Re: Power Supply - UL and fire inspections

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d1abfd968408ae991999af42dc4454c9@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

Except it costs 6K+ the first year and 2.5K minimum annually  inorder to
have the right, even though you are already state licensed and insured to
install fire systems of any type, just to pull a permit in these
city/counties that have mandated total central station service. Oh... but
wait, I guess that does give you the opportunity to pass along the $65
certificate fee to the owner.
>
> >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.

That is fine. Make a decision, per system, for what ever the circumstance
calls for. No problem. Makes sense. Doing it across the board and especially
for the reasons they are standing on (reduction of false alarms) doesn't
make sense.

> 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 the building code, here in Florida, it states that "no municipality or
county can require any additional certification or license over and above
what the State of Florida requires under this part." Well, the cities and
counties and policies of their AHJ's, when requiring central station
service, by default, are requiring state licensed companies to become
certified by UL or FM as installation companies inorder to install central
station service systems. Otherwise you cannot even apply for a permit.

  In other words,
> a high rise building might be required to have full-blown central station
> service, while a small industrial building might not.

You are making to much sense here!

 >Of course, what do
> you do in smaller cities where central station service is not available?

Why won't it be, unless you are talk very rural where runner service
couldn't respond in the 1 to 2 hours?

> Central station service is welfare for the big alarm companies:
guaranteed
> revenue and damned little competition.

Not any more. In Dade County, Florida there is 485 licensed fire and
electrical contractors that are allowed to do fire under there license
category. As of May 5, if they are to stay in the fire business, even if it
is just service, they will need to be UL or FM certified installation
companies.

>What I'd like to know is whether
> "the emperor has no clothes."

I don't know,  but he has 14,000 newly found friends.

> 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.

There is none. Through some pretty heavy meetings with all the powers under
one roof, we have asked for any studies on false alarms and/or false alarm
reduction to be provide to back their claims. UL says they have them, but no
one, including the Florida Fire Chiefs Association, which was represented at
these meetings, have seen them. They don't exist as they do on the burg
side.

> 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.

Stop! You continue to make to much sense!

> >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.

The state already does that. At least the state tests for compentcy, has
continueing education requirement, has a regulatory board for disciplinary
action, certification requirements for technicians with required background
checks every two years, drug testing, continued ed requirements etc. UL
requirements are..........sign a contract for an annual fee, acccept a faxed
application for a certificate for a fee and stop by to see you annually, but
by contract are not obligated to do so. Which would you say is a higher
standard?

>UL does not, and will not, assume the responsibility for signing
> off on every fire alarm system in the country.

They definately won't do it, but I have been tell people that they are crazy
if they don't start demanding that UL name them as additionally insured. If
UL/FM are out there tell you what, when, and how to, they definately have a
responsibilty and liability to that system whether they like it or not. They
are a private company and are not exempt from anything, anywhere.

  Think of the potential
> liability, and think of the number of inspectors that would be required to
> do it.

I'll save that story for another time.

 >Then think about your annual UL bill, and how high it would be if
> they inspected every system.

Charge the owner under a mandate by the AHJ. The AHJ is requiring it, the
owner owns the system, why should the installing alarm company even be
involved? The central station is getting their inspections anyway. It is, in
reality, double dipping the same account.

> You think UL is expensive now??

Follow the money

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

Not actually. In todays world, you have an installation company, which might
include electrical contractors that don't monitor or service. Then you have
installing companies that use a third party monitoring company and it is up
to the owner to have a service agreement with a company, which also may be
different. If all of these are separate, which could very well happen, UL,
under their requirements, would be recieving revenue from 3 different enties
on the same account.
>
> 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.

Was suggested and defuncted by the AHJ's. Fox watching the hen house
scenerio was their reasoning. We saw it as a way for 100% inspections. Now
the AHJ's are trying legislatively to take the word "inspections" out of our
licensing law. Again, I'll save that for another day.

> >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?

Illegally and against state law.

 >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.

The AAF has over 800 member companies. Some are UL/FM companies and some are
not. We can't defend it one way or the other without offending the
membership. We can fight the restraint of trade issue but that would be an
individual case by case and we really can't provide that type of legal
support to someone that pays a $300 membership fee. They would join, we
would fight their battle and then they would drop out the next year. We have
that now with training. They join to get the member rate, get their required
education and then don't renew the next year.