Articles 12 and 16- dangerous substances

[kurnal]

A meat processing plant uses large refrigeration units incorporating ammonia.

I have taken the view that the ammonia is essentially a process risk. Whilst it is flammable and having an explosive range (albeit a narrow one), it  is sealed within the plant and the risk of leaks is controlled under other general H&S and environmental legislation which apply comprehensive maintenance test and inspection regimes.

Others disagree with me and say that I should have treated the ammonia in accordance with articles 12 and 16 and should have included it within the significant findings.

Any views on this please?

[William 29]

Hi Kurnal,

I would have mentioned it in the relevant section of your FRA and would have looked into if it would come under DESEAR?  Based on what you have said in that it is being managed by other health and safety legislation, I would state just that in the FRA and wouldn't consider it a significant finding or risk as it is being managed appropriately.

The two questions in our FRA in that section we would ask are:

Are suitable arrangements in place to manage the elimination or reduction of risks from dangerous substances? (Article 12)
Are there suitable additional emergency measures provided to safeguard all relevant persons from emergencies related to dangerous substances in or on the premises? (Article 16)

From what you say the answer to both these questions would be YES.

[kurnal]

Thanks William.

Yes the MSDS sheet does list it as flammable using risk phrase R10  in accordance with the classification and labelling guide , but although it does have a narrow explosive range it is not given an EC risk phrase as an explosive and indeed the CPL regs do not appear to require either flammable or explosive graphics to be displayed.

 

[William 29]

In that case I think you have covered it in my view. 

[kurnal]

Yes. I suppose my question is that if a substance could conceivably be considered a hazardous substance under article 12 even if it is fully enclosed within a process and risk control measures are in place under other legislation to keep it there how far do I have to go in recording in my fire risk assessment the presence of the substance and the risk control measures that are in place under other legislation in accordance with Schedule 1 part 1 of the Fire Safety Order?.
Will a tick box to say all haz subs are kept and maintained under contrlled conditions or should I spell it out in detail copied from Schedule 1 part 1?

If I have to record the ammonia and specify risk control measures should I not also do it for the unlimited and much more hazardous Methane gas in the pipes and gas meter?

[William 29]

Taken from the CFOA regulators guidance on the RRFSO page 129 which I'm sure you'll have:

 "This article (16) requires responsible persons to assess the likelihood and scale or magnitude of the effects that may result from any foreseeable accident, incident, emergency or other event involving dangerous substances present at the workplace. On the basis of this assessment, responsible persons should put in place appropriate emergency arrangements to safeguard people on their premises, mitigate the effects of any such event and restore the situation to normal.
The precautions to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies are without prejudice to the precautions to be taken to eliminate and reduce risk as required by article 12. The possibility of such events is minimised by good plant design and layout, sound engineering and good operating practice, and proper instruction and training of personnel. However, despite these measures, accidents, incidents and emergencies can still occur and therefore appropriate procedures are required.
It is not expected that responsible persons will necessarily be able to achieve full mitigation of all foreseeable accidents, incidents and emergencies solely by their own means. Rather, it will typically be a combination of the workplace emergency arrangements and those of the emergency services that will provide overall, the safety of relevant persons. The fire service will in any case assume responsibility for tackling any fire upon their arrival, but they may also be able to assist in dealing with other non-fire emergencies such as released or spilled dangerous substances. The primary requirement for protecting relevant persons is to ensure that they are able to evacuate or be evacuated to a place of safety. The requirement to mitigate the effects of the accident, incident or emergency should have regard to this objective and to the need not to expose people to any unnecessary risks."

So in answer what I am suggesting is that from what you say the matters that would satisfy Articles 12 and 16 have been met by the application of general health and safety legislation.  I don’t see the need to regurgitate all this in your FRA?  I once dealt with a large 44 acre site with 22 separate buildings dealing with all manner of chemicals.  To state, record and provide full details on all the substances on the site would have been a non-starter.  We listed the basics and stated the control measures in place that were effectively controlled by the COMHA Regs with the Company following all the correct procedures.  I think I would make more of an issue if there was evidence to suggest that the substance(s) were not being effectively managed and therefore presented a risk to relevant persons.
Long answer but hope it helped in some way??

Will





r

[kurnal]

Thanks very much Will I do have the Regulators guidance but had not checked it, I had checked out guidance note number 1. I think you have answered it for me.

The next question though is "Is the CFOA Regulators guidance correct in referring to any forseeable accident, incident or emergency?" Surely fire must be the consideration?

"This article (16) requires responsible persons to assess the likelihood and scale or magnitude of the effects that may result from any foreseeable accident, incident, emergency or other event involving dangerous substances present at the workplace. On the basis of this assessment, responsible persons should put in place appropriate emergency arrangements to safeguard people on their premises, mitigate the effects of any such event and restore the situation to normal.

I had not thought about this before but the paragraph above (if a correct interpretation which I doubt)  appears to take the Fire Safety Order into whole new territory.

• The Fire Safety Order Article 2 defines Dangerous substances and the definition includes "and the way it is used". This dangerous substance is fully sealed in a refrigeration plant and great measures are taken under other legislation to ensure it remains sealed
• Article 2 Defines risk as "the risk to persons from fire"
• Article 2 defines hazard, "in relation to a dangerous substance, means the physico-chemical or chemical property of that substance which has the potential to give rise to fire affecting the safety of a person, and references in this Order to “hazardous” are to be construed accordingly;
• Article 4 General Fire Precautions (2) The precautions referred to in paragraph (1) do not include special, technical or organisational measures required to be taken or observed in any workplace in connection with the carrying on of any work process, where those measures —
  
  (a)are designed to prevent or reduce the likelihood of fire arising from such a work process or reduce its intensity; and .
  (b)are required to be taken or observed to ensure compliance with any requirement of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning given by section 53(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc 1974(1).
  

No doubt if there was a leak there would be major environmental and H&S incident but it is unlikely to involve a fire. I believe in this case the CFOA regulators guidance is being used out of context.

In their enforcement notice when they say the  FRA is not suitable or sufficient the fire service also refer to the failure to include details and control measures for an industrial radioactive source which would be a danger to firefighters.  I did not detail this  in my first posting because it was clearly irrelevant and incorrect.  But with your help I now see where they may be coming from and will go back and argue the point further and remind them that they are not relevant persons.

[William 29]

Kurnal,

Are you saying your FRA has been challenged as not being suitable and sufficient because you haven't detailed the control measures already in place under Article 12 and 16?  From my knowledge of you as a fire risk assessor and your postings I would very much doubt there would be any real substance to this challenge from the FA.

Probably one for discussion rather than long e mails, if you want to make contact more than happy to give you the benefit of my experience in dealing with challenges to FRAs.  We have had a few but so far have managed to reach an agreement where the FA and client are happy.

[kurnal]

Its a tangled web with much sleight of hand William. I would be glad to share the details with you but its too complex for here.

I dont expect to have any problem with the fire service to be honest, it now transpires that the fire service were not shown our risk assessment but a later one of the tick box variety (Ours was considered over the top by the RP) and the post fire  enforcement notice almost perfectly mirrors our risk assessment of a couple of years ago. The fire alarm even  still has the same fault and is still not being tested.

Of course the fire service will have their own view on Article 12 and I am happy to have a meeting with them to listen to their views and then at the end of the meeting  we will agree that I am right.  (Joke!!!)