FIRE SAFETY
Importance of fire damper safety testing underlined
The NHS has a legacy of ageing properties, many of which have ventilation systems where it is not possible to gain access for effective cleaning or mandatory annual safety inspection and testing of fire dampers. This lack of access is not a new issue, and needs to be afforded much higher priority on risk registers, argues Andrew Steel, managing director of Airmec Essential Services, an independent ventilation, air, and water hygiene specialist which provides safety services for several NHS Trusts.
Few would argue that one of the biggest ventilation management problems facing hospital Estates teams is maintenance, and maintenance access. If you cannot get to it, you cannot maintain it or certify that it is safe. Sooner or later, the equipment or plant in question is not going to do its job, and will potentially become a danger in its own right.
In the case of fire dampers, this can mean losing control of the spread of fire and smoke which – even in small volumes – can cause significant and expensive damage to critical equipment, as well as a threat to life. Sometimes the dampers cannot close properly due to accumulation (often over many years) of contamination, or they have failed and closed, which can lead to stuffy rooms and an imbalance of ventilation systems. We’ve even seen them wedged open after ‘nuisance tripping’. So, let’s be clear: operating premises with ineffective and untested fire dampers is both unlawful and unsafe – whatever your budget challenges – and those challenges will only loom larger when you need to look at capital expenditure in order to modify your system to enable access for safety inspectors.
Issue at Birmingham hospital Who can forget the scandal back in 2015 when Channel 4 News revealed that
hundreds of dampers at a ‘flagship’ PFI hospital in Birmingham had never been tested? When attempts were made to address the situation, fewer than 50% passed the test: many were found to be damaged, and almost 200 in one section of the hospital alone could not be found or reached at all. Has the situation improved across the NHS estate as a result of this publicity? Sadly, we see that there’s still a long way to go, as we continue to come across sites where testing has been too difficult, or even impossible, due to lack of access, and has been ‘put on a back burner’. Inevitably, that means fire dampers are not being tested properly on those premises. The issue was not unknown: a year
before the Birmingham ‘exposé’, an Estates and Facilities Alert (DH/2014/0031)1
had been issued by the
Department of Health. That alert says unequivocally that ‘Where a lack of safe access to a fire or smoke damper, and its associated actuating mechanism, is identified, this should be brought to the immediate attention of the Director of Estates & Facilities and the Trust Fire Safety Manager / Fire Advisor’. The big question is what comes next –
after the issue is advised to senior staff? Is it prompt action, or languishing on a risk register, where the issue competes with countless other priorities?
Out of sight but not out of mind Our argument is that while they may be out of sight, fire dampers cannot be out of mind. If faulty, they are never a low risk issue – they are a live fire risk. The simple fact is that HTM guidance tells us that every fire damper should be inspected and physically tested annually. The ALARP principle of risk management – As Low As Reasonably Possible - surely cannot apply to such critical safety equipment. This is especially so as the risk is known, and the measures to be taken are unambiguous: annual testing and inspection – and that requires access. If you don’t have that access, you need to provide it. The solution to providing access is
generally not complex – it usually involves fitting inspection hatches to ventilation ductwork adjacent to each fire damper. Sometimes additional access such as ladders/walkways is needed, which of course is not to dismiss the fact that site logistics may be complex if contractors undertaking the work are to minimise disruption to the medical team and patients. Budgeting may be even more challenging when work that falls under the capital expenditure budget comes in. Of course, anything that hampers
effective estates management, and further bolsters the backlog, has practical implications for healthcare delivery. An
An access hatch ready for installation.
An access hatch installed and readily accessible. November 2022 Health Estate Journal 63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
