smokes in dwelling

Status
Not open for further replies.
M.D. That is the building code correct. I have never had a building inspector inspect my Fire Alarm. In fact on one job I talked to the building inpsector about CO and smokes.....and he was incorrect. The Fire Chief in the town told me it didn't matter what the building dept told me it was HIS (the fire chief) juristiction. So from now on I always do a walk through with the Fire Dept. before hand or call them. And they are always more then happy to help.
 
dcooper said:
M.D. That is the building code correct. I have never had a building inspector inspect my Fire Alarm. In fact on one job I talked to the building inpsector about CO and smokes.....and he was incorrect. The Fire Chief in the town told me it didn't matter what the building dept told me it was HIS (the fire chief) juristiction.
Click to expand...

dcooper , you are correct the requirement is in the building code I'm not sure who the AHJ is but I think it is;

The State Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), as the Agency promulgating the Massachusetts State Building Code, is the ?AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION?
Click to expand...

and not the fire chief or the building inspector. I have also found Fire department officals to be helpful in regard to the "add a bedroom, upgrade the smoke detectors to meet current code" issue. I have encountered a lot of push back from contractors and home owners in relation to this requirement . I wish I could point to something in my code book , what I do is give them a coppy of what I have linked to and a statement from the State Fire Marshall that supports what is found in the building code. Then I tell them what I believe will be expected, I tell them that my rough inspection will pass without S.D. outlet boxes, (there is no rough in spection for smokes where I am, there used to be ) and that the fire department will not sign off at the finish without the required smokes. If the contractor or H.O. says no, it is an office and not a bedroom , I say it will cost more after to add them , if they still say no I stop arguing and let the system work. I can lead a horse to water and encourage it to drink , that it's life may very well be saved if it drinks, but I can't nor can the inspector of wires force them to drink.
I am actually considering having a lawyer draw up a document that they will sign after I present the relative information , that it was in fact presented them. I know after a child dies sleeping in the "office" they won't remember my effort to get them to drink.
 
M. D. said:
dcooper , you are correct the requirement is in the building code I'm not sure who the AHJ is but I think it is;


g
I tell them that my rough inspection will pass without S.D. outlet boxes, (there is no rough in spection for smokes where I am, there used to be ) .
Click to expand...

If you are installing wiring IAW Chp 141 then 143 3L requires an inspection and permit. I do not understand how an inspection from the wiring inspector is bypassed for either multi-station smokes or a FA system???
 
Last edited:
cpal said:
I do not understand how an inspection from the wiring inspector is bypassed for either multi-station smokes or a FA system???
Click to expand...

Charlie as you know I am here in MA and any FA system I have been involved in has been inspected by the FD, not the EI.

I can do some searching for them again but in the past I have found MA regulations that support that.
 
Found it.

780 CMR 903.4 Acceptance: In accordance with the
provisions of 780 CMR 120, a Certificate of
Occupancy shall not issue until the building official
and the head of the fire department or their designees
have witnessed a satisfactory functional test of all fire
protection systems, installed in accordance with the
approved fire protection construction documents. All
fire protection systems shall be tested in accordance
with the applicable provisions of 780 CMR and
NFPA Standards and approved testing criteria and
operational sequence as submitted in 780 CMR
903.1.1, items 1.b and c. In addition, the following
documents and/or information shall be
simultaneously submitted to the building official and
head of the fire department or their designees prior to
the witnessing of the operational fire protection
system(s) testing:
Click to expand...
 
cpal said:
If you are installing wiring IAW Chp 141 then 143 3L requires an inspection and permit. I do not understand how an inspection from the wiring inspector is bypassed for either multi-station smokes or a FA system???
Click to expand...
I guess what I ment to say is that back in the day the fire dept. used to come out and first mark where they wanted them and then prior to insulation the fire official would come out again and sign a rough inspection . Now they don't come out to mark them and there is no rough inspection for the installation of smoke detection. There is also no reason for the inspector of wires to fail the work I performed there is nothing in the electrical code that requires smoke detection. If I do install them and do it improperly then the inspector of wires can site me on the infraction. Who knows maybe the H.O. or G.C. has a pal in the alarm buisness?
 
M.D.
I totally agree with everything you said....and you have been doing this alot longer then I have I am sure. But when it comes to any FA the Fire Dept does have a 'MY TOWN" standard. And I am just a middle man. That's why I always get a signed set of prints or do a walk through. If there are any problems with an office being considered a bed rm..... if the Fire Dept calls it a bed rm IT'S A BEDRM. Sorry Home owner or GC. You really can't fight the fire chief.
With COs I had one FD wanting them in every bed rm and 10ft from the bdrm door. And on every level of living space. Then I go to the next town over and the only want them on every level of living space but in the same rm as the boiler. So I have just found it best to talk to the FD before starting a job. And we won't get started if you try to do FA in the city of BOSTON. A whole other can of worms.
 
dcooper said:
And we won't get started if you try to do FA in the city of BOSTON. A whole other can of worms.
Click to expand...

It is but if you know that going in money can be made. We recently worked with BFD installing a temp system in a 17 story building with a failed for good FACP. BFD gave the customer the option of a temp system or a fire watch for about $7,000 per week.

We got the temp system in place for T&M and then where able to do the permanent system under contract once the details of the system where worked out with the BFD.
 
dcooper said:
if the Fire Dept calls it a bed rm IT'S A BEDRM. Sorry Home owner or GC. You really can't fight the fire chief.
Click to expand...

It is not a fight I would have to make, as an electrician I most likely would not be an a gent for the owner, as an owner , I have a detector in every habitable room ,with the exception of the kitchen, as an E.C. I try my danrndest to sell people on the notion that they are, beside being rquired, a great idea.

]The State Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), as the Agency promulgating the Massachusetts State Building Code, is the “AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION” (AHJ) regarding the interpretation of regulations of the State Building Code and has determined that it is the responsibility of the building owner or the agent of the building owner to identify any new or newly created bedrooms or other space USES. If submitted plans and/or narratives that describe the work intended identify such new additions or newly created spaces as other than bedrooms then 780 CMR 3603.16.13 does not apply (note that it is the “REGULATED COMMUNITY” and not the “REGULATOR” who identifies, on plans and/or narratives submitted as part of the building permit application to the Building Department, if a bedroom is being added or created).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
linking smokes

linking smokes

a related question, if I may.
Our requirements state the detectors must be linked.
90% of the installers do this by use of a 3 conductor (normally 14/3 or 12/3 NM) cable.
Occasionly someone will "link" with a seperate single conductor.
I've seen this accepted and I've seen it rejected as a violation of 300.5
The arguments are often realted to this "link" being a "bias" voltage, less than
voltage levels enforced by some jurisdictions.
In addition, I have seen the NM eq. ground used as the "link" where it is not needed as an equipment ground with the smoke circuit.

Inputs welcomed ....
 
Well it looks as if it is O.K.,just checked out firex , I would just run a three wire ,but hey, to each his own.
 
M. D. said:
Bob ,on a 120 volt branch circuit ?
Click to expand...

Yes.

They go on to say the smokes can be on separate circuits and can be linked by a single wire.

I always assumed the interconnect signal was line voltage but I learned that I was mistaken.

I can not see any advantage to doing it that way and was surprised it was OK....at least for some brands.

Not to sure the bare in NM should be used for it.
 
Bob ,did you notice the Warning "that this fire alarm should be installed according to NEC 760" . And doesn't 760 prohibit smoke detectors from being supplied through AFCI and GFCI citcuits? Perhaps if the detector is at an outlet on a branch circuit it does not qualify for 760.?
 
The line voltage fire devices installed in homes are correctly called "Smoke Alarms" it is technically incorrect to call them smoke detectors.

Smoke detectors connect to a FACP and the FACP can not be supplied via a GFCI.

On the other hand smoke alarms have no such restriction and may in fact be required to be connected to an AFCI circuit which has GFCI protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top