Risk Assessment or not

[BHCC]

Morning all

I am hoping someone will be able to help me out.

I am working on a project for a school which caters for boys who do not fit in to mainstream education ( the naughty ones!). A new fire alarm system is required and I am going to recommend an L1 (sort of, I will explain).

At present the alarm is activated on a daily basis by one of the pupils via a breakglass callpoint. (this will always happen due to the nature of the pupils)

I have risk assessed this and concluded that not having callpoints is safer than having them. This is due to the fact that everyone in the school assumes that it is a false alarm every time it is activated. By not having them but having detection to the standard of an L1, it will reduce activations, thus changing everyones assumption.

I have recommended callpoints in staff only areas.

The problem I am having is convincing the consultant who carries out our FRA's and the Fire Alarm company that is this is acceptable. Has anyone come across this before?

Thanks in advance

Mark

[nearlythere]

This is the whole point of a RA. Assessing specific problems and coming up with a reasonable and workable  resolution. It may not please those who cannot think outside the circle but what the heck are you suppose to do.
First and foremost, if not already done, you should risk assess the individual because that is what he/she is. You can contact your Fire & Rescue Service. It may have an initiative running which could give you some help.
Keep posting.

[Les Potter(elementalfire)]

I have risk assessed this and concluded that not having callpoints is safer than having them.  


The problem I am having is convincing the consultant who carries out our FRA's and the Fire Alarm company that is this is acceptable. Has anyone come across this before?




Mark

one aspect of the fire risk assessment is to apportion blame, as in; In the event of a fire on the premises, who is to blame for the injury or even death of people in that fire?

1. if the fire risk assessor carries out his/her assessment and deems through the assessment process that your property need to have calls points located in specific locations, and these are located in the positions by you, yet in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate. the assessor would be personally to blame.

2. if the fire risk assessor carries out his/her assessment and deems through the assessment process that your property needs to have calls points, and recommends that further advice on their location is sought from a proffessional fire alarm company who install the call points where they advice they should go, yet in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate. the fire company would be personally to blame.

3. if you deem through your own interpretation that risk assessment; the risk is far more exceptable NOT to have any call points on the premises or to limit or reduce the numbers an locations of the call points,that too is fine. YET in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate, the question will be asked.

was a fire risk assessment carried out by a compitent person on this premises? A: Yes
was a proffessional fire alarm company involved in the advice process? A: Yes
was the advice given by the risk assessor and the fire alarm company followed A: No

who made the decision not the follow the proffessional advice given? A: Mark
Mark is personally to blame for the injuries and or even death of those on the premises at the time of the fire.

Note: Personally responsible..........

to put it bluntly, you can do what you want.... no one can tell you differently, but your decision is persnonal and if anyone is harmed the liability is personal too. you will  possibly have no protection from the company you work for...  i am sure ( correct me if im wrong please )  if some one dies in a fire that the highest level of this is corporate manslaughter, which carries a long term prison sentence.

[kurnal]

I would ask the following question- who is likely to need to use the break glass call point if there is a fire?
I think every building needs a means of manually raising the alarm of fire and have recommended key or fob  operated call points in similar establishments  for use by staff only.

This is a common problem in secure environments, and the usual additional problem is security locks and exit doors.
Usually in these places the students are supervised very closely and there are lots of staff close by at all times. If so there should be no need for a student to have any need to raise the alarm. Usually visitors are restricted to certain areas.

The Health Care Commission, fire authorities and   CSCI have all endorsed such arrangements in the past.

[John Webb]

I assume the pupil operates the call point to see everyone 'panic' and so disrupt the lessons. Provided detection is provided to give warning of a fire without delay, is it possible to put the call-points in 'public' places on a time-delay with discrete staff alert? This will remove the immediate disruption element and is acceptable practice of long standing.
The only problem I can forsee with this is that the pupil concerned might turn to actual arson to cause disruption instead! Hence the comment by nearlythere in post #2 may be applicable.

[CivvyFSO]

Get your moneys worth out of your risk assessor. Get him to do his job and actually assess the risks of altering the system as mentioned, instead of just saying he doesn't approve.

The decision rests ultimately with the responsible person, regardless of the views of the risk assessor.

Has anyone come across this before?

Yes. In almost every pub and nightclub in the country. Call points tend to be behind the bar so only staff can operate them. Not much different to your scenario. You have naughty boys, pubs have drunk adults.

[messy]

I agree with Kurnal's key operated MCPs in 'problem' areas. It's easy to justify to over zealous IOs as it's acceptable practice in environments as mentioned in Kurnals post.

As for time delay MCPs - I only know one such location (In tube stations on the London Underground) where such a system has been developed, as evacuating 1000s from a tube station can be very dodgy. So with few precedents, and in a building with vulnerable children (& perhaps high arson potential) would you be able to justify this system?

[Steven N]

If the risk assessment does justify having MCP,s although with an appropriate level of detection that is a matter to debate anyway, why not fit covers over them with an alarm which goes a long way towards stopping the casual breakage?

[Dragonmaster]

Picking up on Stevo's post, the covers go by the name of 'Stoppers' - a quick google will put you on the right track.

I would never just accept detection without having a means of raising the alarm. What if a fire starts in the kitchen covered by heat detection. Anyone seeing the fire has now got to wait until the conditions are right for the detector to operate, with the subsequent delays in evacuation. I'm sure some of us have come across detectors that we thought should have operated in a fire but didn't!

[wee brian]

I've done this before in other premises.

You can always stick MCPs in places where little johny cant go - staff room - School office perhaps. You could also give teahcers a radio linked panic button type thing.

An MCP in you pocket?

[slubberdegullion]

You could also give teachers a radio linked panic button type thing.

An MCP in you pocket?

Just don't let the problem kid nick it!

[nearlythere]

I have risk assessed this and concluded that not having callpoints is safer than having them.  


The problem I am having is convincing the consultant who carries out our FRA's and the Fire Alarm company that is this is acceptable. Has anyone come across this before?




Mark

one aspect of the fire risk assessment is to apportion blame, as in; In the event of a fire on the premises, who is to blame for the injury or even death of people in that fire?

1. if the fire risk assessor carries out his/her assessment and deems through the assessment process that your property need to have calls points located in specific locations, and these are located in the positions by you, yet in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate. the assessor would be personally to blame.

2. if the fire risk assessor carries out his/her assessment and deems through the assessment process that your property needs to have calls points, and recommends that further advice on their location is sought from a proffessional fire alarm company who install the call points where they advice they should go, yet in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate. the fire company would be personally to blame.

3. if you deem through your own interpretation that risk assessment; the risk is far more exceptable NOT to have any call points on the premises or to limit or reduce the numbers an locations of the call points,that too is fine. YET in the event of a fire the investigation could prove that the system was inadiquate, the question will be asked.

was a fire risk assessment carried out by a compitent person on this premises? A: Yes
was a proffessional fire alarm company involved in the advice process? A: Yes
was the advice given by the risk assessor and the fire alarm company followed A: No

who made the decision not the follow the proffessional advice given? A: Mark
Mark is personally to blame for the injuries and or even death of those on the premises at the time of the fire.

Note: Personally responsible..........

to put it bluntly, you can do what you want.... no one can tell you differently, but your decision is persnonal and if anyone is harmed the liability is personal too. you will  possibly have no protection from the company you work for...  i am sure ( correct me if im wrong please )  if some one dies in a fire that the highest level of this is corporate manslaughter, which carries a long term prison sentence.

Les
You forgot to include the question:-

Did the Risk Assessor carry out a proper risk assessment taking into consideration the specific problem with the missuse of the fire alarm system by persons with behavioural problems which, could lead to a cry wolf situation where the safety of other occupants is put at risk, and did the Fire Alarm company acknowledge that a problem existed but did not have the foresight to help address the uniqueness of the situation by making a positive and constructive contribution to the issue, when all was needed was a commonsence approach? A No.

[Midland Retty]

The siting of Call points in staff controlled areas is a bit of a grey area

Yes they are accepted in licensed premises such as pubs and clubs but only becuase the bar is normally always staffed and the staff can see the majority of the public area at all times and thus see fire developing quickly.

That would be much more difficult in the school. What if a fire blocks the route to the staff room where the call point is?
And besides that what would be the time factor in getting to the staffroom to raise the alarm?

Here is my suggestion and something i saw once employed at a bail hostel with similar problems.

Have the call points either disguised as something else (ie light switches as after all call points are essentially just switches) or covered with security covers or operated by key.

In the case of disguised call points the staff were trained to know where the switches were, and how they were operated so that if a problem occured they evacuated the class and hit a call point on way out.

Eitherway I do see your dilema, can the call points be removed? I have got to say it doesn't rest easy with me, but as pointed out continuos false alarms do cause a lot of fuss and of complacency!

[nearlythere]

The siting of Call points in staff controlled areas is a bit of a grey area

Yes they are accepted in licensed premises such as pubs and clubs but only becuase the bar is normally always staffed and the staff can see the majority of the public area at all times and thus see fire developing quickly.

That would be much more difficult in the school. What if a fire blocks the route to the staff room where the call point is?
And besides that what would be the time factor in getting to the staffroom to raise the alarm?

Here is my suggestion and something i saw once employed at a bail hostel with similar problems.

Have the call points either disguised as something else (ie light switches as after all call points are essentially just switches) or covered with security covers or operated by key.

In the case of disguised call points the staff were trained to know where the switches were, and how they were operated so that if a problem occured they evacuated the class and hit a call point on way out.

Eitherway I do see your dilema, can the call points be removed? I have got to say it doesn't rest easy with me, but as pointed out continuos false alarms do cause a lot of fuss and of complacency!

Would the occupants of a bail hostel not be there on a much shorter term basis than a pupil in a school and therefore possibly not long enough to realise the absence of an obvious call point and that it is disguised as something else?

[Rosjes]

We maintain a mainstream school where malicious false alarms were a regular occurrence (especially during exams period). Now call points can be delayed by up to 90 seconds by the system user invokeing the "delayed" function. Members of staff are alerted immediately via a network of panels and 6 alphanumeric pagers with device text location of the call point activation. The procedure in the event of an activation is to liaise via radio with one staff member at a panel guideing others to the potential problem. I know that this is not an ideal situation but I think demonstrates a responsible, risk assessed approach.