Green EDRs and Building regs

[dar1]

Dear All,

Please could you help advise on the below taken from 5.11 of Building regs part B as I think I'm confusing myself.

Where a secure door is operated by a code, combination, swipe or proximity card…. similar means, it should also be capable of being overridden from the side approached by people making their escape.

Electrically powered locks should return to the unlocked position:
A. On operation of the fire alarm system;
B. On loss of power or system error;
C. On activation of a manual door release unit (Type A) to BS EN 54-11 positioned at the door on the side approached by people making their escape.  Where the door provides escape in either direction, a unit should be installed on both sides of the door

Unless I am misinterpreting the regs (which I have been known to do!), is this not saying that all electrical locking devices on doors should have a manual override device?  If so, why does it refer to BSEN54-11 when this seems to primarily relate to manual call points (the red ones I'd thought) and not EDRs (the green ones)?  Apologies if this is a stupid question.

Also, how would this relate to BS7273-4?

Many thanks

[Wiz]

dar1,

In answer to your questions, it appears that the guidance you refer to is only mentioning those doors that have some sort of access control, and it could therefore be argued that doors that are for emergency use only etc. are not covered. I'm sure this document means to cover all types of such door locking, but the way it is written, it seems to preclude some types.

The guidance is asking for an Emergency Door Release switch that meets the same design standards as the type of switch used as a manual call point in a fire alarm system. Type A means there is only a single action to operate it; for example it doesn't include a hinged cover. The guidance is also alluding to the requirement of the locking device being fail-safe and also releasing automatically on operation of the fire alarm. One of the fail-safe requirements is due to 'system error' but it doesn't describe what 'system error' actually means.

BS7273-4 covers all doors with electric locking devices, includes the same switch type requirements, fail-safe operation but also includes much more detail and more recommendations than the document you refer to. Interestingly, BS7273-4 doesn't cover the circumstances of any 'if' and 'when' recommendations in respect of interfacing the door release system to a fire alarm system but just how you should do it when you do do it. An earlier question on this forum asked why there was a link to the fire alarm when an EDR was anyway required. This was a good question and no-one could point to any authorative guidance recommending this. However the document you refer to includes it as a recommendation.

I think this is another fine example of this country's love of producing many versions of similar guidance recommendations. Every man and his dog seems to want to get in on the act.

You would think that they would all try to 'sing from the same hymnsheet' but, as always, we end up with a cacophony of undechipherable noise!

I could understand it if the building regs just mentioned complying with BS7273-4 or gave an exact precise summary of the recommendations of BS7273-4 but, instead, we end up with something that is similar but not actually the same.

There are too many cooks stirring the broth, as normal.

[jokar]

Oh Gosh, not again.  I note that CT is now trawling around doing training in BS 7273 part 4 for Mid Career College, perhaps time for us all to go.

[Clive]

As I mentioned in the 'Green glass box' thread, there are building uses that require, 'managed' fire evacuation escape facilities, but without ' instantly visible and available for anyone ', activation devices  eg mental health units. 

The BS etc. are bench marks and guides, the problem is everyone treats them as tablets of stone, and not tools to be used for guidance based upon common principles.

The 'codehuggers' make life really difficult.

[Wiz]

Clive, you are quite right about 'codehugging' but there are two sides to the story.

Whilst following the recommendations of BS or any other authorative guidance does not provide you with any indemnity in law, they do give you a foundation for your defence in court when you are being prosecuted for designing/installing/maintaining a safety system which it is claimed didn't work properly.

Your defence is far stronger if you can say 'I followed the BS recommendations to the letter' rather than I did it 'my way' because I thought it was the best way.

As an installer, I would prefer to know about the BS recommendations and offer them to my customer. If my customer didn't want some of them, they can give me written authority to vary the recommendation and be personally responsible for the variation. They can then defend their choices in court themselves rather than me!

When offering solutions on this forum I think it is important that everyone is made aware of the difference between what are 'recommendations included in authorative guidance' and what is a 'personal opinion' or a 'possible solution'.

You can be pretty damn sure that the person offering a 'personal opinion' or a 'possible solution' won't come to court with you to defend you just because you followed their 'advice'!

You can also be pretty sure that if you followed the limited Building Regs recommendations quoted in the original post, you would be asked in court why you didn't follow the full recommendations provided in BS7273-4.

My advice is don't hug the codes but at least use it for the basis of your design/installation/maintenance and let someone else take responsibility for any variations from it!

[dar1]

Dear all,

Thanks for your input, especially yours Wiz for the detail you've gone into constructively explaining this.  Especially how BSEN54 relates to 7273.

My understanding of the Building regs is that they outline the standard that new etc buildings should be designed and constructed to and presumably, which a buidling control officer should be looking is in place in order to sign off against.  I also understand though that Building regs are not retrospective.

My original question arose because as quoted, the Building regs passage seems to suggest (to me anyway) that doors on escape routes with electrical security devices, should be fitted with a manual means of overriding them.  This itself stemmed from an observation I made of a newly refurbished and publicly accessed building with doors on escape routes, which have been fitted with security swipe card devices and no manual override (though they are linked to the fire alarm and unlock on power failure).  There is no non-EDR push button available.  Reliance on the doors being avaialble for use is through programming the doors to be unlocked at the times when the room is being used or a person with a swipecard being avaialble in the room.  This has already failed once and in my mind opens up the potential for human error (mis-programming the times, forgetting to enter a time etc etc)

So, I'd wanted to know whether the way this has been designed is an accepted practice and so referred to Part B, volume 2 of the building regs and my interpretation of this (from the passage quoted) was that it was saying escape routes on new builds etc with elctrically locked doors, should be fitted with EDRs.  I'd wanted to run this by yourselves for my correct understanding, hence my posting.   

Regards

[wee brian]

Yes thats why ADB says you should have a manual overide.

It isn't appropriate to rely on the fire alarm. Alarms don't always work and the first line of defence is providing an escape route.