Back to basics
ANDREW PERKS
Andrew Perks is a subject expert in ammonia refrigeration. Since undertaking his apprenticeship in Glasgow in
the 1960s he has held positions of contracts engineer, project engineer, refrigeration design engineer, company
director for a refrigeration contracting company and eventually owning his own contracting company and low
temperature cold store. He is now involved in adding skills to the ammonia industry, is merSETA accredited and
has written a variety of unit standards for SAQA that define the levels to be achieved in training in our industry.
WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT A
NON-COMPLIANT REFRIGERATION PLANT?
By Andrew Perks
I have recently been out and about and was taken to an old ammonia
refrigerant plant in the Eastern Cape.
I
t never fails to amaze me that contractors insist on sending their
staff to not only non-compliant sites but ones that are downright
dangerous.
Just because a plant is old doesn’t mean to say it does not need
to be compliant. There is this misconception that SANS 10147 is
a new regulation. However, if you look into it you will see that the
SANS number is the upgrade of the old SABS 0147:1992. So, it has
been around for some 27 years and as it is a sub-regulation of the
OHS Act it cannot be ignored.
The OHS Act is often ignored when it comes to the practical
issues of running a company where the client is the key
consideration.
In section 8 of the Act the general duties of employers to their
employees is laid out where it states:
1. Every employer shall provide and maintain, as far as is
reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe
and without risk to the health of his employees.
That said, it is very clearly the responsibility of an employer to
ensure that his employees are not exposed to danger.
In section 14 concerning the general duties of employees it is
stated that every employee at work shall:
a. Take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and
of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions;
the operator must accept that he has a responsibility to
himself and those around him to work in a safe manner.
b. If any situation which is unsafe or unhealthy comes to his
attention, as soon as is practicable, report such a situation to
his employer.
These are legal requirements but what does an employee do
when he finds himself at a plant where there is no ammonia
detection equipment, and no safety equipment. These are basic
requirements of SANS 10147. I just hate it when we have to get
legal when we try to let the client/end user know that their plant is
dangerous.
The normal reply is you are just trying to push the price up again.
While we empathise with the current economic constraints we
www.hvacronline.co.za
are all working under at the moment, safety is just not negotiable.
So, what can we do about it?
Legally, the contractor should not be putting his staff at risk
if the place of work is not deemed safe. If it’s not compliant with
SANS 10147 – is it safe? Yes and no.
What about the potential if there is a release in the area
escalating to a confined space incident – are there two people? That
is one of the OHS Act’s confined space requirements but, of course
we ignore, that possibility and only send out one technician.
There are certain compliance issues when it comes to operator
safety that need to be in place. The employee can quite legally
refuse to work in any area that can be deemed as unsafe.
Then of course there are the requirements of the Pressure
Equipment Regulations. All pressure vessels need to be properly
constructed and inspected every three years along with relief valves
plus the general condition of the plant including pipework.
We as an industry received a special dispensation from the
requirement of the nine years full plant pressure test in the PE
Regulations. But that is only if risk-based assessments as required
in SANS 10147 Annex G and H are being undertaken every three
months by a suitably registered competent person.
The other issue is what are the responsibilities of a SAQCCGas
Cat C Inspector when it comes to being aware of dangerous
practices. With regards to the plant I mentioned in the Eastern
Cape, I issued a written statement that the plant was dangerous
and failing to attend to the issues raised, should there be an incident
it would result in the managing director or appointed responsible
person being held responsible. Once the facts are on the table there
is no escaping the consequences.
So, what to do about it? We as an industry could get together,
similarly to what has been done in Europe and, unless there
is a programme in place to bring non-compliant plants into
compliance, refuse to work on that plant. Pretty drastic steps
which few of us would be willing to follow, but we need our clients
as much as they need us.
I’m interested to hear your views on this prickly subject. RACA
RACA Journal I March 2020
69