A recycling firm has been fined after a proactive HSE inspection discovered that vital safety mechanisms had been deliberately disabled on two machines.
The HSE carried out an unannounced inspection at Foreman Recycling Ltd’s premises on the Merrington Lane Industrial Estate in Spennymoor, on 29 March 2011.
Darlington Magistrates’ Court heard several safety mechanisms on two baling machines had been deliberately bypassed and were in a state of disrepair. The machines are used to compress material, such as cardboard and cans, for recycling.
The inspection found eight serious faults on the two machines, including the deliberate bypassing of key-control systems to allow access to the compaction chambers, and damage to one of the emergency-stops on a feed conveyor. As a result, employees had been put at risk of serious and potentially fatal injury for a number of months.
The HSE issued a Prohibition Notice to Foreman Recycling, ordering the machines to be taken out of service until the safety features were repaired. It also issued an Improvement Notice, which required the firm to check regularly that interlocks and emergency-stops were operational on the machines.
HSE inspector Victoria Wise said: “These are tremendously powerful machines with a number of mechanical moving parts, which have the potential to cause serious harm. Appropriate safeguarding of these machines is extremely important and should include all operations, including blockage clearance.
“The two baling machines inspected were found to have a significant number of fundamental safety features disabled, a situation of which the company’s management was aware.
“The standards found at the site were unacceptable. Fortunately, no one was injured by the machines, but this prosecution should act as a wake-up call to companies that do not have a robust safety management system, or that put profit before safety.”
Foreman Recycling appeared in court on 2 April and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £27,200 and ordered to pay £4802 in costs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good proactive inspection, pity the offences were not pursued under PUWER though?
Hopefully, recycling will take note, as the fine is notable for a non-injury conviction.
It also highlights that fines are very discretionary?
Presumably ; little defence was offered given the costs involved?
A further demonstration of the need for proactive inpspection, particualy given the increase in such industry, the returns in profit and the high degree of mechanisation involved?