Re: Power Supply - UL and fire inspections

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy said:

>Mike Baker said:

>>> 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.

And who else is going to bear the cost, other than the property owner?
That's true regardless of the type of fire alarm system.

>Well, the conversation is past due and is fast heading toward legalities.
>The cities and counties that have had "policy" set, by their    AHJ's,
>allowing only central station systems be installed, regardless of occupancy
>and in Jeff Collins (WPB) case, anything over 5,000 square feet must have a
>central station service system installed, regardless of occupancy, has
>created some servere problems.

That's the fatal flaw in NFPA 72:  it doesn't specify the type of fire
alarm system that is required in a given occupancy.  The almighty AHJ gets
to fill in the blanks.

The type of fire alarm system should be specified in the building codes,
not NFPA 72.  This is how you overrule the fire marshals.  In other words,
a high rise building might be required to have full-blown central station
service, while a small industrial building might not.  Of course, what do
you do in smaller cities where central station service is not available?

Central station service is welfare for the big alarm companies:  guaranteed
revenue and damned little competition.  What I'd like to know is whether
"the emperor has no clothes."

Central station fire alarms don't extinguish fires; they only call the fire
department.  Somebody please show me some proof that central station fire
alarms do a better job, or have a lower failure rate, than properly
installed and maintained remote station systems.  I doubt there is any such
proof.

In which case, there's no rational justification for requiring central
station service.  It's just a feel-good measure.  That almighty AHJ can
always cover his own ass by claiming he required "the best," whether or not
it really is.

>the public would not have to accept the 3-10% inspection record that
>UL has admitted to. For public safety and wefare, the public should demand
>100% inspections when it comes to life safety. Nothing else is acceptable.

UL is not in the business of inspecting fire alarm systems, nor do they
claim to be.  They are in the business of inspecting fire alarm service
companies to see whether those companies can provide an acceptable level of
service.  UL does not, and will not, assume the responsibility for signing
off on every fire alarm system in the country.  Think of the potential
liability, and think of the number of inspectors that would be required to
do it.  Then think about your annual UL bill, and how high it would be if
they inspected every system.  You think UL is expensive now??

It's the alarm company's responsibility to install, monitor, and maintain
systems to code.  That's where the buck stops, not with UL.

If you want an interesting free-enterprise solution for the inspection
problem, try this one on for size:  all fire alarm inspections, including
the routine ones, would be done by a state-licensed company -- other than
the one that installed or monitored the system.  The company that does the
inspections wouldn't install, monitor, or repair the systems it inspects.
Sure, this system can be gamed, but it would be more legitimate than what
we have now.

>The cost, even though the fire alarm contractors that
>are licensed and insured in the State don't like being told they now have to
>join or pay a membership fee to a private company to do the work they
>already have the legal right and are licensed to do, isn't really the main
>issue. The AHJ's decision has now prevented these State licensed contractors
>from even pulling a permit to install the systems that need to be inspected
>to become certified. You cannot apply for a permit unless you are a UL/FM
>listed company. Catch 22.

I agree with you.  It's kind of like outsourcing licensing to a private
company.  If the state has issued a license saying that a company is
authorized to install fire alarm systems, then how does some piss-ant local
inspector get to impose additional requirements?  Could he require
state-licensed electricians to meet additional licensing requirements or
passa special test in order to do electrical work in his jurisdiction?  I
doubt that would fly in court.  Of course, the small alarm companies that
are being victimized by this policy don't have the money to fight city
hall.  Maybe the AAF does.

- badenov