FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: Messy on January 21, 2017, 12:06:19 PM
-
I have been challenged by an enforcement authority inspecting officer about the lack of dry powder in or adjacent to a medium/large UPS room containing a sizeable lead acid battery stack.
My view was that the co2 extinguishers supplied provide a clean method of first aid fire fighting and in any case, staff would walk away from a battery related fire and dial 999
He said the fire service would need powder as its much more effective than co2.
So DP or co2 for a UPS battery stack?
Thanks
-
You aren't required to provide facilities for firefighters under the FSO, just maintain those provided under other legislation so he can just get a powder extinguisher off his pump.
Plus the MSDS for the VRLA type batteries in these units allow Powder or CO2 as suitable extinguishing agents.
So the choice of CO2 as first aid firefighting equipment is acceptable, it's clean and will penetrate the compartment better with less secondary damage.
If a 5 kilo CO2 doesn't kill it then it's a fire service job or of course an automatic fixed system can be installed.
Verbal, informal written request or Enforcement Notice?
-
Thank you Anthony.
I agree that there is no requirement to provide equipment for the fire service and I accept that IF this large battery stack was involved in fire it might a dozen or two CO2s. He was insistent that such a job would need DP. I was beginning to lose interest by now
A Notice of Fire Safety Deficiency is being prepared for some other irrelevant stuff that he found - including an extinguisher tag that he found which had been broken but placed back in position.
He said that this failure showed a lack of management and daily (yes daily) FFE check should be carried out.
I wasn't too impressed with IO and look forward to what he records in the fake notice (I hate these NOFSDs as they attempt to con the RP to believe they are a legal notice in the same way as an enforcement notice)
-
Davey, tell me if he is from London, go on please I cant wait to know.
-
Did he want you to buy him a fire engine, too?
-
I don't agree with you Anthony B regarding "just maintain those provided under other legislation."
Article 38.?(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of fire-fighters in the event of a fire, the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises for the use by or protection of fire-fighters UNDER THIS ORDER or under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
-
Davey, tell me if he is from London, go on please I cant wait to know.
I am sorry Colin, this is a fire enforcement authority located many (120+) miles from our fair capital. But it was a fair assumption!
-
oooop north, tha nows?
-
It's not "Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of fire-fighters in the event of a fire" though either, not like a fireman's switch on high voltage signage for example.
The article regarding fire extinguishers and the like does not require the provision of extinguishers for fire service use
-
OK Davey but humour me. Tell me he was dishonourably discharged from LFB, changed his name and was employed in the Silly Isles.
-
The BS also now states the DP's should not be used indoors without a justified health and safety assessment.
-
Just an update on this one.
With reference to the fact that there is no requirement to supply equipment for the fire service, how about this one:
I am aware of a relatively recent significant UPS fire (a 6 pump fire I believe - and Colin, & it was nowhere near London, nor did it involve any former, serving or would be London personnel!) where a number of fire and rescue personnel were injured. One issue was the fire and rescue service didn't have enough CO2, neither was there sufficient in the building to tackle this incident which involved live equipment that could not be isolated.
Neighbouring buildings were broken into by the fire service and eventually sufficient resources were 'procured'.
On the strength of this incident, we are now beefing up our CO2 availability in certain premises that have large or complex UPS equipment to provide a pool of FFE resources for the fire service, over and above what may be required for compliance reasons.
Of course, this is entirely a business continuity matter, and as such missed by me when carrying out a FRA. Again, for Colin, London do not carry any CO2, so the situation is even more relevant in the capital. In addition, the LFB training note relating to electrical plant, devotes just one paragraph on UPS's, despite the thousands acres the capital.
-
Just an update on this one.
With reference to the fact that there is no requirement to supply equipment for the fire service, how about this one:
I am aware of a relatively recent significant UPS fire (a 6 pump fire I believe - and Colin, & it was nowhere near London, nor did it involve any former, serving or would be London personnel!) where a number of fire and rescue personnel were injured. One issue was the fire and rescue service didn't have enough CO2, neither was there sufficient in the building to tackle this incident which involved live equipment that could not be isolated.
Neighbouring buildings were broken into by the fire service and eventually sufficient resources were 'procured'.
On the strength of this incident, we are now beefing up our CO2 availability in certain premises that have large or complex UPS equipment to provide a pool of FFE resources for the fire service, over and above what may be required for compliance reasons.
Of course, this is entirely a business continuity matter, and as such missed by me when carrying out a FRA. Again, for Colin, London do not carry any CO2, so the situation is even more relevant in the capital. In addition, the LFB training note relating to electrical plant, devotes just one paragraph on UPS's, despite the thousands acres the capital.
I think firstly we must remember that it is First Aid Fire Fighting Equipment and secondly, should it not have a suppression system installed if it is such a high risk? Perhaps the F&RS should start to consider a Co2 Tender?