Fire Extinguisher & Intumescent seals

[Midland Retty]

Hi Reiver

Fire Extinguishers should be provided to mitigate the effects of fire (This is a requirement of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005)

They should not however be used to secure a means of escape - if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.

Hello There Mr. Retty.
I have read the thing and its' annex things ad nauseum.
And I too would be extremely concerned if I was stood there with a fire between me and my exit and a HPE in my hands.

The law states extinguishers should be provided  to mitigate (i.e. lessen) the effects of fire I believe this was "added "into the legislation for several reasons:-

1) Human Behaviour dictates that some people will attempt to fight fire if confronted with it, so it is better to equip said people with the right training and equipment to do that without putting themselves at risk

2) To prevent neighbouring areas or buildings being affected from a fire which could have easily been dealt with but has now grown and spread to other buildings causing expense / damage / loss of local resources / or source of employment.

3) For fire service use (special risk extinguishers situated in certain areas for conmvenience of fire service personnel to use - such as incidents with metal fires) - I'll await the flack on that one just my opinion.

[CivvyFSO]

Retty,

Point 1 is very valid. I visited a premises that had a serious fire. They had a 'policy' set by the manager/owner that people were to get out and that was his reason for not training any of his staff or himself on FFE. During the fire, the manager himself tried to extinguish an extremely large fire with a CO2 extinguisher (To no avail) putting himself at quite a serious risk.

Another point is to minimise the potential disruption to your own business. When you are looking at a room/premises that has been gutted, knowing that a trained member of staff could have dealt with it, I am sure it is not a mistake you will make twice.

[nearlythere]

“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.

But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.

[CivvyFSO]

The whole point of supplying the training is so that people do not put themselves at risk.

[PhilB]

“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.

But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.

Then we must agree to differ because I do not believe your option to only evacuate would satisfy the requirement to do all that is reasonably practicable to do.

No one has said employees should be placed at risk but The Order clearly places two new duties on RPs that were not there under previous fire safety law:

1) to reduce the risk from fire and 2) to mitigate the effects of fire.

Those duies have to be complied with SFARP and the onus is on the RP to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do any more than was done. I think the RP would be on a very sticky wicket if he took your option.

What about people in the vicinity, your employees may be safe but if you just allow your building to burn and spread to others can you argue that you are doing everything reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of your neighbours?, and they are relevant persons.

[nearlythere]

“could you not have provided just one extinguisher and trained just one member of staff?.” If the answer is “well yes we could have” the defence of due diligence is gone.

But the answer could just as well be "no, because I do not want my staff to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of injury from fire, and my company's policy in the event of a fire is for staff to "Get out - get the Fire Service out - and stay out"" the defence of due diligence is maintained.

Then we must agree to differ because I do not believe your option to only evacuate would satisfy the requirement to do all that is reasonably practicable to do.

No one has said employees should be placed at risk but The Order clearly places two new duties on RPs that were not there under previous fire safety law:

1) to reduce the risk from fire and 2) to mitigate the effects of fire.

Those duies have to be complied with SFARP and the onus is on the RP to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do any more than was done. I think the RP would be on a very sticky wicket if he took your option.

What about people in the vicinity, your employees may be safe but if you just allow your building to burn and spread to others can you argue that you are doing everything reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of your neighbours?, and they are relevant persons.

My point is that if fire extinguishers must be provided to reduce the risk from fire and to mitigate the effects of fire then the legislation would specifically say so. But it doesn't so really it is about interpretation and providing that which is deemed neccessary in the circumstances.

[PhilB]

My point is that if fire extinguishers must be provided to reduce the risk from fire and to mitigate the effects of fire then the legislation would specifically say so. But it doesn't so really it is about interpretation and providing that which is deemed neccessary in the circumstances.

I'm not saying fire extinguishers MUST be provided. The Order doesn't say that, neither does it say that fire exits or protected stairways must be provided because that would be too prescriptive....

....but try and comply without providing exits or extinguishers.

What you must be able to do is evacuate the building as quickly and as safely as possible and you MUST take reasonable measures to mitigate the efffects of fire. If you can take reasonable methods without extinguishers, you're sorted. I have not yet seen a suitable and sufficent fire risk assessment that justifies that approach however.

[Ricardo]

I wonder what the take from fire insurance companies are re the provision or not of fire extinguishers in non domestic buildings? they surely play a part in limiting property damage.

Did FETA not conduct a survey some years ago which concluded that a large % of fires in buildings were extinguished by the occupants, and not even reported to the fire brigades?

Is it not outdated that a building will just be evacuated, no matter what, as opposed to someone who is trained tackling a small fire which can be easily extinguished by a fire extinguisher?

Great debate, PhilB on the mark as always.

[nim]

If youre reliant on extinguishers to escape then im afraid something is seriously wrong.

if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.

Agreed. If you can raise the alarm, evacuate the building and call the Fire Brigade that is what you should always do.

But.

How many premises only have a single exit/entry? Millions.

The majority of fires start small and can be tackled in the early stages with a fire extinguisher if that is the occupants only means of escape.

I would like to see your signature at the bottom of the page when it says remove the  fire extinguishers and hope you have sufficient liabilty insurance.

[nearlythere]

If youre reliant on extinguishers to escape then im afraid something is seriously wrong.

if you are reliant on using a fire extinguisher to aid your escape then I would be extremely concerned.

Agreed. If you can raise the alarm, evacuate the building and call the Fire Brigade that is what you should always do.

But.

How many premises only have a single exit/entry? Millions.

The majority of fires start small and can be tackled in the early stages with a fire extinguisher if that is the occupants only means of escape.

I would like to see your signature at the bottom of the page when it says remove the  fire extinguishers and hope you have sufficient liabilty insurance.

The discussion is not about removing extinguishers Nim. It is about the interpretation and application of the legislation particularily that relating to the subject matter. This is a discussion forum afterall.
On your second matter because of the location of extinguishers in a building if you can get to one you are nearly out. If they are there to assist your escape then they would not be at storey and final exits.

[Martin]

The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)

Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises

Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire"  = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers

However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"

Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire"  Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
 
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)

[PhilB]

The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)

Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises

Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire"  = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers

However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"

Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire"  Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
 
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)

Article 13(1)  requires the premises to be equiped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures.

Now if you can do all that without extinguishers and suitably trained employees you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

The Fire Safety Order is not confined to looking after the safety of persons in your building. Dont forget relevant persons includes anyone in the vicinityy who may be affected by your burning building that could have been extinguished with the bucket of sand that you chose not to provide.

[nearlythere]

The RRO is really unhelpful on this one (IMHO)

Article 4 requires measures in relation to means for fighting fires in premises

Art 4 1 (d) "Means of fighting fire"  = extinguishers sand buckets sprinklers

However it is dead silent on the phrase "fighting fire"

Art 4 1 (f) "measures to mitigate effects of fire"  Shut door and windows as you evacuate? Inspect your fire doors and put the big red door stops back on their properly labelled racks with manual handling instuctions?
 
Again IMHO no legal requirement to fight fire unless it is reasonably foreseeable that evacaution is not likely to be safe without some first aid fire fighting. Eg C02 flood on steel industry oil quench tanks. (possible rapid large fire with plenty of smoke fume near workers who will need some time to get away.)

Article 13(1)  requires the premises to be equiped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures.

Now if you can do all that without extinguishers and suitably trained employees you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

The Fire Safety Order is not confined to looking after the safety of persons in your building. Dont forget relevant persons includes anyone in the vicinityy who may be affected by your burning building that could have been extinguished with the bucket of sand that you chose not to provide.

I think you are losing it Phil. Not only do you want fire fighting equipment and training but you now want people to start smacking each other about and heavies nominated to ensure it happens.

".......and Article 13(2) requires there to be mesaures in place for fighting and persons nominated to implement those measures."

Have a chillout weekend on me.

[PhilB]

I need a holday mate!

[graham47]

Thank you to everyone who has replied. I found this site by accident (!) and have already found it very helpful.

If anyone is interested, my original question asked if anyone had heard that the FD seemed to be advocating the removal of extinguishers. I have recently attended a manufacturing plant that had a fire in an industrial oven. Trained staff attacked the fire in its early stages and managed to put it out.  The factory manager told me that if they had not acted so quickly the factory (and the business) would have been lost.