Emergency lighting maintenance is crucial for safety
Good emergency lighting maintenance is crucial for safety, while testing is more cost-effective using automated techniques.
Any accident involving injury or loss of life following a building emergency, such as a fire, could result in those responsible being brought before a court of law. Bearing in mind the potential risks to life, business and reputation, it is crucially important to ensure that all installed emergency lighting systems are in full working order at all times. An essential element of this is regular checking, maintenance and testing. ICEL - the emergency lighting side of the Lighting Industry Association (LIA) - emphasises that the automated testing of emergency lighting systems can bring significant safety, maintenance and cost benefits to building owners, as well as peace of mind.
Most people who visit or work in office buildings, retail outlets and public spaces take building safety for granted, including the provision of emergency lighting. This should be justified, as emergency lighting is well understood and carefully regulated, having clearly defined boundaries, well-prescribed procedures and uses high quality accredited products (for example, easily available from ICEL member companies) ready to be specified and installed. Yet, are the installed systems regularly tested and maintained to be both compliant and cost-effective? If they are not, building safety may be compromised.
The answer is usually yes, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant proportion of facilities managers and building owners may be confused about emergency lighting test and maintenance regimes. Some may misunderstand changing requirements, while others can see ambiguities, so ICEL recommends that consideration should always be given to installing an automatic emergency lighting testing system conforming to BS EN 62034. These can show payback within two to four years, so are clearly cost-effective as well as safer.
Without proper maintenance, emergency lighting will eventually fail to operate as intended - a lamp or a battery will fail, so the required light output cannot be provided in an emergency. Crucially, if no regular checking, testing or proper maintenance is carried out, facilities managers are very likely to be unaware of the problem, let alone building occupants.
Therefore, the responsible person should always ensure that the building’s emergency escape route lighting systems are periodically inspected, tested and properly maintained so that they work as intended when required, and in compliance with regulations. Central systems with batteries and/or generator sets should be regularly checked and maintained – e.g. if vented batteries are used, they must be topped up and terminals kept clean. Ensure that generator fuel tanks are at the right level, and that all coolant levels are checked. The generator itself must be maintained at regular intervals as per manufacturers’ instructions. For self-contained emergency luminaires, any battery replacements (such as NiCd or NiHi) must be compatible with existing batteries and with the charging systems.
BS 5255-1 warns that during the period of the annual full duration test and afterwards, while the batteries are being recharged, precautions should be taken to protect occupants in case there is a supply failure in that time. This is a problem when manual testing is used as either it requires attendance for three hours while the building is empty, or if this not possible, then alternate luminaires should be tested at times at least 24 hours apart - needing two test visits each year instead of one.
But how can building owners, managers and occupants of public and commercial buildings be certain that the testing has been, and will be, carried out properly, regularly and supported by accurate records provided to the responsible person concerned? Moreover, this process must be cost effective. Testing regimes vary, but are essentially manual or automatic:
Manual testing – A mains failure is simulated using a switch to isolate all lighting circuits, or individual circuits, or individual luminaires. This forces the emergency lighting system to operate and use the battery supply. It can then be determined whether there is a fault or not.
This traditional method can be time consuming, especially as building services and systems become ever more complicated. Several reliable and experienced trained staff may be needed and, especially in very large buildings, this can become very labour intensive, expensive, difficult to manage and disruptive. In addition, people can make testing errors, the process may not be reported correctly, and it can sometimes be forgotten entirely.
Any accident involving injury or loss of life following a building emergency, such as a fire, could result in those responsible being brought before a court of law. Bearing in mind the potential risks to life, business and reputation, it is crucially important to ensure that all installed emergency lighting systems are in full working order at all times. An essential element of this is regular checking, maintenance and testing. ICEL - the emergency lighting side of the Lighting Industry Association (LIA) - emphasises that the automated testing of emergency lighting systems can bring significant safety, maintenance and cost benefits to building owners, as well as peace of mind.
Most people who visit or work in office buildings, retail outlets and public spaces take building safety for granted, including the provision of emergency lighting. This should be justified, as emergency lighting is well understood and carefully regulated, having clearly defined boundaries, well-prescribed procedures and uses high quality accredited products (for example, easily available from ICEL member companies) ready to be specified and installed. Yet, are the installed systems regularly tested and maintained to be both compliant and cost-effective? If they are not, building safety may be compromised.
The answer is usually yes, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant proportion of facilities managers and building owners may be confused about emergency lighting test and maintenance regimes. Some may misunderstand changing requirements, while others can see ambiguities, so ICEL recommends that consideration should always be given to installing an automatic emergency lighting testing system conforming to BS EN 62034. These can show payback within two to four years, so are clearly cost-effective as well as safer.
Regular checking is mandatory
An emergency lighting system, being a safety related product, is ineffective unless building owners and facilities managers are certain that it will operate as intended if a mains power failure occurs and fast building evacuation becomes necessary. This is crucially important, yet many buildings might not meet this most basic of criteria.Without proper maintenance, emergency lighting will eventually fail to operate as intended - a lamp or a battery will fail, so the required light output cannot be provided in an emergency. Crucially, if no regular checking, testing or proper maintenance is carried out, facilities managers are very likely to be unaware of the problem, let alone building occupants.
Therefore, the responsible person should always ensure that the building’s emergency escape route lighting systems are periodically inspected, tested and properly maintained so that they work as intended when required, and in compliance with regulations. Central systems with batteries and/or generator sets should be regularly checked and maintained – e.g. if vented batteries are used, they must be topped up and terminals kept clean. Ensure that generator fuel tanks are at the right level, and that all coolant levels are checked. The generator itself must be maintained at regular intervals as per manufacturers’ instructions. For self-contained emergency luminaires, any battery replacements (such as NiCd or NiHi) must be compatible with existing batteries and with the charging systems.
Emergency lighting testing
EN 50172 concerns emergency escape lighting systems, and it specifies the minimum provision and testing of emergency lighting for different premises. Such testing should be carried out on a monthly and annual basis. Every system, and each emergency luminaire and exit sign (whether maintained or non-maintained) should be examined and their function tested, typically for 5-10 minutes at least every month. They should also be tested for full rated duration at least once a year (see BS5266). The test results must be recorded and reported to the building’s responsible person. Any repairs or remedial work identified by the report must be carried out within a reasonable time.BS 5255-1 warns that during the period of the annual full duration test and afterwards, while the batteries are being recharged, precautions should be taken to protect occupants in case there is a supply failure in that time. This is a problem when manual testing is used as either it requires attendance for three hours while the building is empty, or if this not possible, then alternate luminaires should be tested at times at least 24 hours apart - needing two test visits each year instead of one.
But how can building owners, managers and occupants of public and commercial buildings be certain that the testing has been, and will be, carried out properly, regularly and supported by accurate records provided to the responsible person concerned? Moreover, this process must be cost effective. Testing regimes vary, but are essentially manual or automatic:
Manual testing – A mains failure is simulated using a switch to isolate all lighting circuits, or individual circuits, or individual luminaires. This forces the emergency lighting system to operate and use the battery supply. It can then be determined whether there is a fault or not.
This traditional method can be time consuming, especially as building services and systems become ever more complicated. Several reliable and experienced trained staff may be needed and, especially in very large buildings, this can become very labour intensive, expensive, difficult to manage and disruptive. In addition, people can make testing errors, the process may not be reported correctly, and it can sometimes be forgotten entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment