FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: cbfire999 on February 09, 2006, 08:42:22 AM
-
I am looking to carry out a fire risk assessment for a friend of mine. I have a fire background and was wondering if anyone can tell me whether PAS 79 would help me. Furthermore, if it is beneficial, would it cover the requirements of the forthcoming RRO?
Your views would be appreciated. Thanks.
-
PAS79 provides a framework for carrying out a risk assessment that may produce a suitable & sufficient result. What concerns me slightly is that you say you have a fire background, what does that mean?
There are many retired members of FRS that think the fact that they have riden on a red lorry deems them competent to assess premises for fire safety, some are, some clearly are not. I have seen risk assessments that have been produced by retired fire safety officers that scare the hell out of me, but I scare easily! Not that I'm suggesting you're incompetent, just making a point that may start some discussion.
There are many frameworks, methodologies, templates etc. out there some are better than others. Some are very poor and in my opinion are not suitable or sufficient.
Any method used is only as good as the person using it. PAS79, in my opinion, would meet the needs of the RRFSO provided the assessor is a suitably competent person. Mr Todd does point this out in the document.
I do hoewever believe that there are better methods out there.
-
Why Phil, thank you for your reply. I must say that I have also seen some assessments carried out by retired and dare I say it serving Firemen that are extremely poor. Likewise, I have seen assessments carried out by so called Fire Consultants that are just as shoddy, if not worse!
I have read on a number of posts, individuals having a dig at retired Fiermen carrying out Risk Assessments and I guess that you will not be the last! Maybe, just maybe those that take these cheap shots were unable to pass the required aptitude tests!!
For the record, I do class myself as competent to carry out this line of work. The reason for the enquiry was purely to find a suitable framework that would be sufficient and more importantly, legally binding. What I am keen to avoid is to "cut and paste" documents from the bigger companies for which I have worked.
Your "expert knowledge" rather than sarcasm would be appreciated! Thanks. Mind you, having read this forum for a number of months now, I guess the sarcasm is what keeps me coming back!!
-
Its a tangled web we weave.
There are so many different messages coming out of the government, national bodies and other vested interests.
For example the government are very keen not to be seen to be increasing the burden on industry so take a very low key- suggesting that for most, straightforward premises almost any employee with a modicum of sense and knowledge and armed with the guidance can make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk.
Those who remember the damp squib of the workplace regs launch will probably have seen all the signs before!
But on the other hand they support the view that anybody who provides a risk assessment service should be accredited through an industry scheme (not yet in place). The Industry bodies then get together (BSI, FPA,IFE,) and they pay another vested interest, a practicioner in the field (albeit with a huge reputation and expertise) to devise such systems and standards by which the rest of us - as competitors- will have to conform if we are to join the club. Its potentially all a bit incestuous in my opinion, with no forum for the rest of the industry to have our say.
Are industry based accreditation schemes really comparable with proper quality management schemes such as ISO 9000? Is there any ongoing audit of quality standards- with for example the IFE approved list?
Such systems really push up overheads - I am just looking at the ISO 9000 system and for my fairly small scale business its likely cost is £6k in the first year.
Whats the outcome of this gulf in standards?
The responsible person of the small to medium size business, who is not quite sure and would like some help from a competent person will be put off by the cost of bringing in an accredited consultant and so will wing it and hope not to get caught out. Theres not much point asking the Brigades for advice- the restrucures and modernisation will have them firmly foocussed on the high risk and community work.
The gulf could easily filled by an experienced competent ex FPO who can offer a competent level of service with minimal overheads, and with the experience and true competence of knowing their own limitations. So from my point of view cbfire- you go for it - your country needs you. PAS79 is an excellent foundation from which to work-
but if you have experience you may not learn a lot new from it.
A final point- my reading of the current situation is that the government, not wishing to be seen to be increasing the burden on industry, is very happy for civil law claims and the insurance industry to carry out the role of enforcement. So the RRO will be a non event from its launch, for most premises enforcement will not be visible and the ultimate burden on industry will be all the greater as the insurance companies insist on risk assessments carried out by themselves or their approved agents.
-
Sorry if my response was taken as sarcasm, it was not intended to be. I should have made the point that I too have seen some assessments carried out by so called consultants and serving fire safety officers that are equally as scary as those from retired fire officers.
PAS79 may suit your needs if you want to pay £100. I can supply you with a suitable template if you prefer, no charge. Once agian the template will only produce a suitable & sufficient assessment if the person using it is competent.
Oh yes I forgot to mention.. I passed those very difficult aptitude tests many moons ago!
-
Thanks to you both for your honest replies.
Phil, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me a template. I realise that at £100 you get what you pay for and I would appreciate any other software/hardware titles that you would suggest to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment. Thanks again.
-
PhilB
If at all possible I would be grateful for a look at your template- I am always interested in comparing approaches and measuring them against the definition of suitable and sufficient- its sometimes quite hard to find a balance between minimum requirements of S&S, providing sufficient background info to the client to enable them to effectively implement the action plan and saving the rain forests!
Currently I tend to use a bespoke report rather than a template, which will include a management summary, a SWOT analysis, identification of the benchmarks used in the assessment and how the premises measures against the benchmark(s) ( hence the SWOT analysis) then the significant findings and the prioritised action plan- with a commentary to accompany each recommendation giving a the reason why the recommendation is made and choice of solutions if possible. Throw in a matrix, some photos and you very quickly have a 60 page document which is often much more than the client wants!
-
Kurnal I have sent you one today. A word of warning a 60 page document with bells whistles photos and a matrix still may not be suitable and sufficient or adequately record the significant findings. Depending of course which definition of significant findings you chose to adopt!
I have seen very complex reports that appear to attempt to bore the person auditing into submission. Not that I'm accusing you of this of course!
-
Thanks very much Phil.
At first glance the plan could cause me a big problem- and there doesn't appear to be any prioritisation of High to low risk.
But I will have a good look at it and respond later
As far as the definition of S&S is concerned then its got to be the management regs for now but anticipating some kind of change in April I rejigged mine to use the RRO definition.
Still cant understand the full implications of article 47 disapplying the Management regs and HASAW S2 though but I guess Im not alone in that .............
-
You're very welcome Kurnal. Plan is not always necessary if you can record the preventitive & protective measures in some other way. In complex buildings a plan is in my opinion the best way. Priority for taking action would be indicated on remedial action plan.
Glad to hear you're using the definintions in ACOP for MHSW Regs. Don't rejig yours to fit in with significant findings as defined in draft guidance!! The delay in implementing RRFSO was partly due to deficiencies with guidance, you may find amended definitions, we can only hope.
No problem with article 47, RRFSO requires suitable & sufficient risk assessment to be carried out and that significant findings are recorded. If guidance provides adequate definitions there will be no problem. If guidance suggests SFs are defects only...well I warned of the consequences of that in this forum a long time ago!!
Let's hope the circular giving guidance soon to be released resolves the matter, but I wouldn't hold your breath!
-
I agree Phil that plans are the best way but only as long as I dont have to draw them.
Most of my clients don't have plans and the economics in the commercial world dont run to it.
Take autocad (£2.5k for the software alone, digitiser, plotter, time....) most clients would not wear the additional costs. The economics are very tight and profit very hard to win.
A picture can paint a thousand words- I cant paint so I have to write.
Thanks for the audit checklist which reinforces my view that whilst the Government are publicly pushing "anybody can do it with the guide", the enforcing authorities will be taking a different view.
for example
"DOES THE ASSESSMENT CONTAIN CONCLUSIONS WITH SUFFICIENT REASONING AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF THE PREMISES CONSIDERING THE EXPECTED FIRE DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING PERFORMANCE & OCCUPANT CHARECTERISTICS I.E TIME Vs TENABILITY? "
HAVE OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS & LIKELY RESPONSE IN AN EMERGENCY BEEN CONSIDERED?
Cant see anyone satisfying these criteria unless they have had the training.
-
Suggestions (no more than that):
- Never produce a fire risk assessment for anyone else, even if they ask you to. Instead, help them do their own, using your advice as input if they consider they require it, but ensure that they know it's THEIR assessment, not yours. This makes it far more likely that they will be used and reviewed. In my experience, risk assessments generated only by consultants and treated as 'library' documents to be kept in the Company Secretary's filing cabinet are next to useless;
- Risk assessment does not mean compliance with standards - it means assessing risk and applying control measures appropriate to the risk. If they have little risk, they require scant control measures - if they have high risk, they may require measures additional to those in the standards;
- Get yourself insurance appropriate to your liability, whether you charge for your services or not (giving advice free does not absolve you of a duty of care).
-
The ODPM produces many fire safety guides at reasonable prices and sometimes free. Why is Pas79 so expensive, around £100 I understand.
-
Two reasons.
Firstly it was produced with British Standards and secondly there was a great deal of input from a very highly qualified and respected company of Fire Conultants who have a part copyright on the document. You get what you pay for.
The other thing about plans is yes they are a good source of reference but they are not required by law. Once you go down the plans route they have to be maintained as an accurate representation of the premises otherwise they are not worth the paper they are written on. Any consultant that produces plans must charge more fore their services. The whole system of RA was designed to reduce the burden on industry, not increase it.
-
The whole system of RA was designed to reduce the burden on industry, not increase it.
Is not charging £100 for Pas 79 puting a burden on industry. Especially the smaller companies considering all the other guidance is at reasonaby cost except when I need to record the significant findings.
-
It would only be aburden if you had to buy it, you don't.
-
Brian
You do not mention whether or not you would part with 100 English/Scottish pounds for this item! The general feeling i am getting is that it is probably worth the outlay but why should one have to pay!! Colin, maybe we could have your view? Sorry to pull you in on this!
-
No because it is not compulsory. There are ather formats available. It is up to the owner/employer to decide whic one to adopt. It would be very difficult however for a fire authority to challenge a PAS thet the BS and through the BS CFOA have agreed.
-
I think everything should be free and fire fighters should be paid a million pounds a second but perhaps thats unrealistic.
If you want a copy of a book that you think will help your business then buy it. If you are too cheap to buy one (like me) then do without it.
-
if everything was free,we would not need money.
as for a million pound a second-who do you think you are,Bill Gates :D
-
Hello
I have just found this message board and wanted to give members some information about PAS 79 - there seems to be some confusion as to its status and indeed to BSI's status. I Head the 'risk' cluster of sectors at BSI and am the person with responsibilty for PAS 79.
Firstly BSI isn't a government agency - we are similar in status to the BBC (except for no licence fee money!) - we are independent and neutral. We aren't allowed to have shareholders in order to retain our neutrality. We operate under a memorandum of understanding with the government which gives us the unique position of being the UK's national standards body (no-one else can produce a BS). But we have to follow strict rules about the setting up and running of committees and in order for a document to become a 'BS' - full national consultation must take place. The money we make from the sale of standards and other standards supporting products (books, seminars, PAS's) helps cover the cost. As a rough estimate less than 5% of the standards we make come close to covering their costs of development and production, thus the money we make on the others in effect subsidises this activity. Around 15% of our revenue comes from government, usually in the form of money linked to specific actions - we want a standard on XXXX. We are a non-profit distributing organisation - any surplus is put straight back into standards making.
PAS 79 is a kind of pre-standard which we produce in response to market needs. It was clear that this was an area where the benefit of a 'fire risk assessment' which had gone through our reviewing and development process would be helpful. Also the standards making process can sometimes take time to reach agreement - looking at this board for instance it is clear that there are many differing views in this area - producing a PAS means that at least some acceptable guidance is made available quickly. I could comment on how long it has taken the government to produce its guidance but I won't. A PAS differs from a full BS in that it has only 'limited consensus' (those involved are listed in the document). However as with all of our standards we are keen to make sure that it does meet your needs and so it is an evolving document. With that in mind BSI will be holding an open forum later this year ( I will announce on this board and in all the main fire magazines) to receive feedback on PAS 79 as it goes into its 2nd year and we start to think about how it might be improved.
I'm sorry that people think 100 pounds is too much - but much as I love standards I do need to pay my rent, the document includes a CD-rom with the pro-forma forms included so that you can re-use. Also it is a lot more than a template - it aims to inform the user how to use the template.
It is also soon to be available from the BSI e-shop (go to bsi-global.com and search on e-shop) to download for only 50 pounds. I'll post when this is sorted.
I hope this has helped - please send me any feedback you have on the document good, bad or ugly as we are only as good as the people that get involved in the standards making!
Nicki
-
I think the BSI is an excellent organisation but because it is commercial its standards are expensive, with plenty of justification. But because of this I cannot see Pas79 becoming a unofficial national standard. But the ODPM because it is totally subsidised by the government it could produce simliar guidence at a resonable price (Guide No 12) and that could become the unofficially national standard.
-
I think we need to remember who PAS 79 is for and because of that I think it is an excellent document. Yes we can moan about bits but we can do that on the free ones as well but as an assessor or auditor the template is good.
-
PhilB, is there any chance i could also see the template for a risk assesment?? my e-mail is c_wilson22@hotmail.com. thanks
-
As the originator of this discussion I feel it only fitting that I post a reply since I have now purchased PAS 79! Thanks for all your views on this matter, they have been most interesting. Now that I have had a chance to flick through the document, I have found it to be very easy to follow and user friendly. Yes, there are a lot of freebies available, but to be honest you get what you pay for in life. A friend once told me "Buy cheap, buy twice"! I believe there to be alot of truth in that statement.