OxyReduct

[TullyM]

Does anyone have any opinions on the use of the above product, manufactured by Wagner, as a fire engineering solution to total non-compliance with fire safety issues? In theory if the workplace is totaly protected by OxyReduct any firerisk assessment will simply indicate that a fire cannot occur and therefore no fire precautions are necessary.

I have spoken to Wagner who inform my that the product is intended for property protection only and not life safety, has not received any UK certification or been subject to UK fire research (although this is planned).

The local autority building control are likely to accept the above for a large art studio/storage building of around 2500msq which will only be provided with 2 final exits. When used as an assembly building ,for art exibitions, the occupancy may be as high as 500.

My problem, as an enforcement officer, is that there is no guidance available as to what level of compensation can be considered. Any views would be greatfully accepted.

[Martin Burford]

Tully
Interesting question.....but my initial response is if a fire cannot occur in this environment.. how can people exist in it.. as the amount of 02 needed by humans is critical.................iMust look on the internet!
Conqueror.

[Chris Houston]

The system will prevent certain products from burning, depending on their chemical compsition.  A system designed only to prevent cardboard fires will not prevent paper fires for example.  The system might break down.  It would be wrong to assume that a fire cannot occur.  These systems will typically protect data rooms and warehouses, there will probably be parts that are not protected, a fire could be started externally.  A proper risk assessment is still needed.  

HSE advise that reduced oxygen environments require risk assessments akin to those for confined spaces.

[Chris Houston]

Tully
Interesting question.....but my initial response is if a fire cannot occur in this environment.. how can people exist in it.. as the amount of 02 needed by humans is critical.................iMust look on the internet!
Conqueror.

No, paper for example needs more than 15% O2 to burn, healthy humans can breath air that is 15% 02.  Athletes can train in 10% 02 environments.  Wagner themselves will probably happily furnish interested parties on this subject.

While on places and even in high places we will survive on reduced level of 02 that are akin to that of a reduced oxcygen environment.

[Martin Burford]

Chris
Indeed.. your right but I would not fancy breathing only 15% 02............and how may this reduced level impair large numbers of people present in a building as suggested by Tully.
Conqueror.

[Chris Houston]

If you have even been in a plane, you probably breathed the same amount of 02.  Most people probably won't notice, although I think certain groups (asthmatics?) may be less suited.

[kurnal]

Looking at the original posting ADB would allow a building of 2500m2 designed to hold 500 persons to have two exits each 2500mm wide as a code compliant solution. So unless you are looking at narrower exits than this there may be no case to answer?

As far as compensatory features are concerned, lets not get carried away- lets look at the relaxations allowed for sprinklered buildings, surely installing a life safety sprinkler system, especially a system such as ESFR designed to extinguish a fire is the nearest equivalent (except that sprinklers have a tried and tested track record)?

I would apply similar relaxations - extended travel distances, possibly extended evacuation time, possibly reduced fire resistance for the structure. I dont think I would go for increased compartment size though. If there was a fire the ventilation that would occur through the convection currents and especially by fire service intervention, would negate the oxyreduct system totally -even if it was still working.

[Fishy]

I think that a key issue here could be reliability / availability of the system.  Safety engineering commonly relies upon 'layered' safety systems, with ultimate safety not being dependent upon any single system UNLESS that system has a very high level of safety integrity.  If you have the latter, you may be able to remove one or more of the 'back-up' safety measures.  Sprinklers are statistically a very reliable life safety measure (less so as regards asset protection) - and extensive records of satisfactory historical performance is an entirely valid means of proving high integrity.  

So far as I'm aware, we do not have the same historical or analytical evidence of safety integrity for oxygen reduction / nitrogen concentration systems.  Therefore, speaking personally, I'd not be happy to consider them as a primary safety system (e.g. to support significant deviation from good practice as regards means of escape - like sprinklers) - I'd want to see some demonstrable 'high-integrity' performance as a secondary system (e.g. used successfully as asset protection) first.

If you were really determined to use it as a primary safety system, some sort of FMECA (Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis) might be appropriate?  You'd need some system reliability/availability data from the supplier, though.

In essence, until I was pretty sure that the system would work 99.9999% of the time, I wouldn't be using its presence to get rid of too many of the 'tried and trusted' good practice risk reduction measures that have have years worth of proven effectiveness behind them.