Use of Fire Fighting Equipment

[Tall Paul]

Regulation 4 of the FP(WP)Regs requires employers to take measures for fire-fighting in the workplace and nominate employees to implement those measures.  However 'Fire Safety - An Employers Guide' when discussing fire-fighting equipment inserts the phrase 'without exposing them to risk'.
Many companies and Fire and Rescue Services have taken this phrase to mean that staff should not carry out fire-fighting action and should concentrate on evacuation.  Some have taken this further and have withdrawn all training in the use of fire-fighting equipment.

The RRFSO in Article 13 uses similar language to that of the Workplace Regs.  However Article 4 seems to go a step further in seeking to reduce the risk of the spread of fire on the premises and to mitigate the effects of the fire.

Is it the intention of the Order to require that employees take fire-fighting action, or is it a means of empowerment to those that feel fire-fighting is an appropriate measure?  To what extent is the Order seeking to impose a fresh emphasis on fire-fighting?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Paul

[PhilB]

There will be a new duty to mitigate the effect of fire in order to safegaurd relevant persons. So gone are the days when an employer can say all my staff leave in the event of fire and my building will burn.

Well he can say that if he is on a desert island and no-one in the vicinity will be affected...but there won't be too many places like that.

[Paul]

Phil,

Do you have any more info on this duty and where it is documented.

This is an age old concern.

Thanks
Paul

[PhilB]

Paul

It is clearly stated in the fire safety order, e-mail me and I will send you the relevant sections and explain if necessary.

Look at article 4, which defines general fire precautions. Article 13 clearly states that the prvision of FFE is only necessary to protect relevant persons, and that includes anyone in the vicinity.

[Paul]

THanks Phil,

Have just read.

[Chris Houston]

I was advised by Essex FRS that 90% of fires are put out by the public.

Every week I meet someone who tells me that their policy is to evacuate and ignore the fire.  Every week I tell them a true story about a child's clothing catching fire, and ask them if they would walk away from that fire.

What if the fire is in the escape route?

Also, just about everyone I speak to, after some discussion, agrees that they are unlikely to ignore a small fire, accepting that it is in everyone's interests for them to put it out, especially when you weigh in the real risk of evacuation problems.

I belive that even the health and safety at work act (I am not sure, but one the H&S laws does) places a duty on employers to train employees on the use of the safety equipment supplied to them.

[steve walker]

Chris,

Yes, some statistics indicate that 80% of dwelling and commercial fires and 50% of industrial fires are not reported to the fire service (BSI PD 7974-7:2003 Table A.17).

I'm sure that extinguishers put out a fair few of these.

[Mr. P]

I believe that those employees physically able to use extuinguishers should be taught so.  This, if only for the fact of interpreting regs in employee safety, to enable them to exit where they may have otherwise become trapped by fire.  Or, to mis-quote, 'for the want of a nail' substitute 'for the non ability to put out a waste paper bin fire , the building was lost along with lives'.

[Tall Paul]

I fully agree that to provide fire fighting equipment and not train staff to use it places them in an unacceptable level of danger.  I strongly feel the need for intervention by staff in order to prevent loss of life, property and business... and of course to protect the environment.

The guidance notes for the current Regs emphasise the need to use fire fighting equipment, although a large number of companies consider that without BA etc, closing a door on a fire is the preferred option.

The RRFSO appears to be putting more emphasis on mitigating the effects of fire - but if a substantial level of compartmentation was installed and the property was situated on its own land (ie away from passers-by) would it be reasonable UNDER THE FORTHCOMING RRFSO to risk assess away the need for ACTUAL fire fighting action - provided that the training etc required under the Order was carried out?

These are not simply semantics - I am working with some property managers for whom this is a major concern.

Thanks,
Paul

[Adam Jackson]

I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of the current version of the RRFSO but had no luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

As both a part-time H&S Manager for a company and a general health and safety consultant I get asked about fire issues a lot, in particularly fire-fighting versus evacuation. My approach has always been pretty much as described above - there's no use providing the equipment then not telling anyone how to use it, so I'm intrested to see what the RRFSO has to say about it.

[Tall Paul]

hsmc,
It is available on the new government information web site www.opsi.gov.uk.

Paul

[Big A]

and search for 'Fire Safety Order'. It's the first thing that comes up.

[Adam Jackson]

Cheers.

In my 'tardish ways I had searched and searched on the ODPM website and failed miserably.

Adam

[AnthonyB]

Lies, damn lies & statistics......

but it has been said for MANY years that around 80% of workplace fires are put out by first aid attacks.

If this were no longer to be the case, then potentially the economy would suffer and the fire brigade, which is cutting back on resources already, become overwhelmed. And what about the environmental effect of more big fires?

First aid fire fighting has been around in one form or other for centuries from the leather bucket via the squirt to todays PFE.

I have seen PFE save lives. I have used PFE and avoided panic & injury that a prolonged blaze would have caused.

A lot of people will use semantics and life safety and legal requirements etc, but at the end of the day they really just want to SAVE MONEY. Especially property managers!

Of course PFE is less effective and can have negative results without training, which is important (the loss of full colour coding hasn't helped either) and should be delivered - the basics are not difficult to teach. (PFE can also be dangerous if not competently maintained, but that does not stop disreputable engineers nor penny piching employers who want to save money by cutting corners)

The flexibility of risk based legislation is a boon and a release of shackles to those with good intent who wish to maintain a high level of safety whilst having freedom of design & use of premises. But why do we have to sell fire safety down the river by making it so the large number of lesser caring people have an even easier time of not bothering?

With relation to the initial question when the RRO was first drafted a number of people said that it was likely to widen the need for first aid measures beyong 'securing means of escape' but it seems from other angles to be interpretted by some as something they don't need.

[Tom Sutton]

If you are still looking for the RRFSO try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm