Replacement of all call points

[SP]

Hello all. 

Following the visit of the service engineer there are couple of questions which I would appreciate your help with.

Service engineers advised that we have in our building old type of call points (break glass) which are no longer in manufacture and if one of them fails the whole lot will need to be replaced. This is a bit curious as about a year we had one replaced with the newest type and no one raised any issues.

Another point is that flashing beacons need to be installed to assist hearing impaired in case of fire evacuation (possible breach of DDA).  Is it absolutely necessary?  We always had control measures in place and all who need assistance are coverd by body system and also fire marshals would clear the areas.

If any one has ony opinion on this or faced similar issues, could you please advise.

Thank you. Paul

[Dinnertime Dave]

 

Another point is that flashing beacons need to be installed to assist hearing impaired in case of fire evacuation (possible breach of DDA).  Is it absolutely necessary?  We always had control measures in place and all who need assistance are coverd by body system and also fire marshals would clear the areas.

The control measures you have stated (buddy system and fire marshals) sound perfectly reasonable to me

[Galeon]

He may mean that you had the older style of kac break glass unit which has been superseded , with the new type where the front comes down . Although a true statement as long as you can test the unit easily with a plastic key , you dont have an issue.
It would be another story if you had very old call points with actual glass , and no easy way of testing them , without taking the front off. These old ones normally had a small hammer beside then on a chain , and you normally find them , missing , these call points are then a health & safety issue.
It is good practice to keep one make of call point throughout , then one test facility is easier to deal with.

Beacons strobes , must be taken into account on a new installation , not retrospective , however if you have identified a risk , or your controls measures are not adequate to deal with the risk , then you would put them in.

[Allen Higginson]

He may mean that you had the older style of kac break glass unit which has been superseded , with the new type where the front comes down . Although a true statement as long as you can test the unit easily with a plastic key , you dont have an issue.
It would be another story if you had very old call points with actual glass , and no easy way of testing them , without taking the front off. These old ones normally had a small hammer beside then on a chain , and you normally find them , missing , these call points are then a health & safety issue.
It is good practice to keep one make of call point throughout , then one test facility is easier to deal with.

Beacons strobes , must be taken into account on a new installation , not retrospective , however if you have identified a risk , or your controls measures are not adequate to deal with the risk , then you would put them in.

The new type KAC has both test options on it at either end.
If you could give us a nod as to what is installed (piccie would be good) and what is to supercede it it may help.

[AnthonyB]

Utter sales tosh - if one call point fails, it needs replacing - not the others.

Plenty of buildings still have old Gent, AFA & Tann call points with no problems at all.

It's just a matter of convenience and how much you are willing to spend on convenience as oppose to system criticality.

It's nice to keep one make and thus one test key & yes the allen key or screwdriver to open the front and access the test button on the older models takes a bit longer, but so what - as long as it works.

As for uniformity for recognition by staff if they are not the latest EN call points incorporating a pictogram on the front they should all have the appropriate safety sign anyway.

Yes, if the older ones don't have a hammer and chain then it's coat around elbow or shoe heel time (or phone receiver a la Fawlty Towers) unless you want cut fingers, but even then it's a lot cheaper to buy replacement hammer & chains than replace all the call points.

Don't get me wrong - upgrading and uniformity is good - if you can afford it! Many of our clients are fed up of being told to do stuff by H&S consultants or alarm engineers that isn't actually vital to maintain the efficacy of a system & thus maintain life safety and at the moment with money being tight only need to know what is vital.

Beacons - new system or major refurb, then might be required as part of adapting to technical progress. Existing systems in existing building - only of you have a relevant risk/persons that you determine your existing controls are not sufficiently effective or robust to deal with.

Remember the phrase in the regs - "Where necessary"!

[SP]

Dave, Galeon, Buzzard and Anthony, many thanks for your time and clarification of the situation.  Paul

[Wiz]

Sorry to come in on this a bit late.

I would point out that BS5839-1 2002+A2:2008 20.2 a) includes the recommendation; All call points should be identical unless there is a special reason for differentiation.

This could easily be read to mean that if you can't replace an existing faulty call point with a new one that is exactly the same, in every way (apart from being faulty, I should imagine!) then this might result in having to repalce all call points so that they are 'identical'

However, even this interpretation is not crystal clear, because the recommendation quoted above immediately follows a sentence about only using type A call points. Therefore the sentence could also be read as confirming that all call points should be of type A only!

Oh!, the joys of understanding British Standards. (where have I said that before?)

Personally, I feel the commonsense opinions given by all the guys above are reasonable. If the replacement call point is not wildly different in appearance and operation from the existing, and if test keys and spare glasses are available for the new call point, then surely this is a reasonable alternative to replacing the whole lot.

However I look forward to reading other people's interpretation of the BS Recommendation; All call points should be identical unless there is a special reason for differentiation.

[Allen Higginson]

Utter sales tosh - if one call point fails, it needs replacing - not the others.

Plenty of buildings still have old Gent, AFA & Tann call points with no problems at all.

It's just a matter of convenience and how much you are willing to spend on convenience as oppose to system criticality.

It's nice to keep one make and thus one test key & yes the allen key or screwdriver to open the front and access the test button on the older models takes a bit longer, but so what - as long as it works.

As for uniformity for recognition by staff if they are not the latest EN call points incorporating a pictogram on the front they should all have the appropriate safety sign anyway.

Yes, if the older ones don't have a hammer and chain then it's coat around elbow or shoe heel time (or phone receiver a la Fawlty Towers) unless you want cut fingers, but even then it's a lot cheaper to buy replacement hammer & chains than replace all the call points.

Don't get me wrong - upgrading and uniformity is good - if you can afford it! Many of our clients are fed up of being told to do stuff by H&S consultants or alarm engineers that isn't actually vital to maintain the efficacy of a system & thus maintain life safety and at the moment with money being tight only need to know what is vital.

Beacons - new system or major refurb, then might be required as part of adapting to technical progress. Existing systems in existing building - only of you have a relevant risk/persons that you determine your existing controls are not sufficiently effective or robust to deal with.

Remember the phrase in the regs - "Where necessary"!

There is this though Anthony -
"20.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are applicable.
a) The method of operation of all manual call points in a system should be that of type A as specified
in BS EN 54-11. All call points should be identical unless there is a special reason for differentiation."

[Allen Higginson]

Sorry to come in on this a bit late.

I would point out that BS5839-1 2002+A2:2008 20.2 a) includes the recommendation; All call points should be identical unless there is a special reason for differentiation.

This could easily be read to mean that if you can't replace an existing faulty call point with a new one that is exactly the same, in every way (apart from being faulty, I should imagine!) then this might result in having to repalce all call points so that they are 'identical'

However, even this interpretation is not crystal clear, because the recommendation quoted above immediately follows a sentence about only using type A call points. Therefore the sentence could also be read as meaning that all call points should be of type A only!

Oh!, the joys of understanding British Standards. (where have I said that before?)

Personally, I feel the commonsense opinions given by all the guys above are reasonable. If the replacement call point is not wildly different in appearance and operation from the existing, and if test keys and spare glasses are available for the new call point, then surely this is a reasonable alternative to replacing the whole lot.

However I look forward to reading other people's interpretation of the BS Recommendation; All call points should be identical unless there is a special reason for differentiation.

Was going to say "Great minds etc..." but thought better of it!!

[AnthonyB]

Here we have the usual "lets misuse British Standards for sales purposes" as often used.

The standard is an installation standard for new systems and is not retrospective or every system before 2002 (or even 2008) would have to be immediately ripped out.

I totally agree that any NEW installation should comply with BS5839-1 2002+A2:2008 and have identical types/makes of call points.

But not existing systems. I hate with a vengeance the use of a BS to spread, well...BS!

I understand that the fire protection companies need to try & flog as much kit as possible as part of their business and can see why, although not forgiveable, people use & abuse BSI and other guides to their advantage.

I'm employed not to sell call points, fire doorsets, etc and will instead look at a building & make sure that life safety is adequate, legal compliance is met and expenditure to achieve this reasonable and where necessary. This often refers to British Standards, but does not slavishly insist everywhere constantly rips out stuff to ensure it meets this months amendment of  BS 12345678.

So back to a scenario influenced by the original post:

Seeing as all the call points are red, they all have the appropriate pictographic safety sign above, al say 'Fire - Break Glass', they all require the breaking of a frangible element to operate, and if required have hammers, does it reduce life safety to a standard below that required by the Fire Safety Order if one is the latest KAC type, 3 the older World Series, and the remaining 25 Gents circa 1970's?

Answer - No!

British Standards are not law, often are not retrospective (or only in part) and in many cases can be easily by passed in part to a degree that would still be defensible in court.

It happens with extinguishers - a lock up single room shop with one entrance the size of my through lounge/diner requires at least two 13A rated extinguishers or one massive powder or water/foam with additive rated 27A if you quote BS* and some extinguisher firms exploit this (& chuck in a Co2 with each the two waters they have just flogged - ker-ching!) despite a 13A 2 kilo Powder or even a 1 kilo 8A Powder actually being more realistic.


* from section 6.2- "Where, as a result of a risk assessment, it is determined portable fire-fighting equipment should be installed, the lowest level of provision likely to provide a realistic level of protection can be calculated by the total class A rating of all extinguishers on that storey. This should be not less than 0.065 3 floor area of storey (in m2) and should not be less than 26A"

[Graeme]

and what if these call points are part of a 240v system which was required by law to be ripped out 21 years ago?

Most of the old hammer type i see now don't have the hammer as it was pinched years ago. I would guess anyone seeing a fire would be inclined not to take their fingers off by raising the alarm by breaking the glass.

The old BS is not law again...your way of thinking lets a certain percentage of building owners keep getting away with having very old sub standard ,inadequate fire alarm systems because if a glass is broken a bell rings.

so does what it says on the tin. never mind the fact most of the building can't hear it.

[nearlythere]

There is a difference between fire risk assessing and style policing. At the end of the day a fire alarm break glass call point is just a button switch in a red box. Nothing special really but some like them to look nice and clean and very shiney

[Wiz]

Anthony B, I don't really disagree with you. It is easy for the unscrupulous to take advantage of customers by quoting certain items in the BS ,and also your point about the retrospectiveness (is that a word?) of standards is valid.

But I seem to remember that this 'identical call point' recommendation was also in the last version of BS5839 Part 1 and obviously if the system was installed at that time and all call points matched, but now the original call points were no longer available, by installing something different now then the system will no longer even comply with the standard applicable at the date of installation!

If the customer specifically expected their system to maintain it's BS compliance then you would have a problem changing a call point to a different model.

It's all a minefield!

We don't really know the customer's expectations or what the original installer said, but in some circumstances, he might have been absolutely right to say it.

[Wiz]

There is a difference between fire risk assessing and style policing. At the end of the day a fire alarm break glass call point is just a button switch in a red box. Nothing special really but some like them to look nice and clean and very shiney

I don't disagree, but try telling that to the code huggers!

[Fishy]

Another point is that flashing beacons need to be installed to assist hearing impaired in case of fire evacuation (possible breach of DDA).  Is it absolutely necessary?  We always had control measures in place and all who need assistance are coverd by body system and also fire marshals would clear the areas.

Lack of beacons etc does not breach the DDA - the Act has no fire safety-related requirements (it is about equal access to goods and services).  If, however, access is given without there being adequate means for giving warning in case of fire, then there might be a breach of the RR(FS)O.  Sounds to me like your control measures might be adequate, provided that the premises is not particularly high-risk and the means of escape is good.