Building precision into industrial response: Fire Shield Systems details design for high-risk sites
Iain Hoey
Share this content
Fire Shield Systems Technical Director Russell Bonnett and Sales & Marketing Director James Mountain discuss how targeted design supports early detection, effective suppression and alignment with Environment Agency standard
Waste and recycling facilities pose some of the toughest fire protection challenges in industry.
Large volumes of combustible material, shifting fuel loads and constant mechanical movement create unpredictable ignition risks that few conventional systems can handle effectively.
As regulatory and insurance expectations tighten, operators are looking for tailored, data-driven approaches that deliver faster detection, targeted suppression and traceable performance evidence.
Fire Shield Systems Ltd, based in the East Midlands and operating across the UK and Ireland, designs and installs automatic detection and suppression systems built for these demanding environments.
Using multi-detection cameras, automatic foam cannons and Class A wetting agents, the company provides engineered protection aligned with NFPA 850 and UK compliance standards.
To explore how Fire Shield is advancing performance-based fire protection for high-risk industries, IFSJ Editor Iain Hoey sat down with Technical Director Russell Bonnett and Sales & Marketing Director James Mountain to discuss their approach.
What challenges make waste and recycling sites difficult to protect compared with other industrial environments?
Russell: In commercial sites like hospitals, food factories or data centres, you install a system, service it every six months and it just sits there.
Waste and recycling is different.
These are harsh environments with material from many streams, including things operators weren’t expecting.
Our systems are tested regularly because they’re regularly put into fire conditions, so activations are common.
There’s also a high staff turnover and a lot of languages on site, so training is ongoing.
Equipment can get hit or damaged.
We work hard to support customers with quality management and training so people understand what the system is there to do and to make sure they tell us if something is damaged so it can be put right.
James: Another challenge is change on site.
We design to the brief we’re given, then find storage piles or processing areas exceed the original design.
We push for ongoing dialogue so if areas change, detection and suppression zones change with them.
Housekeeping is huge.
Waste keeps coming in even during a breakdown, so piles grow.
The less waste sitting around, the fewer fires you have.
Clean, well-kept areas reduce risk.
That’s outside our direct remit, but it affects how effective the system can be.
We see a broad range of sites, from immaculate, fully compliant operations to independents pushing limits on intake, processing and storage.
There’s no one template.
Every site is different.
How do you design systems that balance regulations with the practical realities of high-risk industrial operations?
Russell: It starts with a clear brief.
What’s driving the requirement? Some customers aren’t trying to satisfy the EA’s FPP; they’ve identified a process risk or asset and want extra protection beyond insurance.
Others are entirely EA-led and need FPP sign-off or a permit variation.
Sometimes it’s a new build driven by insurance.
We’ve built a process to make sure we understand the brief, the customer understands what we’re providing and they take what we propose to the authority having jurisdiction.
In the past, clients pushed ahead, spent a lot of money, then shared it with insurers at the end only to be told it wasn’t acceptable.
We work to avoid that by getting everyone aligned early on what the system is expected to do and what sign-off is required.
James: Standards can be straightforward in some industries, but in waste and recycling there often isn’t a directly applicable standard for specific processes like certain MRF operations.
We’ll integrate with a BS 5839-compliant fire alarm system, but beyond that, who sets the spec? Often it’s a mix of Environment Agency requirements around the fire prevention plan and insurer expectations.
Insurers are reluctant to write a specification for a waste site, so the client has to own it.
We always start from a robust baseline: backup pumping (often dual diesel), battery backup for deluge valves and for the detection system.
If power or water is lost, our system can operate standalone.
We don’t rely on an internet connection to decide what to do.
We can dial in and view cameras remotely and alarms and faults go to an alarm receiving centre with keyholder protocols, but the core system functions in worst-case scenarios.
Russell: Some solutions in the field have a single pump where the client, with their authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), has accepted that approach.
We advise diesel-electric or dual diesel for obvious reasons, but budgets play a role.
If backup is removed, the client must get it signed off with their AHJ and insurer.
That responsibility sits with them.
What role does multi-detection technology play in improving early fire identification and incident management?
James: Our multi-detection unit is a single detector that can form part of a compliant fire alarm system.
It looks for three things, which we configure per site: thermal imaging, flame detection and video smoke detection.
The flame function is verified by the heat function to cut false activations from reflections.
The video smoke detection works on contrast.
In these facilities you often get a lot of smoke before meaningful heat or flame, so it gives very early warning, especially out of hours.
When detection occurs, the ARC is alerted and follows the protocol with up to eight keyholders.
Some ARCs review cameras for clients; others have the client review and decide response.
We design with multiple cameras across the facility to avoid single-point failure and blind spots.
Everything is fault-monitored, so a camera fault raises an alarm.
Configuration is site-specific.
We can blank areas and set different temperature thresholds within the same view.
High-risk materials might have a lower threshold, vehicle routes higher.
That detail helps avoid false activations and downtime.
How do foam cannon systems contribute to your wider automatic suppression strategy?
Russell: The foam cannons we use are built to high standards, originally proven in offshore oil and gas, so they’re robust enough for humid, dusty, dirty environments.
They’re manufactured to international standards and third-party accredited.
Functionally they do what you’d expect – pan, tilt, left, right and adjustable jet to fog.
The real difference is how the system is designed to work with the chosen detection medium and the cause-and-effect we agree with the customer.
What happens at detection, what areas are protected, how it’s proved at commissioning and documented – that’s where the value is.
How do you ensure reliability and performance are maintained after system installation?
James: We choose hard-wearing components built to last, install them to the right standard and set them up correctly.
We have a dedicated maintenance and callout team.
We emphasise the client’s responsibilities under manufacturer guidelines: twice-yearly servicing by our specialist engineers, plus daily and weekly on-site checks – no fault lights on panels, pressures where they should be, pumps checked and so on.
We don’t gatekeep.
Our fire alarm panels are open protocol.
We offer cost-effective SLAs and don’t tie people into expensive contracts.
We keep critical stock in our UK facility.
We can diagnose many issues remotely so we arrive with the right part and minimise downtime.
These sites can’t stop, so response time and keeping systems healthy is key.
What developments or technologies will have the greatest impact on the future of automatic detection and suppression?
Russell: We’re seeing much more engagement with local authorities, fire services and insurers.
Early on it was hard to get people to understand what we were doing; now our approach is more widely accepted.
Manufacturers are improving agents for performance and environmental profile.
On the active side, rapid progress in AI means systems will act faster and more autonomously.
That said, today nothing beats the human eye and nose.
Aspirating systems are very good at early smoke detection, but the human nose still picks it up first.
AI can judge whether a heat signature is a threat, but right now people are better.
That may change; we’ll see on the timeframe.
James: Long-established practices are shifting as the waste stream changes.
More batteries and contamination mean more unknowns.
People are moving toward technologies that are now proven and trusted to offer a viable solution for recycling and waste to energy.