Fire Service Risk Assessments

[dino]

I am looking for some guidance in relation to a project I am working on and would appreciate the views of the members on this forum.
The fire Service carry out Operational intelligence (OI) gathering on premises which they regard as a risk to fire crews. These used to be called Operational Risk Assessments (ORA?s) but we now call them OI.

This information is carried on appliances either as a printed copy or electronically and is to be used by fire crews attending any incident at the premises.

My question is, do these OI?s constitute a Fire Risk Assessment and would the fire Service be at fault if the information was not satisfactory?

[kurnal]

Assuming you are in England or Wales Dino, your OIs do not have any status under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)Order 2005. There is no duty imposed on the Fire Service under the Fire Safety Order to carry out risk assessments, your role is to enforce this Legislation.

However your Employer (fire service)  has a duty of Care to their employees and others under the HASAWA and these constitute risk assessments supporting that duty of care. This is in addition to their duties to gather information under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 sections 7,8 and 9. Therefore your OIs are risk assessments but come under the HASAWA, the Management Regs and the Fire and Rescue Services Act.In this regard the fire service has a duty to ensure that such information is adequate and fit for purpose.

[dino]

Thanks Kurnal

My point is that the information we have in my opinion is not suitable and sufficient and contravenes the HASAWA, management of safety regs 1999, and the Provision and use of work equipment regs but no one seems to be really bothered about it.

the other problem is that it concerns BA guidelines and this just compounds the apathy.

In my service we are expected to go into a building if it is on fire and get the crews to assess if they can tie off guidelines.

My argument is that we have already carried out an inspection of the premises so if it was a suitable and sufficient assessment, we should know if we can use guidelines or not.

the other issue is that we have actually written on the  OI to consider guidelines without assessing if they can be secured properly- this again calls the OI into question in my opinion.

I also feel that getting a BA crew to enter a building to see if there are sufficient securing points is not a safe system of work, especially when we should have done this at the OI stage.

Based on these points above, do you think the assessment would be deemed as suitable and sufficient?

[kurnal]

Impossible to say Dino.  It could be argued that the recommendation to consider guidelines is another way of saying there is potential for fire fighters to get lost and so affects the dynamic risk assessment at the time - ie there has to be a very compelling reason to commit crews?

Personally I am amazed that the industry as a whole has  not come up with a better way to  ensure firefighters can navigate their way safely in and out of buildings with all the technlogy available these days- cameras, direction finding, portable beacons, telemetry- there must be a better way that does not tie you up in knots.

[dino]

It would be good if people could detach themselves from the whole guideline issue and just look at the risk assessment process.

My whole argument is based around the fact that we have went into a building to gather information for fire crews and we have done an assessment to see if there are disorientation hazards or complex layouts within the building.

in some cases there are these hazards and a recognised control measure is a guideline. For a fire service to put on an assessment for the OIC to consider guidelines when the assessment has not checked if they can be secured properly could mean that  the assessment could be challenged as not being suitable and sufficient.

why would we not check during the OI if they can be secured but expect fire crews to then check in an emergency situation which will almost certainly involve smoke. heat and probably a risk to life.

Would this be classed as a safe system of work?

[Golden]

Given the working duration of a BA set these days is laying guidelines a safe system of work? It certainly isn't an efficient one!

[kurnal]

I see what you mean Dino and yes you are right that if a guideline is a recommended risk control measure then it must be used in accordance with the safe system of work. The SSOW requires it to be tied off to keep it off the ground. If someone has assessed a premises and recommended it as a suitable risk control measure without checking it is indeed suitable the clearly  the assessment is not adequate. 

on the other hand is it realistic to expect tie off points to be specially installed for use in case of fire? Who would do this, to what spec and who would pay?

It all points to the fact that a guideline is at best a useless piece of tat and at worse a danger to all who rely on them and they should have no place in a modern technical fire service .

[nearlythere]

Given the working duration of a BA set these days is laying guidelines a safe system of work? It certainly isn't an efficient one!

In some situations Golden yes. In some they can be a hinderance but I put that down to training and lack of faith in the equipment. I do remember looking at an illuminated guideline. Can quite remember if it was tied off of ground laid.

[wee brian]

IMHO, the OI isn't a risk assessment but it provides some of the info you need to make one.

The other factors will be what the fire is like, what the people are doing etc. you wouldn't bother if it was a wastepaper bin on fire, but you might if you had zero visibility.

I would have thought that "consider guidelines" means "this place is a bit fiddly and guidelines might help. you put this in the OI unless you think the first is true and the second is possible.

This kind of stuuf does get looked at after firefighting fatalities and FRSs are often criticised. Of course, its hard to to these things up-fron and easy to criticise after the event.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with wee brian OIs cannot be risk assessments even only on the logic that every fire is different and is a dynamic process. The conditions and circumstances that were evident when the first attendance arrived may very well have changed by the time supporting appliances arrive.

Secondly buildings are designed following the requirements of the Approved Documents or BS9999 et al or probably more accurately what the architect thinks are the requirements of these documents mixed with what can I get away with and a fire won't happen and if it does it is years after I designed the place and I am out of it. So things like tie off points are not mentioned in either of the sets of documents and therefore will not get put in. On a similar line I have been involved with places where rooms have been designed for disabled people following building regulations but no thought has been given as to how to get the people out of the building in the event of a fire.

I am afraid that the issue raised is a symptom of a culture of avoiding risk as opposed to managing risk, which has been brought on by various court cases most notably the prosecution in Warwickshire.

Surely the job of the OI is to provide information to assist the OiC not tell them their job. Hence the comments that this is a large complex building should alert the OiC to the idea that if there is a lot of smoke and it is necessary to send teams in then guidelines are probably a very good idea. It should also raise the question of whether it is a good idea to send teams in in the first place.

The problem would be that if the OI is fully comprehensive to cover all eventualities it will be so big that it is impossible to digest in the time available. Somewhat similar to the old joke of a 10 month waiting period for a pregnancy test!

[dino]

Thanks for the comments but I am just looking at this from the way in which we can protect the fire service and how we can actually say that we carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to fire crews.

My initial proposal would be to firstly assess if guidelines may be required, and secondly assess if we can secure them properly.
If we cannot use them properly, would it be suitable and sufficient to put on the OI that guidelines cannot be used as we cannot secure them properly?

Would this assessment absolve the service if anything happened?

[kurnal]

Would this assessment absolve the service if anything happened?

Only a Judge would decide that, but sadly only after a tragedy had taken place.

The fire service would be in a very sticky situation if it decided to commit crews to a building knowing that the equipment could not be safely used. You would put the initial OIC in a very difficult position and the initial judgement by the first attendance absolutely critical. But that's how its always been I suppose.

[dino]

Would this assessment absolve the service if anything happened?

Only a Judge would decide that, but sadly only after a tragedy had taken place.

The fire service would be in a very sticky situation if it decided to commit crews to a building knowing that the equipment could not be safely used. You would put the initial OIC in a very difficult position and the initial judgement by the first attendance absolutely critical. But that's how its always been I suppose.

But could the service then say as they have done a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and know that they cannot safely use guidelines, and this is logged in the OI- therefore we would not use them in that building?

I personally think this is a better method than leaving the service exposed by using the equipment when they have not assessed if it can be used safely.

And in reality, why would we leave it up to the OIC of the incident- surely them knowing they can secure them or not would have an effect on their DRA.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Thanks for the comments but I am just looking at this from the way in which we can protect the fire service and how we can actually say that we carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to fire crews.

My initial proposal would be to firstly assess if guidelines may be required, and secondly assess if we can secure them properly.
If we cannot use them properly, would it be suitable and sufficient to put on the OI that guidelines cannot be used as we cannot secure them properly?

Would this assessment absolve the service if anything happened?

Surely the (dynamic) risk assessment is carried out by the officer in charge on arrival, this will be based on all the information at hand including the site specific info that has been gathered on any prior visits. This information only gives basic stuff like best access, water supplies, processes, numbers of people likely to be present, location of utilities and other considerations, ours gives links to other information that may be used as part of the analytical risk assessment carried out after 20 mins. Ours normally comprise of 2 sides of A4, this can be easily scanned on the way to incidents via data terminals.

What I would say is the title for these documents is risk information not risk assessment - semantics you might say.

[Mike Buckley]

My initial proposal would be to firstly assess if guidelines may be required, and secondly assess if we can secure them properly.

My initial reaction to this is that buildings where guidelines can be secured properly are few and far between. Then what do you do? Tell the occupier they need to fit points to secure guidelines or turn up to a job 'sorry mate we can't go in'?