fire alarm testing

[longjohn]

Hello all,
Can anyone assist with this one? Does fire alarm testing HAVE to be weekly? I mention this on the following basis regarding an assessment I have recently done on a small property converted to self contained flats, all structural measures comply, i.e sterile protected staircase, good compartmentation, emergency lighting Alarm and detection in the common areas and LD3 in the flats. etc, etc. The premises only have 6 flats (2 on each level), so here we have a small premises with only three manual call points and a modern alarm system that is continuosly monitoring the system. The Landlord arranges for a maintenance guy to visit monthly to user test the emergency lighting etc. And as such I have 'assessed the situation' and concluded that as the system is monitored for faults it would be practical to just do a monthly test of the fire alarm. Although this is a deviation from the weekly testing in BS5839 and other guides I felt it would be appropriate, consider this, there are only 3 call points in the common areas tested in rotation, which individually will in effect be checked every three months, more frequently than a larger premises with say 15 call points tested weekly. Although the local FSO upon audit has decreed the premises satisfactory etc he has made reference to the fact that the alarm must be tested weekly in accordance with.....(you know the rest!) and the landlord should employ someone to do this. So what happened to the RRO ethos of 'not being a burden on business' or 'a simple risk based approach' Am I right or am I wrong? Your views would be welcome.

[kurnal]

Does the design conform to the approved document B in respect of compartmentation, the layout of the flats, a sterile, protected staircase and ventilation of the common areas?

If it does then it does not need a fire alarm system in the common areas. There should be no reason why it cannot be removed entirely subject to building regulations approval if completed within the last 12 months.

If you want to keep the system why not train up one or two of the tenants on how to use the fire alarm control panel and how to carry out the test? After all presumably it has been provided for their benefit and it is therefore in their own interest to make sure that it is tested. If one or more responsible tenants know how to use the control panel then if it does generate unwanted alarm signals then they can silence it and deal with it with a minimum of disturbance to their own private lives.

[longjohn]

Hi Longjohn,
Are fire alarm systems now considered so unreliable that they have to be tested every week?

It seems so according to the local authority.

[longjohn]

Hi Thanks for that, it had already been installed etc when I was asked to look at it, I did also make the same suggestion re the tenants, (maybe give them 50p off the rent for their trouble!) depends on the tenants I guess. But what are your views regarding the FSO insisting a weekly test?

[longjohn]

Hi Longjohn,
Are you testing the alarm system itself or are you using battery call points and therefore testing the batteries?

Kurnal - Doesn't need a fire alarm system, are you taking the mickey?

I'm not doing anything, It has a BS5839 system with three call points, and being as they have a system (they didn't need) it may as well be user tested I guess. I think monthly is ok, the FSO wants it checking weekly, I just wondered what views were held regarding that.
 

[kurnal]

David before you insist it needs a fire alarm please take time to read The Approved Document B to the Building Regulations and BS5588 part 1- Fire Precautions in the Design, construction and use of buildings - code of practice for residential buildings.

We encounter so many problems that arise from electricians without any qualifications or proper training in respect of fire alarm systems who insist on installing alarms where they are not needed or failing to design or install them correctly. And the common areas of flats, where they are designed around a stay put strategy, are a typical case in point. 

[longjohn]

David before you insist it needs a fire alarm please take time to read The Approved Document B to the Building Regulations and BS5588 part 1- Fire Precautions in the Design, construction and use of buildings - code of practice for residential buildings.

We encounter so many problems that arise from electricians without any qualifications or proper training in respect of fire alarm systems who insist on installing alarms where they are not needed or failing to design or install them correctly. And the common areas of flats, where they are designed around a stay put strategy, are a typical case in point. 

Yep I fear this is one of them. And yes they do have a stay put policy. But forget the premises concerned just the point in question between the interpretation of the assessor and that of the FSO (and codes of practice being stuck to the letter rather than the risk assessment)

[kurnal]

David it's the basic design strategy for blocks of flats in accordance with the building regulations. Flats are special buildings and are designed with a high degree of fire compartmentation such that in the event of a fire in any flat only the occupants of the flat involved need to evacuate the building, the occupants of other parts of the building do not need to be alerted. The staircase and corridors are designated protected areas and must be maintained free of any fire loading, and provision is made for ventilation of any smoke that should enter the staircase. The ventilation may include automatic opening vents, openable Windows natural smoke ventilation shafts or pressurisation system depending on the building design.

The occupants of the flat involved in fire has a duty to call the Fire Brigade, if they do fail to do this or if the flat is unoccupied the structural fire compartmentation should be sufficient such that the likely fuel loading will burn out  without necessarily affecting any other building occupiers.

These design principles have been applied almost universally since 1948 and have stood the test of time. Where there are fire deaths and injuries in flats they are almost invariably confined to the flat involved in the fire.

[kurnal]

Long John
okay. There is a good argument that you could put forward as to whether something that doesn't need to be there needs to be tested but we won't go there.

Personally I don't have a problem with carrying out a risk assessment and using British standards and other national guidance as a simple benchmark. Provided we fully understand the reasons behind the technical guidance we are competent to apply an element of judgement. The weekly test was recommended in the BS simply to make sure that the system is basically in working order. Only a small part of the system is tested to confirm this. The fact that the circuits are monitored is irrelevant if there is no responsible person on site to check the panel for faults may arise from one month to the next. Checking the system on a weekly basis means that if a serious fault does occur it is likely to be discovered within seven days. Checking it on a monthly basis means a total failure may not be discovered the 30 days. If the system is not really required at all does this matter? (sorry we werent going there).

The other reason for carrying out weekly tests, to make sure that people know what the fire alarm sounds like, is probably not relevant in this case because the chances are that sounders have not been installed in flats anyway and so with the degree of compartmentation inherent in the design people may well not hear it in any case.  

[longjohn]

Long John
okay. There is a good argument that you could put forward as to whether something that doesn't need to be there needs to be tested but we won't go there.

Personally I don't have a problem with carrying out a risk assessment and using British standards and other national guidance as a simple benchmark. Provided we fully understand the reasons behind the technical guidance we are competent to apply an element of judgement. The weekly test was recommended in the BS simply to make sure that the system is basically in working order. Only a small part of the system is tested to confirm this. The fact that the circuits are monitored is irrelevant if there is no responsible person on site to check the panel for faults may arise from one month to the next. Checking the system on a weekly basis means that if a serious fault does occur it is likely to be discovered within seven days. Checking it on a monthly basis means a total failure may not be discovered the 30 days. If the system is not really required at all does this matter? (sorry we werent going there).

The other reason for carrying out weekly tests, to make sure that people know what the fire alarm sounds like, is probably not relevant in this case because the chances are that sounders have not been installed in flats anyway and so with the degree of compartmentation inherent in the design people may well not hear it in any case. 

Believe me if there is a fault on the system the tenants will soon do something about it and contact the landlord, (who has a 24 hr maintenance cover)as the fault buzzer is very irritating even from within the confines of their protected compartment. So I can't see it being left unttended for 30 days, but fair comment thanks.

[kurnal]

BS 5839-1 refers to the design, installation,commissioning testing and maintenance of fire alarm systems in buildings.

It recommends daily and weekly inspections and tests and periodic maintenance.

The daily test involves looking at the panel to check all is normal, the power supply is present and no new faults are indicated, and that any previious faults have been dealt with.

The weekly test involves local operation of a break glass call point usually using a test key to make sure that the alarm sounds. A different call point will be tested each week in rotation.

Battery powered  smoke alarms do not come under this standard. Domestic type fire alarm systems are covered by BS5939-6.

By battery powered call points- I guess you mean those self contained manual alarm gizmos that contain a battery and a sounder together with a call point. I dont think these conform to any standard so if you  have one you will need to follow the manufacturers instructions 

[Northern Uproar]

Its not necessarily the false alarm issue, its that people do not respond to common alarms in flats because there are no cues to percieve there is a hazard other than an alarm, any amount of false alarms compounds an already existing problem, rather than simply creating one, so a time delayed smoke alarm may not be a solution.

The reasons for this approach is outlined in PD 7974 pt 6, Section F3: “In many situations, evacuation can be counterproductive, since occupants are likely to be relatively safe in their rooms. Pre-movement times for even the first few occupants to respond can be very long (up to an hour), and the distribution of pre-movement times is likely to be very wide.…Occupants might be reluctant to leave their belongings and the temporary refuge of their rooms.”

therefore an alternate strategy has been developed to minimise the risk to all occupants, instead of relying on a full evacuation strategy that, in all liklihood, will not be effective. If there are issues with compartmentation, then common alarms may be considered, but this is where risk assessment comes in, and why the further guidance for flats is being written.

[AnthonyB]

Hi Longjohn,
Are fire alarm systems now considered so unreliable that they have to be tested every week?

Didn't you know that such a requirement has existed since the 1970's?

And the more I read the more I think TROLL.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

[kurnal]

Yes its been quite a day hasn't it.

My challenge to David is this. How is it that someone with such strongly held views on the technical design of fire alarm systems (radial wiring et al) appears to know almost nothing of the  fundamental principles and requirements for alarm systems.

When I was at school my wise teacher said I should learn to walk before trying to run.

[colin todd]

Kurnal,  Had you been educated in Scotland, not only would you know the difference between html and pdf, but your teacher would have been literate enough to tell you the whole quotation, which is to crawl before you walk and walk before you run.