Installing a Fire and Burglar (Elk/Omni) Alarm Panel that Meets NFPA 72 code

[Digger]

The did not accept the panel(s) based on the UL listing the HAI carried vs. the specific listings cited on Elk's engineering documentation. Remember, these are the same sorts of people that want an individual sound per type of alarm on these panels, including SILENT on burg, with the AHJ stating that "none" was considered a sound to him, and battling the speech annunciation, temporal codes and the whole deal.

Keep in mind, I'm working with the big boys on these installs and integrating these panels with AMX and Crestron via the serials and using their interfaces combined with the Elk's (or HAI's) and massive prints in hand prior and during installation of these panels/rough ins.

Since the ELK and the HAI have the same UL Listings (except for Home Health Care) exactly what UL Listing does the HAI not have you have never answered that question? Using words like "sort of people" and Big Boys" etc. does not mean anything. AMX and Crestron intergration has NOTHING to do with UL Listings of either panel. Not going to throw my resume around but I have significant experience with these issues and so far you have not shown anything to prove a UL problem with the HAI panel.

Now if you are saying that an HAI panel does not have every feature of an ELK that has NOTHING to do with UL Listings just different feature sets between the panels that the AHJ's prefer or require one over the other in that locality (their perogative as AHJ's). Again NOT a UL issue.

 

[Del91574]

No offense, but you were the one that came up with a problem with the UL listings of the panel, not I.

I stated that the AHJ's were referring to the specific listings the Elk carried vs. HAI. While you and I both know they are similar and basically equivalent, to these specific AHJ's, they would not accept the HAI based on the listings it carried/carries for use as a burglar/FACU to be installed within their jurisdiction based on the specific listings that were cited in HAI's documentation and engineering information vs. Elk's documentation and engineering information.

Not to generalize, but it's similar to citing a FACP to be UL 8th vs. UL 9th compliant, even though they both might function exactly the same and not have any differences whatsoever, because it's not UL 9th, they won't let it pass, again, this was a HYPOTHETICAL example, to be absolutely clear.

I stated the AHJ's did not accept the engineered system specs and drawings based on the UL listings of the panels themselves, which again, like I stated, was not a UL issue, but an issue the AHJ's had/have with one particular manufacturer's specific listings vs. anothers, which is completely within their rights, as you acknowledged.

:horse: As I have said elsewhere, I doubt many people would deal with these issues in 99% of their installs out there or the DIY'ers that tinker, but I stated the factual information that the two panels, while they carry similar features, functions and UL listings, in my specific circumstances, they were not the same, and my advice, which may not have been crystal clear based on the argument, was to look at both of them side by side AND check with their AHJ's or whoever was involved (underwriters, etc.) to make sure that the UL listing differences did not affect their install or the AHJ's approval of their install.

If you'd like to come and talk to these AHJ's with the copies of the specific engineering prints for the sites and tell them that they are equivalently listed products as well as function the same in conjunction with the prints and documentation that was provided for them when the prints went up for review and argue the various points, so be it, been there, done that already. I'm done with the arguement that UL listings have nothing to do with the panels themselves, because I've clearly experienced otherwise with these AHJ's no matter what information was provided to prove they are/were similarly listed devices.

 

[Digger]

No offense, but you were the one that came up with a problem with the UL listings of the panel, not I.

I stated that the AHJ's were referring to the specific listings the Elk carried vs. HAI. While you and I both know they are similar and basically equivalent, to these specific AHJ's, they would not accept the HAI based on the listings it carried/carries for use as a burglar/FACU to be installed within their jurisdiction based on the specific listings that were cited in HAI's documentation and engineering information vs. Elk's documentation and engineering information.

Not to generalize, but it's similar to citing a FACP to be UL 8th vs. UL 9th compliant, even though they both might function exactly the same and not have any differences whatsoever, because it's not UL 9th, they won't let it pass, again, this was a HYPOTHETICAL example, to be absolutely clear.

I stated the AHJ's did not accept the engineered system specs and drawings based on the UL listings of the panels themselves, which again, like I stated, was not a UL issue, but an issue the AHJ's had/have with one particular manufacturer's specific listings vs. anothers, which is completely within their rights, as you acknowledged.

:horse: As I have said elsewhere, I doubt many people would deal with these issues in 99% of their installs out there or the DIY'ers that tinker, but I stated the factual information that the two panels, while they carry similar features, functions and UL listings, in my specific circumstances, they were not the same, and my advice, which may not have been crystal clear based on the argument, was to look at both of them side by side AND check with their AHJ's or whoever was involved (underwriters, etc.) to make sure that the UL listing differences did not affect their install or the AHJ's approval of their install.

If you'd like to come and talk to these AHJ's with the copies of the specific engineering prints for the sites and tell them that they are equivalently listed products as well as function the same in conjunction with the prints and documentation that was provided for them when the prints went up for review and argue the various points, so be it, been there, done that already. I'm done with the arguement that UL listings have nothing to do with the panels themselves, because I've clearly experienced otherwise with these AHJ's no matter what information was provided to prove they are/were similarly listed devices.

I still dont see you saying what UL Listing Elk has that HAI does not. You were the one stating AHJ's are not accepting a panel based on a UL Listing but you have never said what Listing ELK has that HAI does not.

If the Engineering prints are calling for a "feature" that ELK has and HAI does not it has NOTHING to do with UL Listings and you should be careful so people are not mislead by your commnet.

I do want to talk to the AHJ's and I am still waiting for you to tell me whom to talk to. I already discussed this with UL (granted only one high level UL Engineer so far because I have no facts to work with so far) and he is not aware of any concerns in Fairfield County, CT.

Please tell me the AHJ's in question (Fire Marshal, Building Department, Electrical Inspector etc) that you say will not accept the HAI panel and I will ask them myself why since you apparently dont remember etc.

 

[up2late]

In Ohio, per NFPA 72 and IBC:

Per NFPA 72, residential installations are only subject to chapter 9? maybe 10? sorry it's a cold trip to the truck.

The minimum residential requirement is for 1 smoke per floor and 1 smoke inside and outside of each sleeping area. The smokes must be wired to "building primary power" (120v) and have battery backup. They must also be interconnected. I believe there are some interconnected wireless models that can be wired with existing circuits, and meet the code- double check with your inspector first to make sure he will allow it.

"This is normally where I would post a link to that product, but I can't because I'm too new;>"

In my experience, inspectors used to allow LV smokes to meet code but haven't done so recently. First, the siren was good for them, then they wanted smokes with sounders and interconnection, now it is strict to the code. I had an inspector explain to me that if the alarm malfunctions there is a greater chance that the entire system is disabled rather than pulling the plug on a single smoke detector.

In general, any smokes tied into the alarm are considered supplementary, non-required, however still subject to the correct installation per NFPA 70 (NEC), the manufacturers instructions, and the manufacturer listing.

 

[electron]

hi up2late, welcome to CT! You should be able to post links now.

 

[Digger]

In Ohio, per NFPA 72 and IBC:

Per NFPA 72, residential installations are only subject to chapter 9? maybe 10? sorry it's a cold trip to the truck.

The minimum residential requirement is for 1 smoke per floor and 1 smoke inside and outside of each sleeping area. The smokes must be wired to "building primary power" (120v) and have battery backup. They must also be interconnected. I believe there are some interconnected wireless models that can be wired with existing circuits, and meet the code- double check with your inspector first to make sure he will allow it.

"This is normally where I would post a link to that product, but I can't because I'm too new;>"

In my experience, inspectors used to allow LV smokes to meet code but haven't done so recently. First, the siren was good for them, then they wanted smokes with sounders and interconnection, now it is strict to the code. I had an inspector explain to me that if the alarm malfunctions there is a greater chance that the entire system is disabled rather than pulling the plug on a single smoke detector.

In general, any smokes tied into the alarm are considered supplementary, non-required, however still subject to the correct installation per NFPA 70 (NEC), the manufacturers instructions, and the manufacturer listing.

My "opinion" is that the IBC while well intended is ahead of the industry and the NFPA (and both are way ahead of current UL requirements). Local jurisdictions adopted it (IBC) and did not educate everyone (industry, AHJ's, and installers in many areas) before enforcement. Heck we only bought a copy of the IBC a few years back at work and we design alarm equipment. One person I spoke to thought it was a union (International Brotherhood of Communications workers.

I would love it if UL would include the requirements of the IBC when they rewrite UL985 the Residential Standard for Fire Alarm Systems (I believe the rewrite is in progress now without including it). That would force mfg's to provide equipment to make it easier for installers to comply. Current wireless smoke detectors are out so a retrofit is difficult. There are some designs floating around at some mfgs for wireless smokes with transceivers not just transmitters to address "some not all" IBC concerns. Because they can not fully comply with the IBC (but they can with NFPA) they may never make it to market.

I would hate to be an installer held to the requirements of NFPA and IBC with the equipment available now and still trying to make the end user happy. It is not an easy task from what I hear.

FYI I have talked to AHJ's that allow LV smokes and interpret it complies to the IBC because the panel connects to a branch circuit and has battery backup and powers the smokes. I dont know if that is a correct interpretation of not. I gave up a long time ago trying to find out.