Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 10 June 2009 16:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jon Scrivener Any pointers please for how to go about a DRA for an electrical fit out on a new build project using competent electricians. All the work itself has been assessed, it is the design assessment I need help with. Thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 10 June 2009 18:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By sylvia Who is asking you to provide a "DRA"? This phrase has been watered down in the 2007 CDM regs, and greater concentration put on identifying key points on and via drawing notations. Caan you quote the actual question / request if there is one.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 10 June 2009 18:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day I would have thought that a hazard register would have been more in keeping in the regs ?
Admin  
#4 Posted : 10 June 2009 20:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By FAH Hi Jon Forgive me if I've misunderstood you; but I always thought that the DRA HAD to come first as it could have serious impact on how the actual work could be undertaken. It is after all intended to identify areas of serious concern where the actual build, use, maintenance & eventual demolition may be adversely affected & require additional risk management. To me it's a bit like feeding the horse but not oiling the cart wheels. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#5 Posted : 10 June 2009 23:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter If as you say John, all the work activities have been assessed, my assumption would be that all the component parts (boards, conduit, panels & fittings etc.) have also been selected. I would hope that earlier designers have considered the installation of services and it will not be necessary to chase-out blockwork etc.for this part of the installation. The question then arises: is there any significant "design" risk here? It is perfectly reasonable for a designer to make the statement: "The designer has not identified any significant area of risk arising from this element of the design which the competent contractor would not already be expected to be aware of"
Admin  
#6 Posted : 11 June 2009 07:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Flic There is another aspect to consider - the integrity of the design from the point of view of the end-user of the electrical system. This would include the phasing, location of 'off' switches, any e-stops, any areas requiring hazardous area classification and its effect on electrical requirements. Is this what you are after? Flic
Admin  
#7 Posted : 11 June 2009 14:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jon Scrivener Thanks for the responses. It is the client asking for the assessment. I would guess that they specced the locations of distribution boards, outlets, switches etc. That is why I am struggling to know how to respond. I am tending towards the no significant risks angle.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 11 June 2009 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By FAH Hi Jon With respect, it should be the Designers responsibility to produce the DRA - not someone downsteam of the design unless the electrical contractor has contractually taken on any specific aspect of design. In which case, the person[s] who drew up the elect installation spec should be responsible for their aspects of the DRA as appropriate. Frank Hallett
Admin  
#9 Posted : 11 June 2009 15:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Flic To record 'no significant risks' would not constitute a risk assessment - there are always risks with electricity unles it is properly designed, installed and used. Does it fully comply both the the Electricity at Work Regulations and with the IEE regs ? That would be a start. My experience is that people often concentrate on the latter and forget the former. Your risk assessment is also going to be affected by what the client does in the building - electrical design for a metal workshop would be different from an office. Flic
Admin  
#10 Posted : 11 June 2009 16:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter My understanding is that the question is about the Designer communication significant risks arising from his design. In most construction Projects there are any number of "Designers" and these include Designers or M&E and other specialist equipment. From Jon's information thus far, it is not evident that he has actually "designed" anything, or indeed introduced any area of significant risk that the competent contractor should not already know. In other respects the installation requirments for electrical circuits (of all types) is so prescriptive (via BS/EN, Building Regs and Codes of Practice) that there is no real scope for deviation or introduction of risks other than those typically covered in any final O&M Manual. Therefore, for a new build (no ACMs etc to worry about) and in the context of the CDM Regs, Jon could be well justified in making the "no risks" statement. In any event, he should be communicating via a CDM-C on these issues.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 11 June 2009 16:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter That should read "Designers of M&E" not "Designers or M&E". Sorry!
Admin  
#12 Posted : 11 June 2009 16:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Flic "In other respects the installation requirments for electrical circuits (of all types) is so prescriptive (via BS/EN, Building Regs and Codes of Practice) that there is no real scope for deviation or introduction of risks other than those typically covered in any final O&M Manual." They have the appearance of being very prescriptive, but there are gaps. My recent experience suggests that where there are gaps, sometimes things do not turn out as expected. Flic
Admin  
#13 Posted : 11 June 2009 18:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By sylvia Extract from HSE / industry FAQ help pages on CDM - due to HSE web changes can't easily find it now! Sorry it's a bit long and classically HSE-worded. Your client may be asking for a "design risk assessment" because that is what the 1994 CDM regs talked about, and they haven't changed. Q: "I’m a bit confused about whether I should be using design risk assessments, design risk reviews, or some other means of documenting my risk procedures. Can you help me?" A: Your aim is to eliminate hazards from the design (so far as is reasonably practicable), and reduce risks from any remaining hazards – giving priority to collective protective measures before individual protective measures. The consideration of hazard and risk is integrated within the design process, so there is no need to carry out a separate “design risk assessment”. A design review may also be useful as a means of checking that the principle aim of eliminating hazards or reducing risks is achieved. A design practice or design team may choose to develop their own arrangements to make sure that designers are aware of their responsibility to eliminate hazards and reduce risks. The nature of these arrangements will depend on the size of the design practice/team, and the type of work undertaken. Q: "I thought the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) required risk assessments, so why don’t I have to do specific design risk assessments?" A: Reg 3(1) of MHSWR does require employers and the self-employed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to which their own employees are exposed at work, and also the risks arising out of, or in connection with, their work activity (e.g. designs) to which others may be exposed. The purpose of the risk assessment is to identify measures needed to comply with relevant health and safety law. However, the risk assessment of a design should be integral to, and evolve with, the design work itself. Every design is different, and every design will require a degree of calculation, assessment, review, and the proper exercise of judgement. If a designer is complying with reg 11 of the new CDM 2007 Regulations, then as the design is worked through to completion any hazards will be eliminated and residual risks (to those who may be affected by them) reduced, so far as is reasonably practicable. This is, in effect, the application of risk assessment to the design. There is no legal requirement for a risk assessment to be in writing or recorded, however, reg 3(6)(a) of MHSWR does require the significant findings of the assessment to be recorded where an employer employs five or more people. In terms of design, the significant findings of the assessment will be the finished design, together with all relevant drawings, and any accompanying notes. Reg 3(3) of MHSWR requires any assessment to be reviewed if no longer valid, or if there have been significant changes. Most design practices already do this, by a systematic process of design review throughout the development of the design. Designers may choose to record the reasons why a design was modified or revised so that any subsequent designers are aware of what was decided. Para 113 of the CDM 2007 ACOP states that “compliance with Reg 11 of CDM 2007 will usually be sufficient for designers to achieve compliance with Regs 3(1), (2), and (6) of MHSWR as they relate to the design of the structure”. Q: "How and what information do I have to pass on?" A: You should inform others about project specific significant residual risks. This should focus on risks that may not be obvious to those who use the design. One good way of communicating this information is using notes on drawings, if you are not sure what information should be passed on talk to the CDM co-ordinator or contractor about what they need to know.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 11 June 2009 18:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JasonGould It is a nice relief that other people can find that piece of vital information. Should have been in the acop IMO. I tend to print it off and distribute at the early meetings so we are all clear on what it is all about. This also tends to make designers more forthcoming in having design reviews and actually inviting the CDMC of a few topic areas.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 12 June 2009 09:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By sylvia Found it - here's the link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...ractorsfaq.htm#designers There is also a HSE Powerpoint for designers & CDM (www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/session4.PPT) which quotes on slide 15 the following as bullet points: "Competent designers eliminate hazards and reduce risks – manage the risk, not paperwork. Design risk assessments (DRAs) are seen by many as unhelpful and should be discouraged Just say no to thoughtless DRA but yes to eliminating hazards CDM 2007 does not require designers to produce copious amounts of paperwork detailing generic hazards and risks"
Admin  
#16 Posted : 12 June 2009 09:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jon Scrivener Sylvia Thanks very much. That clears my question perfectly. Much appreciated for contributions from all. Jon
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.