Planned Preventive Maintenance during the COVID-19 Pandemic

We are living in unprecedented times; The UK has never experienced such restrictions in peace time, and the world has never seen such wide-ranging restrictions in so many countries simultaneously. As we move deeper into the lockdown of the UK, our ability to effect essential maintenance activities is being adversely impacted. There are reports of specialist subcontractors being unable to attend sites, TFM providers having limited resources and members of in-house teams being unable to attend work due to self-isolation, sickness or concerns over the coronavirus. 

Businesses are suffering from depleted competent resources and are also having to risk-assess the impacts to their remaining staff as part of exercising their own corporate duty of care. There are a lot of unknown facets to this issue as, by its name, the novel coronavirus is new. We can only work with the current guidance available and early indications of initial research that is being conducted.

BSRIA is recognised as experts in the field of maintenance, FM and the built environment and well known for our guidance on risk-based business-focused maintenance (BFM). Thus, we have been contacted by our members and clients for advice and support during this unique period. The advice we are offering is on interpretations of the government guidance as it applies to our industry. 

The UK government has stated that “Making buildings safe … remains a priority for the government.” Whilst it is focused on public sector, the Crown Commercial Service is more maintenance-focused and has issued guidance on what to do if you are reviewing the need for a full or partial shutdown of buildings and a reduction in services. 

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which enforces several pieces of legislation that contain time-bound statutory inspections, initially communicated that there would be no change to their outlook on missing these inspections. However, latterly the HSE have allowed for some pragmatism. There is no relaxation whatsoever on the duty-holder’s legal responsibility to maintain work equipment, but there is more acknowledgment of the difficulties of carrying out thorough examinations, written schemes of examination and statutory inspections. The document detailing this can be found here and the press release here. If maintenance intervention dates are exceeded and the choice is made to keep a certain asset or system running, documenting the risk and the actions taken to avoid this risk is very important. The HSE provide some useful guidance on this here.

BFM respects statutory and mandatory requirements but has long advocated a review of non-statutory generic time-based interventions. Indeed, BSRIA’s BFM practitioners travel to sites up and down the country and across the globe, supporting building owners and operators with independent, authoritative advice on how to maximise business-function-critical building service uptime, whilst minimising cost and time resource investment. Targeted use of condition monitoring can often provide more uptime than intrusive maintenance permits and avoids the risk of maintenance induced failures.

When buildings are left unattended, certain considerations need to be made. If a building is vacant, then it should be mothballed, or put in an appropriate state of stasis. The BESA produced guidance on this in 2006 and published it under the title SFG 20. If there is even a skeleton staff in the building, then systems will need to be kept running.

Water is one of the first things to consider. Whereas under normal operations there may have been a handful of little-used outlets, in reduced operation stage, the vast majority of the outlets are possibly going to be termed as little-used.

As it is much easier to maintain a water system in a wholesome condition than to try to rid it of proliferated biology, it is recommended to ensure the flushing is attended to. We have an article on the subject here, but the basics are: keep  cold water cold, keep hot water hot and keep both moving. That advice works for the pumps too. For buildings that are still operating, cooling systems should be kept running regularly or as needed based on sensor inputs.

There is a growing body of investigations that is suggesting an indoor condition of 24°C+ and ≈50%rH+ is helpful in controlling SARS-CoV-2. However, the Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations (REHVA) has produced documentation that does not support this and suggests that the figures are closer to 30°C+ and ≈80%rH+ which would not be convenient in a building. If the building is being (or has been) vacated and will remain unoccupied for some time, then cooling towers can be drained and local authorities notified.

Heating is the same, we should keep things running at regular intervals or as and when there is a requirement for a heating load. It is the time of the year when we would be considering shutting down our heating systems, and those activities could be pulled forward, ensuring inhibitors topped up to keep the pipe condition and biological content within desired parameters.

Regarding ventilation; there is much discussion about the transmission methods of coronavirus. Is it fomite and droplet only, or is it airborne? There is talk about UV treatment of ventilation, HEPA room cleaners and whether, in the near future, these sorts of technologies will become the norm.

Based on the latest information and advice on the subject, it is possible to identify a unifying golden thread that puts emphasis on keeping the fresh or outdoor air coming in. Increasing ventilation appears to be the best solution. Creating negative pressures in the toilet areas and filling all other areas with as much fresh, non-recirculated air as possible and similarly increasing extract volumes is repeatedly stated as the best practice for ventilation systems. This may entail manual intervention to fully open dampers, close recirculation paths (including heat recovery where air streams mix), and considering running close to maximum air flow rate for up to 24 hours a day 7 days a week for any level of occupancy in a building.

Life safety systems will need to continue to be looked at even if buildings are at a low occupancy. BSRIA can give guidance on where to go for the best advice on any of these systems. If buildings are being mothballed, one consideration that will need to be made is contacting insurers to understand their coverage requirements. Systems that fall into the LOLER or PSSR categories will have their own considerations as governed by the HSE. Emergency lighting checks in an unoccupied building can be halted and then conducted prior to re-occupation. In an occupied building, the advice changes.

Due to the level of enquiries we have been fielding from our members and clients BSRIA have hosted discussion on this subject to gather industry input and opinions. It is possible to hear this presentation here.

I will finish by reassuring you that you are not alone in this. We are here to support you though these strange times and welcome your calls and emails about how we can support you.

Be safe.

PS: If you are not familiar with BFM, we have an article on the subject here and we would be more than happy to take enquiries on our consultancy@bsria.co.uk email address, but in a nutshell it is a way of adapting PPM routines to focus on the business’s main activities and ensuring that the installed building services are able to support them.

BSRIA first published guidance on BFM in 2004, and the current guide, BG 53, was published in 2016.