9Kg ABC Powder extinguishers

[Brian Catton]

I am in the process of doing a pre occupancy report on a Learning Disabilities residential unit. The Unit has been built for my Trust under a PFI partnership scheme. When I visited the other day (as the Trusts Specialist Fire Safety Advisor) I found that the PFI consultancy firm had installed 9KG ABC powders throughout without consultation with the client.
I know the provision of extinguishers is subject to risk assessment but this will be done following occupation.
Has anyone any views regarding this provision as I consider them to be inappropriate.

[jokar]

Who will use them, are they aware of the mess that will be created if they are used, what risk are they covering, are 9kg extingushers too heavy for the occupants to use?  Just a few questions that need an answer.

[nearlythere]

Are DP extinguishers not the most expensive?

[nim]

I know the provision of extinguishers is subject to risk assessment but this will be done following occupation.
Has anyone any views regarding this provision as I consider them to be inappropriate.

As you have already said a FRA should be carried out to ascertain the risks on the premises and whether extinguishers would be required and what type. In the type of establishment you have mentioned unless they have a specific requirement for 9kg Powder Extinguishers then I would suggest removal and replacement for extinguishers more suited to the environment. I would normally suggest as a guide 1 x 6Litre  Foam (or a 6 Litre Water Extinguisher which has passed the 35Kv conductivity test) and  1 x 2kg CO2 Extinguisher for every 200m/sq with a minimum of two pairs on each floor (assuming each floor would not be more than 400m/sq and that there were no uncovered risks).

This really is just a guess without seeing the premises. This would ensure compliance with BS 5306 Part 8 and would also ensure that the bean counters are happy.

Extract from BS5306 Part 8 2000
6.2 Class A fires in carbonaceous solids
Class A materials are generally present in all premises and occupancies. ...............................
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.

I would also suggest powder extinguishers are unsuitable for a "Learning Disabilities residential unit"

Are DP extinguishers not the most expensive?

They shouldn't be the most expensive but a lot depends on who you buy them from. Also cost shouldn't really come into the equation as the customer should really look at what is the right solution.

[Psuedonym]

On a similar vein, I serviced the Ansul systems within a new premises of a large National supermarket this week. Throughout site (65-75%!!!) there are 9Kg ABC Powders, both shop side and and warehouse/ offices areas. All installed last year following, I assume, a full assessment from the firm who pay my wages, prior to install.
In my humble opinion they are in serious risk of accidental or deliberate discharge, especially as many of the "pins" are the horrific yellow plastic cons , sorry, safety devices and are missing.
I find it very disappointing that such a risk is presented as a fire protection measure by, I assume, fully qualified and experienced fire protection personnel. Oh well, time for another fault report........

[AnthonyB]

They are probably the 9kg powders bought to protect the premises whilst in construction that the PFI decided to recycle!

On paper they are acceptable as they are suitable for the classes of fire present and have suitable fire ratings for the floor area.

But we know that it isn't just as simple as that and the presence of vulnerable groups and the fact the extinguishers will be on MoE creates a safety risk before you even consider property damage.

They are inappropriate and I rarely specify powder these days unless for a Class B risk requiring rapid knock down.

Found a similar situation when FRA'ing a large trust down south - like many trusts they'd farmed out the running of their dialysis unit to Fresnius whose fit out contractors had stuck in loads of powders in a small open plan unit with bed bound patients, where the discharge would have immediately caused problems for the patients as well as trashing the equipment. Everywhere else that was directly controlled by the trust power was banned in all areas clinical or otherwise.

[Brian Catton]

Thanks to all for your comments.  They underline everything that I have advised the PFI partner company and the Trust.

This forum really helps as it is confirms advice given in response to situations like this that are unbelievable sometimes.

Whether they replace the ABC powders with waters and CO2 remains to be seen but I am hopeful.

If they do not I may set up a demonstration for them in an enclosed room.

[Psuedonym]

Exellent idea Brian

[Big T]

I'd look at 6L Afff or 6L water with additives and Co2 rather than 9L water and Co2. minimises the chances of an idiot electricuting themselves and in my opinion is a better media for this type of application.  My preference I am sure the others will disagree

[AnthonyB]

I would agree, except in certain applications the 9 litre water jet should be dead and buried.

3L or 6L Water additive sprays or Foam sprays have the same ratings, are lighter and easier to handle, have a safeguard against electrical hazards  (accidental contact only & not safe from pooled liquid contact I know) and a shorter discharge time meaning people will not spend too long hanging around fighting fires