Fire Door Hold Open Devices - Surrey FRS

[StuartH]

Does anyone know Surrey's policy on the use of fire door hold open devices. I did a FRA earlier this week at a low to normal risk two storey office building in which Dorguard's are being used to hold open fire doors fitted to a single protected staircase. Although I know that it is almost certain that Surrey F&RS would not allow dorguards to be used to hold open fire doors provided to protect a single protected starcase, does anyone know if they have a policy on the use of magnetic hold open devices connected to the fire alarm system in these circumstances. The building is fitted with a L3 Fire Alarm system. I ask as I have heard of very differing policies within Fire and Rescue Services throughout the UK. I am aware of one local authority fire service permitting the use of dorguards for single protected staircases just as long as there is no sleeping risk.

I could telephone Surrey FRS on Monday for the customer, but am keen to try and get the report written up this weekend.  

[Phoenix]

I wouldn't worry about any policy that Surrey FRS may or may not have.  You're the one that's inspected the whole building, you've seen and contemplated the risks and now you're the most able person to make a decision on whether or not these devices can be safely used.

I think it would put Surrey FRS in a potentially difficult position if they did have a policy of not accepting these devices.  I think the manufacturers of the devices might have issue with them.  There is no doubt that the devices can be used perfectly safely, many will argue that the building is safer if they are fitted than if they are not.  So, how can Surrey have a policy of not accepting them?  It would be asking for trouble.

In making your judgement, you should think about the locations of smoke detectors near the device, how often the occupants close the door (at night for example?), how often the device is tested and serviced, what systems are in place for rectifying faults, signage on the door, the possibility of the door becoming warped, etc.  If everything is ticketty-boo then the FRS cannot argue against them.

Recommend what you feel is safest.

Stu

[kurnal]

In answer to Phoenix' point the Surrey position MAY be along the lines of the guidance in BS7273 part 4. So they could legitimately have a  policy with regard to say the use of category 3 devices in a single staircase building and expect you to justify how,  in the case in point, your variation provides an equivalent degree of safety.

[nearlythere]

CACFO released a document in March 03 which included the use of Dorgards. Because of the Order not quite sure if it is still CFOA policy. Document in pdf so unable to cut and paste specific section or insert link, as I am too old to do such high tech things, but there is reference to single stairway situations. Can send anyone full doc on request.

[StuartH]

I'd be grateful if you could email me the document. You should be able to email me directly through the forum.

[Phoenix]

In answer to Phoenix' point the Surrey position MAY be along the lines of the guidance in BS7273 part 4. So they could legitimately have a  policy with regard to say the use of category 3 devices in a single staircase building and expect you to justify how,  in the case in point, your variation provides an equivalent degree of safety.

I agree absolutely, kurnal, that if such devices are fitted then they should comply with the appropriate standard.  I'm sure that you, like me, have seen rather ad hoc interpretation of the principles in your time.

Stu

[kurnal]

Yes for my part I would rather see a cat 3 dorgard on a single staircase than a wedge and in my risk assessments have from time to time recommended this as a short term measure with a longer term objective of installing a cat 1 device. (I can see Colin T raising his eyebrows once again as I type)

[terry martin]

I have seen some awful examples of these devices being used.

one such example; 2 floors of 25m dead end corridors with single staircase at one end. virtually all rooms fire-doors to each corridor, and the fire-doors to the staircase were held open with an acoustic hold open device.

None had been maintained, ever!!! So when i arrived, virtually all of them didn't work. I was absolutely gobsmacked to see that staff were also wedging their devices to make it hold the door open, or, stuck a wedge in right next to it.

So I asked staff what they were. Not one of them could tell me. Here lies the problem in my opinion. Management.

Kurnal, i agree, a short term solution in this circumstance could be acceptable. part of that rationale is because it would eliminate some management and maintenance concerns. But not in the long term. Apart from compliance with BS7273 part 4. There are sometimes too many variables, in my opinion. Poor management, change of occupancy, staff, or use for example.

[StuartH]

To reinforce the points made above, at the premises I assessed, the RP confirmed that the Dorguards have been in position for approximately several years and have never worked. I advised strongly that the dorguards be disabled by removing the batteries.

Turns out that the devices were in position when the RP took over and he never know how they were supposed to work. He said that he just changed the batteries in each device as when the batteries went flat.

The RP did also confirm that no hold open device would result in staff wedging fire doors open due the confined nature of the offices located off the staircase. A sensible alternative, in my opinion, would be to you use electro magnetic hold open devices fitted to the fire alarm. Although not an ideal solution, its better than having fire doors wedged open. I am trying to avoid offering this as a realistic solution, only for the local FRS to come in and take issue with the situation.

I would welcome comments from consultants / fire service officers who have been in a similiar situation.

[kurnal]

What is the standard of the fire alarm system and what level of detection is provided?

[StuartH]

Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.

[kurnal]

It would appear absolutely reasonable in an office premises with an L3 alarm system and a single staircase to use magnetic hold open devices. Dorgards could be iffy as they are category C of BS7273 part 4 but magnets to category 1 should be fine. I think in the circumstances you should ask for a second opinion from the fire officers gaffer (the nice way) or call their bluff. "This is my risk assessment and this is what we are doing if you dont like it serve a notice and we will appeal and when we win we will recover our costs from you".

[StuartH]

Thank you, I will try and get and indication from Surrey FRS on Monday. I went through the premises detailed records and it appears that there is nothing to confirm that the premises have been inspected by Surrey FRS since the dorguards where installed, despite the premises previously being certificated.

[nearlythere]

Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.

If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.

[Phoenix]

Its L3. The manual fire alarm was upgraded to L3 last year to compensate for the lack of smoke lobbies to the single protected staircase. It seems that the assessor last year ducked the issue re the extensive use of dorguard. The RP at the premises is keen to put right the situation but has stressed that in the absence of some form of hold open device fire doors will almost certainly be wedged open.

If it accepted an L3 system as compensation for lobby protection to a single stairway then Dorgards should be no problem.

Nearly,

Whilst I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it should be made clear that it is universally accepted practice in this sort of building to accept smoke detection in rooms adjoining the escape route in lieu of lobbies.

Stu