BS EN 50172:2004 BS 5266-8:2004 Emergency Escape lighting systems

[jayjay]

After spending hours asking Jeeves and Googling around the Internet without success I am doing what I should have done days ago and asked the question on this forum where I am sure the answer will be.
Colleagues and I have been debating the question as to what is the legal status of the EN documents, in particularly the above document relating to Emergency Escape lighting.

To quote a couple of sections from the National Foreword of the above document

“BS EN 50172:2004 specifies requirements whereas BS 5266-1 is a code of practice giving recommendations”, and

“Compliance with this standard will assist users in meeting the requirements of the Workplace Directive, the Construction Products Directive and the forthcoming Regulatory Reform Order”.

And again,

“This European Standard was approved by CENELEC on 2004-03-01. CENELEC members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration”.

And in section 7.2 Routine inspections and tests, the document states,  “Where national regulations do not apply, the following shall be met”. And then details the testing and maintenance standard.

This would appear to say the documents are in effect regulations and are a “shall ” and not a “should”, can anyone confirm this and point me in the direction of where the status of the EN documents are detailed (without having to go to Brussels). And are there any other EN standards relating to Fire Safety with the same implications?

If these are a “shall” then they have implications for the following main points

In respect of maintenance and testing the requirements of BS EN 50172 alter the duration period and frequency required for self-contained luminaires.
And
A number of the requirements which are given in BS 5266-1:1999 are expanded, particularly the size of open area that requires emergency lighting and the procedures to reduce the impact of the failure of any single luminaire. Appropriate product standards are also identified.

Although I have previously being recommending the maintenance and testing guidance of BS 5266 does this now mean that the responsible person must carry out the testing as detailed BS EN 50172:2004.

I am confident that I will find the answer here and thank you in anticipation.
Jayjay.

[Gary Howe]

Jayjay

Part of the answer to this lies within the Fire Precuations (workplace) Regs 1997, as amended 1999.

EL systems have always had the legal requirement to be maintained, as the FP regs make it clear, See (h) below. As far as I am aware, both BS and EN documents are good practice/guidance documents, however you have top bear in mind that the FP regs hover in the background making it a mandatory and legal requirement to maintain EL systems, by use of the word"SHALL"

g) emergency routes must be indicated by signs
h) emergency routes requiring illumination shall be provided with emergency lighting of adequate intensity in the case of failure of the normal lighting
maintenance: where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of employees, the workplace shall be subjected to a suitable system of maintenance and be maintained in efficient working order and in good repair.

Regards


Gary

[colin todd]

JJ, The distinction to which you refer is well-spotted. All British Standards fall into one of 2 categories. They are either codes of practice or standards, the latter of which normally relate to products, while the former relate more to installations. Theoretically, codes of practice are not specifications (even though we all tend to use them as such). Standards on the other hand, relating as they do to products mostly, have to be digital, with pass/fail criteria for the purpose of third party certification (e.g. kitemarking). tehrefore, the wording is all shall, and the word ''should'' cannot be used; a test lab would not be able to anything with a ''should'', as what if the product did not comply. Thus, technically, standards contain ''requirements'', albiet that they may not be legal requirements; it is simply that if you want to claim compliance, you comply with the whole lot. A CoP is the opposite. It contains only recs. So there are no requirements, and the words ''shall'' and ''must'' cannot be used.
Now our European cousins (How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris against invaders? Dunno, its never been tried.) are not into codes of practice, but only product standards. so the EN is, as you say, a standard that contains requirements. It is not unique, as BS 5266-7 is the same. The bottom line is that you can use the new EN NOW, and adopt its recs, rather than those of BS 5266-1. The latter code is in the course of amendment in any case, and a DPC is available. The amended code will remove have no conflicts with the EN and will refer to it for guidance on maintenance. Hope this helps.

[fred]

The publication of BS5266-1 2005 has prompted me to look again at BS5266-8 2004 - and I have to say I'm confused.

The revision of 5266 Part 1 has resulted in the recategorisation of the easily understood type of system ie 'NM3' - is now an 'X0 **** 180'  - and the duration specification in 5266 Part 8 is as follows "The mode of operation and duration shall comply with the results of the risk assessment and national regulations".

Would Building Regulations ever require anything less than 5266 Part 1 compliance - if no then what's the point of having a Part 8 standard ?

... or am I missing something ?

Please help - my head hurts.

[Tom Sutton]

Colin Please enlighten me what is DPC, being an ex bricklayer I understand it as Damp Proof Course.

[fred]

For those in the business of providing fire safety information the IEE have produced a useful leaflet on "Escape Lighting - the Siting of Luminaires" - two pages with illustrations - it's the dogs doodahs - and its available on their website www.iee.org.  They also offer a free subscription to their quarterly  magazine "Wiring Matters"  

Can't think why I didn't think of it sooner - and on reflection can't think why we (the Fire Services) keep on trying to re-invent the wheel.

[kurnal]

Thanks Fred thats a useful link and the site has forums so I may finally get an answer to my old chestnut about the wirning of luminaires and subcircuit failure.
The IEE document you refer to says:

Escape lighting
Escape lighting must:
1) Indicate the escape routes,
2) Illuminate these escape routes,
3) Illuminate fire alarm call points and fire fighting equipment.
Escape lighting must be provided not only as a consequence of
complete supply failure but also on local failure. For example,
escape lighting must be available should a single lighting final
circuit supplying luminaires in a stairwell fail.

I am regularly having discussions with competent electricians who insist on wiring self contained units back to a dedicated mcb on the distribution board rather than taking a feed from the local lighting subcircuit.
The result is that the escape lighting will never work unless there is a full power cut to the building or the wires to the escape luminaires burn through.

Because if the primary lights in an area short circuit as a result of the fire their own mcb will break the circuit but the EL will still receive power through its dedicated supply.

BS5266 recommends that a number of units in risk locations  should operate on subcircuit failure, but the electricians say that the IEE regs require the EL luminaires to be wired back to a dedicated breaker.

I contend that this is wrong but havn't got a copy of the Regs to check for myself.
I also guess that about 75% of buildings are wired up in this way.