When NFPA 72: 2010 was released, its sweeping changes and updates created a lot of excitement. Although there are further revisions in NFPA 72: 2013, this new edition will primarily be known for bringing further organization to the 2010 edition. “The 2010 code was reorganized so that it would be conducive to adding additional chapters,” says Lee Richardson, NFPA senior electrical engineer and staff liaison for NFPA 72.

“Previously, if we had to add a chapter, everything else would get renumbered. The 2010 edition not only included a high degree of technical changes, but it was also substantially revised in terms of organization.”

The following provides an overview of some of the revisions in the 2013 edition of NFPA 72. To review all the changes and updates, you should purchase a complete version of the code at www.nfpa.org.

Chapter 7: Documentation All in One Place

A key addition to the 2013 edition is a new Chapter 7 on documentation. Previously, documentation requirements were dispersed among the chapters according to each system’s requirements. Now however, this new chapter becomes the go-to place for documentation requirements. AHJs can now locate what they need in one place rather than searching throughout the code. If documentation requirements are contained in other chapters, reference pointers in Chapter 7 show where they can be found.

There are also new documentation requirements, including a set of minimum documentation for any project. For example, a narrative must now be included as part of the submittal for all systems. Depending on the scope of the system, this new edition specifies additional documentation that may be needed.

In the 2010 edition, the Record of Completion and Inspection and Testing forms were revised to accommodate emergency communications systems, addressed in the new Chapter 24. The resulting forms were long and all inclusive – covering any system addressed by the code, regardless of how simple or complex the system.

The 2013 edition moves these forms to Chapter 7 and reorganizes them for ease of use. “Now you use a basic form for a simple fire alarm system,” says Richardson, “and additional add-on forms, as needed, for more complex systems.”

Chapter 10: Get Organized

NFPA has also reorganized Chapter 10 on Fundamentals, including moving the circuits and pathways material to Chapter 12.

Chapter 10 contains several important technical changes. Additional system impairment requirements stipulate that a supervising station must report to the AHJ whenever monitoring has been terminated for a system that is required to be monitored. In addition, a service provider must report any fire alarm system that has been out of service for more than eight hours to the AHJ. “Before, the owner was notified,” explains Richardson. “Now, the AHJ can get involved.”

In addition, qualification requirements for inspection, testing and service personnel have been updated to have a graded approach to the level of qualification required.

Chapter 12: Know What Takes Priority

The circuits and pathways chapter is mainly menu-driven: other chapters specify the requirements that apply. A new section addresses prioritization and segregation of life safety versus non-life safety signals with shared pathways. As future signaling circuits and pathways become more intertwined, these shared pathway requirements will play a more important role. Another change in Chapter 12 will require all power- and non-power-limited circuits that enter or leave a building to have transient protection.

Chapter 14: Test Plans

The Inspection, Testing and Maintenance chapter includes a new requirement for submitting a test plan to the AHJ for all systems. The plan needs to clearly define the scope for the system testing and be part of the documentation with the test records.

The purpose is to identify the scope of what is being tested and how it is to be tested. Often, people perform testing in a segmented fashion. As a result, it is important to keep track of what has been done and what remains to be done. “The test plan is intended to help the people doing the testing,” explains Richardson, “making sure they complete everything that needs to be done.”

The test plan also better defines the boundaries of testing when other systems are interfaced with the fire alarm system or emergency communications system. “In earlier editions, the requirement was that anything a fire alarm system connected to had to be tested along with the fire alarm system,” explains Richardson. “But the problem was: how does NFPA 72 address testing requirements of systems that fall under the jurisdiction of other standards?”

The scope of the 2013 edition of NFPA 72 has been revised to limit testing requirements to only those systems covered by NFPA 72 – fire alarm and emergency communications systems. A new document, NFPA 4, Standard for Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing, is currently being developed to address integrated testing of interconnected systems. However, the 2013 edition does provide some non-mandatory guidance on this subject in the annex section.

A more significant organization change is to the chapter’s inspection and testing tables. Earlier editions of the code had three tables; now consolidated into two. The new Inspection table covers the inspection frequencies from the previous editions and added inspection methods, which is a new technical change.

The second new table combines the previous Test Frequency table and Test Methods table. “This was done to keep all the information on one page instead of needing to flip back and forth between the tables,” Richardson explains. “This should make the table much easier to use.”

The listing order to correlate components between the two tables was also modified for convenience. “For example, the inspection component for a battery is the same item number as in the test component,” Richardson points out.

“It’s the newer technology that’s beginning to replace the older technology. These changes are good for manufacturers and the industry as a whole.”

— Lee Richardson, NFPA senior electrical engineer

Chapter 17: Go with the Flow

This chapter clarifies and updates total coverage requirements for initiating devices, especially in situations involving concealed spaces above suspended ceilings that are used as return air plenums. Provisions for the location and labeling of remote alarm and supervisory indicators are also updated. Requirements addressing applications of spot-type smoke detectors in high air flow conditions are also updated and clarified.

Chapter 18: AV Placement

The most prevalent update to the notification appliances chapter is that the designer must identify the spaces where audible and visible notification is needed. “The designer had to identify the acoustically distinguishable spaces that required intelligibility and which spaces did not as part of the 2010 code. Now there are similar requirements for audible and visible notification,” says Richardson.

For 2013, the requirements for textual visible notification (text and displays) from the 2010 edition in the emergency communications chapter are moved into the notification appliances chapter. They are expanded and modified to include fire applications (not just mass notification systems) and now must include location, mounting and performance requirements.

Chapter 24: “This is a Test”

The Emergency Communications Systems (ECS) chapter improves the common ECS requirements from the 2010 edition. One addition pertains to microphone use: Instructions for making voice announcements must now be posted, and test messages have to specifically state: “This is a test.”

Other changes relate to mass notification systems (MNSs). Templates for each message developed for possible emergency response scenarios are now required. This includes updates to voice message priority in in-building MNSs, as well as location and accessibility of emergency command centers. One update to in-building MNS documentation requirements calls for the owner to be provided a written sequence of operations and a copy of the site-specific software stored in non-volatile memory.

Chapter 26: Alarm Signal Verification

The Supervising Station Alarm Systems chapter includes a new provision that permits verification of an alarm from a commercial occupancy prior to notification of emergency services of an alarm condition. Alarm signal verification is permitted only when a set of conditions is met. Among other things, the responsible fire department must opt-in for each specific protected site. In addition, when an alarm signal is received, the

supervising station must call the fire department to inform them that alarm verification is in process. Remember the old ad “Phone first”? For a digital alarm communicator transmitter, it was also true that you could phone “second.” Previously, the first channel had to be a phone line, and the second channel could be either another phone (land line) or a number of different technologies. Now the second channel can no longer be another phone line. It has to be a different technology.

Another change on supervising stations addresses how to accommodate newer communications technologies, now called performance-based technologies. Secondary power requirements for shared communications equipment used with performance-based technologies is updated and more precisely defined.

Chapter 29: Low-Frequency Sounder Clarification

The Chapter 29 Committee removed an unintended consequence in the 2010 edition of the code that required low-frequency sounders in all sleeping areas where smoke alarms or household fire alarm systems are installed. During the development of the 2010 code, it was never the intent of the Committee to require a low-frequency sounder in all sleeping areas. Rather, the intention was for the low-frequency audible alarm signal to only be required in sleeping spaces where there is the need to awaken people with hearing loss. In addition to addressing this unintended consequence with the updates included in the 2013 edition, a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) was issued for the 2010 edition that low-frequency sounders only be required in sleeping spaces to awaken people with hearing loss.

Provisions are also added to address the connection of a sprinkler waterflow switch to multiple station alarms or household fire alarm signal to activate an alarm signal. A homeowner can still use a keypad to request the fire department through a supervising station. The difference is that keypad activation now requires two manual simultaneous or sequential operations.

Annex

Annex material has been added to provide examples of technologies that fall under the requirements for performance-based technologies. This was done “because it’s relatively new and not the same as the traditional digital alarm communicator systems,” explains Richardson. “It’s the newer technology that’s beginning to replace the older technology. These changes are good for manufacturers and the industry as a whole.”

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, 263 CO exposures were reported to poison centers in eight states: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware². Nine of the reported exposures were fatal³. This is likely an underestimation of the total number of fatal cases because not all are reported to the state poison centers. Larger numbers of CO-related deaths have been reported in the media.

The exact number is not known, but what is known is that CO poisoning in the U.S. can often be prevented. A little education goes a long way to build awareness of this colorless, odorless and poisonous gas. It cannot be detected by humans but can be detected with a dependable CO detector like the System Sensor CO1224T Carbon Monoxide detector.

According to the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission’s document #466, Carbon Monoxide Questions and Answers, CO alarms always have been and still are designed to alarm before potentially life-threatening levels of CO are reached. The safety standards for CO alarms have been continually improved and currently marketed CO alarms are not as susceptible to nuisance alarms as earlier models.

¹ Hampson NB, Weaver LK. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A new incidence for an old disease. Undersea Hyperb Med 2007; 34(3):163-168

² Information reported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Notes from the Field”: Carbon Monoxide Exposures Reported to Poison Centers and Related to Hurricane Sandy – Northeastern United States, 2012.

³ Gates, Sara. “Carbon Monoxide Deaths: Generators Cause At Least Nine Fatal Poisonings After Hurricane Sandy.” The Huffington Post. 2 Nov. 2012. <http://goo.gl/lNh2b>

But the improvements will not only be cosmetic. At the heart of the new site will be comprehensive Product Pages with detailed specifications, product photography, and links to important product-related documents (i.e., data sheets, manuals, and application guides), training and events.

Other enhancements include a robust Search function, easy-to-navigate dropdown menus and a new Document Center capable of searching our extensive library of product marketing materials, news archives, images and videos. And due to popular demand, the Document Center will also enable users to add multiple items from the library to a Download List with options to download the entire list to your desktop or email links directly to any email address.

The new systemsensor.com will be in five languages: English for the U.S., English and French for Canada, and Spanish and Portuguese for Latin America and South America. These are only a few of the enhancements that will greatly improve your experience using our Web site. Look for the new systemsensor.com this spring.

The CO1224T and CO1224TR CO detectors include RealTest^® technology, so they can be tested using a CO gas agent, fully meeting the requirements of NFPA 720: 2009. Simply put the detector into RealTest mode, spray a small amount of CO into the detector per the installation instructions, and within seconds the detector will alarm, indicating successful gas entry.

Designed for system operation, these detectors are fully listed to UL 2075 and offer a code-required trouble relay to send a sensor failure or end-of-life signal to the control panel and the central station.

Sr. Product Marketing Manager

Losing weight and quitting bad habits are common New Year’s resolutions: common to make, common to break. Even if you have already blown the resolutions you made, allow us to suggest another: organization.

Organization is sometimes harder to accomplish than it seems, but it can do wonders for saving time and reducing headaches. The National Fire Protection Association made organization a priority in the 2013 edition of NFPA 72^®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code^®, which, as we discuss in this issue’s cover story, makes code users’ jobs easier by consolidating documentation and tables, for instance.

Here’s another reason to get organized: Poor organization can cost you. Good record-keeping and planning can help you stay on top of customers’ maintenance and service needs, which in turn can reduce unnecessary downtime while promoting more business opportunities for you:

• Proactive calls/visits can lead to more sales. The electrochemical sensor within carbon monoxide detectors works at full strength for about six years. When it’s time to replace a System Sensor CO1224T/CO1224TR detector, the built-in timer will notify the panel. May we suggest that you schedule a courtesy visit with your customers just before that time to review the status of these detectors and other system needs? A good scheduling system that reminds you when systems are due for service or replacement can also be a proactive sales tool.

• Make time for yourself. It’s easy to get caught up in today’s emergencies and tomorrow’s problems. But it’s important to make time for training that can go a long way toward improving your skills and expanding what your business can sell or do for your customers. Visit systemsensor.com/training to see when System Sensor is holding online courses and webinars, as well as live seminars throughout the U.S.

Practice good business habits to win and keep customers, and let System Sensor be your resource for products, training and ideas that can help make 2013 a profitable year.

The Minnesota History Center, which opened in October of 1992, is home to the Minnesota Historical Society’s collections of art and artifacts and provides a place for visitors to discover connections to their past. This landmark building, part of the Minnesota State Capitol complex in St. Paul, Minn., includes 44,000 square feet of museum space and showcases innovative and interactive exhibits, such as a 24-ton box car that visitors can climb aboard and view a multimedia show that recreates the power of a tornado. In addition, the museum displays many artifacts, including pieces from a traveling exhibit about George Washington, an unusual, early published version of the U.S. Constitution and a rare draft of the Bill of Rights on loan from the Dorothy Tapper Goldman Foundation.

Safeguarding these precious objects and protecting patrons from a fire event is a top priority for the museum. Armed with a comprehensive fire and life safety system, the museum thought it was prepared – until an electrical wire issue caused a small fire in one of the exhibits.

“It wasn’t detected by the smoke alarms or smoke detectors because the ceilings are very high,” explains Michael Fisch, Facility Manager at the Minnesota History Center.

Fully realizing then that standard smoke detection may respond too late to protect its valuable exhibits, the museum staff researched very early warning fire detection systems for the galleries with the help of a consultant. “Aspirating smoke detection technology was recommended as a good solution for us,” continues Fisch.

“For early warning detection, there is nothing comparable to an aspirating system because it actually samples the air continuously. It’s an active system rather than passively waiting for smoke to arrive,” explains Joe Spencer, project manager at ECSI (Electronics Communications Systems Integrator), a St. Paul Engineered Systems Distributor of NOTIFIER^® by Honeywell. “They decided on a need for an early warning system, and we decided to go with the latest technology, which was System Sensor’s FAAST aspiration system.”

“For early warning detection, there is nothing comparable to an aspirating system because it actually samples the air continuously.”

— Joe Spencer, Project Manager at ECSI

The FAAST Fire Alarm Aspiration Sensing Technology utilizes a unique Dual Vision sensing technology that uses a high-sensitivity blue LED to detect incipient fire conditions and an infrared laser to detect larger nuisance particulate. Advanced algorithms process data from both sensors to provide the earliest and most accurate fire detection available. FAAST’s combination of high sensitivity to smoke and accuracy is an ideal fit for the museum. It enables early warning of fires while greatly reducing false alarms from dust or other nuisance particulate that could interrupt the museum’s primary display activities. FAAST also provides multiple alert levels and pre-alarm warnings, so the museum can be alerted of potential problems before an actual fire occurs.

“Working around the U.S. Constitution exhibit was one of our biggest concerns,” adds Spencer, “making sure not only to protect all the items, but to not damage them because many are priceless and there is no way to replace them.” History center personnel and the ECSI team coordinated to make sure all items were protected.

The ECSI installation team was led by Mike Schmidt, general foreman for the project, capitalizing on his vast experience with aspiration technology. “Having the proper personnel assigned to the job was definitely key to getting things done right,” says Spencer.

Installation in the galleries occurred during a shut down between exhibits or after hours. Special requirements to accommodate the open gallery ceiling included using black piping so that it blended and was virtually invisible to the eye, another benefit of aspiration systems.

Throughout the three galleries, ECSI integrated 13 FAAST systems into the museum’s existing fire alarm system, made possible through the use of modules and coordination with Honeywell. FAAST oversight is now part of the combined systems’ graphic user interface that is shared throughout the state capitol complex and monitored by a 24-hour security staff that reports to the capitol from all buildings.

While the building – its art and architecture, and the resources it holds – preserves Minnesota’s history, FAAST protects the building’s future.

Dr. Lindell Weaver, MD, FACP, FCCP, FCCM, FUHM, can talk about carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning in depth. As a physician trained in pulmonary, critical care and in hyperbaric medicine, he directs a carbon monoxide clinic, and has evaluated over 1,000 patients with CO poisoning during his practice. But his study of CO goes far beyond the clinic: Dr. Weaver is the Medical Director and Division Chief, Hyperbaric Medicine at LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah and Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah and is a Professor of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine. Dr. Weaver has, in short, studied CO poisoning extensively, including following people in research trials one year or more after CO poisoning. He has also engaged in several CO poisoning research studies, some of which are still ongoing, and has authored several papers on the dangers of CO exposure. LifeSafety took this opportunity to ask Dr. Weaver about the risks.

What are the symptoms and health dangers associated with CO poisoning?

The symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are non-specific. Mild exposures result in headache, fatigue, myalgia, dizziness, and neuropsychological impairment. Severe or acute exposures to CO result in confusion, loss of consciousness, or death.

At the time of CO exposure, oxygen levels in the blood are reduced. There are other issues with CO exposure, as well, and other ways exposure hurts people. In addition to the lack of oxygen caused by CO poisoning, this poisoning also causes inflammation. The brain and occasionally the heart are the main organs damaged by CO. Some people mistakenly believe that the only time you could get hurt from CO is during an exposure. That’s a myth, because the CO exposure can cause brain damage to develop or worsen even after the CO exposure. Sometimes these problems can be permanent.

How do people respond to CO poisoning?

People respond in unpredictable ways: some of them will have an uneventful recovery and some of them will not. There is nothing that can measure the affects at the time of initial evaluation to predict who will or will not have a problem after the CO poisoning has ceased.

In fact, even the severity in poisoning is not linked to outcome. For example, there could be people who did not lose consciousness and still develop permanent brain damage later on. There are many times when people taken to area hospitals with CO poisoning are treated, released, and informed that they will be “fine.” In my experience, some of those people will not be fine. Final outcomes to the exposure may not be known for a while. Our studies suggest, in some instances, injury from CO exposure might happen days to months from the incident. The good news is there is a growing awareness of CO poisoning and its immediate and delayed dangers.

How soon after a CO event can the extent of the injury be determined?

Many times, in acute instances, people have problems from the event going forward. With CO poisoning, however, problems can develop later – where people can be okay for a few weeks, maybe even a few months, and then worsen. This delay phenomenon in CO poisoning is actually very well established and accepted. It can take a while for the immune system to express itself clinically in this way. The result is people actually have brain damage from the immunological insult caused by CO poisoning.

Are the symptoms different if it occurs later than if it happens right away?

It depends. As I mentioned, the symptoms of people with acute exposure are typically headache, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting. They don’t feel well, they know something is wrong, they are stumbling along, their balance is off, they are dizzy.

“Hotel-related CO poisoning has resulted in mass evacuation of hundreds of people on more than one occasion.”

— Dr. Lindell Weaver, Medical Director and Division Chief, Hyperbaric Medicine at LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah

There’s another scenario that can happen, however. It involves a group of people who never really have one acute event. Instead, they might have had CO exposure over days, weeks, months, even years at a time. I’ve seen and treated people who have had years of chronic CO exposure with serious damage to their bodies. Those symptoms are different, because the exposure goes on for such a long period than those who have had acute poisoning. They too have headaches, nausea, and they don’t feel well. In addition, they often have confusion, apathy, don’t feel like doing anything, and sometimes have a lot of breathing problems, or chest pain.

How widespread is the problem, and are there any preventative measures?

The magnitude of the problem is not trivial. Research estimates that there are

50,000 emergency department visits annually due to CO poisoning in the United States alone. This is the most common poisoning in industrialized countries, and it’s preventable.

After seeing all of these people over the years, the vast majority could have prevented CO poisoning by following these recommendations:

• Get furnaces, heating systems and hot water systems inspected every year.

• Never operate machinery that produces CO indoors, ever. For example, after hurricane Sandy there were at least 250 documented CO poisoning cases from the use of generators. Some of those people died because the generator was operated inside a home or structure.

The same phenomenon happened with hurricane Katrina.

• Use CO alarms in bedrooms and any space that has gas or propane appliances.

Where do you recommend placement of CO alarms?

CO is a small molecule that diffuses rather quickly through air, and therefore, the alarm can be set anywhere, even on a countertop. A good place to start is in a bedroom or anywhere that sleeping occurs. Another location to have an alarm is anywhere a propane or gas-operated appliance is located, such as kitchens, rooms with a fireplace or furnace area.

“Never operate machinery that produces CO indoors, ever…after hurricane Sandy there were at least 250 documented CO poisoning cases from the use of generators. Some of those people died because the generator was operated inside a home or structure.”

— Dr. Lindell Weaver, Medical Director and Division Chief, Hyperbaric Medicine at LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah

And they don’t have to be placed on the ceiling. CO alarms can be placed almost anywhere. Just don’t place alarms on the floor, because dust can get into the sensor, or any place where aerosols such as hairspray are being used, because aerosols can affect the sensors.

What type of buildings or industries do you think needs this type of protection?

Let’s talk about the evidence to answer that question. The notion that all CO poisoning events happen at home is not supported by the data. Let the data drive decision-making where alarms are needed.

Regarding warehouses – In 2008, a local business in Salt Lake City had an incident where 18 people were seriously poisoned one night because a winter storm ruined a vent in an overhead industrial grade furnace. Out of those 18, I followed many of them and can tell you two of them are now disabled and unable to work. A year later, another warehouse employing hundreds of people in Ogden, Utah, was using industrial stoves and ovens. In this case, 44 people were poisoned with CO in one event. The event inundated area hospitals and I treated six people that were sent to the Salt Lake City hospital, because they were worse than the others. That’s a CO poisoning epidemic that overwhelmed our medical system.

Going back further, about 15 years ago, in another warehouse, 25 people were poisoned, many of them seriously. They were using gas/propane powered fork lifts to move pallets of food products. One day a door was closed, and one of the fork lifts was producing excess CO.

How about schools? This spring, a Heber Utah-area school was evacuated because of CO. A few years ago, I treated 18 people from a school in Ogden where a maintenance man had plugged up a vent to a furnace/boiler. The entire women’s swimming team and those working a swim meet were poisoned.

Or look at hotel evidence. The chances of being poisoned on any given day, in any given hotel, is really, really low. But, hotel-related CO poisonings have resulted in fatalities. Hotel-related CO poisoning has resulted in mass evacuation of hundreds of people on more than one occasion. Placing CO alarms in the hallway does not solve this problem, but having CO alarms in hotel rooms would have.

These are all places, that without a doubt, would have benefitted from having a working CO detector.

Is there a need for better CO alarms or other types of technology that would help detect CO gas?

These technologies already exist. There are a couple of things that the alarms all should have. First, a digital display offers an advantage. Because it stands to reason, if you see the numbers on the display, even though the alarm may not be alarming, it’s another clue that there could be a problem. The environment can be tested by the fire department or the gas company or whoever does testing in one’s locale, to verify what the levels are. If the levels are elevated, you know there’s a problem.

In addition, the alarm ought to have a self-test feature that tells you if there is a problem with the sensor. After all, if the sensor goes bad, the alarm isn’t going to work. Not everyone is aware of that fact. Right now, for example, I am aware of several alarms, from poisoned patients, that did not go off for whatever reason. But, if the CO alarm could have some indicator that told the consumer that the device needed to be replaced, it could alleviate any doubt.

Any parting advice?

CO poisoning sneaks up on people, and that’s why I carry my own personal alarm. I don’t rely on the hotel to have a CO alarm. It unexpectedly went off once. People were barbequing outside my window when it alarmed, and when I closed the window, it stopped. But had I not had the alarm, I would not have known there was an elevated CO level in the hotel.

You want to discover a CO problem as soon as possible to prevent permanent injuries. If everyone is suddenly getting sick with a headache, but no one has a fever, you have to think about CO as a possibility. It might be food poisoning or something else, but it certainly could be CO.

Using PipeIQ, a designer can complete the pipe network layout, verify hole sizes and sensitivity, and obtain a Bill of Material and Layout Report.

The software also includes a Pipe Wizard that can guide users through the pipe network design process. The wizard asks a series of questions about the area under protection and designs a pipe network tailored to the space. A great tool for inexperienced designers, the Pipe Wizard is also suitable for quickly designing a pipe network for less complex rectangular spaces and to create an initial layout for more complex spaces that will require additional design.

For more information on PipeIQ, visit systemsensor.com/FAAST.

Presently, the Uniform Construction Codes are based on the 2009 edition of the I-codes. On October 18, 2012, the Review and Advisory Council (RAC) decided not to adopt any of the 2012 I-codes. This will not impact most residential fire and life safety businesses because the 2009 IRC requires the installation of CO detection and permits household fire alarm systems to be installed as a primary form of smoke detection. However because the RAC decided not to adopt the 2012 IBC, CO detection will not be required in Group-R occupancies such as hotels, dormitories and dwelling units within apartment buildings.

New Carbon Monoxide and Smoke Detection Requirements for California

On September 21, 2012, Governor Brown signed SB 1394 into law. This bill delays the effective date for the installation of CO detection in existing hotels and motels until January 1, 2016. The original date was January 1, 2013.

The bill also requires that, commencing January 1, 2014, in order to be approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal (SFM), smoke alarms “shall display the date of manufacture on the device, provide a place on the device where the date of installation can be written, incorporate a hush feature, incorporate an end-of-life feature that provides notice when the device needs to be replaced, and, if battery operated, contain a non-replaceable, non-removable battery that is capable of powering the smoke alarm for a minimum of 10 years.”

The new requirements do not apply to system-connected smoke detectors. The bill gives the SFM the authority, through the Fire Alarm Advisory Committee (FAAC), to promulgate regulations to implement the bill’s requirements and to delay the enforcement of the requirements if it determines there is an insufficient amount of approved smoke alarms available to property owners to meet the requirements as of the effective date. Details of the regulations will be provided once the FAAC completes its work.

FAAST overcomes installation and logistical difficulties at a mission-critical industrial chemical plant.

A large industrial chemical plant needed to install smoke detection in its motor control center (MCC) room, but shutting down the 800-acre stand-alone chemical plant to install the system could cost the plant $10 million a day in lost productivity. Downtime was not an option, so the system needed to be installed while the plant was still up and running. The question was, “How?”

S & S Sprinkler Systems was  engaged to find a solution. When John Waldrop, Senior Project Manager, and designer, Zack Normandin, tuned into a System Sensor FAAST Fire Alarm Aspiration Sensing Technology^® webinar, they realized FAAST could be a “winning solution” for this chemical plant.

S & S had considered other methods, such as water-based or clean agent fire protection for the chemical plant, “…but the use of water or inert chemical agents would have meant a long time for restoration and clean up in an emergency, not to mention the high cost for the volume of clean agent necessary,” Waldrop says. Instead, he recommended and chose FAAST because it was user-friendly, especially in the design and cost.

An industrial plant may have many motors and components for motor control that are allocated to a special area or room. An MCC is usually a modular cabinet system for powering and controlling motors. An MCC room may have a 20-foot ceiling with air supply and returns mounted at a lower level. Rows of electrical cabinets are typically 8-feet tall and cable tray tiers are mounted at 12 to 18 feet high.

Standard spot detectors have difficulty sensing fires in MCC rooms because of their air flow patterns, which can heavily dilute smoke and cause it to not reach ceiling-mounted detectors in detectable levels. And because electrical cabinets generally have gaskets on their doors with no vents, fire can potentially develop for a long time inside the cabinet before enough heat and smoke escape to trigger an alarm in a standard detector. Heat buildup in these high-ceilinged rooms could also stop the cooler smoke from rising to the ceiling and triggering an alarm.

“ FAAST… worked the first time, and everything flowed really well.”

— John Waldrop, Senior Project Manager S & S Sprinkler Systems

In the case of the specific MCC room S & S was tasked to protect, huge high-velocity air handlers are used to chill the 7,000-square-foot room’s motors and generators. This constant blowing tends to stir up dust, raising the potential for costly nuisance alarms that could shut down production.

“It is a relatively clean environment but has a high velocity of air movement necessary to cool the giant transformers and switchgear. Photo and spot detection would not fit the bill because of the amount of detectors we would need, in addition to servicing them on a 15- to 20-foot ceiling. Spot detectors could also get clouded; the high velocity of air could blow particles right into the photo chambers,” Waldrop says.

FAAST’s patented Dual Vision sensing technology and advanced particle separation combine to provide high-sensitivity to actual fire with superior nuisance rejection – a critical requirement for protecting the chemical plant’s MCC room. Even with its ability to discriminate against nuisance particulate, FAAST has a listed sensitivity rating of 0.00046%/ft (0.0015%/m) obscuration. This level of sensitivity can detect very small quantities of smoke, mitigating the effects of dilution and enabling a response before costly damage or loss can occur. FAAST also offers five fully programmable alarm levels, so strategic responses can be customized to specific smoke thresholds for the facility.

“There was a tremendous amount of surface-mounted, rigid conduit, all types of cable trays, raceways, high voltage and sensitive equipment,” Waldrop continues. “Because of FAAST, we were able to install it while the equipment was running. FAAST is especially important because it is easy to angle around and not disturb the raceways.”

Because of a crowded wall, it was difficult to get the hard pipe from the detector up the wall and into the existing installation. Rather than bend the hard pipe around the obstacles, installers threaded the capillaries through without shutting down the plant or putting people at risk.

“The capillaries were the key part to put the detection where we needed it and were a breeze to put in,” Waldrop says.

The fire suppression control module to the annunciator is located in the utilities control room a block away. S & S used fiber rather than copper wire to connect the FAAST device to the module because it is easier to use and install. The main control panel was reformatted to RJ45 fiber-optic cable. FAAST easily met the fire marshal’s inspection and approval.

“The FAAST air sampling system worked the first time, and everything flowed really well,” says Waldrop.