Whined and fined

Between 1990 and 1996, 769 serious electrically-related fires have caused over £350 million of damage? Yet no mention is made of them in the news.

When physical injuries are taken into account, the true horror becomes apparent. Burns are the most frequent injury sustained, whether they are from fires or electric shock. Between 1989-90 and 1995-96, 3500 cases of burns to employees and self employed operatives were reported to the HSE.

If you suffer severe burns, they usually pump you full of fluids to keep you alive for a few weeks. Pneumonia can then set in and they have to get the fluids out of your body. It's not a pleasant death. Just consider this quote from an inspecting fatalities coroner in the 1970s: "I've seen human fat running down a wall following a fire caused by electricity".

The catalogue of accidents doesn't stop at injuries: 21 people were killed due to fires caused by faulty electrical hardware between 1992-93 and 1995-96. Seven operatives have also been killed due to insufficient training; nine because of inadequate supervision and three following the failure of 'permit to work' procedures.

There have been 356 convictions under the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Fines have been rising slowly, from an average of £1051 to £1959, but is this enough? £2000 may seem a large sum, but when the huge value of some projects are considered it is a paltry amount. So the HSE now concentrates prosecutions on individuals, to whom £2000 is a lot of money, or pushes for a custodial sentence.

You and the regulations

So how do you work well with the HSE? Simple – know the regulations. If you know and apply them, then you won't need to talk to the HSE. In fact, unless you are from specialised industries such as nuclear or petrochemicals, the only time you will see the electrical inspector is if you have an incident. Many managers seem at a loss when trying to deal with the new health and safety regulations but, in most cases, it is wrong to assume that the new directives place more demands on organisations.

Most new regulations, even where they are implementing EC Directives, are simply rationalising and updating existing legislation. The purpose and intent remains largely the same. Even the requirement for risk assessment is not new but makes explicit what has been implicit as a result of case law for some time.

Managers know that accidents cost money and, particularly in the chemical and other high hazard industries, they are aware of the potential for catastrophic loss. They are, however, seldom aware of the extent of the substantial financial losses that can accumulate from day-to-day failures in health and safety systems because of lack of maintenance.

The potential savings from better management and regular maintenance can be substantial, and there is a new emphasis on this requirement, which asks organisations to demonstrate their arrangements for controlling risks, as well as using risk assessment.

As in quality control, process management is the key to controlling risk. The law on health and safety management establishes some key components of an effective management process. Once this is in place and working, complying with the remaining details becomes a matter of fine tuning.

What's changed in nine years?

It is now nine years since the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 were introduced, but what has changed? Not much. Those ignoring other regulations also ignore this.

Modern switchgear works on the most basic electrical principles but still relies on complicated mechanical linkages and close tolerances, which can go wrong and must, therefore, be maintained.

Only a very small proportion of manufacturing companies undertake regular, planned electrical maintenance and comply fully with the demands of the Electricity At Work Regulations (EAWR) 1989. This means not only that a majority of industrial organisations may well be in breach of the law, but that they are probably taking unnecessary risks in terms of their production capabilities and, more importantly, the safety of their employees.

Ethical and cheaper

For more than 20 years, industrialists and leading health and safety professionals have argued that high health and safety standards are not only ethically desirable but, if pursued as part of a wider strategy of management control, can help reduce an organisation's costs.

This argument has not secured universal acceptance because its validity in actual terms has not been conclusively demonstrated, as the exact extent of preventable loss has not been identified. Managers have tended to focus on identifiable costs, namely those involved in complying with health and safety legislation: they have regarded these costs as a drain on their budgets.

A costing model (see figure 1) can relate the cost of failure to the cost of the control programme. It shows a break-even point where further investment in the control programme will not give a net return. However, few, if any, leading companies consider that they have reached this point: many believe that they need to invest further in the managerial control of accidental loss.

In all, 39% of incidents are caused by plant (see figure 2), which includes electrical switchgear as well as machinery. Only 4% of this is hv, which indicates the greater degree of awareness, but lv accounts for 49% (see figure 3). Add lv switchgear to lv cables and the overall figure increases to 37% of all incidents due to lv distribution systems.

Using the law

This may be a case of preaching to the converted for many electrical staff, whose efforts may simply be frustrated by a lack of support from their employers. However, the law can lend considerable weight.

The EAW Regulations require employers to comply and, likewise, require that all employees co-operate with their employer to ensure compliance. In practice, this means that anyone who believes that maintenance, or any other action, is necessary for preventing danger is legally obliged to bring this to the attention of their superiors. In so doing, they are seen to be offering their co-operation. Anyone who then withholds the necessary finances, without good cause, is likely to be considered to be in breach of the law by virtue of non-co-operation. Regrettably however, this fact is not widely understood or acted upon.

Even where the funding exists, departments often lack the staff, training or experience to conduct the work. Qualification to BS 7671, for example, relates to electrical installation and does not imply competence to conduct maintenance work. Where further training and appropriate supervision are not readily available, it is often necessary to seek outside help.

Calling in support can be an effective option. It enables the company to ensure that maintenance is planned and conducted by competent staff, it eliminates the need to keep large stocks of spares, and experienced contractors often suggest ways of rescheduling routine maintenance work so as to maximise safety and production efficiency.

Ultimately, all EAWR requirements are based on an acceptance of the reality of the working environment – that electrical equipment degrades over time, that people make mistakes, that accidents do happen. They place great emphasis on preventing danger and on the consequent importance of electrical maintenance. The aim of keeping people safe and minimising the threat of lost production must surely be shared by us all.