FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Paul2886 on September 05, 2008, 05:45:16 PM
-
What would you guys say to a FSO that says that the usual amount of fire extinguishers are not required because of the installation of sprinklers. This is a mutli storey office block.
To me it sounds ridiculous that any trained member of staff, discovering a fire in its incipient stages, just stands back and waits for it to grow big enough to activate a sprinkler head. Surely an extinguisher is there to prevent that whilst the offices are occuppied. Oh and by the way the company is enquiring as to whether they can return some of them and obtain a refund.
Perhaps I'm thinking wrong.
-
Sprinklers are installed to contain the spread of fire until the big red things with blue lights turn up . Its an added bonus if they actual put the fire out.
-
I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.
-
FSOs should be reviewing the suitablility of fire risk assessments , not providing opinionated solutions that are then interpreted as prescription by RP's. It is for the RP to decide if extinguishers are required based on the findings of their risk assessment. Anyway the guidance document for offices and shops is i reckon pretty clear. Isnt it???
-
Even before significant fire regulations existed in the early 20th century it's always been accepted & pointed out that sprinklers do not replace first aid appliances.
It is however a risk assessment matter and the scales in BS5306-8 are only a guide and you if you can provide a convincing argument then it should be OK. In an office with the primary ignition source being electrical and not furnishings, waste bins, etc you could argue that the sprinklers allow you to reduce your A-rating cover as you only need CO2 as anything that's grown beyond it's source of origin is beyond a first aid attack.
To be honest it shouldn't be any of the FSO's concern anyway as long as the risks are covered - the RP should do an FRA and the FSO's job is to ensure it is adequate and that the requirements of the order are met, if the provision is more than the minimum it's not his issue.
The cost saving of a few less extinguishers isn't much anyway unless they are from a London Securities company or a UTC company on 'off the street' terms.
-
What would you guys say to a FSO that says that the usual amount of fire extinguishers are not required because of the installation of sprinklers. This is a mutli storey office block.
To me it sounds ridiculous that any trained member of staff, discovering a fire in its incipient stages, just stands back and waits for it to grow big enough to activate a sprinkler head. Surely an extinguisher is there to prevent that whilst the offices are occuppied. Oh and by the way the company is enquiring as to whether they can return some of them and obtain a refund.
Perhaps I'm thinking wrong.
Seems to me very similar to who says; we do not need MCPs as long as there are SDs every where, indeed this is ridiculous :)
-
In large sprinklered buildings I usually reduce the class A firefighing general provision. I still ensure that there is one at each fire alarm call point / at each exit and ensure that there is one within 30 m travel distance of the entirre floor area, but where the formula would require you to double up on extinguishers to achieve the A rating requirement I just recommend a single unit. It works out about 50% of the BS5306 rating in a big building but savings are not significant in a smaller building
-
The only difficulty I can envisage is when the sprinklers are down. I would expect to see something in the assessment that would cover this eventuality. We have not been told whether or not detection is in place and this may enhance the scenario. Please do not forget we are talking of life safety here not property protection.
As regards the MCP mentioned in a post above, some premises have had them taklen out and rely totally on detection because of high incidence of False Alarms due to malicious use and or mechanical damage, schools as an example. Also P1 , P2 and L5 system do not have MCP as part of the package.
-
I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.
Really?
Where?
-
I know of a buliding that has no extinguishers because of the passive and active measures in place......debate away!
-
I would like to know more about it, and the reasoning before I made any comment.
-
Sleeping for naughty little boys.
Brand new build, L1 system, smoke extraction, full sprinkler coverage, fire blanket in kitchens and 1 extinguisher in staff office.
Sleeps about 10, fairly large building with day resources a few staff always on site.
Extinguishers in place would be constantly discharged by naughty boys.
-
That is a reasonable example to be honest. I would have been tempted to have more FFE provided than 1 extinguisher though. Water and CO2 as a minimum, and possibly in some other areas where they may be able to be secured for staff use only.
-
I see where you are coming from, however the RRO is there to protect life.
If everybody can can escape then whats the problem? Article 13 is more than covered by the installation of sprinklers.
I fully agree with the principle of extinguishing a fire in its early stages if possible, but from a legislative point of view it may be argued either way.
Intresting
-
Sprinklers are not technically fire fighting equipment though. It is suppression, or simply a means of controlling a fire to a specific size. It MAY extinguish the fire, but there is no assumption made that it will. This does have the effect of protecting relevant persons, especially neighboring premises etc as the fire should not grow beyond it's set size. This mean you have got measures to mitigate the effects of fire.
Sprinklers do not replace the need for FFE, but the 'naughty boys' reason for having less in your example is a valid one. (Legislation-wise IMO you are successfully hitting the requirement of "take measures for fire-fighting in the premises, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there" Even without sprinklers I would consider this reduction. Look at the average pub, do we have FFE at the exits for people to pinch/activate/use as weapons? Nope, we tend to stick them behind the bar out of reach. if they are stuck behind the bar then what is the point of having 1 per 200m2 of floorspace, considering that we advise people that if 1 hasn't put the fire out then it is time to leave.
-
I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.
Really?
Where?
If you look at the RRO it says very little about very little, how ever if you read the goverment guides on the RRO Sleeping Accomadation on page 22 it states on fire fighting equipment that "Fire fighting equipment can reduce the risk of a small fire developing into a large one etc" then later states that "the equipment will need to comprise enough portable extinguishers that must be suitable for the risk".
Unfortunately as per normal actual goverment orders and acts are vague to say the least and normally need another reference book to go with them.
-
I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.
Really?
Where?
If you look at the RRO it says very little about very little, how ever if you read the goverment guides on the RRO Sleeping Accomadation on page 22 it states on fire fighting equipment that "Fire fighting equipment can reduce the risk of a small fire developing into a large one etc" then later states that "the equipment will need to comprise enough portable extinguishers that must be suitable for the risk".
Unfortunately as per normal actual goverment orders and acts are vague to say the least and normally need another reference book to go with them.
Thomas. Recommendations and requirements are two different things.
-
I agree, how ever a fire officer saying because a building has sprinklers it does not need any fire extinguishers or other equipment or services is a complete nonsense.
I would, and have made formal complaints over this sort of poor information given out by Poorly Informed Fire Officers, the last one went as far as the Dep-Primeministers Office and ended with a Countys Fire Services Risk Managers having take re training & a massive climb down by the County's Chief Fire Officer and over 200 business owners being written to describing how the information given out was incorrect. Unfortunately so many fire industry people just accept everything the fire officers say as being correct, and no matter how well meaning their advice is sometimes they are wrong. "but saying that we all can be wrong sometimes"
-
Article 13(4) & 13(5) covers what? Let's not engage in pedantry. The Order requires FFE and requires training to use it.
-
Sleeping for naughty little boys.
Brand new build, L1 system, smoke extraction, full sprinkler coverage, fire blanket in kitchens and 1 extinguisher in staff office.
Sleeps about 10, fairly large building with day resources a few staff always on site.
Extinguishers in place would be constantly discharged by naughty boys.
Article 4(f)(ii) talks about measures to mitigate the effects of fire and if they can't stop the naughty boys then their management has to be called into question and if that's the case then that's a contravention of another Article.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
In other words you can, as I have seen, use risk assessment to develop spurious arguments and dispense with Articles 13, 14, 15 & 17. If that's the case, what is the point of having legislation and an enforcing authority or the courts for that matter.
Put differently, the risk assessment would have to provide a jolly good justification as to a why a measure was unnecessary and if it went to court, I wonder who would be "listened" to. Would it be the enforcing authority or some individual with a spurious argument in a risk assessment?
-
If an argument is spurious then we should have no difficulty in challenging it, and also by creating that spurious argument their risk assessment would be deemed as not suitable and sufficient, to add to the other failings. In some ways the whole fact they were aware of a problem and have made a poor excuse to avoid doing anything about it could easily go against them in a court.
There is a common misconception that you can "risk assess" all sorts of problems away. You cannot risk assess a problem away, you can justify that it is not actually the problem that it seems to be, but a piece of paper with lies/excuses on does not make a premises safe.
-
If an argument is spurious then we should have no difficulty in challenging it, and also by creating that spurious argument their risk assessment would be deemed as not suitable and sufficient, to add to the other failings. In some ways the whole fact they were aware of a problem and have made a poor excuse to avoid doing anything about it could easily go against them in a court.
There is a common misconception that you can "risk assess" all sorts of problems away. You cannot risk assess a problem away, you can justify that it is not actually the problem that it seems to be, but a piece of paper with lies/excuses on does not make a premises safe.
I've read risk assessments which basically state that there is going to be no problem in this area because there is no ignition source and no problem in this area because there's nothing to burn. Although it is a very basic argument, it is one a lot of people make to justify why a measure is not necessary.
-
I suppose you want FFE in common areas of purpose built flats then?
-
OOH!!! Bit of a bone of contention there.
Fire service approves: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/03/11/firefighters-back-the-removal-of-fire-extinguishers-from-a-block-of-flats-89520-20347594/
Chair of CFOA does not approve: http://www.fia.uk.com/objects_store/NEWSLETTER7.pdf
The jury is out.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.
In a block built tin roofed storage facility for keeping milk bottles in metal crates, a brick store, a water tank store, an empty store and a premises where the employer has told all of his staff that the only action that they should take if they discover a fire is to sound the alarm, evacuate to the assembly point and stay put. The Fire & Rescue Service will then be called to extinguish the fire.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.
In a block built tin roofed storage facility for keeping milk bottles in metal crates, a brick store, a water tank store, an empty store and a premises where the employer has told all of his staff that the only action that they should take if they discover a fire is to sound the alarm, evacuate to the assembly point and stay put. The Fire & Rescue Service will then be called to extinguish the fire.
Articles 8-22 apply to relevant persons none of which would be present in a store excpet to pick up the milk, which would take about 2 seconds. That has to be one of very limited excpetions.
-
SidM, no it does not. It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add. The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides. This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.
Far be it for me to argue with Jokar, my interpretation of Article 13's 'where necessary' is that FFE should be provided, and then the RA would decide what type and how many etc. As i've said before, without FFE, how do you comply with Article 8 - provision of GFP's and then Article 4(f)(ii) - measure to mitigate the effects of fire i.e. the assumption in Article 8 that a fire will occur?
Phew! By the way, it's good to be back on the forum since i've now finished being knocked of my very fast motorbike (obituary for the bike to follow!)
-
IF the evacuation plan has a need for staff to move people such as in PHE or Zonal then the provision of FFE may well be not necessary. There are a large number of care facilities out there without the provision of ffe because of the need to evacuate as a priority. As FRS state get the brigade out, they are the professional firefighters, a term that is used in the RR(FS)O which has a number of conotations with regard to training and the ability to fight fire.
-
IF the evacuation plan has a need for staff to move people such as in PHE or Zonal then the provision of FFE may well be not necessary. There are a large number of care facilities out there without the provision of ffe because of the need to evacuate as a priority. As FRS state get the brigade out, they are the professional firefighters, a term that is used in the RR(FS)O which has a number of conotations with regard to training and the ability to fight fire.
The term 'fight' implies a battle to me. Not all fires will be a battle. Pouring a glass of water for instance into a rubbish bin with some smouldering paper would not probably be a fight. Most fires start as baby ones and I'm sure, if no one else, the insurance companys would prefer a few extinguishers to be around the place.
Extinguisher training for staff should not be designed to make them into fire 'fighters' but to help them make the decision as to when and whether to use them. At the end of the day a 9 litre water extinguisher is just a bucket of water with a rubber thing attached to aim it at the fire and a sort of 'tap' thing on top to stop and start it.
Of course the trainer needs to explain that the wind will not be blowing the smoke across the cornfields, like when practicing outside, and to walk round the fire to check there are no remaining pockets of fire is a definate no-no inside.
And of couse people are the priority but there is a place for extinguishers. Oh, and I'm not an extinguisher salesman
-
There is an ssumption here that all staff will be able to use an extinguisher and that may not be the case, there are also assumptions that all people will and could use an extinguisher and again that may not be the case. It all depends and that is where the FRA comes in, an analysis of all the circumstances and what the RP wants staff or the public to do. FFE was provided at the Station Night Club, it was not a lot of use in there. Not all fires are the same not all circumstances are the same that is why assessment is important.
-
from RRO Guidance note 1:
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.
-
There is an ssumption here that all staff will be able to use an extinguisher and that may not be the case, there are also assumptions that all people will and could use an extinguisher and again that may not be the case. It all depends and that is where the FRA comes in, an analysis of all the circumstances and what the RP wants staff or the public to do. FFE was provided at the Station Night Club, it was not a lot of use in there. Not all fires are the same not all circumstances are the same that is why assessment is important.
The Station Night Club was particularly nasty and shows in graphic detail how bad a fire can be, how ever if you look at the video who knows what may have happend if two or three people trained in the use of extinguishers had fired powders at the start of this blaze "maybe in the first 10 to 15 seconds".
-
The safest thing at all times is to evacuate, I know numbers of FRS people that head straight for exits on the hearing of voice or sounder messages or coded alerts. And insist on FFE to a prescriptive level.
No one is saying that FFE is never necessary as it may be on a RA basis but not to levels that some advocat. You have to take into account all the factors including who will use them and are they able to.
-
from RRO Guidance note 1:
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.
Nothing positive there about having to provide FAFFE CivvyFSO.
Article 13 (1)(a) essentially states that, where neccessary, FAFFE should be provided where it is appropriate. It does not say that it is neccessary to provide appropriate FAFFE. Two different things.
I'm still to be convinced that there is a specific requirement to provide FAFFE.
Further to this Art. 13 (1)(b) states that any non automatic FFFE so provided is accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs. This means that this Article acknowledges that automatic FFFE is classed as a means of firefighting.
-
"It is likely therefore that some form of fire fighting equipment will be necessary in almost all cases."
We have also had policy from above basically saying that there will be very few scenarios that do not warrant FFE.
There were earlier documents from meetings prior to the RRO coming out discussing the "where necessary" concept in the upcoming RRO, and IIRC the intention was that it actually means that it should be provided, but WHERE and HOW MUCH is up to the risk assessment.
I agree it is muddy waters, and there are imaginable places where you could say FFE is pointless and thus not required, but people will try to push the boundaries all the time and then the arguments appear about not having FFE due to the provision of sprinklers etc.
Another way to look at it is: If someone had a sprinklered office/warehouse/nightclub/shop and decided to not have any FFE, if discussions showed that they refused to get any then I would without any doubt issue an enforcement notice for that FFE. The argument would be sorted out for us all during the appeals process. FSOs naughty boys home example above is a different matter IMO.
-
There is an ssumption here that all staff will be able to use an extinguisher and that may not be the case, there are also assumptions that all people will and could use an extinguisher and again that may not be the case. It all depends and that is where the FRA comes in, an analysis of all the circumstances and what the RP wants staff or the public to do. FFE was provided at the Station Night Club, it was not a lot of use in there. Not all fires are the same not all circumstances are the same that is why assessment is important.
The Station Night Club was particularly nasty and shows in graphic detail how bad a fire can be, how ever if you look at the video who knows what may have happend if two or three people trained in the use of extinguishers had fired powders at the start of this blaze "maybe in the first 10 to 15 seconds".
Obviously you have seen the NIST research implying what sprinklers would have done at this fire?
-
Yes I have, but we are chatting about extinguishers and their use as opposed to the provision of sprinklers.
-
I think one of the points sprinkler advocates might point out is that the simulation involving sprinklers showed a scenario where the fire was controlled, possibly extinguished, and lives would have been saved. Extinguishers in place at the nightclub were not used, so provision of FFE saved nobody, whereas the provision of sprinklers would have saved many if not all of the lives lost. So looking at it from this point of view, if I wanted to install sprinklers in a nightclub and not bother with FFE, this scenario can make it look like sprinklers are by far the best option. The easy point to miss is that FFE/lack of sprinklers was not the error, fire retardant treated fabrics/wall/ceiling coverings would have possibly saved those lives.
-
Maybe.
Thank you for your comments Jokar, but I fail to see how my post disuedes from this 'chat'.
It just goes to show that the station fire relied on the human factor. Take away that factor and possibly alot of lives could have been saved.
FFE is fantastic all the time somebody is competent in its use. You can train all you like but it will not always make the lay person confident in its use.
I am not saying sprinklers are the be all and end all, but at least they do not rely on somebody thinking about what to do.
I feel in some circumstances, they can reduce and sometimes replace the need for portable FFE.
-
I agree, there is a place for FFE and a place for sprinklers. This may or may not be in the same premises or builidng but a good FRA will assist in the application of this.
-
100% agree jokar