Fire Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

[Frank Olson]

The devices also have to be listed for the purpose.

Any add-on relays to interconnect the smoke alarms to the security system
must be compatible with the smoke alarms, yes. There is no compatibility
requirement for normally open/normally closed devices (simple switches or
relays) connected to a residential security system (with the exception of
those requiring full UL or ULC certification). On two wire smokes there
definitely is as well any required power supervision relay. Some smoke
alarms come with built-in relays for "connection with other output devices".
Nothing restricts you from hooking these types of alarms to a security panel
either.

The post you made that started this whole thing wasn't entirely incorrect
(as I've pointed out before, your heart was in the right place). You should
however follow-up with Al and apologize. Also advise him of the section of
NFPA which addresses this issue (so he doesn't wind up doing this dance too)
and hopefully we will all finally be able to put it to rest.

 

[Frank Olson]

Thank You Frank.......your a man of honorable mention.

BTW....does that code refer to 135 degree heat
detectors in attics too.....:^)

They should ban attics all together. The grass hut I intend to retire in on
Fiji won't have one and neither will the three masted schooner I'll have
riding at anchor in the lagoon.

 

[Frank Olson]

You are wrong once again. A burg/fire panel which bears a UL fire listing
is indeed a FACP.

Gasp! Really?? Does that mean that you're going to have to *design* a fire
alarm system for any customers that have expressed an interest in adding a
smoke alarm to their order?

Robert: "Well, I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but I can't sell you just one smoke
alarm. We're going to have to install one on every level, a heat detector
in the kitchen, another in the furnace room, laundry room, garage, and
you're going to have to install pull stations, strobes, and 10" red fire
bells as well. I've got more bad news unfortunately. The M1 Gold panel I
sold you isn't listed for fire so we're going to have to replace it with a
Napco 9600. I know it doesn't have all the goodies the ELK panel has but
you really should have told me that you were thinking of adding fire
detection at the start... Hello?? Hello??...."

I wrote the help file and helped design the app. My partners wrote the
app. When I finished my work the app as a whole, including the integral
help system, was submitted to UL. It passed on the first round.

Where in the "app" does it say it's "UL Listed"?? If you "helped design it"
(as you've indicated you have) you should be able to tell me where fairly
easily. You keep "dancing around" the issue though. If the help file is
"UL Listed" it should say so in the "help about" section somewhere, but
there is absolutely no mention of UL anywhere.

The help system is as essential to the app as the installation manual is
to the panel itself. Just as the installation manual is UL listed, so is
the downloading software which we wrote.

The UL listing was provided to Edwards by UL after we finished our work
and I do not have (nor do I need) a copy of the certificate. If you want
to see the listing, order the software from Edwards or research it through
UL.

I have the software. I've reviewed the help file. The FireShield panels
are crap and so is the software. The help system is "Mickey Mouse" (your
childish references only make it more so), and available off the shelf from
any software company (in fact you used it for your recently departed FAQ
site). In fact, the whole kit and kaboodle is the laughing stock of this
Group (and that's not a flame, but an observation). If I was in any way
associated with Edwards, I'd have distanced myself from the help system (or
have you rewrite it at your expense) when I first saw it. What you
accomplished was nothing to crow about. My son could have done a better,
far more professional job (and for considerably less than "your company"
probably charged).

There is *no* discernable* reference to UL (or ULC) on any of the materials
I have here (other than the control panel itself and I'll never buy one).
Edwards makes use of the ULC mark in the literature that comes with the fire
alarm panel and the brochures available from any of the distributors
flogging the thing, but neither the manual or the brochures are themselves
"ULC listed".

In fact, FireLite's, Mircom's, Simplex's (just about any manufacturers you
care to mention) manuals aren't ULC (or UL) listed either. Where you get
these ideas from is beyond me.

The UL listing information is included in the printed materials supplied
with the software. I'm not sure but I thought Leuck said he has a copy.
It's questionable whether he is honest enough to confirm what I've said
though.

I downloaded the software. There's no mention of "UL" in the EULA either.

 

[Robert L. Bass]

Any add-on relays to interconnect the smoke

alarms to the security system must be compatible
with the smoke alarms, yes.

They must also be listed for the purpose.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

 

[Robert L. Bass]

They should ban attics all together.

Living in Florida I have to agree.

 

[Frank Olson]

They must also be listed for the purpose.

<sigh> Nope. There is no requirement for the interconnect relay or the
built-in one on some smoke alarms to be specifically listed for connection
to a home's security panel or auto dialler. If you were connecting it to a
listed *and certified* UL residential security control, then that would be a
"horse of a different colour". The control may be UL Listed as a
residential fire/burg panel, but the listing only becomes important when the
entire system/installation has to be *certified*. I can use a panel from
any manufacturer and install it in my home without having to worry about
every device that's connected to it having to be "listed for use" with it
(of course you should follow the manufacturer's instructions when installing
it and this means the two wire smokes should at least be compatible). The
fact that it's UL Listed (or ULC) means nothing until the extra step of
system certification is taken (and there are very few alarm companies that
are certified to do a UL or ULC listed installation). The Firex 499 relay
isn't *recommended* by the manufacturer for the purpose (for reasons I've
already outlined - ie. it cycles during a power failure which could result
in a false alarm, there's no backup in the event of a power failure, it's
not supervised, etc.) but it doesn't specifically prohibit you from using it
to hook up to your non-certified home alarm installation.

 

[Robert L. Bass]

You are wrong once again. A burg/fire panel

Gasp! Really?? Does that mean that you're
going to have to *design* a fire alarm system
for any customers that have expressed an
interest in adding a smoke alarm to their order?

Any time you select the components and specifty placement you are designing
a fire alarm system. Do you tell your residential clients that they need
"six smoke detectors... somewhere in the house?" :^)

Robert: "Well, I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but I
can't sell you just one smoke alarm. We're
going to have to install one on every level...

Up until a few years ago that was pretty much the way code was enforced. If
you installed any system smokes you had to install them in all required
locations -- even on existing homes. More recently there has been some
flexibility but the requirement that all components be listed for the
purpose remains intact.

a heat detector in the kitchen, another in
the furnace room, laundry room, garage....

All kidding aside, heats were never mandated for residential apps.

--- snip ---

Where in the "app" does it say it's "UL Listed"??

The UL listing info is printed on the documentation accompanying the
software. If you need additional information, feel free to contact Edwards.
It is their product now.

As I recall, when I said I was working on it several of the yahoos from ASA
said I was lying. Didn't you join in on that rant? Just for kicks I munged
the names of several newsgroup participants, including one of the more
disingenuous posters here and included them in the help file images. My
name is also hidden in there, but you'd have to look for it since I don't
recall which screen shot it's in. Now that it's clear that I spoke the
truth I don't see any of the IB munching crow. All we got was Leuk faking
indignation and you refusing to admit you're wrong about the software being
UL listed. Where's the apology for falsely accusing? It figures.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

 

[Robert L. Bass]

<sigh> Nope. There is no requirement for the interconnect relay or the
built-in one on some smoke alarms to be specifically listed for connection
to a home's security panel or auto dialler.

You're dancing around the question because you know you're wrong. The
device must be listed for the purpose. Relays built-into listed smoke
detectors don't require a separate listing.


with the alarm control panel if it's panel specific (for example, a 2-wire
smoke) or with alarm conrol panels in general if it's not. For example, you
can

If you were connecting it to a listed *and
certified* UL residential security control,
then that would be a "horse of a different
colour"...

Wrong again. Code mandates do not depend on certification of the
installation.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

 

[coord]

You're dancing around the question because you know you're wrong. The device must be listed
for the purpose. Relays built-into listed smoke detectors don't require a separate listing.


with the alarm control panel if it's panel specific (for example, a 2-wire smoke) or with alarm
conrol panels in general if it's not. For example, you can


Wrong again. Code mandates do not depend on certification of the installation.

Hmm.... quote......

"Relay Modules may be used to connect a group of interconnected alarms to a fire alarm / security
panels (NFPA 11.9 2002 edition). When an interconnected relay is connected to an alarm / security
panel, the panel will know the alarms have sounded, but will not know which alarm in the
interconnected group originated the signal. If you wish to send both smoke and CO information to
the panel you will need to use both the SM 120X and "

http://www.kiddeus.com/bulletin1.rsf

 

[Frank Olson]

Any time you select the components and specifty placement you are
designing a fire alarm system. Do you tell your residential clients that
they need "six smoke detectors... somewhere in the house?" :^)


Up until a few years ago that was pretty much the way code was enforced.
If you installed any system smokes you had to install them in all required
locations -- even on existing homes. More recently there has been some
flexibility but the requirement that all components be listed for the
purpose remains intact.


All kidding aside, heats were never mandated for residential apps.


The UL listing info is printed on the documentation accompanying the
software. If you need additional information, feel free to contact
Edwards. It is their product now.

As I recall, when I said I was working on it several of the yahoos from
ASA said I was lying. Didn't you join in on that rant?

Nope. I never did. I tend to believe you over Mike any day.

Just for kicks I munged the names of several newsgroup participants,
including one of the more disingenuous posters here and included them in
the help file images. My name is also hidden in there, but you'd have to
look for it since I don't recall which screen shot it's in.

Bass Home Electronics shows up in it too...

Now that it's clear that I spoke the truth I don't see any of the IB
munching crow.

Robert. They never will. Get over it already.

All we got was Leuk faking indignation and you refusing to admit you're
wrong about the software being UL listed.

It's not from what I can see.

Where's the apology for falsely accusing? It figures.

When I see the UL Listing, I'll request mushroom and basil gravy to go with
the crow.

 

[Frank Olson]

You're dancing around the question because you know you're wrong.

What am I wrong about now?? I've pointed out where interconnecting a 110VAC
smoke alarm to a residential security control or auto dialler doesn't
violate code. You started this thread adamantly stating that you cannot do
this. It's a "code violation" and Al should have known better. Read what
you wrote again!!

The device must be listed for the purpose. Relays built-into listed smoke
detectors don't require a separate listing.

Check. The relay must be listed for interconnection to compatible smoke
alarms. The purpose of the relay is what, Robert?? It's an unsupervised
switch. An output to enable you to hook compatible smoke alarms to a
strobe, door lock, security control, auto dialler, etc. You're spinning
around so fast now, I'm getting dizzy.

with the alarm control panel if it's panel specific (for example, a 2-wire
smoke) or with alarm conrol panels in general if it's not. For example,
you can


Wrong again. Code mandates do not depend on certification of the
installation.

Man you're so far off base it's a wonder you're still in the country (let
alone on the same planet). When have you *ever* installed a fire alarm
system that wasn't *certified*?? Or installed one to conform to NFPA and
the local AHJ?? What code or circumstance specifically mandates the
installation of a residential fire alarm *system* (I'm not talking the
requisite 110VAC smoke alarms)?? Please don't respond with "the
installation of a UL listed fire/burg control" because we both know that's
patently false.

There isn't any "code requirement" to install smoke alarms on every level of
a house that are part of a home security system (I'm talking the 12VDC four
wire or two wire ones). In fact most of the companies we've taken over
pre-wires from in the past rarely wire for more than one (usually at the top
of the stairs near the bedrooms and next to the 110VAC one). Granted this
is terribly unprofessional and *we* would never do it, but there it is. It
happens every day. There are some idiots in the trade (individuals who
should never have been issued a license let alone a screw-driver or a pair
of wire stirppers).

I've truly enjoyed debating this with you Robert. It proves to me that
someone can seriously disagree with you and you will treat them civilly and
with respect. I was right to step back when I did several months ago and I
feel much better for it too. I wish you could do the same and experience
this feeling as well. Right now we're in the middle of unseasonably hot
weather. It was 28 degrees C today. I was out doing service in Kits (the
trendy West End of the city) and I was literally bowled over by the
extra-ordinary view of the mountains and the city sky-line. I wouldn't
trade you for Florida on a day like today. Ask me on the weekend when it's
supposed to be overcast and raining and I'll bet my answer'll be different
though... )

 

[Norm Mugford]

Mr. Bass wrote:

Any time you select the components and specifty placement you are designing
a fire alarm system. Do you tell your residential clients that they need
"six smoke detectors... somewhere in the house?" :^)

Do you have a license to design a fire alarm system Mr. Bass?
Not in Florida you don't.......

Norm Mugford
Vice-Chairman Florida
Electrical Contractors Licensing Board

 

[Norm Mugford]

Mr. Bass wrote to Frank Olson:

"Where's the apology for falsely accusing?"

What false accusing Mr. Bass?.....You lied
from the start, got caught and now you have
egg on your face..........You were not falsely
accused.......

You lied again Mr. Bass.......
That nose of yours keep growing.

Norm Mugford

 

[Frank Olson]

You are in Canada. I'll leave that matter to Canadian authorities. I'm
in the US and my comments refer to US installations.

It really makes no difference. NFPA is the reference we (and most of the
AHJ's I deal with) use here as well.

 

[[email protected]]

Robert,

You are right and then you may be a tad wrong. Yes, these relays are
not listed for use with a residential burglar/fire alarm panel, but
because monitoring is not required in this venue, the Authority Having
Jurisdiction has it in his power to allow its use because it represents
additional protection that goes above and beyond what's required.
There are several smoke alarm models/manufacturers who have these
relays. Another thing, most AHJs would at least require that the
ancillary relay in question be made by the same manufacturer as the
smoke alarm unit(s).

I asked several AHJs about this and they said exactly what I've just
shared with you. You will be able to read about this in the June
issue. Relevant sections and such are included in the story. I've also
included some reasons why they may not want to do it. I believe in
allowing the reader to make up his mind.

Now, if you are talking about a code-compliant system where supervisory
monitoring or central station monitoring is required, then the use of
an unlisted ancillary relay in this case would never fly. Of course,
if you ask UL or NFPA, the reply will have to be NO every time, but you
must remember that they ONLY deal with code, which means code-compliant
systems. But, NFPA and UL lives to serve the AHJ and not the other way
around. They are not in ANY position of authority to dictate what can
or cannot be done in a local jurisdiction. The code is minimum and it
deals only with compliant systems.

No doubt, this call must be that of the AHJ, and on a case by case
basis. Some will allow it and some will not. I know and understand your
concerns over what was said in that story. I should have told my
readers to tune in next month for more information. To not do so was a
mistake on my part for sure.

Thanks for writing to me, Robert.

Al Colombo

P.S. I'm sure you don't know my background in the area of fire
protection. FYI: I have worked in this venue for more than 30 years,
actively in the field as a technician or operations manager for 18
years. As a technician, I worked in the area of large code-compliant
systems in commercial and gov't settings. This includes special hazards
systems, such as releasing systems, such as Halon (now you know how old
I am), CO2, deluge, and restaurant suppression, in addition to the
usual fire detection system.

 

[Frank Olson]

Robert,

You are right and then you may be a tad wrong.

Just a "tad wrong"?? ;-)

Yes, these relays are
not listed for use with a residential burglar/fire alarm panel, but
because monitoring is not required in this venue, the Authority Having
Jurisdiction has it in his power to allow its use because it represents
additional protection that goes above and beyond what's required.
There are several smoke alarm models/manufacturers who have these
relays. Another thing, most AHJs would at least require that the
ancillary relay in question be made by the same manufacturer as the
smoke alarm unit(s).

I asked several AHJs about this and they said exactly what I've just
shared with you. You will be able to read about this in the June
issue. Relevant sections and such are included in the story. I've also
included some reasons why they may not want to do it. I believe in
allowing the reader to make up his mind.

I believe your article has opened the door for the less scrupulous alarm
dealers out there to "add a feature" to their pitch that won't be in the
best interest of the end-user (IMO).

Example: "Look here, Mr. Smith, ADT is quoting you $200.00 for a smoke
alarm. We can install this little relay for only $9.99 and use your
exisiting smoke alarms."

There's little enough information out there for someone that doesn't know
about all the issues surrounding life safety systems to access and they'll
view this as "the cat's meow".

Now, if you are talking about a code-compliant system where supervisory
monitoring or central station monitoring is required, then the use of
an unlisted ancillary relay in this case would never fly. Of course,
if you ask UL or NFPA, the reply will have to be NO every time, but you
must remember that they ONLY deal with code, which means code-compliant
systems. But, NFPA and UL lives to serve the AHJ and not the other way
around. They are not in ANY position of authority to dictate what can
or cannot be done in a local jurisdiction. The code is minimum and it
deals only with compliant systems.

Robert's argument is that every time you use a UL listed burg/fire panel,
you're installing a unit that must comply with code. This is patently
false. I'm glad we've set him straight.

No doubt, this call must be that of the AHJ, and on a case by case
basis. Some will allow it and some will not. I know and understand your
concerns over what was said in that story. I should have told my
readers to tune in next month for more information. To not do so was a
mistake on my part for sure.

Your only "mistake" as far as I'm concerned is that you should have
mentioned that, as security professionals, we shouldn't even consider using
a "band-aid" like this regardless of the fact that there is no code or
statute specifically prohibiting it. Spending another $200.00 on properly
supervised smoke alarms is a small price to pay when your loved ones are
involved and you've already made the decision to install a security system.

 

[notspike]

interesting debate. personaly I have refused to do it for a customer but
if a diy wanted to do it in his own house, as long as it did not cause
false alarms, go for it. I'd have the cs call premise to verify esp if
recycle power caused alarm. But now that the cat is out of the bag and
homeowners know its ok to do it, I may have to or loose work to those
that will. remember change is good.

 

[[email protected]]

I would not go so far as to say that it's a go in every case. You will
find AHJ's who will say no. You will find many who will say yes. For
homeowners who misunderstand what's been said, believe me, it will be
the AHJ who sets them straight in areas where it is not endorsed.
However, I did not run across any who said no to me, but I did not do a
real survey covering one end of the country to the other. There are
many issues concerning this topic that must be considered, and that is
why I did not flat out say that Robert is wrong. This is certainly a
gray area where the AHJ will have to make a call, or the installer
based on his own judgement.

I would suggest waiting until you have a chance to read my Fire Side
Chat column in June to pass judgement either way. Obviously I cannot
reproduce it here, but if you check out Chapter 11, 2002, it does cover
some of this issue.

Al

 

[[email protected]]

Your comments are well taken. After I resigned from the other magazine
in the fall of 2000, I went back to the field. I ended up forming a new
low-voltage company for a large electrical contractor in Canton, Ohio,
a union shop with 125 commercial and residential electricians and
teledata technicians. I did small to large projects, and as you can
well imagine, our electrical side drug in a lot of very big projects
for me to engineer for architects we partnered with, as well as bid
along side other project managers. Right now they are busy doing the
largest hopsital job in the state of Ohio.

All of this is to say that where we are located, the county building
department requires 120VAC smoke alarms in all new homes without
exception. You can add system smoke detectors if you wish, as a
homeowner, but you will install the 120 VAC smoke alarms first and they
must comply with Chapter 11, 72. There is no choice. Because we did the
structural cabling system as well as home automation, intercom, simple
security, along with home video surveillance in many cases, we already
were into the client for a good bit of money. Our residential division
did the smoke alarms and CO detection systems but it was my job to tie
them into the home automation or security panel. It was my job to
assist the client in any way I could to 1) provide life safety
protection and 2) to help protect his property.

Yes, I could have taken the hardnose point of view and said no, you
will have to install smoke detectors along side what you already have,
but that did not seem right to me. Of course I would always mention it.
Some did indeed elect to do it. Most did not. Again, these folks did
not have a choice in the matter and, even though 72 will allow me to
install one or two system smoke detectors anywhere I wish, simply
because the intent of Chapter 11 was met by the smoke alarms, it did
not seem ethical.

Believe me, if the county building dept. did not require 120VAC smoke
alarms, I would have insisted on the real deal, which is system-type
smoke detectors. The issue of the relay is an add-on, so long as 1)
the smoke alarms fulfill the intent and conditions of code, and 2) as
long as the relay cannot in any way interfere with the proper operation
of the smoke alarms, which is all part of code.

Here is what one AHJ said about this:

"I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Even if the
burglar alarm panel failed to report, the [smoke alarm] system is
designed only as a local alarm in the house. The [smoke alarm] system
will still do that, so the intent of the code has been met."

I hope I've explained myself well enough as to why I came up with this
and have tried to provide this help to our readers. The bottom line
is, smoke alarms equal life safety whereas our unlisted relay and
monitoring equals property protection.

 

[notspike]

I would not go so far as to say that it's a go in every case. You will
find AHJ's who will say no. You will find many who will say yes. For
homeowners who misunderstand what's been said, believe me, it will be
the AHJ who sets them straight in areas where it is not endorsed.
However, I did not run across any who said no to me, but I did not do a
real survey covering one end of the country to the other. There are
many issues concerning this topic that must be considered, and that is
why I did not flat out say that Robert is wrong. This is certainly a
gray area where the AHJ will have to make a call, or the installer
based on his own judgement.

I would suggest waiting until you have a chance to read my Fire Side
Chat column in June to pass judgement either way. Obviously I cannot
reproduce it here, but if you check out Chapter 11, 2002, it does cover
some of this issue.

Al

is that online?