getting rid of extinguishers

[nearlythere]

"It would have been an absolute catastrophe if it wasn't for the sprinkler system, the building could have been ruined," he (Kieron Armstrong) confirmed.

[Davo]

Prof

How high was the ceiling? 7 miles?

Wouldn't the use of the extinguisher actually delay sprinkler activity?

Was the fire in a back area ie no telltale smoke?

Am working on removing excess first especially old water

davo

[kurnal]

Davo I dont know anything about the fire in question but I thought it made quite a poignant point that reinforced the fact - sprinklers or extinguishers apart- that so many people are complacent- hopefully they have never experienced a fire and expect that they never will. Reminded me of what your people are probably thinking at this time.
But when fires do occur you can never predict the effect that this will have on your systems or your staff and how the fire and smoke can cause equipment to fail, systems to break down and staff to behave sometimes heroically and sometimes irrationally. And makes them appreciate the systems and installatons they have taken for granted for so long.

[Davo]

Prof

Totally agree, its just that I found the article/the way it was written a little strange.

Apologies if it came out any other way

davo

[Badrill]

I beleive insurance companies insist on extinguishers and staff training including the use of them is a requirment.

[nearlythere]

I beleive insurance companies insist on extinguishers and staff training including the use of them is a requirment.

Don't doubt it at all.
Do they ask for a copy of the risk assesment for any potential users of extinguishers in the event of a fire? Doubt it.
Buildings are more expensive to replace than people.

[Wiz]

I don't doubt it.

It's just another thing they can use as an excuse for not paying a claim.

If everyone had the time to read the small print on their insurance policy they would probably realise that they weren't insured anyway!

[AnthonyB]

Interesting arguments either way, I've been away so not dipped in until now.

The force involved will not do itself any favours if it tries penny pinching this way - my force is coming to terms with cuts and the Diamond process is well under way with various suggestions made from all staff and several big cuts implemented, but none of them are safety related - estates is making some changes but stuff like this is secure.

3000 extinguishers is a lot but when you realise how ridiculously cheaply public authorities get fire equipment & services (they can get a brand new extinguisher for less than the cost of a refill to an off the street punter) it's not a saving, especially if they are correctly serviced for full lifespan - our force has just replaced a significant number, but only after 25 years service & even then they could have been extended serviced and retained.

Thin numbers, yes (if possible) but removal I don't think so - anyway the Federation & Unison Safety reps may have something to say about it as well as the press.

Besides - it's a police force, not an office. You have obligations towards Resilience for civil emergencies and the potential scale of disruption from a minor situation that could have been dealt with in seconds can affect service delivery.

I'm all for reducing unnecessary extinguishers & even in certain very specific situations would be OK with none, but this isn't one.

Although what is as bad as having no extinguishers is having dangerous ones - went around the Tower of London and the vast majority of their waters (9litre cartridge) had been condemned for 3 years plus with rust, lifted linings, damaged valves - dozens of extinguishers in total. A lot of CO2 were many years overdue hydro test as well... you would have thought with Royal Palaces fire history they would be tight on those things! The only stuff in good condition was the extinguishers in the Grenadier Guard's Barracks and Museum as they were NATO listed stainless steel units, which can go on forever.

[nearlythere]

It would seem extinguishers can be effective after all. I eat my words.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11276099

[Davo]

NT

Obviously not a CO2 then

davo

[Fishy]

Fishy

Para 4, Where in Guide E does it say that?
All I could find Chapter 13.2.2  2010 ed  says "you could argue they are not necessary"!

davo

Chapter 5 - "Reverse ALARP" is dealt with in 5.6.3.  Removing fire extinguishers is also mentioned in an example in 5.5.3.

[chris_p]

We are working to reduce the number of extinguishers however the extinguisher companies are not happy!!

We are aware of of the term "where necessary" in the RRO. Our RAs point to reduced number of extinguishers.

Our problem is how do we dispose of the excess?

Anyone any ideas?

[AnthonyB]

Environmental disposal to a licensed site - most extinguisher companies do this.

Because the licensed site levies a fee a charge is passed on per exxtinguisher.

It can be from £2 up to £8 an extinguisher dependant on the extinguisher firm, I charge £2 or £3 unless it's an aluminium bodied parallel thread CO2 which are free as I can get rid of those free for recycling into service exchange units by the people I use to get CO2 from.

You can't just bin them. Often they go on eBay (OK if serviceable, but I've seen some right junk sold as usable when its scrap).

I recently managed to get a site to reduce it's extinguishers by 75% by risk assessment (too much cover in common areas). Also the use of high rated extinguishers can have the number at a fire point, you can get a 34A rated Foam Spray now at only 10% more cost than a normal 13A rated foam - this is what Sainsburys did when moving over to EN3 kit in '97 - they replaced fire points of 2 x 13A rated Thomas Glover 6/5.5 litre Foam Spray extinguishers with a single 27A rated Gloria High Performance Foam saving them thousands across their property portfolio

[chris_p]

Thanks for this!

Regarding the excessive extinguishers we have experienced no problems with the Fire Authority but we have had problems with extinguisher companies and Insurers

They don't seem to understand the term "where necessary" nor the term "should consider".

We have considered and don't deem them necessary!

[nearlythere]

Thanks for this!

Regarding the excessive extinguishers we have experienced no problems with the Fire Authority but we have had problems with extinguisher companies and Insurers
They don't seem to understand the term "where necessary" nor the term "should consider".
We have considered and don't deem them necessary!

You should expect problems from the extinguisher company, naturally. The insurers can be a little more difficult but it should give weight to the comments in the Fire Risk Assessment and the risk of exposing very inexperienced persons to fire fighting, whether trained or not, when everyone else is leaving the building, especially when insurers will not provide cover for trainers for more realistic firefighting training.
It only proves that the insurers are more concerned about the building than the people who are in it.
Have you seen a risk assessment for using extinguishers?