Join our Mailing List!
Sign up to receive our regular emails with details of new products and special offers.
Sign up to receive our regular emails with details of new products and special offers.
I have spent some time of late looking at UK Legislation relating to the storage of hazardous goods so that we can better inform our customers on the new range of Safety Storage Cabinets and Security Chests recently added to our portfolio.
In doing so I chanced upon an illuminating website www.statutelaw.gov.uk that lists all the Primary Statutes of Law enacted in the UK over the years and a good many Secondary Statutory Instruments (sub Laws I guess) that also apply to the immensely tolerant People of these Islands. The list includes our Business Law of the moment – the daunting Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Although I thought we had the Fire Safety legislation pretty well covered in fact there are 144 pieces of fire safety legislation in the list so maybe we will have to revisit this.
In all there are 5571 Statute Laws dating back to the Statute of Marlborough in 1267, although King Johns signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 effectively set the earliest seeds for a modern day Westminster.
What astonished me was that over 1000 of these Statutes of the Realm have been enacted since 1997 – that’s the year of our lord Tony Blair by the way. Put in context that’s 20% of all Laws passed in 13 of the 700 odd Years since Parliament was effectively created under King Henry III (give or take the odd Dissolution). Add to this 500 plus Statutory Instruments since 2005 alone and I doubt we can fault our disgraced Parliament for effort.
Some of these Laws make you wonder just how over regulated we are. There is seemingly a Law for doing most everything apart from breathing.
We have little gems like “The Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms Act) South Lanarkshire 2005″ and “The Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005″. I bet you also didn’t know there is a law that states that it is illegal to offer a fully assembled bicycle for sale without a bell “which is of a category intended for use on bicycles”. There is of course a separate law for unassembled bicycles and why not!
Maybe our legislators should refresh their memory of the Statute of Marlborough which in short put the following into the Law of the Land some of which sounds is eerily resonant of today’s troubled times.
“It was Provided and established and with full consent ordained, That whereas the Realm of England having been of late depressed by manifold Troubles and the evils of Dissensions, (it is) in need of a Reformation of the Laws and Usages, whereby the Peace and Tranquility of the People both high (bred) and low may be preserved …….forever.”
Like a good deal of the freedoms and human rights provided in the Magna Carta, Marlborough’s Law no doubt has been repealed since.
Tony
Much has already been said in these pages regarding Fire Risk Assessments but the legal requirements for Risk Assessments in your place of work doesn’t stop there.
Regulations
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002, also requires you to ensure chemicals and dangerous substances stored, used or sold from the workplace are stored and handled in a way that minimise the attendant risk to employees and visitors of exposure to these substances. You must also ensure that you also minimize the risk of environmental damage through leaks and spills.
DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002) is a further set of regulations concerned specifically with protection against risks from fire, explosion and similar events arising from dangerous substances used or present in the workplace.
Risk assessment
As with Fire Risk Assessments the COSHH and DSEAR risk assessment require employers (and the self employed) to conduct a detailed examination of the work place and working practices to identify any dangerous substances present or liable to be present in the workplace; the work activities involving them and an assessment of any risks (like sources of ignition) that may cause a fire, explosion and similar events that have potential to harm employees and the public.
Conducting a Risk Assessment requires a combination of knowledge of the substances used in the workplace, the hazards they pose and a fairly common sense approach to what constitutes a risk. It is then a case of implementing precautions that minimise this risk. Some typical examples are given below.
Store hazardous chemicals in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions in an appropriate container or cabinet clearly marked with a Hazard warning label. A range of cabinets designed to meet COSHH and DSEAR regulations are available.
Store the minimum quantity of hazardous substances necessary.
Look at the manufacturer’s safety data sheet and store incompatible substances separately.
Keep a spill kit close to storage areas to contain and clean up and leaks or spills that occur. Most approved flammable liquid and COSHH storage cabinets have inbuilt spillage sumps.
Issue staff with appropriate protective clothing (PPE) and ensure adequate ventilation when handling substances.
Make sure that any employees that handle dangerous substances are aware of what to do in the event of a spill or fire.
A risk assessment is required regardless of the quantity of dangerous substance present, and as like the Regulatory reform (fire safety) Order legislation, if you have 5 or more employees you must keep a physical record of the assessment and actions taken.
Finally if your business has oil storage containers, the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 or the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 may apply.
The oil storage regulations apply if you store oil above ground in containers with a capacity of more than 200 litres. The regulations define Oil to include petrol, heating oil, vegetable and plant oil, and heavy oils such as bitumen and solvents.
You are not affected by the regulations if:
More reading on DSEAR can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg370.pdf and
COSHH at http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/
Tony
A so called “secret” database held by the grandly named “Higher Education Funding Council for England” was published in the Guardian newspaper this Monday. It revealed that scores of University halls of residence and other buildings including lecture theatres, were classified as “at serious risk of major failure or breakdown” and “unfit for purpose”. In the most severe cases, buildings were deemed totally inoperable because they contravene fire regulations.
The right to publish the database has been the subject of a two-year legal tussle by the newspaper, which ended when a freedom of information tribunal ruled that it was in the public interest to release the data. It shows that more than 90% of higher education institutions had at least 10% of their buildings classified as below the level deemed “sound and operationally safe”. Some Universities had more than 40% of buildings classed as inoperable.
How the Hefce, a government funded Quango, could be granted a legal platform to argue that information on the safety of our university students was not an issue of public interest seems unbelievable. Of course the delaying tactic meant that these buildings could remain “operable” in the interim, and also meant that now the Universities can claim the data to be out of date. They duly responded to the forced publication by saying they have invested millions of pounds in their buildings since the assessments were made two years ago. So I suppose the fifty grand of tax payer cash spent in legal cost by the Hefce to stop publication was not just a cynical ploy by its paymasters to kick the issue into the long grass?
What is farcical is that we will probably never get to know the extent of remedial action taken. The length of time it takes between commissioning an “official” investigation and publishing its findings will always provide scope to claim “major improvements” have been made since collecting the data. Round and round it goes.
As the revelations come just a week after the government announced that university grants for capital projects, such as new buildings, would be cut by 14.9% in cash terms to £562m in 2010-11, it is hard to see Vice-chancellors having the funds for new building and fire safety improvements any time soon even with the low cost of fire safety equipment.
One possible solution presents itself. Why don’t the law enforcers treat education in the same way they treat businesses and send in the fire inspectors to check for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order? The secret database indicates the sector should be a happy hunting ground for fire safety breeches and the fines raised from subsequent prosecutions can be redirected to upgrades. In the process it will also make our kids a good deal safer in their places of learning.
When it comes to ethical priorities the much vaunted political mantra “Education, Education, Education”, should surely be preceded by “Safety, Safety, Safety”! The funding should be provided to Universities and Schools to ensure this.
To view the full Secret data click here
Tony
You sometimes have to wonder what is happening to common sense in these sceptred Isles.
I read recently that despite fierce opposition from environmentalists the Scottish Enterprise Minister finally approved the upgrade of a major power line involving 600 pylons up to 60m high spanning 220 kilometres and passing through the Cairngorm National Park.
At the same time environmentalists blinded by the quest for renewable energy are also supporting the construction of some 2000 additional onshore Wind Turbines 80 meters in height, many in plain sight of residential communities on otherwise pristine countryside.
The irony of the Scottish Highland project is that the pylons are primarily for distribution of Scotland’s renewable energy production – the holy grail of environmentalists and loony Greens – and will safeguard supplies for countless businesses and homes.
In an article in todays Yorkshire post it transpires that during the prolonged cold spell our existing wind turbines were running at as little as 5% efficiency due to lack of wind. It gets worse as apparently these monolithic white elephants only work in the right kind of wind. They have to be shut down in gales and storms, aka when the energy in the wind is highest, to prevent damage.
This is the Achilles heel of the whole wind power renewable argument. Although the odd politician can claim to save the World, not one (as yet) can control the wind. How can we possibly base a coherent energy policy on an unknown quantity?
They are also fairly complex machines and apparently at any one time 10% are out of commission anyway awaiting repairs. Who bears the cost of this lunacy – the consumer who else.
The claimed economic benefit is also tempered by the fact that these turbines are all made overseas. There is not a single manufacturer in the UK.
Our energy to date has come from the application of heat, generated from fossil or nuclear fuels the latter carbon neutral. For me it is the only sensible way to go and the billions spent on the quest for renewables would be better spent on developing clean fuel technologies based on the abundant natural resources we can harness from within the UK.
At Fire and Safety Centre we are concerned primarily with safety both of the individual and the business customers we support, providing reliable and proven fire and safety products to combat the unexpected and unforeseen, Without securing an equally reliable and proven source of energy for our future the safety of society itself is put at risk. This is a far greater clear and present danger than climate change.
Tony
In what has been hailed as a landmark decision in Fire Safety the Welsh Assembly members voted on Wednesday 27th Jan this year to make the installation of automatic fire sprinklers compulsory in all new build homes in Wales.
The euphoria amongst the proponents may well be short lived as the Welsh vote is only the first step and now needs to be formally approved in both houses of Westminster before the legislation can receive Royal assent. Allocating parliamentary time this side of the General Election seems highly unlikely and the new incoming Administration may not be so keen on supporting such legislation.
Not that I am in any way against the wider use of automatic sprinklers but I do see some difficulties in enforcing any legislation. The powerful construction industry lobby may well have something to say as it will add a few thousand pounds to building costs. There is also the issue of ensuring regular maintenance and testing which is essential with Automatic Sprinkler Systems and will represent an ongoing annual cost for the householder.
Private and self build home builders could well argue that other equally effective options are available in the form of smoke alarms and the more versatile domestic friendly fire extinguishers like the ABF, that are already reducing the incidence of deaths and injuries from domestic fires. The figures bear this out with official statistics showing sustained year on year falls in death and injuries from domestic fires.
I also think Ronnie King, vice-chairman of the National Fire Sprinkler Network was letting enthusiasm get the better of his judgement in claiming the move would lead to making Wales the safest place in which to live in the United Kingdom. He went so far as comparing Residential Sprinklers to the installation of air bags in cars and added that “in the course of time fire deaths in Wales will be almost eliminated, and the horrific burns injuries reduced by up to 80% because of this wonderful visionary decision taken by the Welsh Assembly government.”
Now the current housing stock in Wales according to the latest Government statistics is 1.4million homes or thereabouts virtually none of which have, or will ever have sprinklers fitted. New house builds are running at around 5000 per year and demolitions at less than 100 a year. You don’t need to do the detailed math’s to see that “in the course of time” to reduce injuries by 80% will take a very, very long time indeed to achieve with sprinklers alone. Centuries in fact. It is akin to saying the World will end on Wednesday without specifying which Wednesday.
With the exception of multi occupancy complexes – where careless or reckless homeowners can put other residents at risk – legislation is arguably not the answer. A continuance of the high profile fire safety awareness campaigns, the free smoke alarm scheme and the low cost of alternative fire safety equipment will continue to make our homes a safer place. Promoting the undoubted benefits of sprinkler systems should obviously continue, but on the basis of choice and affordability rather than law enforcement.
Tony
