Perth Sheriff Court, sitting on 16 March, heard that Blairish Restoration Ltd had been contracted to carry out restoration work on a 19th-century mansion in Strathtay, Perthshire.

The property still had intact its original paintwork, which contained lead. Workers were exposed to poisonous lead dust when they sanded down the paint. The work continued for a number of months during the summer of 2008, during which the dust spread to workers’ homes via their clothing.

In October 2008, two workers at the site were admitted to hospital suffering from abdominal pains. Tests were carried out on both men, which identified trace of lead in their blood. The hospital contacted the HSE who immediately visited the site and began an investigation.

The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, which required it to use industrial vacuums to clear the dust from the site. It was also instructed to issue workers with adequate PPE and respiratory protection, and to create a management system to separate other workers on the site from coming into contact with the dust. The Notice also stated that washing facilities needed to be installed, so that workers could shower after coming into contact with the dust.

HSE inspector Gary Stimpson said: “This case is important as it reminds primary contractors of their responsibility and duty of care to others working on the site – even if they are not directly employed by them.

“Exposure to lead can result in significant and debilitating symptoms such as anaemia, nausea and constipation, and even nerve, brain, and kidney damage.

“There may be a view that lead is an historic problem, which was dealt with a long time ago. This prosecution shows that this is not the case. Those involved in renovating old buildings need to be particularly vigilant. Once dust or fume is generated from operations such as sanding, it easily enters the body through normal breathing or swallowing, where it accumulates, causing debilitating symptoms.”

Blairish Restoration Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA and was fined £10,000. No costs are awarded in Scotland.

In mitigation, the firm said it had voluntarily stopped work at the site until the investigation was completed. It complied with the terms of the Improvement Notice and entered an early guilty plea.

Risk assessments need to drill down to issues that may not be immediately obvious to the untrained eyes. Nobody can expect to be experts in everything, so ‘Competence’ in specific areas is of vital importance if these types of issues are to be identified and addressed.

Tyre manufacturer Pirelli failed to act on the findings of a risk assessment that identified a failure to separate vehicles and pedestrians at its factory in Carlisle.

North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court heard that 62-year-old contractor, Alan Miller, was feeding an electric cable into a sub-floor gallery when the incident took place on 29 October 2008. Once he had finished, he walked through an area within the curing department at the Dalston Road site, and was struck from behind by a pallet being carried on a forklift truck. He suffered a broken leg and has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.

HSE inspectors learned that several similar incidents had previously taken place in the same area of the factory. In March 2008, a contractor stepped off a walkway in front of a forklift, which forced the vehicle to make an emergency stop. The truck’s sudden halt caused one of the pallets it was carrying to fall and land on the contractor, who suffered a broken leg.

The investigation found that forklift drivers’ vision was frequently obscured because they had to lower their loads to avoid overhead obstructions. Pirelli had identified the problem during a previous risk assessment but had failed to take steps to make the area a pedestrian-free zone.

HSE inspector Michael Griffiths issued an Improvement Notice on 4 December 2008, which required the firm to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians were separated.

Inspector Griffiths said: “The storage area should have been clearly marked as ‘pedestrian free’, and the injured worker should have been told of the risks prior to the incident in October 2008.

Carrying out a risk assessment, then failing to act on its findings is a lot more common than many people may think. A risk assessment is a tool that enables a task to be completed safely. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself (as it is frequently seen to be).  Safe systems of work need to be created which ensure workers read and apply the findings of risk assessments and method statements. In practice, this often means sharing information about the workplace, routes to be used etc. Actions of other people on site, including other contractors or visiting staff, should also be considered. Another lesson to be learnt here is that accidents should be fully investigated and corrective action taken.  Britrisk Safety specialises in assisting clients with these kind of issues precisely to avoid the kind of pitfalls that Pirelli have encountered.

THE LEVEL of enforcement action taken during the first two weeks of the HSE’s ‘Healthy Handling’ blitz on construction sites in the South East has given force to the Executive’s decision to focus more on occupational health risks. From 8 to 15 March alone 66 enforcement notices were handed out across 350 sites. Inspectors found sites using cement without proper facilities for washing, heavy loads being handled unsafely, and vibrating tools being used for longer than is safe.

Early conclusions from the initiative the HSE Construction Division first to focus on health rather than safety issues are that many construction clients, designers and contractors are not assessing or managing health risks effectively.

The focus on health issues, in particular manual handling, has been welcomed by the industry. Marion Griffin, of the Construction Health and Safety Group, said new guidance, or even legislation, was necessary in this area as the Manual Handling Regulations at the moment “are not working”.

On 24 March the Group released the report and results of its year-long Jubilee Research Project on manual handling in highway kerb-laying. According to the Group, “kerb design has remained largely unchanged for more than 30 years and pays no regard to the health of installers”.

Britrisk Safety provides manual handling training and specialist support for sub contractors in building accredited safety policies and safety management systems.  Call us for details.

An aviation company has been criticised for failing to put in place fall-protection equipment, after a worker fell five metres while painting an aeroplane.

Bristol Magistrates’ Court heard that Robert Lupton was re-painting an aircraft at Air Livery plc’s base in Filton, Bristol. He was working with a colleague to wrap the plane’s wing in plastic sheeting to protect it from paint stripper, when the incident took place on 10 October 2007.

To pull the sheeting tight Mr Lupton had to stand on the edge of the wing, but there was no edge protection in place, and he had not been trained to work at height. He then stepped on to the wing flap, which gave way, and he fell to the ground, sustaining a broken elbow and ligament damage. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.

HSE inspector Christine Haberfield described the working practices as an “accident waiting to happen”. She said: “Air Livery should have taken the steps necessary to protect its workers by putting fall protection in place and checking to ensure that workers were using it.

“Everything may have appeared OK on paper but the practice on the ground encouraged painters to work ahead of themselves and without adequate protection. In this respect, this was an accident waiting to happen.”

Air Livery appeared in court on 11 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, for failing to put in place sufficient measures to prevent an accident. It was fined £2400 and ordered to pay £9162 in costs.

A statement from the company said: “We take health and safety very seriously and deeply regret this incident. We fully cooperated with the HSE’s investigation and subsequently updated the risk assessment and safe working procedures across all of our sites.

“Fall-arrest systems have also been introduced, and all of our staff and supervisors have received work at height training.”

’There is no excuse for this type of incident in these times when everyone should be aware of safety requirements and in particular the risk of falls consequent on working at height.  Suitable risk assessments and a structured training programme could and should have prevented this’ says Tom Searle of Britrisk Safety.

In a case that demonstrates that health and safety professionals are not immune to prosecution, a health and safety manager has lost his appeal against safety charges brought against him following a flashover incident.

On 11 June, Alan Ager, safety manager for Chelmsford-based firm Power Testing Ltd, lost his appeal at Southwark Crown Court against his conviction for breaching s2(1)  of the HSWA 1974 (by virtue of s37), reg. 3 of the MHSWR 1999, and reg. 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Mr Ager was fined £2500 and ordered to pay £5500 in costs. He was initially convicted of the charges following a trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in November 2009.

The charges related to a flashover incident at an office building in Shoe Lane, central London on 1 February 2007. Two technicians were installing a capacitor to help reduce energy consumption at the site. One of the workers was fitting cables in the back of the capacitor, which was positioned above a number of live conductors. The cables came into contact with one of the conductors and caused a flashover. The worker suffered burns to his face and upper body, injuries that have prevented him from returning to work.

The court heard that Mr Ager had overall responsibility for ensuring that risk assessments were conducted, and for advising the company directors on safety matters and drawing up safety procedures. However, Mr Ager failed to carry out a suitable assessment of the risks involved in the work, and he didn’t enquire if it was possible for the building managers to fully isolate all the conductors.

Mr Ager, an IOSH member, told SHP that he felt he had taken sufficient steps to protect workers. He said: “I deeply regret the injuries that were sustained as a result of this incident. I felt that my risk assessment was sufficient and correct, and I had discussed it with other workers at the site.

“Following the incident, we have introduced a point-of-work risk assessment form, which must be completed before the start of each shift. We also now ensure that engineers wear flame-retardant overalls when working in switch rooms.”

City of London Corporation environmental health officer, Michelle Vancayseele, who investigated the case, said: “In this case, employees were merely instructed not to enter the live compartment yet there was a high risk of accidental contact with live electrical conductors involved in the work.

“This highlights the duties and responsibilities of safety personnel in ensuring that the precautions identified are able to protect employees from harm. Full electrical isolation would have removed the risk, or, alternatively, installation of a non-conductive screen separating workers from the live compartment, as well as measures to minimise swarf collecting in the panel, would have reduced the risk to an acceptable level.”

She continued: “Mr Ager was very experienced in electrical work, as well as being in a position of responsibility and trust. Staff working under his direction justifiably relied on his advice to ensure their safety – something which he clearly failed to do.

“It is very rare to bring a prosecution against an individual but it was deemed that if you cannot rely on the health and safety manager of a company to protect employees from harm, who can you rely on? For this reason, health and safety professionals are not immune to prosecution and must ensure that they have full regard to the law and associated HSE guidance on safe electrical work.”

In relation to the same incident, Power Testing Ltd pleaded guilty on 12 March 2009 to breaches of section 2(1) of the HSWA 1974, and reg. 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, for among other things failing to isolate the conductor, and was fined a total of £25,000.