DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: NFPA 92 Second Draft TC ...€¦ · change from the ASHRAE Handbook...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

TO: Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems

FROM: Tracy Vecchiarelli, Staff Liaison

DATE: April 29, 2014

SUBJECT: NFPA 92 Second Draft TC Ballot Circulation (F2014)

____________________________________________________________________________

The April 28, 2014 date for receipt of the NFPA 92 Second Draft Ballot has passed.

The preliminary Second Draft Ballot Results are as follows:

30 Members Eligible to Vote

4 Ballots Not Returned (M. Dillon, D. Evans, A. Militello and R. Sampson)

In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards,

attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish.

Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Ballots received from alternate

members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received.

If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Tuesday,

May 6, 2014. Members who have not returned a ballot may do so now. Ballots or changes may

be made by going to the following: NFPA Ballot link

The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards.

http://www.nfpa.org/my-profile/my-committees?action=vote

Eligible to Vote: 30

Not Returned : 4

Michael Earl Dillon,Douglas H. Evans,Anthony J.

Militello,Robert C. Sampson

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 25

Affirmative with Comment 1

Michael J. Ferreira Accepted.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 23



Negative 2

NFPA 92 SECOND DRAFT BALLOT CIRCULATION

SR-1, Section No. 3.3.4, See SR-1

Total Voted : 26

SR-7, New Section after 3.3.9.2, See SR-7

Page 1 of 14

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/92-2012.ditamap/2/C1393420667064.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl


John E. Kampmeyer, Sr. This conflictts with registration laws and the IBC which defiones Registered Design

Professional as follows: REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. An individual who is

registered or licensed to practice their respective design profession as defined by the

statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state or

jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed

Elyahu Avidor The definition is for a Registered Design Professional which is a specific requirement

as opposed to the broader definition of being qualified or having credentials.

Requiring a professional registration entails a state level accreditation. Allowing the

local jurisdiction to decide on the acceptability of qualification and/or credentials

might affect the uniformity and reduce the level of professionalism of design across

the state.

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-2, Section No. 3.3.11 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-2

Total Voted : 26

Total Voted : 26

Page 2 of 14



Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 26

SR-3, Section No. 4.3.1, See SR-3

Total Voted : 26

Page 3 of 14




Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 24


Kevin L. Derr It should be noted that manual reset can be accommplished via manual resetting of

the smoke control panel. It is not the intent of the requirement to physically be at the

deployable barrier.


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-8, Section No. 4.4.2.2, See SR-8

Total Voted : 26

SR-19, New Section after 5.5.2.5, See SR-19

Total Voted : 26

Page 4 of 14




Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 23


Negative 3

Michael J. Ferreira The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 required verification of dedicated smoke control

equipment through use of the weekly self-test function that is a mandatory capability

of every UUKL-listed smoke control panel. FR-10-NFPA 92-2013 attempted to

acknowledge that there may be situations where strict compliance with the UUKL

weekly self test is not practical and other means of verification may be necessary. It

did so by deleting all requirements regarding the frequency or capabilities to be

verified. As such, it will result in widely disparate verification methods whose

effectiveness depends on the experience level of the engineer and the AHJ, rather

than relying on a consistent method that is tested as part of a 3rd-party product

listing. NFPA 92 should define what must be done in lieu of the weekly self test to

provide an acceptable level of verification. It would be much better for NFPA 92 to

revert to the 2012 version of paragraph 6.4.8.6 and then develop a more complete

description of acceptable alternatives for the next edition of NFPA 92, than to move

forward with relaxed requirements in the 2015 edition that provide no guidance or

enforcement criteria.

SR-5, Section No. 6.4.8.6, See SR-5

Page 5 of 14


Paul G. Turnbull The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 required verification of dedicated smoke control equipment

through use of the weekly self-test function that is a mandatory capability of every UUKL-listed

smoke control panel. FR-10-NFPA 92-2013 attempted to acknowledge that there may be

situations where strict compliance with the UUKL weekly self test is not practical and other

means of verification may be necessary, but it did so by deleting all requirements regarding the

frequency or capabilities to be verified. Public Comment 8-NFPA 92-2013 attempts to close this

gap by placing responsibility for specifying the frequency and capabilities to be tested on the

engineer of record and the AHJ. While this addition is better than no statement at all, it will

result in widely disparate verification methods whose effectiveness depends on the experience

level of the engineer and the AHJ, rather than relying on a consistent method that is tested by

a 3rd-party as part of the product listing. I realize there are times when an alternate method of

verification may be a better fit for the space being protected than the automatic weekly self

test, but as a standard responsible for life safety of the building occupants, NFPA 92 should

define what must be done in lieu of the weekly self test to provide an acceptable level of

verification. Committee members should note that the ICC recently voted to include specific

additional verification methods in the 2015 edition of the IFC and IBC as an alternate to the

weekly self test requirement. I think it would be much better for NFPA 92 to revert to the 2012

version of paragraph 6.4.8.6 and then develop a more complete description of acceptable

alternatives for the next edition of NFPA 92, than to move forward with relaxed requirements

in the 2015 edition that provide no guidance or enforcement criteria.

Page 6 of 14

Lawrence J. Shudak The 2012 edition of NFPA 92 required verification of dedicated smoke control

equipment through use of the weekly self-test function that is a mandatory capability

of every UUKL-listed smoke control panel. FR-10-NFPA 92-2013 attempted to

acknowledge that there may be situations where strict compliance with the UUKL

weekly self test is not practical and other means of verification may be necessary, but

it did so by deleting all requirements regarding the frequency or capabilities to be

verified. Public Comment 8-NFPA 92-2013 attempts to close this gap by placing

responsibility for specifying the frequency and capabilities to be tested on the

engineer of record and the AHJ. While this addition is better than no statement at all,

it will result in widely disparate verification methods whose effectiveness depends on

the experience level of the engineer and the AHJ, rather than relying on a consistent

method that is tested as part of a 3rd-party product listing. I realize there are times

when an alternate method of verification may be a better fit for the space being

protected than the automatic weekly self test, but as a standard responsible for life

safety of the building occupants, NFPA 92 should define what must be done in lieu of

the weekly self test to provide an acceptable level of verification. Committee

members should note that the ICC recently voted to include specific additional

verification methods in the 2015 edition of the IFC and IBC as an alternate to the

weekly self test requirement. I think it would be much better for NFPA 92 to revert to

the 2012 version of paragraph 6.4.8.6 and then develop a more complete description

of acceptable alternatives for the next edition of NFPA 92, than to move forward with

relaxed requirements in the 2015 edition that provide no guidance or enforcement

criteria.

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 26

Page 7 of 14


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 24




Total Voted : 26

SR-10, Section No. A.4.4.1, See SR-10

Page 8 of 14



Paul G. Turnbull Information about which weather data should be used was removed as part of the

change from the ASHRAE Handbook to the Handbook of Smoke Control Engineering

because the Handbook of Smoke Control Engineering only contains one set of

weather data. Since A.4.4.1 says that newer or more site-specific sources for weather

data should be used if it is available, I feel that the previous text suggesting use of

99.6% heating dry bulb and 0.4% cooling dry bulb temperatures, and 1% extreme

wind velocity values, should be retained as guidance when these other sources of

weather data are used.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 24


SR-13, Section No. A.4.5.1.1, See SR-13

Total Voted : 26

Page 9 of 14


John E. Kampmeyer, Sr. The use of tenanbilityt must be approached with extreme caution. The following are some quotes on the issue:

Extracted from the Fire Protection Engineering Handbook - Fourth Edition The margin of safety designated as

acceptable for a design, therefore, needs to be determined by the designer and regulatory authority in the context of

any particular application. The different sections in this chapter describe the effects of exposure to different fire

hazards and calculation methods that may assist with decisions on acceptable design limits. Information is also

presented on lethal and post exposure health effects, which may also be relevant to these considerations, as well as to

probabilistic fire safety engineering design and forensic fire incident investigation. Additionally, the following

precautions are provided in the International Fire Code Commentary: Extracted from the IFC Commentary Also, Section

909.8.1 specifies a minimum distance for the smoke layer interface from any walking surface whereas Section 4.5.3 of

NFPA 92B has provisions that simply allows the analysis to demonstrate tenability regardless of where the layer height

is located above the floor. Defining tenability can be more difficult as there is not a standard definition as to what is

considered tenable. Any design using that approach would need to be addressed through Section 104.9. 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. The

Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering also contains the following admonitions: Asthmatics and sufferers of other

lung conditions, such as chronic bronchitis and reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, are particularly susceptible to

bronchoconstriction on even brief exposure to very low concentrations of irritants, with distress, severely reduced

aerobic work capacity, collapse, and death resulting, depending on the sensitivity of the individual and the severity of

the exposure. It is the objective of fire safety engineering to ensure that essentially all occupants, including sensitive

subpopulations, should be able to escape safely without experiencing or developing serious health effects. Thus, safe

levels for exposure of the human population to fire effluent toxicants must be significantly lower than those

determined from experiments with uniformly healthy animal or even human surrogates.


Negative 0

Abstain 0

Total Voted : 26

Page 10 of 14


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 24


Paul David Compton The ISO standard is no longer a DIS. The reference should simply be ISO 21927-1.


Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-20, New Section after A.5.5.1.1, See SR-20

Total Voted : 26

SR-11, Section No. A.5.5.2.4, See SR-11

Total Voted : 26

Page 11 of 14




Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-9, Section No. A.6.4.8, See SR-9

Total Voted : 26

SR-22, Section No. A.6.4.4.2.2, See SR-22

Total Voted : 26

Page 12 of 14




Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-12, Section No. M.1.2.7, See SR-12

Total Voted : 26


Total Voted : 26

Page 13 of 14




Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0


Not Returned : 4




Affirmative 25



Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-16, Section No. M.2.1, See SR-16

Total Voted : 26


Total Voted : 26

Page 14 of 14



DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: NFPA 92 Second Draft TC ...€¦ · change from the ASHRAE Handbook...

Documents

Transcript of DATE: April 29, 2014 SUBJECT: NFPA 92 Second Draft TC ...€¦ · change from the ASHRAE Handbook...