may 2019 new iosh construction safety courses for site ... · high risk activities health each...
TRANSCRIPT
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
We have now launched two completely new
courses for people that work in the
construction industry:
• IOSH Safety, health and environment for
construction site managers (SHECSM); and
• IOSH Safety, health and environment for
construction workers (SHECW).
SHECSM replaces our existing Managing safely
in Construction, which will no longer be
available for sale from 31 July 2019. Students
wanting to complete Managing safely in
Construction will need to enrol before 31 July
2019. They will then have up to 190 days to
complete the course.
SHECSM is split into four modules:
• Understanding the background
• Preparing for work
• Setting up the site
• Construction phase health and safety
Each module concludes with a mock
assessment, designed to prepare students for
the end of course assessment and to enable
students to benchmark their understanding.
Th
The syllabi for both courses were laun
The end of course assessment comprises of an
online multiple choice test and a risk
assessment project.
Students that complete the course receive a
genuine course certificate issued by IOSH.
SHECW is intended for anyone that works on a
construction site, either in the UK or abroad. It
takes between 6 to 8 study-hours to
complete, and like SHECSM, it is 100% online.
We are
pleased to announce that HSQE Ltd is the first
SHECW is split into five modules:
• Understanding the background
• Law and enforcement
• General site safety
• High risk activities
• Health
Each module concludes with a mock
assessment designed to benchmark
understanding and to prepare the student for
IOSH suite
of
courses, including:
the final assessment. The final assessment
itself if an online multiple choice test.
John Constable, HSQE Ltd Managing Director
said of the courses “We’re delighted to be the
first company to have 100% online versions of
these courses approved by IOSH. All our early
adopters have given them five star reviews.”
You can find out more about both courses by
visiting our website at www.hsqe.co.uk
New IOSH construction safety courses for site managers and workers launched
IOSH Safety, Health & Environment
for Construction Site Managers
IOSH Safety, Health & Environment
for Construction Site Workers
NEW NEW ENDS 31/7/19
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
For managers & supervisors
Approved online IOSH courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk
IOSH Safety, Health & Environment
for Construction Site Managers
IOSH Safety, Health & Environment
for Construction Site Workers
For any workers
For directors & senior executives
For construction site managers
For any construction workers
During the quality assurance review
conducted by IOSH
Rated
“OUTSTANDING”
Rated
“EXCELLENT”
NEW
NEW
Why HSQE Ltd for your IOSH training?
• No hidden fees
• Immediate start
• Fully IOSH approved
• Tutor support included
• Access your course 24/7 online
Find out more at www.hsqe.co.uk
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A plastering contractor has been fined after a self-employed
plasterer fell from height during the construction of a house.
The worker fell 2.4m from the landing. He spent three weeks in
hospital and suffered fractures to his wrists, ribs, eye sockets,
skull and nose.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found the work was not properly planned, managed and
monitored by the plastering contractor. There was a failure to
plan / use the right equipment (such as guard rails). There was
a failure to manage the work to ensure that effective
preventative and protective measures were put in place to
control the risk of falling. There was also a failure to monitor
the work effectively as the need for guard rails was not
identified during routine checks.
Michael Fletcher pleaded guilty a breach under Regulation 6
(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was fined
£2,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £935.60.
A farmer has been fined following a
worker’s fatal fall through the fragile
roof of a milking shed on the farm.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how on
19 July 2018 self-employed contractor
David Alan Rees was fatally injured
whilst he was clearing out the valley
gutter from a ladder at Knolton Farm,
Overton, Wrexham.
An investigation by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) found that
Robert Latham failed to plan the work
at height and did not have any suitable
equipment available to do the work
safely.
Robert Latham pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(2) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £26,000.
He has also been ordered to pay costs of £3922.60 and a
surcharge of £170.
Key lessons
• 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 and
contractors in the safe system of working
• If a suitable safe system of work had been in place prior to
the incident, the death could have been prevented
Plastering contractor fined Farmer fined after a worker suffers fatal fall from height
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A company and its director have been fined after a sub-
contractor suffered serious burns from the steam of a boiler
while working at a house in Braintree.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how Pure Flame Solutions
Limited was contracted to install and commission an oil-fired
boiler in an out-building of the house. The Director of Pure
Flame Solutions, undertook this work. On 14 December 2016, a
sub-contractor working nearby was seriously burned on 55% of
his body when the weld on the boiler failed, releasing steam.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found that the director carried out the installation in a way
that the safety critical elements – the pressure relief valve and
expansion tank – could be isolated from the rest of the system,
contrary to the manufacturers’ installation instructions. He
then failed to undertake a number of checks on the system, to
ensure it was safe to commission. The boiler had become over-
pressurised, causing the failure of a weld on the heat
exchanger, and allowing super-heated water to flash off as
steam.
Pure Flame Solutions Limited pleaded guilty to breaching
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The
company was fined £2000 and ordered to pay costs of £2603.
The director pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) (by virtue
of Section 37) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He
was ordered to undertake 150 hours of unpaid work in the
community over the next 12 months and ordered to pay costs
of £2603.
Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Jessica Churchyard said
“The contractor’s injuries were life-changing, and he could
have easily been killed.
“This serious incident could have been prevented had Daniel
Clarke undertaken the necessary safety checks to ensure it was
safe to commission the boiler. Companies should be aware
that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement
action against those that fall below the required standards.”
A tinplate printing company in Swansea has been fined after an
employee was seriously injured when working on a printing
press.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how on Monday 19 June 2017,
an employee was working at the company’s premises at Afon
Works, Bryntywod, Llangyfelach, Swansea, when he sustained
a serious crushing and de-gloving injury to his hand after he
became trapped between the rollers of the printing press,
whilst trying to rectify an intermittent fault.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found that the front guards electronic interlock device had
been defeated.
In addition, there was no risk assessment for fault finding on
the printing press and no safe system of work, including
providing suitable training for employees.
Tinmasters Swansea Limited, (previously known as Afon
Tinplate Company Limited at the time of the accident) of
pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974, was fined £29,000.00 and ordered to
pay costs of £1713.40.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lee Jones said: “This
injury was easily prevented, and the risk of injury should have
been identified. Employers should make sure they properly
assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the
risk from dangerous parts of machinery, especially during
maintenance and fault finding activities.”
Director and boiler-installation company fined after worker suffers serious burns Employee injured by machinery
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Buy this for
£135+vat and ...
get these too at
no extra cost.
• Fully IOSH approved
• No hidden costs
• Save time and
money studying
online
• No need to attend a
training centre or sit
in a classroom for 3
to 4 days
Fin
d o
ut
mo
re a
t: w
ww
.hsq
e.co
.uk
Special offer on IOSH Managing Safely
This newsletter is published
every month. You can get your
free copy by emailing us at
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Sanders Plant and Waste Management Limited have been
fined after an employee was fatally injured when he was struck
by a reversing JCB loading shovel.
The Crown Court heard that, on 15th June 2015, a wheeled
front-loading shovel was being operated in the main waste
processing shed at the company’s waste recycling facility in
Morpeth. The vehicle, driven by another employee, was
loading waste into both a trommel (a large waste separation
and sifting machine) and a parked haulage vehicle. During the
course of this operation the vehicle struck a site operative, Mr
George Richardson. Mr Richardson was fatally injured and died
at the scene from his injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found evidence of a lack of pedestrian and vehicle segregation
in the waste shed meaning that pedestrians and vehicles could
not circulate in a safe manner.
The company had carried out a risk assessment prior to the
incident that identified some control measures to reduce the
risks from operating the loading shovel and a Fork Lift Truck on
site. However, these control measures had not been fully
implemented nor were they sufficient to manage the risk of
collision between vehicles and pedestrians. There was also no
risk assessment or traffic management plan considering the
safe movement of vehicles across the site.
Sanders Plant and Waste Management Limited pleaded guilty
to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work
etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 with costs of £14,041.96.
A company that specialises in the design and manufacture of
aluminium access systems for the aviation industry has been
fined after an employee suffered serious injuries when using a
chop saw.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how on 21 October 2016, at
Aviramp Limited, Telford an employee was injured using a
chop saw.
The rotating blade of the chop saw came into contact with the
employee’s hand and it was severed.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found the company had failed to suitably and sufficiently
assess the risks from working on the chop saw, provide a safe
system of work, adequately maintain and guard the saw,
provide suitable information, instruction and training and
provide adequate supervision and monitoring.
Aviramp Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Company was
fined £50,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £5339.24.
Key lessons
• Assess the risks from work equipment
• Provide a safe system of work
• Adequately maintain and guard dangerous parts of work
equipment
• Provide suitable information, instruction and training
• Provide adequate supervision and monitoring
A Liverpool recycling company has been sentenced after one of
their employees, Paul Andrews, was fatally crushed by falling
plastic bales.
The Crown Court heard how, on 24 May 2017, waste plastic
bales had been delivered to Centriforce Products Limited’s site
in Liverpool and were stacked as free-standing columns in a
yard.
During the morning, a fork lift truck (FLT) driver noticed one of
the columns consisting of bales, stacked three high, had
partially collapsed obstructing his path. He subsequently used
the fork lift truck to straighten and stabilise the stack before
continuing on his way.
Some hours later Paul Andrews was working in the immediate
vicinity of the stack when it toppled, with the middle and top
bales, weighing over 500 kg, falling and crushing him. The
scene of the collapse was not discovered until nearly an hour
later when efforts to revive him failed.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found Centriforce Products Limited had failed to store waste
plastic bales securely in such a way as to prevent the risk of
collapse. The company had also failed to carry out a suitable
assessment which would have identified risks to the safety of
employees located within the danger zone of unstable stacks.
Centriforce Products Limited pleaded guilty to breaching
Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
and has been fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of
£10,540.95.
Waste management employee killed Worker crushed by falling bales Worker’s hand severed
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A window cleaning company has been sentenced for
safety breaches after a worker suffered bone
fractures following a fall through a fragile roof light.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 24 February
2016, three operatives were cleaning a 400-panel
solar array on the pig shed roof at Lingham Lane
Piggery, Dishforth.
The men had nearly finished the job when one of
them walked up the roof towards the apex. He was
not aware of the fragile roof light and walked on to it.
The roof light broke, and he fell more than seven
metres to the floor of the barn.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) found the company failed to ensure that the
risks from working at height had been minimised.
Premier Window Cleaners Ltd pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work
etc Act 1974.
The company was fined £6000 and ordered to pay
£819 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Rachel Brittain
commented: “This incident could so easily have been
avoided by carrying out correct control measures and
safe working practices.
“If the work had been carried out from an elevated
work platform with harnesses and lanyards, falls from
height would have been mitigated.”
Glamping Cocoon Ltd and its director were both sentenced for
failing to comply with health and safety legislation after being
served with Improvement Notices.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 20 March 2017, the
company was subject to an unannounced inspection as part of
a targeted campaign of the woodworking sector. Four
Improvement Notices were served requiring various matters to
be rectified within a certain time. Following three extensions
to the improvement notices, two notices remained
outstanding months after the expiry date despite HSE attempts
to work with the company to support improvements. The
Improvement Notice relating to the assessment of risk to
employees from exposure to noise remains outstanding.
Glamping Cocoon Ltd was found guilty of breaching Section 33
(1) (g) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The
company was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £ 5506 in costs
The director was found guilty of breaching Section 33 (1) (g) by
Section 37 (1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He
was fined £ 2640 and ordered to pay £ 5506 in costs.
HSE inspector Louise Redgrove said: “Failure to engage with
HSE exposes both employees and the business to risk. In this
case health risks to employees from noise were not assessed
or managed and the business will have to pay a substantial
fine. The Company and director should have taken on board all
the assistance available to them from HSE or obtained
competent advice elsewhere. HSE will assist small companies
but where there is a disregard for the law, specifically the
requirements of Improvement Notices, prosecution will be
sought.”
Company fined after a worker is injured falling through a roof light Company and director fined
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A Lincolnshire construction company has been sentenced after
an employee received serious injuries from falling through a
fragile roof.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how on 2 May 2017 an employee
of Foundations and Buildings Ltd was constructing the roof of a
new agricultural building adjacent to an existing barn in Louth,
Lincolnshire. While doing so he stepped onto the fragile roof of
the adjacent barn, fell five metres onto the concrete floor and
broke his back.
An investigation by the
Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) into the incident
revealed that the system of
work in use to control risks
from work at height was
fundamentally unsuitable.
It relied on workers wearing
harnesses to control the risk
of falling when it would
have been more
appropriate to use edge
protection or nets. In
addition to this the
investigation determined
that although harnesses had
been provided, in reality
their use was not enforced
by the company.
Foundations and Buildings Limited pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 4 (1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and
has been fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4814.04
HSE inspector Roy Poulter speaking after the case said:
“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 in the safe system of
working. If a suitable safe system of work had been in place
prior to the incident, the serious injuries sustained by the
employee could have been prevented.”
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has been fined
after refurbishment work undertaken in an accommodation
block at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital exposed Trust employees
and contractors to asbestos.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how in June 2012 Trust
employees were removing fixtures and fittings from the empty
flat when they disturbed asbestos containing materials (ACMs).
The Trust then failed to take adequate measures to deal with
the initial release of asbestos, exposing other contractors who
later worked in the flat.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found that the Trust did not properly record ACM on their
estate. The Trust had arrangements in place to manage
asbestos, however, the overall management plan for dealing
with asbestos was not recorded in a clear and concise manner
or effectively communicated to its employees and contractors
working on site.
The Trust had insufficient auditing procedures to ensure that
the arrangements contained in the policy and management
plan were fully implemented, working properly and effective.
The procedures in place upon the discovery of asbestos were
inadequate and the Trust failed to prevent re-entry into the
contaminated area by other workers.
Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust pleaded guilty to
two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and
fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £18,385.80.
Employee falls through roof NHS trust fined for asbestos failings
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Approved online health & safety courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Approved online health & safety courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Principal contractor, Weiser Construction Ltd and Complete
Cladding Systems Ltd, have both been sentenced for safety
breaches after a worker suffered life changing injuries.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how, on 4 January 2016, Brian
Robinson was working as a sheeter cladder at the Weiser
Construction site at the John Cotton factory in Mirfield, West
Yorkshire. He was on a factory roof affixing sheet metal
cladding and capping to the gable end of an adjoining building.
Whilst tying the cappings to the roof, Mr Robinson fell through
a roof light 9.7m into the active factory area below. He
suffered an open fracture to his femur and multiple fractures
to his pelvis. Mr Robinson underwent operations to insert six
pins into his pelvis, two pins to the top and two pins to the
bottom of his femur.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found the original scaffold that had been constructed on the
roof had been removed prior to cladding works being
completed.
Spandeck boards with guardrails were the preferred control
measure but use of these boards meant that workers could not
affix the handrails in situ.
No nets had been scheduled to be used in the area of the
factory and as Mr Robinson fell, the top half of his legs struck
the top of a storage cage, approximately 2.4m high, before
continuing his fall to the floor behind the storage cage.
Weiser Construction Ltd (now in liquidation) pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 3 (1)
of the Health & Safety
at Work etc Act 1974
and was fined £145,000
with £5,046.30 costs.
Complete Cladding
Systems Ltd pleaded
guilty to breaching
Section 3 (1) of the
Health & Safety at
Work etc Act 1074 and
was fined £165,000
with £5,114.49 costs
After the hearing, HSE
inspector Paul
Thompson commented:
“Work at height, such
as roof work, is a high-
risk activity that
accounts for a high
proportion of
workplace serious
injuries and fatalities
each year.
“This was a wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of
the principal contractor to manage and monitor the works to
ensure the correct work equipment was being used. This risk
was further amplified by the cladding company’s failure to
ensure suitable measures were in place to prevent persons
falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.”
Key lessons
• Risk assess all work at height
• Establish a safe system of work based on the risk
assessment
• Communicate the safe system of work to workers
Prosecution following worker’s fall from height
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A recycling company has been fined after a worker suffered
from a back injury after manually moving gantry steps.
The Crown Court heard how on, 10 September 2016, an
employee of Suez Recycling and Recovery Limited helped to
manually move steps weighing in excess of 950kg at a site in
Haslingden, after repair works had taken place. As a result of
this work, the employee sustained a back injury.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
found manually moving and realigning steps was a regular
occurrence and that employees would use a scaffold pole
under the steps to move them back into position.
Senior staff knew how the steps were moved and that
employees had concerns, as it had been reported, yet no
suitable assessment had been carried out, or safe system of
work implemented, to avoid hazardous handling. No
equipment or handling aids had been considered to help
employees manoeuvre the gantry steps.
Suez Recycling and Recovery Limited pleaded guilty to
breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety and Work Act
1974 and was fined £144,000 and ordered to pay costs of
£32,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Sharon Butler said:
“Incorrect manual handling is one of the most common causes
of injury at work. Those in control of work have a
responsibility to devise safe methods of working and to
provide the necessary equipment, information, instruction and
training to their workers.
The land and property arm of the Greater London Authority
has been fined for serious failings in safety management after
an advertising hoarding collapsed onto a man in front of his
wife and two children. The Crown Court heard how on 25
January 2014 the man suffered facial and skull injuries.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that
GLA Land Property LTD (GLAP) employed a company to
manage and maintain this site. The investigation found that
GLAP failed to oversee the contract properly, resulting in the
wall not being maintained. The wall developed a crack which
weakened, causing the hoarding to act like a sail in strong
winds, eventually leading to its collapse.
GLA Land and Property Ltd of Broadway, London, pleaded
guilty under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974 and was fined a total of £250,000 and ordered to pay
£ £14,653 in costs.
Recycling company fined for manual handling injury Wall collapses leads to fine
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have published 12 case
studies to highlight the learning points from incidents that
have occurred during demolition and refurbishment.
Some of the incidents resulted in death or serious injury and
others could easily have led to single or multiple casualties. In
all cases, even where there were no casualties, additional
commercial costs often exceeded any potential saving resulting
from shortcuts.
The HSE are urging contractors, firms and individuals to take a
look at some of the scenarios below and ask themselves if they
could mitigate for these common lapses in judgement or
process, and if not, then to review their own processes with a
particular focus on thorough planning, management and
control of demolition and refurbishment work.
Case Study 1 Failure to provide sufficient pre-demolition
information by client: A contract to demolish high rise
residential blocks built of large precast panels used a ground
based high reach demolition machine. The client provided little
information on the building structure to the contractor.
Structural connection between panels had been poorly
designed, poorly built and had deteriorated further during the
life of the building. Lack of adequate information (and lack of
adequate survey or assessment prior to work starting) led to a
premature collapse of multiple floors across several bays
during demolition works. Fortunately, because the high reach
machine was large enough, as was the exclusion zone, there
were no injuries. However, the project was substantially
delayed while the incident was investigated, and remedial
action taken. This type of building often needs panel
connections to be stiffened and floors propped to a formal
design prior to demolition.
Case Study 2 Contractor competence. Basement extension
work poorly designed and executed: A community building
used daily by a local playgroup had a new basement dug out by
tunnelling underneath the building across the full perimeter.
Support was provided by a couple of Acrows and the sides of
the excavation were not shored up while underpinning was
carried out in stages. The contractor believed he was working
in solid rock but in reality, it was loose shale. Emergency works
to prop the cavern and save the building made further work
extremely difficult. This caused the contractor to go out of
business. All excavations and especially where they are
beneath or close to existing structures need to be meticulously
designed and carried out which allows the cost of temporary
works to be factored in and understood from an early stage.
Case Study 3 Contractor competence. Approved sequence not
followed causing collapse: The method statement for
construction of a rear extension called for a new strip concrete
foundation along the full length of the existing property to be
installed in 1 metre sections, to avoid undermining existing
foundations. The builder decided it would be quicker to dig the
full length of the trench in one go. The existing building
collapsed into the excavation injuring several workers. The
method statement should have been followed but other types
of foundation could have been considered – including short
bored piles or pads and a ground level ring beam.
Case Study 4 Failure to correctly assess existing structure:
Demolition workers assessed the form of construction of a
single storey, concrete slab roofed building on the hoof and
decided that because the soffit was flat and unjointed that the
roof must have been cast in-situ and would be reinforced in
both directions. They punched a hole in one wall for plant
access and were working inside when several of the precast,
reinforced concrete roof planks hinged down killing one of
them. The punched hole had removed its bearing. The soffit
was smooth because it had been plastered with grey gypsum
and the roof felting masked the upper surface. Simple further
checks and clues would have revealed the form of
construction. Cast in-situ slabs are not necessarily fully
reinforced in both directions and in some cases suspended
slabs are not reinforced at all. Simple equipment is available to
check for the presence and direction of steel reinforcement.
Safe intrusive methods of checking are also available – such as
core drilling or limited breakout – e.g. from a tower scaffold.
Where possible, machine demolition from the ground and an
exclusion zone is preferred and where this isn’t possible
designed back-propping could have reduced the risk of
wholesale failure.
Case Study 5 Temporary load on existing structure not
assessed: Demolition temporary works design considered
mobile plant loadings on suspended reinforced concrete floor
slabs but did not consider the rubble ramps that the contractor
intended to use to allow plant to track down onto each floor in
turn. The contractor didn’t realise the rubble ramp hadn’t been
assessed. The floor became overloaded and collapsed
progressively taking out floors below resulting in fatal and
major injuries. Had the task been fully assessed the need for
back-propping or floor to floor transfer by crane would have
been obvious.
Case studies - structural stability during demolition and significant refurbishment work
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Case Study 6 Failure to consider implications of removing
cross walls: A large building was being converted into flats.
Neither the designer nor the contractor considered the effect
of alterations to the existing structure. All internal walls and
floors were removed in one go leaving the brick shell and roof
in place. The internal cross walls and floor joists had been
providing support to the external walls which were now too
long to resist wind loading without movement. The building
collapsed while the site was closed and before new walls and
floors could be installed. The permanent works designer should
have considered the effect of necessary demolition work. In
some cases, designing a phased sequence of installing new
walls and floors before removing old ones can be used to
ensure stability is maintained. An alternative approach is
formal design and installation of extensive temporary works to
provide support.
Case Study 7 Support provided by non-loadbearing elements:
A contractor took out some window frames from a masonry
building that they thought were non-structural. But they were
providing sufficient fortuitous support to hold up a gable wall
which collapsed causing other parts of the building to collapse.
Several people were killed and injured. Older buildings may
need a designed structural scaffold or steel frame to hold them
up while structural refurbishment is carried out.
Case Study 8 Load bearing elements removed during soft
strip: Timber sheathing panels were removed during soft
stripping of a timber frame building. No one had checked or
realised that the plywood panels were bracing the timber
frame. Once they were removed the building was no longer
stable. The building collapsed onto workers. A survey would
have identified the form of construction and the lack of
separate bracing.
Case Study 9 Agreed sequence not followed causing scaffold
collapse: A large sheeted scaffold screen incorporating access
platforms was designed and erected to encase a building. The
sheeting prevented dust and debris falling into surrounding
public areas while the building was demolished floor by floor.
The scaffold was meant to be dismantled as each floor was
demolished. It was not. Wind caused a sail effect that
overloaded ties into the building. These failed and the scaffold
collapsed onto a road. Fortunately, the Fire Service had been
called to reports of the scaffold moving and had been able to
evacuate the area so there were no casualties. Demolition
work should have been halted at the right stage until the
scaffold contractor had attended to reduce the height of the
scaffold.
Case Study 10 Existing structure overloaded by removed
materials: A refurbishment contractor created openings in
internal walls to a prepared design but stored the bricks on a
suspended timber floor for reuse. The floor became
overloaded and collapsed injuring several workers. In some
instances, materials can be stored close to point of use in order
to minimise manual handling. In other situations, this can
overload the structure. A temporary works engineer would
have been able to advise on how much load the floor could
take and how to place load to minimise risk.
Case Study 11 Designer instructions not clear & contractor too
keen: A building contractor was engaged to construct an
extension to an occupied home. The architect specified that
foundations should be dug down to competent ground and
then agreed with local Building Control. The contractor tried to
excavate foundation trenches but could not find competent
ground, so he excavated an unsupported foundation pit with
the intention of using formwork to create the strip foundation.
When he reached 4m depth he found competent ground. His
efforts to prop and stabilise a cast iron 250mm diameter live
water main that he found at the edge of his excavation were
haphazard but fortunately the main did not fail – if it had the
existing building shallow foundations would have been washed
out, adding to risk of rapid collapse of the occupied building.
The water supplier discovered what was going on and the
excavation was concrete filled as emergency works. The
architect should have been mindful that the building was
occupied and given a clearer specification. A soil survey could
have been commissioned to check conditions which would
have suggested a range of alternative foundation options. Risk
to residents, delays and high cost could have been avoided.
Case Study 12 Unchecked change to system of work caused
collapse: A cinema was being demolished and the workers
decided to speed up the job by toppling long span roof trusses
to the ground instead of lifting them down as per the method
statement. This caused a section of concrete roof slab to move
and topple the upper masonry storey which in turn pushed the
perimeter scaffold away from the building, so it overturned
and fell across a high street. Vehicles and members of the
public were trapped beneath it. It stopped just short of a
supermarket plate glass window completely blocking the road.
By sheer luck no fatalities or major injuries resulted. The
planned and designed sequence of work must always be
followed unless changes are fully assessed and agreed by the
design team.
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
A joinery company has been fined after two separate incidents
that led to workers’ fingers being amputated.
The Magistrates’ Court heard how employees of Flory Works
Ltd were injured in two separate incidents involving cutting
tools. One employee was injured while cutting timber on the
blade of an unstable sliding table saw in August 2017, and
suffered amputations to the middle and index fingers on his
right hand. A second incident occurred in September 2018,
where an apprentice joiner was feeding timber through a
Planer Thicknesser, and an insufficient guard caused the
planer’s blade to come into contact with the employee’s
finger, amputating it down to the first knuckle.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into
these incidents found that Flory Works Limited failed to ensure
effective measures were taken to prevent access to dangerous
parts of their machinery, and issued the company with three
Improvement Notices and a Prohibition Notice.
The company complied with the Prohibition Notice by making
the sliding table saw stable, but failed to comply with the
Improvement Notices within the given deadline. A further
extension to comply was granted, but again the company
failed to do so.
Flory Works Limited pleaded guilty to one breach of Section 2
(1), and three breaches of Section 33(1)G of the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974, and a breach under Section 11(1) of
the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
The company was fined a total of £10,600 and ordered to pay
costs of £2024.60.
Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Thomas Giles said “This
incident could easily have been prevented had the machinery
been properly maintained.
“Failings in health and safety management were reflected in
the general poor standards which were further compounded
by the company’s non-compliance with Improvement Notices
served by HSE.
“Awareness and management of health and safety, regardless
of the company size, is crucial to ensuring the safety of the
workforce.
“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take
appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below
the required standards.”
Detailed breakdown of fines:
• Breach under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work
Act: £5,000
• Three breaches under Section 33 (1) G of the Health and
Safety at Work Act: £200 (x3)
• Breach under Section 11(1) of the Provision and Use of
Work Equipment Regulations: £5,000
Company prosecuted after two workers suffer finger amputations
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
All our safeguarding
courses have been audited
and approved by the CPD
Certification Service.
Find out more at:
www.hsqe.co.uk/courses/
Find
ou
t mo
re at: ww
w.h
sqe.co
.uk
Approved online safeguarding courses 'Broken' care system for most vulnerable—report says
Patients with mental health problems,
autism and learning disabilities are being let
down by a "broken" care system, a report
warns.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) says it
knows of at least 62 adults and children that
have been living in segregation in mental
health hospitals for long periods of time.
The report presents the CQC's initial
findings on the use of long-term segregation
on mental health wards for children and
young people and wards for people with a
learning disability or autism.
The CQC has so far visited and assessed the
care of 39 people in segregation - most had
a diagnosis of autism.
The 62 cases identified (after contacting 89
registered care providers) include 20 young
people, some as young as 11. Many of the
patients had been placed in hospitals miles
away from home.
Some had spent years in hospital, separated
from other patients and staff. The most
common reason given was to keep other
patients safe or a belief the patient would
be unable to cope around others.
The CQC found some of the wards were not
suitable environments for people with
autism and many staff lacked the necessary
training and skills to work with patients with
complex needs and challenging behaviour.
Some of the hospitals visited had "features
of institutions that are at risk of developing
a closed and even punitive culture".
In the case of 26 of the 39 people, staff had
stopped attempting to reintegrate them
back in to the main ward environment,
usually because of concerns about violence
and aggression.
Often, a suitable alternative place of care,
such as a community placement, could not
be found.
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than
predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and
Antarctica.
The long-held view has been that the world's seas would rise
by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100. A new study,
based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be
around double that figure. This could lead to the displacement
of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.
The question of sea-level rise was one of the most
controversial issues raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), when it published its fifth assessment
report in 2013. It said the continued warming of the planet,
without major reductions in emissions, would see global
waters rising by between 52cm and 98cm by 2100.
The IPCC report in 2013 only
considered what is "likely" to
happen, which in scientific
terms means they looked at
17-83% of the range of
possibilities. This new study
looks at a broader range of
results, covering 5-95% of the
estimates.
For expected temperature
rises up to 2C, Greenland's ice
sheet remains the single
biggest contributor to sea-
level rise. But, if
temperatures go beyond that,
the much larger Antarctic ice sheets start to come into play.
According to the authors, this scenario would have huge
implications for the planet. They calculate that the world
would lose an area of land equal to 1.79 million square
kilometres.
Much of the land losses would be in important food growing
areas such as the delta of the Nile. Large swathes of
Bangladesh would be very difficult for people to continue to
live in. Major global cities, including London, New York and
Shanghai would be under threat.
The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists have put together a map of the UK's wasp
population, showing the distribution of key species. The
researchers say wasps are a much maligned insect, which
deserve more attention. Rather than being "bothersome and
pointless", they are in fact beneficial insects, keeping other
pests in check.
2,000 people took part in the project in late summer 2017,
sending in more than 6,000 wasp samples for identification.
The German wasp (Vespula germanica) and the common
yellowjacket wasp (Vespula vulgaris) were the most common
species (both representing 44%). The European hornet (Vespa
crabro) made up 6%, while two rarer species were also found.
The research is published in the journal, Insect Conservation
and Diversity, which is available from:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17524598
Scientists say that global sea level rise could be bigger than expected Why we should appreciate wasps
t: 0333 733 1111 | w: www.hsqe.co.uk | e: [email protected] | To subscribe to this newsletter email us at: [email protected] | © HSQE Ltd (2019)
May 2019
Approved online food safety and hygiene courses available at www.hsqe.co.uk
When you handle
food and need
awareness of food
safety & hygiene at
level 2
Manufacturing
When you do not
handle food, but
you need an
awareness of food
safety & hygiene
When you need to
know about the
dangers from food
allergens & what
you should do