Group Newsletter Issue 10 Volume 4 April 2013

1. Group Newsletter Issue 10 Volume 4 April 2013

2. Contents Group News Page 3 Exhibitions Information Page 4 Exhibitions report Page 6 SGUK News Page 7 HSE Information Page 8 Other stories/information Page 14

3. Group Info Please remember that if you are employed by an SME or are an individual wishing to do a NEBOSH Certificate then please contact us as some sponsorship may be available if you meet the criteria. Courses are provided either by SETA in Stockport or ACT Associates Please contact the Secretary for details cathy.nixon@mohsg.org.uk

4. Exhibition Information Please add these dates to your diary and consider visiting the shows . These shows are supported by Safety Groups UK

5. Other Exhibitions etc. The following additional Exhibitions are to be supported by Safety Groups UK with Mike and Cathy manning the stand. May 14 – 16 Safety Expo, NEC, Birmingham June 25 – SHE Show North West, Hilton Hotel, Blackpool Other local events taking place, though not supported by Safety Groups UK include 18 September – North West Regional Association Conference, Barton Grange Hotel, Barton, nr. Preston Exhibition enquiries to Mike Nixon on exhibition@nwra.org.uk Conference reservation enquiries to cathy.nixon@nwra.org.uk October South Cumbria Conference contact Martin Fishwick on mgfishwick@live.com

6. SGUKExhibitions report Mike and Cathy recently manned the stand at the Health and Safety Show at SECC, Glasgow, on 17 and 18 April. Jointly with the team from ScoS we had almost 100 visitors over the two days. Thanks are given to Tim Else and his team for providing us with an excellent stand and any support necessary over the two days. The following week Mike and Cathy were at the SHE Show in Milton Keynes where a successful day was enjoyed. Thanks to Vicki Washington and her team for providing stand space. Our next exhibition will be Safety and Health Expo at the NEC from 14 – 16 May.

7. SGUKInfo Discounts available through SGUK Please remember if you work for a small company, or Consultant, who perhaps do not receive a discount at Arco to request a Safety Groups UK card which gives 15% off in Arco shops only (not online). You must produce a card to obtain the discount. (only available to members). Members 15% Exclusive discount Safety Groups UK has negotiated corporate benefits for Group members. ACT is working with Safety Groups UK to provide an exclusive discount to all Safety Groups UK members. ACT offer an exclusive 15% discount off the list price of any product or service to all Safety Groups UK members. ACT is established as a high quality single point solutions provider of auditing, consultancy and training services. We have evolved into an integrated provider of all learning solutions including conventional, e-learning and blended learning options. Obtaining the 15% discount Call ACT on 01384 447915 E-mail – actsales@actassociates.co.uk Quote ACTSG12 For more info on our products and services go to www.actassociates.co.uk

8. HSE Info New online guidance makes it easier to understand health surveillance New online guidance has been launched to make it easier for employers to understand what they need to do to check and protect their workers' health. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published new guidelines on health surveillance, which may be needed if there is a risk that workers could be exposed to chemicals or other hazardous substances likely to harm their health. Developed with industry, the clear and simple guidance makes it easier for employers to decide whether their workers need health surveillance, how to go about it and how to use the results. The guidance also makes it clearer when action is not needed, saving lower-risk businesses, such as those that are office- based, from wasting time and money. Past exposure to harmful substances at work is responsible for an estimated 12,000 deaths each year. Paul Beaumont, HSE's policy lead for health surveillance, said: "We know from our work with industry that some businesses can be unclear about when health surveillance is needed and how to implement it, so are deterred from taking action. "Other companies could be wasting money unnecessarily by implementing it where it's not needed. "This new guidance, developed with industry, should help take any mystery away and give employers the confidence to know whether or not health surveillance is appropriate. "Ultimately, better targeted health surveillance can lead to a healthier workforce and a more productive business.“ The new online guidance replaces HSG61 "Health Surveillance at Work". It can be found online at http://www.hse.gov.uk/health-surveillance/index.htm

9. Grain milling firm fined after worker's fingertips severed A Northamptonshire grain firm has been fined after an employee lost three fingers and a thumb on the blades of a running mixer. Roman Banach, 49, who lives in Wellingborough, was reaching into the chute of a mixer at Genteel Associates Limited in Wellingborough on 16 August 2011 when he touched unguarded blades and severed all but one finger on his right hand up to the first joint. He still experiences pain and has been unable to return to work. Wellingborough Magistrates' Court heard today (26 March) that Genteel Associates failed to adequately guard the mixer to restrict access to dangerous moving parts. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also identified guarding problems with two other machines, which resulted in Prohibition Notices being served on all three to place them out of bounds until they were made safe. HSE also served four Improvement Notices. The first was because the company had no system of checking that guards were in place. The second required them to get competent health and safety advice. The third was because employees were not being protected from the risks arising from grain dust, which is a known to induce asthma. A final Notice was because they were not protecting employees from the risks of noise in the workplace. Genteel Associates Limited, of Lloyd Close, Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Wellingborough, was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay £12,776 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Elizabeth Hornsby said: "Health and safety isn't about paperwork, it is about recognising and controlling very real risks - whatever the size of your company. "Genteel Associates has now taken the necessary action to comply with all the Notices served on them, and has improved standards as a result. However, it took a serious incident and an extremely painful injury to an employee for the company to start identifying and controlling the risks in their business. Had this happened sooner, the incident could have been avoided." For information and advice about working safely with machinery, visit www.hse.gov.uk/manufacturing.

10. International chemical firm prosecuted over multiple incidents An international chemical firm has been fined more than £100,000 after workers were put in danger in three separate incidents at its Cheshire factory. One employee at Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd’s plant in Northwich suffered severe burns to his right foot which removed a layer of skin and required 18 months of treatment. Another worker was injured when the metal grating he was walking on gave way five floors up, and employees were also put at risk when high levels of carbon monoxide were released into the former Brunner Mond plant. Tata Chemicals was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following an investigation into the incidents at the Winnington Lane site, all of which occurred during 2010. Chester Crown Court was told today (10 April 2013) that the first incident happened on 29 January 2010 when a worker was trying to reach a pump to restart it when his right foot went through a missing part of the grating. He was exposed to a toxic liquid at a temperature of approximately 95 degrees Celsius when his foot entered the sump below, which is used to collect overflowing chemicals. The second incident occurred six months later, on 25 July 2010, when a dangerous gas was released, resulting in high levels of carbon monoxide being present in the area of the plant where employees were working. An investigation into the incident found employees had not been given sufficient practical training for the work activity that caused the gas leak, and the emergency procedures at the plant were inadequate. The final incident took place on 21 November 2010 when part of the gantry a worker was walking along gave way as the metal grating under his feet had become badly corroded. He escaped with minor injuries after landing on a scaffolding board on the walkway below. When a HSE inspector visited the factory, she discovered the company had failed to report another part of the grating on the same walkway collapsing two days before the incident on 21 November. Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd, which is part of the global Tata group, pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of workers. The company also admitted two breaches of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 after it failed to report the two walkway collapses in November 2010 as soon as possible, despite this being a legal requirement.

11. Draft guidance published ahead of regulation changes A review, commissioned by the Government and chaired by Professor Ragnar E Löfstedt recommended that "The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 should be amended to remove the requirement for HSE to approve the training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel." Professor Löfstedt’s suggestion was that the current HSE approval process went beyond the minimum requirement laid out in EU legislation. Impact of the proposed changes Removing the HSE approval process will give businesses greater flexibility to choose a training provider and first aid training that is right for their work place, and based on their individual business needs. The provider will be required to meet a certain standard, set by HSE. The legal requirement for employers to ensure they have an adequate number of suitably trained first aiders (or appointed persons) in accordance with their first aid needs assessment will remain unchanged. Consultation and draft guidance for businesses Following public consultation, HSE is working towards implementing the necessary changes, subject to HSE Board and Parliamentary approval. The anticipated changes to the Regulations are expected in October 2013. HSE has used the responses to the recent consultation exercise to shape three draft guidance documents that reflect the proposed changes in the regulations and the arrangements necessary to put adequate first aid provision in place. The first guidance document will help businesses to make an assessment of the first aid requirements within their specific workplace and to put the necessary provisions and competent personnel in place. The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 and guidance The second guidance document will help businesses select an appropriate first aid training provider to deliver their training requirements within the new system. Selecting a first-aid training provider A third document presents example first aid needs assessment scenarios that will help to demonstrate to employers from all sectors the factors that they need to consider to ensure they fully understand their first aid needs and put in place appropriate arrangements in order to comply with the law. First-aid needs assessment case studies Next steps and feedback Businesses are not required to take any action until the new regulations come into force, but in the mean time HSE would like to know what you thought of the draft guidance documents. Any comments or suggestions can be sent to firstaidconsultation@hse.gsi.gov.uk Please mark any mail ‘Guidance Comments’. Employers are reminded that until the necessary legislative changes take effect that the existing law continues to apply - all first aid training for the purposes of first aid at work provision must be carried out by an HSE approved training provider or a training centre for an Ofqual accredited awarding organisation supported by HSE to deliver such training (these are listed on the HSE first aid web pages). Similarly, the current edition of L74, ‘First Aid at Work’ (Approved Code of Practice and Guidance) will remain valid and in force until new legislation and associated guidance takes effect.

12. Knowsley cable firm fined over severe electric shock A cable manufacturer has been fined after an employee suffered a severe electric shock at its factory in Knowsley. Medics had to resuscitate the worker on the way to hospital when his heart stopped beating as the result of a cardiac arrest. He also sustained serious burns to his arms and hands. Tratos Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) today (25 April 2013) after an investigation found the safety lock on the entrance to a high-voltage testing area at the factory had been removed. Liverpool Magistrates’ Court was told the 28-year-old, from Hindley near Wigan, who does not wish to be named, had been working in an area of the factory used to test cables at voltages of up to 2,000 volts. However workers at the factory had been struggling to shut the door leading to the testing pen after one of the hinges became damaged. They altered the locking mechanism for the door which tricked the safety system into believing it was locked shut. This meant power could be applied to the pen with the door still open. The worker suffered a severe electric shock when he disturbed one of the cables in the testing pen while a current was being fed through it. Tratos Ltd, of School Lane, Knowlsley, was fined £15,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. The company was also ordered to pay £4,206 in prosecution costs. Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Bruce Jones said: "Workers shouldn’t have been able to gain access to the testing pen while electricity was being fed through the cables, but the safety system that prevents this from happening was overridden. "Tratos Ltd’s employees hadn’t been given any information or training on what to do if the testing pen became damaged, and decided to remove the safety mechanism in the door so that they could continue to test cables. "The company should have ensured that effective health and safety management was in place not only to provide adequate supervision but also safe working procedures for employees to follow. Had this happened, the life-threatening injuries suffered by an employee could have been avoided.“ Information on electrical safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/electricity.

13. Halifax firm's failings put teenager in hospital A West Yorkshire company has been prosecuted for breaching safely law after a 1.5 tonne pallet toppled on to a teenage worker, trapping him by the legs. Halifax Magistrates heard today (26 April) that the 18-year-old warehouse worker suffered a broken leg in the incident at THS Industrial Textiles Ltd, Heathfield Business Park, in Elland on 16 March 2011. The man, who lives in Halifax but does not wish to be named, was in hospital for three days and has since recovered and found a job elsewhere. The injury prompted an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which brought the prosecution against the company after uncovering a series of safety failings. The court was told the employee was inside a container unloading pallets when a double-stacked pallet fell over. HSE found THS Industrial Textiles had operated a dangerous system of work for unloading the pallets for a considerable time and failed to provide workers with the right equipment to do the job safely. The pallets were being dragged by workers using straps across the container floor to get them closer to the doors so they could be lifted off by a forklift truck. They were also being dragged on the end of the forks to get them closer to the doors. In addition the truck, which didn’t have a valid lifting certificate at the time of the incident, was carrying pallets that were heavier than its capacity. Another worker had warned the firm before the incident that the forklift was being used to lift loads that were too heavy, but this had been ignored. THS Industrial Textiles was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £4,994 in full costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. After the hearing, HSE Inspector David Welsh said: "A young worker suffered a serious injury that could have been far worse as a result of this company’s numerous failures. This was not an isolated breach as it was clear these unloading operations had been taking place in an unsafe manner for some time. "THS Industrial Textiles was very poor at assessing and managing risks arising from this work, despite its dangers being well recognised within the industry. "Unloading pallets appears to be a simple operation but it needs to be planned carefully, workers need the right equipment for each kind of unloading task, and the employer needs to actively supervise them." For advice on safe lifting, visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/planning-organising-lifting-operations.htm

14. The following Stories courtesy of SHP Six-digit fine for power-press incident A packaging firm has been fined £200,000 after a worker severed fingers on both hands when they became trapped in a machine at a factory in Whitehaven.The 25-year-old man, who doesn’t want to be named, was working at Smurfit Kappa UK Ltd’s site at Richmond Works in Hensingham when the incident took place, on 14 September 2010.He was operating a power press, which exerts forces up to 35 tonnes, to stamp out metal lids that are used at either end of cardboard tubes in packaging for whisky bottles. He was changing the part of the machine used to produce lids and when he reached under the pressing tool to remove a lid, it stamped down on his hands.The machine completely severed the little and ring fingers on his left hand and the ring and middle fingers on his right hand, while the little and index fingers on his right hand were severed down to the second knuckle. He was unable to return to work for 10 months owing to his injuries.The HSE investigated the incident and learned the worker’s supervisor had left the company four months before the incident and the employees who took over the role had not received suitable training. The investigation also found there wasn’t an adequate risk assessment in place for the work, and the injured worker had not been given sufficient training.HSE inspector Andrew Jewitt said: “The man now struggles with everyday activities, like writing and cutting up food, which most of us take for granted.“The risk of serious injury from power presses is well known in the manufacturing industry, and the worker's injuries could have been avoided if Smurfit Kappa had made sure he and his supervisors had been properly trained.” Smurfit Kappa UK Ltd appeared at Carlisle Crown Court on 21 March and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay £19,308 in costs.

15. Apprentice breaks back in scaffold fall A teenage apprentice broke his back in two places when he fell from a scaffold at a construction site.Harris Scaffolding Ltd had erected a scaffold at the site in Stourport-on-Severn in Worcestershire. On 16 November 2011, the firm was called back to the site to make modifications to the scaffold, by creating working platforms at each corner so roofers could install rainwater downpipes.The company sent an 18-year-old apprentice and a more experienced colleague to carry out the work. Although only having signed up to a scaffolding apprentice programme just five weeks earlier, the teenager was allowed to carry out the work unsupervised. His colleague hadn’t erected a scaffold for more than 15 years and received no refresher training.There were no boards or guardrails in the areas where the apprentice was working, and he hadn’t been provided with a harness. He gained access to the areas via an unsuitable ladder and also by climbing on the outside of the scaffold. At times, he stood on a single-width scaffold board, or directly on tubing.He was standing on the platform when he fell more than three metres to the ground. He fractured two vertebrae and subsequently needed to wear a back brace for a number of weeks. He was unable to return to work for three months owing to his injuries.The HSE visited the site on the same day and issued a Prohibition Notice to Harris Scaffolding for failing to implement a safe system of work. HSE inspector Luke Messenger explained the work hadn’t been adequately planned, supervised, or carried out. He said: “In this case the company fell well below accepted standards and a trainee was badly injured as a result. It was lucky his career wasn't ended before it had properly begun. “This case should serve as a reminder to all those involved in work at height of the need to ensure that work is properly planned and carried out safely. Employers are responsible for ensuring that their staff have the right equipment, that safe operating procedures are in place, and that persons carrying out work at height have the right training and supervision.”Harris Scaffolding appeared at Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court on 22 March and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £6156 in costs.

16. Catalogue of safety failures lands developer and site manager in dock The owner of a former brewery in Staffordshire and a sub-contractor have admitted multiple safety failings during a refurbishment at the site.In January 2010 a member of the public contacted the HSE to notify it that asbestos had been removed and walled up in the basement of the premises in Station Street, Burton upon Trent.The HSE visited the site and significant areas of the building had been contaminated during the work. The owner of the site, Optima (Cambridge) Ltd, was the principal contractor for the refurbishment of the building into commercial units. The company sub-contracted self-employed Dominik Jaslowski to act as site manager.The Executive issued a Direction to Leave Undisturbed to Optima, and a licensed asbestos-removal contractor later cleared more than 27 tonnes of the hazardous substance from the site. The clear-up was completed in June 2010 and the refurbishment work restarted two months later. On 5 November 2010, the HSE was informed a worker at the site had been diagnosed with Legionnaire’s Disease, after workers had been using the building as overnight accommodation.The HSE and Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service visited the site and found there was no fire-safety risk assessment, inadequate fire alarms and detection systems, escape routes were obstructed, inadequate signage for emergency exits, no emergency lighting, and insufficient evacuation procedures.During the visit, the HSE also discovered four large holes had been cut into the first and second floors, and there were no adequate measures in place to cover the voids to prevent falls. The company had also failed to monitor the temperature of water systems in the building.

17. Story continues Optima and Jaslowski were each issued two Prohibition Notices, which prevented the building from being used as overnight accommodation and halted further construction work. Optima was also issued an additional Prohibition Notice to prevent the further use of the hot-water system and showers.Optima (Cambridge) Ltd appeared at Burton upon Trent Magistrates’ Court on 28 March and pleaded guilty to breaching: s3(1) of the HSWA 1974; reg.9(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007; reg.41 of the same Regulations, for failing to provide adequate fire-fighting equipment and fire-detection systems; reg.6(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, for failing to carry out a risk assessment; reg.8(1) of the same Regulations, for not holding a licence to remove asbestos; reg.6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005; and reg.7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, for failing to control exposure to legionella. 
It was fined a total of £63,000 and ordered to pay £16,000 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it completed the work safely after cooperating with the HSE and engaging a new health and safety consultancy. Jaslowski pleaded guilty on two counts of breaching reg.13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. He was given a three-month prison sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, suspended for 12 months. He was ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid community service and pay £3500 in costs.He told the court he had no previous convictions and deeply regretted the safety failings.

18. Story courtesy of RoSPA COUNT ON RoSPA’S NEW SAFETY GUIDE WHEN BUYING SECOND-HAND GOODS As the slow economic recovery continues, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has launched an online safety guide to buying second-hand goods.  Highlighting risks involved with buying used products from websites, pawn shops, car boots or charity shops, the guide includes advice on electrical household items, power tools, furniture, gas products and toys.  RoSPA’s guide to buying second-hand goods also warns never to buy child car seats or cycling helmets and other protective headgear without knowing the full history of the product and, most importantly, whether it has been involved in an accident. That is because these are “one-hit” items that can lose their protective value if the internal structure is damaged through being subjected to a collision or by simply dropping them on the floor.  Sheila Merrill, RoSPA’s public health adviser, said: “It feels great to pick up a bargain in a charity shop or at a car boot sale and a lot of families are turning to second-hand goods in the current economic climate.  “But RoSPA wants people to be aware of the additional risks involved. Buying a product second-hand is never as safe as purchasing something new. The main issue with second-hand goods is that people often don’t have the full packaging and instructions, or know the product’s full history.  “This guide is aimed at all kinds of people. Some may have fallen on hard times and be buying second-hand goods for the first time, others may be students who are trying to make their savings go that little bit further. It is an aid to help people make the best and safest choice of what is available.”  Guidance includes checking that electrical items, such as irons, and hair straighteners, do not have loose wires or other defects with a PAT (Portable Appliance Testing) test; looking for fire labels on furniture; and finding instructions on manufacturers’ websites for power tools and other equipment.  In regards to toys, parents are reminded to always look for a CE Mark, which indicates that the product complies with European safety requirements, and to consider the wear and tear of the product as loose parts can be a choking hazard, particularly to children under 36 months.  The risks are very real when you consider the most recent fire statistics for Great Britain; in 2011/12, there were 979 house fires in which upholstered furniture was mainly responsible for the development of the fire and a further 928 blazes in which mattresses or beds were primarily responsible for fire development - leading to 71 deaths between them.    In addition, 3,461 people were admitted to hospital after accidents involving household machinery and other powered hand tools in England in 2011/12.    For advice and tips on buying second-hand goods, visit: www.rospa.com/homesafety/adviceandinformation/product/secondhand-goods.aspx

19. Story courtesy of HSM magazine BOHS welcomes RIDDOR reversal The BOHS (British Occupational Hygiene Society) has welcomed the HSE's (Health & Safety Executive) decision to retain the need for employers and duty holders to continue to report occupational cancers, diseases attributable to biological agents and six short-latency diseases in the workplace. The HSE had initially proposed to remove this requirement but after a public consultation exercise has decided to change its decision. Reform of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) initially arose from the HSE’s 'fundamental review' of the regulations, which was recommended by the Young Review in 2010 and endorsed by the Lofstedt Review in 2011. A formal public consultation took place between August and November 2012. In response to the public consultation, BOHS as The Chartered Society for Worker Health Protection, set out three main areas why reporting occupational diseases such as occupational cancer should remain a key part of RIDDOR. The three main areas of concern were: 1. Lack of surveillance data for epidemiological purposes If employers and duty holders did not have to report incidents of occupational disease there would have been no data available and therefore no real understanding of the number of people exposed to dangerous working environments. Existing data reveals that 500,000 new work-related illnesses occur each year which ultimately costs the economy £8.2bn annually. Even with its limitations, without RIDDOR disease data, fighting for healthier working environments, which all workers deserve, is harder. 2. Lack of intelligence for HSE inspection Removing the requirement to report occupational diseases would have left the HSE without valuable information for HSE inspections. As industry changes, so does the incidence of disease and HSE would have had no data to see this happening. Most disease has a long latency which slows down the intervention and control process. Removing the requirement to report disease would have slowed the process even more. Not all occupational disease has a long latency e.g. dermatitis, and even when it does have a long latency, the reporting of a single case in a workplace indicates that other workers are probably being exposed. Interventions at this stage can still prevent future cases.

20. Story continues 3. Sending a message to Industry about priorities The removal of the requirement to report diseases would have sent an incorrect message to industry about how HSE perceives its importance. There could have been a perception in some industries that if they were not required to report then the risks do not require controlling. If occupational diseases were no longer required to be reported then industry would have been even less inclined to undertake health surveillance. Commenting on the HSEs announcement, Steve Perkins, BOHS chief executive, said: ÒBOHS welcomes HSEÕs decision to retain the requirement to report occupational cancers, diseases attributable to biological agents and six short-latency diseases (hand-arm vibration syndrome, dermatitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, severe cramp of the arm, tendonitis and occupational asthma). These account for 90% of all ill-health RIDDOR reports to the HSE. It is therefore important these are retained under RIDDOR reporting requirements

21. Story courtesy of Safety Management UK Roofer Fined £21 Million A South Wales roofing firm is negotiating with claimants after being ordered to pay more than £21 million in damages for its part in a fire that devastated a West Midlands factory. The High Court in London heard on 25 February that Bridgend roofer Central Roofing (South Wales) had been contracted to refurbish the roof of a factory near Wolverhampton operated by copper tube manufacturer Mueller Europe. The contractor had erected a suspended "birdcage" scaffold to work on the roof, which was boarded and sheeted with combustible materials and enclosed two suspended gas-powered radiant heaters, used to heat the factory. When the heaters were turned on in the early morning of 9 November 2008, they set the flammable scaffold alight, sparking a huge fire that caused part of the roof to collapse and triggered massive damage to the fabric and contents of the factory. BBC News reported that the judge, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith, said the heaters were an "obvious fire hazard" that should have been picked up. He said that although Mueller should have made sure the enclosed heaters were switched off, Central Roofing bore the primary responsibility to carry out the work safely and to point out the obvious hazard. He noted that there had been three previous incidents when heaters were switched on when they should not have been. The judge said: "Central continued to take no steps to carry out the works safely when they knew that Mueller was not routinely isolating [the heaters] and the failure to isolate had already caused near misses". He ruled Central liable to pay Mueller a total of £21,357,889 in compensation for the damage to the factory, its contents, machinery, and equipment and for the interruption of its business. Source: IFSEC

22. Courtesy of BBC News Irlam gas blast: Gas fitter admits breaking safety regulations A gas fitter has admitted breaching safety laws after an explosion which destroyed three homes, damaged 200 more and critically injured a woman. Sixteen people were hurt in the blast in Merlin Road in Salford in November 2010, including Marie Burns, 73, who remained in hospital for months. At Manchester Crown Court Minshull Street, Paul Kay, 31, of Slater Street, Warrington, admitted a charge under the Gas Safety Act. He will be sentenced later. Kay had been carrying out renovation work on 1 November, the day before the blast, as part of a project to install new kitchens in several houses on the estate. Saw a flash Mrs Burns, who lived at the house in Irlam where the explosion happened, suffered 30% burns and remained in hospital for several months afterwards. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said Mrs Burns went downstairs to make her breakfast at about 07:15 BST on the day of the explosion and turned her gas oven on. The next thing she remembered was seeing a flash to the left of the cooker as her house exploded around her. Her home has since been rebuilt. No company or any other individual faces action in connection with the blast.