Despite coming into force in October 2006, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (or RRO) has been ignored by some companies, along with the simple steps that would improve fire safety in their premises. This is a shame, because:
• many of these steps to improve fire safety actually cost very little to do,
• many have additional benefits to the business, and
• all reduce the potential for serious fires and for enforcement action.
This blog contains some stories of failure, but the aim is to help to inspire successful fire safety risk assessment and management.
The role of Fire Safety Risk Assessment
Like most aspects of modern safety management, Risk Assessment is in a fundamental part of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Good fire safety comes from an understanding of how and where a fire may start and this is then supported by implementing suitable controls measures to avoid, control or mitigate that risk. These controls include: good housekeeping, maintenance of fire detection systems and fire fighting equipment; staff training; fire drills; etc.
Some simple fire safety case studies
Landlord fined
The landlord of a residential home has been fined £20,000 for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 following a fire at the premises. The landlord pleaded guilty to four charges under the Order which included:
• not having a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
• inadequate smoke sealing on a door resulting in the second floor escape route becoming smoke logged
• inadequate fire alarm repair arrangements and the fire alarm not being in good working order
Company prosecuted and fined
A company was prosecuted and were ordered to pay £12,000 and £22,500 costs following an explosion and fire at their North Wales factory. Even though there were no injuries sustained, there was extensive damage caused to the plant and equipment. Investigation by the HSE discovered that the initial dust explosion occurred within the granulation section and spread quickly, taking fire fighters several hours to bring the blaze under control. The company had not updated the risk assessment and measures to prevent an explosion had not been taken, putting their employees at risk.
Care Home fire leads to prosecution
A care home has been prosecuted and fined £80,000 with costs of £20,000 following a fire that started in the boiler room of one of its homes. Investigation of the scene by fire officers revealed several important findings:
• The fire started as a result of ignition of accumulations of general rubbish and storage of materials in the boiler room
• Although a fire safety risk assessment had been carried out, staff were not made aware of its findings
Company goes into administration following fire
A frozen food business has gone into administration following a plant room fire. It is understood that despite various setbacks, the company had a forward good order book but was unable to cope with the effects of the fire on its business.
Restaurant owner prosecuted
Leicestershire fire and rescue service successfully prosecuted a local business woman and owner of a Chinese restaurant after she pleaded guilty to three charges relating to inadequate fire safety standards. These included:
• Failure to provide an adequate fire alarm
• The fire alarm was inoperative
• Failure to provide and protect the escape routes
• The external fire escape was broken and not securely fixed in place
In the above case, the situation was so deemed to be dangerous and a Prohibition notice was served with immediate effect to ensure the safety of those who had been working within the building.
Workplace fire fatality
One man died and three others badly injured when liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) leaked into a factory and ignited at the start of a shift at a spray can factory in the North West. The explosion created a huge fireball that extended half way across the adjacent road. The four men were engulfed in the fireball as they fled the factory building and one man later died from his injuries. The company’s procedures for changeover of propellants left open ends in LPG pipe work for extended periods, so the opening of a single manual valve would lead to a release. Employees had not been given full training and on the day of the incident, a trainee engineer had been tasked with starting up the production line. The company was found guilty of not ensuring the safety of their employees by failing to provide safe systems of working and failing to provide adequate instruction and training.
No comments:
Post a Comment