FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: John Webb on May 23, 2007, 11:29:54 PM
-
Just under a year ago (July 06) I commented on the upset to railway services caused by a fire involving acetylene cylinders at Kings Cross which closed down the railway there with problems for 10s of thousands of commuters.
Today the London news reported on a car workshop fire under a railway arch on the approaches to London Bridge which involved Acetylene cylinders. This again resulted in the cancellation of many trains and chaos to many thousands of people trying to get home or to work.
Has anyone added up the economic costs of such disruption against the costs to the car trade and others of using something other than acetylene, particularly close to main transport arteries, to remove such disruption?
I know I don't commute myself any more but with 10 years experience of it in the past (including the very line affected today) I have considerable sympathy with those affected.
-
John
Yes they have added it all up and it's lots (I got caught up in all the agro yesterday)
There are moves affoot to establish alternative ways of dealing with Cylinders. Watch this space....
-
That is twice this year that a fire involving cylinders has caused disruption at London Bridge. LFB has also closed the A2 and the M25 in the past through the dangers of fires involving DA cylinders. The 200 metre exclusion zone creates a difficulty for any OIC and whilst cooling takes place road and rail networks will be closed down. Do not forget that local residents were moved away from their houses so it is not just a commuter thing. As wee brian has stated there are things happening and this was alluded to in the TV interviews by the PLO for the LFB.
-
I have lost track of how many central London fires that have caused serious complications due to the issue of cylinders on site. I wonder (as an outsider from the service) is we are:
- too cautios tackling these
or
- not strict enough with those who use cylinders............
-
Probably been posted before...sorry
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/963/12007SafetyofAcetyleneContainingCylindersDuringandAfterInvolvementinafire_id1505963.pdf
Intresting idea about using the marksman.
-
Thanks for your comments. Glad to know something is afoot on this topic.
-
Thanks Goodsparks- I had not seen that document before.
You wold have thought that the gas cylinder supply industry had a duty under HASAWA to produce a product that was safe in use, and that in a malfunction could be controlled safely and with realistic emergency procedures.
And that it was time we got away from this antique technology. I know theres nothing like good old C2H2 for energy and the triple carbon bond is a bit unusual and hairy but couldn't somebody come up with a widget inside that would turn it into an inert mixture in the case of overheating?
-
Interesting about the 'moves a foot' comment-Is it to do with some form of licensing? or is it about changing proceedures?.The DCLG document concluded that although current proceedures in the uk were not perfect,there was no drive to change them.having seen a few of these go off,would be cautious about any relaxation in cordons.However,we are being proactive on advising users to consider the option of using something else instead.
-
I agree with you Pip
It's all very well having robust procedures to deal with these cylinders after the've been heated (including sharpshooters), but surely applying more rigorous legal controls may prevent some of these fires in the first place
AnAcetylene Cylinder Licensing Scheme could both control risk and, if the fees were set at the right level, act as a financial deterrent to those who routinely use acetylene who could be using less volatile gases such as oxy-propane and MAPP.
Any licensing scheme should be enforced by the local fire authority after all it's they who have to pick up the pieces in the evnt of a fire. They must set stringent standards in terms of fire precautions and fire safety management. A significant cost of the scheme should lay with the licensees so that only a limited extra burden on local taxpayers is levied
The responsible person would have to set out their case for the use of acetylene and show that they have considered/assessed other industrial gases. Reasons for rejecting other gases must be supplied. If agreement is reached that they do need acetylene for their process, the FRS would lay down strict conditions, including use, storage and signage to warn fire crews. The system should involve unannounced inspections and severe penalties, including the power to impose an immediate the suspension of the licence.
At present, these highly dangerous, highly disruptive cylinders are in widespread unnecessary use, often in environments which are not well managed/controlled.
It's about time the legislators got to work on this problem. Now that commuters who travel to leafy Surrey and Kent have been disrupted by two fires in a month (400 trains cancelled from London on Thursday!!), maybe something will happen at last
-
I agree with you Pip
It's all very well having robust procedures to deal with these cylinders after the've been heated (including sharpshooters), but surely applying more rigorous legal controls may prevent some of these fires in the first place
AnAcetylene Cylinder Licensing Scheme could both control risk and, if the fees were set at the right level, act as a financial deterrent to those who routinely use acetylene who could be using less volatile gases such as oxy-propane and MAPP.
Any licensing scheme should be enforced by the local fire authority after all it's they who have to pick up the pieces in the evnt of a fire. They must set stringent standards in terms of fire precautions and fire safety management. A significant cost of the scheme should lay with the licensees so that only a limited extra burden on local taxpayers is levied
The responsible person would have to set out their case for the use of acetylene and show that they have considered/assessed other industrial gases. Reasons for rejecting other gases must be supplied. If agreement is reached that they do need acetylene for their process, the FRS would lay down strict conditions, including use, storage and signage to warn fire crews. The system should involve unannounced inspections and severe penalties, including the power to impose an immediate the suspension of the licence.
At present, these highly dangerous, highly disruptive cylinders are in widespread unnecessary use, often in environments which are not well managed/controlled.
It's about time the legislators got to work on this problem. Now that commuters who travel to leafy Surrey and Kent have been disrupted by two fires in a month (400 trains cancelled from London on Thursday!!), maybe something will happen at last
well said!
-
Most of these seem to be on construction sites. If contractors adhered to the recommendation of the Joint Code of Practise for Fire Prevention on Construction Sites, these situations might be less frequent. (JcoP published by the LPCB, CFOA and the building federation - I think, all from memory....I'm on holiday and not that dedicated at the moment.....)
-
messy
I see where you are coming from and a licencing scheme may help.
However this would be running against the present government philosophy of shifting the responsibility onto the companies and individuals involved as has happened with the RRO and DSEAR.
How about prosecuting the companies involved with failing to make arrangements to protect relevant persons, ie anyone likely to be within the exclusion zone, on the grounds that it is reasonably foreseeable that if there was a fire the acetylene cylinders would explode endangering persons within that area?
-
Give them the bill for making half the population of London late for work.
-
We have taken the approach of carrying out specific audits on premises known or suspected of using acetylene within 200m of a significant risk (eg Motorway, Rail Line, Football Stadium). The term 'Relevant Person' extends to any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises. The owner/occupier is then advised to inform all those within the 200m zone of the use of acetylene within the site along with the potential harm/disruption to the neighbourhood.
It is early days, but it is still surprising how many firms have either re-assessed their reliance on acetylene and have switched to other methods of welding, heating or cutting.
Paul
-
BBC London news, at 10.30pm today reports that Transport for London has written to all tenants of railway arch-based premises telling them that they must not keep or use Acetylene gas cylinders in their premises on pain of eviction. The recent series of incidents affecting transport in London was cited as the reason for this action. The broadcast went on to say it was likely that Network Rail would take similar action regarding its property.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6914758.stm
About time too
Maybe other significant landowners including local authorities,will follow TFLs lead
But as I have stated earlier in this thread, licensing wold be a fairer option as some premises - such as research labs- cannot exchange acetylene for anything else.
-
The "Evening Standard" had a short report earlier this week; apparently only some 70 firms are involved.
The bigger problem than companies actually in railway arches (who can be controlled by their landlord) is those close to but not actually on railway property. This is where Messy's suggestion of licensing would be an advantage. What's the difference between licensing for petroleum and for acetylene?