A developer has been sent to prison for 30 months and ordered to pay costs of £5,000 after repeatedly breaching prohibition notices designed to ensure the safety of workers redeveloping a former office block in Parkeston, Essex.
Eze Kinsley, of Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, Middlesex, was found guilty of two breaches of section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
“Although no one was injured as a result of the woefully inadequate working practices this is nevertheless a serious case,” HSE inspector Jonathan Elven said after the decision at Chelmsford Crown Court.
“The working conditions on this site were truly appalling with absolutely no provision for workers’ safety. In addition, the repeated breaching of prohibition notices – without any attempts to put right the reasons why work had been stopped – put workers and the general public at serious risk.”
Mr Kinsley was also found guilty at a separate court appearance of assaulting an HSE inspector.
No safety measures in place
The Health and Safety Executive attended the site on 28th February 2013 following complaints from residents about debris falling from upper storeys. Members of the public also cited personal safety concerns when employees were spotted working at height without any fall protection.
Eze Kinsley, the developer in control of workers at the site, verbally abused the HSE inspector who visited.
The inspector later returned with Essex police officers to serve prohibition notices requiring an immediate stop to unsafe work at the site. Mr Kinsley reacted to this order by physically assaulting the inspector.
When it emerged that the work had not ceased, the HSE issued a further prohibition notice on 3rd April 2013. This was breached within just one hour of being served.
A subsequent investigation by the HSE discovered an absence of safety measures to prevent injury to workers from debris falling from height. It also established that there was a real risk of injury to members of the public using the road and pavement next to the Parkeston House site.
HSE inspector, Mr Elven, stated: “Mr Kinsley refused to accept that he had a responsibility to make sure people who worked for him, and any member of the public living or working near his site, were not subjected to unnecessary risks – and vigorously and violently resisted all attempts to make him take actions to protect them.
“Putting safe working practices in place is often simple and inexpensive and, where this doesn’t happen, the costs, both financial and personal, can be immense.”
Eze Kinsley, of Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, Middlesex, was given a 30 months prison sentence to be served concurrently with three 12-month prison sentences.
The US Chemical Safety Board has published a video depicting details of its continuing investigation into a chemical storage tank leak that contaminated the drinking water of up to 300,000 residents in nine West Virginia Counties.
The CSB investigation at Freedom Industries in Charleston found that two small holes in the bottom of the 48,000-gallon tank were caused by corrosion.
This, says the agency, was likely caused by water leaking through holes in the roof and settling on the tank floor.
In the video, high pressure water tools extract metal from the tank for metallurgical analysis.
Employees who injure themselves by “doing something dumb” could be stripped of the right to claim damages if their bosses have taken “sensible” precautions, according to the Justice Secretary.
Chris Grayling was speaking to the Telegraph as ministers prepared to debate his new Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill.
Mr Grayling said the proposed laws, which would make it harder for lawyers to win cases in the courts, were designed to “slay the health and safety culture”.
“It is about trying to restore common sense to the kind of situations which happen all too often and very seldom get to court – where somebody has an accident at work, it’s entirely their own fault, they have got a perfectly responsible employer who has the normal health and safety procedures in place but that person does something dumb, hurts themselves and sues the employer anyway,” he explained.
“For responsible small businesses it is a real headache and most of the time they just pay up because it is less hassle to do so. This is meant to be a big message to them because if you do the right thing, we are making sure that the balance of the law is in your favour.”
Legal firms “trying to get you to claim”
Mr Grayling believed that many small business owners were deterred from hiring new staff as they feared bearing the weight of additional legal liabilities.
He said that legal firms and agencies were fuelling the culture by attempting to persuade members of the public to sue over minor accidents,
“There is an industry out there that’s trying to get you to claim,” stated the Justice Secretary.
“I think generally speaking we have become a society where people are more willing to have a go, where there’s marketing to encourage them, and I think perhaps too little inclination to say ‘it was me that messed that up’. We are a bit of a society that is a bit too inclined to blame someone else.”
Trade unions have raised concerns about the Bill’s potential impact on employees hurt at work.
Mr Grayling batted back the concerns, insisting that unions had “too much of an inclination to chase every opportunity” when it came to winning payouts for their members.
“My message to the trade unions would be we are fortunate in our society that we have some of the safest workplaces in the world – that’s clearly a good thing and we shouldn’t compromise on health and safety standards.
“We should certainly go after the people who are the health and safety rogues,” he added.
“But if we overdo the regulation and make people liable for things where common sense says they have got no responsibility then you just have fewer people in jobs and that can’t be right.”
The Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech last month.
Your company works hard to maintain and enhance health and safety standards across the board. Training is an important part of this equation.
Health and safety is, of course, a regulatory requirement. When the chips are down, it just makes plain sense too.
iLearn, our web-based health and safety training platform, gives you instant, flexible and cost-effective access to training which helps your site fulfil its legal obligations.
Here’s seven reasons why your business will come to love iLearn:
Reduces overheads: iLearn delivers the quality of direct training at lower prices
Reduces overtime: Cut costs on overtime to cover in-house face to face delivery. Reduced travel also puts a smile on operators’ faces and is better for health
Track learning: iLearn’s database enables authorised managers to keep an eye on the progress of individuals and groups, ensuring all personnel remain on track. This can be linked to appraisal and HR personal development targets
Supports training: iLearn recognises that your site is unique. The system supports the development of bespoke courses
Competency: iLearn supports competency requirements delivering knowledge, developing skills and experience on a constant rolling process
Onsite training: Can be linked to the development of onsite assessors. This enables site assessments to be undertaken, directly improving efficiency
Accredited Material: Development is linked to our IOSH accredited course material and will be accredited as a full modular course on completion of development
What to do next?
The iLearn web-based training tool imparts knowledge to workers in the industrial areas of petroleum and petrochemical operations, fire prevention and occupational health and safety.
Find out more about the suite of online health and safety courses
Back in 1969 a British Pathe News report told of elephants panicking and stampeding in Windsor Safari Park. Startled by noisy jumbo jets from nearby Heathrow Airport, they were running amok and hiding in the hedges.
A solution was speedily found to soothe the galloping giants: jumbo-sized ear protectors.
Calm was restored to the park when the elephants returned wearing made-to-measure giant ear defenders.
The elephant in the room is personal protective equipment and, in the historic case of the dumbo versus the jumbo, ensured this herd of elephants heard for many years to come.
Is your site responsible for controlling potential hazards pertaining to the specification, inspection and maintenance of external floating roofs for storage tanks built to BS 2654(1), BS EN 14015(2) and API 650(3)?
If so, the Health and Safety Executive has just issued a safety notice to help you maintain the integrity of the roof and take precautions to maintain the buoyancy of the structure.
“There has been a recent incident, along with findings from further investigation, that suggest the examination and maintenance of floating roofs is not given sufficient priority,” says the HSE in explanation of the safety notice.
Proper maintenance of external floating roofs for storage tanks is indeed important. After all, failure of a roof can lead to a loss of containment, peeling back the layers of protection and unlocking the door to a major accident.
So let’s break down the safety notice.
What is an external floating roof tank?
External floating roofs are fitted atop of large above ground hydrocarbons storage tanks which typically stand in excess of 20m diameter.
With the grace of oil on water, they float on the surface of the stored fluid. The external roof remains buoyant by way of pontoons encircling their perimeter or as double-deck roofs, with integral chambers to provide support.
Key features include:
The roof structure has a central open deck which needs periodical draining typically by one or more central drains
The outer edge of the roof is fitted with at least one seal to retain the hydrocarbon vapour beneath
A cross-section of a popular design with an outer ring of pontoons (check out the image to the right)
Regulations and specifications
Construction standards require that floating roofs remain buoyant in defined arduous situations.
In the case of BS EN 14015, for instance, the roof must remain afloat with 250mm of water on the centre deck or two adjacent pontoons flooded.
Operators should note that while these requirements are not cumulative, a roof boasting one or more compromised pontoons is more vulnerable to sinking from rainfall.
This is important as the roof may well have listed or even deformed in such conditions, compromising the ability to remove rainwater via the centre drain.
Circumstances of continued rainfall could lead to:
The roof sinking
Flooded pontoons
Permanent damage to the roof
Operators must therefore be able to demonstrate that the roof will remain buoyant and perform in accordance with the original design intent in all operating conditions.
Demonstrating integrity: design calculation
It is incumbent upon operators to have a design calculation which demonstrates that for the fluid stored, the roof will continue to function even in certain fault conditions. These, the HSE says, are defined in the design codes.
Take a single deck pontoon roof, for instance. BS EN 14015 states either two adjacent pontoons flooded or 250mm of water on the centre deck should be accommodated.
Other checks include:
The operator must make sure that the roof buoyancy calculation uses a sufficiently low specific gravity. API650, for example, states that either a specific gravity of 0.7 is used or the specific gravity of the stored product – whichever is the lower
Operators must be mindful that for tanks storing relatively light hydrocarbons, excessive vapour pressures can cause upset conditions
The design calculation should be re-visited to ensure it remains valid if the tank contents are changed and the SG reduced
Single 3″ or 4″ diameter roof-drains
Single 3″ or 4″ diameter roof-drains can be fitted to tanks designed to API 650(3). At low roof levels, the relatively small head leads to a slow discharge rate through the drain. It is therefore vital that the roof does not accumulate excessive water during periods of heavy rain and that it remains sufficiently buoyant at all times.
Operators should be aware that other fittings in the system – such as non-return valves and filters – will further slow the discharge rates unless properly managed and that line restrictions, such as reducers, should be avoided.
In-service examination
Upon carrying out an in-service examination to guard against floating roof failure, check:
Deck integrity including checks for excessive corrosion
For pools of standing water that may indicate distortion of the roof
Roof level, ensuring the deck is not listing by checking cardinal points around the roof perimeter
Roof seal integrity along with associated fittings, such as foam dams and vents
Pontoon integrity, including visual inspection and checking for flammable vapour
Tank roundness and distortion
Access ways and ladders
Out-of-service examination
Upon conducting an out-of-service examination, check:
That pontoons remain intact for the duration of the following period in-service.
That pontoons remain either ‘liquid tight’ or ‘vapour tight’
Internal bulkheads and division plates as well as the primary boundary of the roof and pontoons
The roof structure following any repairs or modifications
Routine monitoring
Regular operator checks in the form of routine monitoring will further assure roof integrity, allowing any possible problems to be detected early on.
Operators should carry out visual checks, including:
The roof deck
Seal integrity
Pontoon hatches
Secure earthing
In carrying out routine checks, put in place a system whereby the findings are logged within the maintenance system.
Level indication and alarm
In some cases, separate independent level indication of both the roof position and liquid level can cast light on potential problems.
The HSE says making a comparison of a roof position with liquid level over a period of time can show gradual loss of buoyancy.
Where reasonably practicable, duty holders should therefore provide a deviation alarm so that a warning is given if there is excessive differential movement of the roof and liquid.
Relevant legal documents include:
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Provision and use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999
Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002
Twenty schools have been handed improvement notices from the Health and Safety Executive after an inspection programme revealed inadequate control of asbestos hazards.
The HSE inspected a cross-section of 153 non-local-authority schools between April 2013 and January 2014. These included independent, voluntary aided and foundation schools, free schools and academies.
Geoff Cox, the head of HSE’s public services sector, said the majority of schools were acting in accordance with regulations.
“Over the last few years there has been a lot of work by stakeholders across the school sector to raise awareness of the duty to manage asbestos,” commented Mr Cox.
“It is really encouraging to see that awareness of the requirements has increased since our previous inspection initiative.”
But alluding to those handed improvement notices, he added: “Schools should not be under any illusion – managing asbestos requires ongoing attention. Schools now have access to a wealth of guidance setting out clear and straightforward steps to achieve and maintain compliance.”
The freshly published data from Compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations in England, Scotland and Wales shows:
71% of those inspected required either no further action or were given straightforward, simple advice
29% (44 schools) received written advice from HSE
13% (20 schools) were subject to enforcement action in the form of improvement notices
Mr Cox cautioned: “Where duty holders fall below acceptable standards, HSE has taken, and will continue to take, enforcement action.”
Asbesto improvement notices
Improvement notices lay down clear requirements for recipient schools to improve arrangements for managing asbestos.
Following the inspection programme, enforcement action was taken over failures, including:
Staff training staff
Producing written management plans
Whilst the HSE says staff or pupils were not considered at significant risk of exposure, action was taken to ensure that the vital elements of good control measures were followed.
Asbestos advice to schools
The inspection programme shed light on a number of common trends and the HSE hopes that publishing the data will help knowledge sharing across academic outlets.
To ensure compliance, schools must:
Have up-to-date records of asbestos-containing materials in their school
Provide training to maintenance staff whose work could expose them to asbestos
Have a robust system to alert anyone who may disturb asbestos at the school
Make tradespeople aware of location and condition of any present asbestos
The inspection programme demonstrated an overall improvement compared with a similar survey of 164 schools outside local authority control in 2010/11. In this instance, 41 improvement notices were served on 28 schools.
Just as a skydriver needs a parachute, operators on industrial sites need to wear the right personal protective equipment.
PPE is, after all, an essential part of any work environment and one which is legally required by the regulator.
Online training with iLearn refreshes your operators’ knowledge of core responsibilities covering use, maintenance and sources of information relating to PPE.
Watch personal protective elearning video
Site managers, did you know?
This course only takes around 40 minutes to complete
You can run it directly from your site saving you time and money
Register as many operators as you require
Register operators based on multiple sites at the same time
Track your operators’ progress on the iLearn system
What to do next?
With question sets, videos and engaging visuals designed by leading PPE experts, iLearn makes training a productively fun experience for you and your staff.
The Health and Safety Executive has launched a public consultation on proposed revisions to the DSEAR Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) L133.
According to the HSE, the revisions would clarify how duty holders comply with their responsibilities under DSEAR in relation to unloading petrol at filling stations.
The consultation, which is set to end on 22nd July 2014, seeks views on a number of key changes.
These include:
Increased emphasis on the importance of complying with the risk assessment elements of DSEAR
Expanded sections on overfill and spillage to provide further guidance in relation to these issues
Clearer definitions of some terms such as, for example, maximum working capacity of storage tanks
Reorganisation of the text to ensure clarity on what is required to comply with the law for the various parties involved
Signposting to separate HSE guidance on working at height which enables the ACOP to focus on the key DSEAR elements of unloading of petrol
As the regulations will remain unchanged, the HSE says there are no new requirements for compliance.
Have your say
Responding to the consultation is easy. Simply fill out an online questionnaire or download a Word document form to complete.
Plans to change health and safety laws in England and Wales have been welcomed by the chief officer at Voluntary Action North East Lincolnshire, Paula Grant.
The Government says the reforms will allow judges to take into consideration additional factors when deciding negligence cases brought against voluntary workers.
Speaking to The Grimsby Telegraph, Ms Grant described the changes as “timely”.
“Overall, this approach is most welcome if it leads to less time spent on bureaucracy for volunteers and groups organising voluntary activities and more time for them to support local people to participate in and benefit from community activities,” she said.
Ms Grant, who also acts as chief officer at North East Lincolnshire Volunteer Centre, added:
“The aims behind the statement are to be applauded if they allow people volunteering in good faith to save lives and avoid accidents, particularly as it removes the ever increasing risks of litigation.”
She cautioned though that people should not put their own lives unnecessarily at risk. “There are still too many examples of people losing their own life trying to help others and in turn putting lives of emergency services at risk,” warned Ms Grant.
The reforms to health and safety law could come into force as early as next year.