Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
bleve  
#1 Posted : 21 May 2010 17:34:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Have read an article on our (IOSH) FRM Group site which states that “fire risk assessment is not rocket science and can be viewed simply as a means of making a reasonable assessment of the likelihood of a fire occurring and what might be the consequences if it does.” “Unfortunately, many safety practitioners tend to distance themselves from fire safety once it gets past the “poor housekeeping” stage and believe that the subject is so technical it is necessary to bring in a fire officer or a specialist consultant to assist or do it for them. This fear is unfounded because there is no difference now between the tried and tested ’5 steps’” “A safety practitioner can put together a fire risk assessment after making a reasonable judgement as to the extent of the hazard i.e. fire loading, people at risk and likely control measures. A decision can then be made as to whether or not a fire safety specialist needs to be called in. In many cases where the ignition and fuel sources are scarce, any potential spread of fire is likely to be slow, and all occupants can quickly leave the premises if a fire occurs, then the assessment and subsequent control measures can be minimal.” Taking into account the statements and reports concerning Lakanal House (below), do we still feel that FRA is as simple as a number of safety practitioners to make out? Is there a disconnect where the “Safety Practitioner” is unable to recognize when it is necessary to use the services of a fire safety specialist? Southwark concedes pre-Lakanal House risk assessments were inadequate 12 January 2010 Southwark Council has said that prior to the Lakanal House fire last July, it had mistakenly relied on the training of its housing officers by London Fire Brigade to meet fire safety requirements for some of its tower blocks. In an interview on last Thursday's BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts programme, which investigated tower block fire safety, Kim Humphreys, deputy leader of Southwark Council, confirmed the council had changed its approach to conducting fire risk assessments. "London Fire Brigade provided our housing officers with training which we presumed, erroneously, would meet the requirements. This has not been the case and that's why we decided that we are going to have outside experts provide us with fire risk assessments for those complex blocks. We have identified that we want to go further than just the basic fire risk assessment and we will be carrying out intrusive inspections of those blocks." Responding to questions about the relatively few fire risk assessments the council, along with other councils, had carried out prior to the Lakanal House fire compared to the number conducted afterwards, councillor Humphreys added: "I fully accept that as a council it would have been better if we were further advanced in terms of those fire risk assessments." On a section of its website on the issues arising from the fire at Lakanal House, Southwark Council says: "As we are London's largest social landlord, with over 50,000 properties and over 300 high rise blocks, we take our responsibilities seriously. The responsibility to do a fire risk assessment (FRA) was transferred to local councils in 2006. We asked the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to train our staff to conduct fire risk assessments and they trained 132 Southwark housing officers. "Following the training programme a number of follow-up sessions were run to support staff. Blocks over six storeys have had an FRA conducted by a council officer. Where we believe it is necessary we can escalate the fire risk assessment for further technical or intrusive work, carried out by external experts." London Fire Brigade has confirmed that it provided 11 fire risk awareness training days for Southwark housing officers. Report to the Secretary of State by the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser on the emerging issues arising from the fatal fire at Lakanal House, Camberwell on 3 July 2009 5.7 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 5.7.1 Emerging issues There is a requirement in the Fire Safety Order (FSO) to appoint one or more competent persons to assist the responsible person in undertaking the preventable and protective fire safety measures within premises. However, there is no similar requirement for a competent person to be appointed to assist in making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. It is important that assurance be given to both the responsible person for the premises and the enforcing authority that a risk assessment has been undertaken by a competent person. 5.7.2 Areas for consideration Consideration should be given to conducting a review as to how the responsible person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, can be assured that their assessment of risk is suitable and sufficient. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the risk assessment Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be amended accordingly.
firesafety101  
#2 Posted : 21 May 2010 17:49:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Hi Bleve, you are like a dog with a rabbit - I'm not knocking you as it's good to see someone so passionate about this subject. You are right to not let go if you really feel the way you appear. I made a comment on your other topic after reading a similar article in the Fire Risk Management journal - perhaps we will soon see a requirement for competence checking of fire risk assessors employed as outside consultants by responsible persons, similar to CDM requirements? Bring it on :-)
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 21 May 2010 23:51:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

11 training days with a total attendance of 132 housing officers. I make that 1452 person/days training. The Council could have had 5 or so of their own trained experts for that same investment. Seems an all too common an error this throwing "training" (1 day?) at a great number of people and hoping some it will stick (and all too often no refreshers are offered). Did anyone in the Council check the quality of FRA produced (if indeed they were produced) thereafter, or was the "job done" box ticked? Why did the local Fire Authority agree or recommend such thin training levels - perhaps because this was all they could deliver? I note the thoroughly ambiguous phrase "awareness training" is used. Better advice surely to point a small group towards proper competence taught elsewhere.
bleve  
#4 Posted : 22 May 2010 02:34:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Regardless, I still have a difficulty with the statement “fire risk assessment is not rocket science and can be viewed simply as a means of making a reasonable assessment of the likelihood of a fire occurring and what might be the consequences if it does.”
Adrian Watson  
#5 Posted : 22 May 2010 08:08:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Adrian Watson

It should not be forgotten that Fire Risk assessments are not about determining the risk of fire but about determining the risk of injury from fire to determine what measures are necessary to safeguard persons from fire. If risk assessment were about the risk of fire we would have to do little or anything as the individual risk of fire is low. RR(FS) 2005 Art 9.—(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of THE RISKS TO WHICH RELEVANT PERSONS ARE EXPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THE GENERAL FIRE PRECAUTIONS HE NEEDS TO TAKE to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order. i.e. Fire risk assessment is about looking at the dangers from fire (smoke and toxic gas, heat and building collapse) to determine what measures are necessary to prevent fire and the spread of fire; detect and give warning; provide a means of escape; maintain the means of escape; fight and mitigate the effects of fire to safeguard life; and provide instruction and training to employees. It should not be forgotten that the Camberwell fire did not occur within the non-domestic common parts of the property but inside a domestic premises (which is not covered by the RR(FS)O 2005) and broke out of the building and into the flats above through external windows and through panels in the scissor stairwell. I suspect, but do not know, that asbestos fire breaks adjoining the stairwell had been removed, but had not been replaced with a suitable material as unsuitable replacement panels in place. This fire then blocked the common means of escape causing persons to trapped in the flat above, where they unfortunately died. All risk assessments are subject to hindsight bias, when examined after a fire, because we know what happened as opposed to believing what will happen if a fire is to occur. Regards
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 22 May 2010 09:53:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Bleve Some excellent comments by Ron and AK Watson. Using a worst case scenario is not always the best way to highlighting short comings. Clearly, in the case you have cited it appears there have been a number of errors and oversights by different organisations. It must also be remembered that the Camberwell fire is only one of numerous fire incidents and thankfully most do not end up with such tragic consequences. As a general h&s practitioner, I feel confident in completing FRAs in low risk premises. Although I am not an 'expert' in fire safety. I am often obliged to work in areas where I am not an expert. Is is not practical to call in experts for all manner of tasks, sometimes pragmatics must prevail. So, as a rule of thumb, I would agree that fire risk assessment in its simplest form is not 'rocket science' and somone with a basic knowledge of the RA process and fire safety could complete a competent FRA. There are of course many situations which call for a fire expert and so be it.
martinw  
#7 Posted : 22 May 2010 10:15:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw

I agree with some hesitancy, as a pragmatic approach mixed with high risk is not a nice place to be, playing devil's advocate :) I too have carried out loads of fire risk assessments in the common areas of flats in a previous role, and always approached local fire brigade enforcement officers so that they could see if the work was satisfactory, and I did not have to make any revisions. Having said that, I knew my limitations and at the time did not carry out some requests for FRAs due to the complexity/use etc. of the premises. Saying that fire risk assessment is not rocket science is not meant to be inflammatory or insulting; it is just that any field will have those with extensive knowledge, training and experience and some with less. Simple premises do not always require someone with a Nobel prize level knowledge to carry out a FRA, which is quite right. But as has been said on here many times, knowing the limits of your own competency is a key factor in this. Are you suggesting the accreditation route for fire risk assessment Bleve? Should IOSH be championing this with IFE or another body, or should this be driven by the office of the deputy prime minister in line with the fire guides? Interested in your opinion on this. Martin
bleve  
#8 Posted : 22 May 2010 10:49:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Hi Martin, Personally I would like to see something along the lines of an accreditation similar to Asbestos surveying P402. I also believe that the spirit of RRO is on the right track in terms of the RA of fire safety but I think it was a serious mistake not to place clear responsibility on the fire risk assessor in addirion to the RP. As I have said, many times, I do not have an issue with the FRA of simple premises but there are many occassions where the simple premises is not as simple as may be believed. Again, and am sorry to have to say it but I have seen many appaling risk assessments that place the RP in those premises at risk of prosecution.
firesafety101  
#9 Posted : 22 May 2010 11:13:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

This a better discussion than the other one recently on the go. AK Watson's closing sentence rings true with me. "All risk assessments are subject to hindsight bias, when examined after a fire, because we know what happened as opposed to believing what will happen if a fire is to occur". Putting my head above the parrapet now, and this is not the only factor to be considered for competence but I really do believe that having been a serving fire service officer and attended fire prevention (as they were called way back then) training, and fire investigation both theory and practical, among other training and experience of attending actual fires and fire safety inspections etc. - back to that sentence personally I can imagine the affects of a fire and can see the route a fire will most likely take and this gives me an advantage over people who have not "been there".
bleve  
#10 Posted : 22 May 2010 12:25:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Chris You have hit the nail on the head. That is what makes a fire risk assessor. I am not saying that you have to have had fire service experience but I am saying that you have to be able to at least consider the heat and smoke output following the ignition of the fuel sources you have identified and then predict the path that both the heat and smoke will take throughout the building structure (inside and outside). Only then can you determine the suitability of the active and passive fire precautions provided in addition to considering the occupant load, demographic and likely egress time. I personally dont think it is S&S to make note that smoke detection in place , fire door in place etc then generate the report.
Jane Blunt  
#11 Posted : 22 May 2010 12:48:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

I think you have identified a very important aspect of fire risk assessment - the lack of understanding of limitations. I do a lot of work in the chemical and physical hazards and I see parallels. Most people can risk assess the chemicals used in the average low hazard workplace. Few are competent to risk assess an oil refinery. Knowing where you are on the sliding scale between them is the trick. Fortunately, perhaps, most people have an in-built fear of chemicals. People's fear of fire tends to be patchy - I remember seeing a piece of film of an experiment where they set light to some stock inside a shop and watched what happened. Unbelievably some people brought their children inside the shop to watch the fire. People do not understand the basics - until I did some research I had no idea that ordinary furniture could put out heat in the Megawatt range (i.e. small power station). I then realised why flashover happens so quickly. I think there is a case for better education, so that people have a better understanding of the factors that could invalidate their approach and of what they don't know.
bleve  
#12 Posted : 22 May 2010 13:17:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Jane, thanks and very true, I suppose that issue is what set me off a number days ago amongst the number of r/a that have reviewed recently, I had noticed one the had no clue or regard to radiant heat flux due to pool fire within a collection lagoon and effect on nearby buildings. The ra did not consider heat flux at the escape routes, possible escalation due to involvement of other stored materials (alcohol) Again, a safety practitioner not recognising personal limitation. Unfortunately, in my experience this matter is becoming all too frequent
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 22 May 2010 13:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Bleve I now believe there are two different knowledge bases both leading to similar competence in fire risk assessors. First - yours appears to be science based with a great knowledge of physics/chemistry etc. and that gives you the ability to use scientific formulae to make calculations in order for you to form an opinion followed by your final assessment of risk. Second - mine that is based on a more basic training of building construction, firemanship and fire prevention coupled with a little knowledge of the sciences involved with fire and supported by the investigation of fires - that starts with the final fire damage and works backwards to the start with a final decision on the cause of the fire. At least one or the other, (to possess both would be brilliant), is required to enable competence in fire risk assessment.
bleve  
#14 Posted : 22 May 2010 14:45:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Chris, I agree totally and am in the lucky position to be experienced in both. Only when a fire risk assessor can understand and apply the basics of fire dynamics by whatever path or means can he/she consider that they can carry out a S&S fra. It may be the case that 9 out of 10 cases the checklist approach for a simple building is sufficient in terms of life safety if nothing else.
Rhian Newton  
#15 Posted : 23 May 2010 08:23:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rhian Newton

Something that has not been mentioned is that you can always talk to your local Fire and Rescue Authority and they will always take a look at your FRA and give you some pointers as to what they would expect you to have in it or areas of it they think are weak from the authority point of view. I always feel a fresh set of eyes can set you off on a track you had not thought of before especially if they are not experts in your own area of expertise. I have found the Flintshire Fire and Rescue Authority to be a great help.
bleve  
#16 Posted : 23 May 2010 17:42:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

AKwatson Some good points However,we should be in a position to be able to predict the consequences of fire and fire/smoke spread after ignition. This includes the ability to forecast with a reasonable degree of accuracy the effects of fire/fire/smoke spread within/without the building structure and building occupants effected.
Adrian Watson  
#17 Posted : 23 May 2010 21:50:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Adrian Watson

Dear Bleve, As stated it should not be forgotton what is the purpose of Fire Risk Assessments; that is simply - to safeguard life and limb. Whilst I appreciate that that we must understand fire dynamics within the building, I am confused about exactly why you say that we should be able to forecast with a reasonable degree of accuracy the effects of fire/fire/smoke spread within/without the building structure and building occupants effected. Surely in most cases it is sufficient for us to conclude that the risk is from smoke, heat, or structural failure from such and such a fire to determine what measures are required to comply with the law? If you feel that this is not adequate are you suggesting that an accurate time ine from ignition to structural collapse , with heat flux rates and smoke concentrations, s required. If so I suggest that this not only required, but also a waste of time and resources for most circumstances. Regards
Jane Blunt  
#18 Posted : 24 May 2010 07:18:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

I suspect the depth of understanding and analysis will depend a great deal on the strategy that is going to be adopted for the safety of persons. If it is the normal 'everyone out asap' it is fairly simple. If it is a phased evacuation, then the analysis needs to be done more carefully to ensure that the people evacuated at subsequent stages are not put in danger. At the other extreme, if it is a 'stay put and wait to be rescued' strategy then it has to be done with the utmost care! I am fairly sure I have seen that this is a strategy in some high rise hotels in the States.
MEden380  
#19 Posted : 24 May 2010 07:59:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MEden380

Bleve I believe every one who has replied has put some thing of value in to your opening statement. your comments on most FRA is extremely valid and is very alarming, that the resonsible person has commissioned these assessments from companies with insufficient knowledge of what they are actually doing. The Institute of Fire Engineers, I believe, is the only body to hold a list of Fire Risk Assessors. To become a member is hard work, that incorporates examination, experience and interview along with lengthy report writing on work place scenarios. There have been mutterings in the proffession that when a FRA is caried out it should include a fully intrusive structural survey to ensure fire stopping and other protective measures are actually in place - Why not. As AKWatson said the purpose of a FRA is to safeguard life, how can you safeguard with a tick box or in reality without knowledge of construction, fire protection and fire dynamics.
bleve  
#20 Posted : 24 May 2010 09:28:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Meden, That’s exactly the point I have been trying to make for a long time. How indeed can you safeguard life safety with a tick box or in reality without knowledge of construction, fire protection and fire dynamics? I do not believe that this can be achieved without it. Even in the simple “everyone out ASAP” scenario, which initially could appear straightforward can under fire conditions create situations where escape to a place of ultimate safety is made impossible. The assessment of life safety taking into account common areas of multiple occupancy, places of assembly, disability and sleeping accommodation should require a more in depth approach, taking into account the likely progression of fire/smoke based on the construction and fire precautions of the building structure. Maybe if the legislation called for Life Safety Assessment, as opposed to FRA, there may be an adjustment of collective attitude and different approach taken. Too many people are complacent when it comes to fire, we have become too familiar with it and assume that detection, and portable fire fighting equipment is provided, so why worry. This is especially true in the totally domestic situation. AK, my comments re forecasting were in reply to your previous comments “All risk assessments are subject to hindsight bias, when examined after a fire, because we know what happened as opposed to believing what will happen if a fire is to occur”. It should be recognized that that the risk to life safety due to façade fires (balcony smoke and fire spread), even though the point of origin may occur within a private premises falls within the RR (FS) O. Furthermore this type of fire spread can hardly be described as a new phenomena. Again, even in a simple or apparently simple premises, fire growth can take place faster than the norm, smoke production, travel and obscuration can also occur faster than pedestrian escape flow and velocity. It is this context that the fire risk assessor (life safety risk assessor) should be able to recognize these issues without concentrating or relying on tick boxes.
Clairel  
#21 Posted : 24 May 2010 09:40:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

The trouble is Bleve that the Fire Guides seem to suggest that these FRA's can be done in-house and so whilst it might be preferable in an ideal world that a fire engineer conducts a full fire survey the reality is that that is not what is required. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, that is just the way it is currently. Can I just point out to previous posts that being an ex-fireman in itself does not mean you can do a competent FRA. I have been to numerous premises (worringly a lot of nursing homes) where a local ex-fighter now turned Fire Risk Assessor - or even the existing fire brigade - have been in and either done the RA or looked at what they had in place and gievn it the thumbs up. Yet when I have been in there have been permamanently locked fire doors, inadequate signage, inadequate emergency lighting, no fire alarm checks and no PEEP's etc. Lets not slate all consultants and lets not put all ex-fire fighters on a pedestal. There are good and bad in both.
Heather Collins  
#22 Posted : 24 May 2010 09:56:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

MEden380 wrote:
The Institute of Fire Engineers, I believe, is the only body to hold a list of Fire Risk Assessors.
You believe wrong. This is one of the main issues for those of us doing FRAs who might wish to become accredited - while there continues to be no single register and each is time-consuming and expensive to achieve - which do we go for. Many of us choose to go for none of them yet!
Clairel  
#23 Posted : 24 May 2010 10:01:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

A timely event for the purposes of this thread. Glad no one seesm to have been hurt. (PS I definately wouldn't have felt competent to carry out an FRA on that place!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...and/bradford/8699956.stm
Adrian Watson  
#24 Posted : 24 May 2010 10:41:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Adrian Watson

Dear Bleve, I agree with your statement "how indeed can you safeguard life safety with a tick box or in reality without knowledge of construction, fire protection and fire dynamics?" The answer, is simply that you cannot! What I was confused about was the depth that you appeared to suggest that was necessary. I am a pragmatist; I simply believe that what is necessary is determined by the circumstances and not be a universal dictat. In all cases I suggest that must consider the activity, persons and environment (both physical and social, events that have potential to cause harm, severity and likelihood of injury, and the measures to eliminate, reduce, control and mitigate risk and comply with the law, to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. Regarding façade fires, there is no disagreement that do have to be considered. However, as a moot point they probably do not come under the RR(FS)O 2005 as they are not parts of a premises occupied as a private dwelling used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling. However they do fall within the Housing Act 2004. With regard to your last comment "It is this context that the fire risk assessor (life safety risk assessor) should be able to recognize these issues without concentrating or relying on tick boxes." that I say hear, hear! Like you I abhor the use of check sheets to assess risk - that is a assessment to be made by a competent person. However, I do accept that they are a useful tool to ensure that relevant information is sought by the assessor. Regards
pete48  
#25 Posted : 24 May 2010 11:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Having contributed to the earlier thread I would like to add an opinion to this one. I still believe that the root of this dilemma is exactly what type of risk assessment does the Order require and not who should be completing them. Is it a full design check or is it something less that might highlight any significant gaps in the local fire prevention regime. I fully accept all the technical argument put forward by Bleve and others but like Claire I see a paradox between that approach and all the guidance that floats around this subject area. On the one hand we might have a risk assessment that has to confirm that all the design features are both adequate, functioning and are covered by safety critical maintenance. On the other we have a risk assessment carried out in a business alongside all the other risk assessments that relies heavily on existing design controls and is completed by those with only basic knowledge of primary risks and controls. Manual handling;machinery safety; chemicals; the list is endless. Which is it. One , the other or a bit of both? What was the intention of those who drafted the law? That is the question that puzzles me in this debate? p48
bleve  
#26 Posted : 24 May 2010 11:41:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

I cannot see that the RR(FS)O guidance is as simple as others maintain. For instance section 2.1 of each guidance states: To assess the risk in your premises you need to evaluate the construction and layout of your premises. This does not mean a structural survey, unless you suspect that the structure is damaged or any structural fire protection is missing or damaged, but rather an informed look around to see if there are any easy paths through which smoke and fire may spread and what you can do to stop that. In general, older buildings will have more void areas, possibly hidden from view, which will allow smoke and fire to spread away from its source. Whatever your type of building, you may need to consider typical situations that may assist the spread of fire and smoke. My dificulty is that a number of Joe/Josephine Fire Risk Assessors are not capable of identifying missing or damaged fire protection. In addition, without a knowledge of fire development, heat release rates, time to ignition of other nearby fuels, smoke generation and time to obscuration, the average FRA will not be able to simply "look around to see if there are any easy paths through which smoke and fire may spread and what you can do to stop that". Again in the context of Joe/Josephine risk assessor "In general, older buildings will have more void areas, possibly hidden from view, which will allow smoke and fire to spread away from its source. Whatever your type of building, you may need to consider typical situations that may assist the spread of fire and smoke". To me the guidance is not advocating the simple risk assessment that others feel that it does. spreathe dvocating as
firesafety101  
#27 Posted : 24 May 2010 12:16:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Clairel - "lets not put all ex-fire fighters on a pedestal". I agree and would competence check anyone ex fire or otherwise prior to employing a fire risk assessor. I feel you are having a go at me here and suggest you read on as follows: "mine that is based on a more basic training of building construction, firemanship and fire prevention coupled with a little knowledge of the sciences involved with fire and supported by the investigation of fires - that starts with the final fire damage and works backwards to the start with a final decision on the cause of the fire". I also have experience of fire risk assessing ever since the introduction of the Fire Precautions Workplace Regs 1997 that were the first real regs requiring fra's. Would you suggest I have the competence? By the way I wouldn't take on the fra of that chemical plant either!
firesafety101  
#28 Posted : 24 May 2010 12:20:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I don't use tick boxes - who does?
Heather Collins  
#29 Posted : 24 May 2010 14:18:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

ChrisBurns wrote:
By the way I wouldn't take on the fra of that chemical plant either!
Oddly enough I probably would! But then my back groyund is in heavy industry and my original training in chemistry. I certainly wouldn't take on a high-rise block of flats or a historic building on my own without extra guidance and training though. I think this just proves it is horses for courses doesn't it?
bleve  
#30 Posted : 24 May 2010 14:23:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Heather, That said, and in the contect of such a plant would you then consider that you could assess the risks from pool fire, jet fire, CVCE, UVCE, Bleve etc?
RayRapp  
#31 Posted : 24 May 2010 14:48:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Bleve With due respect, I think your latter comment is ripping the backside out of the discussion. Clearly there are different opinions on whether fire risk assessment is 'rocket science' or not. Incidentallly, rocket science is not a term I would personally choose for the subject. Many have argued that low risk premises do not require an expert. However, for the higher risks such as pool fire, jet fire, CVCE, UVCE, Bleve and so on, there is obviously the need to liaise with a fire expert. This subject is beginning to wear a bit thin...no offence. Ray
bleve  
#32 Posted : 24 May 2010 15:01:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Ray, The term and use of "Rocket Science" was taken directly from the IOSH FRM Group article, hence my use. WRT my last comment, the question was asked on the basis of an FRA on a chemical manufacturing or COMAH plant. In actual fact, I am more interested in the general opinion that the FRA Guidance notes advocate the simplistic approach that many believe. Again, it comes down to what is low risk. If you dont like the subject dont reply.
Jane Blunt  
#33 Posted : 24 May 2010 15:09:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jane Blunt

BLEVE wrote:
Heather, That said, and in the contect of such a plant would you then consider that you could assess the risks from pool fire, jet fire, CVCE, UVCE, Bleve etc?
But it is a big jump from 'chemical plant' to this. Not all chemicals are flammable, and COMAH is a further development of risk. Incidentally, the kind of plant that you allude to probably does require something akin to 'rocket' science, given that rockets require fuel and an oxidant to propel them! ;o)
Rhian Newton  
#34 Posted : 24 May 2010 16:02:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rhian Newton

I do write FRA for a top tier COMAH site and it is not rocket science. It is more common sense. We have full HAZOP and Process Hazard Reviews for preventing the fire triangle from being completed. These are very complex and detailed hazard/risk assessments. So the FRA is looking at means of escape and protection for the person which is not covered by the HAZOP or PHR. In addition we should not have sleeping people to contend with - although I do consider areas where they might do so! So I am competent and quite confident of writing a FRA for such a site. (Did I also mention 34 years of working on top tier COMAH sites.)
Heather Collins  
#35 Posted : 24 May 2010 16:21:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

BLEVE wrote:
Heather, That said, and in the contect of such a plant would you then consider that you could assess the risks from pool fire, jet fire, CVCE, UVCE, Bleve etc?
I probably would actually (though clearly I would need more information on the exact nature of such a plant first to judge if it was within my level of competence) but as Jane said not all chemical plants are the same.. Again it's horses for courses isn't it? As a (hopefully) reputable consultant I would NEVER take on a job I did not feel competent to do. This applies to Fire risk assessment just as much as it does to H&S. It is a matter for the individual to judge. For what it's worth I qualified to MIFE standard throught the FPA Diploma route some years ago but did not pursue the full membership as I was not working in the Fire Safety / Fire Engineering profession full time and did not feel I could sustain the necessary experience for CPD on a longterm basis for IFE as well as IOSH (not to mention the cost!)
bleve  
#36 Posted : 24 May 2010 16:39:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Rhian, Highly unusual for a HAZOP to consider tetrahedron of fire but good for you. Heather, my question was asked in the context of your comfort level in addressing these topics and you answered that you are, no problem there. PS based on my knowledge of the diploma and IFE, neither cover such areas.
Heather Collins  
#37 Posted : 24 May 2010 22:37:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

bleve wrote:
PS based on my knowledge of the diploma and IFE, neither cover such areas.
I don't believe that I said they did. I was merely trying to establish that there are a few of us on here with fire safety qualifications and/or experience at a reasonable level who may have some idea what we are talking about. I believe Rhian was making a similar point. With respect Bleve - you're obviously very knowledgeable on this subject but this constant questioning of others' posts is getting a little tedious now.
bleve  
#38 Posted : 24 May 2010 23:36:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

It's called discussion Heather. If you don't like it, then don't read it and don't reply to it. I had posted a section of the rrfso guidance that far from advocates that fra can be carried out by anyone and that is the area I had hoped to be explored in greater detail. In reality, I think that a number of people offering fra realise that they are not meeting the bar and it rankles them
RayRapp  
#39 Posted : 25 May 2010 08:19:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Bleve In support of Heather, I think you are danger of alientaing yourself by constantly criticising others opinions or reading something into it that was not intended. Not doing yourself any favours either by ending posts with a curt remark. A little humility goes a long way... Don't worry I will not be responding to any more of your posts. Ray
bleve  
#40 Posted : 25 May 2010 08:35:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bleve

Ray, I have not crticised a single individual, as for you or any one else not posting I am not really bothered to be honest.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.