Benjamin Wylie

Health and Safety 

   Executive 

 (HM Principal 

Inspector Health and Safety) 
Priestley House 
Priestley Road 
Basingstoke 
RG24 9NW 

Construction Division - HSE 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ 

Line manager: 

 (Head of 

Operations) 

Mr P Bedford (HM Coroner Berkshire) 
Reading Town Hall 
Blagrave Street 
Reading 
RG1 1QH 

Our Reference: 

23rd February 2017 

Dear Mr Bedford, 

INQUEST INTO DEATH OF BENJAMIN WYLIE - HSE RESPONSE TO REGULATION 28 REPORT 

May I thank you for extending the timeframe allowed for HSE to respond to the Matters of Concern set out in 
your Regulation 28 report following the Inquest into the death of Benjamin Wylie held last October. I can confirm 
that I have seen the responses you have received from Soilmec (UK) Ltd and the Federation of Piling Specialists 
(FPS) and have taken those into account when drafting this response. I address each of the Matters of Concern in 
sequence below. 

(1)  In  the  course  of  the  evidence  at  the  Inquest  it  was  acknowledged  that  the  risk  of  grease  being 
expelled from the grease nipple at high pressure was recognised.  No permanent warning plate or 
sign was attached to the machine beside the grease nipple.  

HSE  notes  that  other  respondents  have  stated  that  a  warning  sticker/plate  will  be  affixed  to  machines 
adjacent  to  track  tensioning  grease  nipples  in  the  future.  The  legislation  which  machine  manufacturers 
are required to comply  with  when designing,  manufacturing and supplying  machinery  for use at  work, 
the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (SMSR) require that risks be eliminated by design 
wherever possible. Where the designer considers that residual risks exist that cannot be designed out, the 
Regulations  state  that  necessary  warnings  must  be  provided.    This  allows  the  manufacturer  to  choose 
whether to place warnings that will be needed less frequently in the operation and maintenance manual 
and/or to affix a warning to the machine part itself. However, the only requirement to provide warnings 
directly on machine parts is where that is necessary to prevent incorrect fitting of parts or to illustrate the 
direction of rotating parts. 
. 

(2)  The grease nipple(s) of which there is one on each side of the machine was orientated on the SR70 
machine so that it was perpendicular to, rather than parallel to, the tracks.  This  meant that the 
nipple faced out towards the greasing operator.  Evidence suggested that other manufacturers have 
the grease nipple orientated parallel to the tracks. 

HSE recognises that prima facie, a failure of a grease nipple that is positioned at or near to perpendicular 
to the machine tracks and facing toward the space workers could occupy is more likely to result in the 
ejection  of  failed  components  and  high  pressure  grease  in  a  direction  moving  away  from  the  machine 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 body.  However,  the  opinion  of  its  relevant  Specialist  Inspector  of  Mechanical  Engineering  is  that  the 
critical  issue  is  to  ensure  that  the  parts  specified  are  suitable  for  expected  operating  pressures  so  as  to 
ensure  failure  is  prevented,  so  far  as  is  reasonably  practicable.  HSE  intends  to  address  this  issue  in  a 
further Safety Alert to be issued to industry, which is currently in draft form.  

(3)  The  evidence  also  given  was  that  other  piling  rig  manufacturers  install  pressure  release  values 
within the grease nipple unit that prevents pressure building up to the force that struck Ben Wylie.   

The opinion of HSE’s relevant Specialist Inspector of Mechanical Engineering is that if a valve, designed 
to dissipate pressures well below component failure design pressures, were fitted within the grease nipple 
assembly,  failure  of  an  undamaged  grease  nipple  would  be  very  unlikely.  However,  HSE  notes  the 
differing  opinions  of  the  members  of  the  FPS  regarding  the  possibility  of  other  risks  being  created 
through the fitting of such devices. When designing machinery, especially where it will be operating in 
harsh environments, one consideration would be to minimise the number of  small devices which could 
fail or be incorrectly adjusted or replaced. Eliminating or reducing associated risks by other means would 
generally  be  preferable.  HSE  has  no  plans  to  conduct  research  into  the  designs  of  grease  nipple 
assemblies. 

(4)  The Jury heard that, in the ordinary course of use of the machine, the grease nipples were covered 
by a metal plate. However, this had to be removed in order to carry out the greasing of the tracks.  
Evidence was given that new machines allow greasing of the tracks with the plate in place but there 
are a number of existing machines in use which do not have that adaptation. 

HSE will make mention of this point in its new Safety Alert, currently in draft.  

(5)  It is understood that no warning bulletin has been issued to existing users of the relevant piling rig 

machines warning of the risk of the grease nipple failure and potential consequences.   

In 2015 HSE issued a general Safety Alert relating to the circumstances of the incident which led to Mr 
Wylie’s death. HSE is aware that Soilmec (UK) Ltd have issued two Safety Alerts relevant to the 
incident which occurred with one of their machines.  Following conclusion of the Inquest HSE has been 
preparing a more detailed Safety Alert, taking account of further evidence and the results of component 
testing which became available after the issue of its first general Safety Alert. The new Safety Alert is 
due to be published shortly. It is aimed at a broad audience which will include those working in the piling 
industry, but also those working in other industries where the use of tracked plant is commonplace. 
Please let me know whether you would like me to send you a copy of the Safety Alert when it is issued. 

(6)  It  was  heard  that  the  manual  for  the  SR70  piling  rig  machine  is  always  kept  in  the  cab  of  the 
machine for use by the operator.  This was described as a 350 page manual.  No quick reference 
condensed version of key matters is available.   

The legal requirement under SMSR is for manufacturers to provide “the information necessary to operate 
it [ie the machine] safely, such as instructions.” 

(7)  The manual does not contain a warning to always replace failed parts on piling rigs with new units.  

There is no statement that repairs or modifications to failed parts should not be carried out.   

The wording of the Soilmec manual is clearly a matter for that company, taking account of the legal 
requirement set out in my response to Concern (6) above. However, the risks associated with the re-use 
of damaged hydraulic components will be addressed by the new HSE Safety Alert. 

(8)  The evidence suggested that certain piling rig workers were not following the correct procedures 
for greasing the tracks suggesting that there was a training issue that needed to be addressed and 
possibly incorporated into the manual.  

There are several legal requirements on employers and contractors to ensure that those  who operate or 
maintain machinery used on construction sites or elsewhere are properly trained and  
to 
carry  out  both  scheduled  and  unplanned  maintenance  operations.  Those  with  duties  under  health  and 

competent 

2  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 safety legislation are then required to determine the level of competence required of persons who need to 
carry out such operations. It is intended that mention will be made in the new HSE Safety Alert of the 
need for proper training of persons required to undertake track tensioning. 

Yours sincerely 

HM Principal Inspector Health and Safety 

3