FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: PhilB on July 18, 2006, 09:41:58 PM
-
How are you all getting along with the new guidance?
Let me raise an old point now that the new guides, well some of them, are out.
As most of us know there is sometimes a requirement to record the significant findings of the risk assessment.
How then does the new guide define significant findings……..
• A feature of the premises, from which the fire hazards and persons at risk are identified.
• The actions you have taken or will take to remove or reduce the chance of a fire occurring or the spread of fire and smoke.
• The actions people need to take in case of fire.
• The necessary information, instruction and training needed and how it will be given.
If the responsible person uses that definition many things will not be recorded. For example…the means for detecting fires…that does not fit in with any of the above bullet points………but some of us may want to know what is provided when auditing premises!
If you look at the RRFSO ….it defines general fire precautions…and they include…..means for detecting fire…….etc.
It also defines preventive & protective measures as the measures that have been identified by the responsible person as a consequence of a risk assessment as the general fire precautions he needs to take.
I would argue therefore that the means for detecting fire is a significant finding!
Some of you may also notice that there is no longer a need to show any reasoning to support your conclusions…….the ACOP to MHSW Regs. addressed both these issues.
My point is the new legislation is not bad, however the supporting guidance for responsible persons leaves a lot to be desired.
-
I would have thought that fire alarm/detection systems are covered by your third bullet point 'The actions people need to take....'. After all they will need to respond to the alarm whether raised manually or by a detector.
I also think that any Risk Assessment needs some form of introduction/background such as building construction, fitted equipment and general use of the building being assessed. I agree that the Guides perhaps do not explicitly state this clearly enough.
-
No it doesn't state it clearly enough...what was wrong with the definition in the ACOP. i.e. a record of the preventitive & protective measures, a remedial action plan & proof of due process.
Some of us pointed out this and many other problems when the guides were in draft format...unfortunately we were mostly ignored.
However from what I have seen so far why should we worry.........most SFSOs dont realise there is a problem or dont seem to care.....CFOA don't seem concerned..........many FRS are reducing the number of inspectors and the training that those remain receive...the Fire Service College has slashed the number of seconded officers so there is no one left to develop or deliver the necessary training.........the future is scary!
-
Phil they didn't ignore you - they just didnt agree.
-
mmmmmm...good point Wee Brian...I think......perhaps you could explain why they didn't agree....was the ACOP wrong? Is it not important to show reasoning to support conclusions?......is means for detecting fires not a significant finding......is it ok to have sleeping accomodation on upper floors with AFD in corridors only on floors below?...I could go on but perhaps some of you can add your observations of problems identified...and then perhaps Wee Brian can educate us all as to why we are wrong. Where is my dear friend Collin..I do miss him. x
-
How do you assess a Fire Risk Assessment's suitability when there is no evidence to support that a dure process has been undertaken?
I've raised this point before, and apart from asking the Responsible Person loads of questions to ascertain that they have been through a process in order to arrive at conclusions and that they understand what they have put.
The Responsible person must be able to understand what they have put and ultimately defend that in a court of law when it's all gone the shape of a pear.
-
Phil - I can't explain why they disagreed - you would have to ask them.
I personnaly think that it would be pointless and unreasonable to expect somebody to record all the preventative and protective measures that exist in a premises. This would have to include a lot of built in measures that they may not be aware of.
The point of the order is to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe it's not about producing even more pointless papaerwork. Rather than reading a 500 page document an enforcement officer could just look at the premises and see for himself.
-
But thats just a look ............... what about how the premises are managed?
Poor management, poor maintenance, poor housekeeping .................. recipe for disaster?
Or should we do the job properly and actually check how things are managed?
-
Wee Brian I am not for one minute advocating massive pointless documents. Indeed I have seen a few that attempt to bore the auditor into submission. However I do not think it un reasonable to record the preventive and protective measures,...that is best done with a plan in all but the simplest of buidings. And there must be proof of due process i.e.reasoning to support conclusions.
In my humble opinion the authors of these new guides don't really understand what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. But as I have said before, not many people do. Interesting times ahead. It won't belong before some incompetent consultant or responsible person is found wanting in a Court.
-
The guides appear to be aimed at a certain reader. Perhaps with the same target audience that read 'an employers guide' ??
I must admit I was expecting something with a little more meat on. As Phil points out the definition of what purports to be suitable and sufficient does not resemble anything like the MHSW Regs supporting ACoP.
I would like to know who was consulted in writing this document. How can something so significant as Fire detection not be a significant finding?
The 3rd item in Phil’s original post
• The actions people need to take in case of fire.
Surely if the occupants are not made aware of the fire occurring in the first instance then they will have little opportunity to put these predefined actions into action.
Surely a significant finding??
-
PhilB
You raise some very interesting points as usual, I have helped to jointly develop a new FRA format for my company, one of the interesting conversations arising from the working group, is the validation of the 'YES' answers within the assessment.
Having used the document in anger recently, I have been very careful to qualify the 'YES' answers with balanced and reasoned argument.
This does make the task of writing (and thinking about) the assessment that much longer, however the plus side is that you are not only recording the signifcant findings but you can walk away confident knowing that the FRA is 'suitable and sufficent' (as laid down in the MHSW ACOP)
Playing devils advocate (I like doing this) what does this mean for a great many FRA assessors who are operating on a very tight budget for the FRA, are they going to be spending the necessary time to make it 'suitable and sufficent' I doubt they will backing up the FRA with constructive argument, balanced reasoning and making sure it will stand up in court. There again I could be wrong?
Regards
Gary
-
I think we may be getting a little retentive about MHSW ACOP's which are hardly a riveting read for professionals let alone the average jack.
My practical view is that a risk assessment, written in mandarin on the back of a donkey. is by definition suitable and sufficient if the assessor cannot identify any significant hazards.
If there are no significant hazards then by whatever means they have arrived at said position must have included a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
Phil, are you on commision from the HSE, whoops, I mean the HSC?
-
Val
If as a responsible person wearing my usual rose tinted glasses I see and report no significant hazards and later someone gets hurt or dies as a result of a fire in my premises, I guess I am on pretty secure ground.
My duty may or may not have been met, the fire may have been enemy action or as a result of incompetence by me and in the absence of evidence in my risk assessment of matters taken into account I guess the enforcement authority will have very little evidence and will have to construct a case against me starting from scratch. Whereas if I have recorded my methodology the authority will soon get a measure of my competence and diligence? So I think the lack of a decent definition will lead to lower standards and will undermine the ability of an authority to bring prosecutions.
-
Val,
I'm afraid I don't agree.
If the guidance is aimed at the average Jack then surley avergae Jack needs some guidance. If average Jack or any other person carryng out the assessment, can not identify that there are no significant findings does not mean by default there are non, merely that he could identify any.
And I think this is the point. suitable and sufficient?? yes but in who's eyes??
P
-
Val, thanks for demonstrating my point that many people don't really understand the fire risk assessment process.
The requirement is to record the significant findings...not just significant hazards. A person could not carry out an assessment...find everything is ok and claim there are no significant findings to record!!!
Is there a fire warning systsem?...yes...that is a signifcant finding....is it maintained?.....yes...another significant finding.....etc.
And if there are no significant hazards..where is the reasoning to support that conclusion?
-
My apologies...I meant if the 'auditor' could identify no significant hazards then by whatever route the responsible person had arrived at their position must be suitable and sufficient.
If a highly trained professional auditor cannot ask the right questions to challenge that position then they shouldn't be doing the job.
Those who are subject to no auditing process may, I agree miss something critical.
I know...lets employ some FRS inspectors or buy-in some consultants.
-
well said Val
Blokes like phil will spend a day looking at the paperwork in the office when an inspection of the premises is whats required.
Point to note - its only an offence if a failure to have a suitable and sufficient RA puts somebody at risk.
Its unrealistic to record every protective measure in a building even Fire Certificates didnt do that.
Where are the cavity barriers in the walls? What's the period of fire resistance for the structure, hang on I'll just cut a hole in the floor to find out!
The whole idea that the Government is pushing is that people take some responsibility for their premises and that they think about basic fire prevention and protection. It's not rocket science.
The guides provide plenty, if not too much, information for most people to do this. It may not result in an A level standard document but that's not what it's about.
If the premises is well run and reasonably safe then mission accomplished.
-
I still don't get why an inspection only is required.
Am I having a thick day or am I missing something here?
Someone explain!!!
-
The argument is (I think)
How much stuff should be inlcuded in the "Significant Findings" of a risk assessment. There are two views;
one is -- all the protective measures that are necessary in the building should be identified, including all of them that are already in place.
The other view is that - -only those additional measures that are identified as being required should be recorded.
I am a number two and Phil is a number one.
Phil seams to be saying that unless everything is recorded it would not be possible to check if the RA was suitable a sufficient. I think that any enforcement officer looking at a premises should focus on what he finds in the premises and the way it is being run and not worry too much about the Risk Assessment documentation.
-
Blokes like phil will spend a day looking at the paperwork in the office when an inspection of the premises is whats required.
.
I will remember that when the police stop me I will say dont bother with the paperwork (tax MOT Licence etc)
Just inspect the car and tell me what to do and I will be on my way.
oe the HSE just check the equipment yourself dont worry about paperwork
See how far I get
-
Then what you in actual fact you are saying, Wee B, is that you shouldn't identify significant findings that are already in place and that in order for an inspecting officer to see what is in place, they must themselves carry out an assessment.
If the risk assessment were to merely point out the shortfalls within the said significant findings, then how would an inspecting officer assess if the assessment were suitable and sufficient. He would not know, without a physical inspection, why the origial assessor had reached the conclusions to make such recommendations.
Again if you were making recommnedations regarding the significant hazards, surley you could not just make the recommndations without detailing what controls, if any, are already in place.
Wee B, you should know by now, that if you don't record something in terms of any H&S you may as well not bother doing it as you can't prove its been done.
Phil, Obviously the dig about peresons not understanding the RA process was aimed at me. Obviously we may beg to differ, however I would suggest that significant findings and significant hazards meet at some point. For example if you were to identify a smoking hut in a HAC zone 20 (not realistic I know) as a significant hazard and risk for that matter, the fact that the dangers of such activities in such an area has not been communicated to staff is a significant finding. However in my opinion both are significant findings.
I must admit though Phil I do agree with you on most of this, although I'm sure you'll disagree with me here.
P
-
It is all about being realistic.
I am not advocating unsafe premises or sloppy management but most organisations have other things to worry about. If spending a few hours thinking hard about reducing the risk and being able to work with the systems you put in place on a long term basis protects 95% of the people, then it is probably as much as you can ask for.
What Phil is asking for is heaps of extra work (probably copied from a web site or nicked from Colin), which MAY protect the other 5%.
If Fire Authorities are allowed to maintain a reasonable inspection team and the fire consultants who aren't purely cost driven give Mr Manager a kicking every so often then so much the better.
I have been on building projects when the CDM requirements are stored in a portacabin and moved from site to site. No-one knew what was in them but they certainly looked impressive!
-
Val,
You are dead right, you have to be pragmatic about the whole process, we all know sites where there are rows and rows of FRA, H&S stuff on the shelves gathering dust.
The problem only really occurs when an injury or loss of life occurs, because then some smart a****d lawyer is going to try to rip your FRA to shreds (I know I am being cynical), if they can.
It is only at that moment in time you are glad you spent the time and effort to make sure you dotted the i's and crossed the t's, this is where 'suitable' and sufficient' rears its ugly head again.
At the end of the day its not just about the FRA document is it? (though you have to cover your rear end) its about the management and culture on the shop floor. This will undoubtley be a major, major factor in having a safe work place, will it not?
-
Yes, Gary and the Fire Risk Assessment should form the whole basis of the fire safety culture, if it is not already in place.
Although you can take a horse to water.
-
Blokes like phil will spend a day looking at the paperwork in the office when an inspection of the premises is whats required.
How very dare you Weee Brian.....you have again missed the point...nothing new there!
P Smith the dig about not understanding the risk assessment process was in fact aimed at Val...but if the cap fits....
Val I do not copy things from websites and certainly would not nick anything from Mr Toddd.....why anyone would want to is beyond me!!!......now has that dealt with all the insults????
Now calm down girls and boys....I do not mean to offend anyone........but it's nice to see I've got some good discussion going.
Getting back to the debate..I personally believe that significant findings should inlclude what is present...what is needed......and reasoning to support that view...........and of course it should be proportional to the risk.
Wee Brian you say fire certificates didn't record preventitive & protective measures??????????.......they did...blokes like me issued them... and inspected premises to ensure compliance...usually with the help of a plan.....and no....you don't need to record all cavity barriers etc......please read the Order again...look at defintions of general fire precautions & preventitive & protective measures.........that should clear things up.
Also lets not forget that Article 11 of the Order requires that the arrangements for planning, organisation,control, monitoring and review of the preventitive & protective measures are recorded.......nothing new...but many forget this when compiling these documents that blokes like me spend too long looking at.
It does concern me a tad that people like us have such a diversity of opinion regarding what should be recorded......no doubt the govt. will soon provide us with the long awaited circular to answer all our questions!
-
Gentlemen and Gentle ladies,
This is something I have posted on before. The fact that the Fire Risk Assessment process is open to ambiguity and one persons perception of risk is different than another’s. How do we then resolve these issues. Yes, as Val says, we need to be reasonable about what we are doing here, and yes we can not list every measure relating to fire precautions. However I do believe we can have a good go.
Unfortunately we are now stuck with what we have got and have to take it forward. It is somewhat concerning for me that the Certification process has been replaced by what is nothing more than attempt to reduce the workload of FPO’s and even in some cases replace them with non uniformed support staff who are paid little more than a security guard to provide a professional service.
This is a time for increased enforcement not reduction. What I am struggling to come to terms with is that such a responsibility has now been handed over to the employer, who in general terms has no fire safety experience / qualifications.
I too feel concerned that there is such a difference in opinion amongst fire safety professionals. Is it that those with such diverse opinions are merely defending the very guides and FRA processes that they have been involved with? I feel this may be the case.
I know that PAS 79 is currently under review. All I can ask is, who is evolved in this review? Do we opportunity to get involved in that process, or is it the very persons who developed the ‘guides’?
Frightening!!
-
What worries me is that FPOs will spend their time picking holes in FRAs that have been produced by those organisations who are trying to comply rather than going after the real villains.
-
Wee B,
Yes this is a concern of mine, although I haven't come across it yet.
I have carried work out for some clients that have had previous fire risk assessments carried out and FPO's have picked holes in them to the extent where an enforcement notice has been served. In such cases I have been involved with the FRA's they have poo pooed have simply not been up to it, nothing more than tick sheets.
On the whole the FPO's I have worked with have been nothing but supportive and in actual fact very interested in how we carry out FRA's and this runs from up in Aberdeen, Glasgow, NE, NW, Mids, to London.
Still feel more enforcement is needed at times like these!!
P
-
We agree again Wee B......(must be the weather!).
-
I can categorically state that Inspecting Officers in a large met brigade will not be inspecting premises. They will be auditing the FRA and the management of a premises, not a builidng, and this may include a little look see as a checking point. The role is to enforce not inspect, the legislation is for the RP after all. As reagrds the guidance, it is just that, do what you feel is right and if you have to justify it then do so. The absolute duty is in the legislation, Article 9.7.a. Record the significant findings, including the measures that are already in place and the ones to be put in place, an abridged version of course.
-
So write a perfect world FRA then send it to the brigade but in reality have kept all those chain or key exit locks, poor work practices, defective alarm etc...
You'l only get caught if theres a fire!
Here endeth 30 yrs of good workplace fire safety......
Good precautions should always take priority over bits of paper, sad sign of the times it seems, I know from experience many FRAs are a utopia not matched by the actual premises on inspection, guess it's up to the private sector to do the FRS job for them .....
-
Anthony
It's not about private sector doing the FRS work. It's about a change of emphasis towards the HSE model where the RP has responsibility in ensuring safety and the enforcing authority carry out a few random inspections of managements systems and even fewer actual inspections of buildings.
The frequency of inspections in buildings in London will range from 6 months to as much as 10 years (or more). High risk Hotels will get a visit 4 yearly!. Top to bottom inspections will go along with providing site specific solutions. Premises within multi occs will rarely be visited as common parts may suffice. Advice will be restricted to how to get help (from the private sector) to complete the FRA.
There will be more prosecutions and after fire inspections (as you put it "you'll only get caught if there's a fire" is not entirely accurate but near enough)
It's crap, but with the fires in domestic dwellings about to tumble due to CFS (yeah right) a few more Hotel jobs will keep the Ops boys and girls busy
-
You are correct, it's a shame that it's going over to the punishment only type of advice & enforcement instead of being pro active, the HSE model is full of examples of the failings of this system - punishment is all well & good but it of absolutely no use to the dead, injured or disabled worker whose demise led to the punishment.
And whilst H&S accidents normally involve just one person (there are exceptions), fire usually lead to multiple casualties, plus far greater indirect costs as an accident doesn't normally stop trading, whereas a fire can put everyone on the dole.
My comment on the private sector is related to the fact that I now do more preventative enforcement & advice visits than your average FRS person seems to yet am in the private sector, which seems not as it should be
-
Well, I can add that my rural brigade will be looking at the FRA, and doing a sample inspection including escape routes and high risk areas.yes there will be more enforcement ( although some of this is more to do with our legal eagles getting cuter than the change in leg), and more 'after the fire inspections'.Support will be offered but limited-ie no 'can you pop round and look at'.Uniformed inspectors will be retained with a small percentage of non-uniformed (with or without Fire service background) but all trained.High risk Hotels for instance would be visited every 12 months, with the intention of reducing that risk.A 'school' every 3 years, a very low risk one every 15 years.As said, it is up to the RP to conform,not the FA.
-
You could also consider-does your planning officer come out and design your new extension?does the Building inspector draw up your requirements for drainage, toilets and lintels?Nope, he points you to the guides or yellow pages.Most Inspecting officers want to help but numbers are being reduced and workload is going up-meaning pressure on time-not able to help maybe as much as would like/used too.