When advice provided five years earlier about the risk of lead poisoning was not acted on
What happened?
David Sear, aged 59, the sole owner of a stained glass manufacturing business failed to provide controls to protect his six workers from lead. This was despite being advised of the requirement to do so five years earlier when blood tests carried out showed workers were at significant risk of lead poisoning.
There were no suitable dust extraction systems in place and that workers were not using masks when soldering, putting them at risk from lead fumes. Dust masks were provided for some activities but no-one at the company had been face-fitted for their respiratory protective equipment to ensure that it was suitable.
Additionally, the instruction and training workers received was not adequate and they had not been told about the risks and symptoms of lead poisoning.
Workers should have worn full overalls and had been provided with clean and dirty changing areas, with overalls bagged and laundered on site. Overalls and other protective equipment should have been removed before eating, drinking or going home. Instead, some workers were only provided with aprons or disposable overalls, and some regularly went home wearing work clothes contaminated with lead, putting their families at risk of exposure.
One of the workers, in his twenties, was found to have seven times the normal amount of lead in his blood after five years of restoring windows, in October 2011. He had been ill for a number of years. He had complained of nausea, feeling unwell and tired, and had suffered with frequent infections. He lost his appetite, was unable to sleep and felt depressed.
It was only on a visit to his local surgery after contracting another infection that the practice nurse asked where he worked and realised his illness could be lead poisoning. He underwent hospital treatment for over a year.
Legal Outcome
David Sear pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(1) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 over a twenty month period for failing to control the risk of lead exposure in February 2014. He was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay costs of the same amount.
Following the hearing, the HSE inspector said: “He is the owner of a specialist business that has been operating for some 30 years. He had no excuse for turning a blind eye to the known risks of this profession and neglecting the required safety standards to protect his workforce.”
What can we learn from what happened?
The information above is sufficient to explain the kind of controls that need to be in place to protect people from exposure to lead, and this case serves as a reminder of just how hazardous lead can be and the poisonous impact it can have on the body if it gets into the blood stream.
The prosecution was under the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. It is normally a strong indication of the dangers posed by a hazard when the regulation is just focussed on the one thing.
Source of Information
SHP Online