# New technology v. Old code



## FM William Burns (Apr 1, 2014)

I have had some good discussions with various code officials on a customer's desired use of newer technology versus an older code edition adopted by a jurisdiction.  The issue has always fascinated me since, I have always informed design professionals, I would be happy to review the proposal based on the latest and greatest edition of the standard if that’s what they propose.

I have always believed and practiced a philosophy that we can’t go backwards if newer technology exists an is acceptable in a more recent edition of the code and we are stuck in the purgatory of old code edition adoption cycle.

I was reminded in another thread today of this debate where some clarification information stated ”The 2013 edition of NFPA 72 does not become the enforced code until…………”  

Let’s use the example here for your thoughts and comments:

Commercial Fire Alarm Systems & Wireless Technology  

The newer edition of the National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA 72, 2013 has improved and expanded their recognition of newer technology such as VOIP (voice over internet protocol) and RF (radio frequency of one to two way cellular communication) acceptable for use in commercial systems.  Chapter 12 was developed to address this newer stuff for circuits and pathways for system performance.  

The question up for discussion is does one accept the new technology if it is listed for the intended and compliant performance even though one’s adopted version of the referenced code has not caught up?


----------



## cda (Apr 1, 2014)

I normally say yes

Just because the ahj does not adopt the latest whatever, does not mean newer technology or building practice should not be accepted.

I would say that you have to do it equally, do not pick and choose when you do it.

Other problem is codes cannot keep up with new technology


----------



## mjesse (Apr 1, 2014)

Short answer, Yep.

I have no problems picking individual items from various Code editions for approval, provided they meet or exceed the INTENT of the Code.

Approval and enforcement are handled here at a local level, so no conflicts with State requirements (plumbing excluded)

mj


----------



## Frank (Apr 1, 2014)

New code provisions not yet adopted are a strong basis for a code modification.   They however should not be just approved without the modification to document the use of alternative methods.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 1, 2014)

Alternate methods........as stated, stay consistent in its use.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Apr 1, 2014)

As far as I know this is the only company that manufacures a NFPA 72 2013 ED wireless compliant system for commcercial use.

http://www.cwsifire.com/

From an insurance point of view, as soon as NFPA publishes a documant, we start using it!


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 1, 2014)

> As far as I know this is the only company


And you are in the know IE.  That is who I was referring to in my discussions.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 1, 2014)

Virginia will adopt NFPA 72 2010 (and 2012 codes amended) late this year with a one year grace but I've allowed it since the technology became available with the Fire Marshal's blessing.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Apr 2, 2014)

FM Bill

We have it at our training facility, nice system, folks can not believe it when they see it in action, truly amazing stuff, perfect for retrofit applications. I hear they are coming out with a heat detector soon.


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 2, 2014)

> coming out with a heat detector soon


IE,

Yes, should be within the month according to the word on the street.  Doing some advisory work for a firm here who will introduce it in the northern region of the states.  Nice to know about your experience, I can't believe how other regulators can't see the forest through the trees.  They test really well also.


----------



## fireguy (Apr 2, 2014)

NFPA 13-2010 1.6.1 nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered.

1.6.2 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be utilized in complete accord with all condition, requirements and limitation of their listings.

Is this what you were thinking of FM Bill?


----------



## cda (Apr 2, 2014)

fireguy said:
			
		

> NFPA 13-2010 1.6.1 nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered. 1.6.2 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be utilized in complete accord with all condition, requirements and limitation of their listings.
> 
> Is this what you were thinking of FM Bill?


More than likely, but also the I- codes specify a certain edition.

And some people will not use any other edition than what is stated in the I- codes


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 2, 2014)

I will allow a newer standard under "Alternate Materials and Methods" on a case by case and for a specific reason/situation, I am still under the 2009 IBC so for traction elevators and shaft sprinkler requirements we had to use a later version. Cabelas asked for and where approved to use the latest version because of the heads they wanted to use where not approved under the 2007 NFPA 13. If the building code has a specific requirement and the newer standard eliminates that requirement then as a BO you really need to dot your "I"s and cross your "T"s as to why you permitted the lesser requirement. Specific case here was the requirement for horn strobes in all rooms with more than 2 people and the danger this poses in an operating room if one goes off during surgery. We permitted the elimination of the horn strobes in the OR's but we have documentation as to the hospitals procedure for notifying those that may be occupying the room at the time of an alarm activation. I believe this is allowed or will be in a future NFPA 72 standard


----------



## steveray (Apr 2, 2014)

You have to go through the State here to use something from a newer code....but it is done fairly frequently I have done newer NFPA 13 for high rack paper storage, newer NEC for poll recep at 6 feet, 2012 IBC for rediculously long travel out of a third floor apartment....


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 3, 2014)

> Is this what you were thinking of FM Bill?


Not exactly.  I was just generating some discussion on how one may not (for lack of better term) dummy down the or a referenced standard in liue of new technology found in a newer edition of a standard.  The point being that if newer technology exists in a newer standard but your adopted code has not caught up, one does not have to deny the use of the approved technology because his/her code does not recognize it yet.

As someone mentioned, this example is a great argument for adopting current editions of codes and standards. And yes, the latest is not always the greatest.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Apr 3, 2014)

What about using a FM Data Sheet such as 8-9 for sprinkler designs for storage occupancies. NFPA 13 does cover every commodity such as exposed expanded group A plastic, non-woven plastic, and some flammable and combustible liquid storage covered by 7-29 but not by NFPA 30.


----------



## cda (Apr 3, 2014)

Insurance Engineer said:
			
		

> What about using a FM Data Sheet such as 8-9 for sprinkler designs for storage occupancies. NFPA 13 does cover every commodity such as exposed expanded group A plastic, non-woven plastic, and some flammable and combustible liquid storage covered by 7-29 but not by NFPA 30.


No problem


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 3, 2014)

IE



> What about using a FM Data Sheet such as 8-9 for sprinkler designs for storage occupancies. NFPA 13 does cover every commodity such as exposed expanded group A plastic, non-woven plastic, and some flammable and combustible liquid storage covered by 7-29 but not by NFPA 30.


The entire library of FM Data Sheets are an excellent resource, especially when RDP's know how to use them too.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Apr 4, 2014)

From your adopted code how would get to use the FM stuff? Would you the section below from NFPA 13? The reason I ask is I have been told by code officials they could not use or reference the FM stuff because the IBC does not reference it.

NFPA 13-2010 1.6.1 nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered.


----------



## cda (Apr 4, 2014)

IFC 09

102.8 Subjects not regulated by this code. Where no applicable standards or requirements are set forth in this code, or are contained within other laws, codes, regulations, ordinances or bylaws adopted by the jurisdiction, compliance with applicable standards of the National Fire Protection Association or other nationally recognized fire safety standards, as approved, shall be deemed as prima facie evidence of compliance with the intent of this code. Nothing herein shall derogate from the authority of the fire code official to determine compliance with codes or standards for those activities or installations within the fire code official's jurisdiction or responsibility.


----------



## cda (Apr 4, 2014)

104.9 Alternative materials and methods. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. The fire code official is authorized to approve an alternative material or method of construction where the fire code official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 4, 2014)

The standards referenced in the code are part of the code and therefore required and enforceable

The FM "stuff" would fall under 104.11 and 104.11.1


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Apr 4, 2014)

Thanks, now I have an answer when I get you cannot do that statement , just need to check my state IBC version to make sure they did not take it out!


----------

