Hazardous Materials (Storage) (Hansard, 25 October 1982)

§ Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)

A number of incidents in recent years have involved fires and explosions at warehouses or transport depots, causing enormous damage and distress in the neighbourhoods concerned. A feature of the incidents is the involvement of stores of chemicals. Examination reveals alarming inadequacies in the law and regulations controlling the use of such premises.

The fire and explosion at the Braehead container depot at Renfrew on 4 January 1977 damaged shops and houses up to a mile away and total damage was estimated at £6 million. The incident led to a special investigation and report by the Factory Inspectorate. That, I have no doubt, was partly responsible for a review of notification procedures for hazardous substances and the new regulations laid before Parliament on 4 October this year.

By an ironic coincidence, another major explosion had then just occurred at a transport depot in Salford. It happened on 25 September and again involved chemicals, possibly sodium chlorate, which was also involved at Braehead.

The night explosion woke people in over 500 square miles of the North-West. It broke hundreds of windows in homes and shops and involved the evacuation of 700 people from their homes. Sixty residents were overcome by toxic fumes and the total damage was estimated at £1.5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that it was horrifying that dangerous chemicals were stored in the heart of one of the most thickly populated areas of Europe.

On 13 February of this year a fire involving chemicals occurred at a warehouse in Woodkirk in my constituency. It was described in a report by the West Yorkshire county council: As a fire the Woodkirk incident was not exceptional …As a pollution incident, however, Woodkirk was disastrous. As a result of that incident 150 homes were without tap water for several days, as the supply was turned off in case of poisonous pollution. A local beck and the River Calder were contaminated for many miles. That led to danger warnings to residents, farmers, power stations and industrialists. Local plant and vegetable life was damaged for several weeks. Serious danger from toxic fumes was avoided only by the good fortune of the wind direction. The House will understand the tremendous anxiety that that incident caused my constituents in Woodkirk, and which the other incidents caused to the residents of Renfrew and Salford.

There have been moves over the years to improve safety requirements within and without chemical plants considered to be a major hazard. A major hazard was defined in section 5 of the Department of the Environment's circular 1/72 as where: There might be a substantial loss of life or serious injury outside the confines of the workplace. The circular continued: The preparation of this list called for some arbitrary assumptions to be made about the materials likely to be concerned and the quantities of them which would constitute a major hazard.…both materials and quantities may have to be amended.…in the light of new information becoming available. 866 Such an amended list was issued in the new regulations for the notification of installations handling hazardous substances which are due to come into effect on 1 January 1982. That new list is inadequate with regard to quantities, coverage and mixtures of chemicals.

The Woodkirk incident shows clearly the weakness of present controls and the inadequacy of the latest regulations, which would have had no impact on that incident. The chemicals involved at Woodkirk were diquat, paraquat and octyl-phenol, none of which is on the new list. It was the combination of the chemicals, the method of storage and the position of the warehouse in relation to houses and a water course that provided the mix that brought an environmental and almost human disaster to Woodkirk.

Chemicals are being moved along our roads and railways, and through and into residential areas, for warehousing in changing and diverse quantities and mixtures. It is inadequate to approach the problems of control on a major national-hazard basis. The three cases that I have outlined would not have been classified as major hazards by current legislation or regulations. They were gravely serious, and by a miracle only were not a total disaster.

A recognition of the hazards to local residential areas from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and transport depots must go far beyond concern only with national disasters. It is surely wrong that planning permission can relate only to warehousing and offer no control over the danger arising from what is stored in the warehouses. There is virtually no planning control over this problem.

There is frequently much debate about and planning control power over the change of use of a shop into a fish and chip shop, yet a local community has no means of knowing—nor does it have any power to control—the dangerous chemicals or combinations of chemicals that are stored in the anonymous-faced warehouses in its midst.

I wish to make some positive suggestions for improvements. First, the problems arising from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and depots need to be considered as seriously as those arising from the actual production of chemicals in factories.

Secondly, the use of premises for storage of chemicals should require specific planning permission. Presumably that would require a change in the law, so that such a use becomes "development" and/or a change of use within the meaning of planning law.

Thirdly, consideration needs to be given to dealing with existing warehouses within a changed approach to planning law. Where the use of premises can reasonably be shown to pose a potential danger to a community, I suggest that it is unreasonable to face a local council with the choice between public safety and large financial compensation to warehouse operators.

Fourthly, as an aid to my first three suggestions, or as a partial substitute, consideration should be given to permitting the storage of chemicals only where a specific licence has been granted for that purpose. Surely it is not unreasonable to require the operators of a warehouse to obtain specific permission for the storage of named chemicals in specified maximum quantities in agreed conditions. After all, the object is to provide for the safety and peace of mind of the residents in the neighbourhood of that warehouse.

867 Fifthly, a fresh look needs to be taken at how best to detail the types, quantities and mixtures of chemicals that can be stored safely in warehouses and transport depots.

Sixthly, responsibility for the ultimate authority to authorise and control the storage of chemicals needs to be much simpler and clearer. The present mass of bodies involved—local councils, counties and districts, fire authorities, water authorities, and health and safety executives—bewilders the public and makes accessibility and accountability to local people exceptionally difficult.

Lastly, section 31(4) and (5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 should be brought into effect and applied by the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide extra safeguards against the pollution of water supplies.

I have sought tonight to bring to the attention of the House a problem of genuine concern and real importance to local communities, not only in Woodkirk and Salford, but throughout the country. We should not wait for disasters to make action unavoidable. There are no perfect solutions, and I accept that there is none without problems. However, action is required, and I hope that my suggestion will receive careful consideration by the Ministers concerned.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington)

No one would doubt the importance of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). The most careful consideration will be given to the various points that he raised and the suggestions that he made. The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 have been laid before Parliament. That might afford the opportunity for a debate on those matters which are involved. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me in a quarter of an hour to reply to the important points that he has made.

I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman felt about the serious fire that occurred in a warehouse in his constituency last February. His concern and that of everyone else was heightened by the recent explosions and fires in the constituencies of the hon. Members representing Salford and Ipswich. I sympathise with those who suffered injuries. Fortunately, the injuries that occurred were not serious. However, by saying that, I do not underestimate for one moment the stress and inconvenience that were also caused to those living nearby. The incident at Salford must have been terrifying and the incident that occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency caused great worry and inconvenience to the people affected. It is right that I should take this opportunity to say a little about those incidents.

The fire at Salford began on 25 September at 11.30 pm in a transit warehouse. It was followed by explosions that damaged windows and roofs in adjacent property. Sixty people received hospital treatment, most of them suffering from the effect of smoke and fumes and some from cuts from flying glass.

The Health and Safety Commission has directed the Health and Safety Executive to investigate and make a special report on the incident under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I am satisfied that that is the proper and quick way of establishing the facts behind the incident. The report of the inquiry will be made public.

868 The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that other connected matters should be considered by the investigators, particularly the planning history of the site. I assured the hon. Gentleman by letter that that matter would be considered.

The incident at Ipswich happened at 10.30 in the morning of 14 October at a shipping warehouse in Ipswich. Welding was being undertaken on a metal-framed window shortly before the fire was discovered, but the cause of the fire has not been established. The HSE Is carrying out investigations. The House will be interested to know that the fire occurred where fertiliser ammonium nitrate was being stored together with some charcoal, potassium nitrate, wicker furniture, and other materials. Dense fumes were given off, which caused inconvenience to local residents.

The hon. Member for Batley and Morley also referred to the incident at Woodkirk. He referred in particular to the major pollution that occurred.

Those incidents illustrate the new problems that have arisen as a result of the increased use of hazardous materials. Those incidents would not have happened 50 years ago. If the we of those materials were forbidden, there would be the most drastic effect on British industry. They are of the utmost importance to British industry. That must not be forgotten.

It must also be remembered that measures already exist that can help to minimise the risks, although it is easy to argue that more should be done. All those incidents occurred at places cf work and are therefore covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Act places duties on the employer to ensure the safety not only of his employees but of others who may be affected thereby. The Act is enforced by the HSE and in certain premises by local authority officers.

This matter was touched on by the hon. Gentleman. Since 1972, and because of the risk of an incident on a site affecting people outside the site, local planning authorities have been advised by the Department of the Environment to consult the Health and Safety Executive when they have been considering planning applications for developments handling substantial quantities of potentially hazardous materials or for developments nearby that might be affected by such hazardous installations. At the back of the circular issued in 1972 the hazardous materials are listed.

Unfortunately, planning controls do not necessarily prevent people from setting up new hazardous installations without planning consent. There is no obligation on occupiers to notify the Health and Safety Executive what they are storing, so that neither the local authority nor the Health and Safety Executive may be aware that hazardous activities are taking place. Therefore, one must not underestimate the importance of the new regulations. For the first time, a notification requirement will be placed on those who use hazardous materials.

The new regulations will come into force on 1 January 1983. They will require the notification to the Health and Safety Executive of the presence at any site or in any pipeline of specified quantities of certain hazardous substances. Under the regulations, the person in control of a warehouse holding the threshold quantity or more of a hazardous substance will be required to make notification thereof to the Health and Safety Executive, which will pass the information to the local planning authority and emergency services. I understand that the premises in Salford would have been covered by the regulations. If, 869 as it is believed, there were 27 tonnes of sodium chlorate on site at the time—the threshold in the new regulations is 25 tonnes—the regulations would have bitten there, although they would not have bitten in Ipswich or Morley. The difficulty is that, if one must have regulations providing for notification, one must have a threshold somewhere. It is a matter of judgment as to where the threshold should be placed, bearing in mind the danger involved and the need to ensure adequate enforcement and a reasonable expectation that the regulations will be observed.

The application of the regulations to transport depots presents a problem. It depends on the extent of the associated storage, because the regulations exclude specifically hazardous substances that are being transported. The Advisory Committee on Major Hazards believed it to be right to concentrate its initial work on static hazards, so that railway marshalling yards and overnight depots are effectively excluded. But many transport depots involve storage, pending re-distribution, and in such cases notification requirements would apply.

The regulations stem from the work of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards, which has now almost completed a preliminary review of major hazards in transport and made a report to the Health and Safety Commission. The Commission accepted the report and began further work on the matter. One area identified by the advisory committee as requiring closer consideration was transport depots.

The second report of the advisory committee, published in 1979, suggested changes in planning legislation for hazardous developments, and earlier this year the Health and Safety Commission submitted a series of recommendations to planning Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment produced proposals for amending planning controls over hazardous developent so as to remove hazardous developments from the benefits conferred by the General Development or the Use Classes Order. Those proposals, which would mean more occasions on which planning authorities could exercise specific planning control over such development, are currently subject to public consultation following the publication of the consultative document on 26 August.

I am sure that many organisations and individuals will make their contributions and that by 19 November, the closing date, it will be possible to hear a large number of informed views on this matter. In the light of the comments received, my right hon. Friend will be considering as a matter of urgency what changes should be made.

This touches on the most important part of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. It is a matter of great concern to many of us as to how best we should deal with the planning aspect of this problem. The hon. Member is right in saying that, if one were to say that there had to be specific planning permission for the storage of chemicals, there would have to be primary legislation and a change in the town and 870 country planning legislation. That is not to say that eventually that might not be thought necessary, but it would be a large step.

Finally, the HSE is drawing up further regulations to implement, by January 1984, the provisions of the EC (Seveso) directive on major accident hazards in certain industrial activities. This directive requires further controls on establishments handling many highly toxic chemicals, or larger inventories of other hazardous substances. The main provisions include a duty on the manufacturers to carry out a hazard survey and make a report to the HSE; the preparation of emergency plans by the manufacturer within the site and by a competent authority outside the site; and dissemination of certain information to members of the public who might be affected by an accident.

These provisions will greatly strengthen the controls over many installations where processes take place involving hazardous chemicals. However, they will not greatly affect control over warehouses, as the directive contains significant relaxations for isolated storage of such materials.

Quite clearly, when resources are not unlimited—they never are—priority must be given to larger sites, the places where larger quantities of materials are being stored. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the threshold levels so far as the obligation to notify is concerned are not very low, as is obvious from the impact that they would have on these incidents.

This means that even when the new regulations are in force there may be incidents causing public alarm which do not come within their scope. The premises at Salford would have been notifiable and, in any event, wherever there is a place of work the general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act will continue to apply, together with other duties required by other regulations made under the Act.

For instance, the Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1978, as amended in 1981, prescribe simple rules for labelling over 1,000 pure chemical substances, and this can help to achieve safer storage and transportation. In fact, the 1978 regulations are being revised and greatly expanded to cover all dangerous substances and to provide information for those involved in the storage and use of substances including the emergency services. The revisions should be completed by next year. The importance of this, of course, is that they apply to small as well as large quantities and in circumstances where the new controls for major hazards do not apply.

While I very much regret the incidents that have occurred recently, I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that, while all eventualities can never be catered for, the Government are continuing to devise means to reduce the risks from hazardous substances. Real progress is being made in a number of ways.