(split topic) minimum requirements of fire safety for their residential block of flats under the RRO

[nearlythere]

Are we going to then look at water leaks too? At what point does that get too onerous? or too tenuous?

I think it would be getting too onerous and tenuous MR when you start looking for the possibility of fire risks from water leaks.  

[Midland Retty]

Are we going to then look at water leaks too? At what point does that get too onerous? or too tenuous?

I think it would be getting too onerous and tenuous MR when you start looking for the possibility of fire risks from water leaks.  

My point exactly NT

Yet water leaking through electrical fittings and appliances can cause fires NT and some would say that having a water leak which caused a fire demonstrates failures under article 8, I dont however :-)!!

[kurnal]

All this leads me to ask " What is a fire hazard in respect of the Fire Safety Order? "

There is no definition of a hazard in SI 2005 No 1541 except in relation to dangerous substances. There is a definition of risk- "risk means the risk to the safety of persons from fire"

There is a definition of fire hazard  and fire risk in BS4422-

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

There are slightly different definitions in PAS 79  
3-33- fire hazard - source or situation with potential to result in a fire
NOTE Examples of fire hazards include ignition sources and accumulation of waste that could be subject to
ignition.

3.41- fire risk- combination of likelihood and consequence(s) of fire
NOTE In the context of this PAS, the relevant consequences are those involving injury to people, as opposed
to damage to property.

Now where does this leave us in respect of Civvys dodgy wiring? Is it a fire hazard when measured against the definitions in BS4422 and PAS 79? And where would it sit under the Fire Safety Order?
Clearly a neither broken fire alarm or a locked exit are fire hazards.

Does any of this matter?
Is it me being obtuse again?
 And is the moon really made of Derbyshire blue stilton cheese?

[jasper]

slightly off topic?

[kurnal]

I dont think so Jasper?
 Civvy was suggesting that recommendations such as electrical and gas testing may be inappropriate to a fire risk assessment under the Order.

A risk assessment considers hazards and risks and determines the appropriate risk control measures. I think we need to be clear what constitutes a fire hazard.

Electrical faults often cause fires- take a damaged cable with a potential short circuit. With an old system and dodgy earthing this could lead to a fire. But with a modern  system that is in good condition then the protective devices should ensure that even if the fault occurs a fire will not occur?

(However I fully accept that I may be talking piffle again.)

[Clevelandfire 3]

No its not off topic. Its a fair question to ask. To clarify it all im going to say this. Take the word fire out of the terms hazard and risk. Lets dispense with non essential and unhelpful OTT phraseology which although may sound technical and clever basically means the same thing.

We are left with the term hazard: something with potential to cause harm, and the term risk: the likelyhood that the hazard will cause harm. In everything we do in terms of fire safety and i mean everything the hazard is always fire. End of story. If anyone thinks otherwise thats their perogative but id seriously question their competency publically.  A locked exit isnt a hazard, because the hazard is always fire. But a locked exit increases the risk that the hazard (fire) may cause harm. Also as we know where we cannot remove a hazard we try to reduce the hazard using control measures. As Midland quite rightly points out often control measures used for fire safety purposes are designed to protect against a multitude of eventualities meaning that in most cases article 8 can be complied with quite easily without thought being given to silly and frankly academic arguments about how water leaks may cause fire. Of course leaks can cause fire, someone lighting fireworks from their backside could cause a fire, a plane crashing on a building may cause a fire but following current guiidance to an accepted standard will deal with most eventualities. There are odd exceptions where benchmark standards wont deal with the risk, and thats when we have to look more closely at the risk, but for everything else there is mastercard.

Seriously I dont know how i do it for the money you guys ought to pay me for my wonderful wisdom.

[BLEVE]

Civvy

The integrity of the close fitting door depends on the materials or make up of the door. What is close fitting?

Most close fitting doors would fail when exposed to typical fires in 15 to 20 minutes. In addition, it is next to impossible to maintain close fitting for the lifetime of the door. When it comes to ambient temp smoke such a door will result in the passagevof approximate 200 m cubes smoke per hour vs 15 cubes from a FDS door.

When

[BLEVE]

The hazard is exposure to fire related effluents (smoke, obscuration, irritation) due to delayed or prevented escape of one or more building occupants. The risk depends on the control measures in place ie MOE and is a combination of likelihood of realising the hazard and the severity of that realisation usually expressed qualitatively or quantitatively I.e high medium low , percentage or decimal expression.

[BLEVE]

At the end of the day the risk assessment is intended to allow the selection of general fire precautions from article 4 so as to demonstrate compliance with article 8. Only significant findings need be recorded.

Are we over complicating the matter
There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place.

[Hi Tower]

Jasper

I guess when you say slightly off topic you are referring to where the thread is now in relation to your original post? 
My apologies for re-directing it, my confusion came from why do you need to recruit anyone to do FRA's because some FRS's seem to be doing FRA's for anyone who asks.  And
What did the panel think about what advice can be given by the FRA before it becomes a conflict of interest? and what role, with regard to my above comment, does the independent FRA have in the market place?

[kurnal]

Hi Jasper
Having seen HTs posting I agree - sorry we have drifted way off your original topic. I hadnt read far enough back up the thread.

Have you sorted out any assistance yet? It seems to me there is a serious shortage of people with the right skill sets to carry out competent fire risk assessments. Its a field in which marketing triumphs over quality at the moment I am afraid.

 

[Clevelandfire 3]

The hazard is exposure to fire related effluents (smoke, obscuration, irritation) due to delayed or prevented escape of one or more building occupants. The risk depends on the control measures in place ie MOE and is a combination of likelihood of realising the hazard and the severity of that realisation usually expressed qualitatively or quantitatively I.e high medium low , percentage or decimal expression.

No Bleve it isnt.

The hazard is always fire and all of the things fire can be hazardous for like smoke, being burnt, explosion. Delayed or prevented escape makes the risk of harm greater from the hazard posed by fire.So lets take you example. To lower the risk from delayed escape whatever that is you put in adequate MOE. Risk lowered, hey presto.

[BLEVE]

That would be hazard of exposure to radiant heat or explosive overpressure

[BLEVE]

Re read what I had posted

The degree of risk depends on the adequacy of the control measures selected and maintained

[Midland Retty]

I think you are both saying the same things.

C3 is correct in suggesting that the hazard is always fire, and Bleve you are correct in suggesting that the degree of risk posed by fire hazard is dependant on control measures, and how adequate those control measures are.

Remember that burns, explosion, smoke are all in themselves hazards stemming from fire.

Locked exits, non functioning fire alarm systems, lack of fire compartmentation are not hazards, they are connected to risk.