If you spend any amount of time in our industry, you are well aware that all codes and standards change, usually on a three-year timetable. When dealing with fire alarm or mass notification systems, you need to stay abreast of not only the National Electrical Code (NEC) and NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, but all of the associated building codes and the Life Safety Code that jurisdictions in your market area use. Keeping up on the changes in each of these codes and standards can seem a formidable challenge.



The same solution applies to this as to the question, “How do you eat an elephant?”—“One bite at a time.” You can meet the challenge of knowing the code changes and their effect on your business by digesting the information one change at a time.


Rarely do the codes and standards change at the same time. To keep from turning the task into an elephant, be aware of pending change schedules. Then you can jump on the opportunity to learn the new code or standard as soon the sponsoring organization publishes it. This requires discipline and organization.


I realize you often get caught up in getting the next bid out or dealing with a personnel issue rather than ensuring you stay on top of the various code changes. However, the only logical way to meet the code-changes challenge emerges when you break down the cycles and codes and develop a review schedule for each one.


Because you have become a leader in your profession, assign your top technical person to actually review the individual code or standard. For example, if you have a project manager who understands fire alarm systems and continuously excels in performing code-compliant installations, assign that person to review the latest edition of NFPA 72.


Once your trusted employee has reviewed and summarized the changes, use that information to ensure all of your technicians have a good understanding of the current codes and standards. This will help keep them updated and allow them to move forward with the installation of code-compliant fire alarm system installations without callbacks due to noncompliance issues.


You can further streamline this task by having your chief code reviewer become the in-house trainer for your technicians. Often the contractor professionals that I see training this way offer the people conducting the classes a financial reward for their extra efforts. Once the initial training has ended, that same chief code reviewer can quite easily become the in-house subject-matter expert (SME) on the specific code or standard in question. This provides the rest of your staff with a resource to which they may go to for guidance when questions arise in the field. It also allows you to use your SME to interface with the specific authority—such as the local fire marshal—regarding code-related issues.


Addressing the codes and standards changes in this fashion enables you to ensure that your personnel become trained at a higher level of competence than the competition. They, in turn, will make fewer code-related mistakes in the field. This will increase your value to your customer, and the higher level of expertise will add to your bottom line.


Some of the changes can seem difficult to understand. Or they may be commonly misinterpreted by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). If either of these situations occur, your investment will prove most beneficial.


For example, the survivability requirements for in-building fire emergency voice/alarm communications systems (EVACS) has become one of the most misunderstood and controversial requirements in NFPA 72.


From a historical perspective, note that the requirement for notification appliance circuit survivability began in the 1999 edition of NFPA 72 with Section 3-8.4.1.1.4, which states that: “Notification appliance circuits and any other circuits necessary for the operation of the notification appliance circuits shall be protected from the point at which they exit the control unit until the point that they enter the notification zone that they serve [emphasis added] using one or more of the following methods:


“(1) A 2-hour rated cable assembly


“(2) A 2-hour rated shaft or enclosure


“(3) A 2-hour rated stairwell in a building fully sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.”


The annex material provided some insight for the requirement, emphasizing that Section 3-8.4.1.1.4 “requires the protection of circuits as they pass through fire areas other than the one served. This is to delay possible damage to the circuits from fires in areas other than those served by the circuits. It is done to increase the likelihood that circuits serving areas remote from the original fire will have the opportunity to be activated and serve their purpose. The protection requirement would also apply to a signaling line circuit that extends from a master fire alarm control unit to another remote fire alarm control unit where notification appliance circuits might originate.”


Note that the requirement does not apply to all notification appliance circuits, rather, only to the notification appliance riser circuits in a high-rise building, for example. Survivability does not apply to detection circuits or signaling line circuits unless a particular signaling line circuit controls notification appliance circuits.


Fast-forward to NFPA 72 2013 to see that an important change occurred to the requirements as initially stated above. This edition has two new chapters (introduced in 2010): Chapter 12 and Chapter 24. A separate technical committee developed each one. Chapter 12 had the charge to describe the various levels of survivability, but it did not require the use of any specific level. Chapter 12 described the circuit-survivability requirements as follows:


“12.4 Pathway Survivability. All pathways shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.


“12.4.1 Pathway Survivability Level 0. Level 0 pathways shall not be required to have any provisions for pathway survivability.


“12.4.2 Pathway Survivability Level 1. Pathway survivability Level 1 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, with any interconnecting conductors, cables, or other physical pathways installed in metal raceways.” [Emphasis added]


[Note that metal raceways are required for physical protection and do not provide any fire-resistance rating.]


“12.4.3 Survivability Level 2. Pathway survivability Level 2 shall consist of one or more of the following:
“(1) 2-hour fire-rated circuit integrity (CI) cable
“(2) 2-hour fire-rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)]
“(3) 2-hour fire-rated enclosure or protected area
“(4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction


“12.4.4 Pathway Survivability Level 3. Pathway survivability Level 3 shall consist of pathways in buildings that are fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and one or more of the following:
“(1) 2-hour fire rated circuit integrity (CI) cable
“(2) 2-hour fire rated cable system [electrical circuit protective system(s)]
“(3) 2-hour fire rated enclosure or protected area
“(4) 2-hour performance alternatives approved by the authority having jurisdiction”


And then Chapter 24, Emergency Communications Systems, prescribed (as defined in Chapter 12 above) acceptable and required levels for in-building fire EVACS and mass notification systems (MNS):


“24.3.5.4 In-building fire emergency voice/alarm communications systems shall comply with 24.3.5.4.1 or 24.3.5.4.2.


“24.3.5.4.1 For systems employing relocation or partial evacuation, a Level 2 or Level 3 pathway survivability shall be required.”


So, the major change removed the permission to install wiring in raceway in a building that is fully protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems from the Chapter 12 descriptions of levels, and this installation method would now become unacceptable. However, this change did not radically affect installations until Sept. 12, 2012, when Underwriters Laboratories issued the following statement:


“UL has recently conducted research on a wide array of current products and systems originally certified under UL 2196, Tests for Fire Resistive Cables and ULC-S139, Standard Method of Fire Test for Evaluation of Integrity of Electrical Cables and determined that they no longer consistently achieve a two-hour fire-resistive rating when subjected to the standard Fire Endurance Test of UL2196 or ULC-S139. Consequently, UL and ULC will not be able to offer certification to the current program related to these standards. As a result, manufacturers are no longer authorized to place the UL mark or ULC mark on the following products including Circuit Integrity Cable installed in ‘free air’ or ‘in conduit:’


• “UL Classified Fire Resistive Cable (FHJR)


• “UL Listed cable with ‘-CI’ suffix (Circuit Integrity)


• “ULC Listed Fire Resistant Cable-Circuit Integrity Rating (CIR) 
Cable (FHJRC)”


This has generated enormous confusion with both retrofit and new EVACS installations. Many jurisdictions continue to permit the use of the performance alternative as originally specified in 1999. However, in navigating this particular mine field, your SME will need to understand both the history and the balance of the code requirements to ensure you do not get caught in a very costly required installation change because you did not approach the AHJ to ensure agreement on the acceptable method for your installation to comply with the survivability requirements of the code.


As a professional contractor, it is your job to stay abreast of code changes, train your technicians to understand those changes, and have your own SME available to meet with the AHJ regarding code issues. Time and again, this will prove a worthy investment.