Fire Alarm

Smoke Alarms Save LIves

Disposal of Smoke Alarms

by Michael O'Brian on December 19, 2009

Tech Talk Provides Timely Advice

The United States Fire Administration provides many resources to inspectors through training, education, and timely correspondence.  Tech Talk provides accurate and timely information on topics of interest to the fire protection community. Topics are selected based on inquiries and suggestions that USFA receives from readers.  Recently the second edition of Tech Talk was released and contains great information on disposal of Smoke Alarms.

The need for proper disposal typically occurs after the detectors are replaced (after 10 years).  Depending on the type of smoke alarm and [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

Fire Alarm Systems

by Michael O'Brian on January 10, 2009

Checklists and Resources for Fire Alarm Systems

Fire Alarm installation is typically based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72 Fire Alarm Code.  Each adopted fire or building code refers to an edition of the NFPA. The most recent version of NFPA 72 is the 2007 edition.  A fire alarm system is a critical life safety system which can perform many duties such as occupant notification, closure of fire doors, supervision of automatic sprinkler systems and notify the fire department.

Fire alarm systems must be properly designed and installed.  Systems which do not meet good fire protection practices typically result in false alarms which can create a “crying wolf” scenario for the occupants and responding fire apparatus.  The following are some basic resources for [click to continue…]

{ 5 comments }

Fire Alarm design is it engineering?

by Michael O'Brian on August 3, 2008

michael bakerA special blog post by Michael Baker

As I travel the USA I notice that some states consider fire alarm system design to be engineering. My state of Oregon has been wrestling with this issue since at least 2004 when OSBEELS (Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying) asked the Oregon Department of Justice to opine on the role of a fire alarm system designer. The result was a declaration that the design of fire alarm systems is considered to be engineering and therefore may only be done by an Oregon licensed professional engineer:

[click to continue…]

{ 4 comments }

Fire Alarm Wiring

by Michael O'Brian on June 10, 2008

Today most new fire alarm systems are power-limited. Power limiting is accomplished by the equipment manufacturer by limiting the amount of energy available to a level that is incapable of electrocution or igniting structure fires in ordinary installations. When a testing laboratory such as UL® verifies that the power available on a fire alarm control panel terminal is limited in accordance with NFPA 70-2002 Chapter 9 Tables 12A and 12B, then the equipment is listed and labeled as being power-limited – inherently safe.

The most common wiring method used on power-limited systems includes using power-limited cable marked “FPL” (general purpose), “FPLR” (riser), and “FPLP” (plenum ceilings). What many people overlook is that this is but one of three wiring methods permitted by NFPA 70 to be used on power-limited fire alarm systems.

The three permitted power-limited wiring methods are:

  1. Use NFPA 70 Chapters 1-3. For example, THHN conductors installed in EMT indoors and THWN conductors installed in ENT outdoors. Conductors insulated to 600V and conductor size as small as 14AWG, (18AWG and 16AWG are permitted, with restrictions).
  2. Use non- power-limited cable marked “NPLF” (general purpose), “NPLFR” (riser), or “NPFLP” (plenum ceiling), with an overall insulation of 600V and conductor size as small as 18AWG. Imagine Romex® cable.
  3. Use power-limited cable marked “FPL”, “FPLR”, or “FPLP” with an overall insulation of 300V and conductor size as small as 26AWG. Imagine CAT 5 cable.

Here’s the source material:

  • NFPA 70-2002 760.52 Wiring Methods and Materials on Load Side of the PLFA Power Source.
  • Fire alarm circuits on the load side of the power source shall be permitted to be installed using wiring methods and materials in accordance with either 760.52(A) or (B).

(A) NPLFA Wiring Methods and Materials.

Installation shall be in accordance with 760.25, and conductors shall be solid or stranded copper.

Exception No. 1: The derating factors given in 310.15(B)(2)(a) shall not apply.

Exception No. 2: Conductors and multi conductor cables described in and installed in accordance with 760.27 and 760.30 shall be permitted.

Exception No. 3: Power-limited circuits shall be permitted to be reclassified and installed as non- power-limited circuits if the power-limited fire alarm circuit markings required by 760.42 are eliminated and the entire circuit is installed using the wiring methods and materials in accordance with Part II, Non- Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuits.

FPN: Power-limited circuits reclassified and installed as non- power-limited circuits are no longer power-limited circuits, regardless of the continued connection to a power-limited source.

(B) PLFA Wiring Methods and Materials.

Power-limited fire alarm conductors and cables described in 760.71 shall be installed as detailed in 760.52(B)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. Devices shall be installed in accordance with 110.3(B), 300.11(A), and 300.15.

Here’s the key:

NFPA 70-2002 Article 760.52(A) is the thread back to choice number 1) and choice number 2).

NFPA 70-2002 Article 760.52(B) is the thread back to choice number 3).

Additional references to other articles include:

  • Article 110.3(B) allows a maximum 4.4V volt-drop versus the 0.6V volt-drop found in Chapter 2.
  • Article 300.15 requires a box for splices and terminations, unless an integral box is provided as part of the device. This article also requires a bushing to protect cables as they enter and exit boxes and raceway.
  • Article 300.22(C) restricts the type of wire used within “other spaces used for environmental air”, which is commonly referred to as a plenum ceiling. The wiring material shall be low smoke producing such as cables marked “NPLFP” or “FPLP” or to enclose cables and conductors in the space within metal raceway.
  • Article 310.11(A) requires securely fastening cables and conductors to the structure, and not to use the hung ceiling as support.

{ 0 comments }

Does the Building Official Get Up at 2am

by Michael O'Brian on January 10, 2008

Those that participate in the ICC’s code hearings may have noticed subtle changes in the past few years. Changes that have fire officials in the building code committees and vice versa. I see great cooperation between the two in the national code arena. However, locally we still see the division between the two. In the world of building and fire officials, there has been a long silence between the two parties. Or shall I say, turf battle, to clear this up. Building officials will say this is mine and fire will say no that is ours, whether it is fire alarms, fire sprinklers, dampers, etc. These latter items are both in the building and fire code, so why the battle? Why can’t both departments put forth a joint effort to benefit the community? Worst of all, contractors are stuck in the middle while the turf wars are settled. To answer the quote above, cooperation between the two isn’t being said or preached enough.

I’ve been in the building official and plan examiner business since 1995. By far, I’m no expert, but I’ve made mistakes and fortunately have learned from them to make relationships between departments and contractors work for me. I’ve worked in jurisdictions where no fire marshal was present and in others that the fire marshal played a major role in new and existing buildings. In areas that a fire marshal wasn’t present, I was constantly consulted in the Fire Code by local fire chiefs and asked for an opinion whether it was outdoor storage, setbacks to LPG tanks, FDC locations, etc. We worked well with our local fire departments and lend them our code knowledge.

Most people outside the code business find code books confusing and intimidating, and my experience with the local fire departments were the same, and they were glad for us looking into the issues and relaying the code language back to them in “English”.

We operated on the philosophy that we could sleep through the night, didn’t have to get up at 2:00 am in the middle of winter to put a fire out. Later on, I was with a building department in a city that had a full time fire marshal and two fire inspectors. Not only were they grateful for a building official that shared plans for them to review, they were taken back on my knowledge in the fire code and the building code. Both parties learned so much from each other. While I learned more into the fire service, i.e.: how engines and ladder trucks approach a fire, standard operation procedures, the effectiveness of different nozzles, sprinkler operations, etc, they learned building construction from the ground up, formal plan review procedures, and where the building code played in and where they could step in be more a team.

A team of the building and fire department in plan review, inspections and enforcement is the best defense for the city or municipality. Our team was faced with many challenges in a highly politicized town. However, after the first few battles, opinions changed. They changed because we were fair, we were proactive, and we didn’t come on site with any last minute surprises. We did our reviews in conjunction, shared our comments, and sent them out as one. We both felt we had jurisdiction over new and existing sprinkler systems. Did we confuse our contractors with our differences? No, we got together and did the underground, above ground, rough piping, and final inspections as a team. We got to the point as a team that if an inspector that had to be there, couldn’t be there, he or she could trust the others to make their inspection report complete. Instead of forcing the contractor to be perform the tests again. We were not perfect, if you were getting that picture, but we built a good reputation, and if we had sprung a violation on a contractor that we missed in the past, our reputation smoothed the way. Instead of the contractor beating a path to the city manager, they, after a while knew we weren’t out to get them. If you’re a building department or fire department at odds with the other, you’re missing out on great knowledge and lack the total team experience all contractors are expecting. Extend the olive branch, at least from 8am to 5pm.

Some of the Expert of the Day (EOD) questions we get floor me. I or we get numerous questions or situation where the contractor is asked to install sprinklers on the balconies and decks of the residential project they are working on from the local AHJ…at the final inspection, when residents are waiting to move in. Internally I get angry, not at the contractor asking the question or looking for a solution, but at the local AHJ’s. Why? Something went wrong inside City Hall or at the Fire Department most likely. I am one of those pesky building or fire officials, and I expect more professionalism from my fellow reviewers and inspectors. Many times, I’ll ask, “Why wasn’t this caught at plan review”? Many times the exasperated contractor says, “I don’t know”, or “Well, it’s not done yet”. Cough, if the plan review is not done by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is requested there is a problem(s). Tell me this AHJ’s, how can you inspect a project without approved plans? Plans that contain the hydraulic calculations, the cut sheets of all the installed equipment, and the proposed locations of the entire pipe.

How can you arrive on site, walk through and give the thumbs up, when you haven’t got the ok from the plan reviewer and have those plans on site to double check? I’ve got a member contractor on the phone, saying, “Is this true? Do sprinklers have to be out on the balconies?” “Yes, it’s in the building code and has been since 2003”. I’m not put out by the contractor; I’m outraged by the fire and building department. Why, do we have to put contractor who buys the permit, which pays our salaries in such turmoil?

Bottom line, we at NFSA want our contractor’s plans reviewed for compliance, and we want them reviewed under the guidelines of the ICC and NFPA in a timely manner. We expect the best out of our contractors, and personally coming from both sides, I see great efforts and practices from our contractors, and great efforts from the plan reviewers. Fire sprinkler contractors usually are behind to start, and we always stress to them, get them to the AHJ as soon as they are done.

I know local AHJ’s and the budgets they face, and I don’t blame them personally, but something has to change. Both professions, the sprinkler and the AHJ, need to communicate to come to solution. The contractor can’t afford the last minute changes, and the AHJ can’t afford the extra time for paperwork, time taken away from other projects, and the “black eye” anymore to their profession. We are proud to represent both the sprinkler contractors and the AHJ’s and stand by as professionals of the industry to help out.

Jeff Hugo is the Manager of codes for NFSA and a registered builidng official in Michigan.

{ 0 comments }

What are Fire Department Responsibilities

by Michael O'Brian on January 10, 2008

Combination Residential Security and Fire Alarm Systems

By Paul Dove

I read a very interesting article in the Las Vegas Sun recently, written by Mike Trask of the Las Vegas Sun.  The article reports on a new policy the Henderson FD has initiated, where they will no longer respond to residential fire alarms unless a secondary means of verification is reported, witnessed or a water-flow device has been activated.

This type of policy should not be a total surprise or earth-shaking news to many fire departments around the country.  The Henderson Fire Department seems to be following a growing trend where many departments around the country are exploring data, developing modified concepts or have initiated similar policies.  The Henderson FD is not alone in this practice in the Metro Las Vegas area. The article states that the Las Vegas Fire and Rescue Department adopted a similar policy back in 2003.

As a fire prevention and investigation specialist, I can fully understand the position that fire departments are taking as they study data and document false alarm responses, they contemplate their own evaluations of risk and use of personnel and equipment hours devoted to responding to these types of calls for service.  It is true that many departments around the country face a similar degree of difficulty while trying to balance or weigh decisions to establish similar policies.

This commentary is not intended to defend any one position since I believe the public has a right to expect the best level of service in a time of need.  I also believe fire departments have a right to minimize their risk to responding personnel and the public they serve, in addition to lowering tax payer monies spent responding to situations where services are not needed. This is especially true in these times of economic short falls, station closings and layoffs.

The difficult question the fire service should ask is, how can we give the public the service they expect and deserve while minimizing the department’s exposure risks and financial loss?

I will elaborate on this question further in this commentary but first, I would like to elaborate on fire alarm and detection and its historic relationship with residential security systems.  Historically, fire alarm and detection devices have been viewed as supplemental attachments to residential security systems.  Presently, security systems are un-regulated but separate national standards are currently being developed on security systems and those systems with combination fire alarm warning device attachments.

NFPA 72The standard residential security system will typically house security devices such as, motion detectors, glass and door breaks, thermal sensors and laser beam detection. On  combination security and fire alarm type systems, there may be a couple of supervised smoke detectors.  Should we in the fire service interpret the addition of a few smoke detectors as meeting the legal regulations or definitions of a household fire alarm system?  I believe the answer is, “no”.  Unfortunately, an existing majority of combination system installations do not  meet specific fire alarm code requirements for household fire alarm systems. The National Fire Alarm Code referenced by all building and fire codes has specific requirements for the installation of household fire warning equipment which does not eliminate the installed equipment from the requirements for installation, operation, testing, service and maintenance. On occasion, jurisdictions may modify specific code requirements through ordinance development but the code is still the code:

NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code® 2007 Edition

Chapter 11 Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems

11.3 Basic Requirements.

11.3.1  All devices, combinations of devices, and equipment to be installed in conformity with this chapter shall be approved or listed for the purposes for which they are intended.

11.3.3*  The installation of smoke alarms or fire alarm systems or combinations of these shall comply with the requirements of this chapter and shall satisfy the minimum requirements for number and location of smoke alarms or smoke detectors by one of the following arrangements:

(1) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of smoke alarms. The installation of additional smoke alarms shall be permitted. The installation of additional system-based smoke detectors including partial or complete duplication of the smoke alarms satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted.

(2) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of system smoke detectors. The installation of additional smoke detectors shall be permitted. The installation of additional smoke alarms including partial or complete duplication of the smoke detectors satisfying the required minimum shall be permitted.

11.4.3* Equipment. The performance of fire-warning equipment discussed in this chapter shall depend on such equipment being properly selected, installed, operated, tested, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this Code and with the manufacturer’s published instructions provided with the equipment.

A.11.3.3  This Code establishes minimum standards for the use of fire-warning equipment. The use of additional alarms or detectors over and above the minimum standard is encouraged. The use of additional devices can result in a combination of equipment (e.g., a combination of single- and multiple-station alarms or a combination of smoke alarms or smoke detectors that are part of a security/fire system and existing multiple-station alarms). Though a combination is allowed, one type of equipment must independently meet the requirements of the Code. Compliance with the requirements of the Code cannot rely on the combination of the following fire-warning equipment:

(1) Single-station alarms
(2) Multiple-station alarms
(3) Household fire alarm system (includes a security/fire system with smoke alarms or
smoke detectors)

It is encouraged that the highest level of protection be used where possible. For example, if multiple-station alarms are added to an occupancy with compliant single-station alarms, the multiple-station alarms should be installed to replace all of the single-station alarms. Similarly, if a monitored household fire alarm system is added to a house that has compliant multiple-station alarms, monitored smoke alarms or smoke detectors should be installed to replace the multiple-station alarms or be installed to provide the same required coverage.

11.10 Maintenance and Tests.
Fire-warning equipment shall be maintained and tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s published instructions and per the requirements of Chapter 10.

Typically, security alarm monitoring facilities monitor combination security and fire alarm systems for alarm device initiation signals.  Once received, their standard operational practices are to contact the homeowner first and then contact emergency services.  In the event the facility does not make contact with the homeowner or secondary contact person, they initiate the dispatching of the appropriate agency; either police departments for security device activations, or fire departments for fire detection devices.

Situations found in most false fire alarm calls with these types of combination systems are either non-fire human cooking errors or device errors caused by poor installation, improper device selection, incorrect location and/or lack of maintenance on the fire alarm components.

We in the fire service should re-think and view these combination systems as fire alarm and detection systems with supplemental security device attachments.  We should then use the National Fire Alarm Code to confirm that the household fire alarm and warning equipment meet the intent of the code for installation, testing and maintenance. In new construction, this can be done together with the local building departments to achieve compliance prior to occupancy.  In existing construction the fire service should promote or expand public education efforts to address problematic occupancies in their jurisdictions.

Where does this leave us in the fire service? Should we give up on residential fire detection technology by developing policies for non-response to dwelling fire alarms?  Again, I believe the answer should be, “no”.  Developing policies that leave the public with a feeling that we believe residential alarms are not valid unless there are other cues like smoke or flame showing is counter productive and further exposes us to risk.  Thankfully, not all fire service professionals believe residential false alarms are at the point where response should be compromised.

This brings me back to dealing with false alarms.  The fire service should take a pro-active role when encountering numerous false alarms at any location regardless of occupancy type.  We should thoroughly investigate events to figure out why an alarm is false, what or who is responsible and how can it be rectified.  This promotes greater customer service. We can create public educational programs to educate the public on fire alarm and detection technology. We can teach why it’s important for a homeowner to use the fire service expertise to make sure the proper devices are installed, inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the National Fire Alarm Code.

The fire service and homeowners should not accept security company’s sales pitches selling combination systems with limited fire coverage. This allows the homeowner to have a false sense of security related to fire.  We should further utilize the National Fire Alarm Code as referenced by our building and fire codes for household fire alarm systems in residential dwellings.  In areas where limited fire service availability exists, we can promote residential self-inspection programs to empower and allow homeowners to partner with the fire service to minimize their exposure and risk to fire. We should hold installing contractors accountable for non-compliant installations of fire alarm and detection components, wiring and power supplies.  We could explore the possibility in creating partnerships with other code enforcement agencies or law enforcement to initially investigate residential fire alarm calls before rolling the trucks.  If we want to create policies regarding residential alarm response, maybe we should consider initially responding non-emergency to a call with a staff vehicle and step it up if a secondary cue is observed.  And only as a last resort when these and other possibilities are exhausted should we consider fines to homeowners and non-response policies.

Public education, customer service and using the National Fire Alarm Code may prove to be the successful counter measure in lowering household false fire alarm calls and assuring equipment is installed properly in all residences.

{ 0 comments }