|
THE MAIN theme of this edition of the journal, ‘Avoiding disaster’, coincides with the news that a public inquiry is to be held into the Stockline Plastics disaster of May 2004. The inquiry, announced by the Scottish and UK governments, will amount to a comprehensive investigation of the events leading up to the massive explosion at the factory, in which nine people died and 33 others were hurt – Scotland’s worst factory accident since 1968.
The failures of ICL Plastics Limited and ICL Tech Limited, who owned and operated the factory, will be among the subjects examined in a bid to explain the underlying factors that led tothe disaster. With a leak from a corroded LPG gas pipe known to have been the direct cause of the blast, the inquiry will focus on the approach to risk assessment and maintenance, the availability of safety advice, and the qualifications of the pipe installers. The findings, say Ministers, are likely to have significance across the UK.
The organisational failures and the lack of an effective approach to risk management which characterise the Stockline incident – and which led to each of the companies involved being hit by a £200,000 fine in August – are echoed in many of this month’s articles. Indeed, they illustrate how ‘avoiding disaster’ is the common theme that runs through all aspects of the fire safety ‘chain of responsibility’. Whether it be planning and design, risk assessment and management, installed protection systems, or response and regulation – each of these components is critical in ensuring that people, buildings and the environment remain safe.
Broader failures
Industrial accidents or disasters are often attributed to mechanical failure or operator error. However, this tends to mask the broader organisational failures that lie behind many such incidents – in particular, the lack of commitment by senior executives to managing risk, which means that companies do not set aside sufficient resources for safety or do not foster a ‘safety culture’. The explosion and fire at the BP Texas City refinery in March 2005, which caused 15 deaths and 180 injuries, is a good example of how deep-rooted corporate failures can, if circumstances conspire, lead to disaster.
Many businesses, particularly larger, more complex organisations, now recognise that disaster can strike, threatening both the organisation itself and its corporate reputation. As a result, business continuity management (BCM) is now being increasingly used to protect against a range of threats.
Embedding a BCM strategy within an organisation can ensure that crisis management is central to all managerial decisions. Put simply, the organisational structure is built to consider all aspects of risk – a process that can help develop that all-important safety culture. However, central to the success of BCM strategies is that they are maintained and reviewed to ensure that policy, structure and safeguards remain effective – in much the same way that risk assessments must be ‘dynamic’ and updated to take account of any changes made within an organisation.
Effective BCM practices go a long way towards ensuring that organisations steer clear of disaster. However, there are warning signs that a significant number of businesses may not be as ‘up to speed’ with BCM as they should be. A survey carried out by SembCorp Protection this summer revealed that many of those responsible for business continuity in their organisation were concerned about their current state of preparedness and lacked confidence in how they would respond to a crisis. The survey also suggested that too many risk assessments fall into the ‘ticking boxes’ category, raising doubts about whether effective BCM and risk management procedures are in place across business and industry.
Enforcement action, too, has a vital role in preventing potential incidents and ensuring that organisations which breach safety legislation take more effective steps in future to manage risk. The successful prosecution of the Co-operative Group Limited for a catalogue of fire safety failures at six of its stores in southeast England illustrates that companies shown to have poor risk management and the lack of a safety culture can and will be punished in the courts.
Interestingly, during the case the question was raised of whether a central register of fire safety prosecution cases should be set up. A central register, so the argument goes, would list issued enforcement notices and successful prosecutions, and would allow fire authorities and the courts to ensure that the correct decisions are made and appropriate penalties imposed on the most serious or persistent offenders.
Whether it be through prosecutions, incident investigations or public inquiries, the key for all involved in that ‘chain of responsibility’ is that lessons are learnt so that similar accidents or disasters are not allowed to happen. With that in mind, the fire safety profession awaits the findings of the Stockline inquiry with real interest.
Rupert Gilbey is editor of FP&FEJ
|