As a company in the ERRCS ecosystem, we seemingly would have a vested interest in the proliferation of more stringent codes that would both expand the number of buildings required to have an ERRCS and increase the complexity of testing and design.
Unfortunately, we’re beginning to see things that just don’t make sense. Perhaps this is only a California phenomenon.
First an admission: I find the work required to keep up with the ever-changing code requirements to be mind-numbing. Our engineer, of course, knows the intricacies of each code iteration. But from a customer and sales perspective, here’s what I know: each code “enhancement” that adds additional equipment or labor is an added expense to the cost of the ERRCS – a cost on top of the already high price tag of building in California.
In addition, in many jurisdictions, the AHJ seems to be requiring all commercial buildings to be tested for an ERRCS – many of them 10 thousand square feet or less. We were asked to test a building for ERRCS that hadn’t even been required to install a Fire Alarm system. Huh? A California Fire Code (CFC) requirement is for an ERRCS to interface to a Fire Alarm Control Panel for monitoring, so we weren’t quite sure what Pandora’s box of requirements and costs this testing might open up.
The previous CFC requirement that exempted most buildings under 25 thousand square feet (50 thousand in some places) seems to have been superseded by local ordinances.
We’ve also seen that the testing process has produced buildings that “Fail” (it needs an ERRCS), when a closer reading of the report would suggest room for discussion with the AHJ on the necessity for an ERRCS.
Taken together these changes, from the outside looking in, would seem to benefit those of us in the business of designing, testing, and installing ERRCS. Perhaps. But here’s the flipside: too many BDAs on a radio network do not improve its performance. If the proliferation of ERRCS means a degraded outdoor radio network, the folks in charge of these radio networks may go from being somewhat involved in this ecosystem to taking over this ecosystem. With the caveat that I’m no radio engineer, I wonder why my city/county FCC license holder wouldn’t want to install a fiber-fed CPE (customer premise equipment) signal source from their radio infrastructure provider (e.g. Motorola) in lieu of the off-air donor antenna. This would be analogous to cellular DAS integrators providing small cells (e.g. SpiderCloud) in lieu of off-air donor antennas (e.g. Nextivity). Perhaps this change wouldn’t kill the ERRCS ecosystem but simply change it.
At the end of the day, ERRCS is a code requirement designed to ensure that first responder radios work inside buildings during an emergency. This presumably protects both first responders and residents/tenants – truly a life-safety system. To accomplish this, we need codes that make sense, are equitable, and don’t unfairly burden owners/developers with costs that can’t be justified. This is how those of us in the ERRCS ecosystem truly justify what we do.
IBWS can help you navigate the ERRCS landscape. If you need help, please reach out to us. As an aside, ChatGPT played no part in this blog. I’ve found him to be great at synthesizing data but he rarely has an opinion and is sorely lacking in humor.