# 2002 NFPA 72 Alarm System; multiple trouble signals; require re-acceptance testing?



## firemanx (Apr 29, 2013)

To All;

I apologize, I have MIA since sometime last year when I first took the FM position with my Department.  I fully intended to be more active in the forum than I have.  My most sincere apologies for not having been.

I am seeking guidance in the following matter;  I have an approximate 5000 sq. ft. "R2" occupancy that the property owner is seeking to be allowed to occupy (certificate of occupancy).  It is setup for only one tenant.  We currently follow 2006 IFC (with state amendments).  The building is a former "M" occupancy (existing structure,), it is fully sprinkled and has had annual and 5 year inspection, testing, and appropriate repairs made. The electronic supervising devices send their signal to a central station on site which also monitors several other buildings on the same property. (which is not manned 24hrs/7days a week, another problem I'm working on)

Although the sprinkler system is not required, the property owners wish to leave it in place, it has nearly 40 heads.  The state amendments require this system to be electronically supervised; testing and supervision of the alarm system falls under 2002 NFPA 72.

Currently, the FCP shows multiple trouble signals, including missing nodes, open circuits, ground fault problems, etc...  There is no way for me to accurately know what parts of the system effect the others.  It is believed that some of the trouble signals are originated due to some structures on the property being demolished and then not being removed from the FCP system.  There is also no documentation on the last inspection activity on the FCP.

...In your opinion...

Would these problems with the FCP be sufficient for me to require re-acceptance testing of the FCP?  Could this system be viewed as an impaired system and therefore prevent occupancy of the residential structure until the FCP shows no trouble signal, is inspected, tested and monitored per 2002 NFPA 72?

My goal is to prevent occupancy of the structure until the FCP is monitored continuously and shows no trouble signals.

Any help or advice is most appreciated, thank you in advance.


----------



## cda (Apr 29, 2013)

why isn't the sprinkler system required??

Yes the panel needs to be fixed and clear prior to occupancy. IFC says maintained at all times

so is there one main panel for the entire property?? or one per building??

do you or the state require an annual inspection of all fire protection systems??

I think an acceptance tested is a good requirement, and does not tke much time. A fire alarm company has to come out any way and fix the thing.


----------



## firemanx (Apr 30, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> why isn't the sprinkler system required??Yes the panel needs to be fixed and clear prior to occupancy. IFC says maintained at all times
> 
> so is there one main panel for the entire property?? or one per building??
> 
> ...


You are correct on the required sprinkler system.  Until today, it was believed that the structure would follow IRC, final documentation came through that designated the occupancy as "R2" and according to Chapter 9 of the IFC, any group "R" occupancy does require a sprinkler system.

Yes, there is one FCP for the entire property.  Without getting into all of the details, the property was formerly a prison in the late 1800's, was converted into an industrial/factory setting and is now vacant with the anticipation of mixed occupancy development.  This structure in question is a separate standalone structure.

The alarm and fire suppression system is required to be inspected, tested and maintained per IFC 901.6.1 respectively.  In this case the schedules listed in NFPA 25 (adopted by the state and by reference in IFC) as well as NFPA 72 Chapter 10 (also adopted by the state and by reference in IFC)

By the way, thanks for the reply!


----------



## cda (Apr 30, 2013)

Do you mind saying what state you are in?

Are all buildings owned by one owner??


----------



## midwestFCO (Apr 30, 2013)

I would agree that the system needs to be operational with no troubles prior to occupancy.  It really isn't a big deal for an alarm tech to come out and clear out the zones/modules/addresses that are no longer present or needed.  I'd be concerned with all of the faults if the alarm would 1- Sound 2 - Transmit the alarm (which sounds like it is not doing properly anyway if it is going to an unattended location).  I'd hold strong on not allowing occupancy until repaired because they are always very nice when they need something from you, but much slower to react once you give them occupancy.


----------



## firemanx (Apr 30, 2013)

cda:  Yes, the entire complex is owned by one organization, currently all but one structure is vacant.  There are many code problems with the complex, in particular with the fire code the biggest issues at the moment at the sprinkler and alarm systems.  This facility is in Indiana.

midwestFCO:  That's my stance at the moment, I appreciate your affirmation.  I'm trying to make sure I have code quotes to rely on as I've had a history with this property.


----------



## cda (Apr 30, 2013)

I just wondering if you should try to get a new panel in each building??


----------



## fireguy (Apr 30, 2013)

What is the difference between re-acceptance and an annual alarms test?  Don't both tests require that all of the devices be tested?


----------



## firemanx (Apr 30, 2013)

fireguy said:
			
		

> What is the difference between re-acceptance and an annual alarms test?  Don't both tests require that all of the devices be tested?


Check table 10.4.3 Testing Frequencies in 2002 NFPA 72; the first column listed as "Initial/Reacceptance" has many items that are required to be checked and is most stringent than the column list as "Annually" does not.


----------



## cda (Apr 30, 2013)

fireguy said:
			
		

> What is the difference between re-acceptance and an annual alarms test?  Don't both tests require that all of the devices be tested?


technically there is suppose to be a semi-annual test, and what some companies do is check half the devices one time and the other half the next.

Me on something like this I want to witness the testing so I can say yes on this day it did work. Sounds like there are to many gremlins in the system to let someone say it is good to go.

yes in away an accpetance and annual are almost the same


----------



## firemanx (Apr 30, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> technically there is suppose to be a semi-annual test, and what some companies do is check half the devices one time and the other half the next.Me on something like this I want to witness the testing so I can say yes on this day it did work. Sounds like there are to many gremlins in the system to let someone say it is good to go.
> 
> yes in away an acceptance and annual are almost the same


I agree on the semiannual testing as well.  As part of my list of deficiencies I will be requiring that I be present at the time of the alarm system re-acceptance test, I especially want to ensure (among other things) the FCP is receiving the alarm signals as it should and that they are being transmitted to remote monitoring service (if that's the path the property owners choose to go).

Thanks for all your help, gentleman.


----------



## FM William Burns (May 1, 2013)

Didn’t have time to read through the responses so forgive me if it repeats someone else.



You may have another issue…..the change in use to an “R” requires a sprinkler system and since it’s an R it is residential and or quick response design criteria.  The former “M” was most likely a light hazard design and you’ll need to verify the re-design to the quick response or residential heads.  The water supply should be sufficient going from a light hazard to a residential occupancy since the water requirements are typically lower.

[NFPA 13 Design Criteria]  



I would require a re-acceptance test and not permit occupancy until the sprinkler changes were completed, inspected and approved in addition to the fire alarm system issues 72, 2002 [10.4.1.2.1.2].  



I am confused by the “on site central station” monitoring other building on the site, this would be typically be considered a proprietary means of monitoring and yes must be 24/7 by a minimum of (2 personnel) or a Remote Receiving (Chapter 8)


----------



## firemanx (May 1, 2013)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Didn’t have time to read through the responses so forgive me if it repeats someone else.
> 
> You may have another issue…..the change in use to an “R” requires a sprinkler system and since it’s an R it is residential and or quick response design criteria.  The former “M” was most likely a light hazard design and you’ll need to verify the re-design to the quick response or residential heads.  The water supply should be sufficient going from a light hazard to a residential occupancy since the water requirements are typically lower.
> 
> ...


FM Burns, thank you for your response, I always enjoy reading your posts.

The sprinkler heads have in fact been replaced accordingly.  You are also correct in my misuse of the term "on site central station"; Unfortunately I am less familiar with the specific vocabulary of NFPA 72 as I should be.  I realize this is a problem and am quickly learning.

In this case, the electronic supervising devices sent their signal to a proprietary supervising station.  This location was manned with two personnel when the property was an active manufacturing plant.  Now that ownership has changed, and the structures are vacant (other than one), it has been difficult getting them to have their system monitored correctly.

Based on the new occupancy, I doubt they will attempt to reestablish the proprietary supervising station in favor of central station service or remote supervising station.


----------

