Withdrawal of Extinguishers from Thames locks

[John Webb]

An article in "Waterways World", January 2016 issue, reports that the Environment Agency (EA) has decided to remove the large DP extinguishers from the locks on the Thames and has instructed its lock-keepers they should not attempt to fight the fire themselves but call the Fire and Rescue service. One of the reasons for removing the larger extinguishers was that staff had not been trained in their use for many years. Apparently lock-keepers have been left with a 1kg extinguisher, presumably for dealing with any fire in the lock-working mechanism.

Bearing in mind the remoteness of some locks, particularly above Oxford, I wonder if this is a good idea? On the other hand, the introduction of the regulations in recent years concerning the construction and use of boats has perhaps reduced the frequency of incidents to a very low level?

[Mike Buckley]

One of the reasons for removing the larger extinguishers was that staff had not been trained in their use for many years.

This has got to be a breach of the regulations. I could accept that a risk assessment had been carried out and as a result it was decided that the bigger fire extinguishers were not needed, but to cite lack of training as a reason for withdrawing them is ridiculous. What next? Removing the fire alarm because no one has been trained to operate the panel?

[Golden]

John could I ask why these extinguishers were provided? If they were for fighting fires on boats then surely it should be up to the boat owner to provide the extinguisher and the EA are perfectly entitled to save money and not to provide FFE as I can't envisage anything else at a lock that would need extinguishers. The highways agency don't provide FFE at traffic lights and its a similar situation.

As a supplementary question do these new regulations that you refer to require boat owners to provide extinguishers?

[K Lard]

The question should be asked: Is the firefighting equipment provided necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons? I would say probably not!

[Fishy]

One of the reasons for removing the larger extinguishers was that staff had not been trained in their use for many years.

This has got to be a breach of the regulations. I could accept that a risk assessment had been carried out and as a result it was decided that the bigger fire extinguishers were not needed, but to cite lack of training as a reason for withdrawing them is ridiculous. What next? Removing the fire alarm because no one has been trained to operate the panel?

Absolutely - it's the most cock-eyed reason to remove fire protection & is basically an admission to breaking the Law!

[John Webb]

The EA and its precursor The Thames Conservancy have always had extinguishers provided at the locks, as far as I am aware. I am uncertain of the exact circumstances, but I believe they were provided so that a fire, should it occur, could be tackled to prevent it spreading to adjacent boats. Bear in mind that if the lock is part-way through filling or emptying, there could be significant problems in moving other boats away from the one on fire. It is also likely that in the early days of pleasure boating the majority of powered boats were petrol-powered and therefore had the greater potential for fires than today's mostly diesel-powered boats constructed to more stringent regulations.

It seems from other information in the article that they have undertaken a major review of safety, so I assume this withdrawal of extinguishers results from that review.

The regulations on boat construction and equipment do require suitable fire extinguishers to be carried on every powered boat; the size and quantity depend on the size of the boat.

[AnthonyB]

There is a big debate on this in LinkedIn.

It seems that extinguishers are being retained for the lock keepers premises for compliance and that the extinguishers being removed are to the open air.

Whilst open air workplaces/venues are not exempt does the lock-side have any risks where extinguishers are necessary for life safety or mitigating the effects of fire when you remove vessels from the equation (not covered by the Fire Safety Order)?

Unless there are particular risks such as bunker stations for fuelling or similar I can see how they were able to justify this (although I'm sure the costs of provision & maintenance factored as well).

Vessels are required (& have done for many many years, originally under regional licensing schemes and currently a national scheme) to have extinguishers conforming to prescriptive scales and their presence and condition is checked as part of mandatory annual licensing/certification so they are already covered - if you have a fire afloat that a first aid attack with the on board equipment has failed to quench then a 6 kilo Powder in the hands of an untrained operator with no PPE is unlikely to be an effective or wise move.