Risk Assessments

[Chris Houston]

Sorry for the shoddy typing.

Are you aparent assumptions that there is anacceptanble risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?

Should have read:

Are you aparent assumptions that there is an unacceptable risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?

[colin todd]

All this points to the difficulty of recognizing a competent fire risk assessor and a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. I agree about the 10 different opinions. We run a fire risk assessment course that is attended promarily by experienced fire officers and building control officers. We have now run the course 17 times. On every course, we have given people a small example of a rural police station ( a real case history ) and ask whether the building needs em lighting and/or a fire alarm system. ON NOT ONE COURSE, have the delegates ever been in universal agreement as to the right answer. So, by definition, there IS no right answer. Given that, how is an employer supposed to come up with a solution himself? Returning to the issue of competence, the IFE Register of Fire Risk Assessors is some yardstick, particularly as entry to the register is far from a token gesture-a significant proportion of those who apply are unsuccessful, purely because the samples of their risk assessments are deemd to be inadequate.

[Guest]

I certainly cant argue with what  Chris Houston has said at all.And Im certainly not saying he is wrong.

We all have as Colin Todd says different opinions and our interpretation of risk can be significantly different.

I also think the people we learn from all have different ways of teaching us , they all have different opinions which rub off on us.

Its like the argument about extiguishers which I dont want to really labour here but I have been to so many different training sessions and conferences where the speaker or lecturers (all of which are well respected and competent fire engineers) have sent out differing signals about the use of fire extinguishers.

Without clear bench marks and totaly prescriptive law we need to make our own judgements and as I said before 10 different people will do 10 different risk assessments - so which one is right?

Are they all wrong?

Are they all right?

And how does that all play out if you are sat in front of a judge?

Intresting dont you think?

[Guest]

What law says that you need fire extinguishers?  British Standards certainly have recommendations, but they are not law.  

Was there not a case a year or two ago where the owners of a big wrinkly tin 'shed' (probably in Northamptonshire) decided they didn't want them; the local Brigade took them to court and lost?

[JamesG]

The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 states

"Fire-fighting and fire detection
     4.  - (1) Where necessary (whether due to the features of a workplace, the activity carried on there, any hazard present there or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of employees in case of fire -



(a) a workplace shall, to the extent that is appropriate, be equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and

(b) any non-automatic fire-fighting equipment so provided shall be easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs[19],


and for the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) what is appropriate is to be determined by the dimensions and use of the building housing the workplace, the equipment it contains, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of people that may be present at any one time.

    (2) An employer shall, where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of his employees in case of fire -



(a) take measures for fire-fighting in the workplace, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of his undertaking and of the workplace concerned and taking into account persons other than his employees who may be present;

(b) nominate employees to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such employees, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the workplace concerned; and

(c) arrange any necessary contacts with external emergency services, particularly as regards rescue work and fire-fighting."


I imagine it would be hard to argue - unless it was a large empty shed - that there is no need to supply fire fighting equipment to a premises to cover this clause.

From memory, a similar clause appears in the RRO due for incorporation into legislation next year.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards

James

[Ken Taylor]

Risk assessments (as I understand them) involve establishing effective control measures. In the case of FRAs, I take this to include controls against actual fire and fire spread as well as against the incidence of fire and safe evacuation. This must, surely, include extinguishment as well as prevention, detection, etc. So my check-list will include existence of sufficient FEs of the correct type and locations and inspected within the past 14 months. In fact, attention to FEs can be indicative of management attention to other aspects of fire safety. I have come across this 'firefighter' approach to fire safety on a number of occasions. 'You just make sure everyone can get out and leave the rest to us' seems fine until they wave goodbye and your left with unusable buildings and employees with no job or pupils with no school.

[Guest]

Slightly disagree with Ken's comment about the firefighters approach.

Fire Service is obliged to say first and foremost life but also property so they will bnever just walk away - they will always try to save buildings.

I think reading what people have said here as a fire proffesional so long as people can aescape quickly and safely yes we have done our job. W eare not firefighters leave the flames to them thats what they are paid and trained to do.

[Ken Taylor]

Please note that I have not criticised what firefighters do when they attend fires but pointed out the potential consequences of not considering the value of fire extinguishers and following advice to ignore their use by trained persons. I wonder what the premises and staff of the estimated 8 or 9 out of 10 fires not dealt with by fire brigades would look like now if they had simply followed this advice?

[Guest]

The new RRO will  leave a small caveat in place to deal with the empty premises and other limited situations but the guidance to accompany the Order will make clear that the provision of fire fighting equipment is an integral part of reducing the risk. It will be very difficult, (but I'm sure our learned friends will try), to argue that extinguishers are unnecessary. Whether you need to comply fully with BS though is open to the findings of your fire risk assessment.

[Guest]

It will be a judge if not judge and 12 just persons that will determine adequate provision,adequate consideration,adequate and competent risk assessment. All evidence (which is essential) to the process will be examined whether tick check list,log book, consultants reports and nominated persons records.  What is required is for the legislation to be enforced.prosecutions brought under this legislation and judgements made then we will all have clarity.

[Guest]

C S Todd and Associates have sponsoed a PAS (Publicly Available Specification) through BSI and this should be available later on this year. I have seen the draft and was most impressed. More information may be available by contacting Colin Todd.

[Guest]

Jim,
While you are right about the legal process, it is difficult to see how one legal judgement can influence another situation. Each RA is, as has been stated, a subjective assessment of all the relevant circumstances. By altering any one of those circumstances you can render the judgement void. Case law will be of limited use in setting acceptable standards and the effort and expense of bringing these cases, especially against large, (and rich) organisations. A recent case left the enforcing authority facing a potential costs liability of £30,000. In this case they won but there is a limit to the number of cases they can bring. The best any case can do is give some general guidance (not Appeal court 'case law') about a certain set of circumstances.

[wee brian]

Now there is one good thing that is in the RRO. That is that there is a process where appeals are submitted to the Secretary of State. This means that many issues (not points of law mind you) on what is or isnt reasonable would be dealt with by ODPM and their decisions would be readily available. The cost of making such an appeal would be peanuts compared to any sort of legal action.

This approach has been working reasonably well for the building regs for some time. Whilst each case is judged on its merits you can get a steer from each decision as to what is considered necessary.

[Guest]

I think the Fire Service College promoted 'The Method' as a pseudo quantitaive methodology of risk assessment whereas the fire safety risk assessments that we are dealing with in the Workplace regs, the RRO and the Fire (Scotland) Bill (by the way who was it or why is it that given that we are all a part of the UK and also Europe that Scotland have reverted to its own legislation? another retrograde step, divisive no doubt by those north of the border)  is a more qualitative approach which takes into account the 'feel' for a premises that you get if you are an experienced and competent fire safety person.  Also, we may be the experts in fire safety and know (or think we know)what we are doing but remember that the methodology that is expoused by this government embraces the notion that anyone who is nominated as the responsible person should be able to carry out a fire safety risk assessment and stick to some fairly simple rules.  Anything like 'the Method' if it was officially approved, would hhave to be placed in the public domain and anything that smacks of over complexity would not wash well in the public domain otherwise those experts in this field would grab the market and cost the business community some money for their safety.
Cheers from a cynic!!
BOB DOCHERTY

[Guest]

The reason Scotland couldn't have the RRO is that after some months of assuming that they would/could some clever wag in the civil service pointed out that the Regulatory Reform Act could not apply north of the border. That and something to do with 'delegated powers'. Forgive me, I am an Englishman and I may not have got that spot on! However, amongst much embasrrassment it was realised quite late in the day that the Order could only apply to England and Wales. (which is why there is all that funny writing in the back).
Suffice to say that all the senior fire safety officers in the fire service are grabbing their lump sums as quickly as possible and setting up as consultants. Can't think why?