FSM BRIEFING 2014
COMMON FIRE SAFETY NON-COMPLIANCES AND SCDF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
CPT NEO JIN XIANG TEAM LEADER ENFORCEMENT & PROSECUTION BRANCH CENTRAL ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
Introduction
SCDF’s Fire Safety Enforcement Approach
State of Fire Safety in Our Buildings
Types of Fire Safety Non-Compliances
Case Studies
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
To create a fire safe environment by enforcing the FSA and achieved through
Scheduled fire safety checks
Responding to public feedback
Concerted joint efforts by SCDF, building managements, owners, CERTs and FSMs
Types of Enforcement Checks
Non scheduled or complaints
Scheduled – attended by fire stations
Re-inspections
SCDF FIRE SAFETY APPROACH
Types of Enforcement Actions
Serving of notices via FHAN
Serving of fines via NOC and NFSO
Court actions
Commissioner Closure
Fire Hazard Order – Abatement, Prohibition and Closure
FHAN NOC
COURT CHARGE
FIRE HAZARD ORDER
SCDF FIRE SAFETY APPROACH
Types of Fire Safety Non-Compliances
Fire hazards
Fire safety violations
SCDF FIRE SAFETY APPROACH
SCDF issues FHAN Fire hazard not addressed
Court Action
SCDF issues NOC Fire hazard not addressed
SCDF’s Fire Safety Enforcement Regime
Violation found
SCDF FIRE SAFETY APPROACH
Fire Hazards Fire safety violations
SCDF issues NFSO Violation not addressed
Court Action
Subsequent NFSOs Violation not addressed
Breakdown of Fire Hazard Abatement Notices (FHAN) issued in Jan – Dec 2013
STATE OF FIRE SAFETY IN OUR BUILDINGS
Offence Industrial Commercial PE Outlets Residential Others Total (Jan – Dec 13) Total (Jan – June 14)
Overcrowding 1 1 2 4 4
Obstruction (exits/ fire engine access and other fire safety measures eg. hosreel, extinguishers)
209 138 7 43 30 427 357
Locked exits 4 3 1 1 9 6
Exit signs not illuminated 403 59 9 14 35 520 377
Storage of combustible / flammable material
189 29 1 37 12 268 131
Non-maintenance of fire – fighting equipment (hosereel/fire extinguisher)
166 40 6 5 20 237 175
Non-maintenance of fire alarm system
47 23 1 19 43 133 85
Storage along perimeter fencing 6 1 7 6
Poor housekeeping (storage within staircase/hosereel / risers, fire fighting lobby)
66 11 1 22 13 113 83
Failure to comply with SCDF guidelines for HDB Shopfront
2 2 6
Others (General fire hazards eg FD wedged opened, FD missing, fire door closure faulty, placement of items along 5-foot way etc)
312 106 10 124
2 583 393
Total 1403 412 38 265 185 2303 1623
Breakdown of Notices of Fire Safety Offence (NFSO) issued in Jan – Dec 2013
STATE OF FIRE SAFETY IN OUR BUILDINGS
Offence Industrial Commercial PE Outlets Residential Others Total (Jan – Dec 13) Total (Jan – Jun 14)
Change of use without approval 457 133 1 455 33 1079 625
Carrying fire safety works without approval
395 115 1 22 13 546 296
Storage &/or transportation of Petroleum &/or Flammable Materials without licence
84 46 41 24 195 134
Occupied building without Fire Certificate
1 1 2 12
Failure to obtain Fire Safety Certificate
37 80 2 2 121 92
Unauthorised erection of LPG manifold system
8 159 1 168 81
Sales & supply of Petroleum & Flammable Materials
17 30 1 2 50 41
Non-compliance to Temporary Permit (TP) requirement
3 4 7 13
Others 58 48 2 127 235 86
Total 1057 615 4 521 206 2403 1380
Trending For Notices Issued From 2012 to 2014
2341
2634
171
2303 2403
286
1623
1380
165
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
FHAN NFSO NOC
2012
2013
2014
STATE OF FIRE SAFETY IN OUR BUILDINGS
In retrospect
12832 fire safety inspections conducted in 2013
2303 FHANs, 286 NOC and 2403 NFSOs issued in 2013
Jan – Jun 2014 conducted 6985 inspections
Issued 1623 FHANs, 1380 NFSOs, 165 NOCs
Significant decrease in numbers of fire safety non-compliances in 2013 as compared to 2012
Jan – Jun 2014 figures suggest figures possibly higher by end of the year compared to 2013
Fires cases at commercial and industrial premises
STATE OF FIRE SAFETY IN OUR BUILDINGS
FIRE HAZARDS
Fire Hazards
Non-maintenance of fire safety measures
Obstruction to means of escape
Obstruction to fire safety measures
Overcrowding
Non-maintenance of fire safety measures
EXAMPLES OF FIRE HAZARDS
Non-maintenance of fire safety measures
EXAMPLES OF FIRE HAZARDS
Obstruction to means of escape
EXAMPLES OF FIRE HAZARDS
Overcrowding
EXAMPLES OF FIRE HAZARDS
FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Fire safety violations
Contravention to requirements in FSA and its regulations
Storage or mismanagement of Petroleum and Flammable Material
Carry out fire safety works without approval
Change of use of premises
EXAMPLES OF FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Unlicensed Storage of P and FM
EXAMPLES OF FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Unauthorised Fire Safety Works
EXAMPLES OF FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Unauthorised Change of Use
EXAMPLES OF FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Unauthorised Foreign Worker Dormitories
EXAMPLES OF FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Setting up Trade Fair without SCDF Approval/ Trade Fair Does Not Comply with Approved Plan
Unfolding of Events 17 August 2014, ~1000 hrs
12 SCDF appliances
Affected area is approximately 80 by 80 metres.
About 50 SCDF staff were involved in the firefighting operation which lasted 3hrs before the fire was put out.
CASE STUDY – Fire at Sungei Kadut
CASE STUDY – Fire at Sungei Kadut
Fire Safety Inspection Findings
Findings revealed fire safety violations such as:
Unauthorised change of use from
- driveway to storage all around the premises
- part of factory area to office
Unauthorised fire safety works
- sheds, 20ft & 40ft containers used as storage/ office
Enforcement actions taken against operator
All the above fire safety issues added difficulty to effective
fire fighting and placed occupants at unnecessary risks.
Unfolding of Events
27 April 2014 ~1538hrs
16 SCDF appliances
Fire put out after 2.5hrs, 14 water & foam jets, 80 SCDF personnel
Affected area is approximately 50m x 50m
Enforcement actions taken against operator
CASE STUDY – Fire at Tuas Avenue
Post fire investigation revealed fire safety non-compliances including
Storage of IBC along driveway
Unauthorised change of use from office to laboratory/ storerooms, server room to
director room
Erection of unauthorised fire safety works such as LPG manifold systems
Fire fighting operations hindered and occupants placed at unnecessary risks
CASE STUDY – Fire at Tuas Avenue
Staff and public placed under added fire risks
Potential fire spread to neighbouring units
Operation halted and revenue losses
Inspections carried out at errant premises entails stern enforcement actions
FSMs to assist building owners in policing fire safety
Building owners responsible in ensuring fire safety standards
CONCLUSION
Good Fire Safety Standards
MCST FSM
SCDF
THANK YOU
Top Related