Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By john ridley
Here is a situation, which hopefully will generate some discussion.
In the past we have always provided refuge points inside fire protected routes within our multi-floored buildings. These are provided for mobility impaired persons to be left until the fire and rescue services arrive and rescue them.
The Building Regulations encourage this and from a H&S perspective avoids the hazard and the manual handling issues of getting them out of the building with a high volume of people trying to get down the same staircase.
This is OK if the threat is a fire but if the threat is a bomb threat, what do we do? It seems difficult to justify leaving someone in a building waiting for a bomb to detonate. As evacuation of the building in a security alert will be done by word of mouth rather than activation of the fire alarm for obvious reasons, I am inclined to think that we could get them out via the lifts as these will still work because the fire alarm has not been activated. However, I know this may be a controversial solution and before recommending it, was wondering if anyone else has any suggestions, comments, critcism or just agrees with me? I would particularly appreciate a reply from anyone in the fire services or anyone else that has a similar problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Hi ya Peter
Yes Peter, you are sure to generate some discussion with your statements made above, particularly if there are disabled persons reading it!
First of all, refuges were never provided for mobility impaired persons to be left until the FR&S rescues them. The purpose of refuge points is as a 'temporary refuge'. It is understood that mobility impaired persons will slow down the evacuation of the majority of people so the temporary refuge is a place for mobility impaired persons to wait temporarily to allow for the evacuation of the majority, they can then continue their escape with the assistance of others. The building regulations do not encourage or support your statement. If the evacuation of disabled persons is not complete by the time the fire brigade arrives then they will take over the assitance role.
Of course this presents the problem of who will provide the assistance and the manual handling problems this creates.
During a fire evacuation, if a building has a firefighting lift then it is perfectly acceptable to use this until the fire brigade arrives, they will then commandeer the lift for their purposes. One reason for not using a lift during a fire is that the power supply may be lost due to fire, there are other reasons such as the lift door may open up to the floor on fire.
If there is a risk that a bomb may cause a power failure to the lift then it would not be sensible to use the lift. A bomb within the building is likely to cause a loss of power. A bomb external to the building is less likely and therefore I would say that the use of the lift would be acceptable.
I hope what I have said is helpful. I have a fire service background and have dealt with several of the bomb incidents in London. I also have a degree in fire engineering but I am not the font of all knowledge. I daresay someone here will correct one or two of my statements.
Best regards
Shaun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Shaun is quite correct with regard to refuges. What you have described is the 'old' version of how things used to be organised before the fire authorities announced that they did not have the resources for evacuation of disabled persons upon attendance. You could also install an evacuation lift if you do not have a firefighting lift or upgrade an existing lift to that standard. These have separate fire-resisting compartmentation and an independent protected power supply. With regard to evacuation in non-fire emergencies, careful decisions are needed by management for the particular circumstances presented. Sometimes this may mean remaining within the building as that will be the safest option. As to using lifts a determining factor will be whether there is any risk of this not being a safe method of evacuation from fire, damage, power-loss, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john ridley
Many thanks for the replies guys. I will not make any reference to the moral aspects of this issue as I don't think it is defensible.
However, in response to the Shaun's comment regarding Building Regulations I would argue the point as Part B1 refers to means of warning and escape and item xv1 requires only that "management arrangements" are provided to aid means of escape". Part M of schedule 1 to the Building Reg's requires that reasonable provision will be made to allow disabled people to gain access to any storey of an office. The BRE Information Paper IP16/91 also refers to BS5588 Part 8, which requires that disabled persons are provided with a refuge where they "can wait for a short time before receiving assistance to get to a place of safety" not "temporary refuge" as you quote.
Whilst I acknowledge that this can be interpreted in various ways, my experience of several fire authorities shows that their initial priority is to save lives and then to combat the fire. Indeed recently one of their standpoints for a pay increase was based on the saving of lives. Ken if you are now saying that their exists a FRS policy statement that they will not rescue disabled people, can you please refer me to that statement? Whether they have considered their legal position under statute e.g. Section 3 HSAW and their civil liability under the tort of negligence for failiing to act remains an outstanding issue.
The potential insurance implications of such a policy are extensive.
Now to some practicalities involving a security alert. We appoint Evacuation Wardens on a volunteer basis. I know what their response will be to being asked to wait until the staircase is clear before assisting the disabled person from the refuge point, whilst waiting for a bomb to explode. They will resign in their droves and we would struggle to have any wardens at all.
The manual handling logistics and training will become unmanageable.
Your comment about an evacuation lift is well made and a suggestion I will consider in an upgrade of one passenger lift in our larger buildings. What we do in other smaller locations without any lift remains a problem. Please understand that my organisation is under Chapter 11 bankrupcy protection so there is no resources to install extra controls unless specifically required under statute.
Your points are well made guys but the reason I posted this on the forum was to protote discussion and make people aware of the issue. Anyone else wishing to make comment is most welcome.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever John B1 xvi draws attention to the provision of Means of Escape for Disabled and then refers the reader to BS5588 which gives guidance on means of escape for disabled people in all premises except dwellings. I would draw other readers attention to Note 2 of the definition of refuges in BS 5588 Part 8 which states, “Refuges are relative safe waiting areas for short periods. They are not areas where disabled people should be left alone indefinitely until rescued by the fire brigade, or until the fire is extinguished”. There are indeed many ways in which this may be interpreted, but I would argue that 'short periods' means temporary. Waiting for the fire service could mean a wait of some considerable time in some parts of the country. The government/Bains proposals to reduce cover in non-residential areas at night will mean those night workers in those areas may have to wait longer for fire brigade attendance than they had previously. There are many other reasons why the fire brigade may be delayed in attending an incident. As a professional firefighter I would absolutely agree that saving lives is given top priority now and in the past. All resources will be committed to ensuring this. I accept that there may be some practical issues which you may have to address but I am convinced that people will not just abandon their colleagues. On your smaller buildings, what is the scale of the problem? Do you have a significant number of mobility impaired persons working on the top floor. No doubt you have considered locating these people as near to the ground floor as possible and as near to the exit doors on their floor as is practicable. Have you considered contacting the National Register of Access Consultants http://www.nrac.org.uk. They may be able to offer more advice. Best regards Shaun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
I agree with Shaun and Ken on this; as Ken says you are describing the system which used to be acceptable but is not now.
I can't see how the reference to 'requires only that "management arrangements" are provided to aid means of escape' can be interpreted as 'leave it to the fire service'; it means that the employer is responsible for the evacuation from the place of refuge.
You say 'my experience of several fire authorities shows that their initial priority is to save lives and then to combat the fire'. Of course it is! But that doesn't mean the employer doesn't have to make (and implement) the management arrangements.
The wording 'can wait for a short time before receiving assistance to get to a place of safety' seems to be nicely summed up by Shaun's 'temporary refuge'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
aren't we losing sight of things here?
Firstly what is the likelihood that a bomb would be planted in or near your building?
(ie the threat)
If the answer to this is highly unlikely then the precautions you require should be tailored to the percieved threat (Risk)
If the answer to this is high then I would get another job!
Hey boss can we get finance to stump up the cash to install a lift to get disbled persons out in the event we get a bomb threat? (Think of the real world here not the highly moral world us H&S People live in!)
Not being cynical here but in my experience you would normally get quite a bit of time to evacuate in the event of a bomb threat if you don't get the tele... BOOM!!! dont worry!
With a fire event there is more of an 'immediate' threat to life and limb!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor I share your concern, John, as one who was around in the days when we could say that we would leave the evacuation of non-ambulant disabled persons to the fire brigade when they arrive. We are now told by the fire authorities by way of their interpretation of current fire legislation that it is our responsibility. Seeing that you want evidence of this, you can have a look at London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Fire Safety Guidance Note No.26 'Means of Escape for the Disabled' which states 'It is Management's responsibility to ensure that proper procedures are in force for the evacuation of disabled persons. These must be pre-planned and staff must receive instruction in and practice the procedures adopted. The evacuation must be planned so as to be successfully carried out by the building occupiers without dependence on assistance from the fire brigade, whose initial resources are limited'. There are other sources of this information, of course, but I am away from the office at present. Because of this, we are having to install an evacuation lift in a new sports centre that we are planning and will need to do the same for an addition to a residential and nursing care premises to be put out to tnder shortly. You could also try asking your question on the FireNet Forum on http://www.globalcrisisc...er.com/BBSFire/index.php .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john ridley
Thanks Ken that is extremely useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john ridley
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion on the forum and also to those who have contacted me directly. Your replies have been most helpful and OK it looks like I am in the minority here so OK I will go with the flow on this one.
For information our business is a real potential terrorist target the reasons for which I am unwilling to disclose.
There is still just one real niggling practical problem that no-one seems has addressed yet and it is this. OK! agreed management are responsible for the evacuation of a building but I have just asked three of our volunteer Evacuation Wardens what they would do if I asked them to wait with ambulent people until the staircase was clear and then assist in evacuating them from the building. All three said they wouldn't do it and resign and one actually laughed at me. One suggested that if disabled people wanted better access to the building, then they would have to accept that they would be trapped in the building on the basis of the risk to one person is better than the risk to two.
The other question of course is whether we are compyine withour responsibilities under the Management Regualtion and Section 2 of HSAW act by exposing 2 instead of one person. We will have difficulty justifying this on a risk assessment.
OK I am focussing on law and maybe I shouldn't nor on moral or financial considerations but waht we have here is a human behaviour and perception issue.
Now how do we deal with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
You have 'highlighted' the difficulty that many of us are faced with on this one, John. If the staff we have are unwilling or incapable of 'assisting' the non-ambulant to evacuate our options seem to focus upon: compulsion!, additional staff, engineering measures or restricting areas of access to certain disabled persons. I suspect that many managers will have either made no provision or have produced plans in the hope that it will be alright if it happens. The problem now is that, if the Fire Brigade do not arrive in time and a disabled life is lost, the 'blame process' will not be looking so much as to why they did not arrive in time as to why Management did not have a plan to evacuate all persons or, if they did, why it did not work.
With regard to manual handling, it is notable that the Guidance to regulation 5 of the MHO Regs states: 'Emergency action - 184. These provisions do not preclude well-intentioned improvisation in an emergency, for example during efforts to rescue a casualty, fight a fire or contain a dangerous spillage'. However, it is not so much improvisation that is called for in fire plans but agreed and practised procedures!
I take it that your emergency plans take account of the Home Office publication 'Bombs: Protecting People and Property' but I mention this in case others are unaware of this guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
John,
OK mate you work in/for a sensitive organisation and the recommendation from Ken is excellent.
Have you tried the Met Police Crime Prevention Officers as I worked for a company who had offices across the road from the Canary Wharf Bomb and their advice during this time was invaluable
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.