Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Wright
I work as a Planning Supervisor in a local authority design office with a commission for our local fire services authority. We have to design a new masonry fire training tower and associated confined spaces block and will therefore have to design in hazards to replicate a dangerous response situation. This would be in contradiction to the emphasis of the CDM Regulations where we would need to design out the hazards for a project. The training tower and confined spaces block could also be seen as a workplace for the fire fighters and fall under the requirements of the Workplace Regulations.
The fire service require hatches, steps, minimal edge protection, ledges, restricted openings, sewer-sized pipe runs etc. to re-create a call-out, plus the training sessions may also use smoke to limit visibility. Firefighting is, by its very nature, a hazardous occupation and the firefighters actually want these hazards in place to create realism during the training session and therefore reduce the probability of accidents at a real call-out due to unrealistic training scenarios.
We had a similar query some time ago when we had to pass children's play equipment as safe for use. The play equipment was technically unsafe as children could injure themselves i.e. fall from height or tumble over on the shaky bridge but the play equipment had to be a 'challenge' to the children to make it any use.
I would be very interested in members views on how to cover these problems to allow this fire training block design to be deemed safe and suitable for use. Should the design risk assessments highlight all the relevant hazards deliberately included to re-create a dangerous situation but note that these were acceptable hazards for the nature of the work carried out? Should I forward our proposals to the local HSE office for their comments?
I would welcome all comments concerning the above situation plus any pointers to information on the web and previous forum threads which would clarify how the HSE want such situations covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
A while ago (1985?) the HSE published Occasional paper 8(OP8) with a title something like 'Training in Hazardous Occupations – a case study of the fire service'. This recognised that when considering reasonably practicable in a training situation it was reasonable to include risks which would not normally be acceptable in such a situation because of the overall benefits for h&s at the fire ground.
You might find it useful. It's probably still available through the usual web based information sources. Your fire service should also be able to source a copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Simon
In terms of what is reasonably practicable, you obviously have to consider the benefits as well as the disbenefits.
In your case, putting your firefighters at risk in a purpose built facility will help to reduce the risk to them and their clients in the big bad world outside.
There are other situations in which hazards are deliberately designed in eg motorways, where post M1 too straight and drivers falling asleep, hazards are deliberately designed in to keep the users alert.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Sometimes it helps to go back and consider again the scope and application of Regulations.
The CDM Regs apply to construction work (build, maintenance and demolition of the structure) and as Planning Supervisor your concern should be focused on risks presented at these stages. What the Fire Service get up to in that structure is not really your concern.
Designers should be concerning themselves not only with building standards, etc but surely also the customer specification? Some balance has to be struck between realism for building users and protecting those who will build and maintain it.In the above context I don't see the problem, and guess you're looking for some moral support! As for edge protection - ever seen a house roof with this built in as a design feature? Reasonable practicability rules OK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
As we were told in the army "train hard, fight easy". We used to have live fire directed at our feet and over head during some exercises! The principals of prevention are general and should be applied wherever it is reasonable to do so(MHSWR Reg4 ACOP)so long as the firefighters recieve adequate training ,information, instruction and supervision before, durng and after the exercise. The interaction of the individuals in the task (fitness, mental attitude, motivation,competency etc) as opposed to children in the other example you gave will also affect your justification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward H
I would support the previous general comments about training for hazardous occupations; if you can get a copy of the HSE Occaisional Paper it sets out the ethos very well.
As far as the specifics of designing hazardous training facilities goes you will have to go further than just recreating real life. Apart from realistically constructing the risks you must still consider how you can maximise safety. This often involves considering how to make the situation 'safe' if the training goes wrong. For example training sewer systems do not need to be built below ground, and can include additional emergency access arrangements [such as making the whole of the top half of the pipes removable] in case a trainee gets into difficulties during the exercise. Similarly the smoke house can be fitted with high capacity smoke extraction and internal lighting....
HSE has a Sector that deals with the fire service and has had an interest in fire houses in the past; try speaking with the Defence,Fire and Police Unit at HSE's Basingstoke Office [01256 404000]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
As Planning Supervisor, you have to concern yourself with health and safety during construction, and, possibly, commenting on the safety of the design and health and safety during future cleaning and maintenance of the structure . I would expect you to: refer to the built-in hazards within the pre-tender H&S plan as requiring adequate risk control measures during construction; expect the Principal Contractor's H&S plan to include these; and seek to ensure that the H&S File lists these hazards and controls with regard to future use, cleaning and maintenance. The designers will, similarly, need to provide related information and records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch Ron I've seen lots of houses with edge protection built in as a design feature, even if not fully up to modern standards. Even my own flat has some roof edge protection. See eg http://www.glasgowguide....sgow-charingcross1z.htmlalbeit photo doesn't do the edge protection justice. Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jom
Simon,
The Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade is currently planning a $40M training centre. They must have addressed similar concerns.
I know they intend to use "theatrical smoke" for scenarios.
You might try to contact them.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.