Effective certification will support standards: fire detection safety standards are at last worth the paper they're written on after the approval of a properly regulated quality assurance scheme, claims the author, summarising the new standards and forecasting their effects - Passive Protection

2002 was a watershed year for the UK fire detection industry. For, at long last, a quality assurance scheme worthy of the title has been introduced to form a backstop for individual industry standards.

In today's environment of risk assessment, where the responsibility for fire safety falls upon the employer, the proven quality of fire protection is critical.

The new quality assurance scheme from the British Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE) should produce more significant improvements in the quality of fire detection and alarm (FDA) systems than updated standards alone, important as all these are (See FIRE April, 2002).

The revised version of BS 5839: Part 1--the most important improvement in standards this year--is regarded by many within the fire detection industry as a step change in quality, but this major alteration to the code of practice governing design, installation, commissioning and ongoing maintenance of fire detection systems, will not improve the performance of FDA schemes on its own.

People on the outside or on the fringe of the fire detection industry would be astonished to know that most FDA systems--in my own experience I would estimate more than 90 per cent--do not strictly comply with the current recommendations of the code of practice BS 5839: Part 1 but have only a functioning test certificate to satisfy the fire brigade.

So, even after the standards have been updated--unless the BAFE dog begins to bite--we cannot expect any changes; a shock to those who take pride in Britain reputedly having the best fire safety application standard in Europe and perhaps the world.

In addition to the major revision of BS 5839: Part 1, there were two other significant introductions in 2002:

* BS 5839: Part 9 is a new code of practice that covers the equipment used for emergency voice communication systems, better known as fire telephones. This will not affect the current code of practice for voice alarm systems that is currently covered by BS 5839: Part 8, although this is likely to be superceded when the European version is released in the next few years; and

* The revised version of BS 6266 code of practice for fire protection within electronic data processing areas or similar critical electronic system installations.

But the major changes are to BS 5839: Part 1 which covers all new technologies that have been introduced by the fire detection industry over the last few years, for example carbon monoxide detectors, multi-criteria sensors, video fire detection and radio linked sounders.

The standard is now written in a new style that makes it much easier to understand and interpret the recommendations. And it removes grey areas and misconceptions, listing the recommendations more clearly and enabling third party audits of systems to be carried out easily.

The revision provides a commentary for each section, explaining the logic behind some of the recommendations and adding diagrams to simplify the explanation even further.

It urges a better certification practice that recognises the separate responsibilities of the designer, the installer and the commissioning engineer, on all new installations. As well as including an acceptance certificate--to reaffirm the end user responsibility--it suggests a certificate for recording the ongoing maintenance of the system and system modification that records any changes to a system after initial installation.

The standard now adds that a verification certificate should be available which allows a third party to examine the design and installation to audit the system against the original design criteria.

These improvements are all very well. But, unless the certification has some real authority, it is not worth the paper it is written on and, as current practice suggests, all the efforts of introducing this certificate format will be wasted.

There are a number of reasons for a poor end result in fire detection installation.

Often it's because of a `contractual chain' where there is no one person or organisation responsible for system design from start to finish. The outcome will often depend on who is seen as the `principal' by the end user.

The key point though is that, regardless, the quality of the fire detection system should not be compromised and the end result should be identical.

There is a general misconception that employing a product supplier's commissioning engineer will guarantee a full BS certificate, when in truth the engineer is able only to carry out a functional test to prove the equipment they have supplied is operating correctly. This covers clause 26.5 of the BS 5839 part 1 standard. However, in order for the commissioning engineer to provide a signature for any other part of the BS certificate, in particular the design, it is necessary to provide the full design criteria including the list of deviations and cause and effect matrix. Ideally, on final handover of the system, the test should be witnessed by the original designer who should take responsibility for confirming that the system complies with the original design.

Another reason for non-compliant systems is that they are too easily accepted as correct by the licensing authorities and end users. It should be clear who is responsible for the system design, whether the electrical contractor who installed it or the consultant who prepared the specification and drawings. Licensing authorities and end users should clearly understand who has taken responsibility for their system design so if there are any problems in the future they are aware who is accountable.

Very rarely is the designer involved during the handover and, more importantly, consulted during the installation period to make any adjustments to the design.

Current national quality assurance schemes fail to resolve these problems. The only installer certification scheme that currently operates nationally is the LPS 1014 scheme of the Loss Prevention Council Board (LPCB). This scheme currently offers an end user a guarantee that the whole scheme complies with current standards. However, this scheme has been criticised because most contracts do not allow one organisation to take responsibility for design, installation, commissioning and ongoing service of a system. The scheme has also been viewed as an additional cost and therefore, unfortunately, is applied in only two per cent of installations.

And this is where the BAFE comes in.

The BAFE quality assurance scheme--to be administered by accredited agencies--recognises the separate roles of the four main disciplines that go towards creating the optimum FDA system: system design, installation, commissioning including initial testing and handover, and ongoing maintenance. Each separate discipline is to receive its own assessment of competence and certification.

The new scheme was launched by NSI which is the first of a number of agencies being accredited to manage it (see FIRE Feb 2003). The scheme not only includes all the disciplines for fire detection but also covers suppression systems. This differs from the LPCB--LPS 1014 scheme, as suppression is currently covered under a scheme known as LPS 1048.

The major difference of the BAFE scheme is that it is modular and recognises each discipline from system design, installation, initial testing commissioning and handover, and ongoing service. It offers certification for each part as well as assessing competence of each of the various disciplines.

The benefits of the BAFE scheme are that it:

* Assesses the competence of the designers, as well as contractors and commissioning engineers;

* Provides a certification service that can be recognised for all FDA installations, not just the large projects that can afford LPS 1014;

* Closes the loop between the designer and the handover to the end user; and

* Provides a real opportunity for self regulation and improved standards within the industry.

In theory, the BAFE scheme will improve quality. But what will happen in practice? The key questions are:

* Will the major players within the FDA industry embrace the new initiative and will electrical consultants take on the designer's responsibilities and be assessed like the installer, commissioning engineers and service provider?

* Alternatively, will FDA companies and contractors take on the design liabilities normally associated with an electrical consultant?

* What will it all cost the industry?

These are the big three issues that will ultimately determine to what degree it is a success. They could end up being the barriers that could prevent a fully-fledged and all encompassing accreditation scheme for FDA system design, commissioning, installation and service.

Bob Bailey, European Sales Manager at Gent, has worked for Gent limited for 36 years, operating in the commercial area managing fire system design and sales and service operations

COPYRIGHT 2003 DMG World Media Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group