Report of the Committee on
Richard A. Malady, Fire Fighter Sales & Service Company, PA [IM]
Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.
Maurice Marvi, Insurance Services Office, NJ [I]
Lloyde Mason, Lake Zurick, IL [SE]
Robert Trexler McGinnis, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., SC [U]
Jack McNamara, Detection Systems Inc., NY [M]
James M. Mundy, Jr., Siemens Fire Safety, NY [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Edward Nemie, Chesapeake, VA [SE]
Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Company, Inc., MA [IM]
Rep. U.S. Naval Historical Center
Philip K. Schoenheiter, FM Global, MA [I]
Ed Vaillancourt, E & M International, Inc., NM [M]
Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association
William F. Wayman, Jr., TVA Fire Safety, Inc., NJ [SE]
Dennis R. Yanek, ADT Security Systems, NJ [M]
Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property (SIG-AAC)
Technical Correlating Committee
Wayne D. Moore, Chair
Hughes Associates, Inc., RI [SE]
Lee F. Richardson, Nonvoting Secretary
National Fire Protection Association, MA
Richard W. Bukowski, U.S. National Institute of Standards & Technology,
MD [RT]
R. Bruce Fraser, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Vic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE]
Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U]
Irving Mande, Westport, CT [M]
James M. Mundy, Jr., Siemens Cerberus Division, NY [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Company, Inc., MA [IM]
Rep. U.S. Naval Historical Center
Paul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Limited, MD [SE]
Tom G. Smith, Cox Systems Technology, OK [IM]
Rep. National Electrical Contractors Association
Lawrence J. Wenzel, Hughes Associates, Inc., CT [SE]
Alternates
James G. Bisker, U.S. Department of Energy, MD [U]
(Alt. to M. Dumais)
Daniel C. Colin, Siemens Cerberus Division, NJ [M]
(Alt. to A. G. Berezowski)
Chad M. Counard, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M]
(Alt. to J. R. Gressel)
John Craig, Jr., Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM]
(Alt. to D. G. Decker)
Manuelita E. David, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE]
(Alt. to K. M. Green)
Robert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I]
(Alt. to P. K. Schoenheiter)
Charles Erichsen, ADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M]
(Alt. to D. R. Yanek)
David L. Foster, Insurance Services Office, Inc., NJ [I]
(Alt to M. Marvi)
Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation, MO [M]
(Alt. to E. Vaillancourt)
Edward P. Reid, E. P. Reid & Associates, NJ [M]
(Alt. to J. M. Mundy, Jr.)
David J. Stone, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to D. Brunmeier)
Allyn J. Vaughn, The RJA Group, Inc., NV [SE]
(Alt. to R. A. Grill)
Alternates
John K. Guhl, California State Fire Marshal, CA [E]
(Voting Alt. to IAFC Rep.)
Nonvoting
Douglas M. Aiken, Lakes Region Mutual Fire Aid, NH [E]
Rep. International Municipal Signal Association
Benjamin B. Aycock, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
Art Black, Carmel Fire Department/Carmel Fire Protection Assoc., CA [E]
Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC, TN [SE]
Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE]
Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]
J. Jeffrey Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., OH [SE]
Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]
Robert P. Schifiliti, R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc., MA [SE]
Timothy M. Soverino, Nantucket Fire Department, MA [E]
Evan E. Stauffer, Jr., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, PA
Rep. TC Public Fire Service Communications
Dean K. Wilson, Hughes Associates, Inc., PA
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on common system fundamentals for signaling systems, including
definitions, requirements for approvals, installation, service, power supplies,
equipment locations, compatibility, and system interfaces.
Report of the Committee on
Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-IDS)
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the installation, performance, maintenance, testing, and use
of signaling components and signaling systems for the protection of life and
property.
Kenneth W. Dungan, Chair
Risk Technologies, LLC, TN [SE]
Martin H. Reiss, Secretary
The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]
Report of the Committee on
Rick Carroll, SBCCI, AL [E]
Win Chaiyabhat, Aon Risk Consultants, IL [I]
John A. Chetelat, Fire-Lite Alarms Inc./Notifier, CT [M]
Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Assoc.
John M. Cholin, J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc., NJ [SE]
Jesse L. Denton, Jr., Starwood Hotels and Resorts, GA [U]
James D. Dick, Kemper Insurance Companies, WA [I]
Rep. Kemper Insurance Companies
Irving Ellner, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]
Bruce Elmer, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc., MI [U]
Rep. The Home Depot
Gary P. Fields, The Protectowire Company, Inc., MA [M]
Robert A. Hall, R. A. Hall & Associates, NJ [SE]
Robert L. Langer, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M]
Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturersí Association
David B. Lederer, Detection Systems, Inc., NY [M]
Loren L. Leimer, Hochiki America Corporation, CA [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Norbert W. Makowka, National Assn. of Fire Equipment Distributors, IL
[IM]
Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.
Chris Marrion, Arup Fire, NY [SE]
Nancy A. McCormick, Industrial Risk Insurers, OH [I]
Rep. Industrial Risk Insurers
Ronald K. Mengel, System Sensor, IL [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Noura Milardo, FM Global, MA [I]
Ovid E. Morphew, Jr., Design/Systems Group, TX [IM]
Rep. National Independent Fire Alarm Distributors Association
Lynn B. Nielson, Henderson Fire Department, NV [E]
Daniel J. OíConnor, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]
Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN)
Raymond A. Grill, Chair
The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]
David M. Wyatt, Secretary
Energy Northwest, WA [U]
Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section
Andrew G. Berezowski, Fire-Lite/Notifier, CT [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Robert A. Bonifas, Alarm Detection Systems, Inc., IL [IM]
Rep. Central Station Alarm Association
Douglas Brunmeier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM]
Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory-East, IL [U]
Sanford E. Egesdal, Egesdal Associates PLC, MN [SE]
Lawrence Esch, World Security & Control Engineering, IL [E]
Rep. Illinois Fire Inspectors Association
John C. Fannin, III, SafePlace Corporation, DE [IM]
Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration, IL [U]
James M. Freeman, Industrial Risk Insurers, GA [I]
Daniel J. Gauvin, Simplex Time Recorder Company, MA [M]
Dale M. Gigandet, The Gamewell Company, MA [M]
David Goodyear, Office of the Fire Marshal-Ontario, Canada [E]
Kevin M. Green, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE]
James R. Gressel, Ansul Inc., WI [M]
Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturersí Association
Scott Jacobs, ISC Electronic Systems, Inc., CA [IM]
Ronald Kirby, Franconia, NH [SE]
295
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Ronald D. Ouimette, Vision Systems Inc., MA [M]
Paul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
James C. Roberts, North Carolina Department of Insurance, NC [E]
David L. Royse, Potter Electric Signal Company, MO [M]
J. Brooks Semple, Smoke/Fire Risk Management Inc., VA [SE]
Lawrence J. Wenzel, Hughes Associates, Inc., CT [SE]
Report of the Committee on
Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-PRO)
J. Jeffrey Moore, Chair
Hughes Association, Inc. [SE]
Alternates
Fletcher MacGregor, Vice Chair
Marsh USA, Inc., MI [I]
Mark E. Agar, Fire Equipment Company Inc., MI [IM]
(Alt. to N. W. Makowka)
Darryl Thomas Brown, Performance Design Technologies, TN [SE]
(Alt. to K. W. Dungan)
Paul F. Crowley, FM Global, MA [I]
(Alt to N. Milardo)
Michael Earl Dillon, Dillon Consulting Engineers, Inc., CA [SE]
(Alt. to R. A. Hall)
Kenneth L. Gentile, Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc.
(Alt to M.H. Reiss)
John Gokey, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M]
(Alt. to R. L. Langer)
Scott Grieb, Fire Concepts, Inc., IL [I]
(Alt. to J. D. Dick)
John A. Guetzke, Guetzke & Associates, Inc., WI [IM]
(Alt. to O. E. Morphew)
Michael A. Henke, Potter Electric Signal Company, MO [M]
(Alt. to D. L. Royse)
William K. Hopple, SimplexGrinnell, CA [M]
(Alt. to R. K. Mengel)
J. Jeffrey Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., OH [SE]
(Alt. to L. J. Wenzel)
John L. Parssinen, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to P. E. Patty)
Sean Pisoni, TVA, CA [U]
(Alt. to B. Elmer)
Walter F. Schuchard, Pauleyís Island, SC, [SE]
(Alt. to J. B. Semple)
Jerry Trotter, City of Henderson, NV [E]
(Alt. to L. B. Nielson)
James R. York, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]
(Alt to I. Ellner)
Philip R. Barrett, World Electronics, Inc., FL [M]
James F. Barth, FIREPRO Inc., MA [SE]
James G. Bisker, U.S. Department of Energy, MD [U]
David J. Burkhart, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE]
Frank Carideo, Fire Control Instruments Inc., MA [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Company, CA [IM]
Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.
Harry M. Corson, IV, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]
John Craig, Jr., Safety Systems, Inc., MI [IM]
Mickey L. Driggers, Kemper Insurance Companies, CO [I]
Rep. Kemper Insurance Companies
Robert W. Elliott, FM Global, MA [I]
Richard D. Greene, Nampa Fire Department, ID [E]
Kevin Greenwood, Fike Corporation, MO [M]
Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association
Michael Hoffman, Springdale Fire Department, OH [E]
Daniel J. Horon, CADgraphics, Incorporated, ND [M]
Vic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE]
W. Allen Johnson, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]
Jim R. Kern, Kern Technical Services, TN [SE]
Thomas E. Kuhta, Willis Co., NJ [I]
Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U]
Fred M. Leber, Leber/Rubes Inc., ON [SE]
Stewart J. Levy, U.S. General Services Administration, DC [U]
Irving Mande, Westport, CT [M]
Scott T. Martorano, The Viking Corporation, NY [M]
Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association
James McFadden, AFA Protective Systems, Inc., NY [IM]
Lawrence J. Shudak, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
David Stringfield, University of Minnesota, MN [E]
Rep. International Fire Marshals Association
Ralph E. Transue, The RJA Group, Inc., IL [SE]
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the installation and operation of initiating devices for signaling
systems, including automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow
detectors, manually activated fire alarm stations, supervisory signaling
initiating devices, and guard’s tour stations.
Alternates
Doanld D. Anderson, Fire-Lite Alarms Inc./Notifier, CT [M]
(Voting Alt. to NEMA Rep.)
Scott Barrett, World Electronics Inc., FL [M]
(Alt. to P. R. Barrett)
Paul M. Carroll, Central Signal Corporation/Sentinel Alarm Co., MA [M]
(Alt. to F. Carideo)
James D. Dick, Kemper Insurance Companies, WA [I]
(Alt. to M. L. Driggers)
Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory-East, IL [U]
(Alt. to J. G. Bisker)
Jacob P. Hemke, Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE]
(Alt. to D. J. Burkhart)
Neil P. Lakomiak, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to L. J. Shudak)
David J. LeBlanc, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]
(Alt. to R. E. Transue)
Wayne D. Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., RI [SE]
(Alt. to J. J. Moore)
Alan D. Moors, Siemens Cerberus Division, NJ [M]
(Alt. to H. M. Corson)
Harris M. Oliff, Security and Fire Enterprises, Inc., CA [IM]
(Alt. to S. M. Clary)
Philip K. Schoenheiter, FM Global, MA [I]
(Alt. to R. W. Elliott)
Yogesh B. Shah, Fire-Lite Alarms/Notifier, CT [M]
(Alt. to K. Greenwood)
Jeffrey G. Van Keuren, Edwards Systems Technology, FL [M]
(Alt. to I. Mande)
Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc., IN [SE]
(Alt. to V. Humm)
Scott Vandame, Schirmer Engineeering Corporation, VA [SE]
(Alt. to W. A. Johnson)
Nonvoting
Report of the Committee on
Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-NAS)
Robert P. Schifiliti, Chair
R. P. Schifiliti Associates, Inc., MA [SE]
Joe Achak, Fire Sentry Corporation, CA [M]
Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association
David E. Becker, Fire Equipment Service Company, KY [IM]
Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.
Robert F. Bitter, Honeywell, MO [M]
Thomas Carrie, Jr., Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]
Ferdinand DeVoss, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
Rein Haus, Wheelock, Inc., NJ [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
David O. Lowrey, Boulder Fire Department, CO [E]
Navin D. Mehta, U.S. DOD Defense Logistic Agency, VA [U]
Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Limited, MA [SE]
Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc., KS [SE]
Sam (Sat) Salwan, Environmental Systems Design Inc., IL [SE]
James M. Shuster, Faraday, LLC, MI [M]
Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Limited, MD [SE]
Rep. National Association of the Deaf
Martin C. Smith, Alarm Tech Solutions, LLC, MD [IM]
Craig Summers, Gentex Corporation, WA [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Alternates
Bill Luttrell, Jr., Suntronix Special Systems, Inc., TX [M]
(Alt. to C. Summers)
John Pederson, System Sensor, IL [M]
(Alt. to R. Haus)
Robert M. Pikula, Reliable Fire Equipment Company, IL [IM]
(Alt. to D. E. Becker)
Scott Vandame, Schirmer Engineeering Corporation, VA [SE]
(Alt. to T. Carrie)
Benjamin B. Aycock, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC
(Member Emeritus)
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the installation and operation of protected premises signaling
systems, including their interconnection with initiating devices, notification
appliances, and other related building control equipment, within the protected
premises.
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the installation and operation of notification appliances for
signaling systems.
296
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Report of the Committee on
Report of the Committee on
Public Fire Reporting Systems (SIG-PRS)
Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-SSS)
Douglas M. Aiken, Chair
Lakes Region Mutual Fire Aid, NH [E]
Rep. International Municipal Signal Association
Art Black, Chair
Carmel Fire Department/Carmel Fire Protection Associates, CA [E]
Jeffrey G. Knight, Secretary
City of Newton Fire Department, MA [U]
Charles Erichsen, Secretary
ADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M]
R. Bruce Allen, R. B. Allen Company, Inc., NH [IM]
Sidney M. Earley, TLC Systems, MA [IM]
Emerson B. Fisher, King-Fisher Company, IL [M]
Robert E. Lapham, Signal Communications Corporation, MA [M]
Dinesh K. Patel, U.S. Department of the Navy, CA [U]
Max R. Schulman, Schulman Associates, Limited, CA [SE]
Frank J. Tokarz, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]
Geoffrey Aus, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA [E]
Robert Bitton, Supreme Security Systems, Inc., NJ [IM]
Rep. Central Station Alarm Association
Edward R. Bonifas, Alarm Detection Systems, Inc., IL [IM]
Thomas C. Brown, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE]
Robert F. Buckley, Signal Communications Corporation, MA [M]
Scot Colby, Bayou Security Systems, Inc., LA [IM]
Rep. National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association
Paul F. Crowley, FM Global, MA [I]
E. Tom Duckworth, Insurance Services Office, Inc., TX [I]
Patrick M. Egan, Select Security, Inc., PA [IM]
Louis T. Fiore, L. T. Fiore, Inc., NJ [SE]
Harvey M. Fox, Keltron Corporation, MA [M]
R. Bruce Fraser, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Jeffrey Heidelberg, Kemper Insurance Companies, TX [I]
Rep. Kemper Insurance Companies
Richard Kleinman, AFA Protective Systems Inc., NY [IM]
Eugene A. Monaco, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]
Edward P. Reid, E. P. Reid & Associates, NJ [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Jeffrey R. Roberts, Industrial Risk Insurers, MS [I]
Rep. Industrial Risk Insurers
Kim L. Sayre, Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, IN [U]
Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section
Steven A. Schmit, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
Robert V. Scholes, Firemanís Fund Insurance Co., CA [I]
James H. Smith, Central Alarm Systems, TX [IM]
Sean P. Titus, Fike Corporation, MO [M]
Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Associates
David A. Wescott, Instant Signal & Alarm Co., Inc., MA [IM]
Rep. Professional Alarm Services Organizations of North America
Alternates
John K. Guhl, California State Fire Marshal, CA [E]
(Voting Alt. to IAFC Rep.)
Nathaniel M. Johnson, City of Laconia Fire Department, NH [E]
(Alt. to D. M. Aiken)
Eugene A. Monaco, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]
(Alt. to F. J. Tokarz)
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility
for documents on the proper configuration, performance, installation, and
operation of public fire alarm reporting systems. The Committee scope shall
be limited to systems that use parallel telephone, series telephone, coded,
or code-voice networks which utilize wire and/or radio frequency (RF)
technologies, to provide any combination of manual or auxiliary fire alarm
service.
Reporting of alarms by voice over the public switched telephone network
utilizing the Universal Emergency Number 9-1-1, or any other telephone
number that can be dialed, is outside the scope of this Committee.
Report of the Committee on
Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm Systems
(SIG-HOU)
Alternates
Daniel T. Gottuk, Chair
Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE]
Joe Achak, Fire Sentry Corporation, CA [M]
(Alt. to S. P. Titus)
J. Robert Boyer, Edwards Systems Technology, Inc., NJ [M]
(Alt. to E. P. Reid)
Noura Milardo, FM Global, MA [I]
(Alt. to P. F. Crowley)
Isaac I. Papier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to S. A. Schmit)
Frank J. Tokarz, Monaco Enterprises, Inc., WA [M]
(Alt. to E. A. Monaco)
Richard A. Wheeler, Central Alarm Systems, TX [IM]
(Alt. to J. H. Smith)
Dennis R. Yanek, ADT Security Systems, NJ [M]
(Alt. to C. Erichsen)
Walter F. Schuchard, Vice Chair
Pauleyís Island, SC [SE]
Daniel L. Andrus, Secretary
Salt Lake City Fire Department, UT [E]
H. Wayne Boyd, U.S. Safety & Engineering Corporation, CA [M]
Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.
Ronald M. Brave, Snow Country Development LLC, CO [U]
Rep. National Association of Home Builders
David E. Christian, Gentex Corporation, MI [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Manuelita E. David, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [SE]
S. Chester Jones, Bryan, TX [SE]
Joseph L. Lynch, III, City of Irondale Fire Department, AL [E]
Jeffrey L. Okun, Nuko Security, Inc., LA [IM]
John R. Pacelli, Gentex Corporation, MI [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
John L. Parssinen, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
Larry Ratzlaff, Kidde Safety, IL [M]
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the installation and operation of off-premises signaling systems,
including the signal-receiving facility and the communications between the
protected premises and the off-premises signal-receiving facility.
Report of the Committee on
Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-TMS)
Alternates
Timothy M. Soverino, Chair
Nantucket Fire Department, MA [E]
Gail M. Essen, Interactive Technologies, Inc. (ITI), MN [M]
(Alt. to J. R. Pacelli)
Paul E. Patty, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to J. L. Parssinen)
J. Brooks Semple, Smoke/Fire Risk Management Inc., VA [SE]
(Alt. to W. F. Schuchard)
Mark L. Rochholz, Secretary
Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]
Brooks H. Baker, III, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL [U]
Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering
Charles H. Berry, Baltimore VA Medical Center, MD [U]
Jeffrey R. Brooks, SimplexGrinnell, MA [M]
Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
Robert E. Butchko, Siemens Fire Safety, NJ [M]
Charles M. Cope, Industrial Risk Insurers, NC [I]
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the performance, installation, operation, and use of single- and
multiple-station alarms and household alarm systems for fire warning.
297
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Rep. Industrial Risk Insurers
Scott D. Corrin, University of California-Riverside, CA [U]
Larry R. Dischert, ADT Security Services, Inc., FL [M]
Scott R. Edwards, GENTEX Corporation, MI [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Randy P. Edwards, The RJA Group, Inc., MA [SE]
David L. Foster, Insurance Services Office, Inc., NJ [I]
Elaine B. Gall, Virginia State Fire Marshals Office, VA [E]
Rep. International Fire Marshals Association
Scott Grieb, Fire Concepts, Inc., IL [I]
Rep. Kemper Insurance Companies
John F. Gudmundson, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT]
William E. Johannsen, AFA Protective Systems, Inc., NJ [IM]
Robert H. Kelly, Fire Defense Equipment Company Inc., MI [IM]
J. David Kerr, Plano Fire Department, TX [E]
Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section
David E. Kipley, Duke Engineering & Services, IL [U]
Rep. Edison Electric Institute
Chuck Koval, General Services Administration, WA [U]
Gene A. LaValle, Interlogix, GA [M]
Michael J. Reeser, Santa Rosa Fire Equipment Service Inc., CA [M]
Rep. California Automatic Fire Alarm Association Inc.
Jeffrey L. Robinson, Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation, SC [U]
George E. Seymour, Fire Protection Service, Inc., TX [IM]
Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, Inc.
Frank L. Van Overmeiren, FP&C Consultants, Inc., IN [SE]
This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the individual Technical
Committees. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative
votes, can be found in the report.
This Report has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical
Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life
and Property, which consists of 13 voting members; of whom 12 voted
affirmatively, and 1 abstained (Sievers).
Mr. Sievers abstained stating:
“I vote “abstain” because I did not participate in any of the discussions and
therefore felt it would not be appropriate for me to vote one way or the other.”
Mr. Smith voted Affirmatively stating:
“Proposal 72-145 Verification of Compliant Installation is not in compliance
with the NFPA Manual of Style.
The opening words of 1-7.2.3.1, “where required ...” do not represent
a mandatory requirement. NFPA Manual of Style 1.2.1.1 states that ìall
nonmandatory or informational text shall appear either in Annex A or as a
separate annex.”
NFPA Manual of Style 2.3.3.1 further states that ìwhere a sentence in a code
or standard does not contain a mandatory requirement, it shall be rewritten to
include a mandatory requirement or that sentence shall be moved to the annex
or deleted.”
Alternates
Merton W. Bunker, Jr., Rolf Jensen & Associates, VA [SE]
(Alt. to R. P. Edwards)
Gaylon Claiborne, Master Protection Corp. DBA FireMaster, CA [M]
(Voting Alt. to FSSA Rep.)
Todd Gustafson, Fire Control Instruments, Inc., MO [M]
(Alt. to S. R. Edwards)
Thomas P. Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc., FL [M]
(Alt. to J. R. Brooks)
Jeffrey Heidelberg, Kemper Insurance Companies, TX [I]
( Alt. to S. Grieb)
Vic Humm, Vic Humm & Associates, TN [SE]
(Alt. to F. L. Van Overmeiren)
Peter A. Larrimer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U]
(Alt. to C. H. Berry)
Joseph B. McCullough, ADT Security Services, Inc., CO [M]
(Alt. to L. R. Dischert)
Robert Trexler McGinnis, Westinghouse Savannah River Co., SC [U]
(Alt. to J. L. Robinson)
Bahman Mostafazadeh, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT]
(Alt. to J. F. Gudmundson)
Dale Woodin, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, IL [U]
(Alt. to B. H. Baker)
Staff Liaison: Lee F. Richardson
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for
documents on the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their
components, and the interface equipment.
These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was
balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership
may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.
The Report of the Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of
Life and Property is presented for adoption:
The Reports were prepared by the:
•Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of
Life and Property (SIG-AAC)
•Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN)
• Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems (SIGIDS)
• Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire Alarm Systems
(SIG-NAS)
• Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems (SIGPRO)
• Technical Committee on Public Fire Reporting Systems (SIG-PRS)
• Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-HOU)
•Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-SSS)
• Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems
(SIG-TMS)
298
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #118)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-1-(Chapter 1 (2002 ed. Chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4)) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter
Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts
the Committee Action as modified by the action on Comment 72-4.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 1-3.1 of the
Recommendation of Proposal 72-1h be revised to reflect the actions
taken by Proposal 72-419 and Proposal 72-5 as well as by Comment 72-7.
Revise Section 1.3.1 to read as follows:
1.3.1 {1999 1-3.1}
Fire alarm systems shall be classified as follows:
(1) Household fire alarm systems
(2) Protected premises fire alarm systems
(3) Supervising station fire alarm systems
a. Central station fire alarm systems
b. Remote supervising station fire alarm systems
c. Proprietary supervising station systems
(4) Public Fire Reporting Systems
a. Auxiliary fire alarm systems - Local energy type
b. Auxiliary fire alarm systems - Shunt type
The Technical Correlating Committee is unwilling to “make it perfectly
clear that systems at the protected premises, with the exception of any
remote signaling transmitters and connections thereto, are expressly
outside the Scope of Chapter 5 and/or Chapter 6.” The work load of
developing requirements has been divided among Technical Committees.
However, fire alarm systems are applied in the field holistically. Such
application, on occasion, may require very close coordination between
the requirements of the several chapters that constitute the National Fire
Alarm Code. It the responsibility of the Technical Correlating Committee
to make certain that such coordination takes place in a professional
and technically accurate manner. To this end, the Technical Correlating
Committee desires to foster a spirit of cooperation between the Technical
Committees.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered to correlate with the action
taken by the Technical Committee on Public Fire reporting Systems on
Proposal 72-419. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a
Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes
(Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating
Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee rejects the text proposed
for Section 1.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs that section 1.1
be rewritten to correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE
on Proposal 72-2 and Proposal 72-4. This action shall be considered by the
Committee as a Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes
(Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating
Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee
Action concerning Section 4.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The question of whether or not auxiliary
fire alarms are “systems” or “connections” comes down to a question of
jurisdiction. The Fundamentals Committee feels that the demarcation between
protected premises systems and any kind of remote monitoring arrangement is
clearly defined in Fig. 5-5.1, and that there are basically two types of remote
monitoring arrangements (supervising station or municipal signaling) the
requirements for which are found in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.
The Fundamentals committee defers to the other chapters with respect to
whether they want to call their respective jurisdictions “connections” or
“systems,” but requests that the Technical Correlating Committee make it
perfectly clear that systems at the protected premises, with the exception
of any remote signaling transmitters and connections thereto, are expressly
outside the Scope of Chapter 5 and/or Chapter 6.
The Technical Correlating Committee should refer to the committee action
on Comment 72-4(Log #43) regarding the Chapter Scope.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
299
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
KIRBY: I agree that the decision whether to call it a “connection” or
a “system” resides somewhere other than the Fundamentals Technical
Committee. However, if it were the prerogative of Fundamentals, I would
vigorously argue that it is a “connection”. An auxiliary “system” is a
throwback to the time when the shunt loop of a shunt type master box was
installed to close contact devices within a building and the “system” truly was
auxiliary to the 100-mil municipal system. If this is the intent of a definition
of an “auxiliary system”, it should say so. If the system within the protected
premises is connected to the 100-mil municipal alarm system via a local
energy master box, as is the case 99.9% of the time, the term “connection” is
more appropriate.
————————————————(Log #162)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-2-(Chapter 1 [2002 ed Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Rules Governing Committee Projects because the revised
text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of style”
justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons:
The Committee Action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The changes in the proposal that go beyond
NFPA Manual of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the
recommendation of the proposal or are identified* by reference to other
proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes are supported in the
substantiation of Proposal 72-1h or in the individual proposals.
The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes
made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating
Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all
changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and
simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public.
Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by
a bold reference to the public proposal number.
The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with
such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of
potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes
in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the
committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.
*(Add the use of legislative text where used).
The committee recommends that the printing of the 2002 edition of the Code
indicate code changes through the use of vertical lines in the margin and a
cross-reference table.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
KIRBY: I am voting to affirm the committee’s action so as to not throw
out the baby with the bath water. The submitter is, in my judgment, correct;
there have been many changes rolled into this one proposal by the technical
committee. In the future, it would be far easier to deal with multiple changes
if they were separated into individual proposals, not lumped into one.
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #323)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-3-(Chapter 1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.12 (New)]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Add the old Alarm Verification from 3-8.3.2.3.1 of
the 1999 Edition.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is commonly used. I believe it was deleted by
mistake and should be listed with presignal and positive alarm.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material is outside of the scope of the
Chapter 1 Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
GAUVIN: I do not agree with the committee statement that the material
is outside the scope of the Chapter 1 Committee. The title of Section 4.3 is
System Functions. It describes how system features are intended to operate
such as Presignal, Positive Alarm Sequence, etc. The committee may have
incorrectly based their comment on the assumption that alarm verification
is a function of the initiating device, and therefore, this would belong to the
Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems? In fact,
in addressable analog systems the alarm verification is typically a function
of the control panel. Therefore, the submitter was correct in recommending
alarm verification be included in Section 4.3.
explicitly prohibited is going too far.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the submitter is already
covered by the material in sections 1.2.3 and 1.5.3 in Proposal 72-1h. The
committee is rejecting the comment in order to make it clear that it does not
agree with the language in Proposal 72-8.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #270)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————-
(Log #43)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-4-(1-2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-4
RECOMMENDATION: Relocate the text from the original proposal, as
modified by the technical committee in the ROP, to new section 1-2.3.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. As noted by the Technical Correlating Committee,
the Technical Committee inappropriately placed this text in the Scope section
of the standard.
B. The intent of this proposal is to make the intended application of the
standard clear to users; not to modify the scope.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-7-(1-3.1 [2002 Ed. 1.3.1]) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
Change item (1) of 1.3.1 to include single-and multiple-station alarms as
follows:
1.3.1 Fire alarm systems shall be classified as follows:
(1) Single-and multiple-station alarms and household fire warning alarm
systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: The change more accurately reflects the division of
systems that are addressed by the different chapters within 72. The household
chapter is now Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire
Alarm Systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee does not accept the addition of the wording: “Single-and
multiple-station alarms and”, and accepts the remainder of the comment.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Single-and multiple-station alarms do not
constitute fire alarm systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #289)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #135)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-5-(1-2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-2
RECOMMENDATION: Relocate the text from the original proposal, as
modified by the technical committee in the ROP, to new section 1-2.3.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. As noted by the Technical Correlating Committee,
the Technical Committee inappropriately placed this test in the Scope section
of the standard.
B. The intent of this proposal is to make the intended application of the
standard clear to users; not to modify the scope.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-8-(1-3.1 [2002 Ed. 1.3.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read ad follows:
Change to Accept in Principle with the following change:
(1) Household fire warning alarm systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: The proper term is “household” fire alarm systems.
This is substantiated by Chapter 1 accepting a new definition for this in
Proposal 72-39, as well as Chapter 8 accepting Proposal 72-463 which uses
this term in the title.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #1)
Committee: SIG-HOU
————————————————(Log #64)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-6-(1-2.4 (New) ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-8
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 1-2.4 and new Appendix
paragraph A-1.2.4 as follows:
*1-2.4 Interpretation
Failure of the code to explicitly allow, or to establish specific requirements
for, any particular approach, arrangement, method or technology that
achieves the performance objectives of this code shall not be interpreted as a
prohibition thereof.
A-1.2.4 The code intends to encourage innovative approaches and new
technologies, within the limitations of the required performance.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal has been modified from the ROP
text, pursuant to the committee discussion, to eliminate the implication that
anything that is not prohibited should necessarily be allowed. While the
committee clearly does not intend to ban innovation and/or new technologies
by omission, it was pointed out that blanket acceptance of anything that’s not
72-9-(1-4 Area, Living) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-11
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the definition or rework it to take out
closets, bathrooms etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: If this definition is left as is, Chapter 8 will require
smoke alarms in closets, bathrooms etc. in hotels and motels (8-1.4.1.2.2) and
I don’t believe that was ever the intent of the Life Safety Code from where the
requirement was extracted. Although a storage room may be an occupiable
space, I don’t believe it is a normally occupied space.
Please note that the Life Safety Code pulled that definition into the LSC in
the 2000 edition (extraction policy) and have yet to rework the requirements
in the LSC chapter. The 1997 edition of the LSC did not intend smoke alarms
in bathrooms and closets and I don’t believe that the 2000 edition consciously
made the change either. The Life Safety Code even has an annex note that
cautions placing smoke alarms too close to the bathrooms and kitchens, while
this definition actually requires that the same areas be protected.
Does the committee wish to extract from NFPA 101 a definitiion that would
essentially pull in an errant requirement?
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the submitter’s
request and the definition already excludes the areas of concern.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
300
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #290a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-10-(1-4 Area, Living) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-11
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for these areas. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
designated as a certificated system.
SUBSTANTIATION: The long standing, well accepted and reasonable
right of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to define what is acceptable or
“Certified” should not be eliminated. As the local official with responsibility
for verifying code compliance in the local jurisdiction, the Authority Having
Jurisdiction is uniquely qualified to make this judgment. There should be no
confusion about the fact that the local Authority Having Jurisdiction has the
authority to accept that a system or company meets the requirements of the
code.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter
that the AHJ has the right to define what is acceptable. However,
“certification” and “approval” are two different concepts and certification has
been a proven method to ensure code compliance. Certification is a unique
process by which a listing organization verifies continuing compliance with
the minimum requirements of this Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #252)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————-
(Log #66)
Committee: SIG-PRS
72-11-(1-4 Auxiliary Fire Alarm System, Parallel Telephone Type) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-13
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. If this type of
connection is no longer included in the code, all references to it need to be
deleted. For example Table 9-15.4.2 and Table 9-15.4.3. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee has clarified its position as
requested by the Technical Correlating Committee. Parallel telephone type
auxiliary fire alarm systems are no longer used and the table references have
been deleted. Refer to the committee action on 72-321a (Log #CC4).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher
————————————————(Log #290b)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-12-(1-4 Building, Apartment) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-18
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
72-14-(1-4 Control Unit [2002 ed. 3-3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-23
RECOMMENDATION: Delete definition of control unit.
Control Unit. A system component that monitors inputs and controls outputs
through various types of circuits.
SUBSTANTIATION: This definition was previously replaced by Fire Alarm
Control Unit.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term control unit is not limited to use
exclusively as a fire alarm control unit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #290c)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-15-(1-4 Day-Care Home) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-24
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #290d)
Committee: SIG-HOU
————————————————(Log #280)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-13-(1-4 Certification) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-19a
RECOMMENDATION: Modify definition of “Certification” to read as
follows:
Certification. A systematic program that uses randomly selected followup inspections of the certificated systems installed under the program that
allows the listing organization to verify that a fire alarm system complies with
all the requirements of this code. A system installed under such a program
is identified by the issuance of a certificate or approved by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction to meet the minimum requirements of the standard and is
301
72-16-(1-4 Dormitory) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-25
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #67)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-17-(1-4 Evacuation Signaling Zone) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-31a
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems for correlation. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Add a title to the definition as follows: “Evacuation Signaling Zone.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To comply with the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #291)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-18-(1-4 Evacuation Signaling Zone) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-31a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
Continue to accept with the following editorial change:
1-4* Evacuation Signaling Zone. A discrete area of a building... (Remainder
as is).
A.1.4 Evacuation Signaling Zone. Evacuation signaling zones can be as
small as... (Remainder as is).
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a simple editorial repair to an acceptable
proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This action should be referred to the
Fundamentals Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #200)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-19-(1-4 Fire Alarm Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-32
RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the committee action and suggest
adding the definition by extraction, which is an acceptable action in the
Manual of Style. It is acceptable to have a definition in multiple locations,
especially if it’s extracted.
An Authority doing a fire alarm system final acceptance would not have to
have an NEC with him/her to discern what - CI cable is intended for. We
believe this is helpful information and should be included in NFPA 72. The
term is used several places within NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In accordance with 1-5.5.4 the wiring
requirements for fire alarm systems are covered in the National Electrical
Code. Section 760.3 of the NEC contains a definition of “Circuit Integrity
(CI)” cable and it is not necessary to repeat this definition in NFPA 72.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: While there may be a definition for CI Cable within NFPA 70,
I do not see that it is duplication to also have the definition within NFPA
72, The National Fire Alarm Code. Why must we always send the designer
hopping from one NFPA Standard to another in order for them to obtain a
design answer?
————————————————-
72-20-(1-4 Fire Alarm Circuit Integrity (CI) Cable
) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-32
RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal 72-32.
SUBSTANTIATION: Accept 72-32 in this code to clarify the distinction
between the three basic methods of providing 2-hour fire protection (Circuit
Integrity (CI) Cable, a 2-hour rated cable system, routing the cable through
a 2-hour rated enclosure) and eliminate the mistaken belief that “CI” cable is
the same as a 2-hour fire rated system. Including this definition in this code
will emphasize the fact that only “CI” cable can be marked as “CI” Cable and
be installed per the National Electrical Code WITHOUT the need for conduit,
special connectors or special fire barriers.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-19 (Log #200).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: While there may be a definition for CI Cable within NFPA 70,
I do not see that it is duplication to also have the definiton within NFPA
72, The National Fire Alarm Code. Why must we always send the designer
hopping from one NFPA Standard to another in order for them to obtain a
design answer?
(Log #264)
Committee: SIG-PRO
302
(Log #201)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-21-(1-4 Fire Warning Equipment) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-33a
RECOMMENDATION: Accept in Principle by changing the term to
Household Fire Warning Equipment.
SUBSTANTIATION: The term “Fire Warning Equipment” is too broad and
will result in persons arguing that the testing criteria for household fire alarm
systems should be in Chapter 11 instead of Chapter 10, because of Chapter 11
anonymity.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the submitter’s
request and rejected the comment because the substantiation is no longer
applicable. The Technical Committee has received direction from the
Technical Correlating Committee to move all testing and maintenance
requirements to Chapter 10.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #290e)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-22-(1-4 Guest Room) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-35
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #290f)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-23-(1-4 Guest Suite) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-36
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
(Log #208)
Committee: SIG-IDS
————————————————(Log #290g)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-24-(1-4 Hotel) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-37
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
72-27-(1-4 Manual Fire Alarm) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-43a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Committee Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We strongly disagree with the committee
substantiation. Fire alarm industry consistency has already been addressed.
The term “station” was changed to “box” during the 1993-1996 cycle of
NFPA 72.
NFPA 170, “ ...Symbols” refers to this as a “box”. NFPA 1/UFC Fire
Prevention Code and NFPA 5000 NFPA Building Code, both refer to these
initiating devices as “boxes”, not stations. Other building and fire codes
refer to these initiating devices as “boxes”, not stations. Changing this term
to “station” without unilaterally changing every building and fire code at the
same time will cause confusion and inconsistency in the application of the
code. It has taken us the last 6 years to coordinate all codes to use the term
“box”; during which time, not one fire alarm industry member has voiced
opposition to the change at Technical Committee meetings or public hearings.
No data was provided by the committee for public review to support their
substantiation. There were no audits or polls conducted that solicited an
industry wide response/reason to change this term back to “station”.
This change will have a considerable financial impact on all persons
publishing documentation of any kind, which refer to “box”, without adding
any benefit to the change to “station”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
————————————————-
(Log #290h)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-25-(1-4 Lodging or Rooming House) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-42
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #68)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-26-(1-4 Manual Fire Alarm) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-43a
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee
on Initiating Devices for action. This action shall be considered by the
Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee to act on the proposal. The Technical
Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm Systems rejects the action of
Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems on Proposal
72-43a. Refer to the committee action on Comment 72-27 (Log #208).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
303
(Log #292)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-28-(1-4 Monitoring For Integrity (Electrical Supervision)) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-44
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept or Accept in
Principle with change.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is inaccurate. The comment,
“...a short on...will not create a trouble condition” is not relevant to the
proposal. The proposal states that a trouble condition which occurs on a
failure of a circuit “...which would prevent their intended operation.” A short
circuit does not “prevent” the operation of an initiating device circuit. Using
the short circuit analogy is an invalid reason to reject this proposal. Circuits
intended to report a trouble condition (versus an alarm condition) on a wireto-wire short are clearly shown in Table 3-5.
The need for this definition outweighs the committee’s concerns. The
NFAC took the first step in the right direction by changing the term used for
our meaning of “supervision” to “monitoring integrity”. Many codes and
standards refer to “supervision” which does not always properly reflect what
we want provided. When we mean “electrical supervision” we now refer to
“monitoring integrity”. However, we’ve been asked to provide a definition
for monitoring integrity by code officials. Without a definition to describe
what this is, most prefer the use of the term “electrical supervision” because
they feel they know what this (implies) requires; even though it too is not
defined.
I urge the committee to reconsider the proposal and develop an acceptable
definition. The NFPA 5000 Building Code, Section 11.3.2, has accepted a
reference to “electrical supervision”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are other ways of monitoring the
integrity of circuits or paths, and the introduction of “electrical supervision”
would potentially be limiting. Section 1.5.8 provides specific requirements for
monitoring integrity.
The definition is inherent in the requirements of the code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
KIRBY: I agree with the submitter; this change is needed for correlation
with NFPA 5000 and the other model building codes.
————————————————(Log #34)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-29-(1-4 Noncoded Signal) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the definition
of the term “Noncoded Signal” be deleted to comply with the NFPA Manual
of Style. The term “Noncoded Signal” is not used in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-45
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The purpose of 1-4 is to define terms used in the
standard, to aid in interpreting the requirements in which they are used.
B. If a term is not used in a requirement of the standard, it shouldn’t be
included in 1-4. The committee frequently rejects proposed definitions
because the terms are not used in the standard.
C. Definitions like this are properly handbook material.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reconsidered as requested
and reaffirms its previous action and statement.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #CC300)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-29a-(1-4 Occupiable Area) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324, 72-331 & 72-334
RECOMMENDATION: The committee adds the following definition and
Annex material to (existing 1999 edition) Section 1-4.
Occupiable Area - The spaces of a facility that may be occupied or used by
the facility occupants as part of the building function or to support building
operations and maintenance. This includes, but is not limited to: storage
areas; mechanical and electrical equipment areas; walk-in closets or janitor’s
rooms; restrooms; conference rooms; individual offices; etc.
Annex Material
Occupiable Area - The space above a suspended ceiling that does not have
permanent walkways or in a crawlspaces or attics that do not contain building
support equipment is not considered an occupiable space. If a large attic or
crawlspace contains building support equipment in one area only, notification
appliances would only be required in the area of the building support
equipment where the potential exists for building maintenance personnel
being present for equipment maintenance.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee chose not to delete the term
“occupiable area” as requested in comment 72-277. The committee chose
instead to add a definition of “occupiable area”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
(Log #290j)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-32-(1-4 Occupancy, Residential Board and Care) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-48
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for this occupancy. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #125)
Committee: SIG-SSS
————————————————(Log #69)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-30-(1-4 Nonrequired System) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-46a
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems for correlation. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee
and takes the following action:
In the the title of the definition of “Nonrequired Systems” in Chapter 3 of
Proposal 72-1h, add “(Voluntary)” after “Nonrequired”.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-33-(1-4 Prime Contractor) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-50
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement on this proposal does not
address the substantiation provided.
B. It is not within the scope of NFPA 72 to define required contractual
relationships between supervising station companies and their subscribers.
C. It is not acceptable under the Manual of Style for definitions to include
requirements; i.e., for prime contractors to be listed companies. The
requirements the committee is concerned about are found in the body of the
standard anyway.
D. The proposed, revised definition is accurate and resolves the problems
cited. It is also in scope, and in accordance with the Manual of Style.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the action taken
on Proposal 72-50. The existing definition more clearly describes the
responsibilities of a prime contractor. The recommended revised definition
does not include the important elements that currently exist, including a) the
contractual relationship between the prime contractor and the
subscriber and b) the fact that the prime contractor must be a listed company.
Further, the existing definition complies with the current Manual of Style.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #290i)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-31-(1-4 Occupancy, Residential) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-47
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal to add this definition.
SUBSTANTIATION: All of these definitions are extracted from NFPA
LS-101. There is little or no need for them to be transcribed into NFPA
72 just to create a single-source document. I believe that these definitions
as well as the extracted text they refer to in Chapter 11 are unnecessary in
NFPA 72, especially if it is to be considered adoptable by states who adopt
“other” building codes. I have submitted a separate comment to delete the
extracted material from Chapter 11 as well. If the committee agrees with this
substantiation, they will need to take both actions for consistency.
304
(Log #182)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-34-(1-4 Supervising Station Fire Alarm System (New) ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-55
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following definition:
Supervising Station Fire Alarm System - A fire alarm system consisting
solely of transmitters at one or more protected premises connected to
receiving equipment at a supervising station, or that portion of a protected
premises fire alarm system that transmits signals from the protected premises
to a supervising station, including the receiving equipment at the supervising
station, the transmitter(s) at the protected premises, and the interconnecting
signaling paths. For a proprietary system, the protected premises control unit
and the receiving equipment at the supervising station may be one in the same.
See also the definitions for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System, Central Station
Fire Alarm System, Proprietary Fire Alarm System, and Remote Station Fire
Alarm System, as well as Figure 5-5.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. This comment is modified from the original
proposal based on the committee discussion and committee statements
on proposal 72-55 and the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
proposal 72-138.
B. If the committee reviews the definitions for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System,
Central Station Fire Alarm System, Proprietary Fire Alarm System, and
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Remote Station Fire Alarm System, they will note that these definitions define
their respective systems by function, but do not address the issue of where
protected premises systems end and supervising station systems begin; hence
the need for figure 5-5.1.
C. It is important to clarify where the protected premises system ends and
a supervising station system begins in order to interpret various existing
requirements that have nothing to do with the division of scope between
Chapters 3 and 5, such as the standby power requirements in 1-5.2.6. For
example, does the current 60 hour standby power requirement for supervising
station systems mean the protected premises portion of the system needs
60 hours of standby power, or just the supervising station transmitter?
This definition would clarify that the 60 hour requirement applied to the
supervising station transmitter only.
D. The proposed definition does not conflict with any existing text but
rather, integrates the various pieces found elsewhere in the standard.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the action taken
on Proposal 72-55. There are three kinds of supervising station fire alarm
systems, each of which the committee believes is correctly defined. Further,
the jurisdictional question between the Protected Premises Technical
Committee and the Supervising Stations Technical Committee has been
clearly defined by Figure 5-5.1 Division of Scope in the 1999 edition and is
shown in Section 8.5.1 in the committee action of proposal 72-362.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #70)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-35-(1-4 System Owner (New) ) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word
“may” be replaced with the word “can” in the committee action text of
Comment 72-35 in accordance with the NFPA Manual of Style.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-56
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Committee reconsider this Proposal and address the submitter’s concerns.
The definition of “ownership” presently in the code does not address the
submitter’s concerns. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a
Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Add appendix material to be associated with the term “ownership” to read as
follows:
Inspection testing and maintenance is the responsibility of the system owner
or may be transferred by contract. The system owner can include but is not
limited to a landlord, tenant, financing company or an alarm company.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. The committee
reaffirms its action on Proposal 72-56. The current definition of ownership
includes property under legal control by the occupant. The system owner can
include but is not limited to a landlord, tenant, financing company or an alarm
company. Inspection testing and maintenance is the responsibility of the
system owner or may be transferred by contract.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #355)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-36-(1-4 System Owner (New)) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-56
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of ownership comes up constantly and
this definition should be incorporated into the standard. Authorities Having
Jurisdiction have a constant problem dealing with the issue of ownership and
this would assist them in performing their duties. We also agree with the
Technical Correlating Committee comment.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and
Statement on Comment 72-35 (Log #70).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(Log #33)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-37-(1-4 Tactile Notification Appliance) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-57
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The purpose of 1-4 is to define terms used in the
standard, to aid in interpreting the requirements in which they are used.
B. If a term is not used in a requirement of the standard, it shouldn’t be
included in 1-4. The committee frequently rejects proposed definitions
because the terms are not used in the standard.
C. Definitions like this are properly handbook material.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reconsidered as requested
and reaffirms its previous action and statement.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #209)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-38-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring Panel) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-38 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The material is not within the scope of this technical
committee and is referred to the Technical Committee on Protected
Premises Fire Alarm Systems.
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-60
RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept in Principle. Add an Asterisk to
1-4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. Move the text of this proposal to the annex as a
new paragraph to this annex section and revise it to read as follows:
Waterflow Monitoring Panel. Another example of a Fire Alarm Control Unit
is a Sprinkler Alarm Panel, which is a system component that receives inputs
from automatic fire detectors (inclusive of waterflow switches) and valve
supervising devices and transmits these signals to a supervising station. A
Sprinkler Alarm Panel is intended to include all requirements that apply to a
Fire Alarm Control Unit; for example; power supply requirements, protection
of the control and “ ...at least one manual box.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the term “Waterflow Monitoring Panel”
is not used in the document, the committee statement implies that the
proponent’s concerns are satisfied because a waterflow switch is an automatic
fire detector therefore his proposal is unnecessary. If this were the case, the
proponent would have wasted his time submitting this proposal. The fact is
that most Authorities Having Jurisdiction do not recognize a Sprinkler Alarm
Panel (Waterflow Monitoring Panel) as a parallel to a Fire Alarm Control
Unit. They tell us, “ ...it’s different...because it’s only monitoring a sprinkler
system and not (necessarily) notifying occupants within the protected
structure.”
Adding this text to the annex is a step in the right direction to correct this
error and oversight, ensuring that systems are designed properly and contain
all of the necessary components and operations.
NFPA 170, which is in the same cycle, has approved the symbol for
Sprinkler Alarm Panel (SAP, see proposal 170-15, Log 11) submitted by Mr.
Jim Mundy representing the Automatic Fire Alarm Association. Mr. Mundy’s
proposal is consistent with the intent of this proposal to establish some
recognition of this “thing” that monitors suppression system components.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Add an Asterisk to 1.4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. Add the following text as:
A-1.4 Fire Alarm Control Unit. A panel which monitors the status of
waterflow switches, sprinkler supervisory devices, or both, is one example of
a Fire Alarm Control Unit.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The annex material addresses the
submitters’ concerns.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #345)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-39-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring Panel) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-60
RECOMMENDATION: I support the comments submitted by NEMA on
and for 72-60.
SUBSTANTIATION: I refer to my original substantiation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See commitee action and statement on
Comment 72-38 (Log #209).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
————————————————-
305
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #346)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-40-(1-4 Waterflow Monitoring System) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-61
RECOMMENDATION: I support the comments submitted by NEMA on
and for 72-60. They also apply to 72-61.
SUBSTANTIATION: I refer to my original substantiation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See commitee action and statement on
Comment 72-38 (Log #209).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #187)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-41-(1-5.1.2 [2002 Ed. 4.3.1, A.4.4.3.7.1(d)]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jerry Martocci, Johnson Controls Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
4.3.1 Except where specifically indicated elsewhere in this code, equipment
constructed and installed in conformity with this code shall be listed for the
purpose for which it used. fire alarm service.
Add the following new annex material:
A.4.4.3.7.1(d) Priorities should follow the basic priority scheme of Life
Safety Groups, Property Safety Groups, Supervisory and Trouble Groups and
all others as follows with Priority 0 as the highest priority:
SUBSTANTIATION: The revisions in paragraph 4.3.1 are being proposed
as a result of proposed revision in Chapter 6, paragraph 6.8.1.4. The annex
material currently existing in Chapter 6 more appropriately belongs in Chapter
4 where signal prioritization is defined.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiation has been provided to
indicate specific problems with current listing programs.
Regarding the proposed additional material for the Annex, the committee
does not feel that the material, as presented, will not provide guidance to users
of the Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
DECKER: There appears to be a typographical error in the last line of the
substantiation, resulting in a double negative. I believe the second sentence
should read: “Regarding the proposed additional material for the Annex, the
committee does not feel that the material, as presented, will provide guidance
to the users of the Code.”
————————————————-
Priority
Alarm or Event Description
Life Safety Group (0-39)
5
Automatic Fire Alarm
8
Life Safety Process Alarm
11
Manual Fire Alarm
14
Other Higher Priority Life Safety
19
Medical Alarm
22
Hold Up and Duress Alarm
25
Panic Alarm
28
Life Safety PreAlarm Alert
31
Other Lower Priority Life Safety
Property Safety Group (40-79)
45
Burglar Alarm and Forced Door Alarm
48
Security Alarm
51
Other Higher Priority Property Safety
60
Watchman Tour Alarm
63
Property Process Alarm
66
Door Held Open Alarm
69
Other Lower Priority Property Safety
Supervisory & Trouble Group (80-139)
85
Fire Supervision (tamper)
88
Security Supervision (tamper)
91
Other Supervisory
100
Fire Trouble (equipment failure)
103
Security & Burglar Trouble (equipment failure)
106
Communication Equipment Failure Trouble
109
Process Trouble
112
Energy Alarm
115
Other Failure
124
Communication Equipment Warning Trouble
127
Early Warning Alert
130
Energy Warning
133
Other Warning
Other Group (140-255)
306
145
Equipment and Industrial Supervision
148
Comfort Alarm
151
Misc. Higher Priority Alerts
160
System Events
163
Misc. Higher Priority Events
172
Life Safety Return to Normal
179
Property Safety Return to Normal
186
Supervisory & Trouble Return to Normal
189
Misc. Return to Normal
198
System Status Active
201
Comfort Warning
204
Misc. Lower Priority Events
213
System Status Normal
216
Comfort Normal
219
Test and Diagnostic Events
222
Misc.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #161)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-42-(1-5.1.2 , A-1-5.1.2) : Accept in Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
*1.5.1.2 Equipment. Fire alarm system components shall be listed and shall
be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions, as
packaged with the equipment from the factory.
A.1.5.1.2 Installation instructions are part of a product’s listing. This
requirement is to ensure, to the extent practical, that the fire alarm system
components are suitable for the application and are installed in the manner
intended by the manufacturer and evaluated by the listing organization.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. This proposal has been revised consistent with the
committee discussion at the ROP meeting. It retires the often debated and
problematic phrase “listed for the purpose for which it is used” and clarifies
the intent of requiring listed equipment.
B. It is clearly not the intent of the standard that listing categories be
established for every possible component in every possible application;
i.e., smoke detectors for “area protection service” vs. “suppression system
releasing service” vs. “elevator recall service,” or that every listing be specific
to fire alarm systems (i.e., wire nuts, electrical tape, ty-wraps, conduit,
junction boxes, batteries, etc.)
C. Nonetheless, the current text of 1.5.1.2 has been widely interpreted, or
misinterpreted as the case may be, to effectively prohibit the use of some
fire alarm components and systems in certain applications for which the
equipment is entirely suitable, and/or to require equipment listed to categories
that do not exist. That is, we already have fire-alarm ty-wraps and it’s not
unusual for an Authority Having Jurisdiction to demand documentation
showing that the standby batteries are listed for fire alarm use. In some
jurisdictions, fire alarm systems monitor smoke detectors, control dampers,
and turn air handlers on and off, while in others NFPA 72 is interpreted
to “require” a listed “smoke control” panel and smoke detectors listed for
“smoke-control service” to do exactly the same thing.
D. As was discussed at the ROP meeting, we have seen a proliferation of
fire-alarm specific listing categories, ranging from ty-wraps to smoke control
panels to UPS and add-on relays, most of which are simply intended to either
prevent 1.5.1.2 from locking specific products out of certain applications or
jurisdictions, or to gain a competitive advantage in a specific market, such
as smoke control. Neither of these objectives has anything to do with the
original intent of 1.5.1.2.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
Add a second sentence to 4.3.1 of Proposal 72-1h to read:
1. “Fire alarm system components shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturers’ installation instructions.”
2. The committee does not accept the proposed wording in the comment for
A.1.5.1.2.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: 1. The wording was revised to maintain
existing requirements, and to incorporate the submitter’s intent of requiring
installation in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions.
2. The proposed Annex material is not necessarily representative of all listing
organizations.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #160)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-43-(1-5.1.2, A-1.5.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following subparagraphs to 1-5.1.2; delete
1.5.3. 1.5.3 is incorporated into proposed 1.5.1.2.3 below.
1.5.1.2.1 Fire alarm control panels and all devices powered by fire alarm
control panels, or from power supplies integral to fire alarm control panels
shall be specifically listed for fire alarm use.
1.5.1.2.2 Fire alarm initiating devices, notification appliances, and
supervising station transmitters shall be specifically listed for fire alarm use
but, except as required by 1.5.1.2.3, shall not be required to be compatibility
listed for use with their associated control unit(s).
1.5.1.2.3 Devices that receive their power from an initiating device circuit or
signaling line circuit, or that communicate via data, shall be specifically listed
for compatibility with the associated control unit(s).
1.5.1.2.4 Supervisory alarm initiating devices shall be electrically compatible
with the associated control equipment, but shall not be required to be
specifically listed for fire alarm use.
1.5.1.2.5 External power supplies and standby batteries providing power to
a fire alarm system or to equipment monitored by a fire alarm system shall
be electrically compatible with the dependent equipment, but shall not be
required to be specifically listed for fire alarm use.
1.5.1.2.6 Fire alarm system components that communicate with or are
monitored or controlled their associated control equipment using unmodulated
voltage, resistance, or dry-contacts shall be electrically compatible therewith,
but shall not be required to be compatibility listed.
1.5.1.2.7 Non-powered components of a fire alarm system, other than
initiating devices, shall be suitable for the intended purpose, but are not
required to be specifically listed for fire alarm use.
307
SUBSTANTIATION: This new text resolves several of the problems
identified in the original proposal substantiation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation does not detail the
reasons for all the changes noted in the comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
GIGANDET: The submitter’s proposal is sound and has merit, and should
be accepted as proposed. It will eliminate many problems in the field for both
the installer and enforcement officials.
————————————————(Log #71)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-44-(1-5.1.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be
located in the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee
and advises that the action on Proposal 72-62a be reported as “Reject”.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
FRABLE: By accepting the direction of the Technical Correlating
Committee, the material in Proposal 72-62a will be moved to the Annex of
the Code. However, I believe that the action taken by the committee will be
contrary to NFPA policy/procedures regarding the endorsement of specific
products and/or services. That fact is, even as written in the Annex, it can
be still perceived by the user of the Code that NFPA is endorsing the NICET
Program.
————————————————-
(Log #210)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-45-(1-5.1.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept, or Accept in Principle, adding
text to require a minimum of 5 years experience for design and move the
examples to the annex.
SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the committee proposal was not to
recommend or endorse programs. It was to set a standard of value. The
Technical Correlating Committee NOTE: “Because NFPA technical
committees do not evaluate specific products or services from specific
vendors, NFPA documents cannot really require the use of specific products
or services within the requirements of the code”, is confusing and misleading.
A) In 1999 we added a reference to - CI cable in the NEC, Article 760,
defined it and described where to use it. Code Making Panel 16 did not
evaluate that specific product, however, it is allowed and required in both the
NEC and NFPA 72. Some will respond to the foregoing this way: “CI cable
is an acceptable alternative to other cables...it is not proprietary.” Correct,
you just described NICET Level III as it applies to the other two examples in
1-5.1.3.
B) “ ...documents cannot really require...” Can they or can’t they? This
subject should be covered in the Regulations Governing Committee Projects,
or another NFPA document and absolute direction should be provided to the
Technical Committee.
C) Suggesting that Technical Committee Members do not evaluate products
or services from specific vendors is an acceptable statement. But stating it
to imply that the members of Chapter 1 are not familiar with NICET is not
acceptable. NICET Fire Alarm Certification was established at the request of
the fire alarm industry as a means to prove competency (through certification)
by a third-party disinterested source. Anyone in the fire alarm industry
knows the NICET program and what it’s done for this industry. To suggest it
be removed from the Code is a step backwards.
Of the 30 voting members on Chapter 1, only 1 voted negative and he is
also aware of NICET. His explanation is what caught the attention of the
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Technical Correlating Committee. It too, is misleading. “ ...endorsement of
the NICET program, which I believe is contrary to NFPA policy.” Is it, or
isn’t it? Another portion of the comment serves to confuse the reader about
NFPA policy and the use of the code to discern qualified persons. “A careful
reading of the note to the definition of “approved” would also indicate that it
is not the intent of the NFPA to endorse or approve any other organizations.”
That’s fine, but this proposal has nothing to do with “approving” qualified
persons and therefore, does not conflict with the approval statement.
Approving is what you do when you have nothing else available and you use
your best judgment to do so. This section lists examples of persons qualified
to design fire alarm systems. It is not the Authority Having Jurisdiction’s
purview to approve which of the 3 qualifications are acceptable. They all are
acceptable as pointed out in Mr. Decker’s Explanation of Negative Vote for
72-63a (CP101) in which he states, “With the proposed mandatory language,
the Authority Having Jurisdiction must accept as qualified an individual with
NICET Level II...” (in this proposal, NICET Level III). Moving them into the
annex will make them examples. THEN, the Authority Having Jurisdiction
will be in a position of approving one of them; but worse yet, some who offers
what he/she thinks is equivalent.
Before the committee chooses which direction to take this proposal, we
strongly suggest you request and obtain the NFPA “policy” that is being
suggested as being violated.
In conclusion, we would also point out that in the last four code cycles
(since the 1990 edition of NFPA 72A) when NICET was first referenced
for inspection, testing and maintenance, not one other certification agency
has proposed to be added to the “qualified” list. We do not see inclusion of
other fire alarm certification programs as reasonable grounds to reject this
committee proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the Proposal
because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment
72-44(Log #71).
The submitters did not provide any suggested wording for incorporating a
minimum of 5 years as a requirement.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
KIRBY: It is important that the reference to the National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies remain in the annex to provide
guidance to the user of NFPA 72 as to what programs are available to
demonstrate competency.
————————————————(Log #253)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-46-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-62a
RECOMMENDATION: Leave asterik in 4.3.2 and add annex material
stating that 4.3.2.1 is a list of qualifications, however individuals may be
deemed qualified by the Authority Having Jurisdiction through other means,
local license, etc.
SUBSTANTIATION: We need qualified individuals performing design
work, but we shouldn’t limit what qualifies an individual. 4.3.2.1 was written
to make it enforceable and that’s the way it needs to be. Nothing in 4.3.2.1
limits an individual to the items listed in 4.3.2.1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal
because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment
72-44(Log #71).
The submitter did not provide any suggested wording.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal
because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment
72-44(Log #71).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #155)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-48-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2.1(3)]) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-48 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”. It
appears that the Technical Committee may have misunderstood the
direction of the Technical Correlating Committee on Comment 72-44.
The Technical Correlating Committee would have no objection to this
example being added to the annex.
SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.3.2.1(3) as follows:
(3) Licensed or registered professional engineer by the state for which the
system is being designed. The professional engineer shall have education and
experience in fire alarm system design.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Code should identify a PE that has education and
experience in fire alarm design as acceptable to perform design.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee cannot accept the proposal
because of the direction by the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment
72-44(Log #71).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #356)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-49-(1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a and 72-63a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject these proposals.
SUBSTANTIATION: These proposals are a state issue and should be dealt
with on a local or state level. The text was better placed in the annex as
guidance to the Authority Having Jurisdiction on suggested qualifications.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Actions on Comments 7244(Log #71), and 72-51(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #360)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #335)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-47-(1-5.1.3 [2002 Ed. 4.3.2.1]) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-47 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”. It
appears that the Technical Committee may have misunderstood the
direction of the Technical Correlating Committee on Comment 72-44.
The Technical Correlating Committee would have no objection to this
example being added to the annex.
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: In 4.3.2.1 add (4) IMSA Municipal Fire Alarm
System Technician.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is another well recognized group that certifies
technicians. It is different from NICET but similar in many ways and has
been included in past editions of NFPA 72.
72-50-(1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4 (2)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64, 72-65, & 72-66
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 1-5.1.3 and 1.5.1.4 as follows:
(2) National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET)
fire alarm certified minimum Level II and/or III.
SUBSTANTIATION: As noted in the Technical Correlating Committee’s
note, this specific entry in the body of NFPA 72 constitutes an endorsement
of this program, exclusively over all others (including IMSA as noted
in Proposals 72-64 [Log 281], 72-65 [Log 378] and 72-66 [Log 436] +
others). Since NFPA 72 does not establish minimum training requirements
(e.g., lesson plans, hours of classroom and/or OTJ training, apprenticeship
programs)., it is inappropriate to list/endorse NICET exclusively in the body
of the standard.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT:
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #72)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-51-(1-5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
308
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.
In Proposal 72-1h, revise 4.3.3 by moving the material shown below to the
Annex as A.4.3.3 The material shown below has also been revised to meet
Manual of Style requirements.
“Examples of qualified personnel include:
(1) Factory trained and certified personnel.
(2) National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET)
fire alarm Level II certified personnel.
(3) Personnel licensed, certified, or approved by a state or local authority.
The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes
only and does not include all available services or programs. Information
concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources
and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or
any of its technical committees.”
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
FRABLE: By accepting the direction of the Technical Correlating
Committee, the material in Proposal 72-63a will be moved to the Annex of
the Code. However, I believe that the action taken by the committee will be
contrary to NFPA policy/procedures regarding the endorsement of specific
products and/or services. That fact is, even as written in the Annex, it can
be still perceived by the user of the Code that NFPA is endorsing the NICET
Program.
NORTON: IMSA was deleted from the 1999 Edition due to staff error and
should be included in this material being moved to the annex.
————————————————(Log #73)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-52-(1-5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
FRABLE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-51.
————————————————-
(Log #74)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-53-(1-5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-65
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72). The committee has reconsidered Proposal 72-65 and upholds
their action to “Reject “ the proposal.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #75)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-54-(1-5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-66
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72). The committee has reconsidered Proposal 72-66 and maintains
their action to “Reject.”
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #211)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-55-(1-5.1.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63a
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the committee proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a repeat of Proposal 72-62a - Log CP102
except for installation qualifications instead of design qualifications, therefore
most of the same comments apply. It is especially disappointing to see so
much attention paid to NICET in Mr. Decker’s reasons for negative vote,
when (based on his personal opinions of NICET) he should have been a whole
lot more concerned about Item (3), which allows a state or local authority to
“approve” installation personnel. Everything stated regarding NICET Level II
personnel applies to Item 3, and worse. At least an individual with a NICET
II certificate has two years of experience. An Item 3 person could have two
weeks of experience as could an Item 1 person. However, someone meeting
Item 1 at least has knowledge of a particular product.
Suggesting that a NICET Level IV certificate entitles (forces an Authority
Having Jurisdiction to accept them) an individual to be qualified to supervise
an installation of equipment they are unfamiliar with is a care tactic. NICET
Level IV individuals who are not trained on “XYZ” equipment are not likely
to suggest that they can supervise an “XYZ” installation...although, it would
probably result in an exceptionally better project even if they did. But this is
not about NICET Level IV individuals.
NICET Level II individuals have a minimum of two years of experience,
training and education. These attributes are verified before a certificate is
issued. The others, (1) and (3) require no tenure. Those are the ones we
should be most concerned about.
Once again, there is no line of organizations waiting to get their certification
program acknowledged and added to the list of qualifications in NFPA 72. It
might be nice if we had to be concerned about maintaining a list.
The fire alarm industry continues to be “black-flagged” by faulty
installations and poor workmanship. It is considerably passed time to
acknowledge the NICET certification program as the industry choice for
third-party certification. It is available in every state. There is no reason not
to embrace this program or any program that is of equivalent value to the fire
alarm industry.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
309
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #212)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-56-(1-5.1.4) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle with the following
recommendations:
A) Change definition 1-4 Shop Drawings to 1-4 Plans and Specifications.
B) Change the definition to read: Drawings and technical data required by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction for approval prior to system installation or
alteration.
C) Change 1-6.1.1* to read: The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall be
notified prior to installation or alteration of equipment or wiring. At it’s its
request, complete information regarding the system or system alterations,
including but not limited to, specifications, shop drawings, battery
calculations and notification appliance circuit voltage drop calculations shall
be submitted for approval.
D) Change A-1-6.1.1 to read: shop drawings Plans and specifications for fire
alarm systems are intended to provide basic information consistent with the
objective of installing a fully operational, code compliant fire alarm system
and to provide the basis for the record drawings required elsewhere in this
code. Approval of shop drawings the plans and specifications is not intended
to imply waiver or modification of any requirements of this code or any other
applicable criteria. Shop drawings Plans and specifications should include,
to an extent commensurate with the extent of the work being performed, floor
plan drawings, riser diagrams (except for systems in single story buildings
single-story buildings), control panel unit field-wiring connections diagrams,
point-to-point intended circuit wiring diagrams and typical wiring diagrams
as described herein: All shop drawings plans should be drawn on sheets of
uniform size and should include the following information:
(1) Name of owner and (if applicable) each occupant.
(2) Location, including street address.
(3) Device legend.
(4) Date.
(5) Building occupancy type.
(6) Building type of construction; e.g., Type V.
(7) System sequence of operations.
Floor plan drawings should be drawn to an indicated scale and should
include the following information:
(6) Room identification or descriptions.
(11) Intended routing of all fire alarm circuits and conductor information.
(12) Ceiling heights.
(13) All beams, joists, soffets or other projections extending more than 12
inches below the ceiling.
(14) Locations of all fire rated walls and smoke barriers.
(15) Locations and descriptions of all fire alarm interfaced (controlled)
equipment.
(16) Locations of all Fire/Smoke or Smoke Dampers.
(17) For addressable systems, provide the address for each device/
component.
Fire alarm system riser diagrams should include the following information:
(5) For addressable systems, provide the address for each device/component.
Control panel unit Wiring diagrams should be provided for all control
equipment...(remainder as shown in the committee action). Typical wiring
diagrams should be provided for all initiating devices, notification appliances,
remote alarm light emmitting diodes (LEDs)...(remainder as shown in the
committee action).
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the addition of material that provides
guidance for plans and submittals but with these recommendations. Some of
the reasons follow:
Change “shop drawings” to Plans and Specifications because it is the term
that NFPA 1/UFC uses to describe this material (requirements) in the Fire
Protection Chapter.
In C) we recommend adding “but not limited to” to allow the Authority
Having Jurisdiction to request necessary information that is not included in
these lists but is needed to provide a complete review.
In D) we recommend changing control panel wiring diagrams to control
unit field-wriing connections so that it is not perceived that internal wiring
diagrams (schematics) of the control unit equipment and modules is required.
Internal diagrams of control units are not necessary to provide a project
review. They are essential for technicians who troubleshoot faults within the
control unit but not for Authority Having Jurisdiction plan approval.
Also in D) we recommend changing point-to-point wiring diagrams to
intended circuit wiring diagrams. Requiring point-to-point diagrams before
the system has been installed and operating requires considerable labor time
for something that is almost assured to be changed during the installation.
Point-to-point diagrams are an important part of the system documentation
for troubleshooting purposes but should be required as part of the as-built
diagrams.
The remaining additions to “plans”, “floor plans” and “riser diagrams”
should be self-explanatory.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces a significant
amount of new material that cannot be adequately reviewed by the committee
at this phase of the cycle.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #357)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-57-(1-5.1.4) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-64
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal as submitted.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the Technical Correlating Committee
comment. This text is better placed in the annex as it currently is.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #254)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-58-(1-5.1.4 [2002 Ed. 4.3.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-63a
RECOMMENDATION: Add an asterik in 4.3.3 and annex information
clearly stating that other methods of qualifications are acceptable.
Add International Municiple Signaling Association IMSA Level II to the list.
SUBSTANTIATION: We need qualified installers. 4.3.3 list some means
of being deemed qualified and allow an Authority Having Jurisdiction to
enforce system installations performed by qualified individuals. However, we
shouldn’t limit it to those listed.
Even though the method of obtaining this certification is different from
NICET certification, it appears to be equal to NICET, Factory Trained, etc.
and should be added. It is a recognized certification program.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #336)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-59-(1-5.1.4 [2002 Ed. 4.3.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-63a
RECOMMENDATION: In 4.3.3 add (4) IMSA Interior Fire Alarm System
Technician.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a well recognized group that certifies
technicians and is similar to NICET. It has been used in previous editions of
NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7251(Log #72).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #340)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-60-(1-5.1.4 & A-1.5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California
Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67
RECOMMENDATION: We support the committee action and the revised
text.
SUBSTANTIATION: Where we support the action and revised text from the
technical committee, we would not be in support of the proposed text that has
been presented by Mr. Jacobs as part of his negative vote. We feel that this
would be too restrictive.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
310
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #278)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-61-(1-5.1.4 and A-1-5.1.4) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Robert Keough, Fairfax,, VA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67
RECOMMENDATION: Add text: type of system or service between
“specification, ...” and “shop drawings” in the new section 1-6.1.1*.
Add text: input/output matrix between “shop drawings, ...” and “battery
calculations” in the new section 1-6.1.1*.
SUBSTANTIATION: Agree with the Technical Committee action on
Proposal 72-67 to Accept in Principle. The Committee Action taken on
Proposal 72-67 provides the what and where, but does not address the why
and how. The new proposal requires a specification, but a specification
does not always identify the type of system or the functions of the system
being submitted for approval. Since the National Fire Alarm Code does not
determine why a system is required or how its sequence of operation should
function to meet these requirements that is mandated by code or as an owner
selective, the “type of system or service” and “input/output matrix” defines
how this need is met. In either way, the criteria for the type of system and its
performance is determined by the “type of system or service” and the “input/
output matrix”, along with the other line items listed in the proposal. The
inclusions of the “type of system or service” and “input/out matrix” are key
components that will make the submittal holistic.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To correlate with the “Hold” on Comment
72-56(Log #212). In addition, the comment introduces new material that has
not had public review.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
In the ROP, add a new paragraph to 5-5.3.5.3 (8-5.3.5.3) to read as follows:
“(d) Personnel shall be dispatched to arrive within 4 hours to initiate
maintenance after detection of primary power failure .”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee deleted the exception to
5-4.4.2 in the ROP which satisfies the concerns of the Technical Correlating
Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #337)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————-
(Log #CC100)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-61a-(1-5.1.4, and A-1-5.1.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67
RECOMMENDATION: Modify the Committee Action text of Proposal 7267 by deleting the definition of “Shop Drawings”.
SUBSTANTIATION: Shop Drawings are defined by the Annex text. The
definition implies a requirement which is not allowed in a definition.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-64-(1-5.2.8.1) : Accept in Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69
RECOMMENDATION: The manufacture and installation date shall be
permanently marked on each battery.
SUBSTANTIATION: The installation date is important because NFPA
72 requires sealed lead-acid batteries be replaced every four years. The
manufacture date is important because during storage, batteries have to be
recharged every so often and that clock begins on the day of manufacture.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
The committee accepts the manufacturers’ date, and rejects the addition of
an installation date for correlation purposes with testing and maintenance
requirements.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-67(Log #203).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #316)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #202)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-62-(1-5.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle.
SUBSTANTIATION: We support the committee action to Accept in
Principle. The only opposition we had to this proposal during the 1999 cycle
was an oversight that deleted the exception for secondary power when the
power supply complied with Article(s) 700, 701, or 702. We applaud the
work of the task group on power supplies.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #76)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-63-(1-5.2, A-1-5.2.(various)) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-63 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems
for the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-69
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Supervising Station Fire Alarm Systems for correlation with Section 54.4.2 (1999). This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
72-65-(1-5.2.8.2.3 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.2.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4.4.1.8.2.3
SUBSTANTIATION: 4.4.1.5 adequately covers the requirements for
secondary power supplies. All DC power supplies employ a transformer
and rectifier. By their very nature transformers are isolators. The primary
windings and secondary windings are separated. All power supplies must be
listed for their purpose or with the equipment.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation is technically incorrect.
All DC power supplies do not necessarily incorporate a transformer and
rectifier.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
GAUVIN: I agree that the substantiation is technically incorrect. However,
I question why 4.4.1.8.2.3 is in the code. The code should not specify the
design requirements relating to the components within fire alarm equipment.
The code should describe the intended safety criteria of the equipment and
leave the design of the equipment to meet that criteria up to the equipment
manufacturer.
————————————————(Log #77)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-66-(1-5.2.9.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-84
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action
by the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance on Proposal 72-454.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-67(Log #203).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
311
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #203)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-67-(1-5.2.9.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA¹
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-84
RECOMMENDATION: Change the committee action from Accept to
Accept in Principle.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the substantiation. However, we
recommend that the batteries be marked with the manufacturing date in lieu
of the installation date. Batteries degrade while on the shelf. Therefore, we
recommend the following text: Batteries used in fire alarm applications shall
be permanently marked with the date manufactured by the manufacturer.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
In Proposal 72-1h, add the following after 4.4.1.8:
4.4.1.8.1 Marking. Batteries shall be permanently marked with the month
and year of manufacture.
Renumber the remaining paragraphs as appropriate.
In addition, add A.4.4.1.8.1 to read: “Markings for month and year may be
applied by the manufacturer or in the field based on the manufacturers’ date
code.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Revised for correlation purposes with the
action Proposal 72-454 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter.
See committee action on Proposal 72-86a.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #CC105)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #255)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-68-(1-5.2.9.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.1.3]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-69
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.1.8.1.3 to read: If not located in or
adjacent to the fire alarm control unit, the batteries and their charger location
shall be permanently identified at the fire alarm control unit.
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification-A fire alarm control unit is what’s being
discussed, and we shouldn’t call it a panel in one sentence and a unit in the
next. Fire alarm control unit is defined in chapter one.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-69b-(1-5.4.2.2) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its
direction to Accept Proposal 72-94 and directs that the action on
Comment 72-69b be reported as “Reject.”
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-94
RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject”
Proposal 72-94.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new
Chapter 6 is applicable to functions which may be initiated or controlled
from a remote location. A specific example includes proprietary systems
serving multiple building sites where the receiver performs control functions.
Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters
should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #204)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #315)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-69-(1-5.2.9.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.1.8.1.4]) : Accept in Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h & 72-69
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.1.8.1.4 to read: The manufacture and
installation dates shall be permanently marked on each battery.
SUBSTANTIATION: We currently require Sealed Lead-Acid batteries to be
replaced every 4 years. In order for these batteries to have adequate capacity
at the end of 4 years, they must be maintained properly from the day they’re
manufactured until the day they’re replaced. Most SLAs must be recharged
periodically while being stored. This is dependent on temperature as well as
other factors. This makes the manufacture date as important as the installation
date. Both are needed to meet the spirit of the code.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-67(Log #203).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #CC104)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-69a-(1-5.4.1) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its
direction to Accept Proposal 72-88 and directs that the action on
Comment 72-69a be reported as “Reject.”
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-88
RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject”
Proposal 72-88.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new
Chapter 6 is applicable to functions which may be initiated or controlled
from a remote location. A specific example includes proprietary systems
serving multiple building sites where the receiver performs control functions.
Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in multiple chapters
72-70-(1-5.4.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-88
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitter’s substantiation
because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected
premises systems. If the text is moved to Chapter 3, it will no longer apply
to proprietary systems. (See Section 5-3.) Fire-safety functions should not
be initiated automatically or manually from any location off the protected
premises.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This definition applies only to protected
premises fire alarms systems, therefore it should be only located in Chapter 3
(Chapter 6-2002). The Technical Correlating Committee action on Proposal
72-88 has addressed the submitter’s concern.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #362)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-71-(1-5.4.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-86a
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-86a is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material was moved to Chapter 3
(Chapter 6-2002) and this action affirms that these requirements are a function
of protected premises fire alarm systems. The committee does not agree with
the substantiation in Proposal 86a that states this material applies to other than
protected premises fire alarm systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
312
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #364)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-72-(1-5.4.1.2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-89
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-89 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
In Section 6.15.2.2 replace the first paragraph with:
“The time delay between the activation of an initiating device and the
automatic activation of protected premises fire safety control functions shall
not exceed 10 seconds.”
Delete the second paragraph of the proposed text.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This section was relocated from 1-5.4.1.2. to
new section 6.15.2.2 by the committee action on Proposals 72-88 and 72-244.
“Local” was changed to “protected premises” for clarity.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. It is not clear
that stand alone devices are permitted by the National Fire Alarm Code as
indicated by the proposal. The scope statement of Section 3-9 specifically
states that Section 3-9 applies only to the requirements for devices connected
to the fire alarm system and thus do not cover stand alone devices. The
committee would improve the clarity of the code if the proposed verbiage was
added as proposed. In addition, the committee’s statement to Proposal 72-289
contradicts with the committee statements provided for this comment.
The committee statement for 72-289 is: “The proposed text is not clear as to
what control functions will be permitted. Where the control function is a fire
safety control function, it is intended that the detector be connected to the fire
alarm system. Where the control function is not a fire safety control function,
NFPA-72 does not apply.”
All control functions are fire safety control functions by definition unless
the committee believes that someone is going to provide a control function
that would intentionally decrease the level of fire safety. From NFPA 72
definitions: “Fire Safety Function. Building and fire control functions that
are intended to increase the level of life safety for occupants or to control the
spread of the harmful effects of fire.”
If the committee believes that all devices need to be connected to the fire
alarm system (and I would disagree with that statement), they should so state
it, but even after attending the meeting, I am still confused as to the intent of
the committee. This proposal was intended to clarify something that is not
clear and remains so after the voting on Comments 72-74, 72-75 and Proposal
72-289.
————————————————(Log #363)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #365)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-73-(1-5.4.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-90
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-90 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee affirms that fire suppression
systems are separate and distinct from fire safety control functions. The term
“time delay” is commonly understood as it relates to this requirement and
changing it to “response time” may result in confusion.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #25)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-74-(1-5.4.1.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Michael Minieri, SimplexGrinnell LP
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-87
RECOMMENDATION: The committee should ACCEPT or otherwise
adopt language to meet the intent of the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Statement explaining its rejection of
this proposal is in error. As stated in the justification, the proposal is presently
acceptable under the Code. As one example, there are requirements for smoke
detectors for door release service, however, there is no mandate that these
same detectors cause an ALARM condition on the building fire alarm system.
3-9.6.2 Exception and 3-9.2.1 Exception clearly establish circumstances
under which these detectors NEED NOT cause a TROUBLE condition on
the building fire alarm system. Therefore, this “debate” alone substantiates
that the Code is in need of CLARIFICATION of this issue, and this proposal
serves that purpose.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-75 (Log #363).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
313
72-75-(1-5.4.1.3) : Reject
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that the
second sentence of the Committee Statement appears to conflict with
the requirements of Section 3-9. However, the Technical Correlating
Committee affirms the action taken by both Technical Committees. Refer
also to Committee Action on Proposal 72-244 which relocated Section 15.4.1 as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-87
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-88, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.1 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-87 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.1. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requirements for control functions are
already adequately covered in 3-9 (6.15, 2002 edition). This section details
those applications in which initiating devices do not have to be connected to
the fire alarm control panel. Supplementary devices as defined in Chapter
1 are not required to meet the requirements of Chapter 3 (Chapter 6, 2002
edition).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. It is not clear
that stand alone devices are permitted by the National Fire Alarm Code as
indicated by the proposal. The scope statement of Section 3-9 specifically
states that Section 3-9 applies only to the requirements for devices connected
to the fire alarm system and thus do not cover stand alone devices. The
committee would improve the clarity of the code if the proposed verbiage was
added as proposed. In addition, the committee’s statement to Proposal 72-289
contradicts with the committee statements provided for this comment.
The committee statement for 72-289 is: “The proposed text is not clear as to
what control functions will be permitted. Where the control function is a fire
safety control function, it is intended that the detector be connected to the fire
alarm system. Where the control function is not a fire safety control function,
NFPA-72 does not apply.”
All control functions are fire safety control functions by definition unless
the committee believes that someone is going to provide a control function
that would intentionally decrease the level of fire safety. From NFPA 72
definitions: “Fire Safety Function. Building and fire control functions that
are intended to increase the level of life safety for occupants or to control the
spread of the harmful effects of fire.”
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
If the committee believes that all devices need to be connected to the fire
alarm system (and I would disagree with that statement), they should so state
it, but even after attending the meeting, I am still confused as to the intent of
the committee. This proposal was intended to clarify something that is not
clear and remains so after the voting on Comments 72-74, 72-75, 72-241 and
Proposal 72-289.
MANDE: The committee statement, in its reason for rejecting this
Technical Correlating Committee’s comment, misstates the definition of
“Supplemental”. Supplementary is defined as “...equipment or operations
not required by this code...”, but is silent on whether they have to meet the
requirements of the code.
In its action on Comment 72-177, the committee has changed the heading of
3-2.4 from non-required systems to supplementary (non-required/voluntary)
systems.
Non-required system is defined in Chapter 1 as: “A supplementary fire
alarm system component or group of components that is installed at the option
of the owner and is not installed due to building or fire code requirement.”
3-2.4.1 states that “Non-required protected premises systems shall meet the
requirements of this code.”
3-2 states that: “the requirements of Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall also apply,
unless they are in conflict with this chapter.”
The committee is wrong in stating that “Supplementary devices as defined in
Chapter 1 are not required to meet the requirements of Chapter 3.”
The Technical Correlating Committee’s Comment should be accepted and
1-5.4.1 relocated to Chapter 3.
————————————————(Log #5)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-76-(1-5.4.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92a
RECOMMENDATION: Do not delete “at the protected premises”.
SUBSTANTIATION: The 10 second requirement cannot be met by the
allowable communication methods for supervising stations other than for a
collocated proprietary system. A DACT is permitted to take 90 seconds (see
5-5.3.1.2.4) to complete the communications. The 10 seconds should only
apply at the protected premises.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #368)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-79-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-93
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-93 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-73 (Log #365).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #317)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #205)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-77-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-94
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the committee action and disagree
with the submitter’s substantiation because the section applies to proprietary
systems as well as protected premises systems. It is acceptable to initiate
notification appliances from e.g., a networked (proprietary) system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee concurs with the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee to relocate this material.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
72-80-(1-5.4.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.2.2]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Add exceptions in 4.4.3.2.32 for Presignal, Alarm
Verification, Positive Alarm Sequence, and Cross-Zoning.
SUBSTANTIATION: Presignal 4.4.3.10 and Positive Alarm Sequence
4.4.3.11 are somewhat covered, but could cause problems in the field. The
exceptions make it clear in those two cases and allow for Alarm Verification
and Cross-Zoning.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed text for presignal, alarm
verification, and positive alarm sequence is adequately covered by the current
requirements in Chapter 3 (Chapter 6, 2002). Cross-zoning is an undefined
term in the NFAC.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #318)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-81-(1-5.4.3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.3.3 (1)]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.3.3 (1) to read: (1) Fire Alarm
Control Unit (panel) for local fire alarm systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarificaton and consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #366)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-78-(1-5.4.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-92 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
————————————————-
(Log #319)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-82-(1-5.4.3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.3.4]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4.4.3.3.4 (in accordance with 2-9.1.1)
SUBSTANTIATION: Consistency between 4.4.3.3.3 and 4.3.3.4.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
In Section 4.4.3.3.4 of Proposal 72-1h, delete “(in accordance with 2-9.1.1)”
at the end of the paragraph.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-85(Log #339).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
314
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #206)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-83-(1-5.4.3.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95a
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: NEMA supports this clarification of the Code
permitting the use of both latching and non-latching supervisory signals
for the reasons indicated in the committee proposal substantiation. The
committee proposal meets the intent of the original submitter’s proposal 7295.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #338)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-84-(1-5.4.3.3(1)) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise (1) to read: Fire Alarm Control Unit for
local fire alarm systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions section of chapter one defines a panel
as a Fire Alarm Control Unit. This term is used in many places throughout
NFPA 72 and should be consistently used throughout. This is a matter of
consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-81(Log #318).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
(Log #320)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-87-(1-5.4.6 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.1]) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: In 4.4.3.6.1, delete exception/or correct reference
from 1-5.8.7.3 to 4.4.7.3.3.
SUBSTANTIATION: Why should DACTs be different from other
equipment. Panels connected to DACTs would still typically transmit a
trouble signal if primary power failed.
Reference is from the 1999 Edition verses the proposed 2002 Edition.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee accepts the recommendation to change the reference from
“1-5.8.7.3” to “4.4.7.3.3.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
substantiation to delete the exception.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #322)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-88-(1-5.4.6.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.6(1)]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.6.6(1) to read: Fire Alarm Control
Unit (panel) for protected premises alarm systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: Clarity and consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #339)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-85-(1-5.4.3.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-95a
RECOMMENDATION: Delete (in accordance with 2-9.1.1)
SUBSTANTIATION: By leaving this the way it is you may as well delete
1-5.4.3.4. 2-9.1.1 only affects valves. Additionally 2-9.1.1 will be interpreted
to mean that valve tampers must operate within two full turns and remain in a
supervisory state until the valve is fully opened at which point the off-normal
signal will be required to restore. This would be identical to 1-5.4.3.3 nonlatching. Why write it this way for 1-5.4.3.4 and not 1-5.4.3.3? Consistency.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #6)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-86-(1-5.4.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-96
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee is treading on thin ice to suggest that
fire safety control functions can be initiated from a supervising station. Some
communication methods permitted by the supervising station chapter will
not meet the time stipulations in this chapter, and if the committee implies
that initiating fire safety functions from a supervising station is permitted, it
is essentially creating a difficult situation to say the least from the standpoint
of enforcement. It should at least clarify that fire safety functions can only
be initiated from supervising stations where the communication methods
will ensure that it is performed in the times stipulated within the chapter.
Correlation needs to be done to identify which communication methods would
be allowed to be used if alarm and fire safety function time stipulations in
Chapter 1(4) are directed toward supervising stations.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reconsidered its action
and reaffirms its statement that the material does not solely apply to protected
premises fire alarm systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
315
(Log #321)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-89-(1-5.4.6.3.4 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.6.8.4]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: 4.4.3.6.8.4 should become an exception to
4.4.3.6.8.3.
SUBSTANTIATION: It is actually an exception to 4.4.3.6.8.3.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current language is consistent with the
Manual of Style.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #288)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-90-(1-5.4.7 [2002 Ed. 4.4.3.7.2(a)]) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-90 be reported as “Reject” as the action taken is
outside the scope of the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire
Alarm Systems.
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers
Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.3.7.2(a) to read as follows:
Accept the committee proposal with the following changes:
(a) Fire alarm signals shall be distinctive in sound from other signals, shall
comply with the requirements of 3-8.4.1.2.1, shall apply to existing fire alarm
systems by January 1, 2005, and their sound shall not be used for any other
purpose.
SUBSTANTIATION: Fire alarm systems need to produce consistent
evacuation signals. Unless a “meet by” date is established, older systems will
continue to confuse the intent of establishing a standard evacuation signal.
We agree with only Part A of the submitter’s substantiation in proposal 72257 (Log 53), in which he endorses retroactivity of the Standard Evacuation
Signal.
The Standard Evacuation Signal can be superimposed on all applicable
existing audible notification appliances. In most cases, this change will
require installing a temporal module or software into the existing fire alarm
control unit and not require audible device replacement or modification. Most
older fire alarm control units have already been replaced because additional
notification appliances were installed to meet accessibility guidelines and
because of NFPA 72 changes to the requirements for notification appliance
circuits.
We all realize that the intent of the Standard Evacuation Signal is to establish
and maintain a consistent evacuation pattern for recognition by occupants
regardless of their spoken language or the structure they occupy.
We believe this concern meets the intent of the Exception to the retroactivity
section (1.4) relating to maintaining a distinct hazard to life.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
In addition to the submitter’s recommended text, add the following text as
the second sentence of 4.4.3.7.2(a) in Proposal 72-1h to read as follows:
“ Where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, the continued use
of an existing consistent evacuation signaling scheme shall be permitted.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter’s
substantiation, but feels that there could be circumstances where discretion is
appropriate, such as in a multi-building system.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 24
NEGATIVE: 4
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
BONIFAS: 1. The substantiation states that most older fire alarm control
units have already been replaced because of the accessibility guidelines. It is
my belief based upon my experience that close to 1/2 of the fire alarm systems
in service have not been upgraded, were installed prior to the accessibility
guidelines and, therefore, have been grandfathered so long as there are not
major modifications to the building or to the fire alarm system. This change
to temporal would be viewed as a major change to the system and result in the
Authority Having Jurisdiction requiring a full system upgrade resulting in new
wire runs to the notification appliances as a practical matter. This involves a
totally new system in most cases and, therefore, a major cost which in worst
cases could be a million dollars or more. The implications of imposing this
change by 2005 are huge and probably will be opposed vigorously if it comes
to the floor for a vote in May.
2. I have personally been in many buildings such as hotels when a fire alarm
was activated. There was never any doubt in these instances that there was a
fire alarm activation even though some people didnít evacuate because they
sensed no danger and saw no smoke. I saw no confusion as to what the signal
was from occupants of the building. I agree with the standardized temporal
sound on a going forward basis, but feel that the improvement to life safety is
minor or nonexistent and the cost great.
3. There are a lot of large, older buildings which will be impacted by the
cost to upgrade a major fire alarm system. The economics may well render
the building useless. The worst-case costs may be so great as to put some
entities out of business.
4. I can see the business opportunity for my company in upgrading or
replacing probably 1/2 of the systems we service, but that reason would be
self-serving. I feel unjustified in supporting this proposal because I feel it is
unjust to the building owner in that, in my opinion, it does not meaningfully
advance life safety while imposing what in many cases will be a huge cost. I
disagree with the last sentence in the submitterís substantiation relating to the
Retroactivity Section (1-4) which indicates that failing to impose the temporal
sound would somehow create a ìdistinct hazard to lifeî. I do not feel that
the sound issue rises anywhere near the level of being a ìhazard to lifeî. I
support major improvements to life safety but merely modifying the nature
of the sound is not one which improves life safety sufficiently to justify the
Exception to Retroactivity.
DECKER: This comment should be rejected on both procedural grounds
and technical merits. Procedurally, I donít believe it is appropriate for the
Technical Committee to consider this comment due to the submitterís failure
to comply with Section 4-4.2 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects: ìSubjects Appropriate for Comment. Comments shall be confined
to those items under consideration for action and directly affected items.î
This comment refers to Section 4.4.3.7.2(a) of the committee proposal. No
proposals were received by this Technical Committee seeking any change
whatsoever in this paragraph or its predecessor paragraph in the 1999 Edition
of NFPA 72, and the only proposed change in the committee proposal
is the renumbering of the paragraph consistent with the Manual of Style
changes proposed by the committee. A careful reading of 4-4.6.2.1 of the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects would indicate the proper action
by the Technical Committee would have been to hold, on the basis that
this introduces a concept that has not had public review. To the best of my
knowledge, there was not a single proposal in the ROP specifying a 2005 date
for standard evacuation signal retroactivity. This requirement, if accepted,
would have a dramatic financial impact on owners of existing fire alarm
systems without the Standard Evacuation Signal. Inserting this retroactivity
requirement for compliance by January 1, 2005 at this stage in the process,
clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
On a technical basis, the substantiation statement that: ìThe Standard
Evacuation Signal can be superimposed on all applicable existing audible
notification appliancesî is a source of concern. Many audible notification
appliances include strobe devices, and interrupting power to the circuit to
produce the Standard Evacuation Signal would clearly interfere with the
316
ability of the strobe to function. Many older panels no longer have their
product listings maintained, and it is highly unlikely manufacturers will
develop temporal modules for panels that are no longer listed. Control
panels that produce only a march time output, and coded alarm systems are
inherently incapable of being retrofitted to provide the Standard Evacuation
Signal.
If the committee wishes to make such a sweeping change based on
misleading substantiation, we should at least give the public affected by this
change the opportunity to consider the costs and benefits of this proposal, and
a chance to provide their input.
FRABLE: I agree with the submitter, that new fire alarm systems need to
produce consistent evacuation signals. However, I strongly disagree with the
submitterís intent to retroactively impose on the building community a ìdateî
to require all existing fire alarm systems to utilize the standard evacuation
signal. Not only is the submitter putting an undue burden on building owners
to replace or upgrade their code compliant existing fire alarm systems, but the
submitter has also burdened the code official to evaluate all existing fire alarm
systems in their jurisdiction to approve the continued use of the existing fire
alarm systemís evacuation signaling scheme.
I also strongly disagree with the submitterís assumption that the majority
of older existing fire alarm systems have been replaced or upgraded to meet
accessibility guidelines. This is not the case at all. If an existing fire alarm
system is properly maintained, functioning and operating properly, and is
code compliant, why would a building owner replace their existing fire alarm
system? Even current accessibility guidelines do not retroactively require
existing fire alarm systems to be replaced to incorporate visible notification
appliances. The submitter also attempts to paint a pretty picture that the
standard evacuation signal can be easily superimposed and upgraded on all
existing fire alarm systems. If thatís the case, why doesnít the fire alarm
industry provide these upgrades for free?
In addition, I also disagree with the submitterís weak attempt to rationalize
that this proposal is justifiable since it meets the intent of the exception to
the retroactivity Section (1.4) related to maintaining a distinct hazard to
life. It appears that the submitter believes that any existing fire alarm system
not utilizing the standard evacuation signal is creating a distinct life safety
hazard to the occupants of a building. Again, I contend this is not the case.
However, I do believe that proper training and education of the building
community and not retroactivity is the proper direction to take to ensure all
new fire alarm systems utilize the standard evacuation signal.
Lastly, I believe that this proposal should have been considered ìnew
materialî since it appears the general public did not have an adequate
opportunity to review the ìdateî of this retroactive requirement.
YANEK: I believe and agree with the fact that a standard is necessary on
the sound and its tempo rate on all new systems installed, but to dictate a
date of compliance requiring existing systems to be modified or replaced by
that date, is completely out of line. Inserting such a requirement in the code
could be devastating to those who have to meet the date requirement without
giving them a sufficient period of time to plan, budget and absorb the cost. I
do not believe 3 years is sufficient, in fact, I do not believe there should be any
deadline required.
I do a fair amount of traveling and have been through 15 to 20 false alarms
in hotels, restaurants and airports. As yet, I have not seen any confusion in
any of those alarm situations. It would be different if people didnít recognize
the evacuation signaling, but in all the cases that I have been involved, they all
recognized the signaling even though sound and tempo were different in each
case.
I also believe the submitter is speculating on the number of systems in the
country that would require upgrades and/or replacement. What justification
does the submitter have to support the claim?
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
KIRBY: The requirement for retroactivity for the standard evacuation
system is long overdue. The reason that temporal 3 was selected a standard
signal 20 plus years ago (instead of slow whoop) was because it would be
easy to retrofit. Imposing this requirement will not constitute an economic
hardship on system owners and will finally permit NFPA (and others) to get
on with the task of educating the public about this signal.
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #223)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-91-(1-5.4.8) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-100
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal has nothing to do with the use of
coded alarm signal operation. The section deals with a means for (manually)
turning off activated alarm notification appliances. The section deals with an
ability to “silence” activated alarm notification appliances for investigation
of the actuated device. Fire alarm systems should not be allowed to be
automatically silenced. The reason for allowing manually silencing of
notification appliances is to avoid occupant disruption if staff is present to
investigate the reason for the initiated alarm via pre-planned action. This
allowance for automatic silencing should only be permitted if the system has
emergency voice/alarm communications capability so the occupants can be
informed of the purported condition following the automatic silencing. If the
structure is not occupied, there is no reason to silence the alarm, manually
or automatically. At the very least, the committee should consider deleting
Exception No. 1. If automatic silencing is justified, which should be rare, it
should never be allowed for less than 5 minutes because additional devices on
that zone may not re-initiate the notification appliances, putting the occupants
in harms way. Exception No. 1, if permitted, could alter the automatic
silencing of notification appliances to 30 seconds for example. This could
cause the occupants to perceive that they have been exposed to a nuisance
alarm and not take action to evacuate. The whole idea of automatically
silencing notification appliances is a bad idea.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation and the
Technical Correlating Committee recommendation. We disagree with the
committee statement that this text “clearly applies to multiple chapters.” The
portion of the section that alludes to off-premises signals is preceded by the
word “if”. This entire section is also preceded by the words “if permitted”
and caution should be exercised in its application. It is imperative that
responsible persons be in the vicinity of the system and immediately notified
to investigate the source of the alarm signal (to take further action) because it
delays occupant notification and egress. This section should apply ONLY to
protected premises systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #214)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #CC106)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-91a-(1-5.4.10) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its
direction to Accept Proposal 72-102 and directs that the action on
Comment 72-91a be reported as “Reject.”
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-102
RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject”
Proposal 72-102.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to
new Chapter 6 is applicable to presignals which may occur or be received
remotely. A specific example includes proprietary systems serving multiple
building sites. Requirements that are applicable to systems covered in
multiple chapters should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-93-(1-5.4.11) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-103
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be Accepted.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation and the
Technical Correlating Committee recommendation. We disagree with the
committee statement that the material “clearly applies to multiple chapters
as in 1-5.4.11.2 and 1-5.4.11.3.” Although the cited sections refer to
activating “remote signals”, the primary purposes of these sections deal with
the protected premises operation(s). This section should apply ONLY to
protected premises systems and should be relocated to Chapter 3.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #369)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————-
(Log #CC107)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-91b-(1-5.4.11) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee reaffirms its
direction to Accept Proposal 72-103 and directs that the action on
Comment 72-91b be reported as “Reject.”
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-103
RECOMMENDATION: The committee reaffirms its position to “Reject”
Proposal 72-103.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material that is proposed to be relocated to new
Chapter 6 is applicable to positive alarm sequence which may be controlled
by a supervising station. A specific example includes proprietary systems
serving multiple building sites. Requirements that are applicable to systems
covered in multiple chapters should reside in the Fundamentals Chapter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #213)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-92-(1-5.4.10) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-102
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be Accepted.
72-94-(1-5.4.11.1.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-104
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-104 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the proposed text to read:
6.8.1.3.1 The signal from an automatic fire detection device selected for
positive alarm sequence operation shall be acknowledged at the control unit
by trained personnel within 15 seconds of annunciation in order to initiate
the alarm investigation phase. If the signal is not acknowledged within 15
seconds, notification signals in accordance with the buildings evacuation or
relocation plan and remote signals shall be automatically and immediately
activated.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language
as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems action in Proposal 72-104 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment
on the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.1 based on the
committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I
recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter
“s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the
building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation
plan.”
————————————————-
317
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #367)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-95-(1-5.4.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92a
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-94, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.2.2 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-92a is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.2.2. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The phrase “at the protected premises”
has been retained. See committee action on Comment 72-76 (Log #5) and
committee action and statement on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log
#CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the text to read:
If a second automatic fire detector selected for positive alarm sequence
is actuated during the alarm investigation phase, notification signals in
accordance with the buildings evacuation or relocation plan
and remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language
as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems in proposal 72-106 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on
the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.3 based on the
committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I
recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter
“s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the
building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation
plan.”
————————————————(Log #372)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————-
(Log #370)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-96-(1-5.4.11.1.2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-105
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-105 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise text as follows:
6.8.1.3.2 Trained personnel shall have up to 180 seconds during the alarm
investigation phase to evaluate the fire condition and reset the system. If the
system is not reset during the investigation phase, notification
signals in accordance with the building evacuation or relocation plan and
remote signals shall be automatically and immediately activated.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language
as modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems in proposal 72-105 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on
the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.2 based on the
committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I
recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter
“s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the
building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation
plan.”
72-98-(1-5.4.11.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-107
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-107 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the text to read:
If any other initiating device is actuated, notification signals in accordance
with the buildings evacuation or relocation plan and remote signals shall be
automatically and immediately activated.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the language as
modified by the Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems in proposal 72-107 and has incorporated Mr. Jacob’s comment on
the affirmative. This requirement is now located in 6.8.1.3.4 based on the
committee action on Committee Comment 72-184a (Log #CC400).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
JOHNSON: In the last sentence of the Committee’s revised text, I
recommend that the word “buildings” be changed to “building.” If the letter
“s” were retained, the word should be changed to “building’s”; however, the
building is not usually thought of as owning the “evacuation or relocation
plan.”
————————————————-
(Log #324)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #371)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-97-(1-5.4.11.2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-106
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposal 72-103, the Technical Correlating Committee directed the Technical
Committee of Fundamentals of Fire Alarm Systems to “Accept” a proposal
to relocate the material in 1-5.4.11 to the Chapter on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems. Proposal 72-106 is referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises for action as it concerns 1-5.4.11. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee comments.
72-99-(1-5.5.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.4.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: In 4.4.4.1, replace at with between in regards to (1)
and (2).
SUBSTANTIATION: Editoral.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is not an editorial change. Equipment
is required to operate at the limits identified in the Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #215)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-100-(1-5.5.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-108
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle.
318
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the submitters’ proposal has merit.
The committee should develop text that requires operating controls and
displays to be located at reasonable heights. Because of the varied nature
of controls (e.g, from a P.C.) it is reasonable to require them to be “readily
accessible” as defined in the NEC. Lack of direction in the NFAC has led to
arguments between installers and the Authority Having Jurisdiction regarding
an “appropriate” mounting height for controls. “Readily accessible” would
provide some assurance that controls will be in a location affording prompt
availability.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitters have not provided proposed
text for the committee’s consideration.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
of the code that specify where detectors are to be installed and this proposal
does not include companion proposals to delete those sections. We disagree
with Part B of the submitter’s substantiation. The intent of the section is
to initiate action before the electronics of the control unit are destroyed.
We disagree that no form of notification is provided upon initiation of the
required smoke detector. Part D of the submitter’s substantiation has no
merit. Survivability applies to protected premises systems used for other than
evacuation. The smoke detector requirement applies to all fire alarm systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #293)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #2)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-101-(1-5.6) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal and delete the
paragraph.
SUBSTANTIATION: Either mandate smoke detection throughout all spaces
such that you know that you will get a signal, and, require connection to
the emergency forces so you get a response, or delete this requirement for
a smoke detector. Having one smoke detector hardly “protects” the control
panel from anything, especially when the building is unoccupied and it is only
a local system.
Survivability is addressed in Chapter 3 and will require a performance based
approach to protecting the control unit when needed.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105 (Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #136)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-102-(1-5.6) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter does not dispute that control
equipment survivability is within the scope of the code. However, the point
of the substantiation is that this requirement does not actually provide any
protection for control equipment.
B. This requirement explicitly violates the intent of the standard as stated
in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of
performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to
establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.”
C. There are many ways that the survivability of control equipment can be
improved, but frankly, a smoke detector isn’t one of them. Because it won’t
slow down the fire, make the control equipment fire resistive, or even call for
help, a smoke detector cannot protect the integrity of a fire alarm system or
extend it’s operability under fire conditions for even a second.
D. As a solution, a smoke detector simply doesn’t match the problem it’s
intended to solve. If protection is what the committee intends to mandate,
sprinklers, a NEMA 3R cabinet, and a supervising station connection would
be a much better bet.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105(Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
72-104-(1-5.6) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Annex material describes the purpose of the
smoke detector. However, the Technical Committee should expand on
the requirement(s) for specific purposes (in the next cycle) and expand the
explanation in the annex why smoke detection is the preferred method of
detecting and initiating “something”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #3)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-105-(1-5.6 Exception) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: If the tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to
hear it does it make a noise? If the fire activates the smoke detector near the
control unit in the building but nobody is there to hear it and the system is
not monitored, did it warn anyone (earlier) as the committee indicates? Even
with nobody there, the sprinkler would not only protect the control unit but the
building too, yet the committee would rather have a smoke or heat detector in
lieu of sprinklers.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The issue of early warning at control
equipment is a complicated issue. A task group has been established to study
this issue and to make recommendations for the next cycle of this standard
that will incorporate review of the issues raised by the submitter. This subject
matter also needs to be correlated with requirements for survivability in other
areas of the Code which will also be considered by the task group.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #217)
Committee: SIG-FUN
————————————————(Log #216)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-103-(1-5.6) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-111
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We tend to agree with the submitter’s statement
that protection requirements belong in the Building Code. However, this
requirement is NOT in the Building Code and unless and until it is included,
we are opposed to deleting it. The current editions of all Building Codes
we are aware of cite NFPA 72 as the document to use for the location and
installation of automatic fire detectors. In addition, there are several sections
72-106-(1-5.6 Exception) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the intent of the submitter’s proposal
and accept in principle by amending the submitter’s proposal.
We suggest that the proposal be modified to read in essence as follows:
Exception No. 2: Fully sprinkled buildings that initiate the required
notification.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement has little merit. The current
exception allows the use of a heat detector when a smoke detector is not
suitable. Although the preferred detection is smoke detection, heat detection
may be more appropriate in some cases. However, the submitter’s proposal
did not require the sprinkler system to initiate the fire alarm system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105(Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
319
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #294)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-107-(1-5.6 Exception) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: I strongly disagree with the submitter’s substantiation
that sprinklers should be permitted because the current exception allows a
heat detector in lieu of the required smoke detector. The heat detector is
ONLY to be considered where ambient conditions “prohibit” the installation
of a smoke detector. A heat detector is not a trade-off for a smoke detector.
Consideration of a sprinkler as equivalent to the heat detector in the exception
is far from equivalent.
When and if (rarely) a heat detector is used in lieu of the required smoke
detector, upon actuation it immediately initiates the control unit (to provide
an indication of alarm as this location) so appropriate action can be taken.
Operation of a sprinkler head (even ESFR) is typically longer than a heat
detector. Additionally, the sprinkler head operates a waterflow switch with
a retard (delay) therefore the time to initiate the control unit is considerably
longer than a heat detector (maximum 90 seconds longer) because the fused
sprinkler is not connected to the control unit but the delayed waterflow switch
is.
In the meantime (before initiation) the operated sprinkler is putting water on
the control unit (typically not listed for outdoor - doesn’t meet the 1-hour hose
stream test for internal moisture) which could cause the control unit to fail
(fault) before the flow switch transferred and initiated a signal.
The end result could be that the applied water causes the control unit to fail;
thus not signaling on-or off-premises; and even though the fire may have
been extinguished, the water could flow all night or all weekend causing
considerable additional damage to the structure and its contents.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #341)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-108-(1-5.6 Exception) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California
Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112
RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: Where it may be true that there has not been a
recorded loss of a fire control unit within a fully sprinklered building, it is not
to say that there could be in the future. The extra protection provided by the
smoke detector is warranted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #4)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-109-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: If you are really only trying to protect the control unit,
then the whole building would not have to be sprinkler protected, just the
room in which it is located. See my comments on Proposal Numbers 72-111
and 72-112.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105 (Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #176)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-110-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Raymond A. Grill, Rolf Jensen & Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-112
RECOMMENDATION: The committee should accept the proposal to add
Exception No. 2 for fully sprinklered buildings.
SUBSTANTIATION: The explanation of the negative votes on the
committee action by Messrs. Decker, Frable and Dumais are clear and provide
strong substantiation for accepting the proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
320
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105(Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #218)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-111-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitter’s substantiation. The
submitter’s proposal does not go far enough. If a heat detector is installed in
lieu of the smoke detector, it does initiate the required notification. Unless
the sprinkler system flow switch is connected to the control unit to initiate the
required notification, the discharge of water could damage the control unit
before notification is accomplished. Furthermore, a fully sprinkled building
could contain less than 100 sprinkler heads. Building codes do not require
sprinkler systems to be monitored under 100 heads. The exception should be
considered only if the sprinkler system is connected to the fire alarm control
unit. The detector, and notification, is required regardless of the size of the
structure.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #295)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-112-(1-5.6 Exception No. 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-113
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: I strongly disagree with the submitter’s substantiation
that sprinklers should be permitted because the current exception allows a
heat detector in lieu of the required smoke detector. The heat detector is
ONLY to be considered where ambient conditions “prohibit” the installation
of a smoke detector. A heat detector is not a trade-off for a smoke detector.
Consideration of a sprinkler as equivalent to the heat detector in the exception
is far from equivalent.
When and if (rarely) a heat detector is used in lieu of the required smoke
detector, upon actuation it immediately initiates the control unit (to provide
an indication of alarm as this location) so appropriate action can be taken.
Operation of a sprinkler head (even ESFR) is typically longer than a heat
detector. Additionally, the sprinkler head operates a waterflow switch with
a retard (delay) therefore the time to initiate the control unit is considerably
longer than a heat detector (maximum 90 seconds longer) because the fused
sprinkler is not connected to the control unit but the delayed waterflow switch
is.
In the meantime (before initiation) the operated sprinkler is putting water on
the control unit (typically not listed for outdoor - doesn’t meet the 1-hour hose
stream test for internal moisture) which could cause the control unit to fail
(fault) before the flow switch transferred and initiated a signal.
The end result could be that the applied water causes the control unit to fail;
thus not signaling on-or off-premises; and even though the fire may have
been extinguished, the water could flow all night or all weekend causing
considerable additional damage to the structure and its contents.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
GIGANDET: The submitter’s substantiation to reject the proposal is
sound and has merit. Regardless of whether the building is fully or partially
sprinklered or, for that matter, has a single sprinkler head in the room with the
control panel, early warning will not be guaranteed by activation of a sprinkler
head for reasons already explained by several opponents to the original
proposal. Further, sprinkler head(s) may confine or extinguish the fire, but
they may also damage the control panel in the process, thereby rendering it
non-operational. A smoke detector (or heat detector in the rare situations
when used) should provide ample time for the fire alarm system to nofify or
alert someone (internally and/or externally) before being damaged by fire.
I see early warning (internal and/or external) as the objective of this code
section, not protection of the panel from fire damage. A smoke detector can
give early warning before damage to the control panel takes place, however, a
discharging sprinkler head in the proximity of the panel may not.
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #325)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-113-(1-5.6 [2002 Ed. 4.4.5]) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4.4.5 to read: In buildings that are not
continuously occupied, automatic smoke detection shall be provided at the
location of the Fire Alarm Control Unit(s) to provide early notification of fire
at that location.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is to clarify the intent of this section. For a
number of cycles this has been a source of confusion for a few.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-105(Log #3).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #326)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-114-(1-5.8.7.1 [2002 Ed. 4.4.7.4.1.4]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Change section 4.4.7.4.1.4 number to 4.4.7.3.1.4.
SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #78)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-115-(1-6.1.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-127
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Inspection, Testing and Maintenance for correlation. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee does not see any
conflicts with the action of the Technical Committee of Fundamentals of Fire
Alarm Systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #359)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-116-(1-6.1.1 and A.1.6.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-67
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-6.1.1 and A-1.6.1.1 to read as follows:
1-6.1.1* Shop drawings, specifications, manufacturer’s information and
supporting battery and notification appliance circuit voltage drop calculations
shall be submitted for approval to the The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall
be notified prior to installation or alteration of equipment or wiring. At its
request, complete information regarding the system or system alterations,
including specifications, shop drawings, battery calculations and notification
appliance circuit voltage drop calculations shall be submitted for approval.
Deviation from approved submittals shall require permission of the Authority
Having Jurisdiction.
1-6.1.1.1 Shop Drawings. Shop drawings shall be drawn to an indicated
scale, on sheets or uniform size, with a plan for each floor or protected area,
and shall show those items from the following list that pertain to the design,
operation and function of the system:
(1) Name or owner and occupant
(2) Location, including street address
(3) Name, address and qualifications of the fire alarm designer and
(installing) contractor
(4) Point of compass
(5) Location of partitions, including partitions with elevated sound control
characteristics
(6) Location of fire walls
321
(7) Locations of all beams, joists, or other projections extending more than
12-inches (30-cm) below the ceiling
(8) Occupancy of each room or area, including rooms with unusually high
ambient or peak sound levels
(9) Location and classification of hazardous occupancies (See NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code, Article 500)
(10) Location of rooms or areas with corrosive atmospheres
(11) Location and size of concealed spaces, underfloor spaces, attics,
plenums and shafts
(12) Make, model and location of fire alarm control panel
(13) Make, model and location of remote annunciators and graphic interface
units
(14) Make, model, type and location of automatic fire detection devices
(15) Temperature rating and location of automatic heat detection devices
(16) Make, model, type and location of manual fire alarm initiating devices
(17) Make, model, type and location of flammable gas detection devices
(18) Make, model, type and location of fire suppression system alarm
initiating devices
(19) Make, model, type and location of fire suppression system supervisory
alarm initiating devices
(20) Make, model, type and location of fire protection water supply system
supervisory alarm initiating devices
(21) Make, model, type, rating and location of fire suppression system
releasing devices (e.g., releasing modules, solenoid valves, rupture discs,
explosive actuators)
(22) Make, model, type and location of monitoring modules, control
modules, relay modules, door hold-open/releasing devices, remote test
stations, remote indicating lamps (e.g., light emitting diodes (LEDs)), smoke
and/or fire dampers, and abort stations interconnected to the fire alarm system
(23) Location of auxiliary equipment or systems interconnected to the fire
alarm system, including HVAC fan shutdown controllers, smoke control
systems, elevator controllers, door closing mechanisms, damper release
mechanisms
(24) Make, model, type, performance characteristics and locations of
notification appliances
(25) Make, model, type and location of signaling line circuit devices
(26) Make, model, type and location of transient surge protection devices
(27) Make, model, type and location of remote/auxiliary power supply
devices/panels
(28) Location and rating of circuit end-of-line (EOL) devices
(29) Location, panel designation and circuit breaker designation of primary
power supply source for fire alarm control panel and each remote/auxiliary
power supply device/panel
(30) Location, type, make, model and location of secondary power supply
source
(31) Specified performance of Initiating Device Circuits (See Section 3-5)
(32) Specified performance of Signaling Line Circuits (See Section 3-6)
(33) Specified performance of Notification Appliance Circuits (See Section
3-7)
(34) Fire alarm zone schedules, designations and descriptions
(35) Fire alarm riser diagram, showing all initiating devices and circuits,
signaling line devices and circuits, notification appliances and circuits,
auxiliary devices and circuits, interlocked equipment and system circuits,
primary power supply circuit and source, related circuits and zone
designations
(36) Sequence of operation diagrams/descriptions, logic schematics or
narrative describing system operations, including response of auxiliary and
interlocked equipment and systems in response to all fire alarm system inputs
[See Figure A-7-5.2.2(9)]
(37) Terminal-to-terminal field wiring diagrams for fire alarm panel,
auxiliary and remote power supplies, initiating devices, notification
appliances, signaling devices, auxiliary equipment and interlocked equipment
and systems
(38) Quantity, size, type and insulation color-coding for conductors of each
circuit, including auxiliary equipment and interlocked equipment and systems
(39) Quantity, size, type, location and routing of conduit, wireways, circuits
and junction boxes
(40) Type and location of device and wireway hangers, supports, sleeves,
braces and methods of securing equipment
(41) Reference points on the plans to support voltage drop calculations
Delete appendix/annex material with A-1-6.1.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee’s action to place minimum
requirements for acceptable shop drawings in the appendix/annex is
incomplete and inconsistent with other NFPA design/installation standards.
Without clear, minimum expectations of design drawings and supporting
calculations for submittal to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, how is the
Authority Having Jurisdiction or even the 3rd party organization (See Sections
1-7.2.3 [Log 65] and 4.5.2.3 [Log 466]) going to be able to review, approve
and verify field performance of an installed or modified system? Section
4.4.4.2.1 [Log 466] requires all systems to be installed in accordance with
specifications and standards approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction,
so NFPA 72 should provide these minimum expectations in the body of the
standard for the Authority Having Jurisdiction to invoke. The majority of
NFPA design/installation standards invoke minimum design and calculation
expectations in the body of the standard, NFPA 72 should be no different
considering a fire alarm system’s role in providing occupant life safety
and property protection. As noted in Proposal numbers 72-67 [Log 277]
and 72-125 [Log 106], lack of consistency and quality of fire alarm system
design drawings and supporting calculations is a significant problem with
system installations, acceptance testing, routine testing and maintenance,
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Add the following line to Figure 7-5.2.2 [10.6.2.3] in the Alarm Initiating
Devices and Circuit Information Section:
“The alarm verification feature is disabled ——— enabled ————.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee. The change is made for correlation
with the action on Proposal 72-135 in Figure 1-6.2.1.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
and maintaining future configuration management (completion of “record
drawings”). Incorporation of the applicable requirements in original design
drawings also provides the field installers with sufficient and clear direction
on how the system is to be installed and how it is to perform.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee does not agree that these
are minimum requirements that are needed in the body of the Code. The
committee has added recommendations for documents in the appendix.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
————————————————-
(Log #334)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-117-(1-6.2 [2002 Ed. 4.5.2.3.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert McGinnis, Barnwell, SC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: In 4.5.2.3.1 replace Chapter 10 with NFPA 72 in
the body and the exception.
SUBSTANTIATION: Acceptance/Reacceptance and periodic testing
requirements are found throughout NFPA 72. It’s true that Chapter 7 or new
Chapter 10 is the chapter on testing but many test requirements are found in
the other chapters. The only exception in the past was the chapter dealing
with dwelling systems which had it’s own chapter and still does.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Testing requirements are intended to be in
Chapter 10. The submitter has not provided any examples to substantiate his
comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #7)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-118-(Figure 1-6.2.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-138
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A local protected premises fire alarm system does
not become a supervising station system just because it is connected to a
supervising station. The scope of Chapter 5 is “Chapter 5 shall cover the
requirements for the performance, installation, and operation of fire alarm
systems at a continuously attended supervising station and between the
protected premises and the continuously attended supervision station.”
There is often a connection from a local system via a local energy master
box, dact, etc. to a receiving station of some type, often not a type that is
defined by Chapter 5, such that this line item should remain for those who use
the record of completion form.
I agree with the negative voting expressed by Mr. Jacobs. This form adds
very little value to a fire alarm installation due to the difficulty in its use and
the information that is provided.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
YANEK: A local protected premises fire alarm systems does (must) become
a supervising station system when connected to a supervising station and must
follow the rules and code addressing supervisory station systems, because of
the simple fact that it is now connected to a supervising station.
In argument for it becoming a supervisory station system, one could cite
basically the same reason as the submitter, the scope of Chapter 5 covers
the systems connected to a supervisory station including the station, thus a
local system connected to a supervisory station must fall under Chapter 5
or the supervising station can take on any form not having to meet a set of
requirements addressing supervision.
————————————————-
(Log #79)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-119-(Figure 1-6.2.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-135
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Inspection, Testing and Maintenance for correlation. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
322
(Log #193)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-120-(1-6.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-141
RECOMMENDATION: Section 1-6.2.3 should be deleted as recommended
by the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the
problem pointed out in the substantiation. The substantiation proved the
requirements were added in order to mandate enrollment in one of two
specific programs, in violation of NFPA policy. If the committee feels other
organizations should be permitted to provide these services, the language
describing these two specific programs should be deleted as proposed.
B. The committee statement ignores the implicit endorsement given to the
UL and FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs
as requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of
NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels
be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I
hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The
language in 1-6.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific services
from two specific vendors.
C. The committee statement is essentially an excuse to continue violating
the NFPA policy regarding endorsements. While the committee statement
implies mandating two specific services is not a barrier to other vendors
providing those services, it is simply not true in the real world. I have
attended presentations by Technical Committee members (among others)
that review the requirements in this section, and then review the specifics
of their program, and (wink, wink, nod, nod) “look at how specifically our
program meets the requirements of NFPA 72”. There is clearly an implicit
endorsement of these programs, and those that market those programs clearly
utilize that endorsement to further their marketing goals.
D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire
alarm systems, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The language in this
section does not even permit the Authority Having Jurisdiction to verify
compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific programs operated by the
two specific vendors are permitted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the action taken on Proposal 72145.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I vote negative to the action of the Committee. Please se my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192. I do concur with the
committee statement as it relates to item “d” of the substantiation.1
KIRBY: Neither Underwriters Laboratories or Factory Mutual is mentioned
in NFPA 72. Other organizations are not prohibited from offering this
service. This program works! When used, it does elevate the quality of
installations.
————————————————-
(Log #281)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-121-(1-6.2.3 [2002 Ed. 4.5.2.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145 & 72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following:
4.5.2.3* Verification of Compliant Installation. (ROP 72-145)
Where required, compliance of the completed installation with the
requirements of this standard, as implemented via the referring code(s),
specifications, and/or other criteria applicable to the specific installation, shall
be certified by a qualified and impartial 3rd party organization acceptable to
the authority having jurisdiction.
4.5.2.3.1 At a minimum, the verification and certification shall ensure that
the installed system includes all required components and functions that
those components and functions are installed and operate as required, that
the system has been 100% acceptance tested in accordance with Chapter 10,
and that all required documentation has been provided to the system owner.
For supervising station systems, the verification and certification shall also
ascertain proper arrangement, transmission, and receipt of all signals required
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
to be transmitted off-premises.
Exception: Where the installation is an extension, modification, or
reconfiguration of an existing system, the verification and certification shall
be required for the new work only and reacceptance testing in accordance with
Chapter 10 shall be acceptable.
4.5.2.3.2 Certification shall not be conferred until verification, including
verification of any required corrective actions, has been completed.
SUBSTANTIATION: Existing certification programs conducted by UL and
FM rely upon annual spot inspections of a sample of the certificated accounts.
Both organizations have traditionally been unable to fill inspector positions
due to the lack of qualified applicants. It is unreasonable to expect that either
group or any new group will be able to add the required number of inspectors
to perform these inspections in a timely manner. This is especially true since
local inspectors will be required to ensure that occupancy permits can be
issued in a timely manner. It will be dangerous to life safety if the Authority
Having Jurisdiction’s defer inspections based upon the false hope that third
party certification organizations will be able to meet the demand for the
required frequency of inspections.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee is not mandating third party
verification, but provides requirements to be invoked at the Authority Having
Jurisdictions’ prerogative.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #CC102)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-121a-(1-6.2.3.1.1, 1-6.2.3.1.2, and A-1.6.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145
RECOMMENDATION: In the wording of Proposal 72-145 make the
following changes:
In paragraph 1-6.2.3.1.1 delete “and certification” in the two locations in the
paragraph it appears and in the Exception.
Revise 1-6.2.3.1.2 to read: “Verification shall include confirmation that any
required corrective actions have been completed.”
Revise A-1-6.2.3 delete “and certification” the one time it appears in the
paragraph.
SUBSTANTIATION: These revisions are being made to minimize
confusion between verification and the other code requirements for
certification or placarding of systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
(Log #348)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-123-(1-7) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Technical Correlating Committee
Note.
SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe that the inclusion of impairment
requirements is not the scope of NFPA 72. The scope of the technical
committee is “The Committee has primary responsibility of documents on
the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their components
and their interface equipment.” NFPA 25 addresses impairment in
their documents so the precedence has been set. If the requirements for
impairments is given to the Fire Prevention Code Technical Committee there
will be no requirements dealing with impairments of fire alarms systems for
jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-122(Log #183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a (.Log
CC101).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #352)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-124-(1-7) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
7.6 Impairments
7.6.1 General. This section provides the minimum requirements for a fire
alarm system impairment program. Adequate measures shall be taken during
the impairment to ensure that increased risks are minimized and the duration
of the impairment is limited.
7.6.2 Impairment Coordinator. The building owner shall assign an
impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the
absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment
coordinator.
Exception: Where the lease, written use agreement, or management contract
specifically grants the authority for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the
fire alarm system(s) to the tenant, management firm, or managing individual,
the tenant, management firm, or managing individual shall assign a person as
impairment coordinator.
7.6.3 Tag Impairment System.
7.6.3.1* A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or part thereof, has
been removed from service.
————————————————(Log #183)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-122-(1-7) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee has reconsidered the
issue of scope and believes that the direction provided by the Technical
Correlating Committee NOTE in Comment 72-324a conforms with the
scope of the committee.
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: Reaffirm the committee action on proposal 72-143.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. A fire alarm system impairment program is a
practical necessity for system owners and an integral element of routine fire
alarm system testing and maintenance. If “as-built” drawings, operation
and maintenance manuals, inspection, testing and maintenance are within
the scope of the standard, so is an effective fire alarm system impairment
program.
B. NFPA 1 is the Fire Prevention Code and does not even mention
impairment programs. Fire alarm impairment programs have nothing to do
with preventing fires; they are about making sure that required fire alarm
systems are in service when fires occur.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee requests that Proposal 72-143 be reported as “Accept in
Principle”.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action to
Accept in Principle Proposal 72-143. The Scope of NFPA 1 is explicit in
that it is subservient to the requirements of other NFPA standards. NFPA 25
addresses impairment procedures within that standard. NFPA 1 can extract
the requirement if they so desire.
See Committee Action and statement on Comment 72-124a (.Log CC101).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
323
7.6.3.2* The tag shall be posted at each fire alarm control panel and remote
annunciator panel indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed
from service. The authority having jurisdiction shall specify where the tag is
to be placed.
7.6.4 Impaired Equipment. The impaired equipment shall be considered to be
the fire alarm system, or part thereof, that is removed from service. This shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Fire Alarm Control Panel
Alarm Notification Devices
Detection Devices
Control Devices
Signal Transmission Devices
Normal System and Backup Power Systems
Special Hazards Equipment
7.6.5* Preplanned Impairment Programs. All preplanned impairments
shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is
given, the impairment coordinator shall be responsible for verifying that the
following procedures have been implemented:
(a) The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been
determined.
(b) The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased
risks determined.
(c) Recommendations have been submitted to management or building
owner/manager. Where a required fire alarm system is out of service for more
than 4 hours in a 24-hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for
one of the following:
1.
Evacuation of the building or portion of the building affected
by the system out of service
2.
* An approved fire watch
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
3.
4.
* Establishment of temporary detection and notification
* Establishment and implementation of an approved program
to eliminate potential ignition sources and limit the amount of
fuel available to the fire
(d) The fire department has been notified.
(e) The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and
other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified.
(f) The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified.
(g) A tag impairment system has been implemented. (See Section 7.6.3.)
(h) All necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the
impairment site.
7.6.6 Emergency Impairments. Emergency impairments include but are not
limited to fire alarm control panel failure, detector and notification troubles,
loss of normal or backup power, and equipment failure. When this occurs,
appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and
damage. The coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section 7.6.5.
7.6.7 Restoring Systems to Service. When all impaired equipment is restored
to normal working order, the impairment coordinator shall verify that the
following procedures have been implemented:
(a) Any necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that
effected systems are operational. The appropriate chapter of this standard shall
be consulted for guidance on the type of inspection and test required.
(b) Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored.
(c) The fire department has been advised that protection is restored.
(d) The building owner/manager, insurance carrier, alarm company, and
other authorities having jurisdiction have been advised that protection is
restored.
(e)
The impairment tag has been removed.
A.7.6.3.1 A clearly visible tag alerts building occupants and the fire
department that all or part of the fire alarm system is out of service. The tag
should be weather resistant, plainly visible, and of sufficient size [typically 4
in. 6 in. (102 mm 152 mm)]. The tag should identify which system is
impaired, the date and time impairment began, and the person responsible.
Figure A-11-3.1 illustrates a typical impairment tag.
Figure A7.6.3.1
A.7.6.3.2 An impairment tag should be placed on the fire alarm control
panel and any remote annunciator panels to alert responding fire fighters of an
abnormal condition. An impairment tag that is located on the system control
panel only could go unnoticed for an extended period if fire fighters encounter
difficulty in gaining access to the building or fire alarm system control room.
A.7.6.5 The need for temporary fire protection, termination of all hazardous
operations, and frequency of inspections in the areas involved should be
determined. All work possible should be done in advance to minimize
the length of the impairment. Where possible, temporary detection and
notification should be used to maintain portions of systems while work is
completed.
SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of impairments needs to be addressed in
NFPA 72. We do not agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that
this is not within the scope of NFPA 72. NFPA 25 on water-based systems
inspection, maintenance and testing has a chapter dealing with impairments.
This proposal took the wording from NFPA 25 and reworded for fire alarms
systems. We believe that this will provide consistency in impairment between
NFPA 25 and 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment includes significant new
material that cannot be handled by the committee at this phase of the Code
cycle.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
Fire alarm systems should not be removed from service when the building
is not in use. Where a system that has been out of service for a prolonged
period (such as in the case of idle or vacant properties) is returned to service,
qualified personnel should be retained to inspect and test the systems.
(Log #CC101)
Committee: SIG-FUN
A.7.6.5(c)2 A fire watch should consist of trained personnel who
continuously patrol the effected area. Ready access to fire extinguishers
and the ability to promptly notify the fire department are important items to
consider. During the patrol of the area, the person should not only be looking
for fire, but making sure that the other fire protection features of the building
such as egress routes and sprinkler systems are available and functioning
properly.
A.7.6.5(c)3 Temporary detection and notification systems are possible from a
number of sources including the use of bullhorns.
A.7.6.5(c) 4 Depending on the use and occupancy of the building, it might be
enough in some circumstances to stop certain processes in the building or to
cut off the flow of fuel to some machines. It is also helpful to implement ìNo
Smokingî and ìNo Hot Workî (cutting, grinding or welding) policies while
the system is out of service since these activities are responsible for many fire
ignitions.
72-124a-(1-7 through 1-7.4, and A-1-7.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: The committee requests that Proposal 72-143
be reported as “Accept in Principle” maintaining the text in the Report on
Proposals.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee reaffirms its action to Accept in
Principle Proposal 72-143. The Scope of NFPA 1 (paragraph 1-3) is explicit
in that it is subservient to the requirements of other NFPA standards. NFPA
25 addresses impairment procedures within that standard. NFPA 1 can extract
the requirement if they so desire.
If the requirements for impairments are given to the Fire Prevention Code
Technical Committee, there will be no requirements dealing with impairments
of fire alarm systems for jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
324
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #141)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-125-(1-7 thru 1-7.4 ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee
that proposals 72-143 and 72-459 are outside the scope of NFPA 72 and
should be referred to the Technical Committee for NFPA 1.
SUBSTANTIATION: I am a member of the Technical Committee on
the Fire Prevention Code (NFPA 1), but these comments are my personal
comments and not the Technical Committee’s. NFPA 1 is in cycle for and
working on the 2003 edition. There are Public Proposals in process for NFPA
1 dealing with impairments of fire protection systems which could address
the issues in proposals 72-143 and 72-459 at the public comment period for
NFPA 1. This would allow implementation of the direction the National Fire
Alarm Code Technical Correlating Committee has given to their Technical
Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-122(Log # 183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a (.Log
CC101).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #296)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-126-(1-7 Thru 1-7.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. I agree with the Technical
Correlating Committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is outside the scope of NFPA 72 and
would be appropriate for NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code. However, although
not called “impairments”, most of the submitter’s concerns are currently
addressed in NFPA 1, Section 1-10, 1-23, 1-15, and 1-19. The submitter
should review NFPA 1 and recommend changes he feels are inadequately
covered. Any proposals should apply to all required systems and operations;
not just the fire alarm system. This material cannot be treated as a proposal or
a comment on a proposal as it lacks specific guidance to NFPA 1 sections and
subsections. I am a member of the NFPA 1 Technical Committee.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement
on Comment 72-122(Log #183) and substantiation for Comment 72-124a
(.Log CC101) The code references in the substantiation do not deal with
impairments.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #174)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-127-(1-7.2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Bush, Office of the Maryland State Fire Marshal
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-143
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the wording of Paragraph 1.7.2 as follows:
The system owner or designated representative shall maintain a permanent
record of all system impairments.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revised wording of this paragraph is intended to
clarify the duration and person(s) responsible for maintaining such records. If
the intent of such documentation is to record a history of problems associated
with a particular system or associated condition, such problems or conditions
may exist for longer than a one-year period or may occur on an annual or
other intermittent basis which would not be adequately documented by
records complying with current language. In addition, the proposed wording
serves to clarify the time period that such records are to be maintained, and
eliminates the confusion of whether they are to be maintained on a 12-month
or calendar year basis. This wording also serves to clarify the concerns
expressed by both negative ballots received on this issue.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise 1.7.2 in Proposal 72-143 to read as follows:
“A record shall be maintained by the system owner or designated
representative for a period of 1 year from the date the impairment is
corrected.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the submitter’s
recommendation by identifying the parties responsible for maintaining the
record(s).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
325
(Log #27)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-128-(Figure 1-7.2.1) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-144
RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The record of completion should indicate the fire
safety functions activated by or interfaced with the fire alarm system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that the introduction
of fire safety and security functions in the Record of Completion has merit.
The submitter has not provided specific language, and developing the
language at this point in the cycle is not achievable.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #224)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-129-(1-7.2.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-145
RECOMMENDATION: New Wording. Revise the text deleted by proposal
72-145 as shown in new paragraph 1-6.2.4. Continue to accept new wording
accepted in principle in proposal 72.145.
1-6.2.4 Fire Alarm System Certificate Service
Where required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction or other chapters of this
code, a certificate of compliance shall be conspicuously displayed indicating
that the fire alarm system providing service complies with all applicable
requirements of this code. The certificate shall be provided by a listed service
company based on the requirements of the listing organization, which shall
include at a minimum a periodic evaluation of the service company test and
inspect records and an audit of a sufficient number of the certificated systems
to assure listed service company competency to meet NFPA 72 requirements.
SUBSTANTIATION: The verification requirement introduced by proposal
72-145 is an option for a local authority or system owner to assure the fire
alarm system meets code, during system acceptance phase of an installation.
In some cases, a system owner may plan on using staff for testing and
maintaining the fire alarm system so the verification requirement approach
makes sense. However, deleting the certificate service program is a
significant reduction in requirements without substantiation. The deleted text
removes the requirement for a service contract, which is part of the certificate
service. The revised wording requires the system to be “verified” as meeting
NFPA 72 requirements at the time of completion, if required by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction. The “verified” system approach does not require further
testing. A system with a certificate and being tested by a listed service
company is more likely to continue to be operational. It seems that both
methods have a place in the fire alarm industry.
Here is how we understand that the certificate service works. A fire alarm
system is tested by a “listed” service company for compliance with NFPA 72
requirements prior to issuing a certificate. The service contract for testing
and maintenance provides a degree of assurance of continued compliance to
NFPA 72 requirements. Additionally, the certificate service provides for an
audit of systems by the listing organization, to assure the service company is
competent to issue certificates. Additionally, a “listed” service company has
been evaluated for competency by the listing organization, prior to listing the
service company.
During the last code cycle, the Certificate Service as identified as “3PV,”
which, in our opinion is wrong, or at least misleading. The Certificate Service
is an excellent process, based on how factory quality departments function.
Simply put, the certificate program is an organized process to assure the local
alarm company is competent to perform to code requirements, with periodic
follow-up at the local alarm company for a records check, and random,
unannounced inspection of sample jobs (an audit). That is how a factory
quality department works.
In a factory, the Production Department is responsible for the quality of the
product. The Quality Department monitors the consistency of the process to
assure the Production Department is producing within spec. The monitoring
can be on the production line. If a product out of spec, “Red Light—stop
and fix the process.” The preferred method is to audit sample products taken
from finished stock, and to review production “yield records.” This process
monitors the consistency of the Production Department’s processes. A local
fire alarm service company equates to a factory production company. Listing
organizations, such as UL and FM, equate to a factory Quality Assurance
Department.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fire prevention codes and NFPA-72 require
periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire alarm systems. The
language accepted by the committee does not prohibit the use of a certificate
service program.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
BEREZOWSKI: Comment 72-129 should be accepted. The proposed text
would enable the Authority Having Jurisdiction to require that any fire alarm
system be certificated by a listing organization. Verification of Compliant
Installations is likely to be expensive and unnecessary in many circumstances.
An auditing program is a lower cost alternative that has proven to be effective
in raising the quality of central station system installations. A monitored
quality assurance program applied to other system installations would almost
certainly raise the quality of those installed systems as well.
Comment 72-129 is a revision to the paragraphs deleted by Proposal 72145. The requirements put forth by Comment 72-129 do not reference any
particular program or organization. Rather, the requirements are based on the
definition of “listed”, which includes equipment, material, or services.
Then National Fire Alarm Code requires use of Listed equipment. It seems
reasonable to establish, but not mandate, the requirements for a Listed Quality
Assurance Program.
Comment 72-129 does not quarrel with the new reeequirement introduced by
Proposal 72-145.
EGESDAL: Comment 72-129 defines requirements for a fire alarm system
quality assurance program, which would be in effect where required by
the Authority Having Jurisdiction. The comment provides guidance to the
Authority Having Jurisdiction.
Comment 72-129 is a revision to the paragraphs deleted by Proposal 72145. The requirements put forth by Comment 72-129 do not reference any
particular program or organization. Rather, the requirements are based on the
definition of “listed,” which includes “equipment, material or services.
The National Fire Alarm Code requires use of “listed” equipment. It seems
reasonable to establish, but not require, the requirements for a “listed” quality
assurance program.
Comment 72-129 does not quarrel with the new requirement introduced by
Proposal 72-145.
————————————————(Log #CC108)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-129a-(4-4.7.1.13) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-1h
RECOMMENDATION: In Proposal 72-1h revise 4.4.7.1.13 to read as
follows:
Monitoring for integrity of the installation conductors for a ground-fault
condition shall not be required for the communications and transmission
channels extending from a supervising station to a subsidiary station(s) or
protected premises, or both, which comply with the requirements of Chapter
8 and are electrically isolated from the fire alarm system (or circuits) by a
transmitter(s), provided that a single ground condition does not affect the
required operation of the fire alarm system.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Editorially revised to provide clarity.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes
made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating
Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all
changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and
simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public.
Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by
a bold reference to the public proposal number.
The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with
such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of
potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes
in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the
committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #CC201)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-130a-(Chapter 2 [2002 Edition 5.3 (New )]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151
RECOMMENDATION: Insert new Section 5.3 in the recommendation text
of Proposal 72-146a, and insert A.5.3 in the recommendation text of Proposal
72-488a to read as follows:
5.3* Performance-Based Design.
A.5.3 Annex B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector Spacing,
provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the performancebased design of fire alarm systems.
5.3.1 Performance-based designs submitted to the authority having
jurisdiction for review and approval shall include documentation, in an
approved format, of each performance objective and applicable scenario,
together with any calculations, modeling or other technical substantiation used
in establishing the proposed design’s fire and life safety performance.
5.3.2 The authority having jurisdiction shall determine whether such
identified performance objectives are appropriate and have been met.
5.3.3 The authority having jurisdiction shall approve modifications to or
variations from the approved design or design basis in advance.
The current Section 5.3 and subsequent paragraphs shown in Proposal 72146a are not effected by this action and are to be renumbered.
SUBSTANTIATION: A Section has been provided to add a set of rules to
provide a framework of requirements for use in applying a performance-based
design option to the perscriptive requirements on detector selection, location,
and spacing, as intended by the submitter of Proposal 72-151.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #333)
Committee: SIG-IDS
————————————————(Log #163)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-130-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. Chapter 5]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons:
The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual
of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation
of the proposal (by reference and the use of legislative text) or are identified
by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes
are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-146a or in the individual
proposals.
326
72-131-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.3.6.1]) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite 5.7.3.6.1 as follows:
a) For ceilings with beam depths of less than 10% of the ceiling height (0.1
H), smooth ceiling spacing shall be used in the direction running parallel
to the beams and 1/2 the smooth ceiling spacing shall used in the direction
running perpendicular to the beams.
b) For ceilings with beam depths equal to or greater than 10% of the ceiling
height (0.1 H) and beam spacing closer than 40% of the ceiling height (0.4 H),
the requirements of 5.7.3.6.1a shall apply.
c) For ceilings with beam depths equal to or greater than 10% of the ceiling
height (0.1 H) and beam spacing equal to or greater than 40% of the ceiling
height (0.4 H), spot type detectors shall be located on the ceiling in each beam
pocket.
d) For applications where the potential fire source to be detected in located
above floor elevation, the height of the ceiling above the fire shall be used for
ceiling height for determining spacing and locations.
SUBSTANTIATION: These changes modify the 1993 version wording and
provide better and more specific guidance than either the 1999 wording or the
ROP wording. The calculations sponsored by FDI for beamed ceilings does
not contradict this new wording.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In accordance with NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects, Section 4-4.6.2.2(a), the comment is held
because it introduces material that has not had public review by being
published in the Report on Proposals.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 24
NEGATIVE: 2
ABSTENTION: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CHOLIN: Everyone who has been using NFPA 72 for the design of smoke
detection systems has been aware of the state of flux in the recommendations
for spacing adjustments due to the presence of beams and joists. The topic is
old, not new. Indeed a Tentative Interim Amendment was issued to correct
the language in the 1999 Edition. Consequently, the public has been made
aware that this issue was under consideration and apt to be amended. It is
only this particular approach to addressing the problem that is new. There
is ample precedent for technical committees adopting new language at
the Report on Comments meeting. Thus, this material should have been
considered on its merits at the meeting rather than deferred.
The spacing corrections for smoke detectors provided in the proposed text
have a far better basis in research than any of the recommendations provided
in the current edition of the National Fire Alarm Code, even as amended by
the Tentative Interim Amendment. This comment should have been adopted.
I urge the Technical Committee to reverse its earlier action and adopt this
comment.
MARRION: The corrections for spacing proposed in 72-131 have a solid
basis in the fire industry, and are easier to use by the end user when applying
NFPA 72. The committee should reconsider their action on this proposal.
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
DUNGAN: I respect the committee’s decision to hold this item, but I
wish to offer two comments. First, this is not really new. It was appendix
material in the three editions prior to 1993 and is currently still referenced for
heat detectors. Secondly, although we corrected the error that required the
Tentative Interim Amendment, we still have not addressed the pan or waffle
ceilings. By our requirements it looks like we require a smoke detector in
each pan or pocket in these type ceilings, even though they may only be 50
square feet or less. This was not and is not the committee’s intent.
EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:
O’CONNOR: Although at the Committee level the proposal to rewrite the
beamed ceiling spacing rules (Section 5.7.3.6.1) was viewed as new material,
it is clear from the Committee discussion that this section causes many
interpretation problems and that the current requirements are not consistent
with accepted principals of fire physics. The proposed wording in Log 333
corrects a current confused section of the document and should be considered
for handling as a Tenative Interim Amendment.
————————————————(Log #331)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-132-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.4.2.2]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Reword Section 5.4.2.2 as follows:
Where partial coverage is required, detection devices shall be provided...
SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording refers to a partial system in
certain areas without defining what a partial system is. The intent is that a
partial system provides protection for the listed areas but not other areas of the
building.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #332)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-133-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.3.2, 5.7.3.3, 5.7.3.5, 5.7.3.6, 5.7.5.3.1, and
5.7.5.4.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Reorganize and renumber the following sections:
All of 5.7.3.2 becomes 5.7.3.3
All of 5.7.3.3 becomes 5.7.3.2 with the following sections added:
All of 5.7.3.5 becomes 5.7.3.2.3
All of 5.7.3.6 becomes 5.7.3.2.4
Move 5.7.5.3.1, .2, and .3 to 5.7.3.4.6, .7, and .8, respectively
Move 5.7.5.4.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, and .6 to 5.7.3.3.3, .4, .5, .6, and .7
SUBSTANTIATION: This reorganization put all the pertinent information
together for spot type, beam type and air sampling type smoke detectors and
will be easier for the user to follow.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise Section 5.7 in the recommendation of Proposal 72-146a to read as
follows:
5.7 {1999 2-3} Smoke-Sensing Fire Detectors.
5.7.1 {1999 2-3.1} General.
5.7.1.1* {1999 2-3.1.1*} [MOS] [From 1999 2-3.1.4]
The purpose of Section 5.7 shall be to provide information to assist in
design and installation of reliable early warning smoke detection systems for
protection of life and property. (Refer to Annex B for additional guidance in
the application of smoke detectors for flaming fires of various sizes and growth
rates in areas of various ceiling heights.)
5.7.1.2 {1999 2-3.1.2}
Section 5.7 shall cover general area application of smoke detectors in ordinary
indoor locations.
5.7.1.3 {1999 2-3.1.3}
327
For information on use of smoke detectors for control of smoke spread, the
requirements of Section 5.14 shall apply.
5.7.1.4* {1999 2-3.2*} [ROP 72-164] [numbering change]
Smoke detectors shall be installed in all areas where required by applicable
laws, codes, or standards.
5.7.1.5 5.7.5.1 {1999 2-3.6.1} Environment. [MOS]
The selection and placement of smoke detectors shall take into account both
the performance characteristics of the detector and the areas into which the
detectors are to be installed to prevent nuisance alarms or improper operation
after installation.
Paragraphs 5.7.5.1.1 through 5.7.5.1.3 shall apply.
5.7.1.6* 5.7.5.1.1* {1999 2-3.6.1.1*} [MOS]
Unless specifically designed and listed for the expected conditions, smoke
detectors shall not be installed if any of the following ambient conditions
exist:
(1) Temperature below 0° C (32° F)
(2) Temperature above 38° C (100° F)
(3) Relative humidity above 93 percent
(4) Air velocity greater than 1.5 m/sec
(300 ft/min)
5.7.1.7* 5.7.5.1.2* {1999 2-3.6.1.2*}
The location of smoke detectors shall be based on an evaluation of potential
ambient sources of smoke, moisture, dust, or fumes, and electrical or
mechanical influences to minimize nuisance alarms.
5.7.1.8 5.7.5.1.3 {1999 2-3.6.1.3}
Detectors shall not be installed until after the construction cleanup of all trades
is complete and final.
Exception: Where required by the authority having jurisdiction for protection
during construction. Detectors that have been installed during construction
and found to have a sensitivity outside the listed and marked sensitivity range
shall be cleaned or replaced in accordance with Chapter 10 at completion of
construction.
5.7.1.9* 5.7.5.1.4* {1999 2-3.6.1.4*} Stratification. [MOS]
The effect of stratification below the ceiling shall be taken into account. The
guidelines in Annex B shall be permitted to be used.
5.7.2* {1999 2-3.3*} Sensitivity.
5.7.2.1 {1999 2-3.3.1}[ MOS]
Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production sensitivity and
tolerance (percent per foot obscuration), as required by the listing.
5.7.2.2 {1999 2-3.3.2}
Smoke detectors that have provision for field adjustment of sensitivity shall
have an adjustment range of not less than 0.6 percent per foot obscuration.
5.7.2.3 {1999 2-3.3.2}[ MOS]
If the means of adjustment of sensitivity is on the detector, a method shall be
provided to restore the detector to its factory calibration.
5.7.2.4 {1999 2-3.3.2}
Detectors that have provision for program-controlled adjustment of sensitivity
shall be permitted to be marked with their programmable sensitivity range
only.
5.7.3 {1999 2-3.4} Location and Spacing.
5.7.3.1* {1999 2-3.4.1*} General.
5.7.3.1.1 {1999 2-3.4.1.1} [MOS]
The location and spacing of smoke detectors shall result from an evaluation
based on the guidelines detailed in this code and on engineering judgment.
Conditions that shall be included in the evaluation are the following:
(1) Ceiling shape and surface
(2) Ceiling height
(3) Configuration of contents in the area to be protected
(4) Burning characteristics of the combustible materials present
(5) Ventilation
(6) Ambient environment
5.7.3.1.2 {1999 2-3.4.1.2}
If the intent is to protect against a specific hazard, the detector(s) shall be
permitted to be installed closer to the hazard in a position where the detector
can intercept the smoke.
5.7.3.2* 5.7.3.3* {1999 2-3.4.3*} Spot-Type Smoke Detectors.
5.7.3.2.1 5.7.3.3.1 {1999 2-3.4.3.1} [MOS]
Spot-type smoke detectors shall be located on the ceiling not less than 100
mm (4 in.) from a sidewall to the near edge or, if on a sidewall, between 100
mm and 300 mm (4 in. and 12 in.) down from the ceiling to the top of the
detector. (Refer to Figure A.5.6.2.1.)
5.7.3.2.2* 5.7.3.3.2* {1999 2-3.4.3.2*}
To minimize dust contamination, smoke detectors, where installed under
raised floors, shall be mounted only in an orientation for which they have been
listed.
5.7.3.2.3 5.7.3.5 {1999 2-3.4.5} Smooth Ceiling Spacing.
5.7.3.5.1 {1999 2-3.4.5.1} [MOS]
On smooth ceilings, spacing for spot-type smoke detectors shall be in
accordance with the following.
5.7.3.2.3.1 5.7.3.5.1.1 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}[ MOS]
Spacing of 9.1 m (30 ft) shall be permitted to be used as a guide.
5.7.3.2.3.2 5.7.3.5.1.2 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}
In all cases, the manufacturerís documented instructions shall be followed.
5.7.3.2.3.3 5.7.3.5.1.3 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}
Other spacing shall be permitted to be used depending on ceiling height,
different conditions, or response requirements.
5.7.3.2.3.4 5.7.3.5.1.4 {1999 2-3.4.5.1.1}
For the detection of flaming fires, the guidelines in Annex B shall be permitted
to be used.
5.7.3.2.3.5* 5.7.3.5.1.5* {1999 2-3.4.5.1.2*}
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
For smooth ceilings, all points on the ceiling shall have a detector within a
distance equal to 0.7 times the selected spacing.
5.7.3.2.4* 5.7.3.6* {1999 2-3.4.6*} Solid Joist and Beam Construction.
[ROP 72-174]
For solid joist and beam construction, spacing for spot-type smoke detectors
shall be in
accordance with the following.
5.7.3.2.4.1 Solid joists shall be considered equivalent to beams for smoke
detector
spacing guidelines.
5.7.3.2.4.2* 5.7.3.6.1* {1999 2-3.4.6.1*} Level Ceilings. [ROP 72-174]
For level ceilings the following shall apply.
(a) For ceiling heights of 3.66 m (12 ft) or lower and beam depths of 300 mm
(1 ft) or less, smooth ceiling spacings running in the direction parallel to the
run of the beams shall be used and 1/2 the smooth ceiling spacing shall be in
the direction perpendicular to the run of the beams. Spot-type detectors shall
be permitted to be located either on the ceiling or on the bottom of the beams.
(b) For beam depths exceeding 300 mm (1 ft) or for ceiling heights exceeding
3.66 m (12 ft), spot-type detectors shall be located on the ceiling in every
beam pocket.
5.7.3.6.2* {1999 2-3.4.6.2*} Sloped Ceilings. [MOS]
5.7.3.2.4.3* 5.7.3.6.2.1 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]
For sloped ceilings For beamed ceilings with beams running parallel to (up)
the slope,
spacing shall comply with the following.
(a) The spacing for level beamed ceilings shall be used.
(b) The ceiling height shall be taken as the average height over slope.
(c) For slopes greater than 10 degrees, the detectors located at one-half the
spacing from the low end shall not be required.
(d) Spacings shall be measured along a horizontal projection ceilings.
5.7.3.2.4.4 5.7.3.6.2.2 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]
For sloped ceilings For beamed ceilings with beams running perpendicular to
(across) slope, spacing shall comply with the following.
(a) The spacing for level beamed ceilings shall be used.
(b) The ceiling height shall be taken as the average height over slope.
5.7.3.2.4.5 5.7.3.6.2.3 {1999 2-3.4.6.2} [MOS]
For sloped ceilings with For solid joists, the detectors shall be located on the
bottom of the joist
5.7.3.3 5.7.3.2 {1999 2-3.4.2} Air Sampling-Type Smoke Detector.
5.7.3.3.1 5.7.3.2.1 {1999 2-3.4.2}
Each sampling port of an air sampling-type smoke detector shall be treated as
a spot-type detector for the purpose of location and spacing.
5.7.3.3.2 5.7.3.2.2 {1999 2-3.4.2}
Maximum air sample transport time from the farthest sampling point shall not
exceed 120 seconds.
5.7.5.4 {1999 2-3.6.4} Air Sampling-Type Detectors.
5.7.3.3.3* 5.7.5.4.1* {1999 2-3.6.4.1*}
Sampling pipe networks shall be designed on the basis of and shall be
supported by sound fluid dynamic principles to ensure required performance.
5.7.3.3.4 5.7.5.4.2 {1999 2-3.6.4.1} [MOS]
Sampling pipe network design details shall include calculations showing the
flow characteristics of the pipe network and each sample port.
5.7.3.3.5* 5.7.5.4.3* {1999 2-3.6.4.2*}
Air-sampling detectors shall give a trouble signal if the airflow is outside the
manufacturerís specified range.
5.7.3.3.6 5.7.5.4.4 {1999 2-3.6.4.2}
The sampling ports and in-line filter, if used, shall be kept clear in accordance
with the manufacturerís documented instructions.
5.7.3.3.7 5.7.5.4.5 {1999 2-3.6.4.3}
Air-sampling network piping and fittings shall be airtight and permanently
fixed.
5.7.3.3.8 5.7.5.4.6 {1999 2-3.6.4.3}
Sampling system piping shall be conspicuously identified as SMOKE
DETECTOR SAMPLING TUBE. DO NOT DISTURB, as follows:
(1) At changes in direction or branches of piping
(2) At each side of penetrations of walls, floors, or other barriers
(3) At intervals on piping that provide visibility within the space,
but no greater than (6m) 20 ft.
5.7.3.4* {1999 2-3.4.4} Projected Beam-Type Smoke Detectors.
[ROP 72-168] [MOS]
5.7.3.4.1 {1999 2-3.4.4} [ROP 72-168] [MOS]
Projected beam-type smoke detectors shall be located in accordance with the
manufacturerís documented instructions.
5.7.3.4.2 {1999 2-3.4.4}
The effects of stratification shall be evaluated when locating the detectors.
5.7.3.4.3 {1999 2-3.4.4.1}
The beam length shall not exceed the maximum permitted by the equipment
listing.
5.7.3.4.4 {1999 2-3.4.4.2}
If mirrors are used with projected beams, the mirrors shall be installed in
accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions.
5.7.3.4.5 {1999 2-3.4.6.3} [MOS] [relocated text]
A projected beam-type smoke detector shall be equivalent to a row of spottype smoke detectors for level and sloping ceiling applications.
5.7.5.3 {1999 2-3.6.3} Projected Beam-Type Detectors.
5.7.3.4.6 5.7.5.3.1 {1999 2-3.6.3.1}
Projected beam-type detectors and mirrors shall be mounted on stable surfaces
to prevent false or erratic operation due to movement.
5.7.3.4.7 5.7.5.3.2 {1999 2-3.6.3.1}
The beam shall be designed so that small angular movements of the light
328
source or receiver do not prevent operation due to smoke and do not cause
nuisance alarms.
5.7.3.4.8* 5.7.5.3.3* {1999 2-3.6.3.2*}
The light path of projected beam-type detectors shall be kept clear of opaque
obstacles at all times.
5.7.3.5* 5.7.3.7* {1999 2-3.4.7*} Peaked. [MOS]
Detectors shall first be spaced and located within 900 mm (3 ft) of the peak,
measured horizontally. The number and spacing of additional detectors, if
any, shall be based on the horizontal projection of the ceiling.
5.7.3.6* 5.7.3.8* {1999 2-3.4.8*} Shed. [MOS]
Detectors shall first be spaced and located within 900 mm (3 ft) of the high
side of the ceiling, measured horizontally. The number and spacing of
additional detectors, if any, shall be based on the horizontal projection of the
ceiling.
5.7.3.7 5.7.3.9 {1999 2-3.4.9} Raised Floors and Suspended Ceilings.
Spaces beneath raised floors and above suspended ceilings shall be treated
as separate rooms for smoke detector spacing purposes. Detectors installed
beneath raised floors or above suspended ceilings, or both, including raised
floors and suspended ceilings used for environmental air, shall not be used in
lieu of providing detection within the room.
5.7.3.7.1 5.7.3.9.1 {1999 2-3.4.9.1} Raised Floors. [MOS]
For raised floors the following shall apply.
(a) Detectors installed beneath raised floors shall be spaced in accordance with
5.7.3.1, 5.7.3.1.2, and 5.7.3.3.2 5.7.3.2.2.
(b) Where the area beneath the raised floor is also used for environmental air,
detector spacing shall also conform to 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2.
5.7.3.7.2 5.7.3.9.2 {1999 2-3.4.9.2} Suspended Ceilings. [MOS]
For suspended ceilings the following shall apply.
(a) Detector spacing above suspended ceilings shall conform to the
requirements of 5.7.3 for the ceiling configuration.
(b) Where detectors are installed in ceilings used for environmental air,
detector spacing shall also conform to 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2.
5.7.3.8 5.7.3.10 {1999 2-3.4.10} Partitions. [MOS]
(a) Where partitions extend upward to within 460 mm (18 in.) of the ceiling,
they shall not influence the spacing.
(b) Where the partition extends to within less than 460 mm (18 in.) of the
ceiling, the effect of smoke travel shall be evaluated in the reduction of
spacing.
5.7.4 {1999 2-3.5} Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC).
5.7.4.1* {1999 2-3.5.1*}
In spaces served by air-handling systems, detectors shall not be located where
airflow prevents operation of the detectors.
5.7.4.2 {1999 2-3.5.2} [MOS]
Detectors installed in plenums shall comply with the 5.7.4.2.1 and 5.7.4.2.2.
5.7.4.2.1 {1999 2-3.5.2.1}
In under-floor spaces and above-ceiling spaces that are used as HVAC
plenums, detectors shall be listed for the anticipated environment as required
by 5.7.1.6 5.7.5.1.1. Detector spacings and locations shall be selected based
on anticipated airflow patterns and fire type.
5.7.4.2.2* {1999 2-3.5.2.2*} [MOS]
Detectors placed in environmental air ducts or plenums shall not be used as a
substitute for open area detectors. Where detectors are used for the control of
smoke spread, the requirements of Section 5.14 shall apply. Where open area
protection is required, 5.7.3 shall apply.
5.7.5 {1999 2-3.6} Special Considerations.
5.7.5.1 5.7.5.2 {1999 2-3.6.2} Spot-Type Detectors.
5.7.5.1.1 5.7.5.2.1 {1999 2-3.6.2.1}
Smoke detectors that have a fixed temperature element as part of the unit
shall be selected in accordance with Table 5.6.1.1.1 for the maximum ceiling
temperature expected in service.
5.7.5.1.2* 5.7.5.2.2* {1999 2-3.6.2.2*}
Holes in the back of a detector shall be covered by a gasket, sealant, or
equivalent means, and the detector shall be mounted so that airflow from
inside or around the housing does not prevent the entry of smoke during a fire
or test condition.
5.7.5.2* 5.7.5.5* {1999 2-3.6.5*} High Rack Storage.
Where smoke detectors are installed to actuate a suppression system, NFPA
13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, shall apply.
5.7.5.3 5.7.5.6 {1999 2-3.6.6} High Air-Movement Areas.
5.7.5.3.1 5.7.5.6.1 {1999 2-3.6.6.1} General.
The purpose and scope of 5.7.5.3 5.7.5.6 shall be to provide location and
spacing guidance for smoke detectors intended for early warning of fire in
high air-movement areas.
Exception: Detectors provided for the control of smoke spread are covered by
the requirements of Section 5.14.
5.7.5.3.2 5.7.5.6.2 {1999 2-3.6.6.2} Location.
Smoke detectors shall not be located directly in the airstream of supply
registers.
5.7.5.3.3* 5.7.5.6.3* {1999 2-3.6.6.3*} Spacing.
Smoke detector spacing shall be in accordance with Table 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3
and Figure 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3.
Exception: Air-sampling or projected beam smoke detectors installed in
accordance with the manufacturerís documented instructions.
Figure 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3 High air-movement areas (not to be used for
under-floor
or above-ceiling spaces).
[Insert Figure 2-3.6.6.3 from NFPA 72 1999]
Table 5.7.5.3.3 5.7.5.6.3 Smoke Detector Spacing Based on Air Movement
[Insert Table 2-3.6.6.3 from NFPA 72 1999]
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
5.7.5.3.4 5.7.5.6.4 {1999 2-3.6.6.4} HVAC Mechanical Rooms. [ROP 72178a]
[MOS]
Where heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical rooms
are used as an air plenum for return air, the spacings of smoke detectors shall
not be required to be reduced based on the number of air changes.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial changes have been made to comply
the NFPA Manual of Style. The revised text also incorporates the revisions of
the action of Comment 72-134 (Log #330).
The committee recognizes that the changes made by the Committee Actions
on Comment 72-147 (Log #150), Comment 72-149 (Log #148), and Comment
72-151 (Log #147) will need to be reflected in the organizational changes
made by Comment 72-133 (Log #332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #330)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-134-(Chapter 2 [2002 Ed. 5.7.5.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Dungan, Risk Technologies, LLC
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Reorganize Section 5.7 as follows:
Move 5.7.5.1 to new 5.7.1.5 and delete last sentence.
Move 5.7.5.1.1 to new 5.7.1.6.
Move 5.7.5.1.2 to new 5.7.1.7.
Move 5.7.5.1.3 to new 5.7.1.9.
Move 5.7.5.1.4 to new 5.7.1.8.
SUBSTANTIATION: These items are not “special considerations” but rather
general requirements of smoke sensing detector and should be stated up front
regarding their selection, placement and location.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #80)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-135-(2-1.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed
in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives
do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based
requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not
preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in
the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that
performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents,
and this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents.
For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the Technical
Correlating Committee’s recommendation to reconsider the comments in
expressed in voting.
The committee, through its actions on Comment 72-144 (Log #152) and
Comment 72-147 (Log #150), has incorporated performance-based design
as an alternative method for the selection, location and spacing of initiating
devices. The proposed changes offer specific and enforceable language for
performance-based systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #153)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-136-(2-1.3) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-136 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
2.1.3.2 Where subject to mechanical or environmental damage, an initiating
device shall be protected. A mechanical guard used to protect a heat, smoke
329
or radiant energy sensing detector shall be listed for use with the detector.
SUBSTANTIATION: The adopted text could be construed to not apply to
radiant energy sensing detectors. There have been numerous occasions where
windows have been placed in front of flame detectors rendering them blind to
the fires it was intended to detect. Radiant energy sensing detectors should be
included in this paragraph. Also, the language should be broadened to include
long-term environmental affects such as the accumulation of dirt, ice or other
coatings that could degrade performance.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requirements for environmental protection
are adequately addressed in manufacturer’s instructions and elsewhere in the
code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
MCCORMICK: Clarified wording for 2.1.3.2 should have been accepted
or accepted in principle in part and reworked. The comment recognizes
that multiple types of damage occur in industrial and other environments to
all types of initiating devices, some in very hazardous environments. The
type and extent of potential damage needs to be more clearly defined to the
end user so an evaluation for proper protection can be made. To protect the
integrity of the initiating device by use of listed protection means the code
must have enforceable language, which applies to the myriad of potential
damage and protection scenarios not just impact damage to heat and/or smoke
detectors.
————————————————(Log #219)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-137-(2-1.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-147
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part, deleting
Section 2-1.3.6.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee has announced
the formation of a task group on Performance-Based Objectives. Although
the Technical Committee changed, “...upon the most probable fire scenarios
relevant...” to “...upon the design objectives of the system...”, both statements
include performance-based terms.
Furthermore, the committee text, “...and upon the design objectives of the
system as stipulated by relevant Codes and Standards...” adds more confusion
for anyone who uses NFPA 72 in conjunction with non-NFPA building and
fire codes. The majority of codes and standards that refer to NFPA 72 do not
refer to design objectives of a fire alarm system other than manual, automatic,
or both. We believe Section 2-1.3.6 should be deleted and moved to the
performance-based chapter being considered by the task group.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 24
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CHOLIN: The action of the committee removes from the document a
proposed requirement that the fire alarm system be rationally designed, based
upon the fire hazards and the capabilities of the detection devices chosen.
This language was offered in Proposal 72-147 based upon our experience in
several litigation support projects where utterly inappropriate detection was
selected, installed and represented to be in compliance with the National Fire
Alarm Code to the detriment of the owner and occupants of the building. A
poorly written specification or a design/build contract left the owner and
occupants vulnerable to the ignorant or unscrupulous contractor. Since there
was nothing in the National Fire Alarm Code that said that the system had
been designed properly, the legal system let the contractors get away with it.
This is not good for the fire protection industry.
Instead of dealing with the core issue, the technical committee was led
to delete the whole paragraph out of the fear that this language somehow
had something to do with the concept of performance-based design. There
was compromise wording offered: “The selection of the type of initiating
device(s) shall be based upon the fire hazards in the area, compartment or
location being protected and upon the design objectives of the fire alarm
system.” that would have addressed the need and any such concerns. That
language would have provided a legal basis for recovery where needed.
Instead, the technical committee adopted an irrational, knee-jerk reaction
at the urging of a few rather than adopting considered and constructive
compromise. Consequently, there is nothing in the minimum compliance
standard that can be construed to prohibit the use of heat detectors for
occupant evacuation or smoke detectors for an isopropanol dispensing and
storage room. I urge the technical committee to reverse the voice vote and
reject the comment.
MARRION: Accepting this proposal removes a very important concept
requiring that detection systems need to be designed based on:
The most probable fire scenarios relevant to the area,
the characteristics of the compartment which it is meant to detect, and
the performance objectives established for the system.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
This is not a performance based design requirement as the committee states
in their substantiation, but a common sense design methodology for properly
designing a system, whether prescriptive or performance based.
It is unclear how the committee feels that one does not need to include “most
probable fire scenarios” or “design objectives of the systemî in the proper
design of a detection system.
In the Scope section of the Initiating Devices Chapter, it states:
Chapter 2 shall cover minimum requirements for performance, selection, use
and location of automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow detectors,
manually activated fire alarm stations, and supervisory signal initiating
devises, including guard tour reporting used to ensure timely warning for the
purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space, structure, area
or object.
There appears to be no conflict with our scope in accepting what was
originally proposed, and is clearly within the realm of what this Chapter is
intended to be requiring of those for properly designing systems.
WENZEL: Nowhere in this introductory section, outlining requirements for
a very important part of the fire alarm system, does NFPA 72 say that the fire
alarm system using this component has to work, or be designed with any kind
of rational process.
2.1.3.6 was an attempt to do this at the grassroots level of this section, and
the Technical Correlating Committee modified words to at least get the term
“objectives” in the process.
2.1.3.6 put some onus on the designer/specifier to do more than just hang
detectors and provide guards, which is pretty much what the rest of 2.1.3
says. It was intended to get the designer/specifier to think about how the
components he/she is using fit into the entire package. It’s too bad the
committee saw fit to lose the whole section.
I want to go on record as against this, and hope the technical committee
restores at least the Technical Correlating Committee wording.
————————————————-
(Log #28)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-138-(2-1.4.2.4 Exception) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-149
RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Spacing of detectors should follow the requirements
of this code if they are installed, even if they are non-required. The public and
Authority Having Jurisdiction would assume that they meet the requirements.
Spacing for just a special hazard location detection is covered in 2-1.4.3.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
O’CONNOR: The installation of detectors that are not required can provide
a significant benefit for a particular room, space or property whether or not
the specific spacing rules of Chapter 2 are followed. In many instances, the
Authorities Having Jurisdiction requests an added detector for a particular
room or space as an added measure of fire detection without imposing specific
spacing rules. Also, the Committee action on this item precludes an owner
from installing non-required additional detectors due to the added costs
that may result from applying the spacing rules to non-required detectors.
Also, this change ignores that non-required detectors can be provided on a
performance-design basis and with added benefit to any given situation.
ROBERTS: I strongly disagree with the committee action on Proposal 72149. The issue here is non-required detection, above and beyond anything
invoked by NFPA 72, the applicable building code or any statute. This
action effectively prohibits any fire detection less than would be required for
complete coverage in the involved area(s), even if the building would be in
full compliance with no detection at all.
I can give many firsthand examples where the building owner wanted more
protection than required by minimum code, but simply did not have the
funds to install detection devices at normal “NFPA 72” spacing. Therefore,
non-required detectors were installed at strategic locations such as corridors,
large storage spaces, and open plan office areas, but not in sufficient quantity
to meet regular spacing criteria. Often this was Phase 1, with planned later
upfit of more devices. Do we really want to discourage incremental efforts to
improve fire protection? Is it really necessary for us to say, “All or nothing”
when the code requires nothing?
This action will inevitably have the opposite effect of that intended. It will
discourage the installation of supplementary, non-required fire detection. As a
result, some buildings and their occupants will have less protection, fire alarm
installation and service companies will have less business, and the Authorities
Having Jurisdiction (including me) who enforce NFPA 72 will be seen as
impeding fire protection. What’s wrong with this picture?
————————————————-
(Log #220)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-139-(2-1.4.2.4 Exception) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-149
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle.
Retain Section 2-1.4.2.4, adding an asterisk and delete the exception. Also,
330
delete Section 2-1.4.3 but move its text to new Annex Section A-2.1.4.2.4*
and change “shall” to “should”.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the committee statement. The
committee should either explain why they do not feel this is redundant
material, or take the action we suggest. The exception to 2-1.4.2.4 and
Section 2.1.4.3 permit non-required detectors to be installed without the
prescriptive spacing requirements of the Chapter. That was the intent of
the original submitter. The exception has been the source of considerable
arguments regarding the spacing of non-required detection devices.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee accepts the deletion of the exception. The committee rejects
the relocation of Section of 2-1.4.3.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action on Comment
72-138 (Log #28).
The submitter did not provide substantiation for the relocation of Section
2-1.4.3.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #221)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-140-(2-1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle with additional text
to the new Section so it reads: “...either with separate signage within 2 inches
of the device or on the device itself...” (remainder as accepted).
SUBSTANTIATION: We believe this satisfies the concern in Mr. Ellner’s
Comment on Affirmative Vote.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide justification
for the 2 inch criteria in lieu of some other means which would achieve the
same end.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #159)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-141-(2-1.5 (New) ) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Wolfgang Koch, Minimax
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section.
SUBSTANTIATION: We appreciate any effective means to substantially
reduce accidental discharge of suppression systems. However, there is no
evidence that by marking devices such as detectors as proposed, the potential
for accidental discharge of suppression systems would substantially be
minimized.
The size of the proposed marking is too small to be legible from a distance
on the one hand, and too large to be attached (or maybe permanently provided
by the manufacturer) to existing detectors, on the other hand. Furthermore,
the effect of written language is often questionable. In many cases, the device
would be installed at ceilings or even in confined spaces, such as it would be
for many industrial applications or floor voids. The alternative signage at, and
not on the device, included in the proposal would not help much either but this
either way installation cost would be increased considerably. The least thing
we all want to achieve is that fire suppression systems would become too
expensive for the end-user, so that no suppression system would be installed
at all.
More viable options could include separate warning signs located at
entrances to protected areas indicating that the area is protected by a special
hazards fire suppression system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CHOLIN: The proposed text (Proposal 72-150) seeks to address the
training problem of one vendor by placing an installation burden on some
other vendor. The revision (Comment 72-141) makes a bad situation worse,
not better. Even if we were to assume that the training problem of the first
vendor justified the added installation burden of the second, the language of
the original proposal did not allow alternative means that would be far more
cost-effective. I urge the technical committee to affirm the voice vote and
accept the comment.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————(Log #142)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-142-(2-1.5 [2002 Ed. 5.5] (New) ) : Accept
SUBMITTER: John A. Chetelat, NOTIFIER/Rep. Fire Suppression Systems
Association (FSSA)
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-150 or 72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section.
SUBSTANTIATION: The submitter did not submit data to support his
proposal that devices, marked as proposed, would substantially minize the
potential for accidental discharge of suppression systems.
The proposed wording of paragraph 2-1.5, related to marking of certain
initiating devices is flawed. The size of the proposed marking(s) (e.g., at least
3/8 in. high) to be attached to the device is impractical. In many, if not most
applications, signage or marking of this type would be unreadable or illegible
when devices are mounted at ceiling level. This limitation is even greater
considering applications such as mechanical or electrical equipment room
with open/high ceilings, which also commonly have numerous obstructions
such as miscellaneous piping, duct work, open joist and other construction
obstacles.
Although the proposed wording does permit for the use of “separate
signage”, the referenced wording only provides direction for the marking
located at or on the device. It does not provide definition nor direction for
alternate use of signage in other locations that would be more accessible,
legible and, therefore, more practical in attempting to reduce the occurrences
of accidental discharge of suppression systems. Other signage options could
include device position diagrams located at control panels or separate warning
signs located at entrances to protected areas indicating the area is protected by
a special hazards system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #81)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-143-(2-2.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed
in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives
do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based
requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not
preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in
the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that
performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and
this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The
committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits
reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of
the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action
shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address
the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a
future edition of NFPA 72.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in
voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-144
(Log #152).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #152)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-144-(2-2.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-151
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
2-2.1 System Design.
2.2.1.1* The heat detection system design documentation shall specify the
performance objective of the system.
A2.2.1.1 The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually
expressed in terms of the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured
in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/Sec). Typically,
the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion; it is usually
obtained from the design documentation prepared by the engineer of
331
record for the fire protection strategy for the structure as a whole. Where a
prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in
the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive criteria
of this code.
2.2.1.2* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with
Chapter 5, Performance-based Requirements of NFPA 101-2000, The Life
Safety Code.
A-2.2.1.2 Appendix B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector
Spacing, provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the
performance-based design of fire alarm systems, consistent with the
performance-based design method outlined in NFPA 101, The Life Safety
Code.
In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for
the fire alarm system are NOT established by the fire alarm system designer.
They are established by the engineer of record responsible for the fire
protection engineering for the facility as a whole. Once the engineer of record
has analyzed the fire hazard and assessed the risk, a set of overall goals,
usually addressing life safety, property protection and mission continuity are
adopted for the facility as a whole. A fire protection strategy is developed to
achieve those goals and general performance objectives are developed for the
facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives
for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently,
the performance objectives and criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a
much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working
in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals
for the facility.
In the performance-based design environment, the design engineer has used
computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic
fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives
established for the system, by showing that the system meets the performance
criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently,
it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which
the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation.
2.2.1.3 Systems that are not designed in accordance with paragraph 2.2.1.2
shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with
the prescriptive requirements of this chapter.
SUBSTANTIATION: Often, fire detection systems are sold, designed,
installed and commissioned without any quantitative evaluation of whether
the finished system will serve the intended purpose. This is tantamount to
buying a pair of shoes with no regard to size, yet expecting them to fit! All
too often fire detection systems fail to perform as expected and when the
analysis is performed it is discovered that the system was literally designed to
fail. This has undermined the credibility of fire alarms to such an extent that
most citizens disregard fire alarm signals.
The proposed language implements NFPA’s policy of “dual-track” codes
and standards by establishing a “fork in the road” in this section, dealing with
smoke detection, to permit the designer the flexibility of selecting that design
method that best suits the needs of his/her customer or client. By its very
nature, the dual-track structure selected by NFPA permits the incremental
incorporation of performance-based language into the document. Indeed,
performance-based language has existed as the ONLY alternative in the
current section 2-4 of NFPA 72-1999. This language has been in place since
the adoption of the 1990 edition of NFPA 72E. The presence of performancebased language in that section has not disrupted the rest of the document over
the past 12 years.
The proposed language gives the designer the flexibility to design a heat
detection system to attain a specific design objective - a given fire of given
fuel under given conditions - without the burden of unnecessary, noncontributory devices where the design objective is a fire greater than that
used in the listing investigation and using sufficient detectors to achieve the
design objective where the design fire is smaller than that used in the listing
investigation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Insert new text for 2-2.1 (and associated appendix material) to read as
follows:
2-2.1 General
2-2.1.1* The heat detection design documentation shall state the required
performance objective of the system.
A-2-2.1.1 The performance objective statement should describe the purpose
of the detector placement and the intended response of the fire alarm control
unit to the detector activation. This statement can include a narrative
description of the required response time of the detectors, a narrative of the
sequence of operations, a tabular list of programming requirements or some
other method.
The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed
in terms of time and the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured
in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically,
the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion. It is usually
obtained from the design documentation prepared by the designer responsible
for the strategy of the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design
is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design
documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive provisions of this
code.
A-2-2.1.3 In a performance-based design environment, the performance
objectives for the fire alarm system are not established by the fire alarm
system designer.
A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals. General
performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives
give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system
being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often
relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm
system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility.
In the performance-based design environment, the designer uses
computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic
fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives
established by the system, by showing that the system meets the performance
criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently,
it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which
the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation.
2-2.1.2 Designs not in accordance with paragraph 2-2.1.3 shall be deemed
prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive
requirements of this chapter.
2-2.1.3 Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with 5.3
[2002 edition].
[ This new text is additional and does not delete or modify (except the
numbering) current material of 2-2.1 (2002 edition 5.6.1)]
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the concept
proposed but has revised the text to more clearly represent the intent of the
submitter and to provide additional guidance to the users of the Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
ELLNER: 1. Paragraph 2.2.1.1 requires design documentation to state the
required performance objective of the system. As section 2.2.1 is proposed
to be organized, this performance objective statement is a requirement for
all applications of heat detectors - both prescriptive and performance. It
is not clear in the standard (nor is it defined) exactly what information and
how much detail is required in this statement. I do not believe that this is
what the Technical Committee intended in the rewrite. I believe that there is
considerable potential for conflict in the application of the proposed standard
when an Authority Having Jurisdiction requests this statement from an
installer supplying equipment to prescriptive requirements.
2. Paragraphs 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.3 taken together are confusing, and subject
to misinterpretation. Paragraph 2.2.1.3 requires performance based design
(PBD) to be in accordance with (new) 5.3. Paragraph 2.2.1.2 refers to designs
not in accordance with 2.2.1.3 - which can be interpreted to mean designs not
in accordasnce with 5.3. (I know, it is confusing. Read it again). However,
5.3 is part of this chapter, and must be adhered to as a requirement.
The Technical Committee made a good effort to incorporate PBD language
into the standard in a short period of time. However, there might have been
too much editing and renumbering to get it right the first time.
Either reorganize and/or modify this seciton, and have it reviewed for
accuracy, or HOLD this proposal for the next cycle. I do not know if the
former option is viable at this state of the cycle. This comment should not
be interpreted as rejection of incorporating performance language into the
standard. It is rejection of publishing as proposed because the proposed
wording does not represent a clear and usable standard for customers of the
document.
————————————————(Log #151)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-145-(2-2.1.3) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-145 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes
that research on thermal response coefficient is pending and is anticipated
to be completed by the next cycle of the Code.
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-156a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
2.2.1.3* Heat detectors shall be marked with their operating temperature
and thermal response coefficient (TRC) as determined by the nationally
recognized testing laboratory listing the device. The requirements for the
marking of the device with its TRC shall become effective July 1, 2004.
A2.2.1.3 (retain current Annex material)
SUBSTANTIATION: When heat detectors are employed to achieve a
particular design objective, a credible measure of the rate at which the detector
can absorb heat is critical. This measure results in a numerical value for the
thermal response coefficient (TRC for heat detectors or RTI for sprinklers).
The need for such a metric has been proven over the past 20 years with
the work on the high performance sprinkler heads such as the ESFR head.
Without a “requirement” for such a metric in the National Fire Alarm Code,
the nationally recognized testing laboratories have no directive to develop the
test method to determine the TRC. Without a test method, the manufacturing
community has no means to provide it to the designers who would use their
product. The proposed revised wording extends the effective date to allow
the NRTL that is developing the method to complete its work and provide
sufficient time for manufacturers to submit product and obtain revised listings.
This solution is far better than abandoning the requirement.
The current reliance on “listed spacing” only permits the comparison of one
detector to others but does not allow the designer to predict when a given
detector will respond to a fire of a given size under given environmental
conditions. The need for a thermal response metric, TRC, is urgent. Failure
to provide for the marking of TRC deprives manufacturers of heat detectors of
the opportunity to sell their product into new potential markets simply because
332
the product’s effectiveness cannot be demonstrated.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provision of this requirement without
an accepted test method is unwarranted. When an acceptable test method is
developed and initiated, it can be required by the listing agency.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 24
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CHOLIN: The technical committee adopted a requirement for marking
heat detectors with their Thermal Response Coefficient (TRC) based upon
the notion that “if we establish a requirement with a delayed effective date
the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) will upgrade their
testing standards to ensure that listed product is compliant.” The 3 years
subsequent to the adoption of this requirement into the 1999 Edition has been
wasted with a dispute between the manufacturers and the NRTLs viewed as
the principal listing lab on how to fund an $80,000 research effort to develop
the details of the test apparatus and method that will provide the numerical
value for TRC with an adequate level of precision.
The inclusion of this retroactive requirement did what was intended by the
technical committee three years ago; it did precipitate action on this crucially
needed parameter for design. It did provide the NRTLs with the feedback
they rely upon regarding what is needed regarding their test standards. The
manufacturers, speaking through their trade organization, have committed
to the research. There is no reason to doubt their sincerity. Unfortunately,
no such commitment was offered by the NRTLs represented at the Report
on Comments meeting. Furthermore, there appears to be disagreement
between UL and FMRC regarding their respective abilities to develop the test
apparatus and method to determine TRC for heat detectors.
The removal of this requirement from the standard gives a mixed message
to the NRTLs. They might conclude that perhaps this performance metric is
not as necessary as originally thought. Such a conclusion would be wrong,
of course. A validated performance metric for heat detectors in the form of
a TRC is every bit as necessary now as it was 3 years ago. Removal of this
requirement could be misconstrued as an excuse not to move forward with
the task of developing performance metrics for the products we rely upon. It
certainly relieves the pressure to get something done. This will leave some
manufacturers in an indefensible position in the event of fire loss litigation
against them. Furthermore, without a validated performance metric, the
manufacturers are denied a market for their technical innovations. Indeed, a
test standard without a TRC could be deemed inherently in restraint of trade
as it has the effect of denying market opportunity to anyone who designs a
better, more responsive heat detector. The technical committee should not put
NFPA in a position where it could be seen as facilitating such restraints on the
market.
Compromise wording was offered to extend the date to 2005 to provide
a time schedule that included another complete revision cycle prior to the
compliance deadline. Unfortunately, the technical committee did not adopt
that language.
This matter is too important to leave to chance. I urge the technical
committee to reverse the voice vote at the Report on Comments meeting and
adopt Comment 72-145.
MARRION: This proposal should not be rejected. The requirements for
providing Thermal Response Coefficients (TRC) should remain. The industry
was provided with an effective date that provided several years for research
to be carried out. If this could not be met, then this could have been changed
rather than deleting the requirement. This requirement was accepted in the
1999 Edition, indicating that there is general consensus as to the need for this
research to be carried out, and it is hoped that the industry will develop the
TRC now that this is no longer a requirement.
Our industry continues to manufacture, design and install heat detectors
which one still cannot predict with a high degree of accuracy how they will
respond to varying fire and compartment characteristics due to current test
standards. This is the next progression in understanding what we make, sell,
design and install.
In the Scope Section of the Initiating Devices Chapter it states:
“Chapter 2 shall cover minimum requirements for performance selection, use
and location of automatic fire detection devices, sprinkler waterflow detectors,
manually activated fire alarm stations, and supervisory signal initiating
devices, including guard tour reporting used to ensure timely warning for the
purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space structure, area
or object.”
As seen, we as a committee should be striving to provide a minimum level
of understanding of how these devices work/operate to help “ensure timely
warning for the purposes of life safety and the protection of a building, space,
structure, area or object.”
WENZEL: I guess that this will go away, and we will never get the NRTLs
to come up with an acceptable metric by which the field of heat detectors is
level in regards to thermal response and sensitivity. This rejected section has
a date that should be achievable; however, by deleting the whole section, there
is no longer any parameters for the development of a test for sensitivity.
The technical committee felt that the time in the previous edition of the
standard was sufficient, and it wasnít accomplished due to lack of funding.
Now, it appears the industry will come forward with funding, but the
requirement has left. I fear that without a time window, other things will
intervene. The wording in the proposal should stand, and this should be
accepted.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #82)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-146-(2-3.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed
in the voting. The committee should recognize that performance objectives
do already exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based
requirements (such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not
preclude the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in
the text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that
performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and
this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The
committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits
reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of
the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action
shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address
the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a
future edition of NFPA 72.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in
voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-147
(Log #150).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #150)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-147-(2-3.1.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
2.3.1.1* The smoke detection system design documentation shall specify the
performance objective of the system.
A2.3.1.1 The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually
expressed in terms of the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured
in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically,
the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion; it is usually
obtained from the design documentation prepared by the engineer of
record for the fire protection strategy for the structure as a whole. Where a
prescriptive design is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in
the design documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive criteria
of this code.
2.3.1.2* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with
Chapter 5, Performance-Based Requirements of NFPA 101-2000, The Life
Safety Code.
A2.3.1.2 Appendix B, Engineering Guide for Automatic Fire Detector
Spacing, provides a detailed design guide for the implementation of the
performance-based design of fire alarms systems, consistent with the
performance-based design method outlined in NFPA 101, The Life Safety
Code.
In a performance-based design environment, the performance objectives for
the fire alarm system are NOT established by the fire alarm system designer.
They are established by the engineer of record responsible for the fire
protection engineering for the facility as a whole. Once the engineer of record
has analyzed the fire hazard and assessed the risk, a set of overall goals,
usually addressing life safety, property protection and mission continuity are
adopted for the facility as a whole. A fire protection strategy is developed to
achieve those goals and general performance objectives are developed for the
facility. These general objectives give rise to specific performance objectives
for each fire protection system being employed in the facility. Consequently,
the performance objectives and criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a
much larger strategy that often relies on other fire protection features, working
in concert with the fire alarm system to attain the overall fire protection goals
for the facility.
In the performance-based design environment, the design engineer has used
computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic
fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives
established for the system, by showing that the system meets the performance
criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently,
it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which
the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation.
2.3.1.3* Systems that are not designed in accordance with paragraph 5.3.1.2
shall be deemed prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with
the prescriptive requirements of this chapter.
A2.3.1.3 [Insert current wording of A-2-3.2 from NFPA 72-1999]
2.3.1.4 The prescriptive requirements in this section shall be applied only
333
where detectors are installed in ordinary indoor locations.
2.3.1.5 Where smoke detectors are being installed to control the spread of
smoke, they shall be installed in accordance with the requiremetns of Section
5-10 of this chapter.
2.3.1.6 Smoke detctors shall be installed in all areas where required by
applicable laws, codes or other NFPA Standards.
SUBSTANTIATION: Often, fire detection systems are sold, designed,
installed and commissioned without and quantitative evaluation of whether the
finished system will serve the intended purpose. All too often fire detection
systems fail to perform as expected and when the analysis is performed it is
discovered that the system was literally designed to fail. This has undermined
the credibility of fire alarms to such an extent that most citizens disregard fire
alarm signals.
The proposed language implements NFPA’s policy of “dual-track” codes
and standards by establishing a “fork in the road” in this section, dealing with
smoke detection, to permit the designer the flexibility of selecting that design
method that best suits the needs of his/her customer or client. By its very
nature, the dual-track structure selected by NFPA permits the incremental
incorporation of performance-based language into the document. Indeed,
performance-based language has existed as the ONLY alternative in the
current section 2-4 of NFPA 72-1999. This language has been in place since
the adoption of the 1990 edition of NFPA 72E. The presence of performancebased language in that section has not disrupted the rest of the document over
the past 12 years.
The proposed language gives the designer the flexibility to design a smoke
detection system to attain a specific design objective - a given fire of given
fuel under given conditions - without the burden of unnecessary, noncontributory devices where the design objective is a fire greater than that
assumed in the listing investigation and using sufficient detectors to achieve
the design objective where the design fire is smaller than that assumed in the
listing investigation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise Section 2-3.1 (and associated appendix material) to read as follows:
2-3.1 General
2-3.1.1* The smoke detection design documentation shall state the required
performance objective of the system.
A-2-3.1.1 The performance objective statement should describe the purpose
of the detector placement and the intended response of the fire alarm control
unit to the detector activation. This statement can include a narrative
description of the required response time of the detectors, a narrative of the
sequence of operations, a tabular list of programming requirements or some
other method.
The performance objective of a fire detection system is usually expressed
in terms of time and the size fire the system is intended to detect, measured
in kilowatts (kW) or British thermal units per second (Btu/sec). Typically,
the fire alarm system designer does not establish this criterion. It is usually
obtained from the design documentation prepared by the designer responsible
for the strategy of the structure as a whole. Where a prescriptive design
is being provided, this requirement is fulfilled by stating in the design
documentation that the design conforms to the prescriptive provisions of this
code.
2-3.1.2* Designs not in accordance with paragraph 2-3.1.3 shall be deemed
prescriptive designs and shall be designed in accordance with the prescriptive
requirements of this chapter.
A-2-3.1.2. Insert the wording A-2-3.2 from NFPA 72 1999
2-3.1.3* Performance-based designs shall be executed in accordance with 5.3
[2002 edition].
A-2-3.1.3 In a performance-based design environment, the performance
objectives for the fire alarm system are not established by the fire alarm
system designer.
A fire protection strategy is developed to achieve those goals. General
performance objectives are developed for the facility. These general objectives
give rise to specific performance objectives for each fire protection system
being employed in the facility. Consequently, the performance objectives and
criteria for the fire alarm system are part of a much larger strategy that often
relies on other fire protection features, working in concert with the fire alarm
system to attain the overall fire protection goals for the facility.
In the performance-based design environment, the designer uses
computational models to demonstrate that the spacing used for automatic
fire detectors connected to the fire alarm system will achieve the objectives
established by the system, by showing that the system meets the performance
criteria established for the system in the design documentation. Consequently,
it is imperative that the design objectives and performance criteria to which
the system has been designed are clearly stated in the system documentation.
2-3.1.4 The prescriptive requirements in this section shall be applied only
where detectors are installed in ordinary indoor locations.
2-3.1.5 Where smoke detectors are being installed to control the spread of
smoke, they shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section
2-10 of this chapter.
2-3.1.6 Smoke detectors shall be installed in all areas where required by
applicable laws, codes or standards.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted the concept
proposed but has revised the text to more clearly represent the intent of the
submitter and to provide additional guidance to the users of the Code. The
committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the
committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 1
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
ELLNER: 1. Paragraph 2.3.1.1 requires design documentation to state the
required performance objective of the system. As section 2.3.1 is proposed
to be organized, this performance and objective statement is a requirement
for all applications of heat detectors - both prescriptive and performance. It
is not clear in the standard (nor is it defined) exactly what information and
how much detail is required in this statement. I do not believe that this is
what the Technical Committee intended in the rewrite. I believe that there is
considerable potential for conflict in the application of the proposed standard
when an Authority Having Jurisdiction requests this statement from an
installer supplying equipment to prescriptive requirements.
2. Pargaraphs 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3 taken togeher are confusing, and subject
to misinterpretation. Paragraph 2.3.1.3 requires performance based design
(PBD) to be in accordance with (new) 5.3. Paragraph 2.3.1.2 refers to designs
not in accordance with 2.3.1.3 - which can be interpreted to mean designs not
in accordance with 5.3. (I know, it is confusing. Read it again.) However,
5.3 is part of this chapter, and must be adhered to as a requirement.
The Technical Committee made a good effort to incorporate PBD language
into the standard in a short period of time. However, there might have been
too much editing and renumbering to get it right the first time.
Either reorganize and/or modify this section, and have it reviewed for
accuracy, or HOLD this proposal for the next cycle. I do not know if the
former option is viable at this stage of the cycle. This comment should not
be interpreted as rejection of incorporating performance language into the
standard. It is rejection of publishing as proposed because the proposed
wording does not represent a clear and usable standard for customers of the
document.
————————————————(Log #149)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-148-(2-3.2) : Hold
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-165
RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:
2.3.2* Smoke Detector Performance metrics.
2.3.3.1 Smoke detectors shall be marked with the smoke detector Sensitivity
Factor, expressed in terms of grams per cubic meter and percent per foot
obscuration, for smoke from four (4) types of fires:
a) well-ventilated cellulosic,
b) under-ventilated cellulosic,
c) well-ventilated plastic/petroleum and
d) under-ventilated plastic/petroleum
2.3.3.2 Smoke detectors shall be marked with the smoke detector Smoke
Entry Coefficient that quantifies the time delay for smoke entry as a function
of ceiling jet velocity.
2.3.3.3 The requirements for marking smoke detectors with the performance
metrics established in paragraphs 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 shall become effective on
June 1, 2006.
A2.3.3 In order to predict the response of a smoke detection system in a
given fire scenario and given compartment, plume and ceiling jet dynamics
are used to predict the smoke concentration at the detector location within
the compartment. Since for a given fire of given fuel and ventilation rate a
correlation can be developed between heat release and smoke yield, ceiling jet
gas temperature can be correlated to the smoke mass per unit volume. Such
correlations can be used to infer smoke density in smoke mass per unit volume
at a given detector location from plume and ceiling jet correlations. Detector
response can be predicted if two parameters are know: Sensitivity Factor and
Smoke Entry Coefficient.
SUBSTANTIATION: The nationally recognized testing laboratories
(NRTLs) rely on the National Fire Alarm Code for guidance on how specific
listed products are to be used. The NRTLs use the NFAC to determine what
type of product testing is necessary to ensure that their testing protocols verify
the applicability of the product to its intended use. For many years, the design
of smoke detection systems has been based upon an assumed listed spacing
yet when one carefully reads the NRTL test protocol one discovers that there
is no listed spacing for smoke detectors. Consequently, there is no technical
basis for the designs stemming from this standard nor for the notion that a
smoke detection system is adequate for any particular intended purpose.
Before the efficacy of smoke detectors can be predicted for any specific
objective there must exist experimentally validated performance metric for
smoke detectors. There is general consensus that there are two parameters
that must be quantified before the performance of a smoke detector can
be predicted. The first is the fundamental sensitivity of the device; the
quantity of smoke necessary to initiate a fire alarm signal. This necessitates
a measure of smoke concentration. All of the other fields of physics and
physical chemistry use mass per unit of volume or mass per unit of mass for
quantifying the concentration of an aerosol such as smoke. This proposal
proposes the adoption of that same strategy for the fire protection community.
The second metric is a measure of the time interval between the attainment of
sufficient smoke concentration outside the detector and the occurrence of an
alarm signal. It is a smoke entry delay factor. The rate of smoke movement
into the detector is a function of the pressure differential between the outside
and inside of the unit. Thus, the pressure differential across the detector is a
function of the ceiling jet velocity at the detector location. The response delay
334
factor should thus be expressed in terms of time per unit of velocity.
No design, whether prescriptive or performance-based, can be validated
without smoke detector performance metrics. Currently, no credible
performance metric for smoke detectors exist leaving the engineers, users and
enforcers with no means to demonstrate the efficiacy of a given design and the
manufacturers with no means to demonstrate the contribution their products
make to the fire-safety of the facility. Both the manufacturers and UL have
opined that the current sensitivity marked on the detector is valid ONLY in the
contex of the UL 268 smoke box and cannot be used for design. Furthermore,
the sensitivity marked on the detecor is burdened by the limitations of the UL
5-foot light beam measurement method. This leaves the results of the full
scale room fire tests as the only currently available quantification of detector
response. Unfortunately, the optical obscuration of the smoke at the detector
location can range up to 40%/ft. during some of these tests. When this
performance metric is used to predict smoke detector response to a design fire,
the resulting design is excessively conservative. Unless credible performance
metrics for smoke detector performance are provided as part of the listing, the
use of smoke detectors for life safety objectives is impossible to justify.
The proposal provides the NRTLs with the necessary guidance to begin
the process of developing performance metrics for smoke detectors as well
as sufficient time to organize, perform and analyze the needed research.
The research might eventually demonstrate that a different form of metric
is preferable to that proposed. That potentiality can be addressed in a
subsequent revision cycle. However, without a requirement in the standard
there will be no incentive to do the requisite research needed to eventually
resolve this long-standing deficiency in the National Fire Alarm Code.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment is being held for further study
in accordance with NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects Section
4-4.6.2.2(c).
Although the committee agrees with much of the substantiation of the
comment, it disagrees that the committee should create requirements for
the listing of smoke detectors before the research is done to develop the
appropriate test methods and parameters.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CHOLIN: The technical committee should recognize that valid performance
metrics are needed if the design of smoke detection systems is ever to be
legitimately relied upon for life-safety and property conservation. We are
mandating the use of a product without having any measure of how well
that product performs its intended task. This places all of the participants
in the chain of commerce involving the sale of smoke detection systems in
unnecessary legal jeopardy against which there is limited defense.
The current tests conducted by the NRTLs do not produce sufficient
information about the performance of the listed product to enable the system
designer to predict whether the detector will respond to a given fire scenario.
The design of the smoke detection portion of a fire alarm system based
upon the prescriptive design rules in this standard is, at best, a guess. Yet,
we expect people to rely on these systems for life-safety. Indeed, in many
cases we require that people rely on smoke detection for life-safety purposes
knowing full well that we only have crude estimates, at best, of when such a
system will respond to an actual fire.
Ostensibly the NRTLs rely on the technical committee for critical
feedback regarding what issues need to be addressed in their test standards.
Performance metrics are the most important issue regarding smoke detection.
Without a valid performance metric, the specter of the “false alarm
problem” will not be resolved. Without validated performance metrics, the
spacing rules for smoke detectors are merely guesses. Without a validated
performance metric, the manufacturers are denied a market for their technical
innovations. Indeed, a test standard without a validated performance metric
could be deemed inherently in restraint of trade as it has the effect of denying
market opportunity to anyone who designs a better, more responsive smoke
detector. The technical committee should not put NFPA in a position where it
could be seen as facilitating such restraints on the market.
The technical committee should speak loud and clear to both the NRTLs and
to the public. The technical committee will not stand for obfuscation. We
need to know how well a smoke detector does its job so we can intelligently
design systems with them. I urge the technical committee members to adopt
Comment 72-148.
MARRION: This proposal should have been accepted. There is an effective
dated proposed of June 1, 2006 providing a 4.5 year period for research to be
carried out to understand what it is the industry has been making, producing,
designing and installing for the last 80 years. Similar wording/requirements
have been proposed in several previous revision cycles and we are still not
appreciably closer to a performance metric for predicting response of smoke
detectors. It is critical that we develop requirements to be able to predict what
it is that is being sold and installed. Previous research indicates there are
paths forward, please see my comments in the ROP on the same proposal.
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #148)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-149-(2-3.3.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-166
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
2.3.3.1 Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production
sensitivity (percent per ft obscuration), as required by the listing.
2.3.3.1.1 The marked production sensitivity shall include the production
tolerance about the nominal value.
2.3.3.1.2* The production sensitivity shall only be used as a benchmark for
periodic testing and shall not be used as a basis for design.
A2.3.3.1.2 The percentage per foot sensitivity marked on the smoke detector
is derived from testing in a smoke chamber, usually referred to as the UL 268
Smoke Box. The measurements derived from this measurement apparatus
are only valid in the context of the apparatus and cannot be used outside the
context of the smoke box. The polychromatic light source employed in the
smoke box results in measurements that are highly dependent upon smoke
color and does not account for variations light transmission as a function of
wavelength that occurs as fuels and fire ventilation rates change or as smoke
ages. Furthermore, the measurement apparatus uses a measurement of light
obscuration by smoke to infer a measure of light reflectance when there is no
correlation between these two optical characteristics.
SUBSTANTIATION: Both the manufacturer and UL have opined that the
current sensitivity marked on the detector is valid ONLY in the context of the
UL 268 smoke box and cannot be used for design. It is to be used for quality
control during the manufacturing process and for the evaluation of installed
detectors during annual inspection, test and maintenance programs.
Unfortunately, many mistake the sensitivity printed on the detector as its
actual sensitivity in the context of a fire in the protected space. We have seen
“performance-based designs” where an over-zealous “engineer” has used the
marked sensitivity on the detector and rather tenuous correlations between
smoke obscuration and temperature rise to predict smoke detector activations.
This can lead to serious design errors especially when the fuel loads in the
protected space and polymeric in nature and apt to produce a black smoke that
has profoundly different optical characteristics than the carefully controlled
light gray smoke obtained in the UL 268 Smoke Box.
While I continue to believe that the qualify assurance and annual inspection,
test and maintenance objectives can be best achieved by including
detector sensitivity in the detector bulletin, this revised language clarifies
how the marked sensitivity is to be used and reduces the likelihood of
misinterpretation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the submitter’s recommendation to read as follows:
2-3.3.1* Smoke detectors shall be marked with their nominal production
sensitivity and tolerance (percent per ft obscuration), as required by the listing.
A-2-3.3.1 The production sensitivity range should only be used as a
benchmark for testing and should not be used as the sole basis for selection
of devices. The percent per foot sensitivity marked on the smoke detector is
derived from testing in a smoke chamber, usually referred to as the UL 268
Smoke Box. The measurements derived from this measurement apparatus
are only valid in the context of the apparatus and cannot be used outside the
context of the smoke box. The polychromatic light source employed in the
smoke box results in measurements that are highly dependent upon smoke
color and does not account for variations light transmission as a function of
wavelength that occurs as fuels and fire ventilation rates change or as smoke
ages. Furthermore, the measurement apparatus uses a measurement of light
obscuration by smoke to infer a measure of light reflectance when there is no
correlation between these two optical characteristics.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes the reference to
design basis are appropriate Annex material.
The committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the
committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #83)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-150-(2-3.4.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-167
RECOMMENDATION: While the Technical Correlating Committee
recognizes that particularly for low energy, smoldering fires, smoke flow may
be due to factors other than ceiling jet and plume dynamics, nevertheless,
it was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further
consideration be given to the comments expressed in the voting. During the
public comment period, the submitter may wish to address the issue expressed
in the first sentence of the committee statement.
The committee should recognize that performance objectives do already
exist in the code. Although more structured performance-based requirements
(such as those in NFPA 101) may be desirable, this should not preclude
the introduction of appropriate performance-based considerations in the
text of the existing requirements. The committee should recognize that
performance-based terminology already exists in other NFPA documents, and
335
this code should use terminology consistent with these other documents. The
committee should also recognize that the NFPA Manual of Style prohibits
reference to a nonmandatory portion of the code from a mandatory portion of
the code. For information refer to NFPA 101 and NFPA 550. This action
shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed a task group to address
the formulation of a framework of performance-based requirements for a
future edition of NFPA 72.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in
voting. Refer to the committee action and statement on Comment 72-151
(Log #147).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #147)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-151-(2-3.4.1) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-167
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
2.3.4.1* General.
A2.3.4.1 For operation Except in the case of smoldering, low-energy fires,
all smoke detectors, regardless or the type of technology usually rely on the
plume and ceiling jet produced by the fire to transport the smoke upward and
across the ceiling to the detector, sampling port or projected sensing light
beam. depend on smoke entering the sensing chamber or light beam. If Once
sufficient concentration is present attained at the detector, sampling port or
sensing light beam location and, in the case of spot type detectors, sufficient
flow velocity is attained to overcome the flow resistance into the sensing
chamber, the detector responds with an alarm signal operation is obtained
Detectors are usually mounted at the ceiling plane to take advantage of the
lateral flow provided by the plume and of the ceiling jet. Since detectors are
usually mounted on the ceiling, response time depends on the nature of the
fire. A hot, energetic fire produces large plume velocities and temperatures
and hot, fast ceiling jets. A hot fire rapidly drives the smoke up to the ceiling.
This minimizes the time it takes for the smoke to travel to the detector. A
smoldering fire produces little, if any plume and no appreciable ceiling jet.
Far more time elapses between ignition and detection under this circumstance.
A smoldering fire, such as in a sofa, produces little heat; therefore the time for
smoke to reach the detector is increased.
2.3.4.1.1 The location and spacing of smoke detectors shall be based
upon the anticipated predicted smoke flows due to the plume and ceiling jet
dynamics produced by the anticipated fire as well as any pre-existing ambient
air flows that might exist in the context of the protected compartment. The
location and spacing of smoke detectors shall result from an evaluation based
on the guidance detailed in this code and on engineering judgment. Some of
the conditions that shall be included in the evaluation are the following:
2.3.4.1.2 The design shall account for the contribution of the following
factors in predicting detector response to the anticipated fires to which the
system is intended to respond. design fire:
1. Ceiling shape and surface
2. Ceiling height
3. Configuration of contents in the protected area
4. Combustion characteristics and probable equivalence ratio of the
anticipated fires involving of the fuel loads within the protected area
5. Compartment Ventilation and probable equivalence ration of the
anticipated fires
6. Ambient temperature, pressure, altitude, humidity and atmosphere.
2.3.4.1.2* Where smoke detection is employed to provide protection against
a specific hazard or protect a specific asset, the location and spacing of
detectors shall be determined using the performance-based design methods.
outlined in Appendix B of this document. If the intent is to protect against a
specific hazard, the detector(s) shall be permitted to be installed closer to the
hazard in a position where the detector can intercept the smoke.
A5.3.4.1.3 Refer to Appendix B.
SUBSTANTIATION: The current text in the appendix does not address
air sampling detection and creates a misapprehension regarding the fire that
is apt to occur from the ignition of a modern sofa. (Current furnishings are
often covered in polyolefin fabric and padded with polyurethane foam. NIST
testing shows that such furnishings can produce a 3 MW fire within minutes
of ignition.) The revised text more accurately describes the phenomena and
uses language that is more consistent with that currently employed in fire
protection engineering.
Requirements in 2.3.4.1.1 were clarified and restated using enforceable
language. The former language required an evaluation based upon the content
of this chapter yet the chapter did not provide any criteria upon which to base
an evaluation. The former language mandated the exercise of “engineering
judgment” when such a requirement is inherently unenforceable.
The factors affecting the design were separated into a separate subparagraph
for clarity and consistency with the MOS.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
The language in 2-3.4.1.2 provides no meaningful requirements. According
to Webster’s dictionary, the term “intercept” means “to halt or actively
interrupt the intended progress.” This is a physical impossibility for an
inanimate object that is elsewhere in the document required to be securely
fastened in place. Thus, the proposed wording more clearly expresses the
intent of the subparagraph. The proposed text instructs the user to employ
a legitimate engineering method when a non-prescriptive design is being
developed. The mandatory reference to a non-mandatory portion of the
document has been addressed by moving the reference Appendix B to the
Annex.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee accepts the submitter’s recommendation except for the
changes proposed to 2.3.4.1.2* (which should have been numbered 2.3.4.1.3)
and related section A.5.3.4.1.3. Retain current section 2-3.4.1.2 of the 1999
NFPA 72, renumbered to become 2-3.4.1.3.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of paragraph 2-3.4.1.2 was to
allow detectors to be placed below the ceiling for a specific hazard where the
detector would intercept the smoke.
The committee recognizes that these changes will need to be reflected in the
committee action on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
detector spacing can only be determined through qualified engineering
analysis, including definition of a design basis fire or fires. The real difficulty,
and the real reason the committee rejected ROPs 72-163 and 72-171, is
that there is no consensus on what design-basis fire(s) to use, and very little
competence in the industry and among Authorities Having Jurisdiction with
respect to the available methodologies. The objective is fine, but it’s going to
take time to sort out the particulars.
This proposal provides an alternative that addresses at least some of
the submitter’s concerns, on both ROP 72-163 and ROP 72-171, without
changing the requirements of the standard. It is an appropriate interim step
towards performance-based design.
D. This is not an “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” situation; the countless
man-hours and millions of dollars that will be saved by Authorities Having
Jurisdiction and building owners across the country provide ample reason for
clarifying this constantly misinterpreted paragraph.
E. There is no “insufficient technical substantiation” argument here either,
because there is no required smoke detector spacing now and this proposal
doesn’t seek to establish one.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on
Proposal 72-154.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #146)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-152-(2-3.4.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-169
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: “Prescriptive Design
Smoooth Ceiling Spacing”.
SUBSTANTIATION: Our comment on 72-163 has addressed the structural
issues used by the Technical Committee as a basis for rejection of that
proposal. In the event that the Technical Committee acts affirmatively on that
comment, this language will be necessary to provide a clear organizational
outline to facilitate proper use of this chapter. The current text did not provide
for engineered design of smoke detection systems. This addition distinguishes
prescriptive designs from performance-based designs developed using the
method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in
Appendix B of this document.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action and statement
on Comment 72-133 (Log #332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #133)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-153-(2-3.4.5.1.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-163 and 72-171
RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix text as follows:
A-2-3.4.5.1.1 There is no such thing as a “listed spacing” or “required
spacing” for spot-type smoke detectors in NFPA 72. Any spacing that
performs the required function(s) and/or provides the required level of
protection and is acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction is acceptable.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. 2-3.4.5.1.1 is currently misinterpreted to require
spot-type smoke detectors to be installed on 30 ft centers. Many thousands of
man-hours and many millions of dollars are wasted every year enforcing and
complying with a requirement that does not actually exist.
B. The false implication that there is a technical basis for spacing spottype smoke detectors 30 ft on center produces “cookbook” one-size-fits-all
solutions to fire problems which in fact vary by orders of magnitude. While
a 30-ft standard spacing is convenient from an enforcement standpoint, that
convenience is only obtained at substantial and often unnecessary cost to the
consumer.
For example, ROP 72-171 would reduce the “guide” spacing to 25 ft on
center and thereby increase the number of detectors by 30% for a decrease
in the worst case detection time of however long it takes smoke to move an
additional 2.5 ft. Probably a second or two improvement at the most, for only
130% of what we’re paying now.
Conversely, increasing the spacing to 50 ft on center would REDUCE the
number of detectors, and their associated costs, by 64% in exchange for
delaying the worst case detection for however long it takes smoke to move
an additional 10 ft. How long is that and is the difference worth quadrupling
the cost of the smoke detection, particularly considering that a 60 second
detection window is perfectly acceptable for alarm verification?
Clearly, this paragraph has had, and continues to have, a huge, unwarranted
impact on system cost.
C. As noted in Mr. Cholin’s comment on negative, the committee statement
that “the guide of 30 ft was based on fire testing and has been successfully
applied for the last 20 years” is both unsubstantiated and indeterminate.
The fact is that there is no argument that the appropriateness of any particular
336
————————————————(Log #145)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-154-(2-3.4.5.1.1) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-171
RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows:
“A2.3.4.5.1.1 While it is permissible to use a 30 foot spacing as a guide
for prescriptive designs, the use of such a spacing is based upon customary
practice in the fire alarm community, not validated, peer-reviewed testing.
The full-scale fire tests conducted by UL in the course of the listing
investigation place the detector 17 ft from the test fire, implying a 25-ft
spacing. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the spacing used should
be based upon a desired response to a fire of given size (heat release rate).
However, the prescriptive criteria in this Code not do that. Nor does this Code
do not provide any insight or guidance regarding the size of the fire to which a
system designed with the permitted 30-ft spacing will respond.
Where there are explicit performance objectives for the response of the
smoke detection system, the performance-based design methods outlined in
Appendix B should be used.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Committee’s action on this proposal
did not comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as
it failed to identify the basis upon which it relied for the retention of the
permission to use a 30 ft spacing. While the Technical Committee alleges
that insufficient substantiation was provided, the Technical Committee did
not dispute the substantiation offered - that the only testing relevant to current
detectors is the UL full-scale fire test which implies a spacing of 25 ft. How
much more substantiation does the Technical Committee need over and above
the UL Listing Reports of all of the currently available smoke detectors? Is
the Technical Committee prepared to make public the testing upon which
it relies for its actions? Is the Technical Committee unaware of the many
recovery actions alleging failure to respond to a fire in a manner consistent
with the representations made at the time of sale?
The proposed annex language provides critical background information
necessary for the proper interpretation of the permissive language currently in
2.3.4.5.1.1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the submitter’s recommendation to read as follows:
A-2.3.4.5.1.1 The 30 foot spacing is a guide for prescriptive designs, the
use of such a spacing is based upon customary practice in the fire alarm
community.
Where there are explicit performance objectives for the response of the
smoke detection system, the performance-based design methods outlined in
Annex B should be used.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee thought the purpose of the
comment to emphasize alternatives to the 30 foot spacing guideline should be
presented as annex material with verbiage consistent to performance design
requirements previously approved by the committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #144)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-155-(2-3.4.6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-173
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
2.3.4.6 Prescriptive Design Spacing Adjustments for Ceilings with Exposed
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Joists and Beams.
SUBSTANTIATION: Our comment on 72-163 has addressed the structural
issues used by the Technical Committee as a basis for rejection of that
proposal. In the event that the Technical Committee acts affirmatively on that
comment, this language will be necessary to provide a clear organizational
outline to facilitate proper use of this chapter. The current text did not provide
for engineered design of smoke detection systems. This addition distinguishes
prescriptive designs from performance-based designs developed using the
method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in
Appendix B of this document.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The heading was deleted by the committee
action on Comment on 72-133 (332).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #CC203)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-155a-(2-3.4.6.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.4.6.3 to insert the word “considered”
after the words “shall be.”
SUBSTANTIATION: The revised text is an editorial change to reflect the
committee’s intent that a beam detector be considered as equivalent to a row
of spot detectors for spacing requirements.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #123)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-156-(2-3.6.1.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-176
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the
substantiation provided in the proposal. The fact that there is an exception
does not make the requirement appropriate.
B. The proposed text puts the Committee’s intent in the body of the
standard, and eliminates both the scope issue raised in the proposal and the
need for the exception.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its original action
on Proposal 72-176. The committee responds to the submitters original
substantiation with the following:
It is the committee’s prerogative to recommend against installing smoke
detectors during construction which could affect the performance of the
detector.
The Code does not prohibit installations during construction but requires
appropriate maintenance to assure their performance.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
This revision leads the user to performance-based designs developed using
the method outlined in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code, and in
Annex B of this document.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The effects of stratification should be
always considered regardless of ceiling height since stratification may be
caused by a variety of parameters in addition to ceiling height.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #354)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-158-(2-6 [2002 Ed. 5.10.4 (New)]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Add new section to read:
5-10.4 Where systems are installed in occupancies with multiple tenant
spaces served by one system riser. The system shall be provided with listed
water flow detection devices to identify the protected area where water is
flowing.
SUBSTANTIATION: In multiple tenant buildings served by one system riser
there are no current requirements to address the importance to firefighting
personnel in the identification as to where in the building the water is flowing.
This present situation causes unnecessary time delays and contributes to the
potential for unnecessary property damage due to forcible entry in events
where the flow detection device has actuated falsely.
The loss is property damage. The proposal will assist fire departments in
their discovery of alarm status.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is outside the scope of
the committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
MCCORMICK: The comment introduces new material, which has not been
out for public comment. Additional waterflow alarms in some multi-tenant
occupancies may be warranted but practical limitations also need to be defined
since requiring a waterflow for every tenant space regardless of size would not
be cost-effective or warranted.
————————————————-
(Log #222)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-159-(2-6.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-180
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle.
SUBSTANTIATION: Comment on Committee Statement - did someone on
the Technical Committee submit the intent of this proposal to the NFPA 13
Technical Committee?
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
————————————————-
(Log #143)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-157-(2-3.6.1.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John M. Cholin, J.M. Cholin Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-178
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
2.3.6.1.4* Stratification. Where ceiling heights exceed 10 ft, performancebased designs shall be used in accordance with 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 of this
Chapter.
SUBSTANTIATION: The current language “requires” that the potential for
stratification “shall be taken into account”. But it supplies no specific criteria
provided that would permit an independent determination of whether this
requirement had been complied with. Consequently, this is an unenforceable
requirement. The current text provides no method for evaluating the impact
of high ceilings on the performance of the system.
Since our comment regarding 72-163 has addressed the structural issues the
Technical Committee relied upon for its rejection if the Technical Committee
acts favorably on that comment it will be able to also act favorably on this
as it directs the user to the beginning of the sections where a design basis is
selected. Performance-based design methods provide means by which the
response of detectors can be predicted for given fire scenarios. The use of
plume divergence correlations based upon heat release rate and compartment
height, permit credible prediction of detector performance once a performance
correlation is selected.
337
(Log #8)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-160-(2-8.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-182
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal while leaving 2-8.2.3
and 2-8.3 in the code and renumbered as 2-8.2.1.4 and 2-8.3, respectively or
as the committee sees fit.
SUBSTANTIATION: I don’t believe the original proposal asked for these
to be deleted as the committee implied. The scope of when manual stations
are to be provided are properly covered in the other codes and should not be
identified in this code to be “throughout” as indicated by the proposer. 2-8.2.1
could be rewritten to say “Manual fire alarm boxes shall be located so they
are unobstructed and accessible.”, while letting the “where” up to the building
codes.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee acknowledges that the
Committee Statement on Proposal 72-182 was misleading. However, the
action is reaffirmed because the current wording addresses the minimum
requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. This does not prohibit building
codes from modifying requirements in specific installations.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #26)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-161-(2-8.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Michael Minieri, SimplexGrinnell LP
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-182
RECOMMENDATION: The committee should ACCEPT or otherwise
adopt revisions to meet the intent of the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Both sentences in the Committee’s Statement are
blatantly false, (1) The submittal does NOT propose the removal of ANY
current language. (2) 2-8.2.1 through 2-8.2.4 are all SHALL statements,
without the qualification that such devices must first be required by another
section of the Code. NFPA 101, 9.6.2.5 is a CLEAR example of a provision
that APPEARS TO BE and has long been erroneously PERCEIVED TO BE
in conflict. This proposal provides the CLARITY of intent that the committee
has long been criticized for not providing when given the opportunity.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee action and statement
on Comment 72-160 (Log #8).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #24)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-162-(2-8.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-185
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the text or move it to the appendix.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is not the correct information for all manual
station within buildings. For general evacuation, where leaving the building is
appropriate, it is, but for other occupancies it is not. In health care, the nurse
pulls the manual station to summon help to that location. I recommend that
you place the information in the annex as it is explanatory information for
general evacuation systems where they leave the building.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This applies only to local systems and
hospitals are usually required to have offsite monitoring.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #CC204)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-162a-(2-8.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-185
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the wording “for the municipality” in the
recommendation of proposal 72-185.
SUBSTANTIATION: The instructions to call the “fire department” are more
clear than the municipality.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #351)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-163-(2-10.1 [2002 Ed. 5.14.1.1 (New) ]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-146a
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 5.14.1.1 to read: Smoke detectors
used to prevent smoke spread shall be capable of initiating control of fans,
dampers, doors, and other equipment when all other devices on the same
338
circuit have been manually or automatically placed in the alarm condition.
SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in 3-9.3.2 of the 1999 edition seems to
have been deleted in the proposal. This brings that language back into the
document. Also, there have been many cases where control functions on the
circuit have not worked due to not enough power available.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is outside the scope of
the committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #84)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-164-(2-10.6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-191
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be referred to the Technical Committee on
Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems for action. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As the submitter has stated, the proposed
requirements are not prohibited by the current text of 3.9.6.2 (6.15.6.2,
2002). The issue raised by the submitter in regard to smoke detectors with a
secondary power source is covered in Section 3.9.6.4. The committee affirms
that it is not a requirement of this code that all devices cause closure of all
smoke doors.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LARRIMER: I disagree with the committee statement. Section 3-9.6.4 does
not have anything to do with smoke detectors that have a secondary power
source as indicated. It only states that magnetic hold open devices need not
be backed up with batteries (i.e., loss of power and the doors may close). The
committee did not clarify that smoke detectors installed to only close one door
need not be connected to the fire alarm system. In fact, they seem to indicate
that if one is installed that it must be connected to the fire alarm system with
their statement on Proposal 72-289. This is the same issue as identified in
Comments 72-74 and 72-75 and it is still not clear. The committee should
clarify that a smoke detector used solely for a fire safety control function
whether it be fan shut down or closing of a door or whatever, is not required
by this code to be connected to the fire alarm system. Or say the opposite, but
clarify the issue for the users of the code.
————————————————-
(Log #9)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-165-(2-10.6.5.1.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-192
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “If the depth of wall section above
the door is 24 in. (610 mm) or less, one ceiling mounted or wall mounted
detector shall be required on one side of the doorway only. Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1
parts A or B shall apply.
SUBSTANTIATION: This will allow frame mounted detectors as well as
detectors that meet 2-3.4 that are wall mounted to be used. I don’t believe that
allowing only ceiling mounted detectors was the intent.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #CC205)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-165a-(Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Initiating Devices for Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-192,193,194
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure 2-10.6.5.1.1 in accordance with the
following.
(Log #11)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-167-(2-10.6.5.1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-194
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “...ceiling-mounted or wall
mounted detectors...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: Detectors are listed to be installed on the wall as well
as on the ceiling and would provide the necessary detection for smoke control.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #12)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-168-(2-10.6.5.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-196
RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to read as follows:
“Exception: Where special considerations as defined in 2-3.6 would not
permit a detector to be installed in the space, the detectors can be placed on
the opposite side of the door.”
SUBSTANTIATION: There are many instances where there is a need to hold
open doors to rooms that may have conditions that would trigger nuisance
alarms due to the ambient conditions such as laundries and mechanical rooms
with dust/steam. This exception would allow the detector to be placed so that
nuisance alarms would not occur. The other options open to the user are, to
restrict the door from being held open by magnets, (this will have the users
bringing out the wood chocks creating a more unsafe environment), or place
the detector in the room in violation of 2-3.6.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 2-10.6.6.2 adequately addresses the
submitter’s concerns.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #85)
Committee: SIG-PRO
SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions are made to correlate with the changes
made through the committee actions on Comments 72-165,166,167.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————(Log #10)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-166-(2-10.6.5.1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-193
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: “...ceiling-mounted or wall
mounted detectors...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: Detectors are listed to be installed on the wall as well
as on the ceiling and would provide the necessary detection for smoke control.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
339
72-169-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in
the voting by Larrimer. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a
Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes
(Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating
Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee
Action concerning Section 6.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has reviewed the
comment and affirms that the references are correct.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #127)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-170-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. 6.9.4.3, 6.9.4.5, 6.9.9.2, and 6.15.2.8]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-9.4.3, 6-9.4.5, 6-9.9.2, and 6-15.2.8.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. These requirements explicitly violate the intent
of the standard as stated in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish
the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of
installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are
to be achieved.” It is not within the purview of the Chapter 3 committee to
modify the intent of the standard.
B. Obviously, routing cable through a 2-hour fire rated enclosure does not
ensure that it will not be exposed to fire. Flammable liquid storage rooms
are often 2-hour rated enclosures. If this option is to be effective - and this
submitter is highly doubtful of the proposition that buildings should be built
to protect the fire alarm system - the 2-hour rated enclosure must be dedicated
to the fire alarm cable. Since nobody is going to do this, it’s a pointless
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
alternative.
C. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a
survivability problem with notification appliance circuits, fire command
center circuits, firefighter telephone circuits, or smoke control circuits that
needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the
proposed requirements.
D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI
cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement
over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire
alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No
actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and
no actual fire history been cited.
E. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if
any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such
cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as
noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means:
“The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or
component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does
not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.”
For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove
and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes
off. While this is not a particularly “scientific” test, it does suggest that the
“survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the
integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated
cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO
REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in
NFPA 72.
F. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire
resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system
comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating
temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in
the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple,
interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire
conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable component
exposed to the fire.
G. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports, requirements for
CI or other fire-resistive cable only protect the cable; they do not ensure the
operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire
conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to
a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such
cables are obviously not a complete solution.
H. When the objective is system operability and that operability is
dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which
are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an
incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating
expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems.
I. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA
annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the
behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with
the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees
and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the
unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear
lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable
doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly
questionable benefit offered as justification.
1) In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making
process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record
which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee
members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter
pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT:
The requirements for fire alarm circuit survivability apply only to a small
percentage of systems in which building occupants are only partially
evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The submitter is under the false
impression that the intent of the survivability requirements is to assure the
complete operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire conditions.
This is not, nor has it ever been, the intent of the survivability requirements.
The committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack
of fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits,
devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area.
The survivability requirements are intended to minimize the possibility
of attack by fire interrupting communication to areas outside the fire area.
For example, circuits that serve various floors in a multi-floor building may
run through areas where they could be exposed to fire before they reach
the floor(s) they serve. Providing fire rated construction, a fire rated cable
assembly, or protection of the area by a fire sprinkler system minimizes the
possibility of impairment of service to areas outside the fire area. That specific
fire alarm devices and components can be compromised by direct exposure to
a fire is recognized and is addressed by current code language in (new) 6.9.4.2
which states, “Survivable fire alarm systems shall be designed and installed
such that attack by fire within an evacuation signaling zone shall not impair
control and operation of the notification appliances outside the evacuation
signaling zone.” This language recognizes that fire attack may impair circuits
in the immediate fire area while minimizing impairment of circuits that serve
areas outside the immediate fire area. This is the same requirement that has
appeared in previous editions of the code.
The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that
fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This
assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire
340
rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire,
or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar nonfire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm
systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can
examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand
that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in
a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure
test. This is fire protection at its most basic level.
The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated
in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for
survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method
of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to
the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code.
Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation
that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical
committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR
SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process
will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in
fact.
For the record the facts are:
1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance with the
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to
influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and
discussion of proposals and comments during Technical Committee meetings
as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process.
3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged
to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two
different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members identified
themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during
committee deliberations. Their actions were limited to discussion of the
proposals or comments they submitted.
4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable.
5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements
for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld
by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during
adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the
document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA
Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the
Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of
appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee.
The committee understands that the reference in the recommendation should
be to 6-9.9.2, not 6-9.2.2.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: As the committee is aware, the submitter drafted most of the
current appendix text explaining the intent of this section of the code and
participated extensively in the development of these requirements, including
last cycle’s survivability task group. Consequently, he is under no “false
impression that the intent of the survivability’s requirements is to assure
the complete operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire
conditions.”
The committee’s comment on fire testing implies conclusions about the
performance of fire rated products in real fires which the definition of “firerelated” in Chapter 1 explicitly points out are invalid. Fire-rated products do
not necessarily last longer or remain operable longer in real fires than unrated
products, and no one at UL or FM will tell you that they do. The fact is that
NO FIRE TESTING has been done to demonstrate that using CI cable in lieu
of conventional cable provides any improvement in SYSTEM survivability
under anything remotely approaching realistic building fire conditions.
Consequently, considering the total absence of any corroborating fire history,
the “survivability” justification for the increased cost of providing CI cable is,
at this point, purely hypothetical.
The submitter did not assert that survivability requirements were formulated
in 1966 in order to market CI cable; he asserted that specific requirements for
CI cable have been pushed on the Technical Committees and on the Technical
Correlating Committee by committee members who happened to be paid
consultants for a manufacturer of CI cable; an assertion corroborated by this
committee statement.
Neither did the submitter assert that a specific manufacturer has unduly
influenced members of the technical committee or the consensus standards
making process. He simply pointed out that the Technical Committee was
accepting proposals mandating the use of CI cable “despite the unambiguous
violation of the intent of the standard in 1-2.1, the clear lack of technical
substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable doesn’t ensure
system functionality” at the same time certain committee and Technical
Correlating Committee members were being paid by a CI cable manufacturer
to try and get these requirements into the code. All of these issues were
enumerated in the comment substantiation, though the committee chose to
attack the submitter rather than addressing them.
Under these circumstances, and as the committee apparently agrees, it’s
entirely appropriate to put the facts on record so the the public knows that at
least the rules regarding conflicts of interest were followed.
In addition to the above, the committee statement ignores the committee
actions on several other proposals pertaining to CI cable requirements. The
action on this comment should have been ACCEPT.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #164)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-171-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action on this proposal was in
accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The
proposal was prepared as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee
to incorporate required Manual of Style changes. Any technical changes
are noted by the inclusion of the Proposal Number addressing the change.
Any recommendations the submitter has concerning administration of NFPA
Technical Committee projects should be directed to the Secretary of the NFPA
Standards Council.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #225)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-172-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. Chapter 6]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Change committee action to Accept in Principle
with additional changes.
SUBSTANTIATION: The reorganization of the Chapter needs additional
work. For example, Section 6.9.4 (Subsection of 6-9) applies to Emergency
Voice/Alarm Communications Systems only due to the consolidation.
Existing section 3-8.4.1.1 applies to all fire alarm systems that relocate or
partially evacuate occupants, whether it is a voice system or not. There is no
justification to delete these requirements from non-EVAC systems. Section
6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.5 eliminate the use of conductors in raceway, i.e., they
require cable. Why is there a distinction between C.I. cable and 2-hour cable,
and what is that distinction? The proposed text has left us wondering what the
difference is.
There is no justification for the deletion of the 100 foot distance for the Fire
Command Center in the Committee Satement.
Also, delete Section 6.8.3.5 Exception No. 2 including associated annex
material. Exception No. 2 was added in the 1999 edition of NFPA 72, to
provide a less costly alternative, than the need for a continuously manned
trained operator at the fire command station required by Exception No. 1, to
permit the fire alarm speakers to be used for non-emergency purposes.
Unfortunately, Exception No. 2, as it now appears in the proposed section,
does not provide a usable alternative. Contrary to the original intent,
Exception No. 2 imposes no additional restrictions on fire alarm systems
not already required by the Code. It unintentionally negates the existing
restriction (continuously manned by a trained operator) required by Exception
No. 1. If Exception No. 2 is not deleted, Section 6.8.3.5 permits all fire alarm
system speakers to be used for non-emergency purposes. No justification was
provided to substantiate this major change.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Commentor does not provide specific
wording for proposed changes to the text of the Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
ANDERSON: Sections 6.9.4.2 and 6.9.4.3 on survivability are located under
6.9 Emergency Voice/Alarm Communications, however, these requirements
should apply to all types of notification outputs, not just voice. I recommend
that 6.9.4.2 and 6.9.4.3 be renumbered and moved to 6.8.5.4 and 6.8.5.5,
under 6.8.5 Fire Alarm System Notification Outputs. Subsections under 6.9.4
should then be renumbered.
————————————————-
341
(Log #297)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-173-(Chapter 3 [2002 Ed. 6.15.2.2]) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept but with the correct
information (for 6.15.2.2) as approved in Proposals 72-92 and 92a.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee Accepted Proposal 72-266, which
moves existing section 1-5.4.2.2 into Chapter 3. However, the text was
modified by Proposals 72-92 and 72-92a. Furthermore, Proposal 72-266
should be changed from Accept to Accept in Principle.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee accepts the recommendation to continue accepting Proposal
72-92. The committee rejects the recommendation to continue accepting 7292a.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has rejected Proposal 7292a via its action on Comment 72-76 (Log #5). See committee action and
statement on Comment 72-76 (Log #5).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #261)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-174-(3-2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read:
“The systems covered in this chapter are intended to be used for the
protection of life by automatically indicating the necessity for evacuation
of the building or fire area, the existence of a heat, fire or smoke condition
within the protected premises, and for the protection of property through the
automatic notification of responsible persons and for the automatic activation
of fire safety functions. The requirements of Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall also
apply unless they are in conflict with this chapter.
SUBSTANTIATION: As indicated in Chapter 1-2, Scope, NFPA 72 covers
the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire
alarm systems and their components. Chapter 1-2, Purpose, Paragraph 1-2.1,
indicates “The purpose of this code is to define the means of signal initiation,
transmission, notification, and annunciation; the levels of performance,
and the reliability of the various types of fire alarm systems.” Appendix
A Chapter A-1-2.1 indicates “Fire alarm systems intended for life safety
should be designed, installed and maintained to provide indication and
warning of abnormal fire conditions.” Paragraph A-1-2.1 also indicates “the
fire alarm system should be part of a Life Safety plan that also includes a
combination of prevention, protection, egress, and other features particular
to that occupancy.” The intent of this code is to indicate the existence of an
abnormal (heat, fire or smoke) condition and not to indicate the necessity
for evacuation of the building or fire area. In addition, even though the
committee states that the existing text requires fire alarm system notification
only where the need for evacuation exists, the grammar does not reflect this.
Given this, the best solution is to remove the “evacuation”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise text of this section to read:
The systems covered in Chapter 6 shall be for the protection of life, property
or both by indicating the existence of heat, fire or smoke within the protected
premises.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee’s revised wording meets the
submitter’s intent and more clearly defines the function of Chapter 6 systems.
The text has been revised to comply with the MOS relative to mandatory
language. The reference to other chapters has been deleted as it is already
referenced in 6.1.2.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
MANDE: The committee has not provided adequate substantiation for its
complete turn about for its actions between the proposal and comment stages.
The committee vote for rejecting Proposal 72-198 was 25 to 2. Neither the
original submitter nor the two committee members who voted against the
committee’s action to reject did not submit a comment to support the original
proposal. Only one comment was received supporting the original proposal.
Though the proposal and comments were more concerned with updating
the code by adding relocation (and probably protect in place) as an option to
evacuation, the committee chose to delete “evacuation”, as suggested by the
submitter of the comment, as a simpler fix that would satisfy him. I have no
problem with the addition of “...indicating the existence of heat, fire or smoke
within the protected premises.” Many systems, but not all, now have this
capability, but it is of little value to most building occupants. An evacuation,
relocation or protect in place message would still be required.
Deleting the reference to “evacuation” is a major code change. It has been
a primary feature of fire alarm systems since the first edition of NFPA 72 in
1964 (and in the general NFPA standard on signaling systems before then).
Most, if not all, listed fire alarm systems include evacuation. It is one of
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
the major reasons why fire alarm systems are required by law in all public
buildings, its deletion will cause more confusion than is now caused by the
language in the present code.
I strongly disagree with the last part of the submitter’s substantiation
(“...even though the committee states that the existing text requires fire
alarm system notification only where the need for evacuation exists, the
grammar does not reflect this. Given this, the best solution is to remove the
“evacuation”.) The best solution would have been to correct the problem
by revising the grammar. Both the submitter and the committee had an
obligation and the opportunity to do this, but didn’t even try.
It is too late to do the right thing during the present code cycle. But, we
still have the time to reject a change that will increase confusion and will
be of minor benefit to those who want other options to evacuation. Having
recognized the problem, let’s fix it the right way via a Tentative Interim
Amendment or in the next code cycle.
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CLARY: I support the action of the Committee on this comment, but feel
that the principle of protection of mission should have been added to the text.
This concept is now part of performance based codes and should be a corner
stone to prescriptive codes as well. The revised text should be “...for the
protection of life, property, mission or all...”.
integrated system. If there are any task groups created to study this issue,
representation from the Technical Committee on Protected Premises should
be included.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am not in support of the committee action on the comment.
More and more system installations are moving towards true integration and
the Code needs to address these systems with specific language. Within
the committee statement there is the following sentence; If there is any
task groups created to study this issue, representation from the Technical
Committee on Protected Premises should be included. I would thus urge the
Technical Correlating Committee to form such a committee so that this issue
can be explored before the next cycle of this Code.
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
TRANSUE: Adequate substantiation was provided by a task group on the
original proposal.
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #329)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-175-(3-2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198
RECOMMENDATION: Revise: “The systems covered in this chapter are
intended to be used for the protection of life by automatically indicating the
necessity for evacuation of the building or fire area, the existence of a heat,
fire or smoke condition within the protected premises, and for the protection
of property through the automatic notification of responsible persons and
for the automatic activation of fire safety functions. The requirements of
Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall also apply unless they are in conflict with this
chapter.”
SUBSTANTIATION: As indicated in Chapter 1-2, Scope, NFPA 72, covers
the application, installation, location, performance, and maintenance of fire
alarm systems and their components. Chapter 1-2, Purpose, Paragraph 1-2.1,
indicates “The purpose of this code is to define the means of signal initiation,
transmission, notification, and annunciation, the levels of performance, and
the reliability of various types of fire alarm systems.” Appendix A Chapter A1.2.1 indicates “Fire alarm systems intended for life safety should be designed,
installed and maintained to provide indication and warning of abnormal fire
conditions.” Paragraph A-1.2.1 also indicates “the fire alarm system should
be part of a Life Safety plan that also includes a combination of prevention,
protection, egress, and other features particular to that occupancy.” The intent
of this code is to indicate the existence of an abnormal (heat, fire or smoke)
condition and not to indicate the necessity for evacuation of the building or
fire area. In addition, even though the committee states that the existing text
requires fire alarm system notification only where the need for evacuation
exists, the grammar does not reflect this. Given this, the best solution is to
remove the “evacuation”.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-174 (Log #261).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
MANDE: Comment 72-175 is a duplicate of Comment 72-174. See my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-174.
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CLARY: I support the action of the Committee on this comment, but feel
that the principle of protection of mission should have been added to the text.
This concept is now part of performance based codes and should be a corner
stone to prescriptive codes as well. The revised text should be “...for the
protection of life, property, mission or all...”.
————————————————-
(Log #30)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-176-(3-2.3.3, 3-8.2, 3-8.2.7, 3-9.7.3, and 3-9.7.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-202
RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal in part. Delete proposal
paragraphs 3-8.2.7.4 and 3-8.2.7.5 for separate printers and processors.
SUBSTANTIATION: This should be a requirement for integrated fire and
security systems which is part of the committee scope. These proposals were
originally developed by a Technical Correlating Committee Task Group.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided technical
substantiation to cause the committee to change its rejection of Proposal
72-202. The committee fails to see how the removal of the proposed
requirement for separate printers and processors creates a distinction between
a combination system (that is already recognized by the NFAC) and an
342
(Log #13)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-177-(3-2.4) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-177 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
The Technical Correlating Committee also directs the title of Section
2-1.4.2.4 be revised to read as follows:
“2-1.4.2.4 Nonrequired Coverage”
In addition the Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
word “Supplementary” be removed from the definition of the term
“Nonrequired System.”
These actions have been taken to properly correlate the use of the term
“Supplementary” as defined in the Code.
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-203
RECOMMENDATION: Coordinate the terminology with other sections of
the code by making it “Supplementary non-required/voluntary systems.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 2 uses “Supplementary (non-required)
coverage” (See 2-1.2.4). If this is to mean the same throughout the code, the
terminology, whatever it may be, should be the same from chapter to chapter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the recommendation to read:
Supplementary (non-required/voluntary) Systems
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee revised the
recommendation for editorial clarity. The Technical Committee advises the
Technical Correlating Committee that this term is used in other chapters and
should be correlated for consistency throughout the document.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #36)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-178-(Table 3-5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-214
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Style E.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The table explicitly indicates that this style
EXCEEDS the minimum requirement for Class A circuits.
B. NFPA 72 is a minimum standard; the committee frequently uses “exceeds
the requirements of a minimum standard” as justification for rejecting public
proposals.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are currently systems in use that
employ these circuit styles. Modification of these systems require compliance
with these styles.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement
in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if
there was it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change
does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind.
It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable
but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application were
addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible
cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC
Technical Correlating Committee which said: “it is inappropriate to attempt
to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific
application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
“styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Style E” are products which
are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in a
minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed
in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm
use.
The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Style E” exceeds
the requirements for a minimum standard on its face. The committee should
accept the comment.
————————————————(Log #139)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-179-(Tables 3-5, 3-6 & 3-7) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-215
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Gbboverning Committee Projects because
the committee ignored most of the approximately 3 pages of substantiation
provided.
B. With the exception of the specious claim that these tables are vital for
determining the performance of fire alarm systems - something they obviously
can’t do if they’re incomplete, inaccurate, out-of-scope, and full of “styles”
that don’t actually exist - the committee has not addressed the proposal
substantiation at all. Consequently, the submitter has no idea at all what
“additional substantiation” the committee feels is necessary. It is noted that
this proposal provided MORE extensive substantiation than the vast majority
of proposals accepted by Chapter 3 in this cycle.
C. The fact that the style tables are seriously flawed has been recognized
on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for years. Nonetheless, they’ve been
retained cycle after cycle on the promise that they’ll eventually get “fixed”
and turn out to be really valuable. Well, they haven’t been fixed, they’re
still seriously messed up, and once again, no substantive improvements are
pending. The problems cited are real; if the committee can’t agree on how to
fix the tables, they should do their duty and delete them.
D. The fact that incomplete, confused, and inaccurate tables are referenced
in local building codes (they’re NOT referenced in the model codes) is not a
reason to keep them; on the contrary, it accentuates the problem and points
out the need to get rid of them. One jurisdiction in Texas looked really stupid
in 1999 after they mandated “Style X” notification appliance circuits - 2-wire
circuits that operate over an open circuit (nice trick there...) - only to find out
that “Style X” doesn’t actually exist. The Chapter 3 committee doesn’t look
any better endlessly perpetuating this nonsense.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action on this proposal was
in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
The commenter makes a false assertion that, “The fact that the style tables are
seriously flawed has been recognized on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee
for years.” The Technical Committee does not agree that the tables are flawed
and has never made any such statement to that effect.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: In order to assure due process of public proposals and comments,
technical committees are required to provide a complete explanation for
their actions; a mandate they cannot meet without addressing or refuting the
substantiation provided. This occured numerous times in the ROP and was
duly brought to the committee’s attention in the ROC. Rather than providing
complete explanation of their actions as required, the committee elected to
attack the sumitter instead.
For the record, the extensive substantiation provided for ROP 72-215 stands
unrefuted. None of this material is new as all of it has been submitted and
discussed at prior techincial committee meetings. The statement in comment
72-179: that “The fact that the style tables are seriously flawed has been
recognized on the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for years” refers to those
prior submissions and extensive prior discussions in the ROP and ROC
meetings. It does not purport to cite published committee statements in the
ROP’s and ROC’s.
The fact is that there are numerous clear cut problems with these tables
which have been properly and repeatedly brought to the attention of the
Chapter 3 Technical Committee over the last several cycles. The committee
should either refute the proposal substantiation, correct the problems with the
tables, or accept the proposal.
————————————————-
(Log #37)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-180-(Table 3-6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-216
RECOMMENDATION: Delete Styles 2, 5, 6 and 7.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The table explicitly indicates that all of these styles
EXCEED the minimum requirement for Class A circuits.
B. NFPA 72 is a minimum standard; the committee frequently uses “exceeds
the requirements of a minimum standard” as justification for rejecting public
proposals.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are currently systems in use that
employ these circuit styles. Modification of these systems require compliance
with these styles.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement
in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if
there was, it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change
does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind.
It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable
but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application where
addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible
cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC
Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is inappropriate to attempt
to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific
application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the
“styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Styles 2,5, 6 & 7” are products
whch are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in
a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed
in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm
use.
The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles 2, 5, 6,
and 7” exceed the requirements for a minimum standard on their face. The
committee should accept the comment.
————————————————(Log #56)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-181-(Table 3-6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-216
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter does not dispute that there may be a
few existing systems somewhere that use these circuit styles. That does not,
however, change the validity of the proposal substantiation.
B. The committee statement does not comply with the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects as it does not address any of the substantiation
provided.
C. The committee statement is incorrect in several respects:
1) The standard does not contain any requirement that says that existing
circuits have to be replaced in kind.
2) A system owner’s ability to replace an existing circuit in kind does not
depend in any way upon Table 3-6.
3) Because of the retroactivity clause in 1-2.3, these requirements
are explicitly NOT APPLICABLE to existing systems. Consequently,
modification of an existing system that happens to employ one of these circuit
styles DOES NOT require compliance to the current edition of the standard.
Worst case, it would require compliance to the edition of this standard that
was in effect at the time the system was installed. Since this proposal will not
change prior editions of the standard, this is not a problem.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-180 (Log #37).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement
in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits be replaced in kind, and even if
there was, it wouldn’t be relevant to the issue because the requested change
does not prohibit anyone from replacing any existing circuit in kind.
It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable
but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular applications were
addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible
cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC
Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is inappropriate to attempt
to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific
application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the
“styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, including “Styles 0.5, 3.5, and 4.5” are
products which are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them
belong in a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performace requirements
are detailed in 1-5.8 and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable
for fire alarm use.
The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles 0.5, 3.5
and 4.5 do not meet that minimum for new systems because they’re no longer
available as listed products. Existing systems are not at issue because the
2002 edition of the standard will not affect them. The committee should
accept the comment.
————————————————-
343
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #86)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-182-(3-7) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-220
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Committee review the text of the protected premises chapter to insert the
word “appliance” where appropriate.
It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee that further
consideration be given to the comments expressed in voting. Is it the intent
of the Technical Committee to require that this type of notification appliance
circuit meet the requirements for survivability in all cases?
This actions shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-183 (Log #226).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #226)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-183-(3-7) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-220
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle and consider the
Technical Correlating Committee’s statement and modify the committee
action.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is incorrect. The
committee action text considerably exceeds the requirements for
conventional notification appliance zones. Additionally, we are not sure
their requirement can be met, and restricts a new technology without
justification. The committee action text is completely different than the
proponent’s recommendation. The proponent simply wanted it acknowledged
that addressable notification appliances shall be assigned a Class or Style
designation based on “both” Tables 3-6 and 3-7. The committee action has
nothing to do with the submitter’s request. It does however, all but deny the
use of addressable notification appliances; or at the least, it restricts them
without justification. As the Technical Correlating Committee has pointed
out...why do these appliances have to always meet survivability requirements?
The committee needs to revisit this proposal and either accept it, or change
their action to text that resembles the intent of the submitter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Move 6.7.2 to 6.8.5.3 and revise the text to read:
6.8.5.3 Circuits for Addressable Notification Appliances.
6.8.5.3.1 Circuit configuration for addressable notification appliances shall
comply with the applicable performance requirements for notification zones.
6.8.5.3.2 In protected premises with more than one notification zone, a single
open, short-circuit or ground on the system installation conductors shall not
affect operation of more than one notification zone.
6.8.5.3.3 Riser conductors installed in accordance with 6.9.4.3 that are
monitored for integrity shall not be required to operate in accordance with
6.8.5.3.2.
Renumber existing text accordingly.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current verbiage in 6.7.2 is considered
more restrictive than current practice for notification appliance circuits. The
committee action on this comment addresses the concerns expressed by the
submitter and the Technical Correlating Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #57)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-184-(Table 3-7) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-221
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect in several
respects:
1) The standard does not contain any requirement that says that existing
circuits have to be replaced in kind.
2) A system owner’s ability to replace an existing circuit in kind does not
depend in any way upon Table 3-7.
3) Because of the retroactivity clause in 1-2.3, these requirements
are explicitly NOT APPLICABLE to existing systems. Consequently,
modification of an existing system that happens to employ one of these circuit
344
styles DOES NOT require compliance to the current edition of the standard.
Worst case, it would require compliance to the edition of this standard that
was in effect at the time the system was installed. Since this proposal will not
change prior editions of the standard, this is not a problem.
4) The submitter respectfully disagrees with the Technical Committee
that Style W and X notification appliance circuits are still available from
manufacturers. There are no listed NACs that won’t operate over a single
ground (Style Y), and the 2-wire NAC that operates over an open circuit
(Style X) is a mythical beast. Please cite a manufacturer and model number
for a currently manufactured, listed product complying with either style.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter’s assertion that existing
systems would not have to comply with the current edition of the code is
correct. However, any new circuits added to an existing system, or extension
of existing circuits would have to comply with the current edition of the code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement is incorrect. There is no requirement
in NFPA 72 mandating that existing circuits - particularly obsolete circuit
styles - be replaced in kind.
It is noted that menus of alternatives which are recognized as acceptable
but not required (by NFPA standards) for any particular application were
addressed in the recent Standards Council decision on limited combustible
cable. In that decision, the Standards Council cited direction from the NEC
Technical Correlating Committee which said: “It is in appropriate to attempt
to include references to all products that do not have a need for specific
application rules or products that are permitted but not required.” All of the
“styles” in Tables 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7, including “Styles W and X” are products
which are permitted but not required by NFPA 72, and none of them belong in
a minimum standard. Minimum circuit performance requirements are detailed
in 1-5.8, and ANY circuits complying with 1-5.8 are acceptable for fire alarm
use.
The fact is that NFPA 72 is a minimum standard, and that “Styles W and X”
do not meet that minimum for new systems because they’re not available as
listed products. Existing systems are not at issue because the 2002 edition of
the standard will not affect them. The committee should accept the comment.
————————————————(Log #CC400)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-184a-(6.8 (2002)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: In Section 6.8 of Proposal 198a, add a new 6.8.1 to
read:
6.8.1 General.
6.8.1.1 Actuation time. Actuation of alarm notification appliances or
emergency voice communications, fire safety functions and annunciation at
the protected premises shall occur within 10 seconds after the activation of an
initiating device.
Relocate 6.17 and 6.18 from Proposal 72-198a to 6.8.1.2 and 6.8.1.3.
In 6.8.1.3.1 change the reference from 1-5.4.11 to 6.8.1.3.
Renumber remaining sections accordingly.
Delete Section 6.15.2.2
SUBSTANTIATION: This relocation was intended to occur via the
committee action on Proposal 72-266. This text was inadvertenly omitted
from Proposal 198a. The 20 second requirement was changed to 10 seconds
based on the committee’s action on Comment 72-78. Sections 6.17 and 6.18
have been relocated to enhance usability of the document. The requirements
of Section 6.15.2.2 have been incorporated into Section 6.8.1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #87)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-185-(3-8.1.4.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-228
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed
in the voting. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action on Comment 72-186
(Log #227).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #228)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————-
(Log #227)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-186-(3-8.1.4.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-228
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and change the committee
action to Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with Mr. Johnson’s Comment on
Affirmative Vote regarding the inclusion of the word “only”. It is
unnecessary and leaves the reader wondering what that “other” thing is that
cannot be connected to the Control Unit and Remote Annunciators. The
committee action changes the intent of the submitter. Literally, it doesn’t
allow the Single-or Multiple-Station smoke alarm to provide the alarm in
its installed location. Furthermore, changing the text to read, “...shall be
permitted to only initiate a signal at the control unit(s)...” is going to result in
someone initiating an alarm signal, which is the exact opposite of what the
submitter is recommending. The intent of the proposal is to allow single-or
Multiple-Station smoke alarms to be connected to a fire alarm system and
remote annunciator to display an actuated smoke alarm for the purpose of
investigation, prior to manual activation of the alarm system. However, it was
never the intent to allow Single-or Multiple-Station smoke alarms to initiate
an alarm.
“A” correct operation (in this case) will be a supervisory signal with a visible
indication for each device or each group of devices within a dwelling unit,
guest room, etc. However, even a single source of annunciation for all smoke
alarms (although unwise) would be acceptable.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee notes that this change occurs
in 6.8.2.2 in Proposal 72-198a.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #263)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-187-(3-8.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-230
RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal 72-230.
SUBSTANTIATION: Even as a minimum code, it must protect the most
critical circuits that more than one zone.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Requiring signaling line circuits to meet
survivability requirements does not necessarily ensure proper operation of the
system under emergency conditions. The committee has established a task
group to study installation reliability and survivability of fire alarm systems
as a whole.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CLARY: At the time of the ROP, I voted negative to the Committee Action.
I still feel that these critical circuits require additional protection. However, I
support the action of the Committee and Chair in the formation of a task group
to study this issue before the next cycle of the Code.
J. MOORE: Current fire alarm system technology allows a designer to
provide a single signaling line circuit to serve a large number of initiating
devices, notification appliances, and fire safety control functions. This
exposes the system to the potential for a single point of failure which could
potentially compromise operation of the entire system. Good design practice
would dictate precautions to minimize the possibility of such a single point of
failure.
Proposal 72-230 to require signaling line circuits installed as a riser to
be protected from the control panel until they enter the zone served is one
of several methods available to minimize disruption of system operation.
While I agree completely with the reasoning behind the proposal, I think
further study is required to develop code language that addresses all possible
methods of minimizing disruption of system operation, including, protection
of circuits, circuit topology, control equipment capabilities, and limits on
the number of devices or area that can be served by a single circuit. The
Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems has formed
a task group to study the installation reliability and survivability of fire alarm
systems. This is one area that will be addressed by the task group.
345
72-188-(3-8.2.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-231
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and Accept the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with Doctor Clary’s observation. We
also strongly disagree with the committee statement, which the Technical
Correlating Committee also noted. This proposal does not consider security
systems only. Although the submitter did not refer to processes monitoring,
they would be considered under the proposal. We do not feel the committee
gave this proposal serious consideration based on their statement. Reconsider
this item and Accept it, or provide valid arguments against the submitters
substantiations.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided additional
technical substantiation to cause the committee to change its rejection of
Proposal 72-231. The subject of this proposal has a far broader scope than
can be addressed by the incorporation of two exceptions into the code. No
justification has been provided for allowing degradation of the fire alarm
system during any activity.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
ANDERSON: The original proposal was rejected by the Technical
Committee with the statement: “The incorporation of requirements for
security systems is outside the scope of the ...Committee...”. This was an
invalid reason by the committee because the proposal (and section 3-8.2.3)
relates only to the non-fire portions of combination systems as they may affect
the fire portions.
Comment 72-188 is intended to allow practical and reasonable performance
while maintenance operations are being performed on combination systems
that use the same wiring for fire and non-fire systems. In particular, SLC
wiring could degrade from style 7 to style 4 while a service representative was
actually working on the wiring. Receipt of fire alarm signals would not be
impaired.
The action of the Technical Committee is unreasonable and may
unnecessarily block the application of new technology to fire alarm systems.
Comment 72-188 should be accepted.
CLARY: I am not in suport of the committee action on the comment. More
and more system installations are moving towards true integration and the
Code needs to address these systems with specific language. Within the
committee statement there is the following sentence: “The subject of this
proposal has a far greater scope than can be addressed by the incorporation
of the two exceptions into the code.” This may be so. I would thus urge the
Technical Correlating Committee to form a committee on integrated systems
so that this issue can be explored before the next cycle of this Code.
————————————————-
(Log #88)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-189-(3-8.2.3 Exceptions No. 1 and No. 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-231
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to comments made in voting.
The Technical Correlating Committee notes that the incorporation of
requirements for security systems is not outside the scope of the Technical
Committee or project.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See the committee action and statement on
Comment 72-188 (Log #228).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #229)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-190-(3-8.2.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-232
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the committee’s substantiation. The
previous edition Exception No. 1 material (proposed to be) moved to the
annex is misleading and has been misinterpreted and misrepresented by the
submitter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #32)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-191-(3-8.2.4 [2002 Ed. 6.8.3.5])) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, EST
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a & 72-232
RECOMMENDATION: Either delete Exception No. 2 (including associated
appendix material), or delete 3-8.2.4 (and 6.8.3.5).
SUBSTANTIATION: Exception No. 2 was added in the 1999 Edition of
NFPA 72 to provide a less costly alternative, than the need for a continuously
manned trained operator at the fire command station required by Exception
No. 1, to permit the fire alarm speakers to be used for non-emergency
purposes.
Contrary to the original intent, a careful reading of Exception No. 2
reveals that its requirements do not impose any additional restrictions on
fire alarm systems that are not already required by the Code. An unintended
consequence of adding Exception No. 2 is that it is equivalent to having
deleted, 3-8.2.4 (and 6.8.3.5), permitting all speakers on fire alarm systems to
be used for non-emergency purposes.
Also, see the comment I submitted with my ballot on Proposal 72-232 in the
ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Replace the first sentence of Annex note A.6.8.3.5 Exception No. 2 with the
following:
Dedicated fire alarm/voice evacuation alarm systems are not required to
monitor the integrity of the speaker circuits while active for emergency
purposes. Exception No. 2 requires these circuits to be monitored for integrity
while active for non emergency purposes.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee does not concur that
Exception No.2 should be deleted, but has added material to the annex
for clarification and to address the concerns expressed in the submitter’s
substantiation.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #14)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-192-(3-8.3.1.2) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee clarifies that the
action taken on Comment 72-192 is to delete Section 3-8.3.1.2 as noted in
the Committee Statement on Proposal 72-223. It is not the intent to delete
Section 3-8.1.2.
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: I agree with the substantiation provided by the
submitter. If there is reason to install a manual pull station, it should come
from other than this standard. Deleting it from this standard will not make
it go away if one is required to follow NFPA 101. On the other hand, just
because NFPA 101 has the requirement in it doesn’t mean that this standard
should repeat it here.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I vote negative to the action by the Committee on this proposal.
At the ROC meeting, the vote by the Committee was 11-10, with the Chair
casting the deciding vote. I do not accept the substantiation of either the
submitter of the proposal (72-223) or the comment (72-192). I also find it
difficult to understand how the Committee in a Committee Statement for the
ROP stated in part that the “fire safety function provided by this requirement
should not be eliminated.” As is allowed, the procedures for committees, the
committee is not required to provide a Committee Statement for affirmative
actions. In this case however, the Committee should have provided an
explanation beyond the acceptance of the substantiation of Mr. Larrimer for
making a one hundred-eighty degree shift in their thinking on this matter.
In reviewing the substantiation of Mr. Larrimer, his reason for deleting this
requirement was that it already was required within NFPA 101. This may be
so, but as good a code as NFPA 101 is, it is not the adopted code throughout
the Union. As stated by Mr. Larrimer in his substantiation, “...Deleting it
from the standard will not make it go away if one is required to follow NFPA
346
101...”. Unless it is the will of NFPA International that all jurisdictions adopt
NFPA 101, and all follow the will, then this basic requirement needs to remain
as part of the National Fire Alarm code.
In reviewing the substantiation of Mr. Dumais which was with his origianl
submittal, he makes several statements that I do not agree with. As the
paragraph in debate is not printed within the ROP or ROC, I will include it
within the body of my Explanation of Negative:
“3-8.3.1.2 For fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or
waterflow detection devices, at least one fire alarm box shall be provided to
initiate a fire alarm signal. This fire alarm box shall be located where required
by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. ”
Mr. Dumais brings the following points to his discussion:
“A. NFPA 72 is an installation standard. Protection requirements belong in
the building code.”
While the manual box may be seen as a point of protection, the requirement
for it within this Code is so as to provide a manual means to activate the
alarm, should that device either not operate or be out of service.
“B. Providing a smoke detector and/or waterflow switch does not create
any hazard justifying the need for manual fire alarm initiating capability.”
No more than the hazard which required the installation of the automatic fire
detection system or automatic sprinkler system. The primary purpose of this
manual box is to provide a manual means to activate the alarm should that
device not operate or be out of service.
“C. If you have a smoke detector and/or waterflow switch, you already have
the capability to initiate a fire alarm signal.”
Mr. Dumais is of course correct, provided the building occupants know
where the inspector’s test valve is, have a can of smoke, heat gun or other
means to trip the system(s).
“D. It is not clear why smoke detectors and waterflow switches create a
need for manual stations, but heat detectors, flame detectors, releasing system
discharge pressure switches, etc. don’t.”
I cannot speak for Mr. Dumais or the Argonne National Laboratory East, but
I do believe that these devices are “automatic.î
“E. Providing a manual fire alarm station in a normally unoccupied facility
adds cost wihout providing any benefts.”
True, if the protected premises is one hundred per cent always unoccupied.
“F. Itís not clear whether or not “smoke detectors,” within the context of
this requirement also icludes induct detectors, beam-type smoke detectors, air
sampling smoke detectors, etc.”
Once more, I cannot speak for Mr. Dumais or the Argonne National
Laboratory East, but I do believe that these devices are “automatic.”
I urge my fellow committee members to reverse the action that was taken in
regards to 72-223 and return this requirement to the Code.
MANDE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-193.
STRINGFIELD: I do not agree that this single pull station requirement
belongs only in the model codes or NFPA 101. The single pull station
requirement adds only a minor cost to the system installation, but adds
reliability if the sprinkler system is out-of-service and cannot initiate
notification in the protected premises or supervisory station. I am confused
how the committee says this “requirement should not be eliminated” in the
ROP but does not justify the elimination in the ROC.
————————————————(Log #180)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-193-(3-8.3.1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not
address any of the substantiation provided.
B. This requirement conflicts with the intent of the standard reflected
in 1-2.1: “It is the intent of this code to establish the required levels of
performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of installation but not to
establish the methods by which these requirements are to be achieved.”
C. This requirement is not necessary to correlate with 9-6.2.5 of NFPA
101. Where 9-6.2.5 of NFPA 101 applies, a detector at the control panel is
already required. Where 9-6.2.5 of NFPA 101 does not apply, the proposal
substantiation Items A through F are entirely valid.
D. As pointed out in the proposal substantiation, the current requirement
does not provide any “fire safety function.” That is what’s wrong with it. The
smoke detector(s) installed at control equipment cost roughly $500 a piece
installed, don’t “protect” the fire alarm equipment from fire for even a second,
and aren’t actually required to do anything at all.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Accept Proposal 72-223.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
to reconsider and accepts Proposal 72-223. The committee notes that
item “d” of the submitter’s substantiation does not support this particular
recommendation.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I vote negative to the action of the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-192. I do concur with the
Committee Statement as it relates to item “d” of the substantiation.
MANDE: Comments 72-192 and 72-193 should be rejected.
I am disturbed by the failure of the committee to provide an adequate
technical explanation for its flip-flop between the ROP and ROC meetings.
All the voting committee members’ (27) supported the committee action
to reject Proposal 223. Four comments were received, 72-192 thru 72195. Only two of the comments (72-192 and 72-193) relate directly to
the recommendaton made by the submitter of this proposal. One, from a
committee member who voted in favor of the committee action during the
ROP stage, but has changed his mind and now agrees with the substantiation
provided by the orignal submitter of the proposal. The other was from the
original submitter requesting reconsideration of his proposal.
This committee acted to accept both comments and the original proposal.
The only explanation given was that it was accepting the original submitter’s
recommendation to reconsider and was now accepting his proposal.
Regardless of this unsubstantiated about face, the proposal should still
be rejected because the submitter’s substantiation indicates a lack of
understanding of the purpose for the requirement. Though it will provide
some additional occupant protection, the requirement (which has been in
the code since at least 1964) is primarily system performance related. It
is not unusual for automatic systems to include a manual initiation means
for increased performance reliability. For a fire alarm system, a manual
box increases system reliability by providing a means by which a building
occupant can report an observed fire that has, for any reason, not as yet
actuated the building fire alarm system. It improves system performance
by providing a simple and safe means for initiating fire drills and for testing
notification appliances and other system functions.
SPRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72192.
station has been wired and installed according to NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-194 (Log #259).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72192.
————————————————(Log #327)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #259)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-194-(3-8.3.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
For fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow
detection devices, at least one fire alarm box shall be provided to initiate a
fire alarm signal. This fire alarm box shall be located where required by the
authority having jurisdiction in a location acceptable to authorized protected
premises personnel.
Furthermore, since there is only one manual station, the protected premises
representatives should dictate the most accessible location for its authorized
personnel. The authority having jurisdiction should only verify that the
station has been wired and installed according to NFPA 72.
SUBSTANTIATION: If a manual system is not required, a method to
manually activate the fire alarm system is needed. This single manual station
should only be accessible to authorized facility personnel due to its potential
use as a diversionary tactic for criminal intent or mischief.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommended text removes the authority
for locating the manual fire alarm box from the authority having jurisdiction.
The AHJ should have the final say in determining the location of the manual
fire alarm box. At the ROC meeting of the Technical Committee, proposals
to remove the requirement for a manual fire alarm box were accepted. See the
committee action on Comments 72-192 (Log #14) and 72-193 (Log #180).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72192.
————————————————-
(Log #328)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-195-(3-8.3.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-223
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-8.3.1.2 to read: For fire alarm systems
employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices, at least
one fire alarm box shall be provided to initiate a fire alarm signal. This fire
alarm box shall be located where required by the authority having jurisdiction
in a location acceptable to authorized protected premises personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: If a manual system is not required, a method to
manually activate the fire alarm system is needed. This single manual station
should only be accessible to authorized facility personnel due to its potential
use as a diversionary tactic for criminal intent or mischief.
Furthermore, since there is only one manual station, the protected premises
representatives should dictate the most accessible location for its authorized
personnel. The authority having jurisdiction should only verify that the
72-196-(3-8.3.2.4.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William J. Aaron, Jr., Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-236
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: The primary waterflow and
subsequent waterflow initiating devices in a sprinkler system from wet-pipe,
dry-pipe or preaction sprinkler systems shall be monitored separately for the
initiation of a waterflow alarm.
SUBSTANTIATION: The location and installation of waterflow devices
is the responsibility of NFPA 13, The Standard for Sprinkler Systems. The
purpose of NFPA as defined in Chapter 1-2.1, Purpose, the purpose of this
code is to define the means of signal in initiation, transmission, notification,
and annunciation; the levels of performance and reliability of the various
types of fire alarm systems. Therefore, this code is not to determine where
waterflow switches are installed but that the waterflow switches are properly
monitored.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: As explained in the submitter’s
substantiation, the means of initiating a waterflow alarm signal, its
transmission to the building fire alarm system, and the level of performance
are within the scope of the Technical Committee on Protected Premises
Fire Alarm Systems. Since the arrangement of the waterflow switch affects
performance, these factors fall under the scope of this committee. The
text proposed in the recommendation exceeds what should be required in a
minimum code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #257)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-197-(3-8.3.3.1.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Tim Crosnoe, Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-238
RECOMMENDATION: Revise Committee’s Revised Test:
“Where approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, Supervisory signals
that latch in the off-normal state and require manual reset of the system to
restore them to normal shall be permitted.”
SUBSTANTIATION: In Section 1-2.1, the code states that part of its intent
is to establish levels of performance of the various types of fire alarm systems.
Establishing that signals latching in an off-normal state satisfy the distinctive
signal requirement of 3-8.3.3.1.3, sets just such a level of performance.
Deferring decisions such as this to the Authority Having Jurisdiction
diminishes the need for the code and further increases the difficulty of
engineering projects without the continual need to contact Authorities Having
Jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-238 (Log #238).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #230)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-198-(3-8.4.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-244
RECOMMENDATION: Change from Accept to Reject.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitters’ substantiation
because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected
premises systems. If the text is moved to Chapter 3, it will no longer apply
to proprietary systems. (See Section 5-3) Fire-safety functions should not
be initiated automatically or manually from any location off the protected
347
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
premises. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72-88).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-244 (Log #260).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #179)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-199-(3-8.4.1.1, and A-3-8.4.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-243
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because although
it was accepted in principal, none of the material was incorporated and none
of the concerns expressed in the proposal were addressed in either ROP 72198a or ROP 496a. It is effectively a stealth reject action that provides no
basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections, if there are
any, in the ROC.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The original proposal suggested survivability
requirements be incorporated only in specific cases. The submitter’s original
substantiation read in part, “. . .survivability features are necessary and
appropriate in certain cases.” The committee agrees and the committee actions
on survivability already limit the requirements to emergency voice alarm
communications systems for partial or selective evacuation. It should be noted
that while the submitter’s substantiation for Proposal 72-243 recognizes the
need for survivability in specific cases, other proposals and comments by
the same submitter call for the deletion of survivability requirements. This
inconsistent approach makes it difficult for the committee to determine the
submitter’s intent.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. This
proposal was accepted in principal but was not incorporated into the code in
any form.
The committee statement is incorrect in that the current survivability
requirements are not limited to emergency voice alarm communications
systems. Rather, the requirements apply to any systems used for partial
evacuation or relocation of occupants, which includes hospital systems using
coded bells for instance. Furthermore, the circuits requiring “survivability”
include both notification appliance circuits and “ANY OTHER CIRCUITS
NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE NOTIFICATION
APPLIANCE CIRCUITS” which (depending on system configuration) may
include power circuits, audio risers, detection circuits, signaling line circuits,
manual override control circuits, microphone circuits, etc. which are not
necessarily unique or dedicated to emergency voice alarm communications
systems.
The submitter also questions the claim that the committee was confused
as to his intent as the proposals were straightforward and there were several
survivability task group members present at the meeting who were very
familiar with the arguments. Those other proposals either sought to delete
the current survivability requirements - something ROP 72-243 would have
done as well - or to replace them with an actual performance requirement;
specifically, that fire alarm systems be designed to go into alarm before being
destroyed by fire. There was nothing confusing about them. The submitter
respectfully suggests that the “confusion” lies elsewhere.
For the record, none of the substantiation items from proposal 72-243 have
been refuted and no objections have been raised and in fact the proposal
has been accepted in principal - which requires that a modified version
of the proposal be incorporated into the code. As stated in the comment
substantiation, the ROP action was effectively a stealth reject action which
provided no basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections,
if in fact there are any. Accordingly, the submitter requests that the Technical
Correlating Committee return ROP 72-243 and ROC 72-199 to the Chapter
3 Technical Committee for reprocessing; this time in accordance with the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
————————————————-
(Log #44)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-200-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-245
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not
address ANY of the substantiation provided nor indicate what additional
substantiation the committee feels is needed.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
348
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the committee is reflected
in the original action on Proposal 72-245. That is that fire alarm systems
intended for partial evacuation or relocation meet specific survivability
criteria. The action proposed in 72-245 would eliminate this requirement and
could result in the survivability requirements being applied more broadly, and
to more types of systems than intended by the minimum requirements of the
Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement is misleading and confused and does
not address the comment. It is not the intent of NFPA 72 to tell the Authority
Having Jurisdiction what level of protection to require. Rather, NFPA 72 is
intended to tell them how the required level of protection is to be provided.
It is not clear how eliminating a requirement can possibly result in that
requirement “being applied more broadly and to more types of systems that
are intended by the minimum requirements of the code.” Whatever happened
to the “insufficient technical substantiation” cited in the committee statement
on ROP 72-245?
————————————————(Log #177)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-201-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-245
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects as it does not
address any of the substantiation provided nor indicate what additional
substantiation the committee feels is needed.
B. It is not clear what kind of “technical substantiation” the committee is
looking for to convince them that the intent of all survivability requirements
is for the fire alarm system to perform at least its most basic functions (i.e.,
detection and notification) before being destroyed by fire.
C. Unlike ANY of the survivability requirements accepted by the committee,
this proposal actually requires the fire alarm system to do something before
being destroyed by fire.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
comment 72-200 (Log #44).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. See my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-200.
————————————————-
(Log #178)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-202-(3-8.4.1.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-247
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations governing committee projects because although
it was accepted in principal, none of the material was incorporated and none
of the concerns expressed in the proposal were addressed in either ROP 72198a or ROP 496a. It is effectively a stealth reject action that provides no
basis for the proponent to respond to the committee’s objections, if there are
any, in the ROC.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The survivability requirements only apply
to very specific applications which make up a very small percentage of the
fire alarm systems installed. The commenter makes the point that sprinklered
buildings have a very good fire safety record despite not having “survivable”
fire alarm systems. The committee agrees and the current code language
permits, “Performance alternatives approved by the AHJ.” This portion of
the code provides a method for the AHJ to accept a fully sprinklered building
as meeting the survivability requirements. However, a blanket exemption to
the survivability requirements is not warranted as there are many site specific
conditions that vary from one application to another which affect the potential
survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These might include the type of
sprinkler system provided, response time of the sprinkler heads, and other
specific system design criteria.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
DUMAIS: The committee statement does not address the comment. ROP
72-246 was accepted in principal, as was ROP 72-199, and again the Chapter
3 Technical Committee has failed to incorporate a modified version of the
proposal into the code as required by the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. As stated in the comment substantiation, this was another stealth
reject action which denied the submitter the opportunity to respond to the
committee’s objections.
The committee statement is incorrect in that there are no requirements in
NFPA 72 that allow “performance alternatives approved by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction,” with respect to fire alarm survivability. On the contrary,
the code is explicit with respect to the acceptable options for providing
survivability, in clear violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1.
It is not clear how the Chapter 3 Technical Committee can concur with
the submitter’s substantiation that no fire alarm survivability problem can
be shown to exist in sprinklered buildings, but persist in mandating a very
costly and problematic set of survivability requirements anyway. By the
committee’s own admission, those requirements lack the required technical
substantiation - at least in fully sprinklered buildings.
In accordance with the above, the submitter requests that the Technical
Committee either reverse their action on ROC 72-202 and accept ROP 72247, or that the Technical Correlating Committee return ROP 72-247 and
ROC 72-202 to the Chapter 3 Technical Committee for reprocessing; this time
in accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
————————————————(Log #CC702)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-202a-(3-8.4.1.1.1 [2002 Ed. 6.9.4.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new sentence to Section
3-8.4.1.1.1 (of the 1999 edition) to become the second sentence, “The
requirements of 3-8.4.1.1 shall apply to both audible (tone and voice) and
visible notification appliance circuits.”
SUBSTANTIATION: It is the committee’s intent to clarify the use and
application of both audible and visible circuits.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NOT RETURNED: 4 Bisker, Hoffman, Kuhta, & Anderson
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
MOORE: It is noted that this will be an addition to new Section 6.9.4.1.
————————————————-
(Log #48)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-203-(3-8.4.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-256
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal, which reads as
follows:
Add new paragraphs 3-8.4.1.2 through 3-8.4.1.2.2, and appendix paragraphs
A-3-8.4.1.2, A-3-8.4.1.2.1, and A-3-8.4.1.2.2 as follows and renumber
subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
*3-8.4.1.2 Suppression System Pre-Discharge Alarms. Where suppression
system pre-discharge alarms are required by the applicable codes and
standards, the associated fire alarm/releasing system(s) shall be arranged to
activate notification appliances within the protected area a minimum of 30
seconds prior to agent discharge, irrespective of whether the suppression
system is released automatically or manually.
Exception No. 1 - Where explicitly allowed by the authority having
jurisdiction.
Exception No. 2 - Where the time necessary for occupants to evacuate the
protected space exceeds 30 seconds, the pre-discharge delay shall be extended
accordingly.
*3-8.4.1.2.1 Activation of pre-discharge notification appliances shall not be
solely dependent on the fire alarm initiating devices and/or releasing circuit(s)
used to trigger the agent discharge.
*3-8.4.1.2.2 Provision of the requisite pre-discharge delay shall not be solely
dependent on the fire alarm/releasing system.
A-3-8.4.1.2 Arrangement of suppression system pre-discharge alarms has
been a “gray area” as it overlaps the scope of NFPA 72 and the applicable
suppression system standards. The intent of this section is to ensure that the
necessary coordination occurs.
In most cases, compliance with this section requires a discharge pressure
switch to be installed in the suppression system manifold, between the
releasing heads (which are controlled by the fire alarm system, usually with
an independent manual release) and a pneumatic pre-discharge delay (which
is part of the suppression system). However, any combination of compatible,
listed fire alarm and suppression system components may be used to
accomplish the intended function.
A-3-8.4.1.2.1 Initiating devices used to effect suppression system release are
not acceptable as the sole means of initiating pre-discharge alarms because
suppression systems typically have manual releases whose activation does not
349
put the initiating devices into alarm (at least not before the agent discharges),
and because various circuit faults, equipment malfunctions, or power
fluctuations can cause inadvertent suppression systems discharges without
putting the initiating devices in alarm.
A-3-8.4.1.2.2 Electronic delays in the fire alarm system are not acceptable
as the sole means of delaying releasing system discharge because suppression
systems typically have manual releases whose activation bypass the electronic
delay, and because various circuit faults, equipment malfunctions, or power
fluctuations can cause inadvertent suppression system discharges without
initiating the releasing system delay.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee’s rationale for rejecting this
proposal in the ROP was incorrect. It is entirely within the scope of NFPA 72
to place appropriate restrictions on the application of fire alarm equipment,
which is all this proposal does. It does not intrude upon the jurisdiction of the
responsible suppression system technical committees because they already
delegate the arrangement of detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems to
NFPA 72. For example:
1) From NFPA 12, 2000:
7-1 The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within
this standard as mandatory requirements and shall be considered part of
the requirements of this standard. The edition indicated for each referenced
mandatory document is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA
issuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documents might also be
referenced in this standard for specific informational purposes and, therefore,
are also listed in Appendix C.
7-1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1
Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269-9101.
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code®, 1999 edition.
NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®, 1999 edition.
2) From NFPA 12A, 1997:
2-3 Detection, Actuation, Alarm, and Control Systems.
2-3.1 Detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems shall be installed,
tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code,
and NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code. In Canada refer to ULC S524-M86,
Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, and ULC S529-M87,
Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems.
3) From NFPA 2001, 2000:
2-3 Detection, Actuation, Alarm, and Control Systems.
2-3.1 General
2-3.1.1 Detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems shall be installed,
tested, and maintained in accordance with appropriate NFPA protective
signaling systems standards. (See NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, and
NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®. In Canada refer to ULC S524-M91,
Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, and ULC S529-M87,
Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems.)
B. This proposal would have prevented the fatality and numerous, related
injuries that occurred at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory in July of 1998, for practically no additional cost. If accepted, it
will prevent similar tragedies in the future.
C. There is simply no reason for the Chapter 3 Technical Committee NOT
to accept this proposal. It won’t cost any manufacturer any market share. It
won’t affect any installing company’s bottom line. It won’t affect the UL
listing of any system components. It won’t make special suppression systems
any less affordable for building owners or degrade their effectiveness at
suppressing fires. And it will avoid future litigation by eliminating needless
accidents. It’s the right thing to do. Nobody else needs to die because of
known vulnerabilities that can be readily and inexpensively mitigated in the
system design.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposal specifically details the
sequence of operation of a fire suppression system. While fire detectors and a
fire alarm control panel may be used by a specialized fire suppression system
for actuation, the methods of actuation and sequence of operation of these
systems is outside the scope of this committee. The submitter is once again
advised to submit these proposed changes to the appropriate NFPA Technical
Committee(s) responsible for these suppression systems.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #54)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-204-(3-8.4.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-254
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect in that 12.3 does not say that the standard is not intended to be applied retroactively,
rather it says that “UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, it is not intended that
the provisions of this document be applied to facilities, equipment, structures,
or installations that were existing or approved for construction or installation
prior to the effective date of the document.” That is, the standard IS intended
to be applied retroactively, when the responsible Technical Committee thinks
it’s appropriate.
B. Chapter 7 thought it was appropriate to make their entire chapter
retroactive in the 1999 edition of the standard. To date they haven’t received
a single complaint. Clearly it is within the purview of the Chapter 3 Technical
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Committee to mandate consistency in evacuation signals if they deem it
necessary to protect people and property from fire. Needless to say, if it’s not
necessary to protect people and property from fire, it doesn’t need to be in a
minimum standard at all.
C. If the committee doesn’t make this requirement retroactive, they find
themselves in the untenable position of requiring facilities that standardized
their signals years ago to effectively DE-STANDARDIZE them so that 20
years from now (hopefully), they can be standardized again; reference ROP
72-259.
D. Making temporal-3 signals retroactive is not as big a problem as has been
suggested, assuming a little time is allowed for compliance. As the strobe light
industry has clearly demonstrated, technology can and will address market
needs. Make temporal-3 signals mandatory, retroactive as of the 2005 edition
of this standard - or the 2008 edition if the committee prefers - and Gentex,
System Sensor, Wheelock, Federal Signal, and others will have products on
the market to meet that need well before the effective date of the requirement.
E. There’s not much point in having “international standards” that are only
“standards” on paper. It gives committees and industry reps something to
argue about, but it doesn’t do the public much good.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the Code is for the American
National Standard Evacuation signal to be used in all systems designed to
notify occupants to evacuate. The submitter is incorrect in stating that the
“committee is requiring facilities that standardized their signals years ago
to effectively de-standardize them so that 20 years from now (hopefully),
they can be standardized again.” In those cases where a facility has already
implemented a standardized evacuation signal, the authority having
jurisdiction has the prerogative of overriding the requirements of the code
based on site specific needs and conditions.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #55)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-205-(3-8.4.1.2 through 3-8.4.1.2.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-257
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not comply with
the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because it does not address
the substantiation provided. The fact that “the committee understands this
requirement will undergo a phase-in period” does not resolve the concerns
raised, and is tantamount to saying “NFPA doesn’t care if a few people get
killed in order to make them safer.”
B. Since the committee obviously does not intend to delete the requirement
for temporal-3 evacuation signals, it should make the requirement retroactive.
C. The committee’s reluctance to make temporal-3 signals retroactive is not
justified; reference my other comments on ROP 72-254 and ROP 72-259.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter asserts that “NFPA
doesn’t care if a few people get killed.” This is a completely unfounded,
unsubstantiated accusation that indicates a complete lack of understanding
on the submitter’s part of the operations of NFPA and the NFPA Technical
Committee process. The intent of the Technical Committee is for the
American National Standard Evacuation signal to be used in all systems
designed to notify occupants to evacuate. The authority having jurisdiction
always has the prerogative of amending the requirements of the code based on
site specific needs and conditions. The AHJ may exempt a facility from using
the American National Standard Evacuation signal, or require retroactive use
of the system, if warranted by site specific conditions.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #31)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-206-(3-8.4.1.2.1, 3-8.4.1.2.2, 3-8.4.1.2.3 [2002 ed. 6.8.5.3.1, 6.8.5.3.2,
6.8.5.3.3])) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, EST
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-198a
RECOMMENDATION: Make the following editorial revisions:
6.8.5.3.1 “...ANSI S3.41, American National Standard Audible Evacuation
Signal.”
6.8.5.3.2 and 6.8.5.3.3 Capitalize the “N” in “national” and the “S” in
“standard”.
SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended changes are editorial. They add
clarification by using the same title and capitalization as used in ANSI S3.41.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
350
————————————————-
(Log #53)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-207-(3-8.4.1.2.1 Exception (New) ) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-259
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The intent of 3-8.4.1.2.1 is not a new idea. Many
organizations, institutions, and campuses have recognized the need for
uniform evacuation signals for many years, and have standardized their
evacuation signals accordingly. In those facilities, they don’t have to wait a
generation to achieve signal standardization because they have it NOW.
B. It is ridiculous for the technical committee to undo the good work of the
last generation, effectively requiring DE-STANDARDIZATION of the only
facilities that currently have standardized signals, for the next generation or
so, in order to promote the concept of standardization. That is, the committee
action on this proposal is explicitly contrary to the intent of the requirement in
question.
C. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a temporal 3 signal is
any more effective at getting people to evacuate than any other kind of audible
signal. It just happens to be an international standard that’s been established,
but not implemented; not even in the United States. Until such time as the
world actually standardizes on the “international standard,” there’s no benefit
to be gained, and considerable harm to result, from forcing people to abandon
standards that have actually been implemented for years.
D. The committee’s dilemma on this proposal is indicative of the need
to make temporal 3 evacuation signals a retroactive requirement; see also
ROP 72-254. This is not as big a problem as has been suggested, assuming a
little time is allowed for compliance. As the strobe light industry has clearly
demonstrated, technology can and will address market needs. Make temporal
3 signals mandatory, retroactive as of the 2005 edition of this standard - or the
2008 edition if the committee prefers - and Gentex, System Sensor, Wheelock,
Federal Signal, and others will have products on the market to meet that need
well before the effective date of the requirement. Virtually all of Chapter 7 is
retroactive, and the world has not come to an end.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Add new exception to read:
Exception: Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction, use of the
existing consistent evacuation signaling scheme shall be permitted.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the basic
premise of the proposer’s recommendation but has revised the exception to
require approval of this approach by the authority having jurisdiction.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #231)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-208-(3-8.4.1.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-261
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitter’s substantiation. The
portion of the section that alludes to off-premises signals is preceded by the
word ”if”. This entire section is also preceded by the words “if permitted”
and caution should be exercised in its application. It is imperative that
responsible persons be in the vicinity of the system and immediately notified
to investigate the source of the alarm signal (to take further action) because it
delays occupant notification and egress. This section should apply ONLY to
protected premises systems. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal
72-102).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #232)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-209-(3-8.4.1.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-262
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept this Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the submitters’ substantiation.
Although the cited sections refer to activating “remote signals”, the primary
purposes of these sections deal with the protected premises operation(s). This
section should apply ONLY to protected premises systems and should be
relocated to Chapter 3. (Refer to our companion comment on Proposal 72103).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #15)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-210-(3-8.4.1.3) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-210 regarding Section 6.9.2 be revised for clarity
to read as follows:
6.9.2 Where systems used for partial evacuation or relocation of
occupants are required, Section 6.9 shall apply.
Retain the exception.
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-263
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: See my comments in the negative vote. There is
basically no change to the code. The explanatory information has been moved
to the appendix. This proposal should be accepted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise 3-8.4.1.3 (6.9.2, 2002) to read:
“6.9.2 Where required, Section 6.9 shall apply to systems used for partial
evacuation or
relocation of occupants.
Retain the exception.
Revise 3-8.4.1.3 (6.9.3, 2002) to read:
Emergency voice/alarm communications service shall be provided by a
system with automatic or manual voice capability that is
installed to provide voice instructions to the building occupants.”
Retain the exception.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee acknowledges that it is not
within its scope to mandate a specific type of system, but to mandate the
system performance requirements. Where this type of system is required by
another code or standard it shall meet the requirements of this section.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
(Log #59)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-212-(3-8.4.1.3, A-3-8.4.1.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-263
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not refute the
substantiation provided; it simply restates the code requirement the proposal is
seeking to modify.
B. The committee statement does not comply with the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects, as it fails to address the substantiation
provided in the proposal.
C. As Mr. Larrimer notes in his explanation of negative, non-voice fire
alarm systems are used to relocate occupants within buildings; most often in
hospitals where the use of coded chimes is commonplace.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-210 (Log #15).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #233)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————(Log #194)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-211-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2) and (3)) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter has provided no substantiation for
the proposal. Substantiation referencing “a more reliable method to provide
the performance required by the code” fails to explain how a CI cable with a
2-hour rating is any different from the 2-hour protection already required.
B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section
already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1
cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a
minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements
of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”.
C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute
an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one
manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of
NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64.
D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal
raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been
provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered
building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal
raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors
during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal
raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as
a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for
multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails.
E. The failure to provide substantiation is a violation of NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical
Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required
performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so
phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall
base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely,
fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such
information as may be available.” The Technical Committee has provided no
data, research or other justification for requiring the use of metal raceway, and
the submitter has provided no substantiation relevant to the proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-214 (Log #236).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
351
72-213-(3-8.4.1.3.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-266
RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We disagree with the submitters’ substantiation
because the section applies to proprietary systems as well as protected
premises systems. It is acceptable to initiate notification appliances from
e.g., a networked (proprietary) system. (Refer to our companion comment on
Proposal 72-94).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its original action.
See the action and statement on Proposal 72-266.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #236)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-214-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269
RECOMMENDATION: Reject this proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to
NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code (NEC)
is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The Technical
Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making Panel 16
to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its Articles in the NEC
because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement or specifications for the
use of limited combustible cable versus the general cables already specified”.
The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...it is inappropriate
to attempt to include references to all products that do not have a need for
specific application rules or products that are permitted but not required by
the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also noted that “...the NEC
does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.” The action taken by
the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld by the Standards Council
during the appeal process. In the supporting documentation for the appeal
it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost tantamount
to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today but not
required to be used in such places.” The Technical Correlating Committee
recognizes that a similar problem might exist with circuit integrity cable
and plans to review it during the next code cycle. Circuit integrity cable is
basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in the Code as an acceptable
cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196-Tests of Fire Resistive
Cable.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action and statement on
Comment 72-215 removes the term “circuit integrity (CI)” cable from Section
6.9.4.5.
The committee agrees with the submitter that the designation “circuit
integrity (CI)” should not be included in the NFAC, but the concept of a firerated cable has been incorporated via the committee action on Comment 72215 (Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #265)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-215-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3(2) and (3), 3-8.4.1.3.7.2, and 3-9.2.3) : Accept in
Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Edward Walton, Draka USA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269, 72-281, & 72-288
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
b. A 2-hour rated cable assembly
b. A 2-hour rated cable system
SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to “a 2-hour fire rated system” is correct
and will clarify the distinction between this method and use of Circuit
Integrity (CI) Cable.
2-hour fire rated systems are classified by national laboratories and consist of
basic cable along with mandatory use of one or more of the following:
Special installation or mounting procedures
Special connectors, splices or mounting hardware
Installation in conduit
This will also eliminate the mistaken belief that a 2-hour fire rated system
and “CI” cable could be the same.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
Relative to Proposal 72-269 the committee accepts the comment in principle.
In 6.9.4.3 and 6.9.4.5 of the proposed revision to Chapter 6 delete item “a.
Circuit Integrity (CI)” from the text, reidentify “b” and “c” as “a” and “b” and
add a new item “c” as follows:
“c. Performance alternatives approved by the AHJ”.
Revise the proposed text of existing “b” relating to a 2-hour rated cable
assembly to read:
“b. A 2-hour rated cable or cable system.”
Remainder of proposed text remains as originally accepted.
Relative to the recommendation for Proposals 72-281 and 72-288 the
committee rejects the proposed revision.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has accepted in principle
the proposed modification to Proposal 72-269 by providing a minimum
performance requirement and alternatives by which the performance
requirement can be achieved without specifically referencing “circuit integrity
(CI) cable”.
The committee rejects the proposed modifications to Proposals 72-281 and
72-288 based on its action to accept comments that reject Proposals 72-281
and 72-288.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #266)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-216-(3-8.4.1.3.3 and 1-5.4.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep.
American Hotel & Lodging Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-92, 72-94, & 72-266
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
Actuation of alarm notification appliances or emergency voice
communications and annunciation shall occur within 20 seconds after the
activation of an initiating device.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has not provided technical
documentation supporting the necessity for the reduction in time to improve
the level of life safety. Additionally, the technical committee has not provided
an analysis of the impact of this reduction on the architecture of the fire alarm
system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiation has been provided to
increase the time from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #342)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-217-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California
Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269
RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and
72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical
circuits.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The concept of a fire-rated cable has been
maintained via the committee action on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
352
————————————————-
(Log #130)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-218-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2) & (3)) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of
1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish
the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of
installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are
to be achieved.”
B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a
survivability problem with circuits between fire command centers and control
equipment that needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be
fixed by the proposed requirements. The specific circuits this requirement
applies to are not even defined.
C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI
cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement
over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire
alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No
actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and
no actual fire history has been cited.
D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if
any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such
cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as
noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means:
“The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or
component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does
not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.”
For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove
and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes
off. While this is not a particularly scientific test, it does suggest that the
“survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the
integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated
cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO
REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in
NFPA 72 and the addition of such requirements may significantly effect the
CI cable cost/benefit equation.
E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire
resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system
comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating
temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in
the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple,
interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire
conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable components
exposed to the fire. Since most fires originate in the portions of the building
where people, and all those plastic fire alarm devices and sprinklers are, the
real-world benefit of running fire-resistive cable in concealed spaces likely
ranges from marginal to nil. This is why lack of any fire history showing a
real benefit is a legitimate concern.
F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports and fires originating
in concealed spaces where the only fire alarm component they encounter
is cabling, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable ONLY protect
the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any
critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fireresistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem
that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete
solution.
G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is
dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which
are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an
incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating
expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems.
H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA
annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the
behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with
the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees
and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the
unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear
lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable
doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly
questionable benefit offered as justification.
I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making
process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record
which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee
members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter
pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit
survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which
building occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the
event of a fire. The submitter is under the false impression that the
intent of the survivability requirements is to assure the complete
operability of the fire alarm system under all possible fire conditions.
This is not, nor has it ever been, the intent of the survivability
requirements. The committee recognizes, and the code reflects,
the fact that direct fire attack of fire alarm system components can
compromise the operation of the circuits, devices, and appliances
serving the immediate fire area.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
The survivability requirements are intended to minimize the
possibility of attack by fire interrupting communication to areas
outside the fire area. For example, circuits that serve various floors
in a multi-floor building may run through areas where they could be
exposed to fire before they reach the floor(s) they serve. Providing
fire rated construction, a fire rated cable assembly, or protection
of the area by a fire sprinkler system minimizes the possibility of
impairment of service to areas outside the fire area. That specific
fire alarm devices and components can be compromised by direct
exposure to a fire is recognized and is addressed by current code
language in (new) 6.9.4.2 which states, “Survivable fire alarm
systems shall be designed and installed such that attack by fire within
an evacuation signaling zone shall not impair control and operation
of the notification appliances outside the evacuation signaling
zone.” This language recognizes that fire attack may impair circuits
in the immediate fire area while minimizing impairment of circuits
that serve areas outside the immediate fire area. This is the same
requirement that has appeared in previous editions of the code.
The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to
show that fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire
rated assemblies. This assertion is no more valid than an assertion
that there is no proof that a fire rated door will last longer than a
non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire, or that any other fire rated
assembly will not last longer than a similar non-fire rated assembly.
While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm systems
as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can
examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and
understand that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test
will survive longer in a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that
cannot pass the fire exposure test. This is fire protection at its most
basic level.
The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were
formulated in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The
requirements for survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable
assemblies as one method of meeting survivability requirements
predate the introduction of CI cable to the market or its introduction
to the National Fire Alarm Code.
Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false
accusation that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced
members of the Technical Committee and that the NFPA committee
process might be corrupt and “FOR SALE.” Anyone who chooses
to actively participate in the committee process will quickly find that
these accusations are patently false and have no basis in fact.
For the record the facts are:
1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance
with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee projects.
2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any
individuals to influence the committee concerning the topic other
than the submission and discussion of proposals and comments
during Technical Committee meetings as part of the normal NFPA
technical committee process.
3. At various times two members of the committee have been
engaged to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI
cable during two different code cycles. In accordance with the
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, both members
identified themselves to the committee as a consultant to a CI cable
manufacturer during committee deliberations. Their actions were
limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they submitted.
4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable.
5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning
requirements for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These
actions have been upheld by the Technical Correlating Committee,
the NFPA membership during adoption of the standard, and by the
NFPA Standards Council in issuing the document. There are avenues
of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA Standards Council
and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the Technical
Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of
appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical
Committee.
The committee has removed the “circuit integrity (CI)” cable
designation, but maintained the concept of a 2-hour rated cable or
cable system via its action on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO
VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #65)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-219-(3-8.4.1.3.3.3 (2), 3-8.4.1.3.7.2 & 3.9.2.3) : Accept in Part
SUBMITTER: Irving Mande, EST
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-269, 72-281, & 72-288
RECOMMENDATION: Reject these Proposals.
SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added to
NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the NEC is decided by the NEC
Technical Correlating Committee.
The NEC Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by
353
Code-Making Panel 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of
its Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement
or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general
cables already specified”. The NEC Technical Correlating Committee also
noted that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products
that do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are
permitted but not required by the NEC.” The NEC Technical Correlating
Committee also noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited
combustible cable.”
The Standards Council during the appeal process upheld the action taken by
the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. In the supporting documentation
for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain information almost
tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be used in plenums today
but not required to be used in such places.”
The NEC Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar
problem might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it
during the next Code cycle.
Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable. Both are listed in the
proposed Code as acceptable cables. Both are tested in accordance with UL
2196 - Tests of Fire Resistive Cables. UL has advised that cables that pass the
2-hour test are permitted but not required to use the CI marking on the cable.
2-hour rated cables with and without the CI marking are currently listed by
UL and can be used interchangeably.
Also, see my “Explanation of Negative Vote” for Proposal 72-269 in the
ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part
The committee accepts the recommendation to reject proposals 72-281
and 72-288. The committee does not accept the recommendation to reject
Proposal 72-269.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the
recommendation to reject Proposals 72-281 and 72-288. The committee does
not accept the recommendation to reject Proposal 72-269. See the committee
action and statement on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #16)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-220-(3-8.4.1.3.4.2 Exception) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-271
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The exception applies where the voice system is used
AT MAXIMUM CONNECTED LOAD to evacuate the facility. As such,
the submitter is trying to compare the 15 minutes maximum connected load
(equivalent to 2 hours of intermittent use) versus 5 minutes at maximum
connected load (that is the only way that the exception applies), not 5 minutes
of maximum connected to 2 hours of intermittent use. This will help provide a
clear baseline for battery calculations.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Power supplies will be covered by Chapter
4 in the 2002 edition of the National Fire Alarm Code. All voice systems
are required to have their secondary power supplies sized for 24 hours of
quiescent load plus 15 minutes at maximum connected load by Chapter 4.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #188)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-221-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1) : Reject
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee suggests that readers
refer to the action on Comment 72-226.
SUBMITTER: Antoinette Gray, Rep. Southern California Fire
Prevention Officers
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the committee’s proposed text as printed in
the May 2002 ROP “In Principle” with the following revisions:
I) Change Section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1 to read:
“In response to an initiating signal indicative of a fire emergency, the system
shall automatically transmit one of the following either immediately or after a
delay acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction.”
II) Add after “acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction” as in presently
found in the last sentence of 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1...”and where permitted by the
Authority Having Jurisdiction” (Just before text of (a)).
SUBSTANTIATION:
I) This addition clarifies the misunderstanding that one of either (a) for voice
evacuation, or (b) for relocation, or (c) simple evacuation signaling is to be
chosen by the designer for the intended operation of the system.
II) Adding “and where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction”
requires the designer to seek out the Authority Having Jurisdiction and discuss
whether voice messages will be used as described in (a) or (b) or (c) for
simple evacuating signaling. The resulting discussions will lead to a shared
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
understanding of any unique egress or relocation issues. Also, adding this
new text is also consistent with action on Proposal 72-265, which has been
“accepted in principle” to also address concerns regarding voice messages;
both live and recorded; and seek the approval of the Authority Having
Jurisdiction before selecting message content.
Dr. Clary has registered a negative vote to this committee action by
referencing a discussion with Dr. Proulx indicating that an alert tone
should only be 15 to 20 seconds. However, the alert tone is referenced
with “relocation” in (b) of section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1. As the committee left (b)
untouched, we expect that Dr. Clary may wish to register a positive vote, and
be consistent with Dr. Proulx.
The late, respected Robert McPherson has also registered a negative vote,
concerned that a 60 second tone used in the standard evacuation signal would
be quite annoying. We would point out that paragraph (c) of this same
section describes the use of an evacuation signal (as in 3-8.4.1.2) only (no
voice) and, if applied per this code, that signal could run continuously. We
recognize the deep knowledge and commitment Mr. McPherson had for our
industry. Though we respectfully agree with his opinion that “the number of
cycles is a highly subjective opinion”, and submit that his opinion “two cycles
as a minimum is sufficient” can be highly subjective, we also believe the
committee action to embrace the 60 second minimum is correct, as it actually
conforms to actual observations in regular environments using these signals.
Repeated observations of real people in real buildings may not fall into the
definition of the term “subjective”.
Finally, Mr. McPherson states, “many of the occupants may be familiar only
with the standard evacuation tones used in some buildings and evacuate even
before the voice message is telling them what to do starts.” This is our point.
We would prefer that people egress or relocate from the building before they
ever hear the voice message in (a) or (b); there’s nothing wrong with that (and
it is allowed in (c)). If it is necessary to evacuate, an immediate and swift
evacuation is preferred. Better safe than sorry.
A recent study by Guylene Proulx of Canada in R-1 apartments revealed
that the occupants took from 30 seconds to 24 minutes with an average of
2-1/2 minutes to start evacuating their apartments, even when this evacuation
was pre-planned and announced. Real-time field observations by Antoinette
Gray, (A fire and life safety expert with more than 20 years of experience)
from similar multi-story and high-rise office buildings reveals beginning
evacuation times starting at 25 seconds with an average time of 8-1/2
mintues. These times stemmed from pre-planned, announced fire drills and
were conducted by “wardens” and others were urging people to evacuate.
These field observations have been from April of 1998 to date, in more than
260 buildings per year. Substantial study material exists to demonstrate
both appropriate and inappropriate responses to recorded voice messages by
building occupants.
Since the overall goal in fire safety must be evacuation from unsafe areas in
a timely fashion under emergency situations, the work done by Dr. Proulx and
the real-time, field observations of Antoinette Gray show that the beginning
of egress can average in the minutes. Therefore, if a recorded voice message
is used to provide evacuation directions, such as “a fire has been reported
in the building, please leave the floor, do not use elevators, and use the exit
stairwells” this message should not be given too soon and should not ever
interrupt the alarm sound since the sound and the talking mean the same
thing. Get out now! It has been Antoinette Gray’s experience that voice
messages activated sooner than 60 seconds cause occupants to stop evacuating
(responding) to listen to the voice message, which they hope will tell them
that it is not necessary to evacuate. Unfortunately, many occupants in
buildings have heard all too many alarms where evacuation was unnecessary.
These real-time field observations confirm the idea that this overall detection
and recognition time should not be interrupted by a too soon voice message in
buildings where unnecessary alarms are all too common. Because occupants
in any kind of building, even in their own homes, are unwilling to admit an
emergency and react accordingly, they need time to understand and act on the
“get out now!” sound to begin the evacuation sequence.
Therefore, longer fire alarm sounds and shorter messages are vital to ensure
continued prompt evacuation movement when recorded voice messages are
used. When the occupants have decided to respond, then provide additional
evacuation information.
In the past, additional evacuation cues and information has been offered by
many methods (tone, voice, signs, enhanced lighting paths and directional
sound evacuation) and strengthened by periodic and real life training as
prescribed in this Life Safety Code and others. We are requesting this
change to offer enough audible information to be able to evacuate an unsafe
area to a safe area correctly, and in a timely fashion. And the use of audible
(rather than visual) directional sound information is of vital importance in the
presence of smoke or fumes; essential for visually disabled occupants under
any conditions.
We know there are three phases to human behavior to be: detection (physical
energy delivered to the eyes or ears, etc.) recognition (what the sound and
words mean, the urgency and authority of the recognized messages, other
factors surrounding the person in the environment) and the response required
to initiate the correct emergency action (move now).
Once sufficiently aroused (detection through recognition) by the audio alert
tone followed by the fire alarm sound (the “get out now” sound referred to
in this proposal), most occupants eventually begin to evacuate their areas.
Therefore, if a pre-recorded message is used, it is more appropriate and
helpful to offer voice evacuation instructions after the occupants attention has
been gained (recognition) and they are moving away from their work areas to
354
the exists (response).
This is important since most automatic fire alarm signals are meant to
provide some supplemental emergency egress (voice) information because of
the inherent inaccuracy of detecting the source (and therefore correct egress
path) of audible emergency tones.
New developments of directional fire alarm signals do contain concurrent
audio location cues that clearly broadcast a very detectable “come to me”
signal without the need for supplemental voice instructions. And when
deployed with ever increasing audible pulse rates, they act as relocation
alarms, which result in far faster egress or relocation (30 to 60% faster than
fire alarm signals with supplementary voice messages. When this technology
is in place, perhaps the combination of alarm signal, voice evacuation and
direction sound evacuation will finally provide all of the elements needed to
get people up and moving in the right direction with all of the facts at hand.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee statement on Comment 72222 (Log #234).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
J. MOORE: While I do not necessarily agree with the changes made to this
section of the code, I am voting in the affirmative as the committee action
on this comment effectively prevents additional changes being made to this
section of the code. I do not agree that we should be making changes to the
voice message, evacuation signaling and sequencing based on the limited
and incomplete information currently available to the committee. See my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-222.
————————————————(Log #234)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-222-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1) : Reject
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee suggests that readers
refer to the action on Comment 72-226.
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Sixty (60) seconds of the audible emergency
evacuation signal is too long. Further study on human behavior is badly
needed before making arbitrary changes to the current Code requirements.
Considerable thought needs to be given to whether these occupancies are
residential or non-residential and ambulatory versus non-ambulatory.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has formed a task group to
study voice messages, evacuation signals and their sequence.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NEGATIVE: 5
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
ANDERSON: The original proposal, as accepted, added many new
requirements to voice systems wihout sufficient testing and evaluation. In
particular, the requirement to delay the actual voice evacuation message for 60
seconds may endanger the building occupants during a fire. Comment 72-222
asked for rejection of Proposal 72-275.
The Technical Committee rejected 72-222 and formed a study group to
“...study voice messages, evacuation signals, and their sequence.” Proposal
72-125 should be rejected and reconsidered when the study group publishes
its report.
CLARY: My records show that the vote was to Accept the comment. This
ties into the action taken on 72-226 in which a task group has been formed
to study the issue prior to the 2005 ROP. The original language needs to be
maintained until the task group completes its work and reports back to the
Committee.
LARRIMER: I agree with the reasoning provided in Mr. Anderson’s
Explanation of Negative Vote.
MANDE: We should not make any changes to the existing code
requirements in Section 3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a) and (b) until the new task group,
created by the committee in response to Comment 72-226, has submitted its
recommendations for needed changes.
J. MOORE: The committee’s action on Proposal 72-275 was made without
complete information on the subject. The committee should wait until there
is complete information available before making changes to the requirements
for voice messages, evacuation signals, and sequencing. Making changes
to the timing and sequencing of messages based on unpublished, anecdotal
information is premature. A task group has been formed to study the
available information on the subject. Changes should not be made until the
task group has had a chance to study all the available information and make
recommendations to the Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire
Alarm Systems.
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #175)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-223-(3-8.4.1.3.5.5 (New) ) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Paul D. Graham, Sound Alert Technologies
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-276
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider and reverse the move to Reject this
proposal: retain the original proposal as published and add the following
alternatives to voice messaging available and not addressed in the proposal or
committee actions.
3-8.4.1.3.5.5.X*
Alternates to Emergency Voice Messages for Egress.
Directional signals shall also be allowed to direct the listener to egress or for
relocation.
Directional signals use non-verbal cues (broad frequency content, unique
frequency response, graduated repetition rates from device to device) to
effectively replace the supplementary information found in voice messages to
enable egress or relocation.
*A.3.8.4.1.3.5.5.X
Non-voice evacuation audio signals, may for example, depend on
supplemental emergency voice messages to add information for safe and
efficient egress or relocation. There are alternates to these supplemental
emergency voice messages to achieve egress or relocation.
Directional signaling products act both as the primary evacuation or
annunciation signal and as supplemental egress or relocation devices. These
all-in-one devices contain a frequency content far broader than most “tone”
devices, allowing for increased detection above competing masking noises.
They have a unique frequency response that indicates the location of the
signal, allowing a pinpoint reference in all degrees of visual backgrounds,
from completely smoke-filled to all clear but unknown locations to the
listener. By employing a variety of repetition rates across many devices,
successively faster units draw a listener away from the slower devices to
achieve movement towards the intended exit. These characteristics also
allow the directional signaling devices to overcome difficulties found with
conventional voice messages when broadcasting emergency messages in
many languages.
SUBSTANTIATION: I disagree with the committee action to Reject the
initial proposal because they believe the proposed text is overly restrictive,
limited and not appropriate for all locations. I believe there are enough “as
required”, “if required” and “unless otherwise required by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction” phrases within the proposal to overcome the committee’s
reservations of applicability of use.
Additionally, present fire alarm products have the logic capability for storing
automatic and pre-programmed messages to deliver near-live messages for a
number of foreseen situations. They can address current emergency situations
with primary and alternate pre-programmed messages, to meet the intent of
Phased Evacuation as proposed.
As to the specific primary and alternative voice message content, the
scientific community indicates that the message structure should: 1)
identification of the problem, 2) location of the problem, and 3) instructions
to avoid the problem. (See G. Proulx, “How to Initiate Evacuation Movement
in Public Buildings” Facilities, Vol. 17 No. 9/10, (1999) MCB University
Press, London, UK, pp. 331-335). This message structure is also commonly
employed in the emergency communication and dispatch services as Mr.
Dumais and Mr. Horon point out in their original proposal.
The original proposed content is generic enough to be appropriate for all
locations, “as required”, with a few missing elements. I think the proposal
as exists doesn’t go far enough. It does not address the difficulties to deliver
speedy, concurrent evacuation or relocation messages in multiple languages.
It does not address the difficulty of detecting voice messages against
competing background noises and voices. And it does not offer an accurate
source location to allow the listener to be drawn toward the audible signal for
egress guidance.
There exists a new class of Directional Signals that are not voice based,
but act as both a very detectable fire alarm “tone” and a directional “beam”
to indicate the intended egress path. They contain a unique frequency
response containing a broader frequency content then conventional initiating
signals. This allows for better detection above ambient “masking” noises.
They also have a unique frequency response that gives the listener a precise
exit direction to show the egress path. They act as complete self-contained
annunciators, free from the need for secondary or supplementary voice
message speakers now used to confirm egress or relocation information. (In
essence, these “combination” products share equal facilitation with visual
emergency lighting; they contain both message content and direction of
broadcast.) And, when multiple units are employed using increasingly faster
repetition rates over a designed egress path, they act as the audible equivalent
of a “Geiger counter”. That is, hearing faster repetition rate devices means
you are getting closer to the exit or along the relocation path. And, as nonvoice relocation devices, they are free from the need to broadcast multiple
voice messages in many languages.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces new material that
has not had public review. This comment will be referred to that task group
that will be studying evacuation issues.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
355
(Log #17)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-224-(3-8.4.1.3.5.6.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-277
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: See my substantiation in the negative comment. In
addition, the Life Safety Code has accepted proposals for the new edition
that do not require the signals (and strobes) to be heard (or blinded) in the
elevators.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #18)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-225-(3-8.4.1.3.5.6.4) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-278
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: See my substantiation in the negative comment. In
addition, the Life Safety Code has accepted proposals for the new edition that
do not require the signals (and strobes) to be heard (or seen) in stairways.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise 6.9.7.4 to read as follows:
“Where required, each enclosed stairway shall be equipped with speakers
connected to a separate notification zone for manual selective paging only.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This meets the submitter’s intent while
clarifying the language.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
MANDE: Comment 72-225 should be rejected because the Committee
provided no substantiation to explain why it reversed its actions between the
ROP and ROC, and why it no longer supports its Committee Comment in the
ROP.
The Committee vote to reject Proposal 72-278 was opposed by only
one member who was also the only one to submit a comment. The only
new information provided in the comment was “...the Life Safety Code
has accepted proposals for the new edition that do not require the signals
(and strobes) to be heard (or seen) in stairways.” Since this is the only
new information received, we can assume that this is the reason for the
Committee’s mind change.
There is always a risk to act on changes to a code made during the ROP. We
have only to look at our own Committee and the number of reversals we have
made between our ROP and ROC actions.
In addition to the procedural problem, I have a problem understanding why
the use of stairway speakers will now be limited to manual selective paging
only. Since the code requires manual priorty over recorded messages during
an emergency, recorded messages would only come into play when there is no
one on duty to transmit the live voice message. Even when there is a person
on duty, in many instances the recorded message could be more reliable than
a live message. The decision on whether or not a stairway paging zone should
be treated as any other paging zone or restricted to manual selective paging,
only should be made by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
————————————————-
(Log #347)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-226-(3-8.4.1.3.5.3.1 (a) and (b)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-275
RECOMMENDATION: Revised the text to the 1999 edition text.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a subject that requires further study. I would
urge the technical committee to form a task group to conduct further study on
this issue and submit possible revised text for the 2005 cycle.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #39)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-227-(3-8.4.1.3.5.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-276
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action does not comply with the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects because it does not address ANY
of the substantiation provided.
B. The committee statement, besides not mentioning anything in the
substantiation, is also incorrect.
1) The proposal isn’t “overly restrictive” nor does it “limit the options
available to the Authority Having Jurisdiction” at all. In fact, proposed 38.4.1.3.5.5.1 starts out with: “Unless otherwise required by the authority
having jurisdiction...”.
2) Since it doesn’t propose ANY particular voice message or messages at
all, it’s also not clear how the committee concluded that “the proposed voice
messages are not appropriate for all locations.”
C. This proposal does not place any restrictions on the specific content of
voice messages; it simply requires that the message(s) include the 3 basic
elements of all emergency messages. How specific a message needs to
be varies with the application, but there are NO LOCATIONS where it’s
inappropriate for an emergency voice message to indicate generally what the
emergency is, where the emergency is, and what the listener is supposed to do.
Certainly yelling “HEADS UP!!!” over the voice evacuation system in a highrise building is not sufficient.
D. It is essential that a building which is required to have a voice evacuation
system, and which is expected to execute phased evacuations in emergency
situations, have a phased evacuation plan (not to mention that it’s very helpful
to know what you want your emergency voice evacuation system to do and
how BEFORE you design and install it). Unless the committee thinks it’s
okay to design systems without knowing what you want them to do (assuming
you actually do want them to do something in particular), or that your average
$6/hr. security guard who hasn’t a clue as to the designer’s intent is going to
come up with a well thought out phased evacuation plan on their own in the
middle of a fire emergency, this one should be a slam dunk.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide any additional
information or support for the proposed changes other than that provided in
the original proposal. The proposed text would require a common emergency
message format for all emergency voice alarm systems. This may not be
appropriate for all situations. It is the intent of the committee that the voice
message be tailored to the site specific conditions of the facility.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #195)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-228-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The substantiation for this proposal does not apply
to this proposal. The proposal is to modify wiring requirements for two way
telephone circuits, the substantiation references “building public address
systems” and “fire department communications to occupants”. Consequently,
the submitter has provided no substantiation relevant to two-way telephone
circuits.
B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section
already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1
cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a
minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements
of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”.
C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute
an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one
manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of
NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64.
D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal
raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been
provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered
building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal
raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors
during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal
raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as
a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for
multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails.
E. The failure to provide substantiation is a violation of NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical
Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required
performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so
phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall
base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely,
fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such
information as may be available.” The Technical Committee has provided no
data, research or other justification for requiring the use of metal raceway.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
356
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: The original proposal was to require mechanical protection for
two-way telephone communication circuits. It was the Committee’s statement
when accepting in principle the original proposal that ìthe committee felt that
additional mechanical protection was necessary.
The substantiation for the comment centers around the use of CI cable. This
issue was resolved through other action by the Committee during the ROC.
The Committee appeared to agree during the ROP that additional protectoin
for this circuit type was required. I still feel that it is, and would urge my
fellow comittee members to reconsider their votes.
J. MOORE: While the substantiation submitted with the proposal is not
directly applicable to the situation addressed by the proposal, the need for
effective fire department communications during a serious fire has been long
demonstrated during numerous actual fires. Fire service communications
during a large area structure fire have been cited as a key issue for the safety
of fire service personnel fighting the fire. Just a couple of the well publicized
fires where fire ground communications were cited as a problem include:
Interstate Bank Fire, Los Angeles, CA (1988) - “Radio communications
were overtaxed and disrupted by the buildingís steel frame.” [U.S. Fire
Administration Technical Report Series, Report 022, Interstate Bank Building
Fire].
High-rise Office Bldg. Fire, Philadelphia, PA (1991) Three firefighter
fatalities - “Radio communications were affected by the significant duration
of the incident. ...To ease congestion on the fire ground radio channels,
cellular telephones were used to communicate between the Command Post in
the lobby and the staging area on the 20th floor.” [U.S. Fire Administration
Technical Report Series, Report 049, High-rise Office Building Fire One
Meridian Plaza].
Where the fire department depends on the firefighter telephone system
within a building as an important means of communication during a fire, it
is essential that the circuits for these systems be designed and installed to
minimize disruption of their operation. Failure to do so can jeopardize the
safety of fire service personnel operating in the building during a fire. Where
these telephone systems are provided, firefighters have the expectation that the
systems will continue to function during fire suppression operations.
One of the arguments against acceptance of this proposal is that there are too
many points of failure in a system to assure continued operation during fire.
The intent of the “survivability” requirements is not, and has never been, to
assure 100 percent operation of the system during a fire. It has always been
recognized that specific devices and appliances (i.e., speaker, telephone set,
phone jack, etc.), when exposed to direct fire attack will probably fail quickly
and compromise the operation of that particular portion of the system. The
intent is to minimize the possibility of a failure of one component or circuit
from affecting communications in other areas. For example, a fire on the 20th
floor of a building will likely compromise the circuits, devices and appliances
on that floor, but we do not want that failure to affect operation of the system
on other floors. Therefore, protection of the circuit as it passes through fire
areas other than the fire area served by the circuit is essential. This is the basic
idea behind the provision of “survivable” fire alarm circuits.
The survivability of circuits that serve firefighter telephone systems are just
as important as any other fire alarm circuit. In fact, since firefighters will
likely remain in the building for a far longer period of time than the building
occupants, the firefighter telephone circuits should at least meet the same
survivability requirements as other fire alarm circuits intended for installation
in buildings where there is partial or selective evacuation of the building
occupants.
The action of the committee should be to require the same level of
survivability for firefighter telephone circuits as is required for other circuits.
Specifically, the requirements for these circuits should be:
“All circuits necessary to the operation of two-way telephone systems shall
be installed using one of the following methods:
a. A 2-hour rated cable assembly
b. Routing the cable through a 2-hour rated enclosure
c. A method approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction”
STRINGFIELD: I feel the two-way telephone communications circuits need
protection for the safety of the firefighters and helping with the operation at
the scene. I do not agree with the exception and feel it should be deleted.
Based upon other proposals regarding CI cable, this method should also be
deleted.
————————————————(Log #237)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-229-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added
to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code
(NEC) is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The
Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making
Panel (CMP) 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its
Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement
or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general
cables already specified”. The Technical Correlating Committee also noted
that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted
but not required by the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also
noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.”
The action taken by the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld
by the Standards Council during the appeal process. In the supporting
documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain
information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be
used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.”
The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem
might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it during the
next code cycle.
Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in
the Code as an acceptable cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196Tests of Fire Resistive Cable.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. Please also let the record
show that CAFAA did not approve this action by the submitter.
J. MOORE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.
STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72228.
————————————————(Log #128)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-230-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of
1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish
the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of
installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are
to be achieved.”
B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a
survivability problem with firefighter telephone circuits that needs to be fixed,
or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the proposed requirements.
Obviously, most firefighter telephone circuits are already installed in 2-hour
fire rated exit stair enclosures.
C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI
cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement
over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire
alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No
actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and
no actual fire history has been cited.
D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if
any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such
cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as
noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means:
“The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or
component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does
not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.”
For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove
and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes
off. While this is not a particularly “scientific” test, it does suggest that the
“survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the
integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated
cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO
REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in
NFPA 72.
E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire
resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system
comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating
temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in
the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple,
interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire
conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable component
exposed to the fire.
F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports, requirements for
CI or other fire-resistive cable only protect the cable; they do not ensure the
operability of the fire alarm system or any critical system functions under fire
conditions. Even if CI or other fire-resistive cable is part of the solution to
a “survivability” problem - a problem that remains to be substantiated - such
cables are obviously not a complete solution.
G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is
dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which
are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an
incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating
expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems.
H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA
Annual Meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the
behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with
the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees
357
and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the
unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear
lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable
doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly
questionable benefit offered as justification.
I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making
process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record
which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee
members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter
pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit
survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building
occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The
committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of
fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits,
devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area.
The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that
fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This
assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire
rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire,
or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar nonfire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm
systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can
examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand
that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in
a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure
test. This is fire protection at its most basic level.
The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated
in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for
survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method
of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to
the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code.
Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation
that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical
committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR
SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process
will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in
fact.
For the record the facts are:
1. All actions taken by the Technical Committee were in accordance with the
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee projects.
2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to
influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and
discussion of proposals and comments during Technical Committee meetings
as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process.
3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged
to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two
different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee
as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations.
Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they
submitted.
4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable.
5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements
for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld
by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during
adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the
document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA
Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the
Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of
appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228. I do, however, strongly
concur with the committee statement as it relates to the committee being “For
Sale.”
J. MOORE: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.
STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72228.
————————————————-
(Log #343)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-231-(3-8.4.1.3.7.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California
Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-281
RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and
72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical
circuits.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee actions on Comment 72-228
(Log #195), Comment 72-229 (Log #237) and committee action and statement
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
on Comment 72-230 (Log #128).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 26
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-228.
STRINGFIELD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72228.
————————————————-
(Log #121)
Committee: SIG-PRO
————————————————-
(Log #52)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-232-(3-8.4.3.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-284
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-8.4.3.4 to read as follows:
3-8.4.3.4 Fire alarm systems used for fire suppression releasing service shall
be provided with a disconnect switch or switches to allow the system to be
tested without activating the fire suppression system or related functions.
Operation of the disconnect switch(s) shall cause a trouble signal at the fire
alarm control unit.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The current text does not address disconnection of
functions other than agent release.
B. In some applications, functions such as computer power shutdown have
the potential to create business interruption losses that substantially exceed
the cost of the fire suppression agent. Those functions are just as important to
bypass during routine system testing - and just as important to get reconnected
properly when the testing is completed - as the agent releasing function.
C. The intent of this section is to ensure that releasing systems are installed
in a manner that is conductive to performing routine system testing.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment leaves out the option of
providing a supervisory signal without substantiation. The arrangement of
disconnects for suppression systems is outside the scope of this code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LARRIMER: Providing a switch on a fire alarm system is within the scope
of this code. As a matter of fact, the paragraph that this comment refers to
already requires a disconnect switch. The commentor left out “supervisory”
in his proposal, but the current edition of the code, as written, only has
“trouble” in the paragraph and if that is the problem, it could have been added
to the paragraph to satisfy the committee. This comment should have been
accepted.
————————————————-
(Log #235)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-233-(3-8.4.3.4) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word
“panel” be replaced with the word “unit” in the Committee Action on
Comment 72-233. This correlates with the correct usage of the term “Fire
Alarm Control Unit.
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-284
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Proposal for Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: Although the committee action provides satisfaction to
the submitters’ proposal, it is inconsistent with the requirements of this Code.
Specifically, it conflicts with Section 3-8.3.3.3.1 for a supervisory signal and
has been noted by Technical Correlating Committee Members.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise the last sentence of 6.11.4 to read:
“Operation of a disconnect switch or a disable function shall cause a
supervisory signal at the fire alarm control panel.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The words “disable function” were added to
allow the ability to disable via a software function.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
BARTH: I agree with the deletion of the trouble signal. The purpose of the
disconnect on a releasing system is the same as closing a valve on a water
suppression system and, therefore, the signal generated should be the same.
However, I disagree with adding the words “disable function” because it is
my opinion that the use of a software function to disable a releasing system is
not sufficient. It should require a “hard” disconnect so that there is assurance
that a signal cannot get to the releasing mechanism.
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CLARY: Make an editorial change from “fire alarm control panel” to “fire
alarm control unit” so as to be consistent with the language used within the
Code.
358
72-234-(3-9, A-3-9) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal is in
violation of the Regulations governing committee projects as no technical
substantiation was provided to justify the addition of several pages of new
material. This proposal obviously goes far beyond “clarifying current
material.”
B. This material dangerously blurs the distinction between fire alarm
systems and other kinds of building systems over which NFPA 72 has no
jurisdiction.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action on Comment 72-235
(Log #186).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #186)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-235-(3-9, A-3-9 [2002 Ed. 6.8.1.3(2), 6.8.1.4, 6.15.2.7(2), 6.15.2.9,
6.15.5.5, 6.15.5.6 & A.6.8.3]) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlation Committee directs that the committee
action concerning Section 6.8.1.4 to be revised to comply with the Manual of
Style to read as follows:
“6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises operating
systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3.
6.8.1.4.1 All signal control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.)
located in a critical fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be
listed for fire alarm service unless the following conditions are met:
a) The equipment meets the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1.
b) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and
monitored for integrity as required in 4.4.
c) All programming and configuration assure a fire alarm system actuation
time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2.
d) System bandwidth is monitored to confirm that all communications
between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system
or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be
indicated within 200 seconds.
e) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operation of the fire
alarm system or fire safety functions, is indicated at the master fire alarm
control unit within 200 seconds.”.
6.8.1.4.2 A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each control
unit or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to prevent the
other systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm system.
SUBMITTER: Jerry Martocci, Johnson Controls Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-286
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
6.8.1.3 (2) Listed digital data interfaces (such as serial communications ports
or gateways) Data communications over signaling line circuit(s) dedicated to
the fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems
6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises operating
systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3. All signal
control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.) located in a critical
fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be listed for fire alarm
service. A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each control unit
or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to prevent the other
systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm system.
Exception: Signal control and transport equipment need not be listed for fire
alarm service provided the following conditions are met:
1) The equipment shall meet the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1.
2) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and
monitored for integrity as required in 4.4.
3) All programming and configuration shall assure a fire alarm system
actuation time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2.
4) System bandwidth shall be monitored to confirm that all communications
between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system
or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be
indicated within 200 seconds.
5) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operat\ion of the fire
alarm system or fire safety functions, shall be indicated at the master fire
alarm control unit within 200 seconds.
6.15.2.7 (2) Listed digital data interfaces, such as serial communications
ports or gateways Data communications over signaling line circuit(s)
dedicated to the fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems.
6.15.2.9 (Delete)
6.15.5.5 When interconnected as a combination system, a Firefighter’s
Smoke Control Station (FSCS) shall be provided to perform manual control
over the automatic operation of the system’s smoke control strategy.
6.15.5.6 When interconnected as a combination system, the smoke control
system programming shall be designed such that normal HVAC operation
or changes do not prevent the intended performance of the smoke control
strategy.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Delete Annex material A.6.8.3.
SUBSTANTIATION: New requirements proposed in Proposal 72-286 were
inadvertently added by the committee as annex material. This proposal moves
forward to the body of the code the revised requirements while deleting the
unnecessary annex material. The proposal also addresses the inconsistency
that now exists between Chapters 6 and 8 as a result of formal interpretation
number 72-99-1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise 6.8.1.3 (2) as follows:
“Listed digital data interfaces (such as serial communications ports or
gateways) Data communications over signaling line circuit(s) dedicated to the
fire alarm or shared with other premises operating systems.”
Insert new 6.8.1.4 to read as follows:
“6.8.1.4 Where the signaling line circuit is shared by other premises
operating systems, operation shall be in accordance with section 6.8.3. All
signal control and transport equipment (routers, servers, etc.) located in a
critical fire alarm or fire safety function signaling path shall be listed for fire
alarm service. A listed barrier gateway, integral with or attached to each
control unit or group of control units, as appropriate, shall be provided to
prevent the other systems from interfering with or controlling the fire alarm
system.
Exception: Signal control and transport equipment need not be listed for fire
alarm service provided the following conditions are met:
1) The equipment shall meet the performance requirements of 4.4.4.1.
2) The equipment is provided with primary and secondary power and
monitored for integrity as required in 4.4.
3) All programming and configuration shall assure a fire alarm system
actuation time as required in 4.4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3.2.2.
4) System bandwidth shall be monitored to confirm that all communications
between equipment which is critical to the operation to the fire alarm system
or fire safety functions takes place within 10 seconds; failure shall be
indicated within 200 seconds.
5) Failure of any equipment, which is critical to the operation of the fire
alarm system or fire safety functions, shall be indicated at the master fire
alarm control unit within 200 seconds.”
The remainder of the recommendation is accepted as submitted
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed text was accepted with
renumbering to coincide with the rewrite of the chapter.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #129)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-236-(3-9.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed requirements are in violation of
1-2.1, which specifically states that “It is the intent of this code to establish
the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of
installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are
to be achieved.”
B. No substantiation has been provided demonstrating that there is a
survivability problem with smoke control and elevator control circuits that
needs to be fixed, or that such a problem, if it exists, will be fixed by the
proposed requirements.
C. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the claim that CI
cable or other 2-hour fire-rated cable will actually provide any improvement
over other types of wiring with respect to maintaining the operability of fire
alarm systems or critical system functions under actual fire conditions. No
actual fire testing of systems has been conducted to substantiate this claim and
no actual fire history has been cited.
D. No documentation has been provided to substantiate the relationship, if
any, between UL’s listing tests for fire-rated cables and the conditions such
cables might be exposed to in an actual fire. This is important because, as
noted in the definition of “fire-rating” in Chapter 1, “Fire Rating” means:
“The classification indicating in time (hours) the ability of a structure or
component to withstand a standardized fire test. This classification does
not necessarily reflect performance of rated components in an actual fire.”
For example, when CI cable is heated for a minute or so on a kitchen stove
and then bent 90 degrees in two planes, the fire-resistant insulation flakes
off. While this is not a particularly scientific test, it does suggest that the
“survivability” of CI cable in an actual fire likely depends as much on the
integrity of the cable supports as it does on the cable itself. Other fire-rated
cable types may have the same or similar limitations. There are presently NO
REQUIREMENTS for CI cable supports, noncombustible or otherwise, in
NFPA 72 and the addition of such requirements may significantly effect the
CI cable cost/benefit equation.
E. Under fire/firefighting conditions, it is not clear how provision of fire
resistive cable can possibly ensure the operability of a fire alarm system
comprised largely of electrically operated plastic devices, with listed operating
temperatures of (typically) no more than 120°F, which promptly short out in
the presence of water. Because system operability is dependent on multiple,
interconnected components, the overall system “survivability” under fire
conditions is no better than the “survivability” of most vulnerable components
exposed to the fire. Since most fires originate in the portions of the building
where people, and all those plastic fire alarm devices and sprinklers are, the
real-world benefit of running fire-resistive cable in concealed spaces likely
ranges from marginal to nil. This is why lack of any fire history showing a
real benefit is a legitimate concern.
F. At best, assuming adequate noncombustible supports and fires originating
in concealed spaces where the only fire alarm component they encounter
is cabling, requirements for CI or other fire-resistive cable ONLY protect
the cable; they do not ensure the operability of the fire alarm system or any
critical system functions under fire conditions. Even if CI or other fireresistive cable is part of the solution to a “survivability” problem - a problem
that remains to be substantiated - such cables are obviously not a complete
solution.
G. When the objective is system operability and that operability is
dependent on multiple, interconnected system components, most of which
are more vulnerable to fire and water than the interconnecting cables, an
incomplete solution is NO solution. NFPA 72 should not be mandating
expensive, unproven, partial solutions to hypothetical problems.
H. These CI cable requirements have been being pushed since the NFPA
annual meeting in May 1996, in several different sections of the code, at the
behest of the manufacturer (Rockbestos-Suprenant Cable Corp.) and with
the apparent assistance of special experts on both the Technical Committees
and the Technical Correlating Committee. This is occurring despite the
unambiguous violation of the intent of the standard as stated in 1-2.1, the clear
lack of technical substantiation, and the obvious fact that protecting cable
doesn’t ensure system functionality - which is the sole, presumed, and highly
questionable benefit offered as justification.
I. In order to ensure that the integrity of the consensus standards making
process is not “FOR SALE,” it would be appropriate for the ROC to record
which NFPA 72 Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee
members are now, or who have previously, been retained by the submitter
pursuant to the objective of getting these requirements into NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements for fire alarm circuit
survivability apply only to a small percentage of systems in which building
occupants are only partially evacuated or relocated in the event of a fire. The
committee recognizes, and the code reflects, the fact that direct fire attack of
fire alarm system components can compromise the operation of the circuits,
devices, and appliances serving the immediate fire area.
The submitter states that there have been no specific fire tests to show that
fire rated cable assemblies perform better than non-fire rated assemblies. This
assertion is no more valid than an assertion that there is no proof that a fire
rated door will last longer than a non-fire rated door when exposed to a fire,
or that any other fire rated assembly will not last longer than a similar nonfire rated assembly. While there have been no specific fire tests on fire alarm
systems as a whole, anyone familiar with fire protection and fire testing can
examine the available fire test methods and listing procedures, and understand
that a cable assembly that has passed a fire exposure test will survive longer in
a given fire than a wire, cable, or assembly that cannot pass the fire exposure
test. This is fire protection at its most basic level.
The submitter’s assertion that survivability requirements were formulated
in 1996 in order to market CI cable is also false. The requirements for
survivability and the use of 2-hour fire rated cable assemblies as one method
of meeting survivability requirements predate the introduction of CI cable to
the market or its introduction to the National Fire Alarm Code.
Lastly, the submitter makes totally unsubstantiated, and false accusation
that a specific manufacturer has unduly influenced members of the technical
committee and that the NFPA committee process might be corrupt and “FOR
SALE.” Anyone who chooses to actively participate in the committee process
will quickly find that these accusations are patently false and have no basis in
fact.
For the record the facts are:
1. All actions taken by the technical committee were in accordance with
NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
2. There have been no attempts by any manufacturer or any individuals to
influence the committee concerning the topic other than the submission and
discussion of proposals and comments during technical committee meetings
as part of the normal NFPA technical committee process.
3. At various times two members of the committee have been engaged
to provide consulting services for a manufacturer of CI cable during two
different code cycles. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects, both members identified themselves to the committee
as a consultant to a CI cable manufacturer during committee deliberations.
Their actions were limited to discussion of the proposals or comments they
submitted.
4. There is more than one manufacturer of CI cable.
5. The Technical Committee has acted consistently concerning requirements
for survivability of fire alarm system circuits. These actions have been upheld
by the Technical Correlating Committee, the NFPA membership during
adoption of the standard, and by the NFPA Standards Council in issuing the
document. There are avenues of appeal to the NFPA membership, the NFPA
Standards Council and the NFPA Board of Directors if the actions of the
Technical Committee are deemed inappropriate. None of these avenues of
appeal have been initiated for any actions taken by this Technical Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237. I do, however, strongly
concur with the committee statement as it relates to the committee being “For
Sale.”
————————————————-
359
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #196)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-237-(3-9.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be rejected.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter has provided no substantiation for
the proposal. Substantiation referencing “a more reliable method to provide
the performance required by the code” fails to explain how a CI cable with a
2-hour rating is any different from the 2-hour protection already required.
B. The proposal does not add materially to the requirement. This section
already references a two-hour rated cable assembly, and that would include C1
cable. According to the manufacturer’s website, CI cable “has established a
minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating by passing the applicable requirements
of UL Test Standard 2196, Standard for Tests of Fire Resistive Cables”.
C. The inclusion of this cable type is not only unnecessary; it may constitute
an implicit endorsement of a product, since there appears to be only one
manufacturer of this product. Such an endorsement would be in violation of
NFPA policy, reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64.
D. The committee action to modify the exception to require the use of metal
raceway is totally lacking in any form of substantiation. No evidence has been
provided of any problem with cables attacked by fire in a fully sprinklered
building. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that installation in metal
raceway would have either a positive or negative effect on the conductors
during a fire condition. It is entirely possible that the installation in metal
raceway could cause cable to fail sooner, since the raceway not only acts as
a radiant heat source on the conductors, but it also provides the potential for
multiple ground faults when the conductor insulation fails.
E. The failure to provide substantiation for the Technical Committee action is
a violation of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, specifically
Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare
documents in terms of required performance, avoiding specifications of
materials, devices or methods so phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired
result by other means. It shall base its recommendation upon one or more
of the following factors; namely, fire experience, research data, engineering
fundamentals or other such information as may be available.” The Technical
Committee has provided no data, research or other justification for requiring
the use of metal raceway.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the
recommendation, but does not concur with the submitter’s assertion that it
acted improperly. See committee action and statement on Comment 72-215
(Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: The original proposal was to require mechanical protection for
smoke control circuits. It was the Committee’s statement when accepting
in principle the original proposal that “the committee felt that addional
mechanical protection was necessary.”
The substantiation for the comment centers around the use of CI cable. This
issue was resolved through other action by the Committee during the ROC.
The Committee appeared to agree during the ROP that additional protection
for this circuit type was required. I still feel that it is, and would urge my
fellow committee members to reconsider their votes.
————————————————-
(Log #238)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-238-(3-9.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: Circuit Integrity (CI) cable should not be added
to NFPA 72 until its status in Article 760 of the National Electrical Code
(NEC) is decided by the NEC Technical Correlating Committee. The
Technical Correlating Committee reversed the action taken by Code Making
Panel (CMP) 16 to add “limited combustible (-50) cable in several of its
Articles in the NEC because “...the Panel’s action contains no requirement
or specifications for the use of limited combustible cable versus the general
cables already specified”. The Technical Correlating Committee also noted
that “...it is inappropriate to attempt to include references to all products that
do not have a need for specific application rules or products that are permitted
but not required by the NEC.” The Technical Correlating Committee also
noted that “...the NEC does not prohibit the use of limited combustible cable.”
The action taken by the Technical Correlating Committee was upheld
by the Standards Council during the appeal process. In the supporting
documentation for the appeal it was noted “...the NEC should not contain
information almost tantamount to advertising, about cables permitted to be
used in plenums today but not required to be used in such places.”
The Technical Correlating Committee recognizes that a similar problem
might exist with Circuit Integrity (CI) cable and plans to review it during the
next code cycle.
360
Circuit Integrity cable is basically a 2-hour rated cable that is also listed in the
Code as an acceptable cable. Both are tested in accordance with UL 2196Tests of Fire Resistive Cable.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the
recommendation does not agree it is necessary to base its action contingent
upon action taken by the National Electrical Code Committee. See committee
action and statement on Comment 72-215 (Log #265).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237. Please also let the record
show that CAFAA did not approve this action by the submitter.
————————————————(Log #258)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-239-(3-9.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Tim Crosnoe, Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288
RECOMMENDATION: Rescind the committee’s action of “Accept in
Principle” and reject the recommendation.
SUBSTANTIATION: There is no justification given as to why smoke
control circuitry deserves any more protection than initiation or notification
circuits. These circuits are just as important, if not more, for the protection of
human life. Yet, they are not given 2-hour protection status in this proposal.
Inclusion of this requirement will also serve to increase the overall cost of
the fire alarm system, and, therefore, increase construction costs of the entire
project. The benefits of the additional protection seem unbalanced when
compared to the additional costs.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the
recommendation but does not agree with the submitter’s substantiation
relating to economic considerations.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237.
————————————————-
(Log #344)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-240-(3-9.2.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. California
Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-288
RECOMMENDATION: We support the action of the technical committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee action on 72-269, 72-281 and
72-288 was made so that added protection could be provided to these critical
circuits.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement
Comment 72-215 ( Log #265) and Comment 72-237 (Log #196).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CLARY: I am opposed to this action by the Committee. Please see my
Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-237.
————————————————-
(Log #262)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-241-(3-9.2.7) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom DeMint, Poudre Fire Authority
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-289
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
3-9.2.7 “Smoke detectors or heat detectors installed exclusively to perform
control functions and not otherwise required by the Code to initiate an alarm
condition, need not be connected to the a fire alarm system, provided that they
comply with 3-9.2.1 Exception.”
SUBSTANTIATION: In the proponents substantiation,b he states that
regardless of intended purpose and application of a device that the initiating
devices need not be connected to the fire alarm system. In buildings where
initiating devices are used to perform a function but an alarm system is not
required, it should be allowed to perform that function without having to
install a fire alarm system control unit.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms the committee
statement in the proposal. The specific “control functions” recommended in
this comment are not specified.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NEGATIVE: 1
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LARRIMER: See my negative response on Comments 72-74, 72-75 and
72-164. The submitter wanted clarification on whether or not a device needs
to be connected to the fire alarm system. Clarification has not been provided,
but in my personal opinion, a device installed within a building to perform a
control function of any type is not required to be connected to the fire alarm
system by the National Fire Alarm Code. (Note that other codes, such as the
Life Safety Code may, and does, require it in some instances).
————————————————(Log #58)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-242-(3-9.3 and A-3.9.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-291
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect; the scope of
NFPA 72 is clearly stated in 1-1:
1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location,
performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components.
B. The Chapter 3 Technical Committee, not to mention the Technical
Correlating Committee, the Standards Council, and the public, can read as
well as I can, and they can see that 1-1 does not mention elevator safety or
elevator controllers or elevator operation. The title of ANSI A17.1, on the
other hand, is “Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.” This would seem
to constitute reasonable “technical substantiation” for the assertion that the
current text of 3-9.3 both exceeds the scope of NFPA 72 AND overlaps into
the jurisdiction of ANSI A17.1 and A17.3.
C. The committee action is not in accordance with the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects because it stops with the incorrect statement
that elevator safety is within the scope of NFPA 72 (reference 1-1) and
does not address the very real problems of blurring the distinction between
fire alarms and other systems (the point of proposal substantiation Item A)
and blurring the responsibilities for whose responsible for what (proposal
substantiation Item B). For that matter, the committee did not address the
legitimate objective of clarifying how the fire alarm portion of an elevator
recall system is supposed to work (proposal substantiation Item C) or the
concern that fire alarm control panels are not listed elevator controllers and
should not be used for that purpose (proposal substantiation Item D) either.
D. It should be noted that this proposal does not constitute a major change
to what’s currently in the standard, but rather, simply makes a clear line of
demarcation between what’s part of the fire alarm, and what’s not. It’s also
considerably more straightforward and easier to use than the current text.
E. There are many practical reasons why it is important to clearly define the
extent of a fire alarm system. These include facilitating inspection, testing,
troubleshooting, modifications (when needed), and maintenance, as well as
helping to keep other trades from screwing around with the fire alarm system,
maintaining operability over time, and minimizing unwarranted liabilities. It
is not clear why the Chapter 3 Committee would object to making it perfectly
clear where the fire alarm ends and somebody else’s problems begin.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contrary to the assertions made by the
submitter, the action taken by the committee complies fully with the NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects. NFPA maintains continuous
liaison with the ANSI A17.1 committee responsible for the elevator safety
standards to assure the two standards correlate with each other. The National
Fire Alarm Code does not require elevator recall, shutdown or any other
specific functions for elevators. However, where these specific functions are
mandated by other codes and standards to be performed by the fire alarm
system, this code details the methods to be used. This is fully within the scope
of this committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #46)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-243-(3-9.3.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-292 & 72-293
RECOMMENDATION: Reject these proposals.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action violates the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects because no technical substantiation has been
provided to demonstrate a need for smoke detectors used for elevator recall to
be connected to the building fire alarm system.
B. Elevator recall functions are provided in buildings without fire alarm
361
systems all the time, apparently without any adverse consequences. Why
these systems work fine in buildings without fire alarms, but won’t work
in buildings that do, is not at all clear. Just because something has a smoke
detector connected to it doesn’t make it a fire alarm system.
C. The current confusion in the standard over who’s responsible for what
with respect to elevator recall and elevator shutdown is a good reason
NOT to mandate connecting somebody else’s problems to the fire alarm
system at this time. Given the current text of 3-9.3 and 3-9.4, the standard is
already requiring fire alarm technicians to perform work which the technical
committee knows they are not competent to perform. There is no reason to
make this situation any worse.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Contrary to the assertions made by the
submitter, the action taken by the committee complies fully with the NFPA
Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Additionally, the commentor
makes the false assertion that the code already requires “fire alarm technicians
to perform work which the technical committee knows they are not competent
to perform.” The submitter’s claim has no substantiation or factual foundation.
In fact, the section of the code under the jurisdiction of the Technical
Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems does not require fire
alarm technicians to perform any work. Additionally, there have been no
discussions, evaluations, or judgments within the committee concerning the
competency of fire alarm technicians.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #260)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-244-(3-9.3.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Tom DeMint, Poudre Fire Authority
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-291
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read:
3-9.3.1* System-type smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection
as permitted by 3-9.3.5 located in elevator lobbies, elevator hoistways, and
elevator machine rooms used to initiate fire fighters’ service recall shall be
connected to the building fire alarm system. In facilities without a building
fire alarm system, these smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection
as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall be connected to a dedicated fire alarm system
control unit that shall be designated as “elevator recall control and supervisory
panel,” permanently identified on the control unit and on the record drawings.
Unless otherwise required by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, only the
elevator lobby, elevator hoistway, and the elevator machine room smoke
detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall be
used to recall elevators for fire fighters’ service.
SUBSTANTIATION: Mr. Johnson stated in his comment on the affirmative
that he agreed with the submitter of this proposal but didn’t agree with a
complete replacement of the text. We are seeking a change that would allow
buildings that do not require an alarm system to initiate the ANSI A17.1
required recall system by a system control unit other than an FACP. As stated
in the proponent’s substantiation Item D., FACP’s are not listed elevator
controllers and should not be used for that purpose.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees that this function is
within its scope and clarifies that the fire alarm control panel shall be used
for its ability to monitor the integrity of the circuits. The ASME/ANSI
A17.1 committee liaison concurs that this function is the responsibility of the
Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm Systems. The fire
alarm control panel is not being used as an elevator controller, rather it is only
being used to send signals to the elevator controller.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #19)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-245-(3-9.3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: See my negative comments. This proposal adds a heat
detector in the pit only when sprinklers, that will control the fire, are actually
installed in the pit. If there are no sprinklers there to control the fire, then
this (these) heat detectors is not required. This is ridiculous. As Mark Dumais
would say, just because there are sprinklers installed in the pit doesn’t make
it more hazardous such that, in addition to those sprinklers, you now also
have to add heat detectors. Sprinklers don’t make the elevator system more
hazardous.
If the elevator committee was concerned about where the elevator was during
a fire, then they should state their objective and let the fire alarm designers get
there, i.e., during a fire in the elevator pit, the elevator car will be sent remote
from the fire. This would apply for all buildings with elevators, not just those
with sprinklers already in the pit providing detection and protection. On the
other hand, I doubt that proposal would pass since there is no real justification
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
to do so.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #45)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-246-(3-9.3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. This requirement is outside the scope of an
installation standard.
B. Substantial revisions have been made to NFPA 72 over the last several
cycles based on the misguided premise that an apparent lack of fire alarm
expertise on the ANSI A17.1 is justification for NFPA 72 to do their job for
them. The scope of this standard is clearly stated in 1-1 and obviously does
not include promulgating elevator safety requirements. If the ANSI A17.1
committee needs additional expertise, they should go out and find some.
C. There is no need to correlate with ANSI A17.1 - where ANSI A17.1
applies, it should define where detectors are needed and the kind(s) of
detectors to be provided. NFPA 72 should tell users how the detectors that
are required by ANSI A17.1 - or other codes or specifications - should be
installed; not where they’re required. The idea that NFPA 72 needs to repeat
requirements found elsewhere “for correlation” is silly.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the comment based
on the substantiation provided in Comment 72-245 (Log #19). The committee
does not concur with the substantiation submitted in this comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #256)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-247-(3-9.3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: David J. Burkhart, Code Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-296
RECOMMENDATION: Rescind the committee’s action of “Accept in
Principle” and reject the proposed paragraph.
SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 13 requires that sprinklers installed in elevator
pits must be within two feet of the bottom of the shaft while ANSI A17.1 does
not require power shutdown if the sprinkler is within two feet of the bottom
of the shaft. There would, therefore, be no requirement for a smoke or heat
detector in this area and, hence, no method for recall. The added requirement
for a heat detector to be installed would then encroach on the standard making
responsibility of ANSI under Standard A17.1. Additionally, the typical recall
scenario recalls cars to levels very close to the bottom of the shaft regardless
of whether it is to the primary of secondary floor. This could pose an even
greater hazard than if recall were not initiated from the pit at all.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #287)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-248-(3-9.3.7(b) and (c)) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Lynn B. Nielson, Henderson Fire Department
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-297
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
(b) The smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by
3-9.3.5 in the remaining elevator lobbies. elevator hoistways, and the elevator
machine room shall actuate the second elevator control circuit.
Exception No. 1. If the elevator machine room is located at the designated
landing, its smoke detector or other automatic fire detection as permitted by
3-9.3.5 shall also actuate the first elevator control circuit.
Exception No. 2. If a smoke detector or other automatic fire detection as
permitted by 3-9.3.5 is installed in a hoist way at or below the lowest landing
of recall the initiating device shall cause the car(s) to be sent to the upper
recall level.
(c) The smoke detectors or other automatic fire detection as permitted by
3-9.3.5 in elevator hoistways and the elevator machine room(s) shall actuate
the a third elevator control circuit. In addition, if the elevator machine room
is located at the designated level, its smoke detector or other automatic fire
detection as permitted by 3-9.3.5 shall also actuate the first elevator control
circuit.
SUBSTANTIATION: As written, the National Fire Alarm Code does not
contain any provisions for the elevator hoistway smoke detector(s) to initiate
a phase 1 recall and only one possibility for a machine room smoke detector
to initiate a phase 1 recall. It has been my experience that most fire alarm
designers do not own or have a copy of the ANSI/ASME A 17.1 code book.
If most of the functional requirements are to be provided than why not provide
them all so designers will do it right.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is necessary to use the NFAC and ASME/
ANSI A17.1 in order to properly apply the elevator requirements.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————(Log #47)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-249-(3-9.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-299
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
committee ignored the substantiation provided.
B. The notion that the ANSI A17.1 committee writes the scope of NFPA 72
is ridiculous. It is obviously not up to an ANSI committee to determine what
is or is not covered in an NFPA standard; if they lack the expertise necessary
to write good elevator safety requirements, they should go out and find some.
C. See also ROP 72-291; it is entirely possible to provide appropriate
guidance in NFPA 72 for elevator shutdown functions without exceeding the
scope of the standard.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Elevator shutdown is not required by, nor is
it a function of the NFAC. Such requirements are contained in other codes
and standards. Where there is a requirement from one of those documents to
initiate shutdown of the elevator, the NFAC provides the method.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #197)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-250-(3-10.7(3)) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-303
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be accepted.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The language in the proposed 6.16.3.4 and
6.16.5(3) directly conflict with proposed 6.15.2.2 and proposed 4.4.3.2.2,
which require activation of fire safety functions and notification appliances
within 10 seconds.
B. There is no justification for separate requirements for activation time of
fire safety outputs and notification appliances based on the technology utilized
by the fire alarm system. If it is appropriate to activate these functions within
10 seconds, there should not be an effective exception for a specific type of
fire alarm system. Danger from smoke and fire are not minimized simply
because a low power radio system technology was utilized for the fire alarm
system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-251 (Log #249).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #249)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-251-(3-10.7(3)) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-303
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept in Principle.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee statement is incorrect. However,
we were able to discern that two separate errata’s have been issued. Errata
number 72-99-2 deleted Sections 3-10.3.5 and 3-10.3.6 and renumbered
Section 3-10.3.7 to 3-10.5, which explains why the committee had trouble
finding the conflict suggested in the submitter’s recommendation. Secondly,
Errata 72-99-3 furthermore changed the text of 3-10.3.4 back to the 1996
edition (90 seconds), so it would correlate with Mr. Hopple’s concern of
3-10.5. This results in the 1999 edition of NFPA 72, Sections 3-10.3.4
and (renumbered) 3-10.5 correlating to allow a 90 second delay, which the
committee felt achieved the submitter’s goals.
However, neither the committee, nor Errata 72-99-3 substantiated the reason
to revert back to the 1996 edition text allowing a 90 second delay. There
should be no difference in the maximum delay allowed for wireless equipment
versus hardwired equipment. No justification is provided to increase the delay
362
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
in transmission of an alarm for wireless equipment.
Because of the two actions taken in separate errata, the proposal should be
accepted in principle because the submitter did not include a request to change
(72-99-3 errata changed) Section 3-10.3.4 from 90 seconds to 10 seconds.
We are in disagreement with any reason that allows equipment to delay an
alarm signal for more than 10 seconds regardless of its technology. We would
remind the Technical Committee that the maximum delay for the hardwired
was 90 seconds; changed to 20 seconds in 1999; and to 10 seconds in the
2002 edition. This allowed technology time to catch up with the requirement.
Surely, wireless technology has progressed in 6 years.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 6.16.3.4. in the draft contained an
errata. The original text of the requirement remains unchanged. There are
limits in transmission time due to FCC regulations.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 25
NEGATIVE: 3
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
ANDERSON: Section 3-10.7 allows wireless systems to delay report of
alarm up to 90 seconds, as compared with 10 seconds for wired fire alarm
systems (2002). Proposal 72-303 and Comment 72.251 request that wireless
systems comply with the same delay times as all other fire alarm systems.
The Technical Committee rejected the comment with the statement: “There
are limits in transmission time due to FCC regulations.” The FCC document
number is not stated.
Fire alarm delay is a critical factor and should be based on life safety
concerns, and not relaxed for particular technologies because of their
limitations. Comment 72-251 should be accepted.
CLARY: I concur with the Explanation of Negative Vote from Mr.
Anderson.
LARRIMER: I agree with the reasoning provided in Mr. Anderson’s
Explanation of Negative Vote. I feel that a better explanation needs to be
provided by the technical committee for allowing this technology so that this
issue is put to rest once and for all. In addition, explanatory notes ought to be
provided in the annex of the code to explain the reason that this code requires
10 seconds response time for all other technologies and 90 seconds for this
wireless technology so that a user may make an informed decision on using
the wireless technology.
————————————————-
(Log #138)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-252-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Delete new paragraph 7-4.1.4.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The ROP incorrectly indicates that this material
was moved from the appendix to the body of the standard based on ROP 72318 and ROP 72-319, neither of which requested this particular change.
ROP 72-318 didn’t even mention this material, and ROP 72-319 asked
that the appendix material (which the committee moved to the body of the
standard instead) be DELETED.
B. The committee action is in violation of the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects because neither a proposal not technical substantiation
was provided for moving this material from the appendix to the body of
the standard. In the absence of a proposal at the ROP stage, this change
constitutes new material for the ROC and cannot become part of the 2002
edition of the NFAC.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee statement in the ROP
should have reflected the committee’s desire to move the material based on
a committee amendment to the original proposal. It was the intent of the
committee to coordinate with the submitter’s original proposal (72-443) which
would have had the same effect.
The committee chose to add additional text to make the requirement
enforceable and measurable where required.
The committee has not violated the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects by adding additional committee-generated material to the original
proposal.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #165)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-253-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. Chapter 7]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
363
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee action text contains text of
a full and complete Manual of Style proposal PLUS amendments made for
Manual of Style purposes PLUS incorporation of all other proposal actions.
NFPA chose to not publish the original Manual of Style proposal in the
printed ROP. While it is time consuming to follow all the changes made, it
is possible. A copy of the original Manual of Style proposal is available at
NFPA. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any easy way to accomplish
all the changes.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #311)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-254-(Chapter 4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.5.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 and 72-29
RECOMMENDATION: In 7.4.5.1, delete the reference to 7.4.1.4.
SUBSTANTIATION: The original proposal and committee action on 72-29
referenced 4-3.1.4 which was later removed from the body of the chapter by
the committee by way of 72-316. The current ROP 7.4.1.4 has nothing to do
with tone signaling.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #184)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-255-(4-1.2) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-255 (comment only) be reported as “Hold”
consistent with Section 4-4.6.2.2 of the NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
SUBMITTER: Paul D. Graham, Sound Alert Technologies
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-305
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the committee action text to be more
descriptive and inclusive of all forms of indicating technologies, as follows:
4.1.2* “Notification appliances for fire alarm systems shall contribute to fire
protection by providing detection stimuli for initiating the recognition of an
emergency situation with subsequent actions to direct proper response, and by
providing supplemental verbal information or combined directional signaling
information to users, emergency response personnel and occupants.
A.4.1.2 Fire systems offer a variety of signaling methods to initiate
the recognition and subsequent response to precipitate safe egress under
emergency situations. The intent of emergency signaling methods is to set in
motion the complete chain of detection, recognition and proper response by
the person hearing that signal. Pertinent, persuasive or compelling messages
coupled with effective egress training will result in properly directed, orderly,
and near-immediate first movement response.
The evacuation signal has a distinctive pattern for fire situations [see
3.8.4.1.2]. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “Temp-3”, or the
Temporal-3 “tone” although the prescribed pattern can actually contain any
type of tone.
First movement response may be achieved by the evacuation signal pattern
alone. [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(c)]. Where allowed or appropriate, voice messages
(live or pre-recorded) supplement these evacuation signals seeking first
movement. Supplementary voice messages are allowed and are intended
to enhance egress from [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a)] or relocation within [see
3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)] the occupancy as required. The use of attention-getting
Alert Tones are employed to enhance detection of a pending voice relocation
message [also in 8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)].
Supplemental live messages derived from actual knowledge of the
emergency are generally more accurate and more persuasive, are preferred to
pre-recorded messages, and have priority over previously initiated signals [see
8.4.1.3.5.3.3].
Fire system audible appliances accomplish correct response notification in
many ways:
“Combined” directional signals achieve the desired egress or relocation
immediate response with a single speaker that broadcasts non-verbal audible
cues [patterns and frequencies] that are easily detected in many environments
[smokey, clear and noisy condition] and accurately indicate the location of the
source signal. By employing graduated repetition rates from device to device,
these combined directional signal products achieve the desired egress and/or a
relocation path in varied environments.
Some appliances achieve the desired response in two steps, using 1)
initiating, non-voice signals to stimulate near-immediate egress movement
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
[using bells or sounders, for example] and 2) supplemental voice messages
[using separate speakers] to direct egress or relocation movement with
pertinent and timely information.
SUBSTANTIATION: This comment intends to add to the clarity of use
as shown in the original proposal. This comment, with additional annex
material, amplifies the underlying human mechanisms, provides a critical
common vocabulary for the code and fire services, and explains applications
of two-step and combined directional signaling forms of audible notification
signals.
The Code as presently written is confusing regarding the types, applications
and the intent of audible signals on people. It contains definitions and
examples of alarm signals, alert tones, annunciators, audible notification
devices, coded signals, delinquency signals, emergency voice/alarm
communications, exit plan, fire alarm/evacuation signal tone generators,
fire alarm signal, non-coded signal, notification appliances, positive alarm
sequence, signal, tactile notification device, textural audible notification
device, and voice intelligibility. It spells out the functional sequence of
distinctive evacuation signals (the internationally recognized “fire alarm
signal”) and its use with and without supplemental voice messaging [see
3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a) and (c)]. it references evacuation versus relocation or other
non-evacuation messages in relation to a preceding alert tone [see (b) of that
same section]. It describes multi-channel capability [3.8.4.1.3.5.2], signal
annunciation [3.8.4.2], public and private mode requirements [4.3.2 and .3],
location requirements [4.3.5], and the testing methods [7.2.2 Item 14] and
maintenance [7.3.2 Item 19].
Specifically, these proposed additions would follow and amplify the 3
accepted phases of human behavior toward new stimuli independent of
the above methods or order of initiation; i.e., detection recognition and the
resulting correct response or responses required.
Additionally, I believe these comments will help clarify these phases of
human response in light of all existing notification products. This comment
will include notification and egress or relocation via two-step devices
(separate tone annunciation- and voice-annunciation products). These
comments also encompass the “combined” one-step directional signaling
products that surpass the two-step products for detection, recognition and
response, and overcome the difficulty of visual signaling products in that they
can be effective direction indicators in low visibility, smoke or fume-filled
environments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
Add the following text to end of existing A.4.1.2.
“Fire systems offer a variety of signaling methods to initiate the recognition
and subsequent response to precipitate safe egress under emergency situations.
The intent of emergency signaling methods is to set in motion the complete
chain of detection, recognition and proper response by the person hearing that
signal. Pertinent, persuasive or compelling messages coupled with effective
egress training will result in properly directed, orderly, and near-immediate
first movement response.
The evacuation signal has a distinctive pattern for fire situations [see
3.8.4.1.2]. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “Temp-3”, or the
Temporal-3 “tone” although the prescribed pattern can actually contain any
type of tone.
First movement response may be achieved by the evacuation signal pattern
alone. [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(c)]. Where allowed or appropriate, voice messages
(live or pre-recorded) supplement these evacuation signals seeking first
movement. Supplementary voice messages are allowed and are intended
to enhance egress from [see 3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(a)] or relocation within [see
3.8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)] the occupancy as required. The use of attention-getting
Alert Tones are employed to enhance detection of a pending voice relocation
message [also in 8.4.1.3.5.3.1(b)].
Supplemental live messages derived from actual knowledge of the
emergency are generally more accurate and more persuasive, are preferred to
pre-recorded messages, and have priority over previously initiated signals [see
8.4.1.3.5.3.3].
Fire system audible appliances accomplish correct response notification in
many ways:
“Combined” directional signals achieve the desired egress or relocation
immediate response with a single speaker that broadcasts nonverbal audible
cues [patterns and frequencies] that may be detected in many environments
[smoky, clear and noisy condition] and may indicate the location of the source
signal. By employing graduated repetition rates from device to device, these
combined directional signal products achieve the desired egress and/or a
relocation path in varied environments.
Some appliances achieve the desired response in two steps, using 1)
initiating, non-voice signals to stimulate near-immediate egress movement
[using bells or sounders, for example] and 2) supplemental voice messages
[using separate speakers] to direct egress or relocation movement with
pertinent and timely information.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee aggreed to add the annex
material but rejected changes to the body of the code at this time.
The committee felt that additional changes to scope and purpose should be
further evaluated and considered in the next cycle.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 1
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: I believe that the committee intended to retain the words “of
tone” at the end of the second Annex paragraph. I think this is a typo on the
part of text processing. The crossed out text did not appear on the screen
during the committee debate.
364
————————————————-
(Log #303)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-256-(4-1.2 [2002 Ed. 7.1.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.1.1 as follow:
Change “These requirements shall apply...” to “The requirements of this
chapter shall....”
SUBSTANTIATION: As written “these requirements” can be interpreted to
mean only the requirements in that section, 7-1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #304)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-257-(4-1.4 and 4-1.2 [2002 Ed. 7.1.2, 7.2]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Remove the word “shall” from paragraphs 7.1.2
and 7.2.
SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the word “shall” in these sentences is
not proper English. I know that NFPA editors and text processing has been
directed to make sure that every paragraph is a requirement and that in most
cases this means requiring the word “shall” in it. However, like it or not, each
document must have some defining material. NFPA requires that definitions
in codes and standards NOT contain requirements. Yet they are permitted to
be in the body of the documents - even without the word “shall”. So too with
application, scope and purpose statements.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that the inclusion of the
word “shall” is consistent with the Manual of Style.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: The use of the word “shall” in 7.1.2 and 7.2 is not proper
English and does not serve any useful purpose.
————————————————-
(Log #132)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-258-(4-2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-306, 72-307, 72-338
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section 4-2 as follows:
4-2 ADA Compliance. This section applies to visual signals installed for
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only.
4-2.1* Strobe lights installed for ADA compliance shall be in accordance
with the current edition of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines (ADAAG). Where those requirements exceed the requirements of
other sections of this code, the most stringent requirement(s) shall apply.
A-4-2.1 Compliance with the requirements of NFPA 72, exclusive of the
ADAAG, does not necessarily constitute “equivalent facilitation” under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This section reconciles the requirements of
the ADA with the requirements of other sections of this code in a manner that
allows fire alarm systems to comply with both.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. One of the most prominent sources of requirements
for strobe lights, besides NFPA 72, is the ADA.
B. This section is necessary for correlation with the ADA. The appendix
paragraph is necessary to ensure that users of the code are aware that NFPA
72’s requirements for visual signals are separate and distinct from the
requirements of the ADA.
C. Compliance with NFPA 72, exclusive of the ADAAG, is frequently
misconstrued to be “equivalent facilitation” under the ADA. Compliance
with the ADA must be accomplished either through literal compliance with
the specific requirements of the law, or by a determination of “equivalent
facilitation” by the responsible federal authorities or their designated
representatives. This is not a determination that can be made by NFPA.
D. Using the most stringent of the applicable criteria is the most
straightforward way to reconcile different requirements, and the approach
commonly used where multiple criteria apply.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The chapter does not only apply to ADA. It
applies anytime any code, standard or authority references it. Its purpose is
signaling to hearing impaired persons or signaling by visible means regardless
of hearing ability or regardless of accessibility issues. It is not our jurisdiction
to determine if NFPA 72 provides equivalent facilitation to ADA or not. See
the scope of this chapter in 4-1 of the 1999 Code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
————————————————-
(Log #239)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-259-(4-3.1.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-312
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: (Refer to the Technical Correlating Committee Note
in Proposal 72-314 and Mr. Haus’ Explanation of Negative Vote). With
the Technical Correlating Committee asking for reconsideration of Proposal
72-314 with Mr. Haus’ explanation, if that proposal is reconsidered and
Accepted, this proposal should be Accepted as well based on the submitter’s
substantiation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment
to reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit for
maximum sound pressure and the 105dBA threshold for requiring visible
appliances.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: 3
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept reconsideration of
this Proposal 72-312, but I do not agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of
its previous ROP action. The proposal is dependent on Proposal 72-314. If
Proposal 72-314 were accepted (see Comments 72-261 and 72-262), then this
proposal should also be accepted based on this proposal’s substantiation. This
substantiation noted that the existing 105 dBA ambient noise level was based
on 15 dBA below a maximum alarm level of 120 dBA. If the maximum alarm
level is lowered to 110 dBA per Proposal 72-314, then the noise level should
be lowered to 95 dBA as proposed in Proposal 72-312.
SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments
the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain
the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the
May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change
would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying
research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits
exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage
occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a
horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation.
I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323,
and 72-329.
SUMMERS: If the proposals are accepted for Sections 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.1 and
4.3.3.1 reducing the maximum dBA from 120 dBA to 110 dBA, an average
sound pressure level of 95 dBA should be used to be 15 dBA below the
maximum allowed.
————————————————-
(Log #308)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-260-(4-3.1.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.1]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.1.1 as follows:
Current wording in the ROP:
An average ambient sound level greater than 105 dBA shall require the use
of a visible notification appliance(s) in accordance with Section 7.5.
Add ref. to 7.6 for private mode to read as follows:
An average ambient sound level greater than 105 dBA shall require the use
of a visible notification appliance(s) in accordance with Section 7.5 where the
application is public mode or 7.6 where the application is private mode.
SUBSTANTIATION: 7.4.1 is General Requirements applicable to both
public and private mode. As currently written, a private mode application
with an SPL of 105 or greater would not be permitted to use public mode
visual signaling.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #89)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-261-(4-3.1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-314
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed
in the voting. The explanation of the negative vote appears to provide the
technical justification requested by the committee. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 14
NEGATIVE: 2
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept the Technical
Correlating Committee’s comment to reconsider Proposal 72-314 but I do not
agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of its previous ROP action. I believe
that Proposal 72-314 should be accepted based on the reasons provided in its
substantiation and reiterated in my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment
72-262.
SUMMERS: The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
limits exposure to 120 dBA to only 9 seconds per day. Occupants evacuating
buildings, which have 120 dBA notification appliances installed, could be
exposed to this sound pressure level for substantially more than 9 seconds.
Dropping the maximum dBA level from 120 dBA to 110 dBA would also
harmonize NFPA 72 with the Canadian National Building Code and Fire
Code, and ADA, as well as promote system designs that do not incorporate
louder appliances penetrating construction materials in lieu of additional
notification appliances in areas requiring notification.
————————————————(Log #240)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-262-(4-3.1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-314
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree that Mr. Haus’ Explanation of Negative
Vote (and the Technical Correlating Committee Note) provides the technical
justification for consideration of the change. This proposal was discussed
and agreed upon by the Bi-National Correlating Committee on Fire Alarm
Codes to correlate with the Canadian National Building Code and Fire Code.
The committee’s reason for Reject is provided in their statement for Reject
in 72-315, which states the lack of supporting technical justification for
the change, even though the committee Accepted proposal 72-335 without
technical justification, with the same submitter substantiation as this proposal.
The committee should be consistent in their Committee Actions based on the
submitter’s substantiation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: 3
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: I agree with the committee’s action to accept reconsideration of this
Proposal 72-314, but I do not agree with the committee’s reaffirmation of its
previous ROP action. I believe that this proposal should be accepted based
on my Explanation of Negative Vote in the ROP. This explanation noted that
the maximum alarm level should not be great enough to damage hearing. The
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits exposure
to 120 dBA noise to just 9 seconds. The limit for 110 dBA is 1 minute and 29
seconds. The new ADA Accessibility Guidelines and the Canadian National
Building Code and Fire Code now limit alarms to 110 dBA. Enforcement
and safety would be enhanced by harmonizing NFPA’s requirements with
these others.
SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments
the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain
the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the
May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change
would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying
research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits
exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage
occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a
horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation.
I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323,
and 72-329.
SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.
————————————————(Log #241)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-263-(4-3.1.2, 4.3.2.1, and 4.3.3.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-315
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal to Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments to Proposals 72312 and 72-314.
365
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NEGATIVE: 4
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262.
LOWREY: I vote in opposition to the committee action. In the ROP
process, this was voted down in Proposal 72-315 due to lack of “supporting
technical substantiation.” I believe that the technical justification for lowering
the dB level was provided by Mr. Haus.
SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments
the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain
the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the
May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change
would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying
research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits
exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage
occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a
horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation.
I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323,
and 72-329.
SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.
————————————————(Log #242)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-264-(4-3.1.4, 4.3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-317
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part but include
it in an Annex section for performance-based design.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material provides additional guidance in the
application of notification appliances in areas where hearing protection is
worn. However, the guidance suggests performance-based design for optional
notification in these areas. The Technical Correlating Committee has assigned
a task group for performance-based design options and we feel this material
is more applicable to that optional design. We recommend either creating a
performance-based Annex section or holding this guidance over until the task
group submits a performance-based Chapter with Annex material(s).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The material is already in the annex as
proposed. The committee does not have a separate section for performance
based material. In fact, most of the code and annex material on audible
signaling is “performance based”.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #29)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-265-(4-3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, The RJA Group, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318 & 72-319
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposals.
SUBSTANTIATION: This would require all speakers to be tested by the
Authority Having Jurisdiction, even if they are convinced that the message
is intelligible. This is an excessive requirement that does not belong in the
body of the code. The test equipment for determining intelligibility is also
questionable as to availability and performance. This belongs in the appendix.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text does not require all speakers to
be tested. Intelligibility is tested the same way as audibility - by testing
the performance of the system, not by testing individual components. The
submitter does not say why he feels the requirement is “excessive”. As with
audibility, the interpretation of intelligibility is subjective. The requirements
for audibility were added to provide a measurable benchmark based on
alerting research for emergency signals. The proposed requirements for
measured intelligibility are also based on research relating to emergency
signaling and message reception. The requirement of a specific CIS value
(greater than 0.70) is not considered by the committee to be excessive.
This equates to approximately 80% word intelligibility and 95% sentence
intelligibility. The proposed level is based on recommendations of
international experts and standards organizations (including work done for
NATO) and actual listening and simulations by the committee. Whether the
requirement is excessive or not is more a function of testing requirements,
including frequency and density, which is the purview of another chapter.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: I agree with the committee action. However, I felt it would
366
be useful to include the following additional comments: Compliance by design
works for prescriptive requirements but not for performance based designs.
An example is strobe lights. The Notification Appliances Committee has
chosen to provide a prescriptive requirement for visible signaling to ensure
the proper performance. To correlate with this action, the Inspection, Testing,
and Maintenance Committee requires that the prescriptive requirements
be verified at acceptance and annually by inspection and compliance with
the approved design. Speech intelligibility in the Notification Appliances
Chapter is a performance requirement. It is not possible to test or inspect
individual components for compliance with a design to determine if a system
is intelligible. The whole system, including the environment must be a part of
a single performance test to verify intelligibility. The CIS scale referenced by
the committee having jurisdiction for the performance of notification systems
(Notification Appliances) is similar to the dBA weighting scale. It is possible
to measure several ways using several test methods or instruments to arrive at
a measured value that can be converted to the CIS scale. This is similar to the
A-weighting method for sound pressure level. The following research papers
document the ability to accurately measure and test intelligibility. These
papers and/or their references have previously been provided (refer to 1999
and 2002 proposals) to the committee for their education. These references
represent the technical substantiation required by the committee. However,
the committee has failed to address the technical substantiation and has not
refuted or found fault with the underlying science and engineering for the
measurement of speech intelligibility.
1. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. Some applications of the Speech
Transmission Index (STI) in auditoria. Acustica 51, (1982) 229-234.
2. Houtgast, T. and Steeneken, H.J.M. The modulation transfer function in
room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility. Acustica 28, (1973)
66-73.
3. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. A physical method for measuring
speech transmission quality. J. Acoustical Society of America, 67(1980) 31,
318-326.
4. Houtgast, T. and Steeneken, H.J.M. A multi-lingual evaluation of the
RASTI-method for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria, Acustica 54,
(1984) 185-199.
5. Steeneken, H.J.M. and Houtgast, T. On the mutual dependence of octave
band contributions to speech intelligibility. Proc. Eurospeech 91, Genoa,
(1991) 1133-1136.
6. ISO 9921-1 Ergonomic assessment of speech communication - Part 1:
Speech interference level and communication distances for persons with
normal hearing capacity in direct communication (SIL method).
7. Mapp, Peter, An Issue of Safety, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC)
Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 34-48.
8. Pratt, Phillip, Intelligibility and International Standards, Sound & Video
Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 49-54.
In addition, the following additional references may be of interest:
9. Stiernberg, Jeanne, The Science of Perception and Reception, Sound &
Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 1420, 92.
10. ChÈenne, Dominique J. Getting Testy about Intelligibility, Sound &
Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 2226.
11. Bell, Ted, A New Measure of Word Recognition, Sound & Video
Contractor (S&VC) Volume 14, Number 11, Oct. 20, 1996, pages 28-33.
12. Fletcher, Harvey; Allen, Jont B., ed. The ASA Edition of Speech and
Hearing in Communication, Acoustical Society of America, 1995.
13. Beranek, Leo J., Acoustics, McGraw-Hill, 1954, pages 406-416.
14. Peutz, V. M. A., Articulation Loss of Consonants as a Criterion of
Speech Transmission in a Room, JAES v.19, No. 11, Nov. 1971, pages 915919.
15. Ballou, G., ed, Handbook for Sound Engineers, The New Audio
Cyclopedia, second edition, Howard W. Sams, pages 1277-1298.
16. Davis, Don and Carolyn, “Application of Speech Intelligibility to Sound
Reinforcement,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 37, No. 12,
December 1989.
17. Davis, Don & Carolyn, Sound System Engineering, 2nd ed, Cannel, IN:
SAMS, a Division of Macmillan Computer Publishing 1986.
18. Latham, H. G., The Signal-to-Noise Ratio for Speech Intelligibility - an
Auditorium Design Index, Applied Acoustics. vol. 12, July 1979.
19. Marshall, A. H., Acoustical Determinants for the Architectural Design of
Concert Halls Architectural Science Review, 11, 1968, pages 81-87.
20. Davis, Carolyn P., Measurement of %ALcons, Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol.34, No.11, November, 1986, pages 905-909.
21. Davis, C. and D., Speech Intelligibility Workshop, Syn-Aud-Con Tech
Topic, Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall 1986, and Vol. 14, No 8, Summer 1987.
22. Lochner, J. P. A., and Burger, J. F., The Intelligibility of Reinforced
Speech, Acustica, 9, 1959.
23. Houtgast, T., Steeneken. H. J. M., and Plomp, R., Predicting Speech
Intelligibility in Rooms from the Modulation Transfer Function, Acustica, vol.
46, September 1980.
24. Klein, W., Articulation Loss of Consonants as a Basis for Design and
Judgment of Sound Reinforcement Systems, Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, vol. 19, no. 11, pages 920-922, December 1971.
25. Peutz, V. M. A., and Kok, B, M.. Speech Intelligibility, Audio
Engineering Society 75th Convention 1984.
26. Peutz, V. M. A., Speech Information and Speech Intelligibility, Audio
Engineering Society 85th Convention, 1988.
27. Steenken, H. J. M., & Houtgast, J., RASTI. A Tool for Evaluating
Auditorium, B&K Technical Review, No. 3, 1989.
28. Heyser, R. C., Concepts in the Frequency and Time Domain Response
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
of Loudspeakers, Monitor-Proceedings JREE, March, 1974.
29. Heyser, R. C.. Acoustical Measurements by Time Delay Spectrometry,
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 1967.
30. Stanley, G, R., A Microprocessor-Based TEF Analyzer Appendix
IX, Sound System Engineering, 2nd ed, Carmel, IN: SAMS, a Division of
Macmillan Computer Publishing. 1986.
31. D’Antonio, P., and Konnert, J., Complex Time-Response Measurements
Using Tithe Delay Spectrometry. Part I, Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Preprint 2542(B-1), October 1978.
32. Mapp, P,, and Doany, P., Speech Intelligibility Analysis and
Measurement for a Distributed Sound System in a Reverberant Environment,
Audio Engineering Society 87th Convention, NY, 1989.
33. Mapp, Peter, Reaching the Audience, “Proven techniques for evaluating,
maintaining and optimizing systems design for speech intelligibility”, Sound
& Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 17, Number 11, Oct. 1999, pages 17-32.
34. Mapp, Peter, Installation Profile - The National Ice Centre, Sound &
Video Contractor (S&VC) Volume 18, Number 14, Dec. 2000, pages 77-84.
35. Mapp, Peter, Speaking of Speaking, Sound & Video Contractor (S&VC)
Volume 19, Number 10, Sept. 2001, pages 36-48.
————————————————(Log #62)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-266-(4-3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318
RECOMMENDATION: Delete everything after “occupiable area...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The Committee’s action includes changes which
were neither proposed nor substantiated in accordance with the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects.
B. It is not within the purview of technical committees to make changes that
nobody asked for.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and
statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138) and Comment 72-265 (Log #29).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
(Log #156)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-269-(4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318 & 72-319
RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed 7.4.1.4 and replace with the
following:
7.4.1.4 Emergency voice/alarm communications system shall reproduce (be
capable of reproduction of) prerecorded, synthesized, or live messages that
are clearly intelligible and not distorted. Voice intelligibility is considered
achieved when the quantity Iav - σ exceeds a Common Intelligibility Scale
(CIS) score of 0.70, as specified in B3 of IEC 60849, Sound Systems for
Emergency Purposes, second edition.
SUBSTANTIATION: I feel that even though the voice signal meets/provides
a CIS score of 0.70 or better, the voice communications might not be
intelligible.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee wants to retain the text as
currently written and did not want to introduce unenforceable text language
(clearly intelligible and not distorted). Text as presently worded was based on
extensive technical documentation and evaluation.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
LOWREY: I vote in opposition to the committee action. Although “clearly
intelligible and not distorted” may be considered unenforceable text, I believe
that it adds clarification to the intent of this Section while keeping the CIS
score in the body of the Code. I believe the proposed recommendation would
benefit the testing authority or testing agency to the overall intent of this
section.
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #299)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-267-(4-3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-318
RECOMMENDATION: Change from Accept in Principle to Reject.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee action text is in conflict with the
committee action on Proposal 72-443 for Test Methods. The Chapter 4
committee action limits the intelligibility criteria to a single method; whereas
Chapter 7 allows two methods. Restricting intelligibility to a single method
was not justified. The committee action applies to all occupiable areas, which
places an unnecessary burden; both labor and financially, on an owner. There
are many smaller rooms and areas that require intelligibility, in which it will
be obvious, without conduction/performing/measuring for a CIS score over
0.70.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and
statements on Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and Comment 72-252 (Log #138).
The requirements for testing are not within the scope of this chapter.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See my Comment on Affirmative Vote on Comment 72-265.
————————————————-
(Log #300)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-268-(4-3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the submitter’s proposal and reject the
committee action.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee did not justify relocating only the
requirement for a CIS score to 4-3.1.5 and leaving ANSI S3.2 in the annex.
This action conflicts with the Chapter 7 action in proposal 72-443, as well as
the intent of the submitter’s proposal to permit other test methods.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and
statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138) and Comment 72-265 (Log #29).
The requirements for the CIS measurement include multiple test methods such
as the subject based method,described in ANSI S3.2.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
367
(Log #309)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-270-(4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. 7.4.1.4, A.7.4.1.4]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
At the start of paragraph 7.4.1.4 add the words: “Where required...”.
At the end of the annex section A.7.4.1.4 add the following new paragraph:
There may be applications where not all spaces will require intelligible voice
signaling. For example, in a residential occupancy such as an apartment, the
Authority Having Jurisdiction and the designer may agree to a system which
achieves the required audibility throughout, but does not result in intelligible
voice signaling in the bedrooms. The system would be sufficient to awaken
and alert. However, intelligibility may not be achieved in the bedrooms with
the doors closed and the sounder in the adjacent hallway or room.
SUBSTANTIATION: This points out that there may be valid designs where
a system is not, and should not be required to be intelligible in all spaces.
This is also implied by the fact that the measurement methods result in an
average with a statistical variation. Meaning that some measurements will be
below the code required value.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
At the start of paragraph 7.4.1.4 add the words: “Where required...”.
At the end of the annex section A.7.4.1.4 add the following new paragraph:
“There may be applications where not all spaces will require intelligible
voice signaling. For example, in a residential occupancy such as an
apartment, the Authority Having Jurisdiction and the designer may agree
to a system which achieves the required audibility throughout, but does not
result in intelligible voice signaling in the bedrooms. The system would be
sufficient to awaken and alert. However, intelligibility may not be achieved
in the bedrooms with the doors closed and the sounder in the adjacent hallway
or room. In some cases this may require that messages repeat a sufficient
number of times to ensure that occupants can reach a location where the
system is sufficiently intelligible to be understood. Systems which use tone
signaling in some areas and voice signaling in other areas would not require
voice intelligibility in those areas only covered by the tone.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the
recommendation of this comment and added additional text to the annex.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #361)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-271-(4-3.1.5 & A.4.3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319
RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should revise their action to reject
the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: The 1999 edition of NFPA 72 in paragraph 4-3.1.5
requires emergency voice/alarm communication systems to be capable of
messages with voice intelligibility.
Proposal 72-319 indicates that the current requirement is not enforceable.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
I strongly disagree. Webster defines intelligible as, “capable of being
understood.”
In the over twenty years, I have been involved in fire protection and fire
alarm systems, I have not had any problem deciding whether I can understand
a voice message. The Authority Having Jurisdiction and contractors that I
have participated with in the acceptance and retests of emergency voice/alarm
communication systems have also not had any problems deciding whether a
voice message was understandable.
I applaud having the technical means available for performing a scientific
evaluation of voice intelligibility as is currently provided in the appendix
of NFPA 72-1999. I have a number of concerns regarding making it a
requirement. These concerns include the following:
1. Technical compliance with the criteria does not take into consideration
the human factor and the need for training of operators in the use of these
systems. Even if the system provides voice intelligibility as required by the
proposal, an untrained operator could give instructions that are not intelligible
and the Authority Having Jurisdiction would have no recourse.
2. There has been no demonstrated need to require a more scientific method
for measuring intelligibility.
3. The appendix has referenced intelligibility testing since the 1999 edition
of NFPA 72. I have not been able to find anyone that has used the appendix
provisions for actually testing for intelligibility. This reinforces the lack of
need.
4. The equipment required for performing intelligibility testing is not readily
available.
5. The added cost of intelligibility testing will deter the implementation of
voice alarm systems unless they are specifically required by code.
6. This requirement is too broad. There is no consideration for differences
in application of emergency voice/alarm communication systems. This
requirement would apply equally to a facility that has relatively small,
compartmented spaces as well as amphitheaters and stadiums.
7. There is nothing to preclude a specifier from requiring compliance with
the intelligibility requirements of the appendix to NFPA 72.
In summary, this requirement is excessive for emergency voice/alarm
communication systems and should not be a mandatory requirement.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and
statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138), Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and
Comment 72-270 (Log #309).
Equipment and methods for measuring intelligibility using either objective or
subject based methods are readily available.
The committee feels that the added cost of intelligibility testing should not
add significantly to the system cost and should not affect the decision to use
voice signaling. In addition the requirements for when a system is required to
be tested is the jurisdiction of another chapter.
The need for ensuring intelligibility has been documented in the published
reports on multiple fatality fire losses such as the Kings Cross fire in England
and the apartment building fire in York Canada.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #38)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-272-(4-3.1.5, A-4-3.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-319
RECOMMENDATION: Reverse the committee action moving the appendix
material from A-4.3.1.5 to the body of the standard.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action is in violation of the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the proposal neither
requests moving this material nor provides technical substantiation for the
change. In fact, the proposal requested DELETING the text of A-4-3.1.5; not
making it a mandatory requirement.
B. Testing of voice systems is outside the scope of Chapter 4. As the
submitter correctly requested, voice evacuation systems should be tested in
accordance with Chapter 7.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the committee actions and
statements on Comment 72-252 (Log #138), Comment 72-265 (Log #29) and
Comment 72-271 (Log #361).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #301)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-273-(4-3.1.6) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-320
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal as written, reject the
committee action to restrict this to private mode only.
SUBSTANTIATION: I disagree with the committee action and I agree with
Mr. Schifiliti’s Explanation of Negative Vote. This opportunity does lend
itself to both private and public operating mode.
368
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Insert after 7.4.2.2 of Proposal 72-304 the following new paragraph 7.4.2.3
and renumber the subsequent paragraphs.
“Where approved by the authority having jurisdiction or other governing
codes or standards, the requirements for audible signaling shall be permitted
to be reduced or eliminated when visible signaling is provided in accordance
with Section 7.5.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agreed to add the text to
the section for public mode signaling as was done in the Proposal 72-320
for private mode signaling. However the committee used the permissible
language in the committee action on Proposal 72-320, not the original
proposal language.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #243)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-274-(4-3.2.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-323
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments on Proposals 72312 and 72-314.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: 3
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262.
SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments
the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain
the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the
May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change
would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying
research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits
exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage
occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a
horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation.
I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323,
and 72-329.
SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.
————————————————-
(Log #189)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-275-(4-3.2.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.1]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National
Systems Contractors Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) as follows:
7.4.2.1 Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public
mode shall have a sound level of not less than 75dBA at 3m (10 ft) or more
than 120 dBA or less at the minimum hearing distance from the audible
appliance.
SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the
requirement for intelligible voice-alarm systems (ROP 72-319-(4-3.1.5 and
A-4-3.1.5) is in potential conflict with the requirement for each notification
appliance to meet or exceed 75dBA output. Fire alarm speakers should be
used in accordance with the required performance of the installed system,
even if multiple devices are required. A per-device output requirement could
result in excessive system output levels and degraded performance. The
balance of the paragraph remains as a reasonable safety requirement.
Substantiation: Public mode locations can be highly reverberant spaces.
Using a greater number of lower output devices than might be required in
similar, less reverberant spaces typically solves system intelligibility problems
in such spaces. The additive effect of using multiple appliances can result
in an output level that prohibits teachers, fire marshals, firemen and the like
from providing supplemental evacuation instructions. Excessive output
level, especially in reverberant spaces, also can reduce the intelligibility
of the system below what could be achieved with multiple lower-output
devices. Paragraphs 7.4.2.3 and 7.4.2.4 are both examples of attempts to get
around this unnecessary requirement by specifying known problem areas, but
these two exceptions are far from a complete listing. Recent changes to the
proposed revision of UL 1480 Speakers for Fire Protective Signaling Systems
will permit Fire Alarm speakers to have taps for outputs above and below
this 75dBA threshold in anticipation of the need for using multiple speakers
of lower unit output. Adoption of this comment should be accompanied the
deletion of paragraphs 7.4.2.3 and 7.4.2.4, as has been proposed in separate
comments.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on
Comment 72-276 (Log #310).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: I agree that other codes and standards as well as owners,
designers and Authorities Having Jurisdiction should be the ones to say what
spaces require visual or audible signals. Our chapter should then limit itself to
required performance.
————————————————(Log #310)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-276-(4-3.2.1 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.1]) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee
that this Comment be rewritten to clarify the Committee Action on this
Comment as follows:
Delete Section 7.4.2.1 in the committee action on Proposal 72-304. The
Technical Correlating Committee makes reference to the Comment on
Affirmative.
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 7.4.2.1 as follows:
Current wording in the ROP:
Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public mode
shall have a sound level of not less than 75 dBA at 3 m (10 ft) or more than
120 dBA at the minimum hearing distance from the audible appliance.
Delete the requirement for a minimum 75 dBA and change to read as
follows:
Audible notification appliances intended for operation in the public mode
shall have a sound level of not more than 120 dBA at the minimum hearing
distance from the audible appliance.
SUBSTANTIATION: This removes a conflict with intelligible voice
signaling design. It is imperative that designers have a choice of appliances
including ones that operate at lower rated output levels. An example
is stairways in large buildings. It is necessary in some cases to provide
intelligible voice communication. However, the reverberation from high
output speakers reduces the intelligibility at a distant point where the direct
signal is interfered with by the indirect, reflected signal. In situations such
as that it is desirable to minimize reverberation and increase the direct field
exposure - i.e., provide a larger number of lower SPL rated appliances.
The current requirement prevents manufacturers from making such
appliances available to the fire protection community.
The audible signaling requirements in the chapter are performance-based.
That is, they require a minimum SPL in the space. The code does not state
how that minimum SPL is to be achieved.
In small spaces with low ambient SPLs, an appliance rated at 75 dBA at 10 ft
may be louder than is necessary.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the minimum and
maximum dBA for an appliance since the Code contains performance criteria
for audible notification.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: The Committee Action is missing text to describe what it
intended to do to remove the requirement for the maximum appliance output.
The Committee Statement indicates that the committee agreed with the
comment to remove the 75 dBA minimum. This is supported by the Accept
in Principle action. However, the statement also says that the maximum was
removed as well. To accomplish this, the entire paragraph 7.4.2.1 (1999
4-3.2.1) should be removed and the balance renumbered. I believe the
Committee Action should say to remove 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) in its entirety
and renumber the remainder. The statement should refer users to 7.4.1.2 for
the maximum and 7.4.2.2 or 7.4.3.2 or 7.4.4.1 for the minimum requirements.
————————————————(Log #20)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-277-(4-3.2.2, 4-3.3.2, 4-3.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324, 72-331, & 72-334
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: It is not within NFPA 72 jurisdiction to identify
where the noise be heard and the lights be seen. This should be covered by
the building codes and Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code has recently
accepted proposals to eliminate the unwritten requirement to hear and see
signals in the elevators and stairways as an example, even though they
are normally occupied. They have also identified when certain signals are
inappropriate such as ICU areas of hospitals. This would create a conflict by
going outside the boundaries of NFPA 72’s scope.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the committee’s intention to ensure
audible signals are provided in all occupiable spaces of a facility except where
visual appliances only could be permitted by this Code.
369
————————————————(Log #49)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-278-(4-3.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-324
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation
standard to decide where audible signals are required.
B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is
frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl
spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have
ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases and other similar spaces that
may be occupied occasionally.
C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in
maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that
these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation
of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying
the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing...
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log
#20).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.
————————————————-
(Log #51)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-279-(4-3.2.2 Exception No. 3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-327
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation
standard to decide where audible signals are required.
B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is
frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl
spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have
ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases, and other similar spaces that
may be occupied occasionally.
C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in
maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that
these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation
of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying
the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing....
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log
#20).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.
————————————————-
(Log #190)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-280-(4-3.2.2 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National
Systems Contractors Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 7.4.2.3 (1999 4-3.2.2) .
SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the
submitted comment on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) would logically make this
paragraph requirement unnecessary. System performance requirements of
7.4.2.2 (1999 4-3.2.2) would still be applicable.
Substantiation: See the statement of problem and substantiation for
comment submitted on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) by the same submitter.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The removal of the 75dBA minimum
appliance rating does not affect the need to have some minimum signal to
noise ratio. The committee wanted to retain the language to permit use of
private mode audible requirements in elevators.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #191)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-281-(4-3.2.3 [2002 Ed. 7.4.2.4]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National
Systems Contractors Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 7.4.2.4 (1999 4-3.2.3).
SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The adoption by this committee of the
submitted comment on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) would logically make this
paragraph requirement unnecessary. System performance requirements of
7.4.2.2 (1999 4-3.2.2) would still be applicable, rendering the need for special
AHJ approval unnecessary.
Substantiation: See the statement of problem and substantiation for
comment submitted on 7.4.2.1 (1999 4-3.2.1) by the same submitter.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The removal of the 75dBA minimum
appliance rating does not affect the need to have some minimum signal to
noise ratio. The committee wanted to retain the language to permit use of
private mode audible requirements in restrooms.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #244)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-282-(4-3.3.1) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-282 be reported as “Accept in Part” to clarify
the committee action. The part that is accepted is the recommendation
to reconsider. The part that is rejected is the recommendation to accept
Proposal 72-329.
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-329
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the proposal and Accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: See reasons given in our comments on Proposals
72-312 and 72-314.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its position and maintains the 120dBA limit.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 13
NEGATIVE: 3
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
HAUS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-262.
SHUSTER: 72-259, 72-262, 72-263, 72-274, and 72-282 - These comments
the committee accepted to reconsider but reaffirmed its position to maintain
the 120-dBA limit. The committee’s statement in Proposal 72-315 of the
May 2002 Report on Proposals was: “Technical justification for the change
would need to be provided, with inclusion of, or reference to the underlying
research.” Mr. Haus, in his Explanation of Negative Vote in Proposal 72314 stated the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, limits
exposure to 120-dBA noise to 9 seconds per day before hearing damage
occurs. This is the technical data. It would be hard enough to deal with a
horrendous fire without adding hearing loss to that situation.
I recommend the acceptance of Proposals 72-312, 72-314, 72-315, 72-323,
and 72-329.
SUMMERS: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-261.
————————————————-
(Log #63)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-283-(4-3.3.3) : Accept in Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-320
RECOMMENDATION: Revise new 4-3.3.3 as follows:
4-3.3.3 This code recognizes that under some circumstances it is appropriate
or permissible to substitute visual signals for audible signals, or to allow a
reduction in the required level of audibility where both audible and visual
signals have been provided.
4-3.3.3.1* Visual signals installed in accordance with this chapter shall be
permitted to be installed in lieu of audible signals where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The room or area is not used for sleeping.
b) The room or area is not used as a workstation for someone who is legally
blind.
c) There are no obstructions between the occupants and the visual signals.
d) A voice evacuation system is not required.
A-4-3.3.3.1 Examples of such locations include classrooms, conference
rooms, meeting rooms, private offices, single-occupant restrooms, and similar
spaces.
4-3.3.3.2* In applications that do not meet the requirements of 4-3.3.3.1,
visual signals installed in accordance with this Chapter shall be permitted
to be installed in lieu of audible signals with the specific approval of the
Authority Having Jurisdiction.
A-4-3.3.3.2 There are certain applications, such as critical areas of hospitals,
Alzheimer’s care facilities, etc. where audible evacuation signals, even at
reduced, private-mode volume, are not helpful to staff trying to organize the
evacuation or location of building occupants. There are also facilities where
the operations in progress do not lend themselves to startling occupants with
very loud evacuation signals that start without warning. Because each such
case is different, specific consideration by the governing authority is needed.
4-3.3.3.3 Where both audible and visual signals have been provided within
a room or area in accordance with this chapter, the audible criteria for private
mode signaling (10 dBA over average ambient) shall be permitted to be used
within that room or area.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The concept brought forward in this proposal is
excellent and probably long overdue. Proposed 4-3.3.3.2 and A-4-3.3.3.2 are
intended to be an editorial revision of what was accepted in the ROP.
B. Proposed 4-3.3.3 is an intent statement to clarify the intended application
of this new material.
C. Proposed 4-3.3.3.1 and A-4-3.3.3.1 are intended to address specific
locations where experience has shown that visual signals alone provide very
effective notification, and/or where installing very loud (typically 90-98 dBA)
notification appliances may increase the potential for confusion, panic, or
other adverse consequences. High sound levels in classrooms in particular do
not increase the effectiveness of the notification appliances and have a clear
potential to impair the ability of staff to organize and execute a calm and
orderly evacuation.
D. Proposed 4-3.3.3.3 is intended to address the current trend in evacuation
signaling towards installing completely redundant audible and visual alarms;
something that was never the intent of the standard. This change recognizes
that the objective is effective notification (as opposed to political correctness),
and allows a 5 dBA reduction in audibility where BOTH audible and visual
signals are provided.
E. The proposed material is appropriate to include in the standard for several
additional reasons:
1) Audible evacuation signals are extremely disruptive of building
operations and present a significant obstacle to routine testing and
maintenance in many buildings. Allowing private-mode level of audibility
in some areas and strobe lights only in other areas will allow many normal
building operations to continue while fire alarm testing is in progress.
The committee should consider that the alternatives to disrupting building
operations with audible testing include disconnecting or disabling notification
appliances (which may not get reconnected or may be reconnected
improperly), conducting the testing during off-hours (typically at increased
cost and not practical in all occupancies), or simply not performing the
required testing (something which actually happens - or doesn’t happen as the
case may be - all the time).
2) This new material will facilitate more cost-effective use of fire protection
resources; better “bang-for-the-buck” as it were.
3) This new material will reduce the cost and size of some fire alarm
systems, making them more affordable to install and maintain. Systems that
are easier to maintain are more likely to be maintained, leading to improved
operability.
F. While some will object that this material may make fire alarms easier for
building occupants to ignore, the intent of evacuation signaling is occupant
notification; NOT to make continued occupancy so unpleasant that it forces
most non-hearing impaired people to leave. Occupants who do not leave when
the fire alarm goes off are an education and building management issue; not a
code problem.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee prefers the current language
in the Code and Proposal 72-320. The proposed new language does not meet
NFPA style requirements. Refer to committee action on Comment 72-273
(Log #301).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #35)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-284-(4-3.3.3 (New) ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-332
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the Proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. No technical substantiation was provided for this
change. It is not clear what problem this new material is intended to address,
nor that it will in fact resolve that problem (whatever it might be).
B. There are no typical applications for private mode signals in high noise
areas where the noise level can be automatically reduced. In high noise
370
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
environments, shutting down process equipment is, in fact, a highly effective
and very public method of notifying everyone that something unusual is going
on.
C. Proposed 4.3.3.3.3 is an indeterminate requirement. Fire alarm system
relays, circuits, and interfaces are already required to comply with the
applicable provisions of Chapters 1 and 3. Other relays, circuits and interfaces
are not within the jurisdiction of NFPA 72. The committee should be careful
about blurring the line between fire alarm systems and other electrical/
mechanical systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that there are possible
situations in private mode, as in public mode, where high noise levels can be
reduced upon fire alarm activation. An audio control location or booth in a
stadium or concert venue is just one example.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #50)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-285-(4-3.4) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-334
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. It is not within the purview of an installation
standard to decide where audible signals are required.
B. Nearly all spaces in a building are “occupiable.” The current text is
frequently misinterpreted to require audible signals on roofs, in attics or crawl
spaces, above dropped ceilings, etc. For that matter, many buildings have
ductwork, air handlers, sump pits, pipe chases and other similar spaces that
may be occupied occasionally.
C. States as confused as Texas have gone so far as to require strobe lights in
maids closets and janitors closets 48 in. or more in depth, on the argument that
these closets are “occupiable.” If the committee thinks Texas’ interpretation
of “occupiable” is amusing for strobe lights, just wait until they start applying
the newly adopted requirements for intelligibility testing...
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepted the comment to
reconsider but reaffirms its original action. Refer to Comment 72-277 (Log
#20).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-277.
————————————————-
(Log #124)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-286-(4-3.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-335
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal is in
violation of the Regulations governing committee projects as no technical
substantiation was provided to justify the change.
B. No data has been presented to suggest that designing fire alarm systems
to the current criteria is anything less than satisfactory. Unspecified
“technical studies” doesn’t cut it as justification for nearly doubling the
mandated sound volume. What happened to the “technical studies” on which
the current requirement was based?
C. If correlation with the Canadian National Building Code is necessary, and
it probably isn’t, then Canada can change their requirement to 70 dBA; it’s at
least as good an alternative as what the submitter proposed, and costs less.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee refers to the following
documentation as a reference:
Berry, C.H., “Will Your Smoke Detector Wake You?”, NFPA Fire Journal,
vol. 72-4 1978.
Kahn, M.J., “Human Awakening and Subsequent Identification of Fire
Related Cues”, Fire Technology,vol. 20-1,1984.
British Standard 4839, Part 1, 1980.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: The SPL level required to awaken varies - even in the
scientific literature. The SPL level required to awaken is dependent on a large
number of variables. The code contains the minimum. I do not believe that a
valid comparison of the scientific data was performed to arrive at the decision
to raise the required minimum.
————————————————-
371
(Log #267)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-287-(4-3.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep.
American Hotel & Lodging Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-335
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:
“... of at least 60 seconds or a sound level of at least 70 dBa which...”.
SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change in the ROP increases the sound
level based upon the requirements of the Canadian National Code. The
Technical Committee has not provided any substantiation for this change.
NFPA 72 is intended to provide minimum requirements based upon technical
justification and should not be modified to comply with other standards.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on
Comment 72-286 (Log #124).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-286.
————————————————-
(Log #314)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-288-(4-3.4 [2002 Ed. 7.4.4.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-335
RECOMMENDATION: Revert to original requirement for a minimum of
70 dBA not 75 dBA.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee accepted the proposed change from
70 to 75 dBA without adequate technical substantiation. It was thought
that research papers could be produced that show a minimum of 75 dBA
was required to awaken sleeping persons. In checking, I could not find any
research that suggests 75 dBA as a minimum. There are several codes in other
countries that require 75 dBA, but none include references.
The only references I was able to find suggest 70 dBA as a minimum. They
are:
1. Mr. Haliwell and Mr. Sultan, “Attenuation of Smoke Signals in
Residential Buildings”, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Fire Safety Science.
2. Mr. Nober, Mr. Pierce and Mr. Well, “Waking Effectiveness of
Household Smoke and Fire Detection Devices”, Fire Journal, 1985.
Perhaps by the time the committee meets, the others may find adequate
technical references to permit the change to remain.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on
Comment 72-286 (Log #124).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: See of Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 72-286.
————————————————-
(Log #207)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-289-(4-3.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-29
RECOMMENDATION: Change to Accept in Principle and move all
text dealing with Effective Masked Threshold to the annex to await the
performance based section of the code.
SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee has appointed
a task group to address the formulation of a framework of performance-based
requirements for a future edition of NFPA 72. That being said, some will
argue that this is not performance-based material. We disagree.
Section 4-3.5.1 of the submitter’s recommendation, as well as the Technical
Committee Action, have acknowledged that this is an acceptable alternative
in lieu of the A-weighted signaling requirements of the chapter. It applies to
a signaling method that will provide a specific signaling performance only;
based on an analysis of the ambient frequencies within a room, space or area.
Secondly, this proposal is for existing systems, not new design/installation and
therefore is inappropriate material for the design portion of the chapter at all.
Although the recommendation is technically sound, it should not be used
as an alternative to A-weighted signaling design without considerable
investigation; especially of the occupants being notified. There is nothing
in the proposal that considers that the occupants may not be able to discern
frequency bandwidths of the chosen octave band for fire alarm notification.
Since the proponent is stating that this methodology is more effective than
A-weighted “over-designs”, it is reasonable that design factors include the
occupants; to assure that the “efficient” design be able to notify the occupants
this design is intended to notify. In addition, it should be made clear that
this design option should not be used in any occupancy in which transient
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
occupants are present. It is impossible to know if they can discern the chosen
bandwidth.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee wished to retain this
permissible methodology in the body of the code and not move it to the annex.
All audible signaling requirements in the chapter, whether using dBA or
dB and frequency, are performance based methods. Moving the material
to the annex would mean that a designer may not be permitted to use this
standard methodology which is well documented and accepted (in the audio
community).
The submitter implies that this is a very specific method for signaling and
that signals measured using dBA are not specific. In fact, while a signal may
be measured using a dBA scale, it is still operating in only one or two octave
bands. Today’s electronic tone generating appliances generally operate at a
single predominant frequency (octave band). The methodology for narrow
band signaling simply permits a designer to measure the frequency of the
noise and the frequency of the tone and deal with them specifically.
The submitter is correct that the selection of an operating frequency should
consider a listener’s ability to hear at that frequency. This also is true for
the current requirements which are only required to be measured in dBA.
Whether a signal is measured and weighted in dB using the A-weighting scale,
or whether it measured and reported at a certain octave band does not change
the fact that it is working predominantly at a certain frequency. These are just
two ways of measuring it. At present, the code does not require consideration
of frequency dependent hearing impairments.
The submitter recommends that this method not be used where there are
transient occupants as it is not possible to know if they can discern the chosen
bandwidth. It is incorrect to assume that this problem may exist only when
using the methodology of narrow band signaling.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #40)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-290-(4-3.5, A-4-3.5, A-4-3.5.2 & A-4-3.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-29
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. No technical substantiation was provided
demonstrating that this new material is needed at all, much less defining when
or where such an approach is appropriate.
B. Before a proposal like this is accepted, the technical committee should
insist on seeing evidence of a problem, and then make a determination that the
proposed solution will in fact solve the problem that has been demonstrated.
In this case, both of these steps seem to have been skipped.
For example, the claim in the proposed appendix text that use of an “AWeighted” ambient sound measurement “often results in systems being overdesigned” is not supported by any technical substantiation. If “the root mean
square, A-weighted, sound pressure level measured over a 24-hour period” is
really an inappropriately conservative method of determining average ambient
sound levels, the technical committee should change it to something that is
more appropriate instead of establishing an alternate methodology that does
not solve the problem (i.e., eliminate the unnecessary costs being absorbed
by the public trying to comply) with the original and apparently excessive
requirement. We only need one minimum in a minimum standard.
C. This new material is completely incomprehensible to the average user of
the code.
D. It is entirely inappropriate for NFPA 72 to require Authorities Having
Jurisdiction to accept engineering analyses they don’t understand in lieu of
compliance with straightforward audibility requirements that have served
perfectly well for years.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to committee action and statement on
Comment 72-289 (Log #207).
The committee has added methodology for narrow band signaling in
response to a request for a TIA and in response to several known situations
where this solution has benefit without adding any downside risk. The
submitter suggests that if A-weighting is conservative and often results in
over-design as suggested by the original proposal, then a new method should
be investigated and substituted rather than including two methods. That new
method is, in fact, the method of narrow band signaling. The submitter then
states that the method of narrow band signaling is too complex for the average
user of the code. The committee is not in a position to define the abilities and
intelligence of the average user. However, it is agreed that most users of the
code need a simple methodology for establishing and determining audible
signaling requirements. That simple method is the use of A-weighting. In
many cases it will result in conservative designs. It is also felt that the
committee does not need to limit code to single solutions designed for the
majority of users. Where possible, the committee wishes to provide tools that
are useable by other users of the code when special conditions and knowledge
exist, provided that those perform the underlying intent of the code. The
committee does not feel that it is inappropriate to include and permit use
of methods that a designer can choose, but that a reviewing AHJ may not
understand. If we followed that logic, we would not have buildings over two
stories in height, bridges, dams, battery standby with specified capacities,
voltage drop calculations, maximum resistance and capacitance limitations
372
for circuits, etc. Additional examples include the majority of requirements
for transmission methodologies for supervising stations. The technical
knowledge for review and oversight is considerably less than that needed for
the actual design - as is the case with most of the audible and visual signaling
requirements in the code.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #245)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-291-(4-4.1.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-338
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part but move
the text of the Committee Action to a performance-based area of the Code.
SUBSTANTIATION: The material provides alternative design guidance in
the application of visible notification appliances. The Technical Correlating
Committee has assigned a task group for performance-based design options
and we feel this material is more applicable to optional designs. We
recommend either creating a performance-based section or holding this
material over until the task group submits the performance-based Chapter and
Annex material(s). This material should not be interspersed with prescriptive
requirements in the same Chapter as prescriptive methods and materials.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: At present there is no separate chapter to
contain performance based methods and it is not certain that there ever will be
a separate chapter to consolidate all NFPA 72 performance based alternatives.
The current Notification Appliances Chapter contains numerous performance
based requirements interspersed with prescriptive requirements. This
section merely adds a performance based alternative to existing prescriptive
requirements. Holding back the material serves no useful purpose and has no
technical basis.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #313)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-292-(4-4.4 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4]) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following after the existing text of 7.5.4:
Where low ceiling heights do not permit mounting at a minimum of 2.0
m (80 in.) visible appliances shall be mounted within 0.15 m (6 in.) of the
ceiling. The room size covered by a strobe of a given value shall be reduced
by twice the difference between the min. mounting height of 80 in. and the
actual, lower mounting height.
SUBSTANTIATION: The mounting height requirement of 2.0 - 2.4 m (80
- 96 in.) does not address the possibility and common occurrence of ceiling
heights that are less than 80 inches. The range that is permitted ensures
that strobes are not mounted too high, which would result in lower levels of
luminance or lower levels of illumination on surrounding walls and on the
floor. The lower limit of the range ensures that a minimum percentage of the
surrounding surfaces is illuminated. In the case of lower ceiling heights and
mounting close to the ceiling, the level of illumination on surrounding walls
is not reduced and the walls have a near 100% “painted” area unlike higher
ceiling spaces that have no illumination above the plane of the strobe light.
Thus, the only loss of signal is the smaller pattern produces on the horizontal
plane (floor). The room size reduction assumes that the horizontal pattern on
each side of the strobe is reduced by the same amount that the strobe height is
reduced.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee is holding the Comment only
not Proposal 72-304. The committee feels the comment is new material and
requires further study.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: The Committee Statement should also reflect Committee
Comment 72-381a which placed text similar to this Comment in the Annex.
————————————————-
(Log #246)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-293-(Table 4-4.4.1.1(a)) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-347
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part based on
the Committee Statement.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
SUBSTANTIATION: We are in favor of the proposal if it pertains to all 3
columns as stated in the Committee Statement. However, we have been told
that the columns for 2 and 4 lights per room are being deleted because the
Committee doesn’t know how to calculate for these conditions. We do not
read the outcome of the item that way, but we are concerned that something
else has been found (different proposal and action) that removes the columns
mentioned. If the two and four light columns are being deleted, we would ask
that this proposal be rejected.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
The committee intends the table to read as follows:
Minimum Required Light Output
(Effective Intensity, cd)
Maximum Room Size
(Log #157)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-294-(Table 4-4.4.1.1(b) [2002 Ed. Table 7.5.4.1.1(b)) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-348 & 72-349
RECOMMENDATION: Replace existing table with the following tables
that are based on UL 1971 and standard light intensity calculations based on
0.375 lumens/ft.2
Ceiling Height Based on 15 Candela Strobe
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max.
Angle
Max. Distance
From Center (ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
Two Lights per
Room
(Located on
opposite wall)
Four Lights
per Room
(One light per
wall)
8
65
17.15605536
34.3
10
55
14.28148007
28.5
m
ft
One light per
Room
12
49
13.80442089
27.8
6.10 x 6.10
20 x 20
15
NA
NA
14
45
14
28
8.53 x 8.53
28 x 28
30
Unknown
Unknown
16
31
9.613769904
19.2
9.14 x 9.14
30 x 30
34
15
NA
18
25
8.393537847
16.7
12.2 x 12.2
40 x 40
60
30
15
20
0
0
0
13.7 x 13.7
45 x 45
75
Unknown
Unknown
15.2 x 15.2
50 x 50
94
60
30
16.5 x 16.5
54 x 54
110
Unknown
Unknown
18.3 x 18.3
60 x 60
135
95
30
21.3 x 21.3
70 x 70
184
95
60
24.4 x 24.4
80 x 80
240
135
60
27.4 x 27.4
90 x 90
304
185
95
30.5 x 30.5
100 x 100
375
240
95
33.5 x 33.5
110 x 110
455
240
135
36.6 x 36.6
120 x 120
540
305
135
39.6 x 39.6
130 x 130
635
375
Ceiling Height Based on 30 Candela Strobe
185
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee did intend to change the
1st column and NOT eliminate the others. NFPA did not reproduce the
resulting table in ROP Proposal 72-304. Replacing the existing table with
the committee action table incorporates the changes made by ROP Proposal
72-347.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max.
Angle
Max. Distance
From Center (ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
8
74
27.89931555
55.7
10
69
26.05089065
52.1
12
63
23.55132607
47.1
14
55
19.99407209
39.9
16
50
19.06805748
38.1
18
45
18
36
20
45
20
40
25
25
11.65769145
23.3
28.25
0
0
0
Ceiling Height Based on 60 Candela Strobe
————————————————-
373
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max. Angle
Max. Distance
From Center (ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
8
80
45.37025456
90.7
10
78
47.04630109
94
12
72
36.93220245
73.8
14
69
36.47124691
72.9
16
65
34.31211073
68.6
18
59
29.95703068
59.9
20
55
28.56296013
57.1
25
45
25
50
30
45
30
60
35
25
16.32076804
32.6
40
0
0
0
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Ceiling Height Based on 110 Candela Strobe
Ceiling Height Based on 75 Candela Strobe
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max.
Angle
Max. Distance
From Center (ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max.
Angle
Max. Distance
From Center
(ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
8
85
91.44041842
182.8
8
82
56.92295778
113.8
10
82
71.15369722
142.3
10
80
56.7128182
113.4
12
80
68.05538184
136.1
12
76
48.1293712
96.2
14
77
60.64066224
121.2
14
70
38.46468387
76.9
16
73
52.3336419
104.6
16
68
39.60138965
79.2
18
70
49.45459355
98.9
18
65
38.60112457
77.2
20
67
47.11704732
94.2
20
60
34.64101615
69.2
25
57
38.4966241
76.9
25
50
29.79383981
59.5
30
50
35.75260778
71.5
30
45
30
60
35
45
35
70
35
35
24.50726384
49
40
43
37.30060345
74.6
40
25
18.65230633
37.3
45
25
20.98384462
41.9
44.5
0
0
0
50
19
17.21638066
34.4
54
0
0
0
8
84
76.11491563
152.2
SUBSTANTIATION: The existing table does not express the full capabilities
of ceiling mounted strobes. This calculation method is consistent with 7.5.4.3
(2002 Edition) and includes inverse square calculations and polar distribution.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that this is new
material and the committee has formed a task group to address this and other
visible signaling issues.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
10
81
63.13751515
126.2
————————————————-
12
79
61.73464819
123.4
14
75
52.24871131
104.4
16
71
46.46737404
92.9
18
69
46.89160316
93.7
20
65
42.89013841
85.7
25
55
35.70370017
71.4
30
50
35.75260778
71.5
35
45
35
70
40
37
30.142162
60.2
45
25
20.98384462
41.9
49
0
0
0
Ceiling Height Based on 100 Candela Strobe
Ceiling Height
(ft)
Max.
Angle
Max. Distance
From Center (ft)
Size of the Room
(ft)
(Log #CC304)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-294a-(4-4.4.2.1 {2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.1]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
reference Section in the recommendation of Comment 72-294a be
changed from “7.5.4.2.4” to “7.5.4.2” for editorial clarification.
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-354
RECOMMENDATION: Change 7.5.4.2.1. to read as follows: “Section
7.5.4.2.4 shall apply to corridors not exceeding 6.1m (20ft) in width.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Deletes reference to table which was removed by
Comment 72-295 (Log #312).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #CC302)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-294b-(4-4.4.2.4 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.7]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-352
RECOMMENDATION: The committee wishes to delete the existing
7.5.4.2.7 and insert new 7.5.4.2.4 as written below and renumber existing
7.5.4.2.4 and all subsequent paragraphs.
7.5.4.2.4 The installation of visible notification appliances in corridors 6.1m
(20ft.) or less in width shall be in accordance with the requirements of either
7.5.4.1 or 7.5.4.2.
SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify the intent to permit the application of strobe
tables for rooms to corridor applications.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
374
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #312)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-295-(4-4.4.2.6 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.2.8]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304 & 72-354
RECOMMENDATION: In 7.5.4.2.8, delete the reference to the table and
add reference to paragraph 7.5.4.2.4 in its place.
Delete Table 7.5.4.2.1, former Table 4-4.4.2.1
SUBSTANTIATION: The table does not contain a complete description
of the corridor spacing requirements, only ranges. For example, in a 50 ft
corridor, the table says 2 strobes are required, but does not say how they
must be spaced. That requirement is correctly located in paragraph 7.5.4.2.4.
Hence, the paragraph should be referenced.
The table should be deleted as it is incomplete and fully contained in the
referenced paragraph.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #CC306)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-295a-(4-4.4.3.2 [2002 Ed. 7.5.4.4.2]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: The committee recommends changing 7.5.4.4.2. to
read as follows: “ Table 7.5.4.4.2 shall apply to sleeping areas.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminates incorrect statement concerning the
dimensions of rooms and the linear distance between strobes and the pillow.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #248)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-296-(4-9 (New) ) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word
“may” in the recommendation on Comment 72-296 be changed to “can”
to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle in Part by
replacing proposed Section A-4-8(g) and Figure A-4-8 with the following
recommendation.
(g) Alternate layout for systems without graphical displays. Where fire
alarm systems do not require graphical displays, the following fire service
interface layout may be specified for the control panel by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction and the fire service organization intended to use the
equipment.
(1) General layout. The fire service interface should be enclosed within a
red border of approximately 0.25 in. width. The words “FIRE SERVICE
INTERFACE” should be located at the top center of the border in bold capital
letters approximately 0.25 in. high. All controls and indicators within this
border should be located and labeled as described herein. Additional controls
and indicators for the system may be provided but should be located outside
of the red border.
(2) Standard control switches. These should be located in the lower left area
of the interface approximately as shown in Figure A-4-8.
a. Acknowledge switch. This should be a momentary switch to
acknowledge new events. Press of this switch causes acknowledgment of the
event shown in the display area. If this is the last event to be acknowledged,
the Fire Alarm indicator should change from flashing to steady and the local
panel sounder should silence.
b. Silence Evac Signals Switch. This should be a momentary switch to
silence all audible evacuation devices in the building. The Authority Having
Jurisdiction may also require that this switch extinguish visual appliances. A
yellow indicator light should be placed just above this switch to indicate that
the evacuation signals have been silenced.
c. System Reset Switch. This should be a momentary switch to reset
the fire alarm system to a normal state. If off-normal conditions have not
been corrected, the system should resound and again display the off-normal
conditions.
(3) Standard Visual Indicators. Standard light-emitting indicators should
be located approximately as shown in the upper left area of the interface and
should function as follows.
a. Normal. This green indicator should illuminate when all power is
applied to the system and no off-normal situations exist.
b. Fire Alarm. This red indicator should illuminate when any fire
condition exists in the building. When a fire condition exists that has not been
acknowledged, the indicator should flash.
c. Supervisory. This yellow indicator should illuminate when any
supervisory condition exists in the building. When a supervisory condition
exists that has not been acknowledged, the indicator should flash.
d. Trouble. This yellow indicator should illuminate when any trouble
condition exists in the building. When a trouble condition exists that has not
been acknowledged, the indicator should flash.
(4) Display area. The display should be located in the upper right area of
the interface, approximately as shown. The display is intended to show the
minimum information to describe off-normal conditions. Additional display
information may be located outside of the fire service interface border. The
display may be the sequential or simultaneous type.
a. Simultaneous display. This method should use multiple indicators to
indicate off-normal conditions simultaneously. Fire alarm indicators should
be red. Supervisory and trouble indicators should be yellow. New off-normal
conditions should flash until acknowledged.
b. Sequential display. This method should use an alphanumeric display
to indicate one or more off-normal events. Multiple off-normal events may
be scrolled through the display by operating the display controls described
below. If different types of off-normal conditions are shown together, they
should be displayed in the priority order of (1) fire alarm; (2) supervisory;
(3) trouble; (4) other.
Fire service interface
Normal
Fire alarm
Supervisory
Display area
Trouble
Silenced
Acknowledge
Silence
EVAC
System
reset
Next
Prev
Menus
Selec
Figure A-4-8 Typical arrangement of components and markings for Fire Service Interface
375
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(5) Display Controls. Control switches for the display should be located
in the lower right area of the Fire Service Interface approximately as shown.
These momentary switches should only be provided if the display is the
sequential type.
a. Next Switch. Press of this switch should cause the display to scroll
forward to the next off-normal event. If the last (lowest priority) event was
shown, the display will revert to the first event.
b. Previous Switch. Press of this switch should cause the display to scroll
back to the previous off-normal event. If the first (highest priority) event was
shown, the display will go to the last event.
c. Menus Switch. This is a further optional control. Press of this switch
should cause the display to show one or more menus of displays and control
functions available with this fire alarm system. The Next and Previous keys
may be used to navigate through the menus.
d. Select switch. This is a further optional control to be used in conjunction
with the Menus, Next and Previous switches. When the display cursor is on
a particular display or control function, press of this switch will cause the
display or control function to be executed.
SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 72-361 has several flaws, which are
corrected by these recommendations. The Proposal calls for a “two line by 40
character” display. This places an unnecessary cost and complexity burden on
very small panels. For larger control panels, this display size is unnecessarily
restrictive. Many fire control units today use alphanumeric displays larger
than 80 characters to provide valuable supplemental information to the
user. This comment removes restrictions on display implementation and
technology. Additional definitions and standardization of alphanumeric
display functions and format may be valuable to the fire service, but are
beyond the scope of this proposal. These may be the subject of future
Proposals and refinement of the Fire Service Standard Interface. The Proposal
also lacks a system reset switch and a supervisory indicator that are common
and necessary functions of North American fire alarm systems today. The
Comments add those functions.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #90)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-297-(4-9 and A-4-9) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
following text be added as new Section 7.10. The Technical Correlating
Committee affirms that the text is enforceable.
“7.10* Standard Fire Service Interface. Where required by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction annuniciators, information display systems, and
controls for portions of the fire alarm system provided
for use by the fire service shall be designed, arranged, and located in
accordance with the requirements of the organizations intended to use the
equipment.”
Relocate the annex material added by the action of Proposal 72-361 and
Comment 72-296 to new A.7.10. The existing text in A-4-8 in the 1999
edition is to remain as A.7.9.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the proposal with regard to
the Section 4-9 of the submitter’s recommendation. The language proposed
is enforceable. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee to give further consideration to
the submitter’s proposal. However the committee reaffirms its previous
action and statement. The committee feels that the proposed language may
result in undue and burdensome actions on the part of the Authority Having
Jurisdiction.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 15
NEGATIVE: 1
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
SCHIFILITI: The proposed code level text does not give the Authority
Having Jurisdiction any more authority than they already have and it does
not impose any requirements by itself. It merely serves as a placeholder and
reference to the annex material. Though unenforceable text is technically
not permitted, I think it would be a useful introduction to the material in the
Annex.
————————————————-
376
(Log #91)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-298-(Chapter 5 [2002 Ed. Chapter 8]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter
Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts
the Committee Action.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that
Chapter Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and, with the exclusion of Subsection 8.1.1, the
Technical Correlating Committee accepts the text proposed for Section 8.1.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 8.1 be rewritten to
correlate with the Technical Correlating Committee NOTE on Proposal 72380.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The Committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee
and directs that the following actions be taken:
A. Delete Section 8.1.1
B. Renumber subsequent subsections.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 8.1 correctly states the application
of Chapter 8.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #166)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-299-(Chapter 5 [2002 Ed. Chapter 8]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons:
The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual
of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation
of the proposal or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon
individually. These changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal
72-362 or in the individual proposals.
The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes
made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating
Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all
changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and
simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public.
Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by
a bold reference to the public proposal number.
The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with
such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of
potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes
in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the
committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #61)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-300-(5-2.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-365
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on 72-365 violates the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects in that the committee statement
does not address the submitter’s substantiation.
B. The committee action statement clearly reflects that the Chapter 5
committee is engaging in prohibited restraint of trade and violating both the
intent of the standard (i.e., 1-2.1) and NFPA policy (Section 3-3.6 of the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects). It is not up to NFPA in general,
or to the NFAC Chapter 5 Technical Committee in particular, to mandate
contractual relationships between subscribers and their monitoring services.
C. Regulation of the supervising station industry is outside the scope of
NFPA 72:
“1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location,
performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components.”
D. The portion of the committee statement that says: “In addition, NFPA
72 requires listing for equipment and components of fire alarm systems so
the requirement for a listed company is consistent” is incorrect, in that these
requirements do not, in fact, require listed companies to install, maintain, and
monitor supervising station fire alarm systems - they only give a listed prime
contractor control over those contracts. In fact, on the very next proposal
(ROP 72-366), this committee explicitly REJECTED a proposed requirement
for a listed contractor or contractors to provide all elements of central station
service.
E. The argument that ONLY a listed prime contractor is needed doesn’t hold
water either, as there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 5-2.2.2 that says the
prime contractor is responsible for the quality of their subcontractor’s work. If
we applied the Committee’s logic to 1-5.1.2, a single piece of listed equipment
per system would suffice to meet the requirement.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-365.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #131)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-301-(5-2.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-367
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 5-2.2.2 as follows:
5-2.2.2 Section 5-2 shall apply to central station service, which consists of
the following elements:
(1) Installation of fire alarm transmitters
(2) Alarm, guard, supervisory, and trouble signal monitoring
(3) Retransmission
(4) Associated record keeping and reporting
(5) Testing and maintenance
(6) Runner service
The central station service elements shall be provided under contract to a
subscriber by one of the following:
5. A listed central station that provides all of the elements of central station
service with its own facilities and personnel.
6. A listed central station that provides, as a minimum, the signal monitoring,
retransmission, and associated record keeping and reporting with its own
facilities and personnel and that shall be permitted to subcontract all or any
part of the installation, testing, maintenance and runner service.
7. A listed fire alarm service local company that provides the installation
and testing and maintenance with its own facilities and personnel and that
subcontracts the monitoring; retransmission, and associated record keeping
and reporting to a listed central station. The required runner service shall be
provided by the listed fire alarm service local company with its won personnel
or the listed central station with its own personnel.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action statement on ROP 72367 clearly reflects that the Chapter 5 Committee is engaging in prohibited
restraint of trade. It is not up to NFPA in general, or to the NFAC Chapter 5
Technical Committee in particular, to decide who’s on an equal footing with
whom in contracting for or brokering monitoring services.
B. Regulation of the supervising station industry is outside the scope of
NFPA 72:
“1-1 Scope. NFPA 72 covers the application, installation, location,
performance, and maintenance of fire alarm systems and their components.”
C. The prime contractor concept was originally billed as a “single-point-ofcontact” kind of thing; now it seems that the committee is okay with divvying
up the spoils two ways; neither approach has ever been shown to be of any
benefit to the public.
D. This is America, not some third world country being run by corrupt
bureaucrats as their personal private enterprise, and in America, Americans
are free to contract with whomever they want for whatever services are
required. In accordance with 1-2.1, “it is the intent of this code to establish
the required levels of performance, extent of redundancy, and quality of
installation but not to establish the methods by which these requirements are
to be achieved.”
377
E. Requirements like this violate the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects and NFPA policy and undermine the integrity of the consensus
standards making process.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-300 (Log #61).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #60)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-302-(5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-366
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on Proposal 72-366 violates
the Regulations Governing Committee Projects in that the committee
statement does not address the submitter’s substantiation.
B. The current requirements of 5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5, and current proposals
to expand those requirements to encompass all remote station fire alarm
systems as well, have been justified on the premise that there’s considerable
benefit to the public from having this work done by listed companies.
However, since neither the current requirements, nor the proposed expanded
requirements, actually require that - they simply exclude anybody who’s not
a listed company from contracting directly to provide any of the elements
of central station service - there’s no assurance that the public is getting any
benefit from these requirements at all. This proposal would require listed
companies to actually provide all elements of central station service, which is
what most of the public thinks is required now.
C. This proposal is based on the premise that on the whole, there’s a positive,
qualitative difference between the work performed by listed companies whose
work is spot checked by an internationally recognized quality assurance
program, and work that’s performed by contractors who are regulated
piecemeal, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, whether they’re regulated at all.
Unqualified alarm installing companies have been the bane of the fire alarm
industry for years.
D. The Chapter 5 Committee should either accept the premise that work
done by listed contractors is, on the whole, significantly better than work
done by unlisted and perhaps unqualified contractors - in which case they
should accept this proposal - or they should reject the premise (as either
unsubstantiated or outside the scope of the standard) - in which case there’s
NO JUSTIFICATION for the current requirements of 5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5.
The current situation, where these requirements inappropriately give listed
“prime contractors” and UL control of the fire alarm monitoring industry
without actually requiring them to do the work or verify the compliance of
the installed systems - that is, to provide the public with any benefit in return
- only serves to undermine the integrity of the consensus standards making
process.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-366.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #120)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-303-(5-2.2.2 through 5-2.2.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-366
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement on this proposal violates
the Regulations Governing Committee Projects by ignoring the proponent’s
substantiation.
B. Rather than responding to the serious issues raised, the first sentence of
the committee statement confirms the problem identified in Items A and B
of the substantiation, and the second is rhetorical gibberish; i.e., “the listing
requirements ensures compliance with minimum performance criteria and is
validated by third party verification.” What is that supposed to mean anyway?
Since the proposal was to REQUIRE listed contractors, and since
the committee action was to REJECT; there is no contractor “listing
requirement” ensuring anything with respect to the actual installation. As
enforcement is outside the scope of the standard, NFPA 72 obviously can’t
“ensure performance” with itself either; trying to require compliance with
requirements as required gets silly in a hurry. The “minimum performance
criteria” at issue is exactly “the CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
REQUIRED for central station service,” and it’s at issue because it constitutes
a prohibited restraint of trade! And “validated?” How do you validate
compliance to the NFAC under a requirement that’s been formally interpreted
- by THIS committee no less - to not actually require even a simple inspection
of the installed system, and where the alleged “third party” issuing the
certificate is a party to the installation contract but is not required to have
actually performed ANY of the work?
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
The ONLY thing that is clear from this statement is that this committee
intends to do whatever it feels like without regard for minor inconveniences
like public proposals, facts, scope, NFPA policy, or the rules governing
committee projects.
C. It is frankly amazing that the Chapter 5 Committee rejected this proposal
immediately after their committee statement on ROP 72-365, which reads in
part: “NFPA 72 requires listing for equipment and components of fire alarm
systems so the requirement for a listed company is consistent.” Rejecting
a proposal explicitly requiring fire alarm systems to be installed by listed
contractors is obviously NOT consistent with the committee’s statement on
the previous proposal, nor is it consistent with the requirement for fire alarm
equipment to be listed since provision of a listed control panel clearly doesn’t
mitigate the need for listed smoke detectors.
D. Irresponsible committee actions like this, especially when compounded
by sloppy oversight from the Technical Correlating Committee, create a “why
bother to submit proposals?” attitude amongst the public, undermine the
integrity of the consensus standards making process, and provide ammunition
for would-be federal regulators who think they could do a better job.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-366.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
(Log #126)
Committee: SIG-SSS
————————————————(Log #198)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-304-(5-2.2.3) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-368
RECOMMENDATION: Section 5-2.2.3 should be deleted as recommended
by the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement does not address the
problem pointed out in the substantiation. The substantiation proved the
requirements were added in order to mandate enrollment in one of two
specific programs, in violation of NFPA policy. If the committee feels other
organizations should be permitted to provide these services, the language
describing these two specific programs should be deleted as proposed.
B. The committee statement ignores the implicit endorsement given to the
UL and FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs
as requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of
NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels
be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I
hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The
language in 5-2.2.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific services
from two specific vendors.
C. The committee statement is essentially an excuse to continue violating
the NFPA policy regarding endorsements. While the committee statement
implies mandating two specific services is not a barrier to other vendors
providing those services, it is simply not true in the real world. I have
attended presentations by Technical Committee members (among others)
that review the requirements in this section, and then review the specifics
of their program, and (wink, wink, nod, nod) “look at how specifically our
program meets the requirements of NFPA 72”. There is clearly an implicit
endorsement of these programs, and those that market those programs clearly
utilize that endorsement to further their marketing goals.
D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire
alarms system, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The language in this
section does not even permit the Authority Having Jurisdiction to verify
compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific programs operated by the
two specific vendors are permitted.
E. The current text continues to be in violation of NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical
Committee shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required
performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so
phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall
base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely,
fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such
information as may be available.” No evidence has been provided as to why
a third party verification must use a “certificate” or a “placard”, other than the
evidence presented with this proposal that proved the intent was to mandate
two specific vendors of third party verification. The Committee Statement
fails to address the issues raised in the substantiation for the proposal.
Note: Supporting material available for review upon your request at NFPA
Headquarters.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee reaffirms its action and
statement on Proposal 72-368.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
378
72-305-(5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-55 and 72-138
RECOMMENDATION: Revise 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1 as follows:
5-2.2.3 The prime contractor shall conspicuously indicate that the
supervising station transmitter, including the connection(s) to the protected
premises fire alarm control unit(s) fire alarm system providing service at
a protected premises complies with all the requirements of this code by
providing a means of third party verification, as specified in 5-2.2.3.1 or 52.2.3.2.
5-2.2.3.1 The installation shall be certificated.
5-2.2.3.1.1 Supervising station transmitters, including their associated
connection(s) to the protected premises fire alarm control unit(s) Fire alarm
systems providing service that complies with all the requirements of this code
shall be certified by the organization that has listed the central station, and
a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or within 36 in.
(1m) of the fire alarm system control unit or, if no control unit exists, on or
within 36 in. (1 m) of a fire alarm system component.
5-2.2.3.1.2 A central repository of issued certification documents, accessible
to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization
that has listed the central station.
5-2.2.3.2 The installation shall be placarded.
5-2.2.3.2.1 Supervising station transmitters, including their associated
connection(s) to the protected premises fire alarm control unit(s) Fire alarm
systems providing service that complies with all the requirements of this code
shall be conspicuously marked by the central station to indicate compliance.
The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the requirements of
the organization that has listed the central station and requires the placard.
5-2.2.3.2.2 The placard(s) shall be 20 in.2 (130 cm2) or larger, shall be
located on or within 36 in. (1 m) of the fire alarm system control unit or, if no
control unit exists, on or within 36 in. (1 m) of a fire alarm system component,
and shall identify the central station by name and telephone number.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. Consistent with the committee statement on ROP
72-55 and the Technial Correlating Committee’s direction on ROP 72-138,
the scope of Chapter 5 is defined by Figure 5-5.1. The recommended changes
to 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.1 limit those requirements to the portions of
protected premises fire alarm systems that are within the scope of Chapter 5.
B. Chapter 5 does not have jurisdiction to mandate “certification” or
“placarding” of anything at the protected premises except for the supervising
station transmitter and connections to the protected premises control unit.
If third party verification is necessary for the balance of the fire alarm
installation at the protected premises, it is up to Chapter 3 to require it.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Figure 5-5.1 (8.5.1) delineates the respective
responsibilities for hardware compliance and does not state that the protected
premises (local) system is functionally separate from the supervising station
transmitter in a complete fire alarm system installation.
Where a communications method is used to transmit signals off premises, the
protected premises (local) fire alarm equipment becomes an integral part of a
supervising station fire alarm system.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #42)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-306-(5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-368
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2.2.3 through 5-2.2.3.2.2.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on 72-368 violated the
Regulations Governing Committee Projects as the committee statement does
not address Mr. Decker’s substantiation. The requirements in question were
clearly promulgated specifically to codify 2 proprietary programs, in clear
violation of NFPA policy, and should be deleted on that basis alone.
B. No technical substantiation has ever been provided demonstrating
why organizations who list central stations are qualified, or are the only
organizations qualified, to certify protected premises installations for
compliance with NFPA 72. What is it about being a testing laboratory, that
tests system components for compliance to UL’s or FM’s product standards,
that makes anybody an expert on fire alarm system installations? Obviously,
many individuals and organizations and Authorities Having Jurisdiction who
do not list central stations determine and certify compliance with NFPA 72 all
the time. This is a prohibited restraint of trade on its face.
C. The fact that deletion of this section would eliminate “third party
verification” from Chapter 5 does not contradict the substantiation
provided; it’s exactly what the submitter is asking for. Furthermore, it has
been established by formal interpretation that neither “certification” nor
“placarding” necessarily involves “third party verification” of compliance at
all. Hence, no actual verification is actually being eliminated.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-304 (Log #198).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #119)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-307-(5-3.4.6 [2002 Ed. 8.3.4.3, A.8.3.4.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Harvey M. Fox, Keltron Corporation
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362 & 72-511a
RECOMMENDATION: The current wording of A.8.3.4.3 does not specify
the type of review and, therefore, is ineffective.
Please remove A.8.3.4.3 and add the following as (c) to 8.3.4.3:
Status of signal initiating inputs that have been acknowledged but not yet
restored shall be redisplayed periodically for two seconds minimum. Period
from one event to the next shall be not less than two seconds and not more
than five seconds.
SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of this change is to make sure that an
unrestored event is not lost. It is unsatisfactory to rely on the operator to
remember that, for example, an outstanding fire alarm has not been addressed.
Therefore, automatic redisplay must be instituted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Add second sentence to A-8.3.4.3 (in the ROP) to read: “One method for
such a review could be by the use of equipment that would automatically
redisplay the information.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee addressed the submitter’s
intent by modifying the wording in the annex.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #21)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-308-(5-4.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is 3pv all over again, only this time via the
back door. For those of us who argued that central stations service was not
necessary for all fire alarm systems, nor that it provided the benefits that some
argue it did, now we are right back to the same requirement only under a
different title called remote station.
There is no justification provided that shows that placarding or certificating
systems are needed for the great majority of fire alarm systems that are
present. For those of us who already may do all this right, i.e., installation,
testing, and maintenance; we are now having this requirement thrown at us
again because we elected to connect to a remote station instead of a central
station.
This chapter is stepping outside of their scope’s boundary in my opinion.
A protected premises system is a protected premises system. What type of
supervising station the protected premises fire alarm system is connected to
should not have any ramifications relative to a certification program by UL,
as would be required with this change. This allows Chapter 5 to essentially
have complete jurisdiction over the system at the protected premises. It is
presently possible to get a protected premises certificated by UL and all
owners are open to choose this option. But, connection to bring emergency
forces is usually mandated by the building codes, and once this is done, the
requirement to connect would automatically kick in this certification.
We in the VA, more often than not, connect to a supervising station, but
we don’t need to have supervisory signals monitored. This new requirement
mandates SUPERVISORY SIGNALS BE MONITORED by the remote
station, without exception, as opposed to allowing it to be monitored if
needed, same as trouble signals.
There is no justification for mandating that a supervisory signal be monitored
by remote stations. They can be monitored just as easily as they have been,
and the same as trouble signals.
This chapter should provide regulations for those of us who use supervising
station facilities that don’t meet any of the Chapter’s supposed headings, i.e.,
not really a remote station, not really a proprietary, not really a central station,
without requiring all this ridiculous regulation.
There is no such thing as a remote supervising station fire alarm system
(regardless of the definition) except that local system protecting the remote
supervising station facility. To use this term, as has been done for quite
a while, and imply that it envelops the system at the protected premises
remote from the supervising station, is outside the scope of this chapter. The
Technical Correlating Committee should review the use of the term “remote
supervising station fire alarm system” (and others) and direct this chapter to
stay within its boundaries concerning system requirements. See the diagram
provided in Figure 5-5.1 that shows the protected premises’ versus supervising
station demarcation.
Reject the proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
379
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are three issues that the submitter
raises: third party verification, supervisory signal monitoring and scope issues.
Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600) addresses the Committee’s action relating
to third party verification.
The substantiation for Proposal 72-381, specifically paragraph b, addresses
the reasons that supervisory signals need to be monitored.
Regarding the scope issue, it is the position of the Technical Committee that
Figure 5-5.1 (8.5.1) delineates the respective responsibilities for hardware
compliance and does not indicate that the protected premises (local) system
is functionally separate from the supervising station transmitter in a complete
fire alarm system installation.
Where a communications method is used to transmit signals off premises, the
protected premises (local) fire alarm equipment becomes an integral part of a
supervising station fire alarm system.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #199)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-309-(5-4.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Daniel G. Decker, Safety Systems, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Section 5-4.2.3 should be deleted in its entirety
from the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter provides inadequate and misleading
substantiation for requiring “means of third party verification”. Specifically,
there is no documentation of any problem with remote station service, as it
currently exists in order to provide justification for this change. There is no
evidence presented that the proposed language in 5-4.2.3 would in any way
offer any benefit. The statement referring to jurisdictions requiring remote
stations to be certificated is curious indeed, as a certification program for
remote stations does not currently exist.
B. The proposed language creates an implicit endorsement of the UL and
FM certification programs by specifically describing those programs as
requirements in the standard. Such endorsement is clearly in violation of
NFPA policy; reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on
Proposal 72-64. If there were a requirement that all fire alarm control panels
be gray and have a stylized N on the front, the committee would clearly (I
hope) recognize that as an improper endorsement of a specific product. The
proposed language in 5-4.2.3 is no different in improperly endorsing specific
services from two specific vendors.
C. Such requirement is outside the scope of the committee. The UL
certification program, referenced in proposed 5.4.2.3.1, lumps local,
proprietary, and remote station certification for firms into one category. Such
certification is based on the system at the protected premises, and does not
involve any evaluation of the remote station itself. Certification based on
the system installed at the protected premises is properly the jurisdiction of
the Protected Premises Technical Committee, and is outside the scope of
this Technical Committee. (Copy of the UL program description has been
provided).
D. These requirements, which regulate contractual relationships, not fire
alarm systems, are outside the scope of NFPA 72. The Technical Correlating
Committee has determined that even maintaining a record of system
impairments is outside the scope of this document, obviously attempting to
require enrollment in a specific certification program would be equally out of
scope - reference the Technical Correlating Committee comment on Proposal
72-143. The language in this section does not even permit the Authority
Having Jurisdiction to verify compliance with NFPA 72; only the two specific
programs operated by the two specific vendors are permitted.
E. The proposed text is in violation of NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects, specifically Section 3-3.6: “Each Technical Committee
shall, as far as practicable, prepare documents in terms of required
performance, avoiding specifications of materials, devices or methods so
phrased as to preclude obtaining the desired result by other means. It shall
base its recommendation upon one or more of the following factors; namely,
fire experience, research data, engineering fundamentals or other such
information as may be available.” No evidence has been provided as to why
a third party verification must use a “certificate” or a “placard”, when such
language clearly references two specific programs operated by two specific
vendors (see Proposal 72-368).
NOTE: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on
Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #247)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-310-(5-4.2) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree that this is an acceptable method of
providing third party acceptance of remote station fire alarm systems and
that it will increase the quality of installations and operations of fire alarm
systems. (See also our comments on Proposal 72-145).
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on
Comment 72-312a (CC600).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #282)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-311-(5-4.2.1, 5-4.2.2, 5-4.2.3 [2002 Ed. 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5, and 8.4.1.6]) :
Reject
SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: 8.4.1.4 (1999 Section 5-4.2.1) [ROP 72-381]
Remote supervising station fire alarm systems shall provide an automatic
audible and visible indication of alarm, supervisory, and if required, of trouble
conditions at a location remote from the protected premises.
(1999 Section 5-4.2.2 deleted) [ROP 72-381]
8.4.1.5 (1999 Section 5-4.2.3) [ROP 72-381]
The loading capacities of the remote supervising station equipment for any
approved method of transmission shall be designated in Section 8.5.
8.4.1.6 [ROP 72-381]
Where signals are transmitted to an alternate location in accordance with
Section 8.4.2.1.2 or 8.4.2.1.3, the fire alarm systems shall be provided with
a conspicuous indication that the systems meet all requirements of this Code
by providing a means of third party verification, as specified in 8.4.1.6.1 or
8.4.1.6.2.
8.4.1.6.1 [ROP 72-381]
The installation shall be certified.
8.4.1.6.1.1 [ROP 72-381]
Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be
certificated by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service
company, and a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or
within 1m (36 in) of the fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit
exists, on or within 1 m (36 in) of a fire alarm system component.
8.4.1.6.1.2 [ROP 72-381]
A central repository of issued certification documents, accessible to the
authority having jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization that has
listed the local fire alarm service company.
8.4.1.6.2 [ROP 72-381]
The installation shall be placarded.
8-4.1.6.2.1 [ROP 72-381]
Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be
conspicuously marked by the local fire alarm service company to indicate
compliance. The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the
requirements of the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service
company.
8.4.1.6.2.2 [ROP 72-381]
The placard(s) shall be 130 cm2
8.4.1.6.1.1 [ROP 72-381]
Fire alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be
certificated by the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service
company, and a document attesting to this certification shall be located on or
within 1m (36 in) of the fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit
exists, on or within 1 m (36 in) of a fire alarm system component.
8.4.1.6.1.2 [ROP 72-381]
A control repository of issued certification documents, accessible to the
authority having jurisdiction, shall be maintained by the organization that has
listed the local fire alarm service company.
8.4.1.6.2 [ROP 72-381]
The installation shall be placarded.
8.4.1.6.2.1 [ROP 72-381]
Fire Alarm systems that comply with all requirements of this Code shall be
conspicuously marked by the local fire alarm service company to indicate
compliance. The marking shall be by one or more placards that meet the
requirements of the organization that has listed the local fire alarm service
company.
8.4.1.6.2.2 [ROP 72-381]
The placard(s) shall be 130 cm2 (20 in2) or larger, shall be located on or
within 1 m (39 in) of a fire alarm system control unit, or if no control unit
exists, on or within 1 m (39 in) of a fire alarm system component, and shall
identify the local fire alarm service company by name and telephone number.
380
SUBSTANTIATION: Existing certification programs conducted by UL
and FM rely upon annual spot inspections of a sample of the certificated
accounts. Both organizations have traditionally been unable to fill inspector
positions due to the lack of qualified applicants. It is unreasonable to expect
that either group or any new group will be able to add the required number of
inspectors to perform these inspections in a timely manner. This is especially
true since local inspectors will be required to ensure that occupancy permits
can be issued in a timely manner. It will be dangerous to life safety if the
Authority Having Jurisdiction defer inspections based upon the false hope that
third party certification organizations will be able to meet the demand for the
required frequency of inspections.
This proposal would delegate the determination of the qualifications of
the Remote Station to the third party certification organization. Neither UL
or FM have established qualifications for a Remote Station. There is no
guarantee that the requirements would be equivalent or similar. Without an
established requirement to be listed as a remote station service, certification
could be granted when a local Authority Having Jurisdiction sends a letter
to the third party certification organization stating the Authority Having
Jurisdiction authorizes the fire alarm monitoring company to be a remote
station. No visit by the third party certification organization to each remote
station to ensure the facility meets any requirements of NFPA 72 is required.
With a listing process of this nature, it appears the goal is an increase in the
listing organization’s revenue rather than an increase in life-safety.
Many state governments, in cooperation with their state fire marshals, have
implemented programs through legislation or regulation requiring education
and certification programs. Significant gains in life-safety have been made
through this process. To replace state agencies with listing organizations
having less qualified capabilities, would diminish those states’ efforts.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and substantiation on
Comment 72-312a (CC600).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #22)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-312-(5-4.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382
RECOMMENDATION: Rework the proposal to eliminate the reference to
remote supervising station fire alarm systems.
SUBSTANTIATION: See my comment on 72-381.
When does a remote supervising station fire alarm system become one?
When it is connected to a remote supervising station, I suspect the committee
answer would be. Once again, this whole section creates problems since
it mandates requirements for local systems that are connected to a remote
supervising station, and that is outside the scope of this chapter. Just identify
what one gets or has to do, when selecting the remote option.
The Life Safety Code states: “When fire department notification is required
by another section of this code, the fire alarm system shall be arranged to
transmit the alarm automatically via any of the following means acceptable to
the AHJ and shall be in accordance with NFPA 72.
1. Auxiliary alarm system
2. Central station connection
3. Proprietary system
4. Remote station connection”
No where in the code does any occupancy call for a “remote supervising
station fire alarm system.” Prior to the consolidation of the alphabet series of
codes, these terms may have had valid meanings, but it is time to complete
the consolidation (or split again).
The Technical Correlating Committee should reestablish chapter boundaries
and clarify what is intended. The old NFPA 72C clearly intended the protected
premises to be part of the remote supervising station fire alarm system, but
that was long ago.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise 5-4.3.1 (8.4.2.1 in the ROP) to read as follows: “Fire alarm systems
utilizing remote supervising station connections shall transmit fire alarm and
supervisory signals to a facility meeting the requirements of either 8-4.2.1.1,
8-4.2.1.2 or 8-4.2.1.3.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee action addresses the
terminology issues raised by the submitter. The Committee statement on
Comment 72-305 (Log #126) clearly addresses the scope issues raised by the
submitter.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #CC600)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-312a-(5-4.3 [2002 Ed. 8..4.1.6, 8.4.1.6.3]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Supervising Station Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382
RECOMMENDATION: Change 8.4.1.6 to read: “Where signals are
transmitted to an alternate location in accordance with Section 8.4.2.1.2, the
fire alarm systems shall be provided with a conspicuous indication that the
systems meet all requirements of this Code by providing a means of third
party verification, as specified in 8.4.1.6.1, 8.4.1.6.2 or 8.4.1.6.3.”
Add 8.4.1.6.3 to read as follows: “The installation shall meet the
requirements of a state or local government that has a systematic program in
place to ensure that the installation and the ongoing testing, inspection, and
maintenance meet all of the requirements of this Code.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Some state and local governments have implemented
systematic programs through legislation or regulation to achieve quality
assurance. The Committee action recognizes these programs as an alternative
to certification or placarding.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #283)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-313-(5-4.3.1, 5-4.3.2, 5-4.3.3 [2002Ed. 8.4.2.1, 8.4.2.2, and 8.4.2.3]) :
Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Brad Shipp, NBFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-382
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the following to read:
8.4.2.1 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382]
Remote supervising station fire alarm systems shall transmit fire alarm and
supervisory signals to a facility meeting the requirements of either 8.4.2.1.1,
8.4.2.1.2 or 8.4.2.1.3.
8.4.2.1.1 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382]
Fire alarm and supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at
the public fire service communications center, at the fire station, or at the
governmental agency that has the public responsibility for taking prescribed
action to ensure response upon receipt of a fire alarm signal.
8.4.2.1.2 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1) [ROP 72-382]
Where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, fire alarm and
supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at a listed central station.
8.4.2.1.3 (1999 Section 5-4.3.1 [ROP 72-382]
Where permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, fire alarm and
supervisory signals shall be permitted to be received at an alternate location
approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
8.4.2.2 (1999 Section 5-4.3.2) [ROP 72-382]
Trouble signals shall be received at a constantly attended location that has
personnel on duty who are trained to recognize the type of signal received as
to take prescribed action. The location shall be permitted to be other than that
at which alarm and supervisory signals are received.
8.4.2.3 (1999 Section 5-4.3.3) [ROP 72-382]
If locations other than the public fire service communications center are used
for the receipt of signals, access to receiving equipment shall be restricted in
accordance with the requirements of the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal adds a new method of compliance in
Remote Station section (8.4). It recognizes the use of listed Central Stations.
Listed Central Station Service is clearly covered in Section 8.2, Section
8.4, however, covers Remote Station Services. This is an attempt to market
Central Station Services to the Authority Having Jurisdiction over Remote
Station Service, it is not for life-safety. It will only advertise Central Station
Services and NFPA code should not be used for advertisement for special
interest groups.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
1. Delete section 8.4.2.1.2.
2. Renumber subsequent subsections.
3. Add new Annex A.8.4.2.1.2 to read as follows: “A listed central station
may be considered an acceptable alternate location for receipt of fire alarm
and supervisory signals.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee’s actions make it clear that
the use of a listed central station is an acceptable alternative.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #41)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-314-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. Third party verification of anything besides
supervising station transmitters and/or supervising station equipment is
381
outside the scope of Chapter 5.
B. Third party verification has been addressed in Chapter 1 for ALL
SYSTEMS; reference ROP 72-145. As code compliance is a fundamental
requirement applicable to all fire alarm systems - not just supervising station
systems - jurisdiction properly belongs to Chapter 1.
C. It is not the responsibility of NFPA 72 to decide what level of protection
or code enforcement is appropriate for any given application or in any
particular jurisdiction; those responsibilities properly belong to the local
Authority Having Jurisdiction. Unlike proposed 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2 which
take the Authorities Having Jurisdiction’s prerogatives unto themselves,
the wording of ROP 72-145 simply provides a tool which local Authorities
Having Jurisdiction can use, or elect NOT to use, as appropriate for their
individual circumstances.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee action and substantiation on
Comment 72-312a (Log #CC600).
In addition, the third party verification addressed in Chapter 1 applies to
verifying that the initial installation meets the minimum requirements of
the Code and does not assure ongoing oversight. A fire alarm system being
monitored by other than the owner or the public fire service communications
center requires that certain responsibilities relating to system reliability be
delegated, which is within the scope of this Technical Committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————(Log #137)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-315-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2
SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requiring a UL certificate or FM placard violates
explicit NFPA policy with respect to the endorsement of particular products
and services.
B. The claim that these paragraphs do not require enrollment in specific UL
and FM programs is not credible, as the author of the current text of 5-2.2.3.1
or 5-2.2.3.2, which is substantially identical to proposed 5-4.2.3.1 and 54.2.3.2, is on record publicly affirming that these requirements were written
specifically to codify those two programs; one by UL and one by FM. In a
December 1998 posting to the Automatic Fire Alarm Association list server,
Dean Wilson (Chair of the NFPA 71 Technical Committee at that time) wrote
- in reference to the 1996 edition text which became 5-2.2.3.1 or 5-2.2.3.2 in
the 1999 edition:
“The language used to describe these means of verification in NFPA
71 attempted to explain in as few words as possible programs that were,
and are, reasonably complex. Before writing those words, The Technical
Committee on Signaling Systems for Central Station Service listened to
lengthy presentations from UL’s Isaac Papier and FMRC’s Jack Abbott. Since
I chaired the Technical Committee at that time, let me assure readers that
the Technical Committee made no mistake about what they intended. The
content and the intent passed unanimously. Some may feel confused by what
“verification” means. Let me assure you that the members who wrote NFPA
71-1989 suffered from no such confusion. We knew then, and we know now,
the scopes of THE TWO PROGRAMS that meet the requirements.”
A copy of the full text of this e-mail posting is on file at NFPA; reference
ROP 72-141.
C. Besides the problem with NFPA’s endorsement policy, these requirements
are also indeterminate because the details of the mandated certification
and placarding programs are determined entirely outside of the consensus
standards making process and are subject to change without notice. For
example, nobody told Chapter 5 until the NFPA Annual Meeting in May 1999
that FM hadn’t routinely inspected “placarded” systems in years; a revelation
they’ve conveniently managed to overlook ever since.
D. NFPA should not allow itself to be used as a front allowing private
corporations to manipulate the fire protection marketplace like it was their
personal sandbox. This kind of disregard for NFPA policy compromises
NFPA’s responsibility in establishing fire safety standards and is dangerous to
the integrity and future of the consensus standards making process.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-314 (Log #41).
In addition, nothing precludes other entities from developing and
implementing certification programs to systematically assure code compliant
fire alarm system installation, testing, maintenance and inspection.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #181)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-316-(5-4.3.1 and 5-4.3.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-381
RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.2.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposal substantiation (in the ROP) is
incorrect in that neither “certification” or “placarding” as described in the
proposal actually “assure compliance with the code.” Code compliance
is certainly desirable, but you can’t ensure it without actually inspecting
and testing the system; neither of which is required prior to issuance of a
certificate or placard, or in fact, anytime thereafter. This is why Proposal 72145 requires an actual inspection and test, prior to certification.
B. No causal link has been established between certification/placarding
and an improvement in quality or a decrease in false alarms. Installation
quality has increased substantially in the last decade (mostly through
improved education and professionalism in the industry), while false alarms
have decreased markedly (mostly as a result of better detector technology).
This has occurred nationwide despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of
installed systems are placarded or certificated.
C. Even amongst UL listed installing companies, only a tiny percentage
of the systems they install are placarded or certificated. These companies
have not documented any problem with maintaining quality or minimizing
false alarms in their other installations, which begs the question if Simplex
or Honeywell can install thousands of code compliant systems without
placarding or certificating them, why can’t everybody?
D. Even in jurisdictions which require placarding or certification of new
installations, the installed base of systems consists largely of “grandfathered”
non-placarded and non-certificated systems. For those jurisdictions to claim
70-90% reductions in false alarms, as a result of ordinances affecting only
a tiny percentage of their installed system base, completely discounting
any connection to the vastly improved detector technology that has been so
effective everywhere else, is not even close to reasonable.
E. Thousands of years of collective experience demonstrates that most false
alarms come from misapplication of detection devices and/or older, poorly
maintained systems. If false alarms are a problem in a given jurisdiction, the
solution is qualified inspections and routine maintenance, not paying UL for
a piece of paper certifying compliance of a system they have never looked at
and are unlikely to ever look at.
F. In light of A-E above, and as a reflected in Tom Brown’s explanation of
negative on the original proposal, no technical basis has been demonstrated
for requiring certification or placarding of remote station systems. In
accordance with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, the
appropriate committee action is to reject.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See committee action and statement on
Comment 72-315 (Log #137).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
(Log #122)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-318-(5-5.3.2.1.2 and 5-5.3.2.1.4) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-391
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee statement is incorrect. The
requirements for DACTs are in the applicable product standards, which are
what nationally recognized testing laboratories use as a basis for their listings.
Nobody lists fire alarm equipment for compliance to NFPA 72.
B. If this rationale were legitimate, NFPA 72 would need to include
complete product specifications for thousands of different kinds of fire alarm
system components; something that’s obviously not the case.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Due to the unique nature of DACS, the
Code established minimum criteria for use by the Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratories in the development of their product standards.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #286)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-319-(5-5.4.11 [2002 Ed. 8.5.4.11]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Douglas H. Brunmeier, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-362
RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph 8.5.4.11 and its exception.
SUBSTANTIATION: The exception to paragraph 8.5.4.11 already exists as
a basic requirement in paragraph 8.5.4.7 making the need for signal priority
unnecessary.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 8.5.4.7 deals with end to end
communication time; section 8.5.4.11 addresses shared communication paths.
The committee believes these are two separate issues and both sections are
necessary.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
(Log #92)
Committee: SIG-PRS
————————————————(Log #23)
Committee: SIG-SSS
72-317-(5-5.3.2.1.1 Exception) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Pittsburgh, PA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-395
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: What fire alarm evaluation needs to be done to allow
customer owned telephone equipment into the process? What is the process?
Who says that the customer’s telephone system does not provide reliable
access to dial tone? The committee needs to establish what “reliable” is before
they go and eliminate this proposal. It is possible that the customer’s system is
more reliable.
The committee has not provided proper justification for rejecting this
proposal. What does “To allow customer-owned telephone equipment into the
process without fire alarm evaluation runs counter to the committee’s intent”
supposed to mean? The committee either needs to spell out the intent to show
“the customer” what shortcomings their system has or accept the proposal.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Premises telephone systems are susceptible
to numerous failures including, but not limited to, standby power supply and
dial tone degradation. In addition, DACS have limited supervision and private
telephone equipment is not listed for fire alarm use. The Committee continues
to support the use of telephone company provided POTS lines for use with
DACS because of their established reliability.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:25
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 23
NOT RETURNED: 2 Egan & Sayre
————————————————-
382
72-320-(Chapter 6 [2002 Ed. Chapter 9]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-400a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee advises
that Chapter Scopes (Application) statements are the responsibility of the
Technical Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee
rejects the text proposed for Section 9.1. Specifically, auxiliary fire alarm
reporting systems are not defined.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the proposed text on this
chapter be revised for organization, clarity and to fully comply with Manual
of Style.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has revised Section 9.1
and the entire chapter in accordance with the comments of the Technical
Correlating Committee. Refer to the committee action on 72-321a (Log
#CC4).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher
————————————————-
(Log #167)
Committee: SIG-PRS
72-321-(Chapter 6 [2002 Ed. Chapter 9]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-400a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons:
The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual
of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation
of the proposal or are identified by reference to other proposals acted upon
individually. Theses changes are supported in the substantiation of Proposal
72-400a or in the individual proposals.
The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes
made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating
Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all
changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and
simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public.
Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by
a bold reference to the public proposal number.
The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with
such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of
potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes
in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the
committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher
————————————————(Log #CC4)
Committee: SIG-PRS
72-321a-(Chapter 6) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter
Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts
the Committee Action.
The Technical Correlating Committee concurs with the committees
action to delete 6-16.5 and 6-16.6 as they outside the scope of the
committee.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that Section 9.4 be revised
delete the term “alarm boxes” because it is not defined. Revise 9.4 title
and 9.4.1 text to read as follows:
9.4 Alarm Transmission Equipment (Auxiliary Boxes, Master Boxes
and Street Boxes)
9.4.1 General
The requirements of 9.4.1 shall apply to all alarm transmission
equipment.
9.4.1.1 [1999 6-4.9]
Concurrent operation of at least four boxes shall not result in the loss of
an alarm.
9.4.1.2 [1999 6-5.1]
Boxes, when in an abnormal condition, shall leave the circuit usable.
9.4.1.3 [1999 6-5.2]
Boxes shall be designed so that recycling does not occur when a boxactuating device is held in the actuating position and shall be ready to
accept a new signal as soon as the actuating device is released.
9.4.1.4* [1999 6-5.3*]
Boxes, when actuated, shall give a visible or audible indication to the
user that the box is operating or that the signal has been transmitted to
the public fire service communications center.
9.4.1.5 [1999 6-5.10]
Box cases and parts that are accessible to the public shall be of
insulating materials or permanently and effectively grounded. All ground
connections to street boxes shall comply with the requirements of NFPA
70, National Electrical Code®, Article 250.
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Reporting Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:400a
RECOMMENDATION: Revised proposed Chapter 9 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9 Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems
The requirements of Chapter 4 and Chapter 10 shall also apply, unless they are
in conflict with this chapter.
9.1.4
The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to Chapter 11 unless
otherwise noted.
9.1.5
The application of public fire alarm reporting systems and auxiliary fire alarm
systems to provide defined reporting functions from or within private premises
shall be permitted where approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
9.2 [1999 6-2] General Fundamentals.
9.2.1* [1999 6-2.1*]
Public fire alarm reporting systems shall be designed, installed, operated and
maintained in accordance with this chapter to provide reliable transmission
and receipt of fire alarms in a manner acceptable to the authority having
jurisdiction.
9.2.2 [1999 6-2.2]
A public fire alarm reporting system, as described herein, shall be permitted
to be used for the transmission of other signals or calls of a public emergency
nature, provided such transmission does not interfere with the transmission
and receipt of fire alarms.
9.3 [1999 6-3] Management and Maintenance. [ROP 72-400a]
9.3.1 [1999 6-3.1] [ROP 72-400a]
All systems shall be under the control of a designated jurisdictional
employee.
9.3.2 [1999 6-3.2]
Maintenance by an organization or person other than from the jurisdiction
or an employee of the jurisdiction shall be by written contract, guaranteeing
performance acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
9.3.3 [1999 6-3.1]
Where maintenance is provided by an organization or person(s) other than
the jurisdiction or its employees, complete written records of the installation,
maintenance, test, and extension of the system shall be forwarded to the
designated employee as soon as possible.
9.3.4 [1999 6-3.3]
All equipment shall be accessible to the authority having jurisdiction for the
purpose of maintenance.
9.3.5 [1999 6-4.2]
Records of wired public fire alarm reporting system circuits shall include the
following:
(1) Outline plans showing terminals and box sequence
(2) Diagrams of applicable office wiring
(3) List of materials used, including trade name, manufacturer, and year of
purchase or installation
9.3.6 [1999 6-4.2.1]
Public fire alarm reporting systems as defined in this chapter, shall, in their
entirety, be subject to a complete operational acceptance test upon completion
of system installation.
9.3.6.1 [1999 6-4.2.1]
This test(s) shall be made in accordance with the requirements of the authority
having jurisdiction; however, in no case shall the operational functions tested
be less than those stipulated in Chapter 10.
9.3.6.2 [1999 6-4.2.1]
Acceptance tests shall also be performed on any alarm reporting devices as
identified in this chapter that are added subsequent to the installation of the
initial system.
[1999 6-4.3 through 6-4.8 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]
9.4 Alarm Transmission Equipment (Alarm Boxes)
9.1 [1999 6.1] Application.
9.4.1 General
9.1.1 [1999 6.1.2]
The installation and use of public fire alarm reporting systems and auxiliary
fire alarm systems shall comply with the requirements of this chapter.
The requirements of 9.4.1 shall apply to all alarm transmission equipment.
9.4.1.1 [1999 6-4.9]
9.1.2 [1999 6.1.2]
Concurrent operation of at least four boxes shall not result in the loss of an
alarm.
The requirements of this chapter shall apply to systems and equipment for
the transmission and reception of fire alarm and other emergency signals,
including those from auxiliary fire alarm systems connected to the public fire
alarm reporting system.
9.4.1.2 [1999 6-5.1]
Alarm boxes, when in an abnormal condition, shall leave the circuit usable.
9.4.1.3 [1999 6-5.2]
9.1.3 [1999 6.1.1]
383
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Alarm boxes shall be designed so that recycling does not occur when a boxactuating device is held in the actuating position and shall be ready to accept a
new signal as soon as the actuating device is released.
requirements established herein.
9.4.1.4* [1999 6-5.3*]
Each coded radio box shall automatically transmit a test message at least once
in each 24-hour period.
Alarm boxes, when actuated, shall give a visible or audible indication to the
user that the box is operating or that the signal has been transmitted to the
public fire service communications center.
9.4.2.3.2* [1999 6-14.6.3*]
9.4.2.3.3 [1999 6-5.12.2]
Alarm box cases and parts that are accessible to the public shall be of
insulating materials or permanently and effectively grounded. All ground
connections to street boxes shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code®, Article 250.
Coded radio street boxes shall provide no less than three specific and
individually identifiable functions to the public fire service communications
center, in addition to the street box number, as follows:
(1) Test
(2) Tamper
(3) Fire
9.4.2 [1999 6-5] Publicly Accessible Fire Service Boxes (Street Boxes).
9.4.2.3.4* [1999 6-5.12.3*] [ROP 72-400a]
9.4.2.1 Fundamental Requirements.
Coded radio street boxes shall transmit to the public fire service
communications center as follows
(1) no less than one repetition for “test,”
(2) no less than one repetition for “tamper,”
(3) no less than two repetitions for “fire.”
9.4.1.5 [1999 6-5.10]
The requirements of 9.4.2.1 shall apply to all publicly accessible fire service
boxes.
9.4.2.1.1 [1999 6-4.1]
Means for actuation of alarms by the public shall be located where they are
conspicuous and accessible for operation.
9.4.2.3.5 [1999 6-5.12.4]
The street box housing shall protect the internal components from the weather.
Where multifunction coded radio street boxes are used to transmit signals in
addition to those in 9.5.2.2 each such additional signal shall be individually
identifiable.
9.4.2.1.3 [1999 6-5.5]
9.4.2.3.6 [1999 6-5.12.5]
Doors on street boxes shall remain operable under adverse climatic conditions,
including icing and salt spray.
Multifunction coded radio street boxes shall be designed so as to prevent the
loss of supplemental or concurrently actuated messages.
9.4.2.1.4 [1999 6-5.6]
9.4.2.3.7 [1999 6-5.12.6]
Street boxes shall be recognizable as such, and shall have instructions for use
plainly marked on their exterior surfaces.
An actuating device held or locked in the activating position shall not prevent
the activation and transmission of other messages.
9.4.2.1.5 [1999 6-5.7]
9.4.2.3.8 [1999 6-5.12.7.1]
Street boxes shall be securely mounted on poles, pedestals, or structural
surfaces as directed by the authority having jurisdiction.
9.4.2.1.6 [1999 6-6.1]
The location of publicly accessible boxes shall be designated by the authority
having jurisdiction.
The primary power source for coded radio street boxes shall be permitted to
be from one or more or the following as approved by the authority having
jurisdiction
(1) a utility distribution system
(2) a photovoltaic power system
(3) user power
(4) self-powered using either an integral battery or other stored energy source
9.4.2.1.2 [1999 6-5.4]
9.4.2.1.7 [1999 6-6.2]
Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of public assembly shall
have a box located at the main entrance, as directed by the authority having
jurisdiction.
9.4.2.3.9 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
9.4.2.1.11.1 [1999 6-5.11]
The street box shall be placed as close as is practicable to the point of entrance
of the circuit.
9.4.2.1.11.2 [1999 6-5.11]
The exterior wire shall be installed in conduit or electrical metallic tubing in
accordance with Chapter 3 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
Boxes powered by a utility distribution system shall comply with 9.4.2.3.9.1
through 9.4.2.3.9.6.
9.4.2.3.9.1
Boxes shall have an integral standby, sealed, rechargeable battery that is
capable of powering box functions for at least 60 hours in the event of primary
power failure. Transfer to standby battery power shall be automatic and
without interruption to box operation.
9.4.2.3.9.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
A local trouble indication shall activate upon primary power failure.
9.4.2.3.9.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
Boxes operating from primary power shall be capable of operation with a dead
or disconnected battery.
9.4.2.3.9.4 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
A battery charger shall be provided in compliance with 1-5.2.8.2 [1999],
except as modified in 9.4.2.3.9.
9.4.2.3.9.5 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
When the primary power has failed, boxes shall transmit a power failure
message to the public fire service communications center as part of subsequent
test messages until primary power is restored.
9.4.2.3.9.6 [1999 6-5.12.7.3]
A low-battery message shall be transmitted to the public fire service
communications center where the remaining battery standby time is less than
54 hours.
9.4.2.2 Coded Wired Street Boxes.
9.4.2.3.10 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]
The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply.
Boxes powered by a photovoltaic system shall comply with 9.4.2.3.10.1
through 9.4.2.3.10.5.
9.4.2.3.10.1
Photovoltaic power systems shall provide box operation for not less than
6 months.
9.4.2.3.10.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]
9.4.2.1.8 [1999 6-5.8]
Street boxes shall be conspicuously visible and be highlighted with a
distinctive color.
9.4.2.1.9 [1999 6-5.8] [ROP 72-404]
All publicly accessible boxes mounted on support poles shall be identified
by a wide band of distinctive colors or signs placed 2.44 m (8 ft) above the
ground and visible from all directions wherever possible.
9.4.2.1.10* [1999 6-5.9*]
Location-designating lights of distinctive color, visible for at least 460 m
(1500 ft) in all directions, shall be installed over street boxes. The street light
nearest the street box, where equipped with a distinctively colored light, shall
meet this requirement.
9.4.2.1.11 [1999 6-5.11] [ROP 72-405]
Street boxes installed inside a structure the installation shall comply with
9.4.2.1.11.1 and 9.4.2.1.11.2.
9.4.2.3 [1999 6-5.12] Coded Radio Street Boxes.
9.4.2.3.1 [1999 6-5.12.1]
Coded radio street boxes shall be designed and operated in compliance
with all applicable rules and regulations of the FCC, as well as with the
384
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Photovoltaic power systems shall be monitored for integrity.
9.4.2.3.10.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]
The battery shall have power to sustain operation for a minimum period of 15
days without recharging.
9.4.2.3.10.4 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]
The box shall transmit a trouble message to the public fire service
communications center when the charger has failed for more than 24 hours.
This message shall be part of all subsequent transmissions.
9.4.2.3.10.5 [1999 6-5.12.7.4]
Where the remaining battery standby duration is less than 10 days, a lowbattery message shall be transmitted to the public fire service communications
center.
9.4.2.3.11 [1999 6-5.12.7.5]
(2)
All conductors of the shunt circuit shall be installed in accordance
with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 346, for rigid conduit, or
Article 348, for electrical metallic tubing.
(3)
Both sides of the shunt circuit shall be in the same conduit.
(4)
Where a shunt loop is used, it shall not exceed a length of 230m
(750 ft) and shall be in conduit.
(5)
Conductors of the shunt circuits shall not be smaller than No. 14
AWG and shall be insulated as prescribed in NFPA 70, National Electrical
Code, Article 310.
(6)
The power for shunt-type systems shall be provided by the public
fire alarm reporting system.
(7)
* A local system made to an auxiliary system by the addition of
a relay whose coil is energized by a local power supply and whose normally
closed contacts trip a shunt-type master box shall not be permitted.
9.4.3.2.2 [1999 6-16.4.2]
User-powered boxes shall have an automatic self-test feature.
9.4.2.3.12
Self-powered boxes shall comply with 9.4.2.3.12.1 through 9.4.2.3.12.3.
The interface of the two types of auxiliary fire alarm systems with the three
types of public fire alarm reporting systems shall be in accordance with Table
9.4.3.2.2.
9.4.2.3.12.1 [1999 6-5.12.7.2] [ROP 72-406]
Self-powered boxes shall operate for a period of not less than 6 months.
9.4.2.3.12.2 [1999 6-5.12.7.2]
Self-powered boxes shall transmit a low power warning message to the public
fire service communications center for at least 15 days prior to the time the
power source will fail to operate the box. This message shall be part of all
subsequent transmissions.
9.4.2.3.12.3 [1999 6-5.12.7.2]
Use of a charger to extend the life of a self-powered box shall be permitted
where the charger does not interfere with box operation. The box shall be
capable of operation for not less than 6 months with the charger disconnected.
9.4.2.4 [1999 6-5.13] Telephone Street Boxes.
The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply.
9.4.2.4.1 [1999 6-5.13.1]
Where a handset is used, the caps on the transmitter and receiver shall be
secured to reduce the probability of the telephone street box being disabled
due to vandalism.
Table 9.4.3.2.2 Application of Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems with
Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems
Reporting
Systems
Local
Energy
Type
Shunt Type
Coded
wired
Yes
Yes
Coded
radio
Yes
No
Telephone
series
Yes
No
9.4.3.2.3 [1999 6-16.4.3]
The application of the two types of auxiliary fire alarm systems shall be
limited to the initiating devices specified in Table 9.4.3.2.3.
9.4.2.4.2 [1999 6-5.13.2]
Telephone street boxes shall be designed to allow the public fire service
communications center operator to determine whether or not the telephone
street box has been restored to normal condition after use.
Table 9.4.3.2.3 Application of Initiating Device with Auxiliary Fire Alarm
Systems
[1999 6-6 relocated to 9.5.1.7 ]
9.4.3 [1999 6-16] Auxiliary Fire Alarm Systems.
9.4.3.1 Application.
The equipment and circuits necessary to connect a protected premises to a
public fire alarm reporting system shall comply with the requirements of 9.4.3.
9.4.3.1.1 [1999 6-16]
The requirements of Chapter 5 in addition to those of Chapters 4 and 10
shall apply to auxiliary fire alarm systems, unless they conflict with the
requirements of Section 9.4.3.
9.4.3.1.2 [1999 6-16]
Where permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, the use of systems
described in Chapter 9 shall be permitted to provide defined reporting
functions from or within private premises.
9.4.3.1.3
The requirements of 9.7 shall also apply to coded wired auxiliary fire
systems.
9.4.3.2 [6-16.4] Types of Systems.
Initiating
Devices
Local Energy
Type
Shunt Type
Manual fire
alarm
Yes
Yes
Waterflow
or actuation
of the fire
extinguishing
system(s) or
suppression
system(s)
Yes
Yes
Automatic
detection
devices
Yes
No
9.4.3.2.1 [1999 6-16.4.1] [ROP 72-400a]
Auxiliary fire alarm systems shall be of the following two types.
(a) * Local Energy Type.
(1)
Local energy systems shall be permitted to be of the coded or
noncoded type.
(2)
Power supply sources for local energy systems shall conform to
Chapter 4.
(3) Transmitter trouble signals shall be annunciated at the fire command
center.
(b) * Shunt Type.
(1)
Shunt systems shall be noncoded with respect to any remote
electrical tripping or actuating devices.
9.4.3.3 System Arrangement and Operation.
9.4.3.3.1 [1999 6-16.4.4.1]
Shunt-type auxiliary systems shall be arranged so that one auxiliary
transmitter does not serve more than 9290 m2 (100,000 ft2 ) total area.
Exception: Where otherwise permitted by the authority having jurisdiction.
9.4.3.3.2 [1999 6-16.4.4.2]
A separate auxiliary transmitter shall be provided for each building, or where
permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, for each group of buildings of
single ownership or occupancy.
385
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
9.4.3.3.3 [1999 6-16.4.4.3]
The same box shall be permitted to be used as a public fire alarm reporting
system box and as a transmitting device for an auxiliary system where
permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, provided that the box is located
at the outside of the entrance to the protected property.
9.4.3.3.4 [1999 6-16.4.4.3]
Where 9.4.3.3.3 is applied, the fire department shall be permitted to require
the box to be equipped with a signal light to differentiate between automatic
and manual operation, unless local outside alarms at the protected property
serve the same purpose.
9.4.3.3.5 [1999 6-16.4.4.4]
are met:
(1) Approved facilities are provided for the automatic receipt, storage,
retrieval, and retransmission of alarms in the order received.
(2) The operator(s) of the dispatch facility shall have the capability to
immediately over ride the automatic retransmission and revert to manual
retransmission.
9.5.1.2 [1999 6-11.2] Visual Recording Devices.
9.5.1.2.1 1999 6-11.1.1]
Alarms from boxes shall be automatically received and recorded at the public
fire service communications center.
9.5.1.2.2 [1999 6-11.2.1]
The transmitting device shall be located as required by the authority having
jurisdiction.
A device for producing a permanent graphic recording of all alarm,
supervisory, trouble, and test signals received or retransmitted, or both, shall
be provided at each public fire service communications center for each alarm
circuit and tie circuit.
9.5.1.2.3
Reserve recording devices shall be provided in accordance with 9.5.1.2.3.1
and 9.5.1.2.3.2.
9.5.1.2.3.1 [1999 6-11.2.1] [ROP 72-400a]
Where each circuit is served by a dedicated recording device, the number of
reserve recording devices required on site shall be equal to at least 5 percent
of the circuits in service and in no case less than 1 device.
9.5.1.2.3.2 [1999 6-11.2.1]
Where two or more circuits are served by a common recording device, a
reserve recording device shall be provided on site for each circuit connected to
a common recorder.
9.4.3.3.6 [1999 6-16.4.4.5]
The system shall be designed and arranged so that a single fault on the
auxiliary system shall not jeopardize operation of the public fire alarm
reporting system and shall not, in case of a single fault on either the auxiliary
or public fire alarm reporting system, transmit a false alarm on either system.
Exception: Shunt systems complying with 9.4.3.2.1(b).
9.4.3.3.7 [6-14.2]
A means that is available only to the agency responsible for maintaining the
public fire alarm reporting system shall be provided for disconnecting the
auxiliary loop to the connected property.
9.4.3.3.8 [6-14.2]
Notification shall be given to the designated representative of the property
when the auxiliary box is not in service.
9.5.1.2.4 [1999 6-11.2.2]
9.4.3.3.9 [1999 6-16.2.1]
In a Type B wire system, one such recording device shall be installed in
each fire station and at least one shall be installed in the public fire service
communications center.
An auxiliary fire alarm system shall be used only in connection with a
public fire alarm reporting system that is approved for the service. A system
approved by the authority having jurisdiction shall meet this requirement.
9.5.1.2.5 [1999 6-11.1.2]
9.4.3.3.10 [1999 6-16.2.2]
Permission for the connection of an auxiliary fire alarm system to a public fire
alarm reporting system, and acceptance of the type of auxiliary transmitter and
its actuating mechanism, circuits, and components connected thereto, shall be
obtained from the authority having jurisdiction.
[1999 6-16.2.3 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]
9.4.3.3.11 [1999 6-16.2.4]
A permanent visual record and an audible signal shall be required to indicate
the receipt of an alarm. The permanent record shall indicate the exact location
from which the alarm is being transmitted.
9.5.1.2.6 [1999 6-11.1.2]
The audible signal device shall be permitted to be common to two or more
box circuits and arranged so that the fire alarm operator is able to manually
silence the signal temporarily by a self-restoring switch.
Section 9.4.3 shall not require the use of audible alarm signals other than
those necessary to operate the auxiliary fire alarm system. Where it is desired
to provide fire alarm evacuation signals in the protected property, the alarms,
circuits, and controls shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 in addition
to the provisions of Section 9.4.3.
9.4.3.3.12 [ROP 72-421]
Multi-zone auxiliary fire alarm systems shall provide a means for transmitting
an alarm to the public reporting system upon the subsequent actuation of
initiating devices on other initiating device circuits or subsequent actuation of
addressable initiating devices.
9.4.3.3.13 [1999 6-16.4.1(b)(4)] [ROP 72-400a]
Where an auxiliary transmitter is located within a private premises, it shall be
installed in accordance with 9.4.2.1.11 and 9.7.2.
9.5.1.2.7 [1999 6-11.1.3]
[1999 6-16.7 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]
The power supplied to all required circuits and devices of the system shall be
constantly monitored for integrity.
9.4.4 Master Boxes
Facilities shall be provided that automatically record the date and time of
receipt of each alarm.
Exception: Only the time shall be required to be automatically recorded for
voice recordings.
9.5.1.3 [1999 6-11.3] System Integrity.
9.5.1.3.1 [1999 6-11.3.1]
Wired circuits upon which transmission and receipt of alarms depend, shall
be constantly monitored for integrity to provide prompt warning of conditions
adversely affecting reliability.
9.5.1.3.2 [1999 6-11.3.2]
9.5.1.4 [6-11.4] Trouble Signals.
Master boxes shall comply with the requirements of 9.4.1 through 9.4.3.
9.5.1.4.1 [1999 6-11.4.1] [ROP 72-400a]
9.5 Alarm Receiving Equipment at Public Fire Service Communications
Center.
Trouble signals shall be indicated where there is a trained and competent
person on duty at all times.
9.5.1 [1999 6-11.1] General.
9.5.1.4.2 [1999 6-11.4.2] [ROP 72-400a]
The requirements of 9.5.1 shall apply to all alarm receiving equipment.
Trouble signals shall be distinct from alarm signals and shall be indicated by a
visual and audible signal.
9.5.1.1 Type A and Type B Systems
9.5.1.1.1
Alarm systems shall be Type A or Type B.
9.5.1.1.2 [1999 6-2.3]
A Type A system shall be provided where the number of all alarms required to
be retransmitted exceeds 2500 per year.
9.5.1.1.3 [1999 6-2.3.1]
9.5.1.4.3 [1999 6-11.4.3]
The audible signal shall be permitted to be common to more than one circuit
that is monitored for integrity.
9.5.1.4.4 [1999 6-11.4.4]
A switch for silencing the audible trouble signal shall be permitted, provided
the visual signal remains operating until the silencing switch is restored to its
normal position.
9.5.1.4.5 [1999 6-11.4.5]
Where a Type A system is required, the automatic electronic retransmission
of incoming alarms shall be permitted provided both the following conditions
386
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
The audible signal shall be responsive to faults on any other circuits that occur
prior to restoration of the silencing switch to its normal position.
9.5.1.7 [1999 6-7.3] Engine-Driven Generators.
The forms and arrangements for Public Fire Reporting Systems power
supplies shall comply with 9.5.1.5.1 through 9.5.1.5.8.
The installation of engine-driven generator sets shall conform to the
provisions of NFPA 37, Standard for the Installation and Use of Stationary
Combustion Engines and Gas Turbines, NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency
and Standby Power System and NFPA 1221, Emergency Services
Communications Systems.
9.5.1.5.1 [1999 6-7.1.8]
9.5.1.8 [1999 6-7.4] Float-Charged Batteries.
Each box circuit or coded radio receiving system shall be served by the
following:
(1)
* Form 4A. An inverter, powered from a common rectifier,
receiving power by a single source of alternating current with a floating
storage battery having a 24-hour standby capacity.
(2)
* Form 4B. An inverter, powered from a common rectifier,
receiving power from two sources of alternating current with a floating storage
battery having a 4-hour standby capacity.
(3)
* Form 4C. A rectifier, converter, or motor-generator receiving
power from two sources of alternating current with transfer facilities to apply
power from the secondary source to the system within 30 seconds.
9.5.1.8.1 [1999 6-7.4.1]
9.5.1.5 [1999 6-7] Power Supply. [ROP 72-407]
9.5.1.5.2 [1999 6-7.1.8.2]
Float-charged batteries shall be of the storage type. Primary batteries (dry
cells) shall not be used. Lead-acid batteries shall be in jars of glass or other
approved transparent materials; other types of batteries shall be in containers
approved for the purpose.
9.5.1.8.2 [1999 6-7.4.2]
Float-charged batteries shall be located on the same floor of the building as the
operating equipment and shall be available for maintenance and inspection.
The battery room shall be above ground and shall be ventilated to prevent
accumulation of explosive gas mixtures; special ventilation shall be required
only for unsealed cells.
9.5.1.8.3 [1999 6-7.4.3]
Form 4A and Form 4B shall be permitted to distribute the system load
between two or more common rectifiers and batteries.
9.5.1.5.3 [1999 6-7.1.1]
Batteries, motor-generators, or rectifiers shall be able to supply all connected
circuits without exceeding the capacity of any battery or overloading any
generator or rectifier, so that circuits developing grounds or crosses with other
circuits each shall be able to be supplied by an independent source to the
extent required by 9.5.1.5.1.
9.5.1.5.4 [1999 6-7.1.2]
Provision shall be made for supplying any circuit from any battery, generator,
or rectifier.
9.5.1.5.5 [1999 6-7.1.2]
Enclosed fuses shall be provided at points where supplies for individual
circuits are taken from common leads.
Batteries shall be mounted to provide effective insulation from the ground and
from other batteries.
9.5.1.8.4 [1999 6-7.4.3] [ROP 72-409]
Battery mounting shall be protected against deterioration, and shall provide
stability, especially in geographic areas subject to seismic disturbance.
9.5.1.9 [1999 6-2.4] Equipment Fire Protection.
Where applicable, electronic computer/data processing equipment shall
be protected in accordance with NFPA 75, Standard for the Protection of
Electronic Computer/Data Processing Equipment.
9.5.2 [1999 6-13] Coded Wired Reporting Systems.
9.5.2.1 System Arrangement and Operation.
9.5.2.1.1 [1999 6-13.1]
9.5.1.5.6 [1999 6-7.1.4]
Local circuits at public fire service communications centers shall be supplied
in accordance with 9.5.1.5.6.1 and 9.5.1.5.6.2.
9.5.1.5.6.1 [1999 6-7.1.4]
The source of power for local circuits required to operate the essential features
of the system shall be monitored for integrity.
9.5.1.5.6.2 [1999 6-7.1.4]
Local circuits at public fire service communications centers shall be supplied
either in common with box circuits or coded radio-receiving system circuits
or by a separate power source.
9.5.1.5.7 [1999 6-7.1.5]
Visual and audible means to indicate a 15 percent or greater reduction of
normal power supply (rated voltage) shall be provided.
For a Type B system, the effectiveness of noninterference and succession
functions between box circuits shall be no less than between boxes in any one
circuit.
9.5.2.1.2 [1999 6-13.1]
The disablement of any metallic box circuit shall cause a warning signal in all
other circuits, and, thereafter, the circuit or circuits not otherwise broken shall
be automatically restored to operative condition.
9.5.2.1.3 [1999 6-13.2]
Box circuits shall be sufficient in number and laid out so that the areas that
would be left without box protection in case of disruption of a circuit do not
exceed those covered by 20 properly spaced boxes where all or any part of the
circuit is of aerial open-wire, or 30 properly spaced boxes where the circuit is
entirely in underground or messenger-supported cable.
9.5.2.1.4 [1999 6-13.3]
9.5.1.5.8 [1999 6-7.1.6] [ROP 72-408]
Where all boxes on any individual circuit and associated equipment are
designed and installed to provide for receipt of alarms through the ground
in the event of a break in the circuit, the circuit shall be permitted to serve
twice the number of aerial open-wire and cable circuits, respectively, as are
specified in 9.5.2.1.3.
Where the electrical service/capacity of the equipment required under
2-7 of NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use
of Emergency Services Communications Systems, satisfies the needs
of equipment in this chapter, such equipment shall not be required to be
duplicated.
9.5.2.1.5 [1999 6-13.4] [ROP 72-415]
[1999 6-7.1.7 deleted]
The installation of additional boxes in an area served by the number of
boxes spaced as indicated in 9.5.2.1.1 through 9.5.2.1.4 shall not constitute
geographical overloading of a circuit.
9.5.1.6 [1999 6-7.2] Rectifiers, Converters, Inverters, and MotorGenerators.
9.5.2.1.6 [1999 6-13.5]
9.5.1.6.1 [1999 6-7.2.1]
Sounding devices for signals shall be provided for box circuits.
Rectifiers shall be supplied through an isolating transformer that takes energy
from a circuit not to exceed 250 volts.
9.5.2.1.6.1 [1999 6-13.5.1]
Complete spare units or spare parts shall be in reserve.
A common sounding device for more than one circuit shall be permitted to
be used in a Type A system and shall be installed at the public fire service
communications center.
9.5.1.6.3 [6-7.2.3]
9.5.2.1.6.2 [1999 6-13.5.2]
One spare rectifier shall be provided for every 10 operating rectifiers on a
system. No system shall have less than one spare.
In a Type B system, a sounding device shall be installed in each fire station
at the same location as the recording device for that circuit, unless installed
at the public fire service communications center, where a common sounding
device shall be permitted.
9.5.1.6.2 [1999 6-7.2.2]
9.5.1.6.4 [1999 6-7.2.4]
Leads from rectifiers or motor-generators, with storage battery floating, shall
have fuses rated at not less than 1 ampere and not more than 200 percent of
maximum connected load. Where not provided with battery floating, the fuse
shall be not less than 3 amperes.
387
9.5.2.2 [1999 6-10] Constant-Current (100 milliampere) Systems
Constant-current systems shall comply with the requirements of 9.5.2.2.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
9.5.2.2.1 [1999 6-10.1.1]
Test signals from boxes shall not be required to include the date as part of
their permanent recording, provided that the date is automatically printed on
the recording tape at the beginning of each calendar day.
Means shall be provided for manually regulating the current in box circuits
so that the operating current is maintained within 10 percent of normal
throughout changes in external circuit resistance from 20 percent above to 50
percent below normal.
9.5.3.1.2 [1999 6-14.3.2]
Type B systems shall comply with 9.5.3.1.2.1 and 9.5.3.1.2.2.
9.5.2.2.2 [1999 6-10.1.2]
9.5.3.1.2.1 [1999 6-14.3.2.1]
The voltage supplied to maintain normal line current on box circuits shall not
exceed 150 volts, measured under no-load conditions, and shall be such that
the line current cannot be reduced below the approved operating value by the
simultaneous operation of four boxes.
For each frequency used, a single, complete receiving network shall be
permitted in each fire station, provided the public fire service communications
center conforms to 9.5.3.1.1.1 through 9.5.3.1.1.3. Where the jurisdiction
maintains two or more alarm reception points in operation, one receiving
network shall be permitted to be at each alarm reception point.
9.5.2.2.3 [1999 6-10.1.3]
Visual and audible means to indicate a 20 percent or greater reduction in the
normal current in any alarm circuit shall be provided.
9.5.2.2.4 [1999 6-10.1.3]
All devices connected in series with any alarm circuit shall function when the
alarm circuit current is reduced to 70 percent of normal.
9.5.3.1.2.2 [1999 6-14.3.2.2]
Where alarm signals are transmitted to a fire station from the public fire
service communications center using the coded radio-type receiving
equipment in the fire station to receive and record the alarm message, a second
receiving network conforming to 9.5.3.1.2.1 shall be provided at each fire
station, and that receiving network shall employ a frequency other than that
used for the receipt of box messages.
9.5.2.2.5 [1999 6-10.1.4]
Meters shall be provided to indicate the current in any box circuit and the
voltage of any power source. Meters used in common for two or more circuits
shall be provided with cut-in devices designed to reduce the probability of
cross-connecting circuits.
9.5.2.2.6 [1999 6-7.1.2]
Necessary switches, testing, and signal transmitting and receiving devices
shall be provided to allow the isolation, control, and test of each circuit up to
at least 10 percent of the total number of box and dispatch circuits, but never
less than two circuits.
9.5.3.1.3 [1999 6-11.2.1]
A device for producing a permanent graphic recording of all alarm,
supervisory, trouble, and test signals received or retransmitted, or both, shall
be provided at the public fire service communications center.
9.5.3.1.4 [1999 6-14.1.2]
Where box message signals to the public fire service communications center
or acknowledgment of message receipt signals from the public fire service
communications center to the box are repeated, associated repeating facilities
shall conform to the requirements indicated in 7-1.1.4(d) of NFPA 1221,
Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services
Communications Systems.
9.5.2.3 [1999 6-7.1.3] Grounded Common Current Systems
Where common-current source systems are grounded, the requirements of
9.5.2.3.1 and 9.5.2.3.2 shall apply.
9.5.2.3.1 [1999 6-7.1.3]
Where common-current source systems are grounded, the ground shall not
exceed 10 percent of resistance of any connected circuit and shall be located
at one side of the battery.
9.5.2.3.2 [1999 6-7.1.3]
Visual and audible indicating devices shall be provided for each box and
dispatch circuit to give immediate warning of ground leakage endangering
operability.
9.5.3.2 [1999 6-14.1] Radio Box Channel (Frequency).
9.5.3.2.1 [1999 6-14.1.1]
The number of boxes permitted on a single frequency shall be governed by the
following.
(1)
For systems that use one-way transmission in which the individual
box automatically initiates the required message (refer to 9.5.3.4.3) using
circuitry integral to the boxes, not more than 500 boxes shall be permitted on
a single frequency.
(2)
For systems that use a two-way concept in which interrogation
signals (refer to 9.5.3.4.3) are transmitted to the individual boxes from the
public fire service communications center on the same frequency used for
receipt of alarms, not more than 250 boxes shall be permitted on a single
frequency. Where interrogation signals are transmitted on a frequency that
differs from that used for receipt of alarms, not more than 500 boxes shall be
permitted on a single frequency.
(3)
A specific frequency shall be designated for both fire and other
fire-related or public safety alarm signals and for monitoring for integrity
signals.
9.5.3 [1999 6-14] Coded Radio Reporting Systems.
9.5.3.1 System Arrangement and Operation.
9.5.3.1.1 [1999 6-14.3.1]
Type A systems shall comply with 9.5.3.1.1.1 through 9.5.3.1.1.6.
9.5.3.1.1.1* [1999 6-14.3.1.1*] [ROP 72-400a]
Two separate receiving networks shall be required for each frequency. Each
network shall include the following:
(1) antenna
(2) RF receiver
(3) signaling processing equipment
(4) time/date alarm printer
(5) audible alerting device
(6) power supply
9.5.3.1.1.2 [1999 6-14.3.1.1] [ROP 72-400a]
Both receiving networks shall be installed at the public fire service
communications center.
9.5.3.1.1.3 [1999 6-14.3.1.1] [ROP 72-400a]
Failure of either receiving network shall not affect the receipt of messages
from boxes.
9.5.3.3 [1999 6-14.4] Power.
Power shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.5.1.5.
[1999 6-14.5 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]
9.5.3.4 [1999 6-14.6] Monitoring for Integrity.
9.5.3.4.1 [1999 6-14.6.1]
All coded radio box systems shall provide constant monitoring of the
frequency in use. Both an audible and a visual indication of any sustained
carrier signal, where in excess of 15-second duration, shall be provided for
each receiving system at the public fire service communications center.
9.5.3.4.2 [1999 6-14.6.2]
The power supplied to all required circuits and devices of the system shall be
monitored for integrity.
9.5.3.1.1.4 [1999 6-14.3.1.2] [ROP 72-400a]
9.5.3.4.3* [1999 6-14.6.3*]
Where the system configuration is such that a polling device is incorporated
into the receiving network to allow remote or selective initiation of box tests,
a separate such device shall be included in each of the two required receiving
networks.
9.5.3.1.1.5 [1999 6-14.3.1.2]
The polling devices shall be configured for automatic cycle initiation in their
primary operating mode, shall be capable of continuous self-monitoring, and
shall be integrated into the network(s) to provide automatic switchover and
operational continuity in the event of failure of either device.
Each coded radio box shall automatically transmit a test message at least once
in each 24-hour period.
9.5.3.4.4 [1999 6-14.6.4]
Receiving equipment associated with coded radio-type systems, including any
related repeater(s), shall be tested at least hourly. The receipt of test messages
that do not exceed 60-minute intervals shall meet this requirement.
9.5.3.4.5 [1999 6-14.6.5]
Radio repeaters upon which receipt of alarms depend shall be provided
with dual receivers, transmitters, and power supplies. Failure of the primary
9.5.3.1.1.6 [1999 6-14.3.1.3]
388
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
receiver, transmitter, or power supply shall cause an automatic switchover to
the secondary receiver, transmitter, or power supply.
Exception: Manual switchover shall be permitted provided it is completed
within 30 seconds.
All equipment used to provide the primary and remote receiving facilities
shall be listed for its intended use and shall be installed in accordance with
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
9.5.3.4.6 [1999 6-14.6.6] [ROP 72-400a]
The monitoring for integrity of all box circuits shall be provided with a visual
and audible means to indicate a 20 percent or greater reduction or increase in
the normal current in any box alarm circuit. The visual means shall identify
the exact circuit affected.
9.6.2 [1999 6-12.1]
Trouble signals shall actuate a sounding device located where there is always
a trained and competent person on duty.
9.5.3.4.7 [1999 6-14.6.7] [ROP 72-400a]
9.6.3 [1999 6-12.2]
Trouble signals shall be distinct from alarm signals and shall be indicated by a
visual and audible signal.
9.5.3.4.7.1 [1999 6-14.6.7]
The audible signal shall be permitted to be common to two or more monitored
circuits.
9.5.3.4.7.2 [1999 6-14.6.7]
A switch for silencing the audible trouble signal shall be permitted where the
visual signal remains operating until the silencing switch is restored to its
normal position.
Monitoring for integrity of all power supplies shall be provided with
visual and audible means to indicate a loss of primary or standby power
supplies at both the public fire service communications center and remote
communications center.
9.6.4 [1999 6-12.3]
A minimum of two separate means of interconnection shall be provided
between the public fire service communications center and remote
communications center receiving equipment. This interconnection shall be
dedicated and shall not be used for any other purpose.
9.5.3.4.8 [1999 6-14.6.8]
9.6.5 [1999 6-12.4]
The audible signal shall be responsive to subsequent faults in other monitored
functions prior to restoration of the silencing switch.
When data transmission or multiplexing equipment is used that is not an
integral part of the alarm-receiving equipment, a visual and audible means
shall be provided to monitor the integrity of the external equipment. This shall
include monitoring all primary and stand-by power supplies as well as the
transmission of data.
9.6.6 [1999 6-12.5]
Power shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.5.1.5.
9.6.7 [1999 6-12.5]
The use of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to comply with standby
power requirements shall not be permitted.
9.5.3.5 [1999 6-14.3] Physical Protection of Transmission Line. [ROP 72417]
The antenna transmission line between the transmitter and the antenna shall
be installed in rigid metal, intermediate metal conduit, or electrical metallic
tubing in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
9.5.4 [1999 6-15] Telephone (Series) Reporting Systems.
9.5.4.1 [1999 6-15.1]
Recording devices shall be provided in accordance with 9.5.4.1.1 and
9.5.4.1.2.
9.5.4.1.1 [1999 6-15.1]
A permanent visual recording device installed in the public fire service
communications center shall be provided to record all incoming box signals.
9.5.4.1.2 [1999 6-15.1]
A spare recording device shall be provided for five or more box circuits.
9.6.8 [1999 6-9.1.3]
9.5.4.2 [1999 6-15.2]
The tie circuit between the public fire service communications center and the
subsidiary public fire service communications center shall not be used for any
other purpose.
Tie circuits shall be provided in accordance with 9.6.8.1 through 9.6.8.3.
9.6.8.1 [1999 6-9.1.3.1]
A separate tie circuit shall be provided from the public fire service
communications center to each subsidiary communications center.
9.6.8.2 [1999 6-9.1.3.2]
A second visual means of identifying the calling box shall be provided.
9.5.4.3 [1999 6-15.3]
9.6.8.3 [1999 6-9.1.3.3]
Audible signals shall indicate all incoming calls from box circuits.
9.5.4.4 [1999 6-15.4]
All voice transmissions from boxes for emergencies shall be recorded with the
capability of instant playback.
9.5.4.5 [1999 6-15.5]
In a Type B wire system, where all boxes in the system are of the succession
type, it shall be permitted to use the tie circuit as a dispatch circuit to the
extent permitted by NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance,
and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems.
9.7 Public Cable Plant
Cabling systems and interconnections between alarm transmission equipment
and alarm receiving equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section
9.7.
A voice recording facility shall be provided for each operator handling
incoming alarms to eliminate the possibility of interference.
9.5.4.6 [1999 6-15.6]
Box circuits shall be sufficient in number and laid out so that the areas that
would be left without box protection in case of disruption of a circuit do not
exceed those covered by 20 properly spaced boxes where all or any part of the
circuit is of aerial open-wire, or 30 properly spaced boxes where the circuit is
entirely in underground or messenger-supported cable.
9.7.1 [1999 6-8] Requirements for Metallic Systems and Metallic
Interconnections.
9.7.1.1 [1999 6-8.1] Circuit Conductors.
9.7.1.1.1 [1999 6-8.1.3]
Exterior cable and wire shall conform to International Municipal Signal
Association (IMSA) specifications or an approved equivalent.
Exception: Where circuit conductors are provided by a public utility on a
lease basis, IMSA specifications shall not apply.
9.5.4.7 [1999 6-15.7]
Where all boxes on any individual circuit and associated equipment are
designed and installed to provide for receipt of alarms through the ground in
the event of a break in the circuit, the circuit shall be permitted to serve twice
the number of aerial open-wire and cable circuits, respectively, as is specified
in 9.5.4.6.
9.7.1.1.2 [1999 6-8.1.4]
Where a public box is installed inside a building, the circuit from the point of
entrance to the public box shall be installed in rigid metal, intermediate metal
conduit, or electrical metallic tubing in accordance with NFPA 70, National
Electrical Code.
9.5.4.8 [1999 6-15.8] [ROP 72-418]
The installation of additional boxes in an area served by the number of boxes
spaced as indicated in 9.5.4.6 shall not constitute geographical overloading of
a circuit.
9.6 [1999 6-12] Remote Receiving Equipment — Facilities for Receipt of
Box Alarms at a Remote Communications Center.
When the alarm receiving equipment is located at a location other than where
the box circuit protection, controls, and power supplies are located, the
following requirements, in addition to all of the requirements of Section 9.5,
shall apply.
9.6.1 [1999 6-12]
Exception: This requirement shall not apply to coded radio box systems.
9.7.1.1.3 [1999 6-8.1.1]
Wires shall be terminated so as to prevent breaking from vibration or stress.
9.7.1.1.4 [1999 6-8.1.2] [ROP 72-410]
Circuit conductors on terminal racks shall be identified and isolated from
conductors of other systems wherever possible and shall be protected from
389
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
mechanical injury.
9.7.1.2 [1999 6-8.2] Cables.
The requirements of 9.7.1.2 shall apply to 9.7.1.2, 9.7.1.3, 9.7.1.4, 9.7.1.5 and
9.7.1.6.
9.7.1.2.1 [1999 6-8.2.1.1]
Exterior cable and wire shall conform to IMSA specifications or an approved
equivalent.
9.7.1.2.2 [1999 6-8.2.1.1.1]
Overhead, underground, or direct burial cables shall be specifically approved
for the purpose.
under sidewalks, or in other places where the ground is not likely to be opened
for other underground construction.
9.7.1.3.7.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]
Where splices are made, such splices shall be accessible for inspection and
tests.
9.7.1.3.7.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]
Such cables shall be buried at least 500 mm (18 in) deep and, where crossing
streets or other areas likely to be opened for other underground construction,
shall be in duct or conduit or be covered by creosoted planking of at least
50 mm × 100 mm (2 in. × 4 in.) with half-round grooves, spiked or banded
together after the cable is installed.
9.7.1.4 [1999 6-8.2.3] Aerial Construction.
9.7.1.2.3 [1999 6-8.2.1.1.2]
9.7.1.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.3.1]
Cables used in interior installations shall comply with NFPA 70, National
Electrical Code.
Fire alarm wires shall be run under all other wires except communications
wires.
9.7.1.4.1.1 [1999 6-8.2.3.1] [ROP 72-412]
Precautions shall be provided where passing through trees, under bridges, over
railroads, and at other places where injury or deterioration is possible.
9.7.1.4.1.2 [1999 6-8.2.3.1]
Wires and cables shall not be attached to a crossarm that carries electric
light and power wires, except circuits carrying up to 220 volts for public
communications use, and then only where the 220-volt circuits are tagged or
otherwise identified.
[1999 6-8.2.1.2, 6-8.2.1.2.1 and 6-8.2.1.3 deleted] [ROP 72-400a] [ROP
72-411]
9.7.1.2.4 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]
The combination of other signal wires in the same cable with fire alarm wires
shall comply with 9.7.1.2.4.1 and 9.7.1.2.4.2.
9.7.1.2.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]
Other municipally controlled signal wires shall be permitted to be installed in
the same cable with fire alarm wires.
9.7.1.2.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.1.4]
Cables controlled by or containing wires of private signaling organizations
shall be permitted to be used for fire alarm purposes only by permission of the
authority having jurisdiction.
9.7.1.2.5 [1999 6-8.2.1.5]
Signaling wires that are able to introduce a hazard, because of the source
of current supply, shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 70, National
Electrical Code.
9.7.1.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.3.2]
Aerial cable shall be supported by messenger wire of approved tensile
strength.
Exception: Two-conductor cable that has conductors of No. 20 AWG or
larger size and has mechanical strength equal to No. 10 AWG hard-drawn
copper.
9.7.1.4.3 [6-8.2.3.3]
Single wire shall meet IMSA specifications and shall not be smaller than No.
10 Roebling gauge if of galvanized iron or steel, No. 10 AWG if of harddrawn copper, No. 12 AWG if of approved copper-covered steel, or No. 6
AWG if of aluminum. Span lengths shall not exceed the manufacturer’s
recommendations.
9.7.1.2.6 [1999 6-8.2.1.6]
All cables with all taps and splices made shall be tested for insulation
resistance when installed, but before connection to terminals. Such tests shall
indicate an insulation resistance of at least 200 megohms per mile between
any one conductor and all other conductors, the sheath, and the ground.
9.7.1.4.4 [1999 6-8.2.3.4] [ROP 72-413]
Wires to buildings shall contact only intended supports and shall enter through
an approved weatherhead or sleeves slanting upward and inward. Drip loops
shall be formed on wires outside of buildings.
9.7.1.3 [1999 6-8.2.2] Underground Cables.
9.7.1.3.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.1]
Underground cables in duct or direct burial shall be brought aboveground
only at points where liability of mechanical injury or of disablement from heat
incidental to fires in adjacent buildings is minimized.
9.7.1.3.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.2]
Cables shall be permitted in duct systems and manholes containing lowtension fire alarm system conductors only, except low-tension secondary
power cables shall be permitted.
9.7.1.3.3 [1999 6-8.2.2.2]
Where in duct systems or manholes that contain power circuit conductors
in excess of 250 volts to ground, fire alarm cables shall be located as far
as possible from such power cables and shall be separated from them by a
noncombustible barrier or by such other means as is practicable to protect the
fire alarm cables from injury.
9.7.1.5 [1999 6-8.2.4] Leads Down Poles.
9.7.1.5.1 [1999 6-8.2.4.1]
Leads down poles shall be protected against mechanical injury. Any metallic
covering shall form a continuous conducting path to ground. Installation, in all
cases, shall prevent water from entering the conduit or box.
9.7.1.5.2 [1999 6-8.2.4.2]
Leads to boxes shall have 600-volt insulation approved for wet locations, as
defined in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
9.7.1.6 [1999 6-8.2.5] Wiring Inside Buildings.
9.7.1.6.1 [1999 6-8.2.5.1]
All cables installed in manholes shall be racked and marked for identification.
At the public fire service communications center, conductors shall extend as
directly as possible to the operating room in conduits, ducts, shafts, raceways,
or overhead racks and troughs of a type of construction affording protection
against fire and mechanical injury.
9.7.1.3.5 [1999 6-8.2.2.4]
9.7.1.6.2 [1999 6-8.2.5.2] [ROP 72-400a]
All conduits or ducts entering buildings from underground duct systems shall
be effectively sealed against moisture or gases entering the building.
All conductors inside buildings shall be installed in nonflexible raceways as
covered in Chapter 3 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
9.7.1.3.6 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]
9.7.1.6.3 [1999 6-8.2.5.3]
Cable joints shall be located only in manholes, fire stations, and other
locations where accessibility is provided and where there is little liability of
injury to the cable due to either falling walls or operations in the buildings.
9.7.1.3.6.1 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]
Cable joints shall be made to provide and maintain conductivity, insulation,
and protection at least equal to that afforded by the cables that are joined.
9.7.1.3.6.2 [1999 6-8.2.2.5]
Open cable ends shall be sealed against moisture.
Conductors shall have an approved insulation. The insulation or other outer
covering shall be flame retardant and moisture resistant.
9.7.1.3.4 [1999 6-8.2.2.3]
9.7.1.6.4 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]
Conductors shall be installed as far as possible without splices or joints.
Splices or joints shall be permitted only in listed junction or terminal boxes.
9.7.1.6.4.1 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]
Fire alarm circuits shall be identified by the use of red covers or doors. The
words “public fire alarm circuit” shall be clearly marked on all terminal and
junction locations to prevent unintentional interference.
9.7.1.6.4.2 [1999 6-8.2.5.4]
Wire terminals, terminal boxes, splices, and joints shall conform to NFPA 70,
9.7.1.3.7 [1999 6-8.2.2.6]
Direct-burial cable, without enclosure in ducts, shall be laid in grass plots,
390
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
National Electrical Code.
rated over 2 amperes shall be of the enclosed type.
[1999 6-8.2.5.5 deleted] [ROP 72-400a]
9.7.3.5 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.5]
9.7.1.6.5 [1999 6-8.2.5.6]
Circuit protection required at the public fire service communications
center shall be provided in every building that houses public fire service
communications center equipment.
Cable and wiring exposed to a fire hazard shall be protected in an approved
manner.
9.7.3.6 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.6]
9.7.1.6.6 [1999 6-8.2.5.7]
Each conductor entering a fire station from partially or entirely aerial lines
shall be protected by a lightning arrester.
Cable terminals and cross-connecting facilities shall be located in or adjacent
to the operations room.
9.7.3.7 [1999 6-9.1.4.2.1]
9.7.1.6.7 [1999 6-8.2.5.8]
All conductors entering the public fire service communications center shall
be protected by the following devices, in the order named, starting from the
exterior circuit:
(1) A fuse rated at 3 amperes minimum to 7 amperes maximum and not less
than 2000 volts
(2) A surge arrester(s)
(3) A fuse or circuit breaker rated at 1/2 ampere
Where signal conductors and electric light and power wires are run in the
same shaft, they shall be separated by at least 51 mm (2 in.), or either system
shall be encased in a noncombustible enclosure.
9.7.2 [1999 6-9] Signal Transmission and Receiving Circuits.
Signal transmission and receiving circuits shall comply with the requirements
of 9.7.2.
9.7.3.8 [1999 6-9.1.4.2.2]
In regard to (g), the 1/2-ampere protection on the tie circuits shall be omitted
at subsidiary public fire service communications centers.
9.7.2.1 [1999 6-9.1.1] General.
9.7.2.1.1 [1999 6-9.1.1.1]
ANSI/IEEE C2, National Electrical Safety Code, shall be used as a guide for
the installation of outdoor circuitry.
9.7.3.9 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.1]
At junction points of open aerial conductors and cable, each conductor shall
be protected by a surge arrester(s) of the weatherproof type. There also shall
be a connection between the surge arrester ground, any metallic sheath, and
messenger wire.
9.7.2.1.2 [1999 6-9.1.1.2]
Installation shall provide for the following:
(1) Continuity of service
(2) Protection from mechanical damage
(3) Disablement from heat that is incidental to fire
(4) Protection from falling walls
(5) Damage by floods, corrosive vapors, or other causes
9.7.3.10 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.2]
Aerial open-wire and non-messenger-supported, two-conductor cable circuits
shall be protected by a surge arrester(s) at intervals not to exceed 610 m (2000
ft).
9.7.3.11 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.3]
9.7.2.1.3 [1999 6-9.1.1.3]
Where used for aerial construction, surge arresters, other than of the air-gap or
self-restoring type, shall not be installed in fire alarm circuits.
Open local circuits within single buildings shall be permitted in accordance
with Chapter 3 (1999)
9.7.3.12 [1999 6-9.1.4.3.4]
9.7.2.1.4 [1999 6-9.1.1.4]
All circuits shall be routed so as to allow tracing of circuits for trouble.
9.7.2.1.5 [1999 6-9.1.1.5]
Circuits shall not pass over, under, through, or be attached to buildings or
property not owned by or under the control of the authority having jurisdiction
or the agency responsible for maintaining the system.
Exception: Where the circuit is terminated at a public fire alarm reporting
system initiating device on the premises and where a means, approved by the
authority having jurisdiction, is provided to disconnect the circuit from the
building or property.
9.7.2.2 [1999 6-9.1.2] Box Circuits.
Interior box circuits shall comply with 9.7.2.2.1 and 9.7.2.2.2.
9.7.2.2.1 [1999 6-9.1.2]
A means provided only to the authority having jurisdiction or the agency
responsible for maintaining the public fire alarm reporting system shall be
provided for disconnecting the circuit inside the building.
9.7.2.2.2 [1999 6-9.1.2]
Definite notification shall be given to the designated building representative
when the interior box(es) is out of service.
9.7.3* [1999 6-9.1.4*] Circuit Protection.
Circuit protection shall be provided in accordance with 9.7.3.1 through
9.7.3.12.
All protective devices used for aerial construction shall be accessible for
maintenance and inspection.
SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 9 has been reorganized in accordance with
the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee in Comment 72-320.
These organizational changes are limited to those of an editorial nature. It
is expected that this reorganization effort will continue for the next cycle
and may include proposals for changes of a more technical nature. Also in
response to Comment 72-320, Section 9.1 has been revised to use the correct
terminology for Auxiliary Fire Alarm System.
The Committee recognizes that requirements regarding testing and
maintenance still reside (in part) in Chapter 9 and that these should be moved
to the Chapter on Testing and Maintenance. However, moving these rules
will require further development to prepare a comprehensive package for
relocation. A Task Group will be formed to complete this work for the next
cycle.
1999 Sections 6-16.5 and 6-16.6 have been deleted as a matter of correlation
because the requirements for operation and personnel at public fire service
communications centers are outside the jurisdiction of the Technical
Committee on Public Fire Alarm Reporting Systems. It is recommended that
the Technical Correlating Committee review this for concurrence as a proper
point of correlation.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher
————————————————-
(Log #93)
Committee: SIG-TMS
9.7.3.1 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.1]
72-322-(Chapter 7 [2002 Ed. Chapter 10]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter
Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts
the Committee Action concerning Section 10.1.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that a new Section 10.4.6
be added to the committee action of Comment 72-322 to correct an
omission in the transfer of information from Section 11.10.4 of Proposal
72-463 to read as follows:
“10.4.6 Battery Replacement.
Where batteries are used as a source of energy, they shall be replaced
in accordance with the recommendations of the alarm equipment
manufacturer.”
Renumber the subsequent sections accordingly.
The protective devices shall be located close to or be combined with the cable
terminals.
9.7.3.2 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.2]
Surge arresters approved for the purpose shall be provided and shall be
marked with the name of the manufacturer and model designation.
9.7.3.3 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.3]
All surge arresters shall be connected to a ground in accordance with NFPA
70, National Electrical Code.
9.7.3.4 [1999 6-9.1.4.1.4]
All fuses shall be plainly marked with their rated ampere capacity. All fuses
391
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for
smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements
from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire
alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made
(for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the
Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463.
The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes
(Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating
Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee rejects the text
proposed for Section 10.1. The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that Section 10.1 be rewritten to correlate with the Technical Correlating
Committee direction concerning the relocation of all testing and maintenance
requirements from the chapter on single- and multiple station alarms and
household fire alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Make the following changes in the recommendation of Proposal 72-422a:
Revise 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 to read as follows:
10.1.1 The inspection, testing and maintenance of fire alarm systems,
their initiating devices and notification appliances shall comply with the
requirements of this chapter.
10.1.2 The inspection, testing and maintenance of single- and multiplestation smoke and heat alarms, and household fire alarm systems shall comply
with the requirements of this chapter.
Delete 10.1.3 and renumber accordingly.
Add the following to proposed Table 10.4.2.2, following Section 13.d.5 as
follows:
Device
6. Single- and Multiple-Station Heat Alarms
Method
Functional tests shall be conducted according to manufacturers instructions.
Non-restorable heat detectors shall not be tested with heat.
Add the following to proposed Table 10.4.2.2, following Section 13.g.1 as
follows:
Device
2. Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms
Method
Functional tests shall be conducted according to manufacturers instructions.
Add the following to Table 10.4.3 as new Sections 15.j ,k, and l as follows:
“Component
Init/Reaccept
j. Battery (Only)
Operated Single and
Multiple-Station Smoke
Alarms
X(Weekly)
k. AC powered Singleand Multiple Station
Smoke Alarms
X
l. Single- and MultipleStation Heat Alarms
X
Monthly
(1) Calibrated test method
(2) Manufacturerís calibrated sensitivity test instrument
(3) Listed control equipment arranged for the purpose
(4) Smoke detector/control unit arrangement whereby the detector causes a
signal at the control unit where its sensitivity is outside its listed sensitivity
range
(5) Other calibrated sensitivity test methods approved by the authority
having jurisdiction
10.4.3.2.5 Detectors or smoke alarms found to have a sensitivity outside the
listed and marked sensitivity range shall be cleaned and recalibrated or be
replaced.
Exception: Devices listed as field adjustable shall be permitted to be either
adjusted within the listed and marked sensitivity range and cleaned and
recalibrated, or they shall be replaced.
10.4.3.2.6 The detector or smoke alarm sensitivity shall not be tested or
measured using any device that administers an unmeasured concentration of
smoke or other aerosol into the detector or smoke alarm.
Revise 10.4.4 and subsections to read as follows:
10.4.4 Household Fire Alarm Systems.
10.4.4.1 Testing. Household fire alarm systems shall be tested by a qualified
service technician at least every three years according to the methods of Table
10.4.2.2.
10.4.4.2 Maintenance. Maintenance of household fire alarm systems shall be
conducted according to manufacturers instructions.
Add a new 10.4.5 to read as follows:
10.4.5 Replacement of Smoke Alarms in One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiplestation smoke alarms installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be
replaced when they fail to respond to operability tests, but shall not remain in
service longer than 10 years from the date of manufacture.
[Renumber current Section 10.4.5 accordingly.]
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee.
The committee has reviewed the testing and maintenance material in Section
11.10 of Proposal 72-463 and has revised the text of the testing chapter to
incorporate appropriate testing requirements. The intent of the committee
was to keep the functional testing requirements device specific rather than
occupancy specific.
Section 10.4.3.2 was revised to correlate with actions on other comments
and to address proper terminology (detector versus smoke alarm). Sensitivity
testing of single- and multiple-station smoke alarms in other than one- and
two-family dwellings has been the committee’s position for the last several
code editions and has been clarified by the action on Proposal 72-441a.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
Annually
(Log #168)
Committee: SIG-TMS
X
X
Revise current Table 10.4.3 item 15h. “component” to read “System Smoke
Detectors - Functional
Renumber current j, k, and l, accordingly
Revise 10.4.3.2 and subsections to read as follows:
10.4.3.2* Sensitivity of smoke detectors and single- and multiple-station
smoke alarms in other than one- and two-family dwellings shall be tested in
accordance with 10.4.3.2.1 through 10.4.3.2.6.
10.4.3.2.1 Sensitivity shall be checked within 1 year after installation.
10.4.3.2.2 Sensitivity shall be checked and every alternate year thereafter
unless otherwise permitted by compliance with 10.4.3.2.3.
10.4.3.2.3 After the second required calibration test, if sensitivity tests
indicate that the device has remained within its listed and marked sensitivity
range (or 4 percent obscuration light gray smoke, if not marked), the length of
time between calibration tests shall be permitted to be extended to a maximum
of 5 years.
10.4.3.2.3.1 If the frequency is extended, records of nuisance alarms and
subsequent trends of these alarms shall be maintained.
10.4.3.2.3.2 In zones or in areas where nuisance alarms show any increase
over the previous year, calibration tests shall be performed.
10.4.3.2.4 To ensure that each smoke detector or smoke alarm is within
its listed and marked sensitivity range, it shall be tested using any of the
following methods:
392
72-323-(Chapter 7 [2002 Ed. Chapter 10]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422a
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The committee action on this proposal does not
comply with the Regulations Governing Committee Projects because the
revised text contains numerous changes that go far beyond the “manual of
style” justification for the proposal.
B. Combining changes resulting from public proposals with wholesale
“manual of style” changes pursuant to a committee proposal makes it very
difficult to track all of the changes that have been made, and nearly impossible
to verify that those changes comply with the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects.
C. The manual of style proposals from each technical committee should be
stand-alone proposals which can be reviewed to verify that the only thing that
has changed is the style; not the requirements.
D. Correlation of accepted manual of style proposal - presumably editorial
revisions - with other changes initiated via public proposals should be handled
by the Technical Correlating Committee or NFPA staff.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation for the following reasons:
The committee action does comply with NFPA Regulations Governing
Committee Projects. The changes in proposal that go beyond NFPA Manual
of Style revisions are either specifically identified in the recommendation
of the proposal (by reference and the use of legislative text) or are identified
by reference to other proposals acted upon individually. Theses changes
are supported in the substantiation of Proposal 72-422a or in the individual
proposals.
The combination of changes resulting from public proposals with changes
made for the Manual of Style was directed by the Technical Correlating
Committee in order to provide a complete text in the new style showing all
changes in the proper context. This was done to enhance the usability and
simplify the review of this material for both the committee and the public.
Text that is based on changes made by public proposals has been identified by
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
a bold reference to the public proposal number.
The correlation of several proposals into the final document, especially with
such broad changes in style and format, can often be difficult because of
potentially conflicting or unclear committee actions. Showing all changes
in their proper context offers a complete text that has been reviewed by the
committee and has had opportunity for public review and comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(Log #94)
Committee: SIG-TMS
————————————————-
(Log #350)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-324-(7-1.1.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-425
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal and accept.
SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording is needed in NFPA 72 for those
jurisdictions that do not adopt the Life Safety Code. Technical Committee
action on 72-143 and 459 dealing with impairments was accepted in principle
in part. This proposal is consistent with the Committee Action. We do not
believe that the Technical Correlating Committee is correct that this is not
within the scope of the Technical Committee. NFPA 72 is the best place to
address this material. This wording is similar to NFPA 25.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 7-1.1.2 requires the system owner be
notified of system impairments. The NFPA Standards Council is responsible
for committee scopes. The work of the committee is limited to these specified
scopes. The committee can only interpret these scope statements. The local
building or fire code has the responsibility for corrective actions in response to
system impairments.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #CC700)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-324a-(7-1.1.2) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-324a be reported as “Accept in Principle” and
that the following action be taken and reported in the ROC for Comment
72-324a:
In the Committee Action text of Proposal 72-459 (page 1383 ROP), revise
the text by deleting the underlined text after the heading “Impairments”
and replace it with “The requirements of Section 1-7 shall be applicable
when a system is impaired.” The remaining text shall remain. The
paragraph would read as follows:
7.1.1.2 Impairments. The requirements of Section 1-7 shall be applicable
when a system is impaired. System defects and malfunctions shall be
corrected. If a defect or malfunction is not corrected at the conclusion
of system inspection, testing, or maintenance, the system owner or the
owner’ s designated representative shall be informed of the impairment in
writing within 24 hours.
The manual of style rewrite in Proposal 72-422a would be revised to
read:
10.2.1.2 Impairments. {1999 7-1.1.2} [ROP 72-459] [MOS]
(a) The requirements of Section 4.6 shall be applicable when a system is
impaired.
(b) System defects and malfunctions shall be corrected.
(c) If a defect or malfunction is not corrected at the conclusion of system
inspection, testing, or maintenance, the system owner or the owner’ s
designated representative shall be informed of the impairment in writing
within 24 hours.
The Technical Correlating Committee has reconsidered the issue of
scope and believes that the direction provided above conforms with the
scope of the committee.
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Committee Action on Proposal 72-459.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee disagrees with the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to “reject.” The committee continues to
feel that the proposed text is within the scope of the Technical Committee.
Notification of the system owner is required in other chapters (for example
Chapter 5) of the code.
The committee believes that the proposed language on impairment belongs
in the chapter on testing and maintenance because impairments are most likely
found during the testing of the system. The end users and the authority having
jurisdiction would most likely look for information on impairments in this
chapter. The chapter on testing and maintenance is unique in that it applies to
both existing and new installations.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
393
72-325-(7-1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-426
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Committee reconsider this Proposal and address the submitter’s concerns.
The definition of “ownership” presently in the code does not address the
submitter’s concerns. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a
Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. The committee reaffirms
it original action on Proposal 72-426. Refer to the Committee Action and
Statement on Comment 72-35 (Log #70).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #95)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-326-(7-1.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-427
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
1. Revise 7-1.2.2 [10.2.2.5] as follows:
“10.2.2.5* Service personnel shall be qualified and experienced in the
inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire alarm systems. Qualified
personnel shall include, but shall not be limited to, individuals with any of the
following qualifications:
(1) Factory trained and certified
(2) Certified by state or local authority
(3) Trained and qualified personnel employed by an organization listed by a
national testing laboratory for the servicing of fire alarm systems
(4) A third party certification program acceptable to the authority having
jurisdiction.”
2. Add a new section to Annex A as follows:
“A.10.2.2.5 Examples of third party certification programs can include, but
are not limited to the following:
1. National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET)
fire alarm certified Level II or higher
2. International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) fire alarm certified
Level II”
The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes
only and does not include all available services or programs. Information
concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources
and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or
any of its technical committees.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee. Changes have been made for conformance
with the NFPA Manual of Style as directed.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #96)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-327-(7-1.2.2(2)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-429
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.\
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. Refer to the Committee
Action and Statement on Comment 72-326 (Log #95).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(Log #99)
Committee: SIG-TMS
————————————————(Log #97)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-328-(7-1.2.2(3)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-430
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider. Refer to the Committee
Action and Statement on Comment 72-326 (Log #95).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
72-331-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-439
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The
Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the
Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter and
reaffirms its original action to reject Proposal 72-439.
The functional test coupled with a sensitivity test is sufficient to ensure that
a smoke detector will provide a timely response. Measuring and recording
the sensitivity range limits may provide trending information. However, the
proposed requirements would not require replacement of a detector until it
is outside its marked sensitivity range. This is no more effective than current
code requirements. Modern analog/addressable smoke detectors and control
units test sensitivity ranges several times each day, and will immediately
report a detector specific trouble condition to system operators when a
detector is outside its listed sensitivity range or becomes dirty. Additionally,
if the report is ignored or if the sensitivity continues to move away from its
intended range, an additional detector specific trouble condition is reported
to system operators. This is a distinct advantage over manual sensitivity tests,
which are conducted biannually. Recording sensitivity values provides no
advantage at significantly increased cost to the consumer.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #100)
Committee: SIG-TMS
————————————————(Log #98)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-329-(7-1.6.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-432
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The
Committee’s action appears to have been Accepted in Principle. This action
shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee to clarify the Committee Action.
The committee agrees that the action on Proposal 72-432 was “accept in
principle.” Refer to the Committee Action on Proposal 72-431.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
72-332-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-440
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The
Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the
Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter.
Refer to the Committee Statement on Comment 72-331(Log #99). In addition
the code require a semiannual visual inspection, and detector maintenance in
accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #101)
Committee: SIG-TMS
————————————————(Log #CC2)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-330-(7-1.6.2 [2002 Ed. 10.4.1.2.1.3]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-422a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text of 10.4.1.2.1.3 so that it is shown as
being underlined.
SUBSTANTIATION: This was an error in processing of the ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
72-333-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13.g.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The
Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the
Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter.
Refer to the Committee Statement on Comments 72-331(Log #99) and 72-332
(Log #100). The committee reaffirms its original action on Proposal 72-441.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
394
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #102)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-334-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Action on this Proposal be revised to break out the requirements for
smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements
from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire
alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made
(for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the
Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall
be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #103)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-335-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-445
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that this Proposal be reconsidered and correlated with the action
on Proposal. 72-441a (and the associated Technical Correlating Committee
NOTE). This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #268)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-336-(Table 7-2.2, Item 13. g 2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep.
American Hotel & Lodging Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-441a
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation revises Section title and in doing
so will require annual sensitivity testing of single station smoke detectors in
other than one-b and two-family dwellings. This section should remain as
existing without modification.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee does not provide justification
supporting the annual sensitivity testing of single station smoke detectors.
An analysis of the annual degradation of detector sensitivity coupled with
the expected detector lifespan should be provided to justify sensitivity testing
versus periodic detector replacement.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee considers the testing
requirements for systems detectors and single- and multiple-station smoke
alarms, in other than one- and two-family dwellings, to be the same. As such
they should be inspected and tested in the same manner. Sensivity testing is
currently not required on an annual basis.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #134)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-337-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
395
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proponent’s substantiation is wrong in several
respects:
1) The concern that “subjective judgment is too imprecise” cited in the
proposal substantiation is based on the false argument that subject based
testing is necessarily subjective.
Subject based testing such as the test described in ROP 72-434 is entirely
objective. That is, we’re not talking about someone’s opinion of whether
something is intelligible or not, but rather a simple, word-by-word comparison
of what was read over the microphone to what was written down by the
listener. In principle, this is no different than electronically comparing a
digitized waveform generated by an intelligibility meter to a preprogrammed
algorithm representing what somebody thinks voice systems are supposed to
sound like, except that you’re evaluating the real thing instead of comparing a
wave form to a computer model. The proponent’s concern about an Authority
Having Jurisdiction having “clues” during a test that are not present during
an actual emergency is the reason ROP 72-434 specifically calls for a
nonstandard message to be used.
2) The presumed need for precision is not currently in the code. The
standard does not presently require a precise, quantitative determination
of sound quality. It simply requires voice evacuation systems to meet the
threshold of intelligibility; a determination that the methodology suggested
in ROP 72-434 specifically designed to make. That is, messages are either
understood well enough to be written down verbatim (in which case they’re
obviously intelligible) or they’re not (in which case the messages are
unintelligible).
The standard should not require a precise, quantitative determination of
sound quality in the 2002 edition because there were NO PROPOSALS in the
ROP either asking for such a requirement or substantiating a need for such a
requirement. Consequently, the action of the Chapter 4 Technical Committee
moving the appendix material on analytical testing of voice intelligibility to
the body of the standard was in clear violation of the Regulations Governing
Committee Projects and should not be allowed to stand. Furthermore, since
there was no proposal asking for this action at the ROP stage, it’s NEW
material (which cannot be considered) at the ROC stage, which in turn should
preclude it from becoming code in the 2002 edition.
Obviously, if there’s no requirement for a quantitative intelligibility value,
there’s no need for Chapter 7 to define a test for one.
3) Analytical testing will NOT provide a consistent way of determining
whether a system is compliant (intelligible) or not, because what it measures
ISN’T intelligibility.
The key to “intelligibility” is understanding; something no meter is likely to
ever have, no matter how much it costs. Since a sound meter can’t understand
anything, it substitutes a comparison between the output of the sound system
to an idealized computer model of human speech - and provides a numerical
indication of how well the two match. If you have a good match, the meter
tells you the system’s “intelligible. Of course, perfectly reproduced Latin,
or for that matter gibberish, will register as “intelligible” too even though
nobody understands the Latin and the gibberish is still gibberish; which
unambiguously demonstrates that what these meters measure is not, and
cannot be, intelligibility.
B. The methodology described in this proposal is very complex by
comparison to ROP 72-434, based on standards which practically nobody has,
and requires the use of expensive electronic equipment that is not in common
use and for which no field history is available. In effect, the proponent is
asking the committee to mandate the purchase of newfangled $3000 gadgets
(that nobody’s tried yet) to ascertain something that ANYBODY can
determine using nothing more complicated than a 50 cent newspaper.
C. A major practical advantage of the test described in ROP 72-434 over
the method proposed in 72-443 (besides the fact that it’s free and actually
determines intelligibility) is that an Authority Having Jurisdiction can make
it stick. If a voice system is really unintelligible, it doesn’t matter who does
the ROP 72-443 test or (assuming you use a new, nonstandard message each
time) how many times they repeat; it simply won’t pass. Analytical methods,
on the other hand, are sure to create situations where either an intelligible
system yields a CIS of less than 0.70, or an unintelligible system yields a CIS
of 0.70 or greater, or both.
D. Since there’s none of these meters floating around to play with, it seems
rather unlikely that anybody on the Chapter 7 committee knows what a CIS of
0.70 really sounds like, and certainly neither the Authority Having Jurisdiction
community nor the general public has a clue. How good or bad is it, or more
to the point, how much worse is a CIS of 0.69 than a CIS of 0.70? Does a
change of 0.01 in the CIS really turn an acceptable voice evacuation system
into a pumpkin, or does it just mean you have to point the meter in a slightly
different direction, take another reading, and thereby “fix” the system?
It seems rather unreasonable for the proponent of 72-443 to argue for this
requirement on the basis of “consistency” when you can generate a CIS by
any one of 7 different methods, turn the meter in a different direction, or add
or drop a reading, and get DIFFERENT results.
E. Whether intelligibility meters will end up being too tough or too easy
(quite possible if a 0.70 CIS really lets you get by understanding only 80% of
the words) will depend on the algorithm(s) they employ and on whether or not
0.70 is really the right number to be using for ALL applications; something
only some field experience will determine. Certainly we shouldn’t force
everybody to use $3000 intelligibility meters if it’s going to get us systems
that sound WORSE than the systems we’ve got now...another reason to get
some field experience with these things before mandating their use.
F. The proposed test method actually determines whether a system passes
or fails based on an AVERAGE measurement, less one standard deviation.
This obviously implies that it’s okay for voice systems to be unintelligible in
some areas, as long as they’re intelligible most places. This is in stark contrast
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
to audibility testing, where we verify audibility room by room, require
additional signals in those areas that are deficient, and do not allow really loud
signals in the restrooms to offset deficient audibility elsewhere. Intelligibility
testing should be handled the same way - every area required to have voice
evacuation should be intelligible, and really good intelligibility in some places
should not be an excuse for unintelligibility in other places. This is not a
problem with the test method described in ROP 72-434.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The original proposal (72-443) was
Accepted in Principle. Only annex material was added. No changes were
made to the body of the code. The test prescribed in Proposal 72-434 is
subjective, not quantitative.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————(Log #140)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-338-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-434
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal. Add a note to the
original proposal text that reads as follows:
“Note: A detailed discussion of subject based test methods is described in
ANSI S3.2-1999.”
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The submitter understands that the committee is
in favor of developing performance based standards, and that they included
subject based testing as an alternative in their action on 72-443. However, the
intent of the proposal was to describe a simple test that anyone can understand
and perform; not to refer them to an ANSI standard that they are unlikely
to have on hand. Adding the proposed note incorporates ANSI S3.2 as an
appropriate reference, without compromising the intent of the proposal.
B. The submitter respectfully points out that the method proposed by
the submitter of 72-443 is new and uses rather expensive equipment that
practically nobody currently has, and which, consequently, practically nobody
in the fire alarm industry has any experience using in the field. Consequently,
while there’s undoubtedly considerable “science” behind it, the application of
that science to real world situations in the fire alarm industry is untried and, at
this point, purely hypothetical.
C. There are a great number of potential problems with using analytical
devices to measure intelligibility, not the least of which is being able to turn
the machine 180 degrees, take another reading, and thereby “fix” the system.
How these kinds of things are going to be dealt with in practice should be
worked out BEFORE the NFAC mandates the use of this new technology to
fix a problem (i.e., being able to tell whether a voice message was intelligible
or not) that most people never knew we had.
D. The Chapter 7 Committee should think twice before adopting a testing
standard that will open the door to mandatory re-acceptance testing every time
somebody changes the drapes, carpeting, or furnishings.
E. In the event this technology stands the test of time and the challenges of
field application and demonstrates a practical benefit over simple, subject
based testing, the lucky patent holder of this device can and should submit
a proposal for incorporating that technology into the NFAC. Until then, it
is highly inappropriate for NFPA to effectively mandate the purchase of
anybody’s squeaky new $3000 gadget; even if they did buy milk and cookies
for the Chapter 4 Technical Committee.
F. See also my comment on ROPs 72-319 and 72-443.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and
Statement on Comment 72-337 (Log #134). In addition the test method
described in the proposal is only one of two methods identified in the annex.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #192)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-339-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William Keezer, WJ Keezer Associates/Rep. National
Systems Contractors Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443
RECOMMENDATION: Revert to the original text of the proposal, but with
the content of Proposal 72-435 added as follows:
7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b)
Change the text of the test method for Audible Textual Notification
Appliances, and add an Appendix item as follows:
Sound pressure level for non-voice tones and signals shall be measured
with sound level meter meeting ANSI S1.4a, Specifications for Sound Level
Meters, Type 2 requirements. Levels throughout the protected area shall be
measured and recorded. The Sound Level Meter shall be set in accordance
with ANSI S3.41. Time-weighted characteristic F (FAST). Record the
maximum output when the audible emergency evacuation signal is on.
Audible information shall be verified to be distinguishable and
understandable. System voice intelligibility will be measured in accordance
with the guidelines in Annex A of IEC 60849, Second Edition: 1998, Sound
Systems for Emergency Purposes. When tested in accordance with Annex B,
clause B1 of IEC 60849, the system will equal or exceed the equivalent of a
Common Intelligibility Scale (CIS) score of 0.70. Intelligibility is achieved
when the quantity Iav - s as specified in B3 of IEC 60849 meets or exceeds
this value. Measure and record values throughout protected area.
A-7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b) Iav is the arithmetical average of the
measured intelligibility values on the CIS and s (sigma) is the standard
deviation of those measured values. Seven different methods of determining
intelligibility are permitted by the CIS. These methods and the limitations
on their use are described in Annex A of IEC 60849, Second Edition: 1998,
Sound Systems for Emergency Purposes. Objective means of determining
intelligibility are found in IEC 60268, Part 16, Second Edition: 1998,
The Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission
Index. Subject-based techniques for measuring intelligibility are defined
by ANSI S3.2-1989, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech
over Communication Systems. ANSI S3.2-1989 should be considered an
acceptable alternative to ISO TR 4870, where referenced in IEC 60268, Part
16, Second Edition: 1998, The Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by
Speech Transmission Index.
SUBSTANTIATION: Problem:
1) The Committee’s action does not address the fact that sound pressure
level measurements are not applicable to the measurement of voice message
systems.
2) The committee’s action to Accept in Principle is in marked contradiction
with the wording of the original proposal and the intent of the submitter.
Substantiation:
1) The original proposal clearly stated that such measurements are for nonvoice tones and signals (only). Evaluation of voice message systems requires
determination for suitability by different evaluation methods. The committee’s
revision of the original proposal resulted in retention of the original text for
7-2.2 Table Line/Item 14(b) and refusal to incorporate this clarification.
2) The wording of the original proposal and the intent of the submitter was
to require the confirmation of the potential intelligibility of a voice/alarm
system through objectively applied measurement methods, not “verification”.
The addition of unenforceable Annex material does not accomplish this “in
Principle” nor in fact.
3) While an Authority Having Jurisdiction is always entitled to employ
an intelligibility evaluation technique of his/her choosing, the default
measurement techniques should be those recognized by professionals to
be objective and technically defensible. The phrase “but not limited to . .
.” leaves the door open to non-standard methods of evaluation which are
potentially without technical merit.
4) Any voice/alarm system intended for life safety applications is inherently
defective if it cannot provide adequate intelligibility, and potentially defective
if not proven adequate through proper testing. Many Chapter 7 committee
members proclaimed they had no problem designing and installing intelligible
voice/alarm systems in their professional capacities, yet this committee
doesn’t want such systems to be verified as such - attempting to prohibit
the retroactive application of such a requirement. All systems that can be
demonstrated to deliver an intelligible message would be subject to the same
tests for continued proper operation. Regardless of the Code used at the time
of system design, an audible system that fails its annual test must be repaired
or it constitutes a hazard to life safety. Likewise, a system that is relied upon
to deliver a voice message for the safety of the occupants and fails an annual
test should be repaired because it cannot perform its intended life safety
function. Whether the system was capable of satisfactory performance at the
time of original installation or not is immaterial. Relying on a system that
constitutes a life safety hazard is a greater hazard to the facility owner than the
potential cost of modifications.
5) The fact that the committee (NFA-TMS) “is uncomfortable with the ability
to accurately measure and test intelligibility” suggests the committee is either
uncomfortable with, or incapable of understanding substantial technical
substantiation to the contrary. A dispassionate and thorough reading of the
substantiation for 72-443 should not result in this conclusion. The committee
should make an effort to understand IEC 60268, part 16 where many of the
committee’s concerns, especially those of measurability and accuracy, are
thoroughly addressed. Finally, re-reading the substantiation for the May
1999 ROP proposal 72-676-(6-3.1.6 and A-6-3.1.6 (new)) will reveal further
references on the rationale behind the objective measurement of intelligibility.
The submitter respectfully suggests that the international technical committees
responsible for the content of IEC 60849 and IEC 60268-16 have significantly
more experience and expertise in the field of voice/alarm systems than does
NFPA’s Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance. The ability to
perform good science is not limited by the boundary of the Atlantic Ocean.
NFPA should respect the expertise of these committees and not try to dilute
the potential efficacy of their documents by permitting unproven measurement
techniques, untested systems, or the continued existence of sub-standard
systems. We should build on their work, not compromise it.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: System designers, installers and the
authority having jurisdiction all have a responsibility to assure that systems
are intelligible. It has not been demonstrated that there is an industry wide
problem that would require this level of testing in a minimum standard.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
396
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #250)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-340-(Table 7-2.2, Item 14. b) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-443
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to Accept in Principle by moving the
proposed text to an Annex section.
SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the Committee Action and urge the
Technical Committee to retain this information as an Annex item, at least until
such time that test instruments are available in abundance, including features
and manufacturers.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #104)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-341-(7-3.2.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-451
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Statement on this Proposal. The
Committee Statement needs to completely address the concerns of the
Submitter. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee to address the concerns of the submitter.
Refer to the Committee Statement on Comment 72-331(Log #99). The
committee reaffirms its previous action.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————(Log #107)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-344-(7-3.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-456
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for
smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements
from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire
alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made
(for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the
Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall
be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #105)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-342-(7-3.2.1 Exception No. 2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-453
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for
smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements
from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire
alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made
(for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the
Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall
be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93)
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(Log #141a)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-345-(7-6 ) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459
RECOMMENDATION: I agree with the Technical Correlating Committee
that proposals 72-143 and 72-459 are outside the scope of NFPA 72 and
should be referred to the Technical Committee for NFPA 1.
SUBSTANTIATION: I am a member of the Technical Committee on
the Fire Prevention Code (NFPA 1), but these comments are my personal
comments and not the Technical Committee’s. NFPA 1 is in cycle for and
working on the 2003 edition. There are Public Proposals in process for NFPA
1 dealing with impairments of fire protection systems which could address
the issues in proposals 72-143 and 72-459 at the public comment period for
NFPA 1. This would allow implementation of the direction the National Fire
Alarm Code Technical Correlating Committee has given to their Technical
Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee notes that the submitter
did not provide any recommended text. Refer to the Committee Action and
Substantiation on Comment 72-324a (Log #CC700).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #349)
Committee: SIG-TMS
————————————————(Log #106)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-343-(7-3.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-455
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Action on this Proposal be revised to breakout the requirements for
smoke and heat alarms and relocate all testing and maintenance requirements
from the chapter on single- and multiple-station alarms and household fire
alarm systems to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made
(for information only) to Proposal 72-424. Reference is also made to the
Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal 72-463. This action shall
397
72-346-(7-6) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Technical Correlating Note.
SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe that the inclusion of impairment
requirements is not the scope of NFPA 72. The scope of the technical
committee is “The Committee has primary responsibility of documents on
the proper testing and maintenance of signaling systems, their components
and their interface equipment.” NFPA 25 addresses impairment in
their documents so the precedence has been set. If the requirements for
impairments is given to the Fire Prevention Code Technical Committee there
will be no requirements dealing with impairments of fire alarms systems for
jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 1.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and
Substantiation on Comment 72-324a (Log #CC700).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(d) The fire department has been notified.
(e) The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and
other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified.
(f) The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified.
(g) A tag impairment system has been implemented. (See Section 7.6.3.)
(h) All necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the
impairment site.
————————————————(Log #353)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-347-(7-6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
7.6 Impairments
7.6.1 General. This section provides the minimum requirements for a fire
alarm system impairment program. Adequate measures shall be taken during
the impairment to ensure that increased risks are minimized and the duration
of the impairment is limited.
7.6.7 Restoring Systems to Service. When all impaired equipment is restored
to normal working order, the impairment coordinator shall verify that the
following procedures have been implemented:
7.6.2 Impairment Coordinator. The building owner shall assign an
impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the
absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment
coordinator.
Exception: Where the lease, written use agreement, or management contract
specifically grants the authority for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the
fire alarm system(s) to the tenant, management firm, or managing individual,
the tenant, management firm, or managing individual shall assign a person as
impairment coordinator.
7.6.3 Tag Impairment System.
7.6.3.1* A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or part thereof, has
been removed from service.
7.6.3.2* The tag shall be posted at each fire alarm control panel and remote
annunciator panel indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed
from service. The authority having jurisdiction shall specify where the tag is
to be placed.
7.6.4 Impaired Equipment. The impaired equipment shall be considered to be
the fire alarm system, or part thereof, that is removed from service. This shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
7.6.6 Emergency Impairments. Emergency impairments include but are not
limited to fire alarm control panel failure, detector and notification troubles,
loss of normal or backup power, and equipment failure. When this occurs,
appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and
damage. The coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section 7.6.5.
Fire Alarm Control Panel
Alarm Notification Devices
Detection Devices
Control Devices
Signal Transmission Devices
Normal System and Backup Power Systems
Special Hazards Equipment
(a) Any necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that
effected systems are operational. The appropriate chapter of this standard shall
be consulted for guidance on the type of inspection and test required.
(b) Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored.
(c) The fire department has been advised that protection is restored.
(d) The building owner/manager, insurance carrier, alarm company, and
other authorities having jurisdiction have been advised that protection is
restored.
(e)
The impairment tag has been removed.
A.7.6.3.1 A clearly visible tag alerts building occupants and the fire
department that all or part of the fire alarm system is out of service. The tag
should be weather resistant, plainly visible, and of sufficient size [typically 4
in. 6 in. (102 mm 152 mm)]. The tag should identify which system is
impaired, the date and time impairment began, and the person responsible.
Figure A-11-3.1 illustrates a typical impairment tag.
A.7.6.3.2 An impairment tag should be placed on the fire alarm control
panel and any remote annunciator panels to alert responding fire fighters of an
abnormal condition. An impairment tag that is located on the system control
panel only could go unnoticed for an extended period if fire fighters encounter
difficulty in gaining access to the building or fire alarm system control room.
A.7.6.5 The need for temporary fire protection, termination of all hazardous
operations, and frequency of inspections in the areas involved should be
determined. All work possible should be done in advance to minimize
the length of the impairment. Where possible, temporary detection and
notification should be used to maintain portions of systems while work is
completed.
Fire alarm systems should not be removed from service when the building
is not in use. Where a system that has been out of service for a prolonged
period (such as in the case of idle or vacant properties) is returned to service,
qualified personnel should be retained to inspect and test the systems.
7.6.5* Preplanned Impairment Programs. All preplanned impairments
shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is
given, the impairment coordinator shall be responsible for verifying that the
following procedures have been implemented:
(a) The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been
determined.
(b) The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased
risks determined.
(c) Recommendations have been submitted to management or building
owner/manager. Where a required fire alarm system is out of service for more
than 4 hours in a 24-hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for
one of the following:
1.
Evacuation of the building or portion of the building affected
by the system out of service
2.
* An approved fire watch
3.
* Establishment of temporary detection and notification
4.
* Establishment and implementation of an approved program
to eliminate potential ignition sources and limit the amount of
fuel available to the fire
398
A.7.6.5(c)2 A fire watch should consist of trained personnel who
continuously patrol the effected area. Ready access to fire extinguishers
and the ability to promptly notify the fire department are important items to
consider. During the patrol of the area, the person should not only be looking
for fire, but making sure that the other fire protection features of the building
such as egress routes and sprinkler systems are available and functioning
properly.
A.7.6.5(c)3 Temporary detection and notification systems are possible from a
number of sources including the use of bullhorns.
A.7.6.5(c) 4 Depending on the use and occupancy of the building, it might be
enough in some circumstances to stop certain processes in the building or to
cut off the flow of fuel to some machines. It is also helpful to implement ìNo
Smokingî and ìNo Hot Workî (cutting, grinding or welding) policies while
the system is out of service since these activities are responsible for many fire
ignitions.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #108)
Committee: SIG-HOU
Figure A7.6.3.1
SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of impairments needs to be addressed in
NFPA 72. We do not agree with the Technical Correlating Committee that
this is not within the scope of NFPA 72. NFPA 25 on water-based systems
inspection, maintenance and testing has a chapter dealing with impairments.
This proposal took the wording from NFPA 25 and reworded for fire alarms
systems. We believe that this will provide consistency in impairment between
NFPA 25 and 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and
Statement on Comments 72-324a (Log #CC700) and 72-324 (Log #350).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————(Log #298)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-348-(7-6 and A-7-6) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-459
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. I agree with the Technical
Correlating Committee.
SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is outside the scope of NFPA 72 and
would be appropriate for NFPA 1, Fire Prevention Code. However, although
not called “impairments”, some of the submitter’s concerns are currently
addressed in NFPA 1, Sections 1-10, 1-13, 1-15, and 1-19. Per the Technical
Correlating Committee’s request for referral to NFPA 1, this proposal cannot
be treated as a proposal for NFPA 1 because it lacks needed and required
direction for the committee to take appropriate actions.
There is considerable information to digest and attempting to place it
within appropriate sections of NFPA 1 may not meet the submitter’s intent.
The submitter should review NFPA 1 and recommend changes he feels are
inadequately covered and develop a new proposal for the NFPA 1 and submit
it during the next cycle. Any proposals should apply to all required systems
and operations, not just the fire alarm system.
I am a member of the NFPA 1 Technical Committee.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action and
Statement on Comments 72-324a (Log #CC700) and 72-324 (Log #350).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
399
72-349-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. Chapter 11]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-349 concerning 11.8.1.1 and 11.8.4.2 be written
to make the intended revisions to remove unenforceable language.
These actions had been taken by the Technical Committee, but were
inadvertently omitted from the balloted text.
The Technical Correlating Committee also directs that Section 11.7.4.2
be removed from the committee action for correlation with the action on
Comment 72-322.
Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.8.1.1 to read:
“All equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions and applicable electrical standards.”
Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.8.4.2 to read:
“For sloped ceilings having a rise greater than 1 m in 8 m (1 ft in 8 ft)
horizontally, the detector or alarm shall be located within 0.9 m (3 ft)
of the peak. The spacing of additional detectors or alarms, if any, shall
be based on a horizontal distance measurement, not on a measurement
along the slope of the ceiling.”
Revise the Committee Action regarding 11.7.4, deleting 11.7.4.2 so that
11.7.4 reads as follows:
11.7.4 Operability. Single- and multiple-station alarms, including
heat alarms, shall be provided with a convenient means for testing its
operability by the occupant, owner or other responsible parties.
Retain current ROP section 11.7.4 and renumber accordingly.
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered for compliance with the Manual
of Style. The specific sections that require reconsideration are: 11.8.1.1,
11.8.2.2, 11.8.3.5(i), 11.8.4.2 and 11.11.2(4).
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this
Proposal be reconsidered to address the changes resulting from the issuance
of TIA 99-1.
The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the Action on this
Proposal be revised to relocate all testing and maintenance requirements to
the chapter on testing and maintenance. Reference is made to the Technical
Correlating Committee NOTE on Proposal 72-422a.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter Scopes
(Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical Correlating
Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts the Committee
Action concerning Section 11.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Revise 11.8.1.1 in the ROP to read:
“All equipment shall be installed in a workmanlike manner in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable electrical standards.”
Revise 11.8.4.2 in the ROP to read:
“For sloped ceilings having a rise greater than 1 m in 8 m (1 ft in 8 ft)
horizontally, the detector or alarm shall be located on or near the ceiling
at or within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the peak. The spacing of additional detectors or
alarms, if any, shall be based on a horizontal distance measurement, not on a
measurement along the slope of the ceiling.”
Revise 11.11.2 (4) in the ROP to read:
“(4) Identification of all user interface components and their functions (such
as, but not limited to, lights, switches and meters), shall be located adjacent to
the component.”
Add a sentence to the end of 11.3.5 in the ROP that reads: “Since hearing
deficits are often not apparent, the responsibility for advising the appropriate
person(s) of the existence of this deficit shall be that of the hearing impaired
party.”
Insert a new section 11.7.4 in the ROP to read as follows:
“11.7.4 Operability.
11.7.4.1 Single- and multiple-station alarms, including heat alarms, shall be
provided with a convenient means for testing its operability by the occupant,
owner or other responsible parties.
11.7.4.2 Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and
multiple-station smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to
operability tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the
date of installation.”
Renumber remaining sections.”
Delete A.11.10.5.
Delete sections 11.10.1 through 11.10.7 in the ROP.
Revise 11.10 in the ROP to read as follows:
“11.10 Maintenance and Tests. Fire warning equipment shall be maintained
and tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and per the
requirements of Chapter 10.”
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has reviewed the Technical
Correlating Committee’s comments. Sections 11.8.1.1, 11.8.4.2 and 11.11.2
(4) have been addressed.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-0
Scope.) has been reviewed. The Scope in the 2002 edition (11.1) has been
modified to correlate with the new scope of the Technical Committee.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.5)
has been reviewed. This has been addressed in 11.3.1 in the ROP.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.2)
has been reviewed and incorporated into 11.3.5 of the ROP.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.2.3)
has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.3.3 of the ROP.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-4.1)
has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.6.2 of the ROP.
At the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee, TIA 99-1 (8-1.4.5)
has been reviewed and has already been incorporated into 11.5 of the ROP.
The Technical Committee has taken action at the direction of the Technical
Correlating Committee in reference to the NOTE in Proposal 72-422a
regarding the move of Testing and Maintenance requirements to Chapter 10.
Despite the fact that the testing and maintenance requirements have been
relocated to the Testing and Maintenance chapter, it is recommended that the
Technical Correlating Committee give consideration to the fact that all singleand multiple-station alarms utilize many unsupervised components. For this
reason, the Technical Committee recommends that these alarms need to be
tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at a minimum,
battery powered alarms shall be tested weekly and 120 VAC powered alarms
shall be tested monthly. It should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms
has been a primary recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs,
CPSC and USFA for many years.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:
CHRISTIAN: While in agreement with the requirements of the proposal, the
recommendation at the end of the committee statement which reads as follows
is in serious error:
ìIt is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee give
consideration to the fact that all single and multiple-station alarms utilize
many unsupervised components. For this reason, the Technical Committee
recommends that these alarms need to be tested in accordance with the
manufacturerís instructions, and at a minimum, battery powered alarms shall
be tested weekly and 120VAC powered alarms shall be tested monthly. It
should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms has been a primary
recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs, CPSC and USFA
for many years.
This statement is in complete error as the reliability requirements for systems
smoke detectors and residential smoke alarms are the same. Supervision of
power wiring is not synonymous with supervision of circuit operation. It is
just as possible for a system detector to become inoperative without providing
any indication of failure to the control panel and yet yearly testing has posed
no additional risk, which can be documented. The prevailing thought that
this somehow promotes an education of the civilian population can be safely
debunked by the fact that when asked in the Technical Committee who tests
their smoke alarms monthly, nobody admitted to this recommendation. If it is
the goal of the committee to issue edicts with only an abstract basis, then this
is a valid recommendation. However, if there is any desire to be pragmatic in
the policies set forth then this is a poor recommendation and essentially moot
since the people it is directed at will be the ones who pay the least attention
to it. The program of semi-annual testing and changing of the battery during
the transition from daylight savings time and back has been the only education
that has been promoted with any kind of diligence.
Furthermore, in previous committee meetings it was discussed that this may
hinder future product advancement. If a manufacturer were to develop a
detector that is ìself-monitoring,î that technology should not be stifled due to
the shortsightedness of current methodologies.
PACELLI: While in agreement with the requirements of the proposal, the
recommendation at the end of the committee statement which reads as follows
is in serious error:
ìIt is recommended that the Technical Correlating Committee give
consideration to the fact that all single and multiple-station alarms utilize
many unsupervised components. For this reason, the Technical Committee
recommends that these alarms need to be tested in accordance with the
manufacturerís instructions, and at a minimum, battery powered alarms shall
be tested weekly and 120VAC powered alarms shall be tested monthly. It
should also be noted that monthly testing of alarms has been a primary
recommendation of the NFPA Public Education Programs, CPSC and USFA
for many years.
This statement is in complete error as the reliability requirements for systems
smoke detectors and residential smoke alarms are the same. Supervision of
power wiring is not synonymous with supervision of circuit operation. It is
just as possible for a system detector to become inoperative without providing
any indication of failure to the control panel and yet yearly testing has posed
no additional risk, which can be documented. The prevailing thought that
this somehow promotes an education of the civilian population can be safely
debunked by the fact that when asked in the Technical Committee who tests
their smoke alarms monthly, nobody admitted to this recommendation. If it is
the goal of the committee to issue edicts with only an abstract basis, then this
is a valid recommendation. However, if there is any desire to be pragmatic in
the policies set forth then this is a poor recommendation and essentially moot
400
since the people it is directed at will be the ones who pay the least attention
to it. The program of semi-annual testing and changing of the battery during
the transition from daylight savings time and back has been the only education
that has been promoted with any kind of diligence.
Furthermore, in previous committee meetings it was discussed that this may
hinder future product advancement. If a manufacturer were to develop a
detector that is ìself-monitoring,î that technology should not be stifled due to
the shortsightedness of current methodologies.
————————————————(Log #173)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-350-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.6]) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
action on Comment 72-350 be reported as Accept in Principle in Part
and written to reflect the requirements of the 1996 edition of the Code.
The Committee had introduced new material in the requirements at the
Report on Comments stage. This new material is not accepted, has been
removed, and will be held for further study. The committee action text
now reads as follows:
Change 11.6.1(4) in the ROP to read as follows:
If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a battery
meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or
the requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used.
Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows:
11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source
Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows:
11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source.
If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall
be met:
(a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a
distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection
of a battery, or a low battery condition.
(b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by
manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery
compartment.
(c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall
(1) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial
light and power source
(2) The battery shall be recharged within 4 hours where power is
provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other
than a circuit breaker, or within 48 hours where power is provided from
a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit
breaker.
(3) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes
(4) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be
capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by
not less than 7 days of trouble signal operation
(5) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 7
consecutive days.
Change
11.6.6 Primary Power Source (non-rechargeable battery)
Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows:
11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery)
If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following
conditions must be met:
(a) The battery must, with proper charging, be able to power the alarm
for a life of 1 year.
(b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the
commercial light and power source.
(c) The battery shall be recharged within 4 hours where power is
provided from a circuit that can be switched on or off by means other
than a circuit breaker, or within 48 hours where power is provided from
a circuit that cannot be switched on or off by means other than a circuit
breaker.
(d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes.
(e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is
provided from alarm to a trouble condition.
(f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained,
the unit is capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes
followed by not less than 7 days of trouble signal operation.
(g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for
7 consecutive days.
SUBMITTER: Nick Rutter, Sprue Aegis pic
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-460
RECOMMENDATION: Change 11.6.1(4) to read as follows:
If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a primary battery
capable of operating the device for at least 1 year in the normal condition
, followed by 4 minutes of alarm, followed by at least 6 days of trouble
meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or the
requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used.
Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows:
11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source
Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows:
11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source.
If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall be
met:
(a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a
distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection of
a battery, or a low battery condition.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by
manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery
compartment.
(c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall
(1) be non-replaceable
(2) with proper charging, be able to power the alarm for a life of 10 years
(3) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and
power source
(4) be recharged within 72 hours to a level capable of powering the smoke
alarm for 30 days
(5) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes
(6) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be capable
of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than
14 days of trouble signal operation
(7) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 14
consecutive days.
Change
11.6.6 Primary Battery Power Source (non-rechargeable battery)
Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows:
11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery)
If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following
conditions must be met:
(a) The battery must be non-replaceable and, with proper charging, be able
to power the alarm for a life of 10 years.
(b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the
commercial light and power source.
(c) The battery shall be recharged, to a level capable of powering the smoke
alarm for 30 days, within 8 hours where power is provided from a circuit that
can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 72
hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off
by means other than a circuit breaker.
(d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes.
(e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is
provided from alarm to a trouble condition.
(f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, the unit is
capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not
less than 14 days of trouble signal operation.
(g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for 14
consecutive days.
SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 72-460 was to return the chapter to the
code requirements of the 1996 edition. This comment addresses an omission
in the 2002 edition of language that was included in the 1996 edition. The
1996 edition allows the use of smoke alarms with rechargeable batteries
(Section 2-3.2.4 Exception No. 1 and 2-3.4.4). The proposed text captures the
intent of the 1996 code requirements for alarms with rechargeable batteries
while providing language which is consistent with the 2000 Manual of Style
and is also applicable to the most current technologies as well as potential
technologies in the future.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Change 11.6.1(4) in the ROP to read as follows:
If a battery primary power supply is specifically permitted, a primary battery
capable of operating the device for at least 1 year in the normal condition
, followed by 4 minutes of alarm, followed by at least 6 days of trouble
meeting the requirements of 11.6.6 (non-rechargeable primary battery) or the
requirements of 11.6.7 (rechargeable primary battery) shall be used.
Add the word “Primary” to the section heading of 11.6.3 as follows:
11.6.3 AC Primary Power Source
Revise 11.6.4 to read as follows:
11.6.4 Secondary (Standby) Power Source.
If the secondary power source is a battery, the following conditions shall be
met:
(a) The secondary power source shall be supervised and shall cause a
distinctive audible or visible trouble signal upon removal or disconnection of
a battery, or a low battery condition.
(b) Acceptable replacement batteries shall be clearly identified by
manufacturer’s name and model number on the unit near the battery
compartment.
(c) A rechargeable battery used as a secondary power source shall
(1) have a life of 10 years with proper charging, if non-replaceable
(2) have a life of 5 years with proper charging, if replaceable
(3) be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the commercial light and
power source
(4) be recharged within 72 hours to a level capable of powering the smoke
alarm for 24 hours
(5) provide a distinctive audible trouble signal before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes
(6) at the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, be capable
of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not less than 7
days of trouble signal operation
(7) produce an audible trouble signal at least once every minute for 7
consecutive days.
Change
401
11.6.6 Primary Battery Power Source (non-rechargeable battery)
Add a new section 11.6.7 to read as follows:
11.6.7 Primary Power Source (rechargeable battery)
If smoke alarms are powered by a rechargeable battery, the following
conditions must be met:
(a) The battery must be non-replaceable and, with proper charging, be able
to power the alarm for a life of 10 years.
(b) the battery must be automatically recharged by an AC circuit of the
commercial light and power source.
(c) The battery shall be recharged, to a level capable of powering the smoke
alarm for 30 days, within 8 hours where power is provided from a circuit that
can be switched on or off by means other than a circuit breaker, or within 72
hours where power is provided from a circuit that cannot be switched on or off
by means other than a circuit breaker.
(d) A distinctive audible trouble signal sounds before the battery is
incapable of operating the device(s) for alarm purposes.
(e) For a unit employing a lock-in alarm feature, automatic transfer is
provided from alarm to a trouble condition.
(f) At the battery condition at which a trouble signal is obtained, the unit is
capable of producing an alarm signal for at least 4 minutes followed by not
less than 30 days of trouble signal operation.
(g) The audible trouble signal is produced at least once every minute for 30
consecutive days.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee edited various text from the
submitter to better correlate with the requirements of NFPA 72 1996.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 10
NEGATIVE: 2
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:
CHRISTIAN: Additional items in this comment were not in the 1996 edition
of the code and therefore are new material. This should be held for further
investigation.
PACELLI: Additional items in this comment were not in the 1996 edition
of the code and therefore are new material. This should be held for further
investigation.
————————————————(Log #251)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-351-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. Chapter 11]) : Accept in Principle in Part
SUBMITTER: Vince Baclawski, Bill Hopple, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA)/Rep. NEMA/CAFAA
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Change the Committee Action to Accept in
Principle and include the following changes and considerations.
A) Change “dwelling” to “dwelling unit” and “dwellings” to “Dwelling
units”.
B) Add a definition for “Household”.
C) Delete all text (and transcribed text from NFPA 101 for Sections 11.5.2
through 11.5.12) from the Chapter relating to other than dwelling units.
SUBSTANTIATION: Globally change the references to dwelling and
dwellings to dwellings and dwelling units. Dwelling(s) is not defined and no
new definition has been submitted. Dwelling Unit(s) is defined and has been
redefined. Dwelling Unit(s) is defined and has been redefined and accepted.
(See proposal 72-27 and 72-28).
Add a definition for Household. The Committee rejected our Proposal
72-38, which would have changed references from household to dwelling.
Therefore, the Committee has suggested that a dwelling is not a household for
the purposes of applying Chapter 11.
The Committee statement says that household is appropriate and consistent
with industry terminology and yet we cannot find it defined within the
entire NFC. The Committee accepted Proposal 72-39, which adds a new
definition for Household Fire Alarm System, but it does not contain the
word “dwelling”. It is not clear where Section 11.6.2 Household Fire Alarm
Systems, and its subsections apply in Chapter 11, because none of the
occupancies listed use the word household that we can find.
Remove all extracted references to NFPA 101, as well as all new associated
text to these subsections. The new text should be submitted to NFPA 101
for consideration and addition to that document. If the Committee feels this
additional information is applicable for those rooms and areas, it should be
included in NFPA 101 so the installation requirements are consistent. The
Committee’s new text is not going to be embraced by the users of NFPA 101.
Secondly, these subsections are not consistent with “other” building codes.
We understand the Committee’s intent but “other” building code organizations
adopt NFPA 72 by reference as their installation standard. These subsections
conflict with many building and fire codes and we are concerned that these
organizations will drop their reference to the NFPA 72 rather than amend the
adoption by excluding these sections.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in Part
Change “Dwelling” to “Dwelling Unit” and “Dwellings” to “Dwelling
Units” in the following sections: 11.1.2 (1); 11.5.1; 11.5.1.1(1) Exception;
11.5.1.1(3) Exception 2; 11.5.1.3 (b); 11.5.3.2. (b).
In Section 11.6.3 (e) Exception, change “household” to “dwelling unit”.
In Section 11.7.6, change “household” to “dwelling unit”.
In Section 11.8.1.4 (2), delete the word “household”.
In Section 11.8.1.4 (3), delete the word “household”.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In principle, the committee has reviewed the
submitter’s recommendation, (items A and B), and has changed “dwelling”
and “dwellings” as required; and has changed/deleted “household” as
required.
The committee did not take action on the submitter’s Item C as the Technical
Committee has the responsibility to address installation requirements for these
occupancies. See Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #271)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-352-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.1.3]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee advises that Chapter
Scope (Application) statements are the responsibility of the Technical
Correlating Committee and the Technical Correlating Committee accepts
the Committee Action.
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
11.1.3 The requirements for the number, type and location of detection
devices shall be designated by the applicable code or authority having
jurisdiction. Smoke and heat alarms shall be installed in all occupancies
where required by applicable laws, codes or standards.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision more accurately addresses the role of
NFPA 72 as an installation standard, which establishes the requirements for
the number, type, and location of detection devices.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #284)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-353-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.3.7 (New)]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Ltd./Rep.
National Association of the Deaf
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465
RECOMMENDATION: Add 11.3.7 to read:
Combination smoke detector visible appliances shall be installed in
accordance with applicable requirements for smoke detectors. Smoke
detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling at least 4 in. (102 mm) from a wall
or on a wall with the top of the detector not less than 4 in. (102 mm) nor more
than 12 in. (305 mm) below the ceiling.
SUBSTANTIATION: The re-write wisely chose to use prescriptive language
and criteria. This material was taken from the NFPA 72 1996 edition of
prescriptive requirements; Chapters 2 and 6.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The intent of the submitter is currently
embodied in the language of the Standard.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #285)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-354-(Chapter 8 [2003 Ed. 11.3.8 (New)]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Donald E. Sievers, D. E. Sievers & Associates, Ltd./Rep.
National Association of the Deaf
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465
RECOMMENDATION: Add 11.3.8 to read as follows:
Visible appliances and combination smoke detector visible appliances
installed in bedrooms shall be interconnected with hallway smoke detectors,
and both shall be powered by the building electrical supply system.
SUBSTANTIATION: Deaf occupants need to be warned before the smoke
enters the bedrooms just as hearing occupants need to be warned before
smoke enters the bedroom. Hearing occupants can hear 85 db at 10 feet
from a hallway smoke detector. Deaf occupants cannot and need the visible
notification appliance in the bedroom, which needs to be connected to that
hallway smoke detector. UL 1971 Listed visible appliances and combination
smoke detector visible appliances are required to provide a minimum 177
candela; 120 vac powered. Battery operated smoke detectors cannot power
a UL 1971 Listed visible appliance. The re-write wisely chose a path of
prescriptive language and criteria to assist the end user, often a landlord, help
the deaf occupant.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter’s comment does not address
the material in Proposal 72-465. Interconnection is addressed in 11.5 of the
ROP.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #CC3)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-355-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.5, 11.5.3.2, 11.5.11, 11.6.1, 11.11.2]) :
Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Make the following corrections:
Revise 11.5 so that the section number and title are shown without the
strikethrough.
Revise 11.5.3.2(c) so that it is shown without the strikethrough.
Revise 11.5.11 so that the section number and title are shown without the
strikethrough.
Revise 11.6.1 so that it is shown without the strikethrough.
Revise 11.11.2(4) so that it is shown without the strikethrough.
Revise 11.11.2(7) so that “Maintenance Instructions” is shown with
strikethrough.
Revise 11.11.2(8) so that the first occurrence of the word “panel” is shown
with strikethrough and the second occurrence is shown underlined.
SUBSTANTIATION: These were errors in processing of the ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee notes a change is required to Section 11.5.12.2. Change the
last word in ROP 11.5.12.2 from “room” to “rooms”.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #CC3a)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-355-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.10.5, 11.10.6]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Make the following corrections:
Revise 11.10.5* so that the asterisk is shown underlined.
Revise 11.10.6 so that the text (but not the title) is shown with strikethrough.
SUBSTANTIATION: These were errors in processing of the ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————(Log #373)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-356-(Chapter 8 [2002 Ed. 11.10]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed
the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee
on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing
and maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance.
“Section 11.10 of the recommendation of Proposal 72-463” is referred to the
Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems for
action as it concerns testing and maintenance requirements. This action shall
be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. Refer to the Committee Action on
Comment 72-322 (Log #93).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
402
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
Sequence number 72-357 was not used.
(Log #185)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-358-(8-1.2.3) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Larry Ratzlaff, Kidde Safety
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-465
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:
Newly installed fire warning equipment for residential occupancies shall
produce the audible emergency evacuation signal described in ANSI S3.41.
Audible Emergency Evacuation Signal, whenever the intended response is to
evacuate the building, the same audible signal shall be permitted to be used
for other devices as long as the desired response is immediate evacuation.
SUBSTANTIATION: The current proposal removes the wording “newly
installed” from the text. Proposal 72-465 is the basis for removing the
phrase “in newly installed”. This standard is used by many fire and building
inspectors when inspecting existing buildings. Without the text “in newly
installed” all smoke alarms in an old structure would also have to produce the
ANSI S3.41 emergency evacuation signal, which they may not.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Revise text as follows:
“Fire warning equipment to be installed in residential occupancies shall
produce the audible emergency evacuation signal described in ANSI S3.41.
Audible Emergency Evacuation Signal, whenever the intended response is to
evacuate the building, the same audible signal shall be permitted to be used
for other devices as long as the desired response is immediate evacuation.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised wording meets the submitter’s
intent.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #171)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-359-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed. 11-5.1.1, 11.5.1.2, 11.5.2.1, 11.5.3.1(c), 11.5.4.1,
11.5.5.1, 11.5.6.1, 11.5.7.1, 11.5.8.1, 11.5.9.1, 11.5.9.1, 11.5.10.1, 11.5.11.1
and 11.5.12.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 11.5.1.1, 11.5.1.2, 11.5.2.1,
11.5.3.1(c), 11.5.4.1, 11.5.5.1, 11.5.6.1, 11.5.7.1, 11.5.8.1, 11.5.9.1,
11.5.9.1.2, 11.5.10.1, 11.5.11.1 and 11.5.12.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requirements mandating the installation of
detection devices are outside the scope of NFPA 72; reference Technical
Correlating Committee comments on Proposals 72-477 and 72-478.
B. Protection requirements for particular occupancies are the province of the
building and fire codes; not NFPA 72.
C. These paragraphs conflict with 11.1.3.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee has the
responsibility to address installation requirements for these occupancies. See
Committee Action on Comment 72-360 (Log #272).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #272)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-360-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed. 11.5]) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
Committee Action be written to correlate with the action on Comments 72372 and 72-374 and to remove exceptions related to sprinkler protection as
they are outside the scope of this committee. However, the effect of these
exceptions are retained by the wording that specifies “Where required by
applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified occupancy...” The
Committee Action text shall read as follows:
Replace entire section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 with the following:
“11.5.1* One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
11.5.1.1 Smoke Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(1) All sleeping rooms
Exception: Smoke alarms shall not be required in sleeping rooms in existing
one- and two-family dwellings.
(2) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(3) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
Exception 2: In existing one- and two-family dwellings approved smoke
alarms powered by batteries shall be permitted.
11.5.1.2 Notification.
403
(a) Fire warning equipment for dwelling units shall provide a sound that is
audible in all occupiable dwelling areas
(b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new
construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat
alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to
sound
11.5.2 Lodging or Rooming Houses.
11.5.2.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed in every sleeping room. Such smoke alarms shall not be required to
be interconnected.
Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than house
electric-powered smoke alarms, shall be permitted where the facility has
demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction that the testing, maintenance,
and battery replacement programs will ensure reliability of power to the
smoke alarms.
11.5.2.2 Notification.
In new construction in which a fire alarm system is not installed, fire warning
equipment for lodging or rooming houses shall provide a sound that is audible
in all occupiable areas.
11.5.3 New Apartment Buildings.
11.5.3.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(c) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
11.5.3.2 Notification.
(a) Fire warning equipment for a dwelling unit shall provide a sound that is
audible in all occupiable areas within the dwelling unit
(b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new
construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat
alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to
sound
(c)* The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate
the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority
having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted
11.5.4 Existing Apartment Buildings.
11.5.4.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(b) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
Exception: Single-station smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power
source shall be permitted.
11.5.4.2 Notification.
The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the
building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having
jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted.
11.5.5 New Hotels and Dormitories.
11.5.5.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In every guest room
(b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite
11.5.5.2 Notification.
(a) The following shall apply to hotel guest rooms and guest suites:
(1) Fire warning equipment for hotel guest rooms or guest suites shall
provide a sound that is audible throughout the guest room or guest suite
(2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for
hotel guest rooms or guest suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation
of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound within the guest room
or guest suite
This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent
distribution of the alarm signal.
(3)* The alarm shall sound only within the guest room or guest suite and
shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by
the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted
(b) The following shall apply to dormitory sleeping rooms and sleeping room
suites:
(1) Fire warning equipment for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room
suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room or
sleeping room suite.
(2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for
dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites, they shall be arranged
so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound
within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suite. This requirement
shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent distribution of the
alarm signal.
(3)* The alarm shall sound only within the sleeping room or sleeping room
suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise
permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be
permitted.
11.5.6 Existing Hotels and Dormitories.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
11.5.6.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In every guest room
(b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite
(c) These alarms shall not be required to be interconnected
(d) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.6.2 Notification.
The alarm shall sound only within the hotel guest room or guest suite, or
within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suites, and shall not
actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the
authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted.
11.5.7 New Day-Care Homes.
11.5.7.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
(c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.7.2 Notification.
The following notification requirements shall apply:
(a) Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout
the day-care home
(b) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed, they shall be arranged
so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes all smoke alarms to sound
within the day-care home
11.5.8 Existing Day-Care Homes.
11.5.8.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
Exception to (b): Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms rather
than commercial light and powered smoke alarms shall be permitted where, in
the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated
testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability
of power to the smoke alarms.
(c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.8.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
day-care home.
11.5.9. New Residential Board and Care - Small Facility.
11.5.9.1 Detection.
11.5.9.1.1
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and
unfinished attics
(b) In all living areas
(c) Each sleeping room shall be provided with an approved, listed singlestation smoke alarm
11.5.9.2 Notification. Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is
aubible throughout the residential board and care facility.
11.5.10 New Residential Board and Care - Large Facility.
11.5.10.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In each sleeping room
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
11.5.10.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
sleeping room.
11.5.11 Existing Residential Board and Care - Small Facility.
11.5.11.1 Detection.
11.5.11.1.1
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and
unfinished attics
(c) Additional smoke alarms shall be installed for living rooms, dens, day
rooms, and similar spaces
11.5.11.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
residential board and care facility.
11.5.12 Existing Residential Board and Care - Large Facility.
11.5.12.1 Detection.
Where required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In each sleeping room
404
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
Exception No. 1 to (a) and (b): Existing battery-powered smoke alarms,
rather than smoke alarms powered by commercial light and power source,
shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the
facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and battery replacement
programs ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms.
Exception No. 2 to (a) and (b): Facilities having an existing corridor smoke
detection system that is connected to the building fire alarm system.
11.5.12.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
sleeping rooms.”
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Revise text within 11.5 to avoid the direct
requirement that installations be in accordance with NFPA 101. The
following is provided as an example of a suggested revision. Revise 11.5.1.1
to read as follows:
11.5.1.1 When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the
specified occupancy, approved, single-station single- and multiple-station
smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with 9.6.2.10 of NFPA 101 in
the following locations:
The remaining text is unchanged.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision avoids problems associated with conflict
of adoption of NFPA 72 by jurisdictions that do not adopt NFPA 101. For
example, California did not adopt Chapter 8 of NFPA 72 - 1999 (the rest of
72-1999 was adopted) because it contained language requiring installations in
accordance with NFPA 101, which CA does not use. The proposed wording
allows NFPA 72 to provide a complete set of installation requirements while
avoiding adoption problems.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
NFPA 72 Committee Action: Accept in Principle.
Replace entire section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 with the following:
“11.5.1* One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
11.5.1.1 Smoke Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(1) All sleeping rooms
Exception: Smoke alarms shall not be required in sleeping rooms in existing
one- and two-family dwellings.
(2) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(3) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
Exception 2: In existing one- and two-family dwellings approved smoke
alarms powered by batteries shall be permitted.
11.5.1.2 Heat Detection.
Approved, single-and multiple- station heat alarms shall be installed in
attached garages.
11.5.1.3 11.5.1.2 Notification.
(a) Fire warning equipment for dwelling units shall provide a sound that is
audible in all occupiable dwelling areas
(b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new
construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat
alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to
sound
11.5.2 Lodging or Rooming Houses.
11.5.2.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed in every sleeping room. Such smoke alarms shall not be required to
be interconnected.
Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms, rather than house
electric-powered smoke alarms, shall be permitted where the facility has
demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction that the testing, maintenance,
and battery replacement programs will ensure reliability of power to the
smoke alarms.
11.5.2.2 Notification.
In new construction in which a fire alarm system is not installed, fire warning
equipment for lodging or rooming houses shall provide a sound that is audible
in all occupiable areas.
11.5.3 New Apartment Buildings.
11.5.3.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
Exception to (a): In buildings protected throughout by an approved,
supervised automatic sprinkler system.
(b) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(c) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
(d) Approved, single-and multiple-station heat alarms shall be installed in
attached garages
11.5.3.2 Notification.
(a) Fire warning equipment for a dwelling unit shall provide a sound that is
audible in all occupiable areas within the dwelling unit
(b) Where more than one smoke or heat alarm is installed for new
construction, they shall be arranged so that the operation of any smoke or heat
alarm causes the alarm in all smoke and heat alarms within the dwelling to
sound
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(c)* The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate
the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority
having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted
11.5.4 Existing Apartment Buildings.
11.5.4.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate vicinity of the
sleeping rooms
(b) On each level of the dwelling unit, including basements
Exception: Single-station smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power
source shall be permitted.
11.5.4.2 Notification.
The alarm shall sound only within the dwelling unit and shall not actuate the
building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the authority having
jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted.
11.5.5 New Hotels and Dormitories.
11.5.5.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In every guest room
(b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite
11.5.5.2 Notification.
(a) The following shall apply to hotel guest rooms and guest suites:
(1) Fire warning equipment for hotel guest rooms or guest suites shall
provide a sound that is audible throughout the guest room or guest suite
(2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for
hotel guest rooms or guest suites, they shall be arranged so that the operation
of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke alarms to sound within the
guest room or guest suite
This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent
distribution of the alarm signal.
(3)* The alarm shall sound only within the guest room or guest suite and
shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by
the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted
(b) The following shall apply to dormitory sleeping rooms and sleeping room
suites:
(1) Fire warning equipment for dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room
suites shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the sleeping room or
sleeping room suite.
(2) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed in new construction for
dormitory sleeping rooms or sleeping room suites, they shall be arranged
so that the operation of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke
alarms to sound within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suite.
This requirement shall not apply to configurations that provide equivalent
distribution of the alarm signal.
(3)* The alarm shall sound only within the sleeping room or sleeping room
suite and shall not actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise
permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be
permitted.
11.5.6 Existing Hotels and Dormitories.
11.5.6.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In every guest room
(b) In every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite
(c) These alarms shall not be required to be interconnected
(d) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.6.2 Notification.
The alarm shall sound only within the hotel guest room or guest suite, or
within the dormitory sleeping room or sleeping room suites, and shall not
actuate the building fire alarm system, unless otherwise permitted by the
authority having jurisdiction. Remote annunciation shall be permitted.
11.5.7 New Day-Care Homes.
11.5.7.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
(c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.7.2 Notification.
The following notification requirements shall apply:
(a) Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout
the day-care home
(b) Where more than one smoke alarm is installed, they shall be arranged so
that the operation of any smoke alarm causes the alarm in all smoke alarms to
sound within the day-care home
11.5.8 Existing Day-Care Homes.
11.5.8.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
405
Exception to (b): Exception: Existing battery-powered smoke alarms rather
than commercial light and powered smoke alarms shall be permitted where, in
the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated
testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability
of power to the smoke alarms.
(c) Smoke alarms without a secondary (standby) power source shall be
permitted
11.5.8.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
day-care home.
11.5.9. New Residential Board and Care - Small Facility.
11.5.9.1 Detection.
11.5.9.1.1
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and
unfinished attics
(b) In all living areas
Exception to (b): Smoke alarms shall not be required in buildings protected
throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system.
(c) Each sleeping room shall be provided with an approved, listed singlestation smoke alarm
11.5.10 New Residential Board and Care - Large Facility.
11.5.10.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In each sleeping room
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
11.5.10.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
sleeping room.
11.5.11 Existing Residential Board and Care - Small Facility.
11.5.11.1 Detection.
11.5.11.1.1
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In all sleeping rooms
(b) On all levels, including basements but excluding crawl spaces and
unfinished attics
(c) Additional smoke alarms shall be installed for living rooms, dens, day
rooms, and similar spaces
Exception No. 1 to (a), (b) and (c): Buildings protected throughout by an
approved automatic sprinkler system, that uses quick-response or residential
sprinklers, and protected with approved smoke alarms installed in each
sleeping room, that are powered by a commercial light and power source.
Exception No. 2 to (a), (b) and (c): Where buildings are protected throughout
by an approved automatic sprinkler system, that uses quick-response or
residential sprinklers, with existing battery-powered smoke alarms in each
sleeping room, and where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction,
the facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and a battery
replacement program ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms.
11.5.11.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
residential board and care facility.
11.5.12 Existing Residential Board and Care - Large Facility.
11.5.12.1 Detection.
When required by applicable laws, codes or standards for the specified
occupancy, approved, single- and multiple-station smoke alarms shall be
installed as follows:
(a) In each sleeping room
(b) Smoke alarms shall be powered by a commercial light and power source
Exception No. 1 to (a) and (b): Existing battery-powered smoke alarms,
rather than smoke alarms powered by commercial light and power source,
shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the
facility has demonstrated that testing, maintenance, and battery replacement
programs ensure the reliability of power to the smoke alarms.
Exception No. 2 to (a) and (b): Facilities having an existing corridor smoke
detection system that is connected to the building fire alarm system.
11.5.12.2 Notification.
Fire warning equipment shall provide a sound that is audible throughout the
sleeping room.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees with the submitter’s
substantiation and rewrote section 11.5.1 through 11.5.12.2 to provide clarity.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #172)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-361-(8-1.4.1 [2002 Ed., 11.5.1.3, 11.5.2.2, 11.5.3.2, 11.5.5.2(b)(1),
11.5.7.2, 11.5.8.2, 11.5.9.2, 11.5.11.2 and 11.5.12.2]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 11.5.1.3, 11.5.2.2, 11.5.3.2,
11.5.5.2(b)(1), 11.5.7.2, 11.5.8.2, 11.5.9.2, 11.5.11.2, and 11.5.12.2.
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
SUBSTANTIATION: A. These requirements conflict with the current
requirements of 4-3.2 and 4-3.4, and with the proposed requirements of
11.3.4.
B. These requirements allow audibility levels substantially less than have
been shown to be necessary to accomplish effective occupant notification.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has not identified a conflict
with the requirements.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee and affirms the action of the Technical
Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and Household Fire Alarm
Systems on Proposal 72-469.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #169)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-362-(8-1.4.1 through 8.1.4.1.5) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-467
RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. Requirements mandating the installation of
detection devices are outside the scope of NFPA 72; reference Technical
Correlating Committee comments on proposals 72-477 and 72-478.
B. Protection requirements for particular occupancies are the province of the
building and fire codes; not NFPA 72.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has the responsibility to
address installation requirements for these occupancies per Section 11.1.2.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #374)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-363-(8-1.4.1.4.3 (New)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-468
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed
the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee
on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and
maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal
72-468 is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance
of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance
requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Reject Proposal 72-468.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects Proposal 72468. Other provisions of Chapter 7 require the owner to provide testing and
maintenance. Also refer to Committee Action and Statement on Comment
72-35 (Log #70).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #375)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-364-(8-1.4.1.4.4 (New)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-469
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed
the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee
on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and
maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal
72-469, is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance
of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance
requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
406
(Log #269)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-365-(8-3.4 [2002 Ed. 11.10.6.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep.
American Hotel & Lodging Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463 & 72-473
RECOMMENDATION: 72-473 recommended annual single station smoke
detector testing for one- and two-family dwellings only. The technical
committee in modifying section 11.10.6.1 includes all single station detectors.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee has not provided technical
justification for the annual testing of single station detectors.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter did not provide a clear
recommendation but is apparently concerned about the rationale for annual
testing. The committee considers all single- and multiple-station smoke
alarm installations to be the same and therefore to require the same testing
frequency. Refer to the committee actions on Comments 72-322 (Log #93)
and 72-324a (Log #CC 700).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #269a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-365a-(8-3.4 [2002 Ed. 11.10.6.1]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: John F. Deubler, Schirmer Engineering Corporation/Rep.
American Hotel & Lodging Association
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463 & 72-473
RECOMMENDATION: 72-473 recommended annual single station smoke
detector testing for one- and two-family dwellings only. The technical
committee in modifying section 11.10.6.1 includes all single station detectors.
SUBSTANTIATION: The technical committee has not provided technical
justification for the annual testing of single station detectors.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not provided any specific
recommendation for action.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #376)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-366-(8-3.4.1 & 8.3.4.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-473
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed
the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee
on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and
maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal
72-473, is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance
of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance
requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Reject Proposal 72-473.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of the
Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects Proposal 72-473.
Refer to the Committee Action on Comments 72-322 (Log #93) and 72-324a
(Log #CC700).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #116)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-367-(8-3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The
Committee needs to consider that the annex is used for supplementary or
explanatory information, not for recommendations. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Reject Proposal 72-474.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects the proposal
because it is outside the scope of the committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
(Log #116a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-368a-(8-3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee clarify the Committee Action on this Proposal. The
Committee needs to consider that the annex is used for supplementary or
explanatory information, not for recommendations. This action shall be
considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72-370a (Log #274a).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
————————————————(Log #273a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-367a-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows:
11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms
Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiplestation smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability
tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of
installation manufacture.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the
requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms
have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead
to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date
is marked on the unit.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72-370a (Log #274a).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #377)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-368-(8-3.5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474
RECOMMENDATION: By Technical Correlating Committee Note on
Proposals 72-422a and 72-463, the Technical Correlating Committee directed
the Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms and
Household Fire Alarm Systems to correlate with the Technical Committee
on Testing and Maintenance of Fire Alarm Systems to relocate all testing and
maintenance requirements to the chapter on testing and maintenance. Proposal
72-474 is referred to the Technical Committee on Testing and Maintenance
of Fire Alarm Systems for action as it concerns testing and maintenance
requirements. This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public
Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects. This comment was prepared by NFPA Staff as a supplement to
related Technical Correlating Committee Comments.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Reject Proposal 72-474.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction of
the Technical Correlating Committee. The committee rejects the proposal
because it is outside the scope of the committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #273)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-369-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows:
11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms
Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiplestation smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability
tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of
installation manufacture.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the
requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms
have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead
to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date
is marked on the unit.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Actions and
Statements on Comments 72-322 (Log #93) and 72-370 (Log #274).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
(Log #274)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-370-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3 and A.11.10.3]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474
RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows:
11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms.
Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiplestation smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability
tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of
installation manufacture.
Delete section A.11.10.3
A.11.10.3
It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each
alarm and documented.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the
requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms
have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead
to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date
is marked on the unit.
Section A.11.10.3 should be deleted because recommending the installation
date be marked on the unit will lead to confusion on the appropriate
replacement date.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to the Committee Action on Comment
72-322 (Log #93). The committee restricted the requirement to one- and
two-family dwellings because the testing requirements for other occupancies
includes more extensive testing and inspection requirements. The committee
notes that the issue of manufacturer’s date marking raised in the proposal is a
product requirement and is not within the scope of this committee.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
————————————————-
407
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #274a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-370a-(8-3.5 [2002 Ed. 11.10.3 and A.11.10.3]) :
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the
Committee Action on Comment 72-370a be revised to delete Section
11.10.3 and A.11.10.3 to correlate with the Technical Correlating
Committee direction on Comment 72-349 and the action on Comment
72-322.
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-474
RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 11.10.3 as follows:
11.10.3* Replacement of Smoke Alarms.
Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, single- and multiplestation smoke alarms shall be replaced when they fail to respond to operability
tests, but shall not remain in service longer than 10 years from the date of
installation manufacture.
Delete section A.11.10.3
A.11.10.3
It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each
alarm and documented.
SUBSTANTIATION: The revision provides greater consistency with the
requirements of 11.11.1 (11). Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms
have the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as a
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Use of the installation date will lead
to confusion on the appropriate replacement date when the manufacture date
is marked on the unit.
Section A.11.10.3 should be deleted because recommending the installation
date be marked on the unit will lead to confusion on the appropriate
replacement date.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Note that 11.10.3 has been moved per action
taken on Comment 72-349 (Log #108).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #170)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-371-(8-4.8.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Mark Dumais, Argonne National Laboratory
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-476
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: A. The proposed text violates NFPA policy with
respect to endorsement of specific products or services. Reference the
committee statement on Proposal 72-486.
B. No technical substantiaion has been provided demonstrating that the
specified standards are applicable in all applications, that other standards
might not be equally applicable, or that other standards might supercede the
requirements of the specified standards.
C. Product listing requirements are covered in Chapter 1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee disagrees with the
submitter’s substantiation The text provides reference to possible applicable
standards and does not endorse specific products or services.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #117)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-372-(8-5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-477
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee reconsider the Committee Action on this Proposal. The
Technical Correlating Committee directs that requirements for detection
devices is the responsibility of the Life Safety Code and is not within the
scope of this Technical Committee. This action shall be considered by the
Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Delete Section 11.5.1.2 in the ROP.
Renumber remaining sections.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has moved on this Comment
at the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.
The Technical Committee has received additional statistical data analysis
from NFPA and believes that further evaluation of the data is required.
Various state Codes are pending and local codes exist that require heat
detectors/alarms in attached garages.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #358)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-373-(8-5) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-477
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal.
SUBSTANTIATION: We support the Technical Correlating Committee
comment that this is a life safety issue. The suggested location of smoke or
heat alarms does not correlate with the data presented. The level of protection
is inconsistent with the data.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to Committee Action under Comment
72-372(Log #117).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #109)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-374-(8-5.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-478
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs
that the Committee reconsider the Committee Action on this Proposal. The
Technical Correlating Committee directs that requirements for detection
devices is the responsibility of the Life Safety Code and is not within the
scope of this Technical Committee. This action shall be considered by the
Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Delete Section 11.5.3.1(c).
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has moved on this Comment
at the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.
The Technical Committee has received additional statistical data analysis
from NFPA and believes that further evaluation of the data is required.
Various state Codes are pending and local codes exist that require heat
detectors/alarms in attached garages.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #CC507)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-374a-(11-1.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Renumber Subsections in 11.1.2 to correct for the
misnumbering which omitted (3).
SUBSTANTIATION:
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
408
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #CC509)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-374b-(11-3.2 , and A.11.3.2 (New) ) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-460
RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new section 11.3.2 and A.11.3.2 to read as
follows:
“11.3.2*
The installation of smoke alarms or fire alarm systems or combinations of
these shall comply with the requirements of this chapter and shall satisfy the
minimum requirements for number and location of smoke alarms or smoke
detectors by one of the following arrangements:
(a) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection
devices shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of smoke
alarms. The installation of additional smoke alarms shall be permitted. The
installation of additional system-based smoke detectors including partial or
complete duplication of the smoke alarms satisfying the required minimum
shall be permitted.
(b) The required minimum number and location of smoke detection devices
shall be satisfied (independently) through the installation of system smoke
detectors. The installation of additional smoke detectors shall be permitted.
The installation of additional smoke alarms including partial or complete
duplication of the smoke detectors satisfying the required minimum shall be
permitted.
A.11.3.2
This Code establishes minimum standards for the use of fire warning
equipment. The use of additional alarms or detectors over and above the
minimum standard is encouraged. The use of additional devices may result
in a combination of equipment (for example, a combination of single- and
multiple-station alarms or a combination of smoke detectors that are part
of a security/fire system and existing multiple-station alarms). Though a
combination is allowed, one type of equipment must independently meet the
requirements of the code. Compliance with the requirements of the code
cannot rely on the combination of the following fire warning equipment:
(1) Single-station alarms (existing construction only),
(2) Multiple-station alarms, and
(3) Household fire alarm system (includes a security/fire system with smoke
detectors).
It is encouraged that the highest level of protection be used where possible.
For example, if multiple-station alarms are added to an occupancy with
compliant single-station alarms, the multiple-station alarms should be installed
to replace all of the single-station alarms. Similarly, if a monitored household
fire alarm system is added to a house that has compliant multiple-station
alarms, monitored smoke detectors should be installed to replace the multiplestation alarms or be installed to provide the same required coverage.”
Renumber existing sections 11.3.2 through 11.3.6 as required.
SUBSTANTIATION: This comment addresses an omission in the proposed
2002 draft and has been expanded to clarify the intent.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #CC500)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-374c-(11-5) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: In 11.5, change “11.5.6” to “11.5.12”.
SUBSTANTIATION: This correctly addresses the applicable sections.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT:
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————-
(Log #CC508)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-374d-(11-6.6(1)) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Single- and Multiple-Station Alarms
and Household Fire Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-463
RECOMMENDATION: Change 11.6.6 (1), change “monthly” to “weekly”.
SUBSTANTIATION: This change was made to be consistant with testing
requirements.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
(Log #110)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-375-(A-1-5.1.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-487
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the Action on this Proposal be reconsidered and that this material be rewritten
to comply with the Manual of Style. Explanatory material must be located in
the annex.
Because NFPA technical committes do not evaluate specific products or
services from specific vendors, NFPA documents can not really require the
use of specific products or services within the requirements of the code.
This action shall be considered by the Committee as a Public Comment.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
The committee accepts the direction of the Technical Correlating Committee.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 7244(Log #71).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————(Log #CC103)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-375a-(A-1-5.1.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-62a
RECOMMENDATION: In section A-1-5.1.3, add a paragraph after the list
to read as follows:
“The list of examples of qualified personnel is for informational purposes
only and does not include all available services or programs. Information
concerning programs referenced above has been provided by outside sources
and has not been independently verified, endorsed or certified by the NFPA or
any of its technical committees.”
SUBSTANTIATION:The committee has added additional explanatory
information regarding the origin of the examples.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT:
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #276)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-376-(A-1-5.8.1) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William A. Webb, Performance Technology Consulting, Ltd.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-118
RECOMMENDATION: Add as follows:
Normally closed fire detection devices of listed flow cycling assemblies
which are provided as the means to activate the flow cycling valve and which
cause an alarm during a single open or a single ground fault condition are
permitted and are not intended to be connected to the fire alarm system.
SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested wording is consistent with the
Committee’s reason for rejecting my proposal. Placing an explanation
in the appendix will clarify that the detection system which is part of the
flow cycling assembly is not considered part of the fire alarm system. This
clarification is needed to eliminate confusion in the field. Some authorities
have interpreted the existing standard to imply that these detectors be
connected to the fire alarm system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These types of devices are not under the
purview of NFPA-72 and are not part of the fire alarm system.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
————————————————-
(Log #277)
Committee: SIG-FUN
72-377-(A-1-5.8.2) : Reject
SUBMITTER: William A. Webb, Performance Technology Consulting, Ltd.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-119
RECOMMENDATION: Add as follows:
Normally closed fire detection devices of listed flow cycling assemblies
which are provided as the means to activate the flow cycling valve and which
cause an alarm during a single open or a single ground fault condition are
permitted and are not intended to be connected to the fire alarm system.
————————————————-
409
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested wording is consistent with the
Committee’s reason for rejecting my proposal. Placing an explanation
in the appendix will clarify that the detection system which is part of the
flow cycling assembly is not considered part of the fire alarm system. This
clarification is needed to eliminate confusion in the field. Some authorities
have interpreted the existing standard to imply that these detectors be
connected to the fire alarm system.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and statement on
Comment 72-376(Log #276).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 3 Freeman, Mason, & Wayman
(Log #307)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-381-(A-4-3.1.5 [2002 Ed. A.7.4.1.4]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise A.7.4.1.4 as follows:
In the second sentence, the lone letter “s” should be the lower case Greek
letter (sigma).
SUBSTANTIATION: Corrects incorrect text processing.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #CC1)
Committee: SIG-PRO
72-378-(A-3-9 (New) [2002 ed A.6.8.3(k)]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Protected Premises Fire Alarm
Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-496a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text of A.6.8.3(k) so that it is shown as
being underlined.
SUBSTANTIATION: There was an error in processing of the ROP.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:30
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 28
NOT RETURNED: 2 Barrett & Hoffman
————————————————-
(Log #305)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-379-(A-4-1 [2002 Ed. A.7.1]) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise A.7.1 to read as follows:
End of the last sentence reads:
“...to provide the performance recommended above, approved alternative
approaches or methods or are permitted to be used.”
Delete the word “or” so it reads:
“...to provide the performance recommended above, approved alternative
approaches or methods are permitted to be used.”
SUBSTANTIATION: Typo error introduced that was not in the 1999 edition.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
In addition to the recommendation, remove the word “above”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the word “above”
and to conform to the Manual of Style.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #306)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-380-(A-4-2.5 [2002 Ed. A.7.3.6]) : Accept in Principle
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word
“may” in two places in the committee action on Comment 72-380 be
changed to “can” to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.
SUBMITTER: Robert P. Schifiliti, R.P. Schifiliti Assoc., Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505a
RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph at the end of A.7.3.6 as
follows:
It should be noted that monitoring the integrity of the installation conductors
and their connection to an appliance does not guarantee that the integrity
of the appliance or that it is operational. Appliances may be damaged and
become inoperable or a circuit may be overloaded resulting in failure when
the appliances are called upon to work. Presently, only testing can establish
the integrity of an appliance.
SUBSTANTIATION: Correctly differentiates between circuit/connection
integrity and appliance integrity. Many people incorrectly assume that the
lack of a trouble signal or fault indication on a circuit means that the system is
fully operational. The more information and education that we can provide to
users of the code, the better.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
Add new paragraph at the end of A.7.3.6 as follows:
“It should be noted that monitoring the integrity of the installation
conductors and their connection to an appliance does not guarantee the
integrity of the appliance or that it is operational. Appliances may be
damaged and become inoperable or a circuit may be overloaded resulting in
failure when the appliances are called upon to work. Presently, only testing
can establish the integrity of an appliance.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee removed the word “that”
from the first sentence of the comment.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
410
————————————————(Log #CC301)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-381a-(A-4-4.4 [2002 Ed. A.7.5.4]) : Accept
TCC NOTE: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the word
“may” in three places in the committee action on Comment 72-381a be
changed to “can” to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style.
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-304
RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Annex material for Section
7.5.4.
A.7.5.4 Where low ceiling heights or other conditions do not permit
mounting at a minimum of 2.0 m (80 in.) visible appliances may be mounted
at a lower height. However, lowering the mounting height reduces the area of
coverage for that strobe. The performance based methods of 7.5.4.3 may be
used to determine the area of coverage. Strobe light mounting height should
not be lowered below the plane of normal human viewing (approximately 1.5
meters, 5 ft.) except where ceiling heights limit the mounting position.
The mounting height requirement of 2.0 - 2.4 m (80 - 96 in.) does not
address the possibility of conditions where ceiling heights that are less than
2.0 m (80 in.). The range that is permitted (2.0 - 2.4 m) ensures that strobes
are not mounted too high, which would result in lower levels of illumination
on surrounding walls and on the floor. The lower limit of the range ensures
that a minimum percentage of the surrounding surfaces is illuminated and that
the top of the illuminated pattern is at or above the plane of normal human
viewing (approximately 1.5 meters, 5 ft.). Wall mounting of strobe lights
which are only listed for wall mounting may result in little or no illumination
above the plane of the strobe light. In the case of lower ceiling heights and
mounting close to the ceiling, the level of illumination on the floor and
surrounding walls is not reduced but the walls have a near 100% illuminated
or “painted” area because the strobe is close to the ceiling. That is, there is
little or no wall surface above the plane of the strobe that is not illuminated
when the strobe is mounted close to the ceiling. Thus, when a strobe is
mounted lower than the minimum (2.0 m, 80 in.) but still close to the ceiling,
the only loss of signal is the smaller pattern produced on the horizontal plane
(floor).
In the case where the only change is a lower mounting height due to a lower
ceiling height, the room size covered by a strobe of a given value should be
reduced by twice the difference between the minimum mounting height of 2.0
m (80 in.) and the actual, lower mounting height. For example, if a 15 cd eff.
strobe that normally covers a 6.1 m (20 ft) square space is being used and the
height of the space is 1.6 m (63 in.) and the strobe is mounted at 1.5 m (59 in.)
, the strobe can only cover a 5.1 m (17 ft) square space: 6.0 -2 x (2.0 - 1.5) =
5.1 m (17 ft).
The room size reduction assumes that the horizontal pattern on each side of
the strobe is reduced by the same amount that the strobe height is reduced.
SUBSTANTIATION: The committee did not want to add the text of
Comment 72-292 to the body of the Code. The committee chose different
language to be placed in the Annex to address the possibility of lower
mounting heights.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————(Log #CC307)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-381b-(A-4-4.4.1.4 [2002 Ed. A.7.5.4.1.6]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Notification Appliances for Fire
Alarm Systems,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-505a
RECOMMENDATION: Add new Annex A.7.5.4.1.6 to read as follows:
“ This Section is also intended to permit ceiling mounted strobes to be
suspended below the ceiling provided the strobe height is not below the
viewing plane for any ceiling height.”
SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify that this section applies for ceiling heights
other than 30ft.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #158)
Committee: SIG-NAS
72-382-(Table A-4-9) : Hold
SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-361
RECOMMENDATION: Delete or modify the symbols in the table since
they do not match the standard symbols in NFPA 170.
SUBSTANTIATION: Be consistent with NFPA 170.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Hold
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee recommends holding the
comment for further study. The committee is forming a task group to work
with the Technical Correlating Committee task group on standard fire alarm
system interfaces and to work with the NFPA 170 committee to resolve
conflicts and investigate the efficacy of any proposed symbol set. The
committee chose to leave the symbol set from Proposal 72-361 in the annex at
this time.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 16
————————————————-
(Log #111)
Committee: SIG-PRS
72-383-(A-6) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-514a
RECOMMENDATION: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that
the proposed text on this Proposal be revised for organization, clarity and to
fully comply with Manual of Style.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Revise the appendix material associated with Chapter 6 [2002 edition
Chapter 9] to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style and to correlate with the
new numbering presented in the recommendation of CC4.
Revise Figure A-6-16.4.1(b) to show “30 ohms max” rather that “30 ohms.”
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the direction from
the Technical Correlating Committee and has directed that the appendix
material be revised to comply with the Manual of Style and to correlate with
the reorganization of the chapter as presented in the recommendation of 72321a (Log #CC4).
The revision to Figure A-6-16.4.1(b) is editorial and was a previous
oversight.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:10
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 9
NOT RETURNED: 1 Fisher
————————————————-
(Log #275)
Committee: SIG-TMS
72-384-(A-8 [2002 Ed. A.11.10.3]) : Reject
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-520
RECOMMENDATION: Delete section A.11.10.3
A.11.10.3
It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each
alarm and documented.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have
the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as the
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Recommending that the installation
date be marked on the unit will lead to more confusion on the appropriate
replacement date. Therefore, section A.11.10.3 should be deleted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed recommendation deals with
an issue that is outside the committee scope.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:26
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 21
NOT RETURNED: 5 Claiborne, Corrin, Johannsen, Reeser, & Seymour
date be marked on the unit will lead to more confusion on the appropriate
replacement date. Therefore, section A.11.10.3 should be deleted.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Refer to 72- (Log #274a).
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:13
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Brave
————————————————(Log #302)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-385-(Annex B) : Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Bill Hopple, SimplexGrinnell
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-523a
RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:
Change from Accept to Accept in Principle and include all corrections in the
errata I have provided.
The errata makes corrections to many Sections and Tables incorrectly printed
in the 1999 edition of Appendix B. Proposal 72-523a should match the items
in the errata, but it doesn’t. Several of the items in the committee proposal
will conflict with the fixes in the errata. The following items need to be
corrected in the proposal to align with the errata for consistency:
B.3.3.4 states [(Existing Equation B.3.3.4 (13) (no change)] which is wrong.
Use the equation from errata item 3.
In Figures B.3.3.4.4, B.3.3.8, and B.3.3.8.3.4 make the following changes:
Step 1. Add a degree symbol preceding K in the equation. *This is not in
the errata.
Step 3a. Add a degree symbol preceding K in the equation. Errata items 4
and 5.
Step 5. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 6.
Step 5. Revise the equation to read as printed in errata item 7.
Step 6. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 8.
Step 8. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 10.
Step 9. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 12.
Step 10. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 14
Step 11. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 15.
Step 12. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 16.
Step 13. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 17.
Step 14. Revise the instructions to read as printed in errata item 18.
B.3.3.6.6.3 - replace “1 minute” with “5.25 minutes”. See errata item 21.
B.3.3.9.2 - replace the ROP text with the text in errata item 22.
B.5.2.4 - revise the first equation to the one shown in errata item 23.
B.5.2.4 - revise the third equation to the one shown in errata item 25.
B.5.2.4 - revise the fourth equation to the one shown in errata item 26.
B.5.3.3 - under the text “To solve for d’,” revise the equation to the one
shown in errata item 27.
Not all of the errata items were missed in the committee proposal. The
above list is the items that retain the 1999 text and equations, which need to be
changed during the ROC meeting.
SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.
NOTE: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle
The committee accepts the editorial corrections except to delete the
references to the “degree symbol” with the K(Kelvin) temperature scale.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proper notation for temperature in
Kelvin excludes the degree symbol. The errata issued by NFPA reflects this
convention.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
(Log #112)
Committee: SIG-IDS
————————————————(Log #275a)
Committee: SIG-HOU
72-384a-(A-8 [2002 Ed. A.11.10.3]) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Daniel T. Gottuk, Hughes Associates, Inc.
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-520
RECOMMENDATION: Delete section A.11.10.3
A.11.10.3
It is recommended that the installation date be permanently marked on each
alarm and documented.
SUBSTANTIATION: Section 11.11.1 (11) requires that smoke alarms have
the manufacture date clearly marked on the unit. This date serves as the
benchmark for the 10 year replacement. Recommending that the installation
72-386-(B-2-3.1.2.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-525
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in
the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information
recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B.
Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-525.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed
in voting and now accepts Proposal 72-525.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
411
NFPA 72 — May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA
(Log #113)
Committee: SIG-IDS
(Log #115)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-387-(B-2-3.1.2.3) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-526
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in
the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information
recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B.
Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-526.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommdation of
the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in
voting and now accepts Proposal 72-526.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
72-389-(B-2-3.3.1) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-530
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in
the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information
recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B.
Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Accept the recommendation of Proposal 72-530.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommdation of
the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed in
voting and now accepts Proposal 72-530.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
————————————————-
(Log #114)
Committee: SIG-IDS
72-388-(B-2-3.2) : Accept
SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for
the Protection of Life and Property,
COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:72-527
RECOMMENDATION: It was the action of the Technical Correlating
Committee that further consideration be given to the comments expressed in
the voting. The Technical Correlating Committee advises that the information
recommended by the submitter is clearly within the scope of Appendix B.
Reference is made for information to B-2.2.1.
SUBSTANTIATION: This is a direction from the Technical Correlating
Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property in
accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee
Projects.
COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept
Revise the recommendation of Proposal 72-527 adding new text to read as
follows:
There are numerous analysis techniques available to identify fire scenarios.
These can typically fall into one of two categories:
probabilistic or deterministic.
Probabilistic approaches typically relate to the statistical likelihood that
ignition will occur, and the resultant outcome if a fire does occur. Probabilistic
approaches could use the following as sources of data:
— Fire statistics (ignition, first items ignited, etc.)
— Past history
— Hazard/Failure Analysis
— Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
— Event trees
— Fault trees
— HAZOP studies
— Cause-Consequence Analysis
Deterministic approaches use analysis or engineering judgment that is based
on chemistry, physics, or correlations based on experimental data.
The selection of the design fire scenario and the supporting analysis
techniques should be appropriate to the premise or processes. Inappropriate
scenario selection or analysis can result in conservative designs that are not
economical or designs with unacceptably high risks.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee accepts the recommendation
of the Technical Correlating Committee to reconsider the comments expressed
in voting and now accepts in principal the Proposal 72-527. The revised text
is more concise and includes all of the significant points of the submitter.
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:29
VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 27
NOT RETURNED: 2 Denton & Ouimette
————————————————-
412