Risk Assessments

[wee brian]

The word comprehensive if the problem here. As soon as you include a list you need to be sure it includes pretty much everything.

The idea behind risk assessment is that you consider all the risks not just those on a given list.

As for the employers guide well the 11 plus guides that are proposed to support the RRO may have something more in them. We will have to wait and see.

[Guest]

1.  The Method promoted by the Fire Service College has little practical application, and cannot be used by the vast majority of employers to satisfy the WFPL. Basically, they backed a loser, assuming that risk assessment was some new art that had to be based on some new, exciting methodology. Virtually every user of this BB can carry out a prefectly adequate FRA, using their existing skill and knowledge and a little thought as to how to document it. Even a reasonable IO from a certain well known metropolitan fire brigade could do it.

2. I would not hold my breath waiting for the ODPM to produce anything definitive in this respect. To do so would (oh dear dear) smack of prescription, and as we all know we can't have that or we would not be seen to be trendy.

3. There is nothing at all wrong with a list Wee B, provided there is flexibility to add to it and it does not become a tramline that people run on. ( I accept that a problem with check lists is that people do become blinkered to anything out side the check list.) BS 8800 actually recommends prompt lists in risk assessments.

4. To help people who have no methodology for carrying out and docmenting FRAs, but have the ability to carry out a FRA, BSI will soon publish a new Publicly Available Specification on this subject, to be published as PAS 999.[/b]

[colin todd]

If our IT support keep losing my passwords, I will soon dislike them as much as a certain large met FB. I meant my name to go with the above message.

[Ken Taylor]

Like it or not, the people who should be doing these risk assessments may not have the time or experience to do justice to the matter or be so 'in the dark' that they decide to do nothing and hope for the best. Others will be blissfully unaware of the need to do anything of this nature. a 'standard' form with sensible questions to be answered, a list of possible risks to be considered, any other significant risks to be added, a requirement for a copy of the fire procedure to be added, names to be supplied, etc might just help.

[Guest]

Most of which will be in PAS 999 when it is published.

[Ken Taylor]

Thanks, Guest. As they say a lot in the USA now: Bring it on - but I hope it will be a bit more widely-publicised, user-friendly and less expensive than much of the BS literature!

[Guest]

With the exception of very few places of work and specifically those that require a fire certificate it should be perfectly acceptable to consider that local authority inspection can be a very satisfactory starting point for acceptance that current provision is wholey adequate for the purposes of the Workplace and Regulatory Reform. The Risk assessment process has just as much right to the statutory bar as anyone else. If Building Surveyors and Fire Safety Officers have not prescribed it under current Building regulations nor Fire Precaution Legislation then we have a right to rely on that for our risk assessment process. We should confine ourselves to the Audit and maintenance of the system and be very alert to any significant change of either Occupant Profile or Purpose or process changes. With all due respect risk assessment is not rocket science and realistically with the exception of a small percentage of workplaces the risk is absolutely minimal.... It is the lack of Fire Safety Management that will significantly increase the risk. This can be adequately checked with check lists and getting people to sign that they are responsible.

[Brian Catton]

We have to be careful relying on the past approval of Fire Safety Officers Building control, or AI'S. I know that all of us are capable of missing things but it is usually an oversight. Some things are missed by, or wrongly prescribed, by enforcement professionals that are clearly based upon a lack of understanding of important fire safety principles.

[Guest]

One of the most important points in carrying out FRA's is the competence of the assessor.
Sadly, many people are carrying FRA's who although claiming to have been in Brigades for 30 or so years have never done a days Fire Safety in their lives. I only hope their insurance is good!
I agree with Colins earlier comments regarding Brigade people. With regard to my own Brigades policy, in future, we aim to only visit if FRA has been carried out although there will of course need to be exceptions to that. We will also be challenging the suitability of the assessment and the assessor where necessary.

[Chris Houston]

I only hope their insurance is good!

Interesting point.  In the case of someone acting as a consultant, obvioulsy they would need professional indemnity insurance.  I wonder how much cover most have........If someone get's it horribly wrong, and there are multiple fatalities, would the consultant get sued?  I suspect the employer would be easier to sue........

In the case of an employee doing the fire safety risk assessment - probably this is more common - then that individual is most unlikely to have, or need, insurance against the risk of being sued, it is the employer who would most likley get it.

Is anyone aware of any prosecutions where risk assessments were not undertaken by competant individuals (I am aware of the manchester school one, but I think it was the failure to provide a satisfactory escape route - this obvioulsy implies a lack of competance, but that wasn't specifically the point.)

[Guest]

This is very much an intresting discussion.

We all know that risk assessments differ from one fire proffessional to the next and  from one lay persons to the next.

If we took 10 people from this discussion board and asked them to do 10 spererate fire risk assessments on one partiular area we'd get 10 different answers and all of them would probably be correct and satisfy the requirements of the FPWP regs.

These are the things I consider most important in a risk assessment:-

1) What fuel sources are there?
2) Whats sources of ignition are there?
3) Are there adequate means to provide warning?
4) Is there are adequate means of escape and are they kept clear?
5) Is there adequate signage
6) Are there less abled persons expected to use this area?

Thats my opinion. Have I covered all the basic fundemental important things?

I would say yes.

YOu can talk about passive fire protection and business continuity but the above IMHO are the real roots of an assessment and so far as anyone answers those questions when doing a risk assessment they are not going far wrong.

Note I did not include in the above "is there sufficient portable fire fighting appliances" Until the day I have been able to get all of our staff trained on fire extinguishers they will never figure in my assessment EVER!

I think extinguishers are counter productive.

All I primarliy want to do is ensure that:-

a) people can be warned of fire
b) people can evacuate quickly and safely

Frankly if the building collapses who cares, so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!

"Ah but then" I hear you say "Most businesses never recover from fire what about your job fire can sometimes mean no job to go back to"

Well thanks to the governments new fire safety reform order I think its going to be easyto find another job - we fire bods are going to be in high demand for some while (I am of course kidding about no caring about not having a job)

Business continuity is important of course it is, but as I say the fundementals are as listed at the top of the page

[Chris Houston]

I think extinguishers are counter productive.

They are a legal requirement, likewise is the need to train peope to use  fire safety equipment.

What should people do when their sole escape route is blocked by fire, when someone's clothes are on fire, or when a waste paper basket catches light - let it grow to take out the whole building?

Essex Fire Brigade told me that 90% of fires are put out before they arrive on scene.  Without fire extinguishers, I am sure we would have many more deaths.

Frankly if the building collapses who cares, so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!

Your insurance company cares.  They probably expect you to take good care of it, and they would probably not want to insure it if you are planning on being so reckless with it.  I'm not suggeting people ought to be putting their safety at risk, but let's not stand back and let the building collapse because we don't feel inclined to save it.

Most organisations, schools, businesses, hospitals will have things that are irreplaceable.  

so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!

If you job is "health and safety" then yes, you may have.  If your job is risk management, fire prevention or baed upon the sucess, reputation or continuance of the organisation then I think you would have not.  

Fire Prevention = preventing fires, surely.

[Guest]

Some good points raised there.. in answer to those comments:-

1) How big a fire do you expect employees to tackle?
2) Does the fact a fire extinguishers is nearby encourage people to tackle fire especially those who havent been trained
3) Extinguishers should protect escape routes only but then escape routes should be kept sterile anyway
4)Even if you train staff to fight fire only the size of a waste bin what is on fire in the bin? Dorris the cleaners drops her empt aerosol can in there thats a very nice little explosion
5) what isthe bin made out of plastic? if so will giev off nasty fumes

So all in all I find extinguishers counter productive.

My comments regarding if i can ensure everyone gets out safely and quickly then Ive done my job still stands

You know yourself you can oput every precaution you like in place but you cant have your eyes everywhere. People prop open fire doors is that my fault?

I once again reiterate in a fire so long as people a warned can escape without being hindered and safely I HAVE done my job.Full stop

[Guest]

And finally ...may I apologise for the grammatical and spelling errors in my previous reply!

Like I say those are my opinions and Im happy to stand up in court and defend myself should anything go wrong

[Chris Houston]

We all have our different opinions on the need for fire extinguishers, but fortunatly the law is quite clear.  You need them.

In terms of what size of fire should be tackled, I would let the employees make their own judgement based upon their training.

If a person is on fire, and this does happen, a fire extinguishser or blanket will be needed.  Likewise if their escape route is blocked.

Extinguishers are not just for the protection of escape routes, the Part 3 of BS 5306 makes this quite clear.

Sufficient numbers of employees should be trained in their use, as per the Workplace Regs.

That the bin may have plastics and is giving off fumes would not change my opinion on the need to put out the fire.  I would expect this would be done fairly rapidly, but again the employee will make this decision based on their training and the circumstances.

Not all buildings have sterile escape routes, in fact many don't.  Not all have compartmentation as per the Building Regs (for example any school that was built before Building Regs applied to schools).  In some buildings a very small fire, left unchecked could grow and then spread before everyone gets out.  Indeed this is what appears to have happened in the two recent prosecutions in Manchester.

I know there is a trend to tell people to ignore fire extinguishers, but they are there for a purpose, they have been successfully used for many years to put out fires.  As Essex Fire Brigades stats. suggest, 90% of fires are put out before the brigade get there, this is many thousands of fires, I am not aware of statistics that suggest there are high numbers of injuries or deaths from people who try to put fires out.

We live in a soceity where employers are trying their best to eliminate all forms of risks, but by stopping people putting out fires, I think we are creating bigger risks.

Are you aparent assumptions that there is anacceptanble risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?

As for attending court, if you are willing to ignore the requirements of the workplace regs, that may just be what you have to do.