Re: Fire Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

<securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114525605.936554.160430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert,
>
> You are right and then you may be a tad wrong.

Just a "tad wrong"??  ;-)

> Yes, these relays are
> not listed for use with a residential burglar/fire alarm panel, but
> because monitoring is not required in this venue, the Authority Having
> Jurisdiction has it in his power to allow its use because it represents
> additional protection that goes above and beyond what's required.
> There are several smoke alarm models/manufacturers who have these
> relays.  Another thing, most AHJs would at least require that the
> ancillary relay in question be made by the same manufacturer as the
> smoke alarm unit(s).
>
> I asked several AHJs about this and they said exactly what I've just
> shared with you.  You will be able to read about this in the June
> issue. Relevant sections and such are included in the story. I've also
> included some reasons why they may not want to do it. I believe in
> allowing the reader to make up his mind.

I believe your article has opened the door for the less scrupulous alarm
dealers out there to "add a feature" to their pitch that won't be in the
best interest of the end-user (IMO).

Example:  "Look here, Mr. Smith, ADT is quoting you $200.00 for a smoke
alarm.  We can install this little relay for only $9.99 and use your
exisiting smoke alarms."

There's little enough information out there for someone that doesn't know
about all the issues surrounding life safety systems to access and they'll
view this as "the cat's meow".


>
> Now, if you are talking about a code-compliant system where supervisory
> monitoring or central station monitoring is required, then the use of
> an unlisted ancillary relay in this case would never fly.  Of course,
> if you ask UL or NFPA, the reply will have to be NO every time, but you
> must remember that they ONLY deal with code, which means code-compliant
> systems. But, NFPA and UL lives to serve the AHJ and not the other way
> around. They are not in ANY position of authority to dictate what can
> or cannot be done in a local jurisdiction.  The code is minimum and it
> deals only with compliant systems.

Robert's argument is that every time you use a UL listed burg/fire panel,
you're installing a unit that must comply with code.  This is patently
false.  I'm glad we've set him straight.


>
> No doubt, this call must be that of the AHJ, and on a case by case
> basis. Some will allow it and some will not. I know and understand your
> concerns over what was said in that story.  I should have told my
> readers to tune in next month for more information.  To not do so was a
> mistake on my part for sure.

Your only "mistake" as far as I'm concerned is that you should have
mentioned that, as security professionals, we shouldn't even consider using
a "band-aid" like this regardless of the fact that there is no code or
statute specifically prohibiting it.  Spending another $200.00 on properly
supervised smoke alarms is a small price to pay when your loved ones are
involved and you've already made the decision to install a security system.