FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Rocha on October 19, 2006, 11:49:28 AM
-
I have recently undertaken a fire risk assessment of a small shopping complex which included a key cutting company in a small unit. As they only employed two persons I advised that a written fire risk assessment is not required, although recomended.
However I have subsequently found out that this tenant has more than one shop in the area and employs more than five persons in total for all the shops, although no more than two persons per shop.
Will a written fire risk assessment need to be produced for all shops individually or collectively??
Thanks,
Rocha
-
As you say the findings of the risk assessment need to be recorded due to the numbers employed. It will be very difficult to account for the significant findings of different locations in a single document as the need for co-operation and communication will be very different- with different other responsible persons. So I think the only practical way would be for seperate Records of significant findings for each premise. I think the Regs would say as long as they were recorded and suitable it does not matter how this is achieved.
Personally for multi occs I usually produce one master for the building with separate mini sections for each occupier and then bring the findings together at the end in a single action plan. This approach usually works, although sometimes there are issues of confidentiality eg jewellers that make a seperate document necessary.
-
Would this therefore mean that, for example a National Lottery RMU in the mall of a multi occupied shoping centre that is occupied by only 1 member of staff, would require a written documented fire risk assessment???
-
yes, it is not how many people employed in each location, it is how many employed in total
-
Dont forget that the duty is to record the significant findings of the risk assessment- not the whole risk assessment. so it should not be too onerous.
-
Dont forget that the duty is to record the significant findings of the risk assessment- not the whole risk assessment. so it should not be too onerous.
Kurnal, what do you consider to be the significant findings?
-
I will just wait before answering this one in case my old mate philB is around.... this is his soapbox....
-
The significant findings are described in Article 9 are those bits noted as significant plus the control measures in existence and those to come, it is no longer a list. Best example, a Petroleum filling station significant finding is that there is a darn great tank of spirit underground plus pipework and control valves plus shut off valves in the kiosk. Plus anything extra that is identified.
-
Ok, I just wanted to see if it was agreed that a record of control measures was required.
I remember that there was some argument about if the significant findings was just a list of failures to comply with the FSO at the time of the assessment.
-
Under MHSWR, failure list, under RR(FS)O then you are right.
-
OK Kurnal where's my soapbox????
It is unfortunate that they decided not to define significant findings in the fire safety order and it also unfortunate that they have defined them poorly in the new guides and that the new definition differs from the one given in the ACOP to MHSW Regs.
They originally defined them in the draft new guide as a list of defects........eventually they listened to my ranting and raving and that is one reason for the delay in publishing the guides. They amended the defintion but it is still poor.
But if you read the Order it is quite clear in article 9 what needs to be recorded:
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and
(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
The measures that have been taken must , in my opinion, include the preventive and protective measures. Thankfully these preventive and protective measures are defined in the order. They are the measures that have been identified in your risk assessment as the general fire precautions you need to take.
General fire precations are also defined in the order and include means of escape, means for securing means of escape, means for giving warning etc....in fact the same things that a fire certificate had to specify. The easiest way to record these items is by using a plan. If you can record them some other way you can but surely a plan is preferable.
Finally don't forget that under the FP Workplace legislation and the fire safety order there was/is a requirement to record the fire safety arrangements if five or more are employed. i.e. planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review. HSG65 is still very relevant.
The significant findings are clearly a lot more than a list of defects.
I will now put my soapbox away.
-
Its the way you tell em PhilB- and thats the clearest explanation I have seen on this subject.
Dont break up the box yet because this is sure to crop up again and again - and is another candidate for a potential FAQs section in the forum.
Bit puzzled by the last statement though. FP workplace legislation is no longer relevant at all and and the role of HSG65? This is only guidance and as duties under the Fire Safety Order are not subject to the umbrella of the Management Regs (and therefore ACOP L21) why should HSG 65 have any particular relevance?
-
Quite right as usual Kurnal, WPFP legislation is no longer with us but the requirements that were in that by virtue of the management regs are mirrored in the fire safety order and HSG65 gives excellent guidance that is relevant for fire safety and health and safety management systems, in my opinion only of course.
I have been away from this forum for a while, and I am no longer associated with that place in Gloucestershire but I had to come out of hiding to join this debate. What ever happened to our dear friend Toddy?
-
Welcome back then PhilB and congratulations on your escape. Did they find and re-insert the right brain from all those pickling jars before they let you out?
Let me know what you are doing now if you can. But if its top secret I understand. My mate Lucky tells me there are spies in the camp. for all I know CT may have been captured, confined to an institution and had his keyboard confiscated, it looks like hes only allowed one message on royal birthdays.
-
And by way of reminder, they will also need to have recorded the significant findings of their risk assessments under the MHSW Regs for each of their outlets.
Presumably Colin is busy writing more BSs.
-
Am i missing something here? are we suggesting because he has a key cutting operation in another town he adds those employees to these and that makes him require a written risk assessment? I do not believe that is the spirit of the law and that what should be happening is that the tennant has to do a written risk assessment if he employees five or more in that building and the landlord/agent has to do one for the common areas. They then have to look at ech others to see if there are any conflicts etc. Am i alone with this thinking?
-
That is exactlt it. A recorded, not written assessment is required on numbers of employees not numbers of employees in a particular workplace. Therefore, as Oxfam have more than 5 employees worldwide, then every shop has to have a recorded FRA, volunteers aside.
-
Am i missing something here? are we suggesting because he has a key cutting operation in another town he adds those employees to these and that makes him require a written risk assessment? I do not believe that is the spirit of the law
Apparently John yes you are missing the point. The requirement to record the significant findings if you employ 5 or more has been statute law since 1992.
-
I am almost speechless! i will have to get the white paper out this cannot be right, will respond tomorrow.
-
It is correct John, trust me. If you employ 5 people, regardless of the location you employ them, it is reasonable to expect a greater degree of acountability and control. This is easier to audit if it is recorded. Good luck with the white paper.
Hopefully no professional fire safety consultants out there in the big wide world are also under your misconception...surely that could never happen!
-
Ok, i have just read a few bits and yes i accept that is what the guides say but i am still struggling with the principle. I hear what you are saying in that a bigger organisation should have more detailed or stuctured systems in place but i cannot see how that increases the risk to the two employees in the cafe or whatever. I am quite happy to hold my hand up and say that is how i thought it should be interpreted and i can assure you there are a great many consultants and Fire Authorities who think the same. I still think the spirit of the law was not meant to be like this. Lets take a scenario, i employ four people accross England all working alone running a small unit in a mall seling ties, i employ a fifth in another mall and you tell me i now have to record the FRA. Where is the logic?
I am not trying to be funny here it just interests me with regard to the definition.
-
Dont take too much notice of the guides John, they're not too good, in my opinion of course.
Hopefully most FAs have sent their inspecting officers on suitable training courses that deal with this issue and hopefully most fire consultants already had that knowledge before setting themselves up as consultants.
FPA Circular 27 expalined this point when the 97 Regs were first introduced. Legislation may be boring but it is important that enforcers and advisors understand exactly what the law requires rather than trying to give their interpretation of the spririt of the law.
-
PhilB new law is all about interpretation and only the courts can decide. Fpa Circ 27has no relevance to the RRFSO and I think BikerJohn has a good point.
-
The requirement is quite clear, if five or more persons are employed the prescribed information MUST be recorded. You are of course welcome to your opinion but this has been a requirement of the MHSW Regs since 1992 and Courts have never interpreted it the way you and John do.
-
I would suggest that the regs were based on what is reasonable for a company to resource.5 or less employees means you are a very small business, but if you have tens or hundreds spread around thinly, there would be a reasonable amount of support/structure.I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere.Lets face it, it is not that hard to do an assessment on a small place any way.
-
Lets be quite clear here, the requirement/absolute duty of an RP is to undertake an FRA. In certain instances:
a. where there are more than 5 persons employed
b. a licence under any enactment is in force
c. an alterations notice is in force
then the RP must record the significant findings. (as many have stated before the SF are not a list)
Nothing difficult, just record the bits you had to do as an RP anyway.
-
Lets be quite clear here, the requirement/absolute duty of an RP is to undertake an FRA. In certain instances:
a. where there are more than 5 persons employed
b. a licence under any enactment is in force
c. an alterations notice is in force
Not quite true Jokar should read
a. where there are 5 or more employed....not more than 5
b. Correct
c. an alterations notice requiring the information to be recorded is in force.....not just any alterations notice
And you are spot on when you say this is an absolute duty........not a duty that you can interpret some other way.
Sorry to be picky
-
This is like a re-run of the arguments we had back in the 1990s. There was a 'general principle' in operation that, if you employed less than 5 people, you could simply tell them all things whereas, if you had 5 or more, you had to write the important things down - like safety policies and risk assessments.
-
If article 48 of the RRO disapplies the HASAWA and the Management Regs, which is my understanding, is it appropriate for us to keep quoting precedents and case Law decisions - such as the argument over 5 employees anywhere versus 5 at anyplace?
Surely under Article 48 we are starting with a clean slate and need RRO specific Case Law before we can be sure?
-
I think there is no disagreement if an employer is the RP of a single workplace and if he employs 5 or more people then he has to record the significant findings.
It is when he is has multiple separate workplaces employing less then 5 in each should he aggregate these employees to decide if he needs to record the findings in each. This could mean two shops next door to each other, one with one employee is required to record the findings the other next door with four employees not required.
Justice, not only has to be done, it has to be seem to be done.
-
If article 48 of the RRO disapplies the HASAWA and the Management Regs, which is my understanding, is it appropriate for us to keep quoting precedents and case Law decisions - such as the argument over 5 employees anywhere versus 5 at anyplace?
Kurnal article 47 not 48 quite rightly disapplies the HASAW Etc. Act IF the matters can be dealt with under the Order. This is to avoid dual enforcement. However the requirement to record the prescribed information is identical under both. Quite correctly in my opinion.
-
OK I am back in, this thread started with the issue as to whether we needed to have a recorded FRA if the employer had one employee in shop 'A' but more employees aswell elsewhere. We then drifted off a bit but have now got back to the point.
Having just read the Order again i still believe the "Spirit" of this law is that if the "Responsible Person" employees 5 or more it has to be recorded AND those 5 should be in shop 'A'. My reasons for this are:
1) Article 9(1) states the "responsible Person" must carry out an FRA - Dont think anyone disagees with that?
2) Article 3 gives the meaning of the "Resposnible Person" and this may not be the employer and if it is the employer it says in 3(a) it is in relation to the workplace, further more if it is not the employer it is the person who has Control of the workplace, evrything revolves around the workplace not workplaces.
Thats it really i am not interested in other legislation my belief is that this is what this document is saying and i feel as a couple of others have said that it will take a legal test case to decide.
PhilB and others what do you think?
-
John consider this. The HASAW Etc Act 1974 is still in force. The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 are made under that Act and contain the requirement for certain information to be recorded ."IF FIVE OR MORE PERSONS ARE EMPLOYED".
The Order has been in force since the 1st October as you know and also has a requirement for information to be recorded. It would make little sense to interpret the two pieces of law differently when the wording is identical in my opinion.
I dont personally think we can ignore other legislation.
You are correct that now it is the responsible person not only the employer who has to carry out the RA. However if there is no employer the problem we are discussing does not arise.
-
The Order is basically a Health and Safety document and as such will "borrow" from H&S case law. Enshrined in that, is the principle of 5 or more employees aaaand that is taken on into this piece of legislation. FPA Circular 28 which was the enforcers guidance under the WFPL stated the same and the draft of the enforcers guide under the Order copies this.
-
And let's not forget that it is not just the significant findings that need to be recorded. Look at article 11, the fire safety arrangements must also be recorded.
That is why it is the number of persons employed and not the location they are employed in. More people, more planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review required.
Would you want a large organisation like BP or Shell to argue that not more than five are employed in each petrol station??? Surely not, you would expect them to have suitable management systems in place and to record them.
-
Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me. I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy. If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff. After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?
I hear what you are saying about H&S legislation BUT until this legislation gets sounded out in court i think you are wrong to say MUST.
I think we should leave it there as we are obviously not going to agree but it has been good to hear what you and others think.
-
John, last bit, no one has died for the lack of a document. However, the fact that they have bothered to have one makes you think that they are in a better position. My question is what will the insurers do afetr an incident?
-
Now there i totally agree with you, i have said to clients you may not need to record your FRA BUT how are you going to demonstrate you have done one and there really is only one way.
-
OK so we haven't seen the case law or had more explicit guidance on this specific aspect of the RRO - but the identical approach to that in general H&S law regarding risk assessment seems to be far more than coincidence and we would be well advised at this time to follow the HSE's view of the meaning of '5 or more employees' than to hope that a different interpretation will be applied here - at the risk of being in breach of legislation which to many is clear in its intention and meaning in this respect.
-
Watchout for the other aspect that is hitting the Health and Saefty side and that is civil litigation. I am waiting for the first case where a company is sued because of a fire loss and they cannot prove that they carried out a FRA.
Remember the Sam Goldwynism " A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on"
-
Ken
When you say "writing more BS"
I assume you mean British Standards rather than buls**t (or do you???)
-
I mailed the DCLG the following question.
If an employer (RP) has five or more separate workplaces each employing 1 employee is he/she required to record the significant findings (sect 6) of the FRA.
The following was thier reply.
The employer (the responisble person) must carry out a fire risk assessment for all the seperate workplaces that he has control of if they are not part of the same premises; he will need to record the significant findings.
-
Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me. I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy. If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff. After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?
I hear what you are saying about H&S legislation BUT until this legislation gets sounded out in court i think you are wrong to say MUST.
I think we should leave it there as we are obviously not going to agree but it has been good to hear what you and others think.
You have to factor in Public perception/expectation, because they do have an influence on a decision a magistrate /judge will make, in regards to application of the law.
-
The significant findings are clearly a lot more than a list of defects.
I have to agree with PhilB on this one - nice piece Phil, however it leaves the Inspecting / Enforcing Officer and Enforcing Authorities in a bit of a predicament.
The obvious way to determine if a fire risk assessment is "Suitable and Sufficient" is if a nice big list of "Significant Findings" has been recorded (or drawn on a plan) - and the only way to determine if the list of "Significant Findings" (or the plan) is correct is to carry out a full and thorough inspection of the premises.
The inspector carries out the inspection and tells the RP what he's missed and what he needs to do to put it right. Goodbye 5(4) Notice - hello Enforcement Notice.
So much for self compliance .... or am I missing something ?
-
Bear in mind that the significant findings are not just the faults, but the proper measures as well, so that fire extinguishers properly mounted and in the correct position is a significant finding as well as not enough fire extinguishers provided.
However I can see conflict coming up as an RP, especially if they have hired or employed an expert arguing, with an inspecting officer over the risk assessment. Alternatively what is the position of the expert if having done a risk assessment the IO disagrees and lands an enforcement notice?
The IOs have lost the protection of the FPA and the 1952 Fire Services Bluff Act!
-
Bear in mind that the significant findings are not just the faults, but the proper measures as well, so that fire extinguishers properly mounted and in the correct position is a significant finding as well as not enough fire extinguishers provided.
However I can see conflict coming up as an RP, especially if they have hired or employed an expert arguing, with an inspecting officer over the risk assessment. Alternatively what is the position of the expert if having done a risk assessment the IO disagrees and lands an enforcement notice?
The IOs have lost the protection of the FPA and the 1952 Fire Services Bluff Act!
well the RP could appeal an enforcement notice-and let a magistrate decide.I would welcome this as an IO, because then the law might define some of the guidance.Remember IO's have the same guidance documents as a RP/consultant-after that its down to perception,experience of the IO and their Boss!
-
I have recently undertaken a fire risk assessment of a small shopping complex which included a key cutting company in a small unit. As they only employed two persons I advised that a written fire risk assessment is not required, although recomended.
However I have subsequently found out that this tenant has more than one shop in the area and employs more than five persons in total for all the shops, although no more than two persons per shop.
Will a written fire risk assessment need to be produced for all shops individually or collectively??
Thanks,
Rocha
hi as far as im aware the risk asssessment is for the building not the company as a whole.
the main head office will have a risk assessment for them and i would recommend a written risk assessment be done just to cover the individual location. but according to RRO they dont need to keep written records, (stupid i know) :/
-
Yes they do need to record the significant findngs of the risk assessment for each seperate location because the key cutting company employs 5 or more.
And as it is a shared workplace all responsible persons need to co-operate and communicate with each other the significant findings of their own risk assessment, with the landlord responsible for co-ordinating this especially if anyone is using hazardous substances, and for the risk assessment of common areas.
-
Yes, you can have a separate risk assessment relating to each premises - including all the significant risks within the building and of the work carried out by the employees there - but, whilst the risk assessment is not covering the entire operation of the employer, it still needs to be recorded, as Kurnal says, for the reasons given. This has been the interpretation given to the same duty to record significant findings in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and to the duty for a safety policy in the 1974 Health and Safety at Work, etc Act.
-
The inspector carries out the inspection and tells the RP what he's missed and what he needs to do to put it right. Goodbye 5(4) Notice - hello Enforcement Notice.
So much for self compliance .... or am I missing something ?
No Fred shouldn't happen as long as it is enforced correctly but you raise a good point. It is not the role of the enforcing authority to tell the responsible person exactly what to do...if it was we would be back to 5(4) OR 8(5) notices.
It is usually quite obvious, in my opinion of course, if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient...there should be no need to inspect the whole of the building to determine this fact.
If it is not suitable or sufficient...just tell them that fact...why it is not.......and tell them to do another. But I know that many FRS are still trying to come to terms with this culture change.
-
PhilB the Lawyers are already sharpening their pencils!
-
I don't know Ian!! The way you rant on about lawyers anyone would think you've been involved in a high profile case or something x!
-
once bitten maybe you kinda get a feeling for these things.
Seriously though Phil, I'm dealing with quite a few problems posed by fire officers doing (to some extent) what you suggest. Others might call it 'setting hares running' -because after the 'responsible person' has worried a bit, spent a bit and then asked for advice - there's really nothing wrong with the buildings or management. This irritates I can assure you.
I can see litigation increasingly being taken against F&RSs when they become a nuisance; with little sympathy from any Court.
At least if they put their cards on the table early it can save a lot of hassle.
-
I agree with Ian, the IO's seem to want to go back to the prescriptive days, that is their comfort zone. Whether they are any good at fire safety is another issue but to blatantly state you have to do this is not true anymore, there is more than one way and realisation of this could cost FRS a lot of money.
-
I agree Ian, interesting times ahead. I can also see problems when fire officers are asked to justify what they are asking for in Court. In your case the Judge constantly referred to 'The Blue Book'. It is entirely appropriate to move away from such precription but the new guides are very poor in my opinion.
Couple with this the fact that many FRS are not providing sufficient training for their inspecting officers there will no doubt be some long winded court cases where consultants and fire officers try and work out the square route of a jamjar while the lawyers tills are ringing.
I think we are in the wrong profession!
-
Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me. I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy. If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff. After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?
I hear what you are saying about H&S legislation BUT until this legislation gets sounded out in court i think you are wrong to say MUST.
I think we should leave it there as we are obviously not going to agree but it has been good to hear what you and others think.
Bikerjohn..You're right on your thinking. Otherwise would be ludicrous
-
I think we are in the wrong profession!
PhilB,
I completely agree!!! The life of a defence lawyer is the way ahead!!
Happy Days!
-
Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me. I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy. If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff. After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?
Sorry, but both garages need to record - they both have a Petroleum Licence. Article 11 (2)(b)
Interestingly, I once had the fire consultant for the biggest food retailer in the UK, who also have petrol stations tell me they only employed two people in the petrol station so they didn`t need a FRA.
Also, PhilB, stick to fire safety, my better half was a criminal defence lawyer take it from me there is more money in firefighting, unless you are a partner.
-
Question for discussion.
If a significant risk is identified and effective control measures are applied to the extent that the risk has been reduced to a minor one, does it lose its significant risk status at the next review?
-
I would say 'no'
It is still a significant risk, but one with a control measure that lowers it's risk. So the control measure should also be recorded as part of the significant findings. (Since the control measure is a preventative or protective measure)
-
The inspector carries out the inspection and tells the RP what he's missed and what he needs to do to put it right. Goodbye 5(4) Notice - hello Enforcement Notice.
So much for self compliance .... or am I missing something ?
No Fred shouldn't happen as long as it is enforced correctly but you raise a good point. It is not the role of the enforcing authority to tell the responsible person exactly what to do...if it was we would be back to 5(4) OR 8(5) notices.
It is usually quite obvious, in my opinion of course, if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient...there should be no need to inspect the whole of the building to determine this fact.
If it is not suitable or sufficient...just tell them that fact...why it is not.......and tell them to do another. But I know that many FRS are still trying to come to terms with this culture change.
How can you tell if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient if you do not inspect the whole building in order to ascertain if all significant risks have been identified and assessed?
-
Bear in mind the RRO calls for the recording of significant findings not risks. So in my view the risk assessment must record the risk and whether or not suitable precautions have been taken. So the finding that the means of escape from the third floor is via an internal protected staircase and an alternative external escape, is equally significant as the finding that the means of escape is not satisfactory and the following recommendations are made.
Also as far as the clinet and an inspecting officer is cconcerned, which creates a better image, an assessment that just lists what is wrong or an assessment that lists what is done correctly and what improvements need to be made.
-
The inspector carries out the inspection and tells the RP what he's missed and what he needs to do to put it right. Goodbye 5(4) Notice - hello Enforcement Notice.
So much for self compliance .... or am I missing something ?
No Fred shouldn't happen as long as it is enforced correctly but you raise a good point. It is not the role of the enforcing authority to tell the responsible person exactly what to do...if it was we would be back to 5(4) OR 8(5) notices.
It is usually quite obvious, in my opinion of course, if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient...there should be no need to inspect the whole of the building to determine this fact.
If it is not suitable or sufficient...just tell them that fact...why it is not.......and tell them to do another. But I know that many FRS are still trying to come to terms with this culture change.
How can you tell if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient if you do not inspect the whole building in order to ascertain if all significant risks have been identified and assessed?
Does a risk assessment also include significant findings in relation to any risk from fire from a process which is undertaken within the premises, in addition to the means of escape?
-
Only if the process fire risk affects the general fire precautions. HSE will deal with process fire risks, the fire safety order deals with general fire precautions.
-
How can you tell if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient if you do not inspect the whole building in order to ascertain if all significant risks have been identified and assessed?
You can`t entirely, I assume your brigade uses the CFOA guidance on the audit process. This document covers the audit principles, how to carryout the audit and the verification of standards.
Verification of standards must include a risk critical constituent, then if you find major deficiences in this area then a full inspection of all risk critical constituents is to be made. You document the area choosen on the audit form to cover your brigade (oh sorry I meant yourself) the FSO has an advantage here over the consultant he should have years of history in a file.
Then you use the nationally agreed 'get out letter' that states that:-
I am pleased to advise you that, at the time of the visit, a satisfactory standard of fire safety was evident. The visit was not a comprehensive audit of all fire safety matters but looked into a variety of aspects from which our findings are drawn.
You should be aware that you have an ongoing responsibility to maintain that standard and to carry out periodic reviews to ensure that safety provision remains adequate.
-
Only if the process fire risk affects the general fire precautions. HSE will deal with process fire risks, the fire safety order deals with general fire precautions.
Thanks PhilB.
Are the general fire precautions and fire risk not relevant to each other? If there was a hot flame process would this not be assessed for any significant risk involved and control measures applied, whatever that might be?
Do you see a difference between a risk to an operator from a process and a risk to persons in general from the process?
I assumed that as part of an risk assessment the person or persons exposed to the risk were identified. The risk to a person could have the potential to be a risk to all.
-
I agree with Dave you can't cover everything, but under the new regime are you meant to? The companies who take their responsibilities seriously will be pretty self evident by their FRA and general set up, in those cases surely all that is needed is a quick look at an area to ensure that the FRA does address the situation and then take it on trust that the rest of it is up to the same standard. If the FRA does not address the situation or the firm is totally unsatisfactory, then you need to get dug in and take action.
Just as in the old days doing reinspections of certificated premises you could get a quick idea of whether the company was on the ball in which case a quick once over was all that was needed, or whether the company needed some help or encouragement then you had to roll up your sleeves and get stuck in.
As the get out letter states you can only assess the company at the time of your visit. You cannot guard against all the fire doors being wedged open as soon as you walk out of the front door.
-
Only if the process fire risk affects the general fire precautions. HSE will deal with process fire risks, the fire safety order deals with general fire precautions.
Thanks PhilB.
Are the general fire precautions and fire risk not relevant to each other? If there was a hot flame process would this not be assessed for any significant risk involved and control measures applied, whatever that might be?
Do you see a difference between a risk to an operator from a process and a risk to persons in general from the process?
I assumed that as part of an risk assessment the person or persons exposed to the risk were identified. The risk to a person could have the potential to be a risk to all.
Absolutely Nearlythere it does become complicated and process fire risks will often have a bearing on general fire precautions. However in the nastier scarier premises there should be competent persons appointed to assist the responsible person and they should be able to assist enforcing authorities by providing relevant technical info if necessary.