Stay Safe! Door & Hardware Federation’s (dhf) Senior Training & Compliance Officer, Nick Perkins, touches on the important issue of leaving systems in a safe condition, as well as non-compliance. Under health and safety law, maintenance companies have a clear and legal obligation to leave door, gate and barrier systems they work on in a safe condition on completion. This does not necessarily involve making the system safe and compliant; rather, it can refer to leaving the system switched off or secured against collapse/failure. “The overall responsibility for the safety of a system lies with the owner or manager who has legal obligations under civil law and health & safety laws,” explains Nick. “Indeed, when encountering a system repair or maintenance for the first time, a maintenance company should conduct and record a compliance assessment and a residual risk assessment.” This compliance assessment should be conducted against the appropriate standard, for powered industrial & garage doors, vehicle gate and traffic barriers, EN 12453, or for manual systems, EN 12604. Since their initial publication in 2000, these standards have outlined the minimum level of safety deemed acceptable for the introduction of such systems into the market. This implies that many current systems should have met this standard at the time of installation, or that systems installed before 2000 should still be assessed against these standards. The fact that there were no standards available for these products before 2000 does not mean that they did not need to be safe; many health and safety laws used to prosecute death and injury incidents in the industry have been in effect since 1974 in one form or another. Publication of the standards did, however, provide clarity on how the broad requirements of the law should be achieved in product-specific detail. “Of course, the standards describe the minimum level of safety for all systems in their scope for placing on the market, regardless of the installation setting or the nature of the users,” continues Nick. “This is where a residual risk assessment comes in which should consider the remaining risks in terms of the degree of harm, the likelihood of occurrence, the frequency of operation, and the nature of the users. Whilst for instance, EN 12453 allows a maximum crushing force of 400N (40kg) for 3⁄ 4 of a second, would this really be appropriate for the elderly, people with mobility or visual restrictions, or children? In many cases, the findings of the residual risk assessment will conclude that this is not acceptable and measures must therefore be put in place to reduce the probability of contact and/or to reduce the degree of harm.” Common solutions for residual risks to people include non-contact devices and reduced force, for example; bigger safe edges, warning devices, signage, markings and alternative entrances. “The bottom line is that where a system failure is found to be safety-critical, the maintenance company must leave it in a safe and compliant condition as well as issuing the client with an unsafe notice that explains the problems, possible effects, and that the system has been left safe,” concludes Nick. Numerous maintenance companies in the industry have faced legal action due to their failure to undertake an appropriate assessment, ensure the system’s safety, and inform their clients adequately. The main applicable legislation in this regard is the Health & Safety at Work Act in GB, the Health & Safety at Work Order in Northern Ireland, and the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act in the Republic of Ireland. DHF TS 013-1 provides guidance on managing non-compliance on site, whilst DHF TS 013-2 provides dhf members with detailed guidance on managing maintenance within the law – see https://bit.ly/dhfTechnicalSpecifications Also online at: www.dijonline.co.uk 28 THE door industry journal spring 2024 Industry News Interested in appearing in the Summer Edition? SAVE THESE DEADLINE DATES: Features Editorial Advert Artwork 15th June 25th June 5th July
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mzg2Nzk=