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 Tel: 01353 741094.
SUPPRESSION IS THE BEST SOLUTION
THE use of automatic fi re suppression systems tends to have been regarded in the past, in the UK at least, as ‘something nice to have’ rather than a key part of a fi re protection programme.
This attitude in England follows on from the lack of any requirements for such systems in Approved Document ‘B’ of the Building Regulations.
A survey of businesses undertaken by YouGov in 2016, showed that 70% of managers believe their premises are safe if they comply with fi re regulations. These businesses fail to understand that fi re regulations are only intended to protect people – not property and plant.
For too long, it has been assumed that systems such as automatic fi re sprinklers were only required in very large warehouses, or huge shopping centres. However, recent tragic fi res have proved the fallacy of this belief.
The fi re in the Liverpool Arena car park may not have killed anyone, but the impact on commercial operations for the arena and businesses in the area – including hotels – will be enormous, and the litigation - as well as insurance liability issues - will take months to resolve.
The impact of major fi res on people, companies and communities serves to demonstrate how vulnerable organisations actually are.
Operators of recycling plants have known for some years how vulnerable their businesses are to fi res; both accidental and deliberate. Many have taken signifi cant and costly steps to provide fi re protection for their buildings and plant but the UK still experiences more than one fi re a day in the sector.
32 SHM February, 2018
The Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum (WISH), has with the support of the Environment Agency, HSE, fi re service and central government, produced sensible advice in the form of a guidance note: ‘Reducing Fire Risk at Waste Sites,’ the latest version being the April 2017 revision.
While an invaluable document, its size (166 pages) and complexity does not make it user friendly - it can be diffi cult to navigate, and to isolate the key information needed to make a site fi re resilient.
Need to change focus
The emphasis in the WISH guide refl ects conventional wisdom in trying to ‘manage out’ fi res – a perfectly sensible approach in most of industry and commerce, but less practical in the underfunded, unloved and (in some areas) unwanted recycling industry.
There is a need to change focus and accept it may be inevitable fi res will occur on waste sites. These should therefore be protected to ensure any fi res which do occur are quickly and safely suppressed or even extinguished, if possible before the arrival of the fi re service.
The idea waste sites might have to invest substantial sums in fi xed fi re protection may be daunting and even unwelcome, but this article and future articles are intended to help managers who have to make diffi cult decisions, and balance the various demands and needs for safety of staff .
These include the demands of regulators; the interests of the insurers, and the needs of the fi re and rescue service.
One of the most signifi cant problems on waste sites can be the complete absence
of a source of fi refi ghting water. The costs of installing a fi re main, and the associated tanks and pumps, can be prohibitive on any but the largest sites.
Even extending a public fi re main and providing additional hydrants can be a signifi cant expense. This means that decisions on fi re protection should focus on managing risk cost eff ectively, and always looking at alternative methods of achieving the objective.
For example, on many small sites dealing with commercial waste, the most expensive asset will not be their lightweight open buildings, but rather the processing equipment.
Fires in such premises are much more likely to start in these machines due to overheating (when plastic waste is trapped), or when improper handling of dangerous waste such as lithium batteries takes place.
It would make much more sense to install an automatic, fi xed fi re suppression system (AFSS) in the grinder/shredder, than to spend a larger amount of money fi tting a sprinkler system in a building which is easily and cheaply replaced.
Systems installed simply
New technology using ‘bursting tube’ systems (now increasingly provided as OEM in some mobile plant), can provide a low-cost solution to many types of fi res. The self-contained systems can be installed simply by any skilled mechanics or fi tters, and require little maintenance beyond annual checks.
The more advanced systems no longer even require a power supply or separate electronic sensors – operating purely on the heat generated by a fi re.
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
