Mist systems - Maintenance and testing

[hammer1]

Hi folks

What are your experience in mist systems in relation to testing and maintenance, the BS is not really clear and also states it 'might' be a legal requirement depending on fire strategy and circumstances?

There normally 2 types, mains feed or tank feed, both normally having a booster system.

Surely an annual service should be adopted as a minimum

[Messy]

Hi Hammer

We installed a pre-action water mist system in a building a couple of years ago - borehole fed which I knew about but was a first for me.

I honestly cannot recall the maintenance arrangements, but will have a look when I am back in the office next week (out on site tomorrow and Monday). I think we do a pump run weekly and more detailed maintenance periodically but my grey matter has let me down re the details!

What do you mean 'it' might be a legal requirement? Maintenance? or annual maintenance?? I don't understand

[hammer1]

Hi Hammer

We installed a pre-action water mist system in a building a couple of years ago - borehole fed which I knew about but was a first for me.

I honestly cannot recall the maintenance arrangements, but will have a look when I am back in the office next week (out on site tomorrow and Monday). I think we do a pump run weekly and more detailed maintenance periodically but my grey matter has let me down re the details!

What do you mean 'it' might be a legal requirement? Maintenance? or annual maintenance?? I don't understand

Sorry Messy, was a bit of a rushed post in-between jobs...

In regards to the comments, in section 8 under maintenance there is a statement;

NOTE 2 Maintenance of the system might be a legal requirement in some circumstances. It might also be a requirement of the building fire strategy.


I am looking into mist systems prior to the 2015 BS8458, it seems we have mist systems fitted around the 2010 mark with the following;
These systems consisting of:

• one off temperature active drop down heads
• cpvc/mdpe pipework
• a conventional boosted mains water supply with break tank.

It has been stated this systems were “maintenance free” and that there was no BS ?? Surely inspection the state of pipework/ testing system that activate sprinkler dropdown of heads needs to be completed?

I cannot see how such a life safety system/ and property to a degree can be maintenance free?, even with no BS we had the BRE review in 2006 which recommends maintenance, so I would of thought they would follow best practice at least until the BS came in.

We are now finding contractors saying these systems are not BS compliant and will not touch them, I am also finding out most mist contractors only like to maintain their own systems which makes things hard.

Any info would be greatly appreciated

[Messy]

Blimey! What a dog's dinner!!! I though I had the monopoly in finding this sort of nonsense to spoil my day

In fairness, Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order does say 'where necessary' a suitable maintenance system is required - and if the manufactures/installers say no maintenance, then in theory (I stress, in theory) one does not need a maintenance system as they say its not necessary. But this is not any path I would tread as I would dispute that 'no maintenance' could ever be defined as a 'suitable system'.

This would be one for the Courts to decide, and I cannot see how a life safety system comprising of water under pressure and a host of moving parts could not subject to some kind of maintenance in any circumstances.

Compare this with the term 'maintenance free' when used in connection with the Britannia P50 fire extinguishers. Maintenance free in this context is in fact a marketing term and not a literal one as regular inspections and valve resets are required by the owner and 10 year professional servicing (or disposal) is required. Let's not forget this regime is for a bit of kit arguably less life risk critical than sprinklers. Fire services have accepted this system - and some even use the P50s operationally

The contractors are wrong. The system does not need to be BS compliant to satisfy the Fire Safety Order. We have a system installed in 1998 to the US NFPA standards and I'd fight anyone who tried to say that wasn't a suitable bit of kit. But it is maintained regularly.

In your case, I would be minded to write the system off as a life safety system. Not necessarily just because the design is not BS compliant, but that you cannot give any reasonable reassurance with will operate when/if needed due to lack of any Article 17 compliant systems. I assume this is residential???

Please do let me know how you get on with this job

For the benefit of others reading this, Article 17 (maintenance) of the Fire Safety Order is available on the link here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 ... le/17/made

[hammer1]

Blimey! What a dog's dinner!!! I though I had the monopoly in finding this sort of nonsense to spoil my day

In fairness, Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order does say 'where necessary' a suitable maintenance system is required - and if the manufactures/installers say no maintenance, then in theory (I stress, in theory) one does not need a maintenance system as they say its not necessary. But this is not any path I would tread as I would dispute that 'no maintenance' could ever be defined as a 'suitable system'.

This would be one for the Courts to decide, and I cannot see how a life safety system comprising of water under pressure and a host of moving parts could not subject to some kind of maintenance in any circumstances.

Compare this with the term 'maintenance free' when used in connection with the Britannia P50 fire extinguishers. Maintenance free in this context is in fact a marketing term and not a literal one as regular inspections and valve resets are required by the owner and 10 year professional servicing (or disposal) is required. Let's not forget this regime is for a bit of kit arguably less life risk critical than sprinklers. Fire services have accepted this system - and some even use the P50s operationally

The contractors are wrong. The system does not need to be BS compliant to satisfy the Fire Safety Order. We have a system installed in 1998 to the US NFPA standards and I'd fight anyone who tried to say that wasn't a suitable bit of kit. But it is maintained regularly.

In your case, I would be minded to write the system off as a life safety system. Not necessarily just because the design is not BS compliant, but that you cannot give any reasonable reassurance with will operate when/if needed due to lack of any Article 17 compliant systems. I assume this is residential???

Please do let me know how you get on with this job

For the benefit of others reading this, Article 17 (maintenance) of the Fire Safety Order is available on the link here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 ... le/17/made

Thanks Messy

We also need to consider the insurance company point of view here and how they would view non maintenance and systems not to BS (a potential hike in insurance premiums I guess).

Seems the mist system industry is...very misty, we have had 5 contractors who either say they only maintain their own systems that they install or if the system is not to BS, they don't touch it.....leaves us with little option although I agree doesn't need to be BS to comply.

With a lack of commissioning certs/ fire test performance certs and no manufactures/installers manuals, moves me even further to we cannot justify this non maintenance stance. I have also heard the company that installed these have gone bust (no surprise now and the argument gets weaker by the day).

I have been reading the BRE review in 2006 and it states clearly about maintenance (and refers to use of NFPA standards), these systems were installed in 2009-2010 so why not ensure best practice to such critical systems.

And yes it is residential, even more importantly - extra care/high risk user groups................

[Messy]

And yes it is residential, even more importantly - extra care/high risk user groups................

Outrageous - Is this mist system part of an engineered solution????

Thank goodness you are dealing with this