I am currently completing FRAs for a new site set up which consists of 4 ground floor porta cabins and four first floor with external metal steps. This is 'temporary' site accomodation. My question - to what extent should the premises comply with fire regulations eg fire exits, signage, emergency lighting, fire alarm etc? Many thanks in anticipation.

Dont forget the proximity of glazing in relation to the external fire escapes, Radiant heat flux from other building/fuel sources and even blast overpressure dependent on site location

Why indeed? If you have good detection and evacuation arrangements in place...

Take a look at "Fire Prevention on Construction Sites" joint code of practice, this details the requirements of temporary building etc and is what your insurance generally whant compliance with

My reply clearly stated to consider the effects of radiant heat flux and blast overpressure from external souces. Detection will do nothing, selection of appropriate location/separation distances will.

Ahoskins Based on your logic we dont have to be concerned any more with the fire protection of buildings or smoke spread as in your world But with proper detection the fire will not have taken hold to that extent before everyone has evacuated... Profound insight

Ahoskins Fair point and i agree lesser controls are required if not sleeping accomodation but the presence of glazing in the immediate vicinity of the escape stair from the upper floor and due consideration to sources and probability of radiant heat flux/overpressure in my opinion are a must. Consider the location of such a temporary structure associated with construction work at a petrochem or comah site etc

Not trying to labour the point, but there can be many instances where by the fire and smoke can be fully developed before detection is activated, also bear in mind it is unlikely that smoke detection will be positioned within each room (more likely just the corridor/circulation space). Consider the upper floor of the prefab, office/store room door nearby to the final fire exit door and or window associated with the office/store opening onto external fire escape. The doors in these buildings are not fire doors, are not fitted with self closers and in the main, particularly in the summer months the doors are left open. Consider, the ignition and combustion of outdoor clothing, paper/office supplies, desk/computer workstation etc. Such ignition caused by electrical fault or use of portable heater (prevalent in portacabs). Flame, radiant heat and smoke build up can be present within the corridor area prior to activation of smoke detection elsewhere within the corridor. We can assume that there is an alternative means of escape that can be used following the activation of alarm initiated by the corridor smoke detector but consider that in all probability there are typically other offices directly adjoining or opposite the room of fire origin and consider the delay in evacuation despite hearing the alarm. Again, it is possible for the corridor to be completely involved in smoke at this point.

Ray, I claim no competence in construction site safety but you do not specify the nature of the site nor the external exposure to fire from the rest of the site. However, it is probable that the occupants will be fit and healthy. The inception risk in site cabins will vary: offices are clearly lower risk than cooking/clothes drying/lpg stores/plant stores etc. As previously pointed out, fire integrity/compartmentation is minimal. Arson risks are certainly higher in temporary structures. Will there be sufficient "borrowed light" from existing site or road lighting? Put that lot together in to your FRA alongside the previous good advice and you'll come up with a practical solution.

Thanks for all your responses and I provided all the salient information for this particular premises. It does, however, beg the question whether an 'expert' should complete FRAs, or low risk premises require less detailed knowledge and obviously controls. In my world of health and safety, I treat low risk issues as exactly just that. In other words, you don't have to be an expert in a low risk h&s environment - simples.

Hi ray Hopefully you found some of the points above useful and other points not so useful. personnally credit to you for carryinbg out the fire risk assessment in the first place as their are a lot of business's out that just don't bother. Guys shame people on here don't seem to want to give practical advice rather than just trying to trump the other person all the time. i can't help feel it is not good for those who come looking for advice or shows members in a very good light and will only make it more likely for new members to go else where or not willing to ask questions in the future for fear of the topic being highjacked. I'm not out to mention names as there is no need but if you are not willing to give useful advice to the person who started the topic then i don't see the reason for replying other than to cause argument or conflict. Phil

I never said there was nothing in the advice you gave that was unreasonable i think a lot of the advice you give is very useful and informative. i simply feel that members need to stick to answering the question asked at the start rather than getting drawn off into one up manship. Stick to answering the original questions, everyone can add their view but should not knock others that have contrbuted, not just this topoic but other topics that i have read on this site. i Just feel that this approach is not welcoming to new members or encourage other to stay. As i say this isn't aimed at anyone person but just an observation. if i asked a question i would want as many replies as possible you can only get this if peole feel they can reply freely without being shot down for their coments. i think it's down to the original poster to take away what comments where useful and decide for themselves. As i say this is just an observation I'm not trying to start an argument life's to short Phil

PS earned the monicker BLEVE for a reason

What is a low risk building? Is there a definition of this? How do you know its low risk until you do the fra? By all accounts this site portable cabin is anything but low risk. My colleague completed a one day fire risk assessment course at the fire service college and was told he can now do fra's of low risk small premises. Would this fit the bill? If so why all the fuss? If he needs further training into the technical, scientific and chemistry aspects of fire then why did the fire service college say he is now competent after only one day training?

Pity they did not have an over zealous practitioner at Texas city. I dont think they would have complained