Re: Far Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

["Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w2Zbe.1144576$Xk.1101033@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:pdGdnciQHMs6z-3fRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> In my experience the alarm wiring is
>>> rarely questioned or even looked at.
>>
>> Needless to say, your experience and mine are from different locations.
>> It should come as no surprise that we differ.
>>
>>> It falls into the same category as Cat 5,
>>> telephone, and TV cable wiring...
>>
>> All of which are supposed to be permitted, inspected and approved (or
>> not) where I worked.
>>
>>> All "low priority" stuff.  What the inspector
>>> looks for is proper placement of the 110VAC
>>> smoke alarms and that's about as far as he
>>> goes with anything to do with "alarms".
>>
>> In most town is CT any current carrying conductors, even including coax
>> antenna leads were subject to inspection by the AHJ.  Some towns were
>> stricter than others.  Some places didn't care about anything carrying
>> less than 50 Volts.  Others required a permit and inspection for every
>> piece of copper you installed -- hint: more permit fees.  :^)
>>
>>> Inspectors here don't even inquire what the
>>> alarm wiring's for.  We run 18-5 fire cable to
>>> the smoke alarm locations on every pre-wire...
>>
>> Presumably you leave the 18-gauge outside the octo-boxes until you're
>> ready to do the takeover, yes?
>
> Nope.   They're tagged "for alarm system use only".

Do you wait until the 110 VAC cables are removed from the breaker panel
before inserting the low voltage cables into the boxes?

>>> then, when the homeowner elects to install
>>> his security system we can replace the
>>> 110VAC units with supervised 12VDC
>>> photo-electric ones if the customer so desires.
>>> This, of course is done with the "blessing" of
>>> the AHJ, but even if we didn't have it, I
>>> seriously doubt any would complain as what
>>> we're providing far exceeds the 110V "cheapies".
>>
>> I brought that up with an inspector once when the client only wanted one
>> system smoke in an older home.  The inspector insisted that if we put in
>> a single smoke we must install the whole kit and caboodle per NFPA
>> standards.
>
> The inspector has a valid point.

Agreed.  Fortunately, the code has recently recognized the predicament this
creates for some owners of existing homes wanting to upgrade protection but
unable to afford a full-blown fire alarm system.  They are finally being
allowed to add partial system protection where a system is not mandatory,
such as existing structures or places where interconnected 110 VAC smokes
are already in place.

>> The homeowner declined any smoke protection at all rather than pay for a
>> major project.  That particular inspector also had a habit of refusing to
>> accept fire/burg combo panels on residences.  He said that he was worried
>> the homeowner might decide to take the panel with him when he sells,
>> leaving the smokes inoperable.  That was Windsor, CT.  There was nothing
>> we could do but install a separate, small FACP next to the burglar alarm
>> control panel.
>
> Hmmm...  I thought the "homeowner declined".

Sorry, I wasn't being clear.  The last sentence referred to other clients in
that town.  The first was an existing home with 110VAC smokes.  In that case
he did decline.  In other (mainly new construction) jobs in Windsor we had
to install separate panels.

The situation was all the more frustrating because there were two inspectors
in Windsor and only one refused to sign off on a combined system.  You never
knew in advance which one was going to inspect the job.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>