32 SURVEY FEATURE: VOICE ALARM SYSTEMS August 2014
where did it all go wrong? O
EN54:
A major new survey from Installation reveals the extent of the confusion about the much-discussed fi re detection and fi re alarm systems standard – particularly those sections relating to voice alarm. David Davies sifts through the results with the assistance of leading audio consultant Roland Hemming
ne would need to have been living in a cave – or in a very profound state of denial – to
have avoided the debate surrounding EN54. But what might have remained unclear until now is the sheer extent of confusion around the fi re detection/ fi re alarm systems standard and its legal ramifi cations. In the smallest of nutshells, EN54 specifi es requirements and laboratory testing for every component of these systems, and allows for the free movement of construction products between countries of the European Union
market. It is, however, the Construction Products Directive and, latterly, the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) that gives the standard its legal weight. Under the terms of the CPR, the CE conformity mark became mandatory, with manufacturers and importers given until July 2013 to ensure their construction products satisfi ed the CE requirements of the new regulation. So far, so clear. But what appears to be anything but transparent is quite how these changes should be implemented out there in the ‘real world’ of systems
Company activity in the fi eld of voice alarm equipment Other 7% Manufacturer 45% Consultant 24%
Integrator/ installer 20%
Distributor (sole importer) 4%
integration. In particular, the issue of where responsibility lies for various aspects of voice alarm systems appears to be clouded in confusion. Several consultants and industry observers have highlighted their concerns to Installation over the past 12 months, but it was Roland Hemming – founder of independent audio consultancy RH Consulting, which off ers advice on EN54 compliance to manufacturers, installers and venues – who suggested that we undertake a comprehensive survey into the whys and wherefores of EN54 implementation. “In truth, it is only over the last 12 months that I have realised quite how much uncertainty there is out there about the legal implications of EN54, and in particular parts 16 [regarding components for fi re alarm voice alarm systems] and 24 [voice alarms – loudspeakers],” says Hemming, who sits as UK expert audio alarms on the BSI committee and contributes to the TC72 Working Group 3, which is focused on the
aforementioned parts 16 and 24.
Hemming took it upon himself to unravel the legal maze around the standard, but even he may have underestimated the time that it would take. “I have had to be very pedantic to fi nd out the answers,” he laughs. “It’s a process that has required me to talk to manufacturers, other consultants, trade associations, the [UK] Department for Communities and Local Government, the European Commission, a Brussels- based legal fi rm…” If after all this eff ort
even a globally renowned consultant who has worked on two of the largest audio projects in the world (the Millennium Dome and the 2012 Olympic Games) can admit that he still isn’t “100% sure” on every aspect, then it is clear that there is a problem – the severity of which is fi rmly underlined by the results of our survey.
Notes Hemming, who helped formulate the questions and read the collected responses with a
growing sense of alarm (no pun intended): “The sheer variety of diff erent answers is testament enough to see that there are major problems in the world of voice alarm.”
Legal confusion Among our survey respondents, manufacturers were by far the largest single share (45%), followed by consultants, integrator/ installers and distributors. Geographically, the UK was responsible for the greatest share of responses (47%), followed by Sweden (29%). The results revealed
more clarity in some areas than others when it comes to legal responsibility for individual aspects of voice alarm systems. Benchmarking the results against what Hemming deems to be the ‘correct’ answer in each case, we fi nd that the largest single share of votes were cast in favour of the ‘right’ answers of local authorities/councils (compliance with building regulations) and venue owners/operators (building safety).
On the other hand, only a minority of respondents selected the right answer
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60