On 15th November 2015, there was an uncontrolled release of around 15 tonnes of LPG through a valve near to the main roadway used by LPG road tankers visiting Esso Petroleum Company’s refinery in Fawley, Hampshire.
The leak went undetected for around four hours before being discovered by an employee on his way home. It took a further hour to establish the source of the leak, with on-site emergency personnel having to enter the area to reset the valve.
An investigation by the HSE found that the leak occurred because LPG was put through the pipe work at too a high a pressure for the valve. There was no process in place to detect the discrepancy in the flow in the pipe and the company had failed to take all measures necessary to prevent a major incident.
Esso Petroleum Company Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) 2015 and was fined £500,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector, Jonathan Halewood said: “The measures required to prevent incidents should be proportionate to the risks. Where companies handle large quantities of substances that can cause major incidents, such as LPG, they are required to have layers of protection in place to prevent incidents.
“In this incident, a number of those layers either failed or were not in place resulting in a significant leak. Even though there was no fire or injury on this occasion, there was potential for a major incident. The prosecution has been brought to highlight the importance of maintaining the layers of protection and preventing this kind of major leak.”
This is valid as of 16th December 2021.
What you’ll get: The Committee has since reported on Government failures in balancing risk across many aspects of its response to the pandemic, and lack of planning and preparedness despite an influenza pandemic having been identified as the UK’s top non-malicious risk on government’s National Risk Register since 2008.
This follow up inquiry is based on the NAO’s recent findings that Government was not fully prepared for the wide-ranging impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on society, the economy and essential public services, and did not act upon some warnings from the simulations carried out prior to COVID-19, which highlighted issues around planning, coordination and capability that apply to pandemics more broadly.
For example, PAC says that the Government lacked detailed plans on shielding, employment support schemes and managing the disruption to schooling. Departments’ pandemic plans and business continuity plans set out some, but not all, of the responses required to maintain operations during the pandemic.
Preparations for EU exit enhanced the crisis capabilities and risk planning of some departments but meant that government paused work on other emergency preparations, limiting its ability to focus on other risk and contingency planning at the same time.
During this inquiry, the Committee will question senior officials at DHSC and the Cabinet Office. The inquiry is currently accepting evidence. The Committee is inviting views, and welcome submissions from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. Evidence may be submitted until 5 January 2022.
This is valid as of 6th December 2021.
The employee of Bakkavor Fresh Cook Ltd was crushed in the machine after its safety systems were over-ridden and the machine worked on whilst it was live. It should have been isolated before work on it began.
Investigating, the HSE found that the task was carried out by the employees in this fashion on a regular basis and that the company should have been aware. No risk assessment of the task had been completed and employees had not been provided with a safe system of work to carry it out. The lack of a safe system of work for the task and the company’s failure to monitor how the work was done, led employees to devise their own way of conducting the procedure which included over-riding the safety systems and using unsafe working practices.
Bakkavor Fresh Cook Ltd of Sluice Road, Holbeach St Marks Spalding, pleaded guilty of one breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and were fined £130,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2607.10.
At the end of the trial HSE inspector Tim Nicholson commented: “Those in control of work have a responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to provide the necessary information, instruction and training to their workers. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to this incident, alongside good monitoring of the way the work was done, the injuries sustained by the employee could have been prevented.”
This is valid as of 26th October 2021.
What you’ll get: The model – developed by researchers at Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge and University of Leeds, and jointly funded by the PROTECT COVID-19 National Core Study and UK Research and Innovation – uses monitored CO2 and occupancy data to predict how many workers are likely to be infected by an asymptomatic but infectious colleague.
High indoor CO2 levels are related to lower ventilation rates and high occupancy, so monitoring them can provide an important red flag to building managers to identify areas of inadequate ventilation. This can help assess the risk of airborne transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Achievable interventions can then be made, for instance, to improve ventilation or change worker attendance patterns to reduce occupancy.
While applications of the infection model so far have demonstrated that most workers in well ventilated open plan offices are unlikely to infect each other via airborne particles, the risk becomes greater if the space is poorly ventilated or if the workers are involved in activities which require more speaking. For instance, the model predicts each infected person could infect two to four others in an adequately ventilated but noisy call centre. Risks are also likely to increase if the infected individual is a ‘super spreader’.
Dr Henry Burridge, Senior Lecturer in Fluid Mechanics at Imperial College London and lead author of the paper, said: “In shared spaces such as offices and classrooms, exposure to infectious airborne matter builds up over time, during which room occupancy may vary. By using carbon dioxide levels as a proxy for exhaled breath, our new model can assess the variable exposure risk as people come and go.
“Our work emphasises the importance of good ventilation in workplaces and in schools. The model demonstrates that by managing the ventilation and occupancy levels of shared spaces we can manage the risk of airborne infection by a virus such as that which causes COVID-19.”
Professor Andrew Curran, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Health and Safety Executive and lead for the PROTECT study, added: “This important research demonstrates that, while the airborne transmission route can be a significant contributor to COVID-19 infection risk in places such as offices and schools, there are achievable steps that can be taken to reduce this risk and help facilitate a safe return. Ensuring adequate ventilation is a key element, and the appropriate use of tools such as CO2 monitoring can give building managers a much better understanding of their own ventilation systems and how they are performing for each activity undertaken in the space.
“However, the airborne route is just one of three known routes of transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Close-range person-to-person and surface transmission risks must also be assessed, and relevant measures applied to control all routes of exposure for all activities where risk is identified. For most businesses, a COVID-19 control strategy will involve a blended combination of measures identified through a risk assessment – there is no silver bullet.”
Professor Charlotte Deane, UKRI Director for the COVID-19 Response and Deputy Executive Chair of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, said: “A key challenge throughout the pandemic has been to understand how this novel virus is transmitted and to develop measures which could be implemented to curb the spread of infection. This study highlights that research and innovation supported by UKRI and the National Core Studies programme is continuing to evolve our understanding of the virus and helping us to develop knowledge which will be key to the global post-pandemic recovery.”
The full paper can be found here.
This is valid as of 25th October 2021.
What you’ll get: Beverley Magistrates’ Court heard that MS Properties (Northern) Ltd had not commissioned a refurbishment asbestos survey prior to the work commencing. Employees removed over 1000m2 of asbestos insulation board (AIB) ceiling tiles in an uncontrolled manner, exposing them to asbestos.
The HSE’s investigation found that the company’s director, and the casual labourers they employed, spent approximately three to four weeks removing the suspended ceiling, along with the ceiling tiles which contained asbestos, to install new stud walls to divide the shop floor into separate units. The labourers were unskilled and untrained. They were provided with a claw hammer to knock the tiles down. The asbestos-containing tile debris was then shovelled or collected into approximately 62 one tonne bags.
MS Properties (Northern) Limited of Beckside Business, Beckside Road, Bradford, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was fined £16,000, ordered to pay £3,011.87 in costs and a victim surcharge of £190.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Trisha Elvy commented: “If the company had identified any asbestos on the site through a refurbishment asbestos survey, carried out by a competent surveyor, and had it removed by licenced asbestos removal contractors prior to the refurbishment work commencing, then MS Properties (Northern) employees would not have been exposed to asbestos.
“No matter how small or large your company, there is a need to prevent exposing your employees and the public to asbestos by ensuring that it is identified on site prior to any work commencing.”
This is valid as of 20th October 2021.
A construction company has been fined £700,000 over safety failings after one of its employees was crushed by a dumper truck.
John Cameron, 61, from Tyne and Wear, was working for BAM Nuttall during the building of an electricity sub-station at Blackhillock, near Keith in Moray. He died after his legs became trapped under a passing truck.
Inverness Sheriff Court was told how he had been fitting a new blade to a specialist saw when the accident happened. Fiscal depute Gavin Callaghan told Sheriff Gary Aitken there was a safe place where Mr Cameron could have carried out his work, but it was not clearly designated.
Mr Callaghan said: “Mr Cameron was left to his own devices. What he did and where he did it was not safe but that is no criticism of Mr Cameron. No-one from BAM challenged him and there had been no risk planning.
“It is not suggested that BAM had a cavalier attitude towards health and safety and it is tragic that an oversight has such terrible consequences.”
BAM Nuttall admitted failing to make a suitable risk assessment in the task of repair and replacement of equipment on site and the risk of vehicles and pedestrians coming into contact with each other.
It also failed to provide a system of work that could be carried out safely and which segregated persons from vehicles.
Murdo MacLeod, QC for BAM Nuttall, said there had been a last-minute design change to the area where Mr Cameron was working and admitted no arrangements had been made for a risk assessment at such short notice.
He said: “The company recognise that it was unacceptable that he should have been left to his own devices and greater care should have been taken to secure that area. The company has left no stone unturned since the accident and new zonal working systems have been introduced.”
Mr MacLeod added: “The company want to formally record its sincere regret to the family as Mr Cameron was an experienced, highly valued and popular employee.”
Passing sentence, Sheriff Aitken recorded his condolences to family members in court and added: “No-one ever thinks that a loved one going to work won’t come home.”
He said it was not the court’s function to try and put a value on a person’s life but to punish a company in the only way it could by a fine.
This is valid as of 17th June 2021.
A construction company has been fined after workers were exposed to asbestos whilst refurbishing a flat in St John’s Wood, Westminster.
Between 14 May and 31 August 2018, ASAI Construction Ltd, the Principal Contractor for the project, failed to obtain a Refurbishment and Demolition asbestos survey prior to commencing work on site.
During the project ASAI Construction Ltd was made aware by a subcontractor that there was asbestos containing material (ACM) within the flat, however the company allowed work to continue and failed to ensure that the ACMs were removed safely. As a result, several people were exposed to asbestos fibres over a prolonged period.
Investigating, the HSE found that ASAI Construction Ltd failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent the people working on site being exposed to asbestos.
ASAI Construction Ltd of Harrowdene Road, Wembley pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company has been fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,837.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Owen Rowley said: “There are currently more than 5,000 asbestos-related deaths each year in the UK. Any asbestos on site should be identified before refurbishment or demolition work takes place and suitable steps must be taken to control the risk of exposure.
“In this case ASAI Construction Ltd’s failure to manage the risk of exposure to asbestos was compounded by their lack of response when concerns were raised regarding its presence on site.”
This is valid as of 21st May 2021.
Tyne Wear Metro operator, Nexus, has been fined £1.5 million after pleading guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974., for failing to ensure the safety of staff.
The fine follows the death of a Nexus employee at the company’s South Gosforth depot in July 2014.
John Bell died while working at height carrying out maintenance work on high voltage overhead cables. He was electrocuted after contacting a wire he believed to be isolated from the power supply, but, due to the incorrect installation of equipment, it was in fact live.
In its investigation, industry regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) found safety critical procedures were ignored and some continued for a substantial period after Mr Bell’s death.
This included:
ORR found lessons were not learned over a number of years and problems persisted despite the death of Mr Bell, putting people at risk for a substantial period thereafter.
Ian Prosser CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Railways at ORR, said: “Nexus’ working practices were poor and continued so for a long time. This meant Nexus did not have the right measures in place to assess whether the Metro was being maintained safely.
“It is a fundamental safety requirement to test electrical equipment before any work takes place, but the failure to review and monitor safety critical systems meant that lessons were not learned.
“This sadly contributed to the events which caused the death of Mr Bell. Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Mr Bell and I hope this result brings them some peace.”
Nexus agreed the failures involved were a significant cause of the death of Mr Bell.
In his remarks, His Honour Judge Spragg said the case was an avoidable tragedy of a much loved man and that Nexus should have prevented such a state of affairs from arising and continuing.
Nexus were fined £1.5 million and ordered to pay £172,390.98 in costs at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court on 23 April.
This is valid as of 8th May 2021.
(Scotland)
Following a thorough investigation and criminal prosecution leading to the conviction of two parties Crown Counsel, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, have decided not to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths of Richard Dyson and Simon Midgley at Cameron House Hotel in December 2017.
The multi-agency investigation carried out by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), West Dunbartonshire Council and Police Scotland was overseen by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
These investigations led to criminal prosecutions in which Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Limited and Christopher O’Malley admitted responsibility for the fatal fire.
The purpose of a Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death and to establish what lessons can be learned for the future in order to minimise the risk of future deaths in similar circumstances.
Crown Counsel are satisfied that the reasons for this tragedy have been established and that the circumstances of the deaths were publicly identified during the prosecution process. The sheriff’s sentencing statements from these cases are published and provide an account of the events of the fire and the failings which were admitted.
In addition, Crown Counsel note that SFRS will engage with the accommodation sector to highlight the investigation and the tragic outcomes from the incident at the Cameron House Hotel and that this approach will be shared with UK Fire and Rescue Services to inform best practice.
In light of these judicial findings and safety review, and the detailed understanding available to SFRS of the events around the fire, Crown Counsel concluded that the public interest would not be further served by an FAI as the purpose of such an inquiry has already been met.
Alistair Duncan, head of the Health and Safety Investigation Unit of COPFS, said: “COPFS appreciates the impact the fire has had on the families and friends of Mr Dyson and Mr Midgley and many other people who were at the hotel that night.
“The nearest relatives of those who lost their lives have been provided with detailed reasons for the decision not to hold an FAI and our thoughts are with them at this time.”
This is valid as of 4th May 2021.
The reopening of Scotland’s economy – including shops, bars, restaurants, gyms and hairdressers – is expected to start in the last week of April, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced last week.
There would be a “progressive easing” of restrictions before then, with four people from two households allowed to meet outdoors from 15 March. All primary and more secondary school pupils could return from that date. It is hoped to lift the stay at home restriction on 5 April.
There is likely to be a gap of at least three weeks between each easing of restrictions to assess the impact of changes, and to check that it is safe to proceed further using the six conditions for safe easing set out by the World Health Organisation.
Four phases
Phase 1: (commenced 22 February) early learning and childcare and schools open for Primary 1-3 pupils and senior phase pupils for essential practical work. Limited increase in the provision for vulnerable children. Care homes opening to facilitate meaningful contact between relatives/ friends and residents.
Phase 2: (unlikely before 15 March) – more school reopening – Non-contact outdoor group sports for 12-17 year olds. Socialising rules eased, to allow outdoor meetings of 4 people from 2 households.
Phase 3: (at least three weeks later – possibly 5 April) stay-at-Home requirement removed. Third and final phase of schools reopening if required. Places of worship can open on a restricted numbers basis. Essential retailers list expanded slightly and click-and-collect resumes for non-essential retail.
Phase 4: (possibly 26 April) limited other easing within Level 4, including permitting non-essential work in people’s homes. Return to variable Levels approach. This will enable the graduated opening up of economic and social activity.
The six conditions for safe easing set out by the World Health Organisation are:
This is valid as of 3rd March 2021.
The "New Normal" has been a hard adjustment for us all and forced us into new situations. If you notice that some of your employees are struggling but don't know where to start, then watch our free webinar. Our speakers will provide you with some key action points that you can use that not only help in the short-term but will be beneficial in the future. The Environment Bill, which was due to return to Parliament on 26 January, has been delayed again. Defra has said the latest delay is due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
After a brief return to Parliament in November 2020, the Bill was put on hold once again in December 2020.
The Bill was finally due to return to Parliament last week for the report stage however the Government took it off the agenda and confirmed that it will be rolled over into the next Parliamentary session.
Green groups and trade bodies, while sympathetic to the challenges facing the department, are concerned that the delay sends the wrong message in the year of COP26. There are also concerns about the UK’s ability to deliver against the aims of related policy packages, like the Agriculture Bill and 25-Year Environment Plan, without the Environment Bill as a foundation.
Simon Alcock, head of public affairs at ClientEarth, said: “The Prime Minister promised the Environment Bill would be a flagship bill of this Parliament yet the Government has completely failed to get it through this session. As the UK prepares to host COP 26, this is deeply embarrassing and undermines its credibility.
“Rather than taking the opportunity to legislate to better protect the environment and people’s health, the Government is once again delaying any progress.
“This delay means a further extended period in which the Government and public authorities are not being adequately held to account over their compliance with environmental law. That will be almost a whole year of the Government avoiding any proper scrutiny.
“The quality of the air that we breathe, the water we drink and the nature we enjoy will all be put at risk because of this incompetent and frustrating delay.”
This is valid as of 2nd February 2021.
If not, then we can help! We identify some of the key planned environmental changes in 2021 including the following: Free downloads, advance notice of webinars, product updates and perks – all straight to your inbox.