Five companies fined £5m for Buncefield disaster - News-content | Fire safety news events and jobs - info4fire

Five companies fined £5m for Buncefield disaster

16 July 2010

Five companies involved in the Buncefield depot fire of 2005 have been fined a total of £5.35 million and ordered to pay another £4.08m in costs.

 

Hertfordshire Oil Storage, which was found guilty last month of failing to prevent major accidents and limit their effects under the Health and Safety at Work Act, was fined £1.4m and £1m in costs for its part in the explosion in Hemel Hempstead.

TAV Engineering and Motherwell Control Systems, which were both found guilty of failing to protect their employees from the disaster, were each ordered to pay £1,000 in fines and £500 each in costs.

The heftiest fine was levied on Total UK, which was ordered to pay a fine of £3.6m and £2.6m in costs. The company had already pleaded guilty to offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Water Resources Act.

The British Pipeline Agency was ordered to pay £300,000 for environmental offences and costs of £480,000.

The verdict, reached at St Alban’s Court earlier today (16 July), followed a joint prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency public bodies.

Kevin Myers, HSE's deputy chief executive, said: "Incidents like the explosion at Buncefield are exceptionally rare.  However, society rightly demands the highest of standards from the high hazard industries. Businesses in this sector must manage the risks they create effectively because when things go wrong, the consequences are severe and can destroy lives and shatter local communities.

"Major hazard industries must learn the lessons of events like this. From the board room down companies must ask themselves these questions: do we understand what could go wrong; do we know what our systems are to prevent this happening; and are we getting the right information to assure us they are working effectively."

Around 2,000 were left homeless and 45 injured in the explosion on 11 December, which was caused by some 250,000 litres of oil leaking from a tank.

 

 


 


     
RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

David Sugden
The actual total of fines and costs is £9.45 million and before these were announced on Friday Kevin Myers of the HSE said in a BBC report by D Boetcher that the firms concerned were being prosecuted because they failed to control risk and went on to say "the risks that they were required to control were actually quite straightforward".
We would consider a hydrocarbon fuel deport such as this quite hazardous, much more so than, say, a block of flats or an office complex, perhaps a shopping centre. In these latter premises the risk of fire is less and controling the fire, should it break out is a matter of alarm systems, compartmentation, structural protection, management and brigade action. I think we would all agree things that are quite straightforward to control.

Whilst the Buncefield fire was a horrendous incident and dozens of people were injured there were thankfully, no lives lost. If we have a fire where lives are lost and the control mechanisms such as the quality of installation or maintenance of compartmentation measures, structural protection, alarm and detection systems has been inadequate. A situation where an assessment of these matters and the risks posed in the building has been insufficient and unsuitable what penalties can we expect to be imposed then?

It seems to me that the message of the penalties following the New Look fire, the fact that CLG itself was found wanting when the Risk Assessment was inspected, that Sir Ken Knight is stressing the importance of the quality of the RA in his initial Lakanal report and the HSE comment about risks that are "quite straightforward" before seeing massive fines imposed are all linked if not actually by design, then by implication.

We all know how fire protection and control measures should be done, we all know that using Third Party Certifcated products and installers is recommended in all the guidance, we all know that we have a duty of care to follow such "Good Practice" and to me the message is that we ignore our duty at our peril. We have been made Responsible for fire safety by the FSO and we must take that responsibilty seriously and see that those working for us do so as well or explain it in court.

Posted on 20/07/10 14:56.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 1 result.

Related Content