FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: AnthonyB on October 27, 2012, 09:12:41 PM
-
For all those involved in specifying extinguisher requirements in premises the new BS5306-8 is out.
It is a full revision with some major changes in approach.
For places not covered by BS5306-8 the FIA has produced guides including:
- Caravan sites
- Minbus & PCV's
- Railway rolling stock
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/resources/technical-information/guides--codes.cfm
-
Is it me or is it very loose around the subject of electrics?
It almost reads as First turn off the electrics, then treat as a non electrical fire. Which is common sense and great advice.
But what about equipment that cannot be simply turned off. Distribution boards, Lifts, Maintained Lights, Fire Alarm Panels, Access Control Systems, etc.
It states that (9.3) Extinguishers of a type marked as suitable for use on fires in live electrical equipment should be sited near any electrical equipment.
Then says (9.4) Extinguishers provided to deal with fires involving electrical equipment should be sited near to the fire hazard concerned, but not so near as to be inaccessible or to place the operator in undue danger in case of fire. The travel distance
should be not more than 10 m.
Earlier in the document,(8.7) in its own rationalized example, it says that All ground floor fire-points’ “electrically safe” extinguishers should be ABC powder extinguishers which, conveniently, have a class A rating.
......but even earlier, states that (5.4.3) The discharge of a powder extinguisher within buildings can cause a sudden reduction of visibility and can also impair breathing, which could temporarily jeopardize escape, rescue or other emergency action. For this reason, powder extinguishers should generally not be specified for use indoors, unless mitigated by a health and safety risk assessment.
I am all for risk assessments, If I had more knowledge I would enjoy being an assessor, If only I could find some sensible training at a sensible cost, and an accreditation body that would have me, and a set of standards that tell it like it is, rather than intentionally tie themselves up in knots.
Oh well, back to the desk job!
Bill
-
It's example is set in industrial premises, where the client, where with full information about the risks from powder from his risk assessor or extinguisher provider, has decided that the risk is tolerable and he would rather have less varied extinguishers and risk the secondary damage (or not as his premises may be a warehouse of building materials such as bricks, bitumen drums, etc, with high ceilings, minimal occupancy and not much damage risk from powder).
The BS is saying that powder is not normally used indoors and before it is selected a careful assessment is required, so offices full of IT, hospitals, shops, places of public assembly, churches, etc etc shouldn't have it.
With regard to electrics they are following UK tradition of specifying non conductive agents (CO2 or vapourising liquid, which in these environmental days means just CO2, powder a possible alternative but not first choice) for electric shock risks and the tradition of isolating electrical supplies in all cases.
To confuse the issue the rest of Europe is following the EN3-7 clause that lets their water spray & foam spray extinguishers state they may be used on electrical supplies of up to 1000V at 1 metre if they have passed the 35kV test, whilst in the UK the BSI advise that the same extinguishers here shouldn't say they can be used on electrical fires but shouldn't say they can't either!
Which is why in the UK you will see some foam spray extinguishers saying nothing about electrical fires (other than perhaps a reference to the 35kV test) and others saying you can use them on electrical fires!
In the simplest terms....
Electrical shock risk:
- CO2 first choice
- Powder second choice, but less effective and potentially damaging
- 35kV passed water,foam & wet chemical ok for A, B or F risks as appropriate where there is lots of electrical stuff around, but not for the actual stuff itself....
-
Thanks Anthony,
Its always good to have the opinion of a man in the know! I just simply think that wall sockets, lights etc, all pose an electrical shock risk, and therefore following the standards, certain extinguisher companies will be selling a CO2 within 10m of every electrical shock risk.
Can I ask yours (or others) opinion on a few other points (if thats ok).
Gas Hobs and cooking oil, present a Class F and a Class C risk, Class F risks should not have any other type of extinguisher nearby (8.6.1) but the Class C risk in the example, has an extinguisher provided for the fire-fighting services?
The draft said if no-one was trained, then no extinguisher would be provided. I understood that the FRS wouldnt normally use site provided extinguishers.
Not intending to be picky, just looking for answers.
Cheers
Bill
-
Does anyone know when the issue with DPs being removed from clean enviroments was first muted? Would the major fire extinguisher suppliers have been aware of or involve in the very early days of the draft Standard?
-
Abundance of CO2:
I know of at least one company that has done that for years....
The way around this would be reserving your CO2 for major electrical installations, switchgear, distribution cupboards, etc and using 35Kv passed water or foam for your mixed environment with computers, etc.
However that isn't the 'British Way' and the BS shys away from this - indeed British Rail were the only large organisation to go down that route back around '89.
Gas & cooking oil:
The safest way of dealing with the gas is shutting off the supply, individual 'domestic' type cookers by the knob for the ring, commercial cooking ranges via manual emergency cut off plunger or autoshut off linked to the fire alarm.
Having dealt with the Class C risk that leaves the Class F for which you can choose wet chemical or water mist.
Gas!:
My interpretation would be that you do not provide Class C cover unless in a specialised industry (LPG & cylinder industries, oil/gas refineries, petrochemical, national grid gas, etc) where you are going to have on site fire teams trained in using powder as part of attacks (usually with a hose line as well and the intent being flame suppression long enough to reach the supply valve where the fire prevents approach). Welding could be another industry for powder but I doubt many employers would send staff on suitable practical courses for Class C.
This would just leave residual risks in many premises, so CO2 would see an upsurge (e.g. in boiler rooms for fires in the not insubstantial electrical control boards associated with heating plant rooms).
Powder & mess:
The BS has always had a small caveat about powder for years - I suspect the current emphasis may have been influenced in part by the Chubb case involving the Church Organ (even though ultimately they won the case)
-
Nothing on fire blankets. Is this to put suppliers out? I understand the rationale about putting safety first and turning off the supply but an extinguishers for a pan fire!
-
I agree, they deliberately removed any existing reference to fire blankets despite them going hand in hand with extinguishers, thus leaving only a manufacturing standard, an industry guide to maintenance and no advice on their installation.
I would have liked the standard widened to include fire blankets, it wouldn't have been much work, just a few paragraphs and a table or two.
-
I hadnt spotted the lack of Fire Blanket info.....
It may be too early I guess, but is there a simple guide to installations and locations based on the new standard that can be forwarded on to end users, so they have an understanding of what to expect, and to help them when being told "fishy" tales by certain companies?
Bill
-
I have a question then. If you have to be a competent person in order to train people to use firefighting equipment, do those individuals teach people how to use a blanket? If so are they using BS 7944 as a source of information?
-
More likely BS EN 1869 : 1997 as 99.9% of fire blankets are to this standard and BS 7944 has been somewhat passed by by the industry.
The information on the limit of 3 litres or 300mm diameter containers for Class F fires marked on fire blankets by enlightened suppliers (such as Chubb) is based partly on the test limits in the EN
-
There's information relating to fire blankets in the below link. The FIA contacted us a few years ago (when I worked for a manufacturer) to ask about fire blankets and their life span. Not a bad document but take no notice about part 9.1.5 relating to replacing the blanket after 7 years - that was conjured up by someone who manufacturers fire blankets!
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/info/document_summary.cfm/docid/12C3506A-D3DB-41B1-B100AD94C51A30BD
-
Have come across a new spin today. Fire extinguisher companies have been installing 2kg ABC powders in small kitchens for donkeys years. (Personally I never understood why but they have installed hundreds of thousands of the things.)
Now one company is quoting the new standard and recommending they all be removed and replaced with "something more suitable".
"The discharge of powder extinguisher within buildings can cause a sudden reduction of visibility and can also impair breathing, which could temporarily jeopardize escape ,rescue or other emergency action. For this reason, powder should generally not be specified indoors, unless mitigated by a health and safety assessment. “
I would see this as overkill - I would be concerned if a 6kg powder were installed in a communal staircase as this would create a major hazard in a key escape route potentially affecting all building users, but a small extinguisher in a kitchenette is only going to have a localised effect.
I would consider taking them out and not replacing them, though I wonder if anyone here was on the BS committee and can clarify what the committee had in mind?
-
I take them out and if there is a CO2 within the 10m travel distance clause in the BS don't replace it.
My approach so far has been:
If it's located somewhere it can be removed without needing a replacement I get it removed there and then.
If it's located in somewhere it would cause serious issues I have it removed & replaced ASAP
If it's somewhere not the most appropriate, but not a mega hazard, I have it removed at the 5 year extended service (as the client would be spending extra anyway) & replaced.
Most of our clients manage or own multi-occupied premises and often amass stocks of extinguishers abandoned by tenants when they move so it's been quite painless so far removing powders as either no replacement has been needed or a suitable replacement only requiring a quick service can be found elsewhere in the building.
Every client and tenant of my clients I have explained the reason for this change to has happily accepted it - some of the the changes to 5306-8 seem rather more sales driven so approach them with a pinch of salt and will not be throwing extra A rated extinguishers into box room sized upper floors just because of the change.
The F class changes seem a bit suss as well - did they do practical tests or just invent the changes on the back of a fag packet?
-
It's like anything, you need to weigh up the pros and cons... for example, if you're talking about a small staff kitchen (you know the type, microwave, kettle and a toaster) with only a few people milling about, leave them in. If you're talking about a commercial kitchen, once you explain the down-time associate with cleaning up a discharged powder extinguisher the client will usually make the decision to remove the powder extinguishers for you without getting into the reasoning in BS5306-8.
I did an FRA at a school recently where they had a 6kg powder on the assembly hall stage to cover the electrics and lighting - once you explain the potential for causing breathing problems (asthma etc) in a room full of children they soon want rid of them.
In other areas, where it's fairly low risk I've been recommending they be swapped over at the extended service.
-
Hang on a minute guys.......we're not allowed to think for ourselves any more!
The RRFSO states the RP must ensure equipment is maintained to a recognised standard which will always be the BS. If we decide that we are not going to work to the standard (and not take out powder extinguishers or not put a minimum of 2 X 13A on a church balcony) when the proverbial hits the fan it's OUR backsides that are going to get kicked for not following the standard.
We don't make the standards and whether we think them right or wrong, you need to CYA.
John
-
You wouldn't have a hard time defending your actions against some of the stuff in part 8. I'll take that Pepsi challenge any time. ;)
-
Being paid and insured to be a risk assessor not a code hugger I'd also take on that challenge!
If BS5839-1 allows agreed variations, so should 5306-8!
If quoting the RRO I would point out that provision is risk based not standard based:
13.—(1) Where necessary [implying it isn't always] (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
(a)the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and
(b)any non-automatic fire-fighting equipment so provided is easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) what is appropriate is to be determined having regard to the dimensions and use of the premises, the equipment contained on the premises, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of persons who may be present at any one time. [i.e. a risk assessment, which wouldn't say a small upper floor off a single stair must have 2 A-rated extinguishers in every case- let's say it's a store room with 0-1 persons, are they going to use 2 extinguishers one after the other? Should they?]
-
This is standard so typical of the fire extinguisher trade putting their own vested interests first and sadly BSI committes that are so heavily infliuenced by the trade.
As the BS states that it represents the minimum provision it conflicts with the actual Fire Legislaton in this regard. The BS has the audacity to suggest that risk assessment can only be used to increase provision.
We know the truth but it does not help the RP one little bit to see the wood for the trees.
Oh by the way the latest one is that there should be a CO2 in the toilets due to the provision of a hand dryer! Towering allotments!
-
I have better K. I have a new client, a dental practice, for whom I carried out a FRA and staff training. It had been using a 3rd party outfit for a number of years for its extinguisher provision and servicing.
My Assessment recommended that it reviews it cover of extinguishers as I thought it was lacking one or two.
I saw the fruits of my advice last month when I was doing their training and noted that they had bought 4 x 9 Kg DP Exts and placed them in corridors outside treatment rooms. On asking why I was told that the extinguisher company had advised they be installed because of the gas risk.
The gas risk? The practice has 6 treatment rooms each with a Bunsen Burner, used infrequently for softening impression wax, with the supply piped to each room from one cylinder in a rear yard. Gas risk requiring 4 DPs? I thought the on/off valve at each burner was adequate enough.
Anyway, this new client of mine now doesn't have 4 DPs to service annually.
-
Blankets: I was asked to carry out a fire call to provide a bank kitchen with a blanket and CO2 last week. As above, it was the usual: microwave and toaster. Yet their RA demanded a FB. I fitted a 2Kg Co2 and gave explanation for why a blanket was a waste of time/money and noted their lack of training or understanding in the use of one should one ever be needed (not on this site obviously).
Guess what? Their RA came back demanding to know where the blanket was. Desk jockeys trying to tick the right boxes again.