|NFPA 72 2010 - Most Significant Changes|
Issue 43: NFPA 72 2010 - Most Significant Changes
By Lee Richardson
The 2010 edition of NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code,1 is probably the most important edition since it was revised in 1993 as the National Fire Alarm Code. Many of the more significant changes in the code were presented in the July 2009 edition of Emerging Trends.
Some of these will be briefly recapped in this article because they are
indeed important changes. This article will also summarize additional
significant changes not addressed in the July 2009 article.
Recapping Significant Changes
The following changes are among those presented in more detail in the July 2009 edition of Emerging Trends. Only a brief summary is provided here.
As the new title of NFPA 72 implies, the content of the code has
expanded beyond fire alarm systems to include requirements for several
new signaling systems. These include in-building mass notification
systems (24.4.2), wide-area mass notification systems (24.4.3),
distributed recipient mass notification systems (24.4.4), radio
communication enhancement systems (24.5.2) and area of refuge emergency
communications systems (24.5.3). These new systems as well as two
traditional fire systems, emergency voice/alarm communications (24.4.1)
and two-way telephone communication service (24.5.1), are now all
addressed in a new chapter entitled "Emergency Communications Systems."
The provisions of the new chapter also address the interrelationship
between different mass notification systems and fire alarm systems, and
the means to establish priority and control between them. Essential
among the provisions for mass notification systems are requirements for
the performance of risk analyses to provide the bases for design
requirements and signal priority. Performance-based practices for the
design of mass notification systems are also addressed.
NFPA 72 has required that voice communication systems be capable of
reproducing voice messages with voice intelligibility since the 1999
edition. With the expansion of the scope of the code, the role of voice
communication systems has also expanded. The 2010 edition has been
updated with new requirements in 18.4.10 relating to the identification
of areas/spaces ("acoustically distinguishable spaces") that will
require (or not require) voice intelligibility as specified by the
system designer and approved by the authority having jurisdiction (if
required). In addition, a new Annex D, "Speech Intelligibility,"
provides guidance on the design and testing of systems to provide voice
intelligibility. These updates are based on work conducted by the Fire
Protection Research Foundation.2
Signaling for those with hearing loss received new treatment in the
2010 edition of NFPA 72. Beginning January 1, 2014, audible notification
appliances of commercial fire alarm systems that are provided to signal
sleeping areas will be required to produce a low frequency alarm signal
(520 Hz square wave or equivalent). The detailed requirements are found
in 184.108.40.206. In addition, the evacuation and alert tones preceding
voice messages associated with emergency voice/alarm communication
systems must also produce the low frequency output. This latter
requirement becomes effective as soon as a jurisdiction adopts the 2010
edition. The detailed requirements are found in 220.127.116.11 as specified in
TIA 10-4 (see the NFPA 72 document information page: www.nfpa.org/72).
New requirements for signaling to the deaf and hard of hearing have also been added for applications of smoke alarms and household fire alarm systems. For those with mild to severe hearing loss (hard of hearing), the low frequency alarm signal must be used for signaling in sleeping rooms. For those with profound hearing loss (deaf), tactile notification appliances are now required along with high intensity strobes in sleeping rooms. The detailed requirements are found in 29.3.8.
Additional Significant Changes
The changes summarized below are also among some of the other more significant for the 2010 edition.
Several changes have been made in the supervising station alarm
systems chapter. These include a new requirement for qualification of
supervising station operators, a new requirement for indication of
remote station service, removal of four legacy communications methods,
update of key definitions associated with digital alarm communicator
systems, and update of provisions for IP communicators.
Supervising station operators must now be able to demonstrate
evidence of qualification and/or certification in a similar manner as
has been required for system designers, installers and service
personnel. The detailed requirements are found in 10.4.4 (referenced
Of the three types of supervising stations service, central station,
proprietary supervising station, and remote supervising station service,
the latter is probably the most commonly used. Owners using remote
supervising station alarm systems are now required to provide annual
documentation to the authority having jurisdiction identifying the party
responsible for inspection, testing and maintenance of the alarm
system. The detailed requirements are found in 26.5.2.
The four legacy communications methods removed from the code include:
active multiplex transmission systems, McCulloh systems, directly
connected noncoded systems, and private microwave radio systems. These
systems are no longer being actively installed.
The use of some non-traditional telephone service can now be used in
applications of digital alarm communicator systems (DACS). While the
detailed requirements for these systems in 18.104.22.168 have not changed,
the definitions for three key terms have been revised or added and have
an impact on how the requirements are interpreted. These terms are
linked to the requirement for a digital alarm communicator transmitter
(DACT) to be connected to a "loop start telephone circuit" of a "public
switched telephone network" in 22.214.171.124.1.1. These terms are defined in
3.3.273 and provide the link to a new term "managed facilities-based
voice network" (MFVN) defined in 3.3.141.
Collectively, these definitions take a broader view of the type of
telephone service recognized for DACS applications. Service must be
provided through a physical facilities-based network maintained by the
service provider to ensure service quality and reliability. The
essential expectations for these systems are detailed in A.3.3.141 and
include the expectation that telephone service provider's communications
equipment located at the premises or in the field include eight hours
of standby power. Not all telephone service providers will meet the
expectations for these networks. Twenty-four hours of standby power is
not "expected" for premises and field installed MFVN equipment. However,
the once-expected capacity of 24 hours has not been provided for some
time even by traditional telephone service providers except at their
central facilities. The standby power capacity at the central facilities
of MFVNs is still expected to be 24 hours.
The use of IP communicators is more common for transmission of signals to a supervising station. This communications method uses the internet (or intranet) as part of the communications pathway. The requirements for these systems are found in 126.96.36.199, and were formerly contained in a section entitled "Other Transmission Technologies" that first appeared in the 1999 edition. Unlike DACSs, IP communicators do not require the use of a second communication channel (unless required as a part of the manufacturer's published instructions or the product listing). However they are "always on" and are required to indicate failure of the communications path at the supervision station within 5 minutes of the failure. (In contrast DACSs are not "always on" and are only required to initiate a test signal once every 24 hours.)
New in the 2010 edition for IP communicators is a requirement for any
associated communications equipment located at the premises or the
supervising station to meet the secondary power capacity requirements of
10.5.6 – which requires 24 hours of secondary power capacity. This
requirement would apply to non-fire-alarm system equipment such as that
included as part of a local area network or cable modem used to connect
the IP communicator with the internet. IP communicators are available in
versions that interface with a traditional DACT rather than directly
with the fire alarm control unit. These versions are sometimes called IP
DACTs and fall under the rules for IP communicators in 188.8.131.52, not
the rules for DACTs.
Another change has been made in the chapter on initiating devices.
The prescriptive rules for locating and spacing spot-type smoke
detectors in joist and beam ceiling applications have been subject to
revision over the past several editions. The provisions of earlier
editions were generally thought to be conservative and in some cases
(such as for waffle ceilings) the number of detectors required seemed by
many to be excessive. Revisions were made in the 2007 edition, based on
initial work undertaken by the Fire Protection Research Foundation,3 and provided updated requirements for applications involving level ceilings. Further research4
was done following the issuance of the 2007 edition and the
requirements in the 2010 have been updated, refining the 2007 work and
now addressing both level and sloping ceilings. The detailed provisions
are found in the paragraphs under 184.108.40.206.4 and include specific
provisions expressed as a function of ceiling height for waffle or
pan-type ceilings, corridors, and rooms of less than 900 ft2 (84 m2.)
Many other significant changes have been made throughout the document. Some of them are listed below for reference:
Lee Richardson is with the National Fire Protection Association
For questions concerning delivery of this e-Newsletter, please contact our Customer Service Department at (216) 931-9934 or magazine.sfpe.org.