Worker burns lead to fine for chemical company
A rendering plant operator has received a six-figure fine after an employee was burnt by steam at its Motherwell premises.
The company operates a large rendering plant that processes animal waste and food industry waste to produce proteins, fats and oils used in the oleo chemical, fuel, and feed industries. As a result of this process, the water tank and vickery need occasional cleaning.
During the nightshift on 23 October 2019, a worker had been instructed to clean the process water tank, the vickery and the walls and floors in that area. The company provided pressure washers as well as a steam hose for cleaning down difficult areas where there may be tallow or other animal residues.
The steam hose provided for use was heavy and cumbersome to manoeuvre, with the uninsulated nozzle also becoming hot. The worker and a colleague therefore took it in turns to carry out the steam hose task. After a period of time, they stopped to have a break. While the worker’s colleague then went on to carry out other duties, the man proceeded to finish the cleaning on his own using a small cherry picker, attaching the steam hose to its basket.
After the basket had been raised to the required height, the steam hose and nozzle spun round and steam began flowing into the cherry picker basket directly at the worker. He quickly turned his back to prevent his face being burned, while manipulating the nozzle of the hose away from him and lowering the basket of the cherry picker, at which point he was then able to run through to one of the deluge showers to cool his burn injuries. He was taken to hospital with steam burns to several parts of his body, which have left scars to this day.
An HSE investigation found the nozzle fitted to the steam hose was unsafe as it did not have a trigger or other mechanism fitted to allow the operator to start or stop the flow out of the nozzle at the point of operation. It also found that the mixing valve and set-up for supplying hot water for cleaning purposes was not maintained in an efficient working order or in good repair. Supervisors were aware that the mixing valve was passing steam, however no action was taken to investigate the issue or prevent it from happening.
HSE inspectors also found the maintenance and engineering team had no sound engineering understanding of the risks involved when setting up such a washdown system and how to mitigate or control those risks. The company provided information to HSE that there were no records associated with the maintenance of the valve, hose or nozzle.
Breach
Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974:
- Section 2(1) applies a duty on every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.
Fine
Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Limited was fined £100,000.
Sole trader fined after a worker fell from height
A sole trader has been fined after a worker fell from a flat roof without any edge protection. This was the second time the sole trader had failed to provide edge protection on a job, with the HSE previously taking enforcement action against him.
On 15 December 2022, a team of roofers and labourers were working on the sole trader’s behalf, replacing a flat roof on a house in the Luton area. At around 11am, one of the workers was carrying large wooden boards across the roof, when he inadvertently stepped off the edge of the roof falling a distance of about 10 feet. He suffered a fractured vertebrate in his back and a broken ankle.
The HSE investigation found the task had not been properly risk assessed and planned, which meant that edge protection around the flat roof had not been put in place, despite it being reasonably practicable to do so. Following HSE intervention, edge protection was installed before work re-commenced.
Breach
The sole trader pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 4(1) of the Work At Height Regulations 2005:
- Regulation 4(1) requires employers to ensure work at height is property planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe. Planning is required to include the selection of work equipment in accordance with Regulation 7.
Penalty
The sole trader was fined £2,125 and ordered to pay costs of £5,445.
Construction company fined after workers were exposed to asbestos
A Manchester-based construction company has been fined after workers were placed at risk of exposure to asbestos. A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited was acting as the principal contractor during work at the former Unicorn Public House in Eccles, Greater Manchester.
During a routine HSE inspection to the site on 16 May 2022, an HSE inspector discovered that 12 square metres of Asbestos Insulating Board (AIB) had been present in a dumb waiter lift shaft but had already been illegally removed by unknown individuals. The inspector issued a prohibition notice, stopping all work until an asbestos survey had been completed.
Previously, after noticing the pub door had been broken into, a site worker had entered the building, where they discovered what appeared to be asbestos debris in the area around the lift shaft. The debris was later wrapped and removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. However, A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited failed to carry out a full asbestos survey to confirm that all asbestos-containing materials had been removed before allowing further construction work.
Breach
A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(6) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012:
- Regulation 4(6) requires dutyholders to review assessments of whether asbestos is or is liable to be present where:
- there is reason to suspect that the assessment is no longer valid; or
- there has been a significant change in the premises to which the assessment relates.
Penalty
A1 Property Maintenance Management Limited was fined £5,360 and ordered to pay £5,117 in costs.
|
