FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Davo on April 10, 2006, 03:28:09 PM
-
I am being told by a FRS I/O that it is a requirement under H &S Safety Signs and Signals 1996 and also BS5839 pt1 that alarms have a bettery back up and that as the legislation was retrospective it should have been done years ago.
I cannot find anything in the legislation or HSE guidance to confirm this.
Will a 240V alarm still be legal as it complied when it was installed in the sixties?
-
definately Not.
Health and Safety(signs and signals) Regulations 1996.
basically any system which gives warning of a fire must have a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut.(battery back up).
Not only does a 240v system not have this but also no visual indication to where a fire is.
what you have been told is correct.
-
I concur with Graeme. (but if you want legal advice, consult a solicitor.)
-
“The Health and Safety (signs and signals) regulations 1996
Under this regulation (Part 1), fire alarm sounders come under “Occasional Signage” and classed as “Acoustic Signals”. This states that signs requiring some sort of power must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of power failure (i.e. - battery back up).
Employers had until the 24th of December 1998 to update and bring their systems into line to comply
With regards to the BS it does not comply to the present standards but this is not retrospective - which is incidental taking into consideration the above.
-
All good points but consider this. I have carried out a suitable & sufficient risk assessment and I have identtified that my existing fire alarm without battery back up is ok. Also my employees are trained to respond to the colour purple and therefore all my fire exit signs will be purple.
I may not be complying the Safety Signs & Signals Regs. but who is going to take me on in Court?
IOs can pursuade responsible persons to upgrade old systems, pointing out the requirement to adapt to technical progress contained in the RRFSO. There are however many older buidings, schools being a good example, where the older alarm systems may well be adequate with suitable management systems in place.
Or are you suggesting that IOs can walk into schools, hospitals etc. and demand immediate upgrades?...I think not. My opinion only of course. P.S Where's my old mucker Mr Todddd gone???
-
You can argue that your risk assessment enables you to comply with the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations - although I would say if you used purple signs it could be argued that your logic was flawed - I think it could be argued that British Standard should be used, it may not only be employees who use your premises (cleaners, insurnace inspectors, visitors, interviewees) etc.
Nonetheless, the Signs and Signals Regs are not being complied with and this is a law of the land. I belive that a HSE inspector could take enforcement action regarding this.
I guess that may be unlikely, but things may be looked at in more detail should a fire occur and your failure to comply with legislation may have other ramifications such as you breaching your insurance contract and leaving yourself open to Civil claims from any injured parties.
-
Second point, a fire alarm system without battery backup would not be suitable in a school, even on FireNet you will see a post from a gentleman who was in a school when a fire occured resulting in a power cut.
That said, only a tiny minority of schools still have such systems (speaking from my personal experience of being round more schools than I have had school dinners....well maybe.....reconsidering that maths on that one...but you get the idea).
-
You can argue as much as you like that my arguement to use purple signs is flawed but if my risk assessment and managemnt sytems supports my view I think you would be hard pressed to make me change them.
It is the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation at present that have to be complied with and soon hopefully the RRFSO.
Both pieces of legislation contain offence provisions but serious offences only occur if persons are placed at serious risk.
HSE inspectors are unlikely to enforce Safety Signs & Signals Regs, they would, I would hope refer the matter to a FRS IO to enforce the appropriate legislation.....so where is the offence in that legislation for no battery back up and purple exit signs??
I agree you can expalin that if something went wrong it would be for the responsible preson to explain why he had not complied with recommendations but what you are suggesting is precriptive fire safety...not risk appropriate...and those days....hopefully are gone.
-
Sorry Phil but i think that's a bit crazy.
240v systems are totally inadeqate regardless how vigilant your staff are.
Will they test the wiring every day to make sure that the old wax coated stuff has not given up in certain areas or test a manual call point every 5 minutes.
If you have a loss of power to the system alone or a cable fault(happens quite alot now due to age of cables carrying 240v everyday) how would you know about it?
You are relying on 50 year old cable to provide a reliable supply to the fire system,not to mention a cable at risk from damage from contractors etc.
Not a system i would put my name to.
-
Graeme
With respect, I think you are missing the point. I would not want to put my name to such a sytem either but it is not you or I who is required to do so, it is the responsible person who needs to provide what is reasonable in the circumstances and justify what is or isn't provided by means of a suitable & sufficient RA.
Of course the person who advises the responsible person should give best advice but that could lead to problems if the adviser lacks the ability to use common sense and professional judgement. What needs to be avoided, in my view, is consultants recommending belts braces and another set of braces to cover their backsides and hide their incompetence. That would lead to onerous prescriptive fire safety measures which is what I thought we were trying to move away from.
-
Speaking from an engineers perspective,I will agree that I have seen OTT fire systems designed by consultants who are making sure they cover their bums and end up making a total hash of it.It is also fair to say that,depending on numbers involved,that a handbell is sufficient providing you have vigilant fire wardens.
However,in the same way that consultants can (from time to time) use the standards to basically scare clients into solutions it is also fair to say that there are those who use regulations to justify a totally inadequate fire system (general comment and not directed to anyone).
In this case a mains fire alarm could be "risk assessed" on it's on merit - the obvious hazards being mains failure and poor system integrity, the risks coming in under no battery back up, no monitoring for faults on either the sounder or break glass circuits,no zoning (though of course it being a BGU only system you can have the zone at 10000m2 but only one the same horizontal plane) leading to no indication of origin of activation etc.
I have condemned a similar system for all the reasons above and under the Acoustic Signals part of the H & S document ( click here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960341_en_2.htm) - thankfully this customer has seen sense and moved on it.
-
Surely, both the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation and The RR(FS)O state, "minimise the burden on business" as most often quoted but the part that matters, not often quoted is "to maintain and where possible improve" existing standards. Whilst I would agree that it is currently the employers burden and soon to be the Responsible Persons burden, the onus of responsibility for death or serious injury rets with those persons. Perhaps we should bring all details to their attention and tell them the possible outcomes and then when they decide, the judiciary will do the rest. I know it doesn't sound or appear rght but that is what this legislation ties us all into.
-
You can argue as much as you like that my arguement to use purple signs is flawed but if my risk assessment and managemnt sytems supports my view I think you would be hard pressed to make me change them.
It is the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation at present that have to be complied with and soon hopefully the RRFSO.
Both pieces of legislation contain offence provisions but serious offences only occur if persons are placed at serious risk.
HSE inspectors are unlikely to enforce Safety Signs & Signals Regs, they would, I would hope refer the matter to a FRS IO to enforce the appropriate legislation.....so where is the offence in that legislation for no battery back up and purple exit signs??
I agree you can expalin that if something went wrong it would be for the responsible preson to explain why he had not complied with recommendations but what you are suggesting is precriptive fire safety...not risk appropriate...and those days....hopefully are gone.
What I am about to say might not please everyone, but we can't just put in anything we like and say it is OK because one has done a risk assessment.
Many other pieces of legislation apply to workplaces in addition to the Fire Precautions Workplace Regulations and many will continue to do so for some time.
-
In a simplistic world one could argue (under current legislation) that the employer creates the risk and is the person best placed to control the risk, using a risk assessment, in full knowledge that if they get it wrong their diligence will be tested in a court of law and they could be deprived of their freedom. This is the European ideal and is ok as far as it goes. The threat of criminal and civil action being taken against them, is all the reason they should need to comply diligently and will often be backed up by the insurance company. The enforcement authorities should expect to find compliance when they have cause to pay a visit. Its a nice ideal but has many flaws.
And especially where the public have no choice over whether or not they visit a building, eg a school, where failure to send your children is a criminal offence, is it right that someone's crass decisions to justify an old alarm system because they are short of funds should place my children at risk? What rights do I have as a service user? Its all right talking about enforcement etc but its cold comfort that if a loved one dies at the hands of these people. And if I have some serious concerns I want to know the enforcement agencies will take appropriate action.
As a member of the public I feel I too should have a right to examine and comment on the risk assessment because it directly affects my safety.The fact that it is mostly local authority buildings that still have these obsolete and unsatisfactory alarm systems, poor standards of maintenance and cheap and nasty building design without fire stopping says it all. Double standards. I guess I am one of these belt and braces incometent risk assessors because a I would not dream of trying to justify one of these old mains powered alarm systems as being satisfactory, unless I would also have accepted a rotary gong or other human operated system instead.
Does anybody remember M&S and a supermarket chain doing their own thing with exit sign colours in the 1970s and early 80s? If I recall one of the supermarkets exit signs were orange and beige at one time.
-
Phil
i have come across many sites with 240v systems and the RP is not interested that their system is far from up to any standard and will never do anything about it.
As far as they are concerned they are doing more than their bit by testing the system every week,by pressing the test button for a millisecond and hearing a faint sound of a bell somewhere.The bell goes when they push the button,therefore they have a working system..
You can only inform that the system is not to BS and H+S and as it's 240v should be rewired every 25 years (i think about that for a commercial site,been a long time) and sometimes it goes against you for covering your own back as the RP thinks he can see the £ signs in your eyes.
He then tries several other companies,one of which takes on the site and tells the RP that all the others companies who did'nt are talking nonsense.
can't win.
-
I doubt one could claim - due diligence - if you knew that the alarm was in contravention of a statutory requirement and did nothing about it.
I think you will find that the Signs and signals regs will be enforced by EHOs (who are all power crazyed megalomaniacs - so dont be too cocky)
-
Graeme you make an excellent point. ....." He then tries several other companies,one of which takes on the site and tells the RP that all the others companies who did'nt are talking nonsense....."
The real danger I see is consultants who will fudge their RAs to save a company money. Soon many hotels will face the prospect of upgrading fire alarm systems to comply with current standards.
Now do they spend several thousand pounds installing AFD in all bedrooms...or pay a consultant a few pounds less to come up with a risk assessment that says the old system is fine....believe me this is already happening.
Calm down dears I wasn't supporting keeping inferior alarm systems in schools or calling Kurnal incompetent...I was merely pointing out that prescriptive fire safety is a thing of the past!
Wee Brian...look into Safety Signs & signal Regs and see who the enforcing authority is for those Regs in premises to which the workplace fire precautions legislation applies...answers on a postage stamp.
-
i have had an enquiry from a hotel recently who need to upgrade their FD+a system.
It was a wierd system with no panel,mcp's only and the batteries were in a old speaker type looking thing.
The wiring was the same for a 3 wire system.
They may have their work cut out trying to find someone to say it's fine.(but you never know)
The log book had an entry from Noah when he originally commissioned the system.
-
Graeme
I expect you probably remember Noahs signature from a cheque he once wrote out for you
Phil
no offence just trying to promote a good debate- we are all such gentlemen on this forum afraid to tread on each others toes!
-
Phil,
'Suitable and sufficient' will eventually reach the Courts but until that time it is up to the enforcing authority, (yes there are still some left, they are just not paying MinM prices for an ancient classroom with 30 students and rabbit hutches to sleep in), to decide whether the FRA is indeed suitable and sufficent. Many FRS insist, as a matter of course, compliance with the signs and signals regs. Never been challenged yet! I look forward to the first case of a dodgy landlord trying to convince a judge that bell wire and air raid sirens represent suitable and sufficient.
Don't get too hung up on the minutae of the law...enforcing authorities are still there to enforce. The name gives it away.
-
Graeme
I expect you probably remember Noahs signature from a cheque he once wrote out for you
I think that one bounced, i would need to look it up as i was not even thought of back then being so youthful.
-
Val, I look forward to suitable & sufficient hitting the Courts as it is not defined unfortunately in the order or the new guidance. The other vital term, significant findings is defined, but that definition varies from guide to guide and differs from that in ACOP to MHSW Regs.
So you don't like the FSC, ok but many FRS do send their IOs there as do many from other organisations. The FRA course does explain what constitutes S&S & SFs.
Unfortunately many IOs....especially those who attend other courses....wouldn't know what constitues a suitable & sufficient RA.......so how are they going to challenge one in Court..... and...."Many FRS insist, as a matter of course, compliance with the signs and signals regs."............
I afraid Val that the FRS cannot insist, unless they are prepared to serve a notice....and they certainly cannot prosecute unless employees are placed at serious risk.
I know many dinosaurs are still out there using the Bluff & Persuation Act but it is for the responsible person to determine what is required following his RA..........not the enforcing authority..............yes they can challenge his RA but I would recommend attending a suitable & sufficient training course.....perhaps one on prosecution procedures......before doing so.
-
It seems somewhat irresponsible to ignore a piece of legislation such as the Signs and Signals Regs.
Much of the debate in FireNet on this subject and others seems to focus on complying with legislation and avoiding enforcement action. I think the people who use the services of a consultant might hope that they do more than the legal minimum!
Has anyone got any arguments about why we should ignore the Signs and Signals Regulations other than that doing so may not lead to enforcement action or that doing so saves money?
-
Chris I'm not suggesting we should ignore the regs but I am saying we need to apply risk appropriate fire safety and not be precriptive. In some premises rigid adherence to the regulations may not be necessary or appropriate. Consider this I have an old listed building that is only used by me and one employee who is familiar with MOE. No visitors resort to building.
I have an old red illuminated fire exit sign above my fire exit that clearly does not comply with said regulations but adds charcter to my building and I like it. Both me and my employee know where the exit is.
Please explain why I need to change the sign. Will anyone be safer if I do change it? or do I need to change it just because the regulations say so?
-
Chris I'm not suggesting we should ignore the regs but I am saying we need to apply risk appropriate fire safety and not be precriptive. In some premises rigid adherence to the regulations may not be necessary or appropriate. Consider this I have an old listed building that is only used by me and one employee who is familiar with MOE. No visitors resort to building.
I have an old red illuminated fire exit sign above my fire exit that clearly does not comply with said regulations but adds charcter to my building and I like it. Both me and my employee know where the exit is.
Please explain why I need to change the sign. Will anyone be safer if I do change it? or do I need to change it just because the regulations say so?
If I were you I would probably make the same argument. But the situation is we chose to live in a society that has laws and complying with them isn't optional. Besides, this is a different situation from the school that was the previous hypothesis.
-
Oh I see so we have to comply with the regulations regardless of risk....just because the law says so...now I understand. Maybe one day in the future we might move to enforcement appropriate to the risk rather than prescription...that would be a novel idea don't you think?
Just one last point to satisfy an anorak wearing legislation saddo like me......If I refuse to change the sign...when you drag me into Court....what offence have I committed and what statute contains it?
-
Oh I see so we have to comply with the regulations regardless of risk....just because the law says so...
Sorry my friend, but I think that is the idea of the law. I think I can drive faster than the law permits, but that's not an excuse.
I'll leave the second bit of your question to someone braver than myself to answer. But laws are laws. We can't choose the ones that suit. Some permit a risk based approach. Some don't. For example guards on moving machines, they are mandatory. Hard hats below cranes are mandatory.
I would again add, that even if enforcement of a law is difficult for the authorities, I don't think that should result in us ignoring it. Is that Fire Safety?
-
But the law is different Chris. You quote different reglations - as you say the difference comes with the level of duty imposed by the specific regulations, ie Absolute duty, as far as is practicable or as far as is reasonably practicable. Your examples set a level of duty that is absolute ( hard hats, hearing protection etc) or as far as is practicable ( machine guards). Compliance with the Signs and signals regs is to the extent that it is reasonably practicable.
Sorry Chris but theres all the difference in the world.
Take Chatsworth House for example. You wont see any exit signs in the key tourist routes. They would destroy the ambience. But you will see wardens on every escape route and in every significant room. I believe this gives a level of safety in excess of the benchmark of the signs and signals regs. The fire risk assessment should record this as a significant factor and indicate the outcome as an acceptable residual risk level. If the enforcement authority do not agree they have the ultimate sanction of an enforcement notice and the court can decide.
But Phil cant get away with just liking the old type of sign. He needs to show that it is not reasonably practicable to change it to comply with the the regulations. He can take into account the cost ( financial or heritage) , difficulty or inconvenience. If he justifies this to his own satisfaction he is free to stand or fall by his decision. But if he cannot present his evidence for making the decision (verbally would do in the circumstances he describes) he is on very thin ice.
-
At last the voice of reason!!! Happy Easter one and all!!!
-
Surely, both the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation and The RR(FS)O state, "minimise the burden on business" as most often quoted but the part that matters, not often quoted is "to maintain and where possible improve" existing standards. Whilst I would agree that it is currently the employers burden and soon to be the Responsible Persons burden, the onus of responsibility for death or serious injury rets with those persons. Perhaps we should bring all details to their attention and tell them the possible outcomes and then when they decide, the judiciary will do the rest. I know it doesn't sound or appear rght but that is what this legislation ties us all into.
Jokar - I really like the sound of your "to maintain and where possible improve" quotation, but cannot find it anywhere in the RR(FS)O. Can you point us in the right direction and reference the relevant Section?
Thanks
Fishy
-
I too, cannot recall such a phrase being used during the seminar, at Bristol, I attended. I would be interested to locate such a statement in the Order.
Conqueror.
-
It looks like the quotation could have come from the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the RRO - this is the report required by the Regulatory Reform Act for new Orders made under it. These assessments have a habit of saying there will be little or no financial implication on businesses as a result of the new order.
Just a tiny hint of sarcasm - cos its Friday
-
Please read the consultation reports on RR(FS) still availbale on the ODPM, is that John Prescott or now someone else, website. Para 5.63, 7.4 and the regulatory tests from page 61 detail all this. The document explains RR(FS)O and some of the peculiar bits that are in the current document.
-
Blimey Jokar you've done your homework. Never thought that anybody actually read those things!
Will print them off and have a read at bedtime.
-
What does the panel think the highlighted part from the Regs means?
"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."
-
NT
Presumably the power cut stopped the dangerous machine/process!
davo
-
NT
Presumably the power cut stopped the dangerous machine/process!
davo
Davo
Can't see the relationship between your dangerous machines and my signs.
My signs are the fire warning type.
Under interpretation :-
"warning sign" means a sign giving a warning of a risk to health or safety.
That indicates to me a sign can be fire warning signal.
-
Hi NT
Absolutely. IMHO the section you have highlighted would apply to things like fire alarm sounders / fire warning signals etc too.
-
Hi NT
Absolutely. IMHO the section you have highlighted would apply to things like fire alarm sounders / fire warning signals etc too.
Middy. You're a clever cloggs.
Any idea what "............unless the hazard has thereby been eliminated." is all about?
-
I can only pressume it relates more to general health safety matters such as process risk or machinery shut down as Davo mentioned.
I cant think of an occassion where this would apply directly to fire safety precautions, though I'm sure some of the even more cleverer clogs here probably will.
-
Is it just typical meaningless gobbledegook legislation?
-
What does the panel think the highlighted part from the Regs means?
"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."
the hazzard being the power cut itself and you could eliminate it by installing a generator?
-
What does the panel think the highlighted part from the Regs means?
"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."
the hazzard being the power cut itself and you could eliminate it by installing a generator?
I thinks maybe thats what it is trying to say Graeme, albeit very badly.
How do you eliminate the chance of a power cut?
Every time I read it I get more confused. But then it is Saturday morn and I'm off to Dublin's mecca very soon to see Oireland stuff Scotland and have a few bowls of Liffey Water.
-
Don't forget these Regs were made under the HSW Act
A good example would be in a hearing protection zone where the hearing protection sign lights up when the Second Action Level is reached
davo
-
........But then it is Saturday morn and I'm off to Dublin's mecca very soon to see Oireland stuff Scotland and have a few bowls of Liffey Water.
Give a wave to our suits in the box in the Davin stand for me (it's the one with our name above it)!
-
Don't forget these Regs were made under the HSW Act
A good example would be in a hearing protection zone where the hearing protection sign lights up when the Second Action Level is reached
davo
Yes, it probably relates to health and safety matters rather than fire safety specifically.
Clearly there are several things we want to keep working if the power fails in the event of fire, but nothing which shuts down if a hazard has gone away.... The resetting of a fire alarm is normally done manually at the panel, then again what about a Part 6 system without a panel.?
Maybe it does apply to that? I.e; It is undesriable to for an alarm to keep sounding once the hazard (in this case smoke or flame) has gone
-
No midland we are talking here about a backup electrical supply for an electrically powered sign or signal.
If a sign or signal is provided as a risk control measure for a hazard that itself dissappears on a failure of the power supply then no back up supply is needed for the sign or signal.
I have seen this logic wrongly applied by non fire safety specialists in a warehouse for a large on line retailer. In this case the conveyor system used for picking led to an ambient noise level of about 65dbA. They provided mains powered mega blaster sirens to augment the fire alarm to ensure it was audible and did not provide a back up supply for these- their logic was that in a power cut the conveyor would stop so the ordinary non boosted alarm would be audible. They overlooked the fact that a fire could occur that would affect some circuits- eg the megablasters but not other circuits atthe same time eg the conveyor.
I told them about it and they promptly and immediately took no notice at all.
-
You are correct in what you are saying K - the sounders circuit could fail , but the conveyor could be unaffected and could carry on working.
However to be pedantic the conveyor isnt the hazard in your scenario - a fire is. The fact that fire alarm isn't audible increases the risk to relevant persons being harmed by fire but doesn't change the hazard.
"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."
Whether the conveyor is working or not has no bearing on the hazard, it does have a bearing on the risk of course because clearly when the conveyor is operation people can't hear the fire alarm. Conversely the fire alarm sounders are not warning people about the conveyor, they are warning people about a fire.
Thinking on this further this my intepretation is as follows:-
Lets take Kurnal's conveyor system. Lets imagine there are a series of amber flashing lights which flash to warn staff that the conveyor is in use. So long as those flashing lights are on the same circuit as the conveyor they wouldnt require any form of back up. If power to the conveyor fails the lights will go out too (and vice versa).
As I say I can think of other scenarios in terms of general health and safety matters, but I cant think of any occassion where it would apply to fire precautions / fire safety
-
However to be pedantic the conveyor isnt the hazard in your scenario - a fire is. The fact that fire alarm isn't audible increases the risk to relevant persons being harmed by fire but doesn't change the hazard.
Yes I often get confused (along with others no doubt) by the concept of hazard as applied to a fire risk assessment. If we work to BS4422 as we have to, a fire hazard and fire risk have a very narrow definition.
3.343 fire hazard- potential for injury and/or damage from fire
3.374 fire risk- product of the probability of occurrence of a fire to be expected in a given technical operation or state, and
the consequence or extent of damage to be expected on the occurrence of a fire.
PAS 79 uses a slightly different definition of fire hazard.
3.33 fire hazard- source or situation with potential to result in a fire
So an inaudible or defective fire alarm or a locked fire exit are not fire hazards- they are inadequate risk control measures.
-
What does the panel think the highlighted part from the Regs means?
"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."
the hazzard being the power cut itself and you could eliminate it by installing a generator?
I thinks maybe thats what it is trying to say Graeme, albeit very badly.
How do you eliminate the chance of a power cut?
Every time I read it I get more confused. But then it is Saturday morn and I'm off to Dublin's mecca very soon to see Oireland stuff Scotland and have a few bowls of Liffey Water.
Never saw that stuffing you predicted.. ;D
-
What does the panel think the highlighted part from the Regs means?
"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."
the hazzard being the power cut itself and you could eliminate it by installing a generator?
I thinks maybe thats what it is trying to say Graeme, albeit very badly.
How do you eliminate the chance of a power cut?
Every time I read it I get more confused. But then it is Saturday morn and I'm off to Dublin's mecca very soon to see Oireland stuff Scotland and have a few bowls of Liffey Water.
Never saw that stuffing you predicted.. ;D
Can't quite understand it really. ???
-
You are correct in what you are saying K - the sounders circuit could fail , but the conveyor could be unaffected and could carry on working.
However to be pedantic the conveyor isnt the hazard in your scenario - a fire is. The fact that fire alarm isn't audible increases the risk to relevant persons being harmed by fire but doesn't change the hazard.
"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."
Whether the conveyor is working or not has no bearing on the hazard, it does have a bearing on the risk of course because clearly when the conveyor is operation people can't hear the fire alarm. Conversely the fire alarm sounders are not warning people about the conveyor, they are warning people about a fire.
Thinking on this further this my intepretation is as follows:-
Lets take Kurnal's conveyor system. Lets imagine there are a series of amber flashing lights which flash to warn staff that the conveyor is in use. So long as those flashing lights are on the same circuit as the conveyor they wouldnt require any form of back up. If power to the conveyor fails the lights will go out too (and vice versa).
As I say I can think of other scenarios in terms of general health and safety matters, but I cant think of any occassion where it would apply to fire precautions / fire safety
No these part of the regs dont apply to fire safety.
-
You are correct in what you are saying K - the sounders circuit could fail , but the conveyor could be unaffected and could carry on working.
However to be pedantic the conveyor isnt the hazard in your scenario - a fire is. The fact that fire alarm isn't audible increases the risk to relevant persons being harmed by fire but doesn't change the hazard.
"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."
Whether the conveyor is working or not has no bearing on the hazard, it does have a bearing on the risk of course because clearly when the conveyor is operation people can't hear the fire alarm. Conversely the fire alarm sounders are not warning people about the conveyor, they are warning people about a fire.
Thinking on this further this my intepretation is as follows:-
Lets take Kurnal's conveyor system. Lets imagine there are a series of amber flashing lights which flash to warn staff that the conveyor is in use. So long as those flashing lights are on the same circuit as the conveyor they wouldnt require any form of back up. If power to the conveyor fails the lights will go out too (and vice versa).
As I say I can think of other scenarios in terms of general health and safety matters, but I cant think of any occassion where it would apply to fire precautions / fire safety
No these part of the regs dont apply to fire safety.
Where do you get that from CL3? Is a fire not an emergency and is a sign not a warning of an emergency or hazard?
-
No these part of the regs dont apply to fire safety.
Yes they do. The quoted paragraph 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." is taken from Part I of Schedule 1 to the Regs. The title of Schedule 1 says it relates to Regs 4 (4) and (5).
Reg 4 (4) says "Where this paragraph applies, the employer shall ... (a) in accordance with the requirements set out in Parts I to VII of Schedule
1, provide and maintain any appropriate safety sign (other than a hand signal or verbal communication) described in those Parts, or ensure such
sign is in place;"
Reg 4 (3) makes it clear that this paragraph applies to fire safety signs: "Without prejudice to paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of
paragraph (4) shall also apply in relation to fire safety signs where they are required to comply with the provisions of any enactment (whether in an Act or instrument)."
Regulation 2 defines "fire safety sign":
“fire safety sign” means a sign (including an illuminated sign or an acoustic signal)
which –
(i) provides information on 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;
-
Ah, but arent we discussing the bit about that sign or signal not needing battery back up if the hazard has been eliminated by power cut, in which case C3 would be correct, it doesnt apply to Fire Safety as there is no occassion where a fire hazard would be eliminated by power cut.
Its been a while since I went to school, but I do know fire isn't powered by electricity :D
-
Yes we are.
So we can't think of an example where the last sentence of para 8 "unless the hazard has thereby been eliminated" applies in a fire safety context? Now I may well have this the wrong way round but surely that means this clause (about battery back-up being required) DOES apply to fire safety signs?
So how does that equate to "this part of the Regulations doesn't apply to Fire Safety"?
???
-
Hi Meekat
I think C3 was referring purely to the bit about not having to provide some form of back up if the hazard has been elliminated only, there is no argument about having to provide back up for fire signals and signs.
Clearly from a fire safety viewpoint there is no scenario where we would not provide some form of back up for fire signals or signs as there is no occassion where a hazard would be elliminated upon power cut.
-
there is no occassion where a hazard would be elliminated upon power cut.
You just know I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon trying to think of one don't you..... ;)
-
If you manage to think of one do share it with us... we like knowledge here you clever little Meerkat you! ;D
-
I think (by might be wrong) that there is a lot of misunderstanding here. I don't claim to fully understand, but here is my shot at a clarification.
The risk of being cut by an electrical saw (for example) would be eliminaed in a power cut.
So for the saw example, you wouldn't need a back up power supply for a warning sign that said "beware of the saw". But there are no such comparisons with fire risks - the fire risk cannot be eliminated by a power cut.
The Signs and Signals regs mainly applies to fire alarms systems because they are a safety signal.
-
Thats what we already said
-
Thats what we already said
No. It is similar to what was said. As per my prefix in italics.
-
Thats what we already said
No. It is similar to what was said. As per my prefix in italics.
I think my question has been answered. Thank you people.