Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Sinead Butler
The factory where I work, has smoke detectors in the attic space and none below the ceiling in the production areas. There are break glass units at the exit doors.
If a machine goes on fire during the night or a fire starts in a store room during the day, the fire alarm will not activate until the ceiling panel is burnt through and the smoke has entered the attic area or the fire is discovered by someone.
Is this legal from a fire safety point of view or is it only an insurance issue?
I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilles27
Hi Sinead
The boring answer i'm afraid - its down to the sensible findings of your fire RA which isn't much help... From your description I would certainly be worried as early detection is often your only hope at preventing whole space/building involvement in a fire. If extending the detection is not reasonable practicable can you move the detection to a more appropriate area e.g. the workroom? Why was it installed in the loftspace - thats a key question to ask at this point. It may be that that was the original ceiling and somebody installed a false one to cut on heating costs etc. without thinking about the wider picture. Given the scope of the incoming RR(FS)O I feel the matter will need addressing.
Hope this kind of helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sinead Butler
The false ceiling was installed first and then the fire alarm system. The reason the engineer put the detectors in the attic space was so that they would not be get damaged by people powerhosing the ceiling or by false activations from the waterspray/dust.
Yes, I know the company took the easy way out by letting the engineer put smoke detectors in the attic space instead of installing heat detectors where there is water spray/dust and training people to use powerhoses properly. Now, we are in a situation where the occassional small fire has happened (usually due to an electrical fault on a machine) and as luck would happen, it has just burnt itself out.
Someday, I fear that we will not be so lucky!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
You do not have to have smoke/heat detectors as a matter of course - if there are people about who can see the fire and raise the alarm - that is sufficient, but they may be needed for a number of reasons. ie - if you have areas where a fire can develop unobserved (e.g. storerooms)or attics etc.
So it does make sense for one to be in the attic space - but not he production area - but they also should be in other areas which maygo unobserved. Hope that helps
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilles27
Sinead, sounds like you have the answer already -
Occasional small fires, luckilly burnt themselves out, someday may not be so lucky...
I would speak to the detector company and cost bringing down detection from less high risk areas in the loft and exchanging it/them for heat heads. Most of the detection people can come up with solutions and multiple quotes for you to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sinead Butler
Thanks. I suspect this will be an exercise in accounting to justify why we should move detectors!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
Sinead, You do not mention what the machines are producing and what the manufacturing process is that you are involved in? Before you start to remove detectors from the roof space I ask you to check to see if there is a fire risk from fire spreading to the whole facility via the roof space? That may be the reason why you have detectors in the roof space. If you remove these detectors you may have to start looking at the installation of physical fire barriers (costly) to prevent fire spread. True, a detector will never stop fire spread but it will let you know early to evacuate the building. Assess this as part of your risk assessment. If you have some concerns about the equipment catching fire why not look at a local application suppression system, not knowing what you do makes it a little hard to help you any further. If you want assistance with your fire risk assessment, feel free to e-mail me.
Ashley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
It seems that they are planning for life safety but not to adequately protect the workplace from fire whilst unattended. I suspect that the insurers would welcome sprinklers in the work area - as well as the employees having a better hope of there being a job when they arrive in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TBC
My answer would be to replace the smoke detector heads with heat detector heads. Put in some grills at appropriate points in the false ceiling so that the process wouldn’t interfere too much with the heads, but heat will get through and quickly activate them. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
A problem is that we are writing without seeing the workplace but, if the working area(s) are occupied throughout the working day, the alarm will probably be raised more quickly by a person activating a manual call-point than by smoke or heat activating a detector. It's the unattended areas that are usually more in need of automatic detection as, otherwise, fire can start there and go undetected until it suddenly breaks out to the risk of occupants of adjacent areas. This may well be the reasoning behind the current arrangement. As to protecting the area against the effects of fire, sprinklers can be rather useful - particularly when buildings are unoccupied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.