Building Code-Life Safety Technical Committee on Building … · 2016-03-28 · Building Code-Life...

Building Code-Life Safety Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment

NFPA 101 & NFPA 5000

REPORT ON COMMENTS (ROC) MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Hotel Monteleone New Orleans, Louisiana

1. Call to order. Call meeting to order by Chair Joe Jardin at 8:00 AM.

2. Introduction of attendees. For committee roster, see pg. 02.

3. Previous meeting minutes. For the September 24, 2009 meeting minutes, see

pg. 05.

4. Chair’s report – J. Jardin.

5. Staff liaison’s report – G. Harrington.

a. Revision process. Staff presentation on permitted actions at the ROC meeting. See PowerPoint presentation handout and the revision cycle schedule, pg. 08.

6. NFPA 101 ROC preparation. For comments, see pg. 14.

7. NFPA 5000 ROC preparation. For comments, see pg. 26.

8. Other business.

9. Future meetings.

10. Adjournment.

Attachments

of 29

Address List No PhoneBuilding Service and Fire Protection Equipment SAF-BSF

Safety to Life

Gregory E. Harrington9/2/2010

SAF-BSF

Joseph M. Jardin

ChairFire Department City of New York16 Dexter CourtHauppauge, NY 11788NFPA Fire Service SectionAlternate: Greg Gottlieb

C 1/1/1991SAF-BSF

Gregory E. Harrington

Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

6/2/1998

SAF-BSF

Keith A. Ball

PrincipalTyco International10255 Fortune Parkway, Suite 120Jacksonville, FL 32256Alternate: Rodger Reiswig

M 4/17/2002SAF-BSF

Brian D. Black

PrincipalBDBlack Codes, Inc.4034 North Hampton Brook DriveHamburg, NY 14075National Elevator Industry Inc.Alternate: Gary L. Nuschler

M 01/10/2008

SAF-BSF

Harry L. Bradley

PrincipalMaryland State Fire Marshals Office5 West Riding DriveBel-Air, MD 21014International Fire Marshals AssociationAlternate: Andrew M. Schneider

E 1/1/1991SAF-BSF

Pat D. Brock

PrincipalOklahoma State UniversityFire Protection & Safety Technology1424 West Liberty AvenueStillwater, OK 74075Alternate: James D. Brown

SE 1/1/1987

SAF-BSF

Phillip A. Brown

PrincipalAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.12750 Merit Drive, Suite 350Dallas, TX 75251Alternate: Stephen M. Leyton

IM 10/6/2000SAF-BSF

Paul M. Donga

PrincipalBoston Fire Department115 Southampton StreetBoston, MA 02118

E 7/20/2000

SAF-BSF

Raymond A. Grill

PrincipalArup Fire1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20036

SE 3/2/2010SAF-BSF

Thomas P. Hammerberg

PrincipalAutomatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.14 Sammy McGhee Boulevard, #103PO Box 1569Jasper, GA 30143Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Alternate: J. Robert Boyer

M 10/23/2003

SAF-BSF

Kenneth E. Isman

PrincipalNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.40 Jon Barrett RoadPatterson, NY 12563Alternate: Jeffrey M. Hugo

M 1/1/1987SAF-BSF

Ignatius Kapalczynski

PrincipalConnecticut Department of Public SafetyOffice of the State Fire Marshal1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457-9294Alternate: Michael Kellett

E 10/6/2000

1 of 29


Safety to Life


SAF-BSF

David A. Killian

PrincipalWalt Disney Parks & ResortsPO Box 10000Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830

U 8/2/2010SAF-BSF

Roy C. Kimball

PrincipalBrooks Equipment Company, Inc.PO Box 481888Charlotte, NC 28269Fire Equipment Manufacturers' Association

M 4/15/2004

SAF-BSF

David L. Klepitch

PrincipalWhitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP801 South Caroline StreetBaltimore, MD 21231

SE 8/2/2010SAF-BSF

Richard L. Klinker

PrincipalKlinker & Associates, Inc.2355 Davidsonville RoadGambrills, MD 21054Alternate: Claudia Hagood

SE 1/1/1981

SAF-BSF

Peter A. Larrimer

PrincipalUS Department of Veterans Affairs323 North Shore Drive, Suite 400Pittsburgh, PA 15212Alternate: Peter Leszczak

U 4/1/1994SAF-BSF

Martin H. Reiss

PrincipalThe RJA Group, Inc.1661 Worcester Road, Suite 501Framingham, MA 01701-5401

SE 7/1/1993

SAF-BSF

Robert A. Schmidt

PrincipalCombustion Science & Engineering, Inc.8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite LColumbia, MD 21045

SE 10/28/2008SAF-BSF

Lawrence J. Shudak

PrincipalUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096

RT 4/15/2004

SAF-BSF

Carl D. Wren

PrincipalAustin Fire DepartmentOne Texas Center, Suite 200505 Barton Springs RoadAustin, TX 78704

E 10/6/2000SAF-BSF

David M. Wyatt

PrincipalBattelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory2201 South Cleveland StreetKennewick, WA 99338

U 3/2/2010

SAF-BSF

J. Robert Boyer

AlternateGE Security62 Airport RoadPittstown, NJ 08867Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Principal: Thomas P. Hammerberg

M 4/14/2005SAF-BSF

James D. Brown

AlternateOklahoma State Universtiy303 Campus Fire StationStillwater, OK 74078Principal: Pat D. Brock

SE 7/24/1997

SAF-BSF

Greg Gottlieb

AlternateHauppauge Fire District855 Wheeler RoadHauppauge, NY 11788NFPA Fire Service SectionPrincipal: Joseph M. Jardin

C 4/1/1993SAF-BSF

Claudia Hagood

AlternateKlinker and Associates, Inc.2355 Davidsonville RoadGambrills, MD 21054Principal: Richard L. Klinker

SE 7/1/1993

2 of 29


Safety to Life


SAF-BSF

Jeffrey M. Hugo

AlternateNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.1088 West Borton RoadEssexville, MI 48732Principal: Kenneth E. Isman

M 7/26/2007SAF-BSF

Michael Kellett

AlternateConnecticut Department of Public SafetyOffice of the State Fire Marshal1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457-9294Principal: Ignatius Kapalczynski

E 7/26/2007

SAF-BSF

Peter Leszczak

AlternateUS Department of Veterans Affairs950 Campbell AvenueWest Haven, CT 06516Principal: Peter A. Larrimer

U 11/2/2006SAF-BSF

Stephen M. Leyton

AlternateProtection Design and Consulting8849-B Complex DriveSan Diego, CA 92123American Fire Sprinkler AssociationPrincipal: Phillip A. Brown

IM 9/30/2004

SAF-BSF

John J. McSheffrey, Jr.

Alternateen-Gauge Inc.11 C Commerce RoadRockland, MA 02370Fire Equipment Manufacturers' AssociationPrincipal: Roy C. Kimball

M 4/15/2004SAF-BSF

Gary L. Nuschler

AlternateOtis Elevator Company5 Farm Springs RoadFarmington, CT 06032-2575National Elevator Industry Inc.Principal: Brian D. Black

M 4/15/2004

SAF-BSF

Rodger Reiswig

AlternateTyco/SimplexGrinnell3640 Haddington CourtApopka, FL 32712Principal: Keith A. Ball

M 01/10/2008SAF-BSF

Andrew M. Schneider

AlternateMaryland State Fire Marshals Office200 Duke Street, Suite 1500Prince Frederick, MD 20678International Fire Marshals AssociationPrincipal: Harry L. Bradley

E 7/14/2004

SAF-BSF

Gregory E. Harrington

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

6/2/1998

3 of 29

BLD/SAF-BSF September 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes / Page 1

ROP MEETING MINUTES

Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown

1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Joseph Jardin at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2009, at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland - Downtown, Cleveland, OH.

2. Introduction of attendees. The following committee members and guests were

in attendance:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

NAME REPRESENTING

Joseph Jardin, Chair Fire Department City of New York – Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section J. Robert Boyer GE Security – Rep. (Alternate to T. Hammerberg) Automatic Fire Alarm Association Harry Bradley, Principal Maryland State Fire Marshals Office – Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Pat Brock, Principal Oklahoma State University Phillip Brown, Principal American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Thomas Hammerberg, Principal Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Jeffrey Hugo National Fire Sprinkler (Alternate to K. Isman) Association, Inc. Ignatius Kapalczynski, Principal Connecticut Department of Public Safety – Office of State Fire Marshal Richard Klinker, Principal Klinker & Associates, Inc. Peter Larrimer, Principal US Department of Veterans Affairs Gary Nuschler Otis Elevator

of 29


(Alternate to B. Black) Rep. National Elevator Industy, Inc. Rodger Reiswig Tyco/SimplexGrinell (Alternate to K. Ball) Robert Schmidt, Principal Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc. Lawrence Shudak, Principal Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Gregory Harrington, Secretary NFPA (Nonvoting)

GUESTS NAME REPRESENTING Josh Elvove General Services Administration Dan Finnegan Siemens Fire Dave Frable General Services Administration TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT NAME REPRESENTING

Paul Donga, Principal Boston Fire Department Roy Kimball, Principal Brooks Equipment Company, Inc. – Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ Association Richard Osman, Principal AON/Schirmer Engineering Corp. Martin Reiss, Principal The RJA Group, Inc. Carl Wren, Principal Austin Fire Department

3. Approval of minutes. The minutes of the October 2, 2007 meeting were

approved as written and distributed.

4. Chair’s report – J. Jardin. a. The chair thanked and welcomed the committee members and guests

present, and advised the purpose of the meeting was to prepare the Reports on Proposals (ROPs) for the 2012 editions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, and NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code.

b. The chair recognized Immediate Past Chair Dick Klinker and thanked him for his years of service to the committee, and also reported that he was awarded a Committee Service Award from NFPA at the June 2008 NFPA Conference and Exposition.

5. Staff Report – G. Harrington.

a. Staff added his thanks and welcome to the committee. b. Staff updated the committee on NFPA’s financial position given the

current economic downturn. NFPA is well positioned to “weather the storm” and is taking the appropriate precautions to ensure its long-term viability.

of 29


c. Staff gave a brief presentation on the document revision process and meeting procedures.

6. Review of NEC proposal re. life safety equipment. The committee reviewed the

proposal (see agenda p. 7) – no action required.

7. Standardization of language on sprinkler system supervision. Staff reported that this agenda item stemmed from the TCC planning teleconference meeting that took place prior to the TC meetings. It was noted that TCs should review their sprinkler system requirements, and verify that such requirements are consistent with regard to supervision. Staff reviewed Ch. 9 of 101 and Ch. 55 of 5000, and did not identify any inconsistencies. No action required.

8. Consistency of list-based options. Staff reported this is another item from the TCC planning meeting. It was requested that TCs review their requirements that include lists to verify that it’s clear when all of the items in the list must be met, or only one of the items in the list must be met. Staff reviewed the list-based requirements in the applicable chapters, and did not identify any that required clarification. No action required.

9. NFPA 101 proposals. The committee reviewed and acted on the public proposals

on NFPA 101, and generated committee proposals. See the Report on Proposals for the committee actions.

10. NFPA 5000 proposals. The committee reviewed and acted on the public proposals on NFPA 5000, and generated committee proposals. See the Report on Proposals for the committee actions.

11. Other business. There was no other business.

12. Future meetings. The committee will meet in the Fall of 2010, at a location to be determined, to prepare the Reports on Comments (ROCs) for the 2012 editions of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. Meeting notices will be distributed when the dates and location are confirmed.

13. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Attachments

of 29

BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings

NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 ROC Meetings

1

Meetings

October 2010

Monteleone Hotel

New Orleans, LA


NFPA is concerned with your Safety

If the fire alarm sounds, we will evacuate

2

,

Exiting…exits are ……..


OverviewGeneral Procedures for Meeting

Timeline for Processing the Code

3

Committee Actions

Committee Statements

Balloting


Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is generally limited to Committee Members and NFPA Staff

4

Participation by guests is usually granted by the Chair

The Chair may limit the time of any presentation (member or guest)


All guests are requested to sign-in and identify their affiliation

Members please verify/update your contact

5

Members, please verify/update your contact information on pages attached to sign-in

Use of tape recorders or other means of reproducing verbatim transcriptions of the meeting are prohibited


Formal voting Secured by post-meeting letter ballot (2/3

majority agreement)

V ti d i ti i i l

6

Voting during meeting requires simple majority vote and is used to establish a sense of agreement that can be letter balloted

Only the results of the letter ballot determine the official position of the Committee on any Comment

of 29


Reminder to Members in Special Expert (SE) Category: If representing a non-SE interest (such as a consultant representing a manufacturer or an association of

7

a manufacturer or an association of users), this must be declared. The member should refrain from voting on the issue.


Remaining timeline for processing the 2012 edition of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000

Comment Closing Date: September 3, 2010 TC ROC meetings:

8

g Core Chapters October 4-8; balloting follows Occupancy Chapters October 18-22; balloting follows

TCCs meet: January 5-6, 2011 NITMAM Closing Date: April 8, 2011 NFPA Annual Meeting: June 12-15, 2011 Amendment ballots: mid to late June (TCC – July) Standards Council Issuance: August 11, 2011


Report on Comments (ROC) preparation - today

9


General Procedures Follow Robert’s Rules of Order

Prior to discussion, a motion is

10

o to d scuss o , a ot o srequired


Committee Member participation:

Member addresses the Chair

Member receives recognition from the

11

e be ece es ecog t o o t eChair

Member speaks to the Chair

Member poses questions to others through the Chair

Member answers questions through the Chair


Committee Chair Actions:

States the Motion

Calls for discussion

12

Ca s o d scuss o

Ensures all issues have been heard

Takes the Vote

Announces the result of the Vote

of 29


Committee Actions on Comments:

Accept

Accept In Principle

13

Accept In Principle

Accept In Part

Accept In Principle In Part

Reject

Hold


Accept: The Comment is accepted by the Committee

without change

No Committee Statement is required for an

14

No Committee Statement is required for an Accept, but one is permitted to be provided for clarification


Accept in Principle: The Committee agrees with the change in

principle, and accepts the Comment but with change in wording

15

change in wording

Committee must indicate change in Committee Action and rationale in Committee Statement


Accept in Part: Only part of the Comment is accepted

Committee must indicate accepted part in Committee Action and address rejected part and

16

Committee Action and address rejected part and rationale for rejection in Committee Statement


Accept in Principle in Part: A combination of Accept in Principle and Accept

in Part

Committee must indicate accepted and changed

17

Committee must indicate accepted and changed parts in Committee Action

Committee must indicate rejected parts and rationale for changed/rejected parts in Committee Statement


Reject: The Committee rejects the Comment in entirety

Committee must indicate reasons for rejection in Committee Statement

18

Committee Statement

of 29


Hold:The Committee holds for processing as a proposal for next cycle, a Comment that:

19

introduces concept that has not had public review

changes text to point TC would have to restudy ROP or other affected parts of document

proposes something that can’t be handled within time frame for processing the ROC


Committee Statements (Explaining the Committee Action): Action of “Accept” requires no

20

Committee Statement

All other actions require a Committee Statement to explain the action of the Committee


Committee Statement must include a valid reason for the action

The reason should be technical where li bl

21

applicable

Must explain why the Comment was not accepted

Acceptance of another Comment is not an adequate reason to reject a Comment


Committee Statements (continued)

Should not reference a Comment with opposing action unless the referenced C t ti f t il l i th

22

Comment satisfactorily explains the rejection

Should not make a vague reference to intent

Should explain how submitter’s substantiation is inadequate


Letter ballots are on the Committee Action

The Ballot form allows you to vote

Affirmative on all actions

23

Affirmative on all actions except those specifically noted

The Ballot form provides a column for affirmative with comment

Note: This box only needs to be checked if there is an accompanying comment


Your ballot form is electronically submit-ableYou can save a copy f lf

24

for yourself

You can also print and fax/mail it to NFPA

All you need is (free) Adobe Reader

of 29


Alternates are encouraged to return ballots (insurance if Principal’s ballot not received)

B ll ti P

25

Balloting Process: Initial letter ballot

Circulation of Negatives, if any received

Circulation serves as second ballot to allow change of vote

Final vote reported


Questions?

26

Questions?

of 29

ANNUAL 2011 REVISION CYCLE

NFPA 101 AND NFPA 5000

PROCESS STAGE PROCESS STEP

DATES FOR TC

DATES FOR TCC

1 PRELIMINARY 1.0 Notification of intent to enter cycle

2 REPORT ON PROPOSALS

(ROP)

2.1 Proposal closing date 7/31/09 7/31/09 2.2 Final date for ROP meeting 12/11/09 2.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 12/18/09 2.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 1/8/10 2.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 1/22/10 2.6 Final date for TCC meeting 3/31/10 2.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 4/6/10 2.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 4/27/10 2.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 5/14/10 2.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 5/18/10 2.11 Completion of Reports 6/4/10 2.12 ROP Published and Posted 6/25/10

3 REPORT ON COMMENTS

(ROC)

3.1 Comment closing date 9/3/10 9/3/10 3.2 Final date for ROC meeting 10/22/10 3.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 10/29/10 3.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 11/12/10 3.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 11/26/10 3.6 Final date for TCC meeting 1/6/11 3.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 1/11/11 3.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 1/21/11 3.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 2/1/11 3.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 2/10/11 3.11 Completion of Reports 2/17/11 3.12 ROC Published and Posted 2/25/11

4

TECH SESSION PREPARATION

ON & ISSUANCE OF

CONSENT DOCUMENTS

4.1 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 4/8/11 4/8/11 4.2 Posting of Filed NITMAM 5/6/11 5/6/11 4.3 Council Issuance Date for Consent Documents 5/31/11 5/31/11

4.4 Appeal Closing Date for Consent Documents 6/15/11 6/15/11

5 TECHNICAL SESSION

5.0 Association Meeting for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 6/12-16/11 6/12-16/11

6

APPEALS & ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTS

W/CAMS

6.1 Appeal closing date for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 7/6/11 7/6/11

6.2 Council issuance for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 8/11/11 8/11/11

Schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) for the most up-to-date information on schedules. March 2009 REVISED: September, 2010

of 29

http://www.nfpa.org/�

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-123 Log #222 SAF-BSF

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Steve Henning, Botsford Hospital

NADo not change the existing code for this section.

Hospitals are already drowning in a sea of unnecessary regulations. We have adequate fuel storageon site for 72 hours, should our natural gas or electricity supply be interrupted (blackout of 2003 proved this). We alsohave a contract with an emergency back-up fuel provider should the emergency exceed 72 hours.Adding this requirement would cause us to have to add another underground fuel storage tank. We have neither the

resources or real estate needed to undertake this type of project.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-124 Log #244 SAF-BSF

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal

101-195aRevise text to read as follows:

Reconsider.9.6.1.6 “. . . more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancy

for the occupancy (i.e., in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”

If fire alarms can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average daily occupancy occurswithout additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having fire alarms becomes questionable. There islittle reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normal business hours yet the original proposalwould allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-125 Log #278 SAF-BSF


101-195aReconsider.

9.6.1.6 “. . . more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”


1Printed on 9/15/2010

of 29



101-195aReconsider.




of 29


_______________________________________________________________________________________________John Lake, City of Gainesville

101-196Reconsider Proposal 101-196 (Log #64).

In areas that are not continuously occupied, and unless otherwise permitted by 9.6.1.8.1.1 or 9.6.1.8.1.2,or 9.6.1.8.1.3, automatic smoke detection shall be installed to provide notification of fire at the following locations:(1) Each fire alarm control unit(2) Notification appliance circuit power extenders(3) Supervising station transmitting equipment

The provisions of 9.6.1.8.1(2) and 9.6.1.8.1(3) shall not apply to existing alarm systems.Where ambient conditions prohibit installation of a smoke detector, a heat detector shall be used.Automatic smoke detection shall not be required where buildings are protected throughout by an approved,

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapter 12 through 42.(TCC) notes that the Committee Meeting Action text, as Accepted in Principle by the SAF-BSF

committee was further revised by the TCC action on Proposals 101-194a and 101-194b.Submitter: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. Technical Committee Fundamentals of Fire Alarm SystemsRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:9.6.1.8 Protection of Fire Alarm System.9.6.1.8.1* In areas that are not continuously occupied, and unless otherwise permitted by 9.6.1.8.1.1 or 9.6.1.8.1.2

automatic smoke detection shall be installed to provide notification of fire at the following locations:(1) Each fire alarm control unit.(2) Notification appliance circuit power extenders(3) Supervising station transmitting equipment9.6.1.8.1.1 Where ambient conditions prohibit installation of a smoke detector, a heat detector shall be used.9.6.1.8.1.2 Automatic smoke detection shall not be required where buildings are protected throughout by an approved,

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapter 12 through 42.A.9.6.1.8.1 The Code intends that only one smoke detector is required to be installed at the fire alarm control units,

notification, appliance circuit power extenders, and the supervising station transmitting equipment even when the area ofthe room would require more than one smoke detector if installed according to the spacing rules in NFPA 72, Chapter 5.NFPA 72®, The National Fire Alarm Code®, has required the protection of fire alarm control units, notification

appliance circuit power extenders and supervising station transmitting equipment for a number of cycles. During thecycle just completed for the 2007 edition, an exception was added to 4.4.5 which states "Fully sprinklered buildings shallnot require protection in accordance with 4.4.5."The Technical Committee for the Fundamentals Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN) is of the opinion that this requirement

belongs in the occupancy based codes as opposed to NFPA 72® which is an installation standard. The purpose of thisrequirement for the protection of the fire alarm system, so that in the event of a fire near one of the three units listedwithin the proposed code text, the alarm system will be activated prior to the possible destruction of the controlequipment.Committee Meeting Action: Accept

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-128 Log #34 SAF-BSF

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life,

101-197Reconsider the proposal in light of members Hammerburg’s and Reiswig’s Explanation of Negative

as NFPA 72 4.4.5 Exception No. 2 was deleted for the 2010 edition. Follow the Standards Council policy for processinga deviation by an occupancy standard (in this case, NFPA 101) of requirements of an installation standard (in this case,NFPA 72).

The Explanation of Negative from members Hammerburg and Reiswig provide new information thatmight not have been available to the committee when it took action at its ROP meeting.


of 29


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration

101-198Revise text to read as follows:

Elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke detectors used solely for elevator recall, andheat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall operate as follows, unless modified by another section ofthis Code. not be required to activate the building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to suchdetectors are monitored by the building fire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisorysignal at a constantly attended location.(1) For new alarm system installations, the elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke detectors

used solely for elevator recall, and heat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall be required to activatethe building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to such detectors are monitored by the buildingfire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisory signal at a constantly attended location.(2) For existing alarm system installations. the elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke

detectors used solely for elevator recall, and heat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall not berequired to activate the building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to such detectors aremonitored by the building fire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisory signal at aconstantly attended location.

Elevator lobbies have been considered areas subject to unwanted alarms due to factors such as lowceilings and smoking. In the past several years, new features have become available to reduce this problem. Thesefeatures are, however, not necessarily included in any specific installation.

The intent of this code change is to revise section 9.6.3.2.1 for new alarm system installations anddelete its associated annex material. The basis for this requirement was that the subject elevator lobbies, hoistways,and machine rooms were subject to unwanted alarms due to occupant smoking and reliability concerns regardingsmoke and heat detectors. However, those concerns have been addressed over the years due to the advancements insmoke and heat detector technology as well as laws concerning smoking in buildings. Therefore, the threat of unwantedalarms has been greatly reduced in these specific areas of a building for new alarm system installations. In addition,elevators are now playing a more prominent role in the evacuation strategy for a building and therefore the smoke andheat detectors used to address elevator functions need to activate the buildings evacuation alarm.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-130 Log #246 SAF-BSF


101-199Add new text to read as follows:

Reconsider.When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do not

receive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.

Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area. Most commonly the fire barrier will be a floor.


of 29



101-199Reconsider:

When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do notreceive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.

Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area. Most commonly the fire barrier will be a floor.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-132 Log #247 SAF-BSF


101-202Revise text to read as follows:

Reconsider.9.7.1.5 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require a

fire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non-occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.

Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-133 Log #290 SAF-BSF


101-202Reconsider.

9.7.1.5 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require afire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.



of 29



101-203aReconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons:1) for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by water2) for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a consideration.The second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”.Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists

areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety

would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-135 Log #291 SAF-BSF


101-203aReconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons1) for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by water2) for fires adversely affected by the application of water

The first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists




of 29



101-203bReconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of water

The first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists



_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-137 Log #249 SAF-BSF


101-204bReconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons:a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a consideration.The second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”.Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists




of 29



101-204Reconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists



_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-139 Log #294 SAF-BSF


101-204aReconsider.

Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists




of 29



101-205aRevise text to read as follows:

Reconsider.9.7.6.1 “. . . more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancy

for the occupancy (i.e., in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”

If automatic sprinkler systems can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average dailyoccupancy occurs without additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having automatic sprinklersystems becomes questionable. There is little reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normalbusiness hours yet the original proposal would allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-141 Log #279 SAF-BSF


101-205aReconsider.

9.7.6.1 “. . . more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities) , the authority having. . .”


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-142 Log #288 SAF-BSF


101-205aReconsider.




of 29



101-411aReconsider to Accept.

Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connectedto standby generators, rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informationaland requires nothing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-315 Log #272 SAF-BSF


101-411bReconsider to Reject.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-316 Log #273 SAF-BSF


101-411c, 101-411dReconsider to Accept.

A.9.1.3 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages andthat require a fire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildingsusing generators only for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systemsshall not be required to support the fire pump.Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fire protection systems need

to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protection equipment, it does not needto be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connected to standby generators,rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informational and requires nothing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-317 Log #274 SAF-BSF


101-411dReconsider to Reject.



of 29


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Peter A. Larrimer, US Department of Veterans Affairs

101-197Continue to accept the proposal and add the following annex note to comply with NFPA policy for

variations to an installation standard.The Life Safety Code recognizes that a building protected throughout with a supervised sprinkler system

meets the goals of the code without the need for protecting the fire alarm equipment with smoke detection, unless thatsmoke detection is specifically required within the occupancy chapters. Although this exception to eliminate smokedetection for protection of fire alarm equipment is currently not recognized by NFPA 72, the Life Safety Code recognizesmeans and methods other than fire alarm devices to meet the goals of the Chapter 4 to provide an environment foroccupants that is reasonably safe from fire.

In accordance with NFPA policy, the annex note explains that NFPA 101 differs with the installationstandard NFPA 72 and informs the user why the requirements are different.The occupancy chapters can require protection of the equipment with smoke detection to meet the goals of the code,

but they can also use many other means and methods.Even when smoke detection is provided over the equipment identified by this section (control unit, power extenders,

and transmission equipment), a fire can easily render the entire fire alarm system completely inoperable if the fire was toburn through the fire alarm cabling in a room or area that has no detection or sprinklers. The Life Safety Codeaddresses this fact and relies on sprinkler and other criteria in addition to alarm systems to meet the goals of the code.


of 29


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.

101-204Insert a new annex note to 9.7.3.1 as follows:

There are typically two different ways that extinguishing systems other than fire sprinkler systems are used.The first is when the entire building is protected with one of these alternate systems. When this is the case, theexceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered as options when fire sprinkler systems areinstalled should not be granted to the other extinguishing system unless the other system has demonstrated the sametemperature control during a fire and reliability of operation as a fire sprinkler system. Reliability of operation needs toextend to the long-term use of the other system and an analysis of the reliability of the component parts. Somecomponent of other extinguishing systems can show reliability data from their use in systems outside of fire protectionwhere they get exercised on a regular basis, but acceptance on this basis is cautioned because many mechanical partsthat sit for a long time without being exercised, as fire protection systems need to do, may not have the same reliability.A reliability analysis should also take into account inspection, testing and maintenance criteria and the likelihood of abuilding owner knowing and understanding what needs to be performed to keep the other system operational.The second manner in which other systems are used as alternatives to fire sprinkler systems are in individual rooms or

spaces of otherwise sprinklered occupancies. Here the Authority Having Jurisdiction needs to use some judgment inthe application of exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered for sprinklered occupancies.The permission to utilize such exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions far from the space with the otherfire protection system should be granted. Closer to the space with the alternate system, exceptions, reductions andalternate code provisions for sprinklers could be granted if the system was analyzed as discussed above and found tobe equivalent to a fire sprinkler system.

After experiencing the discussion from the SAF-BSF committee and several of the occupancycommittees, it is clear that something needs to be said in the Life Safety Code about this subject. But a blanket ban onusing the sprinkler “trade-ups”, or a blanket statement that you can always use the sprinkler “trade-ups”, does not seemto work either way. Some judgment needs to be used depending on the type of alternative system proposed and theextent to which it is substituting for the sprinkler system. Some of these alternative systems are very good fireprotection agents with a good history. Others are just coming to the market place and are using equipment that has nottraditionally been used in fire protection systems and we just don’t know how well they will work in the long-run. Theannex note seemed to be the best way to provide guidance to AHJ’s for now.


of 29

Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-167 Log #157 BLD-BSF


5000-238Revised/New text to read as follows:

Reconsider.55.x Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require a fire

pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-168 Log #86 BLD-BSF

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,

5000-239Reconsider the proposal from BLD-MER on Proposal 5000-239a that does not support inclusion of

this text.Determine if there a reason to retain the new section due to the scope differences between NFPA 101

and NFPA 5000 or if the requirements should be identical.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-169 Log #158 BLD-BSF


5000-239New text to read as follows:

Reconsider.Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons

a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 55.2 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists




of 29



5000-239aNew text to read as follows:

Reconsider.Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons

a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 55.2 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists



_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-171 Log #162 BLD-BSF



Reconsider.NFPA 720 is now an accepted reference in new Section 9.8.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-172 Log #87 BLD-BSF

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,

5000-241Reconsider the proposal in light of the Explanation of Negative ballots. NFPA 72, 4.4.5 Exception

No. 2 was deleted for the 2010 edition.The Explanation of Negative provides new information not available to the committee when it took

action at its ROP meeting. The Standards Council policy on actions that an occupancy document committee needs totake if it wants to deviate from an installation document must be followed.


of 29




Reconsider.When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do not

receive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.

Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-174 Log #137 BLD-BSF


5000-239Insert a new annex note to 55.5 as follows:

“A.55.5 There are typically two different ways that extinguishing systems other than fire sprinkler systems are used.The first is when the entire building is protected with one of these alternate systems. When this is the case, theexceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered as options when fire sprinkler systems areinstalled should not be granted to the other extinguishing system unless the other system has demonstrated the sametemperature control during a fire and reliability of operation as a fire sprinkler system. Reliability of operation needs toextend to the long-term use of the other system and an analysis of the reliability of the component parts. Somecomponent of other extinguishing systems can show reliability data from their use in systems outside of fire protectionwhere they get exercised on a regular basis, but acceptance on this basis is cautioned because many mechanical partsthat sit for a long time without being exercised, as fire protection systems need to do, may not have the same reliability.A reliability analysis should also take into account inspection, testing and maintenance criteria and the likelihood of abuilding owner knowing and understanding what needs to be performed to keep the other system operational.The second manner in which other systems are used as alternatives to fire sprinkler systems are in individual rooms or

spaces of otherwise sprinklered occupancies. Here the Authority Having Jurisdiction needs to use some judgment in theapplication of exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered for sprinklered occupancies. Thepermission to utilize such exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions far from the space with the other fireprotection system should be granted. Closer to the space with the alternate system, exceptions, reductions andalternate code provisions for sprinklers could be granted if the system was analyzed as discussed above and found tobe equivalent to a fire sprinkler system.”

After experiencing the discussion from the SAF-BSF committee and several of the occupancycommittees, it is clear that something needs to be said in the Life Safety Code about this subject. But a blanket ban onusing the sprinkler “trade-ups”, or a blanket statement that you can always use the sprinkler “trade-ups”, does not seemto work either way. Some judgment needs to be used depending on the type of alternative system proposed and theextent to which it is substituting for the sprinkler system. Some of these alternative systems are very good fire protectionagents with a good history. Others are just coming to the market place and are using equipment that has not traditionallybeen used in fire protection systems and we just don’t know how well they will work in the long-run. The annex noteseemed to be the best way to provide guidance to AHJ’s for now.


of 29



5000-246Accept proposal 5000-246.

The building code needs to contain all of the provisions for constructing a building. It is completelyirresponsible of a design professional (architect or engineer) to consider constructing a building and not consider wherethe water is going to come from to fight a fire in that building. It is completely within the scope of the “BuildingConstruction and Safety Code” to force a design professional to think about fire safety when they are constructing thebuilding.


of 29

Building Code-Life Safety Technical Committee on Building … · 2016-03-28 · Building Code-Life...

Documents

Transcript of Building Code-Life Safety Technical Committee on Building … · 2016-03-28 · Building Code-Life...