News

Almost nine out of every 10 people fined in Belfast for breaking the smoking ban are commercial drivers, it has emerged this month. Van and taxi drivers and others who drive as part of their job are the worst offenders. Since the ban was introduced two years ago, 88% of the 230 fixed penalty notices issued were in relation to people smoking in vehicles.

Anyone caught smoking in a work vehicle is subject to a £50 fine, with a failure to display the appropriate no-smoking signage punishable by way of a £200 fixed penalty notice.

Cathal Mullaghan, Chairman of the council's health and environmental services committee said, "We understood there would be a bedding-in period for the legislation and council staff have worked tirelessly with businesses and employers across the city to explain how the law affects them and their workers. We want to remind anyone who drives for a living, whether it be a white van, a taxi or a goods vehicle, that smoking behind the wheel is against the law and must be stubbed out."

For more information, see:

• Smoke-free (Exemptions, Vehicles, Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) SR 2007/138.

The flooring firm, Amtico, has been fined £75,000 after pleading guilty to breaching health and safety rules. Coventry Crown Court heard that at the time of the incident, there were no guards to stop access to a machine's dangerous moving parts. As a result, a worker lost a finger and suffered crush and burn injuries to his other fingers and forearm.

Jenny Skeldon, prosecuting for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said, "The employee has suffered life-changing injuries. Companies should consider all the risks associated with this type of work to prevent something like this happening. The HSE publishes approved codes of practice, guidance and information leaflets with practical advice on machinery guarding, so there is no excuse for duty holders who don't control risks and protect their employees."

Rick Zelley, Amtico's manufacturing director said, "Regrettably one of our long-serving and valued employees suffered a serious injury when his hand was caught in one of our machines. We take the safety and health of our employees very seriously and have reacted decisively and responsibly so that this cannot happen again."

The HSE said that this was the third time the company had been prosecuted for failing to guard moving parts of machinery.

For more information, see:

• L114, Safe use of woodworking machinery.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have this month warned about the dangers of working close to overhead power lines, after a Perthshire soft fruit farming company and its owner were prosecuted following the electrocution of a Polish worker. Mr Gerard Faltynowski died on 28 July 2006 after metal extension poles he was using to construct the steel frame of a polytunnel came into contact with an 11,000 volt overhead electricity power line on farm land near Blairgowrie.

At Perth Sheriff Court, employer Thomas Thomson (Blairgowrie) Ltd, Bramblebank Works, Blairgowrie and managing director Thomas Peter Mackie Thomson were fined a total of £10,800 after pleading guilty to breaches of health and safety law.

On the day of the fatality, a team of employees were working in a field, starting to erect the steel frame of a polytunnel across which ran three overhead powerlines carrying 11,000 volts of electricity. Short metal pieces measuring approximately 0.5m were to be attached to each end of the metal hoops from which the tunnel was being constructed. Mr Faltynowski needed to bring a number of the extension pieces up the field and he slotted 13 together and carried them vertically. The topmost extension piece touched the overhead power lines and he was electrocuted.

Following the incident, the HSE issued a prohibition notice to stop work being carried out so close to overhead power lines. HSE Inspector Lawrence Murray said, "Mr Faltynowski's tragic death was entirely preventable and arose from clear failures to assess and manage the risk of working close to or under overhead power lines. A suitable and sufficient risk assessment would have identified the danger and the necessary control measures, and a safe system of work would have ensured the safety of the employees."

On average in the UK, approximately 60% of electrical fatalities at work are caused by inadvertent contact with overhead power lines; this equates to 10-15 deaths per year. These incidents are predominately in the construction and agriculture sectors and mostly involve contact with high voltage lines such as the one in this tragic case.

For more information, see the:

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations SI 1999/3242.

Northern Ireland is drowning under the amount of rubbish it produces, Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has warned. The Minister told an Institute of Directors lunch in Belfast, that while progress had been made in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, everyone from local to central government, the business community and the general public had to play their part.

Mr Wilson said, "Waste is a serious matter. Who can honestly say they have never found themselves struggling for an answer when visitors to these shores notice the careless way people dispose of their waste by littering the countryside, our beaches and city streets? It is embarrassing to admit, but Northern Ireland is drowning under the weight of the waste it produces. Worse still, many people still regard waste as some else's problem. We need to change that mindset."

Under the Landfill Directive 99/31/EC, Northern Ireland's 26 district councils face a series of targets and deadlines to reduce the use of landfill. Failure to meet the targets would result in very severe fines, but the Minister acknowledged that while councils had already taken significant steps to address the issue, householders and businesses could do more to help bring about change. "We need to stop looking at waste as someone else's problem or just as something that needs to be disposed of. Businesses and consumers can do their bit by careful waste management. Cutting down or eliminating unnecessary packaging and keeping recycling in mind at all times will have an almost immediate effect."

Mr Wilson says his department is now aiming to reach every household, business and school to increase public awareness of what they could do to address waste and look after the environment.

The Government plans to overhaul the landfill tax system and proposes to charge a higher rate of tax for some materials, which are currently considered inert and charged a lower rate of tax.

A Treasury consultation document entitled, 'Modernising landfill tax legislation', claims an overhaul is necessary to reflect changes in environmental protection regulation since the tax was introduced in 1996. In particular, the document outlined plans to redefine a number of wastes currently classed as inert waste under the levy, which only incur a charge of £2.50 per tonne when landfilled. It is intended that they will be subject to the full level of tax, which is currently £40 per tonne.

To achieve this, the Treasury said it planned to "follow the various tests in European legislation" to determine whether a waste was inert.

Wastes that are no longer expected to qualify for the lower rate include coal fly ash (pulverised fuel ash); bottom ash and slag and boiler dust; furnace slags including slag from waste incineration; used foundry sand; gypsum/calcium sulphate; brine waste; red mud; and low activity inorganic compounds. However, the Treasury suggests that implementation may be delayed for a set period.

Nonetheless, the document confirms that more immediate changes to how landfill tax is applied to certain activities on a landfill site will take effect from 1 September 2009, following the ruling in Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Waste Recycling Group (WRG) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 849.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of WRG in relation to landfill tax and agreed with WRG's argument that it had paid for inert materials which were accepted onto its site and used for daily cover and site engineering purposes. The inert material had not been disposed off as waste and was not a taxable disposal.

However, fears that the decision could lead to a flood of claims for refunds of landfill tax by waste management companies appear to have prompted the Treasury to close this avenue on 1 September.

The consultation said, "Following the WRG case, HMRC have accepted that, across the UK, a significant amount of waste is outside the scope of landfill tax. At the same time, the Government believes that the policy rationale underlying the tax points to an imperative to tax much of this waste. Legislation in 2009 will, therefore, bring certain wastes back into the scope of the tax."

For more information, see:

• Landfill Tax Regulations SI 1996/1527.

The waste management company, Biffa, was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £11,500 in costs last month, for breaching its Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) permit. The Environment Agency brought three charges against the firm, in relation to the storage of containerised hazardous waste and management of third party contractors at its hazardous waste installation in Wednesbury.

Environment Agency officer, Iain Storer said, “This result highlights the need for operators of hazardous waste installations to comply with their permits, the conditions of which have been designed to prevent accidents or incidents occurring, or to minimise the potential impacts of any that do occur. I am pleased to report that standards at the Wednesbury site are now greatly improved.”

The Environment Agency first served notices on the site in November 2006, which required improvements to site security and the management of contractors. A contractor had been working on a tank, which partially collapsed while other contractors worked close-by. This contractor had been at the site without the appropriate permits and there were other hazardous waste tanks in the area at risk of damage with the potential release of chemicals. An audit identified further breaches including spillages of waste, inadequate labelling and improper storage of incompatible wastes, which resulted in the Environment Agency serving an enforcement notice in 2007.

However, after three more site inspections in 2007, Biffa still had not complied with the enforcement notice. Biffa’s actions were described by Magistrates as reckless, but not financially motivated. Biffa director of environment and external affairs said, "We were let down badly by our contractor who we expected to perform his work professionally and diligently. His actions could not have been anticipated and the management system that we accept we should have had in place would not have prevented this incident. However, under the regulations, this is a strict liability matter and we accept that the ultimate responsibility rests with us. Since these incidents a number of improvements have been put in place [for instance] there have been changes to management and all activities now meet the required standards."

Prosecution counsel, Barry Berlin, told the court that Biffa held a PPC Permit, which is now known as an Environmental Permit, allowing the treatment and transfer of hazardous waste at its Wednesbury site, and that the company was obliged to follow the conditions of the permit.