Fire safety reform 2006
December 1st 2005

Richard Price, technical manager of Eurobond, explains why new fire safety reform will have serious implications for warehouse safety

Sometimes there comes along legislation so severe and so important that to ignore it is to do so at your peril; indeed your life and the lives of others may hang on your personal action and your personal decisions.

One example is the biggest single reform of fire safety legislation in over 30 years which has been agreed by Parliament. It consolidates fire safety laws scattered across more than 70 pieces of legislation. Dramatically, this means that the responsibility for fire safety is neatly handed back to the employer or 'responsible person;' for the building, warehouse or premises. He or she will be required to assess the risk of fire and take steps to reduce or remove them. Designers, contractors, owners and occupiers now, more than ever before, face imprisonment for professional indemnity infringement and corporate responsibility for manslaughter.

Securing against fire

In April 2006, fire safety will therefore become a major issue again. The onus will be on the specifier and the end user to minimise fire risk for the building in general and to maximise the safety of its occupants. That risk is dramatically minimised when products 'fit for purpose' are specified. In reality, it is better and more effective to design-in non-combustible products rather than relying on building management and human endeavour to lower the fire risk.

Nowhere is this more critical, and the subject of much debate, than in the specification of internal firewalls. For example, many warehouses and factories are built with walls that have blown foam cores (such as PIR, PUR and EPS) and are believed to be non-combustible. As many fires have proved, these are combustible, are not smokeproof and therefore hazardous. In addition, stitching of panel joints, fixing cover strips and the use of intumescent seals are required for such foam panels in order to provide an acceptable level of fire resistance. Obviously, this will make the system more expensive to purchase and install.

Conversely, composite wall panels with mineral fibre cores are non-combustible, smokesafe and offer excellent 'passive' fire protection because of their high levels of inherent fire resistance.

The Association of Insurers issue briefing notes which deal with risk management and one in particular emphasises the benefits of fire resisting compartment walls. As we all know, compartmentation reduces the spread of fire. It restricts the passage of smoke, saves lives and reduces damage to stored goods and production areas.

The main applications in the LPC Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings are from 90 to 240 minutes fire resistance (both integrity and insulation). This tends to restrict the choice to sandwich panel systems with high density rock fibre mineral wool cores. No current blown foam-based panels (such as PIR) are believed to be able to deliver this level of fire resistance.

Arson

The danger of arson is also highlighted. According to ABI, over a 5 year period, nearly 80% of claims attributed directly to external cladding were due to arson - with the majority of fire attacks started from the outside. There is a potential weakness in products tests to Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) LPS1181 which, in its basic form, only tests reaction to fire. A mineral wool cored panel, for example, tested to BS 476 Part 22 can provide superior fire resistance for fire attacks from both inside and outside the building.

Clearly both fire safety reform coupled with the increasing rise in anti-social behaviour will force the specifier to give better consideration to the extension of external walls in order to ensure that they are fire-resistant.

There have been many high profile fires recently that give an opportunity to study and compare performance of different materials. The massive Primark warehouse fire is a good example.

Clearly, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Studies of live projects like this, together with insurer, Fire Brigade or end user analysis of what happened, is all that is necessary to confirm that the right non-combustible choice is always made and that fire risk is minimised or eliminated.