FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: Davo on September 06, 2010, 10:00:42 AM
-
My boss wants to get rid of our 3000 extinguishers in 140 premises to save our Estates dept money on servicing etc
We have a policy of not fighting fires.
Our training does not include actual demos or "hands on"
Our RAs identify the need ( :o)
Would we be committing an offence?
Nothing in Doc B
Nothing in BS9999
1 X Water per 200 sq m in the guides p 58 offices guide
BS5306 pt 8 is advisory
RRO Articles 8 and 13 seem to indicate so
davo
-
Davo, you might not be committing an actual offence by the action of removing them, but if you failed to comply with the enforcement notice telling you to replace them, then you would be. Obviously you can appeal the enforcement notice, as it is your right, but you should bear in mind the following...
In specific reference to article 13 Guidance note No. 1 states:
73. Fire-fighting equipment should be considered as a means of both prevention and
protection. For example, preventing a small fire growing out of control and spreading
beyond the area of origin, affecting the means of escape and posing a risk to relevant
persons. It is likely therefore that some form of fire fighting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.
-
CivvyFSO
How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence ???
davo
-
Davo
In principal you would not be committing an offence. Unless as Civvy states the extinguishers are required by virtue of an enforcement notice. If the fire authority believes you need extingishers back in place it may issue an enforcement notice asking you to do so. If you dont successfully appeal the requirements of the notice or just ignore it, you would be commiting an offence.
A few things to be careful of here...
Firstly if your RA has determined they are required, then really they should be provided, thats the whole idea of the risk assessment process. That's not to say an assessment shouldn't be reviewed or questioned, but the danger is the organisation may decide the findings of the assessment are a little inconvenient, and choose to ignore the bits it doesn't like. Clearly that is bad practice, to put it mildly!
Here are a few things to I would consider:-
The first priority would be to establish if you have more fire extinguishers than you actually need. Can they be reduced? Are they over specced? Are they in the right locations?
Secondly consider the knock on effect of not having extinguishers. Could it be of detriment to operational resillience, or continuity, could it mean ultimately a fire could cause more damage to your assets? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.
Thirdly what about areas such as your custody suites? Many were designed with excessive dead end conditions, single direction of escape with perhaps secondary access to a secure outside yard from which there is no onward escape.
You need to consider if a fire started in the custody suite cell area, could the custody sergeant and their team be able to secure, and evacuate those in people in custody before the MOE is compromised? In my experience the cells are normally fire resisting boxes, smoking is not permitted any longer, and a fire in one cell should be contained.
But are those measures maintained in a effective state? Is that FR in place? Will a fire be contained?
Fourtly HMG is looking to make cuts in the fire service. They want less fire stations and fire crews, the idea is to push for business to mitigate the effects of fire so that we don't need so many big red fire engines whizzing around everywhere. So I get the impression that mitigating the effects of fire will become a very hot topic in future , and furthermore the penalties for not mitigating the effects of fire will become more and more severe.
-
My view is that fire fighting equipment is not legally required if they are considerd to be not necessary.
Not necessary would include a policy of non use.
I would not consider FAFFE as life saving equipment otherwise they would not be placed at final and storey exits.
If FAFFE is considered necessary for escape purposes then there is something seriously wrong with the means of escape.
The legislation requires FAFFE where necessary, not the necessary FAFFE.
Head is now returned to below the parapet.
-
CivvyFSO
How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence ???
davo
No offence is required for the issue of an enforcement notice.
An offence is committed when a failure under the RRO puts people at risk of death/serious injury. For this we would go straight to prosecution, and probably issue a notice to put the failing right at the same time.
However, if you have a premises where everything was perfect, nobody at risk, everything provided and maintained as it should be, but you hadn't recorded the prescribed information detailed in article 9, we could issue a notice just for the recording of the prescribed information. If you didn't do it within the allotted time you will have committed a very straight forward easily prosecutable offence of not complying with an enforcement notice. Did you comply with the notice? No? Guilty. (This is not taking into account such obstacles as the code for crown prosecutors, enforcement concordat, enforcement compliance code etc)
I can almost guarantee that the FRS involved, and CPIG where appropriate, will enforce extinguishers. FRS prosecuting the police? Realistically/politically I could not see it happening, but would this be due to the police backing down or the FRS backing down?
-
CivvyFSO
How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence ???
davo
No offence is required for the issue of an enforcement notice.
An offence is committed when a failure under the RRO puts people at risk of death/serious injury. For this we would go straight to prosecution, and probably issue a notice to put the failing right at the same time.
However, if you have a premises where everything was perfect, nobody at risk, everything provided and maintained as it should be, but you hadn't recorded the prescribed information detailed in article 9, we could issue a notice just for the recording of the prescribed information. If you didn't do it within the allotted time you will have committed a very straight forward easily prosecutable offence of not complying with an enforcement notice. Did you comply with the notice? No? Guilty. (This is not taking into account such obstacles as the code for crown prosecutors, enforcement concordat, enforcement compliance code, the enforcement management model etc)
I can almost guarantee that the FRS involved, and CPIG where appropriate, will enforce extinguishers. FRS prosecuting the police? Realistically/politically I could not see it happening, but would this be due to the police backing down or the FRS backing down?
[/quote]
-
The F&RS could and would certainly issue a notice for, in it's view, in short, failing to provide extinguishers. But that's it's interpretation of the legislation which may or may not be correct.
It is the over use of "where necessary" and "where appropriate" that fogs the issue and pays for flash cars and houses for the legal types.
Has this matter ever gone to appeal?
-
Very difficult to justify that this is safe:
1. It’s generally accepted good practice that the Responsible Person provides portable fire extinguishers, & all the guidance suggests that you should. The presumption (in law) is that one should strive to achieve a level of risk equivalent to that offered by complying with established good industry practice. If your employers are not following that guidance, how are they proposing to justify the resulting discrepancy in risk? Just by saying it’s company policy??
2. They already have fire extinguishers there. If they remove them, they are not maintaining them “in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair” – Fire Authorities may view this as a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Order;
3. Remember the obligation is to reduce fire risk as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). It has already been demonstrated to be reasonably practicable to have extinguishers installed (they are there), so how can it ever be ‘ALARP’ to remove them and thus increase fire risk beyond its current level?
4. This would appear to be a straightforward example of ‘Reverse ALARP’ – an example of bad risk assessment practice quoted in HSE publication RR151 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr151.pdf) and the latest version of CIBSE Guide E. Guide E also tells you what tests you should apply if considering this type of alteration – and highlights there is a much stricter test that you would apply than if you were considering whether to provide them in the first place.
-
From the ODPM in 2002 when the Fire Safety order was being discussed:
"We therefore propose that, in addition to the above requirements, the proposed
Order should make it clear that fire fighting equipment should be considered as a possible
means of reducing a risk of fire spreading, providing protection and for providing assistance
to others, and not merely as a means of safeguarding the means of escape. It should also be
considered as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire."
-
From the ODPM in 2002 when the Fire Safety order was being discussed:
"We therefore propose that, in addition to the above requirements, the proposed
Order should make it clear that fire fighting equipment should be considered as a possible
means of reducing a risk of fire spreading, providing protection and for providing assistance
to others, and not merely as a means of safeguarding the means of escape. It should also be
considered as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire."
Did the proposal come to anything?
-
Yes, The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005.
-
Personannly, unless you can be sure there will never be a fire then I think removing the extinguishers would be an offence.
Art 13 asks for them "where necessary". 13(2) sets out what to consider.
If you havent got them, and there could be a fire, then you have put people at risk - ergo - an offence.
-
The RRO states in Article 13 FFE is a provision for the safety of relevant persons where necessary ie anyone lawfully on the premises
You could argue in relation to Article 4 that Compy, L1 detection already in place covers our duty to mitigate the spread of fire (yes, staff training also)
davo
-
Detection does not mitigate the effects of fire. It lets you know that if you haven't done anything to mitigate the effects of fire that you are about to be having a bad day.
There was much discussion surrounding the 'where necessary' at the inception of the RRO, and it should be looked at from the point of view that it is nearly always necessary, and article 13 is more of an issue of choice/placement of the FFE that IS required.
We can argue all day Davo, but the simple truth is that if you ask your local FRS they will tell you not to remove the FFE, and they will be willing to enforce the reinstatement if you do. You have the right to appeal, and you can fight your case then, but I would be quite confident that the appeal would get refused. For your Crown aspects, I would be quietly confident that CPIG will be singing from the same sheet as us.
-
1. Legislation requires, where necessary, FAFFE. If they are considered necessary then use BS5306 as standard. Employers may not be following guidance but can be within the law.
Good industry practice? Do you mean the FAFFE industry?
2. Maintenance is "where necessary". If extinguishers are not provided then it is not necessary to maintain.
3. The removal of extinguishers reduces the risk to potential users. The risk associated with persons using extinguishers is clear.
If extinguishers are necessary to safeguard the means of escape then there is something seriously wrong with the means of escape.
If extinguishers are necessary to safeguard means of escape then why are they not located in central locations, not at storey and final exits.
Does guidance not consider separation as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire?
F&RS advice is that firefighting is the last course of action, if it is safe to do so.
-
Fishy
Para 4, Where in Guide E does it say that?
All I could find Chapter 13.2.2 2010 ed says "you could argue they are not necessary"!
davo
-
Ultimately the decision about suitable and sufficient provision has to be in a court of law. It will be the view of the passenger on a Clapham Omnibus that will make the determination. I would not want to try and argue against someone that will no doubt make the point that for the sake of 30 quid a life was lost.....
-
Extinguishers aren't for life safety puproses as we all know. But the Government of the day placed a duty on organisations to mitigate the effects of fire.
There are wider issues behind why they have done that, envrionmental, economical, political and social issues to name a few, which are pointless discussing here, as I assume everyone understands what those issues are.
There is an expectation that you prevent a small fire turning into a big one.
How do you do that? you can either train a percentage of your staff on the safe use of fire extinguishers, who then safely attempt to put out a small fire within the limits of their training
Or you could possibly put in fire supression or spinklers systems, or fire seperation as measures to mitigate the effects of fire in some circumstances.
So do you always need fire extinguishers to mitigate the effects of fire? No. But be sure in your FRA to demonstrate there are other measures in place to mitigate the effects of fire if you do recommend the removal of fire extinguishers.
I said before that the mitigating the effects of fire is going to become a big issue in future, and I think you will see more and more organisations prosecuted or have some of formal enforcement action against them for not doing so. There is political will behind it.
-
I agree with you regarding maintenance NT.
People should be trained in the safe use of FFE so the risk to them should be minimal compared to the risk of a fire left to grow unchecked.
Fishy has a good point regarding reasonably practicable. It is surely reasonably practicable to have FFE.
You should read:
a) A consultation document on the reform of fire safety legislation (This explains the intentions of the RRFSO, and the provision of FFE extends beyond simply protecting the MOE)
b) Guidance Note No. 1 (This explains how we as enforcers should be enforcing the RRFSO, and explains that FFE will be required in almost all circumstances)
c) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (The directive that the WP regs, then the RRO were based upon in part, and it says "the employer shall take the necessary measures for fire fighting")
What we have is government documents explaining the requirements/use of the legislation vs the opinion of some people on an internet forum. (No offence meant, for a change) I appreciate that arguments can be made, but I know where my money is.
-
Ultimately the decision about suitable and sufficient provision has to be in a court of law. It will be the view of the passenger on a Clapham Omnibus that will make the determination. I would not want to try and argue against someone that will no doubt make the point that for the sake of 30 quid a life was lost.....
I think the problem here is that the big corporations do not see the 30 quid. They see a bill for 3,000 extinguishers being bought/maintained. The one that saved their building is simply a "recharge" on the same bill.
-
Civvy
c) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (The directive that the WP regs, then the RRO were based upon in part, and it says "the employer shall take the necessary measures for fire fighting")
Is a means of calling the F&R Service a firefighting measure?
-
NT
You win the gold star, thats whats being argued ::)
davo
-
Davo dont do it for all the reasons Midland Fire points out. Most of the issues he raises must ring a bell with you? Especially in those areas where you detain people.
Think of all the electrical and electronic equipment and other hazards you will have at the custody control which very often are open to the escape corridors from the cells. And never forget that when you actually do have a fire many of the communications and security controls are vulnerable and you cannot relay on them in planning the evacuation of people at risk. It would be crazy not to have equipment to help mitigate the growth of a fire.
I would double check what you have and use BS5306 as a benchmark. I wager you will have a very substantial over provision and significant savings can be made without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Also take a look at the latest FIA survey which has shown that 90% of fires are extinguished by portable extinguishers. My advice is cut it to the quick but no further.
-
In answer to NT I would counter in a similar way - like their duty to make arrangements for mitigating the effects of fire, Responsible Persons have a duty to make effective arrangements to fire emergencies including evacuation procedures.
Are you now of the opinion that calling the fire service and leaving residents of care homes in their bedrooms would be suitable and sufficient?
-
Hi Prof
I think you know where the idea comes from, not me guv, honest :-*
In regard to the EC Directive and the Consultation, neither have any legal standing, but yes, I am on message ;D
davo
ardup manor
skint
somewhere north of Watford
-
Tell your boss to go ahead and remove them. The fire authority would never prosecute the police authority there aint the political will. Instead the chief fire officer and chief constable will have a cosy chat down at the lodge, play a bit of golf, have a spot of lunch at some swanky restaurant, pull a few strings and the whole thing will be forgotten about. Its the usual one rule for one, and not what you know but who you know.
-
not everyone is in the lodge cleveland, & i thought i was cynical
-
Nah not everyone, just the elite. Come back David Icke all is forgiven
-
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/Information/Details/index.cfm/obj_id/A28B88D5-DA5F-497D-81EDA4BD746DB5BF
-
"It would have been an absolute catastrophe if it wasn't for the sprinkler system, the building could have been ruined," he (Kieron Armstrong) confirmed.
-
Prof
How high was the ceiling? 7 miles?
Wouldn't the use of the extinguisher actually delay sprinkler activity?
Was the fire in a back area ie no telltale smoke?
Am working on removing excess first especially old water ;D
davo
-
Davo I dont know anything about the fire in question but I thought it made quite a poignant point that reinforced the fact - sprinklers or extinguishers apart- that so many people are complacent- hopefully they have never experienced a fire and expect that they never will. Reminded me of what your people are probably thinking at this time.
But when fires do occur you can never predict the effect that this will have on your systems or your staff and how the fire and smoke can cause equipment to fail, systems to break down and staff to behave sometimes heroically and sometimes irrationally. And makes them appreciate the systems and installatons they have taken for granted for so long.
-
Prof
Totally agree, its just that I found the article/the way it was written a little strange.
Apologies if it came out any other way :'(
davo
-
I beleive insurance companies insist on extinguishers and staff training including the use of them is a requirment.
-
I beleive insurance companies insist on extinguishers and staff training including the use of them is a requirment.
Don't doubt it at all.
Do they ask for a copy of the risk assesment for any potential users of extinguishers in the event of a fire? Doubt it.
Buildings are more expensive to replace than people.
-
I don't doubt it.
It's just another thing they can use as an excuse for not paying a claim.
If everyone had the time to read the small print on their insurance policy they would probably realise that they weren't insured anyway!
-
Interesting arguments either way, I've been away so not dipped in until now.
The force involved will not do itself any favours if it tries penny pinching this way - my force is coming to terms with cuts and the Diamond process is well under way with various suggestions made from all staff and several big cuts implemented, but none of them are safety related - estates is making some changes but stuff like this is secure.
3000 extinguishers is a lot but when you realise how ridiculously cheaply public authorities get fire equipment & services (they can get a brand new extinguisher for less than the cost of a refill to an off the street punter) it's not a saving, especially if they are correctly serviced for full lifespan - our force has just replaced a significant number, but only after 25 years service & even then they could have been extended serviced and retained.
Thin numbers, yes (if possible) but removal I don't think so - anyway the Federation & Unison Safety reps may have something to say about it as well as the press.
Besides - it's a police force, not an office. You have obligations towards Resilience for civil emergencies and the potential scale of disruption from a minor situation that could have been dealt with in seconds can affect service delivery.
I'm all for reducing unnecessary extinguishers & even in certain very specific situations would be OK with none, but this isn't one.
Although what is as bad as having no extinguishers is having dangerous ones - went around the Tower of London and the vast majority of their waters (9litre cartridge) had been condemned for 3 years plus with rust, lifted linings, damaged valves - dozens of extinguishers in total. A lot of CO2 were many years overdue hydro test as well... you would have thought with Royal Palaces fire history they would be tight on those things! The only stuff in good condition was the extinguishers in the Grenadier Guard's Barracks and Museum as they were NATO listed stainless steel units, which can go on forever.
-
It would seem extinguishers can be effective after all. I eat my words.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11276099
-
NT
Obviously not a CO2 then ;D ;D
davo
-
Fishy
Para 4, Where in Guide E does it say that?
All I could find Chapter 13.2.2 2010 ed says "you could argue they are not necessary"!
davo
Chapter 5 - "Reverse ALARP" is dealt with in 5.6.3. Removing fire extinguishers is also mentioned in an example in 5.5.3.
-
We are working to reduce the number of extinguishers however the extinguisher companies are not happy!!
We are aware of of the term "where necessary" in the RRO. Our RAs point to reduced number of extinguishers.
Our problem is how do we dispose of the excess?
Anyone any ideas?
-
Environmental disposal to a licensed site - most extinguisher companies do this.
Because the licensed site levies a fee a charge is passed on per exxtinguisher.
It can be from £2 up to £8 an extinguisher dependant on the extinguisher firm, I charge £2 or £3 unless it's an aluminium bodied parallel thread CO2 which are free as I can get rid of those free for recycling into service exchange units by the people I use to get CO2 from.
You can't just bin them. Often they go on eBay (OK if serviceable, but I've seen some right junk sold as usable when its scrap).
I recently managed to get a site to reduce it's extinguishers by 75% by risk assessment (too much cover in common areas). Also the use of high rated extinguishers can have the number at a fire point, you can get a 34A rated Foam Spray now at only 10% more cost than a normal 13A rated foam - this is what Sainsburys did when moving over to EN3 kit in '97 - they replaced fire points of 2 x 13A rated Thomas Glover 6/5.5 litre Foam Spray extinguishers with a single 27A rated Gloria High Performance Foam saving them thousands across their property portfolio
-
Thanks for this!
Regarding the excessive extinguishers we have experienced no problems with the Fire Authority but we have had problems with extinguisher companies and Insurers
They don't seem to understand the term "where necessary" nor the term "should consider".
We have considered and don't deem them necessary!
-
Thanks for this!
Regarding the excessive extinguishers we have experienced no problems with the Fire Authority but we have had problems with extinguisher companies and Insurers
They don't seem to understand the term "where necessary" nor the term "should consider".
We have considered and don't deem them necessary!
You should expect problems from the extinguisher company, naturally. The insurers can be a little more difficult but it should give weight to the comments in the Fire Risk Assessment and the risk of exposing very inexperienced persons to fire fighting, whether trained or not, when everyone else is leaving the building, especially when insurers will not provide cover for trainers for more realistic firefighting training.
It only proves that the insurers are more concerned about the building than the people who are in it.
Have you seen a risk assessment for using extinguishers?
-
I understand and sympathise with all posts in relation to the need, or the want to remove FFE from premises, but as FE's were intially designed to procure the means of escape from a premise, do you not feel it would be unwise to remove a vital passive fire protection measure, after all FE's do save the economy money, and reduce the impact on business interuption if used safely and effectively in the early stages of a fire, provided as specified in Article 13 of the FSO they are used by suitably trained operatives.
as far as the extinguisher service company not liking it, well hardly surprising considering you are taking away their food....!
Simon
-
Wow - sounds just like an extract from an edition of FIA Focus!
You are not in the trade yourself by any chance? ;D
Extinguishers do play their place and I have used enough for real in various situations to be glad of having them about. I bet places these days wouldn't have first aid boxes & first aiders/appointed persons if it weren't an absolute prescriptive requirement, which it can be argued extinguishers no longer are except in specific situations (PSV's, ADR, Maritime, etc)
I'd class them as active FP myself though
-
Anthony,
thank you for pointing out the obvious error so grossly overlooked by myself in terms of Extinguishers being active, and not passive....Whoops ;)
as far as you other comment about being in the trade, yes a little.. and that's about all..
-
Did anyone ever really believe the line about fire extinguishers being there to procure a means of escape? I know thats what people used to say - mostly the fire brigade because we could not bear the thought of anyone taking our job off us. But in reality cutting through the bull they have always been about putting out a small fire before it becomes a big fire - ie mitigation. Thank goodness sense has prevailed and their proper role is now recognised in the legislation.
-
I totally agree Kurnal.
If FFE has to be used to maintain an egress, then lets face it, things have gone very wrong!
The trouble is, it really doesn't help when the CLG guides state exactly the opposite! ::)
-
The last comments to my post with respect to extinguishers being designed to procure a means of escape.
in terms of using an extinguisher in the literall sense of escaping a building, of course not that's not what i meant! But they do serve to extinguish a small workplace fire as we all know, and accordingly they could be used to extinguish small fires that may have broken out in escape routes. It would appear that this forum is sometimes used for unconstructive comments..
simon
-
Hi Simon
Whilst I that agree extinguishers have their place in preventing a small fire becoming a bigger one, they are not, and never have been, a device to protect a means of escape or indeed maintain the tennability of a means of escape.
I'd be rather concerned (to put it mildly) if a fire occurred on a means of escape in the first place.
-
Fires often start in escape routes.
-
Fires often start in escape routes.
Escape routes should be protected by one of the following:
1. by being separated from the fire by fire resisting construction
2. by the limitation of travel distance which ensures that the fire can be passed (by all) whilst still in its incipient stage
3. by having an alternative route available that can safely allow all to escape the fire
There are no exceptions.
Did I mention extinguishers? No.
Stu
-
Fires often start in escape routes.
Fires often start anywhere but where are they most likely to?
Remember that in an emergency an escape route starts from where you are standing or sitting until you reach a place of safety. So yes technically all fires can start in an escape route if that is what it is.
-
Fires often start in escape routes.
I didnt say that they didn't , I said I'd be somewhat concerned if they did
-
Fires often start in escape routes.
I didnt say that they didn't , I said I'd be somewhat concerned if they did
Wee Brian said that.
-
I know he did Nearlythere my old chum, and if you look carefully thats why the quote box I included says "quote from Wee Brian"
I despair I really do! ::)
-
I know he did Nearlythere my old chum, and if you look carefully thats why the quote box I included says "quote from Wee Brian"
I despair I really do! ::)
Ahhhhhhhhhhh (whilst looking at siad quote this time) OK.
You mean dispair of shoes, or what?
-
who are you callin Siad?
-
Fires can start anywhere, remember the triangle ???
In normal office type areas its generally IMHO dodgy electrics, could be light fittings in corridors.
davo
ps why can I still not see the posters names? I can see the quote names ??? ???
-
Fires can start anywhere, remember the triangle ???
In normal office type areas its generally IMHO dodgy electrics, could be light fittings in corridors.
davo
ps why can I still not see the posters names? I can see the quote names ??? ???
Of course they can start anywhere Davo. The issue is where are they most or less likely to start and what is the chance of an outbreak or not?
-
nearlythere
Telly fire - £70K
Toasters X ? lots of near misses, all picked up in the corridors by the SD ::)
davo