2010 NFPA 72: FA: a code section preventing addressable notification devices on SLC's

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elja

New member
Location
United States
I am involved in a construction dispute. Fire alarm plans were approved subject to 2010 NFPA 72. Plans show addressable SLC with addressable notification devices tapped onto the SLC circuit. The developer wants separeated NAC circuit, from the SLC circuit. Contractor says, show us where in the 2010 NFPA 72 that it is disallowed to run as many notification devices as we need from the SLC. The notification devices have their own power supply, address with the FACP, backup power, and isolation modules. I am of the understanding that the contractor is correct, and it is the reviewer / plan checker that needs to demonstrate if an item is in non-compliance, rather than the converse where the obligation is on the designer to prove their design is compliant with the intent and the design is at least equivalent in performance to the prescriptive intent. I am still of the opinion that the 2010 NFPA 72 allows addressable notification devices to be attached to SLC's. Consider that Grinnell makes such an addressable notification circuit module OXA-504SDA. thank you for any help you share, here. Elja
 
Typically these designs would be submitted to the plans examiner with a seal from the Fire Protection Engineer's seal. If the drawings are approved by the engineer, the plans examiner simply reviews for compliance and in no way alters the intent or nature of the submitted drawings then the contractor or permit holder is also not allowed to alter them without resubmitting a revision to the plans examiner and containing the seal of the Fire Protection Engineer who are in agreement on the changes.

Being allowed or not within the code still refers to the authority having jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the plans on code intent only and not to design the system. Sounds to me like everyone wanting a change to the already approved design should get with the designer, discuss the options and then revise the drawings submitted to the plans examiner for review for compliance.
 
OK so the developer doesn't like the design?

There were plans approved by the designer, then the AHJ?

The developer would have approved the construction documents at some point right? So, refer to the contract and offer a change order. There is nothing wrong with using addressable notification modules, other than a designer particular style or a job spec preventing.

I personally wouldn't use them normally, however I have. Did a two story strip mall, 18 tenant spaces. Each needed an outdoor strobe. Using two NAC's from a booster to feed 9 of the exterior strobes, each. Simplifies a job from pulling 18 circuits to two, the SLC was in every unit at the front door for the pull anyway.
 
nhfire77 said:
OK so the developer doesn't like the design?

There were plans approved by the designer, then the AHJ?

The developer would have approved the construction documents at some point right? So, refer to the contract and offer a change order. There is nothing wrong with using addressable notification modules, other than a designer particular style or a job spec preventing.

I personally wouldn't use them normally, however I have. Did a two story strip mall, 18 tenant spaces. Each needed an outdoor strobe. Using two NAC's from a booster to feed 9 of the exterior strobes, each. Simplifies a job from pulling 18 circuits to two, the SLC was in every unit at the front door for the pull anyway.
Click to expand...


I was trying to think of an advantage to these devices. You are giving one sort of, but why would you just feed the exterior strobe from the NAC circuit in the tenant space? I can see this setup to have each space independently notified, or say tenants to the left and right and center of any alarm though.
 
We use the SLCs to trigger NAC boosters in almost every fire alarm we do.


We also often feed a single outside strobe outside each tenant space multiunit buildings so the FD will know which tenant has the issue.
 
iwire said:
We use the SLCs to trigger NAC boosters in almost every fire alarm we do.


We also often feed a single outside strobe outside each tenant space multiunit buildings so the FD will know which tenant has the issue.
Click to expand...

This is not a NAC booster though. When a building has a fire alarm system, I expect the entire floor plus the floor above and floor below to be evacuated upon event of a fire. I thought that was code. As far as the FD knowing where the problem was that is what the annunciator is for, I thought. I am just an electrician with an NICET II card doing fire alarm though. Not a real Fire alarm guy.
 
Using a ANM (addressable notification module) has several advantages:

Shorter wire runs from facp or nac booster for multiple runs.
Local requirements that require very specific output mapping.
It's cheaper to add one off an existing NAC (that has enough current available) without adding another panel. (just did that this AM)
You are using multiple panels, for instance, you may have a stand alone suppression panel and a remote A/V device must be activated in a control room, adding a dedicated circuit all the way back to the suppression panel.

Also, it's great if you are lazy, under a time constraint, budget or all three.

Although it would be preferable to go back to a nac, less possible ppints of failure, but it's code compliant.

So, who exactly has the problem with it?
 
Strathead said:
I was trying to think of an advantage to these devices. You are giving one sort of, but why would you just feed the exterior strobe from the NAC circuit in the tenant space? I can see this setup to have each space independently notified, or say tenants to the left and right and center of any alarm though.
Click to expand...

Because each tenant space may not have a dedicated NAC, (really small space)

FD requires the strobe has to stay on while it's in alarm but silenced but the interior strobes are off. They won't / can't reset the panel and that flashing light above the door is going to annoy someone and will get a tech out there faster.

Exterior devices are more prone to issues, ie water infiltration, so isolating it is desirable.

Also, I like having god like control of the A/V devices.

Of course I find adding a nac booster is easier and cheaper in most situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top