Fire Alarms Testing and Inspections Requirements

[NJ1]

I would like a little guidance from the experts here. I am not too familiar with fire alarms but I would like to start preparing for my first NICET test in alarms ever.

I know that it is not the intent of the NFPA 25 to identify installations flaws. My questions is: Does the same philosophy applies to NFPA 72

 

[cdafd]

72 is an installation standard

 

[NJ1]

Yes I understand that but NFPA 72 is also the only standard that addresses inspection, testing and maintenance of fire alarms. Fire Alarms systems do not have their own standard like water based systems to address inspection and testing.

 

[chicopee]

An insurance company that I knew back in the 80's required alarm and sprinkler flow test(including The inspector's test connection of dry sprinkler system which meant flooding the lines and tripping the alarm check valve)a minimum of once per year.

 

[NJ1]

Ok we are getting of track here. Let me start all over again.
NFPA 13 is the standard for the installation of fire sprinkler systems.
NFPA 72 is the standard for the installation of fire alarm systems.

NFPA 25 is the standard for the inspection, testing and maintenance of water based systems which includes sprinkler systems.

Fire alarms do not have a standard that dedicates to the inspection and testing besides a chapter within NFPA 72.

With that said I am a 100% sure that NFPA 25 is not intended to identify installations flaws.
My question is: Does anyone know if that is the same for Fire Alarms and where can I find that statement.

 

[chicopee]

Have you checked archives from Factory Mutual as this organization set many requirements that the insurance industry used.

 

[cdafd]

Maybe look at retroactivity 1.4. Nfpa 72 2002

Not sure if that answers your question


It is thought that the system met the standard when installed and any new provisions Normaly do not apply

 

[stookeyfpe]

In the 2010 edition of NFPA 72, all ITM requirements are found in Chapter 14. Visual inspection requirements are found in Table 14.3.1 and the frequencies are found in Table 14.4.5. NFPA 72 Chatper 14 does not have a statement concerning the deficency of the original installation.

 

[NJ1]

Stookeyfpe that is exactly my point. NFPA 72 does not limit the inspections and testing to deficiencies from the original installation but the NFPA 25 does. I wonder why is that since it could cause confusion for companies that provides both services.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Probably because fire alarm and detection systems have much shorter services lives than automatic sprinkler systems. It's my experience that these systems, even when properly maintained, have a 10-15 year service life. With the NFPA 72 requirements for compatibility of the detection devices with the fire alarm control unit, everything generally needs replacement when the availability of spare parts ceases.

Another possible reason is these systems are limited to either notifying occupants of an emergency, shutting down equipment, or releasing an agent from a fire-extinguishing system. They don't apply the agent and they don't have a minimum discharge density. They just respond and notify - therefore, any deficencies could result in the system being rendered incapble of properly performing its intended function.

The person who could best answer your question is Tom Hammerburg with the American Fire Alarm Association. I believe his office is located in the metro Atlanta area.

 

[NJ1]

You made a great solid point but take a look at this scenario.

A smoke/heat device is required inside the room where the fire alarm panel is located.
A Certificate of Occupancy was issued but 2 years later during an annual inspection and testing the alarm company realizes that it was never installed.
That is consider an installation flaw. What you do as a alarm contractor?

I know during an NFPA 25 I am not required to identify missing or lack of sprinkler heads but what about during this alarm inspection scenario.

 

[cdafd]

Maybe look at retroactivity 1.4.  Nfpa 72 2002
Should still be in later editions also

 

[cdafd]

Why can't you note problems that do not meet nfpa 72 to the owner????

 

[NJ1]

Do not get wrong. I am not saying that you cant, I am just talking about what is required and what is not.
You saw what happened to that contractor that went outside the scope of NFPA 25 on my other postNFPA 13 Deficiencies?)

You see NFPA 25 tells you that installation flaws are outside the standard but you can not find same statement on NFPA 72. It is weird.
I figure I asked before I assume.

 

[stookeyfpe]

NJ1

For your scenario the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued in error. If I am the fire code official, you fix it or we revoke your CO.

Here's a problem using your scenario. I install a IFC required fire alarm system in a fully sprinklered building using the 2007 edition of NFPA 72. Under the cited edition a smoke detector protecting the fire alarm control unit is not required because the building is fully sprinklered. In the 2010 edition of the NFPA 72, the committee decided that a sprinklered building didn't offer adequate protection and brought back the requirement for a means of smoke or fire detection to protect the fire alarm control unit. So what happens under this scenario? In my world, it's legal because it met the 2007 edition. But how do you, as the ITM provider deal with it?

I don't think I can answer your original question because my primary audiences are designers and code officials. ITM is part of my arena but I never get into the liabilities of performing those inspections.

 

[b1ueshift]

Well, this seems to be slightly different question. In my experience, there is no particular issue with not complying with the latest codes and standards. The regulations only require a property owner have a valid certificate of occupancy.

It's not unknown for a local authority (like a municipality or a fire chief) to issue a deficiency notice which would require a building owner to upgrade their fire protection usually within a certain amount of time. Where I come from (Australia), the authority would probably have to go to court and get a court order before they force a building to shut down and the owner can challenge this by obtaining their own expert opinions or requesting an extension of time.

In my role of providing fire protection advice to building owners, if I see anything which does not comply with current building regulations, In my inspection report, I would advise them to have it brought into compliance at some time in the future, but not necessarily right away.

 

[MaInspector]

In response to NJ1's original question; when an inspection is preformed to comply with the periodic inspection requirements of NFPA 72’s fire alarm systems it is to insure that the devices that were installed are in working condition on the date tested. That’s all a test report should state. If a alarm contractor feels that there should be added detection; they should propose it to the owner in a separate format, not on the test report.

 

[NJ1]

MaInspector

That is my whole point however NFPA 25 has that statement but NFPA 72 does not.

 

[MaInspector]

NJ1, There is no NFPA standard for the testing of the detection devices. It would be done as per each individual device's manufacturer's requirements. NFPA 72 only lays out the time line that they should be tested, not HOW to test them; there are too many types of devices on the market.

 

[NJ1]

Great Thanks