Fire Safety

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

On the matter of legionnaire research shows that we have this in our water supply that we drink it now; in the gut it is not a problem, it is only when inhaled into the lungs its impact is serious. The reasarch that I have been undertaking with low pressure water mist indicates that it has to be down to 25-35 microns droplet for it to be inhaled in the air.

Legionnaire is not an issue in sprinklers, or hosereels. It does though have to be assesssed when specifying water mist systems.

Peter Reading

Iain, I wasn't making the case for the provision of hose reels - I was stating the fact that I found them useful when attending fire incidents particularly in deep plan high rise buildings where it was not easy to get your own equipment to the fire quickly. I have also attended many fires where suitably trained staff have done an excellent job with the building fire hose reels. One that comes to mind was during the Fire Service Strike where hospital and RAF staff extinguished quite a major fire - obviously the experts were not there on this occasion.
I would also say the same for portable fire extinguishers as I have also used these on many occasions. The point that I was making was that if they are already in place it would be a pity to remove them on cost grounds, if they all wanted replacing then they may be a good reason to consider removal. I also stated that it was my own personal view and that times have changed.

Dean, As far as I am aware no one has caught legionnaires' disease from fire hose reels and if my memory serves me right Glasgow Royal Infirmary removed their hose reels because of the possible risk of the disease in the supply pipework that was in a very warm hospital basement - I think it started with some junior doctors spraying the hose reels on each other and someone jumping to this possible conclusion.
Alan

Hello all,

just a couple of points to consider in all of this discussion:

Article 13 of the RRO appears quite specific in the measures to be taken by the Responsible Person with regard to provision of necessary fire fighting equipment and the nomination and training of persons to use that equipment.

Article17 of the RRO requires the retention and maintenance of any fire fighting equipment provided in the workplace under any previous fire safety enactment which was repealed or revoked by the RRO.

Regards

Mike Kane
fireuk@msn.com

Iain,

The buildings we maintain do have portable fire extinguishers located throughout them. As far as i'm aware none of the client's staff have had the training in the use of the hose reels on site which is one of the reasons they are thinking of removing them, also they are considering the risks associated with legionela in hose reels.
Since posting this question though, my client has instructed us to service them for this year even though they will probably be decommissioned in the next couple of months.

Thanks for the advice given though, it was very helpful in a discussion i had with my client yesterday.

Alan as a former firefighter I'm surprised that you try and make the case for the provision of hosereels on the basis that as a firefighter you used them. The equipment in the premises is for employee use and hosereels are frequently being replaced by Typer A extinguishers of the appropraite size for the area under consideration. If a fire cannot be extinguished by one or two portable extingyushers then generally the fire is too large and it should be left to the experts.
Dean I would certainly never advocate a no extinguisher policy. As you say the extinguishers can aid escape and elsewhere it has been argued that because persons in the building have not een trained in there use, remove the extinguishers. It should be train those in the building.

Thanks Alan - nice concise response.

Dean,
Hose reels can, in the right circumstances, be an essential part of the fire safety defence package for the preemies. The Office and Deputy Prime Minister always intended, as did the courts that fire fighting equipment is 'part of the means for maintaining the means of escape'. When the new Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order was being enacted along with its guidance this matter was debated at some length. The ODM now the Department for Communities and Local Government stated that fire extinguishers and hose reels were a part of the package to reduce the risk from to persons who were escaping from fire in other parts of the building.

With this concept, there must go the correct analysis, that the hose reels were the correct form of extinguishing media in the first place; they are not always suitable where there are many changes in direction or levels. Secondly, that staff are correctly trained to recognise the risks and how to use the equipment safely.

I can foresee a legal case developing where a small fire starts, in the presence of employees where, with the use of local first-aid fire fighting equipment, it is extinguished in its incipient stages. However, because of a ‘no fire extinguisher or hose reel policy’ the fire develops and spreads and some people elsewhere in the building become endangered or a casualty. Without knowing the precise circumstances and use of your building, I have broadly taken the view for many years that there are only limited and rare occasions where I would advocate a policy of no fire fighting equipment and people should all leave immediately. If you remove the hose reels and if called upon, are you prepared, with the protection, of a robust analysis to justify to the courts a ‘no fire fighting policy’ The removal on cost grounds will not be a defence, when for decades they have been accepted as a reasonable measure in the fire safety package for a building.

Peter Reading

Thanks Alan..!

Hi Dean,
Many companies are taking this option and a number of Fire Authorities are also concurring with this decision on the basis that it can put lives in danger. I personally feel that it's a bad decision to take purely on cost grounds as I can remember that during my fire service career I used them on more than one occasion very successfully. However, times and thinkings have changed and what you now have to look to is your Fire Risk Assessment and if this recommends the removal of the Fire Hose Reels, if it does, then I would take them out of use and remove them but not until this is confirmed. If they were installed on the advice of the Fire Authority or Insurer you may wish to check with them that they are happy about it. If they are in place and no one has made the decision they should be subject to routine maintenance.
I hope this helps.

Alan

Hi,
Im after some advice on fire hose reels, The company i work have been discussing the removal or decommissioning of them throughout their estate for the past month or so. Althought they have not given the instruction to remove them yet i'm almost sure this will be the case.
The problem i have is that they are due for annual servicing, should i go ahead and request the sub-contractor to service them or can i use the reasonably practicable route not to service them. I have suggested to my client that until they make a firm decision we should remove all hose reel signage and secure the cupboards they are housed in, others not located in cupboards should have signage indicating not in use, would this suggestion still make us compliant ?

Thanks
Dean Groombridge

Wesley, This type of arrangement is not technicaly a "multi occupied building" but a number of buildings in "single occupation" and as such what you are doing is ok and they can each have their own method of raising the alarm of fire. The tenants can do very much their own thing but I would suggest that you get the occupiers to keep you updated of any alterations that could change the risk eg start to store fireworks, flammables, compressed gases etc. You will obviously also need to be aware of access arrangements in an emergency, arrangements for calling the Fire Service, assembly areas, waste storage arrangements and arson/security protection etc.
Hope that helps.
Alan

Alan, Yes they are, in general with less than 4 people in each unit.

Wesley,
Are these single storey units with fire seperation between each unit? Alan

We are a Managing Agent for a number of commercial properties, we are getting comflicting advice from our "profesionals" - in a multi occupancy building with common areas (particularly hallways / fire exits) we are responsible for the fire alarm maintenance and weekly testing (which we do) but we have a property that has no common areas (except the outside landscaping), each tenant block is self contained with it's own fire exit though they do have party walls - question - are we required to install a common fire alarm system with tests or can we leave the tenants to do their own thing as at present, merely requiring that they state in writing that they comply to regs within their own domain ?

Thank you Alan . Most helpful.

Hi Anne, The organisation that placed the residents in the property should have risk assessed the needs of the residents and adapted the building accordingly and produced a Care Plan. The building may have also been adapted to meet individual needs eg level access, visible/audible fire alarms, wide doors etc and obviously your staff would need to be aware of these aspects which you should incorporate into your Fire Risk Assessment.
The question of evacuation of the residents is also one that the organisation that placed the residents there will need to have considered because presumably your staff will not be there 24/7 and so the plan will need to work at all times and obviously your staff may not be there. However, your staff will need to be aware of the details of the fire and evacuation procedure because they may be part of it and could provide valuable assistance. When it comes to assisting the residents this will very much depend on the training and skills of the individual concerned and the urgency of the situation. Let's take a hypothetical situation - you have a member of staff visiting a person that is not very well and is in bed and a fire occurs in the kitchen - what would you expect your member of staff to do - fight the fire, leave the person in bed and go and call the Fire Service or rescue the person? I obviously cannot answer this without knowing all the details but it's something that you will need to consider because it's unfair to expect your member of staff to do the right thing when it happens without having received instruction and guidance.
If you break the scenario down into individual components you may appreciate some of the problems eg Fight the fire - has your member of staff been trained, is there an extinguisher, do they know how to use it? Call the Fire Service - has this been done automatically, do your staff have mobile phones, do they know how to call the Fire Service? Rescue the Person - do they know how to lift safely, would they need assistance, are there any Evacuation Aids?
I think that by now you may be starting to understand the complexity of the situation and what you need to consider. Lets move to your last comment about advising staff to get out and stay out and leave rescue to the Fire Service. From a legal point of view that would be the safest action as you are protecting the best interests of your yourself and your staff - there is no law that indicates you have to fight fires or rescue people and that is clearly the role of the Fire Service but I think realisticlly that what is required is a reasonable approach and this amounts to being reasonable in the circumstances eg If your staff are already trained to fight fires then there is nothing wrong in them trying if its safe to do so, If your staff are trained in evacuation and lifting techniques - assist if safe to do so.
Remember you are not expecting staff to put their own safety at risk but just to be reasonable in the circumstances - I know that can be difficult when a situation arises but that's why the need for communication, training and guidance are so important.
Let me know if you want any additional help.
Regards Alan

Thanks Alan it does help but what if the "residents/tenents" are disabled i.e. elderly requiring physical assistance, a wheelchair user,and severely learning/intelletually disabled also?
The staff could easily use a window if necessary but they couldnt.
Id like to now what the legal requirements of the employees ( and therefore the employer) would be in this scenario.
Should the employer be advising that the staff get out and stay out?
Leave the rescue to the fire service ?
Im uncomfortable with that but would like to know the legal position if possible.
Thanks

Anne, If this is your employees place of work you will need to undertake a Risk Assessment to establish that it is safe for your staff to work there. From what you say they are Ground Floor Flats with a front and rear exit so there should not be a problem with escape - remember there will also probably be windows which could be used and if its safe for the residents it's probaly safe for your staff.
What you will need to impress on your staff is the requirement to report any problems with safety eg faulty fire equipment, fire doors, gas/electrical appliances, obstructed fire exits etc. You would need to set up a Reporting Procedure to the Housing Association/Organisation so that you have a written record of what was reported and when.
Hope that helps. Alan

This is a very interesting thread.
Can anyone advise on the legal implications of employees working in the homes of clients .In particular a service consisting of 3 individual flats and one office all located on the same floor(ground).
Because these are the homes of vulnerable adults (and with respect to their privacy and choice )there are no "fire escapes" as such,the assumption being that the staff and their clients would exit the building using the nearest door ,either front or back. If safe to do so, exiting via the front door would lead them onto a small corridor and outside to safety. However ,exiting via the back door would lead directly outside but would involve having to navigate a path around the back gardens of the building to get to the front and therefore away from the building.
Would this be a matter of concern ?
And if so would the housing association who rents the property to an organisation be responsible for making changes or would the organisation be responsible?

Karen, Always a little difficult to comment without knowing all the facts but from what you say your employer is not complying with his/her fire safety responsibilities.
One of the first duties that any responsible and caring employer should do for new staff is to explain the fire procedure and what you are expected to do in a fire situation. I would have expected that within 17 months you should have taken part in a fire drill - have they carried one out and you were on holiday or have they just not carried one out? Have you heard the fire alarm and is it tested?
Obviously, from what you say you work in a single means of escape building and this type of layout can cause problems in a fire situation as you have obviously realised - it is important in this type of situation that fire doors are kept closed, rubbish is not stored in the staircase and the exit doors are easy to open and not obstructed. It is also important that staff know what to do.
Your employer should have carried out a Fire Risk Assessment which should have covered all of these aspects - if you feel that they haven't and you are uncomfortable with asking the question you can always go to the Fire Authority and discuss your concerns with them but ask to keep the matter confidential. If they feel your employer is not acting within the law they should make an insection and check the facts for themselves.
Hope this helps. Alan

I have been with current employer for 17 months and have never had a fire drill/practice. Neither have been advised on the escape routes or what to do in the event of a fire. I work in a 3 storey building working in the attic, the only means of escape is a door on the ground floor for which would have to go down 4 flights of stairs to reach, is my employer breaking any fire regulations?

Section 9.4.1 of BS 5839 Part 1 2002 provides information on audibility levels. "A minimum sound level of either 65 dB(A), or 5 dB(A) above any other noise likely to persist for a period longer than 30 s, whichever is the greater, should be produced by the sounders in all accessible parts of the building except as may be recommended in 8.3. If the fire routine for the premises requires the audible alarm to arouse sleeping persons then the minimum sound level should be 75 dB(A) at the bedhead with all doors shut. This will not guarantee that every person will be awakened but can reasonably be expected to wake a sleeping person in most circumstances. Due to the short period for which the fire alarm sound should be experienced, damage to hearing is unlikely to be caused by sound levels below 120 dB(A). Where levels higher than this might be required, special provisions (such as visual signals) may be necessary."
Section 9.3 also states "A larger number of quieter sounders rather than a few very loud sounders may be preferable in order to prevent excessive sound levels in some areas."

Thanks Alan

Our SHE rep is setting up a noise test when everyones out of the building next

Ian H

To my knowledge there is no upper limit but obviously if it was too loud you would fall foul of other health and safety legislation. The problem with fire alarm sounders is that if you don't have them in every room, and therefore some have to be very loud in order to hear them in the rooms which don't have them. This is very noticable when you leave a room without a sounder and go into one where one is operating - obviously in an ideal world you would have one in every room which was set at the required level but of course this would be very expensive.
The levels should have been measured by the installer but if you feel that they are not correct you should have them checked.