William Roszczyk reports on the virtual FIRE 2020 conference, hosted by the Fire Protection Association (FPA), the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and the Institute of Fire Engineers (IFE)
DUE TO the pandemic, this year’s FIRE 2020 conference was held virtually on 4 November, and focused on modern methods of construction (MMC), with FPA managing director Jonathan O’Neill discussing its new #KnowYourBuilding campaign.
He congratulated Fire Minister Lord Stephen Greenhalgh on ‘progress made in turbulent times’, though added, ‘I can almost guarantee it will not go far enough’. The sector ‘fully accepts and supports the new building regulation system’, he said, congratulating the minister on these ‘first steps’. While Mr O’Neill was ‘wary of a two tier approach’, he said the ‘acknowledgement that the problems need fixing is a start’. It was not just a ‘broken system’, as ‘ambiguous’ guidance and regulations are ‘outdated and subject to abuse’, although an ‘overhaul is underway’.
‘Are we setting the bar too low from the start?’ he asked, as when ‘you speak with people outside the sector, most are surprised that the main requirement is evacuation before collapse’. This is a ‘low bar, as we all know fire can have devastating effects’, and ‘you can ask anyone living through the aftermath, and they’ll tell you that getting out is only the first step – it can take years to recover; some never do. If the pandemic has taught us anything, no single disaster should cause an organisation to fail’.
However, ‘sadly many fail to do any risk planning’, and a key message from Grenfell is that ‘building managers should have a better idea of how a building is put together’. This was why the FPA launched its campaign, which ‘should not be restricted to owners’, as ‘it is vital for everyone to know what their building is made of and the level of competency of those building it’.
Many organisations ‘fail to have a complete and comprehensive knowledge of their building’, and fire numbers ‘remain stubbornly high’, so with the pandemic bringing economic hardship, ‘a fire without proper systems in place could be the tipping point for businesses hoping to stay afloat – we simply cannot afford for this to happen’. Mr O’Neill called for ‘truly resilient’ regulations, as resilience ‘or the lack of’ it, is becoming a ‘major issue’ and ‘failures are plain and recoverability to consider.
‘Now is the time to recognise the wider cost of fire’, from high economic costs to social, psychological and productivity costs. ‘Significant logistical challenges’ remain while decisions are made on an ‘aesthetic and sustainability’ basis, and he ‘strongly’ believed architects and fire consultants ‘need to work together’ to ‘mitigate the risk of fire damage – it’s not rocket science that a building with vulnerable people should not be made with MMC’. If companies ‘don’t feel confident in the market’s ability to act’, they should look to third party certificated firms.
Mr O’Neill’s message to the minister was to ‘please embrace building resilience’, inviting him to support the campaign and ‘ensure the built environment is both safe and resilient’.
Ministerial address
Lord Greenhalgh was ‘grateful for the resilience and continued efforts’ of the sector, citing Grenfell ‘and the case for change’ – pointing out that since ‘the terrible events’ of the fire, the government had been ‘resolute in its commitment to deliver change’, and had made ‘significant efforts to ensure that such a fire never happens again’. Discussing the inquiry and the Hackitt Review, which ‘underpinned’ the government’s work, he explored the ‘comprehensive’ identification of the ‘risk and prevalence’ of aluminium composite material (ACM) clad buildings nationwide.
The government was ‘committed to developing fundamental reform’ and was ‘confident this will usher in a new era – this is a once in a generation opportunity for reform, but we must work together, there is much to be done’. Outlining various consultations and calls for evidence, Lord Greenhalgh said the ‘vital next step’ was ensuring the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [FSO] ‘continues to be fit for purpose’.
Exploring considerations and proposals going forward, there was an overarching aim for ‘greater cooperation’ between different individuals and organisations, and for ‘providing residents with an assurance of safety’, alongside ‘holding those responsible for breaches to account’. An ‘overhaul’ of guidance aims to provide the ‘fundamental right that people feel safe and are safe in places in which they live and work’, with the Fire Safety Bill (FSB) and Building Safety Bill (BSB) ‘bringing wider reforms’. He was ‘pleased’ the FSB had reached an ‘advanced stage’, and called the BSB a ‘significant step in the most comprehensive building safety reform in a generation’.
He also discussed the ‘firm foundation from which to deliver’ the inquiry’s first phase recommendations – ‘important steps in this major programme’. The new building safety regulator will ‘overhaul’ the way buildings are designed, built and managed, and ‘empower residents to hold owners and managers to account, as well as ensure that their voices are heard’. The Prime Minister ‘made it clear that he accepted the recommendations in principle’, and the intent to take action was ‘as firm as ever’. It proposes that fire and rescue services (FRSs) have the ‘right information about high rises for effective response’, and there needs to be a ‘step change’ in resident safety.
It ‘is critical that we get this right’ he continued, and ‘listen to those with experience’, as ‘only then can we deliver lasting, significant change’ and ‘go further than the recommendations in some cases – taken together, all of this will significantly improve building and fire safety standards’. On cladding, the government is ‘focusing on what can be done now’, as living in a building clad in combustible materials ‘places enormous psychological and emotional pressure’ on residents. However, despite the pandemic, there had been ‘more starts on sites for removing cladding than at any point since Grenfell, ‘ Lord Greenhalgh advised, thanking mayors and local authorities ‘for their work on the increased pace of remediation’.
‘Additional funding’ provided to UK FRSs was ‘earmarked to strengthen capabilities’ as well as protection activity. It was also ‘so important that we remember FRSs are founded on the principles of prevention, response and protection’, with the government ‘focusing on rebuilding that capability’. His ‘guiding purpose was to strengthen the whole regime throughout the lifecycle of buildings within scope of a more stringent regime’, and ‘improve fire safety across all buildings’. This was at the ‘heart of reforms and our commitment to improve protection capabilities’. Finally, he thanked delegates for ‘taking the time to invest in fire safety’s future’ and ‘the part you have played in keeping people safe’.
Building safety
Roy Wilsher, chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and Richard Fowler, service delivery and improvement lead for the protection policy and reform unit (PPRU), discussed building and fire safety.
Mr Wilsher spoke about the various reforms and overviews, and said ‘many other things are going on’, with the cladding ‘scandal’ continuing, and changes to Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (ADB). This ‘plethora of work’ means the NFCC is ‘working hard to really overcome decades of building safety failure’, and ‘what we see around us now in all sorts of areas is decades of failure we’re all trying to deal with’. He discussed the ‘non worsening provision’ of the FSO, including the issue of life safety versus property protection, with ‘opportunities to strengthen and improve’ the legislation arising.
The NFCC felt that ‘you can have a major refurbishment but you didn’t have to upgrade fire safety’, and wanted to see this in both bills. It accepted the ‘spirit and principle’ of the inquiry recommendations, and the sector has ‘got to command the support of FRSs who have to implement them’; on life safety versus property protection, ‘we want both’.
Despite powers ‘at our disposal’ including the FSO and Housing Act, FRSs had been ‘encouraged to not prosecute previously’, but the bills provide more power and so the NFCC ‘commends and appreciates’ proposed changes. However, there was ‘no clear mechanism’ in the FSB for ensuring a responsible person would ensure fire doors ‘are maintained at the right standard or replaced’, just one area where a ‘clear mechanism is needed to enable authorities to enforce this for
a whole block’.
Calling the BSB the ‘big sister’, Mr Wilsher said it was ‘significant’ in its implications, and had a ‘flexible scope so could be expanded’, with new levels of competency and scrutiny required. Despite its wide ranging scope, the NFCC ‘don’t agree with all’ suggested changes, and argued it ‘could go further to consider vulnerable persons and property’, while ‘clarity’ was demanded on secondary legislation as well as ‘overlapping’ regulations and frameworks’ – there were many areas in which questions were ‘still unanswered’.
He noted that the PPRU was created as a ‘link’ between FRSs and the government, representing the ‘collective views and expert technical advice’ of the former and provided with ‘welcome funding’ by the latter. It aims to provide a national FRS response to ‘protection related’ inquiry recommendations, providing a ‘consistent and coordinated approach’ to regulations and supporting ‘development and delivery’ of government policy. It also aims to ‘support and promote swift remediation’ of buildings, and provide capacity for the NFCC to ‘deal with new and emerging demands’.
Mr Fowler said it aims to ‘design a new assurance process for high risk buildings’; ‘lead in improving the overall standards of protection work’; and ‘improve information and data gathering’ via the design of a ‘longer term protection model’. It has ‘grown over time to meet the increasing demands placed on it’, with different building safety work streams. Studying the inquiry recommendations and providing an action plan for implementation, it is also looking at other issues via service delivery and improvement workstreams.
Competency and collaborative working are being focused on via a competency framework, professional standards, shared protection learning, guidance, a risk based inspection programme and best practice.The PPRU aims to be ‘the centre of excellence’, becoming the centre of protection leadership; and leading on remediation and compliance, high rise building risk reviews, integration with the new building safety regulator, and improving FRSs.
Modern methods
A series of speakers looked at different areas of MMC: Cast Consultancy’s Mark Farmer at its future; UL’s Daniel Madrzykowski at challenges in relation to fire safety; FM Global’s Tom Roche at what role standards play; the NFSA’s Shane Ray at the role of suppression systems; and Dr Lori Moore-Merrell at data evaluation in managing risks.
Mr Farmer discussed the 2016 review, Modernise or die, that he produced for the government, which looked at construction’s labour model. Its ‘pretty damning’ conclusions are ‘highly relevant’ to the fire sector, and challenged the government to ‘think differently about the future’.
Construction faces the ‘risk of becoming extinct’, and has ’symptoms of failure’ that reflect the way it ‘shaped itself into one of the most cyclical, boom-bust’ industries. It is ‘declining structurally’, and COVID-19 ‘thrust into the spotlight’ how labour intensive site work is. A safe way of operating meant a ‘reduction in output’, adding to ‘extra pressures’ and ‘symptoms showing themselves’. The fire sector ‘should be concerned about traditional construction’, as a ‘declining skill base is being asked to do more with less, leading to more instances of failure’, and cost ‘ultimately driving quality’.
The government has ‘finally recognised the importance of construction in achieving its political ambitions’, with MMC ‘central to that’, as well as decarbonisation. Construction is being forced to ‘think differently’; while quantity and quality ‘rarely coincided’, they have been forced to ‘happen side by side’, the government ‘turning up the gas’ for a post COVID recovery. However, to build safe, highly complex buildings, ‘you need more than common sense; you need technical competence’ combined with cultural change for a ‘very different approach’.
Mr Farmer warned that this will unfortunately bring skills and structural issues’ with workers ‘less competent to do jobs’, and while initial innovation ‘only really impacted design’, procurement and construction will change. The sector is a ‘horse towing a car’ with a ‘site intensive, analogue’ end following cutting edge technical design.
MMC is ‘not just modular’ construction, but a ‘whole suite of techniques’ with ‘different fire safety implications’. The ‘snap headlines’ on fires involving MMC ‘can’t be ignored’, but if standards are produced, ‘confidence’ can be built, and ‘progress is being made’ via a ‘quality, planned approach’. It is ‘early doors’, but he was ‘hopeful we can make good progress’, and ‘accelerate the change in skills and training’.
Grenfell ‘shone a light on the most basic failings’ in construction. This ‘has to drive change – if you’re not up to scratch, you can’t build’. Business models and processes must change and MMC ‘is a vital part of that, but needs to be done right’.
Mr Madrzykowski noted ‘today’s built environment didn’t change overnight’, but ‘evolved’ over 50 to 60 years. US building types had dramatically expanded since the 1950s. Larger homes with open spaces, changes in fuel loads and increased void spaces, plus changing materials and new technology create faster fuel propagation; shorter escape times; a shorter time to flashover; rapid changes in fire dynamics; a shorter time to collapse; and increased exposure problems in modern homes, he said, stressing the ‘importance of building codes and standards’.
Mr Roche called these an ‘aspect not getting much attention’, though it was ‘fair to say’ that MMC is, with the ‘same pressures felt globally’. All building technology was MMC ‘at the time it was built’, so ‘we need to bear in mind we have continued to innovate’. We ‘continue to see growing expectations of what the built environment will deliver’, and they have ‘driven a need for new technology’ amid a ‘pressure for sustainability’. ‘Keeping pace’ means standards ‘lag behind innovation, but cater for it’ as ‘legal minimums’.
There is a difference between ‘the minimums set out in law versus the standards telling you how to do something’, the latter ‘importantly used to ensure we define particular outcomes’, as many are ‘often quick to point out that guidance is just that’ and only ‘helps to achieve outcomes required by legislation’. MMC offers a ‘bit of a twist’, with an ‘allowance to use other methods’ for a route ‘by which innovation can take place’. It is ‘not always prescriptive’ and other techniques can be used – alternatives could be sought ‘largely where innovations operate’.
Gaps we ‘need to think about’ concern regulations and ‘delivering satisfactory outcomes’. Regulations ‘allow for innovation’ and it is ‘key to recognise’ that MMC operates ‘in an area not covered by guidance’. Fire engineered solutions are an option, but ‘take a lot of effort’, though ‘bespoke solutions can assure that a design is suitable’; while another is research and testing to applicable standards. Companies need to ‘make sure what they are doing is right for the situation they’re trying to achieve, and achieve the right outcome’, standards providing ‘boundaries in which to operate’, and compliance providing proof that ‘what you’ve done is reasonable
and backed by others’.
Combustible construction is often mitigated with sprinklers; we need to ‘think about how to meet the intent’ of regulations. MMC ‘is not quite there yet’, but standardisation ‘will be very important’ not just for fire, ‘but also for how buildings come together’. While there are ‘gaps in some’ techniques, research will help. ‘Standardisation is the way to go, so people aren’t scrabbling around to see how buildings work at large scale. It’s not about whether we can or can’t – it’s fundamental that we have research in place’, Mr Roche concluded.
Mr Ray noted that sprinklers ‘have been 96% effective for 121 years’, according to US data, and it was important to ‘address this effectiveness’. The top cause in the past and today of system failure is closed valves, and he explored US fires where sprinklers were installed. Activation did not happen due to closed valves, or because ‘we know that there are areas that are not protected’, while a ‘lack of maintenance and accountability’ is also often to blame. A ‘well defined process’ of proper installation and maintenance should occur during construction and ‘not after the event’.
On MMC, ‘research shows there is a need for all suppression components to act within buildings and structures because of modern contents, construction, components and methods’. Delays in reporting have also ‘always hampered’ response, with construction site fires a ‘very difficult challenge for both FRSs and contractors’, in ‘how to maintain safety and protection’.
‘Early on’ in construction through to near completion, ‘the challenge remains that FRSs are at risk’, with one solution being switching suppression systems on as each floor is completed, though this was often ‘very complex’. There was a need to ‘understand relationships between contractors, authorities and officials’, while ‘in some cases the laws and regulations that govern different components sometimes hamper the ability to maintain a safe environment’. In his view, ‘active involvement to remove obstacles and hurdles’ should be encouraged, ‘bringing all stakeholders to the table and process to understand everyone’s side’, as ‘noone wants the tragedies that occur’.
We ‘continue to seek solutions because of the modern construction methods and components – it’s not just those things, but the relationship between the people involved and the process’. One key lesson was ‘don’t shut systems down’, as fires ‘continue to happen’ and systems ‘attempt to control the fire to the best of their ability, before’ the FRS gets there – if sprinklers are ‘overwhelmed’ or a supply turned off, fires ‘typically cannot be stopped’.
Mr Ray cited this comment from a colleague on how valuable fire testing can be, as we see a ‘change in fire environments – we are finally listening to the fire’. Testing must continue, as we see ‘changing construction, a changing built environment and contents’.
Dr Moore-Merrell explained understanding local fire data via FireCARES (Community Assessment Response Evaluation System), which provides an ‘interactive assessment of the risk level of parcels’ of land within a community, colour coding areas and providing hazard levels. This can ‘inform’ the built environment, allocating colours based on types of building and hazards posed.
‘Having an understanding of the built environment matters’, with construction types listed alongside year of construction, rooms and improvement history, all of which ‘plays into a risk assessment’, and an environment ‘in which FRSs respond’.
‘Drilling down’ can provide detail, while a geocoded structure of fire history can be overlaid, as ‘we need to know where fires have occurred before’ for ‘predictive’ information as to where future fires may occur. This ‘tapestry’ of data can be mined to present local community risks, considering socio demographic profiles and residential structural profiles such as MMC. ‘Valuable’ historic fire data, including fire spread and the areas of origin, allow FRSs to ‘better characterise what distribution’ fires have and thus tailor responses.
Time is ‘an element we need to bring in’, as ‘growth time matters’. If we ‘better understand all elements, we will have better information for planning a response’. Data can provide an ‘effective response by hazard level – we really have to emphasise matching deployment capability to hazard or risk levels in communities, understanding the data on both sides, because if we do not match these well, we are far more vulnerable to negative outcomes’
William Roszczyk is editor of Fire & Risk Management
