BS 7671 update - requirement for fire-resistant fastenings and fixings

[Suttonfire]

Hi All,

Now that the above is in place, in response to the recent incident in which fire fighters lost their lives in Stevenage, do you think that it is reasonable that a fire risk assessor should recommended that existing plastic/non fire rated fastenings/fixings and trunking should be replaced in accordance with the new guidance.

I appreciate that the standard is not retrospective; however, it has been demonstrated that  clear that fire rated fixings/trunking can introduce hazards on escape routes.

[kurnal]

Would you see the reason for including it in an FRA as being for the protection of relevant persons or for the protection of firefighters engaged in operational firefighting?

[Phoenix]

As kurnal has hinted, I can't see that this is relevant for that part of the FRA that falls under the FSO (i.e. most, if not all, of it).

[Suttonfire]

In response to Kurnal's point - both, the updated standard refers to requirements for wiring systems above escape routes, which indicates that it is applicable to persons escaping from the building (as well as attending to fight fires).

Going back to my original point - If it is now accepted (as identified in the updated standard) that non fire rated trunking/fixings etc present a hazard on escape routes, would it you not consider that a recommendation for replacement of the materials would be appropriate in an FRA?

[kurnal]

I doubt that the recommendation in BS 7671 is intended to be applied retrospectively. however if you see something as a potential problem it cant do any harm to raise those concerns as a recommendation in a FRA - but within an appropriate context. IMO we should remember that firefighters engaged in firefighting duties are not relevant persons and that in most cases such wiring issues are not likely to affect relevant persons during the evacuation phase. There are exceptions however, in particular fire alarm cables and cables supported solely by  plastic self adhesive mini trunking which is likely, without supplementary support to fall on a sunny day never mind a fire.

[nearlythere]

I doubt that the recommendation in BS 7671 is intended to be applied retrospectively. however if you see something as a potential problem it cant do any harm to raise those concerns as a recommendation in a FRA - but within an appropriate context. IMO we should remember that firefighters engaged in firefighting duties are not relevant persons and that in most cases such wiring issues are not likely to affect relevant persons during the evacuation phase. There are exceptions however, in particular fire alarm cables and cables supported solely by  plastic self adhesive mini trunking which is likely, without supplementary support to fall on a sunny day never mind a fire.

But is it not a maintenance of a measure for the protection of firefighters?

[kurnal]

I don't think so NT, I think that would only apply to firefighting access, fire men's switches , hydrants and rising mains, compartment walls perhaps, and a few similar  items specifically provided for firefighters under current and former building legislation. IMHO.

[lyledunn]

I understand the reason why it might not be necessary to include assessing the security of fixing of wiring in escape routes if the concern relates to firefighting operations. However, NICEIC and others commentating on this new regulation have alluded to premature collapse of wiring systems which could impede escape of building occupants. Likely the fire would need to be fairly advanced for this to happen but I guess that it is not impossible and each situation should be assessed individually. Certainly wiring in "escape routes" should be avoided where possible. Where it does exist, it should be limited in extent and have low smoke emission. When I was contracting one hundred thousand years ago we used escape corridors as cable tunnels and no one considered it unacceptable! I am sure that many of those installations still exist.
Another issue is the use of plastic consumer units. Whilst 7671 limits concern to domestic situations, if the risk has been deemed substantial enough to ban their use in such premises then it would seem somewhat remiss of a fire risk assessor not to at least consider them in other situations.

[Phoenix]

Can anyone give an instance or two where people evacuating have had problems because of failing cable supports? 

[lyledunn]

Good point Phoenix. I expect that the emphasis of the regulation is on protection of firefighters but those making a case for including it in 7671 have attempted to strengthen their argument by portraying a risk to occupants. This may be nothing other than a perceived risk, no one actually sifting evidence to present empirical justification. However, say if there was only one case  in the last 10 years of cables falling across an escape route to trap just one occupant, would a risk assessor ignore it?
By the way, the regulation applies to all escape routes, including domestic situations. What is currently being debated is the definition of "escape route" in terms of the intention of the regulation!

[William 29]

I think we have to ask could it be enforced under Article 38? I suspect not.

It could be mentioned within a FRA and rightly so if a risk to FF's can be seen, irrespective of if the RRO applies or not. In the FRAs we produce there is a clear separation of what is legally required under the RRO and what is not i.e. property protection issues.

As already stated you can't apply this retrospectively to buildings, it would cost a fortune on all but very small premises.

[Messy]

Is there even any point of me buying this British standard?

It seems to me that as has been argued, operational firefighters are not relevant persons so do not have to be considered, and Article 38 refers to maintaining equipment that has been installed to protect fire crews, and does not make it a requirement to fit any such equipment.

So if fire resisting fittings are installed (perhaps as a result of the revised BS) then Article 38 says the RP must maintain them. But it doesnt say it needs them so why (as a hard pressed RP) would you bother??

And I dont buy the idea that persons fleeing are likely to get caught up in fallen wiring.

[colin todd]

Davey, I am sure your LFB pension will run to purchase of a BS, given the importance of those carrying our FRAs having copies of relevant standards.

[lyledunn]

If the actual standard does stretch your pension, perhaps a compromise would be to purchase IET Guidance Note 4, Protection against Fire. This makes reference to the intention of the regulation which is to protect firefighters and OTHERS from entanglement in collapsed wiring systems in escape routes in fire conditions. You could also try directing an enquiry directly to the technical helpline at IET. It would be interesting to establish who the "others" might be and examples of the occurrence of  these "others" being entangled.

[Messy]

Thanks for the link Lyledunn

But I think I will just stick to assessing and recording significant findings. I honestly don't think entrapped relevant persons (by virtue of collapsed wiring) is an issue in 99.9% of occasions.