OC 18/12 Version 3
This OC defines the approach to be taken by FOD staff over Matters of Evident Concern (MEC) and Matters of Potential Major Concern (MPMC). This replaces version 2, significant changes have been made at paras 5 and 9 to 13.
1 This OC contains instructions for FOD staff that require them to consider at site visits, whether there are risks present that could lead to multiple fatalities or multiple cases of ill-health and, if so, to take appropriate action. These high consequence events are designated as Matters of Potential Major Concern.
2 Matters of Evident Concern (MEC) are defined as those that create a risk of serious personal injury or ill health and which are observed (i.e. self-evident) or brought to the attention of FOD staff.
3 Matters of Potential Major Concern (MPMC) are those which have a realistic potential to cause either multiple fatalities or multiple cases of acute or chronic ill-health. An indicative, rather than exhaustive, list of issues is given at the end of this document.
4 As has always been required, visiting officers should continue to deal immediately with any MEC that they encounter during their visits, whether or not these are related to their planned inspection or investigation. Visiting officers are not expected to make enquiries or seek information on MECs, except in Construction Division where MECs are fully incorporated into the construction programme, but they should take appropriate action to address any MECs which come to their attention (either directly or, for example, via workers' representatives).
5 In addition, FOD inspectors should now consider if there are hazards, which have the potential to cause multiple casualties or ill-health at all visits, unless specifically directed not to in other instructions (e.g.OM 2009/08). If there are such hazards, inspectors should make sufficient enquiries to form a professional judgment as to whether the associated risks are adequately controlled. If this is not the case, then enforcement action should be taken in accordance with the Enforcement Policy Statement. Inspectors should take into consideration the potential for secondary consequences (e.g. an explosion causing a building collapse), as well as that of the primary event.
6 If visiting officers in the Construction Division identify a MEC elsewhere than a construction site they should address and record it in accordance with this OC, e.g. when visiting a factory site to inspect a new extension they encounter poorly stored flammable gases or liquids within the factory premises. Construction inspectors are not expected to make enquiries about MPMC beyond those directly related to construction issues.
7 If staff encounter a MEC during a visit, they should advise the dutyholder to stop the activity or, if it is about to commence, not to start until a further risk assessment or reference to HSE guidance has been undertaken. If the dutyholder chooses to ignore their advice, the HSAO should contact an inspector by telephone to discuss the circumstances as soon possible.
8 Where staff suspect that there is poor control of health and safety risks at a site where there is the potential for a high consequence event, they should raise their concerns promptly with a band 2 inspector.
9 Whenever you deal with a MEC or a MPMC it should be recorded on COIN, except for Construction Division visiting officers who should only follow this section on recording where paragraph 6 above applies. Further information is given in OM 2008/04 'Using the Inspection Report Form (IRF) Other to record inspections on COIN' hyperlink or, for bulk LPG, OM 2009/08 'Work instruction for LPG pipework replacement inspection campaign' hyperlink
10 All initial enquiries into a MEC should be recorded on an IRF Other against the relevant duty holder. This includes Construction Division staff as any MECs discussed will not be construction-related. In the notes detail field you should record:
Where you did not take formal enforcement action you must record the reasons why. Where any follow up is required, the issue(s), action(s) required and follow up date(s) for this must be recorded using the issues tab on the service order.
11 It is expected that all MECs raised should normally either result in a notice or prosecution (in line with EMM requirements) or referral to another enforcing authority (e.g. for general fire precautions). Where appropriate, a COIN case should be raised for the above and linked to the IRF Other as normal.
12 MPMC activity should also be recorded on an IRF Other, with the exception of LPG bulk tank storage and pipework when the IRF LPG should be used - (see OM 2009/08). However, after enquiries have been made, it may be that the risks from MPMC are being adequately managed and no further action is needed. This information and the reasons for your judgment should still be recorded in the notes detail field. Where action is required to be taken regarding a MPMC then you should record in the Notes detail field
Where any follow-up is required, the issue(s), action(s) required and follow up date for this must be recorded using the issues tab on the service order. Where appropriate (eg enforcement action is taken) a COIN case should be raised for the above and linked to the IRF Other or IRF LPG as normal.
13 Time spent on MEC and/or MPMC (excepting bulk LPG and associated pipework) should be fully recorded as follows:
