not satisfactorily completed basic training and testing as described in this ACOP, except for those undergoing such training under adequate supervision. 

33 When arranging for training, employers should satisfy themselves that it is in accordance with this ACOP. Operator training should only be carried out by instructors who have themselves undergone appropriate training in instructional techniques and skills’ assessment.*

34 They should give instruction only on the types of lift truck and attachments for which they have been trained and successfully tested as operators. Instructors also need sufficient industrial experience to enable 
them to put their instruction in context and an adequate knowledge of the working environment in which the trainee will be expected to operate. 

67 After employees have successfully completed all three elements of training, 
you should give them written authorisation to operate the lift truck(s) they have been 
trained to use. You could issue authorisations on an individual basis and/or record 
them centrally. They should state the operator’s name, the date of authorisation, 
the types or categories of lift truck to which they relate and any special conditions, 
such as operational limitations. 

68 You should not allow anyone to operate lift trucks on any premises without 
authorisation (except a trainee under close supervision). You will also need to 
ensure authorised operators continue to be competent through regular monitoring 

and assessment (see paragraphs 75-76). 

L117 can be downloaded free from this link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l117.pdf

Developer jailed for 30 months after breaching prohibition notices

Developer Eze Kinsley has been sent to prison for 30 months after repeatedly breaching prohibition notices.
Kinsley was found guilty of assaulting an inspector from HSE at a separate court appearance.

The circumstances were:

• The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited the site on 28 February 2013 following complaints from local residents worried about debris falling from upper storeys and of the danger to workers being left without any protection from falling while working at height.
• They found that there were no safety measures in place to prevent injury to workers from debris falling from height.
• There was also a real risk of injury to members of the public using the road and pavement next to the Parkeston House site.
• Kinsley, who was in control of workers at the site, verbally abused the HSE Inspector who visited. 
• The inspector had to return with Essex police officers later to serve prohibition notices requiring an immediate stop to unsafe work at the site.
• Kinsley reacted strongly to this, physically assaulting the inspector.
• After further reports that work had not stopped, HSE issued a further prohibition notice on 3 April 2013, which was breached within just one hour of being served.

The HSE Inspector said:

“Although no one was injured as a result of the woefully inadequate working practices this is nevertheless a serious case. The working conditions on this site were truly appalling with absolutely no provision for workers’ safety. In addition, the repeated breaching of prohibition notices – without any attempts to put right the reasons why work had been stopped – put workers and the general public at serious risk. Mr Kinsley refused to accept that he had a responsibility to make sure people who worked for him, and any member of the public living or working near his site, were not subjected to unnecessary risks – and vigorously and violently resisted all attempts to make him take actions to protect them. Putting safe working practices in place is often simple and inexpensive and, where this doesn’t happen, the costs, both financial and personal, can be immense.”

Incorrect lifting gear causes foot fracture and £23,600 fine

Frank H Dale Ltd, a Herefordshire steelwork company was fined £23,631 (inc. costs) on 15 July 2014 after an employee was hurt when a metal sheet fell on his foot.

The circumstances were:

• On 3 October 2012, an employee was moving 6 sheets, each 6m x 0.35m x 10mm thick and weighing 180kg.
• The operation required a movement of about 10m and 1.5m off the ground.
• He was using an overhead crane with a lifting magnet.
• The magnet manufacturer's instructions were not followed and the magnet was unsuitable for long sheets.
• Whilst moving one of the sheets, it detached from the magnet, bounced off the conveyor and landed on the employee’s foot. 
• He fractured three toes and was off work for six weeks

The HSE inspector said:

“Permanent lifting magnets are a common accessory in industry and must be used correctly. Users need to understand the limitations of the ones they have in use. This incident could easily have been avoided had the company provided suitable training. Most permanent lifting magnets are supplied with comprehensive instructions and companies must ensure users understand them and are trained in their use – many suppliers of this equipment may provide training. Although the steel sheet was within the safe working load for the magnet being used at the time, it was not designed to lift long, thin pieces of sheet metal. It was nothing more than luck that the first two sheets were successfully moved and the injured employee was very fortunate that the 180kg metal sheet fell on to a conveyor before landing on his foot. Had it landed on him directly then a more serious injury may have been inflicted.”

Fire at Stroud company shows importance of having a proper business continuity system

A fire at a company providing metal surface treatments near Stroud totally destroyed one building housing a chemical milling process. Fortunately, the other operations at the site were not affected and there appears to be no visible damage to the environment.  I checked the River Frome which flows through the site and trout were still swimming in it.

We all realise that fire is a major disaster and, typically, companies do not recover after a major fire. However, fire is just one of the events which can affect the continuity of your business.  That is why it is essential that you have a workable and where appropriate, tested, business continuity system in place rather than a disaster recovery plan.

See more about business continuity.

See BBC video on the fire.

Inadequate guarding causes loss of finger and £20,000 fine

Rillatech Limited, a Derbyshire company which produces packaging for the food processing industry has been fined  £20,353 (inc. costs) on 9 July 2014 because of inadequate guarding.

The circumstances were:

• Several items of similar equipment producing food casings were in place with inadequate guarding.
• After an earlier incident, Rillatech had installed further guarding, but this did not fully prevent operators accessing dangerous moving parts of the machine. 
• On 8 January 2013 Andrew Rawson was operating one of these machines.
• He reached inside the machine to clear a jam and his fingers came into contact with a clipper. 
• The index finger on his right hand was severed at the first joint, as well as the tip of his right thumb.

The HSE inspector said:

“It is remarkable that, despite previous similar incidents and risk assessments being carried out, Rillatech Limited still did not install better guarding on their food casing machines. This incident was entirely preventable and it is most unfortunate that it took an employee to suffer such serious injuries to make the company take action to better protect its employees when operating machinery.”