Building hardware and unsubstantiated fire claims

THERE IS presently very real concern in the building hardware industry about unsubstantiated fire certification claims being made about products such as door closers and hinges – products which are often used in fire-resisting doors – and the lack of robust policing of certificated products, particularly those used on fire-resisting doorsets.

Building hardware intended for use on fire-resisting doors is normally CE marked as harmonised European standards are applicable. However, CE is a product mark of which we should be cautious, since it does not address the compatibility issue, that is, on which doors the item can be used and which fire-resistance period is suitable. This, of course, can have serious consequences. CE is very much an MOT-type certificate that is compliant with the minimum regulatory requirements. It is not a mark of quality.

Product manufacturers should be actively encouraged to use independent third-party certification schemes. Audit testing forms part of these schemes but, in its truest sense, such testing forms no part of CE marking for building hardware. There are some internal quality control tests required by CE marking standards, but these are conducted by the manufacturer; the certification body has a very small role in this process.

Third-party certification is a system which has been very successful over recent years. Samples can be selected independently and audit testing conducted at an independent test laboratory, without the involvement of the manufacturer.

In the case of Warrington Certification, all holders of current certification for building hardware are now subject to unannounced visits to their distribution facilities to ensure that stock held is not in contravention of the marking requirements. Warrington Certification will increase the level of policing of the certificate holder’s websites, literature, fitting instructions, catalogues, etc, to make sure they are only claiming what has been covered by the certification. The process will remove (recall) certificates if the holder is found to be in contravention of the requirements.

The system for approval of hardware items, particularly door closers, is also being upgraded to use a simple matrix system which clearly shows the compatibility of the various types of doors and fire-resistance periods.

I would contest that the changes currently being implemented by the building hardware industry are completely in keeping with providing a more robust system for the specification and approval of building hardware. I would also urge any stakeholders within the industry to ensure that, whatever product they are using, the supporting evidence is not merely taken at face value. The evidence should be subject to detailed scrutiny.

Graham Orme
Divisional certification manager, Warrington Certification

Sprinkler pipe dream is better than no dream

I AM writing in response to Gary Daniels’ letter in the June 2008 edition about Nick Ross’s and Ronnie King’s article, Personal and political, from the February 2008 edition. I must also advise that I know Gary Daniels quite well from my days in Manchester prior to retirement.

I have now been retired from the fire sprinkler industry for some three and a half years, but I am still passionate about fire sprinklers. After some 40 years in the industry, with 22 years as chairman of the Sprinkler Engineers Society, I can only assume that Gary Daniels did not research back far enough with regard to fire sprinklers and the position we find ourselves in today.

The articles in the February edition regarding fire sprinklers were all researched well and most contained detail and fact that had been accumulated probably from similar sources to his. The articles were most informative and interesting.

All the information regarding the statistics of fire deaths, fire detection and social factors were researched many years ago, well before
Mr Ross’s and Mr King’s article, and they put forward their view because they believe passionately that sprinklers are the real answer to stop fire deaths. Their beliefs are probably based on the many years factual experience of Nick Ross’s reporting and Ronnie King’s firefighting.

We all know there are cost implications, and I agree that some may be insurmountable, but we should never stop striving to provide the best available fire protection possible, that is, fire sprinklers.

It may interest Gary Daniels to know that promotion of residential sprinklers started well over 20 years ago. My first exposure to an actual sprinkler test was in a fire station in Morriston, South Wales. This test was a promotion between the fire brigade and my old company, Atlas Fire Engineering, and was originally received very well. However, local authorities did not take up the idea, although the reason it evolved was due to many deaths in the South Wales area. At the same time, Atlas assisted another fire chief, John Craig, by installing residential sprinklers in one of the show houses at the Ideal Home exhibition. The thousands of people who passed through were more interested in the decoration than the sprinklers.

I saw the Local Government Association (LGA) as the real interested party in promotion of residential sprinklers after their representatives saw fire brigade films of many fire deaths year after year at fire conferences. There was a groundswell of opinion in favour by the majority of attendees.

Again assisting the LGA, Atlas installed residential sprinklers in show houses in Norwich and, although I lost touch with the case, I would suggest that these show houses were the only houses on that particular residential development to be protected with sprinklers. Lack of knowledge about the connection size or ability to change resulted in a restriction through a small water meter as the water authority ‘always do it that way’. Time for change, I hope.

You will note from Gary Daniel’s letter that he accepts that, even with fire detection, in over 100 cases where fatalities occurred, the system failed. I have never known failure in a fire sprinklered building.

The new apartment I now live in has hard-wired fire detection with automatic smoke venting to stairways, but even this modern, up-to-date system – which I am pleased is there – has been bedevilled with false alarms. This concerns me as I am fire warden for the building. How I wish we had a fire sprinkler system.

I do not want to start a debate on the pro and cons of fire detection, only to suffice to say there is legislation for fire detection but little for fire sprinklers.

It has taken nearly 150 years since the first sprinkler was invented for the simple technology to be accepted widely, and we must continue to overcome the negative views, mainly on cost, and continue to promote their use, because I know they work.

Vince Procter GIFireE
Former chairman of the Sprinkler Engineers Society