Author Topic: Fire risk Assessment  (Read 26085 times)

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Fire risk Assessment
« on: May 02, 2008, 10:47:38 AM »
Are the five steps you need to take to carry out a fire risk assessment, as detailed in the DCLG Guides Part 1, an acceptable procedure to conduct a fire risk assessment or are there any flaws.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2008, 11:55:10 AM »
Always flaws, but it is the basis of things than can be done.  That nice Mr Todd uses 9 steps but adds as some of the steps the address and building dimensions.  There are 8 steps in BS 8800 which is another RA methodology.  For me the most important part is the outcome based action plan solutions with choices for the RP to consider.  Matrix based solutions with prose work best as it is easily viewed for current and then residual risk.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2008, 02:49:56 PM »
What a fire risk assessment shouldn't be, but often is, is just a collection of hazards and risks e.g smoking materials, extension leads, cooking, etc. and then a list of measures in place. There are many people out there, some of them fire consultants who produce just that.

You need to look at the hazards and risks within the building i.e. ignition sources, fuels, work processes, structural hazards. This tells you what type of fire you will have in terms of size and rate of growth.

When you know what fire you WILL have, you can now assess the existing provisions together with the expected reactions of the occupants to determine if everything is ok or if more needs to be done. i.e. will everyone get out before conditions become untenable.

Note I say the fire you WILL have, please don't try and do clever sums to prove that a fire is so unlikely that you don't need to bother doing anything.

It really is as simple as that, but to do that simple task you need to know, how fires start & develop, how buildings perform in a  fire, how people react in fire and how buildings should be designed for giving warning and providing a safe route out. The level of that knowledge being proprtionate to the complexity of the building being assessed.

You can use the five step method, Toddys nine step method(which really is the same as the five steps) in fact any thing that does the job.

No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2008, 09:32:10 AM »
Quote from: PhilB
What a fire risk assessment shouldn't be, but often is, is just a collection of hazards and risks e.g smoking materials, extension leads, cooking, etc. and then a list of measures in place. There are many people out there, some of them fire consultants who produce just that.

You need to look at the hazards and risks within the building i.e. ignition sources, fuels, work processes, structural hazards. This tells you what type of fire you will have in termes of size and rate of growth.

When you know what fire you WILL have, you can now assess the existing provisions together with the expected reactions of the occupants to determine if everything is ok or if more needs to be done. i.e. will everyone get out before conditions become untenable.

Note I say the fire you WILL have, please don't try and do clever sums to prove that a fire is so unlikely that you don't need to bother doing anything.

It really is is simple as that, but to do that simple task you need to know, how fires start & develop, how buildings perform in a  fire, how people react in fire and how buildings should be designed for giving warning and providing a safe route out. The level of that knowledge being proprtionate to the complexity of the building being assessed.

You can use the five step method, Toddys nine step method(which really is the same as the five steps) in fact any thing that does the job.

No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
Totally agree PhilB. When I was a game keeper I was amazed at the poor quality of RAs I encountered. Many seemed to be very generic when it came to the Control Measures. For the money being charged it was and probably still is, in many cases, a complete rip off. I sometimes wonder if RAers talk to their clients about how a premises operate and the attitude of staff to fire safety.
 
There is absolutely no point in making general statements in a risk assessment regarding fire doors having to be able to close automatically at all times when in reality normal traffic doors will be wedged open. I can just imagine that on the morning of the visit to carry out the survey, the owner scurrying around putting extinguishers back on their hooks and  lifting wedges off the floor at practically every busy doorway.

Now as a so called poacher, I have RAed a few Residential Homes and know all too well from experience, for example, that if you have a kitchen and dining room seperated by a fire door you can be as sure as Boris Johnston becoming Mayor of London that the door will be wedged open for any number of valid reasons. I would always strongly recommend to the occupiers, during a survey, the benefits of a hold open device as a control measure because then I and they know that, if properly fitted, the door is more likely to close in the event of a fire than if it was wedged open.

I hope that, because I get good money for my Risk Assessments, my clients see they are getting good practical advice.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Clevelandfire

  • Guest
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2008, 11:36:51 AM »
Quote from: PhilB
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
But thats the problem PhilB - many people dont know how a fire will develop or how the building will react.

We're pushing the risk assessment message nationwide, saying its now down to the RP but often they arent competent, and dont know where to get good training.

I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.

Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.

So who is an expert? Fire Research Scientists? Senior Fire Officers? A fire risk assessor? Inspecting officers?

Are we saying that all fire risk assessors / consultants / RPs and IO's should have degrees in fire engineering or fire safety? (im not being sarcastic Im genuinely asking the question) bearing in mind an RP will probably apprach a consultant who might not have those qualifications to assist them.

Personally I place more importance on understanding fire precautions and what they do. The fact someone has identified a hazard and the risk it poses is a good start, also listing the existing and required precautions to minimise that risk is also good and we shouldnt knock it.

If i go into your offices now PhilB ill have a general appreciation of how a fire might develop (simple office environment, electrics, paper, etc etc).

If I go to Joe Bloggs furniture Polish factory who use weird and wonderful chemicals, and materials I will have less of an appreciation of what might occur. Is it explosive? is it highly flammable? will explode in a fireball and the quickly burn out? will the material support a prolonged steady growth pattern?

The fact is we cant know every last detail about how every single material will react in fire.

What we can have though is an in depth knowledge of is the basic principles of fire, coupled to a sound knowledge of how fire precautions work.

To me if you have to worry about structural integrity for life safety purposes then there is something very wrong with the building!

If the building wont hold up in the time it takes to evacuate then its alarm bells time. For me you should be competent to know when your skills render you incompetent.

The true answer is that everyone has a different idea of what a risk assessment should be. Ideas vary from consutlant to consultant , from assessor to assesor, inspecting officer to inspecting officer and its back to that oild shiney chesnut of that unless you have prescription you will never have consistency.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2008, 12:27:34 PM »
Quote from: Clevelandfire
Quote from: PhilB
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
But thats the problem PhilB - many people dont know how a fire will develop or how the building will react.

We're pushing the risk assessment message nationwide, saying its now down to the RP but often they arent competent, and dont know where to get good training.

I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.

Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.

So who is an expert? Fire Research Scientists? Senior Fire Officers? A fire risk assessor? Inspecting officers?

Are we saying that all fire risk assessors / consultants / RPs and IO's should have degrees in fire engineering or fire safety? (im not being sarcastic Im genuinely asking the question) bearing in mind an RP will probably apprach a consultant who might not have those qualifications to assist them.

Personally I place more importance on understanding fire precautions and what they do. The fact someone has identified a hazard and the risk it poses is a good start, also listing the existing and required precautions to minimise that risk is also good and we shouldnt knock it.

If i go into your offices now PhilB ill have a general appreciation of how a fire might develop (simple office environment, electrics, paper, etc etc).

If I go to Joe Bloggs furniture Polish factory who use weird and wonderful chemicals, and materials I will have less of an appreciation of what might occur. Is it explosive? is it highly flammable? will explode in a fireball and the quickly burn out? will the material support a prolonged steady growth pattern?

The fact is we cant know every last detail about how every single material will react in fire.

What we can have though is an in depth knowledge of is the basic principles of fire, coupled to a sound knowledge of how fire precautions work.

To me if you have to worry about structural integrity for life safety purposes then there is something very wrong with the building!

If the building wont hold up in the time it takes to evacuate then its alarm bells time. For me you should be competent to know when your skills render you incompetent.

The true answer is that everyone has a different idea of what a risk assessment should be. Ideas vary from consutlant to consultant , from assessor to assesor, inspecting officer to inspecting officer and its back to that oild shiney chesnut of that unless you have prescription you will never have consistency.
Must agree here too. Very agreeable today I am.
The RRO is such that, in order not to burden commerce and industry, reasonably intelligent owners and employers should be able to complete a RA to a reasonable standard unassisted. I don't believe that the Government expected them all to be Fire Engineers with a comprehensive knowledge of the burning characteristics of various fuel sources. There is no requirement in ther Order to seek professional advice.
You would be a hell of a clever employer if you had the same level of knowledge of a hairy Inspecting Officer who has spent years gaining experience in identifying fire risks and the lack of Fire Precautions in the workplace.
I think maybe that some are trying to take the RA under RRO business to a level where it was not intended to go.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2008, 01:23:59 PM »
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2008, 06:48:19 PM »
Quote from: Clevelandfire
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.

Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
That's my point Cleveland, whilst working at the FSC we often had delegates attending a fire isk assessment course expecting to be turned into competent risk assessors with no prior knowledge or training.


There are many employers who are sending their employees on 1 or 2 day courses and then expecting them to assess complex buildings. Some as we know give their employees no training yet expect them to carry out fire risk assessments.

When auditing premises I frequently ask " who did this assessment?" and often the response is "I did", next question is what training have you had?, usual response is none!, and often they don't realise that they are not competent.

Fire risk assesssment is a specialist area and should only be undertaken by someone with the requisite knowledge. Don't forget that fire development is only one area of required knowledge. I know of many retired fire-fighters with plenty of operational experience that beleive they are competent to carry out fire risk assessments, of course they're not unless they also know about the general principles of fire safety and areas such as human behaviour.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2008, 06:54:04 PM »
Quote from: nearlythere
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
But the Order requires the RP to take general fire precautions. They are defined in article 4 and include measures to reduce the risk and mitigate the effects of fire.

THe WP Regs only required measures to be taken to evacuate, the Order goes much further. People in the vicinity also need to be taken into account, so you are correct to consider the risk posed by the kerosene in the example you give.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2008, 08:04:53 PM »
Quote from: PhilB
Quote from: nearlythere
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
But the Order requires the RP to take general fire precautions. They are defined in article 4 and include measures to reduce the risk and mitigate the effects of fire.

THe WP Regs only required measures to be taken to evacuate, the Order goes much further. People in the vicinity also need to be taken into account, so you are correct to consider the risk posed by the kerosene in the example you give.
Yes but are the General Fire Precautions not suppose to be taken into account if the lack of them poses a risk to persons.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2008, 11:33:22 PM »
Thank you for your contributions and I agree with most of what you are saying but my interest is which of the methodologies is the most appropriate. I haven’t considered BS 8800 because I cannot afford it.

As a result of your comments I have looked at the DCLG guide plan and the PAS 79 plan more closely. As previously stated the basics appear to be very similar but I would think the methodology in 5 step plan is more suited to person who is familiar with the premises like the RP. The 9 steps plan would be more suited for a stranger to the premises like a fire consultant, mainly because of the order and the additional steps.

I would also imagine you could use either one as a starting point and then modify it to suit your individual working practices. For instance in step one of the nine step plan I would consider producing a single line drawing or sketch to assist me but that could be economically unviable.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Clevelandfire

  • Guest
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2008, 01:05:22 AM »
Quote from: PhilB
Quote from: Clevelandfire
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.

Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
That's my point Cleveland, whilst working at the FSC we often had delegates attending a fire isk assessment course expecting to be turned into competent risk assessors with no prior knowledge or training.


There are many employers who are sending their employees on 1 or 2 day courses and then expecting them to assess complex buildings. Some as we know give their employees no training yet expect them to carry out fire risk assessments.

When auditing premises I frequently ask " who did this assessment?" and often the response is "I did", next question is what training have you had?, usual response is none!, and often they don't realise that they are not competent.

Fire risk assesssment is a specialist area and should only be undertaken by someone with the requisite knowledge. Don't forget that fire development is only one area of required knowledge. I know of many retired fire-fighters with plenty of operational experience that beleive they are competent to carry out fire risk assessments, of course they're not unless they also know about the general principles of fire safety and areas such as human behaviour.
I hear what you are saying and totally agree.

But thats my point completely.... until someone says " you need to have qualifications in  A, B and C to be classed a competent risk assessor" then how can we ever decide who is competent.

Like I say I do agree with you, I just put my point across in a rhetorical sense.

Offline novascot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2008, 10:27:01 PM »
Clevelandfire.

You say you attended a FRA  Course at FSC and didn't cover Fire Behaviour? These Courses must have changed since I was there. Do they not teach BFPEM anymore? There was 2-3 days of Fire Behaviour in that Course. As an aside: The Scottish Building Standards are looking at comparing  BS 7974 and the International Fire Engineering Guide. These are so akin to "The Method". Personally I hope we go down this route. Go to:

http://www.sbsa.gov.uk/archive/comparisonbs7974andInternfireenginguide.htm

Phil, give me a call or PM me. Lost your email addy. Thanks.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2008, 09:05:44 AM »
Quote from: novascot
Clevelandfire.

You say you attended a FRA  Course at FSC and didn't cover Fire Behaviour? These Courses must have changed since I was there. Do they not teach BFPEM anymore? http://www.sbsa.gov.uk/archive/comparisonbs7974andInternfireenginguide.htm
No Dennis

The risk assessemnt course dealt with carrying out and auditing FRAs. Not to any one methodology because enforcers need to be able to audit any methodology. That's why I've never understood the logic of FRS doing a PAS79 Course.

I'm not a great fan of BFPM, it's ok for property protection but not very good for life safety, in my opinion.

But as a way of justifying what measures you have or are going to take it is ok.

It doesn't matter what methodology you use, what is important is that the final document records all the information that is prescribed in the legislation. Most FRAs that I see don't do that.

Offline novascot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Fire risk Assessment
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2008, 12:40:55 PM »
Hello Phil,

I know of your misgivings re BFPEM but it is more than a tool for property protection.

You can use the time line to guesstimate where people (given their mobility etc) will be at any given stage of a typical modelled room fire.
The probibility of this fire leaving the room of origin etc.

From this the tenibility levels can be set. Using the L curve for Life Safety. To some extent BS 7974 and DD 9999 assume similar criteria. ie height of ceiling can determine longer TD etc.

It cannot be used alone in determining the safety of occupants in a fire situation but it is a great tool when used with other ways of conducting an FRA.

I feel saddened if it is no longer being taught at the FSC. A great opportunity for Local Authority FSO's to have a more rounded approach to the subject. Although their words say they are not being prescriptive, their actions and demeanor says otherwise.

Perhaps a lack of knowledge with a safety net of appendixes containing benchmark standards.