Additional MCP required?

[Benzerari]

In a basement with (8 ˟ 10 m2)  approximately, it has already 2 MCPs one in the entrance and one in the back exit, the basement is a plant room and has additional fire exit to the open air, in fact to a small terrace, still have to use a ladder placed 24/7  for this propose,  a new fire risk assessor has seen the basement for the first time he obliged the owner to add  MCP in by that fire exit door, even there are less then say 20m between the fire exit and the existing two MCPs.

Would that additional MCP be required, as the owner was surprised, by saying service companies for more 10 years have been servicing the system and have never mentioned that.

Who is right and who is wrong in this situation?

[Allen Higginson]

From A2:2008 "Manual call points should be located on escape routes and, in particular, at all storey exits and all exits
to open air (whether or not the exits are specifically designated as fire exits)".
I don't have a copy of 1988 at hand so I can't recall what was the requirement in it but I think it was designated fire exits (although it may also not be the case - get past 40 and you have a tendancy to make things up!).
Have had an assesor pull an new design for not having MCP's at exits to the open air before and,in particular,the doors that have hoist beams for lifting equipment up to the various floors (right up to the 8th floor!).

[Benzerari]

So what about if the fire exits are closer to each other, is there in specificities to be applied, according to BS?

[Big_Fella]

If you have two exits side by side, then you would provide 1 MCP. If you have two exits in two different rooms, all beit adjacent each other you wouls provide two MCP's.

If someone is in the plant room, in theory if there is a fire one would run for that exit, surely.  So in theory they would want to break the MCP on exit.

Doesnt it say in the BS somewhere that MCP's should be provided in high risk areas anyway regardless of an exit or not, i.e kitchens, plant rooms?

[Graeme]

Doesnt it say in the BS somewhere that MCP's should be provided in high risk areas anyway regardless of an exit or not, i.e kitchens, plant rooms?

it does

[colin todd]

No it relates to high HAZARD areas.

[CivvyFSO]

More specifically for you from BS5839.....

f) Where specific equipment or activities result in a high fire hazard level (e.g. kitchens or cellulose paint spraying), a manual call point should be sited in close proximity.

I am sure most are aware but for the benefit of any who don't the term used in BS5839 of 'high fire risk' does actually relate specifically to risk as opposed to hazard.

But, back to basics;

Since hazard is something with the potential to cause harm. Risk is the chance of that occurring, or the chance weighed up against severity.... It seems like using the term 'high fire hazard' is including an aspect of risk, as it is almost saying that the hazard is likely to occurr, or looking at the potential severity. If it takes into account the severity or likelihood then it is most definitely related closely to risk.

That being said, I think 'high fire hazard' is more related to fire loading and/or fuel type, while 'high fire risk' is looking at the harm to persons arising from a fire.

Cue disagreements.......

[nearlythere]

Kitchens and plant rooms would usually have a final exit from them which would have a MCP provided. Can't really see the advantage  of a MCP at a High Fire Hazard when it probably should be detection.

[Benzerari]

Thanks Guys for these inputs, I agree about the general applications and what BS recommends, But; in our particular scenario, the room is about say (10 * 15)m2 maximum, it has already 2 MCPs one at the entrance and one by back fire exit, in addition to a HD, why shall we have to have additional MCP by the right exit to a small terrace, then we have to climb up a ladder to get to the ground, this exit is far away of about 5-6m to first MCP and about 10-12m to the second one?

The question is would the exiting MCPs and HD be sufficient?

[CivvyFSO]

If you are forced to pass another MCP on that particular way out then it could be considered that even though you have gone outside it isn't a true exit. (Think of the typical enclosed courtyard, it is an exit out to fresh air but it wouldn't warrant a MCP; it is more akin to leaving a room.) Where's the risk to relevant persons created by the lack of this requested call point?

[Allen Higginson]

Theoritical - if the exit to the patio was open and I had to leave in a hurry due to a fire then I would take the closest exit.if this was the laddered exit so be it!

[Thomas Brookes]

One thing everyone seems to have missed on this thread is that, the fire risk assessment does not have to follow the British Standards to the letter.
The whole point of a assessment for each building is to assess the hazzards and risks in that building, yes we all know BS5839-1 is possibly the best practice at the moment for fire alarm systems however a good fire risk assessment will look at the whole building and if required ask for extra detectors, call point, fire stopping, new procedures etc etc etc.

[David Rooney]

Can't you take away the ladder and forget that it's an exit ??

[Big_Fella]

Can't you take away the ladder and forget that it's an exit ??

And say its a rather large window...? 

[kurnal]

One thing everyone seems to have missed on this thread is that, the fire risk assessment does not have to follow the British Standards to the letter.
The whole point of a assessment for each building is to assess the hazzards and risks in that building, yes we all know BS5839-1 is possibly the best practice at the moment for fire alarm systems however a good fire risk assessment will look at the whole building and if required ask for extra detectors, call point, fire stopping, new procedures etc etc etc.

Absolutely right Thomas.
I was in a cricket pavilion today 40m x 12m with three designated fire exits and 14 additional hinged patio doors. 17 call points would have been super. Then I went into a pub and noticed that the only call point was behind the bar. All good stuff and appropriate provided someone has identified it as a variation on the commissioning certificate and justified it through the risk assessment. The system works!

I think I probably would have made a justification for the status quo in Benz's original posting rather than recommended another call point.