HSE slams firms for ‘not taking legionella risk seriously’ - incourt-content | SHP - Safety and Health Practitioner

HSE slams firms for ‘not taking legionella risk seriously’

30 June 2011

Two companies must pay more than £250,000 in fines and costs for exposing workers and members of the public to legionella bacteria.

In April 2006, the HSE visited automotive-parts manufacturer Eaton Ltd’s factory in Tamworth, Staffordshire, after being notified by the Health Protection Agency that a worker at the site had contracted Legionnaires’ disease. The victim later died from the illness.



The investigation found that Eaton Ltd has contracted Aegis Ltd to provide water-treatment services for water-cooling systems on plastic moulding machines, which were used in manufacturing processes. Aegis was responsible for cleaning the machine and checking that the correct level of diocide was added to the water to supress microbiological activity in the system. But this procedure was not properly monitored and inconsistent levels of the chemical were added to the water, meaning an unsafe level of legionella bacterium was present in the system.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard that Eaton Ltd did not have a comprehensive risk assessment in place to ensure that the system was properly cleaned and maintained. The water towers on the system needed to be taken apart every six months to clear out sludge and sediment, but this had not been done for more than two years prior to the HSE’s visit.



The HSE also found that both companies had failed to identify that the system’s drift minimisers were damaged, which meant that aerosol containing legionella was able to escape from the tower. It issued an Improvement Notice to Eaton Ltd requiring it to carry out a fresh risk assessment, and to immediately clean and disinfect the water towers.



HSE inspector Paul Billinger explained that Eaton Ltd had not trained employees on the risks associated with using the system and, as a result, staff failed to properly monitor that Aegis Ltd was regularly cleaning the system and that the water was being properly treated.

He said: “Neither Eaton Ltd nor Aegis Ltd, which was specifically contracted to manage the water system, took the legionella risk seriously. They failed to deal with their own risk assessment and service agreement in respect of cleaning the system. These were persistent and systemic failures, which put people's health at risk.

"

The investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence of any link between the activity undertaken by Eaton Ltd and the death of its employee.

Eaton Ltd appeared in court on 28 June and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA and was fined £40,000 for each offence, plus £45,000 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it has appointed a person to oversee the management of the water-cooling system and has provided training for staff. It appointed a new contractor to provide water-treatment services, and it complied with the HSE’s enforcement notice.



Aegis Ltd was found guilty in its absence at a trial in May for breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was sentenced at the same hearing as Eaton Ltd. It was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £80,000 costs.

The company was voluntarily wound up but the HSE intervened to stop it from being struck off as a registered company in order to bring the prosecution.

Following the hearing, inspector Billinger said: “It is vital that companies who use water cooling treatment as part of their manufacturing processes have plans in place to make sure the level of legionella bacteria in their systems does not become unsafe.

“Legionnaires' disease is a potentially fatal form of pneumonia, which can affect anyone coming into contact with it.”


     
Tell A Colleague RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Malcolm Fryer
Once again we are reminded of how serious the threat of Legionnaires’ disease is especially where Evaporative “Wet Systems” cooling systems are in use.

Many of us will be reminded of the Forum 28 case relating to the arts centre in Barrow-in-Furness which whilst involving a different set of circumstances revealed the potential for multiple fatalities and infections.

Posted on 06/07/11 09:01.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Malcolm Fryer
Whilst the investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence of any link between the activity undertaken by Eaton Ltd and the death of its employee this is a tragic loss for the family of their employee. Had the link been established then the directors and senior managers from both Eaton and Aegis would have had to face a possible Gross Negligence Manslaughter charge if could be proved that this had been due to their act or omission.

Posted on 06/07/11 09:01.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Malcolm Fryer
Whilst the senior management of Eaton will have been aware of the importance of contractor management and acted accordingly this case should act as a reminder to others outside our profession that it is not possible to contract out liability for health and safety and the potential threat.

Whilst Aegis Ltd may have apparently been wound up there is a web presence and active phone number for a very similar sounding company in a similar location which may be of concern.

Posted on 06/07/11 09:01.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Malcolm Fryer
Most organisations will not have the expertise to manage this issue so contract out. However there is a need to have conducted a S & S legionella COSHH risk assessment which would require understanding of the L8 ACOP & guidance. They should then be able to check the contractor’s assessment.

You can see that the original standards of reporting of this article could have been a great deal better, just looking at the start “has contracted” should probably been had contracted and biocide “diocide”.

Posted on 06/07/11 09:01.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Steve Cuthbertson
This makes my blood boil! Why should a company who pays another proffessional firm to carry out a contracted task be fined when that firm is negligable? If you have to check yourself then you may as well do the job yourself. If I was a wheelchair bound writer and wanted a new roof on my writing room I would have to pay a contracter to do this, how could I possibly check that he is using a safe system of work? He falls - I'm sued! Ridiculous!! No wonder H&S has such bad press!

Posted on 07/07/11 08:49.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Ray
Steve, I agree with you to a point. However, some basic checks by Eaton would have revealed that the system was not in a fit and proper condition. The duty to ensure workers are safe lies with the employer. When engaging contractors the employer must be satisfied the contractors are competent and carrying out the task correctly - simple really

In your roof scenario, you would not be expected to check the SSoW of the contractor unless you were knowledgeable and were capable of checking it out.

Posted on 07/07/11 14:43 in reply to Steve Cuthbertson.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
eloboda
just because an outside contractor comes to your premises to do work or an inside contractor for that matter you still have to have all relavent health and safety and risk paperwork in place. i get the inpression some companys think they can pass the book to others if the work does not involve them. remember that person or persons is still under your roof which makes it your responsability to look after everyone concerned. do not be fooled by someone talking a good job just to make money.

Posted on 07/07/11 14:43.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Jim Sweetman
I note the feeling that is expressed about someone being held responsible for the actions of others. Even more concerting is that my organsation is looking to 'outsource' as much as possible.
The base position is the employer is liable for anyone who may be affected by their undertaking, or business. This is a direct feed from S3 of HASAWa, and a good example is the Octel Associated case.

Posted on 12/07/11 14:51.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 8 results.

Advanced Search

 

 
 
 
 
 

United Business Media