FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Alarm Systems => Topic started by: Username on January 29, 2016, 09:36:56 AM
-
Apologies for resurrecting this topic but I'm struggling and was hoping for some clarification.
One of our care homes was recently inspected and a failure was raised due to the frequency of the fire alarm maintenance. We presently test 25% of the system every 3 months giving a 100% test over a 12 month period. This we believed met BS 5839-1 because whilst the technicians are here they also check all batteries, signaling, false alarm records etc etc on every visit.
The inspecting officer has told us that we should be testing 100% of the system every six months.
Whilst I feel we can justify our non-conformance with this in our FRA if necessary, I'm not convinced the BS actually requires it.
Any thoughts?
-
Sounds like the inspector is not clear about what is covered in BS 5839-1 by "45.3 Periodic Inspection & Test of the System" (which has a recommended period between successive inspection and servicing visits not exceeding six months) and the "45.4 Recommendations for inspection and test of the system over a 12 month period" (which may be carried out over the course of two or more service visits during each twelve month period).
Functional testing of the detectors, MCPs and other devices falls under the second category, which can therefore be spread over two or more visits during the year.
-
Just to broaden what Al has said,
Clause 45.3 is mostly inspection of the system with testing on the CIE and associate equipment, the frequency should not exceed six months. Clause 45.4 covers functional testing of the detectors, MCPs and other devices with further tests on the CIE and associate equipment to be done over a twelve month period.
You really need BS 5839 pt 1 to check which items need to be done at least six monthly or twelve monthly and with what you say you are most probably meeting the guidance.
-
Thanks for the responses.
I'm assuming the confusion arises because in 45.3 (g) it states the operation of the fire alarm devices should be checked, whereas 45.4 actually specifies a functionality test.
What would satisfy 45.3 (g)? Simply checking the panel for faults? Done by the fire alarm techs during their quarterly maintenance visit.
Fire system is analogue addressable by the way.
-
Much of 45.3 is visual inspection of the kit and the building for any changes that might require a modification of the FD&A system.
The main things that require checking within 6 months are the panel functions, power supplies and standby batteries, the operation of the sounders and a test of at least one detector or call point on each circuit plus operation of the remote signalling system.
As you say, this should all be covered on the quarterly / six monthly visits anyway.
(g) is simply checking the operation of the alarm sounders (aka "devices")
Perhaps the Officer is misinterpreting "devices" to mean everything. Point him toward 3.19.
-
Username: I am intrigued about the 'failure' of the inspection. Was this a fire service/enforcement inspection, and if so, have you been issued with a notice or was it advice?
-
Sorry about the delay in replying!
This was a formal, routine fire safety audit undertaken by our Fire and Rescue Service.
The wording in the covering letter which followed the inspection does say that it isn't an enforcement notice but that it constitutes a formal request for action to be taken to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.
There are then a couple of pages of 'Findings'. each finding has a header eg Risk Assessment, then underneath in bold the word 'Failure'. This is followed by a few lines referencing the reason and then a section "Steps to remedy the failure"
Putting aside the detail of the finding, the terminology used for what is a relatively low level issue has caused concerns within my organisation.
-
Sounds like a Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies - basically a 'memo' dressed up as a legal document and IMO a very underhand way for enforcers to act. There is no mention of them in the RR(FSO)2005, but the design is almost identical to an enforcement notice and designed to scare unwary punters into compliance.
Public servants should act a little more transparently than this and drop the bully boy approach
Be warned, it is still a disclosable communication so it cannot be ignored, but I reckon the NOFSD design should be altered to make it's status a little clearer
-
Messy,
That's the sad thing, we want to work with the fire service to constantly improve. But receiving an official letter of this type just gets my bosses saying "Why have we spent all this money doing that improvement",(I don't know, additional fire doors, extra rescue equipment or something) "when actually you aren't even testing the fire alarm properly!!! Get that sorted before anything else!!!"
The danger is we just do what's needed to avoid the Failure rather than actually making the place safer!
-
With regards to the wording of the notifications of deficiency letter and others, CFOA produced a suite of letters covering everything from satisfactory letters up to prohibition notices, these were adopted by brigades, in a lot of cases to the disappointment of inspecting officers. It was pointed out the wording was often disproportionate to the level of deficiency but as normal the powers to be sitting in their HQ offices insisted they had to be used.
CFOA recently updated these letters, introducing even more and so be warned that's what is likely to be used but don't blame the poor old inspector he is caught firmly in the middle, blame CFOA and service senior officers...oops! managers as they like to call themselves these days.