Multiple Laptop Chargers on School Corridors

[idlefire]

Has anybody come across multiple laptop chargers on school corridors?

I  would be interested on other peeps opinions as to whether they consider these metal cabinets, which charge 20-30 laptops simultaneously, pose a similar or greater risk on school corridors to say a photocopier.

[kurnal]

My initial prima facie opinion would be that there's  a lot of lithium batteries being sharged simultaneously and the system probably in  continous use so probability of an incident is  increased compared to a single appliance? On the other hand there may be sophisticated monitoring systems?

[Golden]

Its not ideal but with respect to risk assessment are there alternative directions of escape, are there any other combustibles (your photocopier example will inevitably have waste bins and spare paper) nearby and is it covered by AFD - also is the use appropriate as I recently found 3 of these connected to a four way extension in a corridor! Schools get really squeezed on space and will find anywhere to store large items such as this and the chargers tend to be well made with good cooling of the items built in as well as the monitoring sytsems - I know we've had some problems with chargers recently but is there any evidence of one of these catching fire?

[Tom Sutton]

Merlin version appears to simple provide a socket outlet for each unit and would rely on the pupils own charging unit, hope it's not an el cheapo version, especially with lithium batteries.

https://www.merlin-industrial.co.uk/furniture/educational-furniture/648-laptop-charging-unit-with-data-hub

[SeaBass]

When rechargeable tools first started to appear on building sites, and lower voltage display lights in shop windows, there were a number of incidents where the inductive load of the transformers and chargers caused overloads which resulted in burned out cables and a few fires. Once the problem became more commonly known about the circuitry was upgraded and control measures were implemented. I can't imagine purpose made recharging stations suffering from the same problems, but improvised ones, and multiple individual chargers plugged in to daisy chained multi-plugs might well do.

[Fishy]

If it were me, I would just assume that it might catch fire, become fully involved and assess the consequent fire risk based upon that assumption.

[Phoenix]

If it were me, I would just assume that it might catch fire, become fully involved and assess the consequent fire risk based upon that assumption.

Agreed.  Whether or not it poses a greater risk than a photocopier is meaningless.

It poses a risk, that will do.

[Davo]

Idlefire

Do you still have a station in Idle or have they merged/closed like many others ?
(same with nicks, PFI one for untold millions and close six others)

davo

[idlefire]

Do you still have a station in Idle or have they merged/closed like many others ?
(same with nicks, PFI one for untold millions and close six others)

The infamous Idle Fire Station (Bradford City FB's penitentiary) was still there on Highfield Road yesterday when I drove past. 

However, the plan is to close both Idle and Shipley Fire Stations and build a single replacement station in Valley Road, Shipley.

[idlefire]

If it were me, I would just assume that it might catch fire, become fully involved and assess the consequent fire risk based upon that assumption.

Whether or not it poses a greater risk than a photocopier is meaningless.

It poses a risk, that will do.

With the greatest respect Phoenix, the fact that it poses a risk might be enough for a risk averse, code hugging, hazard spotter. 

However, as Fishy pointed out in an earlier post, a fire risk assessor really needs to assess the subsequent risk to life and/or property that could be posed by the hazard in order to apply appropriate preventative and protective measures.

Given that I had never see one of these laptop chargers until last month, let alone dealt with one on fire in my 30+ years of operational fire service, I was merely trying to establish some kind of equivalence to something that I could relate to; I think it is a great shame that you feel it is a meaningless exercise for me to seek the advice of fellow professionals rather than trying to blag it.

[wee brian]

Touchy!

You asked for opinions, you got some. I expect in 30+ years of ops experience that there are thousands of things that you didnt see start a fire, that could cause one. (I've never seen a tumble dryer fire)

The point is that you've got something that might catch fire in a corridor, establishing what the probability of this happeneing is probably a waste of effort (and what would you do with the number?).

So pressume it catches fire and consider what happens next.

[kurnal]

My take on this is as follows - just my opinion.
Technically Phoenix and Wee Brian are correct because the Order uses a different definition for hazard, risk etc than the rest of H&S related legislation. The RR(FS)O definitions are based on BS4422. But then to confuse us all the sector specific guidance documents are written and based on the conventional H&S guidance where definitions of hazard and risk are based on the quantum of likelihood and consequence and the 5 steps to risk assessment.

This means that for technical compliance with the order a single hazard has to be addressed and suitable risk control measures implemented to deal with that hazard. A single short circuit is likely to cause a fire- if there is one electrical appliance in a protected route there is potential for a fire that could put persons at risk. It does not matter how likely the hazard is to be realised, 100 appliances are considered to be no more of a hazard than a single one. Of course likelihood of a failure is much greater but the consequences of any one failure are the same. So the likelihood / consequences judgement comes into play  when evaluating proportionate risk control measures rather than  evaluating the hazard.

Personally I would treat a whole load of lithium batteries on charge as a a fire risk that required much more urgent, and extensive  action than a photocopier taking into account the liklihood of a failure and the intensity and growth of any associated fire .  Hope this makes sense - always happy to discuss.

[Phoenix]

Agreed kurnal.

In short:

If a risk exists then something appropriate has to be done, irrespective of likelihood.
The more likely the realisation of the risk, the greater should be the priority of the remedial action.

[TFEM]

Can't believe it's almost 5 years since I posted this........

http://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=5393.msg58840#msg58840

No change since then. = no FRA?

John