Fines for non-destructive testing firm after employee suffers radiation burns
A company in the north east has been fined after an employee suffered severe burns from an x-ray unit.
The injured employee was working on x-ray equipment in a radiation bay when a separate group was asked to test safety equipment installed. The group testing the equipment turned off safety access controls and warning alarms.
Employees testing the equipment activated it while the injured employee remained in the radiation bay. The x-ray became energised and caused severe tissue damage to three fingers on his right hand. In addition, the injured employee’s radiation exposure exceeded the maximum annual dose permitted by law.
Although the HSE identified that employees had not used the x-ray to test safety equipment beforehand, no procedures were in place to conduct tests safely.
In court the company was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £4,930 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Although no separate penalty was applied, the company also admitted breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.
Sweet manufacturer fined after forklift pierces worker’s foot
A sweet manufacturer in the north west has been fined after a fork on a forklift truck pierced an employee’s foot. Injuries arising from the incident were so severe the employee can now only walk short distances with the use of a stick.
The accident occurred when the employee was driving a ride-on pallet truck in a warehouse. As a result of the limited space available, the truck was manoeuvred close to an entrance. This entrance was fitted with opaque plastic strip curtains to keep out insects and birds, but these obscured the visibility of workers entering the building. Unable to see the employee on the pallet truck, a forklift truck operator drove through the curtains and the two collided.
The injured employee was taken to hospital, where nine days were spent saving his foot.
An investigation by the HSE identified that the warehouse was overcrowded; pallets had been relocated to the building while two other warehouses were being maintained. The HSE identified that overcrowding was restricting space available to drivers and increased the flow of traffic.
The HSE identified that the injured employee had been involved in a collision a few weeks before the accident and that a similar collision had taken place shortly beforehand.
The company subsequently removed the plastic strip curtains and revised systems for vehicle and pedestrian movements around the site.
The sweet manufacturer was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £9,538 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
Fines for tile manufacturer following employee exposure to lead
A Welsh ceramic tile manufacturer has been fined after nine workers at their factory had lead levels in their blood in excess of statutory limits.
A routine inspection by the HSE in February 2012 raised concerns regarding the control of lead at the premises.
Blood tests were carried out for nine workers following the inspection. Samples from three women were at or above the suspension limit. The law requires that once this limit has been reached, employees are withdrawn from working with lead until the concentration of lead in their blood has decreased adequately. A further five women and one man working at the site were found to be above the action level. At the action level, the employer is required to investigate why this is happening and review the control measures implemented against lead exposure.
The HSE identified that the manufacturer had failed to control worker exposure to lead and had not carried out an adequate risk assessment for the work. Workers had not received sufficient information and training and workplace lead exposure monitoring and health surveillance were not being undertaken.
The company pleaded guilty to five breaches of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. The company was fined a total of £353,000 and ordered to pay costs of £23,271.
- Regulation 5(1) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 requires that work liable to expose any employees to lead is not carried out unless subject to a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk created by that work to the health of those employees and the steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of these Regulations and implemented those steps.
- Regulation 6(1) requires that the exposure of employees to lead is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.
- Regulation 9(1) requires that where the risk assessment indicates that any employees are liable to receive significant exposure to lead, the employer shall ensure that the concentration of lead in air to which his employees are exposed is measured in accordance with a suitable procedure.
- Regulation 10(1) requires that every employer ensures that each employee who is or is liable to be exposed to lead is subject to suitable medical surveillance by a relevant doctor.
- Regulation 11(1) requires that every employer who undertakes work which is liable to expose an employee to lead shall provide that employee with suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training.
|
