Rank: Forum user
|
Hi,
I havent posted on here for a long time but would welcome any suggestions to my current H&S issue. Basically we have a number of sites that have been identified as low risk during L8 risk water assessments. Our L8 assessor has advised that we should complete 6 monthly temperature inspections however after reviewing the ACOP it states this should be completed monthly. With our staff turnover 6 monthly would be better for us as it could be completed externally but this doesnt fit in line with the ACOP. Has anyone implemented this kind of monitoring and if so what is the correct method? Any assistance would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi there
Yes we have a risk assessment and management plan in place for multiple buildings.
There are a range of measures to be undertaken, one of which is managing the temperature. Monthly is the preferred frequency. Under the right conditions, a colony can reach dangerous levels in around 5 days, so regular monitoring is a key preventative measure to make sure all tanks, pipe legs, vessels, coils etc do not sit in the temperature range to promote growth.
All in the ACOP from memory.
Jonty
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for the reply Jonty.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
We do monthly temp checks on all water systems and perform weekly flushes on low use facilities.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Howdy
The ACoP, L8, does not say anything about frequencies of inspection.
HSG274 Part 2 has been recently published and contains guidance for monitoring tasks and their frequencies. A small difference but a key one given the different status the documents have.
The legal requirement always was and still remains to undertake a risk assessment and implement appropriate control measures. It is entirely within the remit of the guidance and the ACoP to step away from any recommended frequencies and do things differently.
However...
I would only want to do so on the basis of a competently undertaken suitable and sufficient risk assessment with evidence to justify why I was doing things differently. I wouldn't want my reason to be that it fitted my staff turnover needs alone. 'Low risk' is rather a subjective term and even the very competent in this field could argue for days about what was and wasn't 'low' in risk.
With all the usual caveats in place about not knowing your specific circumstances, could I just add that running a tap or outlet for a minute and putting a thermometer underneath it is not a particularly time consuming or intellectually challenging task...even on a debatedly 'low' risk site you only need to do a handful of sentinel outlets that your risk assessor should be able to identify for you.
|
|
|
|
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.