FireNet Community
April 22, 2018, 07:29:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The registration facility for new forum members has had to be disabled due to the volume of spammers (1 every minute) who seek to spread their worthless pornography and junk pharmaceuticals, or launch DDOS attacks to bring the site down.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 07:14:47 AM 
Started by Messy - Last post by Messy
I am struggling to create a suitable/resilient system to account for persons that occupy a large building out of office hours. This is mainly as:

> It is not possible to hold a roll call
> The use of fire wardens is problematic & unreliable

The premises has a regular and predictable occupancy during the working day, therefore the emergency procedures are well rehearsed & compliant. However, away from office hours (24/7/365), the numbers of staff vary considerably. This could range from <50 to >1200 depending on workload & routine maintenance requirements. The workload fluctuations are rarely predictable. In addition, out of office hours, staff are often spread out across this very large building, with some lone working and groups of 5 to 10 people in one area, and 100+ in another.

I have considered various solutions, but none offer anywhere near the resilience that is possible during the day, or might be assessed suitable by enforcing authorities.


Looking at Article 15 of the FSO (& the enforcers guidance), I note there is no specific requirement to account for staff as in common practice in virtually all workplaces. The enforcers guide discusses Article 15(1)(b) in details (nominating staff to assist in implementing an emergency plan) - but it does not mention what those staff should do - or as I have said, there is no mention of accounting for staff.

So is it possible to have a emergency plan that simply relies on the fire alarm system to evacuate staff with no method of accounting for them? This would IMO require greater staff knowledge and understanding when compared to staff who work usual office hours. Article 15(1)(b) (nominating staff) could be satisfied by security staff who would assist physically during an evacuation, apply disabled persons evacuation procedures and by providing information by additional 'live' speech over the voice alarm system where necessary.

This plan would be supported by:
> Additional staff training (for those who work out of office hours)
> Large fire action notices on large A frames that are rolled out & displayed in high traffic areas out of office hours (lift lobbies)
> Two out of hours fire drills in addition to the annual working day drill
> Special measures for disabled staff
> Additional hot working measures (to take into account the amount of maintenance carried out during these times)


Its not a system I would wish to develop, but I am out of ideas for this particular premises.

I would appreciate your views - particularly on the compliance side of these draft proposals. To repeat, a roll call is not possible

 2 
 on: April 20, 2018, 06:53:10 PM 
Started by SeaBass - Last post by AnthonyB
Most searches for Vance Miller come up with the infamous 'Kitchen Gangster' who is in bigger trouble with the law for other matters.....

The LFB site gives more detail in that it actually details the actual charges, Miller pled guilty to to failing to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risk.

This Vance Miller may well be the same one of Vance Miller Associates/Vance Miller Health & Safety Limited based in Peterborough, whose background is as a Quantity Surveyor and CDM related services. No fire safety related qualifications or experience are listed on their profile.

Sources: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vance-miller-6a40956/, https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/2018-news/40-000-fine-following-east-london-fire-death/

 3 
 on: April 20, 2018, 05:43:34 PM 
Started by SeaBass - Last post by SeaBass
Back in March, a chap called Vance Miller, who conducted a fire risk assessment of a building which subsequently suffered a fatal fire in 2008, pleaded guilty to one offence under the FSO. He was fined ?2,000 with ?5,000 costs.

Does anyone know what the offence was, what Mr Millers background or qualifications were, or where I can find the details?

 4 
 on: April 19, 2018, 08:40:42 PM 
Started by Tom Sutton - Last post by AnthonyB
My cynical head would say that just because a BCO accepts it doesn't mean it's any good.....

 5 
 on: April 19, 2018, 10:37:45 AM 
Started by Tom Sutton - Last post by Fishy
Sorry to be so late in picking up on this chaps, but you're asking for trouble if you take an FD30 door, leave the fire seals out, and then 'deem' it to be FD20.   Even under BS476:  Part 22 you can't guarantee 20 minutes without seals however closely fitted the door is, so with the change in pressure regime in EN1634-1 I can't believe there'd be any chance for it to work.

I'm sure you're correct, Lin - no-one is suggesting that all doors currently offered as FD30 with intumescent strips would do 20 minutes if they were fire resistance tested.  The point is, though, that (in my experience) Building Control invariably accept that FD30 doorsets without the intumescent strips are acceptably safe when installed where FD20 doorsets are recommended in dwellings - the BCA Guidance Note basically states that this 'custom and practice' is deemed acceptable.

 6 
 on: April 18, 2018, 11:00:54 AM 
Started by GB - Last post by GB
The above standard does not state that a mist head in its entirety should be tested I.e nozzle and cover plate.

Therefore what's the view of the forum when a manufacturer has a head tested, then subsequently develops the head changing the orientation of the bulb but leaving the multiple water orifice the same and adding an aesthetic cover plate onto the head.

New test required or previous test sufficient?

My gut feel is that it is effectively a new head and new test is required as the cap and bulb orientation may change the reaction time therefore room temperature despite the same water pattern, flow and pressure.

The manufacturer has since produced a separate test for just the cap however the temperature used to activate the cap was 135C.

I would interested in the thoughts and opinions of the forum.

 7 
 on: April 17, 2018, 09:51:52 PM 
Started by Tom Sutton - Last post by Auntie LIn
Sorry to be so late in picking up on this chaps, but you're asking for trouble if you take an FD30 door, leave the fire seals out, and then 'deem' it to be FD20.   Even under BS476:  Part 22 you can't guarantee 20 minutes without seals however closely fitted the door is, so with the change in pressure regime in EN1634-1 I can't believe there'd be any chance for it to work.


 8 
 on: April 17, 2018, 08:33:04 PM 
Started by Suttonfire - Last post by Fishy
Perhaps these places are so high risk they should have their own Purpose Group in the AD-B!?

 9 
 on: April 17, 2018, 02:54:41 PM 
Started by Suttonfire - Last post by Mar62
Ah ok, sounded familiar for a moment.

 10 
 on: April 16, 2018, 06:17:12 PM 
Started by Suttonfire - Last post by Messy
Messy, was that building in Camden NW1?

No: It was the City of Westminster Traffic Warden hive near Baker Street

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!