An aggregates company recently found out that its hot works procedures and contractual provisions weren’t exactly “fire proof.” What caused it to lose its GB pound 4 million claim against the welding firm that started the blaze?
The sequence of events
On Sunday, February 3, 2008, staff of G M Welding & Engineering (GM) carried out repair works at a plant owned by United Marine Aggregates (UMA) in Greenwich. The work took place in an area known as the “top box,” which was part of the aggregate grading system. It was a relatively regular type of repair, so GM’s welders were very familiar with the work to be done and the methods to be used.
Critically, the underpan of the top box had a combustible rubber lining secured in place with mastic. This created a difficulty as it was unavoidable that the removal of bolts with an oxy-propane torch would produce spatter — molten metal at 1500 degrees Celsius. This was countered by water dousing, but despite best efforts, a droplet of the spatter apparently missed the water spray, burned through the mastic seal, melted through the underpan lining, and started a smouldering fire.
It was later deduced that the fire must have begun between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., but there were apparently no signs of it, either visually or by smell, within the first hour or so, when the welders were still in the area.
At 9:50 a.m., smoke was observed to be pouring from the building, and the fire, now in full force, caused extensive damage to the plant before it could be extinguished.
What precautions were demanded?
UMA had a hot works procedure adherence, which was a contractual requirement. It required the removal of sources of fuel within a 10-meter radius, and where this was not possible, such as where rubber chute linings were present, the materials were to be protected with fire blankets, etc., and damped down where possible. Other critical points examined in the later court cases were the need for a “constant check of the area to be made for any signs of fire” and for fire monitoring on completion. The period of time for monitoring was not defined, and instead it was stated, “The period of time will vary according to circumstances and the degree of risk involved (30 minutes to four hours or longer).”
Following agreement with senior management as to the method of work, the contractors hosed down the work area before and after, and also made sure that a continuous jet of high pressure water was directed onto the side of the underpan while the hot work was being carried out. Fire resistant pads were not used because these were regarded as impractical in the circumstances.
In court
After an eight-day trial at the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, it was determined that the welding company G M was not liable. But UMA appealed — giving rise to the case United Marine Aggregates Ltd v. G M Welding & Engineering Ltd & Ors & Novae Syndicates Ltd [2013].
The appeal court, however, agreed with the judge at the original hearing that the work had been carried out diligently and it was not reasonably foreseeable that a fire of the type that occurred would start so deeply within the lining and therefore be undetectable by smell for more than an hour. The appeal was dismissed.
Learning points?
The case shows that when hot work is introduced into a high-risk area, the risk assessment and procedures need to be made site specific. For example, the looseness with which the designated fire watch period was defined did not help UMA’s case. It was also determined that the term “constant fire watch,” as required by the hot works procedure, did not necessarily mean that an individual needed to be solely dedicated to the task.
A specific assessment might also, at least with hindsight, draw out particular risks from hidden combustible linings in adjacent parts of plant/buildings. And had the actual procedure to be followed been spelled out and issued with a hot work permit, UMA might possibly have found itself in a stronger position.
Another factor for clients to consider is how they go about agreeing upon procedures. In this case, it was deemed that the Hot Works Procedure document had been effectively overridden when UMA senior management agreed upon a slightly different system of work, one not entailing the use of fire-resistant matting.
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Interesting to know whether or not the contractor would have been insured if they were found liable on appeal. Their insurance would have contained a similar hot works condition which may have been in breach – make sure you check and make sure your operatives know about ALL the conditions and warranties on your policy before you start work
Funny you ask. There was another aspect of the case which I didn’t have the space to do justice. Novae Syndicates Ltd were the public liability insurer of G M. The original High Court trial concluded that they would not have been liable for the claim if the judge had found in UMA’s favour. The reason being that GM was in breach of its insurance conditions which required certain methods to be applied to cover or protect combustible materials in the immediate vicinity of hot work. The fact that a fire occurred was deemed to show that GM was in breach of… Read more »
@bruce millington: Surely they would have got the insurance covers on but im not sure whether it will cover the whole thing.
Hello Manshi,
They bought the cover but it was worthless, because they did not comply with the heat terms and conditions. A common occurrence and one that companies need to pay particular attention to
What a minefield! This particular case seems to have so many added complexities due to the way in which the fire broke out. Regardless of the liability, would this incident leave them completely uninsurable as well?
Rob, you give right assesment, as a lot of the factors in play and sometimes you could not take everything in the account or let say everything was covered/protected/fall under insurance in this case…
@bruce millington: Yes you need to evaluate 1st before going further into it. That is something we all have to address carefully.