FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: The Colonel on October 01, 2007, 01:24:13 PM
-
It would be interesting to hear the veiws of members on when a risk assessment should be reveiwed. Guidance indicates it should be re-examined if you suspect it is no longer valid, after a near miss and when the are significant changes to buildings, practices or risks etc, fine no problem there.
Guidance also states review your risk assessment reqularly, what is reqularly? I normaly suggest to clients that a full reveiw should be undertaken after 12 months unless things change and particularly when dealing with premises that contain sleeping accomodation. Altough the 12 months is not hard and fast but based usually on the findings of the risk assessment.
Those of you that are on the enforcing side of the fence how do you veiw reqularly and are you given any guidance?
-
12 months seems to be the norm.
-
I'm not an enforcer, but a consultant. Was previously an insurer. I always recommended 12 monthly or when there were any alterations, but would have accepted 18 monthly (as an insurer).
-
Lets look at what the legislation says .....
Article 9 (Risk Assessment)
(3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it up to date and particularly if—
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the premises, special, technical and organisational measures, or organisation of the work undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions,
Regularly is the key word here. The period is determined by the responsible person. Annually is purely a recommendadtion to make sure it gets done.
-
It depends on the overall level of risk and the degree to which management issues were a factor.
My risk assessments always recommend a formal review on an annual basis in addition to any other reviews, but if poor management was a key factor I recommend more frequent formal reviews, especially until completion of the action plan. Sometimes it has been 3 months- to provide a formal check on progress.
-
In your risk assessment, consider how often it should be reviewed and comment as such- different risks different timescales. By generating high, medium or low risk ratings, consider with each a timescale between reviews. Include timescales for reporting actions on findings, (maybe monthly). If using equipment, you would make sure it is safe & working correctly prior to use and that you have PPE etc. Similar process for buildings and occupancies. Baldyman has quoted Article 9 which is fine but still does not dictate. Making a judgement call is the assessors business. Sorry, that is not exactly helpful. I would base 1,3 & 5 years inspection points , subject to any changes as above for buildings and take consideration of occupancy & processes and adjust timescales with notes of evidence.
-
Most so far seem to agree that reqular is determind upon the level of risk with particular epmasis on the management or sometimes lack of and its getting the responsible person to understand that once a risk assessment is completed that that is only the begining and not just somthing to say yes we have had one done. Many seem to think that having had an assessment that they are compliant and safe.
Chris - it would be interesting to know how the insurance industry veiw clients without risk assessments or reveiws, do they increase premiums or withdraw cover or dont bother. Bet they would bother if there was a claim.
-
getting the responsible person to understand that once a risk assessment is completed
That's after getting them to understand they need one in the first place!!
Let's face it, the hard work is carrying out the risk assessment initially, it's not too onerous to review it once in a while to make sure it's still appropriate and recording the fact.
Most businesses will say they have too much to worry about to bother with this minor inconvenience.
-
Chris - it would be interesting to know how the insurance industry veiw clients without risk assessments or reveiws, do they increase premiums or withdraw cover or dont bother. Bet they would bother if there was a claim.
I cannot speak on behalf of the industry, only offer my personal opinion. When deciding premium the issues that are most relevant are building value, loss history, trade (what they do), protection systems, construction type, location. That someone has a fire safety risk assessment is pretty far down the list. It is unlikely that it would influence your premium, as most of insurers costs are buying folks new buildings.
However, the insurers surveyors will see it as important, as it gives them a good insight into the professionalism of their client. They will make it recommendations if they do not see one. Never heard of anyone withdrawing or reducing cover because of it. Also you can't start denying claims after a loss if it wasn't something you told them about before a loss.
-
It must surely depend on the risk.
An assessment of a nucleur power factory that has not been reviewed for 12 months may scare me. Mrs Prendergast's wet fish shop may go a little longer without putting the fear of God into me, and as you all know, I scare very easily.
-
I can't see why a nuclear power plant would need fire safety risk assessment more frequently than annually or upon changes.
Depending on the conclusions of the fire safety risk assessment, quarterly, monthyly, weekly or daily inspections of some things may be needed, but this isn't the same thing.
-
I can't see why a nuclear power plant would need fire safety risk assessment more frequently than annually or upon changes.
Neither can I Chris but hopefully you would agree that the assessment of such a rsik should be reviewed more frequently than an assessment of a wet fish shop.
-
I reckon you may be getting hung up on process risk there Phil. And as for Mrs Prendergast now I understand. I always thought she was a librarian with a personal hygiene problem.
-
I can't see why a nuclear power plant would need fire safety risk assessment more frequently than annually or upon changes.
Neither can I Chris but hopefully you would agree that the assessment of such a rsik should be reviewed more frequently than an assessment of a wet fish shop.
I agree that I wouldn't be too fussed if the shop went to 2 yearly reviews, but I'd be quite happy with a nuclear power plant doing an annual review.
-
Yes Chris so would I.
Please Chris and Kurnal forget I ever mentioned a nuclear power point..I will never mention one again.......I was just trying to make the point that the frequency of the reviews should be proportionate to the risk.......and leave Mrs Prendergast alone too!
-
We shall never talk about this incident again.
-
Mrs Prendergast's husband is a nuclear power station technician who practices his petrol juggling act during lunch hours in the power station's plush new canteen.
On his days off he assists his lovely wife (Who by the way is a second cousin of Postman Pat) in her shop. To wow the customers he juggles fish, and as an extra special trick he ignites them mid air to produce smoked mackeral.
Both prendergast and the power station should have flagged this up as a significant finding. So you were right to argue the point PhilB - those bullies just mocked and cajouled you.
Chris you were right that both organisations should review their assessment regularly and Kurnal Mrs Prendergast does have a hygiene problem cos she smells of fishy petrol.
The moral of the story is this?: don't know exactly... what was the question again? Ive lost the plot and am talking utter rubbish brought about by PhilB's fantasy and surreal nuclear power station and Mrs Prendergrast's pungent B.O.
I have to go now nurse wants to give me my medication
I love you Mrs Prendergrast.
-
Yes Chris so would I.
Please Chris and Kurnal forget I ever mentioned a nuclear power point..I will never mention one again.......I was just trying to make the point that the frequency of the reviews should be proportionate to the risk.......and leave Mrs Prendergast alone too!
Phill I think you like many others have hit the nail on the head in that the review frequency should be proportionate to the risk. The problems as I see it is convinving the responsible person that they have a risk and that a file full of papers is not like waving the old fire certificate and saying I have one go away. Even harder is convincing responsible persons that they have to act on the assessment and not just file it away.
One case that I know of was a school, where the risk assessment was undertaken which would involve some considerable work, noises were made that budgets would be sought and work considered. Nothing was done, reviews were declined and it was not until the local FSO paid a visit that the RP even thought of doing the work in the assessment. The RP then realised that it was his rear end on the line.