Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
there is no chance of another organisation, private or otherwise, approving somebody else's risk assessment - as if that were so they would take liability with all the problems that that would bring
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Geoff,
That is exactly what I did when I completed ours! Though in a bit more detail.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
And just what 'most' premises require Mitch.
Of course there will be those who advocate that a two office portacabin needs a full fire risk assessment by an ex firefighter because they are the only people who can do them properly. Hopefully this Government guidance puts that one to bed.
Bob -it's Government guidance so I don't understand your point. Where do they say they will take responsibility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Although it does say 'contact your local Fire & Rescue Service who will be able to offer guidance' And I have been told that I cannot expect any advice as that would compromise the Services role as that being responsible for policing the system. Luckily a mate of mine is an ex (retained)officer and until recently responsible for H&S at work and he helped me prepare my assessment and gave me some good pointers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Geoff, of course a portacabin will require a full fire risk assessment. Who on earth would advocate doing half a fire risk assessment? Certainly not a trained firefighter eh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Read it again Shaun then stop digging. Deliberately misreading a sentence doesn't help your case.
;-))))))))))))))
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Geoff there are not many that would agree that only firefighters, ex firefighters or professionals are the only ones who can carry out fire risk assessments and rightly so. But the main problem is that some who are carrying out fire risk assessments don't know what they don't know so carry on blindly risk assessing completely ignorant of what they should be picking up. If you get the opportunity to read the article in the IFE magazine I referred to in a previous post - http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=33838 - I believe this is what the judge was alluding to.
You identified a two office portacabin as an example of a simple risk assessment. I have been involved in a similar example where an acetylene cylinder was tucked behind the portacabin. The person who carried out the FRA took exactly the same approach as I am concerned about. He never looked beyond the portacabin. The assembly point was just across the yard no more than 30m from the portcabin.
Gotta go now - the sun is beckoning here in Dubai!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Shaun, we agree on a lot more than you might think.
But risk assessment, fire risk assessment, COSHH, Manual Handling and so on requirements were never meant to be the sole province of 'experts'. All of it depends on the activity, premises, workforce etc, but in general terms all of these should be within the remit of employers without purchasing outside expertise.
Your earlier statements give/gave the impression that all FRAs must be carried out by experts who must also be ex firefighters - this is clearly quite wrong. I accept some FRAs require experts, but to indicate they all do is quite misleading.
Pray tell, how did your FRA deal with this cylinder?
And please, no more mention about colleagues....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Geoff, tell me how you would have dealt with the cylinder incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Todd
Re: cylinder tucked behind portacabin - can't remember the Du Pont saying but it's something like "Above, Behind, Around, Inside"...
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Just my point Shaun, it all depends on the circumstances. Was it in use, was it being used, who did it belong to, what was it for, is there a proper storage facility and so on and so on.
How can anybody answer that question without knowing all the facts ...... or being an ex fireman :-)
How did you deal with it? If it was the same as the A12 incident with the LFA's own van/cylinder where they completely overreacted and closed down the A12 for several hours, then heaven forbid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Geoff
what difference does it make if it was in use or who owns it or what i was there for etc. If the portacabin was on fire the cylinder would have been exposed. That is all you really need to know.
Why do you think the fire brigade over reacted to the incident on the A12?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GeoffB4
Shaun I despair.
If next door owns it then they would be asked to move it. If the occupier of the portacabin owns it then it could be dealt with internally. If its just been dumped there it can be disposed of.
It's what I meant when I tried to point out to you that the practical aspects have to be taken into account. Without the suitable work experience it ends up just quoting the rules and regulations, without thought to the real world.
I think this correspondence with you is now exhausted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Assuming that it belonged to next door I'm sure they would agree to move the offending item that they had stored there for several years and your portacabin has been there for only a couple of months. Whilst the writing of letters between companies goes on the risk to the occupiers of the portacbin continues. Surely they need to know what to do.
Please do not despair Geoff. I will help you along. Your original question suggested that it does not need to be an expert. I am suggesting that you need to have a clear understanding of the risks and control measures required. The answer you gave above is an example where the action would be insufficient. It needs more than that. The fire service would put a 200m exclusion zone around the cylinder for a minimum of 24 hours. The least you could do for the occupiers of the portacabin would be to tell them their assembly point should be 200m away, but you will also need to provide information to the fire service informing them of the potential risk to them. You may not think it is necessary for them to undertake the risk assessment but they do deserve to be recognised as the ones being at risk in the event of a fire in the situation I described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Geoff, you still haven't answered why you thought the brigade over reacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Still waiting for an answer Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
He's busy at the Village Hall!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
I think he has got stuck in the Village Hall.
Pity. I was quite interested in his reasons and how he could support his statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lloyd Cole
Hello , Ill address this one to shaun and geoff..
Fire risk assessments within the Regulatory reform (fire safety order) contain a heading protection of Firefighters, as such all buildings other than domestic must have an emergency plan.
To answer your questions , A FRA must ( absolute) identify hazards within or outside a building.
So, as a professional i will give this advise to solve the mystery.
there are 4 levels of statute duty in Regulatory Reform.
1/ Absolute
2/ Practicable
3/Reasonably practicable
4/ and heres a new one ..Reasonable, basically what the ordinary man in the street expects, and because of this "extra" fire fighters would expect a FRA to be done properly .
Take my advise leave it to them..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Not sure why you want to address that one to me Lloyd. I'm pretty au fait with the regs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.