NFPA Journal - January/February 2020 - 42

Kristin Bigda, principal engineer at NFPA, talks
about the changes proposed in NFPA 1, Fire Code,
that could impact requirements for two-way radio
communication enhancement:
Communication during an emergency-with the
public and among emergency response agencies-
is obviously vital. NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services
Communications Systems, spells out many of the
system requirements in areas such as dispatching,
telephone, public reporting, one-way and two-way
radios, and more.

Read full
versions of
these posts
and many
others from
technical
staff on NFPA
Xchange at
nfpa.org/
community

Section 9.6 of NFPA 1221 specifically addresses two-way radio communications enhancement
systems. This section addresses system components, system degradation, approvals and permits,
radio coverage, signal strength, radio frequencies,
system monitoring, and documentation of technical
criteria.
During this current code revision cycle, the NFPA
1, Fire Code, Technical Committee has discussed
expanding these provisions to address minimum
safety and performance requirements for two-way
radio communication enhancement systems that
currently do not exist in other codes and standards. The First Draft Report has expanded text that
addresses how accepted installation practices have
made their way through the industry via emerging
technologies that did not exist years ago. New language also addresses listing and labeling, minimum
signal strength into the building, equipment installation, and acceptance test procedures. Further updates discussed but not formally voted on include
updating the terminology and additional references
to NFPA 1221. These changes will be voted on by the
committee in the coming weeks and published in
the Second Draft Report early next year.

42 | NFPA JOURNAL * J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 2 0

RECENT BLOGS ON
CODES AND STANDARDS
BY NFPA STAFF

Christopher Coache, a senior electrical engineer at
NFPA, explains how NFPA 70E®, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace®, is not just for those
working in the electrical industry:
According to US Bureau of Labor statistics, nearly
60 percent of the annual electrical contact fatalities
that have occurred over the last 40 years have been
caused by contact with overhead wires. Common
victims include electricians and linesmen, but
also painters, groundskeepers, roofers, and tree
trimmers, as well as well drillers, dump and cement
truck drivers, and boom truck operators. Most of
these involved either a ladder or parking near or beneath overhead power lines, then raising a portion
of the truck.
A reason that so many overhead power line fatalities are occurring in these trades could be because
employers and employees mistakenly believe that
an electrical safety program does not apply to
them. However, NFPA 70E is for all employees who
might be exposed to electrical hazards while performing their assigned tasks-it is not written only
for those in the electrical industry. It is foreseeable
that employees from other trades will be exposed
to electrical hazards in their work environment. If
you are not in an electrical trade, what does your
employer do to ensure your electrical safety at your
workplace?
Greg Harrington, a principal engineer at NFPA, on
what NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, has to say about
protecting buildings with vertical openings:
Protection of vertical openings is a subject about
which we receive a fair number of questions
here at NFPA. In general, floors need to provide a
smoke-resistant barrier between stories in a building to prevent smoke from migrating vertically
and affecting occupants on stories other than the
story of fire origin. A vertical opening is a "hole in
the floor" that requires some form of protection.
Different vertical openings have different names:
convenience opening, communicating space, atrium, two-story opening with partial enclosure, and
others. The varied protection strategies offered by
the code are, I think, what creates some confusion. To determine the protection requirements for
these vertical opening variations, refer to Section
8.6 and the X.3.1 subsection of the applicable
occupancy chapters.
The code also offers a handful of additional vertical opening protection strategies (see Section 8.6
for the details). Be aware that some of the Life Safety Code vertical opening protection requirements
might differ from those in the International Building
Code; in some cases, the Life Safety Code might be
more restrictive. Where a jurisdiction has adopted
both NFPA 101 and the IBC, designers will likely
need to comply with the more restrictive provisions
so as to meet the requirements of both.

GETT Y IMAGES

In Compliance Xchange

http://www.nfpa.org/community http://www.nfpa.org/community

NFPA Journal - January/February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - January/February 2020