Author Topic: BS 5306-8:2012 published  (Read 17397 times)

Offline TFEM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2013, 12:32:04 PM »
Hang on a minute guys.......we're not allowed to think for ourselves any more!
The RRFSO states the RP must ensure equipment is maintained to a recognised standard which will always be the BS. If we decide that we are not going to work to the standard (and not take out powder extinguishers or not put a minimum of 2 X 13A on a church balcony) when the proverbial hits the fan it's OUR backsides that are going to get kicked for not following the standard.
We don't make the standards and whether we think them right or wrong, you need to CYA.
John

Offline lancsfirepro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2013, 12:36:35 PM »
You wouldn't have a hard time defending your actions against some of the stuff in part 8.  I'll take that Pepsi challenge any time. ;)

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2013, 08:06:28 PM »
Being paid and insured to be a risk assessor not a code hugger I'd also take on that challenge!

If BS5839-1 allows agreed variations, so should 5306-8!

If quoting the RRO I would point out that provision is risk based not standard based:

13.—(1) Where necessary [implying it isn't always] (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—

(a)the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and
(b)any non-automatic fire-fighting equipment so provided is easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) what is appropriate is to be determined having regard to the dimensions and use of the premises, the equipment contained on the premises, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of persons who may be present at any one time.  [i.e. a risk assessment, which wouldn't say a small upper floor off a single stair must have 2 A-rated extinguishers in every case- let's say it's a store room with 0-1 persons, are they going to use 2 extinguishers one after the other? Should they?]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 08:14:17 PM by AnthonyB »
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2013, 07:44:43 AM »
This is standard so typical of the fire extinguisher trade putting their own vested interests first and sadly  BSI committes that are so heavily infliuenced by the trade.
As the BS states that it represents the minimum provision it conflicts with the actual Fire Legislaton in this regard. The BS has the audacity to suggest that risk assessment can only be used to increase provision.
We know the truth but it does not help the RP one little bit to see the wood for the trees.

Oh by the way the latest one is that there should be a CO2 in the toilets due to the provision of a hand dryer! Towering allotments!
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 07:54:06 AM by kurnal »

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2013, 09:07:31 AM »
I have better K. I have a new client, a dental practice, for whom I carried out a FRA and staff training. It had been using a 3rd party outfit for a number of years for its extinguisher provision and servicing.
My Assessment recommended that it reviews it cover of extinguishers as I thought it was lacking one or two.
I saw the fruits of my advice last month when I was doing their training and noted that they had bought 4 x 9 Kg DP Exts and placed them in corridors outside treatment rooms. On asking why I was told that the extinguisher company had advised they be installed because of the gas risk.

The gas risk? The practice has 6 treatment rooms each with a Bunsen Burner, used infrequently for softening impression wax, with the supply piped to each room from one cylinder in a rear yard. Gas risk requiring 4 DPs? I thought the on/off valve at each burner was adequate enough.

Anyway, this new client of mine now doesn't have 4 DPs to service annually.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline Psuedonym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: BS 5306-8:2012 published
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2013, 08:40:10 PM »
Blankets: I was asked to carry out a fire call to provide a bank kitchen with a blanket and CO2 last week. As above, it was the usual: microwave and toaster. Yet their RA demanded a FB. I fitted a 2Kg Co2 and gave explanation for why a blanket was a waste of time/money and noted their lack of training or understanding in the use of one should one ever be needed (not on this site obviously).

Guess what? Their RA came back demanding to know where the blanket was. Desk jockeys trying to tick the right boxes again.
Ansul R102 Kitchen Suppression Enthusiast


Created using refurbished electrons to ensure I do my bit to save the planet...Polar bear cubs saved so far:2.75. Reduced due to effects of Carbon Footprint on the carpet. It's a bugger to shift...