Rank: Forum user 
|
My understanding is that fire doors should be checked on a monthly basis. However we have a huge amount to manage and would be to much to handle on a monthly basis. Could anyone advise how best to manage these checks, my inclination is to prioritise the doors according to use risk etc. Does anyone have any good ideas of how to manage a site that has a large amount of fire doors?
Sorry realised I posted this in the wrong forum previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator 
|
phargreaves04 wrote:.. Sorry realised I posted this in the wrong forum previously.
Other post removed
Mod 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am not sure where you got the monthly frequency from, but I agree, as with all fire safety measures, maintaining fire doors should be done on a risk based approach.
Firstly the use of the premises should be considered as fire doors in a secondary school will be subject to wear and tear than one on door holders in a smart office building.
Then the use/reason the door is there - what's it protecting? Those on staircases, risers within staircases and MOEs, high hazard areas such as kitchens etc.
Single staircase buildings, sleeping and vulnerable persons must go up on the list
We have 2000+ fire doors in one building and 3000 dampers. If we checked them monthly we would have to spend 10 x our usual budget and it would be excessive.i
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If you go by 9999 then it is every 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Messy wrote:I am not sure where you got the monthly frequency from, but I agree, as with all fire safety measures, maintaining fire doors should be done on a risk based approach.
Firstly the use of the premises should be considered as fire doors in a secondary school will be subject to wear and tear than one on door holders in a smart office building.
Then the use/reason the door is there - what's it protecting? Those on staircases, risers within staircases and MOEs, high hazard areas such as kitchens etc.
Single staircase buildings, sleeping and vulnerable persons must go up on the list
We have 2000+ fire doors in one building and 3000 dampers. If we checked them monthly we would have to spend 10 x our usual budget and it would be excessive.i
Fully agree with this approach, assess the risk and take the appropriate action. In a previous location we had 1 month, 3 month and 6 month checks depending on what it is protecting and the usage, but with regular occupiers briefed to raise concerns on condition or function through the building maintenance reporting system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We check and record ours every 2 years plus reactive repairs as required. With hundreds of doors it is not practical to check them every 6 months, plus many doors are always secured so no damage done to them
SBH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Standards never take in if something is practical or not, but unfortunately they are what are used as the yard stick if anything goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus wrote:Standards never take in if something is practical or not, but unfortunately they are what are used as the yard stick if anything goes wrong.
I do understand what you are saying, but risk assessment findings outrank standards and its the suitability of the RA that should be used as the measurement of compliance.
Just considering British standards as one example, it is possible to apply a BS with variations to take into account specific circumstances if justified by a RA and any alternative will not significantly reduce safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm not suggesting that we work to all standards but you need to know they exist.
I carry out the R/A here and look at what the door is doing in the way of protection, then if on a exit route I will ensure they are inspected. Fire doors are now high on the fire brigade list when they visit and they are now asking for the records of inspections.
And we think that the fire risk assessments belong to us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
mssy wrote:Invictus wrote:Standards never take in if something is practical or not, but unfortunately they are what are used as the yard stick if anything goes wrong.
I do understand what you are saying, but risk assessment findings outrank standards and its the suitability of the RA that should be used as the measurement of compliance.
Just considering British standards as one example, it is possible to apply a BS with variations to take into account specific circumstances if justified by a RA and any alternative will not significantly reduce safety.
If you look at all the guidnce documnets from THe HM Government Healthcare premises, educational, Sleeping accommodation, residential care premises all of these have a maintenance checklist in them and all have the same monthly is
Doall elevtronic release mechanisms on escape doors work, do they open in the failsafe position
Do automatic opening doors on escape routes fail safe
are fire seals and self closing devices in good condition
Do all self closing doors fire doors work correctly.
I would be amazed if we went to court and had not been completing the inspections, that the judge would say "that's ok because your risk assessment said you didn't have to but, the seals on the doors were damaged and that is why people died" I think you may find that your risk assessment would be deemed as 'not suitable or sufficient' and I think that is reasonably foreseeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.