Welcome
Welcome to our June Health and Safety brief – your plain English health and safety update
In this issue we provide information on:
- Commercial Waste Containers and People
- The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005 and Fire Risk Assessment
- Prosecutions for breaches of the Fire Safety Order
Commercial Waste Containers and People
Emptying commercial waste bins is a frequent activity that runs into thousands of operations each year. There have been many subjective reports from the industry and in the media of incidents where people have been discovered alive in bins during the contents being tipped into the collection vehicle. Fortunately, in most of these cases, no significant harm has occurred. More notably, however, there have also been cases where a dead body has been discovered when the collected waste has been unloaded, e.g. at a transfer station. Further investigation has revealed that in some of these cases the person concerned was alive prior to being emptied into the waste collection vehicle. The HSE is aware of three such fatal incidents that have arisen in the last year alone (April 2009 to March 2010).
Organisations’ who produce commercial waste, those responsible for managing any waste storage areas, as well as those collecting such waste should take immediate steps to review their own procedures with regard to the selection, use and storage of commercial waste bins in line with newly published HSE good practice guidance to eliminate or minimise the risk of injury arising from people in such bins. This guidance contains notes and examples of good practice within the waste industry which could be helpful in considering what action needs to be taken. It does not seek to interpret legal requirements, but if the practice is followed, sufficient action should be demonstrated in order to discharge any legal duties, and secure compliance with the law.
Relevant legal documents:
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995
References:
People in commercial waste containers WASTE 25 HSE 2010
Fire
It is false to believe that prosecution for Fire Safety offences result following major incidents, fines can also come about as a result of inspections. ATS Euromaster was fined £2,000 for blocking a fire exit, £2,000 for failing to light an escape route, £1,500 for inadequate training and £1,000 for failing to carry out a suitable risk assessment.
There have been two such cases even in the last few months. On 20 April 2010, Tesco were fined £95,000 and ordered to pay £24,321 in costs after pleading guilty to five breaches of the 2005 Order. The prosecution was brought by London Fire Brigade in relation to a number of deficiencies, including failure to ensure escape routes were kept clear for safe evacuation of the building in an emergency and inadequate fire separation in the building due to the doors being wedged open.
On 11 May 2010, a timberworks company, pleaded guilty to eight breaches of the 2005 Order at Chester Crown Court. The company was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £50,300 to Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service. The Court heard that timber was found to have been piled dangerously high in the yard and combustible materials were blocking escape routes. The company was also found to be using various appliances with electrical faults, had inadequate risk assessments and the fire alarm system was deemed unsuitable. The company was alleged to have repeatedly refused to carry out fire safety checks on the business despite numerous visits from Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service personnel.
The above cases highlight the exposure of both individuals and companies of all sizes to prosecution and potential large fines under these provisions. Recent prosecutions show a pattern of high levels of fines being delivered by courts, which are more similar to those imposed in fatal accident prosecutions, not those involving technical or non injury related breaches.
Senior figures in an organisation can potentially be guilty if an offence was committed with their consent, or due to their neglect. This highlights that implementation needs to be very thorough to avoid potential prosecution. An employee can be prosecuted for failure to comply with their duty to his or her employer where this places people at risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire.
Legislation and enforcement
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005, which came into force in October 2006, consolidates and replaces more than 100 separate pieces of overlapping legislation and regulation, simplifying fire risk management. A risk-based approach is utilised for fire safety, and enforcement has followed the same approach.
However, the perception that enforcement activity in the commercial sector is rare should be dismissed when you take into account that between 2007 and 2008, 29,000 informal notices, 3,840 enforcement notices and 443 prohibition notices were issued. There were also 42 prosecutions brought in the same period. The enforcing authority will usually be the local fire and rescue authority and enforcement will normally be carried out by a fire inspector, but can also be carried out by an employee of the authority who’s authorised in writing by an inspector. Inspectors have wide-ranging powers, including entering and inspecting premises, taking copies of documents and records, and taking samples of substances to determine their fire resistance or flammability.
Important tips
Don’t ignore risks posed by arson when preparing your risk assessment – arson is one of the biggest causes of fire in the UK.
Ensure you identify external potential fire sources (for example, neighbouring premises) when preparing your risk assessments.
Ensure all staff are given fire safety information at induction, as well as periodically following this.
Make sure you document every stage of the risk assessment process, keep records of training, procedures and assessments and make sure these are implemented and available to both staff and authorities.
Don’t ignore the basics: warning systems, training, prevention measures, providing extinguishers and the signing and lighting of emergency exits.
In November 2009, New Look Retailers were fined £250,000 and £150,000 respectively for failing to provide a ‘suitable and sufficient’ fire risk assessment and adequate safety training for staff, following a fire at one of its shops in London’s Oxford Street. Southwark Crown Court heard how the shop had been packed with early evening shoppers when smoke was seen coming from a second-storey window. The court was told that even though the alarm sounded, it was mysteriously turned off and customers were allowed to continue shopping. Even when the alarm was reset and began again, staff failed to react. The fire ruined the building, which later had to be demolished. It started in the second floor storeroom but fire officers couldn’t establish the cause. Although no-one was injured, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said “The fire could have been a disaster almost too awful to contemplate”.
The £400,000 fine is the largest imposed on a British company for fire safety breaches since the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 was made law in 2006. It is also thought to be the biggest ever financial penalty for such breaches. The New Look prosecution is one of a number of recent cases involving fire safety incidents that have resulted in hefty fines being imposed by courts. Veolia ES Cleanaway (UK) Ltd was fined £100,000 and £50,000 respectively for failing to take appropriate measures and to provide information and training to workers following a chemical fire that closed parts of the M65 and M6. There was also the recent imprisonment of a father and son for manslaughter for seven and five years respectively, after improperly stored fireworks killed two fire-fighters during a fire at their company site.
Relevant legal documents:
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005
|
