01 February 2007

Steel giant Corus UK has been fined £1.33 million and ordered to pay £1.74 million in costs following a blast furnace explosion which killed three workers and severely injured 12 others. After the case, relatives of those killed expressed anger at the "meagre" fine.

Stephen Galsworthy, Len Radford and Andrew Hutin died on 8 November 2001 when the No. 5 blast furnace at the Port Talbot Works in South Wales exploded. The investigation concluded the massive explosion was caused by water leaking from coolers (following the failure of water cooling pumps) into the hot furnace. As water turned to steam it expanded rapidly, creating pressure that blew a confined vessel apart. The explosion blasted out 200 tonnes of molten metal and slag.

The HSE's Director for Wales, Terry Rose, said: "The proper design, maintenance and operation of the water cooling system are vital to the safe operation of the furnace and the ability to detect, and stop, water leaking into the furnace in quantity is very important. Corus failed to do this in relation to blast furnace 5." He added: "Those failings were spread over many years, with many different people involved. That is why HSE prosecuted the company, rather than any individuals."  

Referring to "systematic corporate management failures", he said "proper management attention may have broken the chain which led to the explosion".

At Swansea Crown Court on 14 December, Corus pleaded guilty to two charges. The next day, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones fined the company £1 million under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to ensure the safety of employees, and £333 000 under Section 3(1) of the Act for failing to prevent risks to contractors. Sentencing, he described a "lamentable catalogue of failures" and criticised the firm's "casual and sloppy" management attitude.

In 2005 Corus made pre-tax profits of £580 million.

Andrew Hutin's father Michael told HSW he is "absolutely disgusted" with the fine and does not believe that Corus has been "penalised in any shape or form". Nor does he believe that the proposed new corporate manslaughter legislation - had it been in place - would have made any difference to the outcome because, as it stands, it still fails to make directors responsible in the way he would expect.

Categories: Corporate manslaughter, Fire, Enforcement (prosecutions), Enforcement (prosecutions), Manufacturing / engineering, Prosecutions



Share this page

Printer-friendly version