Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ian stevenson TechSP
We had a fire officer visit today to give advice on fire compliance, whilst on site he commented on the amount of extinguishers we had. I asked the about hose reels and he said we may as well remove them and cap them off to reduce any risk of legionella.
Was he referring to any dormant water in the pipes or the water source.
Regards
Ian Stevenson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tyler
Dormant water in the pipes.
In essence the hose reels are a long dead leg in the system which allows the water to stagnate.
The fact that the hose reels have thin walls means the tempertaure is likley to remain at optimum levels to promote bacteriological growth.
It becomes a risk if such conditions exist and the hose is used with the potential of some aerosol (and bacteria such as legionella) being inhaled.
To combat this risk the best thing to do is to remove these reels entirely. However if this is not possible, the hoses should be fully extended and flushed through on a regular basis to ensure the water remaining in the hose isn't there long enough to be a problem.
I hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JohnMacCarthy25
Hiya
Although I'm not an expert in this area, I would imagine he is referring to the risk due to stagnant water.
You should ask the question how often do they get drained off and is it recorded?
Also are there any drinking water lines from the same pipework, if so then perhaps you have further issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alias
Hi,
I don't mean to be argeumentative, this post has just simply set me thinking. We have a feel reels on site and this hazard is not something I'd thought of so I'm grateful to now learn of it. But I do wonder, whether to remove all reels or flush them out regularly is not a little too resource intensive given the risk...I mean how many people are thought to have contracted legionella from a fire hose reel?
If it's a fair few then I acknowledge the risk takes on significance and will begin to act here too :)
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Oliver
A couple of points.
I don't think a fire would mind getting legionella:-)
The hose reels should only be used by trained and competent people i.e Fire Fighters.
Contact your local Fire Brigade HQ and find out if they are aware of this issue and what control measures they have in place.
Doe your fire risk assessment allow the removal of the hoses?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Clifton
Ian
Previous employers I have worked for have removed hose reels. This was done for several reasons which you may wish to consider.
1. Fire Brigades are reluctant to use equipment that they cannot rely on,
2. If a fire is of sufficient size/intensity that it requires hose reels to control it, it is too big for staff to tackle without putting themselves at considerable personal risk,
3. It is therefore likely that your hose reels will never be used. The fact that they are there requires maintenance to be conducted. This is not done for free hence wasted money.
Contact your local Brigade and ask them if they would use your equipment and go from there.
Hope this helps in some way.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TBC
Good points amongst the answers here.
The fire brigade may use your hose reels if a dire situation occurs and they lose their own supply for some reason. They will not normally rely on the equipment of others.
I would suggest you flush the systems to rid them of any risk especially if any branches go to potable water outlets, but if you decide to get rid of them altogether then ensure that you go right back to a junction in order to remove any deadlegs, dont just cap off. Please remember that the first flush of the system will be the one with the highest risk to local personnel depending on the history of the equipment.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Just a quick not to Alias; the Legionelosis wouldn't have to be contracted from hose reels theselves; high concentrations of bacteria breeding in the hoses could, if not prevented, make their way back in to the general water supply system, thus allowing the traditional and convenient infection routes of shower heads and dripping taps to be used,
John
PS But it's true, I don't know that this specific set of circumstances has ever actually happened
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Palfrey I don't want to hijack the thread, but did anyone spot last week that hospital managers, etc. will not be prosecuted for cases of MRSA and hygiene problems? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4683691.stmHow about "ministers expressed concern that hospitals might not disclose relevant details in order to avoid prosecution" I particularly enjoyed the bit from Dr Gill Morgan about breaching codes of practice and how singling out managers won't help. Working on the theory of number of deaths from legionella vs. deaths from MRSA, can we expect a similar reasoning and dispensation over legionnella? just a thought Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
This would I guess be a thoeretical risk although there seems to be no evidence of it actually causing Legionella. I would point out that as far as I am aware, water extinguishers are merely filled with tapwater and left in warm conditions, and no doubt some legionella could grow in these too.
I rather think that the risk of legionella from hosepipes is being rather overplayed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Walker
If I remember rightly when water based extinguishers are serviced the top is removed if the water is dirty or cloudy it is not replaced but a chlorine tablet is dropped in. Can't be that good for it.
I would agree that this is all a bit overplayed and the risk would be very low.
kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Messy
I can't see a problem if trained staff (eg. fire wardens) supervise the flushing out of hose reels periodically.
The benefits are two-fold.
1) Health - re removal of nasty water borne bugs and
2) Training, staff gain experience of the location of h/rs, the operation of such FFE and their limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Hayward
Just to broaden the discussion a bit - don't forget the static water in sprinkler systems. This can also be subject to legionella contamination, and its something you should think about during maintenance work
Cheers
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Let us not forget that the main RISK from legionella is in circulating hot water and warm cooling water circuits.
Tap water contains chlorine (in some places bromine or ozone) to maintain waterborne bacteria levels at a harmless minimum. The residual disinfectant level is intended to kill off low level contamination in the pipes and taps and prevent any bacteria present from multiplying. So even that water extinguisher will have contained enough chlorine residual to keep it free of harmful bacteria for a good long while.
When we heat water, we drive off the chlorine, removing the protection. In cooling towers the water is tumbled through the air, improving the "effectiveness" of chlorine removal and ensuring contact with airborne bacteria and particulates.
So even if your cold water dead-leg does by some chance grow a bit of legionella which leaches back into the main line, the chlorine residual is there to deal with it. Not so with the hot water circuit!
Hope this puts the risk back in perspective.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Re- the potential for legionella in the fire hose etc
As the water comes from a reservoir which will have a potential for legionella being present and the fact that there are failures in the water purification systems from time to time, there is a potential for the conditions to be met for a high titre growth of the bacteria. This then becomes a problem in the water droplets when the water is released. Having the system flushed out then potentially puts those performing the task at risk. Do they have the correct training equipment etc to ensure it is not breathed in?
One option that hasn't been mentioned is making both the hose and the sprinkler system system into a dry riser set up. Thus removing the water from the system and therefore the risk of legionella growth. When the water is needed in the event of a fire, it is then supplied. Problem sorted.
I have also never heard of a tap water supply being directly linked to either a sprinkler system or fire hose reel system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian stevenson TechSP
Thank you to all who responded it was a fire officer who suggested removing them but the final option is with the PiC, we have now reviewed the site log to identify checks are in place.
Regards
Ian Stevenson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
Checklist 3 from the Legionella ACOP suggests only one control measure for hose reels, namely to avoid exposure to spray during testing, It is unlikley that enough sediment or scale (food to bacteria) would build up in a system that is of such high pressure when it is discharged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MichaelM
Nigel
That is assuming the hose is regularly discharged.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Good morning Ian.
The discussion regarding the potential for exposure to Legionnella has been interesting and, in fairness, addresses your initial question well.
I have a view that the real question that you should consider is similar to that raised by Adrian Clifton. What function are your hose-reels supposed to fulfill within your emergency response procedure?
If you have properly trained and supported fire teams whose function is to attack a fire using the hose-reels, then you must learn to deal with the potential for Legionella, H2S, high chlorine levels, and other substances possibly being present when the water is discharged from any point of the system.
If the hose-reels have originally been required by the Fire Service such as would be found in a shopping centre [unlikely in view of your observation], then you will also have very specific requirements for use, maintenance and testing.
If the hose-reels are there "because of any other reason" [most likely given the info provided], then you should be asking some extremely serious and detailed questions about expectations in regards to fire response and why hose-reels are seen as necessary. If it's to keep insurance premiums down or to otherwise fail to address the real requirements of fire safety legislation; then it must be considered extremely suspect at best.
Incidentally, the fire service will not normally even consider using any equipment that they have not been party to specifying, testing and routinely using; not even if their supplies fail as well developed and focussed paranoia and lack of trust in anything that they haven't tested themselves helps to keep UK firefighters alive! Incidentally, if the FS water supplies fail, the internal hose-reels will probably have gone long before!
Good luck with resolving the real problems.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Messy
Frank
I agree that FRS personnel have not normally relied on in house FFE, such as hose reels in the past. However a recent change in how fire brigades attend certain calls may now change that view.
Until recently, calls received to fire alarms operating were treated as 'fire' calls and most brigades would dispatch sufficient crews and appliances according to the risk involved.
This is no longer the norm. Most FBs now send one engine with as little a 4 Firefighters (3 in rural areas!) to fire alarm calls. As a result, on arrival tactics at some addresses may well involve the use of internal hosereels as a 1st aid measure until back up is requested and arrives. (there are severe limitations as to the size of fire/size of building 4 firefighters could be expected to safely cope with alone)
So for bigger buildings especially, I'd always invite comments from the local operational crews (not just fire safety officers) before removing HRs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
There is a serious misconception in one of the posts here. Drinking water contains minimal amounts of Chlorine, and I would be surprised if Bromine was present. STW quote a figure of 0.19 mg/l of Chlorine in rural Coventry (for example), well below effective biocidal levels. Cold water systems are inimical to Legionella purely because they are cold, and any micro-organisms present will reproduce only slowly, not because they are full of halogens. Water with biocidal levels of halogens would be severly tainted,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Just a quick response to the two previous posters:-
Messy - If the FS turn up under the circs that you describe, they will almost certainly do what they already do - not commit crews unless there is a specific known reason such as life risk until sufficient support is available. If crews are committed for a life risk, they will require at least 4 people and the BA crew will normally take their own hose-reel 'cos they know all about that one - including that it works and they have it in their hands. I stand by my earlier comments about the use of occupier provided FF equip until CACFOA or individual CO's say otherwise - any other assumption is potentially lethal to all potential users.
John - you are assuming that hose-reels will be fed from the potable water supply or that the hose-reels are designated as potable water; this is not always the case for a variety of reasons!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.