London's New Dangerous Substances Policy

[messy]

In the good old days before the RR(FOS), there was a by-law in London written for the protection of operational fire crews, particularly when attending a shout out-of-hours to a premises containing dangerous substances:- 'The Greater London (General Powers) Act 1975'

This Act allowed the LFB to enforce the signage of hazardous materials in buildings by use of Hazchem signs inside and outside such a property, including at the perimeter.

Sadly this Act was one of the 118 victims of the RR(FS)O and was revoked when the order came in last year. Indeed, it was one of the main aims of the Order to sweep aside the raft of local by-laws and replace them with one coverall piece of legislation that would make it easier for businesses and stakeholders who work across the UK.

However, the LFB appear to be reintroducing the 'General Powers' Act 1975 by stealth.

London IOs have recently been informed that the LFB's interpretation of Article 16 (information relating to dangerous substances) is that, in cases where signage is necessary.........................:

 "Warning notices that comply with national regulations and marking of individual locations with Hazchem signage are the minimum provision the authority considers necessary to meet the requirements of Article 16(2)(a) and (b)"

Whilst I am pleased that LFB operational fire crews will continue, via Hazchem signs, to have access to enhanced safety information that is not available elsewhere in the UK (thereby assisting in their DRA processes), I am concerned that if individual Brigades make their own interpretation of the RRO in this manner, how long will it be before there are 100+ ad hoc policies across the UK and we are back to square one?!

Also, where does the Responsible Person go for this information?

Any London based RP compiling a FRA may well consider the DCLG guides and ADB etc, but will have difficulty finding out about this new Policy until an IO calls and serves a notice for missing Hazchem signs!!!

Nonsense or a good idea??

[kurnal]

Or perhaps its the vehicle by which previous good practice in London may extend elsewhere?
It would be good if other authorities took this on board.

Pity the policy is not a little more specific on the requirements though- hazchem is not internationally recognised as far as I recall, despite its strngths.

[PhilB]

They could not be requiring these signs for the safety of fire-fighters using the fire safety order by virtue of article 5(5).

"Articles 8 to 22 and any regulations made under article 24 only require the taking or
observance of general fire precautions in respect of relevant persons."

Firefighters as we know are not relevant persons. So LFB must be claiming that the HAZCHEM signs are for the safety of the employees and visitors.

[kurnal]

Have you seen article 16.2  Phil? Must admit it was a new one on me till messy raised it.

[PhilB]

Seen it Kurnal...how very dare you!!! I live and breath the Fire Safety Order.

I haven't seen article 16 interpreted the way LFB have however......and as I stated earlier they cannot be requiring the signs for the safety of their crews...if they are and an appeal against a notice was made it would surely win.

They must be claiming that the signs are for the safety of relevant persons.....a bit dodgy in my opinion, but I suppose you could argue that the safety of relevant persons may be affected if adequate signs are not provided to assist emergency services to rescue them..this may be one for Anne Everton...now where did I leave my anorak!

[kurnal]

I do beg your pardon old chap - didn't mean to cause offence!   I take your point and plead guilty to reading one article in isolation Mlud. You are right about article 5.5. Check mate.
By way of recompense I promise to take the whole order to bed with me tonight and to read it till I fall asleep.

[PhilB]

Good Egg!

[messy]

They must be claiming that the signs are for the safety of relevant persons.....a bit dodgy in my opinion, but I suppose you could argue that the safety of relevant persons may be affected if adequate signs are not provided to assist emergency services to rescue them..

That's exactly how they've shoe horned this in.
For instance, having no hazchem signage (2WE) - the 'E' meaning evacuate - may delay evacuation of relevant persons fro a hazard area

The General Powers Act (which required Hazchem on buildings in London) was in place in London for 30 years and served LFB crews and the public well. As far as I know, no other authority copied it and the Govt didn't see fit to incorporate it into the RRO.

Pre 2006, Businesses (or risk assessors) could refer to the GP Act 1975, so there was no excuse for a competent fire consultant not to include Hazchem signs.

Now it's a mess. There's no published guidance requiring Hazchem so the RP is effectively in the dark. Meanwhile we (LFB IOs) will be expected to dish out notices requiring them.

Let's see what the courts make of it when the first enforcement notice is challenged!!

[Chris Houston]

I promise to take the whole order to bed with me tonight

Kurnal,

Some of us are passionate about Fire Safety...but you've taken things too far :lol:

[AnthonyB]

Although legal compulsion for hazchem site marker plates didn't spread, the signs companies jumped on the opportunity some years ago & their use has spread voluntarily, but not on a really large basis.

For those not familiar, the system usually had an orange marker plate marked Hazchem at the site perimiter to give a heads up & then each specific risk area entrance having an orange marker stating Hazchem, with a box below with the Emergency Action Code, . A further supplementary box below could be used to state 'CYLINDERS', 'RADIOACTIVE' or 'BIOHAZARD' & if explosive a further box could be added for the division (1.1 etc)

I have installed them before in places the service might not expect to find large amounts of nasties, but are not regularly staffed & if appropriate would continue to do so

[kurnal]

I suppose we must remember The Dangerous Substances (Notification and Marking of Sites) Regulations 1990 (referred to as the NAMOS Regulations) are still in place nationally as far as I am aware.

These regs  require the person in control of any site or premise where a total quantity of 25 tonnes or more of dangerous substances are used or stored, or are to become used or stored, to give written notification to both the Fire Service and the Health and Safety Executive.

The Health and Safety Executive is the enforcing authority for notification of the storage of dangerous substances and once notified, the Fire Authority is the enforcing authority for the marking of sites with warning signs. The Fire Authority is also responsible for giving directions as to the quantity, type and location of signs.

A dangerous substance is any substance which is dangerous for conveyance within the meaning of the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations.

[kurnal]

Chris I said the whole order was to accompany me to the boudoir (not necesarily the Fire safety order)- but even so I dont expect to get nun.....

[Ken Taylor]

Having spent some time in London, Messy, I'm pleased to hear that they are keeping the good old Hazchem going. The construction of any particular sign used to be specified by the LFCDA - surely they are still doing so rather than leaving the RP to get it wrong in as much the signs are there to tell the attending brigade what certain hazards are and appropriate action to take?

[messy]

Ken

Indeed, if you are the same Ken Taylor from NW Area, I remember you well.

You have hit the nail on the head. The old (LFCDA G2) procedure of specifying which type of sign and where to install it, went down the same plughole as the FPA & WP Regs.

Since the FSO came in, we have been 'enforcing' that the RP keep any installed Hazchem sign (under Article 17 - maintenance) but could not insist that any new business or new risk was signed in the same manner.

This - theorectially- could led to the following bizzare situation: Two identical factory units both house the same dangerous substance. One had hazchem signs pre Oct 06 and now has to keep/maintain them. However, the second unit is a new business and we have been unable to enforce the same signage on them as the GL(GP)Act has been revoked.

So the good news is both units can have to display the same signage and all our operational crews can breathe a sigh of relief thet the GL(GP)Act is alive and well!

The bad news is, that there is no(as far as I am aware) publically available guidance which tells the RP that this is a London requirement, so s/he won't know until an IO calls.

[Ken Taylor]

A distant relative I'm afraid, Messy - there's a lot of us about!