This is a Mircom FX-2000 system installed as a replacement for an old (and no doubt problematic) Edwards 6500 in a major Lower Mainland shopping mall about six years ago. The two Edwards backboxes that made up this system's original common control assembly have been utilized as termination cabinets. The FX-2000 has been mounted immediately adjacent to them. So far so good.

Up until you actually open the 6500 cabinet doors that is!

Yes, those are isolator modules dangling from the wires. There's also a couple of smoke control and "mini" initiating modules as well. The latter were actually designed to "float" inside a single or double gang box (which is about all you really need to support these babies), but in this instance we noted several rather unorthodox terminations:

The use of wire nuts to secure end of line resistors to a wire is something I personally try to avoid, but in certain situations (like the inside of a sprinkler flow or tamper switch), you'll often find you need to use at least one. In this case, however, crimping a Mircom terminal strip to the wire has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

These batteries are 18AH units installed in 2006 (at least according to the date written on them in black felt-tip marker). Supervisory current draw is 667 milli-amps. A quick calculation (using Mircom's suggested de-rating factor of 1.2) yields the result that these batteries minimum capacity should be 19.2 AH (but keep in mind this calculation doesn't take into consideration the thirty minutes of alarm time required). The result (even without the actual alarm current test) is an automatic FAIL!

So let's see who verified this puppy last!

June 15, 2011. White Eagle Fire Prevention Services Ltd. But wait, this sticker is only one of several that are affixed to the panel in a convenient "booklet format":

I count TEN VERIFICATIONS since 29th March, 2006 all performed by Tad Bukala at White Eagle. The mall management informed me that Fairlane Fire Prevention performs all their annual inspections. It's quite obvious to me that neither agency has bothered to perform the requisite testing on the batteries over a number of inspections which they supposedly performed to both CAN/ULC-S537-04 and CAN/ULC-S536-04 Testing Standards. This, of course, raises the question about what else they missed doing.

What prompted my attendance on this Shemozzle? I was called in to verify two relocated common area devices located outside of a new tenant's retail unit. One was an Edwards 439D Bell, and the other was an Edwards 270-SPO pull station. The pull station failed because removal of one of the wires from the rear terminal didn't result in a supevisory fault. This indicates there's a "T-tap" on this conventionally wired circuit somewhere. The bell failed because the gong had been tampered with. The first fault should have been picked up in the original verification of the FX-2000 (evidence of which I couldn't locate in the common control). The second should have been picked up by the tech performing the annual inspection (the label on the gong clearly indicates it should never by removed, but evidence which supports just such an event taking place is present in the form of a distinctive scrtach pattern on the face of the bell).

This fiasco has now been forwarded to ASTTBC in an official complaint, a copy of which was also provided to the West Vancouver Fire Department.

More Burning Brick Nominations!