The heat is on

The most radical reform of fire law to date puts the onus for fire safety onto employers. But while it might seem like a chore, it could save them money in the long run. Rebecca Green reports

It may not arrive with a bang, having been delayed since April, but October's Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) is a radical shake up of the law, that shifts responsibility for fire safety to the employer and is certain to set the alarm bells ringing for many food and drink firms.

From October the fire service will no longer issue fire certificates, nor will it help employers assess their premises for risk, says Paul Jenkins from the London Fire Brigade. "It really is down to [employers] now to take on the mantle of fire risk assessment and do a proper job. But this is an opportunity, not a threat," he insists.

However, as estimates emerge that last year's Buncefield oil depot explosion cost firms over £70M, Peter Jackman, technical director of International Fire Consultants (IFC), is a little more dubious about the realities of the reform. "When I saw that [Buncefield] I thought to myself: 'Who would I least like to be right now?' And the answer was the risk assessor who said the site was safe."

For under the new regulations, companies will have to decide whether to carry out their own risk assessment or bring in an external consultant to do it for them. Either way, it's a total shift of responsibility, which Jackman believes few are prepared for.

"The idea was that the reform would only be an enhancement of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997, which everybody should have done by now. But very few companies have done it properly, if at all, so they will be starting from a clean sheet," says Jackman. "It's going to be a very big deal."

According to Jackman, the food and drink industry is particularly vulnerable to the changes because fire resistance has never had to be declared on single storey large warehouses. "But as we all know, there have been some near misses, so it's going to be a brave risk assessor who will go into a building made of highly combustible composite panels and say it's acceptable," he warns.

What then, do manufacturers have to do to ensure they don't fall foul of the new legislation? The first thing is to appoint a 'responsible person' to ensure risk assessments are carried out and regularly updated.

But as chartered fire engineer and ex head of fire engineering with the London Fire Brigade Jim Golt points out, this is a high profile role. "Whoever does it has to do the risk assessment, put precautions in place to safeguard everyone, do tests and maintenance, as well as review the assessments regularly," he says. "Crucially, the fire service will never come and tell you that your risk assessment is up to scratch."

As to whether the task should be handled in-house or through an external consultant, the jury is still out. On the one hand, suggests Russ Timpson from The Fire Strategy Company, bringing somebody in to get the risk assessment done is "pretty short sighted" and forsakes the benefits that can be gained in the company's safety culture by doing it internally and engaging people on the shop floor. But, he admits that using a consultant means less disruption to business and guarantees the task will get done. However, there is one big problem with outsourcing this job, says Jackman, which is that at the moment, anyone could set up as a fire risk assessor.

"Government has handed this over to a field where you can't even get an HNC [higher national certification] in fire risk assessment - it's an uncontrolled discipline," bemoans Jackman. "Although the Association of Building Engineers and the Institute of Fire Engineers (IFE) are trying to compile a serious register and the IFE is trying to set in place a national qualification."

Jackman, who, despite his experience wouldn't dream of risk assessing his own site of 30 staff alone, also questions the ability of one person to effectively carry out a risk assessment: "There is no such thing as a person who can do a risk assessment alone because there are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration - it would have to be superman!"

Money talks

Regardless of who carries out the assessment, there are benefits to be gained, claims Timpson, namely in terms of driving down insurance premiums. "If you look beyond compliance you can actually reduce your on-costs," he suggests, although admits the problem often lies in convincing the board.

"We all know that health and safety is often difficult to get taken seriously, and the problem is you can't say it's going to cost 'x' amount if you don't do this. The issue is how you engage with the board - in the past very few health and safety people have found ways to make their voice heard, because by and large we bang on about law and bureaucracy etc. So we have to find business partners that can help us show the on-costs - we need to talk money. Yes, putting sprinklers in will push the capital expenditure up, but in return the long term cost savings from insurance premiums will be huge."

Getting down to the nitty gritty of actually carrying out the assessments, there are some basic areas that are often overlooked, says Timpson, who strongly advises against the common practice of relying on checklists - they should just be a prompt. He suggests an assessment should include simple things like looking over the fence to see what's next door - you never know what potential disasters could be lurking.

Similarly, there's no point having a business continuity plan if it isn't put into practice once a year. "You will get at least 50 learning points from it, like being able to tell firefighters what you want covered first with salvage sheets [this is one of the first things they will ask you in the event of a fire]. It's practical and simple but it could save you a fortune," he says.

Timpson also stresses that nothing should be assumed during an assessment. "There is nothing common about common sense, yet people use it all the time in fire safety: 'Oh, that's common sense isn't it?' But there are some peculiar people around who do some very strange things."

Golt adds: "In a factory, the fire probably won't start in the process, it will be in a canteen or a storeroom. People tend to focus on the obvious, but it's the little things they need to think about." He also points out that as arson is by far the biggest cause of fire, companies should not overlook the issue of security.

But what about the cost of these assessments? Some companies will be more prepared than others, says Andy Jones, risk advisor for RHM, who believes the time and cost involved in complying will depend upon the starting point of individual organisations.

"Those that have already completed the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, will be in a better position than those who have not, [but] the need to carry out an assessment is not new," he states.

However, Jackman warns: "At the moment too many factories are vulnerable to small ignitions. It's all about good housekeeping. By not doing this in the past we have caught the wrath of insurers, although we have never had a problem operating. But now, if manufacturers are refused by a risk assessor, they won't be able to operate." FM