Morning Hendlem

My first thought is what does the risk assessment (if any, and in whatever format) have to say about how the business has considered how the risk profile would change with this new shift pattern and how any increased risks would be mitigated?

If there isn't anything on this, then perhaps time for management to sit down and think through the issues, with input from those involved as appropriate.

However, then it seems to me that you might be overegging the conflation between what appear to be two somewhat interrelated concerns:

1. That the individual may be more vulnerable than others on at least once measure - hence the blood sugar monitor.

2. That they work in an ATEX zone and haven't got access to ATEX communication equipment.

Seems to me that No 2 could be easily solved.

As for No 1, I am not sure that a first aider being 80m away is that much of a problem UNLESS there are obstructions to rapid access from where the first aider might be to where the casualty might be.

The greater problem (mostly in terms of time) is how to work out that you have a casualty who might be in no condition to communicate, e.g. being unconscious.

Seems to me that in this respect this is no different from many lone working scenarios UNLESS you think that there is a particular risk that is directly connected to the person potentially collapsing.

So, as example, if this might mean that they could fall into a tank, then perhaps the first mitigation is to enhance the standard of the edge protection.

In some cases it comes down to how blood sugar is monitored and the available equipment.

From the diabetes uk forum:

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/health-safety-issue-cgm-monitoring-v-work-site-rules.195800/

Main thing is to involve the affected party in any discussions about their employment e.g. switching activity to the Ad-Blue or FLT where ATEX is not an issue or company provision of an ATEX phone primarily to access the monitors App as a general free issue or available at work only.

Ian I appreciate your perspective, but I respectfully disagree. While you may be correct that the energy from EMR from a mobile phone should not act as a source of ignition, the phone is still an electrical device and, as such, should be suitably EX-rated for use in that environment.

Additionally, the guidance issued to the fire services by the HSE a few years ago explicitly stated that no devices with rechargeable  lithium batteries should be taken into a Zoned area — this included items as seemingly innocuous as smart watches.

I accept the risk is absolutely minimal, but legal compliance is legal compliance. I have worked with the HSEs Process Safety Experts in the past and some of them pull companies up for having a battery powered clock on the wall in a Zoned area!

Edited by user 19 February 2025 12:39:17(UTC)  | Reason: It didn't like Smart watches as one word!

It depends on how big your hazardous areas are. In general industry many hazardous areas can be quite small for production activities. Much depends on the flamamble liquid/gas and the process pressure that any leak may be at.

Enclosed storage areas can be quite big