כבאות והצלה לישראל - כנס מקוון בנושא פרויקט אימוץ התקינה הבינ"ל בעניין הכנת תיק מודיעין מבצעי

Summary

The conference presents Israel Fire and Rescue’s project to replace or revise existing fire-service regulations in line with NFPA standards. It also explains a draft regulation for the document currently known as a “field file.”

The proposed new name is Operational Intelligence File: a structured source of information intended to help firefighters and other responders understand a property and make safer, better-informed decisions during an incident.

The proposals discussed are drafts, not final requirements. The speakers invite professional feedback before the regulatory process continues.

Project Approach

The project follows a multi-stage process:

1. Prepare and map existing requirements

   • Identify the Israeli rules that apply to a topic and the corresponding NFPA standard.
   • Translate and review the material.
   • Gather input from professionals who prepare the files and from fire-service staff who use them, including through a survey.

2. Compare Israeli regulation with the NFPA standard

   • For the field-file project, compare Commissioner’s Order 503 with NFPA 1620.
   • Use the comparison to identify similarities, gaps, and the extent of the work required.

3. Decide on national adaptations

   • A professional team reviews the standard section by section and decides what can be adopted and what needs adjustment for Israeli conditions.
   • Some adjustments are technical, such as reflecting differences in infrastructure, operational practices, and inspector training. Others involve professional judgment.

4. Draft the regulations

   • Convert the team’s decisions into proposed Israeli regulatory language with legal advisers.

5. Validate and approve

   • The draft undergoes professional and regulatory review, consultation, public comment, and legislative steps.
   • The Fire and Rescue Service expects implementation to require training for its staff and for safety consultants.

The project team includes regulatory staff, fire-protection and operations representatives, an NFPA specialist, and legal advisers. Analysts, researchers, project staff, and public-participation processes also support the work.

Why the Israeli Approach Differs from NFPA 1620

The speakers say NFPA 1620 is broader than Commissioner’s Order 503. Among the differences they identify:

• NFPA 1620 covers topics such as abandoned buildings and outdoor events, and contains operational guidance that is not part of the Israeli project’s mandate.
• Emergency-response arrangements in the United States differ from those in Israel, where the Fire and Rescue Service, police, and Magen David Adom are separate organizations. The project therefore does not aim to rewrite the Fire and Rescue Service’s operational doctrine or impose requirements on other emergency organizations.
• NFPA 1620 is concise in places and relies on explanations and examples in its appendix.
• The Israeli order lists the types of properties required to submit a file; NFPA 1620 does not provide an equivalent list.
• An international review found that other countries also differ in which properties must submit a file and who is responsible for submitting it.

Main Proposed Changes

1. Rename and Clarify the Purpose

The “field file” would become an Operational Intelligence File. Its purpose is to give responders practical information about a property so they can plan and act more effectively during an incident.

The file would not replace a property’s emergency plan. Where such a plan exists, it should be attached.

2. Change Which Properties Must Submit a File

Rather than relying only on a fixed list of property types, the proposal uses indicators of operational complexity. These include:

• Fire-risk classification: Buildings classified at the highest risk level would be included.
• Number and type of fire-protection systems: Properties with multiple systems may require a file because responders need to understand and manage more variables. The proposal refers to systems identified through the relevant planning and building regulations.
• Existing requirements: The team also reviewed which properties are already covered by Commissioner’s Order 503.

Examples discussed include:

• Places used for gatherings of more than 1,000 people, indoors or outdoors.
• Multi-storey buildings over 42 metres in height, compared with the existing rule mentioned for residential buildings over 29 metres.
• Hotels or boarding schools located at a level more than 23 metres above the entrance level.
• Other qualifying commercial, industrial, mixed-use, high-risk, or system-intensive properties.

The proposal also discusses adding categories such as certain tall buildings where occupants may have difficulty evacuating, some warehouses, buildings with atriums and relevant smoke-control systems, and qualifying parking facilities. Some properties currently covered by the order would be removed if they do not meet the proposed complexity criteria or have separate operational arrangements. The precise scope is set out in the draft regulations.

3. Establish a Consistent Update Cycle

• The proposed routine update interval is once every three years, rather than annually.
• A property representative may state that no changes have occurred and avoid submitting a revised file.
• If information in the file changes, it must be updated when the change occurs, rather than waiting for the three-year deadline.
• Each completed update starts a new three-year period.
• Properties that previously submitted a field file would have five years from the regulations’ entry into force to submit a file that meets the new requirements.

4. Use a Common Submission Format

A standard format is proposed to make requirements clearer for property representatives and file preparers, and to help fire-service personnel find information quickly. For example, information about a particular system would appear in the same section across files.

Information the Proposed File Would Cover

The NFPA specialist describes the intended contents as an operational presentation of information relevant to responders, including:

• Property description: Address or location coordinates; campus and building descriptions; uses and occupancy levels; age, area, height, floor count; and general condition.
• Access and surroundings: Routes for fire engines and responders on foot; underground passages, culverts, and other connecting routes; obstacles; staging areas; and nearby properties or hazards that could be affected.
• Firefighting water and systems: Water supplies, reservoirs and their capacity, hydrants, system connections, valves, fire rooms, pumps, control points, and Hebrew operating instructions. Non-water-based fire-protection systems and the areas they protect should also be identified.
• Power and hazardous supplies: Utility and backup power sources, generators, UPS systems, electrical and transformer rooms, and how supplies are disconnected. The file should identify compressed or liquefied gases, storage and shut-off points, and systems that must not be disconnected because doing so could create a greater danger.
• Detection, warning, and communications: Fire detection, alarm and public-address arrangements, the areas covered by announcements, responder communication systems, and visual warning systems.
• Smoke control and building systems: Smoke-control, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, including relevant controls and operating information.
• Evacuation and occupant needs: Evacuation arrangements, people who may need assistance, refuge or shelter areas, relevant elevator use, and systems that help track whether occupants have left.
• Access control and security: Locks, gates, fences, biometric systems, and security staff or other people able to assist responders.
• Structure and specific hazards: Structural frame, fire compartments and resistance, atriums and smoke-control arrangements, escape openings, unprotected stairwells, roof hazards, asbestos, photovoltaic equipment, load limits, fall hazards, and possible explosive atmospheres.
• Specialist contacts: People with knowledge needed to operate or safely isolate unusual systems or processes.

The presenters emphasize that preparing the file may require consultation with relevant building, systems, and process specialists. It is not simply a task for the file preparer to complete without input.

Consultation and Next Steps

The presenters say the draft regulations and supporting materials will be shared with participants. Questions that could not be answered during the conference would receive written responses. They also encourage participants to review the draft and provide further comments, which will inform the ongoing professional and regulatory review.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Nili Martinez — Head of the Regulatory Department and manager of the standards-adoption project.
• Hila Smotrich — Manager of the Commissioner’s Order 503 team; presented the project’s review, proposed scope, and regulatory changes.
• Eddie — NFPA specialist who presented the proposed information requirements for the Operational Intelligence File; no surname is clear in the subtitles.
• Israel Fire and Rescue Service — The organizing body and source of the project and proposed regulations.
• NFPA 1620 — The American standard used as the principal comparison for the proposed changes.
• Commissioner’s Order 503 — The existing Israeli field-file directive used as the other main comparison source.
• Survey respondents and professional reviewers — Safety professionals, file preparers, fire-service operations personnel, and other stakeholders whose input informed the review.