[
Graham Ellicott, Chief Executive of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection ponders whether passive fire protection is boring, and if so, does it matter?
I happened to relate last month’s anecdote, regarding too many ‘techies’ in the industry, to a colleague at a recent meeting and he responded by commenting that the real problem with the passive fire protection industry is that it was boring!
Now, I have to say that I found that difficult to take. After all, I have only been involved with the industry for the best part of three decades and I am still fascinated by the market and there is still plenty, even for an older guy like me, to learn. I replied to his comment in a derogatory manner only to be met with the words: “How interesting is a piece of plasterboard!” I was then unable to get my next witty retort in, since the meeting we were attending moved on to discuss the merits of a 1908 ‘particle scattering theory’ for optical smoke detection and, in fighting the loss of will to live, I fell into a comatose state.
On emerging from this techie-induced coma, I decided to rationally consider the merits of passive fire protection, and whether it was boring or not.
The pros for the boring case are that most passive fire protection (PFP) products do not do anything ‘exciting’. For example, there are no flashing lights, water sprays, screeching klaxons etc. The cons for the boring case is that most of the products prevent deaths from fire, using more than one mechanism to enhance the fire resistance of the structure in which they are installed. Indeed, I often think that passive fire protection could be renamed ‘invisible fire protection’ or ‘fire protection’s best kept secret’ as when you enter a building the vast majority of the PFP measures are not on view. Because of this, it is often assumed that the value of using passive fire protection is less than that of active fire protection measures. This is not the case, however, as evidenced by market research carried out under the auspices of the Fire Industry Confederation.
So should we make PFP less boring? Well, not really. The key to the whole situation is that it does not matter how boring it is, or is perceived to be, as long as it is properly specified, installed and maintained. In order to achieve these aims, the ASFP strongly believes that properly tested and assessed products – such as those listed in the Association’s publications the Yellow Book (‘Fire protection for Structural Steel in Buildings’), and the Red Book (‘Fire Stopping and Penetration Seals for the Construction Industry’) – should be installed by companies that are members of a third party accreditation scheme.
Maintenance of passive fire protection is often overlooked in the UK’s buildings, as many building owners and facility management companies seem to believe that the product maintains itself. They do not inspect to see if any damage has been done to it by building refurbishments, the installation of new equipment, or by general wear and tear.
Oh that passive fire protection could heal itself in the same way that the human body heals a wound. Well it doesn’t! The ASFP publication ‘Ensuring Best Practice for Passive Fire Protection in Buildings’ contains a whole chapter concerning the maintenance of passive fire protection and this, like all of the Association’s documents, is available as a free download from www.asfp.org.uk.
But the issue of maintenance should be set to change when the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) becomes law, the latest estimate for which seems to be around March 2006. From the perspective of a building owner, the major transparent change under the new regime will be the removal of Fire Certificates. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has estimated that this alone will save business GB pound 1.65m per annum. In addition the ODPM believes that the new regime will promote greater compliance and more focus on fire prevention in high-risk properties.
Under the RRO a ‘responsible person’ will be required to ensure that an assessment of the risk of, and from, fire is undertaken for the place and activity. Identified hazards will be removed, or reduced so far as is reasonable, and special consideration will be given to the presence of dangerous chemicals or substances and the risks that they pose in case of fire. Special consideration will also be given to any group of persons who may be especially at risk in case of fire, whether due to their location or any other factor.
All precautions provided will be subject to maintenance and will be installed and maintained by a ‘competent person’. Under the RRO, a person is to be regarded as competent where he or she has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities, to enable him or her properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures. For commercial buildings, the main enforcing body will be the local fire and rescue authority.
So in layman’s terms, fire protection systems – be they active or passive – should be installed by a ‘competent person’. But how can you show that you have done your best to employ one? The answer is easy – use a third party accredited installer or contractor.
Now back to plasterboard. Boring though it might be it saves lives if it is specified, installed and maintained properly. But just imagine if it could heal itself. I wonder whether my colleague would find it as boring to watch this process, or would he still want to discuss the 1908 ‘particle scattering’ theory . . .
[
Graham Ellicott, Chief Executive of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection ponders whether passive fire protection is boring, and if so, does it matter?
I happened to relate last month’s anecdote, regarding too many ‘techies’ in the industry, to a colleague at a recent meeting and he responded by commenting that the real problem with the passive fire protection industry is that it was boring!
Now, I have to say that I found that difficult to take. After all, I have only been involved with the industry for the best part of three decades and I am still fascinated by the market and there is still plenty, even for an older guy like me, to learn. I replied to his comment in a derogatory manner only to be met with the words: "How interesting is a piece of plasterboard!" I was then unable to get my next witty retort in, since the meeting we were attending moved on to discuss the merits of a 1908 ‘particle scattering theory’ for optical smoke detection and, in fighting the loss of will to live, I fell into a comatose state.
On emerging from this techie-induced coma, I decided to rationally consider the merits of passive fire protection, and whether it was boring or not.
The pros for the boring case are that most passive fire protection (PFP) products do not do anything ‘exciting’. For example, there are no flashing lights, water sprays, screeching klaxons etc. The cons for the boring case is that most of the products prevent deaths from fire, using more than one mechanism to enhance the fire resistance of the structure in which they are installed. Indeed, I often think that passive fire protection could be renamed ‘invisible fire protection’ or ‘fire protection’s best kept secret’ as when you enter a building the vast majority of the PFP measures are not on view. Because of this, it is often assumed that the value of using passive fire protection is less than that of active fire protection measures. This is not the case, however, as evidenced by market research carried out under the auspices of the Fire Industry Confederation.
So should we make PFP less boring? Well, not really. The key to the whole situation is that it does not matter how boring it is, or is perceived to be, as long as it is properly specified, installed and maintained. In order to achieve these aims, the ASFP strongly believes that properly tested and assessed products – such as those listed in the Association’s publications the Yellow Book (‘Fire protection for Structural Steel in Buildings’), and the Red Book (‘Fire Stopping and Penetration Seals for the Construction Industry’) – should be installed by companies that are members of a third party accreditation scheme.
Maintenance of passive fire protection is often overlooked in the UK’s buildings, as many building owners and facility management companies seem to believe that the product maintains itself. They do not inspect to see if any damage has been done to it by building refurbishments, the installation of new equipment, or by general wear and tear.
Oh that passive fire protection could heal itself in the same way that the human body heals a wound. Well it doesn’t! The ASFP publication ‘Ensuring Best Practice for Passive Fire Protection in Buildings’ contains a whole chapter concerning the maintenance of passive fire protection and this, like all of the Association’s documents, is available as a free download from www.asfp.org.uk.
But the issue of maintenance should be set to change when the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) becomes law, the latest estimate for which seems to be around March 2006. From the perspective of a building owner, the major transparent change under the new regime will be the removal of Fire Certificates. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has estimated that this alone will save business £1.65m per annum. In addition the ODPM believes that the new regime will promote greater compliance and more focus on fire prevention in high-risk properties.
Under the RRO a ‘responsible person’ will be required to ensure that an assessment of the risk of, and from, fire is undertaken for the place and activity. Identified hazards will be removed, or reduced so far as is reasonable, and special consideration will be given to the presence of dangerous chemicals or substances and the risks that they pose in case of fire. Special consideration will also be given to any group of persons who may be especially at risk in case of fire, whether due to their location or any other factor.
All precautions provided will be subject to maintenance and will be installed and maintained by a ‘competent person’. Under the RRO, a person is to be regarded as competent where he or she has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities, to enable him or her properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures. For commercial buildings, the main enforcing body will be the local fire and rescue authority.
So in layman’s terms, fire protection systems – be they active or passive – should be installed by a ‘competent person’. But how can you show that you have done your best to employ one? The answer is easy – use a third party accredited installer or contractor.
Now back to plasterboard. Boring though it might be it saves lives if it is specified, installed and maintained properly. But just imagine if it could heal itself. I wonder whether my colleague would find it as boring to watch this process, or would he still want to discuss the 1908 ‘particle scattering’ theory . . .