Case study: Brintons (2014)
Relevance of this case
I was working for an organisation that used Allianz to carry out statutory inspections, and had many ‘discussions’ with the head of building services about the need to check what they were doing. “It’s fine” he said “if anything goes wrong, it will be their fault.” I suggested some sample checks of the Allianz records – working our way through all the equipment over a period of years to check it was all covered. Instead, he dumped a pile of records on my desk, with nothing to cross reference them with, and no support from people who would know what was supposed to be covered.
It was a strange co-incidence then that a few weeks later, this case was published in Health and Safety at Work Magazine.
Events on the day
One of four dye vats (described as industrial pressure cookers) exploded during a production run at Brintons’ Telford site in June 2013. Such was the force of the explosion that it tore the 250kg lid of the vat off its locking mechanism and hinges. The lid then flew up and hit the factory roof, denting one of the girders. The vessels were sited on a mezzanine floor half way up the height of the building, and when the lid came down, rather than landing on the mezzanine, it went over the edge and hit the floor below, narrowly missing a worker.
The explosion was caused by the failure of the vessel’s regulator and pressure relief valve.
Background
As required under the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations (PSSR), Brintons had a formal written scheme of examination, which included the four dye vessels
Brintons had contracted Allianz Engineering to carry out statutory thorough examinations on the four dye vessels.
But Allianz had not completed the periodic thorough examinations of the vats for three years. “There were several other pieces of kit in the written scheme,” said Nic Rigby, a principal HSE inspector, “and Allianz engineers did look at the others.”
Rigby explained “Assumptions were made on both sides. Both parties here failed to do what they should have done, with the effect that the safety devices on the pressure system corroded to the extent that they didn’t work. ”
As the owner and user of the vessels, Brintons had its own duties to maintain the vats’ safety devices, which it failed to do.
Outcome
On 10 September at Telford Magistrates’ Court:
Allianz Engineering Inspection Services admitted it had not carried out the examination properly in line with the scheme of examination, which is an offence under PSSR Regulation 9(2). It was fined £13,000 with costs of £1111.
Brintons Carpets pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 12 of PSSR by failing to maintain its system so that it was safe. It was fined £10,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £1174.
More case studies are listed in Appendix 1 by theme or Appendix 1 by date.
See the full contents list for the book
You can use the Contact form to send me feedback. If you’d like to receive an email when I add or update a chapter, please subscribe to my ‘book club’