Smoke and Mirrors

As a frequently stopped smoker and even more sadly, an avid reader of European and UK safety legislation I draw your attention to the announcement of a new EN standard published on 12th November entitled  “EN 16156 Cigarettes – Assessment of the ignition propensity.”

According to the blurb this is I quote – “a new European standard for fire safer cigarettes that extinguish themselves.” It apparently details Fire safety requirements for what are mystifyingly termed reduced ignition propensity cigarettes that are designed to stop burning through their whole length when not, and I quote, being “actively smoked”. The standard complements another tome published this September, ISO 12863 Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity for cigarettes.

Both the standards may be in force across the EU as early as November 2011.

Now given the much publicised propensity for unnecessary and downright crazy legislation emanating from the European Parliament I wonder at the thinking behind this standard. I presume that at our expense some team of scientists has determined what defines an actively smoked cigarette. Of course it has to be lit in the first place but how often you take a puff is surely down to individual preference.  I can see a new crime of fag rage taking hold when frustrated smokers find they are continually relighting to sate their addiction. I am (currently was) a slow puffer and much of my cigarette burnt away between drags whilst conversely my brother smokes roll ups which free from all the unnecessary additives requires more frequent puffing to stay alight.  I fully expect further legislation forcing smokers into puffing at predetermined time intervals or face immediate incarceration for failure to actively smoke.

The up side for us is that sales of our sophisticated cigarette smoke detectors that issue stern verbal warning messages will rocket with possibly a script changed to “Active smoking is prohibited”.

FiReControl axed

In April 2010 I commented on a report published at that time by a Commons Select Committee on the appalling state of the FiReControl project – a wholly unnecessary, ill conceived and grandiose scheme to consolidate all 49 regional fire and rescue services into 9 “super” regional control centre’s  all justified under the guise of efficiency savings. The FRS network was generally opposed and highly suspicious that the real motive was manpower and cost reduction not service improvement.

The 2010 report cited inadequate planning, poor management and massive budget overruns that left the project to quote “in a precarious position”. It concluded that overall the project that was intended to save the taxpayer £86million was projected to end in negative territory to the tune of £240 million. Despite the damning report the then administration vowed to press ahead regardless.

Well I can happily report that 7 years since the master plan was first announced the new blue Coalition Government has announced it is scrapping the scheme but sadly too late to prevent a reported loss of up to £1.3 Billion according to one MP involved.

Welcome though it is the cancellation of the project still came as something of a surprise within the fire protection professions. Clearly it was not just a case of cutting our losses (the taxpayers that is) to draw a halt to further project delays and increased costs. Any sane rational review of the intended project outcomes would have concluded that from the outset it was also unworkable and a step backwards in terms of public safety, an argument the Fire Brigades Union, which has been consistently opposed to the project, had argued from day one.

The current Fire Minister Bob Neil has apparently reached agreement with the main contractor, Cassidian, to call a halt to the troubled project, no doubt at a further cost. Efforts will be made to ensure the FRS benefits from any legacy assets that can be salvaged from the debacle as many have invested heavily in anticipation of the project going live, and Bob Neil has promised to consult with the FRS on developing any alternative plans for modernisation. He should be true to his word and include the FBU in the process.

FiReControl project on the rocks?

With the general election looming there is a lot of political hot air flying around about the billions to be saved from stemming government waste and delivering efficiency savings within the State Apparatus.  A report last week by a Commons Select Committee shows how difficult this will be.

It was some time ago that this Government announced its plans to “modernize” the Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) which included FiReContol – the creation of nine super regional control (read call) centre’s to replace the 49 local centre’s. The FRS network was generally opposed and highly suspicious that the real motive was manpower reduction not service improvement.

The report published appropriately on April Fool’s day by the Communities and Local Government Committee of MP’s damned the project as “inadequately planned, poorly executed and badly managed leaving it in a precarious position”. The IT element is in its usual mess and the report concludes that there is currently no agreed project plan with the principle outside contractors. This is truly unbelievable incompetence that would be unacceptable in any other organization.

The financial figures are dire. The original project costs have risen from a projected £120 million in 2004 to £460million today whilst the projected FRS efficiency saving have plummeted from 28% of running costs per annum to just 9% down from £28 million to £6million /annum in cash terms and falling. Overall the project that was intended to save the taxpayer £86million is now projected to end in negative territory to the tune of £240 million.

The CLG argued that not all the money has been wasted. They had built 9 bright new shiny Control Centres and 3 even had furniture and IT equipment. Of course they are nowhere near operational and the project is already 2 years behind schedule.

Given the amount of our cash already spent the Committee conceded it is arguably too late to cancel the project but warned that unless the CLG department can secure “urgent agreement on a viable project plan in which the main stakeholders can have confidence”, cancellation was not ruled out.

And therein is the rub. For now at least there is no legal compulsion for the main stakeholders, the local Fire and Rescue Services, to integrate their services into the FiReControl project.  As most were against the idea in the first place I can’t see them rushing to opt in if and when it finally gets operational.

Responding to the report, fire minister Shahid Malik – yes we have a minister for fire – said: “I believe the project is in a better position than ever before” from which we can only conclude it had been a whole lot worse if that were possible!!

Meanwhile the professionals in our local FRS’s continue to make significant strides to reduce accidental house fires. My own town registered a 25% reduction in 2009 over 2008 with fire injuries down 90% since 2006 thanks to community safety initiatives like free home checks, education in schools and free smoke alarms. Letting the experts do their job and encouraging them to look for efficiency savings that do not reduce fire safety will save the economy far more than the FiReControl project ever will.

Tony

Construction Sites under the spotlight

The fire performance of modern methods of construction used in timber frame buildings came under the spotlight at an insurance industry event earlier this month.  The insurance industry has a pretty significant influence on what can and can’t be built given that being refused insurance would make the building unsellable.

The RISCAuthority (“The Risk Insight, Strategy and Control Authority”, formerly InFireS), who organized the Seminar, represents many UK insurers with a remit to research and develop risk mitigation measures against fire and security risks. It publishes extensive guides and recommendations for risk mitigation in the areas of Fire and Security. The Risc Authority’s seminar was held in the wake of recent large fires in timber frame buildings and construction sites in London.

I am quite a fan of Timber Frame houses particularly the more aesthetically pleasing homes I have seen featured on Grand Designs. The Timber framed constructions at the centre of this story were more pragmatic multi occupancy affordable housing that utilized the twin benefits of using environmentally sustainable materials and being quick and presumably cheaper to construct than the usual concrete and steel methods.

As far as I can make out timber framed buildings present no greater risk from fire than conventional constructions and pretty detailed industry standards and building regulations are in place to ensure it stays that way. The evidence suggests the greatest fire risk is during construction rather than in completed buildings.

This begs the question as to how the Regulatory Reform (Fire safety) Order applies to construction sites. Clearly it must but by their very nature the potential fire risks on construction sites will be a constantly moving target, giving the Responsible Persons quite a headache to ensure conformity during every stage of the process.

There is also the cost factor. Economic reality dictates that although site safety is clearly paramount it is impracticable to be conducting interminable Risk Assessments and implementing fire measures that are quickly redundant.

The fire safety industry has come up with some solutions. Standalone and linkable fire call points and alarms like the Howler range can be installed to suit the site conditions and adapt to changing size. They have the benefit that at the end of construction they can be quickly dismantled and moved to the next site.

Wheeled mobile fire extinguishers are also ideal for this application and can be quickly deployed to counter a fire in any area of the site. Again once the job is done they can be easily moved to a new site location. They also have a far higher fire rating than the smaller portables with capacities up to 100litres.

The RRO also requires specialist construction site signage. This can get expensive if using the corrugated plastic and foam board versions as they are easily damaged and vandalised. The new TUFF Site Signs are virtually indestructible and despite being more expensive they work out cheaper in the long run as they can be used time and time again. The site safety manager therefore has the means to put together a mobile package of fire and safety equipment that can be deployed to suit individual site conditions.

Tony

Storage of Hazardous Substances

Much has already been said in these pages regarding Fire Risk Assessments but the legal requirements for Risk Assessments in your place of work doesn’t stop there.

Regulations
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002, also requires you to ensure chemicals and dangerous substances stored, used or sold from the workplace are stored and handled in a way that minimise the attendant risk to employees and visitors of exposure to these substances. You must also ensure that you also minimize the risk of environmental damage through leaks and spills.

DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002) is a further set of regulations concerned specifically with protection against risks from fire, explosion and similar events arising from dangerous substances used or present in the workplace.

Risk assessment
As with Fire Risk Assessments the COSHH and DSEAR risk assessment require employers (and the self employed) to conduct a detailed examination of the work place and working practices to identify any dangerous substances present or liable to be present in the workplace; the work activities involving them and an assessment of any risks (like sources of ignition) that may cause a fire, explosion and similar events that have potential to harm employees and the public.

Conducting a Risk Assessment requires a combination of knowledge of the substances used in the workplace, the hazards they pose and a fairly common sense approach to what constitutes a risk. It is then a case of implementing precautions that minimise this risk. Some typical examples are given below.

Store hazardous chemicals in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions in an appropriate container or cabinet clearly marked with a Hazard warning label. A range of cabinets designed to meet COSHH and DSEAR regulations are available.

Store the minimum quantity of hazardous substances necessary.

Look at the manufacturer’s safety data sheet and store incompatible substances separately.

Keep a spill kit close to storage areas to contain and clean up and leaks or spills that occur. Most approved flammable liquid and COSHH storage cabinets have inbuilt spillage sumps.

Issue staff with appropriate protective clothing (PPE) and ensure adequate ventilation when handling substances.

Make sure that any employees that handle dangerous substances are aware of what to do in the event of a spill or fire.

A risk assessment is required regardless of the quantity of dangerous substance present, and as like the Regulatory reform (fire safety) Order legislation, if you have 5 or more employees you must keep a physical record of the assessment and actions taken.

Finally if your business has oil storage containers, the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 or the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 may apply.
The oil storage regulations apply if you store oil above ground in containers with a capacity of more than 200 litres. The regulations define Oil to include petrol, heating oil, vegetable and plant oil, and heavy oils such as bitumen and solvents.
You are not affected by the regulations if:

• Your store a maximum capacity of 200 litres and/or it is located in a building or underground (as in a garage)
• Your business is used for refining or distributing oil
• You operate a farm or wholly agricultural business
• You store waste oil

More reading on DSEAR can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg370.pdf and
COSHH at http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/

Tony