Addressing Fire Safety Regulation Failures: Insights from the Gothenburg Swimming Pool Fire
The State Accident Investigation Board has concluded that the major swimming pool fire in Gothenburg last year was likely caused by a faulty electrical socket welding. For Lukas Svärd, CEO of the Swedish Fire Safety Companies SVEBRA, the fire did not come as a surprise. He attributes the incident to vague regulations regarding fire safety, stating, "Instead of looking for scapegoats, we want to change the system because that is where it fails."
The fire, which occurred in the final stages of the water park’s construction, had dire consequences when a plastic pipe, deemed too short for proper welding, was still welded. This improper handling led to ignition from the welding electrodes, causing the fire to spread rapidly. Svärd emphasizes that underlying issues stemmed from systems failures rather than mere individual mistakes: "There were deficiencies in both training and preparations for the work process which fall under systematic failures in the regulations."
Compounding the problem, a temporary fire alarm meant to warn of fires during construction had been dismantled, and the new system was not yet operational. Svärd points out, "We are seeing similar challenges in several construction projects. It is a recurring situation that needs a solution."
Clarifying Responsibilities
One of the significant issues highlighted by SVEBRA is the unclear distribution of responsibilities within construction projects. The interplay between clients, main contractors, and multiple subcontractors often leads to confusion about who is responsible for what. "The client should instead allow the main contractor to manage and coordinate the systematic fire protection work," Svärd advises, emphasizing the need for clearer roles to mitigate risks.
Hasse Bergkvist, a fire safety expert at SVEBRA, shares similar sentiments: "When everyone thinks someone else is responsible, then no one is." Such muddled responsibilities significantly increase the chances of oversight regarding fire safety measures.
As for the specific technical cause of the fire, Svärd stated that it was known that electrical socket welding could pose a fire risk: "We assessed that it was not a fire-hazardous hot work, and then the whole regulatory framework collapses." He and Bergkvist both insist that such activities should be performed and monitored according to the supplier's instructions for safety.
Systematic Fire Protection Work (SBA)
They argue that systematic fire protection work (SBA) should consistently be applied, regardless of whether a task is considered fire-hazardous or not. In this instance, SBA was reportedly not executed adequately. Bergkvist stated, "If there had been a functioning SBA, someone could have acted when they noticed smoke and potentially prevented the fire."
For the uninitiated, SBA represents a structured approach to planning, executing, and monitoring fire safety. "Unfortunately, SBA gets too little attention in both legislation and practical applications," Svärd laments. The existing legal framework also complicates matters further. The Law on Protection Against Accidents (LSO) dictates preventative measures against fire, yet construction sites are often regarded as not in use, leaving a gray area about responsibility for fire protection until the building is completed and inspected.
Svärd stresses this ambiguity: "There is uncertainty over who is responsible for fire protection before the building has been completed. This needs immediate clarity." Regulatory documents lack cohesion, leading to potential gaps in responsibility.
The Need for Change
Fires frequently occur during the final construction phase, especially when it is unclear who is accountable for fire safety. This uncertainty could lead to crucial steps such as staff training and risk assessment being neglected. Bergkvist asserts that legislation needs to be clearer to guide main contractors effectively.
"In systematic fire work, all fire risks should be analyzed and managed, even if practitioners decide the work is not considered hazardous. Preparedness for potential outbreaks is crucial, despite assessments, as fires can still occur at any time," he explains.
SVEBRA is actively lobbying for changes that would clarify fire protection regulations, with Svärd urging immediate attention to these matters to prevent future tragedies. "We believe that clearer regulations can reduce the risk of similar events happening again. SBA must have its rightful place," he concludes.
The incident in Gothenburg serves as a sobering reminder of the intricate balance required between construction efficiency and safety, and the pressing need for a cohesive regulatory framework.
Related Sources: