FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Guest on February 11, 2004, 09:37:48 AM

Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 11, 2004, 09:37:48 AM
Hi folks
Can anyone list examples of unwanted heat sources which should be taken into account when doing risk assessments

I have thought of electrical equipment (gets hot) ditto with any type of machinery, radiators etc

But can anyone give me any better examples - I am new to this so apologise if my recent questions have seem somewhat irritating and common sense

Thanks
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: banjo 2 on February 11, 2004, 04:01:25 PM
The things you mention are not unwanted heat sources unless they are producing heat in a manner or place for which they were not designed.  The electric light bulb is great unless combustible material is stored in close proximity.  So consider the area you are assessing, are heat producing appliances likely to cause a problem? does that portable heater require fixing so that it cannot be moved to an unsafe position.   Anything can be a problem if not correctly used so instead of trying to make a list risk assess the area.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Ken Taylor on February 12, 2004, 02:28:42 PM
Presumably you are going down the 'fire triangle' route in carrying out risk assessments. Consider all actual and potential heat and ignition sources (as well as fuel and oxygen) including room heaters, electricity, friction, machinery, plant, chemicals, hot-work, smoking materials, etc.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: colin todd on February 12, 2004, 10:03:39 PM
Janet and John do fire risk assessment. Makes you hanker for the good old fascist inspecting officers (well maybe not yours Messey). Or maybe it just needs a standard for fire risk assessments. Got to look to the future and all that, when the world and his wife will (or maybe wont) be carrying out FRAs.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Chris Houston on February 13, 2004, 01:57:55 PM
Dear IF,

What is this building used as?  #

Have you read "Fire Safety - An employers guide"?
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: wee brian on February 13, 2004, 02:05:30 PM
One unwanted heat source which we must all consider regardless of building type is a fire!

They are kind of orangey yellow and very hot with nasty smokey stuff coming out the top.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 13, 2004, 04:17:02 PM
I think that depends on what is/you are burning!!!
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: wee brian on February 16, 2004, 08:55:06 AM
This is all getting too technical for me!
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 16, 2004, 09:42:04 AM
Thanks to everyone for their comments - big help!

and erm also thanks to those whom left  sarcy comments too...

Look I  have been given the responsibilty of looking after the fire side of things at work so the whole issue of fire safety is new to me ok - so again I apologise to you if my comments seem a little silly but how about you ask a question to me about hight itensty magnification (my field of expertise) and we'll see who can be smart then.

In an IOSH course module it asks you to list potential "unwanted heat sources" hence why I asked

Thank you - and as you can tell yes I have gone off in a strop! ;)
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 16, 2004, 09:43:43 AM
Wee Brian

I beg to differ

Fires arent always red and orangey

Havent you heard of smokeless fires either?

PS we beat you on Saturday - Come on wales
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 16, 2004, 12:06:13 PM
Hydrogen fires look good, in theory, they should be colourless!!!!!
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: banjo 2 on February 16, 2004, 03:48:05 PM
This is supposed to be a forum where people in our line of work, at what ever level of knowledge or involvement they may be at, can get assistance and advice. I enjoy a laugh and that has been provided here many times, however, some of the patronising remarks have caused offence to someone seeking assistance and that is sad.  I have been in this line of work for 42 years and I am still striving to learn.  I may come if for some stick myself now, but surely we should be trying to encourage a better understanding not scoring points.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 17, 2004, 09:14:01 AM
Boilers, Electrical Equipment (high resistance), probably not radiators - especially hot water as the water must be below boiing or the pressure difference in the radiator will be too large and it would spring a leak, light fittings - short circuit, overload etc - again elkectrical. Hot works such as re-roofing and welding, any unusual chemical processes which cause heat through exothermic reactions. Just some thoughts, appologies for the comment about Hydrogen fires, but they do burn very efficiently and cleanly - the only product is water!
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: colin todd on February 17, 2004, 02:05:12 PM
Banjo, I think the point being made by some is that the government wish to turn everyone and their cousin loose to carry out their own fire risk assessments without any proper guidance as to what constitutes a  suitable and sufficient FRA or who is competent to carry them out. Now the old style fasicst fire officers were/are a pain in the sit-upon with all their dogmatic prescriptive crap, but they couldn't do much harm, in that there would be no major shortcomings in fire safety (as a rule). And while we will all (certainly here on the bulletin board ) try to help those lumbered with the task of carrying our FRAs, does it not scare the you know what out of you that in some life risks they will be left to people who dont even know where to start. In doing some work for the landlord of a multi-tenanted commerical property last week, I strayed into a tenant' s unit and then wished I hadn't. The tenant had created inner rooms on the first floor with no vision whatsoever, but worse still had taken away the protection of the staircase from the first floor. Now, the first floor occupants have to enter a printing machine area on the ground floor to reach a final exit, and there is not even any AFD on the ground floor, while the manning of the ground floor is minimal. But, yes, the health and safety officer of the company ( who is the wife of a director of the company) had done a risk assessment allegedly.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: AnthonyB on February 17, 2004, 02:34:50 PM
Which is why I wish the regs gave landlord's of multi-occupancies the responsiblity to be in overall control of the building, rather than just the areas they control, as it is always the tenants that cause the problems.

Our work is almost exclusively in multi occupancy offices & shops and time after time we find that it's the tenants that cause the safety compromises. And even where a tenant has health & safety officers their efforts are usually poor resulting in holes in precautions or even the installation of totally unecessary facilities & precautions that are of no use.

One recent example was a building where after our first FRA the landlord replaced the knackered 240V system and put in a very comprehensive addressable system with AFD. The installation was not L1, but had been done so that if a particular tenant required through their own assessment more detectors it could easily be accomodated into the house system. But on reinspection a new tenant's bright H&S officer decided to install a 64 zone addressable system of his own to their suite, with duplication of sounders and call points (two MCPs right next to each other!). The suite was only 250M2! A link to the house system was provided, but guess what - after all this unecessary complication and expense they'd not considered maintenance- no weekly tests or 3/6 monthly services had been carried out. And don't start me on the emergency lighting.........
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 17, 2004, 03:47:36 PM
Colin we are not on about the do's and dont'd of how that company you visite dthe other day had serious short comings in fire safety

We are talking about someone who asked a perfectly civil question and ended up with sarcie comments back..

You ramble on about how people are crap at risk assessments ( directors wife in your storyette above) so rather than whitter on like you do lets get constructive comments down on here! Lets help these people out

Isnt that what this forum is for?

You dont advertise your company / services very well do you?!
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Ken Taylor on February 17, 2004, 04:36:06 PM
There is a need for competence on the part of persons carrying out risk assessments (fire or otherwise) but all too often it seems that someone just gets the responsibility added to their (probably unwritten) job description. This can, in addition to putting lives and property at risk, give a poor name to decent fire safety and health and safety officers who have taken the trouble to undertake training, sit exams, maintain continuing professional development, etc. Another factor can be 'enthusiastic' 'reps' from companies keen to sell their products irrespective of the need for them - or compatibility with existing arrangements. With the passing of fire certification, we need regular fire brigade visits and assessment examination - but I suppose it's the old shortage of resources problem again.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: colin todd on February 17, 2004, 06:52:41 PM
That was the point Ken.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: banjo 2 on February 18, 2004, 02:19:20 PM
I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest and create an argument in the forum.  I would readily agree on the dangers of inexperienced personel carrying full surveys and have fallen foul of the person that has had a one day health and safety course demanding a CO2 next to every computer.  However, I did feel that industrial fireman was not attempting that and I felt the task he was undertaking by trying to make a list was as long as a piece of string.  I am in favour of people carrying out a risk assesment in their area as long as they then get advice on their findings.  Like the person I mentioned above it was politely explained why three and a half thousand extra CO2 extinguishers were not required.  Some times we are grateful for something being pointed out or questioned. We all ask questions, at some time or other, that others consider obvious, lets just give an answer in the spirit in which it was asked.  That me off my soapbox, it was safe, I risked assessed it. :lol:
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: AnthonyB on February 18, 2004, 03:13:07 PM
Quote
I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest and create an argument in the forum.  I would readily agree on the dangers of inexperienced personel carrying full surveys and have fallen foul of the person that has had a one day health and safety course demanding a CO2 next to every computer.  :


With advice like that he'd get a job at Nu-Swift at the drop of a hat!

One admits that the support and guidance from central government and the fire service fire safety officers is scant.
It wouldn't be the first time we visit somewhere and find that the fire officer never mentioned the need to do a fire risk assessment and we end up having to give out an advice leaflet (which is identical to the leaflet given out by the fire officers own brigade if they bothered to issue them)

The lack of examples in ODPM guidance doesn't help- many tenants struggle for lack of a suitable template to base from - the only one I've seen is the NW brigades Newsagent sketch one, which altough rather simplistic if followed by people would produce something far better than many things that are being churned out
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: colin todd on February 18, 2004, 06:31:35 PM
Anthony, I agree generally with what you said, but really it is not the job of the fire officer to come up with the guidance, it is the Government, who after all ''own'' the legislation. The problem is that when the Regs were introduced the civil service were in still de-regulatory mode, and there was a fear that guidance would smack of prescription. When the then Home Office held their private one-to-one consultations on the then proposed Fire Safety Bill, I did try to explain to the lady then in charge of fire safety policy that lay people actually liked being told what to do. I cited ADB and the Building Regs, suggesting that these, in tandem, give people the best of both worlds. However, it was made very clear to me that I was ''advocating prescription'', and that I could forget that, because prescription is out. Happily, I suspect that we can expect a lot more guidance for non-specialists under the RRO regime, and rightly so. We did put in writing our view to the Home Office that legislation wihout guidance is just a consultants' charter. I do not agree, however, that fire officers do not draw attention to the need for a FRA. My experience is that they do make people aware of this when they correspond/visit. With regard to the template for a suitable and sufficient FRA, what is needed, I believe, is a privately sponsored standard on this.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Chris Houston on February 18, 2004, 10:54:19 PM
I tend to recommend that people follow the advice in the Home Office guidance booklet "Fire Safety - An employers guide" Published by the Stationary Office ISBN 0 11 341229 0
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Ken Taylor on February 19, 2004, 06:11:24 PM
With non-fire specific Regulations, we tend to get ACoPs and HSE Guidance bound up together and published by the HSC (eg L21 under the MHSAW Regs). Perhaps we could do with something along those lines for the FP (Workplace) Regs? Additionally, the HSE publication '5 Steps to Risk Assessment' explained the duty for risk assessment under the MHSAW Regs and provided a simple pro-forma which de-mystified and made the job clear to employers. I suspect that a similar approach might help in fire risk assessments.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: Guest on February 19, 2004, 08:40:35 PM
Interesting hearing your stories, I have just carried out and produced a comprehensive FRA and report for a manufacturing company. To cut a long story short 100 plus staff, no fire alarm, no emergency lighting, blocked fire exits, some lead into a ditch, sleeping accommodation has been created for the director, no training etc. Having received the report another manager said we don't want it as he had already taken care of everything and that he was the company safety officer, iosh and all that, he also claimed the local fire service were happy with everything ???????????
Worrying times ahead I feel, Colin is right soon anyone and every one will be doing FRA's.
Title: UNWANTED HEAT SOURCES
Post by: AnthonyB on February 19, 2004, 10:33:05 PM
And as you illustrate doing FRAs that "justify" sub standard precautions (particularly where expense can be spared).
The standard of some workplaces I've visited recently is showing a worrying trend of standards dropping to pre FPA or even pre OSRP standards to the level of having a fire extinguisher being the only needed precaution.
The only vestiges of proper standards is due to them being in multi-occs and having enlightened managing agents that are willing to instigate sensible procedures and even program in capital expenditure where advisable- some even will go beyond the "minimum".
Sadly having the widest clearest most protected escape stairs, a lovely fire alarm, etc are of little use if the tenant can get out of their floor onto it because they can't find the key for the fire exit, need to squeeze past the photocopier and trip over in the dark because their untested escape lighting fizzes out. And even if they get onto that stair the poor old wheelchair bound person gets dumped on the landing in the way of the people on the floors above, with the poor old fire service not only having to commit crews just to get them down, but having to send extra teams in to sweep the whole building because the building isn't reported clear as the fire wardens have neglected to report in and the poor old Incident Co-ordinator can't track them down as they couldn't be bothered to wear their tabard.

Cynical extreme? No, regular occurence. Surveyors and Building Managers often agree with the concept that the building would be considerably easy to run if it weren't for those pesky tenants.......

Most fire law has been reactive with lives needing to be lost. FP(W) is meant to be pro-active and indeed if done well can be as it looks at prevention rather than just emergency response. But without a lot of help and assistance and a few absolutes (there need to be some minimum prescriptions for goodness sake) it won't work and eventually something will go wrong.

Incidentally, most tenants prefer the precriptive model as they had a clear idea of what they had to do & those that don't like thenew system as it means they can get away (in their eyes) with doing as little as possible.