R Tindall (Fabricators) Ltd fined £75,000 for fatality

Oldham manufacturing firm R Tindall (Fabricators) Ltd was fined £75,000 (inc.costs) after a worker died after he was crushed under metal pipework.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred during an operation to move pipework bundles.
• There was no risk assessment or documented system for moving and stacking pipework or any items around the site.
• There was a method for moving bundles using a wooden framework.
• However, the method of packing bundles had changed to a less stable arrangement without being documented anywhere.
• 53-year-old Frank Dunne was operating a side-loader forked lift truck which was carrying a vacuum packed pipe bundle. 
• While he was attempting to load a second bundle weighing 1.5 tonnes, it fell, crushing him underneath.
• There were no eye witnesses to the incident. 
• Mr Dunne was found over an hour later when work colleagues moved the side-loader which was still running, discovering his body under the pile.

The HSE Inspector said:
“There was no risk assessment carried out on this new method of working and no system put in place for the operators to follow. If the company had provided a safe system of work for their employees to follow this tragic incident to Mr Dunne could have been avoided.”

Consillium Environmental Services fined £34,500 for conveyor accident

Lancashire-based environmental services company, Consillium Environmental Services, was fined £34,500 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered serious injuries when his arm was crushed by a conveyor belt.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a conveyor belt in a waste processing plant.
• No suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out.
• There was no suitable isolation process or guarding in place.
• There was no safe system of work for cleaning the rollers.
• On 20th May 2015 Muhammad Shoaib, was cleaning out waste plastic material from the conveyor belt.
• The machinery was started and his arm was drawn in between the rollers and the belt.
• Mr Shoaib suffered crush injuries in two places on his left arm and needed extensive surgery. 
• He has not been able to return to work since the incident.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident was entirely preventable. It is essential to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. As in this case the outcome for ignoring these simple safety measures can result in life changing injuries and a substantial fine.”

Lack of guarding causes broken arm and £194,000 fine during commissioning

Sovex Limited, a Wirral based company, was been fined £194,000 (inc.costs) after a worker’s arm was injured in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• Sovex were installing a new conveyor belt system at the UK Mail site in Coventry.
• There were a lack of effective guarding and isolation procedures on the machinery.
• On 21 January 2016 an installation engineer of Sovex was commissioning the machinery.
• His arm was pulled into the machinery.
• The arm was fractured.

GEA Mechanical Engineering fined £80,000 for fracture caused by poorly planned lifting operation

Milton Keynes based GEA Mechanical Engineering Limited was fined £80,831 (inc.costs) for safety failings after a worker suffered serious injuries to his leg.

The circumstances were:

• On 29 January 2015 GEA workers were attempting to lift a 900kg decanter scroll back into its mobile trailer.
• GEA failed to ensure that staff were suitably trained and competent to plan and carry out a lift of this complexity.
• They were struggling to manoeuver it far enough into the trailer. 
• They asked Ralph Jago, an employee from the office staff, to assist them.
• During this operation, the decanter slid forward trapping Mr Jago’s right leg against metal racking. 
• He was trapped for an hour and a half before fire and rescue services were able to free him.  
• He suffered serious fractures to his right leg requiring metal rods and pins to be inserted

.

SSS systems covering ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015 standards

We're well on the way to updating systems to meet the changed requirements of ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015.
Totally new procedures to meet ISO 9001:2015 are:

• 3.2 prA Context
• 3.6 prA Risk and opportunity identification and control
• 4.3 prA Infrastructure

Of course, systems are tailored to suit the needs of the individual company so the actual content will vary but will have the above headings.

For those companies that use the INTACT integrated action management system, there's a new page covering Risks and Opportunities.

We'll keep you informed as the ISO 14001 changes are developed and we aim to get most of out clients systems changed in 2016.

See more about SSS systems support.
See more about the INTACT integrated action management system.

Beware the CE mark, yet again

I make no apologies for being boring about this.

Be VERY cautious when you buy a new machine. Just because it is new, and has the CE mark, it doesn't mean to say it is safe.
The manufacturer is obliged to:

1. Design and build the equipment so that it complies with appropriate essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) and harmonised European standards (HESs). 
2. Assess the equipment for conformity with EHSRs) and (HESs). 
3. Be able to compile a technical file proving conformance. 
4. Draw up a declaration of conformity and affix the CE mark to the equipment.

Note that, with the exception of some equipment like press brakes or injection moulding machines, there is no specialist external inspector; it is the manufacturer's self-certification process.  

Make sure that you specify that the supplier must do the above. If you buy a machine from a UK company (or from a company within the EU), then they are obliged to do this, but quite a few of them don't. In your order, I strongly advice you to state that you will withhold say, 10%, until you are satisfied that the machine dies actually conform to EHSRs and HESs.

If you buy a machine from outside the EU, then YOU are the supplier and you take on the above obligations. If you simply buy a machine, then you may run into trouble when you try to sell it. Again, I strongly advice you to state in your order that you will withhold an amount until you are satisfied that the machine dies actually conform to EHSRs and HESs.

See more about CE marking in SSS White Paper 9.

Ensure that you carry out air conditioning leak test

Alarmingly, I see many instances where companies fail to carry out a periodic leak test on air conditioning equipment.
The leak test may be quite simple and even using a spray of soapy water and looking for the bubbles can be acceptable.

Under the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regs 2015, you must carry out a leak test at intervals dependant upon:

• The global warming potential (GWP) of the gas, and
• The amount stored in your system.

It is obvious that this interval is based on the risk. For most companies reading this, the interval is every year.

These two articles give you guidance on leak testing. Although the second one is from the USA, it is still relevant.
http://www.on365.co.uk/Articles/Guide_to_Good_Leak_Testing.aspx
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/RealZeroGuidetoGoodLeakTesting.pdf