Grenfell enquiry

prestbury, to clarify on dynamic risk assessment, they are as you state in the main compiled in any rapidly changing environment by the senior emergency service officer at any scene.

The part I was referring to would be that those responsible for day to day safety at large industrial plants or public buildings draw up and lodge with the emergency services. Those documents then form the foundation of the ongoing dynamic assessment that the senior officer at the site of an emergency carries out as the situation develops.

As I stated the section of the dynamic assessment drawn up by those responsible for safety on a day to day basis at sites such as the above should contain such information as access points for large vehicles, where the keys or keyholders are to be found, type of materials stored at the site, access to stairwells, possibly the maximum numbers of persons on site at various times of day or any information that would assist the senior officer on site in an emergency.

The above foundation assessments can be invaluable to the senior officer at the scene of an emergency in carrying out his/her ongoing dynamic assessment as information that otherwise would have to be searched for is readily at hand. However, it would seem in the present environment, these documents are very often no longer lodged with the emergency services when in time critical situations they can save lives

Specific and generic risk assessments are totally separate to the above and are drawn up for the average operation of an industrial plant, large workplace or public building. However, all risk assessments have to be reviewed under legislation at least every twelve months or when any change of operation has an impact on the assessments currently in effect.

As you state presbury, legislation demands that at least some of the above information should be accessible at the main entrance to any building. However, those documents in a critical smoke filled emergency situation are not always easily accessible and the regulation not always complied with.

Far better for them to be available online and regularly reviewed.

Grandad1943 - I think you may be getting confused with your comments re Dynamic Risk Assessment, to quote
'All large buildings should be covered by what is known as a Dynamic Risk Assessment. These documents should be drawn up by the owners or management authorities of these buildings and cover access points, fire hydrants and riser access, materials that would give off toxic vapours under heat stress and at approximately what temperatures, along with any other information that would be useful to the fire service and others in an emergency.'

I am sure you mean Generic or Particular Risk Assessments which of course are reviewed and recorded as part of any safety analysis of a building.

In fact the term Dynamic Risk Assessment is recognised by the HSE defines dynamic assessment as the
"continuous assessment of risk in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident, in order to implement the control measures necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety"

The main legal document covering buildings (except single domestic premises) is - The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which came into force in 2006 and empowers all owners/managers of such buildings to appoint a responsible person who is required to ensure compliance with the RRO.

Documents, risks and building plans are to be made available to the fire authorities as a result of complying with the RRO. This can be satisfactorily achieved by ensuring all such information is in a secure firebox within the main entrance to the premises.

Unfortunately when the Regulatory Reform Order was introduced, the need for fire certificates of buildings was removed.

As a matter of interest it isn't just council properties that have the cladding there are a number of privately owned properties with exactly the same. They are at present unsaleable- although some are worth around £500,000 and will not be saleable until the enquiry has reported and actions have been decided. Any that are tenanted the tenant as the right to leave without notice. There are blocks with patrols at night to warn of any dangers.

Surely whoever responsible for sourcing /ordering the cladding should understand the difference ?
Yes, I should think that they do, there just seemed to be a misunderstanding on the thread, although I must admit I haven't caught up with much news over the last few days.

A good idea to point that out Jalima (flammable/inflammable)

Upgrading the building cost millions, and Councils do want value for money (taxpayers) and go for the lower option where suitable, so they must have thought/been told that this was suitable.Nobody would have thought ( the Council) that the one supplied would go up like a candle.
Since many other tower blocks all over the country have this same cladding, although the Grenfell fire was a freak event in going up like it did ( the way the fire spread from the outside) all cladding everwhere will need testing ( this was begun almost immediately last year I think.)
No comfort to the
Grenfell survivors or the victims of course, but hopefully will prevent many more deaths in the future.

Flammable is not a word normally used in industrial safety circles. However, fire retardant is part referenced in describing the amount of heat stress a material may withstand before composite change begins to affect its structures.

The structure of any material can be dramatically affected by heat. In that, it is the ultimate maximum temperature of the ignition source multiplied by the length of time that source is applied to a material that determines when a structural change will begin to occur in any material receiving that source of heat (ingition point)

In determining whether a material is suitable for use in any large public or Industrial situation, a risk assessment should always be carried out in regards to the stress situations that may occur throughout its working use. The person carrying out such a risk assessment would look at what other materials are to be in the proximity of the material being assessed and the likely ingition sources in the area that the material is to be situated.

From the above, it can be assessed how resistant to ignition a material is required to be to give reasonable protection in time for people for evacuate an area and/or any fire source to extinguished.

Of course, whether any of the above was carried out in regards to Grenfell Tower is what the enquiry has been set up to determine as a major part of its brief.

You are right of course Jalima but a very common mistake. The material should be non-flammable.

Surely whoever responsible for sourcing /ordering the cladding should understand the difference ?

I think that's right Rosina - definition from Oxford English Dictionary - sorry I should have quoted the source.

There is also the term 'flame-resistant' which does not mean exactly the same as non-flammable.

Hmm. I wonder, Jalima , if this might be used as some kind of disingenuous excuse? I had no idea of this further definition, so thank you for that.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here but just making a point because of the seriousness of this - but flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.

The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, ‘easily set on fire’. This might seem surprising, given that the prefix in- normally has a negative meaning (as in indirect and insufficient), and so it might be expected that inflammable would mean the opposite of flammable, i.e. ‘not easily set on fire’. In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix in-, which has the meaning ‘into’ and here has the effect of intensifying the meaning of the word in English. Flammable is a far commoner word than inflammable and carries less risk of confusion

Non-flammable and non-inflammable apply to materials that cannot easily be set on fire.

Many questions. I seem to recall the Fire Brigade’s warnings were dismissed. Many local tower blocks have been found to have inflammable cladding. It must be terrifying to live in high rise

I agree that the lowest quote usually wins the contract Iam64 but surely it would have to be a low quote of the correctly specified material. Did they rely on the supplier to specify the material themselves? Did a buildings expert specify the grade of materials ? So many questions .

I may be wrong but, I suspect the inflammable cladding costs more, sonthe cheaper option was chosen. Competitive tendering means the lowest quote wins the work. Given the savage cuts to l.a. Budgets, no surprises there.

I've wondered that too Rosina! It doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever!

Not really on topic but what has puzzled me all along, and since the first details about some of the cladding used on public buildings was publicised, is that both flammable and inflammable cladding is manufactured. Perhaps I am not understanding or over simplifying this but why on earth would a company make flammable cladding - and why would anyone buy it and install it? This seems to be a vital question to answer as surely a product like this should never be used on any building at all.

Surely no one needs reminded of the reason for this enquiry. Given the flack this man has had before even the enquiry started little wonder his isn’t going to kick all that off again.

Anniebach thank you, that was part of my point. Trisha for just one example the Americans have remembered the World Trade Centre and kept the memory of those who died with memorials, programmes and services yearly. People have been able to express grief among those who truly understand, and while I am not suggesting this is what is needed today in this country, it is an example of what people find a degree of comfort in. I have absolutely not 'decried the grief of the Grenfell survivors' - please read what I have written, not what you think I have written.

Here are his words again

Although what we shall hear and see over the coming days may be described as memorials, they are in truth much more than that; they are an integral part of the evidence before the inquiry. They will remind us of its fundamental purpose and the reason why it is so
important that the truth be laid bare. Only by achieving that goal can we ensure justice for the living and a lasting tribute to the dead”

The Judge thinks the testimonials do help the enquiry and I think he’s absolutely right

Yes Trisher, but I do not think expressing grief affects anything in this enquiry. Full facts are needed to bring justice and where fault is found no protection given to those at fault, and I do speak from experience , when fault was found but the the person at fault was protected and kept his job.

Rosina the tone of your posts consistently decries the grief of the Grenfell survivors and the relatives of the dead who have chosen to speak. You may believe that more money should be spent in different areas but that is seperate from the enquiry and should remain so.
I ask again where else can they speak to the media and the wider public? A memorial garden may be somewhere to remember but it never expresses individual grief.

It isn't about the outcome Anniebach it is about the process- Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done.

I guess that’s what we might hopefully find out with the enquiry gilly - what no one is disputing is that the residents raised concerns about fire safety in general and their concerns were ignored.There will be a game of ‘pass the blame’ that’s for sure

Yes maryeliza I suppose that's true. But the problem remains who knew (if indeed anyone did) that the cladding was incorrect? Was someone (knowingly) cutting corners?