Two thousand years of fire safety regulation - Have we got it right yet?

Maybe the most draconian and arguably the most prescriptive building control measure ever imposed was introduced by King Herod (74BC-4AD) which stated that: ‘Should a man construct a building which falls down and kills another then this man should be slain ’.
A thousand years later, William the Conqueror was somewhat dismayed at the rate in which houses were burning down in his newly concurred kingdom of Britain, so he called for all house fires to be extinguished each night. The most popular method of so doing was to use a special metal plate called a ‘Couvert Feu’, which is the origin of the word we know today as ‘Curfew’.
What both of these regulatory dictates had in common is the fact that they were both imposed by a rule of law and as in the case of King Herod’s proclamation the price of failure to comply was pretty punitive. However by the late twentieth century, building regulations in many parts of the world had evolved away from the need to impose prescriptive measures, into a far more engineered approach to fire safety.
Such a change in approach, now common place today, places the onus of responsibility on all those in the design, build and maintenance process to take greater responsibility in ensuring that their element of the building process will meet with the building regulations of the day. All well and good you may say, but and there is a very big but! What if such measures are not adequate? Let us be clear, building regulations in relation to fire safety are all about the safe evacuation of a premises and the protection of the firefighting services that are called to extinguish a fire. They are not designed to ensure the survival of the structure of a building itself.
So when we talk about the appropriate fire resistance of a building what do we actually mean? Wikipedia, that well know font of much knowledge, defines fire resistance as follows: ‘A fire-resistance rating typically means the duration for which a passive fire protection system can withstand a standard fire resistance test. This can be quantified simply as a measure of time, or it may entail a host of other criteria, involving other evidence of functionality or fitness for purpose.’
While this may be a few simple lines of explanation, the underlining context within this reference is none the less quite complex. Why? Because to ensure that appropriate fire resistance is achieved it is essential to appreciate a number of crucial issues, namely:

• The robustness of the building design.
• The appropriateness of the fire-resisting products and systems chosen.
• The certainty that such products and systems will be installed correctly.
• That the fire resistance of the building as a whole is maintained adequately throughout its entire working life.

Without all of the above, the fire performance of a building cannot demonstrate ‘fitness for purpose’ and in all likelihood will not comply with the appropriate building regulations. The fact that there is an onus of responsibility to comply with such regulations is undeniable; the issue therefore is one of achieving compliance.

Achieving Compliance
As a general definition, compliance means conforming to a rule, such as a specification, policy, regulation, standard or law. However, for many aspects of the building process, to simply rely on self-regulation to achieve this goal is unrealistic, as without any real checks and balances there can be no way of credibly determining that compliance has been achieved.
It should be appreciated that if you are involved in the provision of a fire protection package, at any stage in the process, you share liability for its usefulness and its operation when it is needed in fire, and that liability will still be there in the event of a court case.
If you have responsibility for the specification of the products or systems that go into ensuring the fire performance of the fabric of a building, or you hold responsibility to appoint the installation contractor, it is also your responsibility to ensure that they can prove competency for the fire protection process adopted. It is no longer simply a duty of care or voluntary – it is a legal obligation. If advice is knowingly ignored and this leads to a failure in the fire performance of any element of installed fire protection within a building, then you are likely to be found to be just as culpable as the deficient installer.
In the event of fire, and deaths, a court will want to know how every fire protection system was selected; the basis for selection of the installer, whether adequate time was provided for its installation, and whether there was adequate liaison between the different parties to ensure it was installed correctly.

Third-party Certification
One of the key steps in ensuring that the above criteria are met is to ensure that any compliance process incorporates the inclusion of third-party certificated products, which in turn are installed by third-party certificated installers. This ensures an auditable trail from the specialist that installed the relevant fire protection measure, back through to the product or systems manufacturer.
Such a process of certification includes:

• Selection of samples from the factory or market.
• Surveillance by testing, factory production control, on-going audit procedures and evaluation of quality management systems to ensure consistency of production.
• Labelling that identifies the certification body.
• Maintenance of a register of certificated product.
• Installations independently inspected.
• Accredited Certificates of Conformity issued by the installer

Third-party product certification is the only way of providing architects, specifiers, enforcement authorities and building owners with a high level of confidence that products are ‘fit for purpose’.

Fire Tests
This audit trail is vital in another key area of specification that is to determine the relevance of the testing, inspection, design appraisal or assessment processes adopted. In other words, is the fire testing and certification as presented appropriate for the fire regime required?
When it comes to the issue of fire, how you interpret the validity of a fire test report or assessment certification could make the difference between whether the fire protection measure in question succeeds or fails in its objective. The process of fire testing is a vigorous and often a very costly endeavour, and common sense dictates that not all potential configurations to which a product or system is to be used can be realistically tested. In such circumstances, a range of tests may be carried out in different configurations, which in turn leads to an extrapolation of data to form an assessment report.
Such test or assessment evidence of performance will have been undertaken through a nationally recognised testing laboratory, based upon a recognised appropriate standard. Such comprehensive reports should not be confused with ’indicative’ or ‘ad-hoc’ tests. The Association for Specialist Fire Protection in the UK, along with many certification bodies are now very concerned at the growing indiscriminate use of such very limited test reports that may well appear to solve a difficult dilemma, but in reality give little more than the illusion of a solution that has no foundation in practice.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with any manufacturer undertaking such a testing process as a way of observing and assessing how its products or systems may perform in conjunction with the type of configuration to which it may be used. However, the test laboratory will often state in its report that the information gained is for the test sponsors benefit only and, as such, should not be used to demonstrate performance against the standard to which it would normally be measured; nor should it be taken as a means to assess such a product or system against any regulatory requirement.
Should such test evidence be proposed then it is essential to consider the following:

• Ensure that you have been given the whole test report and not just the fire test data, as all of the conditions for the use of the fire test will be covered within the report’s introduction.
• If the data given is based on a small scale test alone, ask to see other evidence of full scale testing in compliance with the appropriate test Standard.
• If you have any doubts as to the validity of the data given for the conditions under which it will be used, seek advice from the testing body that undertook the test, or request that the manufacturer in question obtains a confirmatory letter from the testing body to this effect.

Risk Assessment
Ensuring that the appropriate passive fire protection measures are encapsulated within the initial build process is of course only part of the story. Just as essential is the on-going fire safety regime of a building, for which the owner of the building, often defined as the ‘Responsible Person’ is required to ensure that appropriate fire risk assessments are undertaken to determine that there is a clear understanding of all the elements, both passive and active, that go to make up the installed fire protection measures, throughout the life of the building.
Risk Assessment for passive fire protection is often not a straightforward exercise as many of the measures involved (for example, fire stopping) may not be easily determined by an ‘on the ground’ visual inspection. Many will be hidden above suspended ceilings or within cavities and in some cases, may even be located inside other components not obviously recognised as fire protection, for example, a fire damper within an air ventilation ducting system.
Evidence is growing that would indicate that many risk assessments are undertaken based upon inspection that does not take account of the fire protection measures hidden from view. Such inspections therefore run the risk of omitting to identify whether any of the fire compartmentation measures installed have been breached and left unrepaired. To the untrained eye, a hole in the wall may just be seen as a maintenance issue. If it also happens to be a fire compartmentation wall, however, the issue is likely to be far more serious.
Even where passive fire protection measures are clearly visible it is not always possible, at a glance, to determine the extent of the installed fire protection, for example, how long the fire protection measure is designed to perform for in a fire.
It should be recognised that not all passive fire protection is installed by a specialist company, as by circumstance it often forms just a small part of another trade’s activities in the continual maintenance of a building, for example, new plumbing or electrical installations.
Failure to correctly install or maintain passive fire protection products and systems may result in premature or total failure of a fire compartment wall in the event of a fire which, in turn, may lead to rapid spread of smoke, toxic gases and fire.

Wilf Butcher is Chief Executive of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection

For further information, go to www.asfp.org.uk