Explosion and Fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 02 Oct 2008, 16:21

Explosion and Fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford Road Transport Workshop - 26 September 2008.

http://www.cwu.org.uk/members/action.as ... 9&catid=15

To: All Branches

Dear Colleagues

Explosion and Fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford Road Transport Workshop - 26 September 2008.

A 20 year old apprentice was seriously injured in an incident that occurred at 5.15 pm last Friday 26th September, following an explosion and fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford Road Transport Workshop. The individual involved was subsequently air-lifted by Air Ambulance to hospital. He is in a stable condition in hospital having sustained burns to his arms, upper body and legs. He has been removed from a ventilator machine and will undergo skin graft operations but the good news is that his injuries are not life threatening and despite his injuries and traumatic experience he has been making a remarkable recovery and is in good spirits.

Initial investigations indicate that Oxy-Acetylene equipment was being used on an empty metal anti freeze drum. The full details are being investigated.

The Fire Service were in attendance shortly after the explosion and dealt with the Fire and ensured the premises and equipment were safe. As is normal under established protocols a Police investigation was launched in order to establish whether or not a crime had led to the incident and following that process the matter was handed over to the HSE to conduct a serious accident investigation and decide whether any health and safety legal compliance issues were involved.

An internal Royal Mail investigation was immediately initiated and the CWU Branch Area Safety Representative is also conducting an Accident investigation and is working in liaison with the Vehicle Services & Assets Head of Safety and the Enforcing authorities, HSE and Fire Service.

The Branch Secretary and Area Safety Representative have visited the site of the incident, Guildford RTW on Monday and have additionally arranged to visit the injured member in hospital, plus have made contact with his parents who are also Postal Workers and CWU members to offer every possible support and assistance. The CWU Branch Officials will be working in conjunction with the parents and with Royal Mail as appropriate.

Further and more fuller details will be issued in due course, when appropriate to do so.

WARNING: Vehicle Services Safety Bulletin

Following the incident Vehicle Services issued a 'Safety Bulletin' via the 'M4 System', to all sites on Monday afternoon 29 September 2008, reinforcing the following message:

"Hot work on empty drums of any description and size is not an authorised activity in Vehicle Services. It is also an opportune moment to reinforce the wearing of fire retardant overalls when engaged in any welding or gas cutting activity."

WARNING: Cutting and Welding - Combination of Heat and Gas - Why should Members not use Oxy-Acetylene equipment on Drums, Tanks and Containers ?

Cutting and welding which combines heat and gas can be extremely dangerous. The dangers involved in welding and cutting should never be underestimated and should only be undertaken by properly trained people. Serious accidents can and have resulted where drums and other containers have exploded as a result of welding or cutting work. Any combustible material in a tank, drum or similar container can give off vapour or fumes when heat is applied to it and cause an explosion. Mixed with air in the right proportions these fumes can explode violently when the critical temperature is reached or when ignited by a spark from a welding or cutting torch. Even a minute amount of a combustible substance may generate enough vapour to cause an explosion. Sludge or scale deposits in a drum or tank may seem harmless enough but they may well release explosive vapours when the surface is heated. Even if a drum has been empty and exposed to the weather for years, it may still contain hazardous substances in the seams or crevices. It should never be assumed it is safe for hot work. There are many substances which are not usually thought of as explosive but which can be under certain circumstances.

BT say that following the explosion and fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford Road Transport Workshop on 26 September 2008 they will ensure that Safety Procedures are in place and the details will be promulgated to BT Fleet and that they will ensure that they have appropriate controls in place.

Yours sincerely

Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 02 Oct 2008, 16:41

Sincerely wishing the 20 year old apprentice a full and speedy recovery.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 02 Oct 2008, 17:36

The question remains why was he or someone doing something so dangerous i mean everyone knows that anti freeze contains methanol and ethylene glycol. I just hope he recovers from this without permantent injury!.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 02 Oct 2008, 20:21

Could be down to the lack of proper instruction and training, lack of safe systems of work being properly carried out and enforced, the suitability of proper risk assessments being done by management in assessing hazards in the workplace, the lack of proper instruction and training in the wearing of fire retardant overalls to name but a few. Then again I'm sure all of this will eventually come out in the HSE serious accident investigation & in the CWU Branch Area Safety Reps accident investigation in whether any health and safety legal compliance issues were involved.

What gets me is that BT have said that following the explosion and fire they will ensure that safety procedures and controls are in place and the details will be promulgated to BT Fleet. By this statement do they mean safety procedures and controls aren't already in place in the first instance?

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 03 Oct 2008, 08:30

What gets me is that BT have said that following the explosion and fire they will ensure that safety procedures and controls are in place and the details will be promulgated to BT Fleet. By this statement do they mean safety procedures and controls aren't already in place in the first instance
No, it means they'll ensure employees understand and are still following safety instructions as required. It happens after every serious industrial accident.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 03 Oct 2008, 09:26

No, it means they'll ensure employees understand and are still following safety instructions as required. It happens after every serious industrial accident.

It should not take a very serious industrial accident for the message to get through if in the first instance proper training and instruction has been given and continues to be given to the workforce.

The consequences of companies or employers failing to provide safe systems of work, failing to provide proper training and instruction for their members of staff, operating faulty systems, failing to ensure that proper risk assessments and training is carried out, when risks are not properly assessed and controlled, failing to ensure that workplaces are properly organised, ensuring that protection equipment is fit for purpose and not in a poor condition, adopting a few simple but necessary measures, preventing their workforce from exposure to dangerous substances, failure to comply with enforcement notices, pressurising their staff into giving false and erroneous evidence to cover their tracks, where there is a complete disregard for health and safety are all plain to see and the lack and implementation of such actions can have serious and often fatal consquences for their workforce and their families.

Comments of three different HSE Inspectors Investigations (as examples).

"HSE’s investigation found that blockages in the washing system occurred several times a day, yet there was no formal procedure for unblocking the machine, nor any training designed for such incidents. Workers were regularly climbing into the conveyors, placing them at significant risk of injury. The system for stopping the conveyors in an emergency, which the employee in this incident activated, was also faulty. This serious incident could, and should have, been prevented by the company ensuring that proper risk assessments and training for using this type of machinery were carried out. The company should also have taken steps, either at the point of installation or during use, to ensure that when the machine was stopped it exhausted all the energy within the system so components could not continue moving. This case illustrates how things can go wrong when risks are not properly assessed and controlled. HSE will not hesitate to take action against those who fall short of the law in such a way." – 1.

"Although the company had identified that pedestrians were at risk from moving vehicles, and taken some steps to try to minimise this risk, it had become commonplace for pedestrians to walk through areas where forklift trucks manoeuvred and reversed. Ms Ramos could have been killed as a result of this incident and has suffered a very serious injury, but it could have been avoided if NYK had taken a few simple measures such as ensuring Ms Ramos' duties didn't involve her having to walk across a vehicle loading area or putting barriers in place to prevent pedestrian access. Workplace transport is one of the biggest causes of fatal and major injuries at work. Employers must ensure that workplaces are organised so pedestrians and vehicles can move around the workplace safely. When employers have arrangements in place to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians can circulate safely, these arrangements must be monitored to make sure that they are effective." – 2.

"When the premises were visited the general conditions were found to be poor. Vehicles were being dry blasted using what was suspected to be sand in a building that was not fully enclosed or had a filtered extraction unit. The respiratory protection equipment being used was in poor condition putting employees at risk from silicosis, which is a chronic obstructive, pulmonary disease characterised by breathlessness and a chronic cough. "The HSE sets limits for exposure to workplace hazardous substances and employers have a primary duty to prevent exposure, in this case, by substituting the sand for a safer alternative which does not contain free silica. Where prevention is not reasonably practical employers have a secondary duty to control exposure by using appropriate work processes, systems and controls and the use of suitable work equipment and materials. "The dry blasting of vehicles with sand containing silica and the non compliance of enforcement notices are regarded as very serious matters by the HSE. When passing sentence on Mr Thomson, the Magistrates commented that there had been a complete disregard for Health and Safety and that they had considered a custodial sentence." Health and Safety Inspectors visited the premises on 29 June 2006 and the complaint was found to be justified. A Prohibition Notice was served prohibiting sand blasting without adequate respiratory protection equipment and Improvement Notices served for failing to maintain respiratory protection equipment, failing to provide suitable facilities for eating and drinking and for failing to provide engineering control measures. The premises were revisited on 6 February 2007 and it was found that conditions had not changed and the enforcement notices had not been complied with. A further Prohibition Notice was served prohibiting sand blasting without adequate respiratory equipment. – 3.

Examples taken from http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/press.htm

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 03 Oct 2008, 10:50

It should not take a very serious industrial accident for the message to get through if in the first instance proper training and instruction has been given and continues to be given to the workforce.

No it shouldn't, but human nature being as it is, employees often cut corners if they think they can get away with it or it saves a bit of time.
[How many signs are there in MCs about pushing only one York at a time, and how many people of ALL grades can be seen pushing one while pulling another?]
In this instance, it would appear the accident had nothing to do with training or instruction in the equipment's use, but everything to do with welding something which, in the normal course of everyday work, wouldn't or shouldn't have been welded.

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 03 Oct 2008, 11:40

Agreed. Statistically most accidents are caused not by a lack of training or health & safety rules but by blatant disregard.

smudger54 · Post by **smudger54** » 03 Oct 2008, 16:48

"Hot work on empty drums of any description and size is not an authorised activity in Vehicle Services.

Why was a gas test or hot work certificate not issued?

Before working for RM i was in the waste industry emptying and cutting tanks and drums up and no work was touched unless one or both were issued. There was an accident a few years ago in Clevedon nr Bristol when a fitter took a Oxy torch to a tanker valve without any tests and the end result was his death when the tanker hatch blew off taking him with it and half the workshop, the company boss was done for corporate manslaughter for not enforcing 'HSE hot work' guidelines.
I hope the lad gets well soon

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 03 Oct 2008, 18:01

Tman wrote:
It should not take a very serious industrial accident for the message to get through if in the first instance proper training and instruction has been given and continues to be given to the workforce.
No it shouldn't, but human nature being as it is, employees often cut corners if they think they can get away with it or it saves a bit of time.
[How many signs are there in MCs about pushing only one York at a time, and how many people of ALL grades can be seen pushing one while pulling another?]
In this instance, it would appear the accident had nothing to do with training or instruction in the equipment's use, but everything to do with welding something which, in the normal course of everyday work, wouldn't or shouldn't have been welded.

Tman yes I would agree with your statement, but human nature being as it is, employees often cut corners if they think they can get away with it or it saves a bit of time. However, and by the same criteria the very same can be said against employers.

Barriers to learning from failure:
Accidents and incidents often arouse powerful emotions , particularly where they have resulted in death or serious injury. On the positive side, this means everyone's attention can be focused on improving prevention. On the negative side however the same emotions can also cause organisations and individuals to become highly defensive . This is natural and understandable but needs to be addressed positively if a culture of openness and confidence is to be engendered to support a mature approach to learning from accidents and incidents.

All too often, in the wake of an accident, the tendency is to seek to attribute blame (frequently to blame the victim) rather than to search for root causes. Yet arguably, the most important thing to establish about accidents is not just how they happened but why they were not prevented . Because ultimately everyone at work has some degree of responsibility for health and safety, a totally 'blame free' approach may not be realistic. Nevertheless, organisations should endeavour to create 'fair' and 'just' cultures in which individuals are not blamed for organisational safety failures over which they have had no control.

Being able to learn from accidents and incidents presupposes that organisations have already got a health and safety management system in place, for example, along the lines suggested by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in their guidance, 'Successful Health and Safety Management' (HSG65). Unless they approach OS&H systematically, their approach to investigation is likely to be cursory and superficial - leading to narrow, technically focused 'quick fixes' rather than seeking a better understanding of underlying causes which could enable them to make 'root and branch' changes in management systems.

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 03 Oct 2008, 18:13

Night Tonic wrote:Agreed. Statistically most accidents are caused not by a lack of training or health & safety rules but by blatant disregard.

Night Tonic

The best statistic that I could quote to you is this: 70 per cent of workplace accidents could be prevented if employers put proper safety control measures in place.

Not my view but of those of (RoSPA) The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 03 Oct 2008, 19:21

Both teaman and nighty are incorect in the assumptions they make

if you don't know anything about the incident then do not make unfounded comments about the lack of following procedures or any dissregard of them on this or any incident / accident !!!

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 03 Oct 2008, 19:39

Its not rules that cause accidents, its PEOPLE - however you want to chop it up and no matter how many health and safety rules you put in place, people cut corners and for the record I'm talking about accidents in general not this one. Look around your own DO - you'll see breaches all day long and they KNOW the rules.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 03 Oct 2008, 19:46

Night Tonic wrote:Its not rules that cause accidents, its PEOPLE - however you want to chop it up and no matter how many health and safety rules you put in place, people cut corners and for the record I'm talking about accidents in general not this one. Look around your own DO - you'll see breaches all day long and they KNOW the rules.

And the managers turn a blind eye because otherwise the work would never get

done.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 03 Oct 2008, 19:50

The biggest breaches of safety procedures are made by managers at royal fails sites through out the land i dare say

and certainly at my office. They turn a blind eye to the breaches on a daily bassis until something goes wrong then the shi* hits the fan