Fire Service Risk Assessments

[nearlythere]

I understand where the thoughts of ex firefighters doing FRAs would be with regards to trying to help ffs deal with a fire as safely as possible  but I agree that tie off  points have nothing to do with an Assessment. Neither does a requirement to leave all the lights on at night or keep final exit doors open for use by the fire service.

[dino]

The way I see it is as follows and I do agree I may be biased here so feel free to correct me.

1. if the fire service do an OI of a complex building and they put on the OI to consider guidelines- they should also assess if the guidelines can be secured properly.

2. if they cannot be secured properly, we have a duty to tell the owner that we cannot use our equipment safely.

3. If we cannot use our equipment safely and we have told the owner that we cannot use our equipment safely- does this affect the owners risk assessment in relation to risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace?

4. whilst I agree that the fire service should not be part of any risk assessment- does the guilty knowledge that we cannot use our equipment safely increase the risk to the employees.?

[nearlythere]

The way I see it is as follows and I do agree I may be biased here so feel free to correct me.

1. if the fire service do an OI of a complex building and they put on the OI to consider guidelines- they should also assess if the guidelines can be secured properly.

2. if they cannot be secured properly, we have a duty to tell the owner that we cannot use our equipment safely.

3. If we cannot use our equipment safely and we have told the owner that we cannot use our equipment safely- does this affect the owners risk assessment in relation to risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace?

4. whilst I agree that the fire service should not be part of any risk assessment- does the guilty knowledge that we cannot use our equipment safely increase the risk to the employees.?

Does this take FFs out of Dino's Point 3.

Disapplication of certain provisions
7.  

(4) The requirements of articles 8 to 23, or of any regulations made under article 24, do not have effect to the extent that they would prevent any of the following from carrying out their duties?

(a)any member of the armed forces of the Crown or of any visiting force;
(b)any constable or any member of a police force not being a constable;
(c)any member of any emergency service.

[Mike Buckley]

I think you have to look at it from a different point of view.

Would anybody consider the following acceptable?

Employees working in this area are safe because the Responsible Person has installed tie off points so that the fire brigade can use guidelines to go and evacuate them through the thick smoke when the building catches fire!

[dino]

I think you have to look at it from a different point of view.

Would anybody consider the following acceptable?

Employees working in this area are safe because the Responsible Person has installed tie off points so that the fire brigade can use guidelines to go and evacuate them through the thick smoke when the building catches fire!

Hi Mike

I do agree with your analogy but are the employees at greater risk because the fire service has deemed that we cannot  use our equipment safely and may not be able to safely go through thick smoke when the building catches fire?

[Mike Buckley]

No, because the employees should have evacuated the building before the fire brigade arrives.

[wee brian]

If that was always the case then we wouldn't need firefighters to enter the building

[dino]

No, because the employees should have evacuated the building before the fire brigade arrives.

Hi Mike

I am not disagreeing with you but another analogy is the fact that some buildings need access to all sides for fire appliances.

If the owner is carrying out work that prevents this access- does this affect the owners risk assessment in relation to risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace and should they include this in their risk assessment?

 

[Mike Buckley]

Dino

That is covered in the order:

 Section 9

(3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it
up to date and particularly if?
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the
premises, special, technical and organisational measures, or organisation of the work
undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions,
and where changes to an assessment are required as a result of any such review, the responsible
person must make them.

The major question would be do the proposed work affect the people inside the premises either from an increased risk of fire or their ability to evacuate in the event of a fire?

Wee Brian notice I used the word 'should'.

[dino]

Dino

That is covered in the order:

 Section 9

(3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it
up to date and particularly if?
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the
premises, special, technical and organisational measures, or organisation of the work
undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions,
and where changes to an assessment are required as a result of any such review, the responsible
person must make them.

The major question would be do the proposed work affect the people inside the premises either from an increased risk of fire or their ability to evacuate in the event of a fire?

Wee Brian notice I used the word 'should'.

Hi Mike

Here is the definition of 'special, technical and organisational measures' from the Fire Safety (Scotland) regulations 2006

?special, technical or organisational measures? means those measures required to be taken or
observed in any workplace in connection with the carrying on of any work process, where
those measures?
(a) are designed to prevent or reduce the likelihood of fire arising from such a work process
or reduce its intensity; and
(b) are required to be taken or observed to ensure compliance with any requirement of the
relevant statutory provisions within the meaning given by section 53(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(a) and those measures include?
(i) technical means of supervision;
(ii) connecting devices;
(iii) control and protection systems;
(iv) engineering controls and solutions;
(v) equipment;
(vi) materials;
(vii) protective systems; and
(viii) warning and other communications systems;

So the question is- could the fitting of securing signs to allow fire crews to carry out their job be considered as "special, technical or organisational measures"?

I already concede that I am biased so I would welcome the views and opinions of more knowledgeable and impartial people.

[Mike Buckley]

Look at the definition of special, technical or organizational measures.

(a) are designed to prevent or reduce the likelihood of fire arising from such a work process
or reduce its intensity;

Can you argue that tie off points would achieve this? bear the principle of both the RRO and the Fire Safety Scotland Regs is to prevent fire breaking out in the first place and enable people to escape from the fire.

(b) are required to be taken or observed to ensure compliance with any requirement of the
relevant statutory provisions within the meaning given by section 53(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(a) and those measures include?

The duties under HSAWA apply to employees and other persons resorting to the premises, in general the emergency services are not classified as persons resorting.

[Fire Monkey]

Hello - no these would not constitue a fire risk asessment as they are only to judge risks for attening fire personenel ona fire call. The building will still require a FRA.

[dino]

Hello - no these would not constitue a fire risk asessment as they are only to judge risks for attening fire personenel ona fire call. The building will still require a FRA.

Hi Fire Monkey

I agree with your comment but the information we have on fire appliances will constitute a risk assessment for fire crews under the Management of Health and Safety Regs 1999.

What i cannot get my head around is I believe that almost all fire services are breaching  the 1974 HASAWA in relation to BA guidelines as:-

1. None that I know of have a safe system of work.

To have a procedure where you have Operational intelligence stating you should consider guidelines but not assess if you can use them safely would fail to be classed as a safe system of work.

Getting a BA team to assess in a fire situation if there are suitable securing points when crews have already done an O I on the premises and failed to do a suitable and sufficient assessment would also not be classed as a safe system of work.

2. None that I know have sufficient procedures for Instruction, information, training and supervision in relating to BA Guidelines.

Instructing crews to assess the suitability of guidelines in relation to securing points, during a fire situation when the O I crews did not assess this would bring the instructions into question.

Again, to have information stating to consider guidelines and not have assessed if you can use them   would bring the information into question.

To have to fit tie off handles in training facilities as everyone knows you cannot use guidelines safely if they are not properly secured makes any training totally unrealistic to what you would find in premises where we would use Guidelines for real!

These two points above are where most Fire Services contravene the HASAWA and I believe the HSE would find it relatively easy to prove non-compliance in relation to almost every fire service in the UK should an incident arise at a complicated or large premises and the HSE had to carry out an investigation.

I would be grateful if anyone could add their opinion to these comments as I thought that fire services would wish to comply with legislation, especially some who have already experienced, and are still experiencing the consequences of non-compliance.

[dino]

Sorry to go on about this again guys but sometimes I think I  am being too simplistic in relation to this subject and there must be more to it.
 I spoke to a Senior Officer about  4 areas of legislation where I feel we don't comply with, namely the HASAWA sections  referring to the procedure being suitable and sufficient, and  sufficient instruction, information, training and supervision, as well as the Management of Health and Safety regs 1999 and the PUWER regs.

I was really surprised when he responded by stating that there are loads of areas where we don't comply with statutory legislation!

So am I being too simplistic by thinking that if we don't comply with statutory legislation and anything goes wrong, this non compliance will be used against the Fire Service?

And based on the information posted previously on this thread, do other people agree that some Fire Services may not be complying with the legislation mentioned above?