New publications this month:

EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY (ECHA)

Guide on Safety data sheets and Exposure scenarios

This guide aims to support persons in interpreting safety data sheets and understanding exposure scenarios

Manufacturer fined after two killed by spray-booth explosion

Harford Attachments Limited, a Norwich manufacturing firm, has been fined after two employees working with flammable substances in a spray booth were killed by an explosion.

On 13 July 2015 the two workers had already sprayed several welded steel buckets that morning and were preparing for their next batch. The flammable vapour generated whilst cleaning or flushing a paint spray gun was ignited by one of the various sources of ignition which were present at the scene. Both workers were killed by the resultant explosion.

An HSE investigation found the immediate cause of the explosion to be the inconsistent and incomplete approach to health and safety by the company and its employees. The HSE identified a lack of suitable control measures; specifically, a suitable and sufficient safe system of work for the activities in the spray booth.

Breaches

Harford Attachments Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 6(4)(f)(i) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002.

• Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires that every employer ensures, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.
• Regulation 6(4)(f)(i) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations 2002 requires the avoidance of ignition sources, including electrostatic discharges, where it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks from dangerous substances.

Penalty

Harford Attachments Limited was fined £145,000 and ordered to pay costs of £65,900.

Yorkshire company fined after worker sustains chemical burns

Humber Fabrications (Hull) Ltd, a manufacturer and repairer of rubber inflatable boats, has been sentenced after an employee sustained chemical burns while cleaning down a boat.

On 23 March 2016 a worker was tasked with cleaning the deck of a rigid inflatable boat being manufactured using the solvent dichloromethane. The employee was using a fabric cloth soaked in this solvent. During the work, the employee began to feel light-headed and so took a five minute break. The worker returned to the boat, knelt down inside to carry on cleaning and subsequently collapsed. He was found sometime later by his colleagues lying in a pool of dichloromethane.

The employee was taken by ambulance to Hull Royal Infirmary, where he received treatment for chemical burns to his right underarm and back.

An HSE investigation found the company failed to provide suitable control measures for the occasions when employees used dichloromethane to clean the inside of boats. The investigation found a failure to provide local exhaust ventilation, suitable respiratory protection or personal protective equipment. In addition, the company had failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment for the use of dichloromethane for cleaning boats and there was also a lack of instruction and training provided to employees for its use.

Breach

Humber Fabrications (Hull) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Penalty

Humber Fabrications (Hull) Ltd was fined £10,300 with £2,214.10 in costs.

North West property developer sentenced after building collapse

Riaz Ahmad, a Manchester-based property developer, has been sentenced after a roof and part of a rear wall collapsed during demolition works.

Riaz Ahmad had appointed a group of workers, who had no experience in construction, to carry out demolition work at the property in Oldham.

On 11 August 2017, after receiving a call from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council’s building control department, a HSE inspector attended the site and found almost all the internal walls and roof supports had been removed. A Prohibition Notice was serve preventing any further work. A major road running past the building was closed.

A day later, it was agreed that there was no safe way of accessing the building and the council obtained an order to demolish the building. It was soon after this that the roof and wall collapsed. This triggered an emergency response, during which properties were evacuated and the area cordoned off. The council arranged for an emergency demolition of the remainder of building later that day. Local businesses faced significant disruption while the site was made safe.

An HSE investigation found the collapse could have been prevented had a principal contractor been appointed and a suitable risk assessment been carried out. The HSE found that Mr Ahmad did not suitably plan the work as he employed unskilled workers, neglected the risks from working at height and stability of the building, failed to provide them with basic welfare facilities and did not consider several other health hazards.

Breaches

Riaz Ahmad was found guilty of breaching Section 2 (1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 19(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

• Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires every employer to ensure that people not in their employment but who may be affected by their actions do not have their health and safety put at risk.
• Regulation 19(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 requires that all practicable steps are taken, where necessary to prevent danger to any person, to ensure that any new or existing structure does not collapse if, due to the carrying out of construction work it may become unstable or is in a temporary state of weakness or instability.

Penalty

Riaz Ahmad was sentenced to eight months imprisonment for each offence (to run concurrently) and was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £65,000.