retrospective application of standards

[Markbr]

Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.

We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.

However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.

From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.

My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?

We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.

Any help greatly appreciated. Mark

[nearlythere]

Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.

We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.

However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.

From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.

My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?

We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.

Any help greatly appreciated. Mark

I would be inclined to suggest that you point this out to your client and wait further instructions. If they are satisfied that the existing cabling is suitable then that is their risk assessment not yours. Make sure you document everything especially that the client has been made fully aware of the situation.

[Allen Higginson]

Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.

We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.

However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.

From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.

My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?

We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.

Any help greatly appreciated. Mark

How old is it?Even pre-1988 the sounders had to be fire cable.

[Big_Fella]

Under previous standards the zones could have been wired in T & E although the sounder circuits should have still been wired in fire resistant cable, to retain a 'ringing' system during a fire.  Is this not the case?

I would point out to the client that the system doesn't comply with the current standards due to the wiring, and offer a solution to rectify this.  Weather or not your client accepts they have to upgrade the system or not you have pointed this out and that is there risk

Maybe you could offer to upgrade the system in stages rather than in one hit to spread the cost?

Another option could be to offer remote LED indicators to detectors within the residents bedrooms etc, where by looking down a corridor an indicator would be easily seen rather than having to go into every room to check

[Markbr]

The Client guessed at 15 years but the panel looks like something out of the Ark albeit it has "Complies BS5839" stamped on the front.

[Big_Fella]

Have you got a picture of the panel?  Or any further description of the panel?

[Markbr]

No picture, sorry I've left site now to draw up this big quotation that my client will hate me for...

To pick up a point from another reply, the sounders may well be in FP, I only looked at the heads.

A different slant on the original question might be, if we upgraded the system to an addressable using existing wiring, could/would the Fire Officer issue an enforcement and insist the whole intallation was brought up to standard or it is just for the Proprietor to carry the risk?

[Big_Fella]

It's such a major upgrade of the system that I cannot ever imagine that they would get away with not upgrading the T & E wiring to meet the current standards.

For example if an extension to the system was to happen you would wire all of that in fire resistant cabling linking into the existing, but all design, installation and commissioning certificates would only certify the new part.

All certification for this system if you upgrade to addressable, using existing T & E would basically say 'You've spent a lot of money, and the system still doesn't comply'.  I'm sure no one would be happy with that.

Maybe iof the sounder circuits are wired in fire resistant cabling you might want to consider offering your client a Hybrid system where you utilise that circuitary throughout for say a loop circuit and incorporate loop translators on the loop with radio devices linking into this?  just another option

[Markbr]

Thanks Big Fella for the suggestion. Unfortunately as a care home it has very few sounders (circa but about 85 heads. Using wireless head as I understand it would cost circa £165 per head as opposed to £25 for an addressable optical. The cable runs are quite short and I can't see the cost of wiring getting close to that sort of differential.

Pulling together all the kind and helpful advice, I think the answer is to go back to the client with the options and let him decide. I'll also recommend he involved the Fire Offcer in the discussion and then everything is above board.

Thank you everyone. Mark

[wee brian]

As I recall they only changed the spec for detector cabling for simplicity. I'm not sure how critical it is.

Wheres mr Todd when we need him....

[Galeon]

The only downside I can see if the old panel was short circuit = fire condition , therefore if you change it over you will be fully monitored.
The risk is only proportional to the fact the cable might be affected before a detector can operate , I dont see how your client could be forced into changing the cabling , you are actual enhancing what is already there.
The bigger question is why the zoning has now got to be reduced , it was obviously accepted in its previous life ? 

[Graeme]

A different slant on the original question might be, if we upgraded the system to an addressable using existing wiring,

No-as well as not fire resistant,twin and earth is also not screened.

[Markbr]

The zoning had to be reduced so that the evacuation time for a fire compartment is below 2.5 minutes? Immediate or rapid identification of the source of the alarm apparently saves valuable seconds.

[kurnal]

An addressable alarm will allow immediate identification of the location of the incident- a considerable benefit - but when talking about reducing the size of zones to achieve evacuation within 2.5 minutes they could be talking about the size of the fire compartment- eg putting a fire door across a corridor may mean that only 5 persons need to be moved in 2.5 minutes instead of 10 persons

[Wiz]

Graeme's, point above is very important. Graeme's contributions on this forum are often short and to the point, but they are invariably spot on.

To expand on Graeme's post:

Disregarding the current BS recommendation's disallowing the use of pvc/pvc cable, you would still have to use an addressable system that can cope with pvc/pvc cable - if such exists! The capcitance of the cable along with the electrical shielding all play a part in the ability to send understandable addressable data pulses along it.

You'd be well in the s**t if you installed an addressable system on to existing pvc/pvc cable and then it didn't work properly. That would be a waste of money!