Posted By Stuart Nagle
This question is not so much one of why do I need an intrinsically safe torch, as one of what may happen without the use of such equipment.
The Confined Spaces Regulations state that electrical equipment used ‘in confined space working’ should be intrinsically safe. It does not state that this only applies to areas within the actual space.
Obviously, there is a potential risk that gases, fumes or vapours escaping or venting from the space may ignite or explode, if they are in contact with a source of ignition. This could include turning a non-intrinsically safe torch on or off outside the space.
As we know, many gases, methane included, are lighter than air and will rise if given the opportunity, Other gases, such as Hydrogen Sulphide, whilst generally considered a toxic gas, is flammable/explosive at sufficient concentrations. Whilst Hydrogen Sulphide is heavier than air and normally will seek the lowest area of a space, there are records where the gas, when heated, and as all gases will do, expanded and escaped out from an open manhole (within a concrete open topped waterway) killing employees who where outside the identified confined space.
Whilst this was not due to fire or explosion, it demonstrates graphically the potential for harm in such circumstances. This is true for most gases and obviously, those that offer the risk of fire or explosion, may be ignited where an unprotected source is used such as non-intrinsically safe equipment.
Further to the above, in respect of other legislation such as PUWER and HSAWA and MHSWR, the employer has a legal duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe systems of work, and the correct suitably tested and calibrated tools and equipment are used. The employer must train his employees and provide instruction and supervision.
In this case, as the work is confined spaces working, I believe the argument that an intrinsically safe torch was not necessary, would not stand up to the test of these legal duties in the event of an incident. Clearly, those involved are aware of the risks and are not doing everything, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure the risks are adequately controlled.
Where there is a reasonably foreseeable potential danger involved, and it is reasonably practicable to provide simple and inexpensive equipment, e.g. an intrinsically safe torch(s), to guard against the risks posed, this must be done. This is what the term ‘reasonably practicable’ defines.
As a further example of the potential risks, one may also quote Regina – V – Associated Octel. In this instance a non-intrinsically safe lighting source, namely a lead-light within a protective cage, was smashed within a chemical storage tank undergoing repair and maintenance. Whilst the space was inert prior to the works, the substances introduced to the space gave off flammable vapours that were ignited by the breaking light-bulb with almost fatal effect, and seriously injuring the occupant of the space.
Whilst this incident was within a space, the potential for an ignition source to ignite the atmosphere immediately adjacent to the opening of the space is obvious. Is a person using a torch that is not intrinsically safe going to remember that switching it off, as well as on, could kill, and leave the vicinity of the space before doing so?
Where confined space work is undertaken, all sources of ignition should be excluded. This also includes smoking within the vicinity of open access and egress points of confined spaces, as well as those sources that may give rise to a static discharge, such as water jetting etc. These rules have not been established to be tested by persons trying to avoid compliance, they have been put in place so that employers can ‘ensure’ ‘so far as reasonably practicable’, that all actions to safeguard the health, safety and welfare or employees and others who may be affected by their actions or within their undertaking are carried out.
To ignore such simple rules is not only dangerous, but could lead to prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment, and of course death.... It is worth it !!
Hope this helps your argument Ciaran.
Regards...
Stuart Nagle