FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tonyn on April 16, 2008, 05:30:32 PM
-
I have recently reviewed our fire risk assessments at my place of work.
The main building is made up of old and new. The building comprises offices and a few electronics labs, there are no large or open plan areas. In the old part of the building I have 3 fixed hosereels, 1 on each floor. The hoses can only be run out a maximum of 2m in all directions but one until you hit a fire door. The one direction they can be run out is a passageway with no openings other than the fire door at the far end (approx 10m). At each hosereel location there are 3 x 9tlr water and 2 x 2kg CO2.
The companies fire policy is for staff to turn their backs on the fire and evacuate. We have a number of Fire Marshals trained in the use of extinguishers but they are instructed only to tackle a fire if life is at risk.
At the last contractors inspection I was advised that the hoses are now due a hydraulic test at it was recommended that, due to the limitations given above, and the risk of inviting local hero's to outstay their welcome, they be removed.
My boss believed that they would be required for the local fire brigade to use, but I doubt that any LFB would enter the building and use the items, they would rely on their own kit.
Would I be correct in removing them?
Regards
Tony
-
With the information you have given I can see no reason not to remove them. The LAFB would not use them. Its nice to see somebody doing a risk asessment & actually acting on the findings.
-
I doubt very much if any Fireservice would want to use premises equipment , with exception of dry wet riser maybe. Common sense would dictate that as long as there is 'adequate' coverage to the risk with correct extinguishers under risk assessment you could remove them .
Unfortunately I am electrically biased , so don't hold your breath on my general comments
Perhaps someone could give you a more beneficial answer.
-
Yes Tony you would be correct. There are numerous problems associated with hose reels. The first is that when you run them out they prop open fire doors, plus because the water is continuous a punter using the hose to put a fire out will stand there til kingdom with water pouring out whilst the fire just gets bigger and cuts off his escape route. Its not like a fire extinguisher where the contents will run out prompting the person using it to think "oh thats run out I better get out"
Also Ive seen people run out the hose then realise they havent turned the tap / valve onto to supply water so have to go back turn it on and then retrace their steps back to the fire. This is all valuable time!
The Fire Brigade will prefer to use their own hose. yes Ive used fixed hoses in the past, but it isnt good practice because you never know if they are maintained and properly working correctly.
Take them out and replace them with a Co2 and Foam extinguisher per hose reel or any other fire extinguisher you feel appropriate according to your assessment.
Hope this helps.
-
Hi Clevelandfire ,
Here's spooky for you , as I went to post the screen page went mad , it seems we both hit the site with a comment at the exact same time , would have got good odds at Ladbrokes for that.
-
I have recently reviewed our fire risk assessments at my place of work.
The main building is made up of old and new. The building comprises offices and a few electronics labs, there are no large or open plan areas. In the old part of the building I have 3 fixed hosereels, 1 on each floor. The hoses can only be run out a maximum of 2m in all directions but one until you hit a fire door. The one direction they can be run out is a passageway with no openings other than the fire door at the far end (approx 10m). At each hosereel location there are 3 x 9tlr water and 2 x 2kg CO2.
The companies fire policy is for staff to turn their backs on the fire and evacuate. We have a number of Fire Marshals trained in the use of extinguishers but they are instructed only to tackle a fire if life is at risk.
At the last contractors inspection I was advised that the hoses are now due a hydraulic test at it was recommended that, due to the limitations given above, and the risk of inviting local hero's to outstay their welcome, they be removed.
My boss believed that they would be required for the local fire brigade to use, but I doubt that any LFB would enter the building and use the items, they would rely on their own kit.
Would I be correct in removing them?
Regards
Tony
Hose reels are a thing of the past in this sort of environment. There is a H&S issue in that persons are encouraged to remain in the building to tackle a fire much longer than if fire extinguishers were used. That means additional training and so many owners/employers remove them.
Hose reels are not placed there specifically for Fire Service use. They have their own, as you say, which are more likely to work.
As long as you have sufficient portable extinguishers there would not be a problem ditching them.
-
Becareful, some hose reels were put into place because of local acts and you would need permission to remove them. Having said that all the comments above are viable and to add to that you have a very small risk of stale water which could bring disease into a premises, unfounded of course but! FRS staff fight fire in pairs with full PPE and BA, why would you wnat to train a staff member to use a Hose Reel in a different way to professional staff. Also, the Corporate manslaugter bill was due to become an Act in April this year, I haven't checked yet whether it is live, and the gross negligence is a mainstay ofthis bill. Put someone at risk with a hosereel without proper training and a constant water supply and any accidents you may well be the first case.
-
The companies fire policy is for staff to turn their backs on the fire and evacuate. We have a number of Fire Marshals trained in the use of extinguishers but they are instructed only to tackle a fire if life is at risk.
So allow me to clarify, if there is a waste paper basket on fire, you will all walk away and allow it to grow and enfulf you entire office, destorying all your assets?
-
Spot the post from the insurance man!!!!!!!!! (mind you, it's a fair point)
-
I agree with the view that in an office environment portable extinguishers should be more than adequate for first aid firefighting.
The national Guidance has changed a little as a result of the RRO and there is greater emphasis on the value of using first aid fire fighting equipment to stop a small outbreak becoming a big fire without taking personal risk. The previous instruction Tonyn mentioned probably dated back to the old emphasis on protecting the means of escape implicit in the old FP Act.
I think that in some environments hosereels are still a good measure- thinking of places like secure schools and prisons where there is a greater than average liklihood of deliberate fires and where because of the security measures evacuation may take longer than most premises. In this case to continue applying an indefinate supply of water rather than the 30-50 seconds of a portable extinguisher may be a big benefit.
I dont feel intimidated by the Corporate manslaughter legslation in respect of fire fighting equipment- as I see it theres a huge gulf between gross negligence and taking reasonable and proportionate measures. Provision of maintained equipment and training of even a few individuals does not sound like gross negligence to me
-
The companies fire policy is for staff to turn their backs on the fire and evacuate. We have a number of Fire Marshals trained in the use of extinguishers but they are instructed only to tackle a fire if life is at risk.
So allow me to clarify, if there is a waste paper basket on fire, you will all walk away and allow it to grow and enfulf you entire office, destorying all your assets?
No as we said above hosereels would be replaced with fire extinguishers
If you cant put it out with one fire extinguisher any good trainer will tell you thats the time you stop and evacuate.
-
The companies fire policy is for staff to turn their backs on the fire and evacuate. We have a number of Fire Marshals trained in the use of extinguishers but they are instructed only to tackle a fire if life is at risk.
So allow me to clarify, if there is a waste paper basket on fire, you will all walk away and allow it to grow and enfulf you entire office, destorying all your assets?
No as we said above hosereels would be replaced with fire extinguishers
If you cant put it out with one fire extinguisher any good trainer will tell you thats the time you stop and evacuate.
I agree whole-heatedly with that the trainer would say. But you said earlier that your policy was to evacuate without tackling, now you said you would tackle it. I'm confused.
-
I didnt say that
-
oops, I thought you were Tonyn! Sorry mate!
-
I agree - out with the reels! Certain environments are still suited to reels, mainly industrial and open areas, but they are no longer the in thing for office type buildings.
The local buildings act caveat is worth researching, but even pre RRO I've come across central London High Rise Office blocks where written permission from the BCO to withdraw them despite s20 still applying.
-
Here is my take on this issue, I believe that fixed hose reels are a thing of the past. If they are justified in new-builds, fit a sprinkler system. Where they are fitted in existing premises, they are normally sited in the means of escape, (really handy for wedging open fire/smoke doors that traverse the route of the hose and endagering fire fighters that enter post evacuation of personnel). On a current H&S issue, - Estate managers I have consulted with, consider the hose reels to be a haven of legionella as they are not a system subjected to "running water" on a regular basis, cost effectiveness of maintenance compared to portable fire fighting equipment is definatley something to be considered. Replace a hose reel with 2 X 9 litre water extinguishers, (dont jump down my throat and say what about CO2 etc, the hose reel should be risk assessed for the potential fire classification in the first place), and you have sufficient first-aid fire fighting media to secure your means of escape. (As mentioned previously in this thread, give a hero a 9 litre extinguisher and eventually he or she will exhaust the unit and either extinguish the fire or leave, give them a hose reel and you may be comitting them to a protracted incident of which they have no training), call me old fashioned, but I was brought up in the era of hose reels in most commercial buildings, but with experience, I can justify they have had their day. I always advocate that there is no regulation or requirement in current UK law for any person in the workplace, (save fire fighters), to tackle a fire, (unless it is blocking your means of eascape), the requirement is to raise the alarm, call the emergency services and get out. On an operational note, if fire fighters have entered a building on fire and havent brought any means of fire fighting media with them, (HP hose reel or jet) then you are sadly lacking in your DORA, to those old-smoke eaters amongst us, may I ask a question - would you trust your colleagues or your own life to the output or continued supply of a fixed hose reel that you have never tested or used?
-
I always advocate that there is no regulation or requirement in current UK law for any person in the workplace, (save fire fighters), to tackle a fire, (unless it is blocking your means of eascape), the requirement is to raise the alarm, call the emergency services and get out.
Agreed, neither is there an obligation to help people in danger or to administer first aid to injured people. But the reality is that people do. And thank goodness, all fires start as small fires and if everyone walked away from the smoking ashtray, the burning bin or the box of tissues on fire and let it develop to engulf their building, destroy their business, put their neighbours in danger, destory the environment.....then it would be a weird world we lived in.
Essex FRS told me that 90% of fires are put out without any fire brigade involvement. Of course they are, I've burnt my dinner, but I didn't run out my house and start evacuating nieghbours, I threw it into the sink and poured water on it. That is what people will do. People do tackle fires (thank goodness)! So let's train them how to do it properly and let them know when to give up. But this concept that we will see tiny fire and not tackle it is ridiculous.
-
Chris , did they say that 90% is domestic and workplace or a combined figure ?
It would be interesting to know what % of calls FRS attends that where they have had not to actually deal with a fire in relation to actually extinguishing it.
-
I think they meant all fires. I think 90% is too low. But nobody keeps records of fires that occured and we put out by the public within a few seconds.
-
Anthony B. Glad you mentioned high rise in London. I have carried out a FRA in large building in the Strand and I also now look after the account. They have 93 hose reels, it is a completely office type environment except for the basement area (storage, archive etc). We are trying to get the hose reels removed as they are now getting to the end of life and are in need of replacement. We cant get the like for like replacement and so have to have retro fit brackets made, welded in place etc etc, alll costs a lot of money. Fire extinguishers are also in position!! The local fire officer and building control have both written to the building manager almost demanding they remain in place. Firstly can they do this and secondly any advice? I am aware of section 20, but would appreciate any suggestions.
-
Anthony B. Glad you mentioned high rise in London. I have carried out a FRA in large building in the Strand and I also now look after the account. They have 93 hose reels, it is a completely office type environment except for the basement area (storage, archive etc). We are trying to get the hose reels removed as they are now getting to the end of life and are in need of replacement. We cant get the like for like replacement and so have to have retro fit brackets made, welded in place etc etc, alll costs a lot of money. Fire extinguishers are also in position!! The local fire officer and building control have both written to the building manager almost demanding they remain in place. Firstly can they do this and secondly any advice? I am aware of section 20, but would appreciate any suggestions.
Enquire of the FSO and BC if it is a statutory requirement for them to remain. If so, under what legislation. Are they demanding, advising or requesting they remain?
-
Essex FRS told me that 90% of fires are put out without any fire brigade involvement. Of course they are, I've burnt my dinner, but I didn't run out my house and start evacuating nieghbours, I threw it into the sink and poured water on it. That is what people will do. People do tackle fires (thank goodness)! So let's train them how to do it properly and let them know when to give up. But this concept that we will see tiny fire and not tackle it is ridiculous.
Chris, I also agree that people will and should, (if safe to do so), extinguish a small fire, but I maintain that unless legislation changes, try and sue the ass off someone who walks away from a fire in the workplace! Can I ask what you would consider to be sufficient training for someone in the workplace would be to tackle a fire, do we teach them about fire growth, behaviour of smoke & noxiuos gases, do we regularly refressh the training to a recognised NVQ level, are they paid extra for the dangerous task; why not retro-fit breathing apperatus in the corridors, sorry to be pedantic Chris, but the task is so onerous and without clear parameters that the existing advice to employees should remain in my opinion. Experience has shown me that the majority of employees when asked about fire training when I carry out an FRA, reply, "yes, the chap who services the extinguisher gave us a quick talk on the subject" hardly robust is it, (however, having said that, I must admit that I find workplaces that have bespoke Fire Wardens etc are more dedicated and trained with specific duties for the task).
Secondly, I mistrust statistics, enquire with Essex FRS on the % of fires "Out on arrival" following attendance and that 90% will be different, remember the poster and TV media campaign "Get Out - Stay Out" sponsored by FRS all around the UK?
Finally, I once read a government statistic that qoutes 20% of all fatalities on the UK roads are caused by drivers under the influence of drugs and / or alcohol, that basically tells me that 80% are caused by law-abiding sober ones, funny old thing statistics!!!
-
All
Many thanks for all the responses and detailed advice. I'll be advising the boss that we remove the hoses.
With regards to the walking away from the fire. I too find it goes against the grain, having spent 32 years in the RN where every man and his dog are trained and expected to tackle a fire or become part of a larger F/F team regardless of how much it escalates. The bottom line is however that in this litigation culture we have inherited, if I were to tell all new employees that they would be expected to tackle a small fire, I would need to train each and every one, hence the formal company line and the use of Marshals. Discussions held off the record, however, may differ somewhat.
Thanks again for all the help; I'm sure I'll be back.
Tony
-
Tonyn, glad we have been of some help, I was an ex stoker in the 70's & 80's I know where you are coming from..........
Chris I almost forgot to ask.........
remember that fire that took out the Firenet Forum data room on APRIL THE 1ST, did it start as a small fire and did you attempt to put it out before you raised the alarm.....sorry mate it just had be done!!
-
To answer the points:
I am not qualified to suggest what training people should be given.
I don't think litigation is the real problem. It will tend to be your insurer who would have to foot the litigation bill and and property damage bill and I know what their stance will be "train them to fight the fire" and I'm not aware of any circumstances where someone has sued their employer in such circumstances.
Part of me isn't worried, as I know that people will tackle these small fires anyway, so my point is - let's train them to do it safely. That most have had a once over from the extinguisher bloke only backs up my point.
-
All
Many thanks for all the responses and detailed advice. I'll be advising the boss that we remove the hoses.
With regards to the walking away from the fire. I too find it goes against the grain, having spent 32 years in the RN where every man and his dog are trained and expected to tackle a fire or become part of a larger F/F team regardless of how much it escalates. The bottom line is however that in this litigation culture we have inherited, if I were to tell all new employees that they would be expected to tackle a small fire, I would need to train each and every one, hence the formal company line and the use of Marshals. Discussions held off the record, however, may differ somewhat.
Thanks again for all the help; I'm sure I'll be back.
Tony
Difference with the RN was and is that the purpose for firefighting is to save the ship even at the cost of the crew.
-
Nearlythere. I believe they are demanding they remain in place due to the length of the building?
-
I would assume that the application of the BS 5306 series would take account of risk, length and square areas of floors etc to determine numbers of fire fighting equipment units, (extinguishers not necessarily hose reels) to address this, maybe its just me, but I do not consider the lenghth of a corridor or floor to determine the requirement for a hose reel, please feel free to enlighten me if I'm misguided on this issue, (I still refer to a hose reel being deployed and left in place should it traverse through a fire/smoke separation door will compromise the integrity of a protected route)
-
I totally agree with you. I cant see where they are coming from with it. Thanks for your replies.
-
This is pure speculation and may be way off beam but I wonder if hosereels in high rise buildings in London came about in the days pre building Regs? Perhaps for buildings that nowadays would have needed firefighting shafts, lifts or dry risers? Perhaps in some circumstances hosereels were allowed in lieu?
If so you can understand a reluctance to sanction their removal, although firefighting has moved on and it is more than likely that any operational procedure would require charged and tested high pressure reels as a mimimum before making entry.
If I am right, taking into account the absence of any other facilities for firefightings, it is understandable that the brigade may be reluctant to sanction their removal hoping for a riser or something instead?
if this is total gibberish please forgive me.
-
I think Kurnel hits the nail on the head, a reluctance of LAFRS to think beyond the box or contradict dated certification and risk assess to "engineer-out" a problem. Competent FRA's in these modern times means just that, see whats on the market, embrace new thinking and dare I say - be brave enough to make a (competent) assessmet of what is required. We are all sometimes wary of change, but where it is for the better; or lends itself to a more easily managed environment it should be embraced and taken onboard.
I once worked within a brigade where the CFO muted a radical idea of not shutting doors in private dwellings in order for a quicker response to the smoke alarm fitted in the stairwell should a fire occur in the living room, (it was also documented in Fire magazine circa 1998-ish - I did not share or endorse his view, but it promoted rational debate - it may still do at this later stage), - on reflection, it goes against the grain only in so much as we need the conviction and pioneer instinct to evaluate new thinking from someone who just may come up with an idea that was there for the grasping - and the rest of us were brain-washed into "miopic vision"
-
Nearlythere. I believe they are demanding they remain in place due to the length of the building?
One has to now ask them if it is a "requirement" for them to remain.
-
Nearlythere. I believe they are demanding they remain in place due to the length of the building?
Hardly as with extinguisher provision you have a travel distance requirement as well as floor area - if you are having to travel more than 30 metres to reach an extinguisher point you must place another extinguisher point nearer.
Hose reels only have a maximum reach of 30m (to the current EN - older reels could have up to 45m of hose) so in a long building you would need another main and reel anyway.
It's building height (30m or 25m if over 930 sq m) as well as area that is a key factor under London Building Acts to quote the District Surveyors:
"Section 20 of the London Building Acts (amendment) Act 1939 (as amended primarily by the Building (Inner London) Regulations 1985) is principally concerned with the danger arising from fire within certain classes of buildings which by reason of height, cubical extent and/or use necessitate special consideration.
...
As buildings vary so much in height, cubic capacity, layout, siting, use and construction the relevant Council will deal with each case on its merits. Basically the principles incorporated in this Guide seek to provide not only such fire-fighting facilities as would enable the fire brigade to tackle the seat of a fire with the utmost speed, but also to provide early warning of fire, contain an outbreak of fire and to prevent its rapid spread throughout a building prior to the arrival of the fire brigade.
Additionally the principles seek, in certain buildings (or parts of buildings) to ensure the safety of the structure against fire."
Incidentally hoses are only a 'should' under section 20 and the BCO can waive it under S144 (they have in some parts of central London). If you can argue the case to the BCO and justify it you should be fine as according to the District Surveyors guide it's nothing directly to do with LFB (consultation only, but the BCO has the final say) and they are stuck with the RRO which doesn't mandate reels.
Considering you already have a life safety sprinkler system under section 20, hose reels as well as extinguishers is a bit overkill and with a good FRA I'd call their bluff, I'd love to see their detailed reasoning other than 'the Act says so'. Try & get hold of course materials & guidance documents that their training section use on commercial fire safety courses - I bet the shy away from using reels - & hang them with their own literature.
It's worth persisting as it has been done - I'll try & find the name of the building that got to remove them, but it was a couple of years ago so may take a bit of digging!
-
The LDSA has an agreement with the LFB that it is ok to remove hose reels in premises.
-
Thanks ever so much for all your advice. I'm glad I joined this forum! I forgot to mention before. They also have 5 dry risers and a lot of it is sprinklered as well as providing ext's in common areas and the tenants providing their own in the offices. I carried out the FRA late last year but have now taken over the account - I would just like to get rid of the hose reels and save him a fortune in maintenence costs!!! Thanks Anthony for your advice. I'm on hol this weekend now for three weeks (USA) so I shall start looking into this properly when in get back. Thanks all.
-
Each Hose Reel has to be pressure tested and the hose also has to be pressure tested. However as the hydraulic pressure testing in situ for a hose is not a practical option, the hose length is therefore advised to be replaced - inducing additional cost: parts / labour. Pressure testing of the reel is simply a water pressure test under BS stipulations and can be carried out as part of the annual maintenance - Check BS EN671-1.
To use a piece of fire fighting kit an employee has to be trained in its use as is agreed on all these pages and as per legislative guidlines: How many are trained in the use of hose reels (water)? - None.
The fire rating equivalent for hose reels is 52A. The equivalent no. of water Exts. is 4 x 13A or 2 x 26A 9Lt Water exts.
The majority of hosereels are fitted on fire exit routes, at a fire door or at the top of a staircase: Excellent forward planning - lets block a fire exit with a swinging reel, it's cabinet and of course the 30M length of hose.
Fixed reels are not as versitile as swinging types, do staff know the difference between auto / manual types, gate valve water release use and control, jet/spray nozzles and their use on a fire?
Finally, if the hose needs to be fed through a door/s, someone needs to hold the door/s open - putting more staff at risk - mind you they could'nt have passed through the fire exit anyway due to the pile up of bodies who have tripped over the trailing hose.
In the majority of cases a large percentage of reels fail the maintenance or pressure test due to the previous co's lack of correct servicing (They can be awkward to service during a businesses working environment, so they simply get signed off as passed (imagine that reel being used on a fire) or hose or reel damage.
Oh nearly forgot... gallons (quite literally folks) of water, falling all over countless electrical outlets and appliances causing another minor issue.
To conclude then: No training, blocked escape routes, equivalent ext already in situ (staff are trained in their use), electrical / water hazard, etc etc etc.
Now then..reels or exts? You decide.
Having serviced thousands of these and discussed with the client what policy on their use is, the best conclusion is to remove them and use the recess as a fire point. As long as the fire fighting rating is not affected i.e. an equivalent portable class A is in the same situ, removal is not ussually a problem. The majority were installed in a bygone age of less H&S awareness and companies must be brought up to speed so as to allow today's H&S manager to make an informed decision.
I'm moving on from portables and reels so there's no hidden agenda here. ;)
-
You cannot legitimately remove fire safety kit unless:
- You can prove that is has zero risk reduction benefit or;
- You replace it with other equipment (or other risk reduction measures) that allows the same level of risk to be maintained.
This is because, in providing the kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer ALARP and you're in breach of the law. The HSE report RR151 (www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr151.pdf) explains this in more detail. It take a particularly dim view of using savings in maintenance costs as justification for removing existing safety measures.
So... it would appear that it would only be OK to remove them if you provided enough portable fire extinguishers to maintain the fire risk at the same level as it was before they were removed, or if you made other improvements to maintain risk at the same level or lower.
Thanks ever so much for all your advice. I'm glad I joined this forum! I forgot to mention before. They also have 5 dry risers and a lot of it is sprinklered as well as providing ext's in common areas and the tenants providing their own in the offices. I carried out the FRA late last year but have now taken over the account - I would just like to get rid of the hose reels and save him a fortune in maintenence costs!!! Thanks Anthony for your advice. I'm on hol this weekend now for three weeks (USA) so I shall start looking into this properly when in get back. Thanks all.
-
I do not think that HRs need to be replaced by the equivialent number of portable devices.
The FFE provision needs to reflect the actual risk (determined by the FRA) and if HRs were 'over provision', then in my view there's no need for a 1 to 1 replacement with extinguishers
Surely, it's the RR(FS)O 2005 which is the primary legislation and not this HSE document which states:
.......... The report sets out examples of good practice in relation to risk assessment, ......................................... Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
-
There's no conflict - of course the RR(FS)O takes precedence, but RR151 is relevant good industry practice and accurately reflects the apprach that HSE takes with regards to enforcement of risk-based legislation. Therefore, when you are performing risk assessments I'd suggest one should either follow it or be ready to demonstrate how an equivalent level of safety is achieved by other means.
The 'pitfalls' described in RR151 document apply to fire risk assessment every bit as much as they do to other risks. The logic is irrefutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
I do not think that HRs need to be replaced by the equivialent number of portable devices.
The FFE provision needs to reflect the actual risk (determined by the FRA) and if HRs were 'over provision', then in my view there's no need for a 1 to 1 replacement with extinguishers
Surely, it's the RR(FS)O 2005 which is the primary legislation and not this HSE document which states:
.......... The report sets out examples of good practice in relation to risk assessment, ......................................... Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
-
The logic is irrefutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
It may well have been reasonably practicable to provide the hosereels but that does not mean that they were necessary in the first place. Don't forget that many existing provisions were introduced in the bad old prescriptive regime where level of risk was not always taken into account.
Therefore the fact that it was reasonably practicable to provide a hosereel does not necessarily mean that it was appropriate or necessary to do so.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
-
If it was reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels, that does demonstrate that they were necessary.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
Yes, if the third exit was originally intended as a risk control measure and you cannot demonstrate that there is no increase in risk after its removal.
-
If it was reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels, that does demonstrate that they were necessary.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
Yes, if the third exit was originally intended as a risk control measure and you cannot demonstrate that there is no increase in risk after its removal.
mmmmmm you haven't really got the hang of this risk appropriate concept have you Fishy.
The fact that it was reasonably practicable to provide the HRs in no way demonstrates their necessity, it could have been a jackbooted incompetent dinosaur who recommended them in the first place, like wise with my three exits when only two are required
-
Fishy
You are allowed to use your judgement on this!
If the risk rating goes up a couple of percent, so what? You follow Psue's logic and argue the increase in risk in spraying gallons of water about.
Assuming the HSE find out about it and actually turned up, they will look at all your activities and risks before deciding if you are a good employer or a pillock.
If the risk increases from say low to medium then obviously you have not got it right.
Don't be too precious, otherwise Sir N will call you a taliban!
ps most hose reels were fitted before 1974 anyway so ALARP doesn't count. Replacing the hoses was a blob cos thats what you did.
davo
-
If it was reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels, that does demonstrate that they were necessary.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
Yes, if the third exit was originally intended as a risk control measure and you cannot demonstrate that there is no increase in risk after its removal.
I am starting to lose the plot. Why should the risk assessment I carry out to justify the adequacy of two fire exits be any less relevant than a previous risk assessment that recommended three?
So long as Phil carries out a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk he can make any changes he wishes. Historic standards are irrelevant.
-
ALARP is not quite the same same as " will ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safety of employees". If after removing the hose reels you can demonstrate employees are protected from risk of fire all is well. Hose reels may be useful for property protection but I would be iffy about an office environment which needed fire hose reels to protect employee safety. If the fire is big enough to justify a hose reel it's too big for first aid fire fighting.
-
Ok lets take a different look at the situation. If extinguishers are provided the employees only have a limited ability to fight the fire once the extinguisher/s are empty they then have to leave to get more or evacuate the building. If the fire has not been extinguished after using one or two extinguishers then the best bet is to get out as the fire is getting away. If there is a hosereel the employee can continue to fight the fire ad infinitum and they will probably stay fighting the fire longer than is safe.
Logically by replacing the hosereel with extinguishers the safety of the employees will be enhanced as they will evacuate earlier.
As far as the law is concerned the guidance given in the is enough to show compliance. So provided the guidance is followed ie one extinguisher per 200 sq m etc. the responsible person has complied.
Take it to the extreme, there is a building that used to use a lot of flammable liquids therefore there are foam extinguishers all over the place, the firm changes direction and is now producing concrete paving slabs are we saying that the number of extinguishers cannot be reduced as this would reduce the firefighting capability even though the risk has changed?
Back to the risk assessment, is there a change in the risk because the hosereel has been replaced by extinguishers? If not and the firefigthing equipment still complies with the guide, then it can be done. If there is a change in the risk then further measures are needed.
-
It may well have been reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels but that does not mean that they were necessary in the first place. Don't forget that many existing provisions were introduced in the bad old prescriptive regime where level of risk was not always taken into account.
Therefore the fact that it was reasonably practicable to provide a hose reel does not necessarily mean that it was appropriate or necessary to do so.
In my experience of "the bad old days!" the first thing we did was to classify the area as high, normal or low risk before we made any decisions. I do agree with part of the second paragraph, because we never required hose reels, portable water extinguishers was the first option. However if the owners, occupiers or architects wanted them we usually didn’t object.
On most occasions, and providing the solution was satisfactory we accepted the cheapest option, this is why we accepted made up doors as opposed to new fire doors. Also remember we were on a steep learning curve at the time.
-
In my experience of "the bad old days!" the first thing we did was to classify the area as high, normal or low risk before we made any decisions.
Also remember we were on a steep learning curve at the time.
Some did TW but some just threw the red, blue or lilac book at the place without really considering the risk.
I'm not having a pop at you ex inspectors but merely pointing out to Fishy that the fact that something has been provided does not necessarily mean that it was required.
-
If it was reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels, that does demonstrate that they were necessary.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
Yes, if the third exit was originally intended as a risk control measure and you cannot demonstrate that there is no increase in risk after its removal.
mmmmmm you haven't really got the hang of this risk appropriate concept have you Fishy.
The fact that it was reasonably practicable to provide the HRs in no way demonstrates their necessity, it could have been a jackbooted incompetent dinosaur who recommended them in the first place, like wise with my three exits when only two are required
On the contrary; I have many years experience of risk assessment in the Nuclear and Transport industries and have full 'Yellow Book' training in the latter. I've discussed this precise issue directly and personally with very senior people both in the HSE and in Fire Authorities, all of which support the view outlined in the HSE Guidance. The guidance in RR151 is similalarly based upon decades of risk assessment experience. Yes, you use judgement - but the benchmark of acceptability is that you do not increase risk. That is an absolute requirement. The judgement lies in how you achieve that benchmark - either by compliance with published guidance, or by arguing equivalence using other risk reduction measures.
I am not saying that anyone needs to keep the hosereels; I am saying that you have to be able to argue that risk is not increased by their removal. You might have to implement other risk reduction measures in order to do this. You can like or dislike this view - frankly I care little - but if the worst comes to the worst I'd suggest that a highly paid man in a funny wig could pull you to pieces if the advice you gave to remove safety kit had increased risk in a building where fire fatalities occurred.
-
I've discussed this precise issue directly and personally with very senior people both in the HSE and in Fire Authorities, all of which support the view outlined in the HSE Guidance. The guidance in RR151 is similalarly based upon decades of risk assessment experience. Yes, you use judgement - but the benchmark of acceptability is that you do not increase risk. That is an absolute requirement. The judgement lies in how you achieve that benchmark - either by compliance with published guidance, or by arguing equivalence using other risk reduction measures.
I am not saying that anyone needs to keep the hosereels; I am saying that you have to be able to argue that risk is not increased by their removal. You might have to implement other risk reduction measures in order to do this. You can like or dislike this view - frankly I care little - but if the worst comes to the worst I'd suggest that a highly paid man in a funny wig could pull you to pieces if the advice you gave to remove safety kit had increased risk in a building where fire fatalities occurred.
Thaks Fishy I understand where you are coming from but I still believe that fire safety is different to almost every other aspect of Health and Safety and so RR151 may confuse the issue.
In almost every other aspect of H&S the hazard is tangible and can be measured.
Sound levels can be measured, manual handling loads measured and assessed before exposing anyone to risk, levels of radiation and chemical exposures can be measured and compared against occupational health data. There are accepted safe benchmarks or safe levels and whilst we have a duty to eliminate, substitute or control risks that cannot be avoided if we are working below the accepted benchmarks as expressed in ACOPs and othe guidance we wont go wrong.
In this way for example under the noise at work Regulations if I change the mountings on a machine for operational or cost saving reasons and after the change the operator experiences an increase in ambient noise levels from 48 to 53 dBA nobody is going to bother me because although I have gone against RRO151 guidance I am hugely below the 80dBA hazard level.
Fire is of course very different- the hazard of fire cannot be measured and there are no safe exposure levels. Hence the description of "The black art" and the duty to minimise the risk of fire occurring and then to ensure that if a fire does occur people will not be harmed by it. Instead of safe measurable limits all we have are guidance documents as a benchmark- but these achieve the same ends- through interpretation and application of the guides we arrive at a standard at which Society determines that the level of risk is tolerable. So long as I work around this standard no Judge will be able to criticise me.
I dont recollect any National Standards documents published in the last 30 years that have recommended hosereels as part of this benchmark standard. So I would feel easy about removing them and replacing them with more appropriate equipment and bellieve the outcome may well be much safer as a result for all the reasons expressed previously in this thread
However I do remain one of the few who feel that they remain the right solution of first aid firefighting in some environments. But not offices.
I was in an indoor market hall the other day that had hosereels and I thought them highly appropriate.
-
On the contrary; I have many years experience of risk assessment in the Nuclear and Transport industries and have full 'Yellow Book' training in the latter. I've discussed this precise issue directly and personally with very senior people both in the HSE and in Fire Authorities, all of which support the view outlined in the HSE Guidance. The guidance in RR151 is similalarly based upon decades of risk assessment experience. Yes, you use judgement - but the benchmark of acceptability is that you do not increase risk. That is an absolute requirement. The judgement lies in how you achieve that benchmark - either by compliance with published guidance, or by arguing equivalence using other risk reduction measures.
I am not saying that anyone needs to keep the hosereels; I am saying that you have to be able to argue that risk is not increased by their removal. You might have to implement other risk reduction measures in order to do this. You can like or dislike this view - frankly I care little - but if the worst comes to the worst I'd suggest that a highly paid man in a funny wig could pull you to pieces if the advice you gave to remove safety kit had increased risk in a building where fire fatalities occurred.
Have you any experience of fire risk assessment Fishy?
So prescriptive standards is the way forward is it? Regardless of the actual level of risk that remains, if any actions slightly increase the risk a person commits an offence? What if the measures were not required in the first place, but have been provided anyway?
Back to my previous hypothetical example then........ there are three exits provided in my building occupied by two people. I have risk assessed the situation and the occupants are perfectly safe with two exits and I therefore remove the third. According to your very senior chums in the HSE and the Fire Authorities I commit an offence?
Who are these senior people to whom you refer, perhaps I could offer them a training course.
-
Keeping upto date with all this dialogue as I added to it earlier on in the "conversation". I am shortly to begin discussion with the local BCO regarding the removal of the hose reels from the premises I mentioned earlier, so I shall let you know the outcome when it happens! Thanks for all the advice given on this subject.
-
On the contrary; I have many years experience of risk assessment in the Nuclear and Transport industries and have full 'Yellow Book' training in the latter. I've discussed this precise issue directly and personally with very senior people both in the HSE and in Fire Authorities, all of which support the view outlined in the HSE Guidance. The guidance in RR151 is similalarly based upon decades of risk assessment experience. Yes, you use judgement - but the benchmark of acceptability is that you do not increase risk. That is an absolute requirement. The judgement lies in how you achieve that benchmark - either by compliance with published guidance, or by arguing equivalence using other risk reduction measures.
I am not saying that anyone needs to keep the hosereels; I am saying that you have to be able to argue that risk is not increased by their removal. You might have to implement other risk reduction measures in order to do this. You can like or dislike this view - frankly I care little - but if the worst comes to the worst I'd suggest that a highly paid man in a funny wig could pull you to pieces if the advice you gave to remove safety kit had increased risk in a building where fire fatalities occurred.
Have you any experience of fire risk assessment Fishy?
So prescriptive standards is the way forward is it? Regardless of the actual level of risk that remains, if any actions slightly increase the risk a person commits an offence? What if the measures were not required in the first place, but have been provided anyway?
Back to my previous hypothetical example then........ there are three exits provided in my building occupied by two people. I have risk assessed the situation and the occupants are perfectly safe with two exits and I therefore remove the third. According to your very senior chums in the HSE and the Fire Authorities I commit an offence?
Who are these senior people to whom you refer, perhaps I could offer them a training course.
I can only assume that your misinterpretation of what I said is deliberate. I never advocated prescriptive standards (though they are usually risk-based and might be absolutely appropriate, in certain cases). I advocate equivalence, however that is demonstrated.
You've (presumably) read the government guidance to which I refer. You appear to disagree with it. That is your prerogative. All of us have the opportunity to ignore good industry practice and if you're comfortable to do so, that's entirely the affair of yourself, your clients and their regulators.
To answer your question - I assess fire risk every working day of my life. That assessment is regularly and robustly peer reviewed. I have have discussed fire risk assessment and have had a hand in the development of associated governmental guidance; british standards and enforcement policy over the last decade or so. I shall stop there; I don't come on this Board to present my CV on demand.
Lastly I would suggest that anyone who uses the description "perfectly safe" when ascribing levels of fire risk might benefit from some training.
-
Gents,
Please remember this is a public forum. There is no need to question each others skills or offer each other training etc. Please try and keep it professional and diplomatic.
Thanks,
Chris.
-
Firstly I'd agree with sensible comments made by member Kurnal regarding a risk appropriate common sense approach to fire safety. PhilB is also correct. Fishy we need to establish if the hose reels were required in the first place. That not only represents a risk assessed view point but also a legal view point where I'd question if I could stand up in court and argue that I needed the hose reels in the first place and that their removal constiuted a failing or an offence. Then I'd question if the removal would warrant an equivalent provision of fire extinguishers. In theory you could never have an equivalent provision of fire extinguishers because hose reels would chuck out water till the resevoir ran dry and the user was burnt to a crisp.
I understand what you mean but to be a fully competent risk assessor you have to then also look at the other implications of the precautions being either removed or installed. Im not saying you arent competent I merely making an observation to others who may be reading this thread for their own benefit. Hose reels in my opinion are often more trouble than they are worth. They prop open fire doors when run out they can be responsible for legionella and they never run out of water leading the firefighting employee pouring water on a fire that continues to grow.
Health and Safety legislation and guidance must never be confused or cherry picked when required or carried over to deal with fire safety related issues in this manner. It makes things too confusing. The guidance for covered by the regulatory reform fire safety order stands, and a risk appropriate view point taken to establish overall best practice and sensible solutions prevail over guidance which has nothing to measure itself against.
-
It wasn’t you who put that horse in the inner room was it?
What training course do you suggest I attend Fishy, always open to suggestions.
Yellow card. You are welcome to debate, but we don't need the personal comments.
-
It wasn’t you who put that horse in the inner room was it?
What training course do you suggest I attend Fishy, always open to suggestions.
Yellow card. You are welcome to debate, but we don't need the personal comments.
Harsh. Healthy banter I think, other people and perhaps myself included have been closer to the mark than that and not received warnings. i think he was just giving a bit healthy banter and trying to show he isn't taking himself too seriously and that things remained friendly .
-
I'd rather avoid having to get into debates to explain my moderation decisions. I have (unusually) taken the step of publicly requesting people to keep to the topic at hand. The thing with discussion forums is that readers can't always tell when someone is joking and when someone is making a personal insult. This forum can be read by anyone, so the onus is on the poster to appear respectful. I would like to draw a line under this debate about the debate and for all posts after this to keep to the normal good spitited and helpful nature of FireNet.
-
It wasn’t you who put that horse in the inner room was it?
What training course do you suggest I attend Fishy, always open to suggestions.
Yellow card. You are welcome to debate, but we don't need the personal comments.
Bit harsh I feel Chris.
I did not question Fishy's competence yet he suggested I need training, however I took no offence as I believed none was really intended.
I asked if Fishy carried out fire risk assessments because , as Kurnal correctly points out they are a different animal to other risk assessments. Years of experience of risk assessment in the Nuclear and Transport industries and full 'Yellow Book' training in the latter does not necessarily confer competence in fire risk assessment.
Fishy chose to advertise his CV, I did not ask him to "come on this Board to present his CV on demand", however he chose to do so.
I have have discussed fire risk assessment and have had a hand in the development of associated governmental guidance; british standards and enforcement policy over the last decade or so.
We all have to start somewhere Fishy, only a decade, I’ve been doing it for a little longer.
I do believe, as do many others that the CLG guidance is poor and to be fair it was Fishy who advertised his involvement in its production, not me.
The horse comment however, as Cleveland correctly identified was intended in jest as I'm sure most identified.
As you correctly point out, this is a public forum and many look here for advice including me, hence my reason for questioning Fishy's dubious interpretaion of HSE guidance and the relevance of it's application to the Fire Safety Order .
If my comments were deemed offensive I apologise to Fishy, however I believed it was healthy debate.
I will post no more Chris so the red card will not be needed.
-
Everybody is bowing out of this debate yet there is an important fundamental that is worthy of further discussion, Fishys interpretation
The logic is refutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
I would be interested in Fishys view of my interpretation which is that case study 24 will only apply if someone can demonstrate that the safety kit in question was relevant and appropriate in the first instance. If a previous manager fell victim to a persuasive fire extinguisher salesman and provided 20 extinguishers where two would suffice, and the new manager gets rid of 18 this is not reverse ALARP. I believe that in most cases, where hosereels cannot be justified through risk assessment then it is appropriate to replace them with extinguishers in accordance with EN3 and BS5306.
Comments please?
-
Everybody is bowing out of this debate yet there is an important fundamental that is worthy of further discussion, Fishys interpretation
The logic is refutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
I would be interested in Fishys view of my interpretation which is that case study 24 will only apply if someone can demonstrate that the safety kit in question was relevant and appropriate in the first instance. If a previous manager fell victim to a persuasive fire extinguisher salesman and provided 20 extinguishers where two would suffice, and the new manager gets rid of 18 this is not reverse ALARP. I believe that in most cases, where hosereels cannot be justified through risk assessment then it is appropriate to replace them with extinguishers in accordance with EN3 and BS5306.
Comments please?
I agree with all you have said
-
Risk assessment is about assessng the risks of fire hazards and controlling those residual risks with the apporpriate preventive and protective measures. Those measures should be at ALARP and in which case anything that is an over provision could be removed if the assessment deems it acceptable.
-
I agree with your interpretation kurnal.
If you went exactly by the wording then it would be classed as Reverse ALARP (your reference to the difference with fire noted). However, if that was the interpretation you could also possibly make the case that ALARP will change each year for a business. The business makes a profit each year, the manager should put away a small amount of that profit to lower the risk, by for example buying an extra extinguisher anually etc.
Not a practical approach.
-
Everybody is bowing out of this debate yet there is an important fundamental that is worthy of further discussion, Fishys interpretation
The logic is refutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
I would be interested in Fishys view of my interpretation which is that case study 24 will only apply if someone can demonstrate that the safety kit in question was relevant and appropriate in the first instance. If a previous manager fell victim to a persuasive fire extinguisher salesman and provided 20 extinguishers where two would suffice, and the new manager gets rid of 18 this is not reverse ALARP. I believe that in most cases, where hosereels cannot be justified through risk assessment then it is appropriate to replace them with extinguishers in accordance with EN3 and BS5306.
Comments please?
I agree with all you have said
Yup, also agreed. Assess the risk and react accordingly.
-
From a legal point of view I think the distinction btween achieving ALARP and ensuring as far as as reasonably practicable the safety of employees relevant persons etc. has ben missed in this thread.
If memory serves right there is a requirement in some of the radiation legn. (excuse my rusty memory) not to exceed certain maximum exposures and also to also to reduce expoure as low as reasonably practicable. This is not linked to any concept of risk. If it is reasonably practicable to reduce to reduce the exposure you must do so regardles of any reduction/control of risk.
In the Reform Order any action taken is qualified by ensuring safety. If our risk assessment says fire fighting is needed and Fire Extinguishers are adequate for such First Aid fire fighting I consider this meets any fire fighting part of the requirement to provide general fire precautions to protect safety.
It is a defence to show it what was not reasonably practicable to do more than what was done. My argument would be that the appropriate level of fire fighting equipment to protect life was in place. There has been much discussion on this forum about training in use of fire fighting equipment. For use of a hose I would insist on training not in how to turn the water on but safe position, ensuring safe retreat, when to stop fire fighting and evacuate. Unless I had a significant
fire risk which might require such "heavy duty" first aid fire fighting to ensure a safe evacuation then I do not consider it is reasonably practicable requirement to provide hose reels for safety. The mere fact something can be done or has been done does not in itself mean that it was reasonably practicable.
I agree the question of reasonable practicability is a moving target. It is reasonably practicable in our new school build programme to put full L1 afd in. It is not reasonably practicable to retrofit L1 in all existing schools immediately. However it is reasonably practicable to put this into our asset management plan and as schools have significant works done to include afd. In 5/10 years time as this programme nears it's conclusion who knows what sophisticated devices will be reasonably practicable and make the kit we are installing today look inadequate.
-
Blimey - you have a long weekend in the sunny Peak District, away from a PC and look what happens…
Absolutely – as I’ve said all along, provided that you can demonstrate that fire risk is not increased by works (in this case the removal of the hoses and replacement with alternative engineering), it ain’t reverse ‘ALARP’ and it’s fine. Providing more extinguishers might be an appropriate method of doing this (it’s an additional risk reduction measure, as I’ve referred to all along). You don’t have to be able to argue that you’re duplicating all the functionality of a hose reel, so long as you can justify equivalence, in risk terms.
Re: the 20/2 extinguishers; if somebody's made 900% over-provision I'm sure that you could argue that, beyond a certain number of extinguishers, you're effectively providing zero risk reduction benefit, so you could reduce the provision down to that number.
At the end of the day, the core principle is that if you make changes to the fire protection provisions in any premises, you must always be able to argue that fire risk is not increased due to those changes.
Everybody is bowing out of this debate yet there is an important fundamental that is worthy of further discussion, Fishys interpretation
The logic is refutable; in providing the safety kit, you have demonstrated that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, if its removal increases risk (even ever so slightly) then risks are no longer As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and you're in breach of the law unless you reduce the risk in other ways, using other risk control measures. Case Study 24 ('Reverse ALARP') of RR151 is relevant here.
I would be interested in Fishys view of my interpretation which is that case study 24 will only apply if someone can demonstrate that the safety kit in question was relevant and appropriate in the first instance. If a previous manager fell victim to a persuasive fire extinguisher salesman and provided 20 extinguishers where two would suffice, and the new manager gets rid of 18 this is not reverse ALARP. I believe that in most cases, where hosereels cannot be justified through risk assessment then it is appropriate to replace them with extinguishers in accordance with EN3 and BS5306.
Comments please?
-
If it was reasonably practicable to provide the hose reels, that does demonstrate that they were necessary.
To take it one step further I have three exits but all occupants can escape safely through two, for security reasons I take an exit away, am I now breaking the law?
Yes, if the third exit was originally intended as a risk control measure and you cannot demonstrate that there is no increase in risk after its removal.
Lastly I would suggest that anyone who uses the description "perfectly safe" when ascribing levels of fire risk might benefit from some training.
Good to see that you’ve now changed your argument Fishy.
It seems from your last post that you agree that if there is an over provision you can reduce the measures provided. That was my point, the fact that something is reasonably practicable to provide does not mean that it was required in the first place.
My example of 3 exits from a building when only two are required could be extended to one hundred exits when only two are required. By reducing the exits from 100 to 2 clearly increases the risk, but if the risk is such that people are still perfectly safe (from a fire) the reduction would be justified.
….and finally without further training Fishy I am happy to describe a room with two exits as perfectly safe from fire risk if the room is for example 5m by 5m occupied by two people and with minimal fire load. They may not be perfectly safe from nuclear reactions, wild animals or over zealous forum administrators, but they are perfectly safe from the risk of fire, in my opinion of course.
I promised not to post any more and will not do so from now on, but the point had to be made. I only posted this because Chris chose to ignore an e-mail that I sent to him regarding his last post on this topic.
You or Chris may apologise any time you like.
-
Blimey - you have a long weekend in the sunny Peak District, away from a PC and look what happens…
next time you're up this way again look us up and we could have a beer.
Same applies to Phil B but perhaps not at the same time :)
-
over zealous forum administrators
Ouch,
I had considered my moderation of this site to be very hands off. I've never once banned a member (only spammers and trolls).
You or Chris may apologise any time you like.
I did ask both debaters to stay away from the personal comments and you invited him to continue with the "who needs training" and started the "was it you who did the animals guide thing". So, I felt a further warning was necessary.
I know other sides where you can swear and name call with impunity and I know sites where you might get banned without warning at the fancy of one of many faceless mods. I feel that I have been fair and open at all times.
Again, I don't get paid for moderating this site, not that it is normally a challenge. I am slightly offended when people think I have been harsh. Do you think I need to appologise for anything (sincere question)?
-
I did ask both debaters to stay away from the personal comments and you invited him to continue with the "who needs training" and started the "was it you who did the animals guide thing". So, I felt a further warning was necessary.
Again, I don't get paid for moderating this site, not that it is normally a challenge. I am slightly offended when people think I have been harsh. Do you think I need to appologise for anything (sincere question)?
Chris
I don't really want to do this in public, but as I said earlier the comment about the animal guide was intended in jest, as I'm sure Fishy realised.
It was Fishy who made the personal jibe about me needing training but I took no offence.
I saw it as a bit of light hearted banter, clearly you didn't.
Personally I think you do a great job as moderator and it is appreciated, but I think you slighly misjudged the situation here.
Cleveland, bless him, offered to bury a hatchet in my head in an earlier post (which makes asking someone if they put a horse in an inner room very tame in my book) yet me and Cleveland are best of chums now and plan to go train spotting together.
-
so anyway ....... those pesky fixed hosereels hey?!
-
I don't really want to do this in public
That was my thoughts, so I had planned to stay out of this, but you did say:
You or Chris may apologise any time you like.........over zealous forum administrators
........Which was rather public.
Personally I think you do a great job as moderator and it is appreciated, but I think you slighly misjudged the situation here.
Thanks for the first bit, perhaps I did, perhaps I didn't. But perhaps others might misjudge too, and that is what bothered me more. If the worst I can be acused of is to "slightly" misjudge the tone of an internet forum post, then it only proves I am as normal as the next bloke.
So, to get this in perspective, I didn't ban anyone, amend or delete any posts or close any treads, I just warned both of you once and yourself a further time.
If you think I've over reacted, I must disagree, but I don't want to dwell on this. I had more important things to concern myself with, but after the invitation to appologise, I felt the need to explain.
I hpoe we can all move on from this storm in a teaspoon and get back to the debate! :)
-
Gents
Lets kill this off
RR151 is a research report called 'good practice and pitfalls in risk assessment' written in 2003 on behalf of the HSE by the HSL.
It is not, repeat not approved/endorsed by the HSE.
The FS guides do repeat do have official status being approved by the Minister.
In any case, RR151 has its flaws in my humble opinion, just like our dearly beloved guides.
The two main points getting lost here -
One) A H & S RA is nothing like a FRA.
Two) Code Hugging gets you a bad name
davo
-
A competent assessor or inspector will recognise where the 'over provision' of fire precaution exists and will therefore decide whether or not that provision can be reduced or removed.
Previous requirements placed on RPs from archaic or outdated legislation and to a degree poorly trained fire safety inspectors meant over provision occured in the past. I see that then as another good reason to review your precautions periodically.
And that gentlemen is how your risk assessment and fire safety policy should work or be approached- you should be reviewing it and adjusting it where necessary.
What was satisfactory yesterday may not be satisfactory today and just because something has been in place since Kingdom Come doesn't mean to say its right.
You shouldn't be afraid to challenge things, and ask " Is this right?" then review , evaluate, decide then implement.
The beauty of risk assessment and self compliance is that it allows greater flexibility for an RP to implement the right precautions for their particular working environment.
What they and risk assessors and inspectors alike need to understand is that sound knowledge to make these judgement calls is paramount, because otherwise my friends you just aint competent to make decisions which may impact on life and property protection issues.
10 different risk assessors will always give 10 different answers to the same prioblem. But on the fundemental bread and butter issues they should all be playing the same tune.
-
So what are you saying about reverse ALARP?
-
Previous requirements placed on RPs from archaic or outdated legislation and to a degree poorly trained fire safety inspectors meant over provision occurred in the past.
I assume you are referring to the FPA 1971 and very often on this forum we are left in no doubt it was all about Prescripted Requirements. Consequently we had to abide by the appropriate codes and the one for Class A fires was 1 X 2gal per 200 sq yds with a minimum of 2 extinguishers on each floor. We never asked for hose reels but if the owner/occupier preferred them we accepted them in lieu of portable extinguishers. If you look at the present guidance it is very similar and if there was an over provision you should be looking at the over zealous FE salesmen not the FSI.
As for training, every FSI had a minimum of 9 weeks and could be 15 weeks at Moreton on fire safety with additional specialist courses. (FPP, FPI, SFP, FP Refresher, Petroleum/Explosives, Fire Investigation, BTI) so where did you get the poorly trained bit from?
-
Rubbish TW quite often you would have a freshed faced Sub O new to FP vacuum packed straight from Ops who was just let loose on the world with nothing more than his shiney shoes, a swagger in his walk and a big red book called a fire cert. This is while he waited for the training courses at Moreton where they taught you about the chemical composition of a fart and to look at things properly. My young Sub was so eager to wield his new found power as an Inspecting Officer that he wanted to knock off everyman and his dog. We calmed him down after a few months and several courses at Moreton but even then he was still a right little horror stricter than an victorian headteacher with a sore bottom he was with a face like thunder.These are the days of risk assessment, we may not like it but we have to live with it. There are still to this very day Inspecting officers who may have been on all the right courses but dont then apply that knowledge properly and can go OTT.
-
In answer to TW I too was a victim of the long course and the training was all about prescription to enforce the extremely prescriptive standards of the day. I then topped up as a refresher on the D and E modules towards the end of my fire service career.
However I recollect almost zero input on any of these courses on BS5306 and the speccing of fire fighting equipment, and nothing on other fixed installations. Some input on fire alarms but very little technical information.
Other than on the E module which most fire service officers do not attend, most courses had very little on sprinklers Or did I just sleep very well?
In all honesty I had to go through a very steep learning curve on leaving the service on these latter items
-
Hi TW ...
My point was made with regards to general fire precaution provision rather than just the provision of fire fighting equipment.
Without wanting to be controversial or tarring people with the same brush I will concede that SOME unscruplious FE engineers are probably more responsible for over provision of fire extinguishers than FSI's.
The point Im making is that sometimes even the so called 'professionals' get things wrong. By proffesionals I mean contractors, inspecting officers, consultants, assessors etc etc.
Clevelandfire, though I hate to admit it, actually brings up a worthy point in that all the training in the world doesnt iradicate the fact that some people chose either deliberately or otherwise to ignore best practice or training and go their own way either on a whim or through ignorance, or simply because they don't fully understand what they were taught. It may also be the case that perhaps the training wasn't up to scratch.
As an Inspecting Officer Ive worked with both old dinosaurs who would enforce the FPA rigidly and hated the inception of the workplace regs and risk assessment. Conversely Ive worked officers who applied common sense by asking " there should be a fire alarm sounder here because it says so on the fire cert plan - yet they haven't got one - but but do they actually need one there in the first place before i start knocking them off?"
ALARP in the context that we are discussing in this post can only legitimately come into play when the provisions we are assessing were genuinely required in the first place. If they were never required but instead just implemented on the say so over an over ambitious IO / FSI or consultant then how can the ALARP be applicable?
So to answer Clevelands fire's question I think Prof Kurnal is 100% correct in what he was saying . I say again this is an issue of competence and knowing what is right and how legislation and common sense should be applied. To me there can never be "reverse ALARP" unless of course you are incompetent at assessing fire risk
If I read the posts correctly then I think this is what PhilB and others were trying to say in the scenario about Means Of Escape.
So review the fire precautions - are they right? or is there excessive provision which can be reduced or removed completely? I fi d reduce or remove them what will be the consequences?.
-
Clevelandfire if anything is rubbish it’s the fire safety department you belong or belonged to if it allowed freshed faced Sub O new to FP vacuum packed straight from Ops were just let loose on the world, then it sounds incredible to me, it certainly was not the situation in my former brigade. In my brigade any new intakes spent at least six months ghosting a qualified FSI and when they were let loose they were given simple jobs, monitored by their mentor. In a department of a 120 I can only recall one nutter as you describe and he was considered a joke by most. As for appling knowledge properly then this will apply to most professions and will still exist today in Fire Safety.
Kurnal I agree the British Standards were given a wide berth and if you required a deeper insight into them then you had to do a bit of self tuition. But in a prescriptive regime with a horror of active fire precautions how much technical information did you require, for instance how many sprinklers did you get involved with. In most situations you only need an overview of the subject and the Moreton notes provided that. If you needed a deeper understanding then all the information was available from the brigade library.
Today in the fire risk assessment age, then you do need a greater understanding and I can understand why you had to go through a very steep learning curve when you retired.
-
Im afraid that in our Brigade new fire officers were also let loose. Fortunately this practice has long gone and all new officers shadow more experienced officers, and are closely mentored.
TW your comment " in the fire risk assessment age, then you do need a greater understanding" echo's the point I am trying to make.
Application of knowledge will always as you say be an issue and in conclusion and to answer the original posters question you need to be competent to decide what is valid and what is not.
-
You surprise me MR as far back as I can remember new fire officers were never let loose in my brigade and even qualified FSI were monitored.
Yes I do think nowadays when active fire precautions are the norm, then a greater understanding and far higher technical knowledge is required. The training we received, which was quite adequate then, most probably would not be sufficient today. The augment put forward by certain fire consultants that FSI should be educated in fire safety and not trained in fire safety, which at the time I did not agree with but now maybe they were right.
The final paragraph I agree with you entirely.