FEATURE
FIRED UP STEWART KIDD
STEWART KIDD is a security and fire protection specialist with 40 years experience. Vice President of the Security Institute and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers, he is a Chartered Security
Professional. He was Director of the FPA, and Secretary General of British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association. Contact:
STEWARTKIDD@ME.COM or call: 01353 741094.
WATER MIST OPTION IS WELL WORTH CONSIDERING
GIVEN that portable fi re extinguishers have been around for more than 100 years, it’s surprising so little attention is paid to their selection, deployment, and training of staff on using extinguishers.
Circumstantial evidence (all we have since no current data is available) suggests many hundreds of fi res in workplaces are extinguished by staff each year without the intervention of the fi re and rescue service.
Despite this, it is not unusual to fi nd some companies, perhaps overly concerned for their liability, telling employees they should not use extinguishers. This attitude has led companies to actually remove fi re extinguishers.
‘Appropriate equipment’ The legal position is, however quite clear:
Article 13(1) of the Fire Safety Order (FSO) requires the provision of ‘appropriate fi refi ghting equipment’ where it is ‘necessary for the safety of relevant persons.'
Article 13(3)A requires the Responsible Person (RP) to ‘take measures for fi refi ghting in the premises,’ and 13(3)B requires the RP to appoint Competent Persons and ‘ensure the number of such persons, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate’. Scotland has diff erent regulations, but essentially the same provisions apply.
The main problem for most employers is to provide comprehensive training, covering all the types of portable fire extinguishers (portables).
Given the recycling industry does not always have the best reputation when it comes to fi re safety management, one might have expected a wider appreciation of the potential benefi ts of portables, especially on older sites lacking fi re hydrants and automatic fi re suppression systems.
However, this does not appear to be the 16 SHM May, 2018
case. All too often, portable extinguishers are viewed as a ‘grudge purchase,’ and their detection and deployment is left to suppliers, resulting with too many units (perhaps of the wrong type) being supplied.
This also generates a revenue cost in respect of servicing and maintenance, which is not always properly monitored.
To be fair to the manufacturers and suppliers, the situation is complex - as there is no ‘universal extinguisher’.
The main problem is the most eff ective agent for fi refi ghting remains water – although of course, this is problematic in some fi res involving liquids or fi res in electrical equipment.
It is this latter issue which has led to a convention that in many cases, two portables are provided: one water (for general fi res), and one carbon dioxide gas for use on live equipment.
The fear of electrocution presumably relates to the use of conventional nine-litre water extinguishers, which produce a ‘straight jet’.
If this was to come into contact with a live conductor, there is a possibility that electricity could be conducted back down the stream to the person holding the extinguisher, especially if they are standing on a wet fl oor.
I have long believed the concerns about ‘mixing water and electricity’ are overstated.
I can fi nd no records of any actual injuries relating to the use of extinguishers since 1945. The HSE records confi rm since 1996 (as far back as their records go), none of the fatal electrocutions recorded relate to fi res or fi refi ghting.
That said, there is now a possibility water mist extinguishers may be as close as we can get to a universal agent.
Portables using water mist have been
available in the UK for some 15 years, but have lacked any sort of prominent marketing promotion by manufacturers.
Apart from their widespread eff ectiveness, they have a major advantage through a high level of dielectric safety. All of the units on the market in the UK, claim compliance with a 35 kV test and most state the units are ‘safe up to 1000V.'
The smaller and more popular water mist six-litre units are less eff ective than the standard nine-litre water in such fi res.
Additionally, water mist is certainly appropriate for general fi refi ghting, but is also safe for use on fi res involving fl ammable liquids. In my view on sites with large canteens where oil cooking takes place, a Class F extinguisher (sometimes known as a ‘wet chemical’ unit) should be provided.
Range of sizes and contents
Another recent development is the availability of longer life portables, which claim an extended service life before any engineer maintenance is necessary.
The ‘P50 extinguishers’ are available in a range of sizes and contents including foam and powder, but not yet water mist.
The manufacturers suggest the units will off er a 20-year life with a single service after 10 years. This suggests there may be signifi cant cost savings for the whole life costs of the units.
All portable fi re extinguishers should be CE marked and labelled with confi rmation they comply with BSEN3 (2009), and should be third party certifi cated by an organisation such as the LPCB.
Maintenance of portables is critical and a legal requirement (Article 17 of the FSO), and should only be entrusted to companies which hold third party certifi cations from, for example, BAFE.
www.skiphiremagazine.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
