Young Person (16yrs) in incident that “…could have easily resulted in his death.”

legal_updates

Inspectors found that RPE was provided; but it was not maintained in an efficient or effective state.

Author: Ernie Taylor
Published:
Reading time: 3 minutes

This article is 2 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In alloy wheel refurbishment company was sentenced after a 16-year-old apprentice worker was overcome by vapours from a chemical used in the stripping and cleaning of alloy wheels.

South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court heard how the employee of Wheelnut Ltd, entered an area of the company’s former premises in Swalwell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, known as the “acid room”. The employee entered the room to retrieve alloy wheels from one of three barrels of a chemical substance containing Dichloromethane (DCM), Methanol and Hydrofluoric Acid; used in the stripping process. He was subsequently found by a work colleague slumped unconscious over a barrel.

An investigation by the HSE found the employers risk assessment for the chemical wheel stripping process was not suitable or sufficient. Appropriate control measures should have included suitable exhaust ventilation in the room as well as Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) for the employees.

Inspectors found that RPE was provided; but it was not maintained in an efficient or effective state. Several parts of the RPE were damaged and the air feed to it (from the compressor) was not filtered correctly. Their investigation found that on this specific occasion (and previously) the employee was not wearing the RPE when he entered the “acid room.”
Employees were not provided with suitable and sufficient information, instruction, and training with regards to the risks involved with using the chemicals, particularly the risks associated with using DCM.

HSE inspector Joy Craighead said: “A young worker suffered a potentially serious injury. Breathing in DCM vapour can produce narcotic effects and at high concentrations, unconsciousness and death. In this instance, this “young person” made a full recovery, but it could have easily resulted in his death.”

Wheelnut Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £32,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £1718.50.

For more information on this, please visit:  http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis19.pdf

NOTE: This case was prosecuted under the primary legislation; the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the duty to ensure health, safety and welfare so far as is reasonably practicable. But the case centres on the need for a suitable and sufficient risk assessment under regulation 3 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Regulation 19(2)(b) to the Management regulations would also have applied; i.e. the specified risks to young persons involving harmful exposure to agents which are toxic. There some obvious failings here, e.g. a lack of adequate supervision, a failure to properly maintain RPE, a failure to provide information, instruction and training. All would have been contributing factors that led to the HSE / CPS decision to prosecute this Employer

Ernie Taylor

Health & Safety Consultant

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.