Number of Extinguishers required??

[Bill.]

Can I ask for thoughts on the clarification as to the numbers of portable fire extinguishers recommended under BS 5306 8 2000.

The situation posed is a sleeping premises with less than 90m2 floor area, using the bs on each floor there should be 2 extinguishers, in this case a single occupancy and upper floor area less than 100m2 then the min aggregate acceptable would be 13A.

The Sleeping guide states that within self contained small premises (less 90m2) it may be possible to reduce the number of extinguishers to 1.

Given the above would it be reasonable to (with the appropriate RA's in place) to argue that although the BS relates to a min of 2 extinguishers and gives an aggregate rating, the sleeping guide allows in this case to have only 1 extinguisher per floor with the appropriate 13A rating.

It is argued that as far as the BS relaxation is concerned this only applies to the rating, the aggregate from 26A to 13A and not the number of extinguishers per floor. The CFOA Joint protocol on Portable Fire Extinguishers also mentions similar understanding.

How would an occupier therefore obtain third party accreditation that the FFE provided is installed and maintained in accordance with the BS?

Any thoughts appreciated

[kurnal]

I think the occupier is worrying too much about ratings and floor area and losing sight of the goal.

As would be any representative of any third party accreditation scheme that upheld such tight adherance to the guidance.

The Law requires risk assessment not BS5306, the duty is to provide suitable and sufficient equipment to the extent that is reasonably practicable, to apply the BS instead of the Law falls prey to bean counter practitioners and enforcers who have never seen a fire. Small premises are always the hardest to deal with because they immediately expose any lack of proportionality in the fire safety solutions.

[nim]

I think the occupier is worrying too much about ratings and floor area and losing sight of the goal.

So what is the goal?

Is it to supply and install extinguishers or not?

If the FRA says extinguishers are required then shouldn't you at least consider the recommendations of BS 5306 Part 8?

ie. Ground floor two "A rated" extinguishers with a total minimum rating of 26A

Upper floors two "A rated" extinguishers with a total minimum rating of 13A.

plus consider any other risks that are on the premises.

[Big T]

I agree with Kurnal,

Consideration should absolutely be given to BS 5306 pt 8 but risk assessment should be carried out to ascertain whether those requirements are adequate or excessive.

Nim mentions considering other risk in the premises which is obviously demonstrating risk assessed approach to installation.

It would depend on what type of sleeping accomodation is being provided, to whom etc to allow a proportionate assessment of the risk.

[kurnal]

I think the occupier is worrying too much about ratings and floor area and losing sight of the goal.

So what is the goal?

Is it to supply and install extinguishers or not?

If the FRA says extinguishers are required then shouldn't you at least consider the recommendations of BS 5306 Part 8?

ie. Ground floor two "A rated" extinguishers with a total minimum rating of 26A

Upper floors two "A rated" extinguishers with a total minimum rating of 13A.

plus consider any other risks that are on the premises.

the goal is suitable and sufficient. It obviously depends on layout, use, etc etc but if its as small as that there would be no point installing two 13A extinguishers next to each other. If it had two staircases and two landings then two extinguishers may be appropriate.

[jokar]

First things first, why do you want the extinguishers in the first place, because a BS says so or because they are needed through a FRA.  As Kurnal has stated a Suitable and Sufficient FRA may decide that because of the occupancy and evacuation strategy FFE is not needed or needed at a level less than the BS suggests.

Lets do these things using common sense and logic not because of suggestions in a book somewhere.

[AnthonyB]

Although the BS is a good guide it can be too rigid especially for small premises - a small corner shop could end up with two 9 litre water extinguishers, plus special hazards cover, if kitted to BS - far over the top and likely to end up buried behind stock & displays anyway.

Certain companies (guess at your leisure) revel in this printed money spinner and force such over provision on small businesses just because BS says so.

The requirement for 2 extinguishers also doesn't allow you to get around it by using a single 27A or 34A water or foam additive extinguishers.

Provision should be risk based and although the BS is a useful benchmark you shouldn't be afraid to provide over or under it's scales as long as you can justify it.

Small premises are steered in the Official FSO guides to small ABC Powder extinguishers (ideally limited life so as not to need servicing) anyway, so they too appreciate the limits of the BS.

In your example I'd stick to the sleeping guide and provide a single general cover extinguisher per storey such as a 13A rated 3 litre water additive or 3 litre foam spray.

As for third party accreditation this would normally only extend to the extinguisher service provider, so as long as you don't buy off the net (no initial service or competent assembly) and the service firm is BAFE registered (or equivalent) for portable extinguisher maintenance (which covers part 8 as well as 3, it's in the technicians training) you should be OK

[Tom W]

Let us not forget that if the RP wants FFE they should also be providing training. If they don't want to train they shouldn't be installing Extinguishers

I am a great believer in the fact that extinguishers are the last option in a fire, first and foremost lets get everyone out, the building is insured.

[Tom Sutton]

I always understood the second extinguisher was a backup if the first failed to operate, consequently it was accepted that if one extinguisher was unable to deal with the fire it was time to leave it to the fire service.

Additional extinguishers were provided so the travel distance was not excessive in providing the two extinguishers at the seat of the fire. If this meant going to the floor above or below providing you could guarantee the extinguisher would be available, in multi-occupied buildings this may not be the case, then that would be acceptable.

As travel distance is reliant on layout then a risk assessment would be necessary and the 200m2 is only a rule of thumb. I agree with the previous comments Risk Assessment is the common sense approach.

[AnthonyB]

The back up theory would make sense in the days when maintenance was not mandatory but now it should work and if it doesn't you leave - a back up is only of use if you twin up every extinguisher at a fire point.

I agree - don't forget the 30m travel rule, but again in small premises it's often not an issue.

This isn't a new issue - the FBU guide to Factories Act certification criticised the then FOC Rules in several areas such as every kitchen, regardless of size and installations present requiring two 2 gallon chemical foams in the cooking area and two 2 gallon waters in the dining area adjacent.

[Chris Houston]

Let us not forget that if the RP wants FFE they should also be providing training. If they don't want to train they shouldn't be installing Extinguishers

I am a great believer in the fact that extinguishers are the last option in a fire, first and foremost lets get everyone out, the building is insured.

If they don't want to train, they should not provide extingiushers??!?!?!  Sorry, but that is nonsence.  that arguemnt does not stand up.  If I don't want to train my staff to use safety guards, should they be removed?  Of course not!  If there is a need for extinguishers there is a need for training.  

You can believe what you want, but the reality is that when things go on fire people will try to put it out.  Give them the tools do to it properly.  Extinguishers are needed, escape routes might be blocked by fire.

The building is insured?  I'll bet your insurer requires you to have fire extinguishers!

[Tom W]

Let us not forget that if the RP wants FFE they should also be providing training. If they don't want to train they shouldn't be installing Extinguishers

I am a great believer in the fact that extinguishers are the last option in a fire, first and foremost lets get everyone out, the building is insured.

If they don't want to train, they should not provide extingiushers??!?!?!  Sorry, but that is nonsence.  that arguemnt does not stand up.  If I don't want to train my staff to use safety guards, should they be removed?  Of course not!  If there is a need for extinguishers there is a need for training.  

You can believe what you want, but the reality is that when things go on fire people will try to put it out.  Give them the tools do to it properly.  Extinguishers are needed, escape routes might be blocked by fire.

The building is insured?  I'll bet your insurer requires you to have fire extinguishers!

Safety guards are surely for personal protection. How many cases are there where someone actually needed to use an extinguisher for their personal protection not property protection? (I'm not being argumentitive id actually like to know!)

Im not saying that extinguishers are useless they have their uses but in the majority of cases i think that we should be training staff to evacuate safely and to be checking means of escape during their daily duties, fire fighting should be left to nominated persons and it should only be used if MOE are blocked or it is small enough to be tackled by one extinguisher. If you specifically tell staff not to tackle a fire but to close a door and have nominated persons to deal with the extinguishing you make the evactuation proceedure as simple as possible and reduce the chance of injuries and have a go heros.

I just believe to much emphasis is put on FFE when it comes to training, lets get staff to recognise hazards and risks and reduce the chance of it starting.

[jokar]

Fire Service message.  GET OUT, STAY OUT, CALL THE FIRE BRIGADE OUT.

If you do not use it you will lose it.  More fire service cuts are coming, soon we will be back to insurance plaques on walls.

[Tom Sutton]

The back up theory would make sense in the days when maintenance was not mandatory but now it should work and if it doesn't you leave - a back up is only of use if you twin up every extinguisher at a fire point.

It does go back to those days with some updating, SHW 5 "Fire-Fighting Equipment, Fire Alarms and Fire Drills in Offices and Shops." para 6. If the back up theory is a none starter why the need for two extinguisher and I do agree a back up extinguisher is now not relevant.

Providing the second extinguisher is within a reasonable distance (30m) then you would not need to twin them.

[Chris Houston]

I don't think that "property protection" and "people protection" are always so easily separated.  By putting out a small fire one might save the lives of the elderly residents in the flats above, or the person who would otherwise have been trapped should the fire have grown.

I do visit the victims of domestic fires in my red cross role immediatly following fires and I do see consistently that they will try and put them out with pans of water and towels.  I also survey commerical and industrial premises as my role of an insurance surveyor and I see consistently that employees will use what ever is to hand to try and put fires out.  

Yes, correct, much of the time they should evacuate and leave to the fire service - this is exactly what should be told to them at the training I am saying they need.  They will only know this WITH the training.  

So we can agree on the need for training, that many fires are best left to fire fighters, that training should be as much about fire prevention and hazards, but I must protest about the logic that if they don't want to train the solution is to remove extinguishers.