Hazards, Likelihoods & Risk

[CivvyFSO]

Since we went quite severely off Jaspers original topic, could we continue any discussion on hazard & risk in here?

Kurnal has pointed out, from both the BS and the BS EN on Fire Vocabulary:

3.343
fire hazard
potential for injury and/or damage from fire

3.374
fire risk
product of the probability of occurrence of a fire to be expected in a given technical operation or state, and
the consequence or extent of damage to be expected on the occurrence of a fire (simply put: likelihood x severity)

Looking just at fire risk, as I have said before, just cutting the probability down will very rarely mean that you can reduce any form of protection, so since you are going to protect against it anyway, is lowering the probability just an exercise in futility? (It clearly won't be to insurance companies though) To me it is simple to defend in court, as you would have to prove that people were put at risk of death or serious injury, so providing people can and do get out safely, surely I have fulfilled my duty?

Probabilities do have a place in things, particularly in cause and effect / fault trees, when we are looking at a chain of events/failures causing a problem. But with these we should generally start from the point of actually having a fire, (i.e. The actual probability of having a fire is irrelevant yet again) as we are generally interested in the workings and the outcome from that point onwards. There is also the probability of fire spread, from a point of origin, but again we copnsider the fire as a starting point so its likelihood is irrelevant.

Saying there is no point protecting against the probability is a bit extreme, but I think it raises a question as to whether the RRFSO is truly linked to prevention in the way people think it is, are we preventing the fire or preventing person from harm if there is a fire?

Re: Article 4.

If you read the guidance note it says quite clearly that the article is intended to show the clear difference between precautions due to process risks, and general fire precautions. Article 4 is one of the only times that likelihood is mentioned in the order apart from in reference to explosive atmospheres. In the guidance note the word is linked with consequences, but any need for reduction is always pointing towards reducing the risk.

From the CLG guides;

The aims of the fire risk assessment are:
• To identify the fire hazards.
• To reduce the risk of those hazards causing harm to as low as reasonably
practicable.
• To decide what physical fire precautions and management arrangements are
necessary to ensure the safety of people in your premises if a fire does start.

Everything seems to be worded to avoid directly saying that anyone is expected to lower the actual likelihood of fire.

[nearlythere]

I take your point Civvy but the question is do we assess it as a risk of fire or a risk from fire.  One is fire precautions and the other fire safety.
Perhaps both apply and the employer has a duty to take general fire precautions and protect persons from an outbreak of fire.
The best form of safety is to take precautions to prevent a fire happening but I get your point.
The CLG guidance to the RRO suggests to me that fire precautions and prevention should be a significent factor in assessing fire safety although it does say "......the princples of reduction of risk remain and the overarching objective of the Order is to ensure that relevant persons are safe from fire and enforcing authorities must act towards this objective".
Does that mean we accept the higher risk of fire from poorly maintained equipment so long as we can protect persons from that risk, and if we do the risk is reduced that way?
Think I'm starting to ramble now. Best go cut the grass before the rain comes.

[Midland Retty]

I think the "spirit" of the order is geared toward protecting people from fire, rather than necessarily reducing fire in the first place.

Looking at in reverse, from an enforcing authority's point of view, if our dodgy electrical installation as discussed from Kurnals previous topic, catches fire, but was held back by adequate precautions, allowing people to be warned and make their escape safely, has a serious case offence been committed?

No. So to my mind, Civvy, you are quite correct.

[CivvyFSO]

Think I'm starting to ramble now

Don't we all do that?

Does that mean we accept the higher risk of fire from poorly maintained equipment so long as we can protect persons from that risk, and if we do the risk is reduced that way?

It is a higher probability of fire. But, as Inspectors or risk assessors are we not predominantly looking at it from the point of view of 'if you have a fire'... ? Therefore, if a fire occurs in the poorly maintained equipment it then poses the same risk as a fire in well maintained equipment. So I would say that I agree with what you say and you have to prevent people from coming to harm

FWIW, the CLG guides talk about "preventive measures required by the Order" but I cannot see where the Order strictly tells anyone that they have to prevent fires. It says that where preventive and protective measures are taken they should be in line with certain principles. Of those principles the only one which leans towards reducing the likelihood seems to be "combating the risks at source".

[Hi Tower]

I follow your argument Civvy but consider the following.
If a fire occurs we are reliant on the physical and managerial arrangements being adequate to ensure escape.  How often do we then have to check the managerial and physical arrangements to ensure they are in place as arranged and sufficient to ensure all things work when required.  The greater the risk of fire the more reliant we are on ensuring all things are in place.

Taking a different slant on things - we now have cars that are built with all sorts of gadgets to ensure our safety if involved in an accident - we still however have speed restrictions to reduce the risk of those gadgets needing to be activated.  So hand in hand we get to our desired point of tolerable risk i.e. by reducing the chances of a crash (fire) and then by having gadgets (physical and managerial arrangements) in place to ensure if a crash still occurs we have some cushioning from it.  If you want to go the full hog you buy a Volvo or 4x4!!
To totally rely on one and not the other would give a disproportionate balance to the whole thing - I thinks

[Tom Sutton]

FWIW, the CLG guides talk about "preventive measures required by the Order" but I cannot see where the Order strictly tells anyone that they have to prevent fires. It says that where preventive and protective measures are taken they should be in line with certain principles. Of those principles the only one which leans towards reducing the likelihood seems to be "combating the risks at source".

Duty to take general fire precautions

8. (1) The responsible person must-

(a) take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of any of his employees; and

(b) in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the premises are safe.

also

Meaning of "general fire precautions"

4. (1) In this Order "general fire precautions" in relation to premises means, subject to paragraph (2)-

(a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises;

Doesn't this mean the RP has to conduct an old fashion fire prevention inspection and not to get too deeply involved in the likes of process risk leaving that to the HSE?

[Fishy]

It appears fairly straightforward to me.  Whilst there is different terminology regarding ‘Hazard’, ‘Risk’ and ‘Risk Assessment’  the guidance available tends to agree on one point – (fire) risk is a product of both the probability of a fire happening and the consequences of that fire.

The fire protection that we know and love is almost exclusively aimed at reducing the magnitude of the consequences – hence controlling risk on the assumption that a fire might occur.  Reducing the probability of a fire can also reduce risk – hence legally one must do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce that probability, even if you’re complying with good practice as regards consequence-based risk reduction (e.g. fire protection engineering).  Using the example of PAT for portable kit – it's good industry practice & it manifestly reduces the risk of fire occurring – entirely legitimate therefore (perhaps necessary) to recognise as a fire risk reduction measure and to consider it in the fire risk assessment.
  
The ‘How far do I go’ question can be answered by reference to (and compliance with) relevant good industry practice – if you’re doing that then it’s unlikely (but admittedly not impossible) that you’ll be going far wrong.

[nearlythere]

I think the "spirit" of the order is geared toward protecting people from fire, rather than necessarily reducing fire in the first place.

Looking at in reverse, from an enforcing authority's point of view, if our dodgy electrical installation as discussed from Kurnals previous topic, catches fire, but was held back by adequate precautions, allowing people to be warned and make their escape safely, has a serious case offence been committed?

No. So to my mind, Civvy, you are quite correct.

Think I might have to disagree with your "spirit" approach MR. An underlying factor I believe is that the Gov want the number of fires reduced and want employers and persons with responsibilities to make a significant contribution to achieve this by preventing the outbreak of fire in the first place. If the number of fires is reduced then the level of fire cover can be reduced accordingly. If the level of fire cover can be reduced then the cost to the taxpayer also.
Then the Gov can waste the money saved on uselss projects.

[Midland Retty]

Hi NT

Yes there is a lot of truth in what you say . If you reduce fire you can reduce fire cover but the legislation just doesn't seem geared to support that, atleast not in ensuring fires are reduced, because going back to my earlier post someone can have a fire, so long as everyone evacuates safely then any formal enforcement will be unlikely.

[nearlythere]

Hi NT

Yes there is a lot of truth in what you say . If you reduce fire you can reduce fire cover but the legislation just doesn't seem geared to support that, atleast not in ensuring fires are reduced, because going back to my earlier post someone can have a fire, so long as everyone evacuates safely then any formal enforcement will be unlikely.

Think there are going to be differences of opinion on this one MR.

Incidently, did you know (in my best Michael Cain impersonation) that the FBs in Southern Ireland attend very few domestic chimney fires. Not because of good fire precautions by the ooccupiers but because many of the Brigades charge for this service and the occupiers either let them burn out or deal with them themselves. Can be between 50 & 150 Euro depending on the Brigade area.
Some even charge for attending fires in commercial premises. Is that the way forward to focus peoples attention a little more on preventing fires?

[BLEVE]

NT
Formal enforcement may be unlikely, however, if it can be demonstrated that all reasonable and practicable steps were not taken to prevent the outbreak of fire then the risk of enforcement increases.

MR
It is also not unusual to have to pay circa €600 for attending false alarms at commercial premises.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Bleve

(I didnt mention false alarms by the way - that was Nearlythere - you got us mixed up) 

Anyway, to answer your point about level of enforcement.

A prosecution is only likely to result if someone has been put at serious risk, has been injured, or, heaven forbid ,killed by fire.

What level of enforcement would you expect if say a hotel had a fire, but everyone got out safely and no one was put at particular risk because the fire precautions held up as they should, and were to the correct and current standards? What would happen would an enforcement notice be issued? Would it be an informal letter?.

Nothing in the fire safety order states that you should not have a fire, nothing in the order states that if you have a fire you have automatically committed an offence.

So going back to the original thrust of this argument is the legislation geared to wards limiting the amount of fires? Partly. But isn't it geared more towards protecting against fire. To me it's the latter and if it was the government's intention to reduce fire cover by virtue of driving down the amount of fires then:-

a) domestic premises are still the places we have most fire deaths anyway (Fire Safety Order doesn't apply)

b) the RRO doesn't support reducing fires in that respect, it is more about protecting people from fire, in my opinion
 
If givernment does want to reduce fires across the board in commercial premises, then additional legislation or a revamp of the fire safety order would be required.

[BLEVE]

MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.

In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.

 

[Midland Retty]

MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.

In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.

 

Only if those failures place any one at serious risk.

[nearlythere]

MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.

In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.

 

Only if those failures place any one at serious risk.

Fraid I'm with Bleve on this one MR, so there . (I never mentioned false alarms. You been on the cheap juice again?)
As Bleve points out there is adequate provision in Arts 4 & 8 to support the fire reduction and precautions approach.