Remote lamps on duct detectors

[ChrisRFree]

Am I wrong....?

Remote lamps are required on a conventional fire alarm system to help located the duct detector. On an addressable fire alarm system, the lamps are not required b/c each individual device has its own address and can be worded through programming on where to find the duct detector in supervisory.


Any help would be great, thanks.

 

[DRWeig]

ChrisR,

My OPINION is you're right. However, this issue is one of the more frequently tinkered-with ones by the local AHJ (Fire Prevention Bureau). It's best to ask.

In my city they make us put indicators up anyway, because the firefighters rushing into the building might not understand your terminology as to the location of the unit but they can see an LED easily to verify if a detector is in alarm or not.


Old Dave

 

[stookeyfpe]

ChrisR,

It depends on the edition of NFPA 72 adopted by the jurisdiction. Note the following new requirement in the 2002 edition of NFPA 72:

5.14.5.8 Where in-duct smoke detectors are installed in concealed locations more than 3 m (10 ft) above the finished floor or in arrangements where the detector’s alarm or supervisory indicator is not visible to responding personnel, the detectors shall be provided with remote alarm or supervisory indication in a location acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

Since the system is addressable, you meet the letter of the 2002 edition. If the system is being permitted under an older edition, the jurisdiction has no legal basis for requiring this. It may be suggested but its not mandatory.

 

[DRWeig]

stookeyfpe,

I'd have to take issue with your last line. In many municipalities (especially the larger ones) and states, there are addenda to the codes, and the addenda generally supercede the code itself.

While code may not actually require what ChrisRFree is asking, a local or other jurisdictional ordinance might.

Always best to ask the AHJ if you have just one or two questions.

Best to ya,

Old Dave

 

[stookeyfpe]

Old Dave:

As a approving authority for the 5th largest Fire Department in the U.S., I have a problem when fire officials impose additional requirements and its not written as a policy or amendment to the code. I know of a few code officials who require additional features or components because it's a perceived safety enhancement to emergency responders or the occupants. In ChrisRFree's original post, a local policy was not mentioned. Therefore, it appeared that the jurisdiction had no policy or regulation regarding this specific section of NFPA 72, and in turn, have no legal basis for requiring remote annunciator lamps.

I agree with you if the jurisdiction has some policy or ordinance, then its the minimum requirement.

Regarding the addendum to NFPA 72, it clearly states in Annex A of every NFPA standard I've used that its not mandatory. I've know of jurisdictions who adopt the language as having the force of law. As someone who sits on two NFPA technical committees, I know that's not the intent. Annexes to NFPA standards are written using non-mandatory language. Therefore, I find it difficult to impose a requirement when the words "may" or "should" are part of the language.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Old Dave:

As a approving authority for the 5th largest Fire Department in the U.S., I have a problem when fire officials impose additional requirements and its not written as a policy or amendment to the code. I know of a few code officials who require additional features or components because it's a perceived safety enhancement to emergency responders or the occupants. In ChrisRFree's original post, a local policy was not mentioned. Therefore, it appeared that the jurisdiction had no policy or regulation regarding this specific section of NFPA 72, and in turn, have no legal basis for requiring remote annunciator lamps.

I agree with you if the jurisdiction has some policy or ordinance, then its the minimum requirement.

Regarding the addendum to NFPA 72, it clearly states in Annex A of every NFPA standard I've used that its not mandatory. I've know of jurisdictions who adopt the language as having the force of law. As someone who sits on two NFPA technical committees, I know that's not the intent. Annexes to NFPA standards are written using non-mandatory language. Therefore, I find it difficult to impose a requirement when the words "may" or "should" are part of the language.

 

[DRWeig]

Stookeyfpe,

Good points, of course! I posted in a bit of a rush, so it might seem contrary to your philosophy. In fact, you did a better job of clarifying what I left out.

By "addenda" I meant local ordinances or policies. Used the wrong word.

What I was trying to get ChrisRFree to do was check to see if there are any local ordinances or policies that give rise to the extras he's asking about.

A better example might be in the electrical side where I live. If you just go by what's in NFPA 70, you will wind up putting way too many receptacles on a circuit. The City of Memphis code has many additional restrictions in addition to its incorporation of the NEC. In this example, they limit the number of receptacles to six.

I've just seen too many posts here (and also too many new engineers around town) who fail to look at the local codes and ordinances, assuming the NFPA document is the end-all.

Best to ya, stookeyfpe!

Old Dave