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.

Which committee? Do you deal with Jeff Collins, Tony Afelbek and Mike Cato?

>Maybe I fell
> asleep on those issues.

Evidently they did too.

> 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, certain occupancies need a higher standard
(level) of protection. No one is challenging that or the AHJ's authority to
require it.

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

Oh may God, I wish that the interpetation of that phrase was exactly what it
sounds like. Does that interpet into "every single building in the
city/county regardless of occupancy, or whether it previously might not have
needed one?" And at the same time ignore all of the old systems that are
usually the problem child. I guess they figure it is only "required" on all
of the new systems, with the new technology in place.

> 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.

Well, I wish everyone would agree on that or at least interpet it the same
as you do. Down here in south Florida, the AHJ's in 5 counties and 9 cities
are putting the onus directly on the alarm contractor. Starting at even
pulling the permit.

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

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.

> 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.

Anyone? Doesn't it say by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory? In
Florida, that application process is done through the State Fire Marshalls
office, not the local AHJ.

> For example, a group of retired building inspectors
> applies to become an approved 3rd party verifier to conduct audits on
> fire alarm installing companies.

Technically I would say yes, but the application and approval process is
extremely expensive making it not very attractive to the average joe. The
application is rather extensive and the cost exceeds 50K. If that could
change, 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.
It has been admitted to me that some areas of the fire inspection industry
are as far behind as 10 years. Let alone the public, is the insurance
industry aware of this?

  This could be a less expensive method
> than using UL or FM.

Depends on how they would structure it and who the pending cost of
inspection and a certificate or placard would go to. UL, right now, is cost
to the contractor is over 6K, intially, if you pass the first inspection of
the four required systems and 2.5K every year after, plus 65+ dollars for
every system annually. 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. It is a restraint of trade, a violation of state
law, and a violation of the uniformed Building Code.

> 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.

I agree with this and through this process, they should make sure they are
not createing a conflict with state law. These particular AHJ's are not
interpeting it that way. They are using the code as their authority,
regardless of the law, and when told they are in violation of state law,
they are using the code as their right to do this. Since when does code
trump state law? The state of Flordia has adopted 72 as a whole. Now the
locals are further interpeteing the code and eliminateing the other 3
choices. It doesn't help matters when UL is going around doing seminars and
pushing central station service as a way to reduce false alarms (BS), which
is naturally a concern with the AHJ's, when it is obvious that they (UL) are
playing on the AHJ's authority to mandate a policy that will line their (UL)
pockets. UL, just recently, gave a seminar to the Internation Association of
Electrical Inspectors. The UL instructor told them that an electrician
cannot install conduit for a fire alarm system unless they are a UL listed
installation company. Bad move. Now, the IBEW and NECA are involved in this
situation. For a few rogue fire officials to puff up their chests, there is
going to be a bigger problem. The Construction Coalition, the National Home
Builder Association and the American Builders (ABC) are starting to ask
questions. Mr. Owens from NFPA was involved in a conference call on 2/13/06
about this issue but I don't think he related the topic of the discussion,
at that time, to the potential problems some of these interpetations are
leading to. Maybe he should revisit it, even if for future discussions.

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

Where is this please? Since the hurricane tore off the roof at my office and
I lost lots of reference material, I only have the next to last version of
72, which I had at home. I will get the new one when it comes out. Is that
2007 or is it 2006.

Don't go away on this one, it is important.