FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: lyledunn on January 05, 2011, 07:34:49 PM
-
As someone who is charged with inspecting and testing electrical installations, fire alarm and emergency lighting systems I must reference my determinations to the relevant BS or BSEN.
As part of my inspection routine I will ask for a copy of any FRA and monitoring review that may have taken place. I hail from Northern Ireland where the statutory requirement for a specific fire risk assessment has just recently been introduced. Nonetheless, I find that many of my clients have been quick off the mark and have had the necessary assessment undertaken.
My intention in reviewing these FRAs is to determine whether they might contain information that would help me in my own determinations. Admittedly, I am also a little nosey. Those that I have looked at to date have been incredibly diverse in their substance even though most seem to adhere to a reasonably logical methodology (looks like Sir Colins influence). Many have been very comprehensive and have caused me to review my own findings. Others unfortunately look like they have been the product of a drive-by often lacking specific content. One of the latter type, conducted on a large Golf Club, did not even bother arriving at an evaluation of risk nor did it provide any useful recommendations. For example in the FRA under the general headings of "Emergency Escape Lighting" and "Giving Waring in the Event of Fire" it simply stated that an inspection of the emergency lighting and fire alarm systems should be conducted. I would have thought that any self-respecting assessor would have at least asked to see copies of such Reports (conducted annually in this case).
It is not for me to determine whether these FRAs are suitable and sufficient but at times I would really love to tell my clients that they have wasted their money. Is there a Standard or industry recognised code of practice for these assessments? I would not be long in informing my clients that their recently conducted FRA fell short of a recognised Standard but I would be loathe to engage in a subjective critique.
Regards,
Lyle Dunn
-
Hi Lyle
Whilst others are trying to turn the process into something akin to a technical specification for a space rocket I refer to the good advice given in NIFRS website to help to settle things down and bring everything back to earth again.
Hope you had a nice Xmas.
-
BS PAS 79 is the best benchmark you will find in terms of approach and methodology.
You are really talking about the diligence and personal qualities of the individual assessor though. Many either cant be bothered to check, are not aware of the relevant standards or dont want to take legal responsibility for their report so hide behing a load of general overviews that simply pass the buck to others. Very common problem and most unfortunate that our industry, I suppose like any other, is ridden with so many such individuals only out to make an easy buck.
-
Kurnal is right in his admiration of PAS 79. Not that I am biased.
-
Dont lets get carried away.
"the best benchmark you will find" was my comment.
I remember once being the best looking bloke on the beach and owning the best car in the car park.
I think the report template is poor and dont use it. The general approach is good though.
-
I would agree with kurnal PAS 79 is a good benchmark and, if I was reviewing a FRA, I would be looking for all the points in PAS 79 to be covered. If the FRA goes into more detail then all well and good, but if it does not cover the points then there are likely to be problems.
The other aspect you will need to look at is the size and complexity of the property you are looking at, a small shop for example would be well covered by the standard PAS 79 format. However it would be inadequate for something like a shopping centre.
At the end of the day there cannot be one simple format that will cover everything and PAS 79 is the best benchmark we have currently got. Given its history, (see the first issue of the guide for animal accommodation) I would not like to see a standard format produced by the CLG.
-
It seems strange that the whole country is head-long in to obligatory fire risk assessment without the benefit of a recognised National Standard. PAS 79 may be a very sound benchmark but it just simply does not have the weight and esteem of a British Standard. The merit of PAS 79 is in the promulgation of a common approach to reporting and regardless of whether folk love it or hate it, at least it provides a reasonable standard reference. My contention is that it is not enough. Some of the FRAs I have looked at do the professional fire risk assessment industry a mighty disservice. I have no bones to pick but my job requires me to look in at these deliberations and it concerns me that the worth of some is, to say the least, questionable. A British Standard may not be a panacea to squeeze out the fly-bys but I do think that it would bolster the integrity of those true professionals who do make every attempt to produce somethinh worthwhile.
Nearlythere; ditto! The NIFRS website is snazzy and does indeed simplify the various requirements.
Regards,
Lyle Dunn
-
"It seems strange that the whole country is head-long in to obligatory fire risk assessment without the benefit of a recognised National Standard"
That's government for you. However risk assessment has been around for a long time it came in with the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974. As yet there is no National Standard for Health and Safety risk assessments either.
The idea of a standard sounds good until you try to apply it. How do you create a single standard that will work on a small corner shop, the British Museum, Buncefield, Canary Wharf etc.?
-
Mike,
The idea of a standard sounds good until you try to apply it. How do you create a single standard that will work on a small corner shop, the British Museum, Buncefield, Canary Wharf etc.?
They seemed to have been able to manage that for fire alarms, emergency lighting, electrical installations etc. I do not think it beyond our capability if the will is there.
Regards,
Lyle Dunn
-
It can work if you are happy to have a thick report full of N/A.
-
I think we need to look at this from another direction. Its not the template we need to standardise, it is the training and competency of the assessor and auditer.
As we know most Health and Safety practitioners have NEBOSH qualifications, it is a level of competency most employers ask for when employing their own HS Officers or when seeking the services of a consultant.
Maybe we need something similar for the fire industry.
Of course I do recognise that qualification, certification, and accreditation is all well and good and that not eveyone can afford the luxury, but we need standardisation in some shape or form.
-
Lyle,
The examples you gave are all "hard" systems where the item can be physically measured and either pass or fail dependant on the result, i.e. for fire alarm systems in hotels, does the fire alarm achieve 75 dB at the bed head?
When it comes to the "softer" more opinion based items it is more difficult i.e. housekeeping, how do you measure housekeeping? The number of litter bins per 100 sqm, how often does the cleaner come in, the percentage of free space on the work bench/desk?
The better way is to govern the assessors via accreditation etc. however the original belief of the government was that anyone could carry out a Fire Risk Assessment just by following the CLG guides which is where the problem started.
-
Mike,
I am an electrical inspecting engineer and I have been carrying out inspections of electrical installations, fire alarm and emergency lighting systems for many years. I often make subjective determinations where the relevant standard is ambiguous or lacking in detail. Standards are not always as prescriptive as you might suggest.
All I am arguing for is a relevant standard. The implications in PAS 79 with respect to what should be considered are fine, they just do not have the authority or esteem of a BS.
I look at the fire statistics and I wonder how any one could conclude that a fire risk assessment carried out by any one other than a well-experienced fire safety professional would address such a ponderous problem.
Yes, fire risk assessment for the duty holder should be undertaken just like, perhaps, a risk assessment of the electrical installation. But I firmly believe that, like electrical installations, buildings should be subject to inspection on a regular basis. That inspection should be carried out by a recognised professional who has a benchmark standard available to him (like BS7671 2008 for electrical installations).
The FRA for a local Club was recently completed by a member of the committee, perhaps eager to prove his worth. It was'nt a bad attempt. He missed any mention of the huge breaches in the compartment walls above the suspended ceilings, the equally huge breaches in the fire curtain in the loft area including the piles of paper and cardboard boxes plonked over the ELV lighting that protruded in to the loft from the lounge below, the lack of emergency lighting throughout and especially on the external escape stairs etc. etc. Then again he was just a retired school teacher. Still it was all documented on a form not unlike Sir Colins template in PAS 79 so I guess thats ok!
Regards,
Lyle Dunn
-
Hidden holes and gaps above false ceilings is a very common problem Lyle. It's what suspended ceilings do well. Hide multitudes of sins.
Failings in separation of corridors above false ceilings where fire doors are installed is also a very popular sin.
But regarding your point about standards of Assessments one only have to look at FRA templates available from some F&R Service, LG and H&SE websites and compare them with the likes of PAS 79. To me if the enforcement authority makes a very simplistic and basic template available to use for FRAs then they cant really complain when they are used in a simplistic and basic fashion.
-
Thats a fair point NT. I do feel though were damned if we do & damned if we don't with regard to the fire risk assessment. Smaller businesses in particular were told it was easy, it wan't rocket science then they find that it isn't. So many of them like a template to follow.
-
Just to be awkward....
Why do you need a set format to follow? You are there to assess to risks to persons from fire and you have clear requirements as to the information that has to be recorded. You need underpinning knowledge of means of escape, human behaviour, fire behaviour etc, and you should be able to apply that to see where the risks are, what has been done, and what needs doing to protect people.
I am not saying that the various methods are unnecessary because if Mr Todd etc want to teach you how to assess the risks their way, then that is a valid way of assessing risks, but to create a standard 'accepted' way?.. Isn't that just creating another way to get it wrong?
"Yes, you have assessed the risks right but you have gone about it the wrong way, please do it all over again THIS way."
I think that what many people want is essentially an idiots guide to risk assessment, a form that will be asking them the questions which should really be second nature. What you can end up with is too much of a reliance on the template to point you towards the risks, and it becomes a tick-box exercise only.
To me, the risk assessment is predominantly done in your head. Knock it down to the basics: Where can we have a fire, who is at risk from these fires, how do we let people know if there is a fire, what can we do to improve/reduce/remove risks, etc etc etc. From that comes the significant findings, with some proof of process of how/why decisions have been made. Turn that into the prescribed information, and Bob's your Dad's Brother.
-
Article 9 (7) defines the prescribed information that must be recorded. 9(7)a covers the significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN or will be taken......
The measures that will be taken are easy to record.
The measures that have already been taken are very difficult to record in a simple and logical way using a tick box approach especially where one impinges on another, for example where travel distances have been extended in recognition of other risk control factors or a BS9999 aproach has been taken.
9(7)b - it is necessary to record the details of any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
Most reports and templates only give a general overview of the relevant persons at the front of the report. Some risk control measures are only specific to individual and particular users of the building, for example people with special needs, visitors, contractors etc. I interpret the requirement as a need to record FOR EACH DEFICIENCY the persons or groups of persons placed at risk by that deficiency.
I dont think the standard proforma in PAS 79 addresses these very well which is why I dont use it.
-
".........significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN........".
This is the gov seeing the situation through those rose tinted glasses again where it's expectation seems to be that every business in the country has abided by the law over the years and already provided the adequate means of escape etc etc. being the fine upstanding law abiding business community it is.
Would a significent finding of "have beens" be that the multi storey premises has been provided with a stairway? ::) It is afterall essential for means of escape and would be quite a significent finding of what has been provided.
-
Just to be awkward....
Why do you need a set format to follow? You are there to assess to risks to persons from fire and you have clear requirements as to the information that has to be recorded. You need underpinning knowledge of means of escape, human behaviour, fire behaviour etc, and you should be able to apply that to see where the risks are, what has been done, and what needs doing to protect people.
I am not saying that the various methods are unnecessary because if Mr Todd etc want to teach you how to assess the risks their way, then that is a valid way of assessing risks, but to create a standard 'accepted' way?.. Isn't that just creating another way to get it wrong?
"Yes, you have assessed the risks right but you have gone about it the wrong way, please do it all over again THIS way."
I think that what many people want is essentially an idiots guide to risk assessment, a form that will be asking them the questions which should really be second nature. What you can end up with is too much of a reliance on the template to point you towards the risks, and it becomes a tick-box exercise only.
To me, the risk assessment is predominantly done in your head. Knock it down to the basics: Where can we have a fire, who is at risk from these fires, how do we let people know if there is a fire, what can we do to improve/reduce/remove risks, etc etc etc. From that comes the significant findings, with some proof of process of how/why decisions have been made. Turn that into the prescribed information, and Bob's your Dad's Brother.
Here Here...or is it Hear Hear?....
You can get painting by numbers, you can get pianos with keys that light up when you're meant to play them and you can get a TV screen with the words on when you're singing along at the kara oke bar. But do professional artists and pianists and singers use these when they're plying their trade?
No. They just know what they're doing and they do it.
Don't come back with the argument that builders and car manufacturers and the like do have plans that they have to follow when they ply their trade. Maybe they do but does the brick layer refer to it before he lays each brick? Does the exhaust fitter in the car factory refer to it before he tightens each screw?
There are levels of complexity that the human brain is capable of that do not require continuous reference to guidance and there are levels of complexity beyond that. A fire risk assessment, like most professional activities, more often than not, falls into the former category.
But you have to know what you're doing. And we all have to learn. So a template can be a useful learning tool. Once you know what you're doing, chuck it away.
".........significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN........".
This is the gov seeing the situation through those rose tinted glasses again where it's expectation seems to be that every business in the country has abided by the law over the years and already provided the adequate means of escape etc etc. being the fine upstanding law abiding business community it is.
Would a significent finding of "have beens" be that the multi storey premises has been provided with a stairway? ::) It is afterall essential for means of escape and would be quite a significent finding of what has been provided.
I'm not convinced that you're looking at this the right way, NT. In answer to your final question, yes, this is a significant finding but, I would judge, one that is so obvious as to forgo the requirement of a mention. What should be mentioned would include the presence of further staircases or a fire detection and warning system or emergency lighting or limited travel distances or fire resistance or management procedures, etc. All positive things. The idea, as I know you know, is that the things already present are complemented by the further things that need to be done so that, on completion, the building is safe. All the fire safety features that are required in the building, whether already present or not are significant findings. And all should be recorded.
If a building has a mezzanine floor, say, where some people work permanently and the public occasionally resort to and it has no protected route off, but it has been judged safe by the fire risk assessor because of certain fire safety provisions (maybe good detection, management and limited distances, for example) then how does an auditor know that it is safe unless the fire risk assessor has recorded the good fire safety features as significant findings. The same is true for simpler situations were buildings have positive features that make them safe such as limited travel distances and alarm systems, etc. All are significant findings. If you don't record them then how can anyone follow your train of thought about overall safety in the building?
Stu
-
Naturally Pheonix. The point I was trying to make albeit badly was that we should expect a level of competancy of IOs that we should not have to write a book explaining every detail nor have to teach many inexperienced IOs on site the principles of fire safety.
I don't think we should have to put a lot of time and effort into describing a building in micro detail to pad out an assessment when, during an audit, they will be standing in the middle of it, other than that which would be relevant to support an alternative means of compliance.
-
Ah yes, NT. That would be an ideal world. But it would only work if all fire safety judgements could be shown to be objective and rational. There is currently much subjectivity and, as I think you were illustrating, much incompetence in the fire safety world and I can't see it changing. Hence there is often a need to explain the reasoning behind judgements. And I would guess that that is why Article 9(7) is the way it is.
Stu
-
I can understand it would be difficult to have a standard means of conducting a FRA but I cannot see why the objections to a standard reporting format. It would make it easier for others including the auditors to understand the findings of the risk assessment I see it for their benefit not the risk assessor.
-
As an auditor I like PAS 79 it makes my job easier, but not if you just tick the boxes I would like to see something in the comments!
However, the best risk assessments I have seen use a narrative approach and if I was doing fire risk assessments for a living it is the narrative approach I would use.
Whilst we can`t and shouldn't be prescriptive on the way we expect the assessment to be documented there are items that need to be included for it to be suitable and sufficient.
-
I agree with you DD and I would get rid of all the tick boxes and use a narrative format only. I would probably include a plan but it could be a good starting point after putting it out for comments.
-
It just goes to show there's no pleasing everybody. I prefer a narrative report because it gives me freedom to balance all factors together that contribute to the fire safety in the building. But I find many fire enforcement officers who say they haven't got time to read narrative reports and would prefer the simple summary typical of the formats within the fire safety guidance.
Some are driven by the need to fill in their own audit form and simply want to transfer the information across from the fire risk assessment report into their own report as easily and quickly as possible.
It's always a delight to meet la creme de la creme of the enforcement team who take the time to read the report, walk the floor and discuss the findings.
-
Generally agree with the above, I follow the five steps format, narrative, as I hate ticky boxes.
However, for large premises narrative is far better providing there is an easy summary for the Management ::)
davo
-
It still seems to come round to the horses for courses and the competence (or lack of it) of the Inspecting Officers. For a simple premise such as a small shop then the ticky box will probably surfice as long as there is a narrative element where required. However if it is a large premise there is no way the ticky box can cope and a narrative approach is the only way.
I also think that the inclusion of photographs is a must, at whatever level. A general view of the front of the place to prove you are all talking about the same place and then pictures of the relevant findings.
-
It just goes to show there's no pleasing everybody. I prefer a narrative report because it gives me freedom to balance all factors together that contribute to the fire safety in the building. But I find many fire enforcement officers who say they haven't got time to read narrative reports and would prefer the simple summary typical of the formats within the fire safety guidance.
Some are driven by the need to fill in their own audit form and simply want to transfer the information across from the fire risk assessment report into their own report as easily and quickly as possible.
It's always a delight to meet la creme de la creme of the enforcement team who take the time to read the report, walk the floor and discuss the findings.
Its trying to strike a balance. Overall I think the narrative approach is good, because the assessor is explaining how decisions have been arrived at.
Some of the best assessments I've seen give a quick no nonsene summary of the significant findings atthe beginning of the assessment, which can be quickly and esaily scanned through, but also then have more indepth narrative to support it at the back.
So if I wander how one control measure has been selected i can then actually read the narrative
I still say however that we are looking at this from the wrong direction potentially. I feel we need to address competency to get uniformity and consistence, rather than argue about the quality and format of the assessment.
If you get the competency issue resolved (that applies to assessors and enforcers alike) I think the rest should fall into place.
-
I think there is two issues, first is as you said the need to address competency to get uniformity and consistency. The second is communication, getting the results of an assessment over to others so they fully understand the assessors findings.
What about single line drawings which, I would think, could be beneficial and I know some assessors do use them.
-
Drawings are good Tom I agree with that and I use them. They make things so much easier.I also think Midland would benefit from spelling lessons.
-
Drawings are good I agree. But what if the client has none suitable that you may use? Its simple to draw small buildings where the plans are probably unncessary anyway!
They are of much greater value in complex large buildings but if the RP does not have any or they are inaccurate it is unrealistic to expect a fire risk assessor to commission them from scratch. Plus it hugely slows down the whole process and probably triples the cost if you outsource it.
-
I have found, thus far, that architects who may have been involved in the building at some stage and had put a plan together have been very accommodating regarding the provision of said plans, for free. Very useful.
-
Personally I always do a plan, annotated as per the old cert drawings- it tells the I/O I'm no Rodney ::)
davo
-
I always ask for plans where possible and on simple ones without will hand sketch for reference. makes the survey far easier as I mark up the plans using the old symbols.
Even if they don't get formally drawn up they are always scanned and archived for reference.