Every fired-equipment operator wants longer test intervals — fewer shutdowns, less labor, and less production risk from taking safety functions offline to test them. NFPA 85, 86, and 87 all allow for design equivalency and AHJ approval of alternate designs — including testing beyond standard annual intervals. But almost no one can build the case an AHJ will accept, especially when the underlying test data was never consistent enough to trust in the first place.

This session covers both sides of that problem: how to justify a test interval extension, and how to get failure rate data good enough to justify it with. We'll cover the field evidence that replaces conservative design-basis assumptions — prior-use failure rates, demand-based partial proof test credit, diagnostic coverage, and RRF safety margin — and the data discipline underneath it: getting day shift, night shift, and third-party instrument techs all recording pass/fail, safe/dangerous, and which component failed the same way, every time. Together, this ties back to the ROI case from Webinar 2 — the same field data that justifies the extension is what funds the enterprise risk visibility program.
     
Attendees will receive a Bayesian Prior-Use Failure Rate Calculator to run this analysis on their own fleet.