A construction worker suffered serious burns from a flash explosion when he struck an underground power cable while using a pneumatic drill.
Walsall Magistrates’ Court heard that Pacestone Construction Ltd had been contracted to carry out groundwork during the construction of residential properties at Westminster Place in Rushall, West Midlands.
On 13 August 2009, one of the firm’s employees was trying to install telephone ducts at the site, which was being developed by Taylor Wimpey. In order to do this he needed to break through a concrete pavement. He had not been told that there were power lines in the area, and he could not see any pavement markings warning about the presence of electricity, and so started using a pneumatic drill to break through the pavement.
While he was drilling he struck two 11kv cables, which created a flash explosion and set light to his clothes. A colleague was on hand to put out the flames and the injured worker was airlifted to hospital for treatment for severe burns.
HSE inspector David Price said: “This incident was entirely preventable had the company taken sensible precautions. Using a cable detector, marking the location of cables, and only allowing workers to use hand tools when digging in the proximity of live services would have avoided the risk of hitting cables.
“Serious injury or even death can result from contact with electricity. It’s essential that employers have safe working procedures for any work involving electrical plant, cabling, or equipment.”
Pacestone Construction appeared in court on 15 November and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.34(3) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, for failing to identify the risks posed by underground cables. It was fined £13,000 and ordered to pay £3870 towards costs.
In mitigation, the firm said it had a previously unblemished safety record and deeply regretted the incident. It now ensures that employees sign a permit-to-dig before carrying out groundwork, which makes sure that a full risk assessment has been carried out on the area of work. It also marks areas where electricity cables are known to exist.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Development so CDM applies. Where was the client Pre-construction info. What had the CDM-C said. what did the Construction Phase Plan say? who was the Principal contractor?
But then..he was digging right next to a manhole so what did he expect? One must qusetion the competence of the person, the supervisor, the contractor.
With regards to Martins comment, the regulatation applying to this incident is in Part 4, para 34 of the regs under “duties relating to health and safety on construction sites” section 34 relates to underground services.
Basic planning would have prevented this accident.
regards
I would advise everyone who looks at these reports to take with a pinch of salt what is stated
1. There is no Regulation 4.3 of CDM2007.
2. Also bear in mind Phil [ 25/11/10] that a CDMC would only be present during a notifiable project [over 30 days etc] .
3.There may have been markings signage etc., but “he could not see any pavement markings warning”
4.use of cat scanning should be second nature to a services contractor, irrespective of any information supplied about services,
Indeed this was preventable. Concur with Steve M, bur why are the PU’s allowed to install their apparatus out-with the guidlines, and in a dangerous manner. Where is their H&S file for their “structure” ?? it seems that the CDM Regs do not apply to PU’s Additionally , you will never get any accurate information from the PU companies regarding the location of their services, only drawing with a total disclaimer !!!!
It appears from the report that this was a major project and therefore notifiable. Furthermore, there seems to be a complete lack of organisation and SSoW from the PC, Contractor, CDM-C and of course the victim’s training and knowledge. All the aforementioned should have been prosecuted in my opinion, exception being the poor soul who was burnt.
Another paltry fine given the seriousness of the breach. It could easily have been a fatality and possible a prosecution for Corporate Manslaughter.
Yes, this accident was avoidable and should have been avoided by the use of a cable detector, but if the man was only breaking through the surface concrete, what fool laid an 11kv cable so close to the surface? Surely that person or organisation also bears some respsonsibility?
Week after week we see the results of accidents in this column.
Week after week we see the same thing near the bottom of the report:
The company said in mitigation that previously it had a good safety record and now ensures that a risk assessment/permit to work system is enforced.
The company deeply regrets the injuries/death of……
Alternatively “We got caught but never mind, we’ll shut the gate after the horse has bolted, after all, the level of the fine is less than the money we saved”
Steve M. From the photo it looks like the cable was at a reasonable depth. Who laid it is irrelevant. The company ignored HSG 47 as did the injured man (I can only presume he had some training?) There are hundreds of thousands of cables, utilities etc buried at silly depths, very often right beneath a tarmac top layer. We have to treat all excavatios as being as potentially dangerous as this turned out to be.