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.

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.

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

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

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".

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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)

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!)

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

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