In the news.......
Asbestos proposals confirm ‘weak’ UK implementation of EU directive
06 September 2011
The HSE is seeking views on revising the Control of Asbestos Regulations to bring them into line with the parent European Directive.
The consultation follows the European Commission’s reasoned opinion earlier this year that the UK had under-implemented Article 3(3) of the Directive 2003/18/EC. The Article provides for the exemption of some types of lower-risk work with asbestos from three requirements of the Directive: notification of work; medical examinations; and record-keeping.
However, the EC decided that the omission in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 of the terms ‘non-friable’ and ‘without deterioration of non-degraded material’ broadened the scope of the exemption, allowing more types of asbestos work to be exempt from the three requirements than was intended.
The HSE had taken the decision to omit the terms because it felt the lack of definition surrounding the terms might confuse duty-holders and make enforcement difficult. Instead, the Regulations introduced a short-term peak exposure limit of airborne fibre, which cannot be exceeded if the exemptions are to apply.
The nine-week consultation on revising the 2006 Regulations, which proposes revoking them entirely and issuing a single set of revised regulations, confirms the Government’s acceptance of the reasoned opinion and that UK legislation must be changed to include the two omitted terms.
By complying fully with the reasoned opinion, the UK will ensure that the revised regulations will narrow the types of work to which the exemptions apply. Consequently, employers carrying out some type of low-risk, short-duration maintenance and repair work on asbestos-containing materials will be newly required to:
• notify the work to the relevant enforcing authority;
• obtain medical examinations for workers; and
• maintain a register for each worker of the type and duration of work done with asbestos.
To comply with the reasoned opinion, but to avoid extending the requirement to hold a licence to carry out short-term, low-risk work, the exemption for licensing will be delinked from the other exemptions and a separate definition of the work for which a licence is required will be set.
This means that, in future, three categories of work will exist as opposed to two:
- licensed, to which all requirements apply;
- non-licensed, which is exempt, as now, from the requirements to notify, carry out medical examinations, and keep medical registers; and
- a new category called notifiable non-licensed work (NNLW) – for which the three requirements will apply.
It is estimated that about 660,000 workers, including the self-employed, currently carry out NNLW work. The HSE says it will provide guidance to clarify the range of asbestos-containing materials and tasks included within the NNLW category, along with details of practical approaches to both record-keeping and notification aimed at reducing costs to business.
The consultation, which closes on 4 November, can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd237.htm
Supermarket giant failed to address slip risks
12 September 2011
Morrisons Supermarkets has been fined £17,500 after a worker fractured her elbow when she slipped at a store in Ipswich.
In June 2008, an environmental health officer from Ipswich Borough Council made a routine visit to a Morrisons store in Sproughton Road. She warned the store’s management about a potential slip hazard behind one of the food counters, where smooth terrazzo tiles had been installed.
The tiles are highly polished and smooth and become extremely slippery when oil or grease is split on them. The store’s risk assessment had identified the issue but had failed to introduce any control measures. The EHO recommended that the company either provide workers with protective footwear, or add a resin coating to the floor to increase slip resistance.
On 4 December 2008, an employee at the store slipped on some tiles, which were positioned behind a counter in the oven-fresh area, after there was a spillage of grease. She suffered a serious fracture to her right elbow and had to undergo three operations to repair the damage. She was unable to return to work for seven months and still suffers constant pain in her elbow.
As part of the investigation into the incident the council worked with experts from the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to measure the slip resistance of the tiles. The results showed that there was a high risk of slips when the floor was contaminated with water, or oil.
Ipswich Borough Council issued three Improvement Notices to the supermarket for failing to take action to protect workers from slipping on the tiles in three separate areas at the store.
Investigating EHO Rosemary Naylor revealed that the slip risks were present in other Morrisons stores across the country where the same tiles had been installed. She said: “This serious accident could have been easily prevented had the company acted on my previous written warning and reduced the risk of staff slipping in these areas by improving the floor surface and/or providing anti-slip footwear.
“Our investigation revealed this type of accident continues to occur in food preparation areas in their stores across the UK. I hope this prosecution sends a message to all food businesses that they need to protect their staff from slipping hazards in their kitchens."
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc appeared at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 5 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay full costs of £32,482
Roofer given suspended sentence for friend’s fatal fall
07 September 2011
A self-employed roof contractor has been given a suspended prison sentence after one of his friends suffered fatal injuries falling through the roof of a domestic garage.
Steve Mason had been contracted to replace a flat roof on a double garage at a house in Stock, near Chelmsford. On 24 June 2009, a friend of Mason, 58-year-old James Waughman, visited the property and climbed a ladder to the roof so he could talk to him. As Mr Waughman stepped on the roof he suffered a stroke, and fell through a gap in the roof. He landed on the garage floor and suffered multiple injuries, from which he died three weeks later while in hospital.
HSE inspector Lesley Balkham told SHP that there was no barrier protection around the edge of the roof, or the gap, and the method of work was unsafe. She explained that the work should have been carried out from a bird-cage platform, or a MEWP.
Said the inspector: “This sends out a powerful message to roofing contractors. Steve Mason failed to properly consider the risks of the job and act to limit the chances of injury, or even death. He should have put guard-rails around the edge of the roof and taken measures to prevent anyone falling through it, but he chose not to.”
Mason appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court on 25 August and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. He was given an eight-month prison sentence, which was suspended for 12 months, and was also ordered to pay £500 in costs.
In mitigation, Mason said he deeply regrets the incident and is still struggling to come to terms with the loss of his friend. He entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity and had no previous convictions. He subsequently completed the work using a tower scaffold.
Inspector Balkham concluded: “No matter what size the business, everyone in the construction industry should be very familiar with the risks of working at height and appreciate the importance of ensuring that the right precautions are put in place, however small the job.”
Marks and Spencer safety conviction “a wake-up call” for retailers
21 July 2011
High-street retailer Marks and Spencer and two of its contractors have been convicted for the risk of exposing workers and members of the public to asbestos.
In 2006, the HSE received a complaint from an electrician who had been involved in the refurbishment of a Marks and Spencer store in Reading. He informed the HSE that he believed asbestos removal work was not being carried out safely. When HSE inspectors visited the store they found that asbestos-containing materials were present in ceiling tiles that were being removed from the store. Styles and Wood Ltd was the principal contractor for the overall refurbishment, while PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel Ltd) was contracted to remove the asbestos.
The work was carried out at night in enclosures on the shop floor in order to remove the tiles bit by bit, to allow the shop to stay open to the public each day. During the investigation inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store. The HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer had failed to allocate sufficient time and space for the asbestos removal.
The investigation also learned that PA Realisations had failed to ensure that the protective tent, which it used to prevent asbestos from spreading when removing the tiles, was in a suitable condition. Workers should have tested the tent by filling it with smoke to see if there were any gaps that would allow asbestos to escape. Instead, they used a glass vial to let out a small amount of smoke, which made it harder to identify if any fumes had leaked out. Although the solicitor for Marks and Spencer said the test was carried out differently.
In February 2007, the HSE visited a Marks and Spencer store in Bournemouth, which was also being refurbished. It found that the principal contractor at the store, Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd, had failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos materials. It had also failed to carry out an extensive asbestos survey and inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store.
Earlier this week, on 18 July, Willmott Dixon Construction was found guilty, following a trial at Winchester Crown Court, of breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. The charges relate to refurbishment work it carried out at the Bournemouth store.
Marks and Spencer plc was found guilty of the same breaches, in relation to the work carried out at its Reading store from 24 April to 13 November 2006.
PA Realisations was also found guilty for contravening reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, on account of the work it carried out at the Reading store.
At an earlier hearing, Styles & Wood Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, in relation to its role at the Reading store.
All four companies will be sentenced on 26 September 2011.
After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Charles Gilby said: “This prosecution exposed serious failures by Marks and Spencer and its contractors that we hope others will learn from. This verdict is a wake-up call for the retail industry. Client accountability and responsibility is at the heart of this case, because asbestos can and does kill.
“There are very real lessons here for the country's large retailers and other organisations engaging in programmes of refurbishment, that they must allow enough time and resource to carry out work without endangering anyone.”
A fifth company, Clarence Contractors Ltd, was prosecuted and sentenced in relation to asbestos removal at a Marks and Spencer store in Plymouth. The company, which at the time of sentence was in liquidation, appeared in court on 12 January 2010 and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10 and reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, for offences committed between September 2004 and September 2006. It also pleaded guilty to contravening reg. 11 and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, in relation to asbestos removal work it carried out at the Bournemouth store. It was fined £50 for each offence and £100 in costs.
Construction deaths rise as cuts are ushered in
The number of deaths in the construction industry rose by around 15 per cent last year, fuelling concerns that the cost-cutting measures being implemented by the HSE will reverse the downward trend of recent years.
The regulator’s head of construction, Philip White, revealed the increase at a conference in London yesterday (5 April) on Safety Schemes in Procurement, indicating that competence – or lack of it – was “clearly a feature” in many of the fatalities.
Speaking to SHP after the event, Mr White emphasised that the figures are completely provisional and unverified at this early stage (the final figures for the 2010/2011 period will not be published until the end of this year) but HSE monitoring of the reports coming into it between April 2010 and March 2011 indicated a rise of around 15 per cent on last year’s low of 42 deaths.
Mr White said the rise cannot be seen as statistically significant yet, but the HSE “will be keeping an eye on the trend, and if it goes up again over the next 12 months, we will have to look closely at the causes of that”.
According to construction union UCATT, the cuts to the HSE’s budget and subsequent easing off in inspection and enforcement activities will not help. Acting general secretary George Guy told SHP: "The increase in fatalities underlines just how dangerous construction remains, and this increase in deaths has come before there has been any meaningful recovery in the industry. Following all previous recessions there has been a marked increase in construction fatalities, as new, inexperienced companies and workers enter the industry.
“Given the cuts being faced by the HSE and the existing dearth of inspections and enforcement activity, it is all too probable that deaths will continue to rise in the industry.”
Philip White was adamant that construction remains a priority industry for the regulator, and that there will be no drop in the number of front-line construction inspectors, other than those coming to the end of fixed-term contracts this summer. He admitted, however, that now that the first period under the spending review is underway, “we will need to see how we manage over the next 12 months”.
The focus during that period, he said, will be on the smaller operators in the industry, “as that is where the biggest problems still lie”.
Consultants register to improve safety advice
A new national register of occupational safety consultants will be set up to help employers access good quality, proportionate advice, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has confirmed.
The Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR) will go live in January 2011. It will provide firms with details of consultants who have met the highest qualification standard of recognised professional bodies and who are bound by a code of conduct that requires them to only give advice which is sensible and proportionate.
The register has been developed by HSE and a network of professional bodies representing safety consultants across Britain. Employers will visit a single website that help them to find local advisers with experience relevant to their sector.
Judith Hackitt, the HSE chair, said:
"Lord Young quite rightly recognised that businesses find it difficult to know when they need expert safety advice and where to go to get it. The Occupational Safety Consultants Register will make it easier to identify consultants who meet the highest standards within their professional bodies.
"There are already many very good safety consultants who give sensible advice to employers - the register will help recognise their professional skills and also encourages those who do not yet meet these standards to do so. It will help to raise the standard of advice available to employers and increase their confidence in the advice they receive."
To be eligible to join the register, individual consultants will need to be either Chartered members of the safety bodies IOSH, CIEH or REHIS or a Fellow of the IIRSM.
Membership will mean they have a commitment to continuous professional development, a degree equivalent qualification, two years' experience, professional indemnity insurance and are bound by a code of conduct to only providing sensible and proportionate advice.
The scheme will be managed by the professional bodies themselves through a not-for-profit company, with HSE providing support.
Membership of OSCR will be voluntary. There will be an annual administration fee to be paid, although the level has yet to be set. A further announcement on the detail of the scheme will be made later in the year.
Charges against director dropped in first corporate manslaughter trial
The long-awaited trial of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has been adjourned again until 24 January 2011.
But the company’s managing director, Peter Eaton, will not now face trial accused of gross negligence manslaughter and an offence under s37 of the HSWA, after his solicitors, Pinsent Masons LLP, successfully argued for both charges to be dropped. In open court on 6 October, the judge ruled that, owing to the ill health of Mr Eaton, the two charges against him should be permanently stayed.
The trial of the company, on the charge of corporate manslaughter and for allegedly breaching s2 of the HSWA, will proceed on the new date, with the judge indicating that it may now be heard in Winchester Crown Court rather than in Bristol. The judge also indicated that he would not tolerate any further delays in the case.
However, Pinsent Masons is calling for the corporate manslaughter case to be dropped as well. Kevin Bridges, a partner at the firm, said: “There will be a further hearing before Mr Justice Field where this will be argued in December. The issue is whether he [Mr Eaton] is fit even to give evidence and instructions to his defence team and, if he can’t, whether the company can be tried at all.”
The Crown Prosecution Service originally laid the charges against both Mr Eaton and the company in April last year, following the death of employee Alex Wright in September 2008.
The trial was due to start on 23 February this year but following submissions heard in private on 26 February, the judge directed that the trial be adjourned and be listed to resume at the start of this month.
Sally Roff, partner and head of the safety, health and environment group at law firm Beachcroft LLP, believes that the Corporate Manslaughter Act has been tainted by the latest delay in court proceedings.
She said: “At a time when there is so much scrutiny over the effective use of public funds, one wonders what is to be gained from pursuing a ‘shell’ company.
“There is little prospect of a significant fine being levied on any conviction and it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful guidance on how the Corporate Manslaughter Act is to be interpreted, particularly in terms of who, for the purpose of the Act, would fall into the definition of ‘senior management’.
“Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings is a very small company and it is unlikely that there will be any detailed consideration of who constituted its senior management. The Corporate Manslaughter Act has become tarnished with delay, both by the time it took to come to the statute books and now in its implementation.”
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings is unable to comment further at this stage, given that the proceedings are continuing.
Council neglected to inform tenants of asbestos disturbance
A local authority and a building contractor left a family exposed to asbestos for three days during renovation works at a house in Lincoln.
Lincoln Magistrates’ Court heard that City of Lincoln Council had contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to refurbish a bathroom at a residential property. The council had identified that asbestos insulation boards were present in the room and had contacted a licensed company to remove them. But the work was never carried out and the council contacted County Waste to inspect the site to see if it was necessary for a licensed contractor to be brought in.
On 10 June 2008, one of County Waste’s workers visited the property, but instead of inspecting the boarding, he prised off the panels with a crowbar and broke them into pieces. Some of the debris was left on the bathroom floor, and the worker walked around the property for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
The tenant family complained to the council about the debris and a council worker visited the house on the same day to inspect the damage. He identified that the debris contained asbestos but didn’t inform the family, which was not moved to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council appeared in court on 3 June and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 8(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, for failing to put adequate procedures in place to protect workers, and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay £12,000 in costs.
The council’s director of housing and community services, John Bibby, said: “The council has cooperated fully with the HSE in its investigation into this matter and reiterates that it is committed to achieving and maintaining the highest levels of health and safety management.
“On this occasion the council accepts that it fell below its own high standards. That failing needs to be looked at in the context of the council’s previous good safety record. The incident itself occurred in June 2008 and the council has undertaken a full review of the relevant policies and procedures, sought appropriate advice, and, where necessary, put in place changes to its procedures so that there can be no repetition of an incident of this nature.”
County Waste attended the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10(1) and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, for not providing adequate training to workers in contact with asbestos, and for not taking steps to prevent the spread of asbestos. It also pleaded guilty to reg. 24(1)(b) of the same legislation, for failing to safely package and dispose of the debris. It was fined a total of £4250 with costs of £6000.
In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and regretted the incident. It added that the incident occurred due to an employee deciding to remove the boards, which went against the instructions it had issued. The company has subsequently provided employees with additional asbestos awareness training.
Following the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles said: “The council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.
“Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before re-housing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.
“Because County Waste failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle, or wrapping.”
Renovation work disturbed asbestos at primary school
A building firm failed to warn its employees that asbestos was present during renovations at a school in Warwickshire.
Greswolde Construction Ltd had been contracted to build an extension at Rokeby Primary School in Rugby. The company was in possession of a Type 3 asbestos survey, which detailed where asbestos was present at the site. But this information was not passed on to its workforce.
On 9 July 2009, three employees were stripping out a room when they disturbed an area containing asbestos. They had not been given asbestos awareness training so were unaware that the hazardous material was present.
HSE inspector Paul Cooper revealed that children were being taught in the adjaxent room when the asbestos was disturbed. He said: “The dangers of asbestos are well known in the building industry, so for the managers of Greswolde Construction not to inform their employees of its presence shows a complete disregard for their safety and well-being.
“What makes it worse is that this work was being carried out in a primary school where young children were in the next room.
“We can’t stress enough how important it is for anyone carrying out building work to obtain the proper asbestos surveys and then act upon them.”
Greswolde Construction appeared at Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates’ Court on 19 August and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10(1) and 11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, for failing to give adequate information about the presence of asbestos to its employees, and for allowing workers to be exposed to asbestos. It was fined £1000 and ordered to pay £2268 towards costs.
In mitigation the firm said it complied with the investigation and deeply regretted the incident. It told the court that it had systems in place to ensure that only licensed sub-contractors are sanctioned to remove asbestos but, on this occasion, the threat of exposure had not been relayed to the workforce due to poor communication.
The company had no previous convictions but had been issued a Prohibition Notice on 9 June 2009 while working on the same project. The HSE had made a surprise inspection at the site and saw a worker using a mechanical breaker on the edge of the roof, which had no edge protection. The notice required work to stop at the sight until adequate edge protection was installed.
Farm family devastated by son’s fatal fall
The teenage stepson of a farm manager died after falling through the roof of a farm building in Ballindalloch, Scotland.
Elgin Sheriff Court heard that the incident took place at Inverlochy Farm on 21 August 2006. The farm’s junior manager, Raymond Irvine, and an employee were clearing a gutter, which ran between the roofs of the main cattle shed and the feed passage. In order to access the cattle shed roof they parked a tractor next to the building and raised the machine’s bucket so that it was level with the roof, and then climbed up the vehicle.
Mr Irvine’s 13-year-old stepson, Austin Irvine ,was playing in the courtyard next to the cattle shed and asked if he could help clear the gutter. His father wouldn’t allow him to help but told him he could stand in the tractor’s bucket to watch the work.
Mr Irvine climbed down from the roof and lowered the bucket to ground level so his son could step inside it. He raised the bucket back up and told his son to remain inside. As Mr Irvine was getting out of the vehicle, his son walked on to the roof and stepped on a rooflight, which gave way. The boy fell 4.5 metres to the ground and died in hospital four days later from serious head injuries.
The farm’s management company, John Irvine and Son, was issued an Improvement Notice on 24 November 2006, which required it to carry out a risk assessment for working at height.
The company appeared in court on 25 August and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £13,500.
In mitigation, the company said this was an isolated incident and it had no previous convictions. It told the court that it rents the farm and the landlord usually carries out roof work. But, on this occasion, it decided to do the job itself, as the roof needed urgent attention. The accident has left the family devastated and all roof work is now referred to the landlord.
HSE inspector Ann Poyner said: “This tragedy should never have happened and could have been prevented if John Irvine and Son had properly assessed the risks of working on a fragile roof and taken steps to prevent falls through the roof.
“Farmers and those working in agriculture frequently carry out roof work, yet fail to appreciate that the risks involved are always substantial. If possible, avoid going on fragile roofs and always keep children clear of high-risk activities. If you are planning this type of work, you should always make sure you have the right equipment to ensure that the work area is strong enough to work from, and that guardrails are in place at open edges and suitable access is provided.”
Brick-maker fined £280,000 for crush death!
A worker who had only been on site for two weeks, died after his head was crushed while he was clearing a conveyor.
Peter Clarke, 47, was working for brick manufacturing company Hanson Building Products Ltd, when the incident occurred at the firm’s distribution plant in Coleshill, Warwickshire, on 26 April 2008.
Mr Clark was employed as a ‘brickman’ and was stationed next to a conveyor that transferred concrete blocks from a kiln to a packaging area. He was responsible for clearing waste bricks from the production line, and collecting samples of the blocks for quality-control testing.
Sections of blocks were formed into larger groups for packaging by switching the conveyor’s direction of travel backwards and forwards. Mr Clarke was standing next to a low bridge over the conveyor when he leaned forward to remove some blocks from the machine. As he did so, another worker changed the direction of the conveyor, which caused Mr Clarke’s head to be crushed between the stack of blocks and the metal platform. The operator of the 30-metre conveyor could not see Mr Clarke because his view was obscured.
HSE inspectors visited the site on the same day and immediately issued a Prohibition Notice, preventing against the machine from being used until the safety risks were properly eliminated. HSE inspector Peter Snelgrove said: “This tragic incident could have been prevented if Hanson Building Products had carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment to identify all the hazards for workers operating in this area.
“There were no safe systems of work for removing the blocks and the company failed to supervise Mr Clarke adequately. The area where he was working was well known as a danger zone by other workers, but he had been on site for less than two weeks and nobody had told him about the risks.”
On 23 June, Hanson Building Products appeared at Warwick Crown Court and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA. It was fined £280,000 and ordered to pay £29,204 in costs.
In mitigation, the firm said it regretted the incident and had fully complied with the investigation and the terms of the Prohibition Notice. It has removed the low bridge and installed a light guard, which isolates the machine if a worker leans over the conveyor. It has also provided staff with fresh training on what constitutes a safe method of work, and the defined work area.
During sentencing the judge recognised that the company had previously been prosecuted for breaching the same regulation in September 2003. It was fined £95,000 after a worker suffered serious spinal injuries after falling from a tower that was attached to a conveyor.
Speaking after the case, Mr Clarke’s widow Barbara said: “Pete’s death has devastated our family and for him to have lost his life due to a work-related incident is beyond belief. He was a much-loved husband, father and grandpa and our lives will never be the same without him.”
Lucky Escape for naturists after chemical fire!
A group of naturists in Throckley, near Newcastle-upon-Tyne, alerted fire and rescue authorities after they noticed several burning barrels of illegally dumped chemical waste near their clubhouse.
A total of 16 containers, which were individually filled with acetyline, oxygen, propane and butane, had been deposited near a motorway about 400 metres from the Tando naturist club.
Club secretary Micheal Daly told info4fire: "It was irresponsible to the point of criminal but luckily we were never in danger." Members of the club were assured they did not need to evacuate after fire crews established the chemicals were non-explosive.
All of the barrels had been damaged and some were set on fire with a few puncture holes visible, “possibly [made] by a bullet,” Charlie Hall, group manager of Tyne and Wear Fire Service, said.
Firefighters were called around 3.30pm on Monday, where they used a hose reel to dampen out the flames and cool the fire. Around 50 firefighters attended throughout the afternoon and evening. It was out by 8pm.
Guest forced to flee hotel blaze without evacuation process…
A hotel company and its manager have been ordered to pay out more than £40,000 after guests and staff took up to 20 mins to evacuate the building when a fire broke out.
Businessman pays out six figure sum for fire safety breaches…..
The owner of a timber yard has been ordered to pay a total of £130,300 after pleading guilty to several breaches of fire legislation. Despite being visited on several occasions by fire officers, he failed to provide a suitable fire alarm and proper means of escape. He also failed to implement a ’suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment.
Valve manufacturer failed to assess risk of ’missiling’ during tests….
A 21 year old man was killed while testing a high pressure valve, in an accident that lead to his employer being fined £150,000. The employee was carrying out a quality control test on a valve to ensure that it didn’t leak. It is thought that during the test, the vent valve became detached from the pressure-testing machine and hit the employee at high speed in the chest. HSE investigated and found that the company had failed to carry out a sufficient risk assessment, had it done so it would have been alerted to the fact that the machine contained both air and water said the inspector. The vent valve had not been installed properly and there wasn’t a valve guard at the back of the machine, which would have prevented the vent value injuring the employee.
Sign workers ’lucky to be alive’ after scaffold collapsed
Sohail Hussain trading as Harris Signs had been contracted to repair a sign above the entrance of the Metro Inn Hotel, Stockton on Tees, Durham, Hussain erected a 4.5m tall scaffolding platform, but this was not high enough to reach the damaged sign, which was 8.5m above the ground. To cover the full distance, he placed an extension ladder on top of the platform, so he could reach the sign. Hussain climbed the ladder and began tightening the fixings while his colleague stood on top of the platform holding the ladder in place. But the platform, which was unstable and had no edge protection, overturned due to high winds, causing both men to fall to the ground . Hussain sustained injuries to his knees and his colleague suffered a fractured wrist and dislocated his right elbow. Mr Hussain was fined £1000 and ordered to pay the same amount in costs.
Taken from www.shponline.co.uk
|
