Re: Power Supply

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Michael Baker" <mbbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142538656.138209.41270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> This is news to me and I'm an NFPA 72 committee member.

Are you working with either, Mike Cato, Jeff Collins, or Tony Afelbek in
your committee?

>Maybe I fell
> asleep on those issues.

I am wondering if they didn't as well.

 >The language has been in NFPA 72 for a very
> long time, which allows AHJ's to require central station service.

Agreed, and as it should be. There are systems in certain occupancies that
do require a higher standard and level of protection. No one is questioning
the AHJ's authority to require central station service in these type
applications (occupancies).

> The 2007 version of NFPA 72 will retain the same allowance... "where
> required ...".

Where is this language in the code? Does "where required", in your
interpretation, equal a total sweep of all new buildings, regardless of
occupancy, thoughout a city and/or county, while at the same time ignoring
all the old buildings and systems which are usually your problem locations.
Does it make sense to mandate this on only new buildings that have the new
technology in place? Does mandating a central station service fire system,
by square footage of a building, make sense, where prior to January 05 the
same building did not even need a fire system?

>AHJ's like central station service because it places
> the onus and the cost to maintain a fire protection system squarely on
> the property owner.

Is this in the code? If so, where? The reason I asked is because in 5
counties and 9 cities in Florida, the AHJ's have put the onus directly on
the alarm contractor.

>If all property owner's did the right thing, we
> wouldn't be having this conversation.

Agreed and I wish that was the case.

> The NFPA 72 language has morphed over the past 3 code cycles to the
> point where 3rd party verification may be provided by anyone approved
> by the AHJ.

Where is this in the code or can a section of the code be interpreted to
mean this? If so, which part may that be? This is an important issue and, if
possible, I will need your input in a timely matter. There is a state wide
meeting on the 26th and this could clear up a lot of questions and help save
a lot of time.

>For example, a group of retired building inspectors
> applies to become an approved 3rd party verifier >to conduct audits on
> fire alarm installing companies.  This could be a less expensive method
> that using UL or FM.

Yes it could depending on the process and who is ultimately responsible?
Again, any input as to where this is or may be interpreted in the code will
be a major help. Thanks in advance!

> NFPA 72, like all codes and standards, is published as a model, a
> suggestion, intended to be adopted at the local level through a review
> process that includes ammendments, deletions, etc. to fine tune it to
> the local need.

Should it not also be reviewed for any conflicts with state law? Doesn't
state law trump code? Right now, the policies being put in place are, in
direct violation of state law, causing restraint of trade, direct violation
of the Florida Uniformed Building Code, and in one case, has created a
monopoly, through ordinance, by eliminating competion in making it mandatory
that you use UL and not FM. When things of this nature occur, NFPA needs to
take a strong look at how the code, their code, is being applied and
interpreted, by a few, before there is a legal challenge to the process. I
am sure the code would stand on its own merit, however, I am also sure that
when a AHJ needs to make a decision, their city/county attorneys may hold
them back if they are aware of past/present legal challenges. Their
authority may be questioned at every turn at that point. They need the
authority in their line of work, but a few rogues could cause a potential
problem for them nation wide. National players, ie: NECA and the IBEW, have
just taken up an interest in this matter, as they realized it is going to
impact their electricians. This happened when a UL rep told the
International Association of Electrical Inspectors that electricians *could
not* even run conduit for fire alarm systems unless they were a UL listed
company. Do you know how that went over with the union? They (UL) may have
started a fight, without the AHJ's even realizing it, that will be
interesting to see if the AHJ's can win. When one of these developers has
every electrician walk of their job or can't get a CO on his 100 million
dollar hi-rise, do you think he is going to question the local fire
inspector? With their pull, the city/county commission, the mayor, their
senators or representatives or even the governor will become involved and
that AHJ will find himself scrubbing truck tires until he re--tires.

>Throughout these codes and standards you'll find >the qualifying words
"where required ..."

Again, I would appreciate the help on the locations of "where required"? My
72  and 101 were destroyed, along with alot of other reference material,
during the hurricane. My only copy is the next to last rewrite which I had a
home. Any help would be appreciated. Don't take this post as that I am
against authority......when it makes sense.