As I'm sure there'll be no end of vitriol thrown over the article I've just written discussing workplace safety in the UK wind energy industry (not least from trade bodies), I think it's worth clarifying our position on the whole heap of beans.
We are not anti-wind, and have no affiliation to any anti-wind lobby groups, nor for that matter to any pro-wind lobby groups. The massive growth of wind farms is a sensible and inevitable consequence of the energy crisis, both in the UK and elsewhere, and despite not having one on our particular skyline, we'd quite like one and expect it to pop up sometime soon.
As someone with many years experience instructing and advising both workers and the emergency services in all aspects of work at height and rescue across the UK, I am well aware of the capabilities (both on paper and in practice) of the emergency services and wind farm technicians to respond to different incidents, and indeed have been discussing the problems with both sides for some time. Part of UVSAR's work is to audit the compliance and safety standards at wind farms on behalf of operating companies, from Cornwall to Orkney and most places in between, end-of-life 400kW turbines to brand new multi-megawatt designs, both onshore and offshore. Of course we won't name them, nor can we release photos or reports of failings that would identify particular operators, sites or workers (as of course they would prefer not to be shut down) - though we can guarantee that of the sites inspected to date, none escaped without a list of failures and warnings. Some of that is only to be expected, as after all no workplace is perfect; but all too many have issues that place lives at risk.
Statistically, there have only been a few deaths directly on UK turbines (and some more in the support industry, such as on barges). Compared to the deaths on roads, or even from falling down your own stairs, this seems insignificant. By pure totals it is, but there are very very few people working in turbines in comparison, and so the risk per-person-hour-worked is significant enough to warrant more attention than it's getting to date. It's not terrible, but it's comparable to other high-risk jobs which are perfectly happy to admit they're high-risk. Our concern is that the workforce in the UK wind sector is set to increase by a factor of ten or more in the coming years, and making the perfectly-reasonable assumption that they won't suddenly become 10 times safer overnight, the deaths and injuries will start to mount up. Looking at the HSE RIDDOR data, all the most 'dangerous' tasks happen on a wind farm, from work at height, through heavy lifting, rotating machinery, high voltages, off-road driving, confined spaces and remote working. The offshore sector has probably the only comparable combination of interlinked hazards and remoteness, and that is peppered with extra legislation and million-pound in-house emergency resources because it needs to be. The wind sector is not - it has the same laws, and the same green first aid kits, you have in your office. Should there be a defibrillator at every turbine if workers are inside? What should the response time be for an ambulance? Nobody's really in the mood to answer, or even find out who to ask.
The fundamental issue, in my opinion, is that many aspects of the work on a turbine have no agreed standards to follow, or several that contradict - UK trade bodies have issued very extensive voluntary guidelines, but these are restricted to one or two very specific aspects of the work. Elsewhere in the world (even in Europe), training standards are often far more wide-ranging, but they aren't being accepted by policymakers in the UK. Turbine manufacturers often supply documentation based on a conceptual international customer so they cannot be taken as-is in the UK, yet many operators don't rewrite them, I presume believing something that expensive must come with the right paperwork. It's not easy to say it's the fault of one specific person, nor are we saying that particular named companies are better or worse (though clearly some are), however the situation is what it is. A policy document says "everyone will do ABC" and out in the field, the two workers in the turbine decide not to - either because the procedure doesn't work, or they haven't got the kit, or they just can't be bothered. It's human nature; if you're not being watched, people do things their own way - especially if the official way doesn't work. The problem comes when workers aren't trained enough to understand why the policy says what it says, and why their take on it is going to kill them. It's happened.
What I feel is needed is not a whole new raft of legislation - we have enough to cover everything, it's just not being used. HSE haven't got the resources to drive round the countryside inspecting wind farms, and workers know that. We need to accept, at a public level, that these are high-risk jobs in very remote areas, and arrange the support for those jobs accordingly (both within the company and beyond). Fire services need to be not only visiting every wind farm on their patch (as every model of turbine is significantly different), they need to be training on them regularly and in a full range of difficult scenarios. You can't practice on the fire station drill tower, and you can't learn a whole lot from standing at the bottom. The same goes for the medical and support staff who will need to attend (paramedics in the HART programme, BASICS doctors, SAR helicopter crews, the RNLI, etc.) - some site visits and discussions have happened, but it's been done on a local level, and that's only of use if your casualty is in the same postcode, with the same watch on duty. If that training shows there's still a gap between the employees' ability and the external help available (and it almost always will), the employers will have to fill it. Most don't even know it's there.
Talking about the potential for accidents, and the potential for a small accident to mushroom into a tragedy when an emergency response fails, is very much a no-no within the wind energy sector, as everyone in it is afraid of losing customers. I'm not, as to put it bluntly, those elements within the wind sector who don't want it talked about aren't going to be our customers in the first place. We're not "in the industry" - we just happen to do stuff for people who are. If elements with public images to defend want to take a shot at me for popping over the parapet first, then fine - we have the evidence and experience to support everything we've said, and if anyone wants to find out about who's been killed where, just Google.
It's not about wanting to start a fight or to give ammo to the environmentalists and lobby groups (not that I think there's any ammo to be had). It's about getting the operators, site managers, fire officers and all the hundreds of subcontractors who visit these places to start the discussions, training, rescue practices, navel-gazing and policy changes needed to keep people safe as they take on the most extreme civil engineering projects the country has ever seen. Safety should be proactive, not reactive.
If that means I have to dodge a few bullets from a PR department, it's a small price to pay.
Dr Dave Merchant, UVSAR
