Afternoon All.

I have recently been contacted by one of our customers stating that any of our operatives working on site, undertaking any type of hot works including cutting and welding, are legally required to be fully Fire Marshall trained.

Is this correct? as I cant find anything in black and white.

Thanks in advance

As with all assertions about legal requirements ask them to state the regulation where this is shown

To be fair, its not a harsh requirement is it? Why the fuss? and why the 'ask them where it's written down' angry response? 

As for a legal duty, if the customer's procedures (in part set by the findings of their FRA) have a strict hot working process, then this has arisen from duties under the relevant fire safety legislation.

We have low & medium fire risk premises, but have a zero tolerance to business interuption. So out how working arrangements are strictly adhered to. Failing to do so will see the contractor being fined or removed for site or both.

We also extend those procedures to dust producing works such as drilling or sanding to reduce the risk of unwanted fire alarm activations 

If contractors dont like it, we use someone else

Some questions!

I don't understand what 'fully fire marshall trained' means. In most organisations, a Fire Marshal is responsible for ensuring that, in the event of an alarm being raised, all persons evacuate a specific area. In addition they are often responsbible also for 'ticking off names' at the Assembly Point for that area.

So, if that sort of definition is involved, would it mean the person doing the hot work is responsible for ensuring evacuation of the immediate area and that any other people in that area (probably only co-workers) arrive at the Assembly point? If so, not an onerous requirement I suggest?

But, if that's what the client means, it's much simpler to write just those few words. So asking for a definition of the expected training would be worthwhile. And Fire Marshals typically work together to ensure the overall evacuation is effective, and that's site-specific - so the only person who can provide such training is the client!

A much more normal client expectation is that there's a competent 'stand-by fireman' whose's main role is to spot and extinguish any smouldering that the person doing the task doesn't see, e.g. because they are wearing a welder's helmet. That role is then often extended to ensuring any combustible materials in the area (and below if there's a grated floor) are removed or suitably shielded by a spark proof fire blanket before the task begins. Is that possibly what the client means? - if so using the wrong title indicates copying from somewhere else without understanding, so possibly not the sort of client you wish to being working for?

So identifying it is likely not a Fire Marshall but a Fire Watcher anyone know of an accredited course specified in regulations for this?

Then depending on your site rules you may be paying a contractor to sit around doing nothing - one sites Hot Works permit required sign-off at 30, 60 & 120 minutes after hand back. We never allowed contractors to self certify an area fit to be worked and always conducted the post works checks ourselves in accordance with our site permit procedure.

I am sure they operate permit to work system which includes hot works. This is to fulfil their legal duties under section 2 of HASAWA. Your staff is expected to comply with the requirements of any permits that are in force. The very last stage of the permit to work process is to inspect the completion of work – and this is not only duty of your staff but also their supervisor/manager/appointed person.

It is always difficult with customers that are not fully aware of the legislation and asking for ‘extras’. We recently had a client asking us to carry out thorough examination of skips under LOLER which is not a legal requirement, unfortunately we had to abide to this and spend unnecessarily £2000 to make them happy. Depends on the costs sometimes you may need to accept their will but certainly worth discussing and trying to get on compromise.

Edited by user 23 January 2018 14:32:04(UTC)  | Reason: Added paragraph

"responsible person", "his employees" & "adequate safety training"

Quite imaginative to read "sub-contractors MUST be fire marshalls"

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

"responsible person", "his employees" ; "adequate safety training". Quite imaginative to read "sub-contractors MUST be fire marshalls"

Edited by user 24 January 2018 00:05:00(UTC)  | Reason: Trying to make paragraphs when posting on iPhone grrrrr

In the context of the OP has best practice / consultant advice been miss-interpreted?

Seemed quite straight forward - where in law does it state a sub-contractor working at a.n.other's premises MUST be fire marshall trained to conduct hot works?

In the continued absence of a link to definitive (not extrapolated) legislative text one can only conclude that it does not exist despite client assertion.

|It is unlikely, as with similar posts, we will be provided with the information to draw conclusion so must prepare for the propogation of myth

Site rules or not, the client has made an "elf & safety" claim that is either justified or bunkum

We all have a duty to challenge miss-conception where it arises, or sit back and have more Daily Wail ridicule poured upon us.

Another current post asks about mandatory hard hats track side - everyone knows it is the clients site rules but Network Rail do not hide behind "law says".

I despair!

Just been sent a document to review - apparentky the legal minimum tread depth for a car tyres is 3mm!

Sorry the actual legal requirement is 1.6mm, AA & RAC best practice is 3mm at this time of year and the reality for lease fleet is 2mm.

Anyone care to extrapolate how this one arose?