FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: deaconj999 on April 20, 2011, 08:11:27 PM
-
All,
Does anyone have any experience in the requirements to provide fixed fire extinguishing systems for catering equipment. In particular, I mean kitchen cooking equipment commonly found in hotels, restaurants, et al where we may find the often familiar ansul or chubb system.
I am aware of the loss prevention standards, the catering risk assessments and other documents that elude to the fact that (quite rightly) it is a good idea/benefit to have these systems in place.
My dilemma is that I have come across in the last few weeks around 7 or so existing commercial kitchens, all with different layouts as you can imagine all between 6 - 40 or 50 years old. In two of them my colleague has convinced the RP responsible for both, that they need to install a fire extinguishing system in one kitchen as an upgrade and in the other there was a requirement to provide a new installation. Both were fitted.
Not wanting to set a presedence, because I know this will be a coslty adventure for the RP, as all areas belong to the same RP, I cannot establish the legal requirement. I can satisfy myself that it would be a positive move to advise that these systems SHOULD be fitted, and the RP will do what I suggest, that is fact.
The problem - I do not want them to spend yet I cannot find in all the docs I am aware of, anything that tells me categorically that they SHALL provide an extiguishing system.
Best Practice V Nice to haves V Staturory requirement...... If I go done the line of advising on installation of FE Systems for these kitchens, how would I justify my decision to advise to my Boss ?
Anyone have any experience or advice or thoughts what you would do, please bear in mind I would not have a problem to advise on an upgrade if there weren't so many premises involved at the same time......
Thanks in advance
-
There is no prescriptive legal guidance on this in respect of life safety so far as I am aware. However :
Are all kitchens enclosed in FR construction or are some open to the restaurant?
Are there any in higher risk locations such as kitchens that open off a staircase?
Any means of escape issues in the kitchen?
I think if good means of escape and other fire precautions are in place the primary purpose will be to reduce property damage and improve business continuity.
-
All Kitchens are separated by FR Doors and there is ample MOE from all kitchen areas. None open onto staircases.
Most doors have perished smoke seals which have to be replaced and some kitchens do not have HD, even though most have the emergency shut off buttons. So HD will be recommended as mods to the existing AFD.
Therefore as you say, property protection would be the only reason I would recommend suppression, but I would need to justify it becasue of the sheer numbers of kitchens regardless of the date they were built, but notwithstanding the fact that I can rule out the life safety aspect, which isn't the concern in these cases, from a PP point of view I still can't find any reasonable justification to provide a blanket approach to justify any advice I would give to the RP to justify the cost to upgrade. Other than the RP has a strong vested interest in PP as well as LS.
If I adopt a consistent approach to these kitchens and insist on FS as an obvious PP advantage V cost of post fire redecoration/rebuild, which I'm sure at some pain I could convince the RP is worthwhile to upgrade!!!
..... Is there still no prescriptive guidance I can fall back on (PP wise) when the bean counter come questioning???
I'm assuming that the answer, based on your most valuable reply and my now exhausted research is still>>>>>> NO (not as yet anyway).
-
What was the rationale behind the installation of an extinguishing system which outweighed the provision of suitable portable extinguishing equipment and good training?
-
Thoughts that crossed my mind along with this were sizes of deep fate friers, surface areas and other associated equipment, but Not wanting to publicly question the colleague, an IOSH qualification surfaced.......maybe H&S crept in !
Is that possible? :o
-
I see this very often. FRA's recommending installation of fixed fire suppression system i.e. an ansul system.
Risk Assessors usually quote 'best practice' when requiring this. But is there a legal requirement? No. not at all.
BUT. it could be a 'control measure' to be considered under the fso.
-
Systems are not an automatic legal requirement and more often are an insurance one.
For an existing installation, Wet Chemical portables are more than sufficient rather than a mass retrofit (which in a perfect limitless budget world would be nice, but not realistic).
A 6 litre Wet Chem achieves a 75F rating and most individual compartments in an actual fryer are between 15 & 40 litres so there is plenty of spare capacity. They are easy to use and knock down the flames in 3-5 seconds, the rest of the extinguisher being applied to cool and build up the thickness of the saponified fat layer.
Most Ansul systems I see are manual only without the fusible links and the design of pull stations appears deliberately intended to blend in with everything else and a lot of staff don't even know it's there & regardless naturally go for the extinguisher first as a natural reaction, which is a dangerous waste of time if its a foam/powder/CO2.
So I insist on the correct portable first and foremost and consider the systems as a secondary measure should the client desire extra security - but try and ensure that automatic & manual release is provided, not just manual.
-
Systems are not an automatic legal requirement and more often are an insurance one.
For an existing installation, Wet Chemical portables are more than sufficient rather than a mass retrofit (which in a perfect limitless budget world would be nice, but not realistic).
A 6 litre Wet Chem achieves a 75F rating and most individual compartments in an actual fryer are between 15 & 40 litres so there is plenty of spare capacity. They are easy to use and knock down the flames in 3-5 seconds, the rest of the extinguisher being applied to cool and build up the thickness of the saponified fat layer.
Most Ansul systems I see are manual only without the fusible links and the design of pull stations appears deliberately intended to blend in with everything else and a lot of staff don't even know it's there & regardless naturally go for the extinguisher first as a natural reaction, which is a dangerous waste of time if its a foam/powder/CO2.
So I insist on the correct portable first and foremost and consider the systems as a secondary measure should the client desire extra security - but try and ensure that automatic & manual release is provided, not just manual.
AB i cannot fault what you say. I would like to add though that knowledge of, and training in, wet chemcial and fire blankets is pretty poor.
Usually you will find the kitchen is 'contracted out' so arguably has its own RP and is a seperate premises. i get all the assurances in the world that they have all the relevant training but when i ask the chef or other staff staff they say they have never received training. In fact. I can confidently say i have never visited a kitchen that is sub contracted that has demonstrated any level of compliance in respect of training
-
What about Fryertrace,the kitchen hood variation of the Firetrace system?It uses a potassium based solution.
Only suggesting this because had to look at Firetrace for cabinet protection.
-
Sorry Buzz. this is not about what system is best. But about whether suppression is appropriate.
GFSM. In short. each premises should be judged on its own merit.
'How would i justify this to my boss' Justify it two fold. one to acheive compliance. another to reduce insurance premiums.
-
Sorry,hadn't read the post correctly and was giving an option only.
-
Thanks all,
I thought as much as I couldn't find anything that told me there was a 'new' legal requirement to have it fitted. I believe my worst fear is true, having to go against my colleagues prior insistence on having it replaced and fitted in the first 2 kitchens.
-
Has your colleague an arrangment with the system provider?
Just a thought.
-
No one has mentioned the extract system yet, is there a PPM for filter cleaning? I haven't come across an auto system that comes anywhere close to dealing with gunge and fat in the extract, at least with a class F and training, the operator has a slim chance!!
-
Some fixed systems have nozzles in the extract duct, but only covering the first 12" or so. If the system is fusible link they may catch a fire just before it creeps to far if you are lucky, but for the majority of UK installations that are pull station only by the time anyone remembers to fire it off a contaminated duct could have become involved and one the duct goes up it's game over (& goodbye building in some cases)
Duct cleaning is as you say an important aspect of prevention and containment and it would be foolish to think that because you had spent a fortune on a fixed system you could dispense with proper cleaning regimes (not good for hygiene either!).
Fire safety is a package of measures!
-
No one has mentioned the extract system yet, is there a PPM for filter cleaning? I haven't come across an auto system that comes anywhere close to dealing with gunge and fat in the extract, at least with a class F and training, the operator has a slim chance!!
Yes, there is annual and sometime 6 monthly cleaning in place. But to the standard and adequacy is worthy of further investigation.
-
Another thought for the duct systems - are they fire rated and, are they configured to continue running on fire alarm activation? Can they be reset/controlled/shut down by FS crews? Compartmentation has been mentioned. More specifically - what if any 'hot' appliances (fryers/chips etc.) are used front of house where they are outside of the kitchen compartment?
-
Most FS crews haven't got a clue about restaurant fire systems. Neither do most fire enginers or salesmen, risk assessors ("Oh I just tick the yes/no box") and niether do the clients that have them fitted. Nor the chefs who work within inches of the nozzles which is a bit worrying.
They are not a legal requirement in this country merely a recommendation although some insurers do require it - check.
I would advise you speak directly to an authorised distributor of a system (check out thier accreditation) or the manufacurer themselves (ps Chubb don't manufacture systems, we are an authorised distributor for Tyco the manufaturer of Ansul systems - (Chubb a UTC company provided from Tyco? ....won't bore you with the details);
Basics Regardless of system manufacurer:A compliant system must have all hazards fully protected with correct detection and protection throughout as per system design - not the odd link which may or may not work. (Appliance protection regardless of location)
If your systems are not fully compliant with the relevant manufacturers' design instructions, your insurer will not cover you and the installer is liable.
Dependant upon the opening of an exhaust duct determins the nozzle quantity. Installed correctly, there will not be a spread of fire through the duct as the nozzles are designed to a specific parameter regarding nozzle type, location and quantity. The plenum (area behind the filter) is similarly protected and fitted with temperature rated detectors. This provides 24 hours protection and detection.
Each appliance is protected at the type of nozzle at the correct height and in the correct location.Systems must be maintained (serviced) as per manufactures instructions to the relevant standards (UL300, NFPL 17, 17a, 96, LPS1223) - usually 6 monthly so as to ensure compliance and system operational levels.
Manual operation of the system is achieved with pull stations dependant upon manufacturer but a requirement for automatic and manual is a Standard Requirement.
HVCA TRA19 will provide standards for duct cleaning and is the responsibility of the extract system (eg restaurant) owner to ensure these standards are met.
You would be supprised at the standard of cleanliness within some of our hotels and some canopies are appalling.
Do your homework before issuing purchase orders to a keen rep.
:)
-
What was the rationale behind the installation of an extinguishing system which outweighed the provision of suitable portable extinguishing equipment and good training?
They ussually base it upon 24 hour auromatic cover, lack of risk to staff using the wrong extinguisher - see Sauchiehall St, cover of duct and plenum areas - especially due to grease build up following their lack of hygiene stanards. Cooking staff (KPs) will only clean the filters not the duct/s or plenum where the contracted ceaners will perhaps only be contracted for an annual deep clean for a busy cook line which creates a massive risk just to save a few bob.
-
One problem with fixed systems is the fact that they have to be carefully designed and installed for efficacy - not a problem on first install, but I have seen on several occasions where the layout of the equipment in the protected area has been changed thus rendering the system ineffective - no one considers the need to reconfigure the system.
The main reason the wrong extinguisher is used is because even so called 'experts' put the wrong type in! If we had rigourous code enforcement like in the US where the application of the NFPA standard means you can't install the wrong type or both the user and supplier get it in the neck, we wouldn't have as many problems.
-
Agree with all AB, except that systems are fault reported it's a manufacturer requirement, on a six monthly basis during the maintenance service. If not, then the servicing company is liable.
The big issue here is that clients refuse to act upon the report so that time after time we report the same issues - plus additional as time passes by, just for it to be ignored. All they want is an upto date service certificate.
Believe me, there is nothing more frustrating than reporting the same issues. I won't drop anyone in the mire here but "Front of house" gets the cash as the present governments' and media fuelled insistance that the country reduces is debt, apparantly now gives firms the right to stop spending on anything they see fit - as many will be aware of here, which means I spend half the night rewriting the same reports.
Off to a major hotel in Glasgow tonight with six non compliant systems. More bloody paperwork. More faults ignored. More frustration. More lack of sleep tommorow in the digs as I have to leave by 1100. More 4 hours drive home half asleep. .......All for the client to ignore my advice.
We are duty bound to report faults be they with install issues or appliance movement if we didn't "consider the need" I would be out of a job and quite frankly would not even bother. But I do.
-
Ansul R102 engineers' blog:
Well that was fun.
0600 finish. Non too subtle hotel staff in the digs wanting to finish early on a Friday and a phone call a 0830 means i'm grumpy, tired, going on a slow drive home accross Glasgow and down the M74 & M6 and ....oh .. nearly forgot. 5 out of the 6 systems are non compliant. Same issues as my previous 4 services and a couple of appliance changes complete with a snapped tension wire on a very dirty system replaced, lead to a busy evening/night.
Lets see how long it takes to get the upgrades :-X
I want an office job.
-
I have an office job.
Managing Ansul Engineers who won't get out of bed & get some work done in a morning.
;D
-
Hang on !! Where they on nights ?? At least our lot give you the odd hours kip you bloody slavedriver !!!! Strewth !! ::)
-
Keep 'em moving I say. Ansuls by night. Cans by day.
A static engineer is a dangerous engineer.
They may have time to stop and think. And you know what trouble that usually causes.
Anyways, they get them profitless socialist (Saturday) & religous (Sunday) rest days to sleep and such.
:P