360 Review of Fire Safety following Centre Parcs Fire. Neal Butterworth Associate Director Arup

Transcription

1 360 Review of Fire Safety following Centre Parcs Fire Neal Butterworth Associate Director Arup Madrid, del 23 al 25 de febrero de 2010 / Madrid, 23rd to 25th of February of 2011

2 Centre Parcs Introduction Introduction to Centre Parcs The Elveden Forest Fire Business Recovery and Protection Outcome (Value Added) Lessons Learned Total Engineering Conclusions

3 CENTRE PARCS

4 Introduction

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 UK Locations Whinfell Forest Sherwood Forest Elveden Forest Longleat Forest

12 Fire at Elveden Parc 4 April 2002 Fire started at Elveden Parc Development too quick for first aid fire fighting g 4000 people evacuated 150 fire fighters 4 hours to control, still burning after 24 hours Whole plaza including restaurants and leisure facilities

13

14

15 -millions of direct losses Impact on Centre Parcs Loss of operation for 15 months Significant consequential losses Public image affected Immediate concerns regarding risk to remaining assets Justification of insurance claim Claim was disputed by insurers Future insurance Centre Parcs became uninsurable

16 Arup Commissions Arup approached and appointed via Deutshe Bank Comprehensive Review and Audit of Assets and Facilities Review of all sites for compliance with Regulation (life-safety) Definition and audit of existing facilities against life-safety and business protection objectives Agreement of immediate, medium and long term actions Specification, negotiation and management of upgrades Expert witness in support of insurance claim Negotiation with future insurers

17 Review and Audit - Objectives Meeting with Directors to establish aims: Life safety to meet code standards Critical buildings determined to minimise interruption in event of fire Center Parcs is most profitable leisure company in Europe and fire meant 25% revenue disappeared over night Learning process for Directors: life-safety v business protection, responsibility for existing conditions etc

18 Life safety goals Review and Audit - Objectives Get everybody out before being overcome by fire (i.e. before the fire becomes too large). All reasonable access for the fire service Property protection goals Fire prevention Fire and smoke containment Life safety and property p protection are not mutually exclusive, but can be disconnected Most obvious in single storey buildings where given the proximity to level exit routes leading directly to outside, fire containment is not required for life-safety purposes

19 Review and Audit Objectives ASSESSMENT OF VILLAGE FACILITIES AND OUTLETS DISCUSSION DRAFT Facility/Outlets Life Safety Business Continuity Asset Protection Rebuild Cost PR Comment Pool a a a 10 15m We cannot operate without a pool Changing a a a 1m We could live Rooms without t changing rooms for up to 2 weeks, using temporary facilities Parcmarket a a Other retail a 2 4m A temporary parcmarket could be established within 48 hours if we have arrangements with appropriate equipment suppliers. We could operate without other retail, or establish temporary facilities

20 Review and Audit Site Risk Assessments 4 audits completed within 3 Building Specific Condition weeks 1 Is there a detection system, and if so, indicate type, level of coverage, addressibility, and if it is appropriate to the clients brief? 2 Is an automatic sprinkler No. system provided or other type of suppression system? 3 Is automatic smoke venting provided? 4 Are portable extinguishers or hand held extinguishers provided? Detector coverage appears to approaching an L3 standard. Break glass alarms and sounders are present. No. Yes 5 Are escape routes well Yes signed, well distributed, Emergency lighting, visible, easily navigatable signage and sounders and clear of obstructions? are provided

21 Review and Audit Immediate Actions 4 audits completed within 3 weeks Within 24 hours of each site visit action items provided to Client Rep Are any of the above considered to pose an unacceptable risk when compared to the clients brief, if so indicate here and discuss mitigating options in the main Report Life Safety No. Asset Protection ti Not identified d by Center Parcs as a business critical operation, but depends on whether a loss of all operations from this complex is an issue. Business Continuity Not identified by Center Parcs as a business critical operation, but depends on whether a loss of all operations from this complex is an issue. Public Relations/Image No

22 Review and Audit Detailed Reports 4 audits completed within 3 weeks Within 24 hours of each site visit action items provided to Client Rep Detailed report outlining short, medium and long term changes provided for each site Center Parcs Elveden Life Safety and Business Protection Audit Results and Recommendations

23 Review and Audit Fire Protection Upgrades 4 audits completed within 3 weeks Within 24 hours of each site visit action items provided to Client Rep Detailed report outlining short, medium and long term changes provided for each site Center Parcs then agreed to a major program of fire safety upgrade works to meet their defined business continuity objectives

24 Upgrades Scope of Requirements Audit recommendations resulted in: Sprinkler systems on all 4 sites Detection and alarm systems on all 4 sites Detailed survey of external building fabric to determine combustible materials Detailed study on pool construction formed of 4 storey high glass construction on 2 sites Internal wall audits on all 4 sites Upgrade of fire safety management and procedures on all 4 sites Arup appointed for all of the above

25 Arup: fire engineering, project management Sprinkler Works Cost assessment Specification for the works Negotiate with single preferred contractor (initial offer of 1.8m reduced to 1.4m) Review contractors drawings Negotiate final design with Insurers Attended all progress meetings on the sites, reviewed all works during installation Ongoing investigation into the water supplies that feed the sprinkler continue

26 Arup: fire engineering, advanced research External Fabric Works Extensive use of combustible materials throughout Detailed survey by Center Parcs Investigation of material types, specific assemblies relative to business continuity aims Arup advised on alternative materials, material characteristics, on site applications, on site assemblies, for extensive list of materials Program of removal and replacement, or alternative protection strategy developed eloped with Center Parcs Agreed by Insurer at series of workshops

27 Arup: fire engineering, site investigation Internal Construction A small refurbishment revealed extensive use of polystyrene y in midst of negotiations with a new Insurer Swift appointment to audit all 4 sites for combustible materials within internal construction Program of removal and replacement integrated with alternative protection strategies developed Agreed by Client and their Insurer

28 Arup: fire engineering, facades, materials Glazing Construction Pool defined as Number 1 critical asset Surrounded by unprotected extensive glass construction Detailed on site survey and investigation Resulted in alternative protection strategy rather than very expensive replacement works Agreed with Client and Insurers

29 Arup: fire safety management Review of all Fire Safety Manuals Integration with local fire brigades Risks from forest fires Staff training Ongoing risk assessment requirements Improved house keeping Staff ownership/responsibility of fire threat Board of directors improved responsibility towards fire threats

30 Insurance Claim: Expert witness Center Parcs claim disputed by Insurer s presence of polystyrene However broker had inspected all 4 sites Client required expert in fire investigation and forensics to advise their legal team Arup provided d a specialist from our Westborough (USA) office, who worked separately and in confidence Reached settlement favourable to Center Parcs at mediation

31 Future Insurance Negotiation Following fire, Centre Parcs uninsurable Arup helped identify potential ti insurers Interested parties were invited to workshops and Q & A sessions

32 Future Insurance Negotiation During the workshops, Arup was able to demonstrate: Business protection objectives had been set Comprehensive reviews and site inspections had identified potential hazards and consequences from fire Business critical facilities had been identified Immediate prevention and active and passive protection measures had been put in place to reduce risk Potential hazards and combustible materials were being systematically removed A comprehensive plan of fire protection upgrades has been instigated Centre Parcs senior management (Directors) and facilities managers had been trained in the importance of fire safety and effective management procedures An effective management and maintenance plan had been instigated Guidance and restrictions on future developments and materials had been put in place

33 Future Insurance Outcome Centre Parcs were able to renegotiate insurance The terms were for favourable than the previous policy Excess reduced (~ 25million to ~ 5million) Premiums reduced

34 Further appointments Elveden rebuild overall fire safety strategy and approval of completed works Refurbishment works site wide fire safety standards Detailed advice for Insurance concerns Generic materials standards for future construction

35 Value added Comprehensive Review and Audit Centre Parcs able to determine business critical facilities Business protection objectives were identified The fire prevention and protection strategy now delivers both lifesafety and business protection objectives Fire Protection Upgrades Accurate specification and installation of systems Pricing and implementation carefully managed by Arup Insurance Disputed claim settled in favour of Centre Parcs following mediation New insurance policy approved with favourable terms Center Parcs sold on in December 2003 for profit of 150M

36

37 LESSONS LEARNED

38 Lessons Learned The Client does not always no what they need A fire engineering brief is rarely given to designers The design defaults to life-safety Business protection is rarely considered Construction materials are rarely controlled Site inspections and commissioning is not thorough The Client does not know what they have received The Client is not made aware of management requirements

39 Lessons Learned The Client does not always no what they need A fire engineering brief is rarely given to designers The design defaults to life-safety Business protection is rarely considered Construction materials are rarely controlled Site inspections and commissioning is not thorough The Client does not know what they have received The Client is not made aware of management requirements Getting it wrong can be very expensive Loss of business Defending insurance claim Bankruptcy Retrospective application of fire protection systems Total oa re-build ebu of damaged aged facility

40 TOTAL FIRE ENGINEERING

41 Construction Process

42 At best connection is from client to engineer, but rarely from engineer to client. Construction Process: Fire Engineering

43 At best connection is from client to engineer, but rarely from engineer to client. Construction Process: Fire Engineering Communication between engineer and contractor does happen, but could be better.

44 At best connection is from client to engineer, but rarely from engineer to client. Construction Process: Fire Engineering At best connection is from engineer to contractor, but rarely from contractor to engineer. There rarely a connection between the Design Brief and the intended Use, or between the Design Output and the required Use.

45 Client to Engineer Construction Process: Results The Client does not always no what they need It is assumed that Regulation, Insurers and Design Team will look after their interests Often there is no specific Fire Engineering Brief Fire Engineer is often appointed by the Design Team or Contractor Fire Engineering Brief defaults to minimum requirements for Regulation Engineer to Contractor Fire Engineer appointed for regulatory compliance only Documentation and communication not meant for construction Design changes do not consider the fire engineering requirements or assumptions Construction quality is not monitored As-built does not reflect the design intent (Client inherits a substandard building)

46 Brief and Use Construction Process: Results The client does define their operational and business protection objectives at the outset The fire engineer makes assumptions about operation and management (ignores) The design is influenced by these assumptions The assumptions / requirements are not made clear to the client At Best: There is confusion and lack of full appreciation of design intent and operational procedures At Worst: The design assumptions are invalid and the building is inoperable The client is unaware of the operational requirements and their responsibilities

47

48 The Centre Parcs Example The Client assumed their interests were being served: Regulation would ensure an appropriate standard of property protection The Design Team would consider business protection within the design The Insurers would conduct thorough inspections and not insure a substandard building The design defaulted to the minimum requirements for Regulation The design was adequate for life-safety The Design Team assumed that the objective was to minimise capital expenditure Material selection process did not consider fire performance unless required by regulation Business protection was not consider in selection of fire protection The Client was unaware of management assumptions and responsibilities Housekeeping Risk assessment process

49 Solution: Total Engineering Preparation Use Design Construction Pre-Construct

50 START Solution: Total Engineering Preparation Use Design Construction Pre-Construct

51 Solution: Total Engineering Preparation Use Design Fire Engineer Construction Pre-Construct

52 CONCLUSIONS

53 Conclusion The construction process is fragmented Client and Fire Engineer should define the brief at the outset Building use and management procedures Life-safety objectives Property protection objectives Environmental objectives The Fire Engineer should be involved throughout the process Fire engineering involves many specialisms The fire strategy impacts on many disciplines and stakeholders All relevant stakeholders must be actively involved The end result should drive the design, not the other way round

54 Gracias por su atención Thanks for your attention Neal Butterworth Associate Director Arup Madrid, del 23 al 25 de febrero de 2010 / Madrid, 23rd to 25th of February of 2011