Safety: Managers need to manage

Part 1: Machinery Safety
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Part 3: Food Safety
Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

Part 4: Control of Contractors
Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.

Visit our website

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety)

Part 1: Machinery Safety

There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Worker loses 2 fingers - plastic recycling firm

A plastics recycling factory in St Helens was fined £15,000 after a worker had parts of two fingers cut off by blades on a high-speed fan. The employee suffered serious injuries to four fingers on his left hand including the partial amputation of two.

He was injured while trying to repair a drying unit at the firm in May 2009. The Court heard that the employee's fingers came into contact with the high-speed fan while he was trying to fix a problem. The HSE investigation concluded that the company's procedure for repairing the machine was inadequate.

The HSE inspector said:

"One of the factory's employees suffered serious injuries because basic health and safety procedures were not followed. He has still not returned to work more than a year on from the incident.

"By law, the preferred solution would have been for the workers to switch off and lock off the power supply to the fan with padlocks. If this was not possible, then temporary guards should have been put in place. These or other equally effective measures were not taken.

"Sadly incidents like this are all too common. Factories must treat the safety of their workers as a top priority to prevent serious injuries or even deaths in the future."

The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was ordered to pay £4,347 towards the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine at St Helens Magistrates' Court on 25 May.

Need help? Contact us through our website

A Burnley tool manufacturer was fined £1,000 after one of its workers lost a finger when it became trapped in machinery.

The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.

The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.

The HSE commented:

"Paul Whittaker has been unable to return to work and his injury has significantly affected his ability to grip and lift with his right hand. Sadly injuries like the one he suffered are all too common.

"A significant proportion of incidents at lathes are caused by emery clothes being used in an unsafe way. If Mr Whittaker had been warned against using a piece of emery cloth while he worked on the lathe, he would not have lost his finger."

"This incident is also a reminder that gloves should not be worn when working with rotating parts. I hope manufacturers learn lessons from this case so that no more workers suffer permanent injuries in the future."

Missing guard - bread maker loses finger

A specialist bread manufacturing company was fined after a worker was injured by a dough mixing machine and had his finger amputated.

The worker was using a spiral mixing machine to make dough when his left hand came into contact with the unguarded beater of the mixing machine. Consequently, part of his left index finger had to be amputated.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the guard covering the dangerous parts of the machine had been missing for some time before the incident. Further to this, previous advice from the HSE regarding the maintenance of machinery in the factory had been ignored.

The Barnet based bread making company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)and was fined £3,500 (with costs of £2,926).

The HSE inspector commented:

"This incident could easily have been avoided. The hazards associated with this type of machine are understood within the food manufacturing industry and there is clear guidance on the guarding standards which should be followed.

"There were clear failings on this occasion. Had a simple guard been fitted to this machine then ... would never have suffered these injuries."

Worker nearly loses foot in machinery

A Bradford farming company was prosecuted by the HSE after an employee was seriously injured after slipping into a manure machine. The employee lost his big toe and part of the heel of his left foot, broke all his toes and severely damaged the ankle of his right foot when he fell into a manure auger.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the auger, a screw conveyor that takes the manure out of a battery hen house, was not sufficiently guarded, allowing the the worker to slipp in and to trap both feet.

The court was told that the doctor attending the incident became so concerned for the man's welfare that firefighters seriously considered removing his foot as the only means of getting him out of the machine. The worker is currently still off work and recovering from his injuries.

The employer was fined £2,000 (with costs of £1,395) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Following the trial, the HSE inspector commented:

"This worker nearly lost his foot, and he has suffered long term injuries - all because his employer failed to ensure the machine was properly guarded.

... (the Compnay)needed to install properly-fitted guarding to this machine, to prevent this incident.

... Employers must thoroughly plan work activities around dangerous machinery, to account for any risks and to avoid these incidents from happening."

Worker dies in sweet making machine

The UK's largest confectionery firm has been fined a total of £300,000 after an employee was crushed to death in one of its sweet-making machines.

A 33 year operator was killed while he was clearing a blockage in one of the machines at the Poole plant in February 2008. It is understood that the operator climbed into the machine and then the mechanism restarted he became trapped. The opeator died of his injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The company was found guilty of breaches under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and of breaching Regulation 3 (1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The company was fined £150,000 for the Section 2 offense and a further £150,000 for failure to carry out suitable and sufficient assessmetns of the risks as required under the regulations charge and ordered to pay full costs of nerarly £73,000.

Following the hearing, an HSE inspector said:

"This tragic case highlights the need to ensure that machines are safely isolated before any maintenance takes place so it cannot unexpectedly start up. Simply pressing a stop button does not adequately isolate a machine.

If the machine in this case had been properly isolated from the electrical power source before (the operator) attempted to clear the blockage, this accident would never have happened.

A proper risk assessment would have highlighted the dangers of entrapment. All employees need to be adequately trained in correct company procedures - whether it's for clearing blockages, operating machines or any other high risk activity."

Director banned for 5 years for health and safety failings

A Worcestershire company and its managing director was fined a total of £87,000 following a series of health and safety failures. These health and safety failures saw workers exposed to a variety of risks, including: exposure to lead, falls from height and being crushed by falling objects.

The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.

Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.

The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.

To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.

The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:

Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.

The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

An HSE inspector commented:

Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at (the company), and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results.

If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.

Food firm fined - employee falls into machinery

An international food company that supplies some of the supermarkets around the country has been fined after a worker was hurt while cleaning processing machinery.

The Magistrates' Court heard that the worker was cleaning a machine consisting of three tanks which tipped food into each other. To clean the machine properly, operatives needed to stand on the frame of the machine to reach some of the parts.

The operative was injured as they reached up and then lost their footing and so fell into one of the 1.5 metre deep tanks. This resulted in the operative losing consciousness. The operative was rescued by colleagues who heard them shout as they fell.

The injured operative was subsequently off work for five weeks and reported suffering from severe headaches and pains in her neck and back, for which they had to take pain killers.

The Company was fined £3,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,091 after pleading guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The HSE Inspector said:

"No-one at the Company realised that climbing was involved cleaning this machine. A risk assessment should have been carried out and an examination of how work at height was being undertaken.

"The company has now introduced a system of cleaning using long-handled brushes, which goes to show how simple it can be to prevent this incident in the first place.

"This case highlights the need for employers to be aware of what goes on during the night shift. All staff have a right to the same standard of care irrespective of their working hours."

Safe isolation of plant and equipment – Part 2: Key Stages

Introduction
In order to allow various processes such as: cleaning, maintenance, plant repair and modification to take place, safe isolation of plant and equipment is essential. This is not specifically covered by any health and safety legislation, although there are the usual, general legal drivers, such as: the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (Section 2: duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees, Section 3: duty to ensure the health and safety of non-employees), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3: duty to carry out risk assessments) as well as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2005 (DSEAR), etc.

Failures during the isolation and re-instatement of plant and equipment are a significant cause of loss of containment incidents and can lead to major accidents. There are eight key stages that should be considered in the isolation, and subsequent return to service, of plant and equipment:
• Hazard identification
• Risk assessment and selection of isolation scheme
• Planning and preparation of equipment
• Installation of isolation
• Draining, venting, purging and flushing
• Testing and monitoring effectiveness of the isolation
• Carrying out the intrusive activity
• Reinstatement of plant

Hazard Identification
Hazards may exist from either substances within the plant and equipment or from the nature of the work to be carried out. All (potential) hazards must be identified so that appropriate control measures can be introduced for the isolation of the plant and equipment. Particular hazards will exist if the substance is:
• toxic
• flammable
• pyrophoric
• under (high) pressure
• at high or low temperature
• reactive
• an asphyxiant (such as nitrogen)
• capable of forming an explosive atmosphere (including dusts)
• remaining in equipment as a sludge or hard deposit
In the event of a loss of containment leading to a release, the potential for a major accident will depend on a range of factors including
• the nature and properties of the substance
• the amount of the substance released
• the potential for escalation (such as: the presence of other plant, including confining structures, and other hazardous substances)
• the people at risk, their proximity to the plant and the speed with which they may be affected
Hazards associated with the task to be undertaken include:
• Entry into confined spaces
• Issues associated with access (such as working at height, etc.)
• Hot work (such as welding, cutting, grinding, drilling, electrical work, etc.)

Risk Assessment and the selection of isolation scheme for the plant and equipment
It should form a part of the company’s policies and procedures that intrusive work is not carried out on live plant and equipment unless there is no reasonably practicable alternative. A risk assessment should be carried out for the isolation process to identify the safest isolation scheme and should consider:
• all preparatory work for the isolation (such as depressurisation and release of stored energy, draining and venting, purging and washing out)
• installation/removal and proving of the isolation the integrity of the isolation during intrusive work, and the compatibility of any nearby work or operations on shared systems
• the requirements for testing and reinstatement of plant (such as: pressure leak testing, purging, controlled repressurisation and refilling
The risk assessment should also consider the potential for loss of containment and the potential harm (to people and to the environment) that may result from this.

Planning and preparation of equipment
As with many areas, planning is an essential stage in the isolation of plant and equipment. Appropriate preparation and planning:
• helps to identify any task-specific risk assessments that may be required
• identifies whether larger sections of the plant need to be shut down
• identifies interaction with other sections of plant subject to temporary isolation
• involves sequencing and co-ordination of any intrusive work with other plant operations
• includes a 'walk-the-plant' step, to check that the installation matches the piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID) and
• allows a check that all isolation points have been identified and are accessible and can be operated
• ensures preparation and co-ordination of job documentation, including:
o risk assessments
o method statements
o permit to work certificates
o isolation certificates
o etc
• ensures cross-referencing of relevant permits; and
• enables that all necessary and appropriate tools, equipment, PPE, materials, etc., are available

Installation of isolation
The process of installation of the necessary isolations can be considered in two parts: the initial isolation and the final (or full) isolation. The initial isolation (which is usually valved) is generally of a short duration. It allows the insertion of a positive isolation after the plant that is downstream of the initial isolation has been depressurised and purged. The final isolation protects the workers that are carrying out the intrusive work, and others who might be affected, such as from a release of substance from the plant during the intrusive activity.
Suitable blank flanges, plugs, etc (appropriately rated and installed properly, with the correct gaskets and securing bolts) should be used to close off any open pipe work. Appropriate engineering practices should be adhered when securing flanges, etc. Isolations must remain secure throughout the duration of work: locking arrangements or barriers, to prevent accidental or unauthorised removal of the isolation, should be used where practicable.

Draining, venting, purging and flushing
Draining, venting, purging and flushing may be required in situation where the plant or equipment contains hazardous substances, etc.

Testing and monitoring effectiveness of the isolation
In most cases, it is necessary to prove the integrity of all of the isolation points of an isolation scheme before proceeding with intrusive work, unless the risk assessment indicates otherwise.
• each part of the isolation should be proved separately
• each part should be proved to the highest pressure which can be expected within the system during the work activity
• where possible, each part of the isolation should be proved in the direction of the expected pressure differential

Carrying out the intrusive activity
It is important to ensure that the integrity of all isolations is maintained while the intrusive work is carried out.

Reinstatement of plant
Reinstatement or recommissioning of the plant requires equivalent controls to those used during installation of isolation. Where work has been controlled under multiple permits and dependent on common isolation points, it is important to define and control the sequence of plant reinstatement. This should include a review of all (cross-referenced) permits in force and their related isolations and checking that any plant control and protection systems functions that were overridden for the purposes of the isolations are restored to their normal condition. Care must be taken when removing positive isolations as, for example, hazardous substances may have built up behind the blank or spade if a valve leaks. Use appropriate documentation, such as isolation certificates, to log all disturbed items on a plant and to control their reinstatement.

Summary
Safe isolation of plant and equipment is an important part of the management of health and safety at work and, as such, should form part of the documented policies and procedures of the company (including the Health and Safety Policy). The key stages in the process of plant isolation (and re-instatement) must be planned and controlled. Risk assessments must be carried out to determine the range of control measures required and the order of work and the need for administrative controls, such as permit to work systems, etc. Plant and equipment should be isolated in accordance with a planned system, devised and controlled by a competent person (or persons). Isolations should be made and checked and should remain in place until removed in accordance with a planned schedule for the reinstatement or recommissioning of the plant.

Please visit out website

Safe isolation of plant and equipment – Part 1

Introduction

The safe isolation of plant and equipment is essential to allow various processes to take place, such as: cleaning, maintenance, repair and modification. Although no health and safety legislation covers this area specifically, there are several general legal drivers, such as the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (Section 2: duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees, Section 3: duty to ensure the health and safety of non-employees), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (Regulation 3: duty to carry out risk assessments) as well as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2005 (DSEAR), etc. Failures during the isolation and re-instatement of plant and equipment are a significant cause of loss of containment incidents and can lead to major accidents. In some cases, the isolation may take place a long way from where the work is being carried out. Suitable procedures need to be implemented, managed, monitored, reviewed and revised. The effectiveness of an isolation system depends on the adequacy of other arrangements, including work control systems (especially permit-to-work), operating procedures, training and competence, management of change and contingency plans.

The safe isolation of plant and equipment can be considered in three sections:
• The management of isolation of plant and equipment
• The safe systems of work for the isolation of plant and equipment
• The key stages for the safe isolation of plant and equipment
The management of isolation of plant and equipment is considered in outline in this article, while the other items will be considered in a future article.

The management of isolation of plant and equipment

As with nearly all aspects of modern health and safety management, risk assessment is central to the safe isolation of plant and equipment. Although the actual mechanics of isolating plant and equipment may be carried out a range of people, it must be managed effectively, and several points should be considered:
• The safe isolation of plant and equipment should form part of the organisation’s Health and Safety Policy
• Suitable and sufficient assessments of the risks arising from (operations requiring) the isolation of plant and equipment must be carried out (by a competent person) and suitable measures implemented
• Suitable policies and procedures must be established and implemented to either avoid the risk entirely or, where this is not reasonably practicable, to reduce the risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable
• Consideration must be given to the isolation procedures under both normal operating conditions and other foreseeable conditions
• A process for assessing and implementing any variations from existing procedures should be established
• Procedures to monitor and, where appropriate, improve the effectiveness of isolation procedures should be introduced

In order to manage the isolation of plant and equipment in a safe and effective manner, consideration should be given to:
• The design (of plant and equipment)
• Human factors
• Roles and responsibilities
• Training and competence
• Monitoring, auditing and reviewing

Design
Good initial design of plant and equipment is the most effective way to maximise the inherent safety and, as such, is fundamental to achieving safe and effective isolation of the plant and equipment without creating unnecessary constraints on plant operation. Intrusive repair and maintenance work or internal inspection tasks will require the plant or equipment to be shutdown (or at least certain sections of it). Where isolation is required to enable such tasks, suitable isolation arrangements on the plant should be identified and specified at the design stage. Similarly, consideration of plant isolations should be considered if the plant or equipment is to be modified. Design considerations should include:
• Positive isolation requirements (where vessel entry may be required, where isolation of toxic or dangerous substances is requires and to control segregation of parts of plant and equipment)
• Plant identification (A scheme to identify all process plant, piping, and valves should be drawn up. All items should be readily identifiable on the plant and referenced on the piping and instrumentation diagrams. Additionally, key items of equipment labelled permanently)
• Pipework
• Valves
• Pressure safety valves
• Spared equipment (Isolation arrangements should allow complete segregation from on-line plant and equipment for operational and/or maintenance reasons)
• Location of isolation and testing facilities (Unless contraindicated by risk assessment, isolation and bleed points should be as close as possible to the plant item. Concentration of maintenance work in one place aids control of the isolation arrangements and minimises the inventory of fluid to be depressurised and drained)
• Access and lighting (the design should allow safe access and adequate lighting to allow isolations to be made safely)

Human factors
A review and accidents and incidents involving failures to isolate plant and equipment show that human failure is an important consideration. The performance of isolations depends not only on the integrity of the isolation hardware, but also on the adequacy of the arrangements for identifying each isolation point, securing the isolation, proving/monitoring and maintaining overall control of work. Human failures can be divided into two groups:
• Errors, and
• Violations.

Roles and responsibilities
It is important to ensure that key staff are given (and understand) clearly defined roles and responsibilities for drawing up, maintaining, monitoring and improving the policies, procedures and systems for the safe isolation of plant and equipment.

Training and competence
All personnel involved in the isolation of plant and equipment must be competent to carry out their designated tasks and to discharge their responsibilities. They should:
• Understand the purpose, principles and practices of the organisation’s isolation procedures and safety rules
• Have an understanding of the consequences of any release of hazardous substances

Consideration should be given to the training and competence of staff who:
• Plan the isolations
• Authorise the isolations
• Authorise variations (or any other non-standard isolations)
• Install and remove isolations
• Check and test the isolations
• Work on the plant and equipment

Monitoring, auditing and Reviewing
The processes of monitoring, audit and review enable an organisation to confirm that it actually does what its policies and procedures say that it does, and helps to ensure that this is what it should do. Effective monitoring, audit and review systems:
• Help to identify any deficiencies in the policies and procedures for the isolation of plant and equipment
• Identify and implement any necessary corrective action before these lead to incidents
• Identify of how well the isolation of plant and equipment is are controlled within the organisation

Summary
Safe isolation of plant and equipment is an important part of the management of health and safety at work and, as such, should form part of the documented policies and procedures of the company (including the Health and Safety Policy). Risk assessments must be carried out to determine the range of control measures required. These control measures may include items such as Permit to Work Systems, etc. All policies, procedures and risk assessments must be kept up to date and should be monitored and reviewed regularly and should be revised as necessary.


Please visit our website

Workplace Fatality

In a recent court case (25 September 2009), a Milton Keynes based food company was fined £160,000 and ordered to pay costs of £40,452 following the death of an employee. The incident, in which an employee died from serious head injuries, occured in a Milton Keynes meat processing plant.

The operative was cleaning one of the blending machines when a powered door on the machine closed unexpectedly on her. She suffered severe head injuries and died at the scene.

It is believed the operative had crouched beneath the blender (used to mix up to four tonnes of meat) to inspect a flap from which the load is discharged to ensure that it was clean. This flap closed suddenly with substantial force acting like a pair of 'scissors' cutting off the top of her head above the eye brows.

Mr William Bates (HM principle specialist electrical inspector), who looked at the machine as part of a Health and Safety Executive investigation, said the blender should have been isolated from the mains electricity supply before an inspection was carried out. The inquest heard there was no evidence the operative had received specific training on how to safely clean and inspect the machine or warned of the risks, including the need to isolate it.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which covers the duty of the employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all the employees.

Companies are urged to implement and maintain safe systems of work and to offer full training to staff to ensure that the health and safety of employees is not put at risk.

Commenting on the case on behalf of the HSE Karl Howes said,

“Employers must ensure that they implement safe systems of work for staff using machinery. They must make certain that safety features on machines, such as guards are not overridden. All areas of risk need to be assessed, including cleaning and maintenance tasks, to make sure that tragic incidents like this do not happen.”
 

Need help? Visit our website