As you can see in bullet 8, this procedure is for an engine fire in flight. Hence it is not optimized for an engine fire on ground (when fuel can collect and burn close to the fuselage, while in flight it will only affect a part of the wing and the according trailing edge devices) and not optimized to prepare for an evacuation.
Normally there should be two procedures (air/ground). And there should be an engine fire procedure (fire warning while the engine performs normally) and an "catastrophic engine failure procedure" when a bunch of warnings go off at the sime time, the engine stops producing thrust and a loud bang supplements the cockpit indications. But that would of course increase the number of procedures to an unacceplable level...
Having a 30 second wait in the procedure makes it quite unsuitable for a situation like this, when prompt decisions about an evacuation have to be taken, and preparation takes time (spool down of the other engine).
For the concorde crash the engine fire procedure was also not the best one to perform with priority... Although formally there was an engine fire warning, so formally it was the right procedure. Hard to blame the crew.