FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: Daffodil on February 27, 2015, 12:42:30 PM
-
I have been to a number of premises now where they have decided to only install CO2 extiguishers in the common areas of sheltered accomodation, to me this is ignoring mitigating the effects of a class A fire, however they have something on site and the British Standard & CLG Guides are just guides. Whats the general thought on only supplying CO2 extinguishers?
-
who is expected to use the extinguishers? are there staff on site?
-
Yes one member of staff on site during conventional office hours. I am no necessarily expecting extinguishers on all floors particualrily where there are only flats, I am more concerned with areas tuch as the activity room, office laundry etc.
-
I would rather see elecrically rated foam spray
-
Wouldn't expect to see any extinguishers in sheltered housing. Some Housing providers will put them the manager's office and in plant rooms, others say that contractors provide their own - always a little sceptical about this, is it monitored?
BS 9999 indicates they aren't required, as Kurnal says who uses them. Fire blanket in communal kitchen is all that is recommended.
-
CO2 is OK for specific electrical risks but not too much else in general applications, were there distribution cupboards or similar near each one?
I'm struggling to see the point otherwise.
Most areas should be fire sterile so few places with a real risk and with an increasing lack of staffing no one to use them
-
Hadn't thought of BS9999 good steer, will take a look when I get a chance.
There was a CO2 in the managers office, inside the electrical distribution cupboard and one in each of the communal rooms.
I have always been sceptical of triclass extinguishers. Not sure I would be content using one so a little reluctant to recommend, lead by example and all that.
-
Wouldn't expect to see any extinguishers in sheltered housing. Some Housing providers will put them the manager's office and in plant rooms, others say that contractors provide their own - always a little sceptical about this, is it monitored?
BS 9999 indicates they aren't required, as Kurnal says who uses them. Fire blanket in communal kitchen is all that is recommended.
I have looked and searched BS 9999 and the only real reference is that they should be installed where necessary, the same as the CLG guide, I think this also goes on to say there are very few circumtances where extinguishers are not required. M interpretation of that is possibly when suppression is present.
Is there anything specific to sheltered accomodation that might point me in the right direction?
-
BS9999 does not cover dwellings, BS9991 is the document covering dwellings. Its currently out on public consultation for review. It says (section 24 page 57)
"A fire risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the need for manual fire fighting equipment in common access corridors and in other areas of the premises. Note 1- in common access corridors manual fire fighting equipment is not normally provided. Where provided, portable fire extinguishers should conform to BSEN3 and should be selected installed and maintained in accordance with BS5306-3 and 8.
As the residents of sheltered housing cannot be expected to use manual fire fighting equipment, its provision should be restricted to higher fire risk areas such as communal lounges, communal kitchens and wardens accommodation.
Note 2 where manual fire fighting equipment is provided it is important that there are persons on the premises who are familiar with the use of the equipment"
That's a pint you owe me daffodil.
-
BS9999 does not cover dwellings, BS9991 is the document covering dwellings. Its currently out on public consultation for review. It says (section 24 page 57)
"A fire risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the need for manual fire fighting equipment in common access corridors and in other areas of the premises. Note 1- in common access corridors manual fire fighting equipment is not normally provided. Where provided, portable fire extinguishers should conform to BSEN3 and should be selected installed and maintained in accordance with BS5306-3 and 8.
As the residents of sheltered housing cannot be expected to use manual fire fighting equipment, its provision should be restricted to higher fire risk areas such as communal lounges, communal kitchens and wardens accommodation.
Note 2 where manual fire fighting equipment is provided it is important that there are persons on the premises who are familiar with the use of the equipment"
That's a pint you owe me daffodil.
Slight clarification (hopefully helpful) - BS 9999 does cover dwellings (e.g. flats) where the premises is in multiple use - e.g. retail on ground floor with resi above etc.). In these cases you'd use BS 9999 as opposed to 9991. 9991 absolutely the right standard to use if the premises is residential only, though (which probably covers the vast majority of resi, I would imagine).
-
BS9999 does not cover dwellings, BS9991 is the document covering dwellings. Its currently out on public consultation for review. It says (section 24 page 57)
"A fire risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the need for manual fire fighting equipment in common access corridors and in other areas of the premises. Note 1- in common access corridors manual fire fighting equipment is not normally provided. Where provided, portable fire extinguishers should conform to BSEN3 and should be selected installed and maintained in accordance with BS5306-3 and 8.
As the residents of sheltered housing cannot be expected to use manual fire fighting equipment, its provision should be restricted to higher fire risk areas such as communal lounges, communal kitchens and wardens accommodation.
Note 2 where manual fire fighting equipment is provided it is important that there are persons on the premises who are familiar with the use of the equipment"
That's a pint you owe me daffodil.
Slight clarification (hopefully helpful) - BS 9999 does cover dwellings (e.g. flats) where the premises is in multiple use - e.g. retail on ground floor with resi above etc.). In these cases you'd use BS 9999 as opposed to 9991. 9991 absolutely the right standard to use if the premises is residential only, though (which probably covers the vast majority of resi, I would imagine).
My reference to 9999 was to the management of fire safety. A cut and paste of 5588: Pt12 I believe.
-
CFOA issued a circular on this subject in 2008. 2008/1007
-
its provision should be restricted to higher fire risk areas such as communal lounges, communal kitchens and wardens accommodation.
That's a pint you owe me daffodil.
And a pint you will have one day. The section above is the bit I find interesting so communal rooms are still expected to have FFE
-
CFOA issued a circular on this subject in 2008. 2008/1007
Interesting read but like most things fire safety it doesnt give a definative answer.
-
Oh man, I pray each day for a definitive answer.
I am at present overseeing remedial works from 13 Fire Risk Assessors on a national contract for owned sheltered housing, rented sheltered housing & various levels of nursing & care homes
All have been on the same course at the same time and all have come out with differing opinions.
And once scattered across the countryside, their differing assessment for hand portables in communal areas of sheltered housing is driving me nuts.
Some want class A cover. Some want class A removing and replacing with CO2. Some say the hand portable is just to cover the exit route, some say it is to cover the occupancies too. Some just want 'work areas' covering. Some want everything covering. One even wants 4kg Dry Powders installing as a multi-purpose option.
I actually gave up & advised they carte blanche fit Wet Chemical Extinguishers in all corridors, kitchens & communal areas (Not as daft as it sounds as most these days are A, B, F & 1kv safe on electrics). They could then argue what exactly they were covering at a later date but at least nationally we would then have some parity.
Legislation & advice documents are no help either (3 x conflicting ones on the same government web site for pities sake)
I also feel for the assessors. Remove hand portables and you get dragged across the tabloids branded as a nanny state idiot. Leave them in and you get the potential 'untrained operatives' litigation banana skin thrown in your path.
And to cap it all, a recent fire in the flat of a sheltered housing scheme in Ipswich (earmarked for extinguisher removal in corridors) resulted in the attending fire brigade assessing the situation as requiring a more rapid response than dragging their lay flat kit up 3 floors, breaking in the flat door and using two hand portables from the corridor outside the flat to extinguish the fire and rescue the occupant.
Would the extra few minutes made a difference to the guy breathing in the muck the fire was producing?
It scares me that one advice document wishes removal of hand portables from corridors but states that if the occupant feels that there is a risk, they should buy their own extinguisher.
Hang on a minute......In this scenario a tenant is a trained fire risk assessor with full training on hand portable extinguisher usage when stood on their side of the front door but when they walk out onto the communally shared corridor they suddenly become a blithering imbecile.
Definitive answer ?.............I wish.
-
its not difficult to be honest - just needs some experience and conviction.
-
All have been on the same course at the same time and all have come out with differing opinions.
Is that literally the case Reiver? It would be interesting to know what level of training that was and whether all attended the same course delivered at the same centre. Nevertheless a key outcome is that before embarking on a project of this nature it pays dividends to bring all the assessors together and set out the technical standards to be adopted for the client in question. Then if your standards are questioned later you can set out a uniform and well argued strategy. You will win your case .
-
I could see the sense of Wet Chemical or Water Mist as you can't go wrong and they will deal with the various likely causes of domestic fire, however when you see outdated cumbersome Water Jet there is little point as it will only make things worse....
-
Always makes me take a sharp intake of breathe when people go about saying water-based extinguishers are safe for use on electrics just cause they've passed the 35kV test. I suppose EN3 is to blame where it requires the manufacturers to mark an extinguisher with "suitable for use on live electrical equipment up to 1000 V at a distance of 1m" when it has passed the dielectric test. Very bad form in my opinion and why BS5306-8:2012 clause 5.4.2 recommends not to provide water-based extinguishers for electrical equipment. Fine for the odd splash here and there, but providing water-based extinguishers for electrical risks is a no-no.
-
Shirley to way to deal with electrical and gas fires is to isolate the supply and then use the appropriate class, which includes water, the only difficult or impossible situation, is the mains intake/meter cupboard/room.
I believe the clause in BS 5306-8:2012 is about when you are dealing with an A class fire and accidently spray live electrical equipment.
-
Yep, in an ideal world, every electrical fire should be isolated prior to using an extinguisher, but this will rarely happen (lack of proper training, panic etc).
Part 8 clearly states not to provide water-based extinguishers for electrical risks. It also states that if extinguishers that have passed the conductivity test in EN3 "..inadvertently splashes onto electrical equipment, then the spray type discharge will afford the user more protection from electrical shock than the discharge from a jet type extinguisher or a spray type which has not passed the BS EN 3 conductivity test." So, it allows for indirect use only.
Not just class A fires; could be a class A, B or F fire.
-
Why in there no class for electrical fires?
-
There used to be unofficially - Class E (or if you go back long enough Class C)- but EN2 knocked that on the head as electricity isn't a fuel, just a hazard, so it was dropped in the UK & Europe where already used.
The US still has Class C for energised electrical equipment as does Australasia with it's Class E.
There is plenty of independent test evidence from the 1920's through to the present showing the safety of water based agents on electrical fires and the cases of user electrocution are largely from the days that wet extinguishers produced powerful electrolyte solutions on discharge (soda acid, chemical foam) and when electrical installations were simpler with less built in safe guards like RCDs.
At the end of the 1980's British Rail made a national changeover to remove halon for electrical & mechanical risks and begin a gradual phase out for water jet with a single agent - AFFF spray in TG 0.9, 1.75, 5.5 & 7.5l extinguishers. They didn't take the decision lightly!
A client has recently extinguished a 415v industrial tumble dryer fire with water mist portables when the CO2 originally placed for the risk failed to do the job (it's now replaced with a electrically approved water spray) with no issues.
A cynic would say that in line with some of the other changes in part 8 the approach to wets on electrical is to bolster the sale of CO2 rather than embrace innovation (P50 anyone?)
If a manufacturer won't back their kit up with the lightning bolt symbol and a clear commitment in labelling and paperwork as to it's safety for direct use up to 1000V then regardless of your opinion you have to stick with the accidental contact, there are a couple out there who will mark their kit this way though...
-
A cynic would say that in line with some of the other changes in part 8 the approach to wets on electrical is to bolster the sale of CO2 rather than embrace innovation (P50 anyone?)
The P50 is about construct using the latest materials and servicing. Would saffire water mist be a better example they claim it can be used on live electric but I still say isolate the supply is the safest solution using RCB or manually.
-
There is plenty of independent test evidence from the 1920's through to the present showing the safety of water based agents on electrical fires and the cases of user electrocution are largely from the days that wet extinguishers produced powerful electrolyte solutions on discharge (soda acid, chemical foam) and when electrical installations were simpler with less built in safe guards like RCDs.
I wouldn't dispute the fact that some water based extinguishers can be used to tackle fires involving electrical equipment. Sure discharging water as a mist/spray won't conduct electricity back to the user, but what you need to be aware of is that the water you are discharging will be making a nice wet patch on the floor from the electrical fire to where you are standing. Getting shocked through your feet anyone?
On an FRA, I'd pull any water based extinguisher provided for an electrical risk; regardless of whether that extinguisher had passed EN3's conductivity test or not.
-
You really would have to be unlucky to receive a shock through your feet by standing in the discharge from an extinguisher. Particularly at 240 volts. Your body would have to bridge the potential difference either by standing with one foot in the pool and disregarding any insulation offered by your shoes to have contact with a well earthed surface outside the wet pool with another part of the body. It's the same as birds sitting on power lines.
As an aside I recollect being instructed to direct a main jet of water onto a 30kv live power line about 30 feet away. All colleagues were instructed to hold onto the hose. This was a standard element in the Jo course at the fire service college.
-
You should know better than to use the word 'unlucky' in this business kurnal.
-
I hear the risk of shock stated so often by so many and get frustrated that many people (not on this forum of course) glibly repeat the message without trying to analyse the underpinning issues.
I guess what I am saying is that I contend that the risk is overstated because it convenient to do so and because to err on the side of caution brings some easily won commercial advantage.
-
I recollect being instructed to direct a main jet of water onto a 30kv live power line about 30 feet away.
Yep remeber it well, a bit disappointing no flashes bangs or anything!
-
Another point to consider the saffire water mist extinguisher uses 100% de-ionised water.
-
Okay; this is worrying. I'm hereby tendering my resignation to this forum.
Good luck.
-
Hey Gareth no need to resign just looking to explore and understand the issues through discussion! If I am wrong or using false logic please tell me why! I find that so many who repeat this message have never given the principles a second thought. On the other had a little knowlege is a dangerous thing.
-
Now see what you've done Big Al. I may have to instigate a bring back Gazza campaign, as if I don't have enough to do. On the other hand, Firenet is like Hotel California (Eagles, Big Al-think of them as the George Formby of your era), you can checkout any time you like but you can never leave. I've never been sure what colitas are, but is it anything to do with coal, Gazza?
-
"Responsible persons and potential users should be made aware that electrical equipment needs to be switched off before any extinguisher is discharged onto it." (BS5306-8 2012.)
To build on my earlier point this must be much more critical in a commercial kitchen environment where there is a much higher likelihood of contact with earth bonded stainless steel surfaces and wet hard floor surfaces than in an office with a nice dry carpeted floor and lots of soft or timber furnishings.
As for Dottys Colitas perhaps indulgence has addled the memory cells?
-
Oh man, I pray each day for a definitive answer.
I am at present overseeing remedial works from 13 Fire Risk Assessors on a national contract for owned sheltered housing, rented sheltered housing & various levels of nursing & care homes
All have been on the same course at the same time and all have come out with differing opinions.
And once scattered across the countryside, their differing assessment for hand portables in communal areas of sheltered housing is driving me nuts.
Some want class A cover. Some want class A removing and replacing with CO2. Some say the hand portable is just to cover the exit route, some say it is to cover the occupancies too. Some just want 'work areas' covering. Some want everything covering. One even wants 4kg Dry Powders installing as a multi-purpose option.
I actually gave up & advised they carte blanche fit Wet Chemical Extinguishers in all corridors, kitchens & communal areas (Not as daft as it sounds as most these days are A, B, F & 1kv safe on electrics). They could then argue what exactly they were covering at a later date but at least nationally we would then have some parity.
Legislation & advice documents are no help either (3 x conflicting ones on the same government web site for pities sake)
I also feel for the assessors. Remove hand portables and you get dragged across the tabloids branded as a nanny state idiot. Leave them in and you get the potential 'untrained operatives' litigation banana skin thrown in your path.
And to cap it all, a recent fire in the flat of a sheltered housing scheme in Ipswich (earmarked for extinguisher removal in corridors) resulted in the attending fire brigade assessing the situation as requiring a more rapid response than dragging their lay flat kit up 3 floors, breaking in the flat door and using two hand portables from the corridor outside the flat to extinguish the fire and rescue the occupant.
Would the extra few minutes made a difference to the guy breathing in the muck the fire was producing?
It scares me that one advice document wishes removal of hand portables from corridors but states that if the occupant feels that there is a risk, they should buy their own extinguisher.
Hang on a minute......In this scenario a tenant is a trained fire risk assessor with full training on hand portable extinguisher usage when stood on their side of the front door but when they walk out onto the communally shared corridor they suddenly become a blithering imbecile.
Definitive answer ?.............I wish.
Not that difficult to get the definitive answers. Why doesn't the housing provider join a Primary Authority Scheme.
-
All have been on the same course at the same time and all have come out with differing opinions.
Is that literally the case Reiver? It would be interesting to know what level of training that was and whether all attended the same course delivered at the same centre. Nevertheless a key outcome is that before embarking on a project of this nature it pays dividends to bring all the assessors together and set out the technical standards to be adopted for the client in question. Then if your standards are questioned later you can set out a uniform and well argued strategy. You will win your case .
Yes sir, that is literally the case. All contracted in at the same time by the one company and all attended the same course before being despatched to their designated areas in England.
-
Come back, Gazza the Coal and forgive Big Al, for he knows not what he does.
-
The attached document gives advice on portable extinguishers and electrical fire fighting, bit old now but still relevant I think.
-
Toes the party line, the FIA is a trade association at the end of the day and the trade feature on the BS Committees.
I'll have to dig out the Fire Research Station, British Rail & Faraday Laboratories stuff that says the opposite!
It's like the p50, there will always be people on both sides of the debate.
-
Gazza the Coal has closed down home station, Big Al. How are you going to turn him out again.