Investigation of a fatal incident by HSE has identified that unintended movement of some mobile crushers can occur when there is an earth/ground fault. This can result in unintended movement of the machine track(s) and the potential for injuries from being struck by or trapped by the machine.

Where damage/deterioration of the electrical control cables can lead to a risk of unintended movement, the actions outlined in the safety notice should be taken.

Read the Safety Alert in full to find out what action to take – http://www.hse.gov.uk/safetybulletins/mobilecrushingplant.htm?ebul=gd-cons/nov11&cr=1

In June 2011, 35  companies or individuals were found guilty and fined as a result of being prosecuted by HSE. Four of these prosecutions, which involved six companies, were related to maintenance work.

#1 A worker cleaning a large baling machine was crushed to death when it re-activated. He had received no proper training in how to clean the machine but had tackled the task when asked to do the job. The machine had not been shut down completely as there was a common misunderstanding at the company that isolation and lock-off at the mains were not required.

#2 A maintenance worker fell 12 metres to his death through an unprotected opening in a platform walkway. He had been working with eight others to carry out urgent modification work on equipment. The opening had been left unprotected after a floor grating had been removed. There was also confusion and misunderstanding within the companies involved as to who was responsible for controlling the work.

#3 A young trainee electrician suffered a fractured pelvis, facial injuries, a broken front tooth and lacerations to his elbow when the metal cage from which he was working fell 20ft from the fork lift truck that had been supporting it. The forklift had toppled over onto its side. The electrician and another trainee had been instructed to change a number of light bulbs on a warehouse ceiling. Neither had received any training, the job had not been properly assessed for risk, the wrong equipment had been used and the system of work was poor.

#4 An employee fractured his hip and left elbow after he fell 3 metres whilst trying to step onto a ladder from the top of a lorry cab. He had climbed onto the lorry roof to assess whether or not a wind deflector needed to be fitted. However, he had not been given any training, the ladder had not been secured, no one else was there to help him and there was no safe system of work to complete the job safely.

A director of a construction firm has been accused of causing, through gross negligence, the death of a child who was killed when a wall he designed collapsed on her.

Three-year-old Meg Burgess was killed when a wall designed by the director and constructed by his company collapsed on to a public footpath where she was walking with her mother.

Given the Directors direct role in the incident the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided that he should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter.

His company, which has ceased trading, has been charged with an offence under section 3 of the HSWA, but escaped a charge of corporate manslaughter because the CPS did not judge it to be in the public interest to prosecute the firm for such an offence.

Rosemary Ainslie, reviewing lawyer for the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “After considering reports from experts on construction standards and advice from counsel, I have decided that the Director should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter for his role in designing and constructing the wall that collapsed.”

Two firms have pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety rules after a worker miraculously survived being dragged through a gap in a machine no wider than a CD case.

The worker suffered horrific injuries when he was dragged through the machine for processing heavy steel beams at a factory; he broke his back in two places, ruptured his stomach / bowel, shattered his pelvis and fractured both hips, several ribs and his right arm.

He had only been using the machine for several days and was still learning how to use it when the accident happened. Following the incident he returned to work and retrained in a different role.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that there was no guarding in place to protect the worker from dangerous moving parts on the machine, which was as big as several tennis courts.

Both firms have admitted one charge each of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

A 5″ gap!!! Seriously?

Have you got all your machines adequately guarded to prevent this? Are all your operators competent? What about your maintenance staff?

E-mail me today for a free Machinery Checklist – Andrew@spectrumrisk.co.uk

 Introduction:

In recent months HSE has investigated a number of serious accidents involving hands; including finger amputation, on some models of firewood processing machines.

Initial conclusions suggest that these machines are not safe and are not fully compliant with the Machinery Directive

Background:

Typically firewood processing machines consist of both wood cutting and splitting stations. They may have a powered feed or be hand fed. The cut logs usually drop into a splitting zone where a ram pushes the short lengths of wood against a splitting plate. Some machines also have a discharge conveyor. There are also other designs which use a rotary knife and spike to cut and split the wood in one operation.

The cutting zone may comprise an automatic or semi automatic chainsaw or circular saw. The splitting ram is usually hydraulically powered. In addition to the obvious hazards from the circular or chainsaw (and any feed or discharge conveyor), these machines present significant trapping and crushing hazards from the splitting process, either between the ram and log, ram and splitting plate, or log and splitting plate.

Guarding provided on some existing machines does not sufficiently prevent finger/hand access to these dangerous parts as the guards seen were too short. In one case the interlocked guard did not stop the moving ram.

Whilst there is a European Standard for simple log splitting machines (BS EN 609-1:1999 Safety of log splitters Part 1: Wedge splitters) this standard does not give presumption of conformity with key aspects of the Machinery Directive, particularly risks from moving parts. Neither does it deal fully with these combined cutting/splitting (firewood processing) machines. On a dual-purpose machine only the log splitter part of the machine is covered by this standard.

Action required:

Users should:

• Ensure that machines are used and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions.
• Check that all guards and other safety protective devices (including interlock devices) are adjusted and functioning correctly (e.g. the machine does not operate with interlocked guards open). The machine should not be used until any significant faults are corrected.
• Where the controls require two hands for operation users should ensure that:
  • both controls have to be operated together;
  • machines cannot operate with one control “jammed” open and the second allowing single-hand operation of a machine that was designed with the intention of two-hand operation;
  • it is not possible to start the splitting process inadvertently or to operate both manual controls simultaneously with one hand or arm or with other parts of the body;
  • The machine is only used by a single person as any second person e.g. who removes split wood, is not protected by the two-hand control.
  • Guards, including the length from the open end or aperture, should prevent people from having easy access to the dangerous parts, at the saw and splitter ram, from the normal operating position.

Delivery/assembly at site:

All parties should ensure that the machinery has been correctly assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and all safety devices are functioning as intended.

Manufacturers

HSE will be contacting relevant manufacturers to discuss safeguarding of these machines.

Just one in five manufacturing companies believes the fit note has helped reduce sickness absence, a new survey by the trade organisation EEF has found.

The sickness absence survey for 2011 shows respondents remain concerned that employees are being signed off unnecessarily and believe further action is necessary.

The fit note, which replaced traditional sick notes in April 2010, allows doctors to advise employers that a patient “may be fit for work” and to suggest appropriate changes or support, such as altered hours, amended duties or workplace adaptations.

Almost three in 10 firms surveyed felt the new approach had aided return-to-work discussions.

Yet, just 17% of companies said the note had enabled them to make adjustments so that their employees could return to the workplace more quickly.

The proportion of companies reporting that GPs are still a barrier to rehabilitation has fallen significantly from 39% in 2007 to 26% in 2010.

Overall, the annual survey of EEF members shows a continuing fall in sickness absence – Workers took an average 5 days off sick last year, compared with a total of 6.7 days in 2007.

Installers, designers, maintenance firms and manufacturers of electric gates, are being urged to seriously consider new safety advice issued by the HSE following the recent deaths of two children.

The safety alert points out that limiting the closing forces of gates alone will not provide sufficient protection to meet the relevant standards, and installers must fit additional safeguards to gates in public areas.

HSE’s Director of Field Operations said:

“When manufacturing, designing or installing electric gates, it’s crucial to consider who will be in the area when it’s operating. If general public can access the gate then additional protections should be in place. These protections can be in the form of creating safe distances, installing fixed guards, limiting the forces or installing sensitive protective equipment – among others.”

HSE’s advice today also reminds those in control of the maintenance of electric gates to regularly review their risk assessments, taking account of or any changes to the operating conditions or environment.

The use of mobile elevating work platforms (MEWP’s) are currently under investigation by the HSE following  a number of fatal and serious accidents where operators have become trapped between the guardrails or other equipment on the platform and adjacent obstructions.

 The selection and application of MEWPS need to be carefully managed and implemented by competent people. New guidance deals specifically with preventing entrapment and has been prepared by contributors with extensive experience of MEWP use and accident investigation and captures that experience to share with others who might not appreciate the dangers.

 Anyone engaged in the supply or use of MEWPS should familiarise themselves with the guidance and act on its recommendations. The guidance is relevant to anyone using MEWPs, not just those in the construction industry.

Key areas for attention are as follows:

• Effective work planning
• Selection of equipment for the specific tasks and environment
• Training of managers and operators including on the specific machine to be used
• Preparation and practice of detailed procedures to be followed if someone is trapped and needs to be rescued quickly to minimise harm.

 HSE inspectors will consider enforcement action where they believe there is a risk of entrapment which is not being managed effectively.

MEWP’s – avoiding trapping & crushing to people in the platform