FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: StuartH on September 02, 2010, 09:52:24 PM
-
I have been asked by a customer to assist them in identifying differences between these two pieces of fire safety legislation. I could pick my way through the two pieces of legislation in an attempt to identify differences myself, but was hoping that one of you good men would be able to point me in the direction of a website, article or report that has done this for me.
I have also been asked to report on the differences between ADB and the RRO.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
-
Basically,
WPR was brought in 97 and again amended in 99 to mop up those premises that weren't designated under the FP Act 71 to have a certificate. Small guest houses is one example.
WPR brough in the FRA process.
RRO the came in to force and replaced WPR and FP Act 71. Now everyone has to do a FRA.
Not sure what you need to caompare the ADB and RRO, can you expand more.
-
Stuart,
Which Workplace Regs are you talking about?
ADB is not legislation. The legislation you should look at in this respect is the Building Regulations 2000, Part B of Schedule 1, B1 - B5, the functional requirements.
Good luck.
Stu
-
Sorry Stuart but this strikes me as a little zany. Especially the difference between the ADB and the RRO. The ADB is a document that provides a prescriptive fire safety solution to the design or alteration of buildings in order to meet the functional requirements of the Builing Regulations. It does not consider the use of the building or its ongoing management. The "RRO" requires the person responsible for the management of an occupied building to use the tool of fire risk assessment to identify persons who could be at risk and general fire precautions to ensure that the fire risk is managed.
A little bit like asking you to report on the differences between the guidance to the food hygiene Regulations and Mrs Beeton's cookery book.
-
Deacon, The 97 regs had certificated premises as "excepted workplace", the amendment removed this meaning that certificated premises now had to comply with the workplace regs.
Stuart
The main differences between the workplace regs and the RRO are;
All 'relevant persons' are protected in the RRO, the WP regs protected employees only.
The RRO looks at the reduction of risk then protecting relevant persons from the remaining risk, the WP regs just looked at protecting employees from risk.
The maintenance of fire fighting provisions is now considered under the RRO.
The RRO applies to any place (with a few exceptions, domestic etc) and the WP regs applied strictly to workplaces (With a few exceptions, many removed by the 99 mods).
Also the need for a fire risk assessment was technically in the Management Regs, but this need was created by the WP regs modifying parts of the management regs.
Re: ADB and the RRO. I think someone is getting confused with the Building Regs and ADB. If the question relates to Building regs vs the RRO, then it would possibly help you to search for details surrounding 'the holroyd distinction'. It applies essentially to the FP act and the Building Regs, but the key stuff is in there.
-
Re ADB V RRO
What I'm being asked to do is identify areas that are covered in the RRO and not ADB. For example how a new build could comply with ADB, therefore be issued with a completion cert, yet still require works under the RRO. Portable fire fighting equipment etc.
Re Workplace regs v RRO
I'm being asked to provide areas which the RRO covers, that wouldn't necessarily have been covered in WP regs fire risk assessment.
In short the customer in question is asking why his pre RRO fire risk assessments done under the work place regs need to be reviewed if no changes have been made to the premises.
-
Stuart, the functional requirement for B1 is for means of escape and detection and warning. Any other fire safety bits such as FFE and management are down to the occupier. The RRO removed the Statutory Bar to premises and therefore whilst a completion certificate is still valid an enforcer can ask for more to comply with the RRO. As regards the RRO, the WPR only covered the employer and employee relationship whilst the RRO covers the "Relevant Persons". The scope of the RRO is therefore a lot wider and more has to be done to protect persons from fire hazard and fire risk.
-
ADB is guidance to the Building Rgulations, where RRO is legislation. Maybe you mean the RRO guidance, HMGovernment Fire Safety Risk Assessment guidance?
For a starting point, Section B5 of building regs covers Fire Service Access, whereas RRO does not cover fire service access. Hope that helps!
-
For a starting point, Section B5 of building regs covers Fire Service Access, whereas RRO does not cover fire service access. Hope that helps!
Yes it does. It was intended to fall into art 38.
-
StuartH
How do they know no changes have been made?
Propping a fire door open would not show on the books ;D
davo
-
For a starting point, Section B5 of building regs covers Fire Service Access, whereas RRO does not cover fire service access. Hope that helps!
Beg to differ Stinky but does not Article 38 require the maintenance of any access or facilities for firefighters (Provided under Building Regs or any other legislation - including local enactments still in force)?
-
StuartH
How do they know no changes have been made?
Propping a fire door open would not show on the books ;D
davo
I agree, and we continue to argue that any FRA conducted as far back as the WP Regs is due for review, but a facilities manager, who is trying to make a business case to his board to have a large number of FRA's conducted under the WP Regs formally reviewed by a consultant (rather than a manager who ticks a box confirming that there has been no changes to the premises), has asked for this information in support of his case.
-
For a starting point, Section B5 of building regs covers Fire Service Access, whereas RRO does not cover fire service access. Hope that helps!
Beg to differ Stinky but does not Article 38 require the maintenance of any access or facilities for firefighters (Provided under Building Regs or any other legislation - including local enactments still in force)?
Both right. The RR(FS)O doesn't oblige the Responsible Person to assess the adequacy of access & facilities for fire-fighters, but Article 38 does specifically oblige them to maintain whatever has been provided for that purpose "in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair".
-
I agree with what you are saying Fishy, but the outside events guide is very specific with regards to fire fighting access.
I have struggled to see where it fits in the order myself.
-
For a starting point, Section B5 of building regs covers Fire Service Access, whereas RRO does not cover fire service access. Hope that helps!
Yes it does. It was intended to fall into art 38.
Well unfortunately you are wrong. It does not cover fire service access. So an FRA as undertaken to satisfy the RP's obligation under the RRO, does not assess the adequacy of fire service access. Article 38 only requires maintenance or servicing of any fire fighting facilities provided.
-
I disagree for the following reasons.
Firstly the wording of the article.
Maintenance of measures provided for protection of fire-fighters
38. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of fire-fighters in the event of
a fire, the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment
and devices provided in respect of the premises for the use by or protection of fire-fighters
under this Order or under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked
by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an
efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
Secondly the statement of legal intent provided by the then ODPM.
(Paragraph 49 covers both article 17 and 38)
49.All precautions provided would be subject to maintenance and would be
installed and maintained by a “competent person” (as defined in the draft
Order). The precautions to be maintained should include any provided for
the use of fire-fighters in case of fire (e.g. fire-fighting shafts, accesspoints, fire-fighting riser mains).
Hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Kind regards
Jim
-
Sorry, I forgot Paragraph 8.
there should be a duty to maintain those fire precautions required
under building regulations, and other similar legislation, which are for the
use and protection of fire-fighters;
Regards
-
Eventually found my copy of GN 1. :)
Article 38 – Maintenance of measures provided for protection of
fire-fighters
The purpose of this article is to ensure that the responsible person establishes a suitable
system of maintenance for any measures (such as those under article 37) provided
for the safety of fire-fighters, whether under the provisions of the Order or any other
enactment. It covers, for example, fire fighting water supplies, access and hard standing
for fire appliances, fixed fire fighting systems operated by the Fire and Rescue Authority,
some fire suppression systems and fire-fighting stairs and lifts if they have been
provided under the requirements of Building Regulations or any other enactment.
-
Is Article 38 not for maintenance rather than provision?
-
Yes entirely.
It does not mean that it cannot apply to access roads though.
In other words, if it has been supplied and is required then it should be maintained accordingly.
Jim
-
Why would access roads be necessary for the protection of firefighters in the event of a fire?
-
Maybe this explains it.
Article 38 – Maintenance of measures provided for protection of
fire-fighters
164. The purpose of this article is to ensure that the responsible person establishes a suitable
system of maintenance for any measures (such as those under article 37) provided
for the safety of fire-fighters, whether under the provisions of the Order or any other
enactment. It covers, for example, fire fighting water supplies, access and hard standing
for fire appliances, fixed fire fighting systems operated by the Fire and Rescue Authority,
some fi e suppression systems and fire-fighting stairs and lifts if they have been
provided under the requirements of Building Regulations or any other enactment.
165. However, it should be noted that many features are provided to aid fire-fighters in
protecting persons through fire-fighting or rescue. When considering non-compliance,
enforcing authorities should note that it must be shown that the failure to maintain
would affect the ability of fire-fighters to safely fight the fire or carry out rescues which
in turn places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in the case
of a fire. Where a responsible person has failed to maintain measures provided for the
protection of fire-fighters enforcing authorities have a duty to undertake appropriate
enforcement action.
166. For an offence to be committed the enforcing authority must show that there was a
failure on the part of the responsible person, or other person mentioned in article 5(3),
to maintain the measures provided for the protection of fire-fighters and that as a result
the failure places one or more relevant persons at risk. It may not be suffi cient that the
failure to maintain such provisions only places fire-fighters at risk, unless by doing so it
also affects the safety of the relevant persons to which this article applies. However it is
very unlikely that in practice such a failure would only affect the safety of fire-fighters.
-
I think the key bit is the carrying out rescues.
Clearly if the kit cannot be taken to the premises then the risk heightens in terms of communication chains and prolonged time of intervention.
-
Would the public road be considered part of access to the premises?
-
Yes, where appropriate. But usually out of the control of the RP.