Contractor Bedford Transmissions Limited has been fined after a man fell from height and was seriously injured at a food factory.

Bedford Transmissions Limited, trading as BT Lerson, had been contracted by Veetee Rice to move and replace machinery within their factory in Rochester.

On 17 August 2020, an employee of Veetee Rice, stood on an unsecured metal plate left in place by BT Lerson the evening before and fell a height of approximately 2.5metres.

The employee’s spine and pelvis were damaged in several places which required a lengthy stay in hospital and meant that he was unable to return to work for several months.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that BT Lerson did not properly plan, appropriately supervise, or ensure that the work was carried out safely. BT Lerson failed to identify the fall from height risk and necessary controls in their planning and did not take account of Veetee Rice’s employees who were working in the area.

In the lead up to the incident, BT Lerson worked over the top of the hole where the employee of Veetee Rice fell, with no suitable measures to prevent falls of their own workers. BT Lerson then left the factory site with 2 unsecured aluminium plates covering the 2.5 metre drop with only plastic barrier tape marking the area.

That night, the employee was cleaning the work area when he stood on the unsecured metal plates and fell through.

At Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on October 10, Bedford Transmissions Limited pleaded guilty for a breach of Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. They were fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,194.32.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Peter Bruce said: “This incident could have easily been avoided if Bedford Transmissions had properly supervised and planned this work, to ensure that the work was carried out so far as is reasonably practicable safely.

“Working at height remains one of the biggest causes of fatalities and major injuries. In 2021/22, falls from height accounted for 29 fatal injuries in the workplace.

“It is important that companies properly plan the work they are undertaking at height putting in place measures to protect their own employees as well as others who have access to their work area. It is also important that, when working at an external premise, employers work together and communicate how a site will be left and whether additional measures are needed.”

A refrigeration company has been fined £27,000 after a worker sustained significant injuries when he fell from an incomplete gantry.

GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd was replacing a cooler unit located on a gantry 10m above the warehouse floor at an Iceland depot in Swindon on 1 February 2017.

This required a section of the gantry floor to be removed. A GEA employee fell 2.5 metres through the gap created by this removal and on to a cherry picker, suffering fractured ribs and internal injuries.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to properly plan, co-ordinate and supervise the work, including the removal of the gantry floor to ensure the work was carried out in a safe manner to control the risks of falls.

GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd, of Ludgate Hill, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2015, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay £35,000 costs and a victim surcharge of £170 at Bristol Crown Court on 30 September 2022.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Leo Diez said: “This incident could have been avoided by identifying and implementing effective control measures and safe working practices.

“Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related injury and fatalities and the risks associated with working at height are well known.”

In his victim personal statement, the injured worker said: “The effect of the accident on my personal and work life has been huge and has had a lasting effect.”

BFFF were recently asked to help a member company spec out a new Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) system for extracting ingredient dust. On speaking to other member companies to gain a collective view we discovered a potential legal loop hole. This loop hole could result in some companies having through examinations which do not meet legal requirements therefore being exposed to prosecution and litigation.

Something to note and not known by many is that when LEV thorough examinations are carried out by an insurance engineer/competent person, if there is no commissioning report or logbook, they won’t be able to complete the checks as required by the Control of Hazardous Substance Regulations (CoSHH). The commissioning report will state the ‘draw’ of the LEV required in set points to adequately control the substances extracted.  If the insurance inspector does not have the correct readings, they don’t have anything to compare current readings against. They will then use general estimates which means it does not comply with CoSHH. These estimates are normally recorded on the certificate of thorough examination/report in very small writing therefore companies are paying for something they are not receiving.

We encourage all members to check exiting certificates of thorough examination for LEV’s to ensure readings have been compared with actual draw requirements stated in commissioning report.

It is crucial to ensure:

• Suppliers completing thorough examinations on LEV competent,
• Commissioning reports and logbooks are made available for those completing the thorough examination, this to enable them to check the performance against the requirements of CoSHH.

The HSE’s guidance HSG 258 for LEV systems can be downloaded from the below link:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg258.htm

With any types of chemicals, the hierarchy of risk control is considered and control measures are put into place.

With many sites in our industry using Ammonia, controls such as alarms and ventilation are used to mitigate the risks. PPE is the last resort such as breathing apparatus.

A member recently contacted us with a scenario for those wearing contact lenses in a role of higher risk such as maintenance workers/contractors,

In the event of exposure contact lenses would need to be removed very quickly to maximise treatment and minimising the potential affects. This delay in removing contact lenses (eye muscles tense) in the event of a leak could significantly impair first aid treatment (irrigation).

What does the Material Data sheet (MSDS) state for Ammonia?

Ammonia MSDS

• Hazard H314: Causes severe skin burns and eye damage,
• Precautions: Rinse the eye with water immediately. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do Continue rinsing. Flush thoroughly with water for at least 15 minutes. Get immediate medical assistance. If medical assistance is not immediately available, flush an additional 15 minutes.
• PPE: Wear eye protection to EN 166 when using gases.

Key considerations

Your current emergency procedures may not contain guidance for treatment for Ammonia exposure especially for Maintenance workers and contractors potentially at higher risk of exposure.

• First aid employees may not be aware of this scenario
• Risk assessments for maintenance workers and those supplied by contractors may not identify this risk or EN166 goggles
• Would your first aid personal be trained and aware of this contact lens scenario?