Residential smoke detection systems

[peach]

R314.2

Whose great idea was this? They shall be permitted. In the significant IRC code change book (and I sit on a technical advisory group evaluating the 2009 IRC who is recommending deleting this section).. there is no requirement for a redundant system.

Even a home builder who puts in the ADT system thinks this is stupid.. it requires a dedicated phone line (how many people in this day and age even HAVE a home phone..)? An automatic dialer.. (well, ok)... and puts the burden squarely on the homeowner (circumstances change from time to time... their phone line is disconnected)... and without a redundant system.. no longer any smoke alarms..

The level of protection may not be there... NFPA 72 (which like all NFPA standards) is confusing.

Something special about these systems that 9 of us are missing

 

[FM William Burns]

There is redundancy and if one “chooses” to install a system then they follow the prescriptive and the referenced 2007 NFPA 72 Chapter 11 and both 314 and 72 have redundancy:

Requires back-up power supply provisions to the detection equipment which will power the devices in AC failures thus providing protection to the occupants and is no different then the battery backup required for the present AC single or multiple station permitted presently and in R314.4.

Regarding the off site communication, if one chooses to install a combo system (which this is really protecting and assuring compliance for and probably why the builder does not like it since rarely do their or other primarily security system providers install compliant “Residential Fire Alarm/Detection Systems) NFPA 72 (11.7.6) then that system must have a “single” dedicated primary means of communication since IRC defined it as a Supervising Station System and there is nothing wrong with that and has been required for all household supervised station systems for many cycles in 72. If one wants a system (their choice since R314.2 Exception) exists, they keep their IPhone and get a phone line or RF Transmitter and since the burg systems are unregulated to date and typically use direct programmed dialers/communicators or wireless RF transmission and again, wireless is permitted via NFPA 72 (11.7.7) the fire system can use similar. Besides the requirements for Supervising Station for residential are much more lax and security companies like ADT may not like that regarding Mom and Pop competition in monitoring.

It’s not really that confusing and the provisions in the IRC bring these potentials more in line with 72 when one chooses to install a residential fire detection system so the locations and coverage areas are referenced a little better in 72 [11.5.1] versus 314.3. Maybe someone read the article I wrote relating to residential systems?

 

[peach]

I've ready 2009 IRC.. and the significant changes to IRC.. and the applicable provisions of NFPA 72.. nothing that any of the 9 of us on the committee sees a requirement for a redundant system if the homeowner chooses this alternative.

I can't see my 72-07 because my IT department can't hack into the machine I downloaded it to.. bummer. They changed the password to something they don't remember.. pencil and paper is the best way to keep notes.. but I digress.

Interestingly, the most vocal opponent was a residential home builder who sometimes installs a fire detection system, but always has the Code required smoke detection system.

This committee had signfiicant discussion on the matter, and voted it out of the local "code"...

 

[FM William Burns]

What type of redundancy are you looking for other than what is already existing in the IRC and has been in 72 for as long as they recognized "systems". One would be more restrictive in requiring a secondary means of communication or other type of detection scheme. With all due respect, voting to remove (if done and passed by the committee) will allow a lesser level of protection with respect to "supervising station systems" for residential occupancies. The intent of the smoke detection and alarm is to warn occupants and the redundancy is the secondary power, off site transmission and reference to 72 which increases coverage (if applicable due to construction) and specifies power supply, notification and transmisssion means. IMHO that's not a bad thing.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I don't even understand everything ya'll are saying.

I had this question the other day about paid service alarm systems replacing the required electric powered with battery backing system.

I was told it would operate even if the new homeowner didn't subscribe to the service.

I'm a little? old fashioned;

"Install the electric powered system with battery back up; and add tv monitoring if you want to; but, install the original required alarm system."

KISS,

Uncle Bob

 

[peach]

The IRC doesn't say a redundant system is required if they put in one of these NFPA 72 compliant systems...

At least none of 9 of us found it..

Who paid for that code change, anyway?

 

[cda]

I think people are installing these systems and ahj's are turning them down, maybe that is why it got put in the code. also, this has been discussed before under the old icc board, with varying opinions

But, with a regular smoke alarm it is very easy to defeat one, so what is the difference which type of system is installed if the owner shuts it off.

 

[peach]

I can think of a couple of things, cda.. economic circumstances being one.. since these resdential systems require a phone line with a dialer and a monitoring system.. a home owner who has one without a redundent system has no protection.

I don't know enough about them.. do they work like a regular system should the power go out?

 

[FM William Burns]

Redundancy

If it's a true residential fire alarm and detection system as defined in 72 or as referred to as "Supervising Station System" by the IRC now, then it's redundant feature would be the battery pack similar to those found in commercial systems where the system would function in accordance to the power supply measures found in NFPA 72.

The choice for the system lies with the homeowner solely so the economic factor is a moot point.

 

[TimNY]

Not really sure of the wording in 2009, but I have accepted them as an alternative provided they comply with NFPA 72. I personally don't see a big issue, a homeowner could just as easily not maintain their smoke alarms, residential sprinklers, backflow preventers or any other multitude of items.

That being said, if the detectors do not have integral sounders i test all the bedrooms with a dB meter (usually fail). I also require everything enumerated in 72, plans, cut sheets, battery calcs, dedicated breaker permanently identified and red.

In the case of an ADT or other "chain store" panel I require a letter stating the homeowner owns the panel.

The certificate of occupancy states "the low voltage fire alarm system is a required system and shall be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with nfpa 72"

Tim

 

[FM William Burns]

Excellent Tim and in case you have not see it, there is an article on the home page that may be of interest and serves dual purposes