FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: kurnal on March 10, 2008, 04:12:11 PM
-
A care home has a radio linked addressable system with lithium batteries. There is a low battery warning alarm for each device which gives early warning of batteries needing replacement and then ultimately a battery failure alert. The system also has 3 monthly maintenance visits and weekly testing all logged in accordance with BS5839.
For a decade the practice at the home has been to wait until 8 devices are in low battery alarm before calling in the engineers.
The home has recently been served with an enforcement notice " to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors". Whilst not explicit in the notice the fire officer advised the manager that they should call out the engineer as soon as a single device goes into low battery warning.
This would increase service costs eight fold. During the last decade no device has ever changed to battery failure before being attended to.
Any opinions please?
-
usually when a device goes into battery fault in the 4.5-5 years of service then all will be changed.
found out not to leave them in fault especially not until 8 flag up because i have found the batteries can leak into the unit which can result in having to replace the unit.
-
This is the typical problem with battery operated equipment. If you replace all batteries as soon as as one shows low battery warning, it could well be that the others might have had a year or two life left in them. You can always get a rogue battery in a batch.
Conversely you might even find that the battery voltage warning detection point on one device is set 0.5v above the others so that one will detect first even though the other batteries are as good (or bad) as the one with the warning.
Despite Graeme's warning that to ignore low battery warnings might result in the batteries leaking, I feel that a bit of leeway needs to be given in these circumstances. the leeway should be based on the manufacturers recommendations. If the manufacturer states that the batteries will last, say, at least 3 months after the low battery warning is given then this would be a reasonable benchmark to calculate when they have to replaced. Although, in the circumstances described by Prof. Kurnal he doesn't categorically state what the period might be before replacement. he says it is when 8 units are in low battery warning. If this means the first one has been in low battery for 12 months before the 8th one indicates, then I feel that this is pushing lady luck a bit!
Of course the fire officer advised that an engineer be called to replace batteries as soon as a low battery warning is detected. The fire officer probably knows nothing about wireless alarms, even less about batteries and, most importantly, he is not paying for the cost of calling out an engineer every time a low battery warning is given. Fortunately, he was 'not explicit' in his recommendations so I would suggest that ' a proper system of maintenance for fire detectors' should be based on the recommendations of the actual equipment's manufacturer.
-
Thanks Wiz and Graeme. Fact is I dont know the full details just yet as I havn't visited - its a long way away. I was told that all faults are cleared at the quarterly service visit but dont know make of system or what other regimes may be in place. On radio systems I have come across in the past ( some time ago pre lithium batteries) despite regular changes we regularly had to replace a sizeable number of batteries in the interim- in one unheated building I remember seeing over 100 low battery warnings on a frosty morning most of which dissapeared as the temperature rose.
The client says they are paying a lot for fire alarm maintenance and for fire consultancy services at the moment, and were rather upset to receive a notice!
Is there any standard replacement period in the industry these days with lithium batteries and is there an average MTBF figure that you are aware of?
-
The fire officer probably knows nothing about wireless alarms, even less about batteries and, most importantly, he is not paying for the cost of calling out an engineer every time a low battery warning is given. Fortunately, he was 'not explicit' in his recommendations so I would suggest that ' a proper system of maintenance for fire detectors' should be based on the recommendations of the actual equipment's manufacturer.
Well actually do you know what ? I think you will probably find the Fire Officer DOES know ' a little ' about wireless alarms and their trappings actually owing to the fact s/he hasn't been explicit in the notice issued.
I think the fire officer is right in this instance. it isn't acceptable to wait for all devices to get low battery warnings before action is taken.
It is up to the responsible person, is it not, to come back to the fire officer and say "The manufacturer recommends the battery is replaced at a maximum of three months after the low battery warning is displayed would you be happy if I waited that long to see if any other low batter warning lights show so I can replace them at the sametime Mr Fire Officer?"
I thought thats why the Government brought out that magical piece of legislation called the Regulatory Refiorm (Fire Safety) Order 2005 so that the punters had choices how to comply? Wasn't it because the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was just too prescriptive and everyone really hated it so much.
Its always the 'bad old nasty jack booted non understanding un sympathetic fire officer costing us money again' scenario isn't it. Nothing is mentioned of this ficticious figure after a fire where the responsible person has lost his or her business or worse still has put someone at serious risk.
So if the maintenance costs are getting that prohibitive why does the RP not cut their losses and look at alternatives ?
Can I make a sensible suggestion please? Be reasonable with the fire officer and they will be reasonable with you. How on earth can they know how much each and every fire alarm contractor charges for maintenance?.
Communicate with the fire officer "Mr Fire Officer the costs of maintenance are too steep to do what you suggest what are my oiptions? Can you give me further advice?" Don't make unhelpful comments you will find they are more than willing to help so long as it makes the premises safer and compliant.
-
The fire officer probably knows nothing about wireless alarms, even less about batteries and, most importantly, he is not paying for the cost of calling out an engineer every time a low battery warning is given. Fortunately, he was 'not explicit' in his recommendations so I would suggest that ' a proper system of maintenance for fire detectors' should be based on the recommendations of the actual equipment's manufacturer.
Well actually do you know what ? I think you will probably find the Fire Officer DOES know ' a little ' about wireless alarms and their trappings actually owing to the fact s/he hasn't been explicit in the notice issued.
I think the fire officer is right in this instance. it isn't acceptable to wait for all devices to get low battery warnings before action is taken.
It is up to the responsible person, is it not, to come back to the fire officer and say "The manufacturer recommends the battery is replaced at a maximum of three months after the low battery warning is displayed would you be happy if I waited that long to see if any other low batter warning lights show so I can replace them at the sametime Mr Fire Officer?"
I thought thats why the Government brought out that magical piece of legislation called the Regulatory Refiorm (Fire Safety) Order 2005 so that the punters had choices how to comply? Wasn't it because the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was just too prescriptive and everyone really hated it so much.
Its always the 'bad old nasty jack booted non understanding un sympathetic fire officer costing us money again' scenario isn't it. Nothing is mentioned of this ficticious figure after a fire where the responsible person has lost his or her business or worse still has put someone at serious risk.
So if the maintenance costs are getting that prohibitive why does the RP not cut their losses and look at alternatives ?
Can I make a sensible suggestion please? Be reasonable with the fire officer and they will be reasonable with you. How on earth can they know how much each and every fire alarm contractor charges for maintenance?.
Communicate with the fire officer "Mr Fire Officer the costs of maintenance are too steep to do what you suggest what are my oiptions? Can you give me further advice?" Don't make unhelpful comments you will find they are more than willing to help so long as it makes the premises safer and compliant.
Clevelandfire says that because the fire officer knows, at least 'a little' about wireless fire alarm systems and their batteries, that is why the enforcement notice issued is vague. I believe it is vague precisely because he doesn't know enough.
The question, for me, is if the enforcement notice was issued before the guy was given an opportunity to prove that his method of dealing with the low-battery warnings was acceptable practice by obtaining supporting evidence from 'expert' sources.
Obviously, the fire officer doesn't know the maintenance costs of every fire alarm company in his region (I don't even think it would be important to know this) but he should understand that, say, a number of seperate visits to change batteries would be more expensive than one every few weeks.
Whilst not saying it is applicable in this case (none of us have all the facts), the 'bad old nasty jack booted non understanding un sympathetic fire officer' must exist because so many people have met him.
Of course, Mr Fire Officer is a brave old soul, along with the Mr Policeman, Ms Nurse, Mrs Sailor, Mr Soldier, Miss RAF Pilot, Mr Coastguard, Ms Lifeboatman etc etc.
Of course Mr Fire Officer does an important job that helps to make the world go around smoothly. But so does, well, virtually everybody, actually.
The business owners problems are just as vaild as anyone else's.
I agree that working together will get the most satisfactory result but anybody with any power has to be sure to use it wisely (I'm not saying that isn't so in this particular case because I don't know all the facts or, of course, of fire officers in particular - it's just a general observation)
-
Thanks Wiz and Graeme. Fact is I dont know the full details just yet as I havn't visited - its a long way away. I was told that all faults are cleared at the quarterly service visit but dont know make of system or what other regimes may be in place. On radio systems I have come across in the past ( some time ago pre lithium batteries) despite regular changes we regularly had to replace a sizeable number of batteries in the interim- in one unheated building I remember seeing over 100 low battery warnings on a frosty morning most of which dissapeared as the temperature rose.
The client says they are paying a lot for fire alarm maintenance and for fire consultancy services at the moment, and were rather upset to receive a notice!
Is there any standard replacement period in the industry these days with lithium batteries and is there an average MTBF figure that you are aware of?
EMS appear to confirm that their batteries will continue to power the device for at least 30 days after the low battery warning initiates. Obviously, a customer would have to have a very good management system in place to record when warnings first operated, to ensure they didn't exceed this limit!
-
I don't imagine this is an EMS system as they don't specifically indicate a low battery warning, the panel simply shows "fault" and you have to interrogate the log to find out what's what.
... and this is a complicated affair when a fault is indicated and i doubt the customer would be able to work through the menus.
So who is saying it is a low battery warning??
More than likely it is "Batt A Fail" or intermittent signal problems.
We have had a few sites where we have had devices fail like dominoes, even after a complete battery change. In the end EMS replaced all the lithium battery packs and sent there own engineers to do the work.... they do occassionaly get a dodgy batch of batteries.....!
I would ask the service company to print off the event log so you can see exactly what the problems are.... if you're not sure what it means send it to EMS (assuming its theirs!) or send it to me.
Also, if the devices work the same as an EMS, then all the devices have two sets of batteries providing independent power to each device. Therefore a low battery warning doesn't mean the device is about to fail, it could carry on working for years on the one good set of batteries.
-
The information was ascertained from information on the EMS website. I accept that it doesn't explain exactly what warning you get, or if you have to negotiate difficult menus on the control panel but the information is that the batteries will last 30 days after the low battery fault warning.
Obviously, David Rooney (an engineer) has hands-on knowledge and practical experience of the EMS equipment and how it operates in 'real life' and his comments should be taken into account.
The double-battery pack scenario is quite an interesting point. Is the second pack installed to give 'years' of continued operation? if so, could it not be argued that you certainly don't need to rush to replace the pack that is giving a fault warning?
I have my own opinions on the two battery scenario based on my involvement as a technical consultant for a local authority that created a budget in the late 1970's / early 1980's to try to develop a wireless fire detection and alarm system. As far as we were all concerned there was absolutely no-one manufacturing such a system (apart from non-monitored equipment for connection to wireless intruder alarm systems). The council found a guy called David Levy (who later formed RAFT Radio And Fire Technology) and paid him to build the equipment to a then, unknown, specification since there was nothing in BS5839 at that time that mentioned wireless systems. We involved the local fire brigade in the development of the equipment and they insisted that as much of the existing BS5839 wired-system recommendations as possible be incorporated in the equipment designs. One of these was two battery packs to 'mimic' the 'mains' and 'battery' power sources of a wired system. Over a three year period 4 wireless fire alarm systems were installed in 4 very different styles of property and which threw up a whole 'RAFT' of problems - But that's a long story for another time!
-
I have two sites recently that started giving faults. The first site was at the 4 year mark so only that device had a battery change,however another device flagged up fault within a couple of weeks so i replaced them all so the customer was not going to get anymore call outs.
The second site was in 4.5 years of service and three devices called in fault. The fault was not reponded to that day but a few days after and i foound that the batteries had leaked causing two detectors having to be replaced.
so this is why i personally am very wary of leaving any device in fault for any length of time.
-
I have two sites recently that started giving faults. The first site was at the 4 year mark so only that device had a battery change,however another device flagged up fault within a couple of weeks so i replaced them all so the customer was not going to get anymore call outs.
The second site was in 4.5 years of service and three devices called in fault. The fault was not reponded to that day but a few days after and i foound that the batteries had leaked causing two detectors having to be replaced.
so this is why i personally am very wary of leaving any device in fault for any length of time.
Graeme, out of interest, do you think the low warning is given because the batteries have started to leak or that they start to leak after the low warning point is reached?
-
Wiz
Responsible persons will always have problems, but they shouldnt just sit there and expect people to wipe their backsides for them.
Enforcement notices issued by several fire authorities tend to be very woolly these days to allow scope for the Responsible Person to seek various ways in complying with it. In other words there is no (or atleast very little) prescription.
This is in stark contrast to the good old days of the Fire Cert and Workplace Regs. The RRO apparently allows for the flexibility that our friends in the business world wanted. You have got to understand the fire officer isn't there to hold people's hands now. You don't want guide hugging enforcers yet you still want to be told what to do in order to comply. Its very much a balancing act and whilst fire authorities don't always get that right the client kurnal talks of has got the option to communicate and convey any problems they might have.
Your comments regarding "brave old fire officer" took out of context of what the poster was trying to say. Most businesses never recover from fire was the sentiment I believe, not "we firemen are heroes cos we save peoples lives when the RP cocks up" as you seem to suggest.
You definately can not leave it until all the devices are showing fault or low battery warning to do something about it. I have known leakages to occur on some older systems. I would accept certain procedures, such as following manufacturers guidance for example to see how long the batteries would last and risk assessing it from there. There may be other acceptable solutions or measures too. Thats why these forums were started no doubt so that people could bounce around ideas.
You make comment about the fire officer demanding an engineer be called out to replace the battery. Yes, because unfortunately if anything were to happen that night and as a result the device didn't work and people were put at risk or worse it you can imagine the headlines the next day.
As Clevelandfire points out, if the maintenance costs involved in providing adequate early warning of fire are too prohibitive review your fire risk assessment, and decide if an alternative system or procedures are required. If the RP isn't competent to do this the RRO is quite clear in stating that s/he should employ someone who is to assist them.
-
Obviously, David Rooney (an engineer) has hands-on knowledge and practical experience of the EMS equipment and how it operates in 'real life' and his comments should be taken into account.
Errr Director I'll have you know ... ! :P ... but know what you mean......
Interesting stuff about the conception of RAFT MR Wiz... all I was getting at is that we don't know that it is an EMS system for sure....
Regards whethere you choose to change batteries when they flag a warning up, (getting back to EMS) they will not accept a device going back under warranty if a battery has leaked and you haven't changed it within 30 days of it flagging up.... they also want the log to prove it.....
-
Wiz
Responsible persons will always have problems, but they shouldnt just sit there and expect people to wipe their backsides for them.
Enforcement notices issued by several fire authorities tend to be very woolly these days to allow scope for the Responsible Person to seek various ways in complying with it. In other words there is no (or atleast very little) prescription.
This is in stark contrast to the good old days of the Fire Cert and Workplace Regs. The RRO apparently allows for the flexibility that our friends in the business world wanted. You have got to understand the fire officer isn't there to hold people's hands now. You don't want guide hugging enforcers yet you still want to be told what to do in order to comply. Its very much a balancing act and whilst fire authorities don't always get that right the client kurnal talks of has got the option to communicate and convey any problems they might have.
Your comments regarding "brave old fire officer" took out of context of what the poster was trying to say. Most businesses never recover from fire was the sentiment I believe, not "we firemen are heroes cos we save peoples lives when the RP cocks up" as you seem to suggest.
You definately can not leave it until all the devices are showing fault or low battery warning to do something about it. I have known leakages to occur on some older systems. I would accept certain procedures, such as following manufacturers guidance for example to see how long the batteries would last and risk assessing it from there. There may be other acceptable solutions or measures too. Thats why these forums were started no doubt so that people could bounce around ideas.
You make comment about the fire officer demanding an engineer be called out to replace the battery. Yes, because unfortunately if anything were to happen that night and as a result the device didn't work and people were put at risk or worse it you can imagine the headlines the next day.
As Clevelandfire points out, if the maintenance costs involved in providing adequate early warning of fire are too prohibitive review your fire risk assessment, and decide if an alternative system or procedures are required. If the RP isn't competent to do this the RRO is quite clear in stating that s/he should employ someone who is to assist them.
I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?
-
Obviously, David Rooney (an engineer) has hands-on knowledge and practical experience of the EMS equipment and how it operates in 'real life' and his comments should be taken into account.
Errr Director I'll have you know ... ! :P ... but know what you mean......
I should maybe have said 'with hands-on engineering knowledge and experience etc.' - Glad you understood, Mr Director!
-
Wiz
Responsible persons will always have problems, but they shouldnt just sit there and expect people to wipe their backsides for them.
Enforcement notices issued by several fire authorities tend to be very woolly these days to allow scope for the Responsible Person to seek various ways in complying with it. In other words there is no (or atleast very little) prescription.
This is in stark contrast to the good old days of the Fire Cert and Workplace Regs. The RRO apparently allows for the flexibility that our friends in the business world wanted. You have got to understand the fire officer isn't there to hold people's hands now. You don't want guide hugging enforcers yet you still want to be told what to do in order to comply. Its very much a balancing act and whilst fire authorities don't always get that right the client kurnal talks of has got the option to communicate and convey any problems they might have.
Your comments regarding "brave old fire officer" took out of context of what the poster was trying to say. Most businesses never recover from fire was the sentiment I believe, not "we firemen are heroes cos we save peoples lives when the RP cocks up" as you seem to suggest.
You definately can not leave it until all the devices are showing fault or low battery warning to do something about it. I have known leakages to occur on some older systems. I would accept certain procedures, such as following manufacturers guidance for example to see how long the batteries would last and risk assessing it from there. There may be other acceptable solutions or measures too. Thats why these forums were started no doubt so that people could bounce around ideas.
You make comment about the fire officer demanding an engineer be called out to replace the battery. Yes, because unfortunately if anything were to happen that night and as a result the device didn't work and people were put at risk or worse it you can imagine the headlines the next day.
As Clevelandfire points out, if the maintenance costs involved in providing adequate early warning of fire are too prohibitive review your fire risk assessment, and decide if an alternative system or procedures are required. If the RP isn't competent to do this the RRO is quite clear in stating that s/he should employ someone who is to assist them.
I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?
The fact that the owner has been doing this for a decade is of no consequence. The Fire officer who inspected previously may have cocked up and not picked up on the issue , or standards / knowledge may have been updated or increased since the last inspection.
But regardless of the reasons why the issue has only now come to light, just because the RP has done it for a decade doesn't make it right. You are totally missing the point about enforcement notices. They are designed to be non prescriptive because the fire safety order is designed to allow different ways of achieving compliance. If the notice said "You will replace every battery once the warning light comes on" then surely it is too presecriptive. You said that Mr nasty Fire Officer must exist and how prescriptive and unreasonable he is and then moan when an enforcement notice is non prescriptive. I just don't see where you are coming from. What has the owner done to prove his system works? The answer is we don't know, and so unhelpful comments about the circumstances dont really achieve anything.
-
I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?
Morning Wiz
I'd advise Kurnal's client to ask why the practice has been accepted for over a decade only to be highlighted now. Whilst Clevelandfire is right in that it makes no odds now atleast it would be interesting to know.
The flexibility comes from the fact that the enforcement notice isn't prescriptive. It sounds like the inspecting officer has said that batteries should be changed as soon as the low battery warning signal is activated. I think that is onnorous personally but the officer has just given his preferred solution. That isn't specified in the enforcement notice though.
The RP can go back to the Insp. Officer and ask if s/he can do "a,b,c " instead of "x,y,z". One of my colleagues does a similar thing by only giving one solution verbally but then refers the punter to the guides. He believes that this helps motivate the punter into thinking of other alternatives (often the punter will want to go with the most cost effective method) and inturn it helps that individual understand the process of risk assessment and the fire precautions installed within their premises.
-
The fact that the owner has been doing this for a decade is of no consequence. The Fire officer who inspected previously may have cocked up and not picked up on the issue , or standards / knowledge may have been updated or increased since the last inspection.
But regardless of the reasons why the issue has only now come to light, just because the RP has done it for a decade doesn't make it right. You are totally missing the point about enforcement notices. They are designed to be non prescriptive because the fire safety order is designed to allow different ways of achieving compliance. If the notice said "You will replace every battery once the warning light comes on" then surely it is too presecriptive. You said that Mr nasty Fire Officer must exist and how prescriptive and unreasonable he is and then moan when an enforcement notice is non prescriptive. I just don't see where you are coming from. What has the owner done to prove his system works? The answer is we don't know, and so unhelpful comments about the circumstances dont really achieve anything.
I take exception to being accused of making 'unhelpful comments'. Kurnal's original post asked for opinions. I gave the opinion that the fire officer probably did not know enough about wireless fire alarm systems and batteries. None of us know the precise details of the actual circumstances of what has happened. Therefore I did not actually criticise the fire officer and say what he had done was wrong. I voiced sympathy for the business owner and asked the question if it was right for such an enforcement notice to be issued in the circumstances that were described, and asked if the fire officer could have given some leeway, before the enforcement notice was issued, for the business owner to try and prove his method of dealing with the low battery warnings was acceptable.
I'm not saying that the business owner's method was or wasn't correct, but wondered if issuing an enforcement notice in the circumstances described, was the way that both sides 'could work together'
Whilst also not knowing all the details, other postings have stated that the fire officer is totally right in what he has done and his 'probable' understanding of the effect of the low-battery fault warnings is correct, but these postings have not, in my opinion, offered any arguments to convince me why. Furthermore, no one has offered an explanation or opinion to my question as to why no 'time-based leeway' appears to be given.
Cleveland fire intoduced the concept of Mr Nasty Fire Officer I only asked that if he didn't exist, why do so many people talk about him?
I'm accused of 'moaning' about prescriptive and non-prescriptive desicions. Where is the proof that I've ever moaned about prescriptive desicions? I feel that that a desicion saying you will do X because of Y is perfectly acceptable, if it is the best solution in respect of cost
and effectiveness. Obviously, this couldn't be achieved in the past otherwise there would have been no reason to change things. I wonder why?
Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?
-
I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?
Morning Wiz
I'd advise Kurnal's client to ask why the practice has been accepted for over a decade only to be highlighted now. Whilst Clevelandfire is right in that it makes no odds now atleast it would be interesting to know.
The flexibility comes from the fact that the enforcement notice isn't prescriptive. It sounds like the inspecting officer has said that batteries should be changed as soon as the low battery warning signal is activated. I think that is onnorous personally but the officer has just given his preferred solution. That isn't specified in the enforcement notice though.
The RP can go back to the Insp. Officer and ask if s/he can do "a,b,c " instead of "x,y,z". One of my colleagues does a similar thing by only giving one solution verbally but then refers the punter to the guides. He believes that this helps motivate the punter into thinking of other alternatives (often the punter will want to go with the most cost effective method) and inturn it helps that individual understand the process of risk assessment and the fire precautions installed within their premises.
Morning Midland Retty,
Your post came in after I had finished my one above.
I fully understand and accept all of your last posting.
Any explanation or opinions whether if it would have been possible to hold off with the enforcement notice until the client could 'prove' his practice as valid?
-
Hi Wiz
Generally an enforcement notice would be issued in three circumstances.
The first would be after an inspecting officer has asked for some upgrades or failings to be addressed during an audit, then makes a return visit only to find nothing has been done. An EN would be then issued - ist their way of saying "We're now telling you this MUST be done else we may prosecute".
The second would be if the RP has tried to address the failings highlighted during a recent audit but the Insp Officer doesn't feel that the measures put in place are sufficient. Or where both parties cant reach agreement on how compliance should be achieved. This is done to stop people deliberately dragging out the whole process or delaying enforcement action because whilst all that is going on the premises may still be unsafe. SO an enforcement notice would be issued if you see what I mean.
The third is where during an audit the IO comes across serious failings that need to be addressed imminently. I have for instance issued an enforcement notice straight away for failing to produce a fire risk assessment. This is used where the issuing of a prohibition notice would be too onerous but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later.
I can only assume that in the example we are talking about Kurnals client had tried to address the failings highlighted, but the Fire Officer still wasnt happy.
Somewhere down the line I would have hoped Kurnal's client was given the opportunity to talk with the Inspecting officer to discuss best value solutions to the problems found.
If the Inspecting officer didn't listen to the concerns of the RP then In my opinion the Fire Officer isn't doing his or her job properly.
If the RP didn't advise the Insp Officer of any concerns that would prevent them from complying then the RP is at fault.
If the RP and Insp O did communicate but the measures proposed by the RP didn't go far enough to rectify the failings the Insp o may then have issued the EN. At anytime however the RP can appeal or ask for determination from the secretary of state.
As you say its difficult to know the full picture and what exactly was said in the situation good old Kurnal describes, but hopefully the above will clear up under what circumstances EN's are issued
-
Thanks to all, sorry for the lack of info on the original query, I had not been appointed at the time of posting so only had limited info. They have now asked me to work on their behalf and bottom all fire safety issues for once and for all. So all will become clear I hope.
BS5839 covers radio systems to some extent but was written some years ago, and since then battery technology has advanced with lithium cells becoming the norm and modern alarm technology I believe making lower demands on batteries. I believe that this system was converted to operate on lithium cells post installation and the period for routine replacement of cells extended.
BS5839 recommends a minimum of 3 years operational life for the primary cells, with a 30 day low power condition beiong signalled and a backup battery to be installed in reserve. But I believe some of the radio alarm manufacturers are now recommending 4 and 5 year replacement of batteries and that because of the reliability and longevity of the battery technology do not discuss with the RP the issue of replacement and the various issues that may arise.
The status of my system is unclear because of the battery conversion. I think that on conversions perhaps the alarm engineers need to stick with the original battery replacement periods unless there is some hard and fast evidence of the improved performance of the newer technology.
That explains why the RP is vulnerable to the questions of the enforcement officer if the information was never handed over- and maybe with maintenance visits every 3 months perhaps the RP does not need to know the detail??? How much technical knowledge do we expect RPs to have at their fingertips? That is a difficult one. They should have an understanding of regular fault issues that arise but the advice not to report till 8 batteries are in battery low alarm was given by the system engineers.
I have been told that after speaking to the alarm maintenance engineer the fire officer has now agreed to delete this requirement from the enforcement notice, but this is still to be formally confirmed.
Thanks as always for the guidance and help.
-
So have I got this right: the low power alarm comes on 3 months before component died; fire alarm contractors visits are exactly 3 months apart, so the user leaves faults to the next visit?
This seems to be playing the odds - what if the alarm comes on the day after the last visit, can the RP be sure the contractor will turn up 3 months to the day of the last visit - this would be more than any alarm company I have ever dealt with can manage.
Is the 3 month warning accurate to the day? If I had a life safety system that was about to power down in 3 months, I would be unhappy leaving it until the last day before taking action to fix it.
-
Yes but there is also a standby battery to take over when the first fails
-
Hi Wiz
Generally an enforcement notice would be issued in three circumstances.
The first would be after an inspecting officer has asked for some upgrades or failings to be addressed during an audit, then makes a return visit only to find nothing has been done. An EN would be then issued - ist their way of saying "We're now telling you this MUST be done else we may prosecute".
The second would be if the RP has tried to address the failings highlighted during a recent audit but the Insp Officer doesn't feel that the measures put in place are sufficient. Or where both parties cant reach agreement on how compliance should be achieved. This is done to stop people deliberately dragging out the whole process or delaying enforcement action because whilst all that is going on the premises may still be unsafe. SO an enforcement notice would be issued if you see what I mean.
The third is where during an audit the IO comes across serious failings that need to be addressed imminently. I have for instance issued an enforcement notice straight away for failing to produce a fire risk assessment. This is used where the issuing of a prohibition notice would be too onerous but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later.
I can only assume that in the example we are talking about Kurnals client had tried to address the failings highlighted, but the Fire Officer still wasnt happy.
Somewhere down the line I would have hoped Kurnal's client was given the opportunity to talk with the Inspecting officer to discuss best value solutions to the problems found.
If the Inspecting officer didn't listen to the concerns of the RP then In my opinion the Fire Officer isn't doing his or her job properly.
If the RP didn't advise the Insp Officer of any concerns that would prevent them from complying then the RP is at fault.
If the RP and Insp O did communicate but the measures proposed by the RP didn't go far enough to rectify the failings the Insp o may then have issued the EN. At anytime however the RP can appeal or ask for determination from the secretary of state.
As you say its difficult to know the full picture and what exactly was said in the situation good old Kurnal describes, but hopefully the above will clear up under what circumstances EN's are issued
Hi MR,
Thanks for your perfect explanation. So it seems that it would be unlikely that 'in normal circumstances' the Inspecting Officer would not give the business owner a chance to avoid an enforcement notice. My support would then fully be with the IO if he was forced to issue one. Unless of course, it was issued under your third scenario, which I would have thought to be a bit harsh in the circumstances of Kurnal's original post.
I note from a later post from Kurnal that the requirement has now probably been removed from the Enforcement Notice. Maybe he gave the situation a bit more thought or has been reading the postings on Firenet !
-
So have I got this right: the low power alarm comes on 3 months before component died; fire alarm contractors visits are exactly 3 months apart, so the user leaves faults to the next visit?
This seems to be playing the odds - what if the alarm comes on the day after the last visit, can the RP be sure the contractor will turn up 3 months to the day of the last visit - this would be more than any alarm company I have ever dealt with can manage.
Is the 3 month warning accurate to the day? If I had a life safety system that was about to power down in 3 months, I would be unhappy leaving it until the last day before taking action to fix it.
Chris, I agree that 3 months seems a very long time. Especially when every low battery warning system I've checked up about mentions a 30 day minimum continuation. I thought the advice to Kurnal's customer was to deal with the problem when 8 devices are showing low battery warning. If this happens within a period of less than 30 days, then theoretically, this should not be a problem. But if less than 8 batteries are low then this period might be 3 months! But does this not then mean that we could have the situation where the device may have continued operating on it's 'other battery' but with no standby battery for up to approx. 60 days (if the first battery totally failed after 30 days). Surely this can't be satisfactory.
I know it is not my desicion to make, but this would be my proposal for the most practical advice in the circumstances that we have been assuming (two batteries each capable of supporting the device/ low battery warning detection/battery continues working for at least 30 days after low warning)
Batteries should be replaced in a device within 21 days of the low-battery warning first indicating for that device
This would give the Responsible Person the flexibility of not having to call out an engineer on an emergency (possibly on a daily) basis and the devices would never be left with any less than two functioning batteries.
In saying the above, Graeme has attended to low battery warnings and found them to be leaking. It is my belief that they have started leaking and this has affected them enough to trigger the low battery warning. It may well be that if you then leave it too long (three weeks?) it may well be that the leak has become so bad that the fluid has damaged the electronic components of the device (as also found by Graeme). This could prove more expensive than calling out an engineer immediately to replace batteries that have just started leaking.
My own practical experience of battery operated wireless smoke detectors (a long time before lithium versions!) was to replace all the batteries on a site at the same time but at half the manufacturer's suggested battery life. When we did this, the costs were pre-determinable and proved to be the cheapest option in the long run (we very rarely had a battery 'fail' within the cycle)
-
Thanks Dr Wiz. That 21 day solution is so straightforward its beautiful. (And I bet matron can find a good use for those half used batteries).
So far all I have done is give advice over phone and email but am looking forward to going down and seeing it in in all its glory ( the alarm system I mean). Will let you know what I find early in April.
-
.... but am looking forward to going down and seeing it in in all its glory ( the alarm system I mean). Will let you know what I find early in April.
Phew! For a moment I thought you were talking about Matron! I've been there and it's not a nice place. Furthermore if you had started investigating in April, you wouldn't have got back out again until late Summer!
-
I have two sites recently that started giving faults. The first site was at the 4 year mark so only that device had a battery change,however another device flagged up fault within a couple of weeks so i replaced them all so the customer was not going to get anymore call outs.
The second site was in 4.5 years of service and three devices called in fault. The fault was not reponded to that day but a few days after and i foound that the batteries had leaked causing two detectors having to be replaced.
so this is why i personally am very wary of leaving any device in fault for any length of time.
Graeme, out of interest, do you think the low warning is given because the batteries have started to leak or that they start to leak after the low warning point is reached?
very good point Wiz.
Other devices on this system were found to have leaked batteries but they did not generate a fault.
-
Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?
I apologise if I have caused offence but I think if you read my posts again you will see Im actually in agreement with you and I do explain why the fire officer in question issued an enforcement notice. Furthermore you did intimate that the fire officer in question didn't know what he was doing. That is bound to spark of a reaction is it not?.
-
Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?
I apologise if I have caused offence but I think if you read my posts again you will see Im actually in agreement with you and I do explain why the fire officer in question issued an enforcement notice. Furthermore you did intimate that the fire officer in question didn't know what he was doing. That is bound to spark of a reaction is it not?.
No need to apologise. You are entitled to your opinions when they are reasonably put. Furthermore, even I have to accept that what people say about me could be true!
In my defence, I did say the Fire Officer probably didn't know enough about wireless alarms and batteries. I feel that this will only spark a reaction in those who are supersensitive or feel that Fire Officers are perfect, never make mistakes and know everything about everything. I certainly don't expect them to be or hold it against them if they don't-Unless they are arrogant, officious or abuse their powers. Gladly, I can say that, in my experience, these types are rare. I certainly would never denigrate a Fire Officer who made an honest mistake or did something based on what he honestly believed was right, even if it turned out to be wrong.
-
I certainly would never denigrate a Fire Officer who made an honest mistake or did something based on what he honestly believed was right, even if it turned out to be wrong.
Why not ? I bloomin' well would.... and I'm one myself.... :)
-
Fire Officers are perfect, never make mistakes and know everything about everything.
Thats very true ;)
-
A care home has a radio linked addressable system with lithium batteries. There is a low battery warning alarm for each device which gives early warning of batteries needing replacement and then ultimately a battery failure alert. The system also has 3 monthly maintenance visits and weekly testing all logged in accordance with BS5839.
For a decade the practice at the home has been to wait until 8 devices are in low battery alarm before calling in the engineers.
The home has recently been served with an enforcement notice " to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors". Whilst not explicit in the notice the fire officer advised the manager that they should call out the engineer as soon as a single device goes into low battery warning.
This would increase service costs eight fold. During the last decade no device has ever changed to battery failure before being attended to.
Any opinions please?
In my opinion; radio system, such 5000 of EMS has an option to check the batteries level of every single device, any battery below say 90% should be changed ( or what ever % as agreed ) this will reduce the cost of each call out to change only the flat one, also reduce unecessary cost of changing all batteries in once particularly if they haven't been fitted in the same day...
Sorry; if it's already been said in some posts as I didn't manage to read all threads, but found this topic interesting, as we recently had agreement from customer, to change the whole site's batteries with 3 panels say in total 600 devices and some interface units too...
2 weeks of hard job !
-
We specialise in Electro-detector radio gear and on a battery warning you will normally get 60 days notice. How ever we advise our clients to call us soon as they get the fault on the system. We then ensure next time someone is in the area they pop in and change the battery, with out massive costs to the end user.
Thats just the way we do it, we try if possible to look after customers who have looked after us for the last 5 years, if you see what I mean
-
We specialise in Electro-detector radio gear and on a battery warning you will normally get 60 days notice. How ever we advise our clients to call us soon as they get the fault on the system. We then ensure next time someone is in the area they pop in and change the battery, with out massive costs to the end user.
Thats just the way we do it, we try if possible to look after customers who have looked after us for the last 5 years, if you see what I mean
Is the link below yours
http://www.lindumfire.co.uk/Lindum%20Fire%20Services_files/Page1584.htm
if yes I would like to know the prices please
-
Benzerari, I think you'll find that the ems system will only allow you to interrogate battery condition for lithium batteries and as far as I'm aware they (ems) have used alkaline cells for the last 5 years at least. Suggest checking with David Rooney as I believe he is conversant with ems.
-
Benzerari, I think you'll find that the ems system will only allow you to interrogate battery condition for lithium batteries and as far as I'm aware they (ems) have used alkaline cells for the last 5 years at least. Suggest checking with David Rooney as I believe he is conversant with ems.
Lithium batteries as I am aware, are within the main PCB panel 5000, or its interface’s PCBs, they are not within the devices them selves (manual call point, smoke sounder, heat sounder, single smoke, single heat, single sounder,...), these latters have: As, AAs, and AAAs batteries. In theory every 5 years all sort of batteries have to be changed, but in practice it is not always the case… they may have to be changed before that limit of time… and the option of ‘device database’ of EMS 5000 panel can display every single device’s: signal level, head value, and batteries level too… if I am wrong please feel free you or Dave to correct me, none is pefect mate, we are here to learn from each others.
Thank you
-
The EMS uses alkaline batts but gives a 30 day notice of failure - see link below for data sheet relating to detectors http://www.emsgroup.co.uk/download/5100.pdf and the general link to the datasheets http://www.emsgroup.co.uk/pages/support/downl-fs.htm
-
The EMS uses alkaline batts but gives a 30 day notice of failure - see link below for data sheet relating to detectors http://www.emsgroup.co.uk/download/5100.pdf and the general link to the datasheets http://www.emsgroup.co.uk/pages/support/downl-fs.htm
Alkaline batt. for ( devices ) and lethium batt. for ( PCBs of the panel 5000 and any other used interface's PCBs... )
The 5 years life is just in theory... all EMS panels I have dealt with, we have changed their batt. in 2 or 3 years time probably some one else may have different experience... and its causes...
-
Benzerari, I think you'll find that the ems system will only allow you to interrogate battery condition for lithium batteries and as far as I'm aware they (ems) have used alkaline cells for the last 5 years at least. Suggest checking with David Rooney as I believe he is conversant with ems.
Lithium batteries as I am aware, are within the main PCB panel 5000, or its interface’s PCBs, they are not within the devices them selves (manual call point, smoke sounder, heat sounder, single smoke, single heat, single sounder,...), these latters have: As, AAs, and AAAs batteries. In theory every 5 years all sort of batteries have to be changed, but in practice it is not always the case… they may have to be changed before that limit of time… and the option of ‘device database’ of EMS 5000 panel can display every single device’s: signal level, head value, and batteries level too… if I am wrong please feel free you or Dave to correct me, none is pefect mate, we are here to learn from each others.
Thank you
-you can't check battery levels on I/O units
-
Benzerari, I think you'll find that the ems system will only allow you to interrogate battery condition for lithium batteries and as far as I'm aware they (ems) have used alkaline cells for the last 5 years at least. Suggest checking with David Rooney as I believe he is conversant with ems.
Lithium batteries as I am aware, are within the main PCB panel 5000, or its interface’s PCBs, they are not within the devices them selves (manual call point, smoke sounder, heat sounder, single smoke, single heat, single sounder,...), these latters have: As, AAs, and AAAs batteries. In theory every 5 years all sort of batteries have to be changed, but in practice it is not always the case… they may have to be changed before that limit of time… and the option of ‘device database’ of EMS 5000 panel can display every single device’s: signal level, head value, and batteries level too… if I am wrong please feel free you or Dave to correct me, none is pefect mate, we are here to learn from each others.
Thank you
-you can't check battery levels on I/O units
Interfaces have got Lethium batt at PCB level and 2.1-3Ah Batt. if I remember, and NOT Alcalines ones.
You still can check batt. level in any input or output devices and not interfaces like (I/O units), even this latters still have batt. monitoring, if it get flat, the system would show I/O unit fault.
Also I can NOT remember of any way of how to check the lethium batt. level If there is! (as claimed by Rosjes), I will have a look next time I come across some EMS system, and seek advice from EMS Tech support... I think that's the confusing point raised by Rosjes... I think he means the the other way round.
Alcalines you can check them, and Lethium you can't!
-
you can check levels of devices with alkaline cells but I/O's give a battery left as 000.
-
Sorry have been camping .......!
1. you can't check battery levels of any alkaline powered device.
2. you can't check "real" levels of lithium powered devices... the figure you look at on the panel is a figure generated by a timer within the software.
A few years ago EMS brought out an upgrade because the panels were bringing up multiple battery faults "premarturely", eg before the alleged 5 year battery life.
The firmware upgrade simply reset and slowed down the panel timer.......
-
Sorry have been camping .......!
1. you can't check battery levels of any alkaline powered device.
2. you can't check "real" levels of lithium powered devices... the figure you look at on the panel is a figure generated by a timer within the software.
A few years ago EMS brought out an upgrade because the panels were bringing up multiple battery faults "premarturely", eg before the alleged 5 year battery life.
The firmware upgrade simply reset and slowed down the panel timer.......
Dave;
What about what you see in 'device data base' about head value, signal level, batteries level are all generated by a timer within the software as you said?
-
Have confirmed today with EMS Tec. Support, when coming across one of their systems..., they said the only way to see device's batteries level fault, is when it’s displayed faulty, and the event log records it with the message 'supply management', in which they said, it means ‘battery fault’.
Hence wait to get this message on the event log in order to decide of changing them.
As for measuring them, is not always evident, since older type of detectors (the one we have in this site), the batteries are soldered on the PCB, and it is not really advisable to unsolder them for the sake of testing them during service visit.
Further knowledge every day...
-
benz
If you are doing a lot of EMS then i would recommend investing in a Mini Cell checker from Solo. very handy for checking the batteries
-
benz
If you are doing a lot of EMS then i would recommend investing in a Mini Cell checker from Solo. very handy for checking the batteries
Found it in: http://www.detectortesters.com/cms/document/Product_Sheet_008_Cellchecker_Cell01_001.pdf
This is a good tool Grame, but it is not specific for EMS stuff, still the main issue is the old detectors of EMS which have batteries soldered on the PCB...etc, how can you test them with either Cellcheker or other alternatives without unsoldering them... since testing them while within the circuit, wouldn't give the right reading.
Also we have got only very few EMS related sites, comparing to what we have in total...
-
agreed Benz but good for new EMS equipment.
i have used it loads and it really takes the guess work out when you go to a supply management fault in a device.