Draft BS 5306-3 Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises

[nim]

Does any one know if there is a new Draft BS 5306-3 Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises
Part 3: Code of practice for the commissioning and maintenance of portable fire extinguishers  which replaces the document issued on the 23 November 2007(2006-01768 DPC.doc)?

If yes is it still open for comments?

[John Webb]

A Draft for Public Comment issued in Nov 2007 would have expected replies in a maximum of 6 months and probably less - so I very much expect that it is too late to comment on.

By the way, I thought maintenance of extinguishers was now Part 6?

[nim]

A Draft for Public Comment issued in Nov 2007 would have expected replies in a maximum of 6 months and probably less - so I very much expect that it is too late to comment on.

Agreed. The cut off date for comments was February 2008. That is the reason why I was asking if there was a replacement draft as I had heard that a new draft document was available but have not been able to source it even though the first draft was easy to find.

By the way, I thought maintenance of extinguishers was now Part 6?

No.
BS 5306-6.2:1989 Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises. Foam systems. Specification for medium and high expansion foam systems

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Fire/Fire-Products/BS-5306-Series/

[John Webb]

Thanks for the link. I knew the Selection and Maintenance had been split up but got it the wrong way round - selection is now part 8 of BS 5306.

If you can check which committee issued the DPC you should be able to contact the BSI secretary for that committee and find out from him or her what is going on.

[Thomas Brookes]

Not sure exactly when its coming out, but recently at a British Fire Consortium meeting we were told that the new version would not be out until the new year, and that was one of the tech committee members.
Aparently there have been some problems with it.

[AnthonyB]

There was a lot of debate over the technician approvals process that was being looked at that caused dissent.

Massive money making option if it goes through as the draft as there are a lot of plastic headed extinguishers to be re-headed (or more likely binned and replaced).

A lot Thomas glover/Firepowder stuff prior to the early 2000's and pre 95 Chubb stuff plus current & past cartridge extinguishers using the Ceo-Deux head would be affected.

(One of the main changes is that plastic head caps would require replacement at every 5 year extended service as a precaution against their integrity having been reduced by weathering/UV - there is no way of testing for it other than destructively and this is why the last revision said the old Fireward/Panorama plastic bodied powder extinguishers used by Betteware, Angus, Chubb, Pyrene, Kleaneze, etc had to be condemned)

[Thomas Brookes]

This one is a bit of a rumour though.

One bit I like if it gets in the standard is that commisioning of fire extinguishers must be done on the customers site. That should stop the box shippers or at least level the playing field so they have to employ proper engineers like the restof us.

[AnthonyB]

Absolutely - the likes of the 'net and the stationary firms will have to be more responsible in their sales of equipment

[Goodsparks]

Massive money making option if it goes through as the draft as there are a lot of plastic headed extinguishers to be re-headed (or more likely binned and replaced).

According to the man at FETA (or FIA) that part won't be making it into the standard. I was a bit worried about an upcoming all-inclusive tender we're putting out and the likely increases in cost.

Paul

[The Reiver]

Purely because of what Goodsparks has highlighted (some guys may be doing tenders based on the present standard and could loose out to those in the know, namely the big lads who sit on the tech committee but also have commercial interests in the trade).
 
It is with the kind permission of my illustrious leader (a part 3 & 8 technical committee sitter and a staunch independant), that I have it on good authority that barring disasters Pt 3 will be published January 2009.
In fact I am reading it now (with the authority of said leader). All riveting stuff.

He has said that due to copyright issues I cannot quote or discuss the details but I can respond with a "yes" or "no" if you have any direct questions as to what may be in there.

Points of interest:
Commissioning
Secondary Labelling
Extended Service - Plastic Head Capped Units
(Goodsparks, your FIA man tells porkys, you may wish to re-assess your tender)

It's because of Goodsparks situation that my gaffer's letting me do this, as he is upset that a member of any trade organisation who obviously, to give such advice, has stated his intimate knowledge of the new standard, could potentially mislead his fellow members thus.

Oh, and Part 8 should be out for DPC as we speak (or imminently).

If you doubt my credentials (having access to such things) then PM me for further info.

[f500]

Could you expand on the secondary labelling part?

[The Reiver]

Could you expand on the secondary labelling part?

YES !! But to save this going on and on as a "yes"/ "no" potential mess

Any Labelling (manufacturers label, service label, ad. label) Applied:
1. Not to obscure any marking required by BSEN3
2. Not to contain prominent colours that conflict with accepted colour coding.

As I understand it this could blow some "green" foams out of the water. And a companies' advertising label must not conflict either.

Some service labelling may have to alter as the measured mass of every extinguisher must be recorded at each service as well as the initial recorded mass at commissioning (I am having to re-design ours because of this) 

[AnthonyB]

I hope that it does blow 'green' foam labels out of the water as it does confuse (red body, light green label with a small bit of cream on it) and defeat the point of retaining the colour coded portion of labelling.

This trend was started by BWH, the Manufacturing wing of London Securities (MK, Nu Swift, etc) but appears to be about to be copied by Total's new eco range.

The labelling makes sense and appears to allude towards NFPA standards that are even stricter about where you stick labels.

[The Reiver]

I hope that it does blow 'green' foam labels out of the water as it does confuse (red body, light green label with a small bit of cream on it) and defeat the point of retaining the colour coded portion of labelling.

This trend was started by BWH, the Manufacturing wing of London Securities (MK, Nu Swift, etc) but appears to be about to be copied by Total's new eco range.

The labelling makes sense and appears to allude towards NFPA standards that are even stricter about where you stick labels.

The colour coding issue is first listed in the "Conditions indicating that an extinguisher is unsafe for use" section. I would equate that to mean it's a serious issue.
The way I read it is that if the foam ain't coded correctly (BS 7863) then you can condemn it as unsafe for use. And correct me if I'm wrong but green is still the "halon" colour code (even if we don't see an awful lot of them any more) They are still out there in their "critical use" areas.

My (ahem) contact says that these manufacturers were invited to comment time and time again but refused to do so. It was this reason that was mainly responsible for holding up the standards progress. Their lack of interest or refusal to co-operate (perm one from two) will mean their "green" labelled "Eco Warrior" kit will be deemed "Unsafe For Use" under 5306 pt 3...........Interesting (and too late to complain) !!!!   

[AnthonyB]

Green is indeed a still valid colour as it is fo ruse on all vaporising liquids in addition to the old halons and so clean agent extinguishers such as FE-36 use it, although these are few & far between as they haven't really taken off here - they were too late on the market and too expensive to capitalise on the mass halon phase out in the 90's.

Certain of the 'biggies' seem to like doing their own thing I must agree...