240V Manual Systems

[Stargate]

Hi,

I've been asking around but can't get an answer or find on the net so please help.
What's the legal situation regarding 240V manual ystems now.
Can they still be installed, maintained etc or do they need replacing retrospectivly?

Can anyone point me in the right direction withsites to back it up?

Thanks in advance

[Graeme]

http://www.bfpsa.org.uk/Html/Publications/publ_fra.htm

[AnthonyB]

Extract from the BFSPA fact file below:

During recent years there has been a steady stream of questions to BFPSA about the continued acceptability of mains powered fire alarm systems with no standby power supply. Such systems were installed in large quantities in the 1950s and 60s and were subsequently phased out, mainly as a result of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the requirements of BS5839-1
While the number of these systems still operational is rapidly reducing, owners of such systems that are still performing satisfactorily are often reluctant to replace them. In most cases, however, they no longer comply with the requirements of current legislation.
The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 relate to the requirements of safety signs and signals used at work.
Clause 2, Interpretation, of these Regulations states within Section (1) the following text:
““fire safety sign” means a sign (including an illuminated sign or an acoustic signal) which –
(i) provides information of escape routes and emergency exits in
case of fire;
(ii) provides information on the identification or location of fire
fighting equipment; or
(iii) gives warning in case of fire”
As a fire alarm may be signalled by a visual or audible signal, such devices are included within the Regulations.
Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 8 of the Regulations states:
“8 Signs requiring some form of power must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut, unless the hazard has thereby been eliminated.”

By taking the requirements of these clauses into account, the use of mains powered fire alarm systems with no standby power supply is not acceptable if they are provided as a means of meeting health and safety requirements in a place of work. In such places, fire alarm systems complying with the requirements of BS5839-1: 1988 or 2002 would normally be recommended.
FURTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996
No. 341).


Of course despite all this you'll not get a fire authority to follow this, the buliding we are tenants in is a case in point - 4 floors, 12 seperate office suites, 12 shops & 1 employee flat and has a 240V system with no indicator panel, just a few break glasses & banshees. No emergency lighting despite lots of internal corridors being the only MoE but no natural lighting - yet fine to the fire service as is the lack of a landlord FRA

[colin todd]

Some fire authorities do ''risk assess' the lack of back up. HSE view is that if the premises do not need a file alarm system you can do what you like, but, if one is needed, then the back up is required.

[Freddie Flintoff]

I recently surveyed a large ice rink, it holds around 3000 members of the public when full, it's interior construction is mainly of wood, the electrics in the place looked seriously dodgy. The only means of raising an alarm was a 240v system with no indicator panel or battery back up. I wrote to the customer advising that the system was non compliant with current regulations and due to the factors described above I would recommend at least a conventional fire system.

The customer asked the local fire officer to advise, he attended the site and told the owner of the rink that it was fully compliant and he did not need a new system.

Alarmingly the site had fire exit doors chained and padlocked ( I presume these may have been removed for fire officers visit) and very little in the way of emergency lighting and had very few windows to facilitate any natural light entering.

Not only did I deem this site to be non compliant, I would also have said it was very dangerous, but the local fire officer obviously didn't agree!!

[AnthonyB]

Another sad reflection of non-enforcement around the country. It seems that some either don't care or don't know or indeed go against their own standing orders (many of which are now publically available through FoI on their websites) Mind you even they can be wrong or out of date.

Time and time again the reputation of the many good FSO's is tarred by the jobsworths or worse "couldn't gve a damn" types. Traditionally the later fell back on outdated fire cert's, and the fact the premises had not materially altered as a reason for "hands being tied"

The RRO should theoretically change this, but will it really??

I think only a major tragedy will cause a rethink, as is the pattern in Fire Safety history

[Graeme]

The customer asked the local fire officer to advise, he attended the site and told the owner of the rink that it was fully compliant and he did not need a new system!!

and i bet the customer now thinks you were trying it on.

[colin todd]

The officer could probably give a damn. He is merely not adequately trained to do the job he is doing and has not been given the correct info by his management. Tell the customer to look at BS 5839-1 if he doesn not want to plough through the Regs themselves.

[messy]

Colin, Although I agree about the minimal training, a worst problem is that some IOs - expecially the experienced ones, will not ask for help, guidance or advice from their peers as they would see this as devaluing their status within the team.

This situation is worsened by inexperiened Fire Safety team leaders who tend to direct queries from less experienced IOs towards the older hands, a practise which enhances the 'expert' status of those older hands and makes it even less likely they'll say "I don't know". I have had superb help from experienced IOs but I have also heard some quite dodgy advice which is plainly wrong/iffy!.

This must be the case with the ice rink example above. 3000 punterss in a place of entertainment with combustible construction, dubious AFD, and no EL???!!!  Surely even to the most wet-behind-the-ears IO, (even in a certain Met Brigade!) that example should cause some professional anxiety, which should be researched further if the IO is unsure.

A few less individual stars and an injection of more team players may go a long way in improving the service offered

[colin todd]

Messy, I bow to your experience of the ''inside'' of which I have none, but I do think that the guys should be trained sufficently. I have, however, experienced officers and ex officers ofyour brigade who were clearly reluctant to ask and felt that they had to the ''expert'' on everything. This causes them to hand out advice on matters that they should leave alone. You have now explained some of the reasons that this occurs. Its the old thing about the man who knows not and knows not that he knows not being a large met I/o, whereas the man who knows not but knows that he knows not being more your wise man.

[Graeme]

I still know of many sites with 240v systems still in use.As far as the owners are concerened if they break as glass it makes a noise, so it works.

[colin todd]

Thenn there is plenty of potential for you to sell them a new system, Graeme!

[Graeme]

you would have thought so Colin but some sites i have been to seem not to bothered that their fire alarm system does not comply with BS as it is not law(wish i had a pound for every time i hear that one).So when i also tell them it's not legal and against H&S they still seem uninterested as the fire alarm system does it's job and has so for years.
What's a young man to do? I let them get on with it and go on my merry way.

[old timer]

I recently surveyed a large ice rink, it holds around 3000 members of the public when full, it's interior construction is mainly of wood, the electrics in the place looked seriously dodgy. The only means of raising an alarm was a 240v system with no indicator panel or battery back up. I wrote to the customer advising that the system was non compliant with current regulations and due to the factors described above I would recommend at least a conventional fire system.

The customer asked the local fire officer to advise, he attended the site and told the owner of the rink that it was fully compliant and he did not need a new system.

Alarmingly the site had fire exit doors chained and padlocked ( I presume these may have been removed for fire officers visit) and very little in the way of emergency lighting and had very few windows to facilitate any natural light entering.

Not only did I deem this site to be non compliant, I would also have said it was very dangerous, but the local fire officer obviously didn't agree!!

I don't know your email or I would have contacted you privately - I would advise you to bring your concerns to the senior fire safety officer of the FRS involved especially the observations on the doors being secured in the manner that they were.

Another point that must be made is that - assuming you have the necessary qualifications to do so - you have given advice which you state has been contradicted by the local fire officer. If this advice was given as part - or forms part of the risk assessment of the premises in question it was a very brave (or something else) local officer to do this. The officer, the FRS and the fire authority are laying themselves open to - at the least serious condemnation via the media  to formal legal action - in the event that a fire incident occurs in the premises.