Home | Site Map | Contact | Client Login
Safety Services (UK) Limited
Safety Services UK Logo


Client Login

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

RSS News feed

Major contractor fined after unguarded machine leads to amputation
Safety Services Montage

Morgan Est plc, of Rugby has pleaded guilty to breaching PUWER 98 Reg 11(1) and MHSWR 1999 Reg 3(1) at Huddersfield Magistrates Court.

The prosecution follows an incident which occurred at a Huddersfield Waste Water treatment works in March 2008 in which an engineer lost his right arm in a screw conveyor.

Blockage clearing took place with guarded removed

The court heard that the right arm of a company engineer was amputated after it came into contact with a rotating screw conveyor on newly installed equipment at Neiley Waste Water Treatment, Works.

Morgan Est plc, was the principal contractor engaged by Yorkshire Water to carry out refurbishment of the waste water treatment works. A new sludge treatment plant had been installed at was in the process of being commissioned.

HSE investigators found that a fixed guard on a screw conveyor had been removed to allow clearance of a blockage of sludge in the conveyor.

The court heard that blockages had occurred before but on previous occasions the machine had been isolated prior to any work being carried out.

Risk assessment had not considered blockage cleaning

The company accepted (a) a failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the clearing of blockages during commissioning and that (b) access to the rotating screw arose because the plant had not been isolated prior to removal of the guard.

HSE Inspector Dave Stewart said: “Morgan Est Limited Plc should have ensured the commissioning of the new equipment was thoroughly risk assessed. Blockages had occurred previously on this piece of plant and a clear and concise method for dealing with the blockages should have been established and communicated to workers on the site.

“Commissioning of plant can often present extreme hazards hence the need for thorough planning and control of such work by employers.”

Thecompany was fined £6k and ordered to pay costs of over £2k