Director jailed for selling products containing prohibited substances

Company director Nicholas Corbett of Abel (UK) Ltd., was sentenced to 10 months in prison for the online sale of products containing prohibited substances.

The circumstances were:

• A complaint was raised in August 2014 that Abel (UK) Ltd was selling a plant protection product containing Sodium Chlorate, a prohibited substance
• An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also found the company was selling paint stripper containing dichloromethane (DCM), which is restricted under Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
• The company also failed to check at the point of sale the paint stripper containing DCM was either being sold for use in industrial installations or, after October 2016, to appropriately certificated professionals, which is a condition of sale.
• HSE worked with online platforms to have the advertisements for these products taken down and served enforcement notices to prohibit further supply. 
• However, the enforcement notices were ignored by Abel (UK) ltd.

The HSE inspector said:
“Chemicals are carefully regulated to protect human health and the environment. Sodium Chlorate is not approved for use in weed killers, as a safe level of use was not established for operators. Dichloromethane (DCM) has been restricted in paint strippers due to concerns for human health during its use – it has caused fatalities when not used properly. Companies should be aware that HSE will take robust action against those who unnecessarily put the lives of workers and the public at risk, and against those who endanger the environment, through the inappropriate supply and use of chemicals.”

PCL Transport 24/7 fined £167,649 after a driver was struck by a reversing vehicle

Slough-based logistics company PCL Transport 24/7 Limited was fined £167,649 after a driver was struck by a reversing vehicle when he was carrying out a pre-use check on his vehicle.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on 15 December 2015 at a dairy in Aylesbury. 
• Safety controls, principally the use of an allocated pre-use vehicle check area, were not being followed by the company’s lorry drivers.
• The injured person was carrying out a pre-use check on his lorry in away from the designated area.
• He was struck by a reversing vehicle.

The HSE inspector said:
“Being struck by vehicles is still one of the highest causes of workplace fatal accidents. Employers should ensure that where vehicles and pedestrians use the same areas, there is sufficient separation between them.”

Veolia fined £1M after worker was run over by a vehicle in the yard

Refuse collection company Veolia ES (UK) Limited was  fined £1m plus costs of £130,000 after a worker was run over and killed.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred in the yard at the Ross Depot Waste Transfer Station in Folkestone.
• Veolia failed to adequately assess the risks involved in the yard.
• Veolia did not implement industry recognised control measures to protect employees.
• As a result, multiple vehicles, including RCVs and articulated lorries, manoeuvered around the yard with no specific controls.
• 18 October 2013, Veolia employee .John Head .was walking across the yard, . 
• He was run over by a reversing refuse collection vehicle (RCV). 
• He suffered fatal injuries when was pronounced dead at the scene.

The HSE inspector said:
“This should be a reminder to all industries, but in particular, the waste industry, to appropriately assess the risks and implement widely recognised control measures to adequately control manoeuvring vehicles, in particular reversing vehicles and restrict pedestrian movements around vehicles."

Air Management & Design fined £13,300 after hand was drawn into bending machine

Engineering company Air Management & Design Ltd., was been fined £13,300 after an apprentice suffered serious hand injuries when he was drawn into machinery.

The circumstances were:

• On 3 March 2018, the apprentice was forming a piece of sheet metal into a radius using a three-roll bending machine.
• There was no safe system of work, adequate training or supervision.
• The risks of wearing gloves when operating moving machinery had not been realised.
• He was wearing gloves when his hand was drawn in by the in-running nip between two steel rollers. 
• As a result, the apprentice had two fingers severed and also suffered crush injuries to his right hand.

The HSE inspector said after the hearing:
“A young man’s life has been changed because his employer failed to ensure adequate training in and supervision of a safe system of work for the use of a powered three roll bending machine. This is a reminder to all companies to check that fully fingered gloves are not worn, and safe systems of work are in place and being followed for operation of dangerous machinery such as three-roll bending machines.”

Global Displays Limited fined after unstable stack collapses on employee

Global Displays Limited, a manufacturing firm in Worcestershire, was fined £ 15,179 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered crush injuries when wooden panels fell onto him.

The circumstances were:

• The company failed to identify the risks from storing timber boards close to work benches and a thoroughfare used by employees. 
• They had not provided a safe place for the boards to be stored so they would not fall over.
• On 8 April 2017, there was an upright stack of 4m x 1m panels, with several smaller panels resting against it untied, causing the whole stack to become unstable.
• These toppled over and hit an employee, causing a dislocated shoulder and fractured arm as a result.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out a risk assessment in relation to the storage of display panel boards. This would have identified the risks from unsafe stacking and the need for appropriate control measures, such as a method for storing boards safely. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

Employee loses finger in unguarded rotating roller

Printing company V P Packaging Ltd was fined £21,346 (inc.costs) after an employee suffered a crush injury whilst cleaning machinery.

The circumstances were:

• On 11 January 2018, an employee was cleaning a roller on an envelope-making machine.
• The roller was unguarded and was running.
• The cloth she was holding got caught and her hand was drawn into the rollers.
• She suffered an amputation to her right-hand middle finger and two other fingers were fractured, with some degloving of the skin.

The HSE inspector said
“This injury could have been easily prevented, and the risk should have been identified. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures like suitable guards, to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

SSS Note:
The proper situation is to have either fixed guards or interlocked guards over rollers with in-running nips.  Cleaning should be done with the machine stopped.  However, it may be done on slow-crawl or hold-to-run providing the operator is wearing low-tensile strength gloves which tear rather than drawing in the hand. 

Nylcast fined £303,000 after an ejected rod killed an employee.

Nylacast Limited, who manufacture plastic products has been fined £303,205 (inc.costs) after the death of an employee.

The circumstances were:

• The company failed to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of the long length rod machine in order to ensure that all foreseeable hazards had been identified.
• On 15 April 2016, an employee was in the process of removing a cast plastic rod from a casting machine.
• The rod was secured in the machine by a pressurised piston which should have been depressurised before attempting to remove the rod. It was not.
• As he started to remove the rod, the metal retaining end cap and plastic rod were forcibly ejected.
• The rod, travelling at an estimated 81 mph hit him in the chest.
• He died the following day

The HSE inspector said
“Those in control of work equipment have a responsibility to undertake a suitably robust assessment in order to ensure that all foreseeable hazards have been identified. Had this hazard been identified, suitable engineering controls could have been devised and implemented to minimise the risk, therefore this death could have been prevented.”