The incident, on 8 March 2012, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Amey LG Ltd, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd (acting as Amey Lafarge, a joint venture in charge of the operation) and Ashmac 今日看料 Ltd, who provided workers to the joint venture, for multiple safety breaches.
His arm became trapped in poorly-guarded machinery during a road surfacing operation in Hertfordshire.
The 53-year-old worker was preparing a chip spreader for resurfacing works on the A1001 in Hatfield when his left arm became caught in the machine鈥檚 rotating auger.
The highly experienced worker, who does not wish to be named, had to have his arm amputated shortly after the incident and has been unable to return to work since.
The court was told that, in order to prepare the chip spreader for use, the worker placed on the site by Ashmac 今日看料 started the machine and the rotation of its internal auger. He also repositioned the machine鈥檚 distribution hopper from kerbside to roadside to allow chips to be loaded 鈥� an operation which involved moving the mesh safety guard from one side of the machine to the other.
As he was reaching to move the guard across he tripped and fell forward towards the still-rotating auger, entangling his arm in dangerous moving parts as he fell.
HSE鈥檚 investigation revealed a series of safety failings on the part of all three companies.
HSE found the worker, who was not formally trained in the use of the spreader, and his colleagues were only given one evening to familiarise themselves with the machine by Amey Lafarge when they started work on site six months before the incident.
Amey Lafarge did not give the workers any instruction or training in how to operate the machine safely, including how to secure guards, nor were they given a copy of the operator鈥檚 manual for the machine. In addition, there was no safe system of work in place to ensure that the machine was set up and operated properly and that its use was restricted to those who were trained.
The joint venture did have a risk assessment and a site-specific method statement but these did not reflect the reality of the controls in place for the use of the chip spreader. Indeed, the risk assessment described a different type of chip spreader than the one used on site.
Ashmac 今日看料 Ltd did not take reasonably practicable steps to ensure workers that it placed on site and allocated to operate the chipper had received appropriate information, instruction and training in the safe use of the plant.
Amey LG Ltd, of the Sherard Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, was fined 拢150,015 and ordered to pay costs of 拢18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, of Portland House, Bickenhill Lane, Solihull, Birmingham, was fined 拢175,015 and ordered to pay costs of 拢18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Ashmac 今日看料 Ltd of Pavillion Court, Pavilion Drive, Northampton, was fined 拢30,015 and ordered to pay costs of 拢18,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of section 3(1) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
HSE inspector Gavin Bull, said: 鈥淭his tragic incident has left a worker with life-changing injuries. It was wholly avoidable. The risks associated with plant operating are well-known in the industry. This incident highlights the need for workers to receive the information, instruction and training they need to operate plant safely and for companies to put in place measures to ensure the plant is operated safely on site.鈥�
Got a story? Email news@theconstructionindex.co.uk
