Suppression options


all approach, but that cannot be properly justified. With all requirements, it is essential there is


clarity from the start on the business objective, its potential environmental and/or commercial impacts. Different sites, different environmental considerations, different waste streams and different overall requirements all impact on the decision as to which is the best product for that business. Even more important is to identify who is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for acceptance of any solution. This is something that is often simply not on an operator’s radar. Ensuring you know who is the relevant AHJ for protecting a site is crucial. It might be a regulator such as the EA or it might also be the insurer. Either way, no system is worth paying for unless it is acceptable for that businesses’ circumstances and is signed off by the AHJ.


Increased efforts


In recent years, to try to bring the figures down, bodies such as the EA, Waste Industry Safety and Health (WISH), the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) and others have increased their efforts to provide impartial advice to operators on both preventative and active fire protection approaches. The EA’s Fire Prevention Plan Guidance requirements have been a key factor in the growth we have seen


in those seeking fire protection options over recent years. This guidance advises operators who store combustible materials on the separation distances required, the stack sizes they must work to, how to deal with environmental issues such as runoff, and whether they will need a quarantine area etc. It aims to ensure that operators have the best plans in place to prevent fires from occurring and, in the event of a fire, to ensure that it is handled in the best way with – where possible – a maximum burn time of four hours. While a tightening up of the rules in the guidance over the past three years has resulted in an increase in the number of companies looking for fire protection solutions, many others are also seeking to mitigate the risk to their high value assets. In addition, more and more are taking a proactive approach to personnel safety in an industry where, for some, insurance is not an option. Obviously, there are key differences between local application systems for the protection of processes or assets, solutions for the mitigation of risks to stored piles, and sprinkler solutions for building protection. Factors such as containment and treatment of fire water runoff or firefighting agents all need discussion. Likewise, differences between the priorities


of an operator based on historical experience of fire events and their commercial priorities,


FOCUS


www.frmjournal.com NOVEMBER 2018


41


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