FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Hi Tower on June 23, 2010, 05:56:00 PM
-
In his reply, jasper raising another issue which went into a different topic. I've split it here. The origianl thread was an enquiry about risk assessors in yorkshire. Chris.
Jasper
I can put you in touch with the fire service down our way - who are now undertaking FRA's on behalf of the public. To clarify:
I have just viewed a recent letter sent to a RP telling them exactly what they need to do to meet the minimum requirements of fire safety for their residential block of flats under the RRO. The advice that isn't referenced to any guide or document comes with the official seal of the FRS and their headed paper. It will save your clients considerable amounts of money as it is deemed that close fitting doors (without strips or seals) are suitable for 4 storey buildings that have stay put policies in place, no mention of routine electrical or other 3 phase maintenance and servicing is required as recommended by BS7671 or the manufacturer's guidelines (for passenger lifts etc.).
Best of all, if a peril does occur nobody can be prosecuted because the FRS have compromised their own position as enforcer - a direct conflict of interest.
In fact I did the original FRA for the above property and because I now don't where a uniform with shiny boots and a yellow hat I'm deemed as not competent by the RP that originally instructed me as of course the FRS know best.
I appreciate the FRS should provide advice (as suggested by the Hamilton Report and other public body codes of practice) but a full FRA, that is documented, well that's something else.
Perhaps there are others out there that know of other FRS's that are confusing the heck out of everyone by telling RP's that they need to conduct a FRA and if they don't they may well be prosecuted whilst at the same time offering free FRA's to others.
Good luck with your business plan!
Seriouly though has anyone else come accross this sort of thing going on?
-
Hi HT
Do you know if it service policy to do this or is it a friendly helpful fire officer doing his own thing?
-
Kurnal
I am just in the middle of writing to the said FRS to determine what their policy is.
All I can say at the moment is that the advice was written on their headed paper with a clear statement of their significant findings.
Friendly advice is welcomed and one thing, but completing the whole jolly thing is quite another, is it not?
-
If it is the case that the FRA are touting or getting business that is totally out of order. Let us know the outcome because if thats what they are doing I shall write and complain.
-
as it is deemed that close fitting doors (without strips or seals) are suitable for 4 storey buildings that have stay put policies in place
There have been many threads on this subject, and the general concensus is that this would generally be ok. CLG guidance says so, Todd says so, Aunty Lin says so, what more proof do you need?
no mention of routine electrical or other 3 phase maintenance and servicing is required as recommended by BS7671 or the manufacturer's guidelines (for passenger lifts etc.).
So where exactly in the RRFSO is the need to maintain your electrical systems and passenger lifts?
I appreciate the FRS should provide advice (as suggested by the Hamilton Report and other public body codes of practice) but a full FRA, that is documented, well that's something else.
Do you mean the Hampton report? (Just being a little pedantic now, I shall stop...)
I do actually agree with the basic idea that we, as an enforcing body, should not be undertaking risk assessments in any guise. It is a conflict of interest, and a clear unfair business advantage.
-
With the maintenance of electrical systems, would that not come under a "Duty to take general fire precautions" Civvy?
-
So where exactly in the RRFSO is the need to maintain your electrical systems and passenger lifts?
Article 4 does it for me. Many fires are attributed to an electrical cause.
Persons using a lift at the time of an alarm are relevant persons. Its surprising how often you find that no provision has been made for emergency lighting in lifts. Great. Fire occurs, power fails, lift stops between floors and I cant even see to find the emergency communication button.
-
There is no chance that "a close" fitting door would be acceptable in relation to smoke spread in the situation described
-
With the maintenance of electrical systems, would that not come under a "Duty to take general fire precautions" Civvy?
Can you see any FRS enforcing it? Why not go the whole hog and enforce a service of the gas boiler too while we are at it?
It is measures to reduce the 'risk' of fire. I think there is a valid argument to say just protect against the fire that 'could' happen. You have to do this anyway, since we can't realistically 100% eradicate the actual likelihood of a fire, you have to put in a suitable level of protection "just in case". So if you can ensure the safety of relevant persons 'if' a fire occurs, then what more work is needed to comply with the fire safety order? i.e. If I can prove that regardless of how a fire starts, that my means of giving warning will work, the means of escape can be effectively used, and the premises will effectively be evacuated, then what more can any FRS really ask me for?
BLEVE, to take Mr Todds approach... How many people have been killed or seriously injured in the flat next door to the flat of origin due to the lack of smoke seals or strips?
Don't get me wrong here, I would prefer it if everywhere had strips and seals, but it is not automatically justified just because it is an improvement.
-
Taking it the other way Civvy if we see an obvious electrical hazard during a fire safety inspection we have to refer to it and recommend an inspection and test by a competent person. No choice.
If then we become aware that an installation has not been inspected within the recommended time scales set out in the 17th edition, do you think should we should ignore it unless we see an obvious fire hazard involving the installations?
Should we ask to see a copy of the last inspection report during a fire risk assessment? I always do. Many category 1 and 2 defects are reported that could lead to fire - and are never actioned.
-
Dunno Civvy, I would have to look that up. However, I still disagree that they are acceptable in the four storey, remain in place premises as described previously.
I do know that quite a number of fatalities have been recorded at various points along means of escape from multi storey buildings due to smoke.
-
Civvy - a few days have passed and I've now been able to cool down, well only just, the weather's good isn't it?
I know that doors and the need for strips and wot not have been discussed over and over; I've viewed the threads many a time, didn't get the opinion though that the general concensus was that a well fitting door would do - in fact I felt that the general opinion was quite split?
-
Yes it has generally been a split vote. But that is the exact reason that you shouldn't be knocking the FRS in question if they have decided that good fitting doors without strips and seals might be acceptable in certain circumstances. It is something that will always promote discussion, but IMO they should be applauded for actually biting the bullet and making a definite decision if nothing else. Also is there not some guidance issued by the secretary of state that suggests that good fitting doors that used to meet a standard should still be acceptable?
Kurnal, I am not talking about obvious electrical hazards, I am talking about the routine maintenance of electrical/mechanical equipment not supplied as part of fire safety.
Bleve, if you can attribute even 1 death a year purely to the lack of strips and seals on a good fitting door then that is enough to convince me that (on moral grounds at least) we should always try enforce them until a determination or successful appeal shows otherwise.
-
I agree with Civvy and to a certain extent Kurnal.
Take Kurnals scenario - a dodgy electrical installation. We know most fires are caused by faulty electrics so it would be reasonable to expect an auditor to make comment about any diodgy looking installations, sockets, et al. YOu would also expect the auditor to ask for the last inspection report. But what the auditor does from there then depends.
Lets say Kurnal's dodgy electrics are in a hotel. Being as it is a hotel it should, based on guidance, have the relvant compartmentation, MOE, fire doors, AFD to L2 coverage, etc etc, and this brings in Civvy's point.
There should automatically be sufficient levels of protection in place to warn people of a fire occuring, allow them to escape safely regardless of just a dodgy electrical installation. If that electrical installation did catch fire, but the AFD raised the alarm, the fire was contained, and and everyone got out safely has the RP complied with the Fire Safety Order ?
Again to agree with Civvy we need to be careful about using article 8 as a total catch all, because as Civvy states where do you stop? Ok the electrical installation is something I think would fit under the duty to take fire precautions, as is the gas installation.But what else? Are we going to then look at water leaks too? At what point does that get too onerous? or too tenuous?
Ordinarily fire safety inspectors will verbally point out general health and safety failings or non fire safety related issues to the RP and will then and pass those observations on to the relevant enforcing authority to be actioned as they see appropriate.
-
A nice diplomatic approach Retty.
I might (just might) have been tending towards 'taking the issue a little too far' in order to explain my thoughts.
-
Are we going to then look at water leaks too? At what point does that get too onerous? or too tenuous?
I think it would be getting too onerous and tenuous MR when you start looking for the possibility of fire risks from water leaks. ;)
-
Are we going to then look at water leaks too? At what point does that get too onerous? or too tenuous?
I think it would be getting too onerous and tenuous MR when you start looking for the possibility of fire risks from water leaks. ;)
My point exactly NT
Yet water leaking through electrical fittings and appliances can cause fires NT and some would say that having a water leak which caused a fire demonstrates failures under article 8, I dont however :-)!!
-
All this leads me to ask " What is a fire hazard in respect of the Fire Safety Order? "
There is no definition of a hazard in SI 2005 No 1541 except in relation to dangerous substances. There is a definition of risk- "risk means the risk to the safety of persons from fire"
There is a definition of fire hazard and fire risk in BS4422-
3.343- fire hazard-potential for injury and/or damage from fire
3.374 - fire risk -product of the probability of occurrence of a fire to be expected in a given technical operation or state, and
the consequence or extent of damage to be expected on the occurrence of a fire
There are slightly different definitions in PAS 79
3-33- fire hazard - source or situation with potential to result in a fire
NOTE Examples of fire hazards include ignition sources and accumulation of waste that could be subject to
ignition.
3.41- fire risk- combination of likelihood and consequence(s) of fire
NOTE In the context of this PAS, the relevant consequences are those involving injury to people, as opposed
to damage to property.
Now where does this leave us in respect of Civvys dodgy wiring? Is it a fire hazard when measured against the definitions in BS4422 and PAS 79? And where would it sit under the Fire Safety Order?
Clearly a neither broken fire alarm or a locked exit are fire hazards.
Does any of this matter?
Is it me being obtuse again?
And is the moon really made of Derbyshire blue stilton cheese?
-
slightly off topic?
-
I dont think so Jasper?
Civvy was suggesting that recommendations such as electrical and gas testing may be inappropriate to a fire risk assessment under the Order.
A risk assessment considers hazards and risks and determines the appropriate risk control measures. I think we need to be clear what constitutes a fire hazard.
Electrical faults often cause fires- take a damaged cable with a potential short circuit. With an old system and dodgy earthing this could lead to a fire. But with a modern system that is in good condition then the protective devices should ensure that even if the fault occurs a fire will not occur?
(However I fully accept that I may be talking piffle again.)
-
No its not off topic. Its a fair question to ask. To clarify it all im going to say this. Take the word fire out of the terms hazard and risk. Lets dispense with non essential and unhelpful OTT phraseology which although may sound technical and clever basically means the same thing.
We are left with the term hazard: something with potential to cause harm, and the term risk: the likelyhood that the hazard will cause harm. In everything we do in terms of fire safety and i mean everything the hazard is always fire. End of story. If anyone thinks otherwise thats their perogative but id seriously question their competency publically. A locked exit isnt a hazard, because the hazard is always fire. But a locked exit increases the risk that the hazard (fire) may cause harm. Also as we know where we cannot remove a hazard we try to reduce the hazard using control measures. As Midland quite rightly points out often control measures used for fire safety purposes are designed to protect against a multitude of eventualities meaning that in most cases article 8 can be complied with quite easily without thought being given to silly and frankly academic arguments about how water leaks may cause fire. Of course leaks can cause fire, someone lighting fireworks from their backside could cause a fire, a plane crashing on a building may cause a fire but following current guiidance to an accepted standard will deal with most eventualities. There are odd exceptions where benchmark standards wont deal with the risk, and thats when we have to look more closely at the risk, but for everything else there is mastercard.
Seriously I dont know how i do it for the money you guys ought to pay me for my wonderful wisdom.
-
Civvy
The integrity of the close fitting door depends on the materials or make up of the door. What is close fitting?
Most close fitting doors would fail when exposed to typical fires in 15 to 20 minutes. In addition, it is next to impossible to maintain close fitting for the lifetime of the door. When it comes to ambient temp smoke such a door will result in the passagevof approximate 200 m cubes smoke per hour vs 15 cubes from a FDS door.
When
-
The hazard is exposure to fire related effluents (smoke, obscuration, irritation) due to delayed or prevented escape of one or more building occupants. The risk depends on the control measures in place ie MOE and is a combination of likelihood of realising the hazard and the severity of that realisation usually expressed qualitatively or quantitatively I.e high medium low , percentage or decimal expression.
-
At the end of the day the risk assessment is intended to allow the selection of general fire precautions from article 4 so as to demonstrate compliance with article 8. Only significant findings need be recorded.
Are we over complicating the matter
There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place.
-
Jasper
I guess when you say slightly off topic you are referring to where the thread is now in relation to your original post?
My apologies for re-directing it, my confusion came from why do you need to recruit anyone to do FRA's because some FRS's seem to be doing FRA's for anyone who asks. And
What did the panel think about what advice can be given by the FRA before it becomes a conflict of interest? and what role, with regard to my above comment, does the independent FRA have in the market place?
-
Hi Jasper
Having seen HTs posting I agree - sorry we have drifted way off your original topic. I hadnt read far enough back up the thread.
Have you sorted out any assistance yet? It seems to me there is a serious shortage of people with the right skill sets to carry out competent fire risk assessments. Its a field in which marketing triumphs over quality at the moment I am afraid.
-
The hazard is exposure to fire related effluents (smoke, obscuration, irritation) due to delayed or prevented escape of one or more building occupants. The risk depends on the control measures in place ie MOE and is a combination of likelihood of realising the hazard and the severity of that realisation usually expressed qualitatively or quantitatively I.e high medium low , percentage or decimal expression.
No Bleve it isnt.
The hazard is always fire and all of the things fire can be hazardous for like smoke, being burnt, explosion. Delayed or prevented escape makes the risk of harm greater from the hazard posed by fire.So lets take you example. To lower the risk from delayed escape whatever that is you put in adequate MOE. Risk lowered, hey presto.
-
That would be hazard of exposure to radiant heat or explosive overpressure
-
Re read what I had posted
The degree of risk depends on the adequacy of the control measures selected and maintained
-
I think you are both saying the same things.
C3 is correct in suggesting that the hazard is always fire, and Bleve you are correct in suggesting that the degree of risk posed by fire hazard is dependant on control measures, and how adequate those control measures are.
Remember that burns, explosion, smoke are all in themselves hazards stemming from fire.
Locked exits, non functioning fire alarm systems, lack of fire compartmentation are not hazards, they are connected to risk.
-
At the end of the day the risk assessment is intended to allow the selection of general fire precautions from article 4 so as to demonstrate compliance with article 8. Only significant findings need be recorded.
Are we over complicating the matter
There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place.
Bleve. You say "Are we over complicating the matter? There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place."
Your view please.
Situation:-
Two storey office block, single stairway with exit direct to open air at ground floor. 10 office type persons above ground floor.
Existing Control Measures:-
Protection of escape rouute - All doors enclosing starway 1/2 frscss in good condition. L3 auto detection and manual system, emergency lighting. Therefore, tolerable risk.
As the risk to the first floor occupiers has been addressed with existing adequate control measures, is your line of thought that there are no significant findings in regards to this and as such would not be recorded?
-
Locked exits, non functioning fire alarm systems, lack of fire compartmentation are not hazards, they are connected to risk.
I would have thought that a locked exit was a hazard with the risk being that persons could be trapped. The locked exit could result in harm to persons from fire.
-
NT
Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs
(6) As soon as practicable after the assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where—
(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; etc
(7) The prescribed information is—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and
(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
In the case of the situation presented:
If travel distances are acceptable in relation to a single direction of escape, plans in place if applicable for assisting disabled, typical fire loading for office type premises, then only the measures required by the order need be recorded.
However, you did not specify the type of door or glazing provided at the corridor/offices art the upper floor. ;)
-
Locked exits, non functioning fire alarm systems, lack of fire compartmentation are not hazards, they are connected to risk.
I would have thought that a locked exit was a hazard with the risk being that persons could be trapped. The locked exit could result in harm to persons from fire.
This is where there is often confusion. Remember that a hazard is something with the potential to cause harm, risk is the likelyhood that the hazard will cause harm.
A locked exit isn't a hazard. It has no potential to cause you any harm. It's not as if it is going to burn you or grow teeth and bite you, it could come of its hinges and fall on you if not fitted properly i suppose, but you get my point.
A locked exit isn't a problem until a fire occurs and I need to get out. By it being locked it has increased the risk (ie likelyhood) that the hazard (fire) will cause me harm, and whilst the locked door stopped me from getting out, it is the fire that has killed me, not the door.
-
going back to the original post - consultants still required (recently retired / graduate considered)
-
Locked exits, non functioning fire alarm systems, lack of fire compartmentation are not hazards, they are connected to risk.
I would have thought that a locked exit was a hazard with the risk being that persons could be trapped. The locked exit could result in harm to persons from fire.
This is where there is often confusion. Remember that a hazard is something with the potential to cause harm, risk is the likelyhood that the hazard will cause harm.
A locked exit isn't a hazard. It has no potential to cause you any harm. It's not as if it is going to burn you or grow teeth and bite you, it could come of its hinges and fall on you if not fitted properly i suppose, but you get my point.
A locked exit isn't a problem until a fire occurs and I need to get out. By it being locked it has increased the risk (ie likelyhood) that the hazard (fire) will cause me harm, and whilst the locked door stopped me from getting out, it is the fire that has killed me, not the door.
Have to strongly disagree MR. Without getting into a game of ping pong I will always consider a locked escape door a hazard in the event of fire and you will not.
Let's not discuss this over a jug of Banter Bar special brew. ;)
-
Hazard is the something with the potential to cause harm.
Yes a locked fire exit will increase the likelyhood you will be harmed by the fire, but the door itself isn't going to harm you and is thus not a hazard.
-
Hazard is the something with the potential to cause harm.
Yes a locked fire exit will increase the likelyhood you will be harmed by the fire, but the door itself isn't going to harm you and is thus not a hazard.
I shall not be drawn :-X :-*
-
I've split this topic from the original as it has now developed into one about something other than fire risk assessors in yorkshire. if you want to discuss the fire risk assessorts in yorkshire, please go to the other thread. thanks. chris.
-
Hazard is the something with the potential to cause harm.
Yes a locked fire exit will increase the likelyhood you will be harmed by the fire, but the door itself isn't going to harm you and is thus not a hazard.
Is that not a little like saying that a load of boxes on a staircase are not a hazard, as it is the sudden decceleration upon hitting the floor that will hurt you, therefore the floor is the hazard? :)
-
Civvy... >:(
You know very well what I mean Mr Sarky Pedantic pants
;D
-
Hazard is the something with the potential to cause harm.
Yes a locked fire exit will increase the likelyhood you will be harmed by the fire, but the door itself isn't going to harm you and is thus not a hazard.
Is that not a little like saying that a load of boxes on a staircase are not a hazard, as it is the sudden decceleration upon hitting the floor that will hurt you, therefore the floor is the hazard? :)
Yeh Civvy ;). It wasn't the fall that killed him. It was the hard ground at the end. :D
-
Egg Zakly!
-
Where's BLEVE when you need him?
We need to calculate the velocity of the person of 98kg and six feet tall falling from a height of-
A- One metre
B- Two metres
and in both cases at NTP
davo ;D
-
Where's BLEVE when you need him?
We need to calculate the velocity of the person of 98kg and six feet tall falling from a height of-
A- One metre
B- Two metres
and in both cases at NTP
davo ;D
Easy Davo
Fast and a little bit faster, in that order.
-
I said id publically chastise any risk assessor who didnt understand the concept of hazard or risk. Civvy FSO and Nearlythere I happily declare that you are both officially incompetent you losers. You are to the field of risk assesment what england is to football.
-
I said id publically chastise any risk assessor who didnt understand the concept of hazard or risk. Civvy FSO and Nearlythere I happily declare that you are both officially incompetent you losers. You are to the field of risk assesment what england is to football.
What England is to football?
Thats one heck of a chastisement CF3.
Would the distance between the posts be a hazard with the risk being that they would not get the ball between them?
-
We have done nothing to deserve that comparison! Even if we had done the RA on the CLG buildings, we would still not have deserved THAT!
-
Although it pains me to admit it, that was way below the belt Cleveland, even for you.
-
Never mind people. On a brighter note I see the England netball team, ladies, has done well against the Aussies. England's sporting achievements are still up there :) :D ;D http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/netball/8525802.stm
-
I said id publically chastise any risk assessor who didnt understand the concept of hazard or risk. Civvy FSO and Nearlythere I happily declare that you are both officially incompetent you losers. You are to the field of risk assesment what england is to football.
Cleveland3 I appreciate your comments are intended as ongoing banter but please can we all keep the banter within the Banter thread. If we allow it to spill into other threads it can be off putting for those interested in following the discussion and may put off less seasoned posters from having their say for fear of ridicule.
I know it will come across as do as I say not as I do but I am trying to turn over a new leaf myself!
-
Should not we be debating Fire Hazard and Fire Risk? The term Fire hazard includes ignition sources and fuels as well as Oxygen and the fuels well, anything you like that burns. Fire risk being the likelihood and severity of the burn process.
-
You can do. But its just putting the word "fire" infront of already established terminology.
Is an ignition source a fire hazard on it's own? Is a fuel source a hazard on it's own? Or is it the combination of the fuel, heat / ignition source that constitutes the hazard ?
-
Its the combination of both Retty. Also sorry for any offence caused by my previous post. I think it was evident I was joking though.