Firm fined £300k over deficient asbestos records and awareness training

The operator of a natural gas storage facility has been sentenced today after 13 employees and contractors were exposed to asbestos fibres.

Beverley Magistrates heard that a team of three mechanical maintenance personnel were tasked with the removal of a non-return valve from a compressed air distribution system. Some of the sealing gasket material was difficult to remove so they used a wire brush mounted on an electric drill to remove the gasket material which spread fibres from the gasket around the maintenance workshop onto floors, work benches and clothing.

Two days later another employee became suspicious of the fibrous dust and sampling revealed that the dust contained chrysotile (white) asbestos fibres. The maintenance workshop was later closed to prevent access by employees and contractors.

Failure to manage asbestos risk

The prosecution told the court that the company had failed to identify in the risk assessment for this job that there were asbestos gaskets attached to the non-return valve.

HSE revealed that records held on site were inadequate and the maintenance team leader involved in this task had not undertaken asbestos awareness training.

SSE Hornsea Ltd – of Dunkeld Road, Perth pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2 (1) and 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc, Act 1974.

The company was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,731.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Paul Miller said:

“The company substantially failed to manage the risks associated with asbestos found within their process plant and have needlessly risked the future health of 13 people. Employers should ensure that they have in place adequate arrangements for both the identification and management of asbestos which may be found in buildings or process plant. The HSE Go Home Healthy campaign aims to prevent work-related lung disease by ensuring employers and workers have the information they need to work right.”

To prevent this from happening to you, take advantage of our Online Asbestos Awareness course.

A pellet manufacturing company based in Mansfield has been fined after an employee was killed when he was pulled into an industrial blender. 

51-year-old George Major, a father of one from Mansfield was clearing material from the blender at Rettenmaier UK Manufacturing Limited, a pellet manufacturer based in Mansfield, when it unexpectedly started up. 

The subsequent Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the 21 January 2011 incident found the guard had been removed from the machine and it had not been isolated and locked off from the electricity supply.  

Nottingham Crown Court heard the blender was part of a process line in which shredded recycled paper was mixed with bitumen and oil before being pressed into pellets, dried and bagged. The pellets were then used to reinforce asphalt mixes for use in road surfaces. 

The court was also told the production line was installed on a number of floors of the Crown Farm Industrial Estate building, and was computer controlled with control screens on two floors.

However, there was no computer control screen on the same floor as the blender with the control screen in use at the time of the accident on the floor below. There was no line of sight from this control screen to the blender. It was also pointed out in court that when the line was running, the factory was noisy.

Investigators found on the day of the incident Mr Major had been helping to clear a blockage from machinery when he was dragged into the blender and killed. 

The court heard there was no written system of work or instructions for isolation and no instruction to lock off isolators. There were no manuals or written instructions for operating plant. There was no proper training for staff. There were no risk assessments for any work on the plant.

Rettenmaier UK Manufacturing Limited, of Strawberry Way, Crown Farm Industrial Estate, Forest Town Mansfield, admitted breaching guilty to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and was fined £200,000 with costs of £100,000. 

HSE Inspector Samantha Farrar said “Mr Major’s death was entirely avoidable and his life was needlessly lost. The failings by Rettenmaier UK Manufacturing Ltd caused a fatality in particularly distressing circumstances. 

“The absence of an effective health and safety management system, including a lack of a safe system of work for equipment isolation and lock-off, risk assessment and proper training for staff, meant that all workers at the site were at risk. 

“This tragic incident could have so easily been avoided if a few simple steps had been taken by the company.”

Notes to Editors: 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. hse.gov.uk
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

Lockout Tagout

What is Lockout / Tagout

Each year thousands of industrial machine related work accidents occur, these accidents can occur when repairing or servicing equipment, the unexpected startup or release of stored energy can cause accidental injuries or even death.

The LOCKOUT TAGOUT procedure protects the employees from risk of an accident due to the power source not being isolated.

The 7 steps proceedure for lockout tagout

Prepare for Shutdown

Identify the energy sources to be isolated and check that it can be isolated wiht a safety lock of lockout device

Notify all affected employees

Equipment Shutdown

Stop the machine. Warning: simply activating the emergency stop device or control circuit is not sufficient to protect employees; the energy must be completely isolated at the source.

Apply isolation devices

Apply your safety padlocks and lockout devices. Ensure each employee adds their own safety lock on the machinery.

Confirm no residual energy remains

Once the machinery is isolated, make sure no energy remains, even if energy is isolated it can still be dangerous   

Lockout / Tagout

The locked out equipments must be identified with specific tags informing that interventions is in progress and that it is forbidden to unlock the equipment.

Verify Isolation

Check that the device is properly locked out and isolated by attempting to activate the machinery: visual check of the presence of lock-out system and to ensure that residual energy has been dissapated.

Poor standards on construction sites in the West Midlands are being targeted during February as part of an annual push to reduce death, injury and ill-health in the industry.

HSE Construction Inspectors are checking that high-risk activities are being carried out safely and that welfare facilities on site are adequate

Personal protective equipment (PPE) will also be checked along with respiratory protection equipment (RPE) to ensure that the wearer has been face-fit tested.

HSE point out that construction workers are nearly four times as likely to die at work compared to the average worker. An estimated 70,000 in the industry will today be suffering ill-health as a result of their work.

Exposure to dust can have fatal or debilitating consequences

The purpose of the campaign is to drive home the message to those working in the industry that poor risk management and a lack of awareness of responsibilities are not only unacceptable, but can cost lives.

Jo Anderson, HSE Principal Inspector for the West Midlands Construction Division said:

“Too many people die every year on Britain’s construction sites as a result of entirely avoidable incidents but it is just as important to protect workers from the causes of ill-health, such as unnecessary exposure to asbestos or silica dust, which can have fatal or debilitating consequences.

This initiative provides a chance to engage with construction firms to help them understand what they need to do, so they can put in place the practical measures needed to keep people safe. In many cases, simple changes to working practices can make all the difference, and even save lives.

However, if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily and irresponsibly put at risk, we will not hesitate to take robust action. Companies who deliberately cut corners and put their workers or others at risk will feel the full weight of the law.

Given one in three sites failed a recent clampdown on refurbishment projects in the region, it’s important to keep up momentum and target problem areas such as not providing basic welfare facilities for workers.”

This article was posted on 4th February 2014 in ALL LATEST NEWS.
PP Construction Safety H&S Assistance and Consultancy service.

(source)

25 years after one of Britain’s worst industrial disasters, Fire in the Night chronicles the tragic events that occurred on the Piper Alpha oil and gas rig.

It was a cataclysm that killed 167 men and left only 61 survivors, each of whom had to fight for their lives to escape the huge structure, and the flames that were consuming it.

This programme features emotional testimonies from the men who found themselves in an inferno that destroyed a rig which was, at one time, the world’s single largest oil producer.

For more information, click here.

The work detailed in Research Report RR960 Mobile elevated work platforms Phase 3 aimed to capture MEWP end users knowledge in relation to the key risk factors for entrapment/crushing whilst operating MEWPS, using insights gained from their experiences of near misses/incidents.

Key messages identified by researchers

The researchers identified the following Key Messages which are the opinions and/or conclusions of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

1. Knowledge – critical knowledge gaps have been exposed by this research, in particular where end users have explicitly stated that certain issues are not risk factors for entrapment, yet these have been identified as such by subject matter experts.
2. Comprehension– mobile elevated work platform (MEWP) training is not fully effective in instilling the right knowledge, both offsite (MEWP training courses) and onsite (inadequate risk assessments, vague emergency procedures, lack of refresher training, lack of toolbox talks and low awareness of the “Best Practice Guidance for MEWPs”). Cumulatively, this may be an indication of industry’s lack of comprehension of the risks of entrapment.
3. Training interventions – this lack of knowledge should be addressed by interventions, for example, enhancing the MEWP training courses and calling for contractors to address the lack of toolbox talks. Particular focus should be placed on the risk factors for entrapment that subject matter experts agree are most critical. A recommendation to achieve this would be to ask industry experts, for example the International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) safety forum, to produce a risk ranking of the critical knowledge gaps, which can then be reflected in a MEWP training programme. It is recommended that additional support be specifically targeted at individual trades where critical knowledge gaps were evident.
4. Standardisation – there is a lack of standardisation in MEWP control systems design, so that there are safety critical differences in control functions between MEWP manufacturers, and also differences between models within the same manufacturer.
5. Familiarisation – End users suggested ways to improve MEWP design, which demonstrates the importance of effective worker involvement. In the long term, changes should be put in place to establish a standardised MEWP design. In the mean time, an implication for this identified lack of standardisation and consequent negative transfer of learning effect is the necessity for improved on-site familiarisation processes.
6. Relevance – although this research has been focused on the risk factors for entrapment, the implications will be of wider interest and may be common for other risk factors, such as overturning

Source 

IRATA has published two documents subsequent to the revised 2013 Edition of the IRATA International Code of Practice (ICOP), these are: –

• Part 3 Annex F March 2013.  This was not present on the ICOP published on 1st March 2013

• Information on the 2013 edition of the ICOP at 8th April 2013

During a month-long drive to improve standards in one of Britain's most dangerous industries, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will visit sites where refurbishment or repair works are taking place.

Between 18 February and 15 March, inspectors will make unannounced visits to construction sites to ensure they are managing high-risk activity, such as working at height.

They will also check for general good order, assess welfare facilities and check whether suitable PPE such as head protection, is being used appropriately.

During 2011/12, 49 workers were killed while working in construction and 2,884 major injuries were reported. The purpose of the initiative is to remind those working in the industry that poor standards are unacceptable and could result in enforcement action.

Philip White, HSE Chief Inspector of Construction, said:

"Death and injury continue to result from avoidable incidents and it is largely those engaged in refurbishment and repair work who are failing to step up to the mark. Poor management of risks and a lack of awareness of responsibilities is unacceptable.

"In many cases simple changes to working practices can make all the difference, and can even save lives. Therefore if we find evidence that workers are being unnecessarily put at risk we will take strong action.

"We are determined to drive the message home that site safety and worker welfare cannot be compromised."

Source

A landscape gardener has been given a suspended prison sentence after a falling gatepost killed one of his employees.

Eden Maddocks, trading as Eden Creative Landscapes, had been contracted to install a gate at a house in Keele, Staffordshire. On 20 May 2010, Maddocks and one of his employees, Leeson Lavender, were carrying out the work when the incident took place.

The two men were standing on a trailer, which had been used to transport a large oak gatepost, and were manoeuvring it towards a hole. As they lifted the post the trailer shifted, causing Mr Lavender to fall off the vehicle. down to the ground. As he landed, he struck his head, which was also hit by the falling post. The 39-year-old later died in hospital from serious head injuries.

The HSE investigated the incident and learned the company had carried out this method of work before, but on this occasion the oak post was larger and heavier. Maddocks told Mr Lavender they would try and lift the post once, and if it was too heavy they would wait for assistance from the property owner and an electrician, who was due at the house.

HSE inspector Lindsay Hope explained that Maddocks had balanced the trailer with sandbags and stone chocks but he hadn’t assessed the risks of the post overbalancing.

“Maddocks had balanced the trailer with sandbags and provided stone chocks to stabilise it during the lifting process. He had also provided guide nails in the trailer to stop it sliding sideways during transportation, so he had obviously considered the potential stability issues and had taken some precautions in an attempt to reduce the risks of the post overbalancing,” said inspector Hope.

“Sadly he didn't do enough and Leeson Lavender paid with his life – a tragic and unnecessary death that could have been avoided with better planning and a safer method of work.”

Eden Maddocks appeared at Stafford Crown Court on 11 January and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. He was given a six-month prison sentence, which was suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to carry out 180 hours unpaid community work.

Source

George Smith is a member of the tutor team at Outreachrescue based in the UK. He has twenty years experience working with emergency services from many different parts of the world. His specialisms are the delivery of work at height and rope rescue applications along with water rescue systems. He has also spent an unspecified number of years hanging from ropes, as evidenced by his long involvement with DMM over on the climbing side. In 2008 he co-directed the award winning film Upsidedown Wales.

Working on rope rescue systems over water can be very problematic, with multiple risks and limited guidance, then again… it can make for a soft landing!

So what is the difference between this type of rigging and any other? Well, whilst the operator is at height, very little. Clearly they will require a standard work positioning set-up with the normal system redundancy. However, on nearing the water a new set of risks take over.

The only specific guidance here in the UK is that provided by the Fire Service Rope manual (P69) which specifies the need for a support system which can be released (one handed, under load) by the user. The idea is that in the event of becoming trapped in current the operator can easily escape the system and engage in a free swim to safety, adopting the same releasability ethos as all ‘in water’ rescue systems.

To this end we have always used the Act-Safe ‘quick-out’ karabiner which fits the criteria and is in widespread use for all related functions, (we were lucky enough to be trained in its use by the inventor Peter Sundermann who also made some adaptations for us).

Beyond this we have altered no other element of the required rigging for this environment, the rest being entirely compatible with standard rope rescue.


Looking happy enough, a member of Dorset Fire and Rescue Service descending with a seat stretcher, useful for rapid extrications from these challenging circumstances.

The students use a ‘quick-out’ karabiner in conjunction with an auto-locked pulley system. This is backed up by another adjustable connector. Whilst initially finding it to be a bit of an ugly tangle, students warm to it as rescue tasks in the water become more challenging and its versatility becomes more apparent. With this system in place, users are encouraged to call a halt to proceedings as water level is reached (at foot level) and unclip the safety back-up system so that nothing will hinder potential deployment of the ‘quick-out’. With a well rigged attendant pulley system the rescuer can closely control their final descent into the water or shorten the rig to avoid trouble in the event of having been lowered too far.

As with normal rope rescue, the provision of adjustable attendant attachments allows their position to be altered in relation to that of a casualty rescue strop or stretcher system. This is particularly useful in an environment where casualty handling is fraught with difficulty. Students find the challenge of handling live casualties in even very gently moving or aerated water to be significantly different from normal environments – It’s not all bad, casualties can sometimes be almost weightless in these circumstances, aiding manual handling.

The only other items of equipment specific to this environment are basic sit harnesses for attendents. DMM Alpine harnesses have removable equipment loops rendering the user less susceptible to entrapment risks in the water. They are used in conjunction with a very basic chest harness linked by a maillion, the latter being worn under a standard rescue PFD buoyancy jacket.

The rest of the team wear full body harnesses, and for those on the edge we emphasise the preference for work positioning systems over restraint.

So should we use this releasable system of work every time? – No; a more dynamic approach should be adopted taking into account the specific risks. At one end of the spectrum, over severe hazards and very fast water the only valuable control measure is careful avoidance of the water! Clearly in these circumstances releasability simply introduces unwanted risk and needless complexity. At the benign end of the risk scale 1 metre river banks arguably merit the use of single rope systems without an attendant, the safety back-up becoming redundant from the outset.

As with conventional rope responses the notion of reduced rescue loads can be pursued by separating the rescuers rigging from that of the casualty. We now cover this as a useful option in situations where lifting power is limited. Parallel ‘V’ rigs with safety back-ups are the norm. Despite potential problems keeping rescuer and casualty side by side during extrication there’s also a potential risk reduction for the rescuer whilst handling casualties in more challenging circumstances.

Casualty strops become more user friendly with the integration of adjustable connectors between strop and supporting rigging plate, enabling the rescuer to secure a casualty without the constraints of overhead rope tension, altering their precise position on the system later.

The decision on whether to build a quick release device on the casualty attachments is left to debate. It cannot be justified in situations where they would be required to self deploy or might accidentally deploy! It probably should be installed wherever the casualty is closely attended and it can in any way reduce risks. Clearly it can be backed up at any point with additional connectors – once clear of the water.

Here the stretcher has been lowered a sufficient depth to ensure optimum manual handling of a floating casualty.

We introduce a variety of stretchers throughout the exercises to allow students to gain experience of pro’s and con’s. The key issues are handling ability, speed of loading and suitability for use in water dominated scenarios where the rescuers ability to work can be hampered as much by the stretcher as the casualty. Delegates tend to buy into the challenge, shouldering the occasional controlled fiasco for the cause. A common preference for metal frame options comes with the discovery that prior to loading water passes through them in an obvious but relatively magical way from the attendants points of view! Plastic panels don’t do so well – but they may be what you have. A point of some interest is the cumulative weight of a metal stretcher and associated hardware; if you’re attached to it and it doesn’t have floatation, in the event of an uncontrolled lower …could it sink you?

In these exercises the water is only gently moving, anything more would be unrealistic and call for different measures. However, it is a good confidence builder for those involved and allows those types of judgements to be made in future operations.

Many students perceive a high probability of cableway rescue in this environment, with a sliding scale from benign conditions / ambulant casualty, to unworkable water / stretchered casualty.

We tend to use 3 or 4 cable ropes to counter what is realistically an incalculable amount of stretch, all variables considered.

At the low risk end, casualties can be conveyed in a rescue strop system efficiently enough to avoid integration of an attendant, (the system having been tested first with the weight of a rescuer).

Again we have found adjustability in the casualty attachments to be more functional than it is in the cableway itself. This simplifies its application making life easier for all concerned. Those working on the cableway can concentrate on methods of elevation and route choice.

At the tougher end of the scale the relatively elaborate ‘English reeve’ system has unique capacities in this environment, enabling rescue attendants to start from water level, access casualties and retrieve them with minimal lifting. To this end the de-mystification of its rigging is a worthy cause embraced by all those who have witnessed its uses.

If a casualty is to be accessed mid current it is good to let the destination dictate the selection of anchors – rather than vice versa!

So how do all these applications fit into a logical response to water rescue? In two ways:

You may have height to overcome; anything over a metre or so and casualty management becomes very problematic with normal water based systems.

You may have powerful water; water rescuers will mostly confess to a lack of magic powers in big water, which can sometimes be completely avoided through a rope based approach – to the relief of all concerned!

Source