IFIC Forensics in Focus - Issue 14 - June 2018

Forensics in

focus ‘Beast from the East’ and Fraud

Issue 14 | June 2018

Dame Hackitt’s Report

Page 2

Page 6

Safety at Sea

Page 8

Introduction - Professor James Lygate Welcome to the summer edition of Forensics in Focus; I hope you enjoy the mix of topics covered in this latest issue.

The first anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy falls this month and the impact on the local community, UK housing providers and the construction industry remains ever present in the public eye via all manner of media. As we compile this issue of Forensics in Focus, the Final Report from the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt has been published, together with recommendations.

Throughout my career as a Chartered Surveyor and Chartered Fire Engineer, I have consistently been surprised at how few people really understand the Building Regulations. They represent not the best standards but the minimum standards, down to which contractors will typically build with the pressure on profit margins influencing commercial decisions.

A number of issues in the Final Report concern me and I am disappointed that there is no recommendation to require new and refurbished complex buildings to be certified by Chartered Fire Engineers whose designs are checked by Chartered Fire Engineers. Such a system would, in my opinion, enforce good fire safety design and construction. I write more on this subject and the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety later in this issue.

It seemed appropriate that our next article in our Health and Safety Series looked at Investigating Structural Fires and our Senior Investigator, Mike Wisekal, has put together an informative guide on typical hazards, risk controlling measures and current legislation.

The Beast from the East caused chaos in the early part of this year with up to 50 cm of snow and temperatures plummeting to -9 degrees. Insurers faced a surge in claims with damage to property caused by the weight of the snow and the inevitable spike in claims from escapes of water related to frozen pipes.

Early estimates put the cost of the cold spell to insurers in the region of £600 million. Our Senior Investigator, Deon Webber, considers the relative opportunity for fraudulent and exaggerated claims in his article, including advice on considerations for claims handlers / loss adjusters to assist in identifying claim account anomalies.

Incidents of shipping fires in the first half of this year have continued in frequency and our Operations Manager and Senior Investigator, John Gow, takes a closer look at SOLAS Chapter IX: Management for the Safe Operation of Ships and the application of the mandatory ‘International Safety Management Code’ in this issue.

I hope you will find the article by our Client Relationship Manager, Chris Shorten, useful reference material. Chris outlines our three headline services, Forensic Triage, Forensic Screen and Full Investigation and includes guidance on when to select which service.

We have had opportunity to meet some of you at industry events that have taken place in the first six months of 2018.

We attended the Building Control Northern Ireland Fire Safety Conference in February where we met housing providers, private landlords and risk management professionals and discussed the Building Regulations Northern Ireland 2012, fire engineering and fire safety requirements. At the Irish Building Control Institute Conference in March, we discussed Building Regulations 1997 to 2006 and Fire Safety Requirements in Ireland together with the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management’s re-appraisal of the fire safety requirements. We were also delighted to be Silver Sponsors at the I Love Claims Home & Commercial Claims Lunch in May, hosting a table of guests and enjoying informed discussions with the claims community. As we finalise this edition of Forensics in Focus, we are making our preparations to attend the Airmic Conference in Liverpool June 11th – 13th. We are on Stand 17 and will be discussing fire engineering as a means of mitigating risk; we hope to see you there.

And finally, I am pleased to be able to let you know that in line with our continued business growth, we are undertaking a strategic recruitment drive this year and will be expanding the talent and expertise within the business in a number of regions. I look forward to introducing you to new members of the team in later issues of Forensics in Focus.

As always, if you have any suggestions for topics you would like to see included in Forensics in Focus, then please email me at jlygate@ific.co.uk.

1

EoW Fraud and ‘The Beast from the East’ Deon Webber Senior Investigator – IFIC Forensics The early part of 2018 brought the UK the chaos of up to 50 cm snow as well as temperatures reaching as low as minus 9°C. 10 deaths in the UK and 48 across Europe were attributed to the arctic blast referred to as ‘The Beast from the East’. In scenes reminiscent of the winter of 2010, insurers have seen home claims rocket, with a 198% increase reported by Co-op Insurance. Allianz also noted a 100% increase with many claims attributed to storm Emma and Simple Landlords Insurance experienced a 300% increase in calls to their claims line.

Whilst many of the claims related to damage caused by the weight of snow, inevitably there was a spike in claims from escapes of water related to frozen pipes. Early estimates put the total cost of the damage done somewhere in the region of £600 million, with £33 million in motor claims alone.

Comparisons with the winter of 2010/11 are inevitable just as each hot summer is compared with 1976, but it should be remembered that during that winter, snow started falling in November and peaked at a depth of 76 cm in the Peak District. Temperatures too were much more severe, with minus 21.3°C recorded in Altnaharra, Scotland during the coldest December for 100 years. It was reported that the severe cold that winter was responsible for £1.4 billion in claims.

Escapes of water remain the greatest insured peril, representing 28% of all property claims, that equates to the

2

value of fire, explosion and theft claims combined and represents £483 million in claims in the first 9 months of 2017 alone, and the costs continue to rise.

Adverse weather is of course only one cause of escapes of water. Poor or inadequate levels of insulation can and do lead to burst pipes as a result of frost, but many of these incidents are the result of poor workmanship, component failure or a lack of maintenance and neglect. In addition to these, there is the ever present possibility of fraud.

There is a growing awareness that an increasing number of EoW claims are the result of deliberate action for the purposes of financial gain. Escapes have been seen in some areas as ‘The New Arson’. Even in genuine incidents, there is the opportunity that damage can be exaggerated to include areas that were not legitimately damaged by the original water escape.

It is common that such claims are only investigated at a superficial level, without the involvement of forensic specialists. IFIC Forensics has for a number of years been spreading the word that EoW claims should be treated in the same way as fire claims and investigated thoroughly by experts. Training and experience can be used to identify opportunities for third party recovery and where appropriate, repudiation. More importantly, a detailed and timely investigation can identify fraudulent activity as well as sending a strong deterrent message to would-be fraudsters.

The key to identifying fraudulent EoW claims is asking the right questions and giving the right advice at the time of claim. Claims handlers should consider: • Asking claimants to detail precisely which areas are affected; • Getting them to take and send in photos (prevents subsequent exaggeration); • Advising the insured, where possible, not to use emergency contractors who have recently worked on the installation; • Insisting that any replaced components and damaged items are retained (including damaged plasterboard and carpets which can contain evidence);

Above all, the timely appointment of forensics will give the maximum opportunity for the recovery of evidence. On too many occasions this opportunity is lost and valuable evidence is compromised or disposed of.

The current surge in claims following the severe weather of the past winter season is a good time to take stock and to reexamine the approach to EoW claims. Often things aren’t quite what they seem and it takes an experienced eye to spot the subtle clues that can indicate fraud.

IFIC Forensics has a proud track record of not only identifying opportunities for cost recovery in these cases, but also in uncovering fraudulent activity relating to water claims.

Increases in premiums and excesses won’t stem this problem alone but thorough forensic examination will in time pay for itself.

• Asking for repair contractors to also take photos of the source of the escape.

3

Forensic Triage, Forensic Screen & Full Investigation – Selecting the Right Service Chris Shorten Client Relationship Manager – IFIC Forensics In my role as Client Relationship Manager for IFIC Forensics, I’m often asked to explain the differences between the various investigation services available in order that clients might gain insight into what exactly each service delivers and to form their own opinions of which service to select and the relative ‘value for money’ – not always easy in respect of highly complex, technical subjects.

When receiving a new instruction, the appointed IFIC Forensics’ Investigator will typically telephone the Instructing Principal to introduce themselves and discuss the circumstances of the claim; thereby jointly reaching accord on what is the most appropriate investigation service to initially select.

IFIC Forensics’ primary investigation services for Fire / Explosion and Escape of Water (EoW) fall into three headline categories: • Forensic Triage; • Forensic Screen (Fire Screen / Water Screen); • Full Forensic Investigation.

The overview of these three levels of investigation services can be set out as follows:

4

Forensic Triage Forensic Triage is an option to initially instruct IFIC Forensics on typically domestic cases of less than £20,000 in value.

However, the option to instruct a Forensic Triage must be exercised with appropriate caution and with full knowledge of its clear limitations.

Forensic Triage:• Is not a root cause investigation; it is an assessment that can be used to inform correct decision making in the claim process; • It typically delivers a brief report summarising the nature of the assessment and advice provided; • It provides an opportunity to consult with forensics, to ascertain - based on the information available - the appropriate level of response.

Forensic Triage: How does it work?

• e-storage space: a secure e-storage space is set up for the Claim Handler / Loss Adjuster to upload photographic and other pertinent evidence for our investigator to remotely review.

• Webinar: our investigator organises a webinar conference with the Claim Handler / Loss Adjuster to discuss the loss in context with their 'on the ground' experience of the claim site.

• Available Evidence Examination: our investigator will evaluate the circumstances of the loss to establish if: - Full Investigation would be advisable / required to reasonably establish origin and cause; - Repudiation or 3rd Party Recovery might be viable.

• In areas of limited damage, origin and cause might be apparent from the Forensic Triage, however if repudiation or recovery prospects exist a full investigation will be required.

Fire Screen/Water Screen A Fire or Water Screen assesses the validity of the claim and the prospects for recovery or repudiation. Forensic Screen services are best suited to claims below £100,000 in value.

The IFIC Forensics’ Screen process is: • Clarify instructions. Review policy details, claims papers, photographs etc. received; • Despatch an appropriately competent investigator to site.

Undertake site inspection; • Gather information (e.g. customer, tenant, neighbour, contractor, directors, partners, employees) and document the information as necessary; • Identify relevant documentary evidence (e.g. manuals, service records etc.); • Where appropriate secure any physical evidence required for subsequent laboratory investigation including electronic data (e.g. alarm logs, CCTV recordings, etc.); • Review immediate causation evidence. Undertake evaluation of evidence and impact in respect of: - Breach of advised policy conditions, endorsements or warranties; - Fraud; - 3rd Party responsibility for the damage and recovery opportunity; • Provide verbal advice from scene and make recommendations if appropriate regarding escalation to full investigation; • Set out recommendations (scope, cost and timeline) for further investigations in short form forensic report and provide to / discuss with the Claim Handler.

Full Forensic Investigation Only Full Forensic Investigation provides the quality and depth of evidence required in support of subrogation or any legal proceedings. This scientific approach will support accurate cause determination, sequence events and increase the reliability of any findings proximate to cause, personal injury or death.

Full Forensic Investigation can be instructed from the outset or escalated from either a Forensic Triage or a Screen instruction and provides the following professional services: • Review and comment on policy details, claims papers, photographs etc. received; • Despatch an appropriately competent investigator to site.

Undertake site inspection; • Take witness statements; • Obtain relevant documentary evidence (e.g. manuals, service records etc.); • Where appropriate secure any physical evidence required for subsequent laboratory investigation including electronic data such as alarm logs, CCTV recordings; • Provide detailed analysis of evidence and impact in respect of: - Breach of advised policy conditions, endorsements or warranties; - Fraud; - 3rd party responsibility for the damage and recovery opportunity; • Undertake further investigations as required including, but not necessarily limited to: - Contact and interview Fire Officers or Police witnesses; - Site testing of mechanical and / or electrical installations; - Laboratory testing of recovered components or appliances etc.; - Site excavation work necessary to access forensic evidence; - Desk study (e.g. of recall databases, design specifications etc.); - Contact and interview of other witnesses; - Liaison with third party appointed consultants, component or appliance manufacturers, Claim Handler, Insurer’s subrogation and recoveries unit or appointed solicitors, Insurer’s underwriters, Insurer’s appointed legal representatives, Insurer’s internal or external fraud investigators; - Attendance at case review meetings; • Preparation and provision of detailed Forensic Report; • Discuss recommendations with Claim Handler.

The bottom line is that IFIC Forensics’ role is to establish origin and cause, to identify any prospects for 3rd Party Recovery and to identify any suspected fraud. Hence, we seek to work with you to apply the right level of attention to each claim.

To make further enquiries as to the pricing and scope of our services please contact me at cshorten@ific.co.uk.

Or to instruct IFIC Forensics email us at instructus@ific.co.uk.

5

Update & Implications of the Final Report from the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety Prof. James Lygate, Chairman - IFIC Forensics This article finds me in a 40 storey aluminium clad (ACM) building in Dubai where I’m preparing to board an ultra large container ship which suffered a large fire recently and in case I need a reminder of the risk posed by high rise ACM clad buildings, the local TV news channel is showing a fire affecting the lower 5 storeys of a multi-storey close by.

The End of ‘Stay Put’.

As the recent 7 storey fire in London proves, residents are going to vote with their feet and exit for safety without the authority of the Fire Service or some other party. Firefighters are going to be met by a stream of people on that single stair seeking to get out.

That means they will have to adjust their firefighting tactics and use the lifts to the fire floor. The Fire Service taking control of ALL the lifts in a fire should be achievable – a software change is all.

Throughout my career as a Chartered Surveyor and Chartered Fire Engineer I have been surprised at how few people really understand the Building Regulations. They represent not the best standards but the minimum standards down to which contractors build just about every time.

https://gulfnews.com/news/uae/emergencies/fire-breaks-out-indubai-marina-tower-1.2220477 Ensconced on the 26th floor I have made a dynamic fire risk assessment. I need not ponder what to do if the fire alarm sounds – head for one of the two stairs remembering to take my key just in case I need to return to my room. Oh and by the way my room has a sprinkler!

I was one of the Brits caught in the power cut in New York on August 14, 2003 and walked down 25 floors from Freehill Hogan and Mahers offices in Pine Street. The stair was packed, it took 30 minutes but there was no alternative as the lifts didn’t work: they did actually it’s just we were not allowed to use them.

6

I used to build supermarkets in the 1980’s for FineFare (a name long gone). We’d finish the building, sign off the completion certificate, hand over the keys and leave. Waiting in the car park was the telecom engineer come to make some changes to the phone system. “A phone there sir, no problem. Now where’s my hammer to make a hole in that plasterboard (fire) partition to put the cable through.” Until we adopt, by regulation, control over fire barriers as the Swiss do; penetrations through fire resisting construction will ever be so.

One of the requirements of being a fire investigator is that I have investigated fires in many different industries and therefore observed their safety philosophies and practices at close quarters. I know the value of HAZID (hazard identification) and HAZOP (hazard and operability study), FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis) and of RCA (root cause analysis) in its many varied forms.

Dame Hackitt refers to her background in the Chemicals industry in the following passage from her Interim Report:

of writing. A number of issues concern me. In Appendix E whilst lauding the approach taken by the IStructE she has not recognised that she could, and should in my view, have recognised a similar system needs to be created for the enforcement of good fire safety design and construction.

In my opinion, we can solve the problem quickly – require new and refurbished complex buildings to be certified by Chartered Fire Engineers whose designs are checked by Chartered Fire Engineers.

BS 476-7: Fire Test to Building Material – Surface flame

As an engineer, much of my career has been spent working in the chemicals industry where any project undertaken has to be specified, designed to that specification and properly reviewed; any changes have to be properly managed, reviewed and recorded. At the end of the project, a full record of what has been built must be handed over to those who will operate the project.

This same philosophy continues throughout the life cycle of the entity that has been built, when any further changes or improvements are made.

After some four months leading this review, it is clear that this same systematic, controlled approach to construction, refurbishment and management of occupied buildings is not by any means universal. There is plenty of good practice but it is not difficult to see how those who are inclined to take shortcuts can do so. Change control and quality assurance are poor throughout the process. What is initially designed is not what is being built, and quality assurance of materials and people is seriously lacking.

So what do I think of Dame Hackitt’s review?

She says of fire risk assessment: There are no minimum requirements for the competent person and no statutory accreditation or registration processes (although some voluntary schemes e.g. Warrington Certification Scheme do exist). While this makes sense for many small, lowrisk premises, it is a particular issue for more complex high-rise residential buildings where there are likely to be more sophisticated fire safety strategies and more complex issues around evacuation in the event of a fire. Responsible persons frequently do little to verify competence.

There has been a quiet turf war between the HSE and Fire & Rescue Service which has always seen itself as the guardians of fire safety. The F&RS have been singularly successful in doing themselves out of a job by their fire prevention campaigns. As a result, the number of fires in England and Wales is about half its 2000 level. Unfortunately, that hides a strange statistic which is that according to the ABI the cost of fires is continuing to rise.

Simply put we have a smaller number of larger fires.

For me the key word is safety and dare I say the unsayable: the HSE should be responsible for fire safety and its enforcement.

No doubt the HSE has a lot to learn about fire safety but they have the structure and capabilities to enforce fire safety. Some sort of joint initiative between the HSE and the F&RS may be the way forward.

Again for me she has not grasped the nettle: successive Public Inquiries into deaths in building fires have criticised the lack of competence of fire risk assessors. Dame Hackitt suggests improving the requirements for Fire Risk Assessors in Appendix E but that, in my view, may not result in increased competence. As I have argued above, the fire risk assessment of high rise residential buildings (HRRBs) is a job for a Chartered Fire Engineer. They are the ones who have the knowledge, skills and experience (i.e. competence) to understand, for example, that fire tests are simply a way of comparing materials on a like for like basis. They know that the public perception that 30 minutes fire resistance in the standard fire resistance test does not mean that in the real world and that the behaviour of materials in the surface spread of flame test may be no indicator of how they behave on the exterior of a building.

The answer is straightforward: require fire risk assessments of complex buildings like HRRBs to be checked and approved by Chartered Fire Engineers.

I think there is a reason we have had very few buildings fall down in the UK. They are designed by Chartered Civil or Structural Engineers whose designs and calculations are checked by Chartered Civil or Structural Engineers.

Fire safe buildings are about the competence of the designer.

Forgive the generalisation but everyone who strikes a match and lights a candle considers themselves something of a fire expert.

Because we handle fire safely in our daily lives, we are somewhat inured to its risks until tragedy strikes, but none of us would dream of designing the structure which holds up a building – that needs knowledge, training, experience: in a word competence and that’s what fire safety is all about.

The Final Report from the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety has just been published at the time

7

Safety at Sea John Gow Operations Manager & Senior Investigator - IFIC Forensics In our 2017 Winter edition we mentioned, briefly, the SOLAS Chapter IX: Management for the Safe Operation of Ships and the introduction of the mandatory ‘International Safety Management Code’.

in the month of February, I noted another six casualties involving fire, including two Russian naval vessels and an explosion in the Turkish freighter MUMATZ AMCA, above, in which one member of the crew died.

In this issue we will look at some of the practical aspects of responding to the risk of fire or explosion. However, before doing so and for context, it is worthwhile taking a look at the first few months of 2018 and some of the casualties that have occurred.

On January 1, 2018, a fire broke out in a cargo hold on board a Dutch Freighter berthed in Seville. The fire on board the general cargo ship, ‘AMBER’ saw the local Fire Service respond to deal with a load of beet, apparently fermenting in the hold. The fire was extinguished and as far as I am aware no one was injured.

Whilst we do not want to see any ship go on fire it was perhaps fortunate that the vessel was docked when the fire erupted.

This incident was quickly followed by a fire on board the crude oil tanker SANCHI. On January 6, 2018 she collided with another vessel. This collision ruptured the hull releasing the cargo of crude oil into the East China Sea. The significant fire that followed, amid reported two meter high waves, made rescue operations challenging and of the 32 crew on board, only the bodies of two crew were recovered. The vessel finally sank with the remaining 30 crew lost.

There were several more casualties involving fire and/or explosion in March including a fire in the hold of the MAERSK KENSINGTON and an explosion and fire involving a cargo tank on the product tanker DONGFANG GLORY. On March 7, 2018 it was reported that the MAERSK HONAM, an Ultra Large Cargo Carrier was on fire, with the fire eventually engulfing the three forward holds. It is understood that whilst the fire affected the accommodation block it did not spread to hold No 4, immediately aft of this structure.

The trend continued into April and May with further fires involving container ships, tankers, cargo barges, a Russian cruise ship and a Greek ferry, the CHAMPION JET 2, in which there was an explosion injuring two engineers.

We did not have to wait long for another fire to occur. On January 16, 2018 a transformer caught fire on the FPSO CIDADE DE MARICA located in the Santos Basin off Brazil. This was reported as a small fire with minimal damage.

On January 17, 2018 the STENA BRITANNICA, a car and passenger ferry, whilst on approach to Harwich suffered a fire on a lower car deck. It is reported that the fire started in a truck and spread to other trucks before being brought under control by crew. On docking the local fire service boarded and assisted by ships crew finally extinguished the fire.

Meanwhile, again on January 17, 2018 at Kandala Port Anchorage, Gulf of Kutch, the Indian product tanker GENESSA, loaded with diesel fuel, was reported as being involved in an explosion and fire. All 26-crew evacuated with two crew apparently sustaining burn injuries.

On February 2, 2018 we saw the MOL PRESTIGE with a fire in the engine room, five crew injured, two reported as being serious and

8

It is clear, from this selection, that the loss of life, in 2018, is already significant as are the injuries sustained by crew. The financial costs will run into many millions of dollars. It is worth considering that if these losses had been in the aviation industry, fleets would be grounded for checks to identify the extent of the problem, solutions found and the all clear given before operations are permitted to resume. This approach may not be practical for the marine industry but it is apparent that something needs to be done; but as long as we have manufacturers and shippers transporting dangerous goods that are either misdeclared or undeclared, fires and explosion will continue to occur and more lives will be lost.

This brings us back to our opening paragraph and SOLAS Chapter IX and Regulation 2, which sets out its application and states that this chapter applies to: 1. Passenger ships including high-speed craft, not later than July 1, 1998; 2. Oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and high-speed craft of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than July 1, 1998; and 3. Other cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 gross tonnage and upwards, not later than July 1, 2002.

The chapter does not apply to government operated ships used for non-commercial purposes.

margin is to ensure there is enough air for withdrawing from the scene of operations. This duration is calculated on a breathing rate of 40 litres per minute. The reality, when working in a fire environment, is that the breathing rate increases and a practical working duration of about 20 – 30 minutes, depending on the capacity of the cylinder, is more likely. After experiencing the conditions described above this may translate into about 5- 10 minutes at the scene of operations before the wearer has to start a withdrawal. If conditions are severe you might consider relieving your firefighting team after about 10 minutes of firefighting.

Regulation 3 requires that the company and ship ‘shall’ comply with the requirements of the International Safety Management Code. Section 8, which covers Emergency Preparedness is key to the safe operation of ships. In essence this section requires the company to identify potential emergency ship board operations and establish procedures to respond to them. Part of that emergency response includes the development and implementation of a program of drills and training to prepare for emergency actions.

An example of the practical application of these requirements is the preparation for an emergency response to an outbreak of fire within a cargo hold. Depending on the apparent severity of any fire, two possible response options might be considered. One might be to commit fire teams to the hold to extinguish the fire.

In this scenario there are two combined operations in progress, the first being a confined space entry, the second is the firefighting operation.

Let us first consider the confined space entry and the hazards that might arise. As the name implies the crew member is entering a confined space, typically via a hatch, several levels or tiers may have to be negotiated with physical exertion and the crew member may have to undertake physical activity when they arrive at the scene of operations. In normal circumstances such activities may have to be undertaken to check reefers stowed underdeck. The precautions that would need to be employed for this might be straightforward, for example, venting the hold before entry, wearing a gas monitor and ensuring other crew know when you enter and exit, but combine this with a fire situation and the hazards and associated risks increase. As well as the confined entry, breathing apparatus will be required, visibility will be poor, there may be increased temperature and a descent through a heat layer with charged hose lines being handled during the descent. Combine this with the noise of cargo crackling, or containers popping, increased anxiety and the amount of physical exertion required to reach the scene of operations and then, when you arrive you are faced with the prospect of cutting holes in containers so that you can apply an extinguishing medium.

If this isn’t enough, and if you are fortunate that the incident container is accessible, when you apply the firefighting water you are faced with an initial increase in temperature and the visibility is further reduced as a steam cloud is generated.

During a firefighting operation it is essential that all breathing apparatus wearers monitor the amount of air left within the cylinder. According to the FSS Code sets with a minimum duration of 30 minutes are required. Modern breathing apparatus sets can provide about 50 minutes of air or more, if it is a long duration set this time can be further increased. But, a ten minute safety margin is usually deducted giving an assumed working duration, in this example, of 40 minutes. The 10 minute

To be successful in a manual attack you would also require relief teams who could enter the hold to ensure that firefighting operations are continued and given that this is also a confined space entry an emergency team should be kitted out and standing by for rescue should the need arise. The rescue team should not, in my view, be committed for manual firefighting as long as crews are deployed within the hold.

It is not my intention to go into the regulatory requirements for the provision of breathing apparatus on board ship but under these circumstances, the provision can be quickly utilized.

Consider the alternative mode of attack that is the release of CO2 into the affected space. In this operation a firefighting team is not committed into the space, except for life saving purposes, the vents are closed and the CO2 is released. It must be borne in mind that a cargo hold is not a hermetically sealed space and that leakage of CO2 outward and air inwards will occur. It is for that reason that the manufacturer's instructions must be followed and the CO2 topped up with additional releases in accordance with those instructions. The watchword with the use of CO2 is patience as it requires time for this extinguishing medium to work. All too often hatches are prematurely lifted and a fire takes hold and becomes uncontrollable.

As a former firefighter, in circumstances when there is no immediate risk to life, I would advocate the early introduction of CO2 into the hold. Unfortunately, the use of C02 rather than being a first resort is often seen as a last resort.

Whilst there appear to be no specific studies into the late release of CO2 into a cargo hold, research was undertaken by Class NK looking into the effects of a delayed release of CO2 into an engine room. This study showed that the faster the CO2 is released the better the likelihood of a successful outcome.

By using CO2 as a first resort the deployment of crew into a hazardous environment is avoided. But, regardless of what firefighting tactics are deployed, if the crew and command structure are not trained and properly drilled the chances of successfully extinguishing any fire may be limited.

9

Health & Safety: Hazards & Risks Associated with Investigating Structural Fires Mike Wisekal, Senior Investigator – IFIC Forensics Fire Investigators attend and examine fire scenes in all types of structures. Structures may be commercial, manufacturing, and residential buildings of various designs. Structures may involve complex industrial machinery or the accommodation of ships.

A fire scene presents a wide range of potential structural hazards. Personal safety must be regarded as a priority at all fire investigations.

IFIC Forensics’ Investigators complete Scene Risk Assessments when attending fire scenes. This insures our moral and legal obligation to both our Investigators and our Clients.

Legislation in the UK and Ireland requires the undertaking of Risk Assessments at the workplace. For example: Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (UK) • Regulation 3(1) Employers required to make sufficient and suitable risk assessment.

There are key definitions that IFIC Forensics’ Investigators bear in mind when undertaking Scene Risk Assessments: HAZARD – Something with the potential to cause harm; RISK – Likelihood that harm from a hazard will occur.

CONTROL MEASURE – Any measure taken to control / reduce a risk.

The IFIC Forensics’ Scene Risk Assessment specifically recognises the need to assess structurally related hazards and risks.

Structures involved in fire will often be subject to physical changes as a result of the fire. These changes generally create the hazards that a Fire Investigator must assess and manage to undertake the fire scene examination safely.

General hazards likely to be encountered in structural fires may include: • Structural collapse / stability issues;

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (UK)

• Loose debris that may fall from above;

• Section 19(1): Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.

• Holes in floors;

European Council Directive 89/391/EEC:

• Hazardous materials; • Exposed electrical services;

• Article 6(1): General Obligations on Employers; • Artilce 13(1): Workers Obligations.

10

• Damaged natural gas or oil services; • Sharps such as glass, nails or torn materials.

Structural fires can subsequently introduce additional hazards such as: • Biological contaminants;

Holes in a floor are a hazard and pose a risk of an investigator falling through the floor. When standing below there is a risk of falling debris onto an investigator. This could result in a fatal or serious injury to the investigator or others that might enter.

• Chemicals; • Confined spaces; • Slips, trips and falls;

A suitable control measure would be to avoid this area and / or minimise the imposed weight put on the structure in the area of concern. Excessive weight on a fire damaged floor may result in the collapse of the floor.

• Respiratory hazards; • Working at heights.

Controlling risk involves implementing changes that will minimise risk.

RISK = LIKELIHOOD x CONSEQUENCE To reduce any type of risk: • Reduce the likelihood of the hazardous event happening; • Reduce the consequence of the hazardous event.

Fire Investigators work in inherently hazardous and risky environments. Each fire scene has its own unique structural hazards and risks.

Sharp hazard can be in the form of broken window glass, discarded needles and torn pieces of metal or structure of a building. This can pose a laceration risk to anyone entering.

Investigators can adopt suitable control measures to limit the risk potential by limiting their access, however if access is required, wearing adequate PPE will reduce the risk (e.g. hard hat, safety glasses, appropriately rated debris gloves). PPE is often considered the last line of defence against hazards.

It is recognised that due to the nature of structural hazards, and the environment that Fire Investigators work in, PPE does not remove the risk. Controlling structural hazards can require the introduction of a safe system of work unique to the fire scene circumstances. This is typically by form of a method statement or a Safe Operating Procedure (SOP) which sets out how the task will be undertaken in a safe manner.

IFIC Forensics recognises its moral and legal duty to manage structural fire scene examinations. All IFIC Forensics’ Investigators are trained in completing scene risk assessments.

This ensures hazards and risks are managed appropriately, thereby protecting our investigators, and ensuring our clients that our service is morally and legally responsible.

The structural stability hazard of this building poses a risk of collapse, potentially risking a fatal or crushing injury that may lead to the death and or entrapment of an Investigator.

The Investigator should avoid this area of the structure until the area is made safe. Barrier tape or fencing could be erected.

This would put distance between people and the hazard.

A structural engineer may be required to fully assess the safety of the building before safe investigations can commence.

Controlled demolitions to progress the investigation may be necessary.

11

London Blackwell House Guildhall Yard London EC2V 5AE Tel: +44 (0)20 3540 9446

Glasgow Rushbrook House 220 Ayr Road Glasgow G77 6DR Tel: +44 (0)141 639 6611

Manchester 111 Piccadilly Ducie Street Manchester M1 2HY Tel: +44 (0)161 244 8480

Dublin Unit E4 Centrepoint Rosemount Business Park Ballycoolin, Dublin 11, Ireland Tel: +353 (0)1686 9318

Belfast 54 Elmwood Avenue Belfast Northern Ireland BT9 6AZ Tel: + 44 (0)28 9560 7444

The IFIC App

INSTRUCT IFIC FORENSICS TODAY: UK: Tel: Free phone 0808 235 9767 Email: instructus@ific.co.uk Web: www.ific.co.uk Ireland: Tel: +353 (0)1 686 9318 Email: instructus@ific.ie Web: www.ific.ie 12