UK businesses that produce or trade products that contain F gas or ODSs need to sign up to online system which will maintain current environmental standards.

On World Ozone Day, the government is reminding businesses to register on an online system to ensure the UK maintains current restrictions on the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases after we leave the EU.

The online system controls the use of these harmful greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

This includes Fluorinated gases (F gases), powerful greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), which damage the Earth’s ozone layer.

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, UK businesses that produce or trade in these gases or products that contain them will have to register on the new system by 14 November. This will replace the current system which controls emissions for all EU Member States.

The new system will enable the UK to continue its commitment to phase down the use of F gas by 79% between 2015 and 2030 to combat climate change.

This is just one part of the UK’s ambitious work to lead the world in tackling climate change, committing to a target of net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 and securing the international backing to host the COP26 UN climate change summit, in partnership with Italy, in Glasgow next year.

Environment Minister Rebecca Pow said:

World Ozone Day is an important reminder of the need to do everything we can to protect our fragile ozone layer, which is one of the many reasons that this government is making sure that our environmental standards will be not only maintained but enhanced after we leave the EU.

This online system is part of that commitment, and while we would prefer to leave the EU with a deal, it’s crucial that businesses sign up ahead of 31 October if we cannot reach an agreement.

This is not only so they can continue to import F gas, but also so that the UK can continue to phase down its use as part of the global fight against climate change.

Under the new requirements:

• Businesses that produce or import F gas or ODSs in the UK must register to the new UK system. Businesses are able to register now until 14 November 2019. UK businesses which are already registered on the EU system will receive a reminder email from Defra about how to register. Other businesses can also register online;
• Businesses should register before 31 October so that they can continue their operation as normal from 1 November;
• Businesses looking to secure an F Gas quota for the first time would need to wait until after 14 November 2019 before they can use their quota to import gas. Anyone registering after 14 November 2019 would not get a quota for 2019 or 2020;
• UK businesses that import products containing F gas or ODSs must be authorised under the new UK system;
• UK businesses that export F gas or ODSs, or products containing them, to the EU would need to set up an office in the EU or appoint an Only Representative to meet EU regulations; and
• Businesses and members of the public that use products that contain F gas or ODSs should continue to operate as they do now as regulations and supply will remain the same.

Technicians qualified in the UK to service products that use F gas or ODSs, such as refrigerators and air conditioners, will continue to be authorised to operate in the UK but not in the EU.

UK certified technicians who work in the EU should monitor decisions made by the EU Commission and Member State governments.

Businesses and technicians that may be affected should read the latest guidance on using and trading in F gas and ODSs after the UK leaves the EU.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/businesses-reminded-to-register-on-system-to-maintain-environmental-standards-on-harmful-gases-post-brexit

Nation is turning its attention away from safety in the home, and some wouldn’t even consider using professionals in times of need.

• Over half of Brits (52%) do not know how to test their smoke alarm.
• Over a quarter (26%) of British adults are unaware that their boiler requires an annual safety check.
• Further dangerous oversights in the home include: 62% of Brits don’t check if their hob is turned off before going to bed, 55% leave electrics switched on overnight, and almost a quarter (22%) don’t even check if the front door is locked.
• 42% claim they don’t know how to check their electrical appliances, 34% don’t know which need checking and 23% simply ‘can’t be bothered’.
• Consumer Protection Alliance (CPA) is urging Britain’s homeowners and landlords to arrange annual safety checks, to guarantee the safety of the nation.

When it comes to basic home safety, Brits are falling short and leaving their families open to potential dangers, with a lack of basic action putting their homes in peril.

According to new research by the Consumer Protection Alliance – a group made up of Dispute Resolution Ombudsman, Gas Safe Register, NICEIC and Which? Trusted Traders, with the aim of promoting consumer safety and protection in the UK – over half of Brits (55%) do not unplug electric appliances that are not designed to be left on, whilst some 52% do not know how to test their smoke alarm for functionality.

Shockingly, 22% don’t check that the front door is locked before turning in, leaving them open to potential disaster – yet over half of the nation (51%) would check that the curtains are closed at bedtime. A staggering 62% of Brits admit to not checking the hob is turned off before going to bed; risking appliance damage, or worse.   

Despite the importance, 44% of Brits admit that they do not carry out annual safety checks on the electrical appliances in the home. Of those, 42% don’t know how to check them, over a third (34%) are not aware of which appliances need checking and almost a quarter (23%) ‘can’t be bothered’ to organise the check.

Aligned to this, 28% would wait until an appliance had completely broken down before being prompted to get it assessed, meaning what could have been a simple check develops into a major issue. More than a quarter (26%) would only organise a safety check-up when they heard about a friend’s misfortune, such as a boiler breaking down or the hob conking out.

Cheryl Cox, Public Affairs Manager at NICEIC and member of the Consumer Protection Alliance, comments: “It’s worrying that the nation is turning their attention away from safety in the home, and that some wouldn’t even consider using the professionals in times of need.

“Gas and electrical safety is important year-round, but especially during the winter months when an extra strain is placed on our appliances in the home. We tend to forget that our appliances such as the boiler, gas hob and hot water cylinder are used so frequently that they need extra maintenance. Everyone needs to be aware of the dangers and we believe that safety is paramount, and education is key.”

Worryingly, the survey of 2,000 British adults also reveals a lack of knowledge and understanding when it comes to home safety:

• 64% have ended up paying a professional to fix a botched job that was carried out by a ‘cowboy’ tradesman, which has resulted in spending up to an extra £500 on average.
• 26% were unaware that a boiler requires an annual safety check.
• 17% believe they could carry out a check on gas appliances themselves, with over three in five (63%) taking instructions and guidance from online resources such as Google, YouTube or social media.
• 22% don’t know how, or simply wouldn’t bother, to check if their chosen tradesperson is registered in their profession.

In response, the Consumer Protection Alliance has launched a national consumer safety campaign warning homeowners and landlords about the dangers lurking in the home. Brits are advised to think safety first with these five top tips to ensuring your home is safe:

1. Install smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors where appropriate and test them on a regular basis.
2. Arrange for an annual safety check on the following gas appliances:

• Boiler
• Gas fires
• Gas cooking hob
• Hot water cylinder

1. Carry out your own annual visual checks on plugs, sockets, cables, leads and light fittings and seek help from a registered electrician if you find any issues.  
2. Arrange for an inspection and test of electrical installations every five years, regardless of whether the property is owned or rented.
3. When having a gas or electrical safety check carried out, always hire a registered, professional tradesperson such as those on the Gas Safe Register or those registered with NICEIC.

Each year, 350,000 serious injuries are caused by electrical faults. There are as many as 250,000 illegal gas jobs carried out each year and 40 people die from carbon monoxide poisoning annually.

The Consumer Protection Alliance was founded by Dispute Resolution Ombudsman, Gas Safe Register, NICEIC and Which? Trusted Traders with the aim of promoting consumer safety and protection in the UK.

Source: https://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/brits-put-home-danger-not-conducting

European cooling body hopes to build awareness of best practice when using a range of newer to market refrigerants and accounting for their unique properties in cooling and AC systems

AREA has unveiled new guidance that introduces key features of the EN378 standard. EN378 outlines a number of considerations for the design, maintenance and decommissioning of refrigeration systems with a focus on improving understanding of best industry practice.

The introduction guide for the standard focuses on the challenges posed for refrigeration, heat pumps and air conditioning specialists when using an array of lower GWP refrigerants with some level of flammability or toxicity. This considers the impact of their use on charge size and safety requirements.

AREA noted in the guidance that compliance with the EN378 standard is intended to improve overall safety and limit the potential for accidents linked to cooling equipment.

The guide stated, “For all refrigerants there are risks associated with pressure, fire or explosion hazard, or toxicity; this means that both professionals and the public can be compromised if best practices are not followed.”

Refrigerants with high operating pressure such as R744 and the unique challenges this poses for pipe design, as well as higher and lower flammability gas are among topics covered in the guidance.

AREA added that although EN378 served as a means of proving conformity with several key European directives that impact cooling, the standard did not serve as a legal requirement on its own right.

The guide said, “It is possible to install a system in compliance with all relevant regulations, including the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) and the Machinery Directive (MD), without following the requirements of EN 378. It is also not a complete design guide for refrigerating systems.”

“It only addresses topics that are not fully covered elsewhere. For example, it does not give complete guidance on electrical safety, only on aspects which are relevant to refrigeration and which are not adequately addressed elsewhere.

AREA said that EN378 could be presumed to respect the design, construction, testing and documentation requirements of both the PED and the MD.

Source: https://www.racplus.com/news/area-unveils-en378-refrigeration-guidance/10044081.article

The hierarchy of controls is the core occupational safety and health approach for preventing injuries and fatalities, as well as to protect equipment. This framework has been a cornerstone to established occupational safety and health practices and standards, ANSI/ASSP Z10, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, and was adopted as a key concept in the 2017 edition of NFPA 70E, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. The pyramid graphic that represents the hierarchy of controls (See Figure 1) is even featured on the cover of the 2017 NFPA 70E.

Human error is inevitable. This article will go over the hierarchy of controls to help stakeholders understand how to prioritize different safety measures and where facilities often go wrong. Earlier this year, my firm, Littelfuse, surveyed 255 people whose work plays a role in a facility’s electrical safety. The survey results—coupled with industrial electrical safety research—suggest that when it comes to safety, there is a stark difference between perception and reality.

The hierarchy of controls is the pinnacle to all facets of workplace safety—especially for anything that involves arc flash because it helps engineers and facility management determine and prioritize which methods are best to ensure protection. Facility operations tend to speed up to meet work demands and yet, an up-to-date knowledge of safety standards and practices often fails to keep pace.

Despite the steady decline of electrical injuries in every industry other than mining, these are still a substantial cause of worker injury and fatalities, and accounted for almost 2,000 fatalities and over 24,000 non-fatal injuries in the U.S. between 2003 and 2012.¹

These incidents are often due to a lack of awareness. This unawareness may be of the hazard itself, the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) that must be worn in that facility, or even how much time has passed since the worker last familiarized themselves with safety standards (such as NFPA 70E).

A corporate case study examining electrical injury reporting and safety practices found that 40% of electrical injury incidents involved 250 volts or less and were indicative of a misconception of electrical safety as a high-voltage issue.¹

“A substantial amount of work is inappropriately taking place on or around electrical sources that are energized, that stringent guidelines for personal protective equipment are frequently flouted, and that administrative controls, such as training and pre-job planning, are implemented or practiced haphazardly,” according to the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF).¹

ELECTRICAL SAFETY: CONTROLS TO MANAGE HAZARDS

The hierarchy of controls is a fundamental and well-established approach for managing hazards in facilities. Using this approach, facilities must use the highest feasible level of control. The hierarchy starts with elimination—the most effective—and moves down to the least effective safety measure, PPE (see Figure 1). Not all hazards can be eliminated, but the closer you get to the top, the safer a facility will be.

The hierarchy of control’s methods are:

1. Elimination: Physically remove hazard.
2. Substitution: Replace the hazard.
3. Engineering controls: Isolate people from the hazard.
4. Administrative controls: Change the way people work.
5. Personal protective equipment: Protect the worker with PPE.

NFPA 70E follows the model of the hierarchy of controls. The standard establishes de-energization of energy sources as the preferred approach to working on or around electrical hazards, and emphasizes PPE should solely be relied upon as a last resort (or extra layer of protection). PPE is considered the least effective safety method because it focuses on the worker instead of the hazard¹ and does not address the hazard’s root cause.

The 2018 edition of NFPA 70E was updated to emphasize the hierarchy of risk controls. In the recent survey conducted by Littelfuse, only 15% of the respondents said they were unfamiliar with the standard and yet more than 40% were unfamiliar with NFPA 70E’s hierarchy of controls—the core concept and featured image of NFPA 70E’s 2017 edition.

A comparison of the data from these two set of responses suggests that more than a quarter of people who believe they are familiar with NFPA 70E are unaware of the latest edition’s core concept. It is important to note that we cannot assume these respondents mistakenly believe they are familiar with NFPA 70E overall because we do not know which edition of the standard these respondents use, and the concept hierarchy of controls and the pyramid did not become a distinguished emphasis until the 2018 edition. Therefore, it is inconclusive how many of these respondents failed to retain the fundamentals of NFPA 70E or whether they are familiar with the standard’s latest version. Regardless of which, they both amount to a false sense of familiarity, which runs the frontlines of most incidents. Standards (as well as the Code) are updated to drive continuous improvements in electrical safety.

This is concerning because a hierarchy of controls, as The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says, has been the traditional means of determining how to implement feasible and effective control solutions. “Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers,” NIOSH says. The hierarchy of controls is part of NIOSH’s Prevention through Design national initiative.⁵

The false sense of safety and awareness goes beyond mere complacency. FPRF identified a “normalization of deviance” among electrical workplace incidents.

Normalization of deviance is a process that initiates from a safety standard and then gradually deviates to what becomes an accepted practice, and effectively begins to operate as the new normal. This is significant to the point of this article’s discussion because:

• Normalization of deviance underscores how difficult it is for a facility to prevent human error within a framework. Because this deviation is gradual, it is difficult to detect as it or after it happens. Incidents are inevitable in facilities that do not focus safety on a minimum of engineering controls.
• The gradual and easily undetected degradation that occurs in normalization of deviance is similar to how people often believe that they are knowledgeable—even masters— of their subject, and yet there is often an out-of-date version of the current reality. This might help explain why 40% of survey respondents were not familiar with the hierarchy of controls, and yet most said they were familiar with NFPA 70E. The 2018 edition of NFPA 70E changed its discussion of the hierarchy of controls from conceptual to emphasize it as established terminology.

NFPA 70E says a new analysis should be conducted when changes that could affect the incident energy are made to an electrical distribution system. However, just as not all people stay current on safety standards and concepts, many facilities do not likely conduct assessments when changes arise. Safe work practices must never deviate from standards.

The majority of the survey respondents work in facilities with equipment that is at risk for an arc flash. And, one in three respondents said they have experienced an arc flash incident. Slightly more than 75% of the survey respondents said their facility has equipment rated more than 8 cal/cm2.

Above 8 cal/cm2 is where relays can make a substantial improvement toward industrial arc-flash safety. A relay that decreases calories from 10 cal/cm2 to 4 cal/cm2 tremendously impacts facility safety.

Studies of high-risk industries indicate human error is often a root cause of incidents.² For example, a contributing factor to many electrical injuries is failure to use appropriate PPE for electrical safety work.³

The 2018 edition of NFPA 70E further evolved its requirements for risk assessment. One of these changes was the introduction of human factors as a consideration within a risk assessment. Arc-flash risk assessments determine the incident energy that employees risk being exposed to when near electrical equipment. Only 66% of respondents in the Littelfuse survey said their facility has conducted an arc-flash risk assessment.

NFPA 70E Article 130.5 states that an arc-flash risk assessment shall be performed to:

1. Identify arc flash hazards;
2. Estimate the likelihood of occurrence of injury or damage to health and the potential severity of injury or damage to health;
3. Determine if additional protective measures are required, including the use of PPE.

FPRF said that the practice of placing machinery and equipment in a deenergized state for troubleshooting merits additional research and safety training. “Of course,” FPRF said, “efforts to promote prevention at the top of the hierarchy of controls, particularly through designing out hazards in the first instance, must remain a priority focus.”¹

Facilities must maintain this responsibility, while not losing focus of the top of the pyramid.

Facilities should implement designs focused on the reduction of human error. Nobody should assume that their awareness or knowledge of a situation or topic is complete. And, the elimination of all electrical hazards is not always possible. The next best option is to implement a substitution method, such as resistor monitors, current-limiting fuses, indicating fuses, or electromechanical relays. Otherwise, use engineering controls such as arc-flash relays. Electrical systems with hazard elimination or mitigation built into the equipment is the straightforward approach to preventing electrical incidents—especially arc flashes—that often destroy equipment and injure or kill workers.

Source: https://facilityexecutive.com/2019/08/electrical-safety-hierarchy-of-controls-occupational-safety-health/

Critical vulnerabilities in the Siemens S7 Simatic programmable logic controller (PLC) have been discovered by cybersecurity researchers at Tel Aviv University and the Technion Institute of Technology.

Prof. Avishai Wool and M.Sc student Uriel Malin of TAU’s School of Electrical Engineering worked together with Prof. Eli Biham and Dr. Sara Bitan of the Technion to disrupt the PLC’s functions and gain control of its operations.

The scientists’ rogue engineering workstation posed as a so-called TIA (Totally Integrated Automation Portal) engineering station that interfaced with the Simatic S7-1500 PLC controlling the industrial system.

“The station was able to remotely start and stop the PLC via the commandeered Siemens communications architecture, potentially wreaking havoc on an industrial process,” Prof. Wool explained. “We were then able to wrest the controls from the TIA and surreptitiously download rogue command logic to the S7-1500 PLC.”

The researchers hid the rogue code so that a process engineer could not see it. If the engineer were to examine the code from the PLC, he or she would see only the legitimate PLC source code, unaware of the malicious code running in the background and issuing rogue commands to the PLC.

Their findings demonstrate how a sophisticated attacker can abuse Siemens’ newest generation of industrial controllers that were built with more advanced security features and supposedly more secure communication protocols.

Fixes and mitigations

“The main gap in the S7 cryptographic handshake is that the TIA is not authenticated to the PLC: only the PLC is authenticated to the TIA. Fundamentally, this allows us to create a rogue engineering station (once the veil of obscurity was lifted from the protocol). This gap can be addressed cryptographically — e.g., by having each TIA instance use its own private key, whose public-key is shared and retained by the PLC. An alternative is to introduce a ‘pairing’ mode, in which the PLC and TIA establish a long-lived shared secret during the first session. Either way, the PLC must refuse to communicate with any device claiming to be a TIA which is not the previously-authenticated TIA. According to Siemens ProductCERT, the recommended counter-measure against rogue programming of the PLC is by activating the password-protected access control mechanism on each PLC,” they explained.

“A second gap is that all PLCs of the same model and firmware version share the same private-public key pair. This gap can be used in two ways. We used it in a generic way to conduct impersonation attacks on all the S7-1500 PLCs, which use the fact that all PLCs use the same key. We did not, however, extract the private key from the PLCs. If the private key is extracted from one PLC of a particular version, then stronger attacks, specifically full man in the middle attacks with on-they-fly session-hijacking, and also PLC impersonation attacks against a TIA station (without any valid PLC), become possible.”

Following the best practices of responsible disclosure, the research findings were shared with Siemens well in advance of the scheduled Black Hat USA 2019 presentation, allowing the manufacturer to prepare.

Siemens has yet to release a security advisory pointing to software fixes. In the meantime, organizations deploying the vulnerable PLCs can, as Siemens generally advises, protect access to them by activating the password-protected access control mechanism. They can also make sure that the PLCs are not connected to the Internet or put them behing firewalls.

Dr. Bitan noted that the attack emphasizes the need for investment by both manufacturers and customers in the security of industrial control systems. “The attack shows that securing industrial control systems is a more difficult and challenging task than securing information systems,” she concluded.

Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2019/08/09/siemens-plc-vulnerabilities/

The Committee on Climate Change has appealed to the UK government to accelerate the pace of fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-gas) emission eradication.

Many refrigeration, fire protection and air conditioning and heat pump systems contain hydrofluorocarbons, a type of F-gas.

The independent government advisory group pointed out in its just-launched ‘Reducing UK emissions – 2019 Progress Report to Parliament’ that the government has still not published a plan to restrict the use of F-gases to very limited usage where there are currently no viable alternatives. That was originally due for release this spring, though the government says it is still slated for this year.

While the committee’s report did note that UK F-gas emissions fell by 6% from 2016 to 2017 to 15.0MtCO₂e, it believes that this is largely due to the EU-wide cap on the use of F-gases, particularly in refrigeration and air conditioning units.

This meant that F-gases were 3% of total UK emissions in 2017. But the climate change adviser urged that the longer term target should be to phase out F-gases.

The organisation also recorded a failing in reaching the F-gas reduction target it set in 2007. It recommended that these emissions should be reduced by 9% by 2018, but the actual drop was only 4%.

The report stated: “Our F-gas emissions indicator was not met. The main policy instrument, the EU F-gas regulation, only came into effect in 2015.”

The Committee on Climate Change helped to legislate a second carbon budget for the 2013-2017 period in its first report in 2008, recommending a maximum net carbon emission level of 2,782 MtCO2e for the UK.

Though the country actually met the overall total, posting a carbon emission total of 2,398MtCO2e, inside the budget by 384MtCO2e (around 14%), the committee believes the UK government could do more.

The advisory body summarised: “Overall, we conclude that UK policies did not deliver ahead of schedule in the second carbon budget period. Progress was mostly confined to sectors covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Outside the EU ETS policies fell short of our indicators and delivered well behind schedule in the second carbon budget period.”

Source: https://www.cateringinsight.com/climate-change-advisors-urge-uk-to-up-f-gas-elimination-efforts/