Latest News, updated 25th July 2010
This is where we'll announce the most recent additions to our web site. If you've visited us before and want to know what's changed, take a look here first. Please send any comments to webmaster@hastam.co.uk.
Top Health & Safety News Items
Week ending 23rd July 2010
Castle Bromwich firm fined after worker injured by robot.
A Birmingham automotive firm has been fined after one of its employees was struck by a manufacturing robot, leaving his voice box damaged and almost paralysing him down one side of his body.
The HSE prosecuted Castle Bromwich-based Dura Automotive Body and Glass Systems UK yesterday (21 July 2010) and the company was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £20,000 costs.
Birmingham Crown Court heard how, on 6 May 2008, the injured man, Michael Brewer, was struck while trying to repair a fully-automated industrial robot.
As part of the repair, Mr Brewer wanted to see the operating cycle of the machine. However, a solid guard fully enclosed the robot so he couldn't see through it. Mr Brewer decided to view the robot from inside the guarded area while it was operating. While in this dangerous zone, the robot struck him in the throat, causing the damage to his voicebox and nerves on one side of his body.
The HSE investigation found the company had a system of work for accessing the machine that required the machine to be put in manual before entering, rather than on the full automatic cycle. However, this was not adequately supervised and failed to account for a need to view the operating cycle for the machine from outside.
Inspectors also learnt that viewing the operating cycle from inside the guarded area had become common practice. The risk assessment the company had produced was not sufficient as it had failed to address the risks from maintenance operations or the risks posed by the industrial robots operating within the guarded area.
Since the incident took place, the company has installed large viewing panels in the guarding of the machine so it can be viewed from the outside, as well as improving the access arrangements and the supervision of its systems. Mr Brewer, meanwhile, will not return to work because of his injuries.
HSE inspector Edward Fryer said, "This is a prime example of a company failing to address the risks relating to maintenance work.
"Maintenance personnel often have to work within the guarded area of machinery, sometimes in the face of significant production pressure. Safe access arrangements must be provided and these should be written into maintenance procedures and have full management commitment. If workers see their supervisors and managers violating procedures, as they did here, employees will feel that violations are condoned. There was a culture of violation in this factory and it is vey sad that it took an almost fatal accident for the company to identify this."
He added, "Keeping the robot on the automatic cycle in these circumstances could very well have resulted in automatic death."
Dura Automative were prosecuted for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
More items on the Health & Safety News - This Week page
Week ending 16th July 2010
£9.5m bill for firms behind Britain's most costly industrial disaster
Five companies have been ordered to pay £9.5 million for their part in the 2005 fire and explosion at the Buncefield Oil Storage Depot, in Hertfordshire. The £1.3 million in fines for the pollution caused are a record in the UK. The £3million fines for Total are the second highest to be handed down for safety offences.
Concluding a four-month trial at St Albans Crown Court, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said the companies had shown "a slackness, inefficiency and a more or less complacent attitude to safety."
The prosecution of Total UK Ltd, British Pipeline Agency Ltd (BPA), Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL), TAV Engineering Ltd (TAV) and Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd, followed the most complex investigation ever conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency.
The cost of dealing with the disaster has been estimated at more than £1billion, making it the most costly industrial incident in the UK.
Kevin Myers, HSE's Deputy Chief Executive, said: "Incidents like the explosion at Buncefield are exceptionally rare. However, society rightly demands the highest of standards from the high hazard industries. Businesses in this sector must manage the risks they create effectively because when things go wrong, the consequences are severe and can destroy lives and shatter local communities.
"Major hazard industries must learn the lessons of events like this. From the Board room down companies must ask themselves these questions: do we understand what could go wrong; do we know what our systems are to prevent this happening; and are we getting the right information to assure us they are working effectively."
Howard Davidson, Thames Director at the Environment Agency, said: "As a result of a successful investigation and prosecution, five companies have today been held to account for their failures.
"The Buncefield blast shattered the local community and left a long-term legacy of pollution. It has already involved a five-year clean up operation by the oil companies involved and the Environment Agency will be a presence around the site for many years to come.
"There should be no doubt that we will always seek to prosecute those who cause serious pollution and damage the environment for future generations"
The following sentences were handed down:
1. Oil giant Total UK Limited pleaded guilty to three offences and was fined £3.6 million (£3million for safety; £600,000 for pollution) and ordered to pay costs of £2.6 million
2. Supply company, British Pipeline Agency Ltd, pleaded guilty to two offences and was fined £300,000 for environmental offences and ordered to pay costs of £480,000
3. Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd was found guilty of two offences and fined £1.4 million (£1million for safety; £450,000 for pollution) with costs of £1 million
4. TAV Engineering Ltd, which designed a crucial safety switch that failed, was found guilty of one offence, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £500 costs
5. Installation and maintenance company, Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £500 after being found guilty of one offence.
More items on the Health & Safety News - Last Week page