Battery Back Ups For Fire Alarms

[Davo]

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?

[Graeme]

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.

[Chris Houston]

I concur with Graeme.  (but if you want legal advice, consult a solicitor.)

[Allen Higginson]

“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.

[PhilB]

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???

[Chris Houston]

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.

[Chris Houston]

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).

[PhilB]

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.

[Graeme]

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.

[PhilB]

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.

[Allen Higginson]

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.

[jokar]

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.

[Chris Houston]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[Graeme]

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.