Security Panels used as Fire Alarm Systems

Bosch/Radionics indeed manufactures fire alarm systems that are like that. These systems are fully addressable and are typically found in large stores (for example, many Lowe’s stores have these systems paired with Wheelock AS and/or Exceder horn strobes, but the fire keypads are red and they like to rebrand RSG T-Bars and stick an addressable module on the back). I’ve seen separate fire/burg systems in the same establishments that were both Radionics but none that were combined…my local library also has one of these Radionics/Bosch FA systems with Wheelock NA’s (AS-241575R’s and RSS-241575R’s, all rebranded as Radionics) and it was built in 2001. But no I’ve never seen any of these combined before…which is interesting. Honeywell makes a Vista 20P fire system which is similar (pulls, NA’s, and a red keypad). But I’ve never seen one like that that’s combined, all the ones I’ve seen in actual places were separate.

I don’t think you can tell the customer they “shall” replace the system. That would be up to the local AHJ to enforce that. Best you can do is recommend they replace or modify the system to meet current standards. If anything, document, document, document (CYA). Not sure how your jurisdiction works, but around here, if I encountered one of these non-listed systems, I just wouldn’t certify it. And if the customer insisted, I would simply write on the cert “System not listed for commercial fire alarm use” and leave it at that.

I would imagine these systems were installed without AHJ approval to begin with - either by un-knowledgeable alarm companies, truckslammers looking to score a monitoring contract, or even were installed prior to the site requiring a bonafide fire alarm system. More than likely, the customer may not even care about having any fire protection devices, especially if they are grandfathered in, and that could be the reason the customer isn’t really giving it a second thought. It would be less expensive for them to rip everything out and go with nothing rather then bring it up to current design standards. If they are being required to bring their current setups to code, I would think it would be easier to just design them a standalone system and not even worrying about band-aiding the existing. Personally, I’ve never liked combo fire/burg systems.

Yeah, you just have to watch the way you word things. The bottom line is you can always record as a deficiency a non-working smoke detector. But you generally cannot document as a deficiency smoke detector spacing, unless you can prove there has been a change such as detector removed or building renovation. The basis behind this is that you are doing an inspection based on the “testing and inspection” section of NFPA 72, not the “installation” section of the code. And unless you are an engineer or have design experience, you don’t have the qualifications to make that determination. I don’t see this being pushed in the fire alarm industry as much as I see this in the sprinkler side. When I do a sprinkler inspection, I have to adhere to NFPA 25 and cannot venture into NFPA 13. In some cases, your local jurisdiction can override this, and you should always fall back to the side that has more authority. For example, when I do sprinkler inspections, I might find an office that doesn’t have sprinkler protection. NFPA 25 doesn’t address this - but my local AHJ on their certification form has a check box “unprotected area <10 sprinkler heads”. I would document it as: “Office 123 lacks sprinkler protection - recommend engineering analysis to determine appropriate coverage”. This covers my liability, lets the customer aware of a potential design issue, and allows me to document it on the local cert - all without violating the intent of NFPA 25. I can look the 100 sq ft Office 123 and see that it needs one sprinkler head, but if I start playing engineer and document that, I open myself up to issues. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with documenting what you see. When the place burns down and the lawyers are looking to see who they can sue, making the right documentation can save you in the end. But you just need to word it in a way that doesn’t give you a higher qualification than what you have.

If you can find it in the code (inspection chapter) - it’s a deficiency
If you can’t find it in the code (inspection chapter) - make a recommendation