Plant isolation interfaced to the fire alarm system

[XMY556]

Can any one advise or point me to relevant guidance/standards regarding weather or not any other ancillary equipment interfaced to the fire alarm system must be tested and recorded. Has is done with the MCP, detector heads, EMRs and sounders which are all annually tested by an accredited engineer. I have asked my estates department do they annually test the plant isolation equipment that is connected/interfaced to the alarm  i.e. gas isolation solenoids’, fume/air intake or extract systems to which they answered no.
My opinion is these should be tested to, but there is the extra cost and management incurred for reinstating the plant this also I feel need to be considered. What would be reasonable & practicable?
Any advice, guidance would be appreciated

[Izan FSO]

Rod
RR(FS)O Article 17. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order ...are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

If these systems are interfaced with the fire alarm i would say they are "provided in respect of the order" and should be suitably maintained.

[kurnal]

I would suggest that this is covered by para 45.4. k) of BS5839 part 1 2002 - all fire alarm devices should be checked for correct operation. (every year).

[David Rooney]

I would suggest that this is covered by para 45.4. k) of BS5839 part 1 2002 - all fire alarm devices should be checked for correct operation. (every year).

Simply to be pedantic......I thought "Fire Alarm Devices" was another strange name for alarm sounders and beacons.....??

[kurnal]

Well yes maybe David, but if that para doesnt apply then there is no provision for testing of these devices. And every thing needs to be tested once in a while. Some of these things are pretty important, some less so but i contend every interface to everything should be tested once per year as a minimum and more frequently if other instructions say so- eg sprinkler standards require flow switches to be tested once per month if I recall correctly.

[colin todd]

BS 5839-1 does not apply to ancillary devices. Fire alarm devices are sounders etc. This does not mean the interfaces should not be tested, merely that this work is not a BS 5839-1 issue.

[Allen Higginson]

fire alarm device - component of a fire alarm system, not incorporated in the control and indicating equipment, which is used to give a warning of fire.
The signal from an I?O unit (to control equipment for shutdown etc.) could be said to be a warning of fire.

[Allen Higginson]

BS 5839-1 does not apply to ancillary devices. Fire alarm devices are sounders etc. This does not mean the interfaces should not be tested, merely that this work is not a BS 5839-1 issue.

....or maybe I'm just blethering on!!!

[colin todd]

No it couldn't. Interfaces with other systems are a matter for other standards such as BS 7273.

[David Rooney]

I understand ancillary devices are outside the scope of the regs but what about interfaces to paging systems/vibrating pillows and such.... isn't the I/O unit effectively giving the warning of fire to the paging system ??

[jokar]

They are part of the system and should be tested as such.  Ancillary bits operate with the system, thats the difference.

[kurnal]

No it couldn't. Interfaces with other systems are a matter for other standards such as BS 7273.

Course they are. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees

But would it be a good idea to include a general statement in 5839 pointing out that all elements of a fire alarm system and any interfaces should be tested and maintained? (Not that I am advocating yet more updates)

[XMY556]

Dear All

Thank you in sharing your opinions regarding this subject. So because there is no direct BS or other guidance document stating or recommending that ancillary equipment interfaced to the fire alarm system must be tested and recorded over a set period. Then unless life safety is at significant risk, would I be right to say its what value you put on the building & its assist or weather your business could withstand interruption to normal business from a fire incident.

[Galeon]

So if the system is not set for specific cause and effect , it may be possible in the majority of cases that the weekly test would in fact cover this , and indeed you could specify in your maintenance agreement that all the bells and whistles are at least tested annually etc.

[kurnal]

Dear All

Thank you in sharing your opinions regarding this subject. So because there is no direct BS or other guidance document stating or recommending that ancillary equipment interfaced to the fire alarm system must be tested and recorded over a set period. Then unless life safety is at significant risk, would I be right to say its what value you put on the building & its assist or weather your business could withstand interruption to normal business from a fire incident.

I dont think that is the conclusion drawn as a result of this thread. Rather the requirement for testing is within other BS documents than BS5839.
Consider the range of  typical interfaces to fire alarm systems.

Heating systems
Ventilation systems- including fire vents for property protection and air conditioning
Sprinkler systems
Gas mains
electronic door locks
magnetic hold open devices on fire doors
auto diallers
Fixed installations- inergen et al
Mutes to the PA systems in shops and places of entertainment
Paging systems for deaf people
Paging systems for fire wardens
Lift installations
fire shutters for compartmentation
fire shutters for life safety
Fire curtains

It would be a brave engineer who made the decision as to which of these were provided for property protection alone.  And dont overlook the nature of faults that can arise- the hardware may be fine but the configuration data for the panel cause and effect, or on larger systems the network cofiguration may be corrupted.

All interfaces must be tested. Having seen so many failures especially on modern state of the art analogue addressable and networked systems, it would be gross negligence not to do so in my opinion.