Fire Extinguisher Use Article in "Fire Prevention"

[Chris Houston]

Did anyone else read the article in Feb 05's edition (page 20).

I thought it was a brilliant article.

So many places I visit are staffed by people who tell me would never use a fire extinguisher.  Or managed by people who chose not to train staff to use them.

[fireftrm]

Yes I read it and agree. As there is a requirement to carry out staff fire safety training, in all commercial premises, use of extinguishers must be included. Subsequently the premises staff should be able to determine when it is safe to use them and thus prevent larger fires developing. No one should argue that they be used on every outbreak of fire, but the correct training (and maintenance of that competence - NOT just one course) will ensure that extinguishers are used when and where appropriate and safe.

[Dave]

I have also attended incidents where occupants have been injured trying to extinguish a fire in the home.  However none of them had used a fire extinguisher to try to extinguish the fire.  I have also attended incidents in the workplace where fires had been extinguished in the early stages by persons using fire extinguishers.  None of whom had been injured in the process.

I recently did extinguisher training for a Res Care Home, I was informed that they used to get training from the LAFS, but they refused show them how to use fire extinguishers.  As it is the policy of most Res Care Homes to evacuate staff and visitors, whilst leaving clients shut in their rooms; I think that if any workforce needs extinguisher training, it is those in Res Care Homes.

I have trained thousands of people in fire safety over the past 20 years, and my course evaluation forms inevitably reveal that the most informative part of the training is the practical use of fire extinguishers.

Whilst we are on the subject of fire extinguishers, would someone please tell me why powder extinguishers are widely provisioned within buildings?  Here are two examples:

1.   I was recently using a conference facility inside a large hotel.  Within the function room there were three extinguishers dotted around; a 9ltr Water, a 9lte Foam Spray and a 9KG Powder.  Imagine the consequences if the room was full of 200 guests (including children and older folk) at a wedding reception, and someone who had had a few too many, decided to let loose with the powder extinguisher.

2.   I was doing a course in a pre school nursery only yesterday, it is a new build and can accommodate up to 180 children.  I had a walk round before the training and to my horror I found the following.  Positioned at ad-hoc locations throughout the building where 9ltr water extinguishers, all of the staff had difficulty in lifting them off their mounts and moving them around.  In the kitchen where there were many cooking facilities, but no use of deep fat fryers, I found a 10KG Co2 and a 6KG Powder.  In the bottle making and baby changing facility (where the only source of ignition was a fridge) there was a 2KG Co2 and a 4KG Powder.

In my opinion, these extinguishers had been provisioned (by a large national company) without taking into consideration the occupancy, or the fire risk associated with this property.

[Ken Taylor]

Let me assure you, Dave, that in the care homes with which I have been involved the staff have received extinguisher and general fire safety training.

With regard to the drunken wedding guest, I would also be concerned if he was letting off a CO2 among the other guests. These and dry powder tend to be the provision for electrical risk and both give cause for concern when in the wrong hands. There is a good argument for restricting ready access to fire extinguishers to staff rather than public/guests in some types of premises!

[N. E. Body]

Dave, as I am sure you are aware, extinguisher companies, even the national ones are interested in two things, sales and commission.

Mind you, where did they get a 10kg CO2, I thought there was only 2 and 5kg available ?

You should name and shame the company, the larger they get the more they seem able to get away with.

[vdane47]

where can I find the article referred too? is "Fire Prevention" a magazine or web-site?

[Chris Houston]

It's a magazine free to IFE members.  If you send me your details I'll post you a copy of the article.

[vdane47]

Thanks

Victor Dane
Fire safety Forum
South & East Belfast (H&SS) Trust
Estate Services Department
Knockbracken Healthcare Park
301 Saintfield Road
Belfast    BT8 8BH

[fireftrm]

Sorry for being pedantic, however the magazine is actually Fire Prevention & Fire Engineers Journal. It is the journal of the Institution of Fire Engineers (Fire Eng Journal) and the Fire Protection Association (Fire Prev) and is a joint production. It is sent to memebrs of either. I can strongly recommend joining one. The IFE is on www.ife.org and the fpa on www.thefpa.co.uk. The IFE is predominantly for fire professionals individually and the FPA predominantly for companies. The IFE have grades of member and examinations for some grades, the FPA is open to all on payment.

[Dave]

N. E. Body, sorry my mistake, it was a 5KG Co2.

Speaking of fire extinguishers, has anyone got a definitive answer to these questions?

I was talking to a company today who train their fire marshals in the practical use of fire extinguishers every three years.  They said that they had been informed by a fire extinguisher company that they should be carrying out this training annually.

They wanted to know if they were breaking the law if they carried on doing the practical extinguisher training every three years.  It should be noted that they go through the fire procedures with the staff in the two interim years.

So basically these are my questions.  If a fire warden/marshal was injured whilst trying to tackle a fire, and they hadn’t received any practical extinguisher training for two and a half years, would the company be breaking the law by not providing adequate training?

If they are breaking the law, where does it state this?

[Chris Houston]

So basically these are my questions.  If a fire warden/marshal was injured whilst trying to tackle a fire, and they hadn’t received any practical extinguisher training for two and a half years, would the company be breaking the law by not providing adequate training?

If they are breaking the law, where does it state this?

Here is my opinion:

The most relevant law is the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regualtions.  These state that employers must train a suitable number of employees in the use of first aid fire fighting aparatus.  It is non specific with regards to how many and the frequency of the training.  I quote:

"their training and the equipment availble to them are adequate"

Therefore it is the decision of the employer as to how best to fulfil this obligation.  This should be considered as part of the fire safety risk assessment, and it would take a judge in court to decide if the obligation had been fulfiled.

Additional duties exist under health and safety law (employees must be trained to use safety equipment provided.)  Again, non-specific with timings etc.

My personal opinion is that it depends on the nature of your business.  For an office type environment with low fire hazard, with low staff turnover, hands on training every three years with a refresher every year sounds perfectly acceptable.

This is not legal advice, if you want legal advice consult a lawyer.

[AnthonyB]

Certainly extinguisher training is important if they are going to be used, as I've seen & got video footage of the pitfalls of untrained use & read of examples of the consequences.

As for Powders, well I agree. most of the time crap extinguisher companies  or extinguisher needs assessments by H&S persons or others without the right training/knowledge are to blame. On my inspections I carry laminated cards with photos/illustrations of various things to assist in explaining things to occupants & include a photo of the discharge of a 2 kg powder, which soon has the desired effect of changing to CO2.

Some extinguisher companies are ignorant of Class F & Wet Chemical, basing cover on old guidance refering to powder & foam whilst not realising that the guidance was written in the days of FP foam branchpipe extinguishers rather than AFFF spray & standard BC powder, which being alkaline (sodium bicarb) unlike the acidic ABC (ammonium phosphate) now used did have a slight saponification effect

Increasing time on inspections is spent on trading standards/H&S type issues because a large majority of ext firms fall into one or more of the following;
- Don't know how to service an extinguisher properly, so it may fail to function (gauge testing, cartridge weighing anyone)
- Are so out of date that they make mistakes (allowing CO2's to go over 10 years without pressure test as they either don't know it exists or still thin its 20 years)
- Don't know the kit (put pull seals on ext's with breakable OK pins making the pin very difficult to remove)
- Wipe & swipe (rusty base, what rusty base?)
- Sharp practice (too many exts, condemned when no actual fault, replace when require a discharge test as it makes far more money, replace as not EN3 even if perfectly sound and working, etc, etc)

The big national company wasn't based in Elland was it?

[Ken Taylor]

The duty for someone using a fire extinguisher as part of their duties (as for most other equipment used at work) is for them to be instructed, trained and competent. Whilst there is no specific legal frequency for extinguisher training there is some guidance around. It is interesting that the old HTM84 wants all staff to receive fire instruction at least twice a year. I wonder how many achieve that! I agree with Chris's risk assessment approach to training frequency and like to consider that as first-aiders require requalification every 3 years this, by extrapolation, could be considered as a maximum period between training sessions for other activity upon which the lives of people at work depend.

Anthony, what would you consider is now the most appropriate extinguisher for an underground single-room building (confined space) with electrical equipment present?

[AnthonyB]

Several factors would come into play, including the extent of the equipment and it's cabinet, whether it's enclosed or open, size of the room, ventilation, etc.

Enclosed equipment requires a gaseous agent for the best effect, as Powder cannot pentrate as well.

If secondary damage is an issue powder is unsuitable.

Although CO2 is an asphyxiant & slightly toxic, it is the better option and unless it's a very small room with a very large capacity extinguisher, the risks are moderate, but cannot be overlooked. 1 kg of liquid CO2 yields about 0.5 cubic metres of gas at normal atmospheric pressure

A 2 kilo size will sufffice except for the larger enclosures where 5 kilo may be required.

Powder does not have the toxic or asphyxiant risks of CO2, but is still a problem in a confined space as it will reduce vision. It is sufficiently finely divided enough to cause physical problems if breathed in in quantity and can cause coughing, eye watering, etc

Other solutions do present themselves - if this was the US a 2 gallon Distilled Water Mist extinguisher could be used as these have a class C rating (electrical fires in the US classification system) & are retailed and specified for specific cover of electrical risks. However in the UK the same manufacturer Amerex has not gone as far and marked the extinguisher with the "electrically safe" pictogram and falls back on the standard "passed the 35kV test" statement, but this does not preclude it's use.

If the electrical supply can be easily isolated then any water/addtive, spray foam or water mist extinguisher with 35kV approval can be used.

There's no simple answer, you need to take a lot of information into account!

[Ken Taylor]

Thanks for the response, Anthony. I am just trying to keep up-to-date with current thinking and in the light of new extinguishants becoming available. From your response, we still seem to be in the CO2/powder approach to non-isolated electricity. I've heard interesting statements from fire extinguisher company reps and even fire officers in the past as to both being unsuitable for confined spaces and this can be supported by literature. You seem to agree that CO2 seems to come out better in many such situations for the sort of small fire for which a portable extinguisher would be applicable.