Building a safer future and Grenfell outcomes seminar


pace of change will hopefully improve’, as the opportunity becomes available to ‘move to a more proactive approach’.


Toxicity’s impact FPA technical director Dr Jim Glockling concluded with a talk on toxicity, referencing FPA and the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) tests on cladding and insulation combinations. We ‘need to consider the toxic risk and its impact on people’, with poisons, irritants and gases causing loss of visibility and asphyxiation. Toxicity sources have ‘never


11,000 high rises, he wondered what the board can ‘do about other risks’, citing the inquiry’s recommendations and the move from stay put to simultaneous evacuation, a ‘complicated issue we need to get to grips with’. These are building policies and not FRS changes, so ‘you can’t just click your fingers and change this’. He asked how the shift ‘would work in practice in less staffed places nationwide’ – a steering group was set up last year to ‘oversee research into this situation’. Another dilemma was modern methods of construction (MMC), which the NFCC supports if ‘safe, sustainable, and tested and installed properly’. Mr Hardingham added that there


is often ‘criticism if change is too quick or too slow’, and that the NFCC and FRSs are ‘trying to find balance in a complicated, technical and interlinked environment’. Challenges include competence, capacity, recruitment and retention, as well as funding and ‘implementing the scale of change’. It was also going to be challenging to balance needs of high rise residential buildings with other ‘greater risk’ environments, while the lower number of inspection officers and inspectors were ‘a problem’, as was staff development.


Regulations and guidance FPA principal consultant David Poxon gave an upate on fire safety regulation and guidance, discussing consultations and amendments.


Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (ADB) and BS 8414 were two key areas, ADB having been clarified, and Mr Poxon gave a timeline of ongoing consultations and paths to regulatory change. He ‘appreciated how thorough the consultations have been’, reflecting on those for the combustible materials ban and the ADB technical review, and pointing out that the recent government announcements included a further call for evidence on risk prioritisation in existing buildings. Another was ongoing into


desktop studies, which he said ‘must now be done in line with standards’, and for which the document – BS 15725: 2010 – was revised so that it was ‘not suitable for external cladding’. Other consultations included BS 9414: 2019, covering testing rules and parameters, and sprinkler height guidelines. FPA responses advocate a ‘more risk based approach’ taking futureproofing into account, but ‘more clarity is required’, and more work needs to be done, specifically with sprinklers, as ‘often we come across people who think they are for property protection, when they provide life safety too’. Government advice was consolidated as per the recent announcement, and with the ADB technical review ahead, Mr Poxon outlined FPA hopes for this and a ‘more regular review process – the


really been considered’ in terms of building materials, and had been thought to ‘stem’ from furnishings. However, Dr Glockling asked ‘do we really think this is entirely true’ post Grenfell and the FPA tests, questioning whether regulations ‘protect those inside well enough from materials outside’. There are no toxicity limitation criteria for building materials, and ‘zero’ requirements to fire stop penetrations from outside, while impacts on cladding penetrations are not assessed. Fire can spread more quickly in cladding voids than cavity barriers can work, Dr Glockling said, citing FPA research and opining that a separate test ‘should be devised’. The FPA and UCLan had


looked to see if there is ‘potential for occupant harm’, and studied fractional effective doses for toxic materials, analysing incapacitation and lethality. A score of one would mean 50% of the healthy adult population would succumb, while two combinations got to 0.3, whereby 10% of the healthy adult population would succumb and be incapacitated within 10 minutes. For Dr Glockling, regulations


are ‘inadequate’ for the outside compared to inside, and materials need to be tested in ‘real life conditions’. This illuminated the case for non combustibility and the participation of insulation material in fires – toxicity needs to be incorporated into the regulations, as that way ‘non combustibility will prevail’


www.frmjournal.com MARCH 2020 19


EVENTS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60