Fines and prosecutions ‘Catastrophic’ explosion sees prosecutions


THE SURREY facility of eReco, an IT and electrical equipment recycling firm, had failed to ‘take fire precautions’ according to its prosecutors. Materials Recycling World reported


on the prosecution of eReco and Paramount Waste Extraction Ltd, the latter being a designer of the machinery used to recycle toner cartridges at the plant. The explosion in October 2011 saw five people seriously injured, with one employee placed into an induced coma during 15 weeks in hospital. The cause of the explosion was found to have been ‘print toner being incorrectly stored’ on site, with a joint investigation undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS). This found that the explosion in


Lingfield was due to eReco failing to ‘ensure there was a safe system of work in place to reduce the risk of dangerous substances, as outlined by the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations’.


THE OWNER and management company of a Scarborough hotel have been fined £23,000 with £2,485 costs, and £25,000 plus £2,485 costs respectively, for serious fire safety breaches. Following an anonymous complaint on 9 December 2016, fire safety officers from North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (NYFRS) discovered a number of shortcomings during their visit to the Marine Residence hotel in Belmont Road: •


as being ordered to pay costs of £30,000. Paramount Waste Extraction Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety regulations, and was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £16,000 costs. Michelle Canning, HSE inspector,


Paramount Waste Extraction


Ltd’s machinery was specifically constructed to shred and process toner cartridges, and prosecutors said it ‘did not consider the likely misuse of the machine by overloading the processing of toner with more than a residual amount of toner powder left inside’. At Portsmouth Crown Court, eReco EMEA Corporation pleaded guilty last December to ‘health and safety and fire safety offences’, and at the end of February was fined £15,000 for each offence, as well


commented: ‘All the employees involved in this incident are extremely lucky this explosion didn’t prove fatal. eReco failed to take the required precautions before starting a process of work with dangerous substances and this failure resulted in this serious, life threatening explosion. Both designers and suppliers must ensure that the risks of using their equipment are eliminated through safe design, and this should include taking into account foreseeable misuse.’ Denise Turner-Stewart, Surrey County Council’s cabinet member for communities, added: ‘Despite warnings, eReco failed to deal with the risk of fire at its plant leading to a catastrophic explosion of flammable toner powder.’


Scarborough hoteliers fined in ‘very serious case’ strips and seals would allow smoke and fire to enter into the means of escape, impeding evacuation from the building


•


fire doors on automatic hold open devices were not connected to the fire alarm system and would remain open in the event of a fire


•


fire separation issues were found in storage rooms onto means of escape and they contained ignition sources


•


a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment had not been undertaken – the one the hotel had, failed to identify areas of deficiency


• the existing fire alarm was inappropriate for the type and use of premises and did not sound above the lower ground floor, so those sleeping above the ground floor would not have been alerted in the event of fire


• numerous fire doors had not been fitted with self closers;


there was inadequate routine maintenance or testing of the fire alarm, emergency lighting and firefighting equipment


• no training of staff was carried out, including of the manager


A prohibition notice was issued to prevent the use of upper floors, plus an enforcement notice for remedial work to be completed by 23 January 2017 (completed on 30 March 2017). Further investigation resulted in charges being brought against owners Daniel Johns Ltd and management company Silver Hopkins Ltd, who on 20 February


2018 pleaded guilty to three and four offences respectively, at Scarborough Magistrates Court. Summing up, the magistrate described it as a ‘very serious case’, commenting that the court considered raising the harm level, which would result in a higher fine, as ‘the parties’ conduct was not naïve, but reckless’ and ‘the companies were very slow to react to the concerns of the Fire Authority’. The number of offences involved resulted in the totality principle being applied, and fines awarded. Station manager Eddie Head said: ‘Neither of the responsible persons had given sufficient thought to what might happen if a fire had occurred. Conducting or commissioning a fire risk assessment is the starting point for beginning to ensure that a building is or can be made safe for people in the event of a fire (…) In this case immediate action was followed by months of delay to put things right, and the seriousness of the failings meant that a prosecution was appropriate.’


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2018 13


NEWS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60