It's the way THAT YOU DO IT

Early last year, a small cosmetics manufacturer in northern Scotland needed to modify some extractor trunking which removed flammable vapours from a series of 1000-litre mixing vessels. As is standard practice for this sort of procedure, the company called in contractors to carry out the work.

To start, a hole needed to be cut in the trunking, and a contractor used a power drill to make the hole. Unfortunately, because of a lack of communication between contractor and employer, the extraction system was still running. The sparks from the drill ignited the vapour and a jet of flame roared past the contractor's ear. He wasn't hurt, but the fire spread to the mixing vessels and caused near-catastrophic damage.

BLAME WHERE IT'S DUE

Incidents like this are increasingly common in the chemical industry, and it's the employer - not the contractor - who bears the brunt of the liability. This was recently confirmed by a ruling in the House of Lords, in response to an appeal from Associated Octel against a conviction which held the company liable to a serious accident to a contractor. The House of Lords upheld the conviction, ruling that, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, `an employer is under a duty to exercise control over an activity carried out by a contractor, if it forms part of the employer's undertaking.'

The extent of the problem is far from clear. The Chemical Industries Association's members collect figures on `lost time accidents' for both employees and contractors, but these only record the time lost due to accidents, not the incidents themselves; some members believe the figures under-represent the problem.

To help contractors cope, the Health and Safety Executive has produced a guidance booklet which alerts chemical companies to the problems faced by contractors. The companies themselves are so close to the hazards and dangers of the chemical industry that dealing with them becomes second nature; however, if contractors are not familiar with hazardous sites, even what appears to be the most basic precautions have to be made clear.

The situation has been caused by a change in the way the chemical industry operates in the UK, notes Paul Davies, head of the Health and Safety Executive's Chemical and Hazardous Installation Division at the launch of the new guidance. `Contractors are doing work that, a few years back, would have been done by the company's own installation and maintenance divisions,' he comments. But as the companies pare back their workforce to their core operations, jobs involving a major change in processes, ranging from installation of new equipment to large-scale shutdowns for cleaning, are contracted out.

SIZE DOESN'T MATTER

This is particularly common within small to medium-sized firms, with less than 250 staff; these comprise about 80 per cent of the UK chemical industry, notes Davies, but the risks and hazards on their sites are as serious as at any multinational's.

It's hardly surprising that this sort of situation can lead to accidents, Davies comments. `In normal operations, we rarely see any accidents,' he says; hazardous substances are contained within their safeguarded systems, and chemical company staff are generally well aware of the safety systems. But contractors often have to break into the process, which can expose them to high pressure, temperature or voltage. And the workers subjected to these risks are the ones with the least training and experience in how to handle them.

The ramifications of this can be extremely serious. In one case, a contractor carrying out spot-welding on the steel door of an explosives magazine ignited 17 tonnes of fireworks stored behind the door - some of the effects are shown in the photo above. The repair costs, along with the court-imposed damages of £1000, almost put the explosives company out of business.

Elsewhere, two contractors were rendered unconscious by the fumes of the volatile adhesive they were using to fit a rubber liner inside a reaction vessel, as they had been working without breathing apparatus or protective clothing. The employees of the chemical company who tried to rescue them were also overcome by the fumes. Both the contractor and the employer were fined £20000, although the contractor's fine was reduced by £5000 on appeal.

Tony Loftus, chairman of Southampton-based International Speciality Chemicals (ISC), understands the problems well. ISC has 180 permanent staff, but at any time, there can also be as many as 180 contractors on-site, carrying out the `non-core' work.

TAKING UP THE SLACK

`Our employees are very safety-conscious - it's paramount on-site, and we have extensive safety infrastructure,' says Loftus. But contractors tend to handle the work at the business peak, and they often struggle to survive in the troughs. `They often just can't afford that sort of safety infrastructure, so we have to take up the slack.'

Loftus's company shows contractors a video demonstrating the possible hazards, and procedures for coping with them, before they begin work. This is backed up with a written test, and those that fail are not allowed on-site.

Chemical companies in South Wales have developed a more rigorous scheme. With the help of the European Union, the companies devised a two-day, ten-unit course, which any contractor spending more than five days on a chemical site must pass. Each unit is followed by a test with an 80 per cent pass mark. Teesside chemical operators will soon establish a similar system, while Loftus confirms that the Wessex area may follow suit.