CWEENG

There is a number of agents that can be used as a replacement for Halon and the best one will depend on the individual risk, the volume of the area in question etc. Dependant on the current installation , existing pipe work and discharge equipment will normally have to be changed due to pressures, fluid flow rates etc. Feel free to PM me and I can pass on a couple of contact details of some individuals that will be able to help.

I have twice now forwarded a link to a company that would be able to help " Guest_LesClif" who is looking for a location to obtain ID Disks for Fire Doors. Why has my post with the companies web site been removed?

As the business owner and the person with control over the premises, the staff and the processes undertaken within the premisses, you are the "responsible Person" and the one with the responsibility to carry out or have the Fire Risk Carried out by and outside provider. Then act on the findings as appropriate. When it comes to any issues arising from the fire risk assessment in relation to the building then that is an issue between yourselves and the landlord and the terms of your lease. If you are part of a multi occupancy with common areas then the landlord is responsible for the fire risk assessment of the common area and to co operate with the tenants in relation to any significant findings. Hope that helps.

BS5839 currently require that; 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.

A short extract that I prepared for a client recently with a similar question. Cant remember wear I took most of the text from. In many premises a fire may be obvious to everyone as soon as it starts (e.g. in a simple open plan village hall). In these cases, where the number and position of exits and the travel distance to them is adequate, a simple shout of ‘fire’ or a simple manually operated device, such as a gong, whistle or air horn that can be heard by everybody when operated from any single point within the building, may be all that is needed. Where an alarm given from any single point is unlikely to be heard throughout the building, an electrical system incorporating sounders and manually operated call points (break-glass boxes) is likely to be required. This type of system is likely to be acceptable where all parts of the building are occupied at the same time and it is unlikely that a fire could start without somebody noticing it quickly. However, where there are unoccupied areas, or common corridors and circulation spaces in multioccupied buildings, in which a fire could develop to the extent that escape routes could be affected before the fire is discovered, an automatic fire detection system with a control panel which is able to identify the zone or specific location where the alarm has been raised may be necessary. Within the selection and design of such an automatic system, you may need to consider special arrangements for times when people are working alone, are disabled, or when your normal occupancy patterns are different, e.g. when maintenance staff or other contractors are working while the premises are closed.

If you are referencing to the Installation Company” I am presuming that it is a relatively new install. Approved fire door sets, that are properly installed should not have this problem. I would recommend that you as the” responsible person” have the situation investigated by a “competent person”, whoever picks up the bill (different argument) As you are now aware of the issue, and in the future the worst was to happen, you need to be mindful of the blame game, and as the “responsible person” you do all that is practicable.

In normal office building there is not reason for the sound to be so high as top cause discomfort. A sound level of 65db is required as a minimum but this could be reduced lower in certain circumstances. In any case the sound pressure levels should not be greater than 120 dB(A) at any normally accessible point. As long as the levels are correct in relation to the requirements of the standards governing the installation of the fire alarm system, and it is not just a case of over sensitive hearing, (sorry ladies) you could ask the service company to turn down the sound levels on the devices, or approach the issue from a H&S aspect dealing with excessive noise in the work place.

Vents are normally designed as vents, Purely for Smoke Control or Vents designed for Smoke Control and Environmental use. When vents are designed and constructed, the mechanism will be designed around the perceived usage taking into consideration the amount of times the vent will be operated in the designed life span of the units, mindful of testing , maintenance, false alarm rates etc. Vents designed purely as Smoke Control will have a lower factor in relation to quantity of operations than Vents designed as both Smoke Control and for Environmental use. These will have a higher factor for the increased usage, opening and closing, while being used as a vent and still allow for the correct operation as a smoke vent when required. If the vents in place are purely designed for smoke control and not as environmental, then additional used of the vents for environmental use may have an impact on the life span of the units. This may be the reason for the request not to use them, and would be justified. If the vents are designed as duel purpose then there would be no safety issues if the vents were to be used for environmental reasons as well as smoke control when required. I would ask the relevant person for the justification behind the request not to use them, and ask to see some form of supporting evidence from the maintenance company that would show that they are purely designed and installed for smoke related reasons and that they are not designed for environmental reasons. After all you are a tenant, and as a tenant I am sure the common areas are yours to use as designed to, and if the design of the area was to have environmental vents in place, they are also yours to used for this purpose?

The short answer is that, For installations in non domestic buildings, twin and earth cables normally used in normal electrical installations is not suitable or compliant with the requirements for the installation of Fire Detection and Alarm Systems. A system installed in this way would not be compliant to BS5839-1. With a bit more info about the site and the installation I would be able to point you in the right direction as how to proceed and what recommendations you will need to be making to your client so that he can make the decision on what to do.

In general, floor area for a single zone should not exceed 2 000 m2 If the total floor area of the building is greater than 300 m2, each zone should be restricted to a single storey / floor. If the total floor area of the building is less than 300 m2 a zone may cover more than a single storey (mindful of total quantity of devices). For systems using conventional detection (non addressable), the search distance should not exceed 60 m in distance, so a an additional zone would be required if a search distance is greater. detectors within any enclosed stairwell, lift shafts or other enclosed flue-like structure should be considered as a separate detection zone. PS BS 5839-1:2002+A2:2008 has been superseded now by BS 5839-1:2013 (only minor changes within but they still felt it necessary to bring out a full revamp, ££££££)

Had my tyres changed by a mobile engineer lat week, his van was a mobile workshop, with compressor, generator etc. I did not look to see if he had an extinguisher in the van, (he had everything else) but this I assume would be classed as a work place all be it was on wheels and in turn should have been fitted out with suitable portable extinguishers.

HI From a user point, the system is required to be checked on a weekly bases (commonly referred t as the weekly bell test), this is normally carried out at the same time each week. If you are part of a multi occupancy and the Fire Panel is controlled by others (the landlord) you should expect some form of interaction with him on a weekly bases when the testing is taking place wear he or his representative should be checking that you have heard the bells / sounders and that there are no issues to report such as concerns over sound levels. If he is not, Have a word? This gives the opportunity for the responsible person to confirm that the system and associated equipment (door hold open devices, door release devices etc) is capable of operating. This is carried out by operating a manual call point, Each manual call point to be used in rotation on successive weeks. Also it give the occupants a chance to experience the alarm sounds relating to fire. In environments with shift work a bit more management I required with additional bell checks to satisfy shift work. The system should also be subject to a regular maintenance by a Competent Person ( fire alarm engineer) that will carry out a more in depth service and maintenance of the system. This is carried out at a minimum of 6 monthly in normal cases. The period of 6 months may have to be shortened dependant on the environment that the system is installed into or wear subject to addition wear and tare or is being abused in any way. Your Fire Risk Assessment should highlight the case if additional maintenance of any fire safety equipment is required.

Occupancy m2 per person Floor space guidance examples, Dance area, 0.5 Bar , 0.3 Club, 0.5 Venue for pop concerts , 0.5 Space with loose seating , 0.75

Try http://www.nihe.gov.uk/hmo_standards.pdf

Thanks Tom, I have had a look through this, but again its looking for that definitive figure.

I have looked at the usual points of reference BS , Approved Docs etc and no joy, I Have searched other countries , US Canada, Australia and the Kiwis but as you say figures and approaches vary to H&S with ratios. Despite the sterile nature of the environment I would like to work something out. They have had issue in the past relating to a Fire in the Pool area so it is s distinct possibility that it could happen again. It seems obvious that they have not learnt from there lessons. I would be interested in other peoples approach if anyone has carried out a Fire Risk Assessment in a sports centre or similar containing a pool.

I am looking into the Occupancy Levels for Swimming Pools, and how normally Able Bodied Persons can then become a higher risk as they may not be able to swim very fast to get out of the pool and to an exit in the event of a fire. Examples of typical floor space factors in reference documents don’t seem to reference Swimming Pools Any Additional literature or pointers on this subject would be welcome.

I am assuming that the works have yet to take place. The works required to take the system up to L1 are Void detection as identified by you Lobby alterations as identified by the alarm company. No other works are required and no other issues exsist. In order to progress the project and get all the information on the table and in order to be able to take the decision on how to go forward. I would recommend that the client request a quotation from his alarm company and obviously another company, if not two, for comparison. The request to each of the companies would be: Provide a quotation for costs to design install and commission as per BS5839 along with appropriate certification, additional void detection that is required to bring the system up to L1 standard as per the finding of the recent Fire Risk Assessment. Inform them, that there is split opinion for the need to relocate the detector in the lobby based on two factors The Fire Risk Assessment, and Interpitation of curent BS relating to detection in lift lobies. [*]If they are of the opinion that, with their understanding of the BS that the lobby device requires relocating in order to comply, that they are to highlight this within their submission as a Variation to BS5839 for the requirements of an L1 system, and to submit the appropriate paperwork, and to provide there submission based on this. [*]To provide a second cost for item 1 above inclusive of the Lobby device. (this so as to give all options on the table) With all three submissions on the table with option 3 from each company if they see fit, you will be in the position to make the judgment call on the commercial aspect of the project. From a Fire Risk Assessment point of view the decision needs to be made relating to the Lobby devise (no getting away from it) [*]Is it acceptable in its current location and, it would not have any bearing on the safety of the building and its occupants. or [*]Does it have to be re located. With this approach the Technical Design issue can be separated from the Risk Based Issues. From the previous post there is an argument from a Technical design point for the Lobby to stay as it is. The commercial issue is that of cost, and which company to use. If they have concerns over the Lobby device they are protecting themselves by the client requesting the Variation Option 2 above and they are able to highlight this in there documentation. The end decision can then be separated. A or B Let me know how you get on, I would be interested on the outcome. I will send you a Pm so that you have my details. Good Luck

Now a bit clearer, good. So to be technical,,, -Cat L2 for Residential care premises (residents capable of evacuating themselves). --A category L2 system designed for the protection of life, which has automatic detectors installed in escape routes, rooms adjoining escape routes and high hazard rooms. In a medium sized premises (sleeping no more than ten residents) a category L2 system is ideal. These fire alarm systems are identical to an L3 system but with additional detection in an area where there is a high chance of ignition (e.g. kitchen) or where the risk to people is particularly increased (e.g. sleeping risk). And -Cat L1 for Residential care premises (more than 10 residents above ground floor or a significant proportion of residents dependent on staff assistance for evacuation. --A category L1 system is designed for the protection of life, which has automatic detectors installed throughout all areas of the building (including roof spaces and voids) with the aim of providing the earliest possible warning. A Category L1 system is likely to be appropriate for the majority of residential care premises. In practice, detectors should be placed in nearly all spaces and voids. With category 1 systems, the whole of a building is covered apart from minor exceptions. From your description of the premises the selection of an L1 would sound correct. There may be Verifications and an element of L5 incorporated and this should be highlighted on the design certificate. In relation to the actual design and the installation. I am presuming then that the fire alarm company was instructed to up grade the system to an L1, and they should have produced a design certificate to certify there design to current BS (a G1 Certificate detailing there design and any issues arising at this stage). prior to the works taking place. Issues they had with the Lobby detectors should have been highlighted at this time and either engineered out or been a subject of a verification with the approval of interested parties (the purchaser / owner and his fire safety representatives). Was the lobby devises part of the new installation or part of the old?

Dan I think you need some independent advise, it is NOT the choice of the installation company what grade of system you have installed, it is there job to design and install to the wishes of the Purchaser, ie You. Your decision process is based on your needs and not theirs. If you feel you do not have the necessary skills or expertise to choose then you should hav ea professional bating in your corner. Im not saying it is the case in your situation as I do not know all the facts, but it is obviously in the commercial interest of the installing company to up sell and install the larger systems? Even after an installation company has installed a system, and it is instilled to the correct standards with the correct certification. It is still the “Responsible Person” ie you in this case if I understand your situation correctly that is ultimatly responsible for any shortfalls in the system, if not designed to the needs of the building, the occupancy and the processes performed within. Extract from an IFA publication for your intret, Responsibility for Selection of System Category Since there are eight system categories defined in BS 5839-1, a reference to BS 5839-1 without a reference to a system category, for example, in a purchase specification; enforcement notice under fire safety legislation; or a fire risk assessment would be virtually meaningless. Within statutory requirements imposed by enforcing authorities - as part of any requirements imposed by property insurers and in any action plan of a fire risk assessment - the category of system to be installed should always be included in a specification. In addition, other than in the case of a Category M, L1, P1 and L4 system, further information needs to be included regarding the areas of the building that are to be protected by automatic fire detection. In a Category M system, there are no such areas, while all areas are protected in a Category L1 or P1 system, and only the escape routes are protected in a Category L4 system. In particular, it should be stressed that the responsibility for determining the appropriate system category for any application does not rest with the designer of the fire alarm system, such as a fire alarm contractor, who is not expected to have sufficient expertise in the principles of fire safety to come to a decision in this respect. Although many fire alarm designers may fortuitously have such expertise, the decision rests with the fire safety specialist rather than the fire alarm system specialist. Thus, it may be considered that there is something of a “firewall” between the role of the fire safety specialist and the fire alarm system specialist. The information that is communicated between these two parties is the system category. Clear documentation relating to the process of selecting a system category should be compiled separate from the actual system design process.

Q Is this a newly installed system, an existing system being verified ? Q Who selected the category for the building that then was designed? As both a Fire System Designer and as a Fire Risk Assessor. There is a couple of key factors, and without a chat it is hard to determine. Pleas feel free to contact me direct for a chat. But with the info to date,,,,,,,,, This topic often starts discussions and there is a couple of key points to understand and consider. Some of the misunderstanding comes from understanding of BS5839 - 1 and the cross over between the 2002 version and the 2002 version with the 2008 A2 amendments (trying not to Hug the BS and be over technical sorry). Also what designers have been taught on Industry association design training courses. There should be a section in all publications titled “Common sense 101” The earlier BS highlights – on each level, within approximately 15 mtrs of the penetration The later version highlights- on each level, In the Accommodation Area (A2 amendment) within approximately 15 mtrs of the penetration To me this points the enfaces onto lifts opening onto lobbies that are also accommodation area as opposed to every level. The wording Approximately is also used in both versions (but we could all have a view on what aprox means I am sure). Industry training manuals and training courses also point to a degree of flexibility and the use of Variations when it comes to lift lobby devices. To me a common sense approach would be: to have the Fire Alarm Company do there bit and certify the work to date and the system with a “Variation” (to the design or installation proposal, whichever one is appropriate), highlighting that the smoke devices is not within 1.5 mtrs from the lift doors. Assuming all else is well with the design, installation, commission and handover. As system category selection, is now very much a risk based approach, contact your local friendly neighbourhood Fire Risk Assessment Provider, to look at the situation from a fire risk angle, to look at all the factors within the premises and not just this one in isolation. Then to make a judgment call, does the fact that this device is not within 1.5 mtrs of the lift shaft pose any real significant fire risk hazard to occupant and the building. With all other factors considered, as well as this one, is he happy that the device is not within 1.5 mtr? Please feel free to give me a call to discus further if you wish, happy to chat. Just my opinion,

How many lifts are in the same lobby? When there are multiple lifts in the same lobby, an agreed variation with the interested parties can allow this distance to be modified, this is in order to reduce the quantity of detectors in the same lift lobby that might otherwise seem excessive.

I am looking for a good reference to the practice of e/m lights having escape signs stuck on them , Escape signs being used as E/M lights. The building in question has minimal lighting in the 1sy place but what is there is also being obscured by stick on escape signs (that don’t comply anyway). Any hep appreciated

As a Fire Risk Assessor seeking to join a recognition body, IFE, Warrington, IFSM etc, (and be on the “List”) Which one is “best”? Which one is better recognised? Which one most cost effective? Pros and Cons?

The five employees will be across the company as a whole not the individual stores.