Fire Risk Assessment

[natdan]

Hi all,

I have today been working with a housing association in London who asked me to carry out a few FRA for them.  They have had some carried out previously by a "consultant" and the work is nothing short of pathetic.

The brigade have said to them they need to upgrade these assessments as it is unsuitable and insufficient.  I am now working through these but still want the question answering on how they can class something insufficent when there is no set procedure.

I carried some out in Bristol and was told the FRA I had contained to much information and ythey only want a 4 or 5 page report and were not interested in signs and doors.  It seems that every brigade has different opinions and until there are set standards or the risk assessors are regulated are we going to keep having this problem?

I am worried that even though I am accepted by the IFE as competent the brigade will knock my work.  What is it the fire brigade actually want as they are reluctant to tell me anything.

Are there any Safety officers out there who can help me get the balance right of my risk assessments.

[nearlythere]

There is a national standard Natdan.

For fire risk assessments there are five steps that you need to take:
Step 1 Identify potential fire hazards in the workplace.
Step 2 Decide who (eg employees, visitors) might be in danger, in the event of a fire, in the workplace or while trying to escape from it, and note their location.
Step 3 Evaluate the risks arising from the hazards and decide whether your existing fire precautions are adequate or whether more should be done to get rid of the hazard or to control the risks (eg by improving the fire precautions).
Step 4 Record your findings and details of the action you took as a result. Tell your employees about your findings.
Step 5 Keep the assessment under review and revise it when necessary.

[torchy]

The problem of getting the balance right is a common one and brigades do vary widely in their views.  All risk assessments need to be 'suitable and sufficient'  therefore the detail in simple premises will not be the same as on those which are more complex.  The problem is made more difficult (or clearer according to your view) by the Department for the Communities and Local Government which as you probably know publish guidelines in respect of many different descriptions of property and describle the process of risk assessment.  Whilst this is very useful I still find that FRSs still place different interpretations on fire safety requirements.

There is also a publication by the BSI called PAS 79 which I have never seen but which also gives definitive advice on this subject.  Finally as if matters are not complicated enough the local authorities and Cheif Fire Officers have published the LACORS guide for private rented accommodation which again adds its own interpretation.  Finally I think you can only set a standard that seems to you appropriate for the building and be prepared to negotiate with the local FRS until they all agree on a common standard.

[Steven N]

As you can see I'm from one of the areas mentioned in Natdans original thread.
Without knowing who said what or where or in what context I can't comment on what an I/O in my area may have said on doors and signage.
However I feel Nearlythere's post sums up what we are looking for.
To comment on R/A length is misleading, each premises is individual, therefore the R/A will reflect that premises, some will be a page or two some will run to many pages.
As to what we want? A FRA that accuarately reflects the premises.

[nearlythere]

You have to remember that on the odd occasion you could be dealing with someone with a limited concentration span and any reading requiring a period in excess of 2-3 minutes should be avoided. 

[natdan]

If someone cannot be bothered reading the Fire Risk Assessmnt because they have a limited concentration level should they be reading the FRA in the first instance?

Also how can a building have it's fire risk fully assessed in 2 or 3 pages when you are dealing with sleeping accomodation? Some fire risk assessments are criminal and the more this gets regulated the better.  I also believe the worst culprits are ex fire fighters (not fire safety officers) trying to cash in quick on legistlation.

The thread was basically raised to question the safety officers.  Would you believe the safety officers who are regulating the FRA and auditing the buildings would look to approve a FRA because it was done by an ex fire fighter rather than a fire engineer?

[AnthonyB]

If an FRS inspector told me an FRA contained too much info I'd tell them where to go (politely)- it's none of their business as long as it's sufficient and doesn't miss anything significant. I find it hard to believe they aren't interested in signs and doors - a bit hypocritical seeing as the certificates they were drawing and inspecting against had lots of signs and doors detailed on them and many notices I've seen focused on those very issues.

Enforcement in some areas seems to be a joke and there is no consistency - you get both extremes of IO just as you do fire consultant - some who would pass the Triangle Shirt waist factory as OK and others wanting the proverbial moon on a stick.

[Steven N]

If someone cannot be bothered reading the Fire Risk Assessmnt because they have a limited concentration level should they be reading the FRA in the first instance?

Also how can a building have it's fire risk fully assessed in 2 or 3 pages when you are dealing with sleeping accomodation? Some fire risk assessments are criminal and the more this gets regulated the better.  I also believe the worst culprits are ex fire fighters (not fire safety officers) trying to cash in quick on legistlation.

The thread was basically raised to question the safety officers.  Would you believe the safety officers who are regulating the FRA and auditing the buildings would look to approve a FRA because it was done by an ex fire fighter rather than a fire engineer?

Point 1-no of course not however a cheap shot remark like that isnt really worth spending anymore time on.
Point 2-I refer you to my previous post, each premises is individual, a sleeping risk should of course be a lot more detailed than a local corner shop.
Point 3-you may be right on ex-firefighters cashing in but we have seen poor FRA presented by all sorts of people including people with fire engineering degrees.
Point 4-again another cheap shot that in our service area is simply not the case.

[natdan]

Not a cheap shot I am just getting confused over what I/O are wanting and the impression I get is "jobs for the boys" and I am a little angry with this. 

Regarding FRA being done poor I have seen in London the standard compared to other areas and these were carried out by consultants claiming to be GIFireE standard. 

Sorry if I have offended but I have been in conversation with some consultants and they feel they are being pushed out by I/O looking to prefer ex serving fire fighters.

There is a massive difference in a safety officer to a fire fighter as you no far more than me and I just feel as a fire engineer I am not getting the respect I deserve as these retired ex fire fighters are cashing in on the RRO.

[Steven N]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just look at the quality of the work in front of me. There are a lot of underqualified people from many walks of the fire & related industries who think moving into FRA's is an easy little sideline, its the clients choice which tender they take.
I'm not offended by the way, just saddened that you really think that we would ok a poor FRA just because an ex FF did it.

[Midland Retty]

I can understand why people might be concerned about the existence of an "old boys club" where Fire Inspectors give special treatment to, or are more leniant with,  ex-firefighters working as risk assessors.

To be completely honest I tend to switch off when risk assessors  purposely tell me " Im an ex firefighter you know" or "I was in the job 30 years Sonny" as if to suggest that might get them special treatment from me. There is a difference between general reminiscing about time spent in the brigade, and purposely directed comments designed to garner favourable treatment.

Fortunately I don't come across many ex firefighters or fire safety officers who are like that. And they wouldnt be given any additional or special treatment either.


Back to the main point, as Nearythere and Stevo point out, a fire inspector is looking for a FRA that accurately reflects the building. 

Im always conscious of  not taking up too much of an RP's time during an inspection - Im always wary they have a business to run and maybe extremely busy. A well indexed FRA helps me quickly get to the bits of information I want to see.

Ive seen a lot of assessments which are hundreds of pages thick, but actually contain very little relevant meaningful content - one I looked at for a care home had a section that described the Regulatory Reform Order for the client in great detail, and another slarge section largely cut and pasted from other documents about fire safety signage. The actual risk assessment however was only four pages long!

It just seemed as though the assessor thought to himself " If the fire officer sees a big document he will assume we have done a thorough job - he wont want tro trawl through all of that"

So there are good and bad inspectors, assessors and consultants, some who flannel, some after a quick buck, and equally those who do a good and thorough job. It is Im afraid quite a minefiled.

[colin todd]

Monsignor Retty, Are you trying to say that our special entente cordial is born out of anything other than the days we spent on nights at Solihull, when I did the double declutching and you put the pennies in the phone box to send back the stop message.

[Midland Retty]

Ahhh Cardinal Todd what memories!... Of course back in those days Solihull was a very old fashioned inner city station. I recall how you once attempted to double declutch the horse who used to pull our pump ...twas most unfortunate that the RSPCA had to get involved... luckily the Inspector eventually saw the funny side of it.

[BLEVE]

Newbie here and sorry to butt in,
I have been frequently asked to review and revise FRA's that were cobbled together by others. My biggest gripe is that many of these individuals do not have a clue of first principles, basic fire dynamics, building construction etc. I have seen FRA failing to consider the effects of a 1 mm gap in cold brush type smoke seals or failing to consider the absence of insulative properties of old georgian wired glass doors. Many Fire Risk Assessors fail to recognise that they dont know what the dont know.

It is interteresting to note the consideration by authorities on the application of articles 5 and 32 of the RR(FS)O and it is only a matter of time until a rogue/cowboy FRA finds themselves in a spot of bother.
 

[kurnal]

Newbie here and sorry to butt in,

Bleve you are very welcome and we are very interested to hear your opinions. The forum has been getting a bit stale of late and new members bring a breath of fresh air.