powder fire extinguishers

[nearlythere]

I have a fire protection business over here in Ireland.  
Just thought I'd comment on Chubb OK pins.  I supplied Chubb extinguishers to customers over here for a number of years and when I call to clients each year to service their extinguishers, there are always a few Chubb extinguishers where the pins are missing for whatever reason.  (We can save the discussions as to why no one carries out periodic checks on them during the year for another day!).  It is for this reason that I have now started to fit pull tight seals onto them.  I know other posters such as Anthony Buck (who I have to say is a wealth of information for all of us) will disagree with this as it implies that some companies do not know their kit (and rightly so!) but I do explain to all staff present, the importance of removing the pull tight before attempting to pull the yellow pin.  I'd be interested to hear your comments (especially Anthony B's) on this issue.

Even though this has little to do with the original post
My comment is...........STOP THIS PRACTICE AND STOP IT NOW!!!!!!!!

Although I'm not a lover of the "C" word or the "C" kit and have no idea of how the liability laws operate in Eire, you are playing with fire (no pun intended........much) in blatently contravening a specific manufacturers maintenance instruction. Chubb have put numerous circulars out to the trade on this matter.
They basically state that all bets are off (in attempting to claim from them) if you get a "failure to operate" under ANY circumstances if the OK pin has been secondary sealed with any other device. I believe Gloria have put a similar circular out too.

If your clients aren't carrying out their visual checks, that's their problem if it hits the fan not yours.
By carrying out the aforementioned act, if it hits the fan, it will then be your problem and not theirs.
The court will then back the manufacturer on this and rightfully so.
It's simply non-compliant maintenance.

Cover your back marrer !!! (you did ask for comments)

Whats the problem with this system Riever if all the staff have been made aware of it? Is the pin not usually provided with a secondary seal in the form of a plastic washer type thingy on the end anyway.

If a member of staff grabs an extinguisher, removes all of the anti-tamper devices, as they were trained to do, and the extinguisher fails to operate are the bets still off regarding a claim?

[The Reiver]

The disc is the tamper seal, the pin is the safety device.

I can invisage all sorts of problems with this (in a sods law kinda scenario). But then again I (we) always have to look at worse case scenarios in our trade.

Training of the staff:
1. Would this be all staff at present, or in future, employed by that particular company between maintenance visits, that may find need to operate an extinguisher. Or just whatever staff were available at the time of extinguisher maintenance to pass the message on to ?
2. Would this act (that you have decided to change a manufacturers maintenance spec) be documented as such, or just passed by word of mouth to the sites responsible person ?

Altering the correct function of the extinguisher as laid down by the manufacturer:
1. What are your qualifications to change that manufacturers maintenance spec and did you seek permission from the manufacturer to do so ?

etc. etc.

And yes, if any part of the specified maintenance procedure has been deliberately altered then it wouldn't take much effort from Chubbs point of view to get out of any claim.

I am now (well not quite now, 'coz I'm typing this) sifting through my files to find the circulars to give you some exact quotes.

I'm not trying to be confrontational over this. I just can't see the point of doing it, especially when it could cause future problems.

[AnthonyB]

Didn't I already say all that??? (about the pin being the tamper seal etc.)

As I suspected the AJ Edge stuff sounds like Gloria stuff reassembled (with a picture I'd know it's origin for sure) plus the Luxfer stuff which in the UK is being brought back to the market by PJ Fire.

The MAIP kit sounds just like standard Sicli models used in the UK in the 1980's, both under Sicli labelling via independent distributors and Nu Swift labelling (in the 80s Nu Swift & Sicli were joint owned and Nu Swifts 1980's range of extinguishers was mostly relabelled Sicli stuff except the E5000 BCF's, the CO2 & the E6003/7/10 Powders)

They used the 60g & 70g Sicli cartridges with the non standard diameter heads and seals (& a nightmare from a spare parts & filling point of view) plus the frangible foam concentrate bottle that was punctured by pressurisation. There was a model with squeeze grips, a model with the single lever (a version of which is still made, see here http://www.sicli.com/utcfs/ws-484/Assets/fiche%20euro%202000.pdf) and a strike knob version

Nu Swift also labelled some of their Sicli water with additive sprays as OK for liquids* - they did have a Class B rating of 144B, but confusingly used red labels, reserving cream labels for the models with a foam making branchpipe. Further confused by introducing identical water additives extinguishers later on with only an A rating (these were true wet waters, not AFFF) also with a red label.


* follows the french trend of the "l'eau avec additif" extinguisher - basically an A/B rated AFFF spray extinguisher as plain water A only rated extinguishers disappeared in France (& Spain) with the death of the Soda Acid extinguisher

[RFPS]

Thanks for all your replies lads.  Some very valid points raised regarding the pull tight seals, I've taken them onboard & will discontinue the practice immediately.  

To reply to Anthony, yes, the newer model looked identical to the Sicli model you attached the link to although the pin was non removeable and the cartridges had different diameter heads.  Think I'll wind up this thread as I slightly deviated from the original topic regarding ABC v BC Powder!

[Goodsparks]

"Every PSV or minibus needs a water or foam extinguisher rated no less than 8A and/or 21B. Although halon is still mentioned since the The Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2002 a halon extinguisher will be considered a Reason for Failure on any public service vehicle presented for test."

Still don`t understand this requirement. In effect you could have installed a load of old 6 litre 8a rated water extinguishers into busses / coaches etc complied with the regs but have provided no class b cover, arguably placing the user at risk if used on an engine / fuel fire.

Yes, the powder is messy and restricts visability inside, but how many vehicle fires occur inside ?

We must be one of the only countries in europe who deals with powder in this way. Everywhere i've ever visited in europe seems to have adopted the 6kg abc powder as 'the standard'. Shops, offices, hotels, restaurants, vehicles, same goes for America.

Does make you wonder what its all based on, actual risk or percieved risk. I've never heard of people dying in a fire because an extinguisher discharge prevented them from seeing the exit ?

Paul

[Psuedonym]

One little problem that no one has mentioned regarding the wonderful D clips, OK pins/clips - whatever (Yes I do love them for their practicality and safety issues and definately do not see them as a dubious sales tool for an easy sale. Not).

When you add a pull tight seal/ tamper seal to one of these con pins, you increase the risk of the plastic pin splitting when you try to pull the pin out. don't believe it? Try it, then when it splits, try to remove the pin to fight the fire. It ain't easy and thats for us within the trade who don't panic. Try Joe Public in the same scenario.

Just a thought...

[Psuedonym]

Without getting my anorak on and checking out BS5306 word for word, there is a little bit of advice in there regarding removing powder from vunerable people re visual and respiratory issues.

You mean this.

Extract from;
BRITISH STANDARD BS 5306-8:2000

Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises

Part 8: Selection and installation of portable fire extinguishers - Code of practice

6.2 Class A fires in carbonaceous solids
………..“The discharge of a powder extinguisher in a confined space can cause a sudden reduction of visibility which may temporarily jeopardize escape, rescue or other emergency action. For this reason water-based extinguishers are to be preferred in hospitals, old people's homes and hotels.”

also
 
Extract from;

Fire Safety Risk Assessment
Residential Care Premises

Powder extinguishers (Blue)
“……Powder extinguishers can create a loss of visibility and may affect people who have breathing problems and are not generally suitable for confined spaces.”

Published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU, May 2006.

Thats it but..

Er.. British Standard 5306:3-2003 perhaps?


Blue?

Anorak back on.

But thanks for looking it up!

 

[AnthonyB]

"Every PSV or minibus needs a water or foam extinguisher rated no less than 8A and/or 21B. Although halon is still mentioned since the The Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2002 a halon extinguisher will be considered a Reason for Failure on any public service vehicle presented for test."

Still don`t understand this requirement. In effect you could have installed a load of old 6 litre 8a rated water extinguishers into busses / coaches etc complied with the regs but have provided no class b cover, arguably placing the user at risk if used on an engine / fuel fire.

Yes, the powder is messy and restricts visability inside, but how many vehicle fires occur inside ?

We must be one of the only countries in europe who deals with powder in this way. Everywhere i've ever visited in europe seems to have adopted the 6kg abc powder as 'the standard'. Shops, offices, hotels, restaurants, vehicles, same goes for America.

Does make you wonder what its all based on, actual risk or percieved risk. I've never heard of people dying in a fire because an extinguisher discharge prevented them from seeing the exit ?

Paul

I admit it seems odd, but that's what it said. It would have been permissible to use on a older bus a soda acid, water cartridge, water stored, chemical foam or mechanical foam extinguisher as well as BCF or CTC. Newer buses had the option of water foam or halon. The logic is flawed - you could argue that you'd leave an engine compartment fire and evacuate the bus, using the water for a seat fire as it could trap passengers, but not only are seat fires rare you could have a Class B only extinguisher which would be OK on the engine but not the seat!

It was actually simpler on the legal requirements prior to the current rules post 1981 - for decades it was a 1 quart CTC extinguisher & nothing else. For several years even though better agents such as CBM & Uni flash liquid came along you still couldn't use them as the regs were specific about CTC, thus extending the agents use for a few years past its retirement in general use until a change allowed the newer agents

[nim]

Extract from;

Fire Safety Risk Assessment
Residential Care Premises

Powder extinguishers (Blue)
“……Powder extinguishers can create a loss of visibility and may affect people who have breathing problems and are not generally suitable for confined spaces.”

Published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU, May 2006.

I quoted from two documents above. The first was BS 5306-8:2000 (Part 8:2000 not Part 3:2003)
BS 5306-3:2003
Part 3 is: Code of practice for the inspection and maintenance of portable fire extinguishers

BS 5306-8:2000
Part 8 is: Selection and installation of portable fire extinguishers. Code of practice

The second document was:

Fire Safety Risk Assessment
Residential Care Premises

Published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU, May 2006.

and yes I know it says

"Powder extinguishers (Blue)" but I didn't write it (just copied and pasted)

[Psuedonym]

S'ok Nim, I had subsequently realised the significance of parts of 5306, just leaped in without looking or checking the parachute for rips, again! Welcome aboard by the way!