« Global warming? | Main | A bird in the house? »
August 10, 2004
A lack of trained inspectors?
One thing which has always alarmed the Monk is the fact that many in the fire services and in the fire industry refuse to recognise that fire safety inspectors need to understand fire behaviour and fire spread more than they need to understand what it says in all the various guides and codes. The recent fire in Paraguay is a very good case in point. Paraguay does have fire regulations. It also has access to Spanish language versions of the US-based NFPA Codes and Standards. So how did a situation arise in which 409 people can be killed by a fire?
Simple, no one was responsible for inspection. Enforcement at building regulations stages was, as in this country, considered to be sufficient to ensure that fire safety was ensured. The problem is that what is approved at Building Plan Approval stage is an empty shell. The moment people move into the building it is not what was approved. People "manage" their environment and constantly change it. This is especially true in buildings where the fire loading (the quantities and distribution of flammable and combustible materials inside a building) can change from day to day and even hour to hour. It is this which politicians and civil servants always refuse to recognise. It gets in the way of their neat and tidy idea that you can approve something now and it is the same thirty or more years on.
It couldn't happen here is the cry I am hearing around me now - and my response is I am willing to bet that it can! Our system of inspections is in the process of being removed and replaced by a different regime of "self compliance". Now I will be the first to say that responsible employers/managers will do their best to comply with fire safety requirements, but do they actually have the specialist knowledge to understand the problem. The simple answer is no they don't, and this is self-evident when those of us who do visit various premises and find situations which could give rise to serious and very rapid fire spread, which our clients have not understood. This includes such obvious things as storing oxidisng agents in the same rack (often above) other materials which are strongly reactive and which will ignite fairly readily in the presence of an oxidiser.
That in itself would not be so dangerous if the fire and rescue services were maintaining a cadre of experienced and qualified inspectors. Sadly they are not. Many Chief Officers are now "civilianising" their Fire Safety Inspection teams with people recruited from outside the service. With the best willl in the world, these folk do not have that crucial understanding of the way fires behave to be able to recognise the real dangers. Their Chief Officers argue that as long as they have a Code of Practice or a Guide to work to they can ascertain that the "means of escape" is adequate. Well, Asuncion proves that that is not the only part of the equation which needs to be inspected! Indeed, it is only about one tenth of the total equation.
The reported deaths of seven French teenagers in an Equestrian Centre set on fire by lightning, recently, also highlights the need for adequate safety provisions. Lightning frequently strikes exposed buildings; does it have to also lead to the death of those inside if it also starts a fire? It would seem from the somewhat sketchy report of this that this was a large structure which should have had more than one exit. A fire in the roof should not have killed the teenagers or the horses. So who is responsible for inspecting these structures in France? It would seem that it is left to the Building Inspectorate - who are not interested in "agricultural buildings"! And even that varies from Prefecture to Prefecture and from Communaut to Communaut! The French Fire Service has little or no input into fire safety at all - and it shows. Perhaps it is as well that the French do not keep central statitics on fire losses and deaths.
The presumption by many who have never had the opportunity to perform or to study the full panoply of Fire Safety that it can be addressed simply by reference to a set of standard "guides" addressing everything is a fallacy. Worse, they very often fail to see the links between Fire Safety requirements, fire prevention, fire risk management, fire fighting operations, and public education (now called "Community Fire Safety"). Again, all the current money and resources are being focused on one small area of this big picture and drawn away from enforcement and inspection - which in one Brigade, at least, is now being carried out by operational staff who do not have the "expert" understanding of the holistic approach to fire safety in buildings. These inspectors, through no fault of their own, are being sent out as simplistic "code readers" and this in turn is leading to a "make it fit the book" approach instead of applying professional understanding and judgement to find a solution.
I can, sadly, predict with confidence, that in about 5 - 6 years time, when the last of the "professional" fire officer inspectors has gone, we will start to see increasing numbers of incidents involving large buildings like the one in Asuncion being involved in serious fire incidents - and very likely deaths - resulting from a similar combination of actions, policies, and lack of compliance. It will almost certainly be compounded by the routine granting of a waiver by Building Control Officers and Approved Inspectors of requirements to fit sprinkler systems to these buildings "because our risk assessment shows it is unecessary".
Perhaps my future career is already secured - as a witness for the injured, deceased, and traumatised to point the finger of blame in regard to weaknesses, failures, and lapses in fire safety provision - all because someone somewhere decided it would be a good idea to do it cheaper without the professional expertise. Sadly not even the litigants will win, and the once highly professional service I have had the privilege to be a part of will be steadily reduced in both professionalism and prestige.
Sic transit gloria mundi. So passes the glory of the age.
Posted by The Gray Monk at August 10, 2004 08:14 AM