Emergency Lighting Testing

[William 29]

I have a client with a very large retirement living village that has 100's of EL units. They have been informed by the fire officer they need to do a monthly EL test that simulates power failure for every unit on a monthly basis.

Is there any relaxation of this under BS5266:11? It would take a month nearly to test them all so almost a full time job!

Thanks

[Dinnertime Dave]

The BS is a guide, although best practice guide.

A large national supermarket has just moved away from weekly fire alarm tests to monthly tests. However, they have produced lots of evidence to back up their argument and done it through their Primary Authority issuing assured advice.

[nearlythere]

I have a client with a very large retirement living village that has 100's of EL units. They have been informed by the fire officer they need to do a monthly EL test that simulates power failure for every unit on a monthly basis.

Is there any relaxation of this under BS5266:11? It would take a month nearly to test them all so almost a full time job!

Thanks

You can relax any guidance Will provided ......

[nearlythere]

I have a client with a very large retirement living village that has 100's of EL units. They have been informed by the fire officer they need to do a monthly EL test that simulates power failure for every unit on a monthly basis.

Is there any relaxation of this under BS5266:11? It would take a month nearly to test them all so almost a full time job!

Thanks

You can relax any guidance Will provided ......

Just while we are on the subject I was reviewing an assessment in a shopping mall in a very very major English city a couple of weeks ago. The F&R Service and the previous Assessment have recorded that the emergency lighting in the Mall and its escape routes is adequate. No explanation as to the type installed.
Problem - I could hardly find any and the managing agency on site could not describe a system. No central battery system. No EL units. No evidence of incorporation in general lighting units. All they could tell me was that they have a generator which only comes on during a mains power failure.
Lot of shxt going to hit a lot of fans I think.

[jayjay]

Simulating a mains failure does not necessarily mean that each individual light isolating switch has to be operated.
As the emergency lights should be on sub circuit failure, switching off a full lighting circuit at the main fuse board or intermediate fuse board will be the same as operating the individual switch. When a lighting circuit is isolated a walk around the premises can be carried out to check that each emergency light is on. Every lighting circuit would not necessarily have to be done at the same time it could be spread over a few days.

This would need to be carried out during daylight and care taken if any areas do not have natural lighting.
I have advised this method in schools as many of the caretakers have knowledge of the lighting circuits and can do the testing before or after occupation.

For new builds, where large numbers of emergency lights are to be installed it is worth considering the self test type.

[kurnal]

NT your example reminds me of a similar case I was involved with in the 80s. The whole thing fell apart when I asked to see the generator. There wasn't one and never had been! This was despite being described in the fire certificate and licensing documentation.

[lyledunn]

Well that is what happens when you skimp on capital costs! Especially where there are lots of individual units that every plonker knows will need testing! There are many types of automatic testing systems available that could have been employed that would have mitigated the need for costly human intervention. Even a simple relay system with a run back timer would allow the caretaker to get a wee bit of exercise every month without exerting himself too much!

[colin todd]

Suppers, I am intrigued at the PAS FRS agreeing to monthly testing.  Can you spill the beans as to which one and why, apart from lots of smoke and mirrors.  If it is based on "risk assessment", HSE policy on such a matter is very clear-it is inappropriate to even try to use risk assessment to circumvent a practice that is universally agreed in an industry.  As recently as 2002, the whole matter of weekly testing and the need for it was subject to review and extensive discussion within the relevant BSI technical committee and within the profession.  As a result, the extent and nature of the weekly testing was changed, but still incorporating a single weekly test.  No doubt the leading fireman who agreed it can enlighten us all as to why we were wrong.

[AnthonyB]

If it's the supermarket chain I strongly suspect it is the PA is Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service

[colin todd]

And to think they are virtually Scottish, Tony, makes me kind of sad.

[Dinnertime Dave]

If it's the supermarket chain I strongly suspect it is the PA is Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service

Good guess. Check the PA register for the supermarket name.

The initial trial took place at approximately 700 stores.

The statistics used to justify the approach are from 8 week period where 3774 test were carried out 81 tests (2.14%) resulted in report of a fault of these only 14 (0.37%) were actual faults. This compared to weekly tests that have a actual fault rate of 0.5%. Panels have fault indicators, are in a prominent position and are checked daily. The test data shows that decreasing the frequency has little if any impact on fault detection.

[kurnal]

I bet the statistics also showed that no persons were put at risk due to the faults as no fires occurred at any of the stores where the alarm was faulty. It is therefore clear that the chance of a fire occurring whilst the alarm is faulty is negligible?

[Fishy]

British Standards are generally written with the intent of covering 99% of the country's premises, so if someone is convinced they can make a case why they are in the 1% and they've achieved an equivalent level of fire safety by other means, then who am I to say they're wrong?

Generally speaking, though, Colin's absolutely right about the published guidance on using risk assessment to avoid doing what's regarded as Good Industry Practice.  Slippery slope...

[colin todd]

Suppers, it is well known that, if you change to monthly testing, the chance of having a fire when the system is totally disabled is negligible.  But that is using risk assessment for a purpose for which it was never intended.  Does someone really check the panel EVERY day, including after a period of shutdown, to check the little green LED is illuminated, which is the only sign that there is power to the system.  And is an offence now committed if they do not do so.

Nah, don't buy it Suppers.

[nearlythere]

Any truth in the rumour Dot that you are soon be outed as a Strictly competitor?