Hi firesafety

Please don't think I am being rude, because I'm not. Instead I have my commercial head on.

This is one of those "how long is a piece of string questions".

I assume you work along the lines of hourly or daily rates which may vary depending on things such as how much volume of work you get from a client, scope and other things.

....and it is arguably what you describe as "lots of other stuff" that may easily define scope and thence both how much time you need to spend on site and, how much time you need for follow up actions including research and reporting.

To an extent this may depend on whether you want to promote a "compliance check" or broader advisory offering and of course which of these variants the client wants.

HSE posted on LinkedIn a few days ago about a visit to a commercial refurb where at least one Notice was served in relation to a circular saw being used to cut timber. The subsequent press release commented on the need for statutory examination of the LEV which in practical terms was probably not a critical issue.

So, you could do your "in date" check on the LEV and completely miss the important "lots of other stuff" - in this case that the way the LEV was set up was never going to provide effective control of the dust being generated.

But, even if we get past the simple "compliance check" and realise that there is probably something significantly wrong you need to know how far the scope extends to. Does the client simply want to know that the LEV is not doing what it is intended to do? - or what needs to be done to rectify this? -  and how BIG is the non-compliance which ultimately could impact on how BIG the fine might be in Court?

Straying on to the topic of another thread on these Forums, that saw might be in the open air, used only for cutting softwood, and only for very short periods, such that either as an 8 hour time weighted average or as a short term excursion possibly the actual exposure of worker is well within the exposure limits in EH40 and possibly that  the ineffectual LEV isn't even a legal necessity. 

In contrast, that saw might be indoors and being used for extended periods of time to cut hardwood, so a designated carcinogen and thence with exposure not only to be kept below the exposure limit but to whatever lower level is reasonably practicable.

At this stage, you are looking at multiple issues including consideration as to whether you should be advising the client to take the process into an inherently safer factory setting. All time consuming for you as the adviser and the work you do AFTER the visit could easily take three times as long (or much more) as identifying the problem.

The "lots of other stuff" could also include discussing what is coming up in the construction programme in the upcoming period where the RAMS are yet to be considered, all the risks that have slipped the attention of those on the project (one of the potential advantages of you bringing fresh eyes to the picture), lessons from what is happening elsewhere (e.g. might be out of scope but some things from post Grenfell might be relevant to fire safety on the site and in the completed Contract Works) etc etc.

Ultimately only you and your clients can agree the scope of what you are to do, but it won't be long before AI rovers are traversing the site to check that equipment is "in date". We've got drones inspecting bridges, taking photos of stickers on equipment is MUCH simpler.

Edited by user 02 June 2023 14:27:26(UTC)  | Reason: Two letter word omitted