Rank: Super forum user 
|
Has anyone had experience of HSE asking for maintenance/inspection of storage tanks to be included in PUWER?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Is a static storage tank 'work equipment'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Wasn’t it Knowles v Liverpool CC where a flagstone was deemed to be work equipment. So I would have to say yes it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
chris42 wrote:Wasn’t it Knowles v Liverpool CC where a flagstone was deemed to be work equipment. So I would have to say yes it is. having just read the case summary I would say no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What is the contents of the tank?
If any form of POL, then I guess you could argue it comes under DSEAR for maintenance/inspections etc.
More info please.
Contents?
Size/volume?
Location - indoors/outdoors?
Pressurised or ambient conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The tank is probably considered to come under PUWER, given the current definition of 'work equipment'
“work equipment” means any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work
Installation being the key word.
So the requirement for maintenance/inspection is contained in PUWER.
If pressurised, then the PSSR may well also apply, if the tank meets the requirements of the regs.
PSSR = Pressure Systems Safety Regulations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Safety Smurf wrote:chris42 wrote:Wasn’t it Knowles v Liverpool CC where a flagstone was deemed to be work equipment. So I would have to say yes it is. having just read the case summary I would say no. If something like a flagstone is considered work equipment, why would a storage tank not be ?, not having a go at you, just wanted to understand your reasoning. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
chris42 wrote:Safety Smurf wrote:chris42 wrote:Wasn’t it Knowles v Liverpool CC where a flagstone was deemed to be work equipment. So I would have to say yes it is. having just read the case summary I would say no. If something like a flagstone is considered work equipment, why would a storage tank not be ?, not having a go at you, just wanted to understand your reasoning. Chris Hi Chris, As I understand it the flagstone was considered 'material' as opposed to 'equipment'. Liverpool CC appealed based on the letter of the law but the appeal was rejected on the basis that in the spirit of the law it included 'material'. http://www.lawgazette.co...v-liverpool-city-council
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good afternoon Safety Smurf I was sure that during my diploma training (admittedly a few years ago now), that we discussed this case for its use in defining what may be construed as “equipment” (most of the class found it hard to accept at first). From the web site you listed, it states that the appeal was overturned, so therefore the original court finding stands (doesn’t it), which was that it was considered to be work equipment. These web sites below seem to be suggesting the same. This is why I felt that if a natural piece of stone (to someone fitting it) can be considered equipment, then a man-made storage tank surly would as well. This case was 1992 -93 so I’m happy to be proven wrong. Also curious as to what the storage tank holds. http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/PrInj19931993.phphttp://www.independent.c...e-summaries-1504443.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Chris,
My understanding was that the law was translated to encompass equipment and material whereas it only specifically mentioned equipment and it was on this basis that LCC appealed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The Liverpool case is a red herring since it concerns a definition under Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969.
I am interested in the defintion of work equipment in PUWER. I think I have found the answer:
Section 6(2) of PUWER says that work equipment exposed to conditions causing detioration which is liable to result in a dangerous situation has to be inspected at regular intervals.
The HSE reasoning seems to be that since this tank has to be inspected under COMAH for the same reasons as in 6(2) above then it is work equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The official explanation:
PUWER applies to the provision and use of all work equipment and applies to all workplaces and work situations where the HSW Act applies. The scope of 'work equipment' is very wide and covers almost any equipment used at work. As you stated in your note paragraph 59 of the acop gives examples of some of the work equipment covered. Clearly such a list cannot name all work equipment covered by these regulations, but work equipment excluded from PUWER is described - clearly vessels and pipe work are not excluded and so the assumption is that they are work equipment.
However storage equipment such as vessels and pipe work are referred to within PUWER elsewhere. Regulation 12(3)(d) refers to 'the intended or premature discharge of any article or of any gas, dust, liquid, vapour or other substance which, in each case, is used or stored in the work equipment'. Further reference is given in paragraph 216.
In addition storage and feed vessels are referred to in paragraph 299.
In essence any piece of equipment which is used within a workplace covered by the HSWA and is not specifically excluded is covered by PUWER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
it is equipment therefore it should be managed
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.