Fire Extinguisher & Intumescent seals

[stevew]

The reason for providing portable fire fighting equipment prior to the introduction of the RRO was to assist persons evacuate the building.  One must remember that the FP Act and WKplace Regs was not looking to 'mitigate the effects of fire' but to get people out.  There is case law on this interpretation in respect of the FP Act.

Under the RRO  the responsible person must take such measures to 'mitigate the effects of fire' which includes:
a) assessing the  type and level of such equipment required and
b) training selected staff in the use of such equipment

A situation many employers and employees find difficult to accept.

[Davo]

stevew

Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)

In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.

Davo

[PhilB]

stevew

Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)

In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.

Davo

No Davo, why do you think that? The RP must take such general fire precautions (Article 4) as are appropriate, and general fire precautions requires measures to mitigate the effects of fire, which includes providing extinguishers and training employees to use them, SFARP.

[Tom Sutton]

The "extinguishers at exits" comes from the days of the fire certificate when those interested (and so obviously qualified) parties drew up the building plan and placed their little triangles there. You will recall that this plan was then judged akin to a sacred tablet and placed within the arc of the covenant (or fire certificate folder) never to be questioned, judged or altered unless a change of use should rear its head you could add to it (with permission) should extra "specific risk" be noted. But you could never subtract from it should "blatant stupidity" be noted.

The fire certificates were produced stipulating minimum requirements in accordance with the current legislation (FPA), codes of practice, guidance and British standards and in the case of portable FFE you didn’t ask why, that was the requirement. This was prescriptive fire safety and you only got one bite of the cherry.

As you say if there was an alteration you got a second bite of the cherry and applied the current code or BS to that area which may improve the standard however as you were at minimum you could not reduce it. In the case of mistakes they could be put right in that area.

[Davo]

PhilB

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm only talking just about once a fire is discovered

Closing the door is a measure
Dialling the brigade is a measure
Sounding the alarm is a measure

Yes, prior planning will include
Having extinguishers as a measure; also
Having trained persons where dangerous substances are present and/or life could be lost would be expected

Not sure in your basic office type situation I would expect a small fire to be tackled

davo

[PhilB]

Yes, once a fire is discovered would be included. The RP must have measures in place to mitigate the effects.

Also have a look at article 34. The accused would need to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than he had done. I would like to see a RP argue that is was not reasonably practicable to provide any extinguishers or to train anyone to use them.

Also consider the only available defence, that of due dilligence..in other words "what more could I have done?"

Someone who provides nothing would struggle to demonstate that they have shown due dilligence.

Stevew has got it spot on. In the past fire safety law only required measures to be taken to get people out, the building could burn down. Now measures must be taken to reduce the risk of fire and mitigate the effect of fire. How can that be effectively done with no extinguishers?

[Davo]

PhilB
No one surely is suggesting removing/not providing extinguishers, Doc B says you have to provide and its the law.
Reducing the risk? We spent about one million a year on fire safety over the last seven years.
We have 136 buildings. I can only guarantee someone wil be in less than 20 of them.
I have 10,000 staff.
Do I train them all on the off chance? I would require eight permanent staff just doing this, not counting the extraction time.
Our one H & S trainer bless her currently trains about 200 or so per year  for the larger premises which are business critical.
I could ban toasters as they are the major cause but a 10,000 lynch mob is not an attractive prospect.!
davo

[PhilB]

No one surely is suggesting removing/not providing extinguishers, Doc B says you have to provide and its the law.
Reducing the risk? We spent about one million a year on fire safety over the last seven years.
We have 136 buildings. I can only guarantee someone wil be in less than 20 of them.
I have 10,000 staff.
Do I train them all on the off chance? I would require eight permanent staff just doing this, not counting the extraction time.
Our one H & S trainer bless her currently trains about 200 or so per year  for the larger premises which are business critical.
I could ban toasters as they are the major cause but a 10,000 lynch mob is not an attractive prospect.!
davo

Yes they are Davo!

I have just come off the phone to a customer who runs a hotel. He has informed me that he has heard that some business have been advised to remove their fire extinguishers by the FD, as they should only be interested in evacuation as opposed to fighting any potential fire.  Has anyone else heard of this?

I would also be interested to know if anyone can tell me if intumescent seals would be effective once painted over?

Look forward to receiving any info/advice.

This is where reasonably practicable comes in or reasonable in the circumstances if for the safety of non-employees.

It is not reasonably practicable to train all staff to be expert fire-fighters, but you are not demonstrating due dilligence if you train no-one.

Where does ADB refer to extinguishers?

[CivvyFSO]

stevew

Surely the mitigating bit is only where there are dangerous substances? 16(3)a(i)

In regard to training of selected staff, 13(3) says 'where necessary' etc . Measures for fire fighting can be anything from dial 999 up to own firefighters dependent on the premise.

Davo

Training
     21. —(1) The responsible person must ensure that his employees are provided with adequate safety training—
(a) at the time when they are first employed; and
(b) on their being exposed to new or increased risks...

(2) The training referred to in paragraph (1) must—
(a) include suitable and sufficient instruction and training on the appropriate precautions and actions to be taken by the employee in order to safeguard himself and other relevant persons on the premises;

I see no 'where necessary' in there.

My point of view is; (in general) All employees should be given basic familiarisation in FFE. Further training for marshalls etc, but everyone should be aware of how to use an extinguisher and the correct extinguisher for particular fires. This is backed up by the CLG guidance which we have to take into account.

[The Reiver]

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.

I'm a simple lad at heart but hopefully these comments / questions don't sound too flippant or immature.

Taking "mitigate the effects of fire" literally. And seeing as the statement comes from a government department then "literally" it has to be.
This would then mean - "To moderate or make less severe the effects of an event once it has commenced".
Why would I want to do that with a fire then ? For what earthly reason would I want to stand there and moderate the effects, if not to aid in the evacuation process, either of myself or somone else ?
What I mean is a HPE is a first aid piece of kit .....FIRE STARTS > SMACK > FIRE OUT.
In using the kit successfully (If the fire is caught quickly and at source) I have not moderated the effect but have terminated it.

So (being trained) with my HPE in hand I have the possibility of doing two things and still being able to comply with all the literal terms of the RRO
1. Put the fire out.
2. Lessen (mitigate) the effects of the fire (and thus aid safe evacuation of me and others).

What cannot be forgotten here is that as soon as you pick up a HPE and use it in earnest, you are in fact aiding (or attempting to aid) in the safe evacuation of the building / area. This may be a voluntary or involuntary act but it is still taking place.
 
And in a worse case scenario it could very easily be a vital part of the means of escape. Don't think for one minute that I'm just backing up HPE usage. In my opinion the usage itself is no different than an automatic fire system activating upon detection. It too is attempting to mitigate the fire and aid safe evacuation.
 
Or do we now not have WCS's. Do we now just have pink and fluffy perfect world fire scenarios that come direct from a risk assessors fantasy clipboard, where everyone has a safe and fully protected exit route that is of course nowhere near the actual reason the alarm was raised in the first place?

Manufacturers training course ??.........Nah, just common sense !!

[nearlythere]

If the emergency action plan states that no one is to tackle a fire but to evacuate then there is no need for extinguishers really. Extinguishers are not there for the means of escape.

Yes, I remember attending a presentation by a manufacturer who stated that intumescent strips are still effective if painted over.

Really Nearlythere? How does the RP comply with his duty to take reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire if he has no extinguishers. Or to look at it another way, how would he demonstrate to a Court that he had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due dilligence?

I agree that this used to be the case in the bad old days of the WP Regs when all that was required was to evacuate, but don't the general fire precautions go further these days?

If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.

[CivvyFSO]

Nearlythere, the RRO guidance note covers the whole 'where necessary' aspect, it was intended that almost every place will require extinguishers, and the authority I work for will enforce as such.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Guidance Note No. 1: Enforcement

Fire-fighting equipment should be considered as a means of both prevention and
protection. For example, preventing a small fi re growing out of control and spreading
beyond the area of origin, affecting the means of escape and posing a risk to relevant
persons. It is likely therefore that some form of fi re fi ghting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.

[kurnal]

If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.

Article 13  places the duty on the Responsible person to provide fire fighting equipment and to train employees in its use. It doesnt directly say that employees must use the equipment. But under article 23 1 b employees have a duty to co-operate with the responsible person to assist them to  meet their duties.  
So the duty is implicit in there. Impossible to enforce though.

[nearlythere]

If the RP provides extinguishers then it would be a reasonable duty to train staff on how to use them as it is for any item of equipment. Does it say anywhere that there is a requirement for staff to fight a fire with any extinguishers provided?
To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.

Article 13  places the duty on the Responsible person to provide fire fighting equipment and to train employees in its use. It doesnt directly say that employees must use the equipment. But under article 23 1 b employees have a duty to co-operate with the responsible person to assist them to  meet their duties.  
So the duty is implicit in there. Impossible to enforce though.

Sorry K but must disagree. Art. 13 states that "Where neccessary....... and any other relevant circumstances etc..............(1) the premises are , to the extent that it is appropriate, equiped with appropriate firefighting equipment.................
When, in a building, would it not be neccessary to provide extinguishers? That to me includes if the RP has a policy of no firefighting to take place due to the risk involved.
We may probably never know what "where neccessary" and "appriopriate" really means until maybe the next tragedy. It really is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

[PhilB]

It comes down, as I said earlier, to due diligence.

How can someone prove that they have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence without providing at least a few extinguishers and training just a few people to use them?

Yes possibly if they have auto-suppression but even then would a reasonable person not provide the odd extinguisher to tackle a very small fire?

To me reasonable measures to mitigate the effects of fire can be by isolation and containment, an effective evacuation strategy and a means of calling the Fire & Rescue Service which has the neccessary equipment, training, experience and knowledge and other qualities to enable it to deal with a fire safely.

Nearlythere if someone did just that, and someone was injured in a fire that could have been extinguished by a suitably trained and equipped employee the prosecution would simply have to ask

 “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.

I personally cannot see how a policy of no fire-fighting and just evacuate could possibly fulfil the duty to take general fire precautions,

It is the RPs responsibility to mitigate the effects of a fire on his premises not the FRS.