Suitability of Fire Risk Assessment

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Enforcement will be mostly applied during inspections and audits of premises, dependant on the outcome of course!

Personally I think it will be difficult for most small /medium businesses to comply as they have no idea about  the fire safety order, yet alone fire risk assessments!

I sincerly hope that the goverment advrtise the fact that businesses will need to comply and that there is a change in legislation coming.

[kurnal]

He also has to do a risk assessment to comply with the relevant statutory provisions of the HASAW Act. There is an Approved Code of Practise to assist him, but the definition of SFs differs!

Phil I am puzzled by this statement. Surely in terms of article 47 the management regs and its ACOP are not relevant in respect of a fire risk assessment?  

"Article 47
Disapplication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to general fire
precautions
47.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(b) and any
regulations made under that Act shall not apply to premises to which this Order applies, in so far
as that Act or any regulations made under it relate to any matter in relation to which requirements
are or could be imposed by or under this Order.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply—
(a) where the enforcing authority is also the enforcing authority within the meaning of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974(c);
(b) in relation to the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999(d)."

If I am right my risk assessments will be much shorter in future.

[PhilB]

Kurnal HASAW Act is only disapplied by article 47 if those matters can be dealt with using the fire safety order. The fire safety order only deals with general fire precautions.

Other safety matters, for example process risks, trips & fall etc. will need to be addressed using the relevant statutory provisions of the HASAW Act.

My point is that there are now two different definitions for significant findings. In my opinion the definition in the new guides is inferior to that given in the ACOP. This was pointed out during the consultation period. Originally they defined SFs as defects only!

They finally agreed that the definition was defective and agreed to amend it, this was one of the reasons for the delay. However rather than use the same definition as the ACOP they have opted for a new definition. That new definition is, in my opinion, poor.

[kurnal]

But Phil the requirement to carry out a fire risk assessment is made under the fire safety order. So the mnagement Regs ACOP does not apply to the  fire risk assessment, which only has to be suitable and sufficient in terms of the more limited  Fire Safety Order definition.

Surely for the purposes of the fire risk assessment the ACOP L21 has no relevance? I agree that it still applies to all those other aspects of the workplace.

[AnthonyB]

however I believe that it can work with a robust enforcement regime does any one know hoe the Fire authorities are prepairing for this? I would be interested to hear about the metro brigades who have struggled with self compliance in the past.

By civilianising fire safety departments, slashing wages and going softly softly - it seems that inspections could be increasingly be post fire reading some prosecution cases in the fire press, except for a few high risk premises

[PhilB]

Surely for the purposes of the fire risk assessment the ACOP L21 has no relevance? I agree that it still applies to all those other aspects of the workplace.

It has no relevance I agree, but it will surely lead to confusion. Why have one definition for significant finding for a risk assessment carried out under the fire safety order and another for HASAW Act.

A cynical person might think that those responsible don't really understand the risk assessment process.

[jokar]

Baldyman,  2 things 1.  The Government have been actively publicising the coming of the RR(FS)O throughout this year and will continue to do so.  FRS's will also have a part to play and will have to give information to the public over the coming months.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse and thats where RISKassessments views about FRS's enforcement regimes come in.  All FRS's will adopt the CFOA model which includes the HSE's Enforcement Mangement Model and the collation of IRMP data.  These forms are quite detailed and will involve a lot of interaction with the RP and FSO's will have to make professional judgements on the quality of a FRA perhaps without an inspection, after all the FRS role is enforcment.  
The 2nd point was about Significant findings.  All things are significant findngs and whether there is a control measure or not.  The preventative bits, policy and procedures is one answer and the protective bits another.  For example with your human factors, dependent on the level of movement for people you may have a FRA that says increase travel distance or decrease travel distance.  The first way could add a further control measure of preventative procedure or policy and the second additioanl passive fire safety.  The guides are exactly that, not words of stone for people to blindly follow, but for consideration, dependent on the circumstances in any one particular set of circumstances.

[Gary Howe]

I have come into this debate a bit late, however I am particulary interested in the definition of 'suitable and sufficient' from a legal point of view. When carrying out a risk assessment identifying the problems is relatively easy for an competent risk assessor, as suitable control measures (ericpd) can be put forward with suitable time scales, however if you find for example that all the escape routes are clear and unobstructed, and you put a yes in a box, how do you prove this in a court of law?

Proving the NO's I would say is the easy bit as they have been identified, and you have backed this up with control measures. But if someone did get injured or hurt in a fire, how do you back up your YES answer, does this mean that anything with a YES answer requires a qualifying paragraph?

And lastly, where does this leave the majority of 'tick box' type FRA's used by a large number of assessors?

Will the judge be able to run rings around the poor old risk assessor as he has no way of proving that a YES answer means anything at all?

P.S, I have never had to sit in a court of law and be grilled by a judge, but I know of people who have and according to them it is not a pleasant expierience!

I would be interested in your feedback on this, as without a doubt, someone somewhere is going to have is FRA closely scruntinised.

[PhilB]

Thats's my point Gary. The ACOP gives excellent definitions of suitable & sufficent and significant findings. The explanation of both those terms in that code of practice includes the requirement that conclusions should be supported by sound reasoning.

Therefore a tick box type risk assessment cannot adequately record the significant findings or be suitable and sufficient. However the guides for the RRFSO do not support that view. This will lead to confusion for enforcers and those who have to comply.

[wee brian]

Its only confusing if you choose to use the ACOP when trying to comply with the Fire Safety Order.

But tha's hardly suprising - its the wrong guide!

[kurnal]

So all this means that under the Fire Safety Order the record of our risk assessment and its outcome can be far inferior to any other type of risk assessment and less thorough than those we produced under the WP regulations. although the process of carrying out the assessment will be similar.
Was this what the Government intended do you think?

[PhilB]

Its only confusing if you choose to use the ACOP when trying to comply with the Fire Safety Order.

But tha's hardly suprising - its the wrong guide!

Until October the ACOP is the guide that anyone who is required to carry out a fire risk assessment should refer to. Without wishing to teach my grandmother or Wee Brian to suck eggs at present the principle fire safety legislation is the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation. That consists of Part 2 of the workplace Regs and certain regulations of MHSW Regs, including Reg 3.1. How therefore can you say the ACOP is the wrong guide!!!!!!!

Some of us have been delivering fire risk assessment training to FSOs, consultants and others for many years. There are two definitions that anyone invlolved in this field must understand; suitable & sufficient and significant findings. In the past I have directed delegates to the ACOP for those definitions.......................I thank Wee Brian for pointing out my error.

Perhaps we should continue to refer to the ACOP until October and then begin using inferior definitions poorly explained in the new guides??   Where is my dear friend Mr Toddd.... he must know the answer!

[Tom Sutton]

Perhaps we should continue to refer to the ACOP until October and then begin using inferior definitions poorly explained in the new guides??

Maybe you should, possible a little tongue in cheek and then move heaven and earth to have the new guides changed if there is a consensus then you should succeed.

I am sure Val who appears to be very informed on the DCLG could give us a suitable contact.

[novascot]

wee brian wrote:That's just honesty.
Nobody actually uses real numbers for Fire Risk Assessments.
Probablistic assessments are specialist stuff.

Agreed Brian. Probabalistic assessments are "specialist stuff" and was/is taught at The FSC and Brigades did not support the courses. Did they think their FSO's were not specialist enough? Have we dumbed down the concept of Fire Risk Assessments? Prob Assessments are still used for business continuity/interuption assessments. The background knowledge is invaluable in "ordinary" FRA's.

Bring back The Method

[wee brian]

I think you may find HSE moving rather than DCLG. HSE are getting worried, quite rightly in my view, that they have created a sea of paperwork rather than a safe workplace.

The new guides are promoting a straightforward apporach to FRA - thats a good thing.

I see no point in using probablistic methods except in very unusual circumstances. There are some methodologies that pretend to offer some numerical analyisis but most of them are just smoke and mirrors.