Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
November 26, 2012

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

Air raid-shelter explosion threw workers off their feet

Two men suffered serious burns when a bomb shelter being used as a makeshift furnace to burn garden waste exploded.

1st Surface Ltd was contracted to extend and resurface a tennis court at a house in Bromley, Greater London. On 25 January last year, two of the firm’s employees were carrying out initial preparation work, which involved clearing an area of overgrown garden, where the extension was to be built.

The men hadn’t been provided with any means of disposing of the garden waste, and they had accumulated enough to fill six skips. They weren’t given any instructions on how to safely remove the waste, and so they decided to use a bomb shelter in the garden as a makeshift furnace.

The shelter was part-buried and overgrown and was going to be demolished as part of the project. One of the workers entered the shelter via a chimney at the top and placed some kindling inside to get the fire started. He then poured petrol inside to act as an accelerant before climbing out.

His colleague threw a lit taper down the chimney to light the fire, which caused the petrol vapour that had accumulated inside the confined space to explode. The men were thrown off their feet by the explosion and both suffered burns to their faces. One of the men was able to return to work after a few weeks, but the other has been unable to resume work owing to the psychological effects of the incident.

HSE inspector Kerry Williams told SHP the work wasn’t properly planned and there was no safe system of work. She said had the company provided skips prior to the clearance starting, the two workers would not have needed to improvise a way to dispose of the waste. The system they chose was extremely high-risk and they were unaware of the significant risk posed by petrol vapour, especially when it is trapped in a confined space.

“This incident could easily have been prevented with a minimal amount of planning and preparation,” said inspector Williams. “Many people do not recognise the explosive risk presented by petrol vapour, and as the men had been provided with petrol for other purposes their employer should have made the risks clear to them.

“The underlying issue here is that 1st Surface should have agreed and communicated a safe system of work in advance. Had it done so, the men wouldn’t have needed to take matters into their own hands in the way they did. Ultimately, it was the company’s responsibility to keep them safe and ensure they worked in a sensible, carefully-controlled manner.”

1st Surface Ltd appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 November and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £9000 and ordered to pay £2571 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it now pays closer attention to risk assessments and has banned workers from starting fires on sites. It has also trained its employees in the safe use of petrol, as they regularly use petrol-operated equipment. The company had no previous safety convictions.

Approaches to managing the risks associated Musculoskeletal disorders

In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Matt Birtles, Principal Ergonomics Consultant at HSE’s Science and Research Centre, about the different approaches to managing the risks associated with Musculoskeletal disorders.

Matt, an ergonomics and human factors expert, shares his thoughts on why MSDs are important, the various prevalent rates across the UK, what you can do within your own organisation and the Risk Management process surrounding MSD’s.

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew
Andrew
11 years ago

Surely these muppets should be up for a Darwin Award? My 9 year-old son can light a fire outdoors without use of accelerants, they need remedial fire-lighting training.
Doesn’t it say at every filling station ‘it an offence to use petrol for purposes other than a motor fuel’?
I’m pretty certain the only reason for bringing this prosecution is to enable 2 stupid people to mount a civil claim.

Andrew
Andrew
11 years ago

They hadn’t been given instruction on disposal of the waste. Possibly because it was none of their concern. So they indulged in horseplay which resulted in injury. There’s an awful lot of mileage in claiming that they were on a frolic of their own along with a big chunk of contributory negligence when they try and claim.
If only they’d videoed it we’d have something to watch on YouTube!

Bob
Bob
11 years ago

You have to ask, why did they not call thier employer to find out about disposal of the waste?

They were not instructed to burn it? they decided to use a bomb shelter in the garden as a makeshift furnace.

The normal place of work for these chaps would be out doors, surfacing tennis courts, so the prospect of working in a confined space with petrol would be rare if at all, would it not?

The use of petrol as an excellerant is surely a missuse to anyone at work, or else where?

Bob
Bob
11 years ago

And the Animal award for Muppetry does too.

I wonder what Statler and Wordolf would make of it?

I truely hope the civil claim is limited by these self contributing factors, but I doubt it?

Stevepg56
Stevepg56
11 years ago

“One of the men was able to return to work after a few weeks, but the other has been unable to resume work owing to the psychological effects of the incident”.
where there is blame there is a claim, no doubt.

Topics: