To ensure the reliability of fire detection and alarm systems good maintenance is vital. In the first of two articles Bill Rossiter managing director of No Climb Products and Dave Bartlett managing director of Trinity Protection Systems, explain the responsibilities of users and the key issues involved.
Today the fire precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 places a clear legal responsibility on the ‘user’1 of a building for the fire safety of that building (and its occupants) including the maintenance of fire safety equipment and, within this, the fire detection and alarm system.
Soon, however, there will be newer and even clearer legislation by way of the Regulatory Reform of the Fire Safety Order (commonly referred to as the RRO, occasionally as the FSO and, in this article, the ‘Order’). The draft was laid before Parliament on the 10th May 2004 and the final Order is anticipated to come into effect early next year. When it does, it will amend or replace 118 pieces of legislation, the most significant being the repeal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the revocation of Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (which, in many ways, it develops and extends).
In reality however, the responsibilities for good maintenance exist now and do not change under the Order. Further, now and under the Order, the responsibilities of the ‘User’ in current and impending legislation are focussed on the ‘Responsible Person’.
Today, it must be true to say that relatively few users and even fewer responsible persons (or perhaps even the other way round!) are truly clear on their responsibilities (either pre or post the Order).
The responsibilities are however, both clear and significant. Moreover, under the Order (which applies to the majority of premises and workplaces in the UK) there is, in addition to clear responsibilities, endorsement for the Enforcing Authority – normally the fire brigade but possibly also the HSE, MOD or local authority – to ensure it is enacted. Should the responsibilities not be met, the penalties range from fines to prison sentences.
Specialist help
The Order is not, however, an unrealistic piece of legislation. Recognising that the Responsible Person cannot be expected to “do the whole job himself and alone” the Order indicates that the “the Responsible Person must … appoint one or more Competent Persons to assist him…” while explaining that the competent person must have “… sufficient training, experience and knowledge…”
The Competent Person could be anyone from a company fire warden to a fire alarm service engineer. They may be directly employed or be a subcontractor but the important word is competent (see panel at end of article for definitions).
In the case of fire alarm systems, Competent Persons are (or should be) more often than not in the form of organisations which specialise in the business of fire detection and alarm systems.
Fire brigade support
On top of the Order comes the recently launched Model Agreement for Remotely Monitored Fire Systems from the Chief Fire Officers’ Association. This document recognises that false alarms now represent 25% of all calls to the Fire and Rescue Service and aims to reduce both the quantity and impact of them. A cornerstone of achieving this is the generation of a register of unique reference numbers (URNs) for fire systems and a requirement that (only) third party accredited competent persons or companies carry out installation and maintenance of them.
Similar to the experience of the security industry and the police, this will be followed by the introduction of different response and attendance levels dependent on past history (as well as a risk-based approach). The different levels range from an immediate response to no response from automatic calls unless confirmed by a 999 call. The policy will be gradually implemented over a three year period from April 2005 to enable systems and management strategies to be brought up to the required standards. More information can be obtained from: www.bfpsa.org.uk/
pdfs/CFOA_Policy_Sept.pdf
Benefits of maintenance
The benefits that flow from good and proper maintenance are not, however, limited to the avoidance of prison sentences under the Fire Safety Order or an assurance that the brigade will still attend. Fire alarm systems operate day and night, keeping watch over buildings and their occupants. While they are often better known for false alarms than saving lives, this ‘reputation’ serves to mask the threat that inadequate systems may fail to alarm on time or, perhaps, at all. A fire alarm system that functions as designed does not make its presence known until it needs to and, at this point, needs be relied upon to detect a fire and alarm those in a position to respond. When a fire alarm system is called upon to work, there is an emergency at hand and we need it to work totally reliably. There is no time to perform maintenance or repairs during the emergency.
Fire alarm system reliability does not happen on its own. It is affected by four key variables: system design, equipment, installation, and maintenance. After the design and installation are completed, the only variable we can easily control is the level of maintenance provided to the system but through this we can identify and remedy so much more. Proper maintenance allows not only system (even original design) problems to be highlighted and remedied, but also environment changes to be identified so that appropriate system changes can be implemented. Realistically, in modern fire alarm systems suffering false alarms, the equipment is usually not at fault. Instead, the match of equipment to environment (and vice versa) needs attention. Planned, proper and thorough maintenance will highlight such mismatches, enable remedial measures to be implemented and problems to be avoided.
A proper maintenance programme achieves two goals. On the one hand it addresses false alarm problems (actual and incipient) and is probably the single most powerful weapon in the battle against false alarms. Victory in the battle brings more resources for brigades, regained productivity gains for the economy and rebuilding of confidence in fire alarm systems from those who very lives may depend upon them. In addition, it helps assure that the system can be relied on to alert to fire and save lives. All in all, powerful reasons for good maintenance.
Cheap maintenance or good maintenance?
The difficulty for the User and/or Responsible Person is to establish what they are getting for their money: how do they know who to ask for maintenance prices; how do they know what to expect; and how, for example, do they ensure that they are getting the right service level? The answer lies in the word ‘competence’. But what is competence? The BFPSA Installers and Maintainers Commercial Section has developed a definition as follows:
“Competency is a measure of the overall ability of a person or organisation to deliver a best practice, qualitative solution to a task. The assessment of competency is complex and draws on:
– the individual’s or organisation’s skill level;
– the extent and understanding of knowledge available;
– the ability to prove these facets.
An individual’s or organisation’s skill level depends on their experience and knowledge, and how these are applied. The extent, understanding and use of knowledge available depends on training in the use of equipment, methods of work, assessment of risk and health and safety issues. The ability to prove these facets depends on training qualifications, optimised reporting procedures, auditing (regular checks) and third party certification. A competent individual or organisation will demonstrate their competency by understanding these different aspects and bringing them together in a structured, cohesive approach.”
Good maintenance requires the individual doing the work to have the time, knowledge and equipment to do the job properly. This carries a price tag. It involves proactive prevention of problems as well as attention to problems that are apparent.
Traditionally a high percentage of fire detection systems have been ‘maintained’ by having someone visit the premises a number of times a year, having a look at the control panel to see if there are any obvious faults, walk around and test a few items, and then move on. That is not maintenance even though it may be cheap.
Good maintenance requires the measurement of electrical parameters, the testing of every detection device over the course of a year, a review of the building arrangements and the notification of any issues that may lead to unwanted alarms or premature failures.
Benefits of good maintenance
Under the various pieces of legislation that were discussed earlier, the User and/or Responsible Person has increasing responsibility to show their own competence. That will involve ensuring that quality measures are in place to minimise the risk to the building users, to limit the likelihood of disruption through unwanted alarms, and to show that these measures are valid.
A fire detection system maintained by an organisation with a high degree of provable competence will maximise the life of the system, prevent many breakdowns through proactive attention, optimise the protection value of the system and reduce the disruption of unwanted alarms.
Key aspects of good maintenance
The following summary gives an indication of the key issues required to ensure good maintenance occurs:
1. Ensure that the maintaining company is a professional fire detection company. Membership of the BFPSA is an indication that the company is a recognised fire company and will have, or be working on, third party certification.
2. Ensure that the maintenance technician has experience, preferably validated in the sort of system installed, and has relevant training. This would usually be by both the manufacturer and a ‘Code of Practice’ trainer such as the BFPSA.
3. Ensure that the maintenance technician is properly equipped with recognised and professional test equipment, approved for the job and has access to spares
4. Ensure that a contract is in place to provide at least two inspections a year and to provide a 24hr call out facility for use in event of a breakdown.
5. Ensure that drawings, specifications and O & M manuals are available to provide crucial knowledge of where all devices are installed.
6. Keep accurate and comprehensive records in the log book of all alarm, fault, maintenance and modification activities.
7. Make sure that, in addition to the scheduled maintenance visits, weekly tests are carried out and recorded as required. This keeps the building users aware of the system and will often highlight any developing problems.
8. Advise all building users of any maintenance or test activities in advance, using several different methods of communication such as notices, e-mails, voice announcements etc.
9. Arrange for other trades to attend whenever interfaces to other equipment require testing for correct operation.
Conclusion
New legislation and a changing approach to managing risk is bringing sharply into focus the need for competent, quality maintenance of all fire detection, alarm and suppression systems. The User/Responsible person needs to know that his protection systems are optimised and prepared for action and may be required to prove that to be the case. This requires a good working partnership between the User and the maintaining company, and requires good, not cheap, maintenance.
Part 2
The second half of this article will look in more detail at what ‘good maintenance’ of fire alarm systems involves, and at how the work is shared between the User/Responsible person and the Competent Person. Importantly, it concludes with the need for remedial action and adequate records.
Who’s who under the regulations
1. User: Person or organisation having control of the building (or part of the building) in which the fire detection and alarm system is installed (3.61: BS 5839-1:2002).
2. Responsible Person: Person having control of the building and / or premises, whether as occupier or otherwise, or any person delegated by the person having control of the building and/or premises to be responsible for the fire alarm system and the fire procedures (3.49: BS 5839-1:2002).
3. Competent Person: Person with the necessary training and experience, and with access to the requisite tools, equipment and information, and capable of carrying out a defined task (3.11: BS 5839-1:2002).
