NFPA 101-- F96 ROP - National Fire Protection …...NFPA 101m F96 ROP COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The...

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F96 ROP

(Log #214) HEA

101- 301 - (15-5,.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Ken Fanistich, Deparunent of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "supervised" after the word "approved." SUBSTANTIATION: In revising 13-3.5 for the 1991 edition, paragraph 13-3.5.3 from the 1988 edition was deleted. This paragraph implied electrical supervision of all sprinkler system control valves. In it's place, a new appendix note A-15-3.5.2 was added to the 1991 edition to state that the intent has always been to require electrical supervision of sprinkler control valves. Therefore, it would appear that paragraph 13-3.5.1 should require a supervised sprinkler system when they are needed per Section 15-1.6. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #54) HEA

101- 302 - (13-3.5.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Phil Jose, Va Regional Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Revise the opening sentence to read:

"Where this Code permits exceptions for fully sprinklered buildings or smoke compar~ents , the sprinkler system shall be:" SUBSTANTIATION: Where this paragraph is referenced in other code sections, often only the smoke compartment must be sprinklered, not the entire Health Care occupancy. For example, see Exception No. 1 to 15-5,.6.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBF~RS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #'215) HEA

1Ol- 305,- (15-3.5.2, 13-3-5.3): Accept in Principle SIJBMITrER= Ken Fanistich, Deparunent of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Replace the words "... fully sprinklered buildings..." with "... fully sprinklered health care occupancies..." SUBSTANTIATION: These two paragraphs address the same subject but use different terminology for fully sprinklered exceptions. For example, 15-2.3.2, Exception, uses health care occupancies terminology. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 302 (Log #54) and Proposal 101 - 304 (Log #55). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The actions taken on the referenced

r ~ s should meet the submitter's intent. R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

(Log#55) HEA

101- 304- (15-3.5.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, VA Regional Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Revise the opening sentence to read:

"Where this Code permits exceptions for fully spdnklered buildings or smoke compartments, the sprinkler system shall be:" SUBSTANTIATION: These words are confusing and redundant since only smoke compartments containing patient sleeping rooms are required . . . . to have QRS or residential sprinklers and that reqmrement is already hsted m subparagraph (d). The opemng sentence also implies that the section is applicable only in fully

RSMMi/residential sprinklered buildings, which is not correct_ TrEE ACTION: Accept.

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #56) HEA

101- 305 - (13-3.5.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: This section is no longer needed due to changes made to each applicable exception during the last code cycle. Furthermore, it inappropriately allows the use of exceptions related to building construction and egress wllen only a single zone is sprinklered, not the entire building. Exceptions such as the one to 13-2.6.2 were purposely left as is, requiring full building sprinklering, before they could be used, because afire outside the zone in nonsprinklered space would clearly impact the occupants of the sprinklered zone. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In this case, redundancy is desirable. The wording should be retained because of its applicability to retrofit projects. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #102) HEA

1Ol- 306 - (15-3.6.1 Exception No. 6): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, VA Regional Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Once you have satisfied Sections (a) and (d) of Exception No. 6 you have satisfied all that is required to meet Exception No. 1. Therefore, the requirements in (b) and (c) are moot. Given the above, all of Exception No. 6 ts unnecessary since by meeting (a) and (d) only, you will have already satisfied all requirements under Exception No. 1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter s substantiation is not correct. For example, in lieu of requiringantomatic sprinklers, one is currently permitted to control the combustibility of the furnishings. Because of these differences between the current exception and the referenced text, the wording needs to be retained for use in existing facilities. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON GOMMITI'EE ACTION:


(Log #4S7) HEA

101- 307- (13-3.6.1 Exception No. 6, Exception No. 7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 6 as follows:

a) The ~t,,,cc a~d corridor that the space ... b) Each space is protected by an electrically supervised automatic

smoke detection system installed in accordance with 15-$.4 or is located .to permit direct supervision by the facility staff, and

c) no change d) no change Revise Exception No. 7 as follows: a) no change b) delete c) no change d) no change'

SUBSTANTIATION: The need for dire line of sight supervision of waiting areas or other spaces open to the corridor is overly restrictive and an impediment to provide quality care in todays health care environment. This current requirement dictates our open spaces be directly across from the nurses station or area control access desk. Unfortunately this is the same area where it is clinically valuable to place our more acute patients or observation rooms. The recommended change will permit the facility staff to continue to program open spaces but not take up the extremely valuable clinical space around staff attended locations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise Exception No. 6 by deleting (b) and retaining current (a), (c), and (d). Revise Exception No. 7 by deleting (b) and retaining current (a),

(c), and (d). In Exception No. 8 delete (c) and retain current (a), (b), (d) and

(e).

128

NFPA 101m F96 ROP

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes all that the submitter requested, but does so using different wording. This should meet the submitter 's intent. Also, Exception No. 8 has been changed for consistency with the changes made to Exceptions No. 6 and No. 7. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #438) HEA

101- 308- (13-3.6.2.2 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 13-3.6.2.2 to read:

Exception: Small gaps or openings (approximately 3 /4 in. or less) are permitted above ceilings that limit the passage of smoke. SUBSTANTIATION: This section of the code states that corridor walls shall limit the passage of smoke. Unfortunately, authorities having jurisdiction have been taking dais to mean the wall shall be light t ight with absolutely no gaps or holes, not even the size of a piece of pencil lead. Millions of dollars are being spent to seal and patch small peneu'ations and gaps around conduits or ducts, that in the overall scheme of preventing the loss of life or property are minor or of no concern. This proposed change will permit the small hole or gap to exist without the need to patch insignificant pcenetrations.

OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 624 (Log #453) on A-13-3.6.2.2.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action taken on the referenced proposal adds appendix language that better explains the subject than the. submitter 's . . . . proposed exception., The submitter's, p,,roposed exception ts ambiguous m its use of small gaps or openings . Also, the three-quarter inch dimension is arbitrary. However, the

r I ~ e d appendix note should mee t most of the submitter 's intent. ER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GALLAGHER: The basis of the submitters ' proposals is valid. The

proposed exception under log #438 was a step in the fight direction towards developing performance based code language. The result of both 438 and 453 is a proposal for an Appendix A commentary to 13-3.6.2.2. Unfortunately, manyAHJ's do not recognize this appendix. Those AHJ's who do use this appendix will not be any better served by subjective language such as "small holes, penetrations or gaps...". This subjectivity was the basis of the proposal under Log #438 in the first place. Code users would be better served with objective language in 13-3.6.2.2 which log 453 could then clarify and support.

(Log #127) HEA

101-309- (13-3.6.2.3 Exception No. 2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A~ Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add the foilowingException:

Exception No. 2: Double hung window shall be permit ted in corridor walls in smoke compartments protected throughout by automatic sprinklers in accordance with 1 3-3.5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: A double hung window is no different than a door without a closer. It takes a person essentially one motion to close the window and it stays in the closed position to restrict the passage of smoke. These have been used inplace of pass through type windows and can be safer since the window is usually only open w h e n someone is present and closed to resist the passage of all smoke otherwise. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A double hung window is not the same as a door with respect to reliability and ease of operation. A door is more substantial. A door is hinged so that it can be easily closed. Also, the submitter has no t specified any opening/c los ing forces for such windows. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #90) HEA

101- 310 - (13-3.6.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip R. Jose, VA Regional Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Add "and shall be constructed to resist the

~ assage of smoke." at the end of this paragraph. UBSTANTIATION: There is currently no specific requirement or

reference made to any smoke resistance requirement for existing corridor doors other than in Exception No. 1. This addition makes clear that the intent of the code is to provide doors that will resist the passage of smoke. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's proposed wording implies that something is needed in addition to what the Code currently requires, such as gasketing in order to resist the passage of smoke. This is no t the Committee 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #57) HEA

101- 311 - (13-3.6.3.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "shall be labeled," SUBSTANTIATION: It does not make sense to require labeled door frames when the door leaf is not required to be labeled. 13- 3.6.3.1 requires only that the door be "substantial". f f the committee wishes to place some requirement on the frame, it should be consistent with the requirement for the door. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The current requirement does not mandate labeling. Rather, labeling is one of the three options offered by the current Code wording. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #439) HEA

101- 312 - (13-3.6.3.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 13-3.6.3.4 to read:

13-3.6.3.4 Gaskeflng of doors shall not be required on doors in corridor wall openings. SUBSTANTIATION: Many authorities having jurisdiction are requiring corridor doors to be smoke gasketed because 12-3.6.3.1 states that door openings shall be protected by construction to resist the passage of smoke. It is not uncommon for wood doors to warp with seasonal changes, deflecting away from tile stop on the flame. As with fire rated doors, corridor doors are expected to deflect a certain percentage of their thickness and still be classified as resisting the passage of smoke. Fire doors tested in accordance with UL 10B may deflect one times the thickness of the door during the first half of the test and one and a half times the door thickness during the entire test. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Rather titan doing that which the submitter requested, create an appendix note to 13-3.6.3.1 to read: A-13-3.6.3.1 Gasketing of doors should not be necessary to achieve

resistance to the passage of smoke if the door is relatively tight fitting. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Given that gasketing is not required for any of the doors addressed by the Code, it would be confusing to have text in the body of the Code exempting gasketing for only one of the door types/locations addressed. The proposed appendix note provides the necessary information. This s h o u l d m e e t the submitter 's in t en t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIG1BLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


129

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #440) HEA

101- 313 - (13-3.6.3.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 1 3-3.0.3.4 to read:

13-3.6.3.4 Protective plates (kick plates) extending 48 in. above the bottom of the door shall be permit ted on doors in corridor wall openings.

Exception: Those doors serving vertical openings and approved exits. SUBSTANTIATION: Kick plates on corridor doors and cross corridor doors have been used in health care facilities for decades without ever having been a negative factor in a fire related death or major loss of property. As corridor doors, even into hazardous areas, of health care facilities have the primary function of resisting the passage of smoke, there is no reason to prohibi t the installation of armor plating on the lower half of the door. Exposing the lower half of corridor doors to cart and equipment traffic in a health care facility will jeopardize the doors integrity by damage caused by punctur ing the outer veneer and tearing up the door edges. It is unfortunate that one self proclaimed authority having jurisdiction has de te rmined that 1 3 /4 in. solid bonded wood core doors are equivalent to a 20 minute rated assembly and therefore are prohibi ted from having armor plating above 16 in. f rom the bot tom of the door. To make matters worse, they are also applying this requirement retroactively. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 268 (Log #428) on 12-3.6.3.4. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced r l ~ s ~ should meet the submitter 's intent.

R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GALLAGHER: The basis of the submitter 's proposal and the

committee s tatement is valid as applies to 19/13-$.7.5 and 12/13- 3.6.3.4. However, there is clearly no t sufficient language in Chapter 6 to permit the proposed exception to 12/13-3.2.1. I believe the committee has exceeded its scope and should have developed a proposal for consideration by the Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features before proceeding with the proposed exception to 12/13-3.2.1.

(LOg#58) HEA

101- 314- (13-3.6.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text to read:

"In other than smoke compartments containing patient bedrooms, miscellaneous openings such as mail slots, pharmacy pass-through windows, laboratory pass-through windo3cs, and cashier pass-through windows shall be permit ted to be installed in vision panels or doors without special protection, provided the aggregate area of openings per room does not exceed 80 sq in. (130 sq cm), the openings are mstaUed at or below half the distance from the floor to the room ceiling, . . . . and the room is protected throughout by an approved, superwsed automatac sprmkler system m accordance with 1 3-3.5.2."

Then - Delete the current exception. SUBSTANTIATION: I feel an unsprinklered, "protect in place" occupancy should maintain smoke resisting corridor wails. If holes in walls separating unsprinklered rooms from egress corridors are acceptable, why limit them to vision panels and doors. Why not the wall itself?. To fire, a hole is a hole. If these holes are an acceptable risk, then any hole is an acceptable risk. The proposed change would continue to allow corridor wall openings but only if the room in question is protected with sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's proposed language would remove the current allowance for a 20 sq in. opening in non sprinklered compartments. There is insufficient substantiation to delete dais current allowance. The current provision is adequate for these compartments because there are no pat ient sleeping rooms permit ted when the allowance for the opening is used. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #128) HEA

101- 315 - (13-3.7.3 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite as follows:

Exception No. 2*: Dampers shall not be required in duct penetrations of smoke barriers in fully ducted heating, ventilating, and air

~i]]OkC COI]]V~ UI'~']~ ~ a C ~ ' l ; [O d] . . . . . . kC L~ "i~'. w~ere both adiacent smoke comoartments are vrotected with auick re~p0nse or residential snrinklers in accordance with 1 3-3.5.$ when either side Of the barrier is a oatient sleeoin~ area. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe the intent of the committee was to allow the deletion of smoke dampers from a smoke barrier only when both sides of the barrier was provided with quick response sprinklers. The way the exception reads, a smoke barrier, separating two smoke compartments where on one side of the smoke barrier pat ient sleeping areas and quick response sprinklers exist, and on the other side an administration area with no patient sleeping and only standard response sprinklers exist, can have the smoke dampers removed.

ff the fire is in the administration area, the products of combustion will no t be minimized and smoke will travel through the ducts to the patient sleeping area. On the other hand, quick response sprinklers in the patient sleeping area smoke zone do minimize the products of combustion and helps prevent the smoke from going to the administration side. The change identified will require quick response sprinklers to be installed on both sides of the barrier when either side is occupied by sleeping patients reducing the chance that the smoke would become a problem to patients. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the intent to permit dampers to be omitted under the conditions specified which require quick response or residential sprinklers only in the compartments containing the patient sleeping rooms. The submitter has no t substantiated why the Code should be made more stringent in this a r e a .



(Log #129) HEA

101- 316 - (13-3.7.3 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite as follows:

Exception No. 2*: Dampers shall not be required in duct penetrations of smoke barriers in fully ducted heating, ventilating, and air condit ioning systems ~,,',~ ~ ,,,~ _av.~, , ~ , ~ , ~ v c , ,~,cd .,u~,,,,'.,~G¢.

smoke comnartments are protected with snrinklers in accorda~nce with 13-3.5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: ff my other proposal on 12-3.7.3 Exception No. 2 were rejected, then the wade offis sprinklers (any kind) for smoke dampers. There should be no special requirements for the

rinklers on any side of the smoke barrier as identified in 1 3-3.7.3 ception No. 2 as it is now written. Within a new health care

facility, where I have a smoke barrier separating two administration smoke zones with standard sprinkles and no patient sleeping, I am permit ted to omit the smoke dampers. Why should it be different in existing health care? The code should be consistent. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the intent to permit dampers to be omitted under the conditions specified which require qmck response or residential sprinklers only in the compartments containing the patient sleeping rooms. The submitter has not substantiated why the Code should be made more stringent in this a r e a .

NUMBER OF COMMI'VI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


130

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #332) HEA

101- 317- (13-3.7.5): Reject SUBMITTER: William N. Brooks, Brinjac, Kambic & Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Return this paragraph to the language contained in the 1988 edition which read:

13-3.7.5 Openings in smoke barriers shall be protected by wired glass panels in steel frames, bydoors of 20-minute fire protection rating, or by 1 3/4-in. solid bonded wood core doors as a minimum,

Exception: Doors may have wired glass vision panels, installed in steel or other approved metal frames, not exceeding 1296 sq in. SUBSTANTIATION: This change in effect, placed a more restrictive requirement on exisdng facilities. Existing installations of glazing could no longer be acceptable unless they meet the more stringent requirements of fixed fire windows. This is a more restrictive requirement than that needed for a door requiring a 20 minute rating with no hose stream test. The hazard in existing construction has not been demonstrated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter's proposed wording is not needed. Current Code language permits existing wired glass and fire rated glazing. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #341) HEA

101- 318 - (13-3.7.5): Reject SUBMITYER: Thomas W.Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception to 13-3.7.5. SUBSTANTIATION: The Exception is more restrictive than the requirement in the base requirement. I always thought more restrictive methods of protection were always permitted and they do not require an exception. For example, we do require an Exception to allow a class A or B fire door in a smoke barrier. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMr[TEE STATEMENT: The submitter's substantiation is not correct. The exception is not more restrictive. Rather, 13-3.7.5 presents one prescriptive solution. The exception explains that Fixed fire window assemblies can serve in lieu of the components specified in the base paragraph. Without this exception, one could be forced to follow the requirement of 1 3-3.7.5 exactly, with no allowance made for a fixed fire window assembly. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #202) HEA

101- 319 - (13-3.7.6 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Margaret Engwer, VA Medical Center RECOMMENDATION: Add:

Exception: Doors in smoke barriers that also protect openings in corridor walls shall meet the requirements of 1 3-3.6.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Appendix note A-13-3.7.6 acknowledges that corridor doors may form part of a smoke barrier. Wi3ere doors that form part of a smoke barrier also protect a

corridor opening, there is a conflict between 13-3.7.6, which states that "posiOve latching shall not be required on doors in smoke barriers" and 13-3.6.3.2, which requires that corridor doors be provided with a means for keeping the doors tightly closed. Adding the proposed exception will clarify the fact that corridor

doors in smoke barriers are required to meet 13-3.6.3.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter is requestingthat wording that is redundant with other Code requirementsbe inserted here. It is not possible to place redundant requirements everywhere. The user of the Code must compare requirements and implement the stricter or strictest applicable to any construction feature or element. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #112) HEA

101- 320 - (13-3.8.1): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Thomas W.Jaeger, American Health Care Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Delete the requirement for the maximum sill heights of 44 in. and 60 in. in existing buildings by deleting the last sentence of Section 13-3.8.1 and the 60 in. criteria in Exception No. 1. SUBSTANTIATION: Previous editions of the Life Safety Code which are still being used by Medicare/Medicaid for nursing homes contain no requirements for maximum sill heights, ffMedicare/ Medicaid adopts more recent editions of the Code, the 44 in. maximum sill height would become a retroactive requirement for many existing nursing homes. This could become a very expensive retrofit if authorities baying jurisdiction choose to enforce this requirement once the newer editions of the Code are adopted.

I am not aware that the sill height of windows has played any significant role in recent health care facility fires. To require existing facilities to retrofit windows at very large costs without any significant increase in the level of life safety just doesn't make good sense. Loss experience has not demonstrated that sill heights in existing buildings, regardless of the height, need to be 'Tixed." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Do not delete. Rather, add an Exception No. 4 to 13-3.8.1 to read: Exception No. 4: Sill height shall not be limited in sprinldered

smoke compartments. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: Windows have been successfully used during fire emergencies for rescue, ventilation, and fire service activities. The sill height limitation remains important for non sprinklered smoke compartments. The Committee Action should

-rtRof the submitter's intent. OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18


(Log #441) HEA

101-321- (13-5.1 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 13-5.1 to read:

Exception: Existing installations shall be permitted to be continued in service provided the systems do not present a serious hazard to life. SUBSTANTIATION: It is impractical to continually upgrade existing buildings or installations to comply with the latest requirements of the referenced standards. As NFPA standards continue to change and the newer editions are referenced in Chapter 32, existing systems previously in conformance should not have to be modified or upgraded unless there is a distinct hazard to the occupant. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITIT_~ ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #59) HEA

101- 322- (13-5.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Change the rating requirement on file fire door assembly from 1 1/2 hour B to one hour B for existing chutes. SUBSTANTIATION: To be consistent with the one hour rating requirement for existing one hour chutes per Section 13-3.1.1 and the opening protective requirements of Section 6-2.3.5(b). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change "1/2 hour" to "1 hour" as recommended by the submitter. Also, delete the words "suitable for a Class B location". COMMITYEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested. Additionally, the phrase "suitable for Class B location" has been deleted because NFPA 80 no longer refers to doors by a letter classification. This should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMrrTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

131

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F96 R O P

(Log #172) HEA

101- 323 - (13-5.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Joshua Elvove, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Change "1-1/2 hours" to "1 hour." SUBSTANTIATION: 13-3.1.1 requires "any stairway, ramp, elevator hoistway, light . . . . . or ventilation shaft, chute or other vertical opening between stones to "be enclosed m accordance vath 6-2.4 with construction having a 1-hour fire resistance rating." Existing linen and trash chutes that open directly onto corridors should not be expected to meet a more stringent requirement (1-1/2 hours, as currently required in 13-5.4.1) than any other vertical opening, especially when chutes are required to be sprinkler protected (see 13-5.4.2). COMMITrF~ ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 322 (Log #59) on 13-5.4.1.

COMMITI~E STATEMENT: The action on the referenced rl°l~l~s,~ should meet the submitter's intent-

R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 .. NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #442) HEA

101- $24- (13-6.2.4.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: 13-6.2.4.2 ... suite of rooms of more than ~-000 2500 sq ft shall have ... SUBSTANTIATION: Ambulatory care facilities should be treated similarly to hospital settings and therefore this section needs to be increased to match 13-2.5.2 for other than patient sleeping room suites. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITIT~ ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #443) HEA

101- 325 - (13-6.2.9.2 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMR. NDATION: Add a second Exception to 13-6.2.9.2 to read:

Exception No. 2: Where line powered life-support equipment is used for occasional emergency care and life support only. SUBSTANTIATION: Ashealth care continues to change its delivery system to include more and more primary care buildings, these outlying facilities are being constructed with a limited amount of life saving and life-support equipment. This equipment is not for daily use but only for emergency purposes to stabilize a patient until they can be transported to a hospital For the occasional use of this equipment a full essential electrical system should not be required. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a second Exception to 13-6.2.9.2 to read: Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply to a facility that

uses life-support equipment for emergency purposes only. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested but does so using different language. The term "occasional" is to difficult to define it is also to difficult to enforce. This should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #444) HEA

101- 326- (13-6.3.7.2 Exception): Accept S U B M I ~ Douglas S. Erickson, Americarl Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: 13-6.3.7.2 Exception: ... less than M 5.000 sq ft and protected... SUBSTANTIATION: The increase in size of an ambulatory care facility without needing to be subdivided into two smoke compartments should match the requirement for a patient sleeping suite in a hospital. (See 13-2.5.5) COMMI'I~fEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #173) HEA

101- 327 - (13-6.3.7.3 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joshua Elvove, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 13-6.3.7.3 to read as follows:

Exception: Dampers shall not be required in duct penetrations of smoke barriers in fully ducted heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems where an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 1 3-3.5.3 has been provided for smoke compartments adjacent to the smoke barrier. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the 1991 edition, the Life Safety Code allowed fully ducted heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems to penetrate smoke barriers without requiring dampers (see 13-3.7.3). A similar provision was not made for Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies. For existing Ambulatory Health Care occupancies protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 13-3.5.3 (which references section 7-7), the same exception should be permitted, especially given the relatively reduced risk to patients in these occupancies when compare to health care. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add an exception to 13-6.3.7.$to read as follows: Exception: Dampers shall not be required in duct penetrations of

smoke barriers in fully ducted heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems where an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7 has been provided for smoke compartments adjacent to the smoke barrier. COMMITI~E STATEMI2qT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested hut makes reference to Section 7-7 rather than paragraph 13-3.5.3 because there are no sleeping rooms in an ambulatory health care facility. Thus, reference to quick response or residential sprinklers is not needed. This should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


• (Log #445) HEA

101- 328 - (13-6.5.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITIT3R: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMRNDATION: Add an Exception to 13-6.5.1 to read:

Exception: Existing installations shall be permitted to be continued in service provided the systems do not present a serious hazard to life. SUBSTANTIATION: It is impractical to continually upgrade existing buildings or installations to comply with the latest requirements of the referenced standards. As NFPA standards continue to change and the newer editions are referenced in Chapter 32, existing systems previously in conformance should not have to be modified or upgraded unless there is a distinct hazard to the occupant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITIT.E ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

( Log #CP701) DET

101- 329 - (14-1.4.3 Exception and 15-1.4.3 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Techni'cal Committee on Detention and Correctional Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 14-1.4.3 and 15-1.4.3 to read:

Exception: Use Condition I facilities shall be permitted to meet the requirements of this chapter for Use Condition II facilities. SUBSTANTIATION: The base paragraph requires Use Condition I facilities to meet the requirements for residential occupancies. It is the Committee's intent to permit, in lieu of the residential occu- t~ancy chapters requirements, that such facilities be allowed to meet

e provisions of these chapters for detention and correctional occupancies if the requirements for a Use Condition II facility are satisfied. Thus, the proposed exceptions are needed.

" COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NOT RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, Whitehead

132

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #321) DET

101- 330- (14-1.6.5 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Randy Gaw, Correctional Service of Canada RECOMMENDATION: Provide a new paragraph 14-1.6.5 to read: All new residential housing areas classified as Use Condition II, III,

IV or V shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7. SUBSTANTIATION: Fires in correctional and detefltion facilities present a unique and difficult challenge for staff and responding fire crews. Prompt egress from buildings is no t always possible or desirable, particularly during a riot or disturbance. Sprinklers provide protection and an extinguishing capability when and where iauman intervention may not be possible, thereby enhancing life safety and property protection. Statistics show that the greatest number of fires and potential for life loss exits in locked residential housing areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The proposal would require only the residential housing areas to be sprinklered. Which alternatives offered for sprinklered buildings would then be permit ted to be used?

Retaining the nonsprinklered option is important because there are jurisdictions that will not sprinkler. To require sprinklers would lose the guidance to those who design and build facilities where sprinklers simply will not be installed due to other concerns. The current Code requirements that must be met if sprinklers are no t installed provide adequate life safety. In other words, the requirements of Chapter 14 for nonsprinklered detent ion and correctional occupancies are very stringent. Retaining the nonsprinklered option is a practical necessity.

The Committee is not opposed to receiving a public comment at ROC time to reformat Chapter 14 editorially (not technically) to separate the requirements for new detent ion and correctional occupancies into sprinklered and nonsprinklered options. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLETO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, Whitehead

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: EARLE& There is more than sufficient liability and risk concern to

justify fully sprinklered buildings in ALL areas of new construction, which is what the Federal Bureau of Prisons is doingl

GAW: I wish to change myvote to a negative and submit the following explanation. Technical advancements in sprinkler head design have produced a number of sprinklers designed specifically for the correctional and detent ion environment. Proper system design, installation and maintenance can provide the life safety and property protection benefits of automatic sprinklers without increasing, the. opportunity for inmate, self destruction by hanging, or the fabrlcataon of weapons f rom spnnkler components.

(Log #197) DET

101-331 - (14-2.2.8, 15-2.2.9, 14-2.2.9 and 15-2.2.10 (New)): Accept SUBMrrTER: James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 14-2.2.8/15-2.2.9 to read:

14-2.2.8/15-2.2.9. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-2.9 shall be permitted. Add a new 14-2.2.9/15-2.2.10 to read: 14-2.2.9/15-2.2.10. Alternating tread devices complying with 5-2.11

shall be permitted. Renumber the current 14-2.2.8 as 14-2.2.10 and 15-2.2.9 as 15-

2.2.11. SUBSTANTIATION: Neither 5-2.9 nor 5-2.11 require occupancy chapter permission to use these egress components . Under the limitations stipulated in 5-2.9 and 5-2.11 there is no reason not to allow these devices in this occupancy. Note that these would not be in the general means of egress and would be limited to "service" type areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #36) DET

101- 332 - (14-2.4.1 and 15-2.4.1 Exceptions): Reject SUBMITTER= D. Ted Edelmann, The Ralph M. Parsons Co. RECOMMENDATION: The following paragraphs from NFPA 101® occupancy chapters are modified to delete the wording, "...distances allowed as common paths of travel..." and replaced with the specific distance requirement.

14-2.4.1 Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be [permitted to be common for a distance of 50 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 14-3.5.3.

15-2.4.1 Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be permit ted to be common for a distance of 50 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 15-3.5.3. SUBSTANTIATION: Conflicts with Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) have occurred interpreting the occupancy chapters that permit a single exit (from a building or space) provided that the travel distance to that exit is within that distance allowed for a common path of travel. When only one exit exists, that is not within that d is tancepermi t ted as a common path of travel, the issue is whether the Code violation is a number of exits violation or a common path of travel violation. By definition, a common path of travel does no t exist when only one exit exists, and thus the violation pertains to the number of exits. The proposed wording specifies the required distance(s) without reference to "common path of travel," and should eliminate interpretation problems. CO MITIT, E ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: This occupancy requires two exits and also requires access to both of those exits. However, no t both exits must be immediately accessible because the occupant can be steered in one direction for the distance allowed as common path of travel. It is best to retain the current language and have the user refer to the common path of travel limitation for the distances permitted. Repeating the distances here might cause coordination problems at a later date if the common path of travel limitations were changed. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMrITEE ACTION:


(Log 0108) DET

101- 333 - (14-2.11.6, 15-2.11.6, A-14-2.11.6 and A-15-2.11.6): Accept in Principle SUBMI'FrER: Thomas W.Jaeger, Gage Babcock Associates RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to Sections 14-2.11.6 and 15-2.11.6 to read:

"The remote location shall have sight and sound supervision of the resident living areas."

Add the following to Sections A-14-2.11.6 and A-15.2.11.6: "Sight and sound supervision of resident living areas can be by

camera and communicat ion systems." SUBSTANTIATION: Currently there is nothing in the Code that requires that the remote position have any sight or sound supervision of the area to be remotely unlocked in case of an emergency. I have been in facilities where the locks on an 8th floor housing unit are remotely unlocked from the control room on the 1st floor. The correctional officer in the housing unit uses a radio to have doors remotely locked and unlocked on the 8th floor.

For editorial clarity, is the intent that the phrase "resident living areas" used in Sections 14-2.11.6 and 15-2.11.6 be something different than "Residential Housing Area" as def ined in Section 1 4- 1.3? If not, I r ecommend that resident living areas be changed to residential housing areas. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Do as submitter requested. Add the following to Sections 14-2.11.6 and 15-2.11.6 to read: "The remote location shall have sight and sound supervision of the

resident living areas." Add the following to Sections A-14-2.11.6 and A-15.2.11.6: "Sight and sound supervision of resident living areas can be by

camera and communication systems." Also add an exception to 31-5.1.1 to read:

Exception: For areas in which all locks are unlocked remotely in compliance with 14-2.11.6 (15-2.11.6), staffshall not be required to be within three floors or 300 ft. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested. Additionally, it clarifies that it is die Committee 's intent that the s taff that remotely unlocks doors need not be within the distance limitations of 31-5.1.1. This should meet the submitter 's intent.

153

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP


AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, wh i t ehead

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GAW: I wish to change my vote to a negative on this proposal and

will use the substantiation submit ted by Mr. Miller. It is important that staff required to supervise or assist in emergency evacuation be within 3 floors or 300 feet of the detent ion or correctional occupancy. Mr. Miller's proposed wording for the exception should achieve the desired intent.

MILLER: I agree with the committee 's action on this proposal .e,z~,.e.p~or its wording of an exceptign to 31-5.1.1. The committee 's action, in part, states that "...staff shall no t be required to be within three floors or 300 ft." If in terpreted literally, not having staff within three floors or 300 ft in a detent ion or correctional occupancy could dangerously retard efforts to effect a safe and timely evacuation after all locks are unlocked. This would be especially true in high security areas or areas in which non-ambulatory persons are housed (e.g., an infirmary). Thus, the committee is quite inadvertently allowing an unacceptable practice. In part, the committee 's s ta tement specifies that "...it is the committee 's intent that the staff that remotely unlocks doors need not be within the distance limitations of 31- 5.1.1." That position is perfectly valid. Why no t state that just as succinctly and clearly in the exception? Hence, I would suggest that the exception to 31-5.1.1 read: "Exception: For areas in which all locks are unlocked remotely in compliance with 14.2.11.0 (15- 2.11.6), the staff that remotely unlocks doors shall not be required to be within three floors or 300 ft."

(Log #322) DET

101- 334 - (14-2.11.6 Exception, 15-2.11.6 Exception): Accept SUBMITTE~ Randy Gaw, Correctional Service of Canada RECOMMENDATION: Reword that por t ion of the first sentence of the Exception to 14-2.11.6 and 15.2.11.6 that reads, "...as promptly as required for remote control unlocking" to read, "...as promptly as required to relocate occupants when remote control unlocking is used." SUBSTANTIATION: Confusion exists with the interpretation of the existing wording "...as p rompdy as required for remote control unlocking." It may take only a second to activate an electric remote control lock while it would obviously take several minutes to physically relocate occupants. The proposed wording seeks to clarify the intent of the Exception. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMY['rEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #309) DET

101- 335 - (14.3.4.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th j . Schwartz, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 14-3.4.4 to read:

14-3.4.4 Detection. An approved, automatic smoke detection system shall be installed in accordance with Section 7-6 throughout all resident sleeping areas and adjacent day room, activity room or contiguous common space such as a gallery or corridor. SUBSTANTIATION: T h e definition of resident housing areas which includes "other common spaces for customary areas of residents" can be construed to mean all areas of the entire correctional facility. This proposal is in tended to help clarify that the intent of this provision is to require smoke detection in the immediate area of the sleeping rooms only. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise Section 14-3.4.4 to read: 14-3.4.4 Detection. An approved, automatic smoke detect ion

system shall be installed in accordance with Section 7-6 throughout all resident sleeping areas and adjacent day rooms, activity rooms or contiguous common spaces. Add an appendix note A-14-3.4.4 to read: A-14-3.4.4 Examples of contiguous common spaces are galleries

and corridors. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested but positions the examples of contigu ous. common, spaces in the ap, penendix so. as to avoid nonreqmrements tn the body of the Code. Thin should meet the submitter 's intent.



(Log #310) DET

101- 336 - (14.3.4.4 Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: KennethJ . Schwartz, RoifJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 to read:

"...smoke detectors shall no t be required except in corridors, common spaces such as day rooms, activity rooms or contiguous common spaces such as a gallery or corridor, and sleeping rooms with more than four occupants." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is in tended to clarify that the term "common spaces" refers to areas such as day rooms, activity rooms, and common spaces such as gallery or corridor, and located in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms, and is not in tended to apply to all areas o f a correctionalfacUity. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise Exception No. 2 to read: Exception No. 2: In buildings protected throughout by an

approved, automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 14.3.5.3, smoke detectors shall not be required in sleeping rooms with four or fewer occupants. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action functionally accomplishes that which the submitter requested but does so using different language for clarity. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #308) DET

101- 337 - (14-3.4.4 Exception No. 4 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: KennethJ . Schwartz, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 4 to read as follows:

Exception No. 4: Smoke detectors shall no t be required in non resident sleeping areas separated by 2-hour fire rated construction, or by 1-hour fire rated construction in fully sprinklered buildings. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is in tended to clarify that s m o k e detectors are not required in non sleeping areas that are separated from the s leepingarea by fire rated construction. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed exception would be an exception to a non requirement. This would give the wrong connotation. Also see Proposals 101 - 335 (Log#309) and 101 - 336 (Log #310). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #315) DET

101-338- (Table 14-3.8.1, Table 15-3.8.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Vincent T. Fitzpatrick, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change all references of smoke tight (ST) to smoke resistant (SR). SUBSTANTIATION: Webster 's Dictionary defines smoke tight as impervious to smoke, Impervious is def ined as no t allowing entrance or passage through. Table 14-3.8.1 and Table 15-3.8.1 have a number of references to smoke tight construction, but permit openings in the Solid Room Face. Using the word smoke tight is misleading, and should be revised to smoke resistant. Resistant is def ined as having the means or me thod to resist. , ~ t h openings permit ted in the Solid Room Face, it appears the intent of the code is to be more smoke resistant than smoke tight. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


134

NFPA 1 0 1 ~ F96 ROP

(Log #109) DET

101- 339 - (14-4.1, 15-4.1): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Thoma s W.Jaeger , Gage Babcock Associates RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire section on windowless buildings. SUBSTANTIATION: As a char ter m e m b e r o f the Detection and Correctional Technical Commit tee , and as a fire protect ion consul tant for the design or retrofit of de ten t ion and correctional facilities, I receive more quest ions on the requi rements for windowless bui ld ings /areas than any other requi rement . Having given it a lot of t hough t and review, I have concluded that the r equ i r emen t is confusing, nonspecific and as a m i n i m u m overly restrictive for spr inklered buildings.

I r e c o m m e n d the entire r equ i r emen t be deleted. The r equ i r emen t does no t define "readily broken by impact."

Al though the appendix note states tha t the materials u sed to break the window mus t be available to the staff, there is no th ing to define "readily." ff I have thirty 6 in. x 24 in. windows in each cell and it takes the staff one minu te to break each window, and the thirty windows can be broken in thirty minutes , is dais "readily"?

Also, the number , size, and location of the window(s) are not defined. There is no objective as to what the commit tee is a t tempt- ing to accomplish with the operable or breakable window. There is no r equ i r emen t tha t windows be in the hous ing un i t only that the windows be in the smoke compar tment .

Based on the requi rement , I could have two hous ing pods open ing onto an exit corridor all be ing in the same smoke compar tment . The only breakable windows are two 6 in. x 24 in. windows in the corridor. The smoke c o m p a r t m e n t would no t be classified as windowless even t hough there are no operable or breakable windows within the hous ing pod.

If the commit tee decides to retain the requirement , I r e c o m m e n d as a m i n i m u m :

1. An except ion to Section 14-4.1.2 be added for sprinklered buildings. There is no justification to require smoke control, vents or shafts to be requi red in spr inklered buildings. Trading o f f smoke control will encourage more facilities to provide sprinkler protection.

2. The commit tee should define by per fo rmance or specific r equ i r emen t what it m e a n s by "readily breakable" and the ex tend of

erable or breakable windows. MMITI~E ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Replace subsect ion 14-4.1 (and 15-4.1) and appendix note A-14- 4.1.1 (A-15-4.1.1) with the following:

14-4.1 (15-4.1) Windowless Structures. 14-4.1.1 (15-4.1.1) Windowless s tructures used as de ten t ion a n d

correctional occupancies shall complywith 14-4.1.2 (15-4.1.2). The provisions o f Section 30-7 for windowless structures shall no t be applicable.

Exception: Buildings protected t h roughou t by an approved automat ic sprinkler system in accordance with 14-3.5.3 (15-3.5.3).

14-4.1.2 (15-4.t.2) Means shall be provided to evacuate smoke f rom the smoke c o m p a r t m e n t of fire origin. Any of the following means shall be acceptable:

(a) operable windows on at least two sides of the building, spaced not. more. than 30 ft apart which, provide, openings with m i n i m u m d imensmns of not less than 22 m. in width and 24 in. in height.

(b)* manual or automatic smoke vents. (c) eng ineered smoke control system. (d) mechanica l exhaus t system providing at least six air changes

per hour . (e) ano the r m e t h o d acceptable to the authori ty having jurisdic-

tion. A-14-4.1.2(b) [A-15-4.1.2(b)] The automatic smoke vent ing should

be in accordance with NFPA 204M, Guide for Smoke and Heat Venting, for light hazard occupancies. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee Action addresses the issues raised by the submlt ter of this proposal and similar issues raised in Proposal 101 - 340 (Log #316). The wording developed by the Commit tee represents its best effort at providing definable criteria for the protect ion of occupants in windowless de ten t ion and correctional occupancies. This should mee t some of the submit ter ' s intent. However, simply delet ing all r equ i rements for windowless buildings, as reques ted by the submitter, would no t afford the protect ion needed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 N O T RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, Whi tehead

(Log#316) DET

101- 340 - (14-4.1.1.1, 15-4.1.1.1,14-4.1.1.2 and 15-4.1.1.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Vincent T. Fitzpatrick, Rol f Jensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add Sections 14-4.1.1.1 and 15-4.1.1.1 to read:

Requi red windows shall be so constructed that when fully opened, the total open ing space shall be no t less than one hal f the required window area.

Exception No. 1: In buildings equipped with an engineered smoke control system.

14-4.1.1.2 and 15-4.1.1.2 to read: Requi red windows shall have glazed openings o f area no t less than 8 percent of the floor area of the room served by the windows.

Exception No. 1: Storage rooms shall have an area no t less than 5 percent of the floor area. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no guidance in the Code as to the size of openable windows. This provides a level of safety with adequate openings for ventilation of a room and access to outside air. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -339 (Log#109) . COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The action taken on the referenced

should mee t the submit ter ' s intent- R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NOT RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, Whi tehead

(Log #96) RES

101- 341 - (Chapters 16 and 17): Reject SUBMITTER: Frank P. Grimes, Uni ted Steelworkers of America RECOMMENDATION: This proposal is now only an idea tha t needs a lot of test ing and evaluating all the pros and cons.

This idea comes f rom my earlier exper ience as a pipe fitter in the steel p lan t and then my involvement in safety and heal th and the fact tha t I, like you, spend a lot of t ime in hotel rooms.

As you know, many people are killed in hotel fires each year and many die f rom smoke inhalat ion ra ther file fire itself. They are t rapped in their rooms with no air. As a pipe fitter, I learned that for water to go down a sewer system, it mus t have a vent that goes to the roof of a house or building. This allows air into the line so the water can flow down the pipe. If it d idn ' t have a vent, it would be like hold ing your f inger on the end of a straw that was full of water. The water stays in the straw unti l you take your f inger o f f the end.

Therefore it is possible that there could be air in the ba th room of a hotel room. There is also a good chance there could be sewer gas. Or there could be a suction in the line that would pull the air f rom the room. Tha t is why they put traps on all sinks, bath tubs, floor drains, etc. This traps any gas f rom enter ing the room.

If I were t rapped in a room and could not make it to an exit, and it was too h igh to j u m p and smoke is filling the room, I would do one of two things.

1. Try to break the trap off the bot tom of the sink. This pipe is no t that strong. You may have to break the leg o f fa chair and use it t6 twist the trap off. You then put your m o u t h over the pipe that goes in the wall and see if you can breathe.

2. The sink has a 1 1 /2 i n . p ipe and may not have m u c h air. Now the toilet has a 4 in. pipe a n d y o u don ' t have to break the trap off. You get a towel and soak up the water. You can pu t your head in the toilet and pu t the wet towel over your head. SUBSTANTIATION: Many fatalities that occur du r ing fires in hotels and high-rise buildings are not f rom bums , bu t f rom smoke inhalation, this idea is to look at thepossibi l i ty of having breathable air in the pipes of the sewer system of a building. The vents of the sewer system mus t draw air f rom the roof for the system to work. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIq[TEE STATEMENT: The submit ter proposed no text. The Commit tee is no t sure tha t the proposal will work due to new vent technology. If the bui lding is built to and complies with the requi rements of the Life Safety Code, this provision for supplemen- tary air should not be needed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 N O T RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

135

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #255) RES

101- 342 - (16-1.3 Dormitories): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Add to the definition of ' Dormitories the following:

"Rooms within dormitories intended for the use of individuals for combined living and sleeping purposes shall be deemed "guest rooms" or "guest suites" as indicated in this chapter unless specifically excepted." SUBSTANTIATION: To provide for uniformity of application of requirements set forth in this chapter with the provision to allow for any exception which might be unique to dormitories. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Do as the submitter recommends. Also add same definition to 17-

1.3. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The proposed definition is also needed in Chapter 17 for consistency. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #241) RES

101- 343 - (16-1.3 Guest Room, Guest Suite): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the wording used in its definition of"guest suite s in view of the explanation of negative received from Mr. Messersmith. The phrase "with or without non selfclosing doors" is confusing. SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging IndustrySection RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions for guest room and guest suite as follows:

Guest Room. An accommodation in a hotel combining living, sleeping, sanitary and storage facilities within a rated compartment.

Guest Suite. An accommodation in a hotel with two or more contiguous rooms comprising a rated compartment with or without non seifciosing doors between such rooms providing living, sleeping, sanitary and storage facilities. SUBSTANTIATION: The terms are used in this chapter but are not defined in this chapter nor in Chapter 3 of this Code. This chapter uses a variety of terms to address the generic subject of hotel rooms. By defining the terms and limiting the choice of terms to describe such rooms in this occupancy the benefit to be derived will be a Code which is easier to understand and enforce. No cost is involved. See subsequent proposals submitted by the NFPA Lodging Section which propose to substitute these terms for similar language now used in the Life Safety Code. COMMITTEE ACTION: Acceptin Principle.: Add definitions for guest room and guest suite as follows: Guest Room. An accommodation combining living, sleeping,

sanitary and storage facilities within a compartment. Guest Suite. An accommodation with two or more contiguous

rooms comprising a compartment with or without non seifclosing doors between such rooms providing living, sleeping, sanitary and storage facilities. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Life Safety Code does not require fire rating between units. The reference to hotels is redundant as the chapter addresses hotels and dormitories. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MESSERSMITH: In the definition of guest suite, the phrase

"without non-selfclosing doors" is a double negative. Change to read "without seffclosing doors".

(Log #242) RES

101-344- (16-1.3 Hotel): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: In the Definition of "Hotel" strike the words "sleeping rooms" and insert in lieu thereof the words, "guest room/guest suites." Note that the convention "guest room(s)/guest suite (s)" is currently used in 1 6-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal defining these terms). COMM1TrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise definition of hotel to read: Hotel. Buildings or groups of buildings under the same manage-

ment in which there are sleeping accommodations for more than 16 PCersons primarily used by transients ...

OMMITrEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE." 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP853) RES

101- 345 - (16-2.2.2.2 Exception No. 2 and 17-2.2.2.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITI~R: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 to read:

Exception No. 2: Access con,'oiled egress doors complying with 5- 2.1.6.2 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial for consistency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 2~, NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP24) RES

101- 346 - (16-2.2.3 Exception (New))i Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the need for the proposed exception in ~ e w of 5-2.2.3.2 being~changed by Prepos~l 101-62. MEK made this change in Chapter 5 in response to a request from RES. Further, RES is asked to reconsider its action in view that the proposed languag e would produce an unknown level of safety because it relies on an unidentifi&1%ther" code for establishing the minimum construction type. SUBMFrTER: Technical Committee or; Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 16-2.2.3 to read:

Exception: In buildings protected b~. an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system complying with 16-3.5 having four or fewer stories stairs shall be permitted-to be built of materials permitted for the type of construction of the building. SUBSTANTIATION: The three Model Building Codes in the United States permit apartment and hotel buildings to be of wood frame construction to a maximum height of four stories above grade. These codes also permi~ the exit stairs in wood frame construction to be constructed of wood` The Life Safety Code, under 5-2.2.3.2, requires the stair construction to be noncombustible material in buildings more than three stories in height. This creates a maior conflict between the Life Safety Code and the Model Building Codes. If the building is protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system, allowing the ktkirs to be of combustible materials should be safe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF GOMMITTF~ MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITIT~ ACTION:


(Log #198) RES

101- 347- (16-2.2.8, 17-2.2.10, 16-2.2.9, 17-2.2.11 (New)): Accept SUBMITI'EPa James I~ Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 16-2.2.8/17-2.2.10 to read:

16-2.2.8/1%2.2.10 Fire Escape Ladders. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-2.9 shall bepermitted` Add a new 16-2.2.9/17-2.2.11to read: 1 6-2.2.9/17-2.2.11 AlternatingTread Devices. Alternating tread

devices complying with 5-2.11 shall be permitted. Renumber the current 16-2.2.8 as 16-2.2.10 and renumber 1%2.2.10

as 17-2.2.12. SUBSTANTIATION: Neither 5-2.9 nor 5-2.11 require occupancy chapter permission to use these egress components. Under the limitations stipulated in 5-2.9 and-5-2.11 there is no reason not to allow these devices in this occupancy. Note that these would not be in the general means of egress and would be limit~d to "service" type a r e a s .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

136

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP879) RES

101- 348 - (16-2.2.9 and 17-2.2.11): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a pubfic comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action because 16-2.2.1.1 and 17-2.2.1.1already limit means of egress components to those appearing in the -2.2 subsection. For example, slide escapes are not recognized in hotel means of egress because they do not appear in the -2.2 list, not because they are specifically disallowed. There is no need to prohibit explicitly a component. This leads to inconsistency both within the occupancy chapter and among the other occupancy chapters. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 16-2.2.9 to read:

16-2.2.9 Elevators. Elevators shall be prohibited as part of the required means of egress. Exception: Elevators used to provide access from an area of refuge

in accordance with 5-2.12. Add a new 17-2.2.11 to read: 17-2.2.11 Elevators. Elevators shall be prohibited as part of the

required means of egress. Exception: Elevators used to provide access from an area of refuge

in accordance with 5-2.12. SUBSTANTIATION: The concerns over reliability of the elevators, society confusion on non use of elevators in emergencies, and concerns of the allowance for up to 50 percent capacity are the reasons for prohibiting the elevators addressed by proposed new 5- 2.13 [see Proposal 101 -90 (Log #155)]. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITIT.E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MESSERSMITH: The concept of using elevators as a component in

the means of egress is new. Before permitting this in occupancies where people sleep, it should be evaluated in less hazardous occupancies, such as business.

ff the proposal is ultimately approved, the exceptions should be revised to read:

"Exception: Elevators used to provide ~'ee~_e.gL¢_~ from an area of refuge in accordance with 5-2.12".

(Log #243) RES

101- 349 - (16-2.4 Exception (d) and (e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEI~ Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "living units" and insert in lieu thereof the terms "guest room (s)/guest suite(s)." Note the convention "guest room/guest suite" is currently used in 16-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal which defines these terms). COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In the Exception to 16-2.4, change "living units" to "guest rooms or suites" in two places; change "living unit" to "guest room or suite" in one place. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action should meet the intent of the submitter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP877) RES

101- 350 - (16-2.5.1): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a puhUc comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies ( R ~ ) reconsider its wording of the proposed exception so as to avoid use of the confusing term "common non-looped corridors ". SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 16-2.5.1 to read: Exception: The distance between exits addressed by 5-5.1.4 shall

not be applicable to common non-looped corridors in .buildings that have corridor doors from the guest room or guest suite locatedsuch that the exits are located in opposite direction from such doors.

SUBSTANTIATION: In many arrangements the corridor length cannot meet the remoteness requirements in Chapter 5. This proposal addresses this discrepancy while assuring no common path of travel within the corridor. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nick, son

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHRISTIE: Omit 16-2.5.1, 18-2.5.1, and 5-5.1.4. Provide two smoke

compartments (as in 12-3.3.1 (2) for all corridors longer than the common path, dead-end limits defined in A-5-6.1. Substantiation: 1-2.1 states the code is toprovide minimum requirements, etc~ If the common path/dead-end limits outlined in A-5-6.1 are trnlyacceptable minimum distances then the forced separation of exits defined in 16-2.5.1, 18-2.5.1 and 5-5.1.4 creates higher than minimum exit requirements.

(Log #244) RES

101- 351 - (16-2.5.4): Accept SUBMITTERa Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Any guest room or guest suite..." SUI~TANTIATION:To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal which defines these terms). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #245) RES

101- 352- (16-2.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodginglndustry Section RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "guest"before the words "room" and "suite". SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanyin ro osal which defines these terms.) COMMITrE]~ PAC~ON: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #246) RES

101- 353 - (16-2.6.2): Accept SUBMITTEPa Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging IndusCy Section RECOMMENDATION: Add the word "guest" before the words "room" and "suite". SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal which defines these terms.) COMMI'FrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #247) RES

101- 354- (16-3.1.1 Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "single dwelling unit" and delete the comma after the word "room." SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal defining these terms.) COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


137

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

• (Log #CP22) RES

101- 355 - (16-3.1.1 Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 3 to 16-3.1.1 to read: Exception No. 3: Convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8

shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The current exception permits stairways within a single dwelling unit, guest room or guest suite to be open. It is a common practice to have an open "loft" area within the unit, room or suite. The present exception speaks to omitting a stairway enclosure, but there is no similar exception to address a vertical opening such as a "loft". Recognition of the new 6-2.4.8 being proposed for Chapter 6 by Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will correct this deficiency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMI'I*rEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #248) RES

101- 356 - (16-3.3.2): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the corr61ating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action in view of the confusion that it creates in at least 3 areas: (1) the table incorporates the allowance provided in sprinklered areas by 6- 5.7 wlthout'statlng that "double dipping" by again using 6-5.7 is not Pwiermitted, (2) the formatting incorporates the sprinkler allowance

thout doing the same for the interior wall and ceiling finish requirements located immediately above, and (3) the formatting is inconsistent with that used by other occupancy chapters. SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daiy, NFPA Lodging IndustrySec6on" RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

"Interior Floor Finish. Interior floor finish shall be in accordance with Table 16-3.3.2.

cans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines - - ADAAG), Section 4.28 Alarms, and US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) Bulletin No. 2: Visual Alarms dated July 1994.

Insert new 16-3.4.3.2", A-16-3.4.3.2 and 16-3.4.3.3 (and renumber existing 16-3.4.3.2 and 16.3.4.3.3" as 16-3.4.3.4 and 16-3.4.3.5") to read:

16-3.4.3.2* Guest rooms and guest suites specifically required and equipped to acconw~odate hearing impaired individuals shall be provided with a visible notification appliance. A-16-3.4.3.2 A quantity of such rooms and suites may be required

to be equipped to accommodate, hearin, g impaired, individuals based on the total number of rooms m transient lodging facility, see 28 CFR 36 Appendix A. (Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines - - ADAAG), Sections 9.1.3; 9.1.5 and 9.2.2(8).

16-3.4.3.3 In occupiable areas other than guest rooms and guest suites visible notification appliances shall be provided. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed text clarifies where visible signals are required. This is being done to make the document more user friendly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP852) RES

101- 358- (16-3.4.3.1 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: In Exception No. 1 delete: ~¢¢here permitted by the authority having jurisdiction,". SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminates ambiguous language and sets the minimum requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Table 16-3.3.2 Interior Floor Finish Not

Sprinklered Sprinklered Corridors Not Required Class II

Exits Class Ii Class I

SUBSTANTIATION: The depiction of the requirements in a table is both user friendly and avoids having to search other text. The requirements outlined in the proposed table are consistent with 6- 5.4 and 6-5.7.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 16-3.3.2 as follows: 1 6-3.3.2 Interior Floor Finish. Interior floor finish shall be in

accordance with Table 16-3.3.2.

Table 16-3.3.2 Interior Floor Finish Not

Sprinklered Sprinklered Corridors No Requirement Class II

Exits No Requirement Class II

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The changes made by the Committee Action provide the correct classifications for each category. They should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP850) RES

101- 357- (16-3.4.3 and A-16-3.4.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Reword 16-3.4.3.1 to read:

16-3.4.3.1" Occupant notification shall be provided automatically by internal alarms in accordance with 7-6.3. Add a new A-16.3.4.3.1 to read: A-16-3.4.3.1 Visible signaling appliances may be governed by

provisions of federal regulations in 28 CFR 36 Appendix A (Ameri-

(Log #400) RES

101- 359 - (16-3.4.3.1 and 17-3.4.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 17-3.4.3.1 and the first sentence of 16-3.4.3.1 to read: "Occupant notification shall be provided automatically, without delay, in accordance with 7-6.3." SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "internal" and "audible" have been deleted.

Chapter 7 addresses audibility and visibility. Public areas do not justify modifying this. Chapter 7 also provides exceptions for existing systems. The second sentence of 16-3.4.3.1 address the alarms within the rooms.

Many hotels require external alarms, such as in the motel arrange- menu COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 17-3.4.3.1 and the first sentence of 16-3.4.3.1 to read:

"Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with %6.3." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To eliminate the misunderstanding of the use of alarm verification as a delay in occupant notification. The Committee always intended to allow the use of alarm verification. The base section 16-3.4.1 still prohibits presignal systems. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP855) RES

101- 360 - ([email protected]): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "Annunciation in accordance with 7-6.7 shall be provided."

Exception to remain. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial consistency. Annunciation is covered by Chapter 7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


138

NFPA 101--F96 ROP

(Log #256) RES

101- 361 - (16-3.4.4.2): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action in view of the lack of substantiation for deviating from the provisions of 7-6.2.9 of NFPA 101 and Paragraph 2-2.2.1 of NFPA 72, the referenced standard. Thus, RES is reminded that it must correlate such deviations through BSF, which has primary responsibility for Chapter 7, and the Technical Committee on Signaling Systems, which has responsibility for NFPA 72. SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:

"Detection. Each guest room and each room in a guest suite shall be provided with an approved, single station smoke detector in accordance with the location, spacing and power requirements of Chapter 2 of NFPA 72." . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use o taennect terms (see accompanying proposal defining these terms) and to indicate basic requirements for installation while . . . . taking into account the occupancy and specific fire protecuon reqmrements imposed on st. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 16-3.4.4.2 to read: 1 6-3.4.4.2 An approved single station smoke detector shall be

installed in accordance with %6.2.9 in every guest room and every living area and sleeping room within a guest suite.

Exception: These detectors shall not be required to be interconnected. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: These changes should satisfy the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LATHROP: To state that costs do not justify benefits is ludicrous

for such an insignificant cost. The cost of interconnecting smoke detectors within a large hotel suite is minuscule. It should be noted that %6.2.9 only requires interconnect ion when they are not clearly audible throughout the unit. This would be a rather large suite and such a large suite is not found in budget hotels. As approved by the committee, a very large dormitory area will not require the smoke detectors to be in terconnected regardless of audibility. "Emer~,ency organizations, fire resistive construction, and self-closing doors ' cited in the rejection of Log #401 are irrelevant to the issue.

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: LINGENFELTER: The items on which I abstained were items for

wifich I did not feel qualified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions.

(Log #78) RES

101- 363 - (16-3.4.4.2 Exception, 17-3.4.4 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard W. Bukowski, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 16-3.4.4.2 and 17-3.4.4 to read:

Exception: Single station smoke detectors without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Committee on Household Fire Warning Equipment wishes to require a secondary (standby) source of p.ower for single- and multiple-station smoke. . detectors. This is mouvated a several, successful legal cases m which manufacturers were held liable when detectors did not respond when there was no ac power. Using alkaline batteries, these devices will operate for approximately six (6) years without the need to replace the battery. The additional cost is considered marginal for most occupancies. An at tempt to make this change in the last cycle of 72 was over-

turned by objections of the lodging industry who did not want to be required to use detectors with secondary batteries. The committee intends to reintroduce the requirement in the next cycle. Thus, the addition of this exception should eliminate the objection and allow the change to be incorporated for all other occupancies. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add an exception to 16-3.4.4 to read: Exception: Single station smoke detectors without a secondary

(standby) power source shall be permit ted in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 16-3.5. Add an exception to 17-3.4.4 to read: Exception: Single station smoke detectors without a secondary

(standby) power source shall be permitted. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee believes the lack of standby power in a sprinklered building represents an acceptable level of protection in a new hotel occupancy. In existing hotels the Committee did not want to place a unwarranted (based on fire loss data) burden on these occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #401) RES

101- 362 - (16-3.4.4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 16-3.4.4.2 to read:

16-3.4.4.2 Each sleeping room and each living area witlain a guest room or suite shall be provided with smoke detection in accordance with 7-6.2.9. SUBSTANTIATION: 7-6.2.9 covers power and interconnection. The term single-station here implies an overriding of the provisions of %6.2.9 that was never intended by the committee. In new construction, if detectors can not be heard throughout the uni t there is no justification for not interconnect ing diem. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMII~I'EE STATEMENT: The requirements for interconnection are unwarranted given other fire protection features currently required including: quick response supervised automatic sprinkler systems, control o f furnishings, emergency organizations, bre resistive construction, self-closing doors, fire alarm systems and smoke detectors. Cost does not iustify benefits. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 21 NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LATHROP: To state that costs do not justify benefits is ludicrous

for such an insignificant cost. The cost of interconnect ing smoke detectors within a large hotel suite is minuscule. It should be noted that 7-6.2.9 only requires interconnect ion when they are not clearly audible throughout the unit. This would be a rather large suite and such a large suite is not found in budget hotels. As approved by the committee, a very large dormitory area will not re.quire the smoke detectors to be in terconnected regardless of andibdity. "Emergency organizations, fire resistive construction, and self-closing doors cited in the rejection of Log #401 are irrelevant to the issue.

(Log #CP885) 101- 364- (16-3.5.1 and 1%3.5.1): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features (FIR), which has primary responsibility for Chapter 6 and the associated vertical opening criteria, offer information on the acceptability of Chapters 16 and 17 exempting the draft stops and closely spaced sprinklers within a guest room or guest suite. FIR is asked to correlate this issue with its action on proposal 101-132. Additionally, AAC directs the subject to the Technical Committee

on Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment (for consideration by RES at its ROC-preparation meeting) on the acceptability of exempting the draft stops and closely spaced sprinklers wRhin a

~ UuBeSt room or guest suite. MITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 16 and 17-3.5.1 to read: The draft stop and dosely spaced sprinkler requirements of NFPA 13 are not required for convenience openings complying with 6-2.4.8 (of Chapter 6 draft) where the convenience opening is within the guest room or guest suite. SUBSTANTIATION: Small convenience openings within guest rooms or guest suites should not be required to meet the requirements which were developed for larger openings in mercantile and business type occupancies. The large number of closely spaced sprinklers could cause more that 4 residential sprinklers to open. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


139

N F P A 1 0 1 i F 9 6 R O P

(Log #51) RES

101- 365 - (16-3.5.2 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Samuel Vanover, Jefferson Parish Fire Dept., LA RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Buildings other than high rise"; delete "or to exterior exit access arranged in accordance with 5-5.3". SUBSTANTIATION: Any fire occurring on the first level can

ickly develop and engulf exterior exits on levels above the first. is situation has already occurred, resulting in the deaths of four

people. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The fire report supplied states that the hazardous area was not properly protected. The Committee feels the present text provides a reasonable degree of safety if

OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #249) RES

101- 366 - (16-3.5.3): Reject Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs the subject to the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment for consideration by RES at its ROC-preparation meeting. SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

16-3.5.3 Listed quick response, listed quick response extended coverage or listed residential sprinklers shall be used in areas being sprinklered within guest rooms and guest suites. Exception: Standard response sprinklers shall be permitted for use

within sucli guest rooms and guest suites used where quick response, quick response extended coverage or residential sprinklers are prohibited from being installed by their listing. Standard response sprinklers shall not be be mixed with quick response, quick response extended coverage or residential sprinklers in the same guest room or guest suite." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize the permitted use of listed quick response extended coverage sprinklers and to prohibit mixing of sprinklers with different response characteristics. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The issue of quick response and quick response extended coverage sprinklers, as well as the mixing

f sprinlders, is addressed by NFPA 13. Also, the proposed exception would change an "and" to an "or" thus changing the requirements contrary to the Committee's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP884) RES

101- 367- (16-3.5.3 Exception): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs the subject to the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment for consideration by ~ at its ROC-preparatlon meeting. SUBMITI'ER: Teclmical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: Delete the exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinkler technology has progressed to the point where unconventional ceiling designs and temperature radngs are no longer a listing limitation. With the deletion of the exception in the printing of the 1997 edition of the C~)de, Formal Interpreta- tion 101-94-3 can be retired. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 22 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson


which I did not feel qualified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions.

140

(Log #CP873) RES

101- 368 - (16-3.6 and 1%3.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 16-3.6 to read:

1 6-3.6 Corridors. 16-3.6.1 Walls. Exit access corridor walls shall consist offire

barriers in accordance with 6-2.3 having a minimum 1 hour fire resistance rating.

Exception'. . In buildings . . . . protected throughout by an ap)prcroved,. super~sed automatac sprinkler system installed m accordance with 16-3.5, corridor walls shall have an minimum 1/2 hour fire resistance rating.

16-3.6.2 Doors. Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall have a minimum 20 minute fire protection rating in accordance with 6-2.3.

16-3.6.3 Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall be seifclosing and self-latching.

16-3.6.4 Unprotected openings shall be prohibited in exit access corridor walls and doors.

1 6-3.6.5 Transoms, louvers or transfer grilles shall be prohibited in walls or doors of exit access corridors.

Revise 1%3.6 to read: 1%3.6 Corridors. 1%3.6.1 Walls. Exit access corridor walls shall consist offire

barriers in accordance with 6-2.3 having a minimum 1/2 hour fire resistance rating.

Exception: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 17-3.5, no fire resistance rating shall be required, but the walls and all openings therein shall resist the passage of smoke.

17-3.6.2 Doors. Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall have a minimum 20 minute fire protection rating in accordar~ce with 6-2.3. Exception No. 1: Doors complying with 6-2.3.2.5. Exception No. 2: Where automatic sprinkler protection is provided

in the corridor in accordance with 19-3.5.2 through 19-3.5.4, doors shall not be required to have a fire protection rating but shall resist the passage of smoke. Doors shall be equipped with latches for keeping doors tightly closed.

17-3.6.3 Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall be self- closing and self-latching.

17-3.6.4 Unprotected openings shall be prohibited in exit access corridor walls and doors.

17-3.6.5 Transoms, louvers or transfer grilles shall be prohibited in walls or doors of exit access corridors.

Exception No. 1: Existing transoms shall be permitted to remain but shall be fixed in the closed position and shall be covered or otherwise protected to provide a fire resistance rating at least equivalent to that of the wall in which they are installed. Exception No. 2 : Where a corridor smoke detection system is

provided that, when sensing smoke, will sound the building alarm and shut down return or exhaust fans that draw air into the corridor from the guest rooms. The grilles shall be located in the lower one third of the wall or door height.

Exception No. 3: Buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system complying with 17-3.5 or buildings with corridor sprinkler protection in accordance with 19-3.5.2 through 19-3.5.4, and where the transfer grille is located in the lower one third of the wall or door height. SUBSTANTIATION: Correlate the residential occupancy chapters for consistency. To provide better organization and clarify the Committee's intent on corridors. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #216) RES

101- 369 - (16-3.6.3 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Ken Faulstich, Deparmaent of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add a new exception as follows:

Exception'. Door closing devices shall not be. re.'quired, in buUding? protected throughout by an approved, supervtsedspnnkler system m accordance with 16-3.5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers provide sufficient protection to minimize heat and smoke exposure to other occupants if the door to the guest room is open. Although most hotels, etc. will typically provide self-closing doors to all guest rooms, requiring them when sprinkler protection is provided is unwarranted. Some hotel occupancies like dormitories don' t need the self-closing feature for their doors. Other residential occupancies (Chapters 20, 22, 23) already have this exception.

NFPA 101--F96 ROP

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Limiting the hazardous environment to one room is a major aspect of the life safety protection package for dais occupancy. Compartmentat ion is a backup and a supple- ment to sprinkler protection. Also Chapter 20 facilities are on a smaller scale than hotels. This occupancy is not similar in nature to that addressed in Chapters 22 and 23. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #130) RES

101- 370 - (16-3.6.4 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception:

Exception: Spaces shall be permit ted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor provided: '

(a) The spaces are not used for sleeping rooms or hazardous areas, and

(b) The-corridors onto which the spaces open and the spaces themselves are protected by an electrically supervised, automatic smoke detection system without reconfirmation features installed in accordance with 16-3.4, and the building is protected throughout by quick response sprinklers installed in accordance with 16-3.5.3, and

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of quick response sprinklers throughout the building in addit ion to early warning smoke detection in the spaces should permit spaces to be allowed to be open to corridor as long as they are no t hazardous. Any fire in these spaces no t only will be detected early by the smoke detection system, but the spaces shall be maintained in a tenable condition by the quick operation of the sprinklers. The above exception is permit ted in Health Care Occupancies even without staff observation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following Exception: Exception: Spaces shall be permitted to be unlimited in area and

open to the corridor provided: (a) The spaces are not used for guest rooms or guest suites or

hazardous areas, and (b) The building is protected throughout by an automatic

sprinkler system installed in accordance with 16-3.5, and (c) The space does no t obstruct access to required exits.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the intent of the submitter, but feels that the desired level of protection is achieved through the proposed sprinkler protection and that additional smoke detection is not necessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #380) RES

101- 371 - (16-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert A. Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Add the following:

Operable Windows. Each guest room shall be provided with at l eas tvne outside window. Such window shall be openable from the inside without the use of tools and shall provide a clear opening of no t less than 20 in. (50.8 cm) in width, 24 in. (61 cm) in height, and 5.7 (.53 sq m) in area. The bottom of the opening shall be not more than 44 in. (112 cm) above the floor, and any latching device shall be capable of being operated from not more than 54 in. (137 cm) above the finished floor. In accessible gt/est rooms constructed for use by the physically handicapped, operable window shall comply with ANSI A117.1. SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to self-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the in tended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3 and 3-2. COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMM1TrEE STATEMENT: The proposed text would require an operable window where presently one is not required. The submitter has not substantiated the need for such window.





(Log #251) RES

101- 372 - (17-1.3 Guest Rrom, Guest Suite): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the wording used in its definition o f ' g u e s t suite" in view of the explanation of negative received from Mr. Messersmith. The phrase "with or without non selfcloslng doors" is confusing. SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions for guest room and guest suite as follows:

Guest Room. An accommodation in a hotel combining living, sleeping, sanitary and storage facilities within a rated compartment.

Guest Suite. An accommodat ion in a hotel with two or more contiguous rooms comprising a rated compar tment with or without non selfclosing doors between such rooms providing living, sleeping, sanitary and storage facilities. SUBSTANTIATION: The terms are used in this chapter but are not def ined in this chapter nor in Chapter 3 of this Code. This chapter uses a variety of terms to address the generic subject of hotel rooms. By defining the terms and limiting the choice of terms to describe such rooms in this occupancy the benefit to be derived will be a Code which is easier to unders tand and enforce. No cost is involved. See subsequent proposals submitted by the NFPA Lodging Section which propose to substitute these terms for similar language now used in the Life Safety Code. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add definitions for guest room and guest suite as follows: Guest Room. An accommodation combining living, sleeping,

sanitary and storage facilities within a compartment. Guest Suite. An accommodat ion with two or more contiguous

rooms comprising a compar tment with or without non selfclosing doors between such rooms providing living, sleeping, sanitary and storage fadlities. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Life Safety Code does not require fire rating between units. The reference to hotels is redundant as the chapter addresses hotels and dormitories. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MESSERSMITH: In the definition of guest suite, the phrase

"without non-selfclosing doors" is a double negative. Change to read "without seffclosing doors".

(Log #252) RES

101- 373 - (17-1.3 Hotel): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: In the Definition of "Hotel" strike the words "sleeping rooms" and insert in lieu thereof the words, "guest room/gues t suites." Note that the convention "guest room(s) /gues t suite(s)" is currently used in 16-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal defining these terms.) COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise definition of hotel to read: Hotel. Buildings or groups of buildings under the same manage-

ment in which there are sleeping accommodations for more than 16 persons primarily used by transients ... COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


141

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #387) RES

101- 374= (1%2.1.1): Reject Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its committee statement in relation to the committee scope which does include the subject of aceegslbility. SUBMITTER: Robert A~ Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Add text to the end of 1%2.1.1 to read: "In accessible guest room/guest suite constructed for use bv the physically fiandicannecl7 Means of E~ress and Means of Escane shall ~omDlv ~ t h ANSI]~117.1." SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to serf-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the intended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Accessible means of egress is addressed by Chapter 5. Requirements for accessibility is beyond the scope of Chapter 17. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP25) RES

101- 375 - (1%2.2.3 Exception (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a pubfic comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies ORES) reconsider the need for the proposed exception in view of 5-2.2.3.2 being changed by Proposal 101-62. MEA made this change in Chapter 5 in response to a request from RES. Further, RES is asked to reconsider its action in view that the proposed language would produce an unknown level of safety because it reties on an unidentified ~othed' code for establishing the minimum construction type. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 17-2.2.3 to read: Exception: In buildings protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system complying with 17-3.5 hawng four or fewer stories, stairs shall be permittedto be built of materials

~ ermitted for the type of construction of the building. UBSTANTIATION: The three Model Buildinl~ Codes in the

United States permit apartment and hotel buildings to be of wood frame construction to a maximum height of four stories above grade. These codes also permit the exit stairs in wood frame construction to be constructed of wood. The Life Safety Code, under 5-2.2.3.2, requires the stair construction to be noncombustible material in buildings more than three stories in height. This creates a major conflict between the Life Safety Code and the Model Building Codes. If the building is protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system, allowing the stairs to be of combustible materials should be safe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMrrTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action should meet the intent of the submitter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP23) RES

101- 377 - (17-3.1.1 Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 3 to 1%3.1.ito read:

Exception No. 3: Convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The current exception permits stairways within a single dwelling unit, guest room or guest suite to be open. It is a common practice to have an open "loft" area within the unit, room or suite. The present exception speaks to omitting a stairway enclosure, but there is no similar exception to address a vertical opening such as a "loft". Recognition of the new 6-2.4.8 being proposed for Chapter 6 by Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will correct this deficiency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #240) RES

101- 378 - (1%3.4.4): Accept in Principle SUBMI'VI'ER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging IndustrySecfion RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:

"Detection. Each guest room and each room in a guest suite shall be provided with an approved, single station smoke detector in accordance with the location, spacing and power requirements of Chapter 2 of NFPA 72." SUBSTANTIATION: The current requirement for detection in existing hotel guest rooms does not require a smoke detector within the. nonslee, p.ing area of a typical hotel, suite. Should. a fire occur vathm the livang area while a guest ts in the sleeping room a delay would occur in the detection of a fire and subsequent notificataon to the guest.

The benefit to be derived from this change is earlier detection of such fire and subsequent warning to such guests which should in turn result in fewer injuries, more timely notification to emergency forces and less property damage. The cost of such additional detection would be approximately $15 for each detector and $30 for its installation. The number of such units affected by this change would be small given the low percentage of suites to typical rooms in a hotel. A survey of five large lodging chains, including those with all suite hotels, indicates that such installations have been their common practice, thus further reducing any economic burden that this code change would impose. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 17-3.4.4 to read: 1%3.4.4 An approved single station smoke detector shall be

installed in accordance with %6.2.9 in every guest room and every living area. and sleeping room within a guest suite..

Excepuon: These detectors shall not be reqmred to he interconnected. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: These changes should satisfy the submitter's intent. For existing buildings the interconnection feature is an undue burden. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMrI"rEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #253) RES

101- 376 - (17-2.4 Exception (d) and (e)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "living units" and insert in lieu thereof the terms "guest room(s)/guest suite(s)." Note the convention "guest room/guest suite" is currently used in 16-2.1. SUBSTANTYATION: To standardize the use of defined terms (see accompanying proposal which defines these terms). COMMITIT, EACTION: Accept in Principle.

I In the Exception to 17-2.4, change living units" to 'guest rooms or suites" in two places; change "living unit" to "guest room or suite" in one place.

(Log 0402) RES

101- 379 - (17-3.4.4): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1%3.4.4to read:

17-3.4.4 Detection. 17-5.4.4.1 Reserved 17-3.4.4.2" Each sleeping room and each living area within a guest

room or suite shall be provided with smoke detection in accordance with 7-6.2.9. Add a new A-17-3.4.4.2 to read the same as A-16-3.4.4.2.

SUBSTANTIATION: 7-6.2.9 covers power and interconnection. The term single-station here implies an overriding of the provisions

142

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F96 R O P

of %6.2.9 that was never in tended by the committee. The added protection provided by putt ing smoke detection in the non-sleeping rooms is significant compared to the minor cost. It should be noted that the non-sleeping rooms of a hotel suite are often used for sleeping. If not u sed fo r sleeping they are often used for receptions and are often the only way out o f the sleeping rooms. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Revise 1%3.4.4 to read: 1%3.4.4 Detection. 1%3.4.4.1 (Reserved.) 1%3.4.4.2* [wording per Conunittee Action on Proposal 101 - 378

(Log #240) on 17-3.4.4] Add a new A-17-3.4.4.2 to read the same as A-1 6-3.4.4.2.

COMMITYEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the reorganization port ion of the proposal. However, for the technical portion of the smoke detector requirement see Committee Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 - 378 (Log #240). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #217) RES

101- 380 - (17-3.6.3 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Ken Faulstich, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add a new exception as follows:

Exception: Door closing devices shall not be required in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised sprinkler system in accordance with 17-3.5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers provide sufficient protection to minimize heat and smoke exposure to other occupants if the door to the guest room is open. Although most hotel occupancies will provide self-closing doors to all guest rooms typically, mandating them when sprinkler protection is provided is unwarranted. Some hotel occupancies like dormitories may not provide them typically. Other residential occupancies (Chapters 20, 22, 23) already have this exception. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Proposal 101 -369 (Log#216) on 16-3.6.3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: DALY: While I am voting affirmatively on this proposal I wisb to

note the need for fur ther review of the subject of "serf closing doors" for hotel occupancies.

The committee action on this proposal indicates that even with approved, supervised automatic sprinkler systems using residential or quick response sprinklers, a need exists for self-closing devices on guest room entry doors opening onto interior corridors.

However, for hotels without sprinklers (permitted by 1%3.5.2 including all buildings regardless of height with exterior exit access) no self closing devices are deemed necessary provided the exit access is via exterior means. In such unsprinklered buildings it is certainly possible that a unchecked fire on lower floors could vent through an open doorway and significantly impair the exterior exit access directly above.

Note that the same scenario would hold true for new hotels as well, see 16-3.6.3 and 16-3.5.2 Exception. Where hotels are unsprinklered self closing devices for guest room

entry doors should be required universally.

(Log #131) RES

101- 381 - (17-3.6.4 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action in view of the explanation of negative vote received from Mr. Baldassarra in which he states that the committee may have gone beyond the original proposal and that its action should be modified to be more consistent with the submhter's proposal. The committee statement is not responsive in that it doesn't explain why the submitter's recommendation that the building be sprinklered for use of the exception was omitted from the committee action. SUBMITI'ER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception:

Exception: Spaces shall be permit ted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor provided:

(a) The spaces are not used for sleeping rooms or hazardous areas, and

(b) The corridors onto which the spaces open and the spaces themselves are protected by an electrically supervised, automatic smoke detection system without reconfirmation features installed in accordance with 17-3.4, and the building is protected throughout by quick response sprinklers installed in accordance with 17-3,5.1, and

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. SUBSTANTIATION: The installation of quick response sprinklers throughout the building in addition to early warning smoke detection in the spaces should permit spaces to be allowed to be open to corridor as long as they are not hazardous. Any fire in these spaces not only will be detected early by the smoke

detection system, but the spaces shall be maintained in a tenable condition by the quick operation of the sprinklers. The above exception is permitted in Health Care Occupancies even without staff observation. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following Exception: Exception: Spaces shal ibe permit ted to be unlimited in area and

open to the corridor provided: (a) The spaces are not used for guest rooms or guest suites or

hazardous areas, and (b) The spaces open to the corridor are protected by an automatic

smoke detection system installed in accordance with 17-3.4 or the space is protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 17-3.5, and

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the intent of the submitter, but feels that the desired level of protection is achieved through the proposed protection and the alternate

rUMBotection requirements. ER OFCOMMI'ITEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: BALDASSARRA: I believe the committee went beyond the original

~ oposal to a point where a reasonable level of safety is not assured. he proposal, as modified, now would allow such spaces to open

onto agues t room corridor with only smoke detection. This can allow the development of flasbover in the space, adversely affecting the corridor system. Paragraph (b) of the proposal should be modified to be more consistent with the submitter 's proposal, as follows:

. . . . . k~ dczccS~t', oy~c,,, : . . ~ l :~d k- h~. . , ' .L~.~ ;.1~I, t%3. t - , The space is protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 17-3.5, and

(Log #CP508) RES

101- 382 - (17-5.2.2 Exception, 19-5.2.2 Exception, 20-5.2.2 Excep- tion and 31-6.7 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTEl~ Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment, RECOMMENDATION: To 17-5.2.2, 19-5.2.2, 20-5.2.2 and 31-6.7 add an exception to read:

Exception: Gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is in response to Proposal 101 - 151 (Log #162) on Chapter 7 requesting that gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, be exempted, from the numerous prohibitions, scattered throughout the Life Safety Code that are worded mmilar to the following: "Unvented fuel-fired heating equipment shall be prohibited."

Chapter 7 mandatorily references the use of NFPA 54 which permits gas space heaters to be installed in accordance with the provisions of that document in all but "institutions such as homes for the aged, sanitariums, convalescent homes, orphanages, etc." Yet, authorities having jurisdiction are interpreting the Life Safety Code occupancy chapter prohibitions on unren ted fuel-fired heaters to mean that gas fired space heaters in compliance with NFPA 54 are prohibited.

The proposed exception will clarify the intent that if gas fired space heaters are in compliance with NFPA 54 their use should be Pcermitted.

OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


143

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #17) RES

101- 383 - (Chapters 18 and 19): Reject SUBMITTER: Michael D. Cato, Delray Beach Fire Rescue, FL RECOMMENDATION: Add to Chapters 18 and 19: Requirements based on Evacuation Capability° Prompt and slow.

Large facilities classified as prompt or slow shall comply with 22- 3.1.2. Impractical. Large facilities dassified as impractical shall meet requirements for limited care facilities in Chapter 12. SUBSTANTIATION: Many apartment buildings contain residents who have evacuation problems and have no staffto assist them. Since no care is provided, these buildings do not meet the definition of Residential Board and Care. This results in the authority having difficulty with enforcement in apartment buildings. COMMIT]'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The level of care provided in Chapters 22 and 23 is inappropriate for apartment occupancies. For example large impractical would result in the loss of door closures and dwelling unit detectors, based on the presumption of staff. Determining evacuation capability of residents is not feasible in an apartment building. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP868) RES

1Ol- 384 - (Chapters 18 and 19): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Throuhgout Chapters 18 and 19, and associated al~l~endix material, change the terms living unit(s)" and "unit(s)" to dwelling unit(s)". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial for clarification and consistency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


SUBSTANTIATION: For editorial consistency. COMMrVrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


( Log #304) RES

101- 387- (18-2.2.2.5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section:

18-2.2.2.5 The reentry provisions of 5-2.1.5.2 shall not apply when the stairways serve only individual living units. SUBSTANTIATION: The design concepts and security concerns for these types of occupancies require reentry be revised to address use conditions. Some designs have the stairs of a multiple story facility having access from within the individual dwelling units only. Therefore a reentry provision would cause a breach of security for the individual living units. All apartment facilities requiring stair reentry provisions would also require the facility to be protected throughout by an automatic sprinkler system with quick response or residential sprinklers (18-3.5.3). Taking into consideration the compartmenting for this type of occupancy, required sprinkler systems, limited occupant load using this type of design, and the probability that stairway openings will not be compromised the level of safety for the occupants would not be adversely impaired. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Alti~ough the Committee under- stands the concern, the submitter s proposed wording is subject to misapplication. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: LINGENFELTEPc The items on which I abstained were items for


(Log #388) RES


(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RIGS) reconsider its committee statement in relation to the committee scope which does include the subject of accessibility. SUBMrVFER: Robert A. GorreU, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Add text to the end of 18-2.1.1 to read: "kt accessible living units constructed and for use bv the nhvsicallv handicanoed. "Means of E~ress and Means of F~cane ];hall cornnlv with ANS| A117.1." v . . SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to self-preser-¢'$.tion. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the intended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant- Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Accessible means.of egress is addressed by Chapter 5. Requirements for accessibility are beyond the scope of Chapter 18. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP854) RES

1Ol- 386 - (18-2.2.2.2 Exception No. 2 and 19-2.2.2.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 2 to read: Exception No. 2: Access controlled egress doors complying with 5-

2.1.6.2 shall be permitted.

(Log #CP26) RES

101- 388 - (18-2.2.3 Exception (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name re-questing that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the need for the proposed exception in view of 5-2.2.3.2 being changed by Proposal 101-62. ME~ made this change in Chapter 5 in response to a request from RES. Further, RES is asked to reconsider its action in view that the proposed language would produce an unknown level of safety because it relies on an unidentified "other" code for establishing the minimum construction type. SUBMrrTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 18-2.2.3 to read:

Exception: In buildings protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system complying with 18-3.5 having four or fewer stories, stairs shall be permittedto be built of materials permitted for the type of construction of the building. SUBSTANTIATION: The three Model Building Codes in the United States permit apartment and hotel buildings to be of wood frame construction to a maximum height of four stories above grade. These codes also permit the exit stairs in wood frame construction to be constructed of wood. The Life Safety Code, under 5-2.2.3.2, requires the stair construction to be noncombustible material in buildings more than three stories in height. This creates a major conflict between the Life Safety Code and the Model Building Codes. If the building is protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system, allowing the stairs to be of combustible materials should be safe. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMrrTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

144

N F P A 1 0 1 I F96 R O P

(Log #199) RES

1Ol-389- (18-2.2.8, 19-2.2.10, 18-2.2.9, 19-2.2.11 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 18-2.2.8/19-2.2.10 to read:

18-2.2.8/19-2.2.10 Fire Escape Ladders. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-2.9 shall be permitted.

Add a new 18-2.2.9/19-2.2.11 to read: 18-2.2.9/19-2.2.11 Alternat ingtread Devices. Alternating tread

devices complying with 5-2.11 shall be permitted. Renumber the current 18-2.2.8 as 18-2.2.10 and renumber 19-2.2.10

as 19-2.2.12. SUBSTANTIATION: Neither 5-2.9 nor 5-2.11 require occupancy chapter permission to use these egress components . Under die limitations stipulated in 5-2.9 and 5-2.11 there is no reason not to allow these devices in dais occupancy. Note that these would not be in the general means of egress and would be limited to "service" type A r e a s .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP880) RES

101- 390 - (18-2.2.9 and 19-2.2.11): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action because 18-2.2.1.1 and 19-2.2.1.1already limit means of egress components to those appearing in the -2.2 subsection. For example, slide escapes are not recognized in apartment buildings means of egress because they do not appear in the -2.2 list, not because they are specifically disallowed. There is no need to prohibit explicitly a component. This lends to inconsistency both within the occupancy chapter and among the other occupancy chapters. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 18-2.2.9 to read:

18-2.2.9 Elevators. Elevators shall be prohibi ted as part of the required means of egress.

Exception: Elevators used to provide access from an area of refuge in accordance with 5-2.12. Add a new 19-2.2.11 to read: 19-2.2.11 Elevators. Elevators shall be prohibited as part of die

required means of egress. Exception: Elevators used to provide access from an area of refuge

in accordance with 5-2.12. SUBSTANTIATION: The concerns over reliability of the elevators, society confusion on non use of elevators in emergencies, and concern of the allowance for up to 50 percent capacity are the reasons for prohibit ing the elevators addressed by proposed new 5- 2.13 [see Proposal 101 -90 (Log#155)]. COMMI'I~EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nick, son

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: MESSERSMITH: The concept o f using elevators as a componen t in

the means of egress is new. Before permitt ing this in occupancies where people sleep, it should be evaluated in less hazardous occupancies, such as business.

If tile proposal is ultimately approved, the exceptions should be revised to read:

"Exception: Elevators used to provide ~ ~ f r o m an area of refuge in accordance with 5-2.12".

(Log #CP878) RES

101-391 -(18-2.5.1 Exception (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its wording of the proposed exception so as to avoid use of the confusing term "common non-looped corridors ~. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 18-2.5.1 to read: Exception: The distance between exits addressed by 5-5.1.4 shall

not be applicable to common non-looped corridors in buildings that have corridor doors from the dwelling units located such that the exits are located in opposite direction from such doors. SUBSTANTIATION: In many arrangements the corridor length cannot meet the remoteness requirements in Chapter 5. This proposal addresses this discrepancy while assuring no common path of travel within the corridor. COMMIT]FEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CHRISTIE: Omit 16-2.5.1, 18-2.5.1, and 5-5.1.4. Provide two smoke

compartments (as in 12-3.3.1 (2) for all corridors longer than die common path, dead-end limits def ined in A-5-6.1. Substantiation: 1-2.1 states die code is toprovide minimum requirements, etc. If the common pa th /dead-end limits outlined in A-5-6.1 are truly acceptable minimum distances then the forced separation of exits def ined in 16-2.5.1, 18-2.5.1 and 5-5.1.4 creates higher than minimum exit requirements. EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

LINGENFELTER: The items on which I abstained were items for which I did not feel qualified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions.

(Log #105) RES

101- 392- (18-2.6.1, 18-2.6.2 (New)): Reject Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the accuracy of its committee statement in view that Chapter 5 does not set any travel distance limitations. SUBMITTER: Andrea Schumaker, PG County Fire Dep t . /Bureau of EngineefingServices RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

"The travel distance from areas, other than within living units, to the exit shall not exceed 150 ft. This distance shall include the length of travel within dlat room.

Exception: In buildings protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 18-3.5, die travel distance shall no t exceed 200 ft (38 m)." SUBSTANTIATION: Recent architectural design for apartments have been promoting community living areas within the core of the building at upper levels. These areas are not considered living units. As such, die travel distance from these areas is not clearly addressed. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The requirements from Chapter 5 apply when the occupancy chapter does not address the travel distance from other dlan dwelling units. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP20) RES

t01-393- (18-3.1.1 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 to 18-3.1.1 to read:

Exception No. 1: Convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The current exception permits stairways within a single dwelling unit, guest room or guest suite to be open. It is a common practice to have an open "loft" area within the unit, room or suite. Tbe present exception speaks to omitting a stairway enclosure, but there is no similar exception to address a vertical opening such as a "loft". Recognition of the new 6-2.4.8 being proposed for Chapter 6 by Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will correct dais deficiency. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


145

N F P A 1 0 1 m F96 R O P

(Log #CP866) RES


(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action in view of the confusionthat it creates in at least 3 areas: (1) the table incorporates the allowance provided in sprlnklered areas by 6- 5.7 without stating that "double dipping" by again using 6-5.7 is not Pviermltted, (2) the formatdngincorporates the sprinkler allowance

thout doing the same for the interior wall and ceiling f'mish requirements located immediately above, and (3) the formatting is inconsistent with that used by other occupancy chapters. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee onResidential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Provide a table depicting the interior floor finish requirements as was done for Chapter 16 by Proposal 101 - 356 (Log #248) on 16-3.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The depiction of the requirements in a table is both user friendly and avoids having to search other text for the requirements. COMIVH'ITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


I

(Log #CP881) RES

101- 395 - (18-3.4.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Change "3/4 hour" fire resistance rating to "1 hour" fire resistance rating. SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 6 has eliminated the 3/4 hour rating. The 1 hour rating is more appropriate for new construction. See Proposal 101- 125(Log #192) on 6-2.3.2. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #8) RES

101- 396 - (18-3.4.1 Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101489 which was held

for further study from the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 626. SUBMITTER: Marshall A. Klein, M A Klein & Assoc., Inc RECOMMENDATION: Add new exception:

Exception No. 2: Buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 18-3.5.1 not exceeding 4 stories in height, and containing not more than 16 living units. SUBSTANTIATION: This rewording of the original proposal addresses the Committee Statement's concern that the exception would only apply to single exit buildings. The revised exception would enable the provision to be applied to small buildings that have more than one exat, hut not more than 16 living units. COMMITTEE ACTION: Acceptin Principle. See Proposal 101 -397 (Log #CP16).

COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The referenced proposal should meet the submitter's intenL NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #403) RES

101- 398 - (18-3.4.3.1, 19-3.4.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence of 18-3.4.3.1 and 19-3.4.3.1 to read: "Occupant notification shall be provided automatically, without delay, in accordance with 7-6." SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "internal" and "audible" have been deleted.

Chapter 7 addresses audibility and visibility. Public areas do not justify modifying this. Chapter 7 also provides exceptions for existing systems. The second sentence of 18-3.4.3.1 and 19-3.4.3.1 address the alarms within the rooms.

Many apartment buildings require external alarms. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the first sentence of 18-3.4.3.1 and 19-3.4.3.1 to read:

"Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accordance with %6." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To eliminate the misunderstanding of the use of alarm verification as a delay in occupant notification. The Committee always intended to allow the use of alarm verification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #CP856) RES

101- 399- (18-3.4.3.2): Accept SUBMrI'TER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "Annunciation in accordance with 7-6.7 shall be provided."

Exceptions to remain. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial consistency. Annunciation is covered by Chapter 7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP19) RES

101- 400 - (18-3.4.3.2 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: In Exce ,Dtion No. 2 to 18-3.4.3.2 add the word "supervised" so as to read: '...protected throughout by an approvedsupervised automatic sprinkler system..." SUBSTANTIATION: A supervised sprinkler system provides indication of impairments, including shut valves. Without supervision, the reliability of the sprinkler system is not assured. Requiring "supervised" sprinkler systems has precedence throughout the Code. Also, see the Committee Proposals for new exceptions to 18-3.4.2.1 and 19-3.4.2.1 and Exception No. 2 to 19-3.4.3.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP16) RES

101- 397- (18-3.4.2.1 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 18-3.4.2.1 to read: Exception: Buildings protected throughout by an approved

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 18-3.5.1, not exceeding four stories in height, and containing not more than 16 living units. SUBSTANTIATION: During the processing of the 1994 edition of the Code, Comment 101-489 was "held for further study". It addresses this issue. For relatively small apartment buildings, it should be acceptable to rely on automatic initiation of the fire alarm system in fully sprinklered buildings.

(Log #CP857) RES

10l- 401 - (18-3.4.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

18-3.4.4 Detection. 18-3.4.4.1 Approved single station smoke detectors shall be

installed in accordance with %6.2.9 outside every sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms and on all levels of the living unit including basements.

18-3.4.4.2 Approved single station smoke detectors shall be installed in accordance vath %6.2.9 in every sleeping room. Exception: Smoke detectors shall not be required in sleeping

146


rooms where the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 18-3.5. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide consistency. Paragraph 7-6.2.9 includes the details being deleted from 18-3.4.4 by this proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DEPUY: It is the position of NEMA that smoke detectors should be

required in all sleeping rooms in 1 & 2 family dwellings regardless of whether the dwelling is sprinklered. Justification for this position is as follows: 1. NFPA Fire Loss Data shows clearly that the fire death rate in one- and two-family dwellings is approximately 6 times that of apartments (per NFPA fire loss data). 2. Smoking materials are the #1 cause of civilian deaths from fires in one- and two-family and multiple family dwellings. (per NFPA report "The U.S. Fire Problem Overview Report Through 1992" Dr. John Hall, December 1993). The same repor t shows that the bedroom is one of the leading areas of origin of deaths in home fires (almost 30%). 3. Quot ing Dr . John Hall in "A Decade of Detectors: Measuring The Effect; 1985, "delayed discovery, typically associated with fires that occur at night when everyone is asleep, also tends to be characteris- tic of the smoldering fires caused by discarded smoking materials. These smoldering fires are the leading causes of U. S. fire fatalities and detectors are ideailysuited to deal with them". Dr. Hall also notes that the peak period for fire deaths in the home is 2:00 - 3:00 a.m. when most people are asleep. EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

LINGENFELTER: The items on which I abstained were items for which I did not feel qualified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions_

(Log #CP861) RES

101-402-(18-3.4.4.1 (N~w)): Accept SUBMITI'ERa Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 18-3.4.4.1 and 18- 3.4.4.2 [being created by Proposal 101- 401 (Log #CP857) ] to read:

Exception: Single station smoke detectors without secondary (standby) power source shall be permit ted in buiidin~gs protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprmkler system installed in accordance with 18-3.5. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee believes the lack of standby

~ ower represents an acceptable level of protection in an apar tment uilding protected by automatic sprinklers.

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LATHROP: The acceptance of this proposal for hotels makes sense

but not for apartments. Hotels without power for a long period of time will most likely be vacated except for under the most extreme conditions, however this is not true for apartment buildings. The cost is insignificant in new construction whereas the benefit can be substantial. This has been required by the State of Connecticut for years with no problem as the units are now readily available. As stated by the manufacturers ' representatives this is a must in our litigious society.

(Log #404) RES

101- 403 - (18-3.4.4.1, 19-3.4.4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 18-3,4.4.1 and 19-3.4.4.1 to read:

18-3.4.4.1 Smoke detection in accordance with 7-6.2.9 shall be installed in every living unit within the apar tment bui ldingregard- less of the number of stories or number of apartments. These shall be in addition to any sprinkler system or ottier detection system that might be installed in the building.

19-3.4.4.1 Smoke detection in accordance with 7-6.2.9 shall be installed in every living unit within the apar tment building regard-

less of the number of stories or number of apartments. These shall be in addition to any sprinkler system or other detection system that might be installed in the building.

Retain the exception to 19-3.4.4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: 7-6.2.9 covers both power and interconnection. This does not need to be repeated. COMMITI 'EEACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 - 420 (Log #CP858) and Proposal 101 -401 (Log #CP857). COMMrITEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

~ r l o j ~ s should meet the submitter 's intent. R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 25

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP886) RES

101- 404- (18-3.5.1 and 19-3.5.1): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the proposed action, as appropriate, given that this proposal was letter balloted to RES in an expedi ted time frame at a later time than the other proposals under its purview. RES is also asked to reconsider its action so as to expand the recommendation so as to delete A-18- 3.5.1 because the appendix note is no longer applicable. Additionally, AAC directs that a public comment be submitted in

the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features (FIR), which has primary responsibility for Chapter 6 and the associated vertical opening criteria, offer information on the acceptability of Chapters 16 and 17 exempting the draft stops and closely spaced sprinklers within a guest room or guest suite. FIR is asked to correlate this issue with its action on proposal 101-132.

Finally, AAC directs the subject to the Technical Committee on - Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment (for consideration by RESat its ROGprepara t ion meeting) on the acceptability o f exempting the draft stops and closely spaced sprinklers within a guest room or guest suite. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 18 and 19-3.5.1 to read: The draft stop and closely spaced sprinkler requirements of NFPA 13 are not required for convenience openings complying with 6-2.4.8 (of Chapter 6 draft) where the convenience opening is within the dwelling unit. SUBSTANTIATION: Small convenience openings within dwelling units should not be required to meet the requirements which were developed for larger openings in mercantile and business type occupancies. The larger number of closely spaced sprinklers could cause more than 4 residential sprinklers to open. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Billing, Oneisom

(Log #CP874) RES

101-405- (18-3.6 and 19-3.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 18-3.6 to read:

18-3.6 Corridors. 18-3.6.1 Walls. Exit access corridor walls shall consist of fire

barriers in accordance with 6-2.3 having a minimum 1 hour fire resistance rating.

Exception: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system installed in accordance with 18-3.5, corridor walls shall have an min imum 1/2 hour fire resistance rating.


18-3.6.3 Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall be self- closing and self-latching.

18-3.6.4 Unprotected openings shall be prohibi ted in exit access corridor walls and doors.

18-3.6.5 Transoms, louvers or transfer grilles shall be prohibi ted in walls or doors of exit access corridors.

147

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

Revise 1 9-3.6 to read: 19-3.6 Corridors. 19-3.6.1 Walls. Exit access corridor walls shall consist offire

barriers in accordance with 6-2.3 having a minimum 1/2 hour fire resistance rating.


Exception No. 1: Doors complying with 6-2.3.2.5. Exception No. 2 : In buildings using Option 3 or Option 4, doors

shall be constructed as to resist the passage of smoke. 19-3.6.3 Doors that open onto exit access corridors shall be self-

closing and self-latching. 19-3.6.4 Unprotected openings shall be prohibited in exit access

corridor walls and doors. 19-3.6.5 Transoms, louvers or transfer grilles shall be prohibited in

walls or doors of exit access corridors. SUBSTANTIATION: Correlate the residential occupancy chapters for consistency. To provide better organization and clarify the Committee's intent on corridors. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITIT~ ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP875) RES

101- 406 - (18-3.6.4 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add rite following Exception to new 18- 3.6.4 being created by Proposal 101 - 405 (Log #CP874):

Exception'. Sp.aces shall be. permitted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor prowded:

(a) The spaces are not used for dwelling units or hazardous areas, and

(b) The building is protected throughout by quick response sprinklers installed in accordance with 18-$.5, and

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify the Committee intent to allow areas PcrOperly protected to be open to the corridor.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITIT_,E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #353) RES

101- 407- (18-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph H. Versteeg, Torrington, CT RECOMMENDATION: Delete 18-4.1 and renumber 18-4.2 and 18- 4.3 accordingly. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 18-4.1 is entitled %Vindows for Rescue and Ventilation" and contains a parenthetical reference to Section 18-2.1.1. Section 18-2.1.1 requires the interior of living units to comply with the means of escape requirements contained within Section 21-2. Section 21-2 establishes several differing methods of providing a secondary means of escape, onl)J one of which is a window.

In addition, as currently worded the exception permits omission of the window for rescue and ventilation when the building is protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 18-3.5 which permits the use of sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R. Yet Exception No. 1: (b) to Section 21-~.2.3(c) omits the window when the living unit is protected in accordance with NFPA I$D. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'rrEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 101 - 408 (Log #CP867). The current exception is needed because there are sprinkler exceptions in the Chapter 18 which, if used, require secondary means of escape. NUMBER OFCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMrlWEE ACTION:




(Log #CP867) RES

101-408- (184.1 and 19-4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 18-4.1 to read:

18-4.1 Windows for Rescue and Ventilation. Windows serving as a secondary means of escape shall complywith 21-2.2.3(c). (See 18- 2.1.1.)

Exception: (retain current wording) Revise 19-4.1 to read: 19-4.1 Windows for Rescue and Ventilation. Windows serving as a

secondary means of escape shall comply with 21-2.2.$(c). (See 19- 2.1.1.)

Exception: (retain current wording) SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial clarification. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 22 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson


which I did not feel qhalified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions.

(Log #$89) RES


(AAC) directs that a public comment he submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its committee statement in relation to the committee scope which does include the subject of accessibility. SUBMITYER: Robert A. Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Add text to the end of 19-2.1.1 to read: " In accessible living units constructed for use by the t)hvsicallv handi- canDed. Means of Egress and Means of Escane sfial] comi)lv with

SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired [~rson or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to seif-preservatlon. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the intended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see Pcroposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2.

OMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Accessible means of egress is addressed by Chapter 5. Requirements for accessibility are beyond " the scope of Chapter 19. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMM1TrEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP27) RES

101- 410 - (19-2.2.3.1 Exce'ption (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider the need for the proposed exception in view of 5-2.2.3.2 being changed by Proposal 101-62. MEA made this change in Chapter 5 in response to a request from RES. Further, RES is asked to reconsider its action in view that the proposed language would produce an unknown level of safety because it reties on an unidentified "other" code for establishing the minimum construction type. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 19-2.2.3.1 to read:

Exception: In buildings protected by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system complying with 19-3.5 having four or fewer stories, stairs shall be permtttedto be built of materials permitted for the type of construction of the building. SUBSTANTIATION: The three Model Building Codes in the United States permit apartment and hotel buildings to be of wood frame construction to a maximum height of four stories above grade. These codes also permit the exit stairs in wood frame construction to be constructed of wood. The Life Safety Code,

148

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

unde r 5-2.2.3.2, requires the stair construct ion to be noncombus t ib le material in buildings more than three stories in height . This creates a major conflict between the Life Safety Code and the Model Building. Codes. ff the building, is protected by an approved supervased automat ic sprinkler system, allowing the stairs to be of combustible materials should be safe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #1 ) RES

101- 411 - (19-2.4): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appea red as c o m m e n t 101-499 which was held

for fu r ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 643. SUBMITTER: Technical Correlat ing Commit tee on Safety to Life, RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Commit tee Action; make corrections and revisions as necessary so as to standardize on use of one term such as "dwelling unit" ra ther than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit". SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Commit tee on Safety to Life (AAC) submits this public c o m m e n t so the Life Safety Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies (RES) can give fu r ther considerat ion to revising the commit tee action so as to standardize on use of one te rm such as "dwelling unit" ra ther than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit". COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 384 (Log #CP868) on Chapters 18 and 19. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he action on the referenced

should m e e t the submitter's intent. R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26

VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #2) RES

101- 412 - (19-2.4 Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appea red as c o m m e n t 101-500 which was he ld

for fu r ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 644. SUB1MITTER: Technical Correlating Commit tee on Safety to Life, RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Commit tee Action; make corrections and revisions as necessary so as to standardize on use of one te rm such as "dwelling unit" ra ther than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit". SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Commit tee on Safety to Life (AAC) submits this public c o m m e n t so the Life Safety Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies (RES) can give fur ther considerat ion to revising the commit tee action so as to standardize on use of one term such as "dwelling unit" ra ther than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit". COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 384 (Log #CP868) on Chapters 18 and 19. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

~ r l ~ a l shou ld mee t the submit ter ' s intent. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 N O T RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP882) RES

101-413- (1%2.4 Except ion No. 2(c), 1%3.1.1 Exception No. 3, 19- 3.4.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTEga Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: Replace the "20-minute" and "3 /4 hour" requi rements with "1 /2 hour". SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 6 has e l iminated the 20 minu te and 3 / 4 hou r fire resistance rating requirements . The change f rom 20 minu te to 1 /2 should no t prove to be a more resn'ictive r equ i rement because of the appendix explanat ion being added to Chapter 6. See Proposal 101 - 125(Log #192) on 6-2.3.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP21) RES

101- 414- (19-3.1.1 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 to 1%3.1.1 to read:

Exception No. 1: Convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8 shall be permit ted. SUBSTANTIATION: The cur ren t exception permits stairways within a single dwelling unit, gues t room or guest suite to be open. It is a c o m m o n practice to have an open "loft" area within the unit, room or suite. The present exception speaks to omit t ing a stairway enclosure, bu t there is no similar exception to address a vertical open ing such as a "loft". Recognit ion o f the new 6-2.4.8 being proposed for Chapter 6 by Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will correct this deficiency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrFEEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMrlWEE ACTION:


(Log #340) RES

101- 415 - (19-3.1.1 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard T. Paquette, Connect icu t Office of State Fire Marshal RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

". . .3/4 hou r for Lui:d~,;g~ 61" ¢nclosure~ connect ing one to three stories and 1 h o u r for bttikiirrg enclosures connec t ing more than three stories; and the fire protection rating o f d ~ r ~ o_p_g.lajO_g orotectives shall no t be..." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarify tha t the fire resistance rat ing of a vertical open ing enclosure is based upon the n u m b e r of stories connec ted versus the he igh t of the building. The delet ion of the te rm doors and rep lacement with open in~ protectives is editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept inPr inctple .

See Proposal 101 - 416 (Log #CP871). COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

r l ~ a l shou ld mee t the submit ter ' s intent. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25

VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 22 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: LINGENFELTER: The items on which I abstained were i tems for

which I did no t feel qualified to vote due to my absence f rom the commit tee discussions.

(Log #CP871) RES

101-416 - (19-3.1.1 Exception No. 3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies,

I RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 3 to 19-3.1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The exception is more restrictive than the Chapter 6 r equ i r emen t of 1 /2 hour. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP17) RES

101-417- (19-3.4.2.1 Exception (New)): Accept SI .~MITrEIta Technical Commit tee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an except ion to 1%3.4.2.1 to read:

Exception: Buildings protected t h roughou t by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 19-3.5.1, no t exceeding four stories in height, and containing no t more than 16 living units. SUBSTANTIATION: During the processing of the 1994 edition of the Code, C o m m e n t 101-489 was "held for fur ther study". It addressed this issue. For relatively small aparmaent buildings, it should be acceptable to rely on automatic initiation of the fire a larm system in fully sprinklered.buildings. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


149

N F P A 1 0 1 m F 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP18) RES

101- 418 - (19-3.4.3.2 Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a second exception to 19-3.4.3.2 to read as follows:

Exception No. 2: Buildings protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 19-3.5.1, not exceeding four stories in height, and not containing more than 16 living units. SUBSTANTIATION: For the 1994 edition of the Code, a similar exception was added to 18-3.4.3.2 for new apar tment buildings. The same exception is just as valid for existing aparunent buildings. Without the proposed exception, a building could be constructed new and exempted from the requirement for an annunciator panel only to be reinspected as an existing building at a later time and found in violation of the Code, because Chapter 19 currendy has no similar exception. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #3) RES

101- 419 - (19-3.4.4.1): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101-502 which was held

for fur ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal-101- 651. SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life, RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Committee Action; make corrections and revisions as necessary so as to standardize on use of one term such as "dwelling unit" rather than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit"• SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life (AAC) submits this public comment so the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) can give fur ther consideration to revising the committee action so as to standardize on use of one term such as "dwelling unit" rather than mixed use of terms such as "living unit" and "unit". COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle•

See Proposal 101 -384 (Log #CP868) on Chapters 18 and 19. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

should meet the submitter 's intent. R OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #CP858) RES

101- 420- (19-3.4.4.1): Accept SUBMITI~R: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

19-3.4.4 Detection. 19-3.4.4.1 Approved single station smoke detectors shall be

installed in accordance with 7-6.2.9 outside every sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms and on all levels of the living unit including basements.

Exception: The single station smoke detector shall not be required where the building is equipped throughout with an existing total automatic smoke detection system.

19-3.4.4.2 In buildings using Opt ion 2, a complete automatic fire detection system in accordance with 7-6.1.4 shall be required. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide consistency. Paragraph 7-0.2.9 includes the details being dele ted from 19-3.4.4 by this proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP862) RES

101-421 - (19:3.4.4.1 Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a second exception to 19-3.4.4.1 to read:

Exception No. 2: Single station smoke detectors without s e c o n ~ (standby) power source shall be permitted.

SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee believes the lack of standby power represents an acceptable level o f protection in an apartment. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP876) RES

101- 422 - (19-3.6.4 Exception (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action for correlation with proposal 10]-381 (Log #131) on the issue of allowing either an automatic smoke detection system or an automatic sprinkler system as a condition of the proposed exception. It appears that RES generated Proposal 101-422 (Log #CP87fi) for consistency with its action on Proposal 101-381 (Log#131). See the related comment generated by AAC on Proposal 101-381 (Log #131) for Chapter 17. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception to new 19- 3.6.4 being created by Proposal 101 - 405 (Log #CP874):

Exception: Spaces shall be permit ted to be unlimited in area and open to the corridor provided:

(a) The spaces are not used for dwelling units or hazardous areas, and

(b) The spaces open to the corridor a rep ro tec ted by an automatic smoke detection system installed in accordance with 19-3.4, or the space is protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 19-3.5, and

(c) The space does not obstruct access to required exits. SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify the Committee intent to allow areas properly protected to be open to the corridor. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


• (Log #354) RES

101- 423- (19-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph H. Versteeg, Torrington, CT RECOMMENDATION: Delete 19-4.1 and renumber 19-4.2 and 19- 4.3 accordingly. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 19-4.1 is entitled ~Wilndows for Rescue and Ventilation" and contains a parenthetical reference to Section 19-2.1.1. Section 19-2.1.1 requires the interior of living units to comply with the means of escape requirements contained within Section 21-2. Section 21-2 establishes several differing methods of providing a secondary means of escape, only one of which is a window.

In addition, as current lyworded the exception permits omission of the window for rescue and ventilation when the building is protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 19-3.5.5 which permits the use of sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R. Yet Exception No. 1: (b) Section 21-2.2.3(c) omits the window when the living unit is protected in accordance with NFPA 13D. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 -407 (Log #353) on 18-4.1 and Proposal 101 -408 (Log# CP867) on 18-4.1 and 19-4.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



which I did no t feel qualified to vote due to my absence from the committee discussions.

(Log #206) RES

101- 424 - (20-2.1.1 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter A. Puhlick, University of Connecticut, Facilities Management Dept.

150

N F P A 1 0 1 m F96 R O P

RECOMMENDATION: Add exception to read: Exception: In buildings 3 or fewer stories in height that are

protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 20-3.5, primary means of escape stairways shall be permit ted to be open at the uppermost floor level provided that the stairway is separated from all o ther floor levels by construction having a min imum fire protection raring of 20 minutes. SUBSTANTIATION: This exception clearly allows the above condition. The above condit ion is implied by the exception to 20- 3.1.1 and t h e p r o p o s e d language is uniform with that exception. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Reword 20-2.1.1 as follows: "Every sleeping room and. living area shall have access to a primary

means of escape, complying with Chapter 21, located to prowde a safe path of travel to the outside. Where the sleeping room is above or below the level of exit discharge, the primary means of escape shall be an interior stair in accordance with 20-2.2, an exterior stair, a horizontal exit, or an existing fire escape stair." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action clarifies the Committee 's intent. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #355) RES

101- 425 - (20-2.1.1 and Exception (New)): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Joseph H. Versteeg, Torrington, CT RECOMMENDATION: Reword the current text and add an exception as follows:

20-2.1.1 Every sleeping room and. livin.lg area shall access to a primary means of escape, complying v~th Chapter 21, located to provide a safe path of travel to the outside of the building without traversing any corridor or space exposed to an unprotec ted vertical opening. Where the sleeping room is above or below the level of exit discharge, the primary means of escape shall be an enclosed interior stair, an exterior stair, a horizontal exit complying with 5- 2.4, or an existing fire escape stair comply with 5-2.8.

Exception: The provisions of 5-2.8.2 shall not apply. SUBSTANTIATION: Current text limits the primary means of escape to four possible methods when serving sleeping rooms above or below the level of exit discharge. When utilizing interior or exterior stairs, the dimensional criteria contained with Section 5-2.2 can be appliedvia section 21-2.5.1. However, when utilizing horizontal exits or existing fire escape stairs, nei ther Chapter 20 nor Chapter 21 reference any of the requirements within Chapter 5 applicable to horizontal exits or existing fire escape stairs. COMMI'FrEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Further reword 20-2.1.1 from that done in Proposal 101 -424 (Log #206) as follows:

"Every sleeping room and living area shall have access to a primary means of escape, complying with Chapter 21, located to provide a safe path of travel to the outside. Where the sleeping room is above or below the level of exit discharge, the primary means of escape shall be an interior stair in accordance with 20-2.2, an exterior stair, a horizontal exit in accordance with 5-2.4, or an existing fire escape stair in accordance with 5-2.8." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The added references to "5-2.4" and "5-2.8" fur ther improve the action on the referenced proposal, which is more appropriate. This should meet part of the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #390) RES

101- 426- (20-2.1.2): Reject Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its committee statement in relation to the committee scope which does include the subject of accessibility. SUBMITTERa Robert A. Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

In addition to the primary route, each sleeping room and living area shall have a second Means of Escape within the sleeping room and shall complywith the provisions of Section 21-2 for one- and

two-family dwellings. In accessible living units constructed for use by physically handicanned. Means of Escane shall comnlv with ANSI

Delete the exception. SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterlor door are critical to serf-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the intended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'I'TEE STATEMENT: Accessible means of egress is addressed by Chapter 5. Requirements for accessibility are beyond the scope of Chapter 20. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP872) RES

101-427- (20-2.2 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITI~R: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Reword Exception No. 1 to read:

Exception No. 1: Where an interior stair connects the street floor with the story next above or below only, but no t both, the interior stair shall be required to be enclosed only on the street floor. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial clarification of the Committee 's intent. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP883) RES

101-428- (20-2.2, 20-3.1.1, 20-3.1.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Change the "20-minute" and "20 minutes" to "1/2 hour . SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 6 has eliminated the 20 minute and 3 /4 hour fire resistance rating requirements. The change from 20 minute to 1 /2 should no t prove to be a more restrictive requirement because of the appendix explanation being added to Chapter 6. See Proposal 101 - 125 (Log #192) on 6-2.3.2. COMMI'FI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrrl'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson •

(Log #24) RES

101- 429 - (20-3.3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change "audible alarm" to "audible and visible signals". SUIK~TANTIATION: This is necessary to comply with 7-6.3.4 requiring both audible and visible signals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 - 430 (Log

#405). COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

rl~M~l~lRSh°uld meet the submitter 's intent, OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25

VOTE ON COMMITIT, E ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #405) RES

101- 430 - (20-3.3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence of 20-3.3.3 to read:

"Occupant notification shall be provided automatically, without delay, in accordance with 7-6."

151

NFPA 101m F96 ROP

SUBSTANTIATION: The terms "internal" and "audible" have been deleted.

Chapter 7 addresses audibility and visibility. Public areas do not justify modifying tiffs. Chapter 7 also provides exceptions for • existing systems. Many Lodging and Rooming Houses require external alarms°

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the first sentence of 20-3.3.3 to read: "Occupant notification shall be provided automatically in accor-

dance with Section 7-6." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To eliminate the misunderstanding of the use of alarm verification as a delay in occupant notification. The Committee always intended to allow the use of alarm verification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP851) RES


(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment (BSF), which has primary responsibility for Chapter 7 ~md the associated alarm system criteria, offer information on the acceptability of Chapter 20 modifying the visible signal requirements.

Additionally, AAC directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action to expand its substantiation to address the technical merits of the proposal rather than stating that the change is being made for ~consistencywith-ADA ~. Also, RES should correlate the issue through BSF by requesting an exception to current 7-6.3.4. S U B - - R : Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to 20-3.3.3 to read:

Exception: Visible signals for the hearing impaired shall not be requiredwhere the proprietor resides in the building and there are 5 or fewer rooms for rent. Add an Appendix note to read: A-30-3.3.3 Exception Proprietor is the owner or owner's agent with

responsible charge. SUBSTANTIATION: Consistency with ADA Accessibility Guide- lines. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP860) RES

101- 432 - (20-3.3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 20-3.3.4 to read:

20-3.3.4 Detection. Approved single station smoke detectors shall be installed in accordance with 7-6.2.9 in every sleeping room.

Exception No. 1: These detectors shall not be required to be interconnected.

Exception No. 2: Existing battery powered detectors, rather than house electric service-powered detectors, shall be permitted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstrated testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability of power to the detectors. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarify the Committee's original intent which was affected by changes to the referenced standard, NFPA 72, and changes to NFPA 101 Chapter 7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:




(Log #CP863) RES

101- 433 - (20-3.3.4 Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a third exception to 20-3.3.4 [two exceptions are being addeded by proposal 101 - 432 (Log #CP860)] to read:

Exception No. 3: Single station smoke detectors without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permitted in buildings protected throughout by an approved automafi c sprinkler system installed in accordance with 20-3.5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee believes the lack of standby power represents an acceptable level of protection in a lodging and rooming house protected by automatic sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP870) RES

101- 434- (chapter 21): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Throughout Chapter 21, and associated apendix material, change the term "living unit(s)" to "dwelling unit(s) ". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial for clarification and consistency. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 2 Kelly, Nickson

(Log #391) RES


(AAC) directs that a publlc comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its committee statement in relation to the committee scope which does include the subject of accessibility. SUBMITTER: Robert A. Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Number ~ of Means of Escape. In any dwelling or living unit of two rooms or more, every sleeping room and every living area shall have at least one primary means of escape and one secondary means of. escape. In accessible dw¢||in~ or livimr units constructed for use by the nhvsicallv handicanned, v Means of Escane shall comolv with ANSI Al l 7.1. " " " SUBSTANTIAl'ION: A m~ltility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to self-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the intended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2. Accessible doors and pathways are old technology. Until five years

ago accessible windows and modifying devices which meet ANSI All7.1 and the NFPA requirements of"no special knowledge or tools" were not readily available. Today these products are offered by several manufacturers. This is important to the disabled because windows driven by energy codes and other constraints have become very difficult to operate. In fact, AAMA provides avoluntary maximum force of operation for standard windows of 45 pounds. For many people windows may as well be welded shut. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Accessible means of egress is addressed by Chapter 5. Requirements for accessibility are beyond the scope of Chapter 21. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMM1TrEE ACTION:


152

N F P A 1 0 1 m F96 R O P

(Log #i 32) RES

101- 436 - (21-2.2.3(c)): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee 's name requesting that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (RES) reconsider its action in terms of the confusion created by the inclusion of phrases within the parentheses in two pla~es. In lieu of specifying parenthetically the dimensions that would result if one of the minimums were used, consideration should be given to creating an appendix note explaining the concept as was done by BCF on Proposal 101-453 (Log #132a). This should help to avoid confusion and provide consistency among the occupancy chapters. SUBMITTER: PeterA. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence to read as follows:

"An outside window or door operable from the inside without the use of tools and providing a clear opening of no t less than 5.7 sq ft with the width no t less than 20 in. (height >_ 41 in.) and the height not less than 24 in. (width > 34 in.)." SUBSTANTIATION: The text as written is often misinterpreted to require a window having minimum dimensions 20 in. wide by 24 in. high. The cl.ear opening provided by these dimensions (3.3. sq ft) does no t me~t the requirement for the area to be 5.7 sq ft. The proposed text helps clarify the three separate requirements of minimum width, height, and area. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the first sentence to read as follows: "An outside window or door operable from the inside without the

use of tools, key, or special effort and providing a clear opening of not less than 5.7 sq ft with the width not less than 20 in. (height _> 41 in.) and the height not less than 24 in. (width > 34 in.)." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's proposed language is acceptable, as far as it goes. However, additional., wordint[g w i th respect to operation has been added because it is needed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #406) RES

101- 437 - (21-2.2.3 Exception No. 1, 21-2.2.1 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Move 21-2.2.3 Exception No. 1 to become an exception to 21-2.2.1.

Renumber 21-2.2.3 Exception No. 2 as Exception to 21-2.2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: 21-2.2.3 tells how to provide a secondary means of escape, 21-2.2.1 is the paragraph that requires it. Since the exception is to the requirement then it should be to 21-2.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #207) RES

101- 438 - (21-2.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Peter A. Puhlick, University of Connecticut, Facilities Management Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Stairs, ramps, guards, and handrails shall be in accordance with 5- 2.2 for Class B stairs and -.5._~. ~ for ramps.

Exception: ... SUBSTANTIATION: Section 5-2.5 relates to ramps, not 5-2.6. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #234) RES

101- 439 - (21-2.5.1): Accept SUBMrI ' rER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

21-2.5.1 Stairs, ramps, .guards and handrails shall be in accordance with 5-2.2 for Class B stairs and ~ 5-2.5 for ramps. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction for incorrect reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #236) RES

101- 440 - (21-2.5.1 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Exception No. 2: ffserving as a secondary means of escape, stairs complying with fire escape requir*ments of Table 5-2.8.4 and ramps complying with the existang ramp requirements of 5-2.5.2 shall be

~ ermitted. UBSTANTIATION: As currendy written, Exception No. 2 has

absolutely no requirements for stairs and ramps; any condition - - no matter how treacherous - - is permitted. The proposed replacement language references the lowest permit ted standard for existing stairs a n d r a m p s in the Code. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee never in tended any requirements for stairs and ramps serving as a secondary means of escape. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #235) RES

101-441 - (21-2.5.1 and Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

21-2.5.1 Stairs, ramps, guards and handrails shall be in accordance with 5-2.2 for ~ stairs and ~ 5-2.5 for ramps.

t~xception No. 3: Maximum riser heights of 7 3 / 4 i n (19.7 ~m) and minimum tread denths of 10 in. (25.4 cm~ shall be nermit ted for stairs in new construction. SUBSTANTIATION: The Class B standard is only in tended to apply to existing stairs. After extensive public deliberation (including six days of hearings by a BOCAAd Hoe Committee) and much debate (in which home builders had extensive input and votes) both BOCA and CABO decided in 1994 to establish these min imum requirements for stairs in new construction. These are based on minimum standards for safety in all use conditions, including emergency escape and firefighter access in the difficult, time-critical conditions of a fire. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #237) RES

101- 442 - (21-2.5.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

21-2.5.4 No sleeping rooms or living rooms shall be accessible by only a ladder, stair ladder, ~l~ernating tread device, folding stairs, or through a trap door. SUBSTANTIATION: Alternating tread devices, when incorporated into the Code by the Chapter 5 Committee, specifically were permit ted only in situations where ladders would be acceptable. The change proposed here simply reflects that decision as well as the decision of the residential committee in already prohibit ing ladders and stair ladders for this access. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


153

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP859) RES

101- 443 - (21-3.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 21-3.3.1 to read:

21-3.3.1 Approved single station smoke detectors shall be installed in accordance with 7-6.2.9 in the following locations:

a) All sleeping rooms. Exception No. 1 to (a): Smoke detectors shall no t be required in

sleeping rooms in existing construction. Exception No. 2 to (a): Smoke detectors shall not be required in

sleeping rooms where the dwelling unit is protec ted throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13R or NFPA 13D. b) Outside of each separate sleeping area, in the immediate

vicinity of the sleeping rooms. c) On each additional s to ryof the l iv ingun i t inc lud ingbasemen t s , Exception No. 1: Dwelling units protected by an approved smoke

detection system installed in accordance with Section 7-6, having an approved means of occupant notification.

Exception No. 2; In existing construction, approved smoke detectors powered by batteries shall be permit ted . SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee feels that due to the fire loss data in non sprinklered one- and two-family dwellings, single station smoke detectors are needed to address the fife problem within sleeping rooms. This is consistent with the apar tment occupancy requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:



which I did no t feel qualified to vote due to my absence f rom the committee discussions.

(Log #CP864) RES

101-444- (21:3.3.1 Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a third exception to 21-3.3.1 to read:

Exception No. 3: Single station smoke detectors without a secondary (standby) power source shall be permit ted in buildings protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee believes the lack of standby power represents an acceptable level o f protection for a one- and two-family dwelling protected by automatric sprinklers. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP4) BCF

101- 446 - (22-1.3 Conversion, 23-1.3 Conversion): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on-Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition of conversion to 22-1.3 and 23-1.3 to read as follows:

Conversion. For the purposes of this chapter, a conversion shall be considered to be a change of occupancy f rom an existing residential or health care occupancy to a residential board and care occupancy. SUBSTANTIATION: Because the use of the term "conversions" appears in 22-2.2.5.1 Exception No. 1, 22-2.2.6.1 Exception, 22- 3.3.6.3 Exception and 22-~.3.6.4 Exception No.1 and Exception No. 2, and has a special meaning as used within the context of these chapters, it needs to b e defined specifically. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP912) BCF

101- 447 - (22-1.3 Evacuation Capability and 23..1.3 Evacuation a ~ c c e p t

Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, . RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

Evacuation Capability.* The ability of the occupants, residents, and staff as a group either to evacuate a building or to relocate f rom the

oint O f occupancy to a point of safety, ff the occupants of the esidential Board and Care occupancy include family members of

the owners or operators, it is in tended that the needs of the family members be considered in determining evacuation capability.

Following are the levels of evacuation capability covered by this chapter:

(a) Prompt . The ability of a group to move reliably to a point o f safety in a timely manner that is equivalent to the capacity of a household in the general population.

(b) Slow. The ability of a group that can move reliably to a point of safety in a timely manner , but no t as rapidly as can members o f a household in the general population.

(c) Impractical. The inability of a group to reliably move to a point of safety in a timely manner . SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial in nature, designed to clarify the original intent of the Committee. The Committee in tended to include a consideration of family members who might require staff assistance, if the staff was relied upon to assist a resident o f the home in order to meet the classification of either p romp t or slow. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOSE: I draw your at tention to the following error / typo that needs

correction. Delete the 2nd "can" from the definition of slow.

(Log #CP915) BCF

101- 445 - (Chapters 22 and 23): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In Chapters 22 and 23 change the requirements for 20 minute or 45 minute fire resistance rating to 1 / 2 hour in the following sections: 22-1.3 b(2) and c(2), 22-2.2.4, 22-2.2.4 Exception 2, 22-2.3.1.1, 22-2.3.2 a(1) and b(1), 22-2.3.6.1, 23-1.3 b(2) and c(2), 23-2.1.3.2, 23-2.2.3 (d), 23-2.2.4, 23-2.2.4 Exception 2, 23-2.3.1.1, 23-2.3.2 b(1), and 23-3.3.6.3.

Add a new 22-1.5" and 23-1.5" to read "Fire resistance rated assemblies shall comply with 6-2.3."

Add an appendix note to new 22-1.5 and 23-1.5 to read "Paragraph 6-2.3.1.2 addresses 1 /2 hour fire resistance rating. The appendix note to 6-2.3.1.2 addresses common materials used in 1 / 2 h o u r fire resistance rated barriers. SUBSTANTIATION: To correlate with Chapter 6 on the elimination of 20 minute and 45 minute fire resistance rated fire barriers. The change from 20 minute or 45 minute to 1/2 hour is no t more stringent. See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 - 125 (Log#192) on 6-2.3.2. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #392) BCF

101- 448 - (22-2.2.1): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Robert A. Gorrell, ASI" RECOMMENDATION: Revise 22-2.2.1 to read:

22-2.2.1 Number and Types of Means of Escape. Each normally occupied story of the facifity shall have at least two remotely located means of escape d,~t d . . . . ~ 1 . . . . l . . . . : ,~ ,,~,ldv,o that are exclusive of reouired onerable windows. At least one of these means of escape shall comply ,~vith 22-2.2.2. In accessible dwellin~ Or [jvin~ units constructed for use bv the nhvsicallv handicanDed, mearis o f escane shall comply with ANSI All7 .1 , The provisions of Chapter 5 shall" no t apply to means of escape unless specifically referenced in this chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited strength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average population. The emergency escape and rescue window or an exterior door are critical to serf-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for help could mean survival. Accessible spaces must have adequate life safety consideration with regard to the in tended occupancy (see Section 2-3), ANSI A117.1 provides the standard needed to make doors, windows, and interior passageways accessible and usable by the occupant. Also see proposed addition to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2. Accessible doors and pathways are old technology. Until f'vce years

ago accessible windows and modifying devices which meet ANSI All7.1 and the NFPA requirements o f "no special knowledge or tools" were not readily available. Today these products are offered

154

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

by several manufacturers. This is important to the physically handicapped because windows driven by energy codes and other constraints have become very difficult to operate. In fact, AAMA provides a voluntary maximum force of operation for standard windows of 45 pounds. For many people windows mayas well be welded shut. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Board and care requirements are based on the fact that these facilities may be setup to accommodate individuals that need special accommodations. The provisions of Al17.1 are not clear on this subject and may affect other features of means of egress. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #69) BCF

101- 449 - (22-2.2.2.1, 23-2.2.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Philip R.Jose, VA R e~£onal Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Change all 'living area" terminology to "common space" as proposed and accepted in .Log #'s 183 and 224 in the April 9, 1993 TCtL SUBSTANTIATION: This change should have been made in the '94 edition. It appears to have been omitted in error. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the following sections to read: 23-2.2.2.2. In slow and impractical evacuation capability facilities,

the primary means of escape for each sleeping room shall not be exposed to living areas andki tchen .

22-3.3.4.8 Exception No. 1: Detectors shall not be required in living areas, in facilities protected, throughout by an approved, automaUc sprinkler system m accordance with 22-3.3.5.

22-3.3.6.2 Sleeping rooms shall be separated from corridors, living areas and kitchens by walls complying with 22-3.3.6.3 through 22- 3.3.6.6.

23-3.3.4.6 Exception No. 1: Detectors shall not be required in living areas and kitchens in facilities protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 23-3.3.5.

23-3.3.6.1 Exception No. 2: Prompt evacuation capability facilities in buildings not over two stories in height where at Ieast one required means of egress from each sleeping room provides a path of travel to the outside without traversing any corridor or other spaces exposed to unprotected vertical openings, living areas and kitchens.

23-3.3.6.2 Sleeping rooms shall be separated from corridors, living areas and kitchens by walls complying with 23-3.3.6.3 through 23- 3.3.6.6. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Better clarifies the intent of the Committee and provides consistency in the use of terms. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP913) BCF

101-450- (22-2.2.2.1, 23-2.2.2.1, 22-2.2.4, 23-2.2.4, 22-2.3.1.1 and 23- 2.3.1.1): Accept

Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life (AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) reconsider its action to correct the "errors/typos" addressed by the comments on affirmative votes from Messrs. Jose, Lathrop and Levin. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Reword the following sections to read:

22-2.2.2.1 (and 23-2.2.2.1) Every sleeping room and living area shall have access to a p~rimary, means o[' escape .l°cated to provide, a safe path of travel to the outside. Where sleeping rooms or living areas are above or below the level of exit discharge, the primary means of escape shall be an interior stair in accordance with 23- 2.2.4, an exterior stair, a horizontal exit, or an existing fire escape " stair.

22-2.2.4 (and 23-2.2.4) Interior Stairs Used for Primary Means of Escape. Interior stairs shall be enclosed with 20 minute fire barriers with all openings equipped with smoke actuated automatic-closing or self-closinlg doors having a fire p.rotection rating comp:arable to that r equ i red fo r the enclosure. Stmrs shall comply with5-2.2.6.5. The entire primary means of escape shall be arranged so that occupants are not required to pass through a port ion of a lower story

unless that route is separated from all spaces on that story by construction having a minimum 20-minute fire resistance rating.

Exception No. 1 to 22-2.2.4.4 (and Exception No. 1 to 23-2.2.4.4): Stairs that connect a story at street level to only one other story shall be permit ted to be open to the story that is not the street level°

Exception No. 2 to 22-2.2.4.4 (and Exception No. 2 to 23-2.2.4.4): (No change to current exception.) Exception No. 3 to 22-2.2.4.4: In buildings two stories in height

that house prompt evacuation capability facilities with no more than eight residents, stair enclosures shall not be required. Exception No. 2 to 22-2.2.3 shall not be used in conjunction with this exception. Exceptions to 22-2.3.4.3 shall not be used in conjunction with this exception. Exception No. 1 to 22-2.3.5.2 shall not be used in conjuncuon with this exception.

Exception No. 3 to 23-2.2.4.4: In buildings three or fewer stories in height that house prompt or slow evacuation capability facilities protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 23-2.3.5, stairs shall be permitted to be open at the topmost story only. The entire primary means of escape of which the stairs are a part shall be separated from all portions of lower stories.

Exception No. 4 to 23-2.2.4.4: In buildings two or stories in height . that house p rompt evacuation capability facilities with no more than eight residents and that are protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 23-2.3.5 using quick response or residential sprinklers, stair enclosures shall not be required. Exception No. 2 to 23-2.2.3 shall not be used in conjunction with this exception. Exception to 23-2.2.3 shall not be used in conjunction with this exception.

22-2.3.1.1 (and 23-2.3.1.1) Vertical openings shall be protected so as not to expose a primary means of escape. Vertical openings shall be considered protected if the opening is cut offsuch that barriers prevent the passage of smoke from one story to any primary means of escape on another story. Barriers shall resist the passage of smoke and shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes. Any doors or openings to the vertical opening shall be capable of resisting fire for not less than 20 minutes, shall resist the passage of smoke, and shall be serf-closing or automatic-closing in accordance with 5-2.1.8.

Exception to 22-2.3.1.1: Stairs shall be permit ted to be open where complying with Exception No. 2 or No. 3 to 22-2.2.4.

Exception to 23-2.3.1.1: Stairs shall be permit ted to be open where complying with Exception No. 2 or No. 4 to 23-2.2.4. SUBSTANTIATION: To clarify the requirements and to provide consistency. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccepL NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: JOSE: I draw your attention to the following errors/ typos that

need correction. There are seven references to 22/23-2.2.4.4. The reference should

be to 23/22-2.2.4. In addition the reference "Exception No. 1 to 22- 2.3.5.2" is incorrect it should be "Exception No. 1 to 22-2.3.5.1". The last sentence in Exception No. 4 to 23-2.2.4 is wrong. It should read "Exceptions to 93-2.3.4.3" NOT Exception to 23-2.2.3.

LATHROP: There are several editorial errors in this proposal. a) 22-2.2.2.1 (23-2.2.2.1) in the third line it should read: "..interior stair in accordance with 22-2.2.4 (23-2.2.4), an exterior..." b) The proposed Exception No. 3 to 23-2.2.4.4 is not needed as the

current Exception No. 2 which is being maintained is more liberal. I thought this exception was not being added since the reorganization clarified the current Exception No. 2.

c) Regardless o rb) above, the Exception No. 4 to 23-2.2.4.4 should be renumbered Exception No. 3 since it is the companion one to 22- 2.2.4.4 Exception No. 3. This makes the code far more user friendly. With this the reference in the exception to 23-2.3.1.1 would be changed.

LEVIN: My affirmative vote assumes errors in section numbers will be corrected.

(Log #CP906) BCF

101- 451 - (22-2.2.2.2 Exception): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) reconsider its action in view of the explanation of negative vote from Mr. Lathrop and the explanation of abstention from Mr. Levin in which they state that the committee intent was not achieved by the recommendation.

Further, AAC directs the subject m the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment for consideration by BCF at its ROC-preparation meeting.

155

N F P A 101 m F96 R O P

SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: The deletion of the exception is necessary to avoid redundancies where sprinklers are required by 22-2.3.5.1 where the sprinkler exceptions also appear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LATHROP: I believe this is in error. Deleting the exception was

no t the intent. I believe the intent is to delete the entire paragraph since the exception is now always applied. EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

LEVIN: I believe the proper committee action should be to delete the whole section 22-2.2.2.2 rather than jus t the exception. The substantiation should remain unchanged.

(Log #CP907) BCF

101- 452 - (22-2.2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

" RECOMMENDATION: In the first sentence, after the word "room" insert "in facilities that utilize Exception No.1 to 22-2.3.5.1". SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers are required by 22-2.3.5.1 in all small facilities except those that take advantage of Exception No. 1 to 22-2.3.5.1, therefore this requirement only applies to such facilities. COMM1TrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #132a) BCF

101- 453 - (22-2.2.3(c), 23-2.2.3(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence to read as follows:

"An outside window or door operable from the inside without the use of tools and providing a clear opening of no t less than 5.7 sq ft with the width not less than 20 in. (height>_ 41 in.) and the height not less than 24 in. (width >_ 34 in.)." SUBSTANTIATION: The text as written is often misinterpreted to require a window having minimum dimensions 20 in. wide by 24 in. high. The clear opening provided by these dimensions (3.3. sq ft) does not meet the requirement for the area to be 5.7 sq ft. The proposed text helps clarify the three separate requirements of minimum width, height, and area. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the first sentence to read as follows: "An outside window or door operable f rom the inside without the

use of tools, key or special effort, and providing a clear opening of not less than 5.7 sq ft with the width not less than 20 in. and the height not less than 24 in." Add appendix note to read: "A window with dimensions of 20 in.

by 24 in. has an opening of 3.3 sq ft which is less than the required 5.7 sq ft. Therefore, ei ther the height or width must exceed the minimum requirement to provide the required clear area." COMMITTEE STATEMENT:. The Committee Action should meet the submitter 's intent. It better clarifies the Committee 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(LOg #CP908) BCF

101- 454- (22-2.2.3 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 2 to 22-2.2.3 in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: This delet ion is necessary to avoid redundancies where sprinklers are required by 22-2.3.5.1 and sprinkler exceptions also appear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #6) BCF

101- 455 - (22-2.2.4): Accept in Principle Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) reconsider its action and clarify its intent in view that the wording is confusing, and it is not clear if the omission of Type HI(200) construction was an oversight. Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101-515 which was held

for fur ther study from the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 682. It dealt with what was then proposed 22-2.2.2.1. SUBMITTER: Daniel M McGee, American Iron and Steel Institute RECOMMENDATION: Add the following provision at the end of 22-2.2.4:

"The support ing construction shall be protected to afford the required fire resistance rating of the wall suppor ted in buildings of other than construction types II-100, III-200 or V-200." SUBSTANTIATION: Additional requirements for separation by fire resistive barriers of spaces for special needs that are incidental to the main use should not negate the basicprovisions of the code that permit specified allowable heights andareas for buildings of nonfire resistive construction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following to the end of 22-2.2.4: "The support ing construction shall be protected to afford the

required fire resistance rating of the wall supported in buildings of other than construction Types lI(000) or Type V(000)." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The construction types provided are no t consistent with NFPA 220, Types of Building Construction. The classifications were changed to bring the submitter 's intent into

ruMBeement with NFPA 220. ER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP5) BCF

101- 456 - (22-2.2.5.1 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In Exception No. 1 to 22-2.2.5.1, after the word "conversions", insert "(see definition in 22-1.3)". SUBSTANTIATION: The term "conversions" has a special meaning for purposes of using this chapter. The term will be defined in 22- 1.3. The cross reference is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP9) BCF

101- 457- (22-2.2.5.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 22-2.2.5.2 and renumber existing 22-2.2.5.2 through 22-2.2.5.6 as necessary, to read as follows:

22-2.2.5.2 Doors shall be swinging or sliding. SUBSTANTIATION: In the same way that sliding doors are permit ted within the means of escape f rom dwellings per Chapter 21, it is the intent that sliding doors be permit ted within the means of escape fi'om small board and care occupancies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. , NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: .

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #238) BCF

101- 458- (22-2.2.6.1 Exception): Reject SUBMITrER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Exception: In conversions, existing noncomplying stairs shall be

permit ted in accordance with the 'Exception ~ to 5-2.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. There is only one exception to 5-2.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMM1TI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 101 - 459 (Log #338). NUMBER OFCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTF~ ACTION: " "

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

156

NFPA 101~ F96 ROP

(Log #338) BCF

101- 459 - (22-2.2.6.1 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Terry A. Brouwer, Connecticut Office of State Fire Marshal RECOMMENDATION: Delete the exception to 22-2.2.6.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This issue is presently covered by the exception to 5-2.2.2.1. COMMIT'tEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Do as submitter requests and delete the Exception to 22-2.2.6.1. Also delete the Exception to 23-2.').6.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This should meet the submitter 's intent. The corresponding change to Chapter 23 is needed for consistency. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP6) BCF

101- 460 - (22-2.2.6.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In Exception to 22-2.2.6.1, after the word "conversions", inser t "(see definition in 22-1.3)". SUBSTANTIATION: The term "conversions" has a special meaning for purposes of using this chapter. The term will be defined in 22- 1.3. The cross reference is needed. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP904) BCF

101- 461 - (22-2.3.4.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

[ RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: It is not technically possible to accomplish this with a detector listed per %6.2.9. Furthermore, UL217 detectors are not listed for this purpose. This would create a system. Section % 6.2.9 indicates that the in terconnected units shall only sound an alarm within the individual living unit or similar area. Activation of a manual fire alarm station would, therefore be required outside each living unit where two or more detectors are installed in tandem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #4) BCF

101- 462 - (22-2.3.5.1 Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101-527 which was held

for fur ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 708. It deal t with what was then 22-2.3.5.2 Exception No. 3 (New). SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life, RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the Committee Action; make corrections and revisions as necessary so as to correlate the action on Proposal 101-708 with the requirements of Chapter 1. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life (AAC) submits this public comment so the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) and the Life Safety Technical Committee on Fundamentals can work toward correlating the action on Proposal 101-708 with the requirements of Chapter 1. The action r ecommended by Proposal 101-708 goes against the Chapter 1 principle that in any building a change from one occupancy classification to another is permitted only if the building conforms with the Code requirements applying to new construction (see 1-7.4 Changes of Occupancy). The AAC notes that BCF has not a t tempted any correlation as yet as evidenced by the absence of a proposal requesting an exception to 1-7.4 for conver- s/ons. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal I01 - 13 (Log #CP3) on 1-6.3 Exception (New). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee reconfirms what is pr inted in the 1994 edition mad agrees with the Standards Council decision on this issue. The referenced proposal clarifies the issue.

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMYI'rEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NEGATIVE: 2

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: FAVRO: 1 must vote against the proposal generated by Log #4

since I do not agree with the Standards Council decision on this issue. In myview, the council exceeded its authority by extending the exemption for sprinklers in conversions to all new small (eight or fewer residents), p rompt facilities. I believe that a more appropriate action by the Committee would have been to reinstate the requirement for sprinklers in ALL small, p rompt facilities, including conversions.

The decision by persons to convert dwellings, lodging or rooming houses, or apar tment units to board and care homes is a conscious one. Consequently, those making this decision are, or should be, aware of the regulations necessary to legitimately operate such a facility. Sprinkler protection is a proven life-saver and, in my view, the only trustworthy means of protection in facilities where evacuation capabilities are limited. I believe the past fire record and the potential for future fires which may endanger the lives of the occupants of these homes clearly justifies---in fact demands - - t he inclusion of sprinkler systems in conversions. Therefore I do not believe that the installation ofantomat ic sprinkler pro tec t ion- - particularly now, with the availability of NFPA 13D and 13R systems--creates unreasonable hardship or should be characterized as excessive, unnecessary, or burdensome regulation.

Although some have made the argument that small board and care facilities with eight or fewer prompt residents closely resemble a single family dwelling, and the clients in these facilities a r e - - in the rea lwor ld- -of ten in need of special attention and frequently do not have the same capabilities for serf-evacuation as people living in their own homes. Further it is my belief that there is an obligation on the part of providers for a higher standard of care for persons in public accommodations where clients have little or no control over how the facilities in which they are housed are operated.

FLEMING: We are not able to vote affirmatively on Log #4 since acceptance of this action essentially deleted sprinkler requirements from small board and care facilities with 8 or fewer residents.

(Log #CP902) BCF

101- 463 - (22-2.3.5.1 Exception No. 2 and 23-2.3.5.1 Exception No. 3): Accept

Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life (AAC) directs the subject to the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers for correlation and comment for consideration by BCF at its ROC-preparation meeting. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In 22-2.3.5.1 delete Exception No. 2.

In 23-2.3.5.1 delete Exception No. 3. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinkler technology has progressed to the point where unconventional ceiling designs and temperature ratings are not a listing limitation. Once these deletions are made to the 1997 edition o f the Code, Foffnal Interpretation 101-94-3 can be retired. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LEVIN: Substantiation does not support proposed comittee action.

(Log #cPg01) BCF

101-464- (22-2.3.6.1 and 23-2.3.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

j RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sentence to read: "Any vision panels shall be fixed fire window assemblies in accordance with 6-2.3.2.3 (draft) or shall be wired glass not exceeding 1,296 sq. in. each in area and installed in approved frames." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize fire-rated glazing materials in addition to wired glass. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

157

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

(Log #CP509) BCF

101- 465 - (22-2.5.2.3 Exception, 22-3.6.2.3 Exception, 23-2.5.2.3 Exception and 23-3.6.2.3 Exception (New)): Reject

Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life (AAC) directs that the Technical Committee on National Fuel Gas Code (NFG) be asked to eomment (for consideration by BCF at its ROC-preparatlon meeting) on the committee statement on this proposal which states that "NFPA 54 does not permit the use of those heaters in board and care occupancies." Given that NFPA 54 does prohibit gas space heaters in bedrooms/bathrooms because such rooms are generally kept closed, and prohibits such heaters from "institutions such as homes for the aged, sanitariums, convalescent homes, orphanages, etc." NFG is asked whether it is the intent to prohibit such heaters from residential board and care facilities. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment, RECOMMENDATION: To 22-2.5.2.3, 22-3.6.2.3, 23-2.5.2.3 and 23- 3.6.2.3 add an exception to read:

Exception: Gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is in response to Proposal 101 151 (Log #162) on Chapter 7 requesting that gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, be exempted from the numerous prohibitions scattered throughout the Life Safety Code that are worded similar to the following: "Unrented fuel-fired heating equipment shall be prohibited."

Chapter 7 mandatorily references the use of NFPA 54 which permits gas space heaters to be installed in accordance with the provisions of that document in all but "institutions such as homes for the aged, sanitariums, convalescent homes, orphanages, etc." Yet, authorities having jurisdiction are interpreting the Life Safety Code occupancy cbapter prohibitions on un ren ted fuel-fired heaters to mean that gas fired space heaters in compliance with NFPA 54 are prohibited.

The proposed exception will clarify the intent that ff gas fired space heaters are in compliance with NFPA 54 theist use should be permitted. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: NFPA 54 does no t permit the use of those heaters in board and care occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #5) BCF

101- 466 - (22-3.1.3.2 and 23-3.1.3.2): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101-533 which was held

for fur ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal N/A. SUBMITTER: Philip R.Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: In the second sentence change the word "floor" to "story" and replace all verbiage after the word "grade" with the following: "for more than 50 percent of it's exterior wall s u r f a c e . "

SUBSTANTIATION: This change is necessary to accurately reflect the true intent of the requirement. As currently written, you could berm a few inches of earth a round 51 percent of the first floor of a three story building, and this section would then permit you to classify it as a two story strncture; thereby reducing the construction requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the second sentence to read: "When the nrimarv level of . . | .

exit discharge is not readily app~en t . F,,¢ d.~ pu; t,,,8,.~ ,,'~ ~.;~ t hepr imary ..."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To better clarify the Committee intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP12) BCF

101- 467- (22-3.2.2.2(b) (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

I RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new subpart (b) to 22-3.2.2.2, and re-letter current subparts "b" through "d" as necessary, so new subpart (b) reads:

(b) Doors within individual rooms and suites of rooms shall be permitted to be swinging or sliding.

SUBSTANTIATION: In the same way that sliding doors are permit ted within dwellings, it is the intent that sliding doors are suitable for use by the small number of occupants associated with an individual room or a suite of rooms in a large residential board and care occupancy. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #200) BCF

101- 468 - (22-3.2.2.8,234.2.2.8, 22-3.2.2.9 and 23-3.2.2.9): Accept SUBMITTER: James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 22-3.2.2.8/23-3.2.2.8 to read:

22-3.2.2.8/23-3.2.2.8 Fire Escape Ladders. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-2.9 shall be permitted.

Add a new 22-3.2.2.9/23-3.2.2.9 to read: 22-3.2.2.9/23-3.2.2.9 Alternating Tread Devices. Alternating tread

devices complying with 5-2.11 shall be permitted. Renumber the current 22-3.2.2.8 as 22-2.2.10 and 23-2.2.8 as 23-

3.2.2.10. SUBSTANTIATION: Neither 5-2.9 nor 5-2.11 require occupancy chapter permission to use these egress components . Under the limitations stipulated in 5-2.9 and 5-2.11 there is no reason not to allow these devices in this occupancy. Note that these would no t be in the general means of egress and would be limited to "service" type a r e a s .


AFFIRMATIVE: 18

r

(Log #CP910) BCF

101- 469 - (22-3.3.4.2(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

I RECOMMENDATION: Replace "Any" with "The". SUBSTANTIATION: This revision is necessary because "Any" implies an elective system installation and "The" implies the system that is required by 22-2.3.5.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP905) BCF

101- 470 - (22-3.3.4.2 Exception to (d)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception to (d). SUBSTANTIATION: This exception is no t needed as 7-6.2.9 clearly indicates that detectors are no t to ini'tiate building fire alarm system and 22-3.3.4.7 indicates that each sleeping room shall be provided with an approved, single station smoke detector in accordance with 7-6.2.9 again, no t to be connected to the building fire alarm system. This requirement is redundant . COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LEVIN: I believe this redundancy is needed to avoid misinterpreta-

tion of the code.

(Log #CP900) BCF

101- 471 - (22-3.3.6, 23-3.3.6, 22-3.3.6.3 and 23-3.3.6.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Change the term "fire barrier" to "walls" in 22-3.3.6 (4 places) and 23-3.3.6 (4 places).

Change the term "barrier" to "wall" in Exception to 22-3.3.6.3 and change "barriers" to 'kvalis" in Exception Nos. 1 and 2 to 23-3.3.6.3. SUBSTANTIATION: To be consistent with Chapter 5 terminology. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

158

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #CP7) BCF

101- 472 - (22-3.3.6.3 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In Exception to 22-3.3.6.3, after the word "conversions", insert "(see defini t ion in 22-1.3)'. SUBSTANTIATION: The term "conversions" has a special m e a n i n g for purposes of using dais chapter. T he term will be def ined in 22- 1.3. The cross reference is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP8) BCF

101- 473 - (22-3.3.6.4 Exception No. 1 and Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: In Exception No.1 and Exception No. 2 to 22-3.3.6.4, after the word "conversions", insert "(see definit ion in 22- 1.3) ". SUBSTANTIATION: T he term "conversions" has a special m e a n i n g for purposes of us ing this chapter. The term will be def ined in 22- 1.3. The cross reference is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP911) BCF

101- 474 - (22-3.3.6.4 Exception No. 1 and Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 1.

In Exception No. 2 after "nonrated" add the words "doors that resist the passage of smoke". SUBSTANTIATION: This revision is necessary to avoid r edundan- cies where sprinklers are required by 22-2.3.5.1, and to better clarify the Commit tee intent. COMMIT'FEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP13) BCF

101- 475 - (Section 22-4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 22-4 as follows:

To 22-4.1.1 add an exception to read: Exception: If the new board mad care occupancy is created in an

existing apa r tmen t building, the suitability of such buildings for apar tments no t used for board and care occupancies shall b e covered by Chapter 19.

Add an Exception to 22-4.1.4 to read: Ez~cepfion: ff the new board and care occupancy is created in an

existing apa r tmen t building, the construct ion requ i rements of 23- 3.1.3 shall be applicable for p romp t or slow evacuation capability, and the construct ion requ i rements of 13-1.6 shall be applicable for impractical evacuation capability.

Add an Exception to 22-4.2 to read: Exception: f f t he new board and care occupancy is created in an

existing apa r tmen t building, the requ i rements of Section 19-2 shall be applicable to parts of the means of egress serving the apar tment(s) used as a residential board and care occupancy.

Add an Exception to 22-4.3.1 to read: Exception: If the new board and care occupancy is created in an

existing apa r tmen t building, the requ i rements of 19-3.3 shall be applicable to the parts o f the means of egress serving the apar tment(s) used as a residential board and care occupancy.

Add an Exception to 22.4.3.2 to read: Exception: If the new board and care occupancy is created in an

existing apa r tmen t building, the requ i rements of 19-3.6 shall be applicable to the corridor serving the residential board and care facility. SUBSTANTIATION: It is c o m m o n for a new board and care occupancy to be created within an apa r tmen t or g roup of apart- men t s in an existing apa r tmen t building. In many cases it is impractical to change construct ion features o f the existing building.


AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP14) BCF

101- 476 - (23-1.5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Create a new 23-1.5 to read:

23-1.5 Chan~es in Group Evacuation Capability. A change in group evacuataon capability shall be considered a change in occupancy subclassification. (See 1-6.3.)

Exception: W h e n the evacuation capability changes to a faster level the requi rements of 1-6.3 shall no t apply. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 1-6.3 requires tha t when there is a change in occupancy subclassification in an existing facility, the requi rements for new construct ion mus t be met. It is no t the commit tee ' s in tent that an improvement in the evacuation capability of the g roup necessitate impos ing the requi rements for new construction. Rather, if the evacuation capability changes f rom slow to p romp t or impractical to slow, the requ i rements applicable to existing board and care occupancies of that changed evacuation capability need to be met. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: EARLY: The substantiation is contradictory. First, it states that a

change in occupancy subclassification in an exis t ingbui lding, requi rements for new construct ion mus t be met. Then , it states that if this occurs requi rements applicable to existing occupancies for the changed "new" evacuation capability mus t be met. I agree with the latter but not the former. A change in evacuation capability in a facility tha t cont inues to be used for board and care should no t be considered a change in occupancy. Chances are it 's the same people, but they are olderl Slightly less mobile.

GRONER: It is my belief that def ining changes in evacuation difficulty levels as a change in sub-occupancy will have certain unant ic ipated negative consequences which make this proposal unwise.

Compared to the types of criteria that usually trigger changes in sub-occupancy types, namely, changes in facility size and organizational programs, evacuation capability is relatively unstable. For example, du r ing some interviews for the NIST -sponsored program study of fire safety in board and care homes, I recall being told that the AHJ would allow an occasional noncomply ing fire drill t ime, if the h o m e could demons t ra te that the t ime was an aberrat ion or that the h o m e was taking corrective action. For example, a single resident could be new or suffer a short- term disability (e.g., a broken leg) that delayed his or he r evacuation, thereby causing the entire facility to experience a fire drill response of over three minutes . A change f rom an "existing prompt" to a "slow new" classification is far too drastic a response to a temporary aberration. The proposed change would be interpreted by many AHJ's as forcing such a change, regardless of their desires to allow a facility that could not afford such expensive retrofits to cont inue in operation.

Moreover, if an existing facility had complied with the requirements for an existing facility without having installed a sprinkler system, the change to a new facility would force the facility to install a sprinkler system, leaving a final level of protect ion unfairly in excess of a facility des igned to new requirements . For example, the reclassified facility would have door closers, stair enclosures, an d other features lacking in the newly constructed facility.

Also, it is impor tan t to note ano the r unant ic ipa ted consequence tha t results f rom the exception as it is currently worded. The exception can be in terpre ted as implying that a facility that changes f rom a slow facility to a p romp t classification does no t qualify for a change in occupancy subclassification. Stated differently, the exception as worded can be interpreted as implying tha t once a facility is a "slow" facility, it can never again become a "prompt" facility. However, there are certain design features which a faci~lity should be enti t led to en joywhen they demons t ra te that their evacuation capability has reliably achieved a "prompt" designation. The exception removes the incentive for facilities with less favorable (i.e., slower) evacuation capability levels to train the staff and residents in the hope of achieving a more favorable rating.

KIELY: I have voted against the proposed new section because ANCOR strongly believes that it should no t be necessary for a provider to meet new construct ion requirement~ when the evacua- t ion capability is reduced in a board and care h o m e (e.g., f rom p rompt to slow). This subverts the very purpose of chapters in the code for existing construction. Meeting requ i rements in the

159


appropriate section of Chapter 23 for existing facilities (as in the example above, for existing slow) shou ld be entirely adequate to

~ rotect the lives of people living in the home . A majority o f small nard and care homes utilize existing, s ingle- familyhomes and differ

f rom these only in so far as the people living there require staff support .

It is often far more difficult and costly to retrofit a bui lding than to build in safety features when a h o m e is being constructed. A r equ i r emen t to switch to Chapter 22 for new construct ion exacts an excessive penalty on board and ca re ' home owners /operators . We fear tha t it will encourage misrepresenta t ion o f the actual ability of people living in some h o m e s to avoid costly compl iance ( thereby placing the people who live in the h o m e at greater risk than would exist if the h o m e upgraded its safety features to comply with requi rements for slow occupancies) and may even drive some to the u n d e r g r o u n d world of un l icensed board and care homes , particularly in the field of aging where fees for services are paid t h rough private resources and h o m e s are less easily identified than in the field of mental retardat ion where state f und i ng is a lmost always used and homes mus t be l icensed in order to access the funding .

We do no t believe that the fear f requent ly cited by p roponen t s of dais r equ i r emen t will be realized. It ts highly unlikely tha t providers will build homes for more p r o m p t occupancies with the in tent ion of switching to a slower occupancy after the h o m e is constructed. W h e n new construct ion is invested in, providers have many incentives to include automat ic sprinkler systems. These are more cost effective than alternative me t hods o f protect ion and provide more reliable protect ion of property as well as people living in a home. Retrofitting a h o m e remains more difficult and costlyat this time.

SAJEVIC: I have voted against the p roposed new section because ANCOR strongly believes tha t it should no t be necessary for a provider to mee t new construct ion requ i rements when the evacuation capability is reduced in a board and care h o m e (e.g., f rom p rompt to slow). This subverts the very purpose o f chapters in d ie code for existing construct ion. Meet ing requ i rements in the appropriate section of Chapter ')3 for existing facilities (as in the example above, for existing slow) shou ld be entirely adequate to

~ rotect the lives of people living in the home . A majority of small nard and care h o m e s utilize existing, s ingle- familyhomes and differ

f rom these only in so far as the people living there require staff support .

It is often far more difficult and costly to retrofit a bui lding than to build in safety features when a h o m e is be ing constructed. A r equ i r emen t to switch to Chapter 92 for new construct ion exacts an excessive penalty on board and care h o m e owners /operators . We fear tha t it will encourage misrepresenta t ion of the actual ability of people living in some homes to avoid cosdy compliance ( thereby placing the people who live in the h o m e at greater risk than would exist if the h o m e upgraded its safety features to comply with requi rements for slow occupancies) and may even drive some to the u n d e r g r o u n d world o f unl icensed board and care homes, particularly in the field of aging where fees for services are paid t h rough private resources and h o m e s are less easily identified than in the field of mental retardat ion where state f und i ng is a lmost always used and homes mus t be l icensed in order to access the funding.

We do no t believe tha t the fear f f equendy cited by p roponen t s of this r equ i r emen t will be realized. It is highly unlikely tha t providers will build homes for more p r o m p t occupancies with the in tent ion of switching to a slower occupancy after the h o m e is constructed. W h e n new construct ion is invested in, providers have m a n y incentives to include automat ic sprinkler systems. These are more cost effective than alternative me thods of protect ion and provide more reliable protect ion of property as well as people living in a home. Retrofitt ing a bome remains more difficult and costly at this time.

(Log #393) BCF

101- 477 - (23-2.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert A. Gorrell, ASI RECOMMENDATION: Revise 23-2.2.1 to read:

23-2.2.1 N u m b e r and Types of Means of Escape. Each normally occupied story of the facility shall have at least two remotely located means of escape d,~t d . . . . t :~, v; . . . . ~,,~ , : , , d r , , tha t are exclusive of reouired onerable windows. At least one of these means of escape shall comply ~i th 23-2.2.2. In accessible dwelling or living units constrncted for use b v t h e nhvsicallv handicanne'd, means o f escaoe shall comnlv with ANSI A1 ] 7.]. The provisio~_s of Chapter 5 shall" not apply'to means of escape unless specifically referenced in this chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: A mobility impaired person or a person of limited s t rength may not be able to mobilize as quickly to an emergency as the average populat ion. The emergency escape and

rescue window or an exterior door are critical to serf-preservation. Access to fresh air and a way to call for he lp could m e a n survival. Accessible spaces mus t have adequate life safety considerat ion with regard to the in tended occupancy (see Section 2-3). ANSI A117.1 provides the s tandard needed to make doors, windows, an d in t e r i o r passageways accessible and usable by the occupant . Also see proposed addit ion to Sections 2-3, 3-2 and 21-2.

Accessible doors and pathways are old technology. Until five years ago accessible windows and modifying devices which mee t ANSI A117.1 a n d the NFPA requi rements o f "no special knowledge or tools" were no t readily available. Today these products are offered by several manufacturers . This is impor tan t to the physically hand icapped because windows driven by energy codes an d other constraints have become very difficult to operate. In fact, AAMA provides a voluntary m a x i m u m force o f operat ion for s tandard windows of 45 pounds . For m a n y people windows may as well be welded shut. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action an d Sta tement on Proposal 101 - 448 (Log #$92) on 92-2.2.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #60) BCF

101- 478 - (23-2.2.3(d) a n d Except ion No. 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Phil lose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Delete thee words "or al ternate protection" f rom the open ing sentence and delete all of subsect ion (d). In Exception No. 2 remove the words "or al ternate protection." SUBSTANTIATION: The requi rements for B arid C shou ld be at least as restrictive as the requi rements for one and two family dwellings. In 1991 the one and two family dwelling and lodging or r ooming house chapters removed this "protect in place" o p u o n an d made die change retroactive. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMrrTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LEVIN: There are older residences that have windows tha t could

be used for evacuation tha t are slightly smaller than the size requi red for the window to be par t o f a se~:ondary means of escape, f f su ch facilities mee t the requi rements of Sectlon 23-2.2.3(f.1), the existing facility shou ld not be required to enlarge the window nor to instal l sprinklers. I agree with t h e in ten t of the proposal tha t such a r rangements no t be allowed in new facilities nor shou ld the section be used in place of wlndows tha t canno t be used in evacuation. We should add-requi rements to existing facilities only to the extent there is a dangerous si tuation that needs to be corrected.

(Log #7) B C F

101- 479 - (23-2.2.4): Accept in Principle Note: This proposal appea red as c o m m e n t 101-543 which was he ld

for fu r ther study f rom ~lie Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 728. It dealt with what was then proposed 23-2.2.2.1. SUBMITTER: Daniel M McGee, American Iron and Steel Institute RECOMMENDATION: Add the following provision at the end of 23-2.2.4:

"The suppor t ing construct ion shall be protected to, afford tile required fire resistance rat ing of the wall suppor ted in buildings of o ther than construct ion types IM00, III-200 or V-200." SUBSTANTIATION: Additional requ i rements for separat ion by fire resistive barriers of spaces for special-needs tha t are incidental to the main use shou ld not-negate th6bas icprovis ions of the code that permi t specified allowaNe heights a n d a r e a s for buildings of nortfire resistive construction.

Where NFPA 101 is adopted as a "fire code" with retroactive powers this proposal would create significant problems without the above a m e n d m e n t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following to the end of 23-9.2.4: "The supa~orting construct ion shall be protected to afford the

required fire resistance rating of the wall suppor ted in buildings of o ther than construct ion Type If(000) or Type V(000)." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The construct ion types provided are no t consistent with NFPA 220, Types of Building Cbustruction. The classifications were changed to br ing the submit ter ' s in tent into ag r eemen t with NFPA 220. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBER~ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

160


(Log #62) BCF

101- 480 - (23-2.2.4 Exception No. 1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: A d d t h e following phrase at the end of this exception:

"provided file vertical opening created by the stair does not expose a primary means of escape." SUBSTANTIATION: This exception, as currently worded, permits a condition which violates section 23-2.3.1.1 (e.g., an open stair between floors 2 and 3 of a three story home may expose a primary means of escape to the opening. COMMITTEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -450 (Log #CP913) on 22-2.2.1, etc. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action on the re ferencedproposa l should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #64) BCF

101- 484- (23-2.3.1.1 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Revise exception to read:

Exception No. 1: Stair enclosures shall not be required where complying with Exceptions No. 2 and 3 to 23-2.2.4. SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will be necessary if the proposal to delete the current Exception No. 3 under 23-2.2.4 is accepted and the remainingexcept ions are renumbered in order. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -450 (Log #CP913) on 22-2.2.1, etc. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action on the referenced proposal should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log#61) BCF

101- 481 - (23-2.2.4 Exception No. 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire exception. SUBSTANTIATION: This exception was added to file 1994 edition in an effort to consolidate and simplify the Code. The exception permits an unacceptable condition. It was never the Committee 's intent to permit a three story B and C facility, protected by only standard sprinklers to have an open interior stair exposing, a n d / o r being used as, a primary means of escape. If this were the case, there would have been no reason to add new Exception No. 4 to the 1994 Code. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 -450 (Log #CP913) on 22-2.2.1, etc.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action on tile referenced proposal should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP10) BCF

101- 482 - (23-2.2.5.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities,

I RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 23-2.2.5.2 and renumber existing 23-2.2.5.2 through 23-2.2.5.6 as necessary, to read as follows:

23-2.2.5.2 Doors shall be swinging or sliding. SUBSTANTIATION: In the same way that sliding doors are permit ted within the means of escape from dwellings per Chapter 21, it is the intent that sliding doors be permit ted within the means of escape from small board and care occupancies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMrfTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #239) BCF

101- 483 - (23-2.2.6.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Exception: In c;onversions, existing noncomplying stairs shall be

~ ermitted in accordance with the Exception ~ to 5-2.2.1. UBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. There is only one

exception to 5-2.2.1. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 101 -459 (Log #338) on 22-2.2.6.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18,

(Log #63) BCF

101- 485 - (23-2.3.1.1 Exception No. 2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 2 to read exactly as the current Exception No. 3 under 23-2.2.4. If this proposal is accepted, renumber Exception No. 4 under 23-2.2.4 to Exception No. 3. SUBSTANTIATION: This action is necessary to retain the vertical opening exception which, in my opinion, was inappropriately moved under section 23-2.2.4 in the 1994 Code. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -450 (Log #CP913) on 22-2.2.1, etc. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action on the referenced proposal should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

( Log #CP914) BCF

101- 486 - (23-2.3.5.2 Exception No. 1): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) reconsider its action in view of the comment on affirmative vote received from Mr. Lathrop suggesting that the proposed change would better be applied to Chapter 22 rather than Chapter 23. As currently proposed, the requirements for existing board and care facilities would become more stringent than those for new facilities. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Add to the end: "Additionally, entrance foyers shall be sprinklered." SUBSTANTIATION: Since we allow unprotected vertical openings, the foyer can be open to the primary means of escape and this needs to be protected by sprinklers. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

LATHROP: This should be applied to Chapter 22 not Chapter 23. As currently proposed existing will be more stringent than new.

(Log #133) BCF

101- 487 - (23-2.3.6.4 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Reword the Exception as follows:

"Door-closing devices shall not be required when automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with 23-2.3.5 is provided in the spaces on both sides of the wall and door." SUBSTANTIATION: In Board and Care homes, sleeping room doors which are required to be automatic or serf closing are frequently found propped open. Residents in these types of facilities often need personal care and operators of these facilities want to have the door open to observe the residents. Requiring sprinkler protection throughout the building is an unnecessary burden placed on the operator when the sprinkler protection identified above would provide the same level of protection for file exit access and the sleeping room.

161

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In this small an occupancy, smoke can quickly impede the egress paths making the door closures an important feature of fire protection. NUMBER OF COMMITYEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMrlWEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

tion rating but shall resist the passage of smoke. Doors shall be equipped with latches for keeping the doors tightly closed." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action should meet the submitter 's intent. It better clarifies the requirements. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP11) BCF

101- 488- (23-3.2.2.2(b) (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Fadlides, RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new subpart (b) to 23-3.2.2.2, and re-letter current subparts "b" through "d" as necessary, so new subpart (b) reads:

(b) Doors within individual rooms and suites of rooms shall be

~ ermitted to be swinging or sliding. UBSTANTIATION: In the same way that sliding doors are

permit ted within dwellings, it is the intent that sliding doors are suitable for use by the small number of occupants associated with an individual room or a suite of rooms in a large residential board and care occupancy. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP909) BCF

101- 489 - (23-3.3.2.2): Acce[~t Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities (BCF) reconsider its action in view of the comment on affirmative vote received from Mr. Lathrop suggesting that the recommendation should apply to 22-3.3.2.2 rather than 23- 3.3.2.2 because Chapter 28 does not mandate sprinklers and therefore the current text is OK. Chapter 22 does mandate sprinklers and the recommended text appears to be appropriate to those provisions. SUBMITTER: Tecimical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Replace "construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour with communicat ing openings protected by approved self closing fire doors, or such area shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems" with "walls and doors that resist the passage of smoke. Doors shall be self-dosing." SUBSTANTIATION: Better clarifies the Committee intent. COMMI'Iq'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMI'VrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


LATHROP: I believe that dais is a typo and should be 22-3.3.2.2. Chapter 23 does not mandate sprinklers so that the current text is ok. Chapter 22 does mandate sprinklers so the proposed rewrite is more appropriate to Chapter 22.

(Log #134) BCF

101- 490 - (23-$.$.6.4 Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Peter A~ Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Modify as follows:

'~rlaen automatic sprinkler protection, in accordance with 23-$.3.5, is provided in tim spaces on both sides of the wall and doors,

sy~t~.~, i,.sZ,.ll,-d i,, acco; d, , ,c, , ;;;;,l. 2g-g.3.5, doors that are nonra ted shall be permit ted to be cont inued to be used. SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring sprinkler protection throughout die building is an unnecessary burden placed on the operator wben the sprinkler protect ion identified above would provide the same level of protection for the exit access and the sleeping room. Sprinkler protection provided in spaces on both sides of the doors will effectively permit any type of door to resist the passage of smoke resistive which is the intent. This is also consistent with the "requirements in the code for hazardous areas where either rated doors, or sprinklers with any type of door which resists the passage of smoke is permitted. It doesn ' t require the whole building to b e -

rinklered. MMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new Exception No. 3 to read: ~ q l e r e automatic sprinkler protection is provided in die corridor in accordance with 19-$.5.2 through 19-3.5.4, doors shall not be required to have a fire protec-

(Log #135) BCF

101- 491 - (23-3.3.6.6 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter A. Larrimer, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Reword the Exception as follows:

"When automatic sprinkler protection, in accordance with 23-3.$.5, !s provided i n. the spaces on both s}des of the ~ and doors, ,~,,

~y~c.a Ll~z;,,ilcd L, acc,,;,Lx,,cc ;,.ZL 7,33.3.5, doors, o ther than those to hazardous areas, vertical openings, and exit enclosures shall not be required to be self closing or automatic closing." SUBSTANTIATION: In Board and Care homes, sleeping room doors which are required to be automatic or self closing are frequently found propped open. Residents in these types of facilities often need personal care and operators of these facilities want to have the door open to observe the residents. Requiring sprinkler protection throughout the building is an unnecessary burden placed on the operator when the sprinkler protection identified above would provide the same level of protection for the exit access and the sleeping room. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlTEE STATEMENT: Unless the facility is fully sprinklered large amounts of smoke can compromise egress routes and occupant safety. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #36a) MER

101- 492 - (24-2.4 and 25-2.4 Exceptions): Reject SUBMITTER: D. Ted Edelmann, The Ralph M. Parsons Co. RECOMMENDATION: The following paragraphs f rom NFPA 101® occupancy chapters are modified to delete the wording, "...distances allowed as common paths of travel..." and replaced with the specific distance r equ i remen t

24-2.4 Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be permit ted to be common for a distance of 75 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

25-2.4 Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be permit ted to be common for a distance of 75 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7:7. SUBSTANTIATION: Conflicts with Authorities HavingJurisdiction (AHJs) have occurred interpreting the occupancy chapters that permit a single exit (from a building or space) provided that the travel distance to that exit is within that distance allowed for a common path of travel. When only one exit exists, that is no t within that distance permit ted as a common path of travel, the issue is .whether the Code violation is a number of exits violation or a common path of travel violation. By definition, a common path of travel does not exist when only one exit exists, and thus the violation pertains to the number of exits. The proposed wording specifies the required distance(s) without reference to "common path of travel," and should eliminate interpretation problems. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIq[TEE STATEMENT: The intent o f the current exception is to make the user aware that al though access to two means of e-gress is required, the two paths do not n~ed to be immediately availaTble. Rather, the path can be common, for the distances ermitted as common path of travel. It is dangerous to repeat ~l~e t exact allowance for common path of travel as part of this exception because any changes m~de to the commbn path of trave[al[owance would have to be also changed in this exception. For example, the submitter incorrectly quoted the common path of travel distance from Chapter 25 as requit ing a sprinkler system throughout the building; whereas, current 25-2.5.3 requires that only the story on which ffae exn'a common path of u-ave'] is to be taken be sprinklered. This helps show that redundancy is not helpful here becahse of its inherent need for correlation and consistency. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowsld, Snack and

Tomes•

162

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

( Log #319) MER

101- 493 - (24-2.5.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Carl F. Baldassarra, Schirmer Engineering Corp. RECOMMENDATION: 24-2.5.10* Exit access in Class A and Class 13 stores that ,La-,~ ,a~ c,~;~,a, it :c~ad a,~t ~^cc,;d~,g 20,9, a,~d are protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system and exit access in all Class C stores shall be permitted to pass through storerooms, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) Not more than 50 percent of exit access shall be provided through the storeroom.

(b) The storeroom shall not be subject to locking. (c) The main aisle through the storeroom shall be not less than 44

in. (112 cm) wide. (d) The path of travel, defined with fixed barriers, through the

storeroom shall be direct and continuously maintained in an unobstructed condition.

SUBSTANTIATION: The 1988 edition to present requires a minimum of 3 exits for occupant loads of 501 to 1,000 and a minimum of 4 exits for occupant loads of more than 1,000. Because of remoten'ess requirements, it is difficult to provide the required exits in one or two walls of the facility. Typically, the majority of walls in a large mercantile facility will be utilized for required exits. Due to the arrangement of mercantile facilities, where stock rooms are located along the perimeter of the building, it is necessary to provide exit access via these stock rooms. The conditions included in Section 24-2.5.10 will provide a high degree of safety for occupants who may use these exits. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack and

Tomes.

(Log #CP750) MER

101- 494 - (24-3.2.1 and 25-3.2.1): Accept SI.~MITrER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: In 24-3.2.1 and 25-3.2.1 delete the words 'Janitor closets". SUBSTANTIATION: See the substantiation for Proposal 101 - 520 (Log #35) which deletes the words 'Janitor closets" from 28-3.2.1 and 27-3.2.1. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITYEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP759) MER

101-495- (24-3.4.3, 24-4.4.3, 25-3.4.3 and 25-4.4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION:

R~place 24-3.4.3 with the following: 24-3.4.3 Notification. 24-3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the store is

occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the store, or

Exception to (a): A presignal system in accordance with Exception No. 1 to 7-6.3.2 shall be permitted.

(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously attended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use.

Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed by 7-6.3 shall be permitted in lieu of live voice public address system announcements.

24-3.4.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying:

(a) The fire department in accordance with 7-6.4, and

(b) The local emergencyorganization, if provided. Replace 24-4.4.3.3 through 24-4.4.3.5 with the following: 24-4.4.3.3 Notification. 24-4.4.3.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the

covered mall is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) file required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the covered mall, or


(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously attended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided tile fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use. Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed

by 7-6.3 shall be permitted in lieu of live voice public address system announcements.

24-4.4.3.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying:

(a) The fire deparnnent in accordance with 7-fiA, and (b) The local emergency organization, if provided. Replace 25-3.4.3 with the following: 25-3.4.3 Notification. 25-3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the store is

occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the store, or


(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuouslyattended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originat- ihg from the attended location where the alarm signal is received° The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use. Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed


25-3.4.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying:

(a) The fire department in accordance with 7-6.4, and (b) The local emergency organization, if provided. Replace 25-4.4.3.3 through 25-4.4.3.5 with the following: 25-4.4.3.3 Notification. 25-4.4.3.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the

covered mall is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the covered mall, or Exception to (a): A presignal system in accordance with Exception

No. 1 to 7-6.3.2 shall be permitted. (b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously attended location

for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use. Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed


25-4.4.3.3.2 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall be provided and shall include notifying:

(a) The fire department in accordance with 7-6.4, and (b) Thelocal emergency organization, if provided.

SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revision is editorial for clarification purposes. With the reformatting, it is made clear that two options exist. One of those options is to provide ageneral alarm (both audible and visible) via an alarm system in accordance 7-6.3 which involves the use of NFPA 72. The other option is to make use of staff to initiate emergency action using public address system announcements. Such public address systems are not part of a traditional fire alarm system and need not meet the requirements of NFPA 72. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes

163

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: - GAUVIN: I agree with the committee proposal; however, the

substantiation recorded in the letter ballot is incorrect; in that, a) It is more that editorial (e.g.; tile general alarm signal is now

required to be ill accordarlce witil Section 7-6.3), and b) The substantiation includes performance criteria which was not

discussed in association with this proposal (i.e., "Such public address systems are not hart of a traditional fire alarm system and need not meet the reouir 'ement of NFPA 72"). The issue regarding compliance with NFPA 72 when live voice

public address system announcements are chosen for the required occupant notification was discussed in other business (ref: SAF-MER meeting minutes, page 3, i tem 10.B) but was not associated with Log #CP759. As the author of the committee proposal, I am opposed to the relaxation of NFPA 72 requirements for the following reasons:

1. In a fire emergency it is not uncommon to experience a loss of primary power. Often the fire alarm system is the only reliable emergency notification system due to NFPA 72 secondary power requirements. Relaxin~ the reouiremenl~ of NFpA 72 i~ effectively sa~ng there is no requ~ed means of occupant notification whel3 orimarv nower is Inst. "NOTE:" In the business occupancy chapters, there are additional concerns since emergency forces notification is not required.

2. ff a wiring fault occurs for any reason, any number of emergency notification appliances could be out of service. The moni tor ing and integrity requirements in NFPA 72 ensures wiring faults will be repor ted to help ensure maintenance of system integrity. There is no requi rement in the code for live voice address systems to be regularly uses, tested, or maintained, even when used to notify occupants of fire or other emergencies. Relaxin~ the reouirements of NFPA 72 will effectively exclude any reouirement for ~er t in~ resnonsible nersonnel o fsuch faults on 9c'cuparlt notifiCa0on svstems: thereby, increasin~ the notential for emergency announce- naents to ~o um:eceived witl%ut ~nowledee in an enaer~encv.

NOTE: ]n business occupancies where these systems are also used to play background music, audible notification appliances, are at times, intentionally defeated.

3. Recent changes have been adopted by this code (and other codes) requiring both audible and visible appliances for notifying occupants of emergency conditions. Relaxin~ the reuuirement~ of NFPA 72 will effectively sav when live voice nubile adfftress svstems are used for occunant notification visible at~nliances are no t required to noti~" the hearing imnaired. " "

NOTE: Why are there requirerffents for audible and visible occupant notification appliances in accordance with 26-3.4.3.1 (a) but not when live voice public address systems are used?

4. NFPA 72 requirements are in tended to provide the MINIMUM standards for the installation and maintenance of fire alarm (life safety) systems. ManyAHJ's require the installation of non-required fire alarm systems to be installed in accordance with NFPA 72. The rationale is that once installed, any fire alarm system (required or non-required) is expected to provide a min imum level of performance[n an emergency. Relaxin¢ the reouirements of NFPA 72 effectively excludes all o ther NFPA 72 reouireme~ts (such as audibility) that annlv to Fire Alarm Notification Systems.

I under:stand th 'e 'committee 's concern for creating an undue hardship to owners by requiring an NFPA 72 fire alarm notification system when a live voice public address system is installed in these occupancies. The question is not if occupant .n°tificati°n is required based on other components of life safety proxaded by the code. The question is what level of integrity is necessary for the "required" occupant notification system. The code should provide, when installed for the purpose of life

safety, a reasonable level of assurance the "required" system will operate as in tended in an emergency. Without including provisions for live voice public address systems such as standby power, regular use, periodic testing, etc., relaxing the requirements of NFPA 72 does NOT ensure an adequate minimum level of system integrity for life safety.

The substantiation langdage in tile letter ballot is substantially different f rom that which was discussed and voted on as part of this committee proposal. The recorded substantiation should be changed to that which was submitted, i.e.;

Substantiation: The above language more accurately reflects the intent of the committee regarding the requirements for notification in these occupancies (i.e., when visible signals are required, allowance of trained personnel for the purpose of initiating emergency action, allowing presignal systems for 24-3.4.3.1 (a), and tile requirement for alarm precedence when live voice public address systems are used).

(Log #407) MER

101- 496 - (24-3.4.3.1, 25-3.4.3.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 24-3.4.3.1 (a) and 25-3,4.3.1(a) to read:

"(a) Provide a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the store, or" SUBSTANTIATION: Section 7-6 addresses when audible and visible are required. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMI'VI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #25) MER

101- 497 - (24-3,4.3.1 (a), 24-4.4.3.3(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RoffJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add: "and visible" after "audible". SUBSTANTIATION: This is necessary to comply with 7-6.3.4 requiring both audible and visible signals. COMMITI~E ACTION: Accept in Pr indple .

See Proposal 101 - 496 (Log #407). CO MITIT_,E STATEMENT: The referenced Committee Action should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITIT~ MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 .Briese, Lister, Madrzykowsld, Snack and

Tomes.

(Log #26) MER

101- 498 - (24-3.4.3.2, 24-4.4.3.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add: "visible signals and" after "by means of ' . SUBSTANTIATION: This is necessary to comply with 7-6.3.4 requiring both audible and visible signals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITEEE STATEMFJqT: The audible voice announcements addressed by these paragraphs are not required to be part of an NFPA 72 system. That is why these paragraphs do not specifically reference 7-6.3. Therefore, visible signals are no t needed as par t of this voice information announcemen t system (not a fire alarm occupant notification system). However, if the option permit ted by 24-3.4.3.1 (a) and 25-3,4.3.1 (a) is used, rather than option (b), visible signals will be provided along with the general audible alarm in accordance with 7-6.3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowskl, Snack and

Tomes.

(Log #303) MER

101- 499 - (24-3.5.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Gahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Revise 24-5.5.1 by adding a new (d):

(d) Throughout all mixed occupancies in accordance with 4-1.11 where (a), (b), or (c) apply to the mercantile use areas. SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will add a level of clarification to this section. Currently the charging statement references only mercantile occupancies void of any reference to the building which it can be located in. The three subsections that detail when automatic sprinklers are required are based on buildings and stories. Present wording could be misleading as it is possible to have mercantile occupancies in a building that may house other occupancies a n d a r e not considered mixed (i.e. strip mall). The mercantile occupancy is less than 12,000 sq. ft but the "building" is over 12,000 st]. ft in gross area and would requ. ire a fire sprinkler system. Section 25-3.5 would require the same attention_ COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 24-3.5.1 to read as follows: Mercantile occupancies shall be protected throughout by an

approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7 as follows:

164

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P "

(a) In all ~mJ:M~gs mercantile occupancies three or more stories in height.

(b) In all ~ mercantile occupancies exceeding 12,000 sq ft (1,100 sq m) in gross area.

(c) Throughout stories below the level of exit discharge where such stories have an area exceeding 2,500 sq ft (230 sq m) where used for the sale, storage, or h andhng of combustible goods and merchandise.

(d) In mixed occuDancie~ in accordance with 4-1.11 where the conditions of (aL (b'L or (cL annlvto the mercantile occupancy.

Revise 25-3.5.1 to read as f011o'ws: Mercantile occupancies shall be protected throughout by an

approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7 as follows:

(a) In all ~tiCdit'r~ mercaxldle Occupancies with astory over 15,000 sq ft (1,400 sq m) in area.

(b) In all ~ mercantile occuvancies exceeding 30,000 sq ft (2,800 sq m) in gross area.

(c) Throughout stories below the level of exit discharge where such stories have an area exceeding 2,500 sq ft (230 sq m) where used for the sale, storage, or handl ing of combustible goods ahd merchandise.

Exception: Single-story buildings that meet the requirements of a street floor as defined in Section 3-2.

(d) In mixed occupancies in accordance with 4-1.11 where the conditi01a~ of (~), (b'). Qr (c). apply to the mercantile occuoancv. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The above Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested and additionally changes wording to clarify intent. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #278) MER

101- 500 - (24-3.5.1 (b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Charles W. Edwards, Lee County Codes and Building Services RECOMMENDATION: (b) In all ~ occupancies exceeding 12,000 square ft (1,100 sqm) gross area_ SUBSTANTIATION: As written, a mercantile occupancy of any size, located in a building greater than 12,000 sq ft is required to be sprinklered, even if the mercantile occupancy is less than 12,000 sq ft~ The code currently requires a 3,000 sq ft mercantile occupancy in a 15,000 sq ft mixed occupancy strip store building to be sprinklered while an 11,000 sq ft s t anda lone mercantile building is not. The proposed change clarifies the intent of the code to require sprinklers when the mercantile area of a building exceeds 12,000 sq ft. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 499 (Log #303). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced ~ r l ~ s ~ should meet the submitter 's intent.

R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #345) MER

101- 501 - (24-3.5.1 (b), 25-3.5.1 (b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph F. Paola, Connecticut Office of State Fire Marshal RECOMMENDATION: Add "...gross SALES area DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-1.4.2.2 (25-1.4.2.2)" " SUBSTANTIATION: As presently written, a Class C mercantile occupancy which has a large storage area must be protected by automatic sprinklers throughout. Equivalent safety to life could adequately be achieved by proper separation of the sales are from the storage space as required by 24-3.2.1 (25-3.2.1). Acknowledging the numerous exceptions recognizing automatic sprinkler protection, automatic sprinklers would become a desirable design option versus code mandate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: If only the sales area were to be used in determining whether sprinklers are needed, it is possible for significant areas used for storage to be present without triggering the sprinkler requirement. Because of the combustibles commonly

found in storage areas, such areas should not be exempt from the threshold at which the sprinkler requirement applies. Also, see Proposal 101-499 (Log #303) that rewords the sprinkler require- men t to clarify intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #409) MER

101- 502 - (24-3.5.3, 25-3.5.2): Reject SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Delete 24-3.5.3 and 25-3.5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: These requirements are inconsistent with the general philosophy on NFPA 101. Get the people out, don ' t let civilians fight the fire. With the exception of mercantile and business the Life Safety Code requires very few extinguishers except for defend inplaco occupancies. When this requirement was first put in the Code, based on apubl ic proposal, the discussion at the Subcommittee meet ing was basically why no t since we already have to do it for insurance or other reasons. It should not be in the Code unless we feel it is needed, f l i t is needed for mercantile and business then it should be in all occupancies. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Portable extinguishers remain an effective means for con~oll ing incipient stage fires. Mercantile occu. pancies . . . . have adequate staff for effective use of portable extmgmshers. The assocmted operating features reqmrements for mercantile occupancies dictate that employees be instructed in the use of the required portable extinguishers. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP754) MER

101- 503 - (24-3.6 and 25-3.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 24-3.6 to read as follows:

24-3.6.1 Where access to exits is provided by corridors, such corridors shall be separated from use areas by ,5;,_ ba~ i l,_, s l,~ accv, c,a,~ . . . . ;;.,, ~ . 3 walls having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour in accordance with 6-2.3.

Retain current 3 exceptions. 24-3.6.2 Openings in corridor p m , , t i ~ xcalls required to have a

fire resistance rating ~i, ace,,, &~,cc ;,;~2, by. 24-3.6.1 shall be protected in accordance with 6-2.3.

In 25-3.6 delete the word "special". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification that corridor walls are in tended to separate the corridor from o therpar t s of the f o o t . There is no intent to require fire resistance ra tedf loor or fire resistance rated ceiling construction as the separation between the corridor and other floors of the building in occupancies where building construction type is not specified (i.e., "No requirements" in the - -1 .6 subsection).

The deletion of the word "special" in 25-3.6 is done for simplification and consistency with other portions of the Code. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITFEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Biese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack and

Tomes.

(Log #317) MER

101- 504 - (24-4.4.1 Exception (d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carl F. Baldassarra, Schirmer Engineering Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise subpart (d) of the Exception to 24- 4.4.1 as follows:

(d) Walls dividing stores from each other shall be a minimum of one hour fire resistance rated construction. The tenant seoaration walls ~re not reo~ired tQ extend from the floor to the underside of the roof deck, ~6" floor deck _Qf__.c_e.Jliilg above if the tenant areas are provided with a smoke control system. No separation shall be required between a tenant space and the covered mall.

165


SUBSTANTIATION: The Life Safety Code commentary indicates that the tenant partitions are in tended to restrict smoke spread. This same goal can be achieved by means of an engineered smoke control system. The proposed change is necessary in order to allow for p roper operation of the smoke control system required by paragraph (e) of the same section. Both the BOCA National Building Code and the ICBO Uniform Building Code permit such an arrangement. From the 1993 edition of the BOCA commentate.

In order to limit the spread of smoke, tenant separation walls are required to be fire p a r d t o n s having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour and extending from the floor to the underside of the ceiling. Extending tenant separations to the floor slab or roof deck above is no t always practical or possible because of operation of the smoke control system. The effectiveness of the automatic sprinkler system is also a reason for not requiring tenant separations to extend above the ceiling, including attic spaces. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise sub-part (d) of the Exception to 24-4.4.1 to read as follows: (d) Walls dividin~ stores from each other shall extend from the

floor to the underside of the roof deck, floor deck above, or ceiling where the ceiling is constructed to limit the transfer of smoke. Where the tenant areas are provided with an engineered smoke control system, walls shall no t be required to divide stores f rom each other. No separation shall be required between a tenant space and the covered mall.

Revise sub-part (d) of the Exception to 25-4.4.1 to read as follows: (d) Walls dividing stores f rom each other shall extend from the

floor to the underside of the roof deck, floor deck above, or ceiling where the ceiling is constructed to limit the transfer of smoke. Where the tenant areas are provided with an engineered smoke control system, walls shall no t be required to dixade stores from each other. No separation shall be required between a tenant space and the covered mall. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested but uses different wording in order to better explain the concept. Rather than permitt ing the wall to stop at the underside of any ceiling, it is important that the ceiling be constructed to limit the transfer of smoke. The wording the Committee Action accomplishes this. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP753) MER

101- 505 - (244.4.2.1, ~4-4.4.2.2, 24-4.4.1 Exception to sub-part (c), 25-4.4.2.1, 25-4.4.2.2, A-24-2.2.7 and A-25-2.2.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise current 24-4.4.2.1 to read:

24-4.4.2.1 Every floor of a covered mall shall be provided with a number of means of egress specified by Section 5-4 with no less than two means of egress remotely located f rom each other. Replace existing 244.4.2.2 with the following: 24-4.4.2.2 Class A and Class B stores connected to a covered mall

shall be provided with the number of means of egress required by Section 5-4 with no less than two means of egress remotely located from one another.

Add a sentence to the end of current sub-part (c) of the Exception to 244.4.1 to read: "The system shall be installed in such a manner than any port ion of the system serving tenant spaces can be taken out of service without affecting the operation of the port ion of the system serving the covered mall.

Revise current 25-4.4.2.1 to r~ad: 25-4.4.2.1 Every floor of a covered mall shall be provided with a

number of means of egress specified by Section 5-4 with no less than two means of egress remotely located from each other. Replace existing 25-4.4.Z2 with the following: 25-4.4.2.2 Class A and Class B stores connected to a covered mail

shall be provided with the number of means of egress required by Section 5-4 with no less than two means of egress remotely located from one another.

Revise sub-part (2) ofA-24-2.2.7 Exception to read: (2) After completion of step (1), each tenant space (i.e., store) is

to be judged individually for occupant load and egress capacity. This step t~ormally sethds some port ion or all (per 244.4.2.2) of the store's occupant load into the covered mall and any remaining occupants through the back of the store into an exit passageway that may serve multiple tenant stores and the covered mall.

Revise sub-part (2) ofA-25-2.2.7 Exception to read: (2) After completion of step (1), each tenant space (i.e., store) is

to be judged individually for occupant load and egress capacity. This step normally sends some port ion or all (per 25-4.4.2.2) of the store's occupant load into the covered mall and any remaining occupants through the back of the store into an exit passageway that may serve multiple tenant stores and the covered mail.

SUBSTANTIATION: The 1973 edition of the Life Safety Code retitled this section "Covered Malls and Walkways'. In addition, requirements were added for "Exit Details," maintaining the concept of the entire structure being a single mercantile building. In the 1970's the concept of the regional mall, consisting of several anchor stores connected by malls with intervening smaller stores facing onto the malls between the anchor stores, became a major thrust of the industry. Recognizing that the concept of a single mercantile building was n o longer practical or feasible for regional malls, the Safety to Life Committee created specific requirements to be able to consider the mail as a pedestrian way, in essence equating the mall to a roofed-over Main Street. These provisions first appeared in the 1976 Life Safety Code in a retifled Section 12-5.4, Covered Malls. The requirements for the mall to be considered a pedestrian way were a minimum20-f t mall width, min imum 10-ft clear mall width parallel and adjacent to mall store fronts, supervised automatic sprinkler protection, walls dividing stores from each other, and a smoke control system.

Because the t reatment of the mall as a pedestrian way is an option in the Code a n d the option of treating the structure as a single mercantile building still exists, no changes were made to the exit details.

Further evolution of the covered mall building resulted in a new concept which is currendy no t addressed within the "Exit Details" section. The "race track" design of malls was not contemplated when these criteria were first adopted.

Within the center of the "race track," there are tenant spaces which may vary gready in area. The Life Safety Code classifies Class A stores as those with an area greater than 30,000 sq ft and Class B stores as those with an area larger than 3000 sq ft and equal to or less than 30,000 sq. ft. The Class A and B stores within the 'center of the "race track" are those which do not specifically comply with the current requirements of Life Safety Code paragraph 244.4.2.2.

Reconfiguring the center tenant spaces such that all had an area of 3,000 s q f t or less (Class C stores) would result in an arrangement where all of the tenant spaces complied with the Life Safety Code requirement, simply due to the fact that the section in question would not apply.

Such an arrangement would not create a safer environment for building occupants. The aggregate area of the tenant spaces would essentially remain the same as that of the currently proposed tenant arrangement. Therefore, the occupant load of this area would be the same under either arrangement. This suggests that this Life Safety Code requirement does no t provide any recognizable increase in the level of safety for building occupants.

This substantiation explains why 24--4.4.2.2 and 25~.4.2.2 are being replaced with the above wording. The other changes being made by this proposal are needed for consistency and clarification. T h e change being made to the Exception to 244.4.1, dealing with the control of the sprinkler systems is believed to be necessary good

ractice for new systems that will be installed. OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.



Tomes.

(Log #CP751) MER

101- 506 - (244.4.9.5 and 25-4.4.2.5 (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Means of Egress (MEA) offer information on the acceptabifity of Chapters 24 and 25 exempting exit passageways in covered mall buildings from the Chapter 5 prohibition of having normally unoccupied spaces open directly onto an exit enclosure. This is related to the action taken by MEA on Proposal 101-37 and the action taken by MER on Proposal 101-38. SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 244.4.2.5 and 25-4.4.2.5 and renumber existing 244.4.2.5 and 25-4.4.2.5 as 244.4.2.6 and 25- 4.4.2.6:

24-4.4.2.5 Mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, building service areas, and service elevators shall be permit ted to open directly onto

166

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P

exit passageways provided that file required fire resistance rating between such rooms or areas and the exit enclosure is maintained in accordance with 5-1.3.1.

25-4.4.2.5 Mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, building service areas, and service elevators shall be permitted to open directly onto exit passageways provided that the required fire resistance rating between such rooms or areas and the exit enclosure is maintained in accordance with 5-1.3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Exit corridors are presently treated similar to exit stairs in that only openings from normally occupied spaces are permitted. This prohibits doors and utility penetrations to mechanical/electrical rooms. The proposed Code text allows an exception to that general rule provided that fire resistance rating of the exit enclosure is maintained by appropriate opening protection such as fire doors, fire dampers and through-penetration fire stopping.

In a covered mall building, it is necessary to provide for services to the tenant spaces that are maintained by the mall management (e.g., water, electricity, telephone, fire protection). These services must be located in a common space controlled. . by the mall management and, therefore, cannot be located v~thm the tenant spaces. Frequently, these services are logically located with direct access to service corridors or exit passageways/corridors at the rear of the tenant spaces.

This common design practice has caused designers to seek specific approval of such designs from local authorities to allow numerous buildings to be built in this manner. There has been a long history of covered mall buildings built in this manner with no adverse experience. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 11 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack and

Tomes EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

BANWARTH: This proposal would provide a special exception for mercantile occupancies to an existing general requirement in Chapter 5 which restricts the types of openings permitted in exit enclosures. In my opinion, such a change would potentially reduce the overall safety and reliability provided by exit enclosures.

My field experience as an AHJ indicates that doors to mechanical spaces and service areas are frequently subject to mechanical damage and have a poor record of being properly maintained. Frequently, they are also blocked open. This leads to self-closing doo~s not shutting and latching properly as intended. In many cases, such malfunctions may remain undetected by the AHJ and uncorrected by building management for months at a time. The integrity of an exit enclosure should remain highly reliable.

BUSH: Although the opening statement in tile substantiation substitutes exit corridors for exit passageways, it is understood that dais proposal would permit openings from adjacent service spaces and some hazardous areas which are not normally subject to human occupancy direcdy into an exit. In accordance with existing code provisions and with good fire protection practices, these exit passageways must remain separated from all other spaces and provide and maintain a protected way of travel. If building designs dictate that such service spaces open into a public area, those public areas should be designed, arranged, and protected in accordance with the requirements for exit access corridors and not be credited as an exit from the building. It should also be noted that actiorr of the Chapter 5 committee rejected this concept stating that the limitations on openings in exit enclosures remain important criteria for life safety.

(Log #408) MER

101-507- (244.4.3.3, 25-4.4.3.3): Accept SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 244.4.3.3 (a) and 254.4.3.3 (a) to read:

"(a) Provide a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the covered mall, or" SUBSTANTIATION: Section 7-6 addresses when audible and/or visible are required. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP758) MER

101-508- (244.5 (New), 24-1.1.2, 24-1.3, 24-2.5.7, 25-4.5 (New), 25- 1.1.2, 25-1.3 and 25-2.5.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION:

Insert a new 244.5 to read as follows (and delete the current 24- 4.5 reference to Chapter 31 for operating features):

244.5 Bulk Merchandising Retail Buildings. New bulk merchandising retail buildings exceeding 12,000 sq ft in area shall comply with the requirements of this chapter as modified by 244.5.1 through 24-4.5.5.

24-4.5.1 Minimum Construction Requirements. Bulk merchandising retail buildings shall have minimum of 16 ft from the floor to ceiling, floor above, or roof of any story. 24-4.5.2 Means of Egress Requirements. All means of egress shall

be in accordance with Chapter 5 and this chapter. Not less than 50 percent of the required egress capacity shall be located independent of the main entrance/exit doors.

24-4.5.3 Storage, Arrangement Protection and Quantities of Hazardous Commodities.

244.5.3.1 The storage, arrangement, protection and quantities of hazardous commodities shall be in accordance with the applicable portions of:

(a) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, (b) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol

Products, (c) NFPA 43A, Standard for Liquid, Solid Oxidizers, (d) NFPA 43B, Standard for Organic Peroxide Formulations, (e) NFPA 43D, Standard for Storage of Pesticides, (f) NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage, (g) NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, and (h) NFPA 231D, Standard for Storage of Rubber Tires. 244.5.3.2* High hazard commodities without protective containers

shall not be stored or displayed within 100 ft of the main entrance/ exit doors. A-24-4.5.3.2 An example of a high hazard commoditywithout

protective containers is mineral spirits (flammable liquids) in plastic containers.

24-4.5.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 244.5.4.1 General. Bulk merchandising retail buildings shall be

provided with a fire alarm system in accordance with Section 7-6. 244.5.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system

shall be by means of the required approved automatic sprinkler system (see 244.5.5) in accordance with 7-6.2.1(c).

244.5.4.3 Occupant Notification. During all times that the buildin6 is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once imtiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the building, or


(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously attended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use.


24-4.5.4.4 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall include notifying:

(a) The fire department in accordance with 7-6.4, and (b) The local emergency organization, if provided. 24-4.5.5 Extinguishing Requirements. Bulk merchandising retail

buildings shall be protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 7-7 and NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage, NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, NFPA 231 D, Standard for Storage of Rubber Tires, NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, and NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products, as appropriate.

244.5.6 Emergency Plan and Employee Training. There shall be in effect an approved written plan for the evacuation of occupants. All employees shall be insllucted and periodically drilled with respect to their duties under the plan.

Revise 24-1.1.2 to read as follows: 24-1.1.2 This chapter establishes life safety requirements for all

new mercantile buildings. Specific requirements for suboccupancy groups such as Class A, Class B, and Class C stores, covered malls, and bulk merchandising retail buildings are contained in paragraphs pertaining thereto.

167

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

Add a definition for Bulk Merchandising Retail Building to 24-1.3 to read as follows:

Bulk Merchandising Retail Building. A building where the sales area includes the storage of combustible materials on pallets, in solid piles, or in racks in excess of12 ft in storage height. Add an exception to 24-2.5.7 so that the paragraph and its

exception read as follows: 24-2.5.7 If the only means of customer entrance is through one

exterior wall of the building, two thirds of the required egress width shall be located in dais wall.

Exception: Bulk merchandising retail buildings. (See 24-4.5.2.) Insert a new 25-4.5 to read as follows (and delete the current 25-4.5

reference to Chapter 31 for operating features): 25-4.5 Bulk Merchandising Retail Buildings. Existing bulk

merchandising retail buildings exceeding 15,000 sq ft in area shall comply with the requirements of this chapter as modified by 25-4.5.1 through 25-4.5.6.

25-4.5.1 Minimum Construction Requirements. No requirement. 25-4.5.2 Means of Egress Requirements. All means of egress shall

be in accordance with Chapter 5 and this chapter. Not less than 50 percent of tile required egress capacity shall be located independent of the main entrance/exit doors.

25-4.5.3 Storage, Arrangement, Protection and Quantities of Hazardous Commodities.

25-4.5.3.1 The storage, arrangement, protection and quantities of hazardous commodities shall be in accordance with the applicable portions of:

(a) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, (b) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol

Products, (c) NFPA 43A, Standard for Liquid, Solid Oxidizers, (d) NFPA 43B, Standard for Organic Peroxide Formulations, (e) NFPA 43D, Standard for Storage of Pesticides, (f) NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage, (g) NFPA 231C, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, and (h) NFPA 231D, Standard for Storage of Rubber Tires. 25-4.5.3.2* High hazard commodities without protective containers

shall not be stored or displayed within 100 ft of the main entrance/ exit doors. A-25-4.5.3.2 An example of a high hazard commoditywithout

protective containers is mineral spirits (flammable liquids) in plastic containers.

25-4.5.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 25-4.5.4.1 General. Bulk merchandising retail buildings shall be

provided with af i re alarm system in accordance with Section 7-6. 25-4.5.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system

shall be by means of the required approved automatic sprinkler system (see 25-4.5.5) in accordance with %6.2.1 (c).

25-4.5.4.3 Occupant Notification. During all times that the building is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:



(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously attended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use..


25-4.5.4.4 Emergency Forces Notification. Emergency forces notification shall include notifying:

(a) The fire department in accordance with 7-6.4, and (b) The local emergency organization, if provided. 25-4.5.5 Extinguishing Requirements. Bulk merchandising retail

buildings shall be protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 7-7 and NFPA 231, Standard for General Storage, NFPA 231 G, Standard for Rack Storage of Materials, NFPA 231D, Standard for Storage of Rubber Tires, NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, and NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products.

25-4.5.6 Emergency Plan and Employee Training. There shall be in effect an approved written plan for the evacuation of occupants. All employees shall be instructed and periodically drilled with respect to their duties under the plan.

Revise 25-1.1.2 to read as follows: 25-1.1.2 This chapter establishes life safety requirements for all

existing mercantile buildings. Specific requirements for suboccupancy groups such as Class A, Class B, and Class C stores,

covered malls, and bulk merchandising retail buildings are contained in paragraphs pertaining thereto. Add a definition for Bulk Merchandising Retail Building to 25-1.3

to read as follows: Bulk Merchandising Retail Building. A building where the sales

area includes the storage of combustible materials on pallets, in solid piles, or in racks in excess of 12 ft in storage height. Add an exception to 25-2.5.7 so that the paragraph and its

exception read as follows: 2~-2.5.7 f f the only means of customer entrance is through one

exterior wall of the building, two thirds of the required egress width shall be located in this wall.

Exception: Bulk merchandising retail buildings. (See 25-4.5.2.) SUBSTANTIATION: Bulk merchandising retailed buildings provide life safety challenges different from typical mercantile occupancies. Recent fires in bulk merchandising retail buildings, including one in a building materials home improvement facility in Massachusetts demonstrate the need for specific requirements to help assure adequate life safety of the building occupants. This proposal codifies a package of requirements that, in conjunction with those applicable to all mercantile occupancies and contained in Chapters 24 and 25, help fill a void in current Code requirements. The 16 ft minimum ceiling height requirement for new construc-

tion is meant to provide a full 10 ft of clearance above the heads of building occupants to permit for smoke accumulation early in the fire while building evacuation takes place.

The proposed requirement that not less than 50 percent of the required egress capacity be located independent of the main entrance/exit doors will help to provide for a better distribution of egress capacity around theper imeter of the building, thus providing occupants with multiple independent routes for egress.

Bulk merchandising retail buildings are characterized by the storage and display of significant quantities of hazardous commodities. Thus, reference is made to numerous NFPA documents addressing hazardous materials. Some of those documents include specific requirements addressing the display of such materials. The proposed prohibition on having high hazard commodities

without protective containers stored or displayed within 100 ft of the main entrance/exit doors is meant to keep access to those doors available for safe egress because occupants will tend to return to those doors through which they entered the facility. By restricting the presence of the high hazard commodities without protective containers to other parts of the facility, it should be possible to move away from such hazards, rather than toward them, while egressing the building. The proposed extinguishing requirements make reference to

Section 7~ and therefore adopt tlae requirements of NFPA 13. Additionally, the companion specialized storage/extinguishing standards are mandatorily referenced.

As the current fires in bulk merchandising retail buildings have shown, it is important to have an approved written emergency evacuation plan with employees instructed and periodically drilled in their duties.

The proposed definition for a bulk merchandising retail building specifies that the storage height is in excess of 12 ft in Order to differentiate it from a typical mercantile occupancy. When the storage and display of combustible materials exceed 12 ft in height, the proposed requirements are needed. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack and

Tomes EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

MCGEE: The proposed definition appears to apply to any retail merchandising building that has any one of the three conditions described i.e., "on pallets, in solid piles or in racks in excess of 12 ft in storage heights."

The definition should be revised to require all three conditions to be present or establish a minimum storage area to be exceeded. The following is suggested:

"Bulk Merchandising Retail Building. A building where tile sales area includes storage of more than 100 sq ft of combustible materials on pallets, in solid piles and in racks in excess of 12 ft in storage height in one location."

168

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F96 ROP

(Log #422) MER

101-509- (Chapters 26 and 27): Reject SUBMITTER: David Stroup, U.S. General Services Administration RECOMMENDATION: Replace Chapters 26 and 27 with two new chapters, one for Business Occupancies - Sprinklered and one for Business Occupancies - Unsprinklered, using the revised text slmwn as follows:

CHAPTER 26 BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES - SPRINKLERED (See also Chapter 31.) SECTION 26-1 GENERAL Requirements 26-1.1 Application. 26-1.1.1 The requirements of this chapter apply to buildings or

portions thereof used as business occupancies (see Section 1-4) that are protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

26-1.1.2 Tltis chapter establishes life safety requirements for all business buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7. Specific requirements for high rise buildings (see Section 3-2 definition) are contained inparagraphs pertaining thereto.

26-1.2 MixedOccupancies . 26-1.2.1 Mixed occupancies shall comply with 4-1.1 1. 26-1.2.2 Combined Business and Residential Occupancies. 26-1.2.2.1 No dwelling shall have its sole means of egress through

any business occupancy in the same building. 26-1.2.2.2 Multiple dwelling occupancies are permitted to be

located above business occupanctes. 26-1.2.2 Combined Business Occupancies and Parking Structures.

Walls separating parking structures from business occupancies shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours.

Exception: In enclosed parking structures that are protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7 or in open-air parking structures, nonra ted glazing and opening protectives shall be permit ted if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The openings do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the wall in which they arelocated, and

(b) The openings are used for main entrance and associated sidelight functions, and

(c) The floor elevation of the business occupancy is at least 4 in. (10.2 cm) above the floor level of the parking structure, and

(d) No vehicle is able to park or drive within 10 ft (3 m) of the openings, and

(e) The openings have a minimum of a glass membrane, and (f) Any doors in the glass membrane are self-closing.

20-1.3 Special Definitions. (None.) 26-1.4 Classification of Occupancy. Business occupancies shall

include all buildings and structures or parts thereof with occupancy described in 4-1.8.

26-1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. 26-1.5.1 The contents of business occupancies shall be classified as

ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 4-2. 26-1.5.2 For purposes of the design of an automatic sprinkler

system, a business occupancy shall be classified as "light hazard occupancy," as identified by NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.

26-1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (No requirements.) 26-1.7" Occupant Load. For purposes of determining required

means of egress, the occupant load of business buildings or parts of buildings used for business purposes shall be not less than one person per 100 sq. ft (9.3 sq. m) of gross floor are~ The occupant load for parts of buildings used for other purposes shall be calculated using occupant load factors associated with the use. SECTION 26-2 MEANS OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS 26-2.1 General. 26-2.1.1 All means of egress shall be in accordance with Chapter 5

and dais chapter. 26-2.1.2 If, owing to differences in grade, any street floor exits are

at points above or below the street or g round level, such exits shall comply with the provisions for exits from upper floors or floors below the street floor.

26-2.1.3 Where two or more floors below the street floor are occupied for business use, the same stairs or ramps shall be permitted to serve each.

Exception: No inside open stairway or inside open ramp shall be permitted to serve as a required egress facility from more than one floor level.

26-2.1.4 Floor levels below the street floor used only for storage, heating, and other service equipment and not subject to business occupancy shall have means of egress in accordance with Chapter 29.

26-2.2 Means of Egress Components . 26-2.2.1 Components of means of egress shall be limited to the

types descr ibed in 26-2.2.2 through 26-2.2. 10.

26-2.2.2 Doors. 26-2.2.2.1 Doors complying with 5-2.1 shall be permitted. 26-2.2.2.2* Locks complying with Exception No. 2 to 5-2.1.5.1 shall

be permit ted only on principal en t rance /ex i t doors. 26-2.2.2.3 Selected doors on stairwells shall be permit ted to be

equipped with hardware that prevents reentry in accordance with Exception No. 1 to 5-2.1.5.2.

26-2.2.2.4 Delayed egress locks complying with 5-2.1.6.1 shall be permitted.

26-2.2.2.5 Access-controlled egress doors complying with 5-2.1.6.2 shall be permitted.

26-2.2.2.0 Where horizontal or vertical security grilles or doors are used as part of the required means of egress from a tenant space, such grilles or doors shall comply with Exception No. 4 to 5-2. 1.4. 1

26-2.2.2.7 Revolving doors complying with 5-2. 1.1 0 shall be permitted.

26-2.2.3 Stairs. 26-2.2.3.1 Stairs complying with 5-2.2 shall bepermi t ted . 26-2.2.3.2 Spiral stairs complying with 5-2.2.2.7shall be permitted. 26-2.2.4 Smokeproof Enclosures. Smokeproof enclosures comply-

ing with 5-2.3 shall be permitted. 26-2.2.5 Horizontal Exits. Horizontal exits complying with 5-2.4

shall bepermi t ted . 26-2.2.6Ramps. Ramps complying with 5-2.5 shall be permitted. 26-2.2.7 Exit Passageways. Exit passageways complying with 5-2.6

shall be permitted. 26-2.2.8 Fire Escape Ladders. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-

2.9 shall be permitted. 26-2.2.9 Alternating Tread Devices. Alternating tread devices

complying with 5-2.11 shall be permitted. 26-2.2.10 Areas of Refuge. Areas of refuge complying with 5-2.12

shall be permitted. 26-2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. 26-2.3.1 The capacity of means of egress shall be in accordance with

Section 5-3. 26-2.3.2* The minimum width of any corridor or passageway shall

be 44 in. (112 cm) in the clear. 26-2.3.3 Street floor exits shall be sufficient for the occupant load of

the street floor plus the required capacity of stairs and ramps discharging through the street floor.

26-2.4 Number of Exits. At least two separate exits shall be: (a) Provided on every story, and (b) Accessible from every part of every story and mezzanine.

Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be permit ted to be common for the distances allowed as common paths of travel by 26- 2.5.3.

Exception No. 1: For a room or area with a total occupant load Of fewer than 100 persons having an exit that discharges directly to the outside at the level of exit discharge for the building, with a total distance of travel, including travel within the exit, from any point no t over 1100 ft (30 m), a single exit shall be permitted. Such travel shall be on the same floor level or, if traversing of stairs is required, such stairs shall not be more than 15 ft (4.5 m) in height, and the stairs shall be provided with complete enclosures of separate them from any other part of the building, with no door openings therein. A single outside stair in accordance with 5-2.2 shall be permitted of serve alkfloors allowed within the 15-ft (4. 5-m) vertical travel limitation.

Exception No. 2: Any business occupancy no t over three stories and not exceeding an occupant load of 30 people per floor shall be permitted a single separate exit to each floor if the total travel distance to the outside of the building does not exceed 100 ft (30 m) and, if such exit is enclosed in accordance with 5-1.3, serves no other levels, and discharges directly to the outside. A single outside stair in accordance with 5-2.2 shall be permit ted to serve all floors.

Exception No. 3: A single means of egress shall be permitted from a mezzanine within a business occupancy, provided that the common path of travel does not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

Exception No. 4: A single exit shall be permit ted for a maximum two-story single tenant space building if the total travel of the outside does not exceed 100 ft (30 m).

26-2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. 26-2.5.1 Mean~ of egress shall be arranged in accordance with

Section 5-5. 26-2.5.2 No dead-end corridor shall exceed 50 ft (15 m). 26-2.5.3 No common path of travel shall exceed 100 ft (30 m). 26-2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. Travel distance to exits, measured in

accordance with Section 5-6, shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m). 26-2.7 Discharge from Exits. Exit discharge shall comply with

Section 5-7. 26-2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall be

il luminated in accordance with Section 5-8. 26-2.9 Emergency Lighting.

169

NFPA 101m F96 ROP

26-2.9.1 Emergency lighting shall be provided in accordance with Section 5-9 in any building where:

(a) The building is two or more stories in height above the level of exit discharge, or

(b) The occupancy is subject to 50 or more occupants above or below the level of exit discharge, or

(c) The occupancy is subject to 300 or more total occupants. 26-2.9.2 Emergency lighting in accordance with Section 5-9 shall be

provided for all windowless or underground structures as defined in 30-1.3. 26-2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall have

signs in accordance with Section 5-10. 26-2.11 Special Means of Egress Features. (Reserved.) SECTION 26-3 PROTECTION 26-3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. 26-3.1.1 Every stairway, elevator shaft, escalator opening, and

other vertical opening shall be enclosed or protected in accordance with Section 6-2.

Exception No. 1: Unprotected vertical openings connecting not more than three floors used for business occupancy only shall be permitted in accordance with 6-2. 4. 5. Exception No. 2: A vertical opening enclosure shall not be required

where the vertical opening: (a) Connects only two adjacent floors, neither of which is a

basement, and (b) Is not a required means of egress, and (c) Is not connected with corridors or other stairways.

Exception No. 3: Atriums in accordance with 6-2. 4. 6 shall be permitted.

Exception No. 4: Exit access stairs shall be permitted to be unenclosed in two-story single tenant spaces provided with a single exit in accordance with the provisions of Exception No. 4 to 26-2.4. 26-3.1.2 Floors below the street floor used for storage or other than

business occupancy shall have no unprotected openings to business occupancy floors. 26-3.2 Protection from hazards. 26-3.2.1" High hazard content areas, as defined in Section 4-2, shall

be separated from other parts of,the building by fire barriers having. a fire resistance rating of not le~s than I hour with all openings therein protected by$/4-hour fire protection rated self-closing fire doors. [Appendix note for old 26-3.2.1 deleted and replaced by appendix note for old 26-3.2.2]

26-3.2.2 Laboratories that use chemicals shall comply with NFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals.

26-3.3 Interior Finish. 26-3.3.1 Interior finish on walls and ceilings of exits and of enclosed

corridors furnishing access to exits shall be Class B in accordance with Section 6-5.

26-3.3.2 In office areas, Class A, Class B, or Class G interior finish shall be provided in accordance with Section 6-5.

26-3.3.3 Interior Floor Finish. Interior floor finish in corridors and exits shall be Class II in accordance with Section 6-5.

26-3.4 Detection, Alarm, an& Communications Systems. 26-3.4.1 General. A fire alarm system in accordance with Section 7-6

shall be provided in any business occupancy where: (a) The building is two or more stories in height above the level of

exit discharge, or (b) The occupancy is subject to 50 or more occupants aboq~ or

below the level of exit discharge, or (c) The occupancy is subject to 300 or more total occupants.

26-3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by:

(a) manual means in accordance with 7-6.2. l(a), or (b) means of an approved, automatic fire detection system in

accordance with 7-6.2.1 (b) that provides protection throughout the building, or

(c) means of an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (c) that provides protection throughout the building.

26-3.4.3 Notification. 26-3.4.3.1 During all times the building is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3),

the required fire alarm system shall: (a) Sound a general audible alarm throughout the building, or (b) Sound an audible alarm in a continuously attended location

for purposes of initiating emer. .gency action 26-3.4.3.2 Occupant Notification. Occupant notification shall be by

means of live voice public address system announcement originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. (See 26-3.4.3.1.) The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements. (See 7-6.3.9 Exception No. 2.) Apresignal system in accordance with Exception No. 1 to 7-6.3.2 shall be permitted.

Exception: Any other occupant notification means allowed by "-6.3 shall be permitted in lieu o f live voice public address system announcement.

26-3.5 Extinguishment Requirements. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided in every business occupancy in accordance with 7- 7.4.1. (See also Section 264.) 26-3.6 Corridors. (No special requirements.) 26-3.7 Subdivision of Building Spaces. (No special requirements.) 26-3.8 Special Protection Features. 26-3.8.1 Nonrated glazing and opening protectives per the

Exception to 26-1 2.3 shallbe permittedbetween business occupancies and parking structures. SECTION 26-4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 26-4.1 Windowless or Underground Buildings. (See Section 30-7.) 26-4.2* High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings shall comply with

Section 30-8. 26-4.3 Operating Features. (See Chapter 31.) SECTION 26-5 BUILDING SERVICES 26-5.1 Utilities. Utilities shall comply with the provisions of Section

7-1. 26-5.. 2 Heating, . . . . . . Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment.

Heating, venulatmg, and aar condiuomng equipment shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-2.

26-5.3 Elevators, Escalators, and Conveyors. Elevators, escalators, and conveyors shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-4.

26-5.4 Rubbish Chutes, Incinerators, and Laundry Chutes. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-5.

CHAPTER 27 BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES - UNSPRINKLERED (See also Chapter 31.) SECTION 27-1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 27-1.1 Application. 27-1.1.1 The requirements of this chapter apply to buildings or

portions thereof used as business occupancies (see Section 1-4) which are not protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section~7-7.

27-1.1.2 This chapter establishes life safety requirements for all business buildings which are not protectedthroughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7. Specific requirements for high rise buildings (see Section 3-2 definition) are contained in paragraphs pertaining thereto.

27-1.2 Mixed Occupancies. 27-1.2.1 Mixed occupancies shall comply with 4-1.11. 27-1.2.2 Gombined Business and Residential Occupancies. 27-1.2.2.1 No dwelling shall have its sole means of egress through

any business occupancy in the same building. 27-1.2.2.2 No multiple dwelling occupancy shall be located above a

business occupancy. Exception: Where the dwelling occupancy and exits therefrom are

separated from the business occupancy by construction having a f re resistance rating of at least I hour.

27-1.2.3 Gombined Business Occupancies and Parking Structures. Walls separating parking structures from business occupancies shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. Exception: In enclosed parking structures that are protected

throughout by an approved, automatic sprinid er system in accordance with Section 7- 7 or in open-air parking structures, nonrated glazing and opening protectives shall be permitted if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The openings do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the wall in which they arelocated, and

(b) The openings are used for main entrance and associated sidelight functions, and

(c) The enclosed connecting business building is protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7, and

(d) The floor elevation of the business occupancy is at least 4 in. (10. 2 cm) above the floor level of the parking structure, and

(e) No vehicle is able to park or drive within 10 ft (3 m) of the openings, and

(0 The openings have a minimum of a glass membrane, and. (~_) Any doors in the glass membrane are self-closing

1.3 Special Definitions. (None.) 27-1.4 Classification of Occupancy. Business occupancies shall

include all buildings and structures or parts thereof with occupancy described in 4- 1.8.

27-1.5 Classification of hazard of Contents. 27-1.5.1 The contents of business occupancies shall be classified as

ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 4-2. 27-1.5.2 For purposes of the design of an automatic sprinkler

system, a business occupancy shall be classified as "light hazard occupancy," as identified by NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.

27-1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (No requirements.) 27-1.7* Occupant Load. For purposes of determining required

means of egress, the occupant load of business buildings or parts of buildings used for business purposes shall be not less than one person per 100 sq. ft (9.$ sq. m) of gross floor area. The occupant

- 170

NFPA 101--F96 ROP

load for parts of buildings used for other purposes shall be calculated using occupant load factors associated with the use.

SECTION 27-2 MEANS OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS 2%2.1 General. " 2%2.1.1 All means of egress shall be in accordance with Chapter 5

and dais chapter. 2%2.1.2 if, owing io differences in grade, any street floor exits are

at points above or below the street or ground level, such exits shall comply with the provisions for exits from upper floors or floors below the street floor.

2%2.1.3 Where two or more floors below the street floor are occupied for business use, the same stairs or ramps shall be permitted to serve each.

Exception: No inside open stairway or inside open ramp shall be permitted to serve as a required egress facility from more than one floor level.

2%2.1.4 Floor levels below the street floor used only for storage, heating, and other service equipment and not subject to business occupancy shall have means of egress in accordance with Chapter 29.

2%2.2 Means of Egress Components . 2%2.2.1 Components of means of egress shall be limited to the

types described in 27-2 2 2 through 27-2 2 10. 27-2.2.2 Doors. 27-2.2.2.1 Doors complying with 5-21 shall be permitted. 2%2.2.2.2* Locks complying with Exception No. 2 to 5-2 1 5 1 shall

bepe rmi t t ed only on principal en t rance /ex i t doors. 27-2.2.2.3 Selected doors on stairwells shall he permitted to be

equipped with hardware that prevents reentry in accordance with Exception No. 1 to 5-2 1 5 2.

27-2.2.2.4 Delayed egress locks complying with 5-2 1.6 1 shall be permitted.

2%2.2.2.5 Access-controlled egress doors complying with 5-2 1.6 2 shall be permitted. 27-2.2.2.6 Where horizontal or vertical security grilles or doors are

used as part of the required means of egress from a tenant space, such grilles or doors shall comply with Exception No. 4 to 5-2 1 4 1

27-2.2.2.7 Revolving doors complying with 5-21 10 shall be permitted.

27-2.2.3 Stairs. 27-2.2.3.1 Stairs complying with 5-2 2 shall be permitted. 27-2.2.3.2 Spiral stairs complying with 5-2 2 2 7 shall be permitted. 2%2.2.4 Smokeproof Enclosures. Smokeproof enclosures comply-

ingwith 5-2 3 shall be permitted. 27-2.2.5 Horizontal Exits. Horizontal exits complying with 5-2 4

shall be permitted. 27-2.2.6 Ramps. Ramps complying with 5-2 5 shall be permitted. 27-2.2.7 Exit Passageways. Exit passageways complying with 5-2.6

shall be permitted. 2%2.2.8 Fire Escape Ladders. Fire escape ladders complying with 5-

2.9 shall be permitted. 2%2.2.9 Alternating Tread Devices. Alternating tread devices

complying with 5-2.11 shall be permitted. 2%2.2.10 Areas of Refuge. Areas of refuge complying with 5-2.12

shall be permitted. 2%2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. 2%2.3.1 The capacity of means of egress shall be in accordance with

Section 5-3. 2%2.3.2* The minimum width of any corridor or passageway shall

be 44 in. (112 cm) in the clear. 27-2.3.3 Street floor exits shall be sufficient for the occupant load of

the street floor plus the required capacity of stairs and ramps discharging through the street floor. 2%2.4 Number of Exits. At least two separate exits shall be: (a) Provided on every story, and (b) Accessible from every part of every story and mezzanine.

Exception to (b): Exit access travel shall be permitted to be common for the distances allowed as common paths of travel by 2 7- 2 .5 .3 .

Exception No. 1 : For a room or area with a total occupant load fewer than 100 persons having an exit that discharges directly to the outside at the level of exit discharge for the building, with a total distance of travel, including travel within the exit, from any point not over I 100 ft (30 m), a smgle exit shall be permitted. Such travel shall be on the same floor level or, if traversing of stairs is required, such stairs shall not be more than I S ft (4.5 m) in height, and the stairs shall be provided with complete enclosures to separate them from any other part of the building, with no door openings therein. A single outside stair in accordance with 5-2.2 shall be permitted to serve all floors allowed within the 15-ft (4.5-m) vertical travel limitation.

Exception No. 2: Any business occupancy no t over three stories and not exceeding an occupant load of 30 people per floor shall be Pdiermitted a single separate exit to each floor if the total travel

stance to the outside of the building does not exceed 100 ft (30 m)

and, if such exit is enclosed in accordance with 5-1.3, serves no other levels, and discharges directly to the outside. A single outside stair in accordance with 5-2.2 shall be permit ted to serve all floors.

Exception No. 3: A single means of egress shall be permit ted from a mezzanine within a business occupancy, provided that the common path of travel does not exceed 75 ft (23 m.

27-2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. 27-2.5.1 Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with

Section 5-5. 27-2.5.2 No dead-end corridor shall exceed 20 f[ (6.1 m). 2%2.5.3 No common path of travel shall exceed 75 "[ (23 m). Exception: A common path of travel shall be permitted for the first

1 100 ft (30 m) for single tenant spaces with an occupant load of not more than 30 persons.

27-2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. Travel distance to exits, measured in accordance with Section 5-6, shall not exceed 200 ft (60 m).

27-2.7 Discharge from Exits. Exit discharge shall comply with Section 5-7.

27-2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall be illuminated in accordance with Section 5-8.

27-2.9 Emergency Lighting. 2%2.9.1 Emergency lighting shall be provided in accordance with

Section 5-9 in any building where: (a) The building is two or more stories in height above the level of

exit discharge, or (b) The occupancy is subject to 50 or more occupants above or

below the level of exit discharge, or (c) The occupancy is subject to 300 or more total occupants.

27-2.9.2 Emergency lighting in accordance with Section 5-9 shall be provided for all windowless or underground structures as defined in 30-1.3. 27-2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall have

signs in accordance with Section 5-10. 2%2.11 Special Means of Egress Features. (Reserved.) SECTION 2%3 PROTECTION 2%3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. 2%3.1.1 Every stairway, elevator shaft, escalator opening, and other

vertical opening shall be enclosed or protected in accordance with Section 6-2.

Exception No. 1: Unprotected vertical openings connecting not more ihan three floors used for business occupancy only shall be permit ted in accordance with 6.2.4.5.

Exception No. 2: A vertical opening enclosure shall not be required where the vertical opening:

(a) Connects only two adjacent floors, nei ther of which is a basement, and

(b) Is not a required means of egress, and (c) ls not connected with corridors or of her stairways.

Exception No. 3: Atriums in accordance with 6-2. 4 6 shall be permitted.

Exception No. 4: Exit access stairs shall be permitted of be unenclosed in two-story single tenant spaces provided with a single exit in accordance with the provisions of Exception No. 4 of 2-2.4.

27-3.1.2 Floors below the street floor used for storage or other than business occupancy shall have no unprotected openings to business occupancy floors. 27-3.2 Protection from Hazards. 2%3.2.1* Hazardous areas, including but not limited to areas used

for general storage, boiler or furnace rooms, jani tor closets, and maintenance shops including woodworkingand painting areas shall:

(a) Be separated from other parts of thebui ld ing by fire barriers having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour with all openings therein protected by 3/4-hour fire protection rated self closing fire doors, or

(b) The area shall be protected by an automatic extinguishing system in accordance with Section

27-3.2.2* High hazard content areas, as defined in Section 4-2, shall:

(a) Be separated from other parts of the building by fire barriers havin.g a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour. with all openings therein protected by 3/4-hour fire protectmn rated self dos ingf i re doors, and

(b) The area shall be protected by an automatic extinguishing system in accordance with Section 7-7

2%3.2.3 Laboratories that use chemicals shall comply with NFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals.

27-3.3 Interior Finish. 27-3.3.1 Interior finish on walls and ceilings of exits and of enclosed

corridors furnishing access to exits shall be Class A or Class B in accordance with Section 6-5

2%3.3.2 In office areas, Class A, Class B, or Class C interior finish shall be provided in accordance with Section 6.5

2%3.3.3 Interior Floor Finish. Interior floor finish in corridors and exits shall be Class I or Class II in accordance with Section 6-5

171

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

2%3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 2%3.4.1 General. A fire alarm system in accordance with Section %6

shall he provided in any business occupancy where: (a) The building is two or more stories in height above the level of

exit discharge, or (b) The occupancy is subject to 50 or more occupants above or

below the level of exit discharge, (c) The occupancy is subject to 300 or more total occupants.

• 27-3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by manual means in accordance with 7-6 2 1 (a) or by means of an approved, automatic fire detection system in accordance with 7-6 2 l (b) that provides protection throughout the building. 2%3.4.3 Notification. 2%3.4.3.1 During all times the building is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3),

the required fire alarm system shall: (a) Sound a general audible alarm throughout the building, or (b) Sound an audible alarm in a continuously attended location

for purposes of initiating emergency action. 27-3.4.3.2 Occupant Notification. Occupant notification shall be by

means of live voice public address system announcement originating from the attended location where the alarm signal is received. (See 27-3.4.3.1.) The system shall be permitted to be used for other announcements. (See 7-6. 3.9 Exception No. 2.) A presignal system in accordance with Exception No. 1 to 7-6.3.2 shall be permitted;

Exception: Any of her occupant notification means allowed by 7-6. 3 shall be permitted in lieu of live voice public address system announcement.

27-3.5 Extinguishment Requirements. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided in every business occupancy in accordance with 7- 7.4.1. (See also Section 27-4.)

27-3.6 Corridors. 27-3.6.1 Where access to exits is provided by corridors, such

corridors shall be separated from use areas by fire barriers having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.

Exception No. 1": Where exits are available from an open floor area

Exception No. 2 *: Corridors need not have a fire resistance rating within a space occupied by a single tenant.

27-3.8.2 Openings in corridor partitions required to have a fire resistance rating by 27-3.6.1 shall be protected in accordance with 6- 2.3.

2%3.7 Subdivision of Building Spaces. (No special requirements.) 27-3.8 Special Protection Features. 2%3.8.1 Nonrated glazing and opening protectives per the

Exception to 2%1.2.3 shall be permitted between business occupancies and parking structures. SECTION 27-4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 27-4.1 Windowless or Underground Buildings. (See Section 30-7.) .27-4.2* High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings shall comply with

Section 30-8. 27-4.3 Operating Features. (See Chapter 31.) SECTION 27-5 BUILDING SERVICES 27-5.1 Utilities. Utilities shall comply with the provisions of Section

7-1. • 27-5.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment shall comply

, with the provisions of Section %2. 27-5.3 Elevators, Escalators, and Conveyors. Elevators, escalators,

and conveyors shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-4. 27-5.4 Rubbish Chutes, Incinerators, and Laundry Chutes. Rubbish

chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes shall comply with the provisions of Section %5. SUBSTANTIATION: The current division of Code requirements into new and existing buildings implies that two levels of life safety are acceptable. These levels depend on the ease with which modifications can be made to the building and the timing of the life safety assessment, e.g., design review, code enforcement inspection. The proposed change would eliminate this relatively arbitrary Jthudgment and the resulting implementation difficulties. Dividing

e occupancy group into sprinldered and unsprinklered chapters would establish a relationship between level of risk and protection strategy. In addition, many of the exceptions in the chapters are provided in recognition of the high level of life safety provided by complete sprinkler protection. The proposed change would eliminate or simplify many of the exceptions. This should gready enhance the usability and user friendliness of the Code. Finally, this proposed change would reinforce the concept that safety is provided bya system using multiple components. When one component is especially effective, the need for other components can be reduced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The proposed reformatting would not add anything useful. Such an approach and reformatting, if it were to be undertaken, would need to be done throughout the Code for consistency. Currently there are numerous allowances offered for existing buildings that would be lost by the proposed revision.

This would gready increase the required level of protection without technical justification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #346) MER

--101- 510 - (26-2.4 Exception No. 4): Reject SUBMITTER: Joseph F. Paola, Connecticut Office of State Fire Marshal RECOMMENDATION: Add to the end of Exception No. 4: "Access to the exit from the second story may be via an unenclosed

exit access stair." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the intent of the exception to permit travel from the second to first story to gain access to the single exit. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The exception is not needed. That which the submitter requests is already allowed by Exception No. 4 to 26-3.1.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #81) MER

101- 511 - (26-2.4 Exception No. 5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: RichardW. Bukowski, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 5 to read: A single exit shall be permitted for Air Traffic Control Towers

meeting the requirements of 30-2.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT's) need to be classified in an occupancy and two of tbe model building codes classify them in business. The single exit arrangement for ATCT's has always been covered by paragraph 30-2.4 and should remain there so that users will continue to find the require/nent in the same location. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 30-1.1 addressing the application of Chapter 30 explains that the requirements of Sections 30-1 through 30-6 apply to occupancies regulated by Chapters 8 through 29 that are in a special structure. Thus, air traffic control towers classified as business occupancies are permitted to make use of the single exit exception for towers if those conditions can be met. It is not necessary to have a corresponding exception in Chapter 26. To create such an exception would be bad precedent because it would not address many other facilities that are currently allowed to make use of the provisions of Chapter 30. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VO TE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #31) MER

101- 512 - (26-2.5.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Mario Berrios, Miami, FL RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"No dead-end pathways shall exceed 20 ft." SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the Code is to avoid a person to retrace his steps in going into a dead-end to comeback. The key word is the 20 ft footway, not the corridor. Some architects use their own definition of corridor as a totally enclosed tunnel to avoid this section. In open architecture offices, they say, they are not corridors because walls do not go to the ceiling. Explaining in the Code the intent of the 20 ft will increase life safety. Low partitions should be given a height maximum in ft. Some architects use 43 in. aisles, to avoid the 20 ft dead-end, since the Code says that corridors must be 44 in. clear. A 3 ft high partition is a low partition. Higher than that is not a low partition. Rows of cabinets 5 ft are not low partitions. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The spaces meant to be addressed by the dead end limitations almost always occur within corridors. The subject being addressed by the submitter is adequately addressed by current Code language applicable to common path of travel.

172

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P



Tomes°

(Log #CP760) MER

101- 513 - (26-3.4.3 and 27-3.4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION:

Replace 26-3.4.3 with the following: 26-3.4.3 Notification. 26-3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the

building is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:

(a) Activate a general alarm in accordance with %6.3 throughout the building, or .


(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously a t tended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by m e a n s o f live voice public address system announcements originating from the a t tended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall he permit ted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use.

Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed by 7-6.3 shall be permit ted in lieu of live voice public address system announcements .

Replace 27-3.4.3 with the following: 27-3.4.3 Notification. 2%3.4.3.1 Occupant Notification. During all times that the

building is occupied (see 5-2.1.1.3) the required fire alarm system, once initiated, shall:



(b) Activate an alarm signal in a continuously a t tended location for the purpose of initiating emergency action by personnel trained to respond to emergencies. Emergency action shall be initiated by means of live voice public address system announcements originating from the a t tended location where the alarm signal is received. The system shall be permit ted to be used for other announcements provided the fire alarm use takes precedence over any other use.

Exception to (b): Any other occupant notification means allowed by 7-6.3 shall be permit ted in lieu of live voice public address system announcements . SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revision is editorial for clarification purposes. With the reformatting, it is made clear that two options exist. One of those options is to provide a general alarm (audible and visible) via an alarm system in accordance 7-6.3 which involves the use of NFPA 72. The other option is to make use of staff to initiate emergency action using public address system announcements. Such public address systems are not part of a traditional fire alarm system and need not meet the requirements of NFPA 72. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept_ NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

GAUVIN: See comment on affirmative on Proposal 101-495 (Log #759).

(Log #410) MER

101- 514 - (26-3.4.3.1 (a), 27-3.4.3.1 (a)): Accept SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 26-3.4.3.1 (a) and 27-3.4.3.1 (a) to read:

"(a) Provide a general alarm in accordance with 7-6.3 throughout the building, or" SUBSTANTIATION: Section 7-6 addresses when audible a n d / o r visible are required. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

( Log #411) MER

101- 515 - (26-3.5, 27-3.5): Reject SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 26-3.5 and 27-3.5 to read:

2~3.5 .(27-3.5) ,Extingu!st.ament_Requirements. ,"w ~bl~ Y...~

o . c , ; , , , d ~ ,dtl, %7.4.1. (See Section 26-4 (27-4).) SUBSTANTIATION: The requirements for portable fire extinguishers are inconsistent with the general philosophy on NFPA 101. Get the people out, don ' t let civilians fight the fire. With the exception of mercantile and business the Life Safety Code requires very few extinguishers except for defend in place occupancies. When this requirement was first put in the Code, based on a public proposal, the discussion at the Subcommittee meet ing was basically why not since we already have to do it for insurance or other reasons. It should not be in the Code unless we feel it is needed. If it is needed for mercantile and business then it should be in all occupancies. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The provisions of portable fire extinguishers remains a viable options for the control of incipient stage fires. To delete the current requirement would reduce the level of safety. The submitter has not provided sufficient substantiation for such deletion. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowskl, Snack and

Tomes°

(Log #CP755) MER

101- 516 - (26-3.6 and 27-3.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 26-3.6 to read as follows:

26-3.6.1 Where access to exits is provided by corridors, such corridors shall be separated from use areas by ~;c baiAcis k, ace,,, ~,~,cc ,dd, G-2.3 walls having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour in accordance with 6-2.3.

Retain current 3 exceptions. 26-3.6.2 Openings in corridor ~ walls required to have a

fire resistance rating ~,, ,,coy, ',l~Ac~ ,dd, b_~ 24-3.6.1 shall be protected in accordance with 6-2.3.

In 27-3.6 replace the word "Reserved" with the words ;'No requirements". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification that corridor walls are in tended to separate the corridor from o therpar t s of the floor. There is no intent to require fire resistance ra tedf loor or fire resistance rated ceiling construction as the separation between the corridor and other floors of the building in occupancies where building construction type is not specified (i.e., "No requirements" in the 1.6 subsection).

The replacing of the word "Reserved" with the words "No requirements" in 27-3.6 is done for simplification and consistency with other PcOrtions of the Code.

OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept_ NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #272) MER

101- 517- (26-3.6.2): Reject SUBMITTER: EugeneA. Cable, U.S. Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add sentence to 26-3.6.2:

"All corridors shall form a barrier to limit the transfer of smoke." SUBSTANTIATION: Needed to clarify that corridors must provide some level of protection even in sprinkler protected facilities. COMMITrEEACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not substantiated why the requirement needs to be made more stringent. [t is the committee 's intent that in a sprinklered business occupancy, corridors are not required. The submitter 's proposed wording would force such nonrequired corridors to limit smoke transfer. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

173


(Log #48) MER

101- 518 - (27-1.7): Reject SUBMITTER= Gary Hines, Martin Marietta Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Change f rom "not less than one person per 100 sq ft" to "one person per 100 sq ft". SUBSTANTIATION: T he present wording allows facilities to post an occupancy level that is equal to or slighfly less than the exit capacity for a given space. An example of this issue could be a bui lding tha t is classified as an

existing business occupancy and has 15,000 gross sq ft. The space is Ptlrovided with three exits have 32 in. of clear exit width each. Using

ae factor of 100 gross the occupan t load for this space would be 150 persons (15,000/100 = 150). The exit capacity would be 480 persons (32 in .~.2 = 160 x 3 = 480).

For the sake of a rgument , the space now has an occupan t load of 185 persons and these folks are packed in t ight in this space. A facilities g roup could argue tha t the p resen t wording of NFPA

101 27-1.7 "not less than one person per 100 sq ft," could mean tha t 3 persons or 5 persons per 100 sq ft could be used as the factor for comput ing occupan t load. It's inconceivable that t heywould a t t empt to pu t 480 persons into 15,000 sq ft, bu t they could increase the occupancy load to 200 or 220 persons.

While it is vitally impor tan t that the occupan t load does no t exceed the exit capacity, overcrowding a space could be equally as dangerous. In today's working env i ronmen t with the use of compu te r s and printers, a 10 f t x 10 ft space for each person is no t an unreasonable j u d g m e n t .

T h o u g h it is no t a NFPA concern, e rgonomic issues are certain to arise f rom this constant overcrowding condit ion that appears to be permit ted f rom the wording of this paragraph.

I believe that we should t ighten up this issue similar to the assembly occupancies in Chapters 8 and 9 to "one person per 100 sq ft. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submit ter has misunders tood the wording of the referenced paragraph._ The words "shall be no t less than" refer to the words "the occupan t load", no t to the words "one person per". Therefore, the cur ren t Code provision requires that the occupan t load be no t less t han the n u m b e r at tained by calculat- ing such load on the basis of one person per 100 sq. ft. If the bui lding operator wants to have an occupan t load greater than the n u m b e r calculated, this is permit ted. If the submit ter ' s p roposed change was accepted, the occupan t load could never be more t han the calculated n u m b e r based on the 100 sq. ft factor. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 N O T RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack and

Tomes.

(Log #82) MER

101- 510 - (27-2.4.2 Except ion No. 5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Richard W. Bukowski, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 5 to read: A single exit shall be permi t ted for Air Traffic Control Towers

mee t ing the requ i rements of 30-2.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT's) need to be classified in an occupancy and two of the model bui ld ing codes classify t h e m in business. The single exit a r r a n g e m e n t for ATCT's has always been covered by paragraph 30-2.4 and should remain there so that users will cont inue to f ind the r equ i r emen t in the same location. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 30-1.1 address ing the application of Chapter 30 explains tha t the requ i rements of Sections 30-1 th rough 30-6 apply to occupancies regulated by Chapters 8 t h rough 29 that are in a special structure. Thus, air traffic control towers classified as business occupancies are permi t ted to make use of the single exit exception for towers if those condit ions can be met. It is no t necessary to have a cor responding exception in Chapter 27. To create such an exception would be bad p receden t because it would not address many o ther facilities that are currently allowed to make use of the provisions of Chapter 30. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack a n d

Tomes.

(Log #35) MER

101- 520 - (27-3.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter R. Marshall, Ralph M. Parsons Company RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows:

"Hazardous areas, including by but no t l imited to areas used for general storage, boiler or furnace rooms, .~ ,K, , , cl,~zc~,, an d main tenance shops including woodworking and paint ing areas shall:..." SUBSTANTIATION: ' In most existing business occupancies the jan i tor closets consist of a sink, a vacuum cleaner, cleaning supplies, and often toiletry supplies. The quanti t ies of combustibles a n d / o r hazards in this location is often less than tha t of a .typical office cubicle. Recognizing the fact tha t of ten the quanti t ies an d types of combustibles (often including f lammable and combustible U quids) within a jani tor closet can be cause for concern.. , it would the'n be considered hazardous, as included in 27-3.2.11

Presently, the Code requires all j an i tor closets be "enclosed or protected" regardless of the contents (e.g., sink, mop, bucket, and 20 rolls of toilet paper) . Requi rements for jan i tor closets in new construct ion are perhaps warranted and cost beneficial; however, in existing facilities, where actual use data is available, the degree/ level of"hazard" should be de t e rmined by the authori ty having jurisdic- t ion and not be specifically governed by NFPA 101 ®. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the words 'Janitor closets" in 27-3.2.1 as r e c o m m e n d e d by the submitter . Additionally, delete the words 'Janitor closets" form 26-3.2.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee Action does what the submit ter requested. However, for consistency, the same needs to be done in Chapter 26. This should mee t the submi t te r ' s intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 N O T RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack an d

Tomes.

(Log #257) MER

101- 521 - (27-3.6 (New)): Reject SUBMI'Itq'ER: Eugene A. Cable, U.S. Depar tmen t of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise 27-3.6 to read:

Where corridors are provided they mus t be ma in ta ined as originally constructed and provide access to at least two approved exits without passing th rough any intervening rooms or spaces o ther t h an corridors and lobbies. SUBSTANTIATION: The cur ren t Code offers "Reserved" for corridors. This implies there are no requirements l W h e n in fact the Code, elsewhere, requires ma in tenance of safety features as installed. I have witnessed all kinds of abuses to existing corridors, i.e., lounge areas open, leads to an open office area, louvers in walls/doors, and doors removed; all in the n a m e of "no corridor requirements ."

W h e n a corridor is provided, it is the only way for occupants to escape a fire situation. Occupants in their offices, beh ind closed doors, may not be aware of a fire blocking the so called corridor. If a corridor is present, it should provide some basic protection. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submi t te r has no t substant iated why there need to be requ i rements applicable to corridors for existing buildings. The submit ter ' s p roposed prohibi t ion on passing th rough intervening rooms would impose a hardsh ip on existing facilities. With respect to the submit ter ' s r ecommenda t ion that corridors be main ta ined as originally constructed, Chapter 1 already addresses the ma in tenance of previously installed features required as part of new construction. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 N O T RETURNED: 5 Briese, Lister, Madrzykowski, Snack an d

Tomes.

174

N F P A 1 O l - - F 9 6 R O P

(Log #223b) IND

101- 522 - (28-1.4.1 (b), A-28.1.4.1 (b) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: T.C. Clayton/D.J. Sheridan, Black & Veatch RECOMMENDATION: Add asterisk to exisdng 28-1.4.1 (b) and add new A-28-1.4.1 (b) as follows:

A-28.1.4.1 (b) Ordinary hazard contents may include special purpose industrial occupancies where grain dust, wood flour, or plastic dust, a l u m i n u m or m a g n e s i u m dust, or o ther combustible dusts may be produced. This does no t include manufac ture of explosives which are considered as h igh hazard contents.

Chapter 28, "Industrial Occupancies," includes detailed provisions on special purpose industrial occupancies. SUBSTANTIATION:

NFPA 850, R e c o m m e n d e d Practice for Fire Protection of Electric Genera t ing Plants, r e c o m m e n d s a High Hazard Industrial classification for coal handl ing areas, as def ined by NFPA 101. As a Principal Member of the NFPA Technical Commit tee on Electric Genera t ing Plants, B&V feels that this r ecommenda t ion was suppor ted by the Commit tee as an in t ended reflection of NFPA 101 definitions without realization of the far reaching impact of this classification. This classification creates several problems with regard to travel distance, n u m b e r of means of egress, c o m m o n path of travel, etc. for practical design and construct ion of coal handll~ng ar~as. In addition, historical fire exper iences for these areas at power plants, seem to indicate that a Special Purpose Industrial classification may be more appropriate. This is illustrated by tile following sections.

• A r r a n g e m e n t o f Typical Coal Handl ing Areas. • History of Coal Fires/Explosions. 1.0 A r r a n g e m e n t of Typical Coal Handl ing Areas. 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to describe typical coal

hand l ing areas with respect to the requ i rements of NFPA 101 for h igh hazard industrial occupancies, and the impact of these requi rements on die design.

1.2 Typical Coal Handl ing Building. A typical coal t ransfer bui lding contains coal hand l ing equ i pmen t des igned to complete the transfer of coal f rom one conveyor to another , or to mult iple conveyors. Typical floor plans and section are shown in Figures 1 th rough 4. These plans have been ar ranged to mee t the requirements of NFPA 101, 1994 for High Hazard Industrial occupancies.

1.2.1 Normal Occupan t Loads. Expected occupant loads for a typical coal transfer building are as follows.

• One man per day passing th rough the bui lding for rout ine inspection of e q u i p m e n t dur ing periods of normal operation.

• Four m e n per day (8-hour shift) dur ing scheduled ma in tenance outage for a small t ransfer bui lding as shown in file figures. Six men per day (8-hour shift) dur ing scheduled main tenance outage for a larger transfer building, crusher building, or coal silo fill area. Outages are typically scheduled twice per year.

1.3 IMPACT OF HIGH HAZARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA- TION NFPA 101, 1994 contains the following key criteria (para- phrased f rom the sections indicated) for h igh hazard contents and tfigh hazard industrial occupancies.

• Max imum travel distance of 75 ft (5-11.1). • Min imum two means of egress, except for rooms or spaces not

more d lan 200 sq ft, occupan t load of no t more than 3 persons, and m a x i m u m travel distance of 25 ft (5-11.3).

• No dead end corridors (5-11.4), except spaces as described in die exception to 5-11.3.

• C o m m o n path of travel is prohibi ted (28-2.5.4), except in areas as described by die exception to 5-11.3.

As indicated on Figures 1 th rough 4, the floor plans have die following approximate floor areas including stair enclosures.

• Ground Floor - - 1100 sq ft. • Second Floor - - 1000 sq ft. • Th i rd Floor - - 10O0 sq ft. Each stair enclosure is approximately 200 sq ft in plan area.

Consequently, die stair enclosures represent 40 percent of die plan ,area on the uppe r floors, and 36 percent of the plan area g round floor area.

If the coal hand l ing bui lding is classified as a Special Purpose Industrial occupancy, than NFPA 101 would allow a single means of egress f rom each story or section (28-2.4.1) if the m a x i m u m c o m m o n path of travel is no t exceeded (50 ft, or 100 ft if fully sprinklered). This would allow delet ion of "Exit stair #2" in die figures, and reduce the bui lding space approximately 20 percent. Assuming no sprinklers, "Exit Stair #1" would remain a fire rated exit stair providing the single means of egress required from eadla "section" per 28-2.4.1.

STAIR ~ ~ I ( ~

~_ ~CCESS i % WAY I X--CONCRETE

[ ABOVE I FLOOR---X

SERVICE ~ / ~ ~ " NALKHAY~ I I . . . . . . ~ - -

CHU'E

U L~ CONVEYOR'\,,W, ~ ~ [ STR,R.I

- - I ' -

i

30 ' - 0 "

8ROUND FLOOR EL O'-O" N.T.S.

Figure 1 Trans fe r House Sketch Ground Floor EL 0 ft - 0 in.

EXIT STAIR

@

®

30" -0"

~ j

F I

2NO FLOOR PLAN EL IS'-O"

N.T.S.

Figure 2 Transfer House Sketch 2nd Floor EL 15 ft - 0 in.

175

N F P A 1 0 1 i F 9 6 R O P

ExIT STAIR m 2 ~

Q

G

20' -0" ,~

ROOF

~_ coN5

3RO FLOOR PLAN EL :30"-0"

N.T.S.

b

x--EXIT STAIR #I

F'ware 3 Transfer House Sketch 3rd Floor EL 30 ft - 0 in.

CONVEYOR "/~" SNO SERVICE DOORS - ~ r - - 1

I ! I I

I I I I I I I I

) I

~7////////////////////~ 30"-0"

ELEVRTION N.T.S.

F

EL 45'-0"

--3RO FLOOR EL 3 0 ' - 0 "

•/-2NO FLOOR EL i S ' - O "

,

~"- EXIT al

Figure 4 Transfer House Sketch Elevation

1.3 "LIFE SAFETY BENEFIT. In the case of coal dus t f i res / explosions at power plants, we feel that two exits at each level, shor ter travel distance, etc. required to mee t the High Hazard criteria provides little or no benefi t in the level of life safety for buildings with contents subject to deflagrations. Deflagrations due to ignition of coal dus t propagate f ~ t e r than the time needed to travel the 75 ft allowed by NFPA 101 for High Hazard contents. In addition, after the deflagration occurs, condit ions typically do no t

reSent undu ly dangerous exposure dur ing the period necessary to ave tile area. Fires result ing f rom coal dus t defiagrations (if any)

propagate very slowly, and do no t p roduce unduly large am o u n t s of smoke dur ing the t ime it takes to exit the building.

According to file typical coal hand l ing example illustrated above, the bui lding size is increased by approximately 20 percen t based on High Hazard Industrial classification. This is due to addi t ion of "Exit Stair #2" which is only 30 ft f rom "Exit Stair #1 ". As indicated above, we feel that the addit ion of "Exit Stair #2" provides little or no benefit in the level of life safety. For these reasons, we feel that the Special Purpose Industrial egress requi rements provide an equivalent level of protect ion with substantially less hardship for these types of structures. The history of coal f i res /explosions in the power industry supports this analysis, as indicated by the following narrative.

2.0 HISTORY~OF COAL FIRES/EXPLOSIONS 2.1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to describe fires an d

explosions related to coal hand l ing equ ipmen t at power plants. In present ing this information, the reader may gain insight as to the general f requency of fires, the severity of f i res/explosions, the effects and foremost how these occurrences may effect requi rements of life safety design.

2.9 FIRE RECORDS. The informat ion on fires in this discussion are not quo ted verbatim but are generalized so as to give an overall view- of fires associated with coal, coal dus t a n d related equ ipmen t at power plants. The fires discussed in this section come f rom NFPA reports, Edison Electric Institute fire records, company fire records, personal investigation reports, and newspaper reports.

The coal f i res /explosions discussed are divided into four distinct a r e a s / e q u i p m e n t of the power plant. They are as follows:

* Enclosed coal hand l ing structures (reclaim hoppers , coal conveyors, t ransfer structures, c rusher s tructures and s i t e /bunke r fill areas of the main plant) .

o Coal dus t collect collectors • Coal s i los /bunkers • Pulverizers 2.2.1 Enclosed Conveyors and Coal Handl ing Structures (Crusher

Buildings, Reclaim Hoppers , Silo Fill Galleries) Coal conveyor fires have been repor ted as early as the late 1940's by

the NFPA. These fires normal ly occur because of seized rollers becoming white ho t due to friction, thereby ignit ing the conveyor belt and consequent ly coal and coal dus t on the belts. Reports have also indicated that these fires have occurred with little or no coal on the belts. The major fire contr ibut ion related to these types of fires are the conveyor belting. The na ture of these fires are slow start ing and propagat ion is fairly slow compared to a f lammable or combustible liquid.

There have been a n u m b e r of fires associated with coal conveyors. The f requency of coal conveyor fires have been calculated by B&V as approximately 1 fire per genera t ing un i t every 85 unit-years. This is quite low, however, it is greater than turbine lube oil fires as repor ted by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report NP- 4144. O n e of the most impor tan t facts to no te at this point is that within the past 40 years there has been only 1 repor ted fatality ata ' ibuted to a coal conveyor fire and it is no t clear as to the reason. Tha t is, was it smoke f rom the fire, was it heat, was it due to possible collapse of the conveyor while the person was on the conveyor?

Explosions associated with enclosed coal conveyor s tructures occur but the fire records indicate that no explosion has originated with a coal conveyor or coal conveyor fire. Usually, explosions in enclosed conveyors occur as secondary explosions due to a deflagration that occurred f rom ano the r area of the system such as dus t collector, crusher, etc.

The largest coal conveyor exploslon/f i re occurred in 1980. This incident or iginated in the dus t collection system causing an explosion that propagated t h rough enclosed conveyor s tructures to main power plant. The explosion caused 20 mill ion dollars in damage no fatalities and several injuries.

Life safe egress criteria was no t a factor in the injuries associated with conveyor fires or explosions.

2.2.2 Coal Dust Collectors. Coal dus t collectorfires in general , were not reported as a rule until the late 1970's. The reason for dais is tha t the EPA did no t require s t r ingent fugitive dus t requi rements at power plants until that time. In addition, the western subbitumi- nous coal create more dus t t han the eastern coals therefore to this date, the majority of power plants (Eastern U.S.) do no t have the fabric type coal dus t collectors.

176

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

Where these types of collectors are ut i l ized,primari ly western coals, fires and deflagrations have been reported. The fires originate with spon taneous ignit ions t hen when the dus t collector fans are energized, the smoldering, dus t is thrown in suspens ion causin, g a def lagrauon. The m a g m t u d e of damage to the collector is normally to activate the explosion vents or doors that are exhaus ted to the outside.

The larger problem is that these small deflagrat ion can cause larger explosions as described previously with coal conveyors.

The fire records indicate one fatality associated with coal dus t collector fires or explosions. This fatality was caused by an employee open ing a h o p p e r door to investigate a f i r e in the hopper . The collector was located outdoors, and life safety egress criteria was no t a factor in this fatality.

2.2.3 Coal Si los/Bunkers. Coa l /dus t s tored in either silos or bunkers in a power plant can be as m u c h as 1700 tons for the plant use in one day. These s i los /bunkers are located in the boiler building, adjacent to the boiler.

Fires in bunkers have been repor ted for years. These fires have been caused by spon taneous ignition even with the eastern b i tuminous coal. As a rule, these fires were treated as a nuisance and late as 1983 NFPA 85F (now NFPA 8503) stated that if a fire was repor ted in a bunker the way to ext inguish it would be to r un it ou t of the bunker in the pulverizer and into the boiler.

Traditionally, these fires were t reated as a nuisance because it was perceived as difficult to cause an explosion, and because actual explosions were rare. The reason is because even though coal dus t is classified as a combustible dus t the ignition sensitivity varies d e p e n d i n g on type of coal. T he f requency of silo fires and explosions increased with the increased use of western sub b i tuminous coals. Favored due to emission requirements , the western coals have a h igher volatile content than b i tuminous coals as a rule. The ignition sensitivity is lower for the western coals and ignites. As with increased use of western coals, NFPA 85F was changed such that all wording referring to r u n n i n g bu rn i ng coal th rough the pulverizer was eliminated. The largest f i re /explos ion associated with a coal silo occurred at a midwestern plant in approximately 1987. This explosion lifted 6 inch concrete floor suppor t ing silo fill conveyors approximately six feet in the air, pressurized the plant such that all roll up doors were ballooned, block walls knocked over and thousands of square feet of siding blown off. The estimated damage was approximately 6 million dollars. There were approximately 30 workers in the plant at the time of the explosion, some in the direct pa th of the explosion or adjacent to the silo. There were no fatalities in this deflagration, and only one minor injury.

2.2.4 Coal Pulverizers. Coal pulverizers are utilized at power plants to gr ind coal to the consistency of face powder. This piece of equ ipmen t is normally located on the g r o u n d floor adjacent to boiler. It gr inds coal and transports the dus t to the burners at the boiler face via large coal pipes. The driving force in the transporta- t ion of this coal dus t is the primary air system which is air hea ted to as m u c h as 750°F. Tem per i ng air controls the final a i r / dus t t empera tu re leaving the pulverizers. This tempera ture is normally a round 125°F. f f th is t empera tu re is exceeded for the purpose of drying coal, condit ions exist such that the ignition sensitivity is lowered to point where any additional input of energy will create fire conditions.

If a fire condit ion is established in an operat ing pulverizer and the air to coal dus t ratio approaches the lower exploswe limit, an explosion will occur and in some cases it will occur quite violently.

In the early to mid 1980's, the utility concerns required that NFPA 85F was revised extensively, and research was conducte d by the Electric Power Research Institute on the problem of coal dust combustibility in the dynamic mode.

The fire records indicate tha t at lest four fatalities have occurred due to pulverizer f i re /explosious. These explosions originated internal to the pulverizer and fatalities were caused by massive pieces of metal and debris as opposed to ex t reme heat, pressure wave or burns. In each of these cases life safety egress and exit criteria were no t a factor in these fatalities.

2.4 Conclusion. Coal fires occur with coal dus t due to spon taneous ignition and as a rule burns slowly and produces little smoke as compared to f lammable and combustible liquids.

Explosions occur with coal dus t when smolder ing coal dus t is dlrown into suspension such as dus t collector fans or pulverizer startup.

The fire records indicate one fatality in the utility industry in the past forty years due to a coal conveyor fire. The specifics of the fatality are no t known.

There have been four fatalities at tr ibuted to pulverizer explosions. The pulverizer explosion fatalities were caused by metal and debris, no t heat, smoke or pressure wave. In essence, they were adjacent to pulverizers when the explosion occurred, and travel distance criteria required by the high hazard occupancywould no t have helped these people.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: Speed of f lame propagat ion and associated combustible contents of this occupancy do not justify exempt ing dus t f rom the considerat ions used in classifying the hazard. Once dusts are in suspens ion and explosion occurs, subsequen t explosions are common . Such dusts are as dangerous as f lammable gases. Travel distance is no t the only considerat ion or parameter for which code requi rements change based on hazard classification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMIT17EE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #CP801) IND

101- 523 - (28-2.2.14): Accept • SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a 28-2.2.14 to read:

28-2.2.14 Elevators complying with 5-2.13 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the Commit tee has reservations about the proposed 5-2.13 package of provisions related to elevators, this proposal places wording into the chapter to allow elevators to serve as means of egress in industrial occupandes . This will allow for public review of the concept. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrVrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #49) IND

101- 524- (28-2.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert L. Smith,Jr . , Augusta, GA RECOMMENDATION: Change text to read " n u m b e r of exits". SUBSTANTIATION: To match proposal to change text of 28-2.4.1 to read "... no t less than two (2) "exits" ~ two "means of egress"." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: The head ing correctly refers no t to "number of exits" but to "number of means of egress" (which includes exit access, exit, and exit discharge) which is the subject of 28-2.4.1. See Proposal 101 - 525 (Log #50). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SMITH: I believe there should be two "exits" off each level so that

an occupant will no t be t rapped in case one exit is no t usable because o f smoke/f i re .

(Log #50) IND

101- 525 - (28-2.4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert L. Smith,Jr . , Augusta, GA RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

"There shall be no t less than two exits f rom every story or section." SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording of 28-2.4.1 allows industrial occupancies to have only one (1) exit f rom each level. Two (2) exits should be required f rom each story/sect ion. Depend- ing solely on a single safeguard is no t acceptable and is no t consistent with the fundamenta l requ i rements of Chapter 2 of the Life Safety Code. COMMIT]'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI 'EE STATEMENT: Two Code revision cycles ago the Commit tee made the deliberate choice of requir ing that only one of the two requi red exits mus t be present on the floor. The other exit mus t be accessible, bu t can be reached by traveling to ano the r floor (via exit access stairs, for example) in order to enter the exit. The submit ter has not provided adequate justification for making the Code language stricter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SMITH: I believe there should be two "exits" off each level so that

an occupan t will no t be t rapped in case one exit is no t usable because of smoke/ f i re .

177


(Log #36b) IND

101- 526 - (28-2.4.1 and 28-2.11 Exceptions): Reject SUBMITTER: D. Ted Edelmann, The Ralph M. Parsons Co. RECOMMENDATION: The following paragraphs from NFPA 101® occupancy chapters are modified to delete the wording, "...distances allowed as common paths of travel..." and replaced with the specific distance requirement.

28-2.4.1 Exception: In low and ordinary hazard industrial occupancies, a single means of egress shall be permitted from any story or section, provided that the exit can be reached within a distance of 50 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

28-2.11 Exception No. 2: In ordinary hazffrd storage occupancies, a single means of egress shall be permitted from any story or section, provided that the exit can be reached within a distance ofS0 ft, or 100 ft in a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 7-7. SUBSTANTIATION: Conflicts with Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) have occurred interpreting the occupancy chapters that permit a single exit (from a building or space) provided that the travel distance to that exit is within that distance allowed for a common path of travel. When only one exit exists, that is not within that distance permitted as a common path of travel, the issue is whether the Code violation ig a number of exits violation or a common path of travel violation. By definition, a common path of travel does not exist when only one exit exists, and thus the violation pertains to the number of exits. The proposed wording specifies the required distance(s) without reference to "common path of travel," and should eliminate interpretation problems. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Repeating the common path of travel limitations (i.e., creating redundancy) is not desirable here. Such repetition would create potential problems with keeping the wording consistent if changes were made to the common path limitations of 28-2.5.3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #t3P805) IND

101- 527 - (28-2.5.5 andA-28-2.5.5 (New)): Accept SUBMrVrER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a 28-2.5.5 and associated appendix items to read as follows:

28-2.5.5 Ancillary Facilities. 28-2.5.5.1" Means of'egress from ancillary facilities shall be

arranged to permit travel in independent directions such that both means of egress paths are not compromised by the same fire or similar emergency.

Exception: Existing facilities. 28-2.5.5.2* Ancillary facilities in special purpose industrial

occupancies wi~ere delayed evacuation is anticipated shall have minimum 2-hour fire resistance rated separation from the predominant industrial occupancy, and shall have one means of egress that is separated from the predominant industrial occupancy by 2-hour fire resistance rated construction. Exception: Existing facilities. A-28-2.5.5.1 Ancillary facilities located within industrial occupan-

cies might include administrative office, laboratory, control and employee service facilities that are incidental to the predominant industrial function and are of such size that separate occupancy classification is not warranted. A-28-2.5.5.2 Occupants of ancillary facilities located within special

purpose industrial occupancies might be required by administrative controls to remain in the facility when a fire occurs in the predominant industrial area to perform an orderly shutdown of process equipment in order to control the spread of the fire andminimize damage to important equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: Fires, including a recent fire in a power cogeneration plant, indicate that the current Code requirements for industrial occupancies might not provide equal protection to occupants of anciUary facilities located within the industrial occupancy. Also, the proposed wording addresses the issue of PthrOviding for delayed egress of industrial occupants who remain in

e facility toperform orderly shutdown of equipment in order to help control the spread of fire. The proposed verbiage represents the Committee's agreement of what needs to be mandated of such facilities.


AFFIRMATIVE: 12 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Sbaner

EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: HOLMES: "Ancillary Facilities" needs to be defined. The

examples . . . . in A-28-2.5.1 are not sufficient to define what typ es of facthties that are intended to be covered by the requirements of 28- 2.5.5.

(Log #CP806) IND

101- 528 - (28-2.5.6, 28-2.2.3.1 Exception No. 2, and 28-2.2.6 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a 28-2.5.6 to read:

28-2.5.6 Industrial equipment access walkways, platforms, ramps and stairs that serve as a component of the means of egress from the involved equipment shall be permiRed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 5 as modified by the Table 28-2.5.6. Any such means of egress component shall not serve more than 20 people.

Table 28-2.5.6 Minimum horizontal dimension of any walkway I landing or platform Minimum stair or ramp width

Minimum tread width Minimum tread depth Maximum riser height Maximum height between landings Headroom, minimum

22 in. (55.9 cm) clear

22 in. (55.9 cm) clear between rails 22 in. (55.9 cm) clear 10 in. (25.4 cm) 9 in. (22.9 cm) 12 ft. (3.7 m) 6 ft. 8 in. (203 cm)

Add a second exception to 28-2.2.3.1 to read: Exception No. 2: Industrial equipment access in accordance with

28-2.5.6. Add an exception to 28-2.2.6 to read: Exception: Industrial equipment access in accordance with 28-

2.5.6. SUBSTANTIATION: This change is functionally necessary to accommodate limited numbers of persons (20 or fewer) at work stations on industrial equipment. Examples would include package sorters and people on walkways who are responsible for clearing jams in material handling equipment. The walkways, platforms and stairs would not compromise life safety as the limited numbers of occupants would not be appreciably delayed in exiting. The proposed exceptions to 28-2.2.3.1 and 28-2.2.6 are needed so the new 28-2.5.6 does not create a conflict between requirements. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #CP803) IND

101-529- (28-3.1 Exception No. 6 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER= Technical Committee on Indusmal and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a sixth exception to 28-3.1 to read:

Exception No. 6: Two-story convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will add a new 6-2.4.8 on two-story convenience openings. The wording of this proposed provision requires occupancy chapter permission for its use. It is the committee's belief that such openings can be permitted in this occupancy without decreasing the level of life safety afforded. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

178

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #30) IND

101- 530 - (28-3.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc~ RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to the existing paragraph:

"Activation of the fire extinguishing or suppression system shall initiate the required building fire alarm system in accordance with 28-3.4.3.4." SUBSTANTIATION: It needs to be clearly indicated that the activation of these systems shall initiate the required building fire alarm system for the purpose of occupant evacuation. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Add the following sentence to the existing paragraph 28-3.2 by

positioning it after the first sentence: "Activation of the fire extinguishing or explosion suppression

system shall initiate the required building fire alarm system in accordance with 28-3.4.2." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes part of the submitter's intent but modifies the language for clarity. Also the submitter's proposed reference to 28-3.4.3.4 has been changed to 28-3.4.2 so as to achieve alarm system initiation, but not necessarily occupant notification. The current wording of 28-3.4.3 will determine if occupant notification will subsequently occur after the alarm system is initiated. For high hazard operations or high hazard processes in general purpose and special purpose industrial occupancies, transmission of the signal to an attended location for purposes of initiating emergency action is permitted as an alternative to providing immediate occupant notification. For high hazard industrial occupancies, notification of occupants must occur automatically via the requirement of 28-3.4.3.4. Thus, current Code language and the proposed addition to 28-3.2 should adequately address most of the submitter's concerns. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP809) IND

101- 531 - (28-3.4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 28-3.4.2 to read:

28-3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by manual means in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (a).

Exception No. 1: Initiation shall be permitted by means of an approved, automatic fire detection system in accordance with 7- 6.2.1 (b) that provides protection throughout the building'. Exception No. 2: Initiation shall be pe-rmitted by means-of an

approved, automatic sprinkler system m accordance with 7-6.2.1 (c) tfi~t provides protection throughout the building. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of Committee intent that if automatic initiating means are used (either by_fire detection system or sprinkler system activation) such automatic system must be iustAlled throughout the building. Otherwise, manual initiating means (i.e., manual pull stations) must be provided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP802) IND

101- 532 - (2%2.2.13 and 2%8.2.2.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a 29-2.2.13 to read:

29-2.2.13 Elevators complying with 5-2.13 shall be permitted. Add a 2%8.2.2.10 to read: 29-8.2.2.10 Elevators complying with 5-2.13 shall be permitted.

SUBSTANTIATION: Although the Committee has reservations about the proposed 5-2.13 package of provisions related to elevators, this propos-al p-laces wordin-g into-the chapter to allow elevators to serve as means of egress in storage occupancies and parking structures. This will allow for public review of the co-ncept.- COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12 ABSTENTION: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

EXPLANATION O17 ABSTENTION: HOLMES: I am abstaining on this item pending public comments

on proposed 5-2.13 on elevators as a mean-s of eg~e-ss.

(Log #CP808) IND

101- 533 - (29-2.4.1 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: In Exception No. 2 to 2%2.4.1 editorially fix a reference error by changing "(See 2%2.5.3.)" to "(See 29-2.5.4.)". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP804) IND

101- 534 - (2%3.1 Exception No. 4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a fourth exception to 29-3.1 to read:

Exception No. 4: Two-story convenience openings in accordance with 6-2.4.8 shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 101 - 132 (Log #413) on 6-2.4.5 will add a new 6-2.4.8 on two-story convenience openings. The wording of this proposed provision requires occupancy chapter permission for its use. It is the committee's belief that such openings can be permitted in this occupancy without decreasing the level of life safety.afforded. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP810) IND

101- 535 - (2%3.4.2 and 2%8.3.4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2%3.4.2 to read:

2%3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system shall be by manual means in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (a).

Exception No. 1: Initiation shall be permitted by means of an approved, automatic fire detection system in accordance with 7- 6.2.1 (b) that provides protection throughout the building.

Exception No. 2: Initiation shall be permitted by means of an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (c) that provides protection throughout the building.

Revise 2%8.3.4.2 to read: 29-8.3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system

shall be by manual means in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (a). Exception No. 1: Initiation shall be permitted by means of an

approved, automatic fire detection system in accordance with 7- 6.2.1 (b) that provides protection throughout the building.

Exception No. 2: Initiation shall be permitted by means of an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 7-6.2.1 (c) that provides protection throughout the building. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of Committee intent that if automatic initiating means are used (either by fire detection system or sprinkler system activation) such automatic system must be installed throughout the building. Otherwise, manual initiating means (i.e., manual pull stations) must be provided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #CP 1 ) IND

101- 536 - (2%8.1.3 Open-Air Parking Structure): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial, Storage and Miscellaneous Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise the 2%8.1.3 definition of open-air parking structure to read:

Open-Air Parking Swucture. Structures used for the parking or storage of motor vehicles and having:

(a) Uniformly distributed openings in exterior walls on not less than two sides totaling not less than 40 percent of the building perimeter, and

(b) Aggregate areas of such openings in exterior walls in each level not less than 20 percent of the total perimeter wall area of each level, and

179

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(c) Interior wall lines and columns at least 20 percent open with openings distributed to permit ventilation. SUBSTANTIATION: The current definition of open-air parking structure in 29-8.1.3 differs from that in NFPA 88A, Standard for Parking Structures, and the three model building codes. The proposed definition is a first step toward uniformity. A similar change will be proposed to NFPA 88A. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept, NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITIT.E ACTION:


(Log #98) IND

101- 537 - (29-8.2.2.3.1 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Garages and Parking Structures, RECOMMENDATION: Add an exception to read:

Exception: Stairs need not be enclosed in open-air parking structures. SUBSTANTIATION: Open-air parking structures have an excellent fire record with no life loss and a minimum of injuries and property loss. This is largely due to such structures having a large open, undivided area with clear sight distances, openings in exterior walls venting smoke and hot gases, and a low fire load. Fires in open ~arking structures have not demonstrated flashover or conflagration tires.

This exception is consistent with those in three model building codes: Uniform Building Code, Section 1009.1, National Building Code, Section 1014.11, and Standard Building Code, Section 1006.1.1. The hazard in open-air parking structures is not fire, but crime

resulting in rape and bodily harm to the users of these structures. The 1994 Crime Statistics documents that garages have a significant percentage of these violent crimes. Investigation acknowledges that enclosed stairwells are where these crimes are frequently committed because of the relative isolation enclosed stairwells provide. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Stairs are not currently required to be enclosed unless they serve as an exit. See 29-8.3.1 in which unprotected vertical openings are permitted (i.e., "No requirements.'). As long as the stair serves as exit access, and not as an exit, it is not required to be enclosed. Travel distance considerations will usually dictate where the entrance to an exit must occur. This will determine at what location/floor, along the stair's length, the stair will need to be enclosed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #302) IND

101-538- (29-8.2.2.3.3, 29-8.2.2.6.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Gahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Add new 29-8.2.2.3.3 and 29-8.2.2.6.1 to read as follows:

"Guard details for parking garages accessible to the general public shall meet 5-2.2.4.6(c)." SUBSTANTIATION: Parking stairs and ramps which can be used by children need the opening protective 4 in. sphere restriction to provide the same protections as other occupancies where children are found. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

101-539- (29-8.2.0 Exception No. 1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Industrial, Storage and Miscellaneous Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 to 29-8.2.6 to read:

Exception No. 1: Travel distance shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m) for open floors of nonsprinklered, open-air parking structures and 400 ft (120 m) in open-air parking structures protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system.

SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes will bring the requirements more in line with those in the model building codes. The fire experience does not justify maintaining the current 200 ft nousprinklered and 300 ft sprinkiered open-air parking structure traveldistance limitations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #323) IND

101- 540 - (29-8.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Gregory P,. Miller, Code Consultants Incorporated RECOMMENDATION: Present wording remains unchanged, add new text as follows:

Enclosures of exit stairways is not required in open parking structures provided travel distances to the exterior are in accordance with 29-8.2.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Open parking structures are inherendy safe with an excellent fire record. It could be argued that as long as travel distance to a stair is met that exit enclosures are unnecessary. However, this change will also include the travel up or down file stairway. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 101 - 537 (Log #98) on 29-8.2.2.3.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #418) IND

101- 541 - (Chapter 30): Accept SUBMITIXR: James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Replace Chapter 30 with the following rewrite:

CHAPTER 30 SPECIAL STRUCTURES AND HIGH RISE BUILDINGS

(See also Chapter 31) Section 30-1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 30-1.1 Application. The requirements of Sectlons 30-1 through 30-

7 apply to occupancies regulated by Chapters 8 through 29 that are in a special structure. The provisions of the applicable chapter (i.e., 8 through 29) shall apply except as modified by this chapter. Section 30-8 applies to high rise buildings only where specifically required by Chapters 8 through 30.

30-1.2 Mixed Occupancies. (See 4-1.11.) 30-1.3 Special Definitions. (See the Definitions within each special

structure section.) 30-1.4 Classification of Occupancy. Occupancies regulated by

Chapters 8 through 29 that are in special structures shall meet the requirements of those chapters, except as modified by this chapter.

30-1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. Classification of hazard of contents shall be as defined in Section 4-2.

30-1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (See applicable occupancy chapter.) 30-1.7 Occupant Load. The occupant load of special structures

shall be based on the use of the structure as regulated by Chapters 8 through 30. SECTION 30-2 OPEN STRUCTURES 30-2.1 Application 30-2.1.1 The provisions of Section 30-1 shall apply 30-2.1.2 Definition - Open Structure. Structures supporting

equipment and operations not enclosed within building walls, such as those found in oil refining, chemical processing, or power plants. Roofs or canopies without enclosing walls shall not be considered an enclosure.

30-2.2 Means of Egress. 30-2.2.1 General. The means of egress provisions of the applicable

occupancy chapter (Oaapters 8 through 29)shall apply except as modified below

30-2.2.2 Components of Means of Egress. 30-2.2.2.1 Fire Escape Ladders. Open structures that are designed

for occupancy by not more than three persons shall be permitted to be served by ladders complying with 5-2.9. 30-2.2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Open structures are exempt

from the requirements for capacity of means of egress. 30-2.2.4 Number of Means of Egress. 30-9.2.4.1 The grade level of open structures, which by their very

nature contain an infinite number of means of egress, are exempt from the requirements for number of means of egress.

180

NFPA 101-- 106 ROP

30-2.2.4.2 Open structures occupied by not more than th reepeop le with travel distance no t more than 200 ft (60 m) are pe rmi t t ed to have a single exit.

30-2.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. No modifications. 30-2.2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. Open structures are exempt from

travel distance limitations. 30-2.2.7 Discharge from Exits. Open structures permit ted to have a

single exit per 30-2.2.4 shall be permitted to have 100% of the exit discharge through areas on the level of exit discharge.

30-2.2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Open structures are exempt from illumination of means of egress requirements.

30-2.2.9 Emergency Lighting. Open structures are exempt from . emergency lighting requirements.

30-2.2.10 Marking of Means of egress. Open structures are exempt from marking of means of egress requirements.

30-2.3 Protection 30-2.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. Open structures are

exempt from protection of vertical opening requirements. 30-2.3.2 Protection from Hazards. Every open structure shall have

automatic, manual, or other protection as might be appropriate to the particular hazard that is designed to minimize danger to occupants in case of fire or other emergency before they have time to utilize the means of egress.

Exception: Structures with only occasional occupancy. 30-2.3.3 Interior Finish. No modifications. 30-2.3.4 Detection, Alarm and Communication Systems. Open

structures are exempt f rom requirements for detection, alarm and communication systems.

30.2.3.5 Extinguishing Requirements. No modifications. 30.2.3.6 Corridors. No modifications° SECTION 30-3 TOWERS 30-3.1 Application 30-3.1.1 The provisions of Section 30-1 shall apply 30-3.1.2 Definition - Tower. An independen t structure or portion

of a building for support of equipment or occupied for observation, control, operation, signaling, or similar limited use and not open to general use.


occupancy chapter (Chapters 8 through 29)shall apply except as modified below

30-3.2.2 Components of Means of Egress. 30-3.2.2.1 Fire Escape Ladders. Towers, such as forest fire

observation or railroad signal towers, that are designed for occupancy by not more than three persons shall be permit ted to be served by ladders complying with 5-2.9.

30-3.2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. 30-3.2.3.1 Means of egress for towers shall be provided for the

number of persons expected to occupy the space. 30-3.2.3.2 Spaces not subject to human occupancy because of

machinery or equipment shall be excluded from consideration. 30-3.2.4 Number of Means of Egress. Towers shall be permit ted to

have single exit if the following conditions are met: (a) The tower is subject to occupancy by fewer than 25 persons. (b) The tower is not used for living or sleeping purposes and is

subject to occupancy by only able-bodied persons. (c) The tower is of Type I, Type II, or Type IV construction. (See 6-

2.1.) (d) The tower interior wall and ceiling finish is Glass A or Class B. (e) The tower has no combustible materials in, under, or in the

immediate vicinity, except necessary furniture. (0 There are no high hazard occupancies in the tower or in the

immediate vicinity. 30-3.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. No modifications. 30-3.2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. Towers where ladders are

permitted by 30-3.2.2.1 are exempt from travel distance limitations. 30-3.2.7 Discharge f rom Exits. Towers permit ted to have a single

exit per 30-3.2.4 shall be permit ted to have 100% of the exit discharge through areas on the level of exit discharge.

30-3.2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Towers where ladders are permitted by 30-3.2.2.1 are exempt from illumination of means of egress requirements.

30-3.2.9 Emergency Lighting. 30-3.2.9.1 Towers where ladders are permit ted by 30-3.2.2.1 are

exempt from emergency lighting requirements. 30-3.2.9.2 Locations not routinely inhabited by humans are exempt

from emergency lighting requirements. 30-3.2.9.3 Structures occupied only during daylight hours, with

windows arranged to provide the required level of illumination of all portions of the means of egress during these hours are exempt from emergency lighting requirements, upon special approval of the authority having jurisdiction.

30-3.2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. 30-3.2.10.1 Towers where ladders are permit ted by 30-3.2.2.1 are

exempt from marking of means of egress requirements.

30-3.2.10.2 Locations no t routinely inhabited by humans are exempt from marking of means of egress requirements.

30-3.3 Protection 30-3.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. 30-3.3.1.1 Towers where ladders are permit ted by 30-3.2.2.1 are

exempt f rom protect ion of vertical opening requirements. 30-3.3.1.2 Towers where the support structure is open and there is

no occupancy below the top floor level, stairs shall be permit ted to be open with no enclosure required or fire escape stairs shall be permitted.

30-3.3.2 Protection from Hazards. Every tower shall have automatic, manual, or other protection as might be appropriate to the particular hazard that is designed to minimize danger to occupants in case of fire or other emergency before they have time to utilize the means of egress.

Exception: Structures with only occasional occupancy. 30-3.3.3 Interior Finish. No modifications. 30-3.3.4 Detection, Alarm and Communication Systems. Towers

designed for occupancy by not more than three persons are exempt from requirements for detection, alarm and communicat ion systems.

30-3.3.5 Extinguishing Requirements. No modifications. 30-3.3.6 Corridors. No modifications. SECTION 30-4 WATER SURROUNDED STRUCTURES 30-4.1 Application 30-4.1.1 The provisions of Section 30-1 shall apply. Exception: Any structure sur rounded by water and under the

jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard and designed and arranged in accordance with Coast Guard regulations shall be exempt from the requirements of this Code. 30-4.1.2 Definition - Water Surrounded Structure. A structure fully surrounded by water.


occupancy chapter (Chapters 8 through 29)shall apply except as modified below

304.2.2 Components of Means of Egress. No modifications. 304. 2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Spaces not subject to human

occupancy because of machinery or equipment shall be excluded from consideration.

304. 2.4 Number of Means of Egress. No modifications. 304.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. No modifications. 30-4.2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. No modifications. 304.2.7 Discharge from Exits. Structures permit ted to have a single

exit per 304.2.4 shall be permit ted to have 100% of the exit discharge through areas on the level of exit discharge.

30-4.2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. No modifications. 304.2.9 Emergency Lighting. 304.2.9.1 Locations not routinely inhabited by humans are exempt

from emergency lighting requirements. 304.2.9.2 Structures occupied only during daylight hours, with

windows arranged to provide the required level of illumination of all portions of the means of egress during these hours are exempt from emergency lighting requirements, upon special approval of the authority having jurisdiction.

30-4.2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. Locations not routinely inhabited by humans are exempt from emergency lighting requirements.

30-4.3 Protection 30-4.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. No modifications. 30-4.3.2 Protection from Hazards. Every water surrounded structure

shall have automatic, manual, or other protection as might be appropriate to the particular hazard that is designed to minimize danger to occupants in case of fire or other emergency before they have time to utilize the means of egress.

Exception: Structures with only occasional occupancy. 30-4.3.3 Interior Finish. No modifications. 304.3.4 Detection, Alarm and Communication Systems. No

modifications. 304.3.5 Extinguishing Requirements. No modifications.

30-4.3.6 Corridors. No modifications. SECTION 30-5 PIERS 30.5.1 The provisions of Section 30-1 shall apply. 30-5.2 Piers used exclusively to moor cargo vessels and to store

material are exempt from number of means of egress requirements wi~ere provided with proper means of egress from structures thereon to the pier and a single means of access to the mainland as appropriate with the pier 's arrangement.

30-5.3 Piers not meet ing the requirements of 30-5.2 and occupied for other than cargo handling and storage shall have means of egress arranged in accordance with Chapters 8 through 29. In addition, one of the following measures shall be provided on piers extending over 150 ft (45 m) from shore to minimize the possibility that fire under or on the pier might block escape of occupants to shore.

181

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(a) The pier shall be a r ranged to provide two separate ways to travel to shore, such as by two well-separated walkways or independen t structures, or

(b) The pier deck shall be open and fire resistive, set on noncombustible supports , or

(c) The pier shall be open a n d unobs t ruc ted a n d shall be 50 ft (15 m) or more in width if less than 500 ft (150 m) long, or its width shall be no t less t han 10 pe rcen t of its length if over 500 ft(150 m) lon~, or

(~i The pier deck shall be provided with automat ic sprinkler protect ion for combustible subst ructure and all superstructures .

SECTION 30-6 VEHICLES AND VESSELS 30-6.1 Vehicles. Any trailer, railroad car, s treet car, bus, or similar

conveyance tha t is no t mobile, or is a t tached to a building, or is pe rmanen t iy f ixed to a foundat ion , that is subject to h u m a n occupancy shall comply with the requ i rements o f this Code tha t are appropriate to buildings of similar occupancy.

30-6.2 Vessels. Any ship, barge, or o ther vessel pe rmanen t ly fixed to a founda t ion or moor ing , or unable to ge t unde r way by m e a n s o f its own power, and occupied for purposes o ther than navigation shall be subject to the requi rements of this Code applicable to buildings of similar occupancy.

SECTION 30-7 UNDERGROUND AND WINDOWLESS STRUC- TURES

30-7.1 The provisions of Section 30-1 shall apply. 30-7.2 Special Definitions. 30-7.2.1 Access Openings . A window, panel or similar open ing

mee t ing the following criteria= (a) The open ing has m i n i m u m d imens ions of no t less than 22 in.

(55.9 cm) in width and 24 in. (61 cm) in he igh t a n d is unobs t ruc ted to allow for ventilation a n d rescue operat ions f rom the exterior, and

(b) The bo t tom of the open ing is no t more than 44 in. (112 cm) above the floor, a nd

(c) The open ing is readily identifiable f rom both the exterior and interior, a n d

(d) * The open ing is readily op'enable f rom both the exterior and interior.

A-30-7.2.1 It is no t the in ten t tha t these openings be readily openable f rom the exterior by the public, bu t tha t they can easily be opened with normal fire depa r t men t equipment .

30-7.2.2 U n d e r g r o u n d Structure. A structure or port ions of a s tructure in which the floor level is below the level of exit discharge.

Exception: A structure or port ions of a s tructure shall no t be considered an u n d e r g r o u n d structure if the story is provided on at least two sides with at least 20 sq ft (1.9 sq m) of access open ing entirely above the adjoining grade level in each 50 lineal ft (15l ineal m) of exterior enclosing wall area.

30-7.2.3 Windowless Structure. 30-7.2.3.1 A s t ructure or port ions of a s t ructure lacking access

openings detailed in 30-7.2.3.2 or 30-7.2.3.3. 30-7.2.3.2 A one-story s t ructure or por t ion the reof shall no t be

considered a windowless s t ructure if the story is provided with grade level doors or access openings on two sides of the bui lding spaced no t more than 125 ft (38 m) apar t in the exterior walls.

30-7.2.3.3 A s t ructure or p o m o n the reo f more than one story in he igh t shall no t be considered a windowless s tructure if:

(a) Access openings are provided on the first story as requi red by 30-7.2.3.2, a n d

(b) Every story above the first floor is provided with access openings on two sides of the building, spaced no t more than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart. 30-7.3 Special Provisions For Structures Tha t are Windowless or

Underg round . 30-7.3.1 Where windowless or u n d e r g r o u n d structures have an

occupan t load of more than 50 persons in the windowless or u n d e r g r o u n d port ions of the structure, the windowless or under - g r o u n d port ions and all areas and floor levels traversed in traveling to the exit discharge shall be protected by an automat ic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

Exception: Existing windowless or u n d e r g r o u n d structures with an occupant load of 100 or fewer persons in the windowless or u n d e r g r o u n d p o r t i o n s of the structure.

30-7.3.2 Windowless or u n d e r g r o u n d p o r t i o n s of s tructures and all areas traversed in traveling to the exit discharge shall be provided with emergency l ighting in accordance with Section 5-9.

Exception: One- and two-family dwellings. 30-7.4 Special Provisions for Structures Tha t are Unde rg round . 30-7.4.1 The requ i rements of 30-7.3 shall apply 30-7.4.2 Exits f rom u n d e r g r o u n d structures having an occupan t

load of more than 100 persons in the underground-por t ions-of the s tructure and having a floor used for human-occupancy more than 30 ft (9.1 m) or more than one level below the lowest level of exit discharge shall be:

(a) Cut off f rom the level of exit discharge per Section 5-1, and (b) Provided with outside smoke ventin~fakili t ies or o ther means

to prevent the exits f rom becoming charged with smoke f rom any fire in the areas served by the exits.

30-7.4.3 The u n d e r g r o u n d port ions of an u n d e r g r o u n d structure shall be provided with approved, automat ic smoke vent ing in accordance with Section 7-3, where the u n d e r g r o u n d structure has:

(a) An occupan t load of more than 100 persons in the under- g r o u n d port ions of the structure, and

(b) A floor level used for h u m a n occupancy more than 30 ft (9.1 m) or more than one level below the lowest level o f exit discharge, and

(c) Combust ible contents, combustible interior finish, or combust ible construction.

Exception: Existing u n d e r g r o u n d structures. 30-7.4.4 Exit stair enclosures in u n d e r g r o u n d structures having a

floor level used for h u m a n occupancy more than 30 ft (9.1 m) or more than one level below the lowest level of exit discharge shall be provided with signage in accordance with 5-2.2.6.6 at each floor level landing traversed in waveling to the exit discharge. The signs shall include a chevron-shaped indicator to show direction to the exit discharge.

Section 30-8 HIGH RISE BUILDINGS NO REVISIONS TO CURRENT CODE

SUBSTANTIATION: This is in tended to be an editorial rewrite of "Chapter 30. The re are many issues currently in Chapter 30 that are vague on how to apply t hem so different interpretat ions may disagree with the s t a tement tha t this'is purely editorial.

The rewrite is in tended for no t only user fr iendliness but to he lp the Commit tee see exact lywhat is being permi t ted for each type of special structure. T h e rewrite of Windowless and U n d e r g r o u n d requ i rements can

s tand on its own even if the Commit tee disagrees with the rest of the rewrite.

The Life Safety Code Seminar has been a r ranged in this fashion and it does make the requ i rements clearer. Also the commit tee may notice several cur ren t exceptions for some special s tructures tha t raise concern. However, this proposal does no t a t t empt to make technical changes. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee accepts the proposer ' s reformat t ing of Chapter 30 as being strictly editorial in nature. This is no t mean t to be a technical rewrite of the chapter. Thus , the entire chapter is no t open to public comm en t s that are technical in na tu re dur ing the Report on C o m m e n t s (ROC) phase of the revision cycle. See the o ther Chapter 30 proposals tha t effect technical changes in the chapter ' s requirements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 N O T RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #CPt00) IND

101- 542 - (30-1.2 Tower, 30-2.2.3, 30-2.4 Exception No. 3, an d 30-2.4 Exception No. 5 (new)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Replace the 30-1.3.2 definition of "tower" with the following:

30-1.3.2 Tower. An enclosed i n d e p e n d e n t s tructure or port ion of a building with elevated levels for suppor t of equ ipmen t or occupied for observation, control, operation, signaling, or similar limitect use where:

(a) the elevated levels are provided to allow adequate observation or line-of-sight for p e r s o n n e l o r equipment , and

(b) levels within file tower below tile observation level an d e q u i p m e n t r oom for tha t level are not occupied.

A d d a 30-2.2.3 to read: 30-2.2.3 Elevators in accordance with 5-2.13 shall be permi t ted to

serve as a second means of egress for towers. Revise Exception No. 3 to 30-2.4 as follows:

* W Exception No. 3 : To ers shall be permi t ted to have a single exit if the following condit ions are met:

(a) The tower is subject to occupancy by fewer than 25 persons. (b.) The tower is no t u s e d f o r !ivi, ng or s leeping purposes

(c) The tower is of Type I, Type II, or Type IV construction. (See 6- 2.1.)

(d) The tower interior wall and ceiling finish is Class A or Class B. (e) The tower has no combustible materials in, under , or in the

immedia te vicinity, except necessary furniture. (f) There are no h igh hazard occupandes in the tower or

immedia te vicinity. ( ~ Where the tower is located above a building, the single exit

f rom the tower shall be nrovided bw. (i~ an exit enclosur(~ s e n a r a t e d f r o m the building w i ~ no door

onenin~s to or f rom the bu | ldina, or

182

N F P A 1 0 1 i F 9 6 R O P

Gol emon- LART Leo Daly Leo Daly Welton Rolfe Low Major Becket

Typical he igh t 9-15 9-10 3-9 20-30 15-20 (s tor ies / f t ) (90-150) (90-100) (30-90 (200-300) (150-195)

Construct ion Reinforced RC RC/meta l RC RC Type Concrete(RC)

Cab Area. 350 350 225 625-825 525 square ft

Shaft Area, 1156 1600 484 900 450 sq ft

Shaft type N F F N N (functional or

nonfunct ional)

Base Bldg? Y N Y N Y

Stair Type: Smokeproof Pressurized Pressurized Smokeproof Pressurized smokeproof or

pressurized

(ii) a n exit enclosure leadin~ directly to an exit enclosure serving the bui lding with walls and doorseoa ra t in~ these exits enclosures f rom each other, and ano the r d o o r ailowit~ access to the too floor of the buildin~ which orovides access to a second exit servin~ dlat v f l o o r .

Add a new fifth exception to 30-2.4: Exception No 5: Towers with 360 degree line of sight requi rements

shall be permi t ted to have a single means of egress for a distance of travel not exceeding 75 ft, or 100 ft if the tower is sprinklered t h roughou t in accordance with Section 7-7. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes address the subject of a proposed tentative inter im a m e n d m e n t on single exits f rom air traffic control-type towers. The changes in the definition of a tower set the f ramework unde r which Exception No. 3 to 30-2.4 t hen allows a single exit, regardless of occupancy type. These changes reflect the commit tee ' s belief that a tower can be a port ion of a building, i.e., a bui lding can sit u n d e r or adjacent to a tower. In permit t ing a single exit f rom a tower new subpart (g) adds criteria to assure that the single exit is no t compromised by a fire in tile bui lding located benea th the tower.

The cur rent limitation on us ing die exception only for "able- bodied persons" can no longer be justified.

Proposed Exception No. 5 to 30-2.4 recognizes the difficulty in providing two means of egress directly at the top of the tower (i.e., cab) where operat ing requi rements dictate 360 degree sight lines. The exception draws f rom the c o m m o n path of travel limitations applicable to business occupancies in establishing a m a x i m u m distance of travel a long a single means of egress pa th f rom the "cab" to a point where two m e a n s of egress mus t be provided.

The proposed changes address cur ren t real-world problems by making allowances that do no t sacrifice life safety. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 13 N O T RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #10) IND

101- 543 - (30-2.4 Exception No. 5 (New)): Reject Note: This proposal appeared as c o m m e n t 101-638 which was he ld

for fur ther study f rom the Fall 93 TCD, which was on proposal 101- 854. SUBMITTER: Jacob B. Klevan, Rol f Jensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 5 to 30-2.4 which reads as follows:

Exception No. 5: Airport traffic control towers shall be permi t ted to have a single exit if the following condit ions are met:

(a) The tower is subject to occupancy by no t more than 20 persons per floor and no t more than 80 persons total.

(b) The tower is no t used for living or s leeping purposes and is subject to occupancy by only able-bodied persons.

(c) The tower is of Type I, II, or IV construction. (See 6-2.1.) (d) The tower interior finish is Class A or B, except that interior

finish in the exit stair shall be Class A only.

(e) The tower has no combustible materials in, under , or in the immedia te vicinity, except necessary furni ture and equipment .

(f) There are no h igh hazard occupancies in the tower or immedia te vicinity.

(g) The exit stair shall be a smokeproof enclosure, or pressurized in accordance with 5-2.3 except that automatic sprinkler protect ion is no t required for the tower. A Type 10 Emergency Power Supply System as described in NFPA 110 shall be provided for mechanical ventilation equipment .

(h) The tower shall be provided with an approved automatic smoke detection system in accordance with Section 7-6, including approved automat ic emergency forces notification in accordance with 7-6.4.

(i) The tower is l imited to 1,600 sq ft per floor. SUBSTANTIATION: The cur rent Exception No. 3 is too restlictive for airport traffic control towers in terms of occupant load. A survey of the airport traffic control towers at the 50 busiest airports in the Uni ted States indicates tha t occupant loads range f rom 15 to 78 persons. Of the total in each of these towers, as many as 18 persons are physically on duty in the cab at the top of the tower at any time. These figures are based on the operational requi rements for airways and passenger safety at each airport. The occupant density in the cabs of these selected towers ranges f rom 23 to 133 square feet per person, with an average of 52.5.

Two stairs serving a cab with a gross floor area of 225 to 825 square feet would take up valuable space and would require the cab to be enlarged jus t for the stair. In addition, the diameter of a cab with a floor area of 825 square feet is approximately 32 feet. Two exit stair entry doors separated by this distance (or less) would be too close together to be considered remote in terms of a fire in the cab.

Airport traffic control towers are classified by the Federal Aviation Administrat ion into two groups in te rms of design: Standard, an d Non-Standard. Standard design towers are constructed according to design documen t s p romulga ted by the FAA as part of a national program. Nons tandard design towers are des igned and const tucted by the owner /ope ra to r of an airport according to design document s selected by the airport owner. The he igh t of a tower will d e p e n d on the length of the runways at an airport, and the location of the tower relative to file ends of the runway. Thus , two towers of the same "Standard" design at two different airports may be of different heights.

Similarly, the area of the cab on the tower will d e p e n d on die level of activity ( n u m b e r of flights per day) at an airport, with larger cabs at busier airports.

In addition, these towers are also classified according to whether or not floor levels below the cab are occupiable. Those without additional occupiable levels are t e r m e d "Nonfunctional" shaft towers; the rest are t e rmed "Functional" shaft towers. Survey results indicate that the occupant density in the occupiable port ions of funct ional shaft towers (excluding the cab) varies f rom 100 to 954 square feet per person, with an average of 294.

The occupiable levels of towers with funct ional shafts are used for a variety of purposes, including offices, break areas, t raining rooms, and electronic equipment , mechanical and electrical equ ipmen t rooms. Many of these spaces are occupied only occasionally or nonsimultaneously, such as t raining rooms, break areas, an d the various equ ipmen t rooms. The ne t result is tha t occupan t loads are

183

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P

often considerably less than the result of conventional occupant load calculations would indicate.

There are five Standard design tower types currendy expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future, with the following general characteristics:

The existing Exception No. 3 permits up to 24 persons in a tower. Other provisions of the Code require a fire alarm system, and either enclosed or protected exit stairs.

The FAA requires all fires in airport traffic control towers to be repor ted to its headquarters in Washington D.C. Since 1976, an average of less than one fire per year has been reported. On an area basis, this has amounted to between approximately 0.95 and 1.9 fires per million square feet pe r year, with an average of 1 fire per 2 million square feet per year.

The fire record in an air traffic control tower indicates that fires are both infrequent and unlikely to cause injury, death or major damage, even in the absence of the protective features recom- m e nde d in the proposed Exception No. 5.

Of the 10 recorded fires in airport traffic control towers, 1. There were no deaths. 2. Only 2 of an estimated 43 exposed personnel were reportedly

injured. Of these, both were in intimate contact with the ignition SOUrCe.

3. 5 started outside of the tower, 3 of these on or in at tached buildings.

4. For file fires w h i r l started in the towers, fire detection and alarm systems were nonexis tent or substandard in at least 2 cases.

5. None were in towers equipped with smoke control /s tair pressurization systems or smokeproof enclosures.

6. The extent of fire damage was confined to the area of origin except for 3 of the fires starting outside of the tower.

7. Aircraft safety was not adversely affected in any incident. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT~ STATEMENT: The submitter has no t justified that adequate life safety can be maintained by the conditions proposed as another exception for a single exit for towers. In particular the change f rom allowing 25 person to 80persons is unsubstantiated. See Proposal 101 - 542 (Log #CP800) that revises the definition of " tower , makes changes to Exception No. 3 to 30-2.4, and adds a fifth exception to 30-2.4 to recognize single means of egress from tower levels needing a 360 degree sight line. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #79) IND

101- 544 - (30-2.4 Exception No. 5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Richard W. Bukowski, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception 5 to paragraph 30-2.4 to read:

Exception No. 5: Airport traffic control towers shall be permit ted to have a single exit if the following conditions are met:

(a) The tower is subject to occupancy by no t more than 20 persons per floor and no t more than 80 persons total.

(b) The tower is no t used for living or sleeping purposes. (c) The tower is of Type, I, II or IV construction (see 6-2.1). (d) The tower interior finish is Glass A or B, except that the

interior finish in the exit stair shall be Class A only. (e) The tower has no combustible materials in, under, or in the

immediate vicinity, except necessary furniture and equipment. (f) There are no high hazard occupancies in the tower or

immediate vicinity. (g) The exit stair shall be a smokeproof enclosure, or pressurized

in accordance with 5-2.3 except that automatic sprinkler protection is no t required for the tower. A Type 10 Emergency Power supply as described in NFPA 110 shall be provided for the mechanical ventilation equipment.

(h) The tower shall be provided with an approved automatic smoke detection system in accordance with Section 7-6, including approved automatic emergency forces notification in accordance with 7-6.4.

(i) The tower is limited to 1,600 square feet per floor. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 30-2.4 of the code limits air tralfic control towers to fewer than 25persons if there is a single means of egress. The number of controllers present in the tower is dictated by the size and activity level o f the airport, and reflects the number needed for the safety of the passengers. The occupied floors of these towers measure 40 feet square, so providing two protected stairs and an elevator (even at the time of construction) is impractical. The floor area cannot be increased because of the requirement for 360 ° visibility on the top floor of the tower for g round control.

The proposal addresses this issue by increasing the occupant limit to 20 per floor, not more than 80 total, along with several new, compensat ing features to assure the fire safety of the occupants. These include:

• limit to Class A finish in the stairway, • pressurize the stairway per 5-2.3 and provide emergency power for

the mechanical system, • provide af i re alarm system ,,~ith automatic report ing to the fire

de~arunent , and • limit the area of the tower to 1600 sq ft per floor. The limitation to able-bodies persons is no longer legal under ADA

and was removed. Other proposals would classifyATCT's as a business occupancy and introduce references to this paragraph in chapters 2fi and 27. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The suhmitter has not just i t ied that adequate life safety can he maintained by the conditions proposed as another exception for a single exit for towers. In particular the change from allowing 25 person to 80 persons is unsubstantiated. See Proposal 101 - 542 (Log #CP800) that revises the definition of "tower", makes changes to Exception No. 3 to 30-2.4, and adds a fifth exception to 30-2.4 to recognize single means of egress f rom tower levels needing a 360 degree sight line. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #250) IND

101- 545 - (30-8.2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas G. Daly, NFPA Lodging Industry Section RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"High rise buildings shall be protected throughout by a Class I or a combined system..." SUBSTANTIATION: To recognize the use of combined s tandpipe / sprinkler systems as permit ted by NFPA 14-1993, See 5-9.1.3 and NFPA 13-1994, see 4-5.2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The introductory sentence to 30-8.2.2 references Section 7-7. The user goes to that section, particularly paragraph 7-7.4.2. Combined systems are permit ted by the current language of 7-7.4.2. Thus, the wording that the submitter requests is not needed.



(Log #306) IND

101- 546 - (30-8.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Renumber accordingly 30-8.3 through 30. 8.5. Insert a new 30-8.3:

308.3 Fire Barriers. 30-8.3.1 Fire Doors in exit stairwells in buildings more than 150 ft

in height shall meet the requirements of 6-2.3.3 (c). SUBSTANTIATION: Longer egress times in high rise buildings could result in occupants having to egress past fire floors and fire exit doors which have an extensive fwe exposure. A newly proposed requirement [6-2.$.3(c)] for positive pressure testing of fire doors for specific applications such as proposed above would provide a higher level of safety in addition to the sprinklers and voice/alarm systems in buildings over 150 ft in height. Occupants below the fire floor in a high rise building would also benefi t f rom the extra protection such a door would provide. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT.- The submitter 's proposed addition of a subpart (c) to 6-2.3.3 was rejected by the Technical Gommittee on Fire Protection Features. See Proposal 101 - 127 (Log #307) on fi- 2.3.3. Therefore, this proposal to reference a nonexis tent require- men t must be rejected. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


184

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

(Log #19) IND

101- 547 - (30-8.3.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Frank Carideo, Fire Control Instruments RECOMMENDATION- Add new text:

30-8.3.3 For buildings 150 ft. (45m) or more in height, a I?artial smoke detection system in accordance with 7-6.2.8 shall be installed. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA repor t on high rise building fires recommends the installation of early warning smoke detection together with sprinklers. The exiting from taller buildings, as illustrated by the World Trade Center incident, is more difficult due to the length of egress and number of people involved. An early warning smoke detection system in the common and equipment spaces would allow for earlier detection and the start up of the

E ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Such high rise buildings are required to be protected throughout by automatic sprinklers in accordance with 30-8.2.1. The benefit to life safety of occupants by additionally providing partial smoke detection is no t obvious. The submitter has not provided adequate substantiation for making the Code requirement more stringent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #301) IND

101- 548 - (30-8.5): Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that the action on this proposal be changed to "REJECT" because the letter ballot by the Life Safety Technical Committee on Industrial and Storage Occupancies (IND) did not support the committee action. Although the required two-thirds agreement of those who returned ballots was achieved, paragraph 2- 3.4.5 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects also requires an affirmative vote of at least a simple majority of the total membership eligible to vote. Further, AAC directs that a pubfic comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name e2uesting that IND reconsider the proposal given that it was letter

oted to IND in an expedited time frame at a later time than the other proposals under its purview. SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sentence of 30-8.5 to read: The control station shall contain: a) retain current language b) retain current language adding: when reouired bv another

section of this code. c) through i) - retain current language

SUBSTANTIATION: The revision is to clarify the true intent of these items. The appendix note to this section highlights that the fire depar tment phones are required but the remaining items are not required unless they are present. This revision will clarify dais intent. COMMrI ' rEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NEGATIVE: 2 NOT RETURNED: 6 Berg, Garrett, Holmes, Shaner, Smith,

Thomas EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

BUCCI: The proposed wording is considered unnecessary because Section 30-8.1.1 already establishes that the provisions for Section 30-8 applywhen required by the Chapters 8 through 29. Chapters 8 t h rough 30 address the high rise provisions by one of the following: requires all the high rise provisions to apply, or specificaUy address which provisions apply, e.g., sprinkler protection, or say nothing, meaning none of the provisions apply. In light of the current wording and the appendix note which clarifies Section 30-8.5, the proposed new wording is considered redundant .

STELZER: I agree with Mr. Bucci's interpretation of the code on Log# 301. The proposed text is redundant .

(Log #138) IND

1Ol- 549 - (30-8.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: J o h n G. Degenkolb, Carson City, NV RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

30-8.6 Fire Service Air Supply. An approved high pressure breathing air system shall be permanently installed to be used by the fire depar tment to fill Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)

with bottle filling oudets every fifth floor. The compressor equip- men t shall be of sufficient capacity to refill an air botde within 2 minutes on a continuous basis for 8 hr. Such air piping system may be installed within a stair enclosure. SUBSTANTIATION: Other than major cities, there is an insufficient number of personnel to carry replacement air bottles to the upper stories so the air should be made available at various levels higher in the building. OSHA has a requirement that self contained breathing apparatus be worn by fire fighters when en te r inga building with hazardous atmospheres. Some cities such a Denver, Sacramento, Redwood City, Palo Alto already have such requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: In fully sprinldered high rise buildings there should not be a need for air filling stations because the fire should be controlled. Such a system will not directly increase life safety of the building occupants. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP300) FIR

101-550- (31-1.1.2 and 1-6.2.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features, RECOMMENDATION: Move 31-1.1.2 to become 1-6.2.3 as follows:

~ 1-6.2.3 Flammable or explosive substances or equipment for repairs or alterations shall be permit ted in a building of normally low or ordinary hazard classification while the building is occupied only if the condit ion of use and safeguards provided do not create any additional danger or ~ imnediment to egress beyond the normally permissible conditions in the building. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal editorially moves Section 31-1 material to the core chapters (1 through 7) as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life. Proposal 101 - 12 (Log #CP208) moves 31-1.1.1 to become 1-6.2.2; this paragraph is in tended to follow that paragraph and be numbered 1-6.2.3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accep t NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bender, Notarianni

(Log #273) MEA

101-551 - (31-1.2.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Eugene A. Cablh, U.S. Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 31-1.2.3 on exits as follows (and renumber existing 31-1.2.3 to become 31-1.2.4 ): 31-1.2.3 Exits, exit access corridors, and areas open to exit access

corridors shall be maintained free of combustible materials. Exception No. 1: Where conditions comply with an occupancy

chapter allowing areas open to the corridor. Exc,el~tion No. 2: Where the space is protected with quick response

sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: The principle is maintaining the exit access corridor at all times free and clea~ of obstructions,-and free of any matter which might render the exit or exit corridor unusable. There are two basic ways this can happen:

1) physical obstruction of required width; 2) af i re originating in the corridor/exit . I suggest tha~ the Code, as currendy written, does not adequately

address the second scenario. If cardboard boxes are placec[or stored in a corridor in such a way as to no t block the required corridor width, would it be Code complying?; would it meet minimum safety? Until the amounts of combustibles qualify as a "hazardous area" there appears to be no Code language to prevent storage in corridors. I co-n-tend that any substantial (100 to-2OO+kw) fire in a corridor can quickly render that corridor unusable by the

ublic. P'~he Exception No. 1 acknowledges and reminds the Code users that some areas with combustibles open to the corridor are

rmitted. MMITrEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMr[ ' rEE STATEMENT: The control of combustibility of contents in corridors should be left to another section of the Code, such as an occupancy chapter, based on the characteristics of the particular occupancy. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2 Behrens, Tomy

185

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #163) MEA

101- 552 - (31-1.$.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: A. Dan Chisholm, Winter Park, FL RECOMMENDATION: Revise 31-1.3.7 to read:

31-1.$.7 Periodic Test ing of Emergency Lighting Equipment . A functional test shall be conduc ted on every requ i redba t t e ry oowered emergency l ighting system at 30-day intervals for a m i n i m u m ' o f 30 seconds. An annua l test shall be conduc ted for a 1 1 /2 hou r durat ion. Equ ipmen t shall be fully operational for the dura t ion of the test. Writ ten records ofvk, u,d ~.~vcctk, u~ ~ d ;~oa, ~ shall be kept by the owner for inspection by the authori ty having jurisdiction.

Retain cur ren t exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Unfor tunate ly there are some authori t ies having jur isdic t ion that are quot ing this paragraph for the annua l r equ i r emen t for testing emergency genera tors when paragraph 31- 1.$.9 should be referenced which calls for mon th ly tests for 30 minutes with no addit ional annua l requirements . C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 31-1.3.7 to read: 31-1.$.7 Periodic Test ing of Emergency Lighting Equipment . A

funct ional test shall be conduc ted on every requ i redba t t e ry powered emergency lighting system at 30-day intervals for a m i n i m u m of 30 seconds. An annua l test shall be conducted for _a 1 1 /2 hou r durat ion. Equ ipmen t shall be fully operat ional for the dura t ion of the test. Writ ten records of visual inspect ions and tests shall be kept by the owner for inspect ion by the authori ty having jurisdiction.

Retain cur ren t exception. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t tee Action clarifies tha t the funct ional test requi red by this paragraph applies to battery powered emergency l ighting systems. This shou ld mee t the submit ter ' s intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 96 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 N O T RETURNED: 2 Behrens, Tomy

(Log #CP510) BSF

101- 553 - (31-1.3.8, $1-1.3.9, 7-1.3 (New) and 7-1.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment ,

I RECOMMENDATION: Move $1-1.$.8 and 31-1.3.9 to become 7-1.$ and 7-1.4. SUBSTANTIATION: The provisions of Chapter 31 are be ing moved to Chapters 1 t h rough 30 at the direct ion of the Technical Correlating Commit tee on Safety to Life. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #CP400) FUR

101- 554 - ($1-1.4 a nd 6-6 (New)): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Commit tee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents (FUR) recons ider its action to include revised wording re ferenc ing the use of NFPA 701 so as to be consistent with the new revised NFPA 701 and its directions on choice of test. For example , in lleu of the traditional small scale and large scale test, NFPA 701 cur~nt ly addresses a med i um scale and a large scale test. The test standard specif ies when a specific test is to be run. SUBMITrER: Technical Commit tee on Furnishings and Contents, RECOMMENDATION: Move Subsection $1-1.4 and its associated A-31-1.4 append ix text to become a new Section 6-6 and A-6-6 append ix text, respectively. SLrBSTANTIATION: Chapter 31 text is be ing moved into Chapters 1 th rough 30 at the direct ion of the Technical Correlat ing Commit- tee on Safety to Life. This material on furnishings and contents is p roposed to become a new Section 6-6 so tha t it will be located immediate ly following Section 6-5 which addresses the related subject of interior finish materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 17

(Log #$58) FUR

101- 555 - ($1-1.4.$): Accept SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineer ing Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise $1-1.4.$ as follows:

31-1.4.$* Where requi red by the applicable provisions of this chapter, uphols te red furni ture shall have l imited rates o f hea t release where tested in accordance with NFPA 266. Stanclar¢l Method of Test for Fire Characteristics of Uphols te red Furni ture Exposed to Flamin~ I~nition Source. or witli ASTM E1537 Standard Mdthod for Fire Testing of Real Scale Uphols te red Furni ture Items, as follows:

Retain (a), (b) a n d associated exceptions. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA 266 test is mostly equivalent to ASTM E1537, and should be referenced too, as well as the ASTM 1537 s tandard test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ' NUMBER OF C O M M I T r E E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


TALLEY: Editorially, in this document , and in all future documents , I suggest that we do no t use the descript ion "real scale". Any scale used is "real". For example, all of the following scales are real: 1/4" = 1', 1" = 1", 1" = 1 mile. I suggest that we use "full scale" when we are referr ing to testing anyth ing tha t is the as-used size of or equivalent (e.g., a fu l l scale mockup) to the as-used size of the i tem be ing tested.

(Log #$60) FUR

101- 556 - (31-1.4.4): Accept in Principle in Part S U B ~ Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineer ing Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 31-1.4.4 as follows:

31-1.4.4 Where required by the applicable provisions of this chapter, mattresses shall have l imited rates of hea t release where tested in accordance with ~.l'k%.,A~ T ~ ' . , . ~ . I ' 2ul'.~;~u 123,

~ NFPA 267. Standard Method of Test of Fire Characteris- tresses and Beddin~ Exnosed 1;o Flamin~ I~ai~0n Source.

o r ~ t h ASTM E1590 Standard Method for Fire Te~fi~g of Real Scale Mattresses, as follows:

Retain (a), (b) and associated exceptions. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA 267tes t is mostly equivalent to ASTM E1590, and should be referenced too, as well as the ASTM s tandard test. The California Technical Bulletin is no t a consensus s tandard test and need no t be s tandard referred to, particularly in view of the fact that it contains fewer details on test m e t h o d an d a different set of criteria for meet ing it than those in NFPA 101. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Revise 31-1.4.4 as follows: $1-1.4.4 Where required by the applicable provisions of this

chapter, mattresses shall have l imited rates of hea t release where tested in accordance with C o 2 ~ , . A , T~ha : , : , 2 B~ll~d,, 123, Fla;,~,.:~b;lk 7 T~ot i', ~c~d . .~ f~..M~;.;. ~ c o f~. Uo~ ;,, Public , t ~ , , ASTM E1590 Standard Method for Fire Test ing of Real Scale Mattresses, as follows:

Retain (a), (b) and associated exceptions. Delete cur ren t A-31-1.4.4.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 267 is in error because in that d o c u m e n t paragraph 5-1.5 and 5-1.8 use the wrong gas flow rate an d wrong per iod of exposure (when compared to ASTM E1590). The Fire Tests Commit tee is aware of this. Thus, NFPA 267 should not be referenced. However, the delet ion of California TB 129 is in order. Based on the deletion, its cor responding appendix text also needs to be deleted. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBFaRS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CABLE: The appendix note A-31-1.4.4 should be kept in order to

aid the code user and code enforcer in identifying various mattress flammabili ty tests which measure hea t release rates. This appendix note should be expanded to list all appropriate test procedures known to do the job.

TALLEY: TB 129 should be c! tedjust as it was originally cited in 31- 1.4.4. W h e n 101 sets criteria which is different t h a n the criteria set for th in TB-129, it is obvious to the users of 101 tha t the 101 criteria

ersedes the TB-129 criteria. Secondly, citing TB-129 gives itional credibility to the NFPA d o c u m e n t because at this point in

186

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P

time, California, TB-129 has gained far more acceptance than any of its analogs. Thirdly, while TB-129 is no t a consensus standard, ASTM E1590 is basedprimari ly on TB-129 and E1590 is most assuredly a consensus standard.

(Log #274) FUR

101- 557 - (31-1.4.4(a) Exception, 31-1.4.4(b) Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: Eugene A. Cable, U.S. Deparlnaent of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: In 31-1.4.4 revise Exception to (a) and Exception to (b) to read:

Mattresses in rooms or spaces protected by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system equipped with ouick resnonse or residential snrinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: Currently only the Detention and Correc- tional occupancy and possibly (this cycle) health care occupancy require compliance with this section. Both are "defend in place" or "area of refuge" type occupancies where quick movement of occupants may be impossible. The Life Safety Code objective, Section 1-2.2 is to protection occupants not intimate with initial fire development. It is widely accep ted tha t the quick response or residential sprinkler head can protect occupants in the room of origin and that the slower acting standard sprinkler does not. Standard heads prevent flashover and protect occupants beyond the room of origin.

Given the defend in place occupancy, and the Code objective, only the quick response or residential type sprinklers shou ldbe allowed as an exception to this mattress flammability standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A properly designed sprinkler system will deal adequately with the hazard of mattresses, ff an occupancy chapter so chooses, it can require that the sprinklers be of the quick response or residential type. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CABLE: We already have a code performance standard, "protect

occupants not intimate with the initial fire develop, ment from loss of life". This is a shining case of "performance code ' applicability. Where ANY occupancy chapter wants to limit the fire growth rate and heat release peak rate of a mattress, that occupancy chapter is interested in limiting fire growth in the room of origin. I submit that the standard sprinkler head alone, does not substitute for this occupancy chapter desire to limit fire growth rate and peak heat release at the desired limit. The quick response sprinkler does. We should be responsible to offer the occupancy chapters a complete package, not one where they would have to add or subtract to the menu item" in order to reach the level of protection they desire. In

addition, I submit that the current committee thinking is guided by the old unwritten, I believegenerally accepted, code objective of preventing flashover or in other words protecting life BEYOND the room of origin. The code objective has changed and so should this section.

(Log #136) FUR

101-558- (31-1.4.7 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John G. Degenkolb, Carson CAty, N V RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as 3L1.4.7 as follows:

31-1.4.7 Foam Plastic. Exposed foamed plastic materials and materials which are unprotec ted from ignition byfire containing foamed plastic and which are used for decorative purposes shall have a maximum heat release rate of 100 kW when tested in accordance with UL 1975 Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes. SUBSTANTIATION: While this is currently a requirement for assembly occupancies, foamed plastic may be used in other occupancies for decorative purposes and the same restrictions should apply. NFPA 701 does not cover such materials and there is no other test available for determining the fire characteristics of the material. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new text as 31-1.4.7 as follows: 31-1.4.7 Foam Plastic. Where required by another section of this

Code, furnishings and contents made with foamed plastic materials which are unprotec ted f rom ignition shall have a maximum heat release rate of 100 kW when tested in accordance with UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes.

Add appendix item as follows: A-31-1.4.7 UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics

Used for Decorative Purposes, is not in tended for evaluating interior wall and ceiling finish materials. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes what the submitter requested but does so by editorially revising the submitter 's proposed text for clarification. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMrITEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 17

(Log #CP302) FIR

101- 559 - (31-1.6 and 6-4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features, RECOMMENDA'I'ION: Move 31-1.6 to Section 6-4 by having it substitute for current 6-4.3 as follows:

~'; ,v" " . ~ ~ , - - , ,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-4.3.1 The storage and handling offlan]mable liquids or

~cl es shall be in accordance with the applicable standards listed ow:

(a) NFPA 30, Hanl~able and Combustible Liquids Code. (b) NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code. (c) NFPA 58, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied

Petroleum Gases. ~x-t'Coa-2~ 6~.3.2 * No storage or handling of flammable liquids or

gases shall be permit ted in any location where it would jeopardize egress from the structure.

Exception: As permit ted by ~ 6.4.3.L ~ NFPA 58, Standard for the Storage and

Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases, permits portable butane fueled appliances in restaurants and in a t tended commercial food catering operations when fueled by no more than two 10-oz (0.28- kg) LP-Gas capacity nonrefillable butane containers having a maximum 1.08-1b (0.4-kg) water capacity per container. Containers must be directly connected to the appliance, and manifolding of containers is not permitted. Storage of cylinders is also limited to 24 containers, with an additional 24 permit ted when protected by a 2- hour fire resistance rated barrier.

SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 31 material is being moved to the core chapters (1 through 7) as directed by tbe Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life. Paragraph 31-1.6.3 is being deleted because the subject is covered by the general language in 31-1.6.2 (new 6-4.3.2) and reference to NFPA documents in 31-1.6.1 (new 6- 4.3.1). COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. .NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bender, Notarianni

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: DALY: Section 6-4.3.2 and A-6.4.3.2 are redundant. Restrictions

already exist in each of the cited standards.

(Log #CP301) FIR

101- 560 - (31-1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features, RECOMMENDATION: Delete 31-1.7. SUBSTANTIATION: Already covered by 6-4.4. Chapter 31 material is being moved to the core chapters (1 through 7) as directed by the Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


187

N F P A 1 0 1 m F96 R O P

(Log #95) AXE

101- 561 - (31-2): Reject SUBMITTER= Paul O. Radde, Thriving Presentat ions RECOMMENDATION: Have mee t ing facilities provide egress route indicators in the back of mee t ing rooms near the exits. SUBSTANTIATION: Al though a mee t ing of 300 is required to a n n o u n c e fire exit routes, it simply is no t dbne. Most people conduct ing meet ings d o n ' t pay at tention. However, having the primary route illustrated on a map similar to tha t in individual hotel rooms, would facilitate the speaker or seminar p resen te r knowing the route. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Notwithstanding tha t the submit ter has not p roposed specific text, route indicat ing d iagrams are no t an effective m e a n s of providing informat ion to occupants of an assembly occupancy. Whereas such diagrams migh t be useful on a one-on-one basis in hotel gues t rooms, the occupants o f an assembly occupancy are not apt to take notice o f the diagram. Dur ing t imes of fire emergency, few of the occupants will be able to study the informat ion provided in any reasonable t ime per iod. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 N O T RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and Wer the imer

(Log #CP602) AXE

101- 562 - (Section 31-2, Sections 8-7 (New) and 9-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Assembly and Educational Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Move Section 31-2 in its entirety to a new Section 8-7. Do the same to create a new Section 9-7. SUBSTANTIATION: T he Technical Correlat ing Commit tee on Safety to Life has directed tha t Chapter 31 material be moved into Chapters 1 t h rough 30, as appropriate . COMMITrEE ACTION: A-c~:ept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and Wer the imer

(Log #293) AXE

101- 563 - (31-2.2.3): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "...location of the exits, presence of installed visible alarms, and o ther evacuation e lements {o be used in case of a fire or o ther emergency."

Add to the Appendix note the following paragraph: "Announcemen t s in theaters and similar assembly occupancies

whirl1 use a prerecorded "projected" image shou ld include a pr in ted message which indicates the presence of visible signals in the assembly." SUBSTANTIATION: A n n o u n c e m e n t s in facilities where strobe type units are present should explain their in tended use to the publ i~ Visible signals are for all occupants and their operat ion dur ing an event will alert all occupants to the need to exit the facility. Where theaters use a p r o j e c t e d a n n o u n c e m e n t there exists the added opportuni ty to insure hear ing impaired occupants are aware of the visible signals without the d e p e n d e n c e upon a non- impai red occupant. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Revise 31-2.2.3 to read: 31-2.2.3" In theaters, mot ion p!cture theaters, audi tor iums, and

other similar assembly occupancies with occupan t loads greater than 300 where there are non-con t inuous programs, an audible an- n o u n c e m e n t shall be made or projected image shown prior to the start o f each p r o g r a m . . . COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The submi t te r ' s in ten t is m e t i n p a r t by the addit ion of the words "or projected image shown" to 31-2.2.3. However, it is no t necessary to indicate the presence and location of visible alarms. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and Wer the imer

(Log #CP603) AXE

101- 564 - (Section 31-3, Sections 10-7 (New) and 11-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Assembly a n d Educational Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Move Section 31-3 in its entirety to a new Section 107. Do the same to create a new Section 11-7. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlat ing Commi t tee on Safety to Life has directed tha t Chapter 31 material be moved into Chapters 1 t h rough 30, as appropriate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 N O T RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey a n d Wer the imer

(Log #396) AXE

101- 565 - (31-3.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: RoyL. Bayer, Washing ton Twp. Fire Dept., OH RECOMMENDATION: Revise 31-3.1.2 to read:

31-3.1.2" Fire exit drills in educat ional occupancies shall be conduc ted as stipulated in 31-3.1.2.1 t h rough 31-3.1.2.3.

31-3.1.2.1 At least one fire drill shall be conduc ted every m o n t h the facility is in session for more than 10 days.

31-3-1.2.2 One addit ional fire exit drill shall be requi red within the first 30 days of operat ion for those facilities that operate on the traditional n ine m o n t h school year.

31-3.1.2.3 In climates where the weather is severe d u r i n g t h e winter months , the mon th ly fire exit drills shall be permi t ted to be modif ied du r ing said m o n t h s provided tha t the required a m o u n t of fire exit drills is achieved and no more t han one ha l f are conduc ted before the drills are deferred. SUBSTANTIATION: In order for the chi ldren o f our country to compete no t only nationally, bu t internationally as well when they reach adul thood, more a n d m o r e school systems are f inding it necessary to elongate the school year. Why? Because, as we approach the nex t century, the a m o u n t of informat ion that m u s t be disseminated to our chi ldren is increasing at a s taggering rate. And, in order to achieve this, more and more schools are go ing to year- a round classes. This is evident as conf i rmed by a status repor t for 1993-94 submi t ted by the National Association for Year-Around Educat ion as pr in ted in the USA Today which listed the following.

1.4 million s tudents in year-around schools, which is nearly double in the 1989-90 total.

1,941 public a n d private schools set up for year-around education, up f rom 872 schools in 1989-90, an 82 pe rcen t increase.

385 dis~icts (out of 16,000 nationwide) now with at least one school on a year-around plan, up f rom 322 last year, a 20 percent increase.

Thus , year-around school is mos t assuredly on the rise as the necessity to go to same is becoming more and more evident.

Moreover, as we are continually reading in the newspaper a n d seeing on television, an every increasing n u m b e r of households ei ther have both parents working or are r u n by a single paren t a long with chi ldren now being requi red pretest ing before enter ing kindergarten, year-around presciaool a n d day cares are certainly flourishing. And yet, the Life Safety Code as well as others, only address a n ine -mon th term. Incidentally, at this po in t it is worth no t ing that while in the majority of instances the country has progressed to the era o f robotics, our educat ional system for the most part is still operat ing unde r the calendar of the AGRARIAN e r a .

Therefore, this p roposed code change has been submi t ted in order to require a fire exit drill every m o n t h or partial m o n t h tha t exceeds ten days an educa t iona l facility is in session. It also necessitates an addit ional drill in the first m o n t h of the traditional n ine m o n t h school year. Besides, allowing the authori ty having jurisdict ion more flexibility in how fire exit drills should be hand led in severe winter weather with no more than half being permi t ted to be conducted at the beg inn ing of the school year. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 31-3.1.2 to read: 31-3.1.2" Fire exit drills shall be conducted as st ipulated in 31-

3.1.2.1 and 31-3.1.2.2. 31-3.1.2.1 At least one fire drill shall be conducted every m o n t h the

facility is in session. Exception: In climates where the weather is severe, the mon th ly

fire exit drills shall be permi t ted to be deferred provided that the required n u m b e r of fire exit drills is achieved and at least four are conduc ted before the drills are deferred.

31-3-1.2.2 One additional fire exit drill shall be required within the first 30 days of operation.

188

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested but deletes unnecessary wording. The Committee believes that it is important to have run at least four drills before any are deferred. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITIXE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and Wertheimer

(Log #CP656) HEA

101- 566 - (Sections 31-4, 12-7 (New) and 13-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Move the Section 31-4 Operating Features Requirements for health care occupancies to new Sections 12-7 and 13-7, Operat ing Features. Duplicate all requirements in both new sections except for current 31-4.6 on Smoke Control. With respect to that paragraph include the following language in New 12-7:

Engineered Smoke Control Systems. New engineered smoke control systems shall be tested in accordance with established engineering principles and shall meet the performance requirements of such testing prior to acceptance. Following acceptance, all engineered smoke control systems shall be tested periodically in accordance with recognized engineering principles. Test documentation shall be maintained on the premises at all times. Existing engineered smoke control systems, unless specifically exempted by the authority having jurisdiction, shall be tested in accordance with established engineer ing principles. Systems not meet ing the performance requirements of such testing shall be continued in operation only with the specific approval of the authority having jurisdiction.

With respect to that paragraph include the following language in New 13-7:

Engineered Smoke Control Systems. Existing engineered smoke control systems, unless specifically exempted by the authority having

jurisdiction, shall be tested in accordance with established engineering principles.. Systems not meeting. . the performance requirements of such testang shall be . . . . conunued m operation only with the specific approval of the anthonty ha~ngjurisdJction. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that Chapter 31 provisions be moved into Chapters I through 30. This proposal moves those operating features requirements specifically applicable to health care occupanciesinto Chapters 12 and 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #42) HEA

101- 567 - (31-4.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Mayer D. Zimmerman, US DHHS; HCFA RECOMMENDATION: Add the following language to section 31- 4.1.1 (NFPA 101, 1994) to read as follows:

"A simple floor plan, showing the evacuation routes is posted in p rominen t locations on all floors." SUBSTANTIATION: This section, as currently written, requires the evacuation plan to be available to all supervisory personnel and at the te lephone operator 's position.

I believe that good fire protection practice should additionally require that a simple 'NOU ARE HERE" plan which depicts EXITS and EXIT ACCESS ROUTES should be posted on each floor and be readily apparent to all patients, staff and visitors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Evacuation is expected to be staff directed. A floor plan is not necessary because staffwill be trained and drilled with respect to the emergency plan and movement routes. There already are exits signs showing egress routes. This is a protect in place occupancy where posting an evacuation floor plan does no t have the same benefits that it might in a hotel occupancy. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #38) HEA

101- 568 - (31-4.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mayer D. Zimmerman, US DHHS; HCFA RECOMMENDATION: Revise current section 31-4.1.2 to add the following:

"including ambulatory health care centers". The text would now read: "Fire exit drills in health care occupancies, including ambulatory

health care centers, shall..." SUBSTANTIATION: There are varying interpretations regarding the intent of current section 31-4.1.2. Some believe that the Code does not require fire exit drills in ambulatory health care centers, others believe it does. The proposed language is necessary to clarify that it is the intent of

the Committee that this section applies to ambulatory health care centers as well as hospitals and nursing homes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 12-6.4 to read: 12-6.4 Special Provisions. (See Section 26-4. For operating

features requirements see Section 12-7.) Revise 13-6.4 to read: 13-6.4 Special Provisions. (See Section 27-4. For operating

features requirements see Section 13-7.) COMMI'VrEE STATEMENT: Health care occupancies include ambulatory health care facilities in addition to hospitals, nursing homes, and limited care facilities. The Section 31-4 Operating Features Requirements are being moved from Chapter 31 to new Sections 12-7 and 13.7. This will help to make it clear that the Operating Features Requirements apply to all sub classes of health care. By changing the wording in 12-6.4 and 13.6.4, to reference the Operating Features Requirements, the subject has been clarified. The Committee Action should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #292) HEA

101- 569 - (31-4.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the end of the paragraph:

"Fire drills shall demonstrate the availability of wheel chairs, litters, or beds for the movement of non ambulatory occupants from a floor or area to an area of refuge or point of safety." SUBSTANTIATION: Removal of the 1988 edition requirement for wheels on beds for movement of patients did no t include any provisions for the substantiation of the availability of other measures for the movement of the patient population. An appendix note which allows the removal of patients on mattress or blanket "litters" to reduce the need for wheelchairs on each floor may also be Fg %ate, though not advocated by this author

EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Many patients are moved under emergency conditions via things other than litters and beds. For example, patients are moved on blankets. The use of beds and litters should be discouraged. They clog corridors. The proposed wording is unnecessary. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #446) HEA

101- 570 - (31-4.4(a) and Exception to (a) (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise 31-4.4(a) to read:

(a) ... shall be posted with "NO SMOKING" signs or the international symbol for no smoking. Add aia Exception to subpart (a) to read: Exception to (a): In health care facilities where smoking is

prohibited and signs are prominently (strategically) placed at all major entrances, the need for secondary signs with no smoking language are not required. The non-smoking policies shall be strictly enforced. SUBSTANTIATION: The international symbol for no smoking is highly recognizable and will assist in enforcing the smoking policies of the organization. Most if no t all hospitals are non-smoking facilities and therefore a requirement for secondary signs is redundant . While other sources of ignition may be used in these

189


areas, the placement of secondary signs would not have a significant affect on preventing any resulting fires; or would the discontinuing of these signs result in additional fires. Keeping up with the signage is difficult, and the real benefit small as the main source of ignltion continues to be smoking which is handled by the proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 31-4.4(a) to read: (a) ... shall be posted with "NO SMOKING" signs or the interna-

tional symbol for no smoking. Add ah Exception to subpart (a) to read: Exception to (a): In health care facilities where smoking is

prohibi ted and signs are p rominendy placed at all major entrances, secondary signs with no smoking language shall not be required. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes that which the submitter requested but editorially revises the language for clarity. The proposed second sentence of the exception has been deleted because it is assumed that all Code requirements are strictly enforced. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ZIMMERMAN: This proposal, which was accepted in principle, has

an exception which states that if there are NO SMOKING signs prominendy place at all major entrances, there need be NO fur ther signs within (and throughout) the facility. I cannot accept a proposal which obviates the need for a NO SMOKING sign: (a) in a patient bedroom where oxygen is in use; (b) in a medical gas storage room; (c) in a laboratory using large quantities of f lammable liquids. Even in a NO SMOKING building, staff and visitors may not wish to go down to the street to smoke, for various reasons (it's far, it's cold out, et- al.). There are persons who will smoke surreptitiously. If there were a NO SMOKING-OYGEN, or NO SMOKING-FLAMMABLE LIQUID sign on a room or area, the persons may go elsewhere (like in a stair tower) to smoke. I urge the committee to rethink their position and rescind exception (a). (I have no problem with accepting an international symbol in lieu of a verbal sign).

(Log #281) HEA

101- 571 - (31-4.4 Exception to (a) (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth Knight, Bethesda Oak Hospital RECOMMENDATION: Add after paragraph 31-4.4(a):

Exception to (a): In Health Care Facilities where smoking is prohibited and signs are prominently (strategically) placed at all major entrances, the need for secondary signs with no smoking language is not required. The non-smoking policies shall be strictly enforced. SUBSTANTIATION: Most, if not all, hospitals are non-smoking facilities and therefore a requirement for secondary signs is redundant . Additionally, posting specific "No Smoking" areas can cause confusion (e.g. The sign says no smoking here, but there are no signs down the hall - so it must be okay to smoke there). COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 570 (Log #446).

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced proposal should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #275) HEA

101- 572 - (31-4.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eugene A. Cable, U.S. Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Delete 31-4.5.2 and replace with "Newly introduced upholstered furniture within health care occupancies shall comply with provisions of 31-1.4.3." SUBSTANTIATION: This provision would only apply to existing facilities. Section 31-1.4.3 allows an exception where the space is protected by automatic sprinklers. This provision is only al?p. licable to newly purchased furniture. Furniture meet ing this prowslon is now readily available at only minimal increase in cost, and is already mandated at some location across the country. Small, less upholstered pieces would pass dais criteria with no special effort and no increase in cost. The t rend towards a more "homey" atmosphere has introduced a much higher combustible fire load and fast/ullrafast

fire growth potential. For occupancies where "defend in place" is the fire protective plan, the most reasonable way to meet the Chapter 1 Life Safety Code objective is to guard against a fast fire growda scenario by controlling the "bad actors," upholstered furniture. With this provision in effect, the homey atmosphere can be encouraged without jeopardizing patient and staff safety. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 573 (Log #363).

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced ~ r l ~ s ~ should meet the submitter 's intent.

R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #363) HEA

101-573- (31-4.5.2, 31-4.5.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

31-4.5.2 Newly int roduced upholstered furniture within health care occupancies shall be tested in accordance with the provisions of 31- 1.4.2(b) and 31-1.4.3.

31-4.5.3: Newly introduced mattresses within health care occupancies shall be tested in accordance with the provisions of 31-1.4.2(c) and 31-1.4.4. SUBSTANTIATION: Health care occupancies should be provided with better safeguards for upholstered furniture and mattresses, particularly in view of the lack of mobility of many of the occupants: patients. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #447) HEA

101- 574 - (31-4.5.2 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMI ' rTE~ Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add an Exception to 31-4.5.2 to read:

Exception: Furniture in t roduced into occupancies which prohibit smoking. SUBSTANTIATION: Many health care facilities have adopted a strict organizational policy on non-smoking and should be permit ted to use furniture outside the requirements of 31-1.4.2(b). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Ignition sources other than smoking materials exist. Thus, there is insuff ident substantiation for the proposed wording. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log#111) HEA

101- 575 - (31-4.5.2 Exception, 31-4.5.3 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Thomas W.Jaeger, American Health Care Associa- tion RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exceptions:

Exception to 31-4.5.2: Unphols tered furniture in sleeping rooms of nursing homes belonging to the patients.

Exception to 31-4.5.3: Mattresses in sleeping rooms of nursing homes belonging to the patients. SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Medicare/Medicaid Regulations mandate that nursing homes must allow residents to bring their own furniture and beds into nursing homes for their use. The regulations do not limit the type of furniture, nor are any restrictions put upon the furniture. The Medicare/Medicaid Regulations currently adopt the 1985 and previous editions of the Life Safety Code. Section 31-4.5.2 and 31-4.5.3 first appeared in the 1991 edition of the Life Safety Code.

If the Regulations adopt the 1991 or subsequent editions of file Life Safety Code, a direct conflict will exist between the Medicare/ Medicaid Regulations and the Life Safety Code. Thisputs nursing homes in an untenable position. The conflict currently exists in jurisdictions that have adopted the 1991 or 1994 editions of the Life Safety Code.

190

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F 9 6 R O P

COMMr['rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Add the following Exception to 31-4.5.2: Exception: Uphols te red furni ture be longing to the pat ient in

s leeping rooms of n u r s i n g homes , provided tha t a smoke detector is installed in such rooms. Battery powered single station smoke detectors shall be permit ted.

Add the following Exception to 31-4.5.3: Exception: Mattresses be longing to the paden t in sleeping rooms

of nurs ing homes , provided tha t a smoke detector is installed in such rooms. Battery powered single station smoke detectors shall be permitted. Add a th i rd Exception to 13-3.4.2 to read: Exception No. 3: Detectors required by the Exceptions to 31-4.5.2

and 31-4.5.3. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Part of what the submit ter requested is accompl ished by the Commit tee Action. Rather than creating a blanket exception for furni ture that belongs to patients, file Commit tee Action requires that such rooms be provided with a smoke detector. This should mee t part of the submit ter ' s intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #276) HEA

101- 576 - (31-4.5.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eugene A. Cable, U.S. Depar tmen t of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Delete 31-4.5.3 cur ren t wording and replace with "newly in t roduced mattresses within heal th care occupancies shall comply with 31-1.4.2(c) and 31-1.4.4. SUBSTANTIATION: This provision would only apply to existing facilities due to the sprinkler protection exception. This provision is only applicable to newly purchased mattresses. Mattresses meet ing this provision are readily available at only a minimal increase m cost, and is already manda t ed at some locations across the country. For federal use, GSA now provides mattresses that mee t this provision. Mattresses with small amoun t s of polyurethane foam would pass this criteria with no special effort and no increase in cost.

The t rend towards a more "homey" a tmosphere and new emphasis on prevent ing decubiti bed sores has in t roduced a m u c h h igher combustible fire load and fast fire growth potential. For occupancies where "defend in place" is the fire protection plan, the m t s t reasonable way to mee t the Chapter 1 Life Safety Code objective (protect occupants not int imate with initial fire development) is to guard against a fast fire growth scenario by controlling the "bad actors," uphols te red furni ture and foam mattresses. With this provision in effect, the homey a tmosphere can be encouraged without jeopardiz ing pat ient and staff safety. Most recently there have been eight patient dea ths in hospital facilities due in part to "highly combust ible foam rubber mattresses." Fire depa r t men t spokesman, Albany, NewYork. In the case of Albany, NewYork, staff could not ext inguish the patient occupied mattress fire until an occupant hosel ine was used on the fire. The fires were Milton, MA, one fatality, November 1994; Petersburg, VA, six fatalities, December 1994; and Albany, NewYork, one fatality, January 1995. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 - 573 (Log #363). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced proposal should mee t the submit ter ' s intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #104) HEA

101- 577- (31-4.5.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Mayer D. Z immerman , DHHS: HCFA RECOMMENDATION: Add a sentence to the end of 31-4.5.5 to read as follows:

"Wastebaskets and other waste containers shall be of noncombus - tible or o ther approved materials". SUBSTANTIATION: The new 31-4.5.5 would then contain the language of the cur rent (1994) LSC and the language formerly in the 1991 LSC. Thus the rewritten r equ i r emen t would regulate soiled linen or trash receptacles by size and density as well as regulate wastebaskets in pat ient rooms.

I unde r s t and tha t the commit tee chose to regulate l inen and trash containers by size and density. I have no prob lem with that. I do feel, however, that the (prior) regulat ion of wastebaskets in patient

s leeping rooms for noncombust ibi l i ty should not have been deleted and should be pu t back into the LSC.

Wastebaskets in pat ient rooms are often the point of origin or the point of ~.owth of incipient fires. Wastebaskets are a convenient place to dispose of surrepti t ious smoking materials in supposedly non-smoking heal th care facilities and need to be regulated. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Rejecu COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provisions of 31-4.5.5 are adequate without reinstat ing a r equ i r emen t for non combustible waste containers. The submit ter has not provided sufficient substantiat ion for the proposed wording, which would appear to be a r equ i rement regulat ing the combustibility of all containers in all s aces. ~ E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ZIMMERMAN: In a t tempt ing to regulate trash containers by size

and density within a patient room, the commit tee deleted the r equ i r emen t that the container be noncombust ib le . Many fires in patient s leeping rooms still originate in trash cans. The r equ i r emen t that trash cans be, at least in patient s leeping rooms, noncombustible, should be restored to this section. The criteria for regulat ion by size and density can be left as written.

(Log #32) HEA

i01- 578 - (31-4.8 and A-31-4.8 (New)): Reject Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies (HEA) reconsider its action in view that the submittetas supplemental material, documenting the fire record, was not distributed to HEA. The documentation will be distributed to HEA with this public c o m m e n t generated by AAC. SUBMITTER= Charles Bennett , Health Care Financing Administra- tlOll RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section 31-4.8, Laundry Dryers (move existing Section 31-4.8 to 31-4.9). The heal th care facility shall have in effect a written plan for the cleaning and main tenance of laundry dryers in accordance with the manufac ture r ' s r ecommen- dation.

The plan sball provide for at least: (a) The daily removal of the lint build-up in tile lint trap. (b) The periodic removal of the lint build-up a round the heat ing

e lement and burners of the dryer. (c) The periodic removal of the lint build-up in the exhaust vents

and vertical risers. (d) Separate drying procedures for chemically soiled clothing,

t reated mop heads and foam rubber. (e) The periodic review of the dryers electrical wiring system to

ensure its conformity with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. (f) Awri t ten log shall be kept to ensure that the plan has been

completed. Add associated appendix note to read: A-31-4.8 Laundry dryers are one of the biggest causes of fires in

• heal th care facilities. Chemically treated mop heads used for waxing floors and rags associated with floor cleaning have ignited inside the dryers after being washed. Another problem area is trying to dry inappropriate material or garments such as those which contain a large a m o u n t of foam rubber. This material can often result in a fire if hea ted too hot. Good main tenance is necessary to prevent overheating of motors and mal func t ion ing of o ther electrical componen t s such as controls. SUBSTANTIATION: Based u p o n a s ix-month study of fire incidents repor ted in the Health Care Financing Administrat ion 's Region V Office, the greatest single cause of fires in heal th care occupancies were attr ibuted to laundry dryers. The study results d o c u m e n t that there is a need to ensure that laundry dryers are properly main- ta ined and cleaned on a regular basis. It is hoped that regulat ing of dryers t h rough the Life Safety Code will significantly reduce the n u m b e r of dryer fires, similar to how fires caused by smoking have been significantly reduced due to regulat ing th rough the Life Safety Code.

NOTE: Suppor t ing material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters . C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The proposed language is too specification orientated. It addresses a specific piece of equ ip m en t and singles it ou t as a hazard requir ing a detailed set Of requirements. There is inadequate substantiat ion for this detailed set of requirements . Some of the proposed requ i rements cannot be

191

N F P A 1 0 1 - - - F 9 6 R O P

practically implemented, for example, requiring that the wiring system be periodically reviewed. Using current code language, laundry facilities would be required to be in rooms protected as hazardous areas. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: ZIMMERMAN: The committee must recognize that the majority of

nursing home fires originate in (laundry) dryers. The submitter forwarded a well-documented record (fire history) to corroborate dais. In their rejection, my colleagues stated "The proposed language is too specification-oriented". They implied the maintenance requirement is difficult to enforce. They fur ther stated there was a lack of substantiation. I am forwarding the substantiation to NFPA staff (which was previously forwarded). I would urge the committee to ACCEPT IN PRINCIPLE and arrive at language considered suitable and enforceable. It is unconscionable to reject a proposal to address the major cause of nursing home fires without, at least, fur ther study.

(Log #CP700) DET

101- 579 - (Section 31-5, Sections 14-7 and 15-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Detent ion and Correctional Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 31-5 and move its verbiage in entirety so as to be duplicated as new Sections 14-7 and 15-7. SUBSTANTIATION: The Tectmical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that the provisions of Chapter 31 be moved into Chapters 1 through 30. This proposal accomplishes that for the port ion of Chapter 31 (i.e., Section 31-5) under the responsibility of the Technical Committee on Detention and Correctional Occupancies. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #300) DET

101- 580 - (31-5.2 Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: GregoryJ. Cahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Add a new exception to 31-5.2:

Exception: In areas protected by automatic fire sprinkler system, combustible containers shall be permit ted when approved by the authority having jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: This exception recognizes the benefits of fire sprinklers. The current language does not limit the amount of materials that can be int roduced into a sleeping room but attempts to control the event by enclosing it in a particular container. These containers can be made into objects not be conducive to this type of occupancy. Permitting this new exception would give facility management more leeway in what would be permit ted within a sleeping room for secur ingpersonal belongings. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrVrEE STATEMENT.. The requi rement for metal lockers or fire-resistant containers, because such containers are not as readily available as cardboard boxes, currently helps to limit the total number of such containers in any area. To allow combustible containers in sprinklered rooms establishes no control over the quantity of combustibles from the s tandpoint o f matching the dlal lenge that such combustibles present against the hazard for which the sprinkler system is designed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMM1TTt~. ACTION:


(Log #364) DET

101- 581 - (31-5.4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

31-5.4.3" Newly introduced matlresses within detent ion and correctional occupancies shall be tested in accordance with California Technical Bulletin 121, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in High Risk Occupancies.

A-31-5.4.3 Matwesses for new detent ion and correctional occupancies shall have limited mass loss, so that total mass loss does no t . exceed 0.7 kg, when tested in accordance with CA TB 121.

This should replace the language in the present version of the code, which reads:

31-5.4.3 Newly int roduced mattresses within detent ion and correctional occupancies shall be tested in accordance with the provisions of 31-1.4.2(c) and 31-1.4.4. SUBSTANTIATION: There is a problem with testing mattresses for detent ion and correctional occupancies using California Technical Bulletin 129 with a peak rate of heat release of 250 kW. Such testing is inappropriate, because it has been shown that mattresses with

~ oorer fire performance than those meet ing California Technical ulletin 121 will then become acceptable for high risk applications,

introducing an unacceptable level of fire hazard. Before the issuing of the 1991 edition of NFPA 101, in practice mattresses for detent ion and correctional occupancies were specified to meet CA TB 121 (although it was no t actually referred to in NFPA 101), and we should revert to that, with a lower mass tolerance. See information provided which shows actual testing and a simple fire hazard assessment.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit teeAct ion on Proposal 101 - 556 (Log #360) on 31-1.4.4 has dele ted reference to California Technical Bulletin 129 and retained reference to ASTM E1590. The Life Safety Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents has chosen ASTM E1590 as the appropriate test for measuring heat release rates for mattresses via reference by other Life Safety Technical Committees in the sections of the Code for which they have responsibility. The submitter has no t substantiated why ASTM E1590 is inadequate for the regulation of mattresses in detent ion and correctional occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 3 Barbaro, Stone, Whitehead

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GAW: The submitter identified a problem which occurred in the

1994 edition of the Life Safety Code. 31-5.4.3 inappropriately referenced flammability test procedures which would permit commercial grade mattresses to be installed in detent ion and correctional occupancies, The more rigorous California Technical Bulletin 121, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in High Risk Occupancies, or ASTM F1550 are more appropriate tests because they simulate a more intense combustion scenario which is often found in detent ion and correctional occupancies. Following California Technical Bulletin 129, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in Public Occupancies, or ASTM E1590, mattress manufacturers could produce a mattress employing a flame blocker (to protect a highly combustible mattress core) which would pass the test criteria. If, however, the flame blocker were slashed, as occurs in prison mattress vandalism, the combustible core would be exposed creating an intense combustion scenario. While ASTM E1590, as selected by the Life Safety Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents, may be appropriate for other occupancies, the pass/fail criteria are not rigorous enough for the detent ion and correctional environment. The goal is to maintain tenable conditions as long as possible in the room of fire origin. Tenable conditions may be maintained, if the room can be prevented from reaching flashover. This may be achieved by the installation of automatic sprinklers or by limiting the rate of heat release of mattresses, which usually constitutes the largest mass of combustibles in the room. As no t all jurisdictions require sprinkler protection in cells and sleeping rooms, it is critical that room contents be limited in their rate o f heat release and total heat release. The Technical Committee on Detent ion and Correc- tional Occupancies has an obligation to advise the Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents that the test it has selected as the reference standard for mattress flammability for all occupandes is no t appropriate for mattresses installed in detent ion a n d correctionaloccupancies. I r ecommend tha tASTMF1550 , or California Technical Bulletin 121, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in High Risk Occupancies, be referenced for mattresses for use in detent ion and correctional occupancies.

192

N F P A 1 0 1 m F 9 6 R O P

(Log #'291) DET

101- 582 - (31-5.4.5 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: GregoryJ. C, ahanin, Exit Seminars RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to the end of th,~/v.Pasaragraph:

te containers composed of a stand, lid and locking ring for a cloth or plastic bag do no t meet the requirements of this Section." SUBSTANTIATION: This section requires a noncombust ible lid but does not eliminate the use of a hamper type container with an exposed garbage bag or cloth bag. Prior requirements for a noncombustible waste container were much clearer. Should the committee wish to include the hanging garbage bag type of container, the requi rement for a noncombnsUble lid should be removed, since it serves no fire restraint purpose. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The first sentence of 31-5.4.5 requires that the waste container be of noncombustible or other approved materials regardless of the capacity of the container. The second sentence fur ther requires a lid of noncombustible or other approved material if the waste container has a capacity of more than 20 gallons. Thus, the containers for which lids are required also have "bodies" of noncombustible or other approved material. The authority having jurisdiction would rule that the plastic bags, that function as t h e b o d y of the container, do not meet the current requirement. Thus, no change is needed. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP865) RES

101- 583 - (Section 31-6, Sections 16-7, 17-7, 18-7, 19-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTE~ Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 31-6 by relocating its material to occupancy Chapters 16 through 18 and 21 as follows:

1. Relocate 31-6.1 through 31-6.4 to newSect ion 16-7 Operating Features by renumber ing as paragraphs 16-7.1 through 16-7.4.

2. Relocate 31-6.1 through 31-6.4 to newSect ion 17-7 Operat ing Features by renumber ing as paragraphs 17-7.1 through 17-7.4.

3. Relocate 31-6.6 to 16-3.3.3; change "in accordance with the

~ rovisions of 31-1.4.1" to "in accordance with the provisions of 6- • 1"; and change title of 1 6-3.3 from "Interior Finish" to "Interior

Finish, Furnishings and Decorations." 4. Relocate 31.6.6 to 1%3.3.3; change "in accordance with the

provisions of 31-1.4.1" to "in accordance with the provisions of 6- 7.1"; and change title of 17-3.3 from "Interior Finish" to "Interior Finish, Furnishings and Decorations."

5. Add a new 16-5.2.2 to read: 16-5.2.2 Unvented fuel-fired heaters shall no t be used. Exception: Gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA

54, National Fuel Gas Code. 6. Add a new 18-5.2.2 to read: 18-5.2.2 Unvented fuel-fired heaters shall no t be used. Exception: Gas space heaters installed in compliance with NFPA

54, National Fuel Gas Code. 7. Add a new 21-5.2 to read: 21-5.2 Unvented fuel-fired heaters shall not be used. Exception: Listed and approved unvented fuel-fired heaters in

one-and two-family dwellings. 8. Delete 31-6.7 and its exception. 9. Relocate 31.6.5 to new Section 18-7 Operating Features as

paragraph 18-7.1. 10. Relocate 31-6.5 to new Section 19-7 Operating Features as

paragraph 19-7.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that Chapter 31 provisions be moved to Chapter 1 through 30, as applicable. This proposal moves that port ion of Chapter 31 (i.e., Section 31-6) for which the Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies has responsibility. The exceptions being added to new 1 6-5.2.2 and 18-5.2.2 are for consistency with the action taken on Proposal 101 - 382 (Log # CP508) on 17-5.2.2, etc. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 25 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP903) BCF

101- 584 - (Section 31-7, Sections 22-7 (New) and 23-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities, RECOMMENDATION: Relocate Section 31-7 requirements to new Sections 22-7 and 23 -7 (i.e., duplicate in two places). SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that Chapter 31 provisions be moved into Chapters 1 through 30, as appropriate. Tfus will position the Operating Features requirements applicable to this occupancy within Chapters 22 and 23, rather than in a separate Chapter 31. COMMITI~EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #CP756) MER

101- 585 - (Section 31-8, Sections 24-7 (New) and 25-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Delete current Section 31-8 and create new Sections 24-7 and 25-7 on Operating Features to read as follows:

Section 24-7 Operating Features 24-7.1 Drills. In every Class A or Class B mercantile occupancy,

employees shall beperiodically trained in fire exit drill procedures in conformance with Section 1-7.

24-7.2 Extinguisher Training. Employees of mercantile occupancies shall be periodically instructed in the use of portable fire extinguishers.

Section 25-7 Operating Features 25-7.1 Drills. In every Class A or Class B mercantile occupancy,

employees shall beperiodically trained in fire exit drill procedures in conformance with Section 1-7.

25-7.2 Extinguisher Training. Employees of mercantile occupancies shall be periodically instructed in the use of portable fire extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that Chapter 31 provisions be moved into Chapters 1 through 30, as appropriate. This will position the Operating Features requirements applicable to dais occupancy within Chapters 24 and 25, rather than in a separate Chapter 31. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP757) MER

101- 586 - (Section 31-9, Sections 26-7 (New) and 27-7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Delete current Section 31-9 and create new Sections 26-7 and 27-7 on Operating Features to read as follows:

Section 26-7 Operating Features 26-7.1 Drills. In any business occupancy building occupied by more

than 500 persons or more than 100 persons above or below the street level, employees and supervisory personnel shall be periodically instructed in fire exit drill procedures in accordance with Section 1-7 and shall hold drills periodically where practicable.

26-7.2 Extinguisher Training. Employees of business occupancies shall be periodically instructed in the use of portable fire extinguish- e r 8 .

Section 27-7 Operating Features 27-7.1 Drills. In any business occupancy building occupied by more

than 500 persons or more than 100 persons above or below the street level, employees and supervisory personnel shall be periodically instructed in fire exit drill procedures in accordance with Section 1-7 and shall hold drills periodically where practicable.

27-7.2 Extinguisher Training. Employees of business occupancies shall be periodically instructed in the use of portable fire extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life has directed that Chapter 31 provisions be moved into Chapters 1 through 30, as appropriate. This will position the Operat ing Features requirements applicable to this occupancy within Chapters 26 and 27, rather than in a separate Chapter 31.

193

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


Tomes.

(Log #CP606) AXE

101- 587- (Chapters 32 and 33 (New), Sections 4-1.11, 10-7, 10-8, 11- 7, 11-8 and 11-9): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Assembly and Educational Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Delete Sections 10-7, 10-8, 11-7, 11-8 and 11-9. Insert a new Section 4-1.11 on the Classification of Day-Care

Occupancies (and renumber current 4-1.11 as 4-1.12) and create new Clia~pters 32 and 33 on Day-Care Occupancies to read as follows:

4-1.11 Day-Care. (For requirements, see Chapters 32 and 33.) Day-care occupancies include all buildings or portions of buildings in which more than three clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision, by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s), for less than 24 hours per day.

Day-care occupancies include: Child day-care occupancies Kindergarten classes that are Adult day-care occupancies incidental to a child day-care Nursery schools occupancy Day-care homes In cases where care is incidental to some other occupancy, the

section of this Code governing such other occupancy shall apply A-4-1.11 In areas where public schools offer only half-day kinder-

garten programs, many child day-care occupancies offer state approved kindergarten classes for qhildren who require full-day care. As these classes are normally incidental to the day-care occupancy, the requirements of the day-care occupancy should be followed. (See also 31-1.4.1) CHAPTER 32 NEW DAY-CARE OCCUPANCIES SECTION 32-1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 32-1.1" Application. 32-1.1.1 The requirements of tiffs chapter apply to: (a) New buildings or portions thereof used as day-care occupancies

(see Section 1-4); and (b) Additions made to, or used as, a day-care occupancy (see 1-

4.5); and (c) Alterations, modernizations, or renovations of existing day-care

occupancies (see 1-4.6); and (d) Existing buildings or portions thereof upon change of

occupancy to a day-care occupancy (see 1-6.3). 32-1.1.2 Sections 32-1 through 32-5 and 32-7 establish life safety

requirements for day-care occupancies in which more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day.

32-1.1.3 Sections 32-1 (other than 32-1.6), 32-6 and 32-7 establish life s,'ffety requirements for day-care homes as def ined in 32-1.3.

32-1.1.4 Where a facility houses more than one age group of self- preservation capability, the strictest requirements applicable to any group present shall apply throughout the day-care occupancy or building, as applicable, unless the area housing that group is maintained as a separate fire area.

32-1.1.5 Places o f religious worship shall not be required to meet the provisions of dffs section in order to operate a nursery while services are being held in the building.

32-1.2 Mixed Occupancies. (a) General. Where day-care occupancies are located in a building

containing mixed occupancies, the occupancies shall be separated by minimum 1-hour rated fire barriers constructed in accordance with 6-2.3.

Exception to (a): Day-Care Occupancies in assembly occupancies used primarily for worship.

(b) Day-Care Occupancies in Apar tment Buildings. If the two exit accesses from the Day-Care Occupancy enter the same corridor as the apar tment occupancy, the exit accesses shall be separated in the corridor by a smoke barrier having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating constructed in accordance with Section 6-3. The smoke barrier shall be located so that it has an exit on each side.

32-1.3, Special Definitions. Day-Care Home. A building or part of a building in which more

than three but not more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision, by other than their relative(s) or legal guardians(s), for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit).

Flexible Plan and Open Plan Day-Care Buildings. These include a building or portion of a building designed for multiple teaching staff ons.

(a) Flexible plan buildings have movable corridor walls and movable partitions of fuU-height construction with doors leading from rooms to corridors.

(b) Open plan buildings have rooms and corridors delineated by tables, chairs, desks, bookcases, counters, low-height [maximum 5-ft (1.5-m) ] partitions, or similar furnishings. Self-Preservation.* A client that is capable of self-preservation is

one that can evacuate the building without direct intervention by a staff member.

Separate Atmosphere. The a tmosphere that exists between rooms, spaces, or areas that are separated by an approved smoke barrier.

32-1.4 Classification of Occupancy. (see 4-1.11) 32-1.4.1 Occupancies that include part-day preschools, kindergar-

tens, and other schools whose purpose is primarily educational even though the children are of preschool age shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.

32-1.4.2 Adult day-care shall include any building or port ion thereof used for less than 24 hours per day to house more than 3 adults requiring eare, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s). Clients shall be ambulatory or semi-ambulatory and shall not be bedridden. Theyshal l no t exhibit behavior that is harmful to themselves or others.

32-1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. The contents shall be classified as ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 4-2.

32-1.6 Location and Construction. 32-1.6.1 Day-care occupancies shall be limited to the locations/

construction types specified in Table 32-1.6.1.

Table 32-1.6.1 Location/Construction Type Limitations

Location of Day Care Sprinldered

B ~ d ~ 1 story below LED Yes

Story of exit discharge No

1 story above LED Yes

No

2 or 3 stories above LED Yes

>3 stories above LED Yes

but not high rise

High rise Yes

Construction

Type Permitted

Any type other than III(200)

& V(OOO)

Any type

Any type

I(443), I(332),II(222)

Any type other

than HI (200),

IV(2HH), & V(000)

I(443), I(332), II(222) or

I I ( l l l )

I(443), I(332), or II(222)

32-1.6.2 Where day-care occupancies with clients 24 months or less in age or incapable of self-preservation are located one or more stories above the level of exit discharge or where day-care occupancies are located two or more stories above the level of exit discharge, smoke barriers shall be provided to divide such stories into a minimum of two smoke compartments. The smoke barriers shall be constructed in accordance with Section 6-3 but shall no t be required to have a fire resistance rating.

32-1.7 Occupant Loach 32-1.7.1 The occupant load for which means of egress shall be

provided for any floor shall be the maximum number of persons in tended to occupy that floor but no t less than the number calculated on the basis of one person for each 35 sq ft (3.3 sq m) of ne t floor area used by the clients.

32-1.7.2 The occupant load of a day-care occupancy or a port ion thereof shall be permit ted to be modified from that specified above if the necessaF~ aisles and exits are provided. An approved aisle, seating and exiting diagram shall be required by tile authority having jurisdiction to substantiate such a modification.

SECTION 32-2 MEANS OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS 32-2.1 General. 32-2.1.1 Means of egress shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 and

this section. 32-2.2 Means of Egress Components .

194

NFPA 1 0 1 I ~ 6 ROP

32-2.2.1 Components of means of egress shall be limited to the types described in 32-2.2.2 through 32-2.2.8

32-2.2.2 Doors. (a) General. Doors complying with 5-2.1 shall be permitted. (b) Panic Hardware or Fire Exit Hardware. Any door in a required

means of egress from an area havingan occupant load of 100 or more persons shall be permit ted t o b e provided with a latch or lock only if it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware.

(c) Door Closure. Any exit door designed to normally be kept closed shall complywith 5-2.1.8.

(d) Locks and Latches. Only one locking or latching device shall be permit ted on a door or on one leaf of a pair of doors.

(e) Special Locking Arrangements. Special locking arrangements complying with 5-2.1.6 shall b e permitted.

(f)* Closet Doors. Every closet door latch shall be such that clients can open the door from inside the closet.

(g) Bathroom Doors. Every bathroom door lock shall be designed to permit opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening device shall be readily accessible to the staff.

32-2.2.3* Stairs. Stairs complying with 5-2.2 shall be permitted. 32-2.2.4 Smokeproof Enclosures. Smokeproof enclosures

complying with 5-2.3 shall be permitted. 32-2.2.5 Horizontal Exits. Horizontal exits complying with 5-2.4

shall be permi t ted . 32-2.2.6 Ramps. Ramps complying with 5-2.5 shall be permitted. 32-2.2.7 Exit Passageways. Exit passageways complying with 5-2.6

shall be permitted. 32-2.2.8 Areas of Refuge. Areas of refuge complying with 5-2.12

shall be permitted. 32-2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Capacity of means of egress

shall be in accordance with Section 5-3. 32-2.4 Number of Exits. Each floor occupied by clients shall have

not less than two remotely located exits in accordance with Chapter 5.

32-2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. (See also 32-1.6.2.) 32-2.5.1 Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with

Section 5-5. No dead end shall exceed 20 ft (6.1 m). 32-2.5.2 Every room or space with an occupant load of more than

50 persons or an area of more than 1,000 sq ft (93 sq m) shall have at least two exit access doorways as remotely located from each other as practicable. Such doorways shall provide access to separate exits, but where egress is through corridors, they shall be permitted to open onto a common corridor leading to separate exits located in opposite directions.

32-2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. 32-2.6.1 Travel distance shall be measured in accordance with

Section 5-6. 32-2.6.2 Travel Distance. (a) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit

access and an exit shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m); and (b) The travel distance between any point in a room and an exit

shall no t exceed 150 ft (45 m); and (c) The travel distance between any point in a sleeping room and

an exit access door in that room shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m). Exception: The travel distance in (a) and (b) above shall be permit ted to be increased by 50 ft (15 m) in buildings protected throughout by an approved supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

32-2.7 Discharge from Exits. Discharge from exits shall be arranged in accordance with Section 5-7.

32-2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall be illuminated in accordance with Section 5-8.

32-2.9 Emergency Lighting. Emergency lighting shall be provided in accordance with Section 5-9 in the following areas.

(a) Interior stairs and corridors. (b) Normally occupied spaces. Exception to (b): Administrative areas, general classrooms, and

mechanical rooms and storage areas. (c) Flexible and open planbuildings. (d) Interior or windowless portions of buildings. (e) Shops and laboratories. 32-2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall have

signs in accordance with Section 5-10. 32-2.11 Special Means of Egress Features. 32-2.11.1 Windows for Rescue and Ventilation. Every room or

space normally subject to client occupancy, other than bathrooms, shall have at least one outside window for emergency rescue and ventilation. Such window shall be openable from the inside without the use of tools and shall provide a clear opening of not less than 20 in. (50.8 cm) in width, 24 in. (61 cm) in. height, and 5.7 sq ft (0.53 sq m) in area. The bottom of the opening shall be not more than 44 in. (112 cm) above the floor.

Exception No. 1: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

Exception No. 2: Where the room or space has a door leading directly to the outside of the building.

Exception No. 3: In rooms located higher than three stories above grade, the openable clear height, width, and area of the window shaU be permit ted to be modified to the dimensions necessary for ventilation.

SECTION 32-3 PROTECTION 32-3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. Anyvertieal opening shall

be enclosed or protected in accordance with 6-2.4. 32-3.2 Protection from Hazards. 32-3.2.1 Rooms or spaces for the storage, processing, or use of

materials specified below shall be protected in accordance with the following:

(a) Separation f rom the remainder of the building byfire barriers havinga fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour or protection of such rooms by automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 6-4 in the following areas:

(1) Boiler and furnace rooms. Exception to (1): Rooms enclosing onlyair-handling equipment. (2) Rooms or spaces used for the storage of combustible supplies

in quantities deemed hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction. (3) Rooms or spaces used for the storage of hazardous materials or

flammable or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by recognized standards.

(b) Separation from the remainder of the building byfire barriers having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour and protection of such rooms by automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 6-4 in the following areas:

(1) Laundries. (2) Maintenance shops, including woodworking and painting areas. (3) Rooms. or sspaces used for processing or use of combustible

supplies deemedhaza rdous by the authority having jurisdiction. (4) Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of hazardous

materials or flammable or combustible liquids in quantifies deemed hazardous by recognized standards.

(c) Where automatic extinguishing is used to meet the requirements of dais section, the protection shall be permitted in accordance with 7-7.1.2.

Exception: Food preparation facilities protected in accordance with 7-2.3 shall n o t b e required to have openings protected between food preparation areas and dining areas. Where domestic cooking equipment is used for food wan~ing or limited cooking, protection or segregation of food preparation facilities shall not be required if approved by the authorityhavingjurisdiction.

32-3.2.2 Janitor closets shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system, which shall be permit ted to be in accordance with 7-7.1.2. Doors to janitor closets shall be permit ted to have ventilating louvers.

32-3.3 Interior Finish. "32-3.3.1 Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish. Interior finish for all

walls and ceilings shall be Class A or Class B in accordance with Section 6-5. Interior finish in stairways, corridors and lobbies shall be Class A.

32-3.3.2 Interior Floor Finish. Interior floor finish within corridors and exits shall be Class I or Class II in accordance with Section 6-5.

32-3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 32-3.4.1 General. Day-care occupancies shall be provided with a

fire alarm system in accordance with Section 7-6. Exception: Day-care occupancies housed in one room. 32-3.4.2 Initiation. Initiation of the required fire alarm system

shall be by manual means and by operation of any required smoke detectors and required sprinkler systems. (See 32-3.4.5.)

Exception: Single-station smoke detectors. 32-3.4.3 Occupant Notification. Occupant notification shall be in

accordance with 7-6.3. 32-3.4.4 Emergency Forces Notification. Fire depar tment

notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 7-6.4. 32-3.4.5 Detection. A smoke detection system shall be installed in

accordance with Section 7-6, with placement of detectors in each story in front of doors to the stairways and in the corddors of all floors occupied by the day-care occupancy. Detectors also shall be installed in lounges, recreation areas, and sleeping rooms in the day- care occupancy.

Exception: Day-care occupancies housed in one room. 32-3.5 Extinguishment Requirements. Any required sprinkler

systems shall be installed in accordance with Section 7-7. 32-3.6 Corridors. Every interior corridor shall be constructed of

walls having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating in accordance with 6-2.3.

SECTION 32-4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 32-4.1 Windowless or Underground Buildings. Windowless or

underground buildings shall comply with Secu~on 30-7. 32-4 .2High Rise BuNdings. High rise buildings that house day-

care occupancies on floors more than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall comply with Section 30-8.

195

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

32-4.3 Flexible Plan and Open Plan Buildings. 32-4.3.1 Flexible plan and open plan buildings shall complywith

the requirements of this chapter as modified by 32-4.3.2 through 32- 4.3.4.

32-4.3.2 Each room occupied by more than 300 persons shall have two or more means of egress entering into separate atmospheres. Where three or more means of egress are required, not more than two of them shall enter into a common atmosphere.

32.4.3.3 Flexible plan buildings shall be permitted to have walls and partitions rearranged periodically only if revised plans or diagrams have been approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

32-4.3.4 Flexible plan buildings shall be evaluated while all folding walls are extended and in use as well as when they are in the retracted position.

SECTION 32-5 BUILDING SERVICES 32-5.1 Utilities. 32-5.1.1 Utilities shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-1. 32-5.1.2 Special protective covers for all electrical receptacles shall

be installed in areas occupied by clients. 32-5.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment. 32-5.2.1 Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment shall

be installed in accordance with Section 7-2. 32-5.2.2 Unvented fuel-fired room heaters shall not be permitted. 32-5.2.3 Any heating equipment in spaces occupied by clients shall

be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients from hot surfaces and open flames. If solid partitions are used to provide such protection, provisions shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and ventilation for the heating equipment.


32-5.4 Rubbish Chutes, Incinerators, and Laundry Chutes. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-5.

SECTION 32-6 DAY-CARE HOMES 32-6.1 General Requirements. 32-6.1.1 -Application. 32-6.1.1.1 The requirements of this section apply to: (a) New buildings or portions thereof used as day-care homes (see

Section 1-4); and (b) Additions made to, or used as, a day-care home (see 1-4.5); and (c) Alterations, modernizations, or renovations of existing day-care

homes (see 1-4.6); and (d) Existing buildings or portions thereof upon change of

occupancy to a day-care home (see I-6.3). 32-6.1.1.2 (see also 32-6.1.4.) This section establishes life safety

requirements for day-care homes in which more than three but not more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit).

Exception: Facilities that supervise clients on a temporary basis with a parent or guardian in close proximity.

32-6.1.1.3 Where a facility houses more than one age group of self- reservation ca ability, the strictest re uirements a plicable to any

P o u p present ~al l apply throughout ~ e day-care ~ome or building, as applicable, unless the area housing that group is maintained as a separate area.

32-6.1.1.4 Places of religious worship shall not be required to meet the provisions of this section in order to operate a nursery while services are being held in the building.

32-6.1.2 Mixed Occupancies. (a) General. Where day-care occupancies are located in a building


Exception to (a): Day-care homes in assembly occupancies used primarily for worship.

(b) Group Day-Gate homes in Apartment Buildings. ff the two exit accesses from the group day-care home enter the same corridor as the apartment occupancy, the exit accesses shall be separated in the corridor by a smoke barrier having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating constructed in accordance with Section 6-3. The smoke barrier shall be located so that it has an exit on each side.

32-6.1.3 Spedal Definitions. Self-Preservation.* A client that is capable of self-preservation is


32-6.1.4 Classification of Occupancy. 32-0.1.4.1 Occupancies that include pact-day preschools, kindergar-


32-6.1.4.2 Subclassification of Day-Cace Homes. (a) Family Day-Care Homes. A family day-care home is a day-care

home in which more than three but fewer than seven clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or

196

legal guardian(s} for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit). Requirements for family day-carehomes are based on a minimum staff-to-client ratio of one staff for up to six clients, including the caretaker's own children under age six, with no more than two clients incapable of serf-preservation.

(b) Group Day-Care Homes. Agroup day-care home is a day-care home in which at least seven bu tno t more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and sulServision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit). Requirements for group day-care homes-are based on a minimum staff-to-client ratio of two staff for up to 12 clients, with no more than three clients incapable of self-preservation. This staff-to-client ratio shall be permittedto be modified by the authority having jurisdiction where safeguards in addition to those specified by this section are provide&

32-6.1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. The contents shall be limited to those classified as ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 4-9.

32-6.1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (None.) 32-6.1.7 Occupant Load. (No special requirements.) 32-6.2 Means of Egress Requirements. 32-6.2.1 General. (None.) 32-6.2.2 Means of Egress Components. (See 32-6.2.4.) 32-6.2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Capacity of means of egress

shall be in accordance with Section 5-3. 32-6.2.4 Number of Exits. 32-6.2.4.1 In group day-care homes, every story occupied by clients

shall have not less than two remotely located means of escape. 32-6.2.4.2 Every room used for sleeping, living, or dining purposes

shall have at least two means of escape, at least one of which shall be a door or stairway providing a means of unobstructed travel to the outside of the building at street or ground level. The second means of escape shall be permitted to be a window in accordance with 32- 2.11.1. No room or space that is accessible only by a ladder or folding stairs or through a trap door shall be occupied for living or sleeping purposes.

32-6.2.4.3 In group day-care homes where spaces on the story above the story of exit discharge are used by clients, at least one means of escape shall be an exit discharging directly to the outside. The second means of escape shall be permitted to be a window in accordance with 32-9.11.1.

32-6.2.4.4 Where dients are occupying a story (basement) below the level of exit discharge, at least one means of escape shall be an exit discharging directly to the outside, and the vertical travel to ground level shall not exceed 8 ft (244 cm). The second means or escape shall be permitted to be a window in accordance with 32- 2.11.1. No facility shall be located more than one story below the ground. In group day-care homes, any stairway to the story above shall be cut off by a fire barrier containing a door havingat least a 20-minute fire protection rating and equipped with a serf-closing device.

32-6.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. 32-6.2.5.1 Where a story above or below the level of exit discharge

is used, see 32-6.2.4. 32-6.2.5.2 For group day-care homes, means of egress shall be

arranged in accordance with Section 5-5. Dead ends shall not exceed 20 ft (6.1 m).

32-6.2.6 Travel Distance. (a) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit

access and an exit shall not exceed I00 ft (30 m); and (b) The travel distance between any point in a room and an exit

shall not exceed 150 ft (45 m); and (c) The travel distance between any point in a sleeping room and

an exit access to that room shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m). Exception: The travel distance in (a) and (b) above shall be

tPhermitted to be increased by 50 ft (15 m) in buildings protected roughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system

in accordance with Section 7-7. 32-6.2.7 Discharge from Exits. (See 32-6.2.4.) 32-6.2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Illumination of the

means of egress shall be provided in accordance with Section 5-8. 32-6.2.9 Emergency Lighting. (No requirements.) 32-6.2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. (No requirements.) 32-6.2.11 Special Means of Escape Requirements. 32-6.2.11.1 Every closet door latch shall be such that clients can

open the door from the inside the closet. 32-6.2.11.2 Every bathroom door lock shall be designed to permit

opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening device shall be readily accessible to the staff. 32-6.3 Protection. 32-6.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. For group day-care

homes, the doorway between the level o f exit discharge and any story below shall be equipped with a door assembly having a 20-minute fire protection rating. Where the story above the story of exit discharge is used for sleeping purposes, there shall be a door

NFPA 101- - F96 ROP

assembly having a 20-minute fire protection rating at the top or bottom of each stairway.

32-6.3.2 Protection from Hazards. (No requirements.) 32-6.3.3 Interior Finish. 32-6.3.3.1 In group day-care homes, the interior finish in corridors.

stairways, lobbies, and exits shall be Class A or Class B in accordance with Section 6-5. In family day-care homes, the interior finish in exits shall be Class A or Class B in accordance with Section 6-5.

32-6.3.3.2 Interior finish in occupied spaces shall be Class A, Class B, or Class C in accordance with Section 6-5.

52-6.3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 32-6.3.4.1 Smoke detectors shall be installed within day-care homes

in accordance with 7-6.2.9. 32-6.3.4.2 Where the day-care home is located within a building of

another occupancy, such as in an apar tment building or office building, any corridors serving the day-care home shall be provided with a smoke detection system in accordance with Section 7-6.

32-6.3.4.3 Single-station smoke detectors in accordance with %6.2.9 powered by the building electrical system or system detectors with integral sounding devices in accordance with 7-6.1.4 shall be provided in all rooms used for sleeping.

32-6.4 Special Provisions. 32-6.4.1 Windowless or Underground Buildings. Windowless or

underground buildings shall comply with Section 30-7. 32-6.4.2 High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings that house day-

care occupancies on floors more than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire depar tment vehicle access shall comply with Section 30- 8.

32-6.5 Building Services. 32-6.5.1 Utilities. 32-6.5.1.1 Utilities shall complywith theprovisions of Section %1. 32-6.5.1.2 Special protective covers for electrical receptacles shall

be installed in all areas occupied by clients. 32-6.5.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Condit ioning Equipment. 32-6.5.2.1 Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment

shall be installed in accordance with Section %2. 32-6.5.2.2 Unren ted fuel-fired room heaters shall not be permitted. 32-6.5.2.3 Any heating equipment in spaces occupied by clients

shall be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients from hot surfaces and open flames. If partitions are used to provide such protection, provisions shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and ventilation for the heating equipment.

SECTION 32-7 OPERATING FEATURES 32-7.1 Drills. 32-7.1.1" Fire exit drills shall be conducted no t less than once par

month. Drills shall be designed in cooperation with local authorities. Responsibility for the planning and conduct of drills shall be assigned only to competent site administrators or staff members qualified to exercise leadership.

32-7.1.2" In climates where the weather is severe during the winter months, drills shall be held with sui t ident t~equency during warmer months to familiarize all occupants with the drill procedure, as well as completing the required 12 drills.

32-7.1.3" Drills shall be held at unexpected times and under varying conditions to simulate the unusual conditions that occur in the case of fire.

32-7.1.4* Drills shall include suitable procedures to ensure that all persons subject to the drill actually participate.

. 32-7.1.5 Every fire exit drill shall be an exercise for site administrators and staff members with emphasis on an orderly evacuation under proper discipline rather than on speed. Running shall be prohibi ted, ff there are clients incapable of holding their places in a line moving at a reasonable speed, provisions shall be made to have them taken care of by staff members or more capable clients, who will keep them from moving independent ly of the regular line of march.

32-7.1.6 As all drills simulate an actual fire condition, clients shall no t be allowed to obtain clothing after the alarm is sounded, due to the confusion that would result in forming lines and the danger of tripping over dragging apparel.

32-7.1.7 Each group shall proceed to ap r ede t e rmined point outside the building and remain there while a check is made to see that all are accounted for, leaving only when a recall signal is given to return to the building or when dismissed. Such points shall be sufficiently far away from the building and from each other as to avoid danger from any fire in the building, interference with fire depar tment operations, or confusion among different groups.

3~-7.1.8" Where necessary for drill lines to cross roadways, signs reading "STOPI FIRE DRILL", or the equivalent, shall be carried by staff members or more capable clients to the traffic intersecting points in order to stop traffic during the period of the drill.

32-7.1.9" Fire exit drills in day-care occupancies shall not include any fire extinguishing operations.

32-7.2 Inspections.

32-7.2.1 Fire prevention inspections shall be conducted monthly by a trained senior member of the staff. A copy of the latest inspection form shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the day-care facility.

32-7.2.2* It shall be the duty of site administrators and staff members to inspect all exit facilities daily in order to make sure that all stairways, doors, and other exits are in proper condition.

32-7.2.3 Open-plan buildings shall require extra surveillance to ensure that exit paths are maintained clear of obstruction and are obvious.

32-7.3 Furnishings and Decoration. 32-7.3.1 Draperies, curtains, and other similar furnishings and

decorations in day-care occupancies shall be in accordance with 6- 6.1.

32-7.3.2 Clothing and personal effects shall not be stored in corridors.

Exception No. 1: Corridors protected byan antomaticsprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

Exception No. 2: Corridor areas protected by a smoke detection system in accordance with Section %6.

Exception No. 3: Storage in metal lockers, provided the required egress width is maintained.

32-7.3.3 Artwork and teaching materials shall be permit ted to be attached directly to the walls and shall no t exceed 20 percent of the wall area.

32-7.3.4 Wastebaskets and other waste containers shall be made of noncombustible or other approved materials.

32-7.4 Day-Care Staff. Adequate adult staff shall be on duty, alert, awake, and in the facility at all times where clients are present.

32-7.5 Flammable Liquids and Gases. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be stored in areas accessible only to designated individuals and as required in NFPA 30, Flammable and Combus- tible Liquids Code.

(Appendix Notes) CHAPTER 32 A-32-1.1 Day-care occupancies do no t provide for the full-time

maintenance of a client. Occupancies that provide a primary place of residence are addressed in other occupancies. See Chapters 16 through 23.

The requirements of Chapter 32 are based on the need to adequately protect the occupants in case of fire. The requirements assume that adequate staffing will be available and are based on staffing similar to the following:

Staff-to-Client Ratio Ah=e (Months)

1:3 0-24

1:4 25-36

1:7 37-60

1:10 61-96

1:12 97 1:3 clients incapable of

serf-preservation

ff staff-to-client ratios fall below that suggested by the above talkie, it would be the responsibility of the authority having jurisdiction to determine what additional safeguards above and beyond the requirements of this section would be necessary. Typical additional

rOVisions may include restricting the day-care occupancy to the vel of exit discharge, requiring additional smoke detection,

requiring automatic sprinkler protection, requiring better or additional means of egress, and similar types of items depending on the situation. A-32-1.3 Definitions. Self-Preservation. Examples of clients that are incapable of self-

preservation include infants; clients that are unable to use stairs because of conf inement to a wheelchair or other physical disability;, clients that cannot follow directions or a g roup to the outside of a facility due to mental or behavioral disorders. It is the intent of this code to classify children under the age of 24 months as incapable of serf-preservation. Examples of direct intervention by staff members include carrying a client, pushing a client out in a wheelchair, guiding a client by direct hand-holding or cont inued bodily contact. If the clients cannot exit the building by themselves with minimal intervention from staff members, such as verbal orders, classification as incapable of serf-preservation should be considered.

A-32-2.2.2(f) The purpose of this requirement is to prevent arrangements where a child can be t rapped in a closet. It is in tended that this provision be broadly interpreted by the authority having jurisdiction to include equipment such as refrigerators and freezers.

197

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

A-32-2.2.3 See A-5-2.2.4(a) Exception No. 3 regarding additional handrails on stairs that are used extensively by children 5 years of age or less.

A-32-6.1.3 Definitions. Self-Preservation. Examples of clients that are incapable of self-

c reservation include infants; clients that are unable to use stairs ecause of conf inement to a wheelchair or other physical disability;,

clients that cannot follow directions or a group to the outside of a facility due to mental or behavioral disorders. It is the intent of this code to classify children under the age of 24 months as incapable of serf-preservation. Examples of direct intervention by staff members include carrying a client, pushing a wheelchair, guiding a client by direct hand-holding or cont inued bodily contact, f f the clients cannot exit the building by themselves with minimal intervention from staff members, such as verbal orders, classification as incapable of serf-preservation should be considered. A-32-7.1.1 The requirements are of necessity general in scope, as it

is appreciated that they apply to all types of day-care occupancies as wellas conditions of occupancies, such as truant day-care occupancies; occupancies for the mentally handicapped, the vision impaired, hearing impaired, speech impaired; adult day-care; care of infants; and day-care occupancies. It is fully recognized that no one code can meet all the conditions of the various buildings involved, and it will be necessary for site administrators to issue supplements to these requirements, but all supplements should be consistent with these requirements. Additionally, it is r ecommended that fire safety be a part of the educational program of the occupancy. A-32-7.1.2 Drills may be held during inclement weather. Such

drills would be held at the regular dismissal time, when the clients are fully clothed, by using the exit drill alarm signal. With such drills there would be no necessity of a return signal.

A-32-7.1.3 Fire is always unexpected. If the drill is always held in the same way at the same time it loses much of its value, and when for some reason in actual fire it is not possible to follow the usual routine of the fire exit drill to which occupants have become accustomed, confusion and panic may ensue. Drills should be carefully p lanned to simulate actual fire conditions. Not only should they be held at varying times, but different means of exit should be used based on an assumption that, for example, some given stairway is unavailable by reason of fire or smoke, andal l the occupants must be let out by some other route. Fire exit drills should be designed to familiarize the occupants with all available means of exits, particularly emergency exits that are not habitually used during the normal occupancy of the building. A-32-7.1.4 Ira fire exit drill is considered merely as a routine

exercise from which some persons may be excused, there is grave danger that in an actual fire the drill will fail in its in tended purpose. A-32-7.1.5 f f for any reason a line becomes blocked, some of the

clients should be countermarched to another exit in order to prevent unnecessary anxiety arising as a result of inactivity. A-32-7.1.8 Wherever possible, drill lines should not cross a street or

highway, especially where the traffic is heavy. It is r e commended that, where drill lines must cross roadways, a police officer, janitor, or a staff member acting as a traffic officer be on duty to control traffic during drills. A-32-7.1.9 Staff members and employees should be trained in the

function and use of such equipment to meet an emergency. A-32-7.2.2 Particular at tention should be given to keeping all doors

unlocked, having doors closed that serve to protect the safety of paths of egress, such as doors on stairway enclosures, closed and under no conditions blocked open, keeping outside stairs and fire escape stairs free from all obstructions and clear of snow and ice, and allowing no accumulation of snow or ice or materials of any kind outside exit doors that might prevent the opening of the door or interfere with rapid escape from the building. A-32-7.4 It is the intent that the requirement for adequate adult

staff to be awake at all times when clients are present be applied to family day-care and group day-care homes that are operated at night, as well as day-care occupancies.

CHAPTER 33 EXISTING DAY-CAREOCCUPANCIES SECTION 33-1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 33-1.1" Application. 33-1.1.1 The requirements of this chapter apply to exiting

buildings or portions thereof currently occupied as day-care occupancies. (See also 32-1.1.1.)

33-1.1.2 The requirements detailed in this chapter are based on the following min imum staff-to-client ratios:

Staff-to-Client Ratio A~e ~Months)

1:3 0-24

1:4 25-36

1: 7 37-60

1:10 61-96

1:12 97 1:3 clients incapable of self -

preservation

Exception: (See 33-6-1.4.3.) The staff-to-client ratios shall be permit ted to be modified by the

authority having jurisdiction where safeguards in addit ion to those specified by this section are provided.

33-1.1.3 Sections 33-1 through 33-5 and 33-7 establish life safety requirements for day-care occupancies in which more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day. An existing day-care occupancy shall be allowed the option of meet ing the requirements of Chapter 32 in lieu of Chapter 33. An existing day-care occupancy that meets the requirements of Chapter 32 shall be judged as mee t ing the requirements of Chapter 33.

33-1.1.4 Centers housing children six years of age and older shall conform to the requirements of educational occupancies, except as noted herein. (See Chapter 11.)

33-1.1.5 Sections 33-1 (other than 33-1-6), 33-6 and 33-7 establish life safety requirements for day-care homes as defined in 33-1.3.

33-1.1.6 Where a facility houses more than one age group of self- preservation capability, the strictest requirements applicable to any

p present shall apply throughout the day-care occupancy or ilding, as applicable, unless the area housing that group is

maintained as a separate fire area. Exception: Staff-to-client ratios listed in 33-1.1.1 shall be based on

the number of clients in each age category. 33-1.1.7 Places of religious worship shall not be required to meet

the provisions of this section in order to operate a nursery while services are being held in the building.

33-1.2 Mixed Occupancies. (a) General. Where occupancies are located in a building

containing mixed occupancies, the occupancies shall be separated by min imum 1-hour rated fire barriers constructed in accordance with 6-2.3.

Exception to (a): Centers in assembly occupancies used primarily for worship.

(b) Centers in Apartment Buildings. If the two exit accesses from the occupancy enter the same corridor as the apar tment occupancy, the exit accesses shall be separated in the corridor by a smoke barrier having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating constructed in accordance with Section 6-3. The smoke barrier shall be located so that it has an exit on each side.

33-1.3 Special Definitions. Day-Care Home. A building or part of a building in which more

than three hut not more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision, by other than their relative(s) or legal guardians(s), for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit).

Flexible Plan and Open Plan Day-Care Buildings. These include every building or portion of a building designed for multiple teaching stations.

(a) Flexible plan buildings have movable corridor walls and movable partitions of full-height construction with doors leading from rooms to corridors.

(b) Open plan buildings have rooms and corridors delineated by tables, chairs, desks, bookcases, counters, low-height [maximum 5-ft (1.5-m)] partitions, or similar furnishings. Self-Preservation.* A client that is capable of self-preservation is

one that can evacuate the building without direct intervention by a staff member .

Separate Atmosphere. The a tmosphere that exists between rooms, spaces, or areas that are separated by an approved smoke barrier.

33-1.4 Classification of Occupancy. (see 4-1.11) 33-1.4.1 For the purposes of this section, clients are classified in

age groups as follows: clients under six years of age, clients six years and older, and clients incapable of self-preservation.

33-1.4.2 Occupancies that include part-day preschools, kindergar- tens, and other schools whose purpose is primarily educational even though the children are of preschool age shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 11.

33-1.4.3 Adult day-care shall include any building or portion thereof used for less than 24 hours per day to house more than three adults requiring care, maintenance, and supervision by other than

198

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

their relative(s). Clients shall be ambulatory or semi- ambulatory and shall not be bedridden. Theyshal l not exhibit behavior that is harmful to themselves or others.

33-1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. The contents shall be classified as ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 4-2.

33-1.6 Location and Construction. 33-1.6.1 The location of a day-care occupancy within a building

shall be based on construction type and automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with Table 33-1.6.1. (See 6-2.1.)

Table 33-1.6.1 Location/Construction Type Limitations

Number of Stories (Stories

are counted starting at

floor o f exit discharge)

Type of 4 and

Construction Age Group 1 2 3 Over

I(443) 0 through 5 X X X X

I(332) 6 a n d o l d e ~ t X X X X

!1(222)

II(111) 0 through 5 X X t N.P. N.P.

III(211) 6 and o l d e r t t X X XJ" N.P.

V(II1)

IV(2HH) 0 through 5 X X t N.P. N.P.

6 and o l d e r ~ X XJ- N.P. N.P.

II(000) 0 through 5 X X t N.P. N.P.

6 and olderJ'J" X XJ- N.P. N.P.

III(200) 0 through 5 X XJ- N.P. N.P.

V(000) 6 and olderJ-J- X XJ" N.P. N.P. X: Permitted N.P.: Not Permitted Xt: Permitted if entire building is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Jt : Client capable of self-preservation. If client not capable of serf-preservation, use portions of table applicable to 0 through 5 age group.

33-1.6.2 Location. The story below the level of exit discharge shall be permitted to be used in buildings of any construction type other than Type II(000), Type III(200), and Type V(000). (See 33-2.4.2.)

33-1.7 Occupant Load. 33-1.7.1 The occupant load for which means of egress shall be

provided for any floor shall be the maximum number of persons in tended to occupy that floor but not less than the number calculated on the basis of one person for eacb 35 sq ft (3.3 sq m) of ne t floor area used by the clients.

33-1.7.2 The occupant load of a day-care occupancy or a port ion thereof shall be permitted to be modified from that specified above if the necessary aisles and exits are provided. An approved aisle, seating and exiting diagram shall be required by the authority having jurisdiction to substantiate such a modification.

SECTION 33-2 MEANS OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS 33-2.1 General. 33-2.1.1 Means of egress shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 and

this section. 33-2.2 Means of Egress Components. 33-2.2.1 Components of means of egress shall be limited to the

types described in 33-2.2.2 through 33-2.2.8 33-2.2.2 Doors.

(a) General. Doors complying with 5-2.1 shall be permitted. (b) Panic Hardware or Fire Exit Hardware. Any door in a required

means of egress from an area havingan occupant load of 100 or more persons shall be permit ted t o b e provided with a latch or lock only if it is panic hardware or fire exit hardware.

(c) Door Closure. Any exit door designed to normally be kept closed shall comply with 5-2.1.8.

(d) Locks and Latches. Only one locking or latching device shall be permit ted on a door or on one leaf of a pair of doors.

(e) Special Locking Arrangements. Special locking arrangements complying with 5-2.1.6 shal lbe permitted.

(f)* Closet Doors. Every closet door latch shall be such that clients can open the door from inside the closet.

(g) Bathroom Doors. Every bathroom door lock shall be designed to permit opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening device shall be readily accessible to the staff.

33-2.2.3* Stairs. (a) Stairs complying with 5-2.2 shall be permitted. (b) Stairs shall be Class A. Exception to (b): Class B stairs shall be permitted where not used

by clients. 33-2.2.4 SmokeproofEnclosures. Smokeproofenclosures

complying with 5-2.3 shall be permitted. 33-2.2.5 Horizontal Exits. (a) Horizontal exits complying with 5-2.4 shall be permitted. (b) Areas of refuge shall be provided byhorizontal exits for

occupants day-care occupancies located above the fifth story. Exception to (b): Buildings provided with smokeproof enclosures. 33-2.2.6 Ramps. Ramps complying with 5-2.5 shall be permitted. 33-2.2.7 Exit Passageways. Exit passageways complying with 5-2.6

shall be permitted. 33-2.2.8 Areas of Refuge. Areas of refuge complying with 5-2.12

shall be permitted. 33-2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Capacity of means of egress

shall be in accordance with Section 5-3. 33-2.4 Number of Exits. 33-2.4.1 Each floor occupied by clients shall have not less than two

remotely located exits in accordance with Chapter 5. 33-2.4.2 Where the story below the level of exit discharge is

occupied as a day-care occupancy the following shall appl~. (a) One means of egress shall be an outside or interior stmr in

accordance with 5-2.2. An interior stair, if used, shall serve only the story below the level of exit discharge. The interior stair shall be Pthermitted to communicate with the level of exit discharge; however,

e exit route from the level of exit discharge shall not pass through the stair enclosure, and

(b) The second means of egress shall be permit ted to be via an unenclosed stairway separated from the level of exit discharge in accordance with 6-2.4.4. The path of egress travel on the level of exit discharge shall be protected in accordance with 5-1.3.5.

Exception to (b): The path of travel on the level of exit discharge shall be permit ted to be unprotected if die level of exit discharge and the level below the level of exit discharge are protected throughout by a smoke detection system or an approved automatic sprinkler system.

33-2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. 33-2.5.1 Where the story below the level of exit discharge is used,

see 33-2.4.2. 33-2.5.2 Means of egress shall be arranged in accordance with

Section 5-5. Dead ends shall not exceed 20 ft (6.1 m). 33-2.5.3 Every room or space with an occupant load of more than

50 persons or an area of more than 1,000 sq ft (93 sq m) shall have at least two exit access doorways as remotely located from each other as practicable. Such doorways shall provide access to separate exits, but where egress is through corridors, they shall be permitted to open onto a common corridor leading to separate exits located in opposite directions.

33-2.6 Travel Distance to Exits. 33-2.6.1 Travel distance shall be measured in accordance with

Section 5-6. 33-2.6.2 Travel Distance. (a) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit



an exit access door in that room shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m). Exception: The travel distance in (a) and (b) above shall be

permitted to be increased by 50 ft (15 m) in buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section %7.

33-2.7 Discharge from Exits. Discharge from exits shall be arranged in accordance with Section 5-7.

Exception: As provided in 33-2.4.2.

199

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 ROP

33-2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Illumination of the means of egress shall be in accordance with Section 5-8.

33-2.9 Emergency Lighting. Emergency lighting shall be provided in accordance with Section 5-9 in the following areas:

(a) Interior stairs and corridors. (b) Normally occupied spaces. Exception to (b): Administrative areas, general classrooms, and

mechanical rooms and storage areas. (c) Flexible and open plan buildings. (d) Interior or windowless portions of buildings. (e) Shops and laboratories. 33-2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. Means of egress shall have

signs in accordance with Section 5-10. 33-2.11 Special Means of Egress Features. 33-2.11.1 Windows for Rescue and Ventilation. Every room or

space greater than 250 sq ft (23.2 sq m) used for classroom or other educational purposes or normally subject to student occupancy shall have at least one outside window for emergency rescue and ventilation. Such window shall be openable from the inside without the use of tools and shall provide a clear opening of not less than 20 in. (50.8 cm) in width, 24 in. (61 cm) in height, and 5.7 sq ft (0.53 sq m) in area. The bottom of the opening shall be not more than 44 in. (112 cm) above the floor. The clear opening shall permit a rectangular solid, with a minimum width and height that provides the required 5.7 sq ft (0.53 sq m) opening and a minimum depth of 20 in. (50.8) cm), to pass fully through the opening.

Exception No. 1: In buildings protected throughout by an approved, automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

Exception No. 2: Where the room or space has a door leading directly to the outside of the building.

Exception No. 3". In rooms. Iocatedhigher than three stories, above grade, the openable clear height, width, and area of the vandow shall be permitted to be modified to the dimensions necessary for ventilation.

Exception No. 4: Awning or hopper-type windows that are hinged or subdivided to provide a clear opening not less than fi00 sqin. (3900 sq cm) in area nor any dimension less than 22 in. (55.9 cm) shall be permitted to be continued in use. Screen walls or devices in front of required windows shall not interfere with normal rescue requirements.

Exception No. 5: Where the room or space complies with the following:

(a) Doors exist that allow travel between adjacent classrooms and, when used to travel from classroom to classroom, provide direct access to exits in both directions or direct access to an exit in one direction and to a separate smoke compartment that provides access to another exit in the other direction, and

(b) The corridor is separated from the classrooms by a wall that resists the passage of smoke, and all doors between the classrooms and the corridor are self-closing in accordance with 5-2.1.8, and

(c) The length of travel to exits along such paths shall not exceed 150 ft (45 m), and

(d) Each communicating door shall be marked in accordance with Section 5-10, and

(e) No locking device shall be allowed on the communicating doors.

SECTION 33-3 PROTECTION 33-3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. Any vertical opening shall

be enclosed or protected in accordance with fi-2.4. ' 33-3.2 Protection from Hazards. 33-3.2.1 Rooms or spaces for the storage, processing, or use of

materials specified below shall be protected in accordance with the following:

(a) Separation from the remainder of the building by fire barriers having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour or protection of such rooms by automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section fi-4 in the following areas:

(1) Boiler and furnace rooms. Exception to (1): Rooms enclosing only air-handling equipment.

(2) Rooms or spaces used for the storage of combustible supplies in quantities deemed hazardous by the authority havingjurlsdiction.

(3) Rooms or spaces used for the storage of hazardous materials or flammable or combustible liquids in quantities deemed hazardous by recognized standards.

(b) Separation from the remainder of the building hyfire barriers having a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour and protection of sucb rooms by automatic extinguishing systems as specified in Section 6-4 in the following areas:

(1) Laundries. (2) Maintenance shops, including woodworking and painting

a r e a s .

(3) Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of combustible supplies deemed hazardous by the authority having jurisdiction.

(4) Rooms or spaces used for processing or use of hazardous materials or flammable or combustible liquids in quantities deemed

hazardous by recognized standards. (c) Where automatic extinguishing is used to meet the require-

ments of this section, the protection shall be permitted in accordance with 7-7.1.2.

Exception: Food preparation facilities protected in accordance with 7-2.3 shall not be required to have openings protected between food preparation areas and dining areas. Where domestic cooking equipment is used for food warming or limited cooking, protection or segregation of food preparation facilities shall not be required if approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

33-3.2.2 Janitor closets shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system, which shall be permitted to be in accordance with 7-7.1.2. Doors to janitor closets shall be permitted to have ventilating louvers.

33-3.3 Interior Finish. Interior finish for all walls and ceilings shall be Class A or Class B in accordance with Section 65.

33-3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 33-3.4.1 General. Day-care occupancies shall be provided with a

fire alarm system in accordance with Section 7-6. Exception No. 1: Day-care occupancies housed in one room. Exception No. 2: Day-care occupancies with arequired staffof

fewer than four persons based on 33-1.1.1. 33-3.4.2 Initiauon. Initiation of the required fire alarm system

shall be by manual means and by operation of any required smoke detectors and required sprinkler systems. (See 33-3.4.5.)

Exception: Single-station smoke detectors. 33-3.4.3 Occupant Notification. Occupant notification shall be in

accordance with 7-6.3. 33-3.4.4 Emergency Forces Notification. Fire department

notification shall be accomplished in accordance with 7-6.4. Exception: Day-care occupancies with not more than 100 clients. 33-3.4.5 Detection. A smoke detection system shall be installed in

accordance with Section 7-6, with placement of detectors in each story in front of doors to the stairways and in the corridors of all floors occupied by the day-care occupancy. Detectors also shall be installed in lounges, recreation areas, and sleeping rooms in the day- care occupancy.

Exception: Day-care occupancies housed in one room. Exception: Day-care occupancies housing clients six years of age or

older and capable of serf-preservation if no sleeping facilities are provided.

33-3.5 Extinguishment Requirements. (None.) 33-3.6 Corridors. Every interior corridor shall be constructed of

walls having not less than a 20.minute fire resistance rating in accordance with 6-2.3.

Exception No. 1: Corridor protection shall not be required where all spaces normally subject to student occupancy have at least one door opening directly to the outside or to an exterior exit access balcony or corridor in accordance with 11-2.5.6. Exception No. 2: In buildings protected throughout byan

approved, automatic sprinkler system with valve supervision installed in accordance with Section 7-7, corridor walls shall not be required to be rated, provided such walls, in conjunction with openings therein ~md ceilings at which they terminate, resist the passage of smoke.

Exception No. 3: Existing doors shall be permitted to be 1-3/4 in. (4.4 cm) thick solid bonded wood core doors or the equivalent. Exception No. 4: Lavatories need not be separated from corridors,

provided they are separated from all other spaces by walls having not less than a 20- minute fire resistance rating in accordance with 6-2.3. SECTION 33-4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 334.1 Windowless or Underground Buildings. Windowless or

underground buildings shall comply with Section 30-7. 334.2 High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings that house day-

care occupancies on floors more than 75 ft (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall comply with Section 30- 8.

33-4.3 Flexible Plan and Open Plan Buildings. (Reserved.) SECTION 33-5 BUILDING SERVICES 33-5.1 Utilities. 33-5.1.1 Utilities shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-1. 33-5.1.2 Special protective covers for all electrical receptacles shall

be installed in areas occupied by clients. 33-5.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment. 33-5.2.1 Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment shall

be installed in accordance with Section 7-2. 33-5.2.2 Unrented fuel-fired room heaters shall not be permitted. 33-5.2.3 Any heating equipment in spaces occupied by clients shall

be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients from hot surfaces and open flames. If solid partitions are used to provide such protection, provisions shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and ventilation for the heating equipment.


2OO

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F96 ROP

33.5.4 Rubbish Chutes, Incinerators, and Laundry Chutes. Rubbish chutes, incinerators, and laundry chutes shall comply with the provisions of Section 7-5.

SECTION 33-6 DAY-CARE HOMES 33-6.1 General Requirements. 33-6.1.1 Application. 33.6.1.1.2" (see also 35-6.1.4.) This section establishes life safety

requirements for day-care homes in which more than three but not more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit). An existing day- care home shall be allowed the allowed the option of meet ing the requirements of Section 32-6 in lieu of this section. Any existing day- care home that meets the requirements of Chapter 32 shall be judged as meet ing the requirements of this chapter.

Exception: Facilities that supervise clients on a temporary basis with a parent or guardian in close proximity.

33.6.1.1.3 Where a facilityhouses more than one age group of self- preservation capability, the strictest requirements applicable to any bgroup present shall apply throughout the day-care home or

uilding, as applicable, unless the area housing that group is maintained as a separate area.

33-6.1.1.4 Places of religious worship shall not be required to meet the [provisions of this section in order to operate a nursery while serwces are being held in the building.

33.6.1.2 Mixed Occupancies. (a) General. Where occupancies are located in a building


Exception to (a): Day-care homes in assembly occupancies used primarily for worship.

(b) Group Day-Care homes in Apar tment Buildings. f f the two exit accesses from the group day-care home enter the same corridor as the aparmaent occupancy, the exit accesses shall be separated in the corridor by a smoke barrier having not less than a 1-hour fire resistance rating constructed in accordance with Section 6-3. The smoke barrier shall be located so that i thas an exit on each side.

33-6.1.3 Special Definitions. Self-Preservation.* A client that is capable of self-preservation is


33-6.1.4 Classification of Occupancy. 33-6.1.4.1 Occupancies that include part-day preschools, kindergar-


33-6.1.4.3 Subdassification of Day-Care Homes. (a) Family Day-Care Homes. A family day-care home is a day-care

home in which more than three but fewer than seven clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit). Requirements for family day-care homes are based on a minimum staff-to-client ratio of one stafffor up to six clients, including the caretaker's own children under age six, with no more than two clients incapable of serf-preservation.

(b) Group Day-Care Homes. A group day-care home is a day-care home in which at least seven but not more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day (generally within a dwelling unit). Requirements for group day-care homes are based on a minimum staff-to-client ratio of two staff for up to 12 clients, with no more than three clients incapable of self-preservation. This staff-to-client ratio shall be permit ted to be modified by the authority having jurisdiction where safeguards in addition to those specified by dais section are provided.

33.6.1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents. The contents shall be limited to those classified as ordinary hazard in accordance with Section 42.

33-6.1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (None.) 33-6.1.7 Occupant.Load. (No special requirements.) 33-6.2 Means of Egress Requirements. 33-6.2.1 General. (None.) 33-6.2.2 Means of Egress Components . (See 33.6.2.4.) 33-6.2.3 Capacity of Means of Egress. Capacity of means of egress

shall be in accordance with Section 5-3. 33-6.2.4 Number of Exits. 33.6.2.4.1 I ng roup day-carehomes, every story occupied byclients

shall have not less than two remotely located means of escape. 33-6.2.4.2 Every room used for sleeping, living, or dining purposes

shall have at least two means of escape, at least one of which shall be a door or stairway providing a means of unobstructed travel to the outside of the building at street or ground level. The second means

of escape shall be permit ted to be a window in accordance with 33- 2.11.1. No room or space that is accessible only by a ladder or folding stairs or through a trap door shall be occupied for living or sleeping purposes.

33-6.2.4.3 I n group day-care homes where spaces on the story above the story of exit discharge are used by clients, at least one means of escape shall be an exit discharging directly to the outside. The second means of escape shall be permit ted to be a window in accordance with 33-2.11.1.

33-6.2.4.4 Where clients are occupying a story (basement) below the level of exit discharge, at least one means of escape shall be an exit discharging directly to the outside, and the vertical travel to ground level shall not exceed 8 ft (244 cm). The second means or escape shall be permitted to be a window in accordance with 33- 2.11.1. No facility shall be located more than one story below the ground. In group day-care homes, any stairway to the story above shall be cut off by a fire barrier containing a door having at least a 20-minute fire protection rating and equipped with a self-closing device.

33.6.2.5 Arrangement of Means of Egress. 33-6.2.5.1 Where a story above or below the level of exit discharge

is used, see 33-6.2.4. 33.6.2.5.2 For group day-care homes, means of egress shall be

arranged in accordance with Section 5-5. Dead ends shall no t exceed 20 ft (6.1 m).

33.6.2.6 Travel Distance. (a) The travel distance between any room door in tended as an exit



an exit access to that room shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m). Exception: The travel distance in (a) and (b) above shall be

permit ted to be increased by 50 ft (15 m) in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

33.6.2.7 Discharge from Exits. (See 33-6.2.4.) 33-6.2.8 Illumination of Means of Egress. Illumination of the

means of egress shall be provided in accordance with Section 5-8. 33.6.2.9 Emergency Lighting. (No requirements.) 33-6.2.10 Marking of Means of Egress. (No requirements.) 33-6.2.11 S.pecial Means of Escape Requirements. 33-6.2.11.1 Every closet door latch shall be such that clients can

open the door from the inside the closet. 33-6.2.11.2 Every bathroom door lock shall be designed to permit

opening of the locked door f rom the outside in an emergency. The opening device shall be readily accessible to the staff.

33.6.2.11.3 For family day-care homes, every door in a means of egress shall not be less than 28 in.(71 cm) wide.

Exception: Bathroom doors shall be not less than 24 in.(64 era) wide.

33-6.3 Protection. 33-6.3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings. For group day-care

homes, the doorway between the level of exit discharge and any story below shall be equipped with a door assembly having a 20-minute ire protection rating. Where the story above the story of exit tischarge is used for sleeping purposes, there shall be a door Lssembly having a 20-minute fire protection rating at the top or )ottom of each stairway. Exception: Existing self-closing 1-$/4 (4.4 cm) thick solid bonded

wood doors without rated flames shall be permit ted to be accepted by the authority having jurisdiction.

33.6.3.2 Protection from Hazards. (No requirements.) 33.6.3.3 Interior Finish. 33.6.3.3.1 The interior finish in exits shall be Class A or Class B in

accordance with Section 6-5. 33.6.3.3.2 Interior finish in occupied spaces in the home shall be

Class A, Class B, or Class C in accordance with Section 6-5. 33.6.3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications Systems. 33-6.3.4.1 Smoke detectors shall be installed within day-care homes

in accordance with %6.2.9. 33-6.3.4.2 Where the day-care home is located within a building of

another occupancy, such as in an apar tment building or office building, any corridors serving the day-care home shall be provided with a smoke detection system in accordance with Section 7-6.

33-6.3.4.3 Single-station smoke detectors in accordance with 7-6.2.9 powered by the building electrical system or system detectors with ntegral sounding devices in accordance with 7-6.1.4 shall be )rovided in all rooms used for sleeping. Exception: Existing battery-powered detectors rather than house

electrical service-powered detectors shall be accepted where, in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction, the facility has demonstra ted testing, maintenance, and battery replacement programs that ensure reliability of power to the detectors.

33.6.4 Special Provisions.

201

NFPA 101--F96 ROP

33-6.4.1 Windowless or Underg round Buildings. Windowless or underground r buildings shall comply with Section 50-7.

33-6.4.2 High Rise Buildings. High rise buildings that house day- care occupancies on floors more than 75 ft (25 m) above the lowest level of fire depar tment vehicle access shall comply with Section 50- 8.

53-6.5 Building Services. 33-6.5.1 Utilities. 53-6.5.1.1 Utilities shall complywith theprovis ions of Section 7-1. 53-6.5.1.2 Special protective covers for electrical receptacles shall

be installed in all areas occupied by clients. 33-6.5.2 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Condit ioning Equipment. 53-6.5.2.1 Heating, ventilating, and air condit ioning equipment

shall be installed in accordance with Section 7-2. 53-6.5.2.2 Unvented fuel-fired room heaters shall no t be permitted. 53-6.5.2.5 Any heating equipment in spaces occupied by clients

shall be provided with partitions, screens, or other means to protect clients from hot surfaces and olden flames, ff partitions are used to provide suchprotec t ion , provismns shall be made to ensure adequate air for combustion and ventilation for the heating equipment. SECTION 33-7 OPERATING FEATURES 53-71 Drills. 53-7.1.1" Fire exit drills shall be conducted no t less than once per

month. Drills shall be designed in cooperation with local authorities. Responsibility for the p lanning and conduct of drills shall be assigned only to competent site administrators or staff members qualified to exercise leadership.

53-7.1.2* In climates where the weather is severe during the winter months, drills shall be held with sufficient frequency during warmer months to familiarize all occupants with the drill procedure, as well as completing the required 12 drills.

53-7.1.5" Drills shall be held at unexpected times and under varying conditions to simulate the unusual conditions that occur in the case of fire.

33-7.1.4" Drills shall include suitable procedures to ensure that all persons subject to the drill actually participate.

33-7.1.5" Every fire exit drill shal lbe an exercise for site administrators and staff members with emphasis on an orderly evacuation under proper discipline rather than on speed. Running shall be prohibi ted, ff there are clients incapable of holding their places in a line moving at a reasonable speed, provisions shall be made to have them taken care of by staff members or more capable clients, who will keep them from moving independendy of the regular line of march.

53-7.1.6 As all drills simulate an actual fire condition, d ients shall not be allowed to obtain clothing after the alarm is sounded, due to the confusion that would result in forming lines and the danger of tr ipping over dragging apparel.

53-7.1.7 Each group shall proceed to a prede termined point outside the building and remain there while a check is made to see that all are accounted for, leaving only when a recall signal is given to return to the building or when dismissed. Such points shall be sufficiently far away from the building and from each other as to avoid danger from any fire in the building, interference with fire depar tment operations, or confusion among different groups.

33-7.1.8" Where necessary for drill lines to cross roadways, signs reading "STOPI FIRE DRILL", or the equivalent, shall be carried by staff members or more capable clients to the traffic intersecting points in order to stop traffic during the period of the drill.

53-7.1.9" Fire exit drills in day-care occfipancies shall not include any fire extinguishing operations.

33-7.2 Inspections. 33-7.2.1 Fire prevention inspections shall be conducted monthly by

a trained senior member of the staff. A copy of the latest inspection form shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the day-care facility.

33-7.2.2* It shall be the duty of site administrators and staff members to inspect all exit facilities daily in order to make sure that all stairways, doors, and other exits are in proper condition.

53-7.2.5 Open-plan buildings shall require extra surveillance to ensure that exit paths are maintained clear of obstruction and are obvious.

33-7.3 Furnishings and Decoration. 53-7.5.1 Draperies, curtains, and other similar furnishings and ~

decorations in day-care occupancies shall be in accordance with 6- 6.1

33-7.3.2 Clothing and personal effects shall not be stored in corridors.

Exception No. 1: Corridors protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 7-7.

Exception No. 2: Corridor areas protected by a smoke detection system in accordance with Section 7-6.

Exception No. 5: Storage in metal lockers, provided the required egress width is maintained.

33-7.3.3 Artwork and teaching materials shall be permit ted to be attached directly to the walls and shall not exceed 20 percent of the wall area.

33-7.3.4 Wastebaskets and other waste containers shall be made of noncombust ible or other approved materials.

33-7.4* Day-Care Staff. Adequate adult staff shall be on duty, alert, awake, and in the facility at all times where clients are present.

33-7.5 Flammable Liquids and Gases. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be stored in areas accessible only to designated individuals and as required in NFPA 30, Flammable and Combus- tible Liquids Code.

(Appendix Notes) CHAPTER 33 A-53-1.1 Day-care occupancies do no t provide for the full-time

maintenance of a client. Occupancies that provide a primary place of residence are addressed in other occupancies. See Chapters 16 through 23. A-33-1.3 Definitions. Self-Preservation. Examples of clients that are incapable of self-

preservation include infants; clients that are uhable to use stairs because of conf inement to a wheelchair or other physical disability;, clients that cannot follow directions or a group to the outside of a facility due to mental or behavioral disorders. It is the intent o f this code to classify children under the age of 24 months as incapable of self-preservation. Examples of direct intervention by staff members include carrying a client, pushing a client out in a wheelchair, guiding a client by direct hand-holding or cont inued bodily contact. If the clients cannot exit the building by themselves with minimal intervention f rom staff members, such as verbal orders, classification as incapable of serf-preservation should be considered.

A-53-2.2.2(f) The purpose of this requi rement is to prevent • arrangements where a child can be t rapped in a close~ It is in tended that this provision be broadly interpreted by the authority having jurisdiction to include equipment such as refrigerators and freezers.

A-53-2.2.5 See A-5-2.2.4(a) Exception No. 3 regarding additional handrails on stairs that are used extensively by children 5 years of age or less.

A-33-6.1.1.2 Day-care homes do not provide for the full-time maintenance of a client. Day-care occupancies that provide a primary, place of residence are addressed in other day-care occupan- cms. See Chapters 16 through 25. A-53-6.1.5 Definitions. Self-Preservation. Examples of clients that are incapable of self-

preservation include infants; clients that are unable to use stairs because of conf inement to a wheelchair or. o ther physical disability;, clients that cannot follow directions or a group to the outside of a facility due to mental or behavioral disorders. It is the intent of this code to classify children under the age of 24 months as incapable of self-preservation. Examples of direct intervention by staff members include carrying a client, pushing a wheelchair, guiding a client by direct hand-holding or cont inued bodily contact. If the clients cannot exit the building by themselves with minimal intervention from staff members, such as verbal orders, classification as incapable of serf-preservation should be considered. A-53-6.2.11.1 The purpose of this requirement is to prevent

arrangements where a child can be t rapped in a closet. It is in tended that this provision be broadly interpreted by the authority having jurisdiction to include equipment like refrigerators or freezers.

A-33-7.1.1 The requirements are of necessity general in scope, as it is appreciated that they apply to all types of day-care occupancies as wellas conditions of occupancies, such as truant day-care occupancies; day-care occupancies for the mentally handicapped, the vision impaired, hear inglmpaired , speech impaired; adult day-care; care of infants; and day-care occupancies. It is fully recognized that no one code can meet all the conditions of the various buildings involved, and it will be necessary for ~ite administrators to issue supplements to these requirements, but all supplements should be consistent with these requirements. Additionally, it is r ecommended that fire safety be a part of the educational program of the day-care occupancy. A-33-7.1.2 Drills may be held during inclement weather. Such

drills would be held at the regular dismissal time, when the pupils are fully clothed, by using the exit drill alarm signal. With suchdril ls there would be no necessity of a return signal.

A-33-7.1.3 Fire is always unexpected. If the drill is always held in the same wayat the same time it loses much of its value, and when for some reason in actual fire it is no t possible to follow the usual routine of the fire exit drill to which occupants have become accustomed, confusion and panic may ensue. Drills should be carefully planned to simulate actual fire conditions. Not only should they be held at varying times, but different means of exit should be used based on an assumption that, for example, some given stairway is unavailable by reason of fire or smoke, anda l l the occupants must be let out by some other route. Fire exit drills should be designed to familiarize the occupants with all available means of exits, partlcu-

202

NFPA 101--F96 ROP

larly emergency exits that are not habitually used during the normal day-care occupancy of die building. A-33-7.1.4 f fa fire exit drill is considered merely as a routine

exercise from which some persons may be excused, there is grave danger diat in an actual fire the drill will fail in its in tended purpose.

A-33-7.1.5 f f for any reason a line becomes blocked, some of the clients should be countermarched to another exit in order to prevent unnecessary anxiety arising as a result of inactivity.

A-33-7.1.8 Wherever possible, drill lines should not cross a street or highway, especially where die traffic is heavy. It is r ecommended that, where drill lines must cross roadways, a police officer, janitor, or a staff member acting as a traffic officer be on duty to control traffic during drills. A-33-7.1.9 Staff members and employees should be trained in the

function and use of such equipment to meet an emergency. A-33-7.2.2 Particular at tention should be given to keeping all doors

unlocked, having doors closed that serve to protect the safety of paths of egress, such as doors on stairway enclosures, closed and

nder no conditions blocked open, keeping outside stairs and fire escape stairs free from all obstructions and clear of snow and ice, and allowing no accumulation of snow or ice or materials of any kind outside exit doors that might prevent the opening of the door or interfere with rapid escape from the building. A-33-7.4 It is the intent that the requirement for adequate adult

staff to be awake at all times when clients are present be applied to family day-care and group day-care homes that are operated at night, as well as day-care occupancies. Having developed the above language for the new chapter, delete die following paragraphs from Chapter 10: 10-1.4.4, 10-1.4.5, 10- 1.7.1 (c), Section 10-7, Section 10-8, A-10-7.1.1, A-10-7.2.2.2(f), A-10- 7-2.2.3, A-10-8.1.1, A-10-8.2.11.1. Similarly, delete the following paragraphs from Chapter 11:11-1.4.4, 11-1.4.5, 11-1.7.1 (c), Section 11-7, Section 11-8, Section 11-9, A-11-7.1.1, A-11-7.1.1.2, A-11-7.1.1.4 Exception, A-11-7.2.2.2(f), A-11-7.2.2.3, A-11-8.1.1.1, A-11-8.2.11.1, A- 11-9.1.1.1, A-11-9.2.11.2.

Having incorporated language for Operating Features into the proposed new Day-Care chapters, delete the following paragraphs from Section 31-3: 31-3.5.1, 31-3.5.2, 31-3.5.3, 31-3.5.4, 31-3.6, 31-3.7, 31-3.8. SUBSTANTIATION: Recent changes in society have indicated a need to expand file scope of day-care facilities. The industry itself has expanded dramatically with the increase in two-working-parent families and single-parent families. Adult day-care has become common place accompanied by its unique life safety problems. Because of the diversity in mobility and age groups found in day-care occupancies, life safety design criteria has steeredaway from age group classification and has been directed towards the clients' ability to evacuate. This Committee feels that Day-Care should be moved into its own chapters and not be "hidden" at the back-end of Educational Occupancies requirements. While in die past, day-care occupancies have been associated with educational occupancies because their clientele was limited to children, the scope of these occupancies has spread and changed to a point that the issues related to day-care should be addressed in a stand-alone chapter.

The creating of new Chapters 32 and 33 are almost entirely editorially in nature. Noneditorial changes include: changing "students" to "clients"; changing "principal" to "site administrator"; changing "teacher" to "staff member"; requiring an exiting plan; providing a definition for "self-preservation"; adding requirements to chapter 32 (only) for flexible and open plan buildings; and creating a definition for day-care occupancies in new 4-1 .I 1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and Wertheimer

(Log #448) FUN

101-588- (32-1): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise 32-1 as follows:

"... shall be permit ted to be cont inued in service, subject to the annroval by the authority having jurisdiction and p rodded die lack o~conformity ..." - - SUBSTANTIATION: By giving the Authority Having Jurisdiction the ability to make reference to the more recent editions of NFPA codes through die Life Safety Code, health care facilities have been required to modify existing systems which were installed and maintained in accordance with previous editions. This overzealous application of Chapter 32 has created a major financial drain on our organizations and the level of safety has been minimally increased if increased at all.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Delete the phrase "subject to the approval by the authority having

jurisdiction and" from the middle of the last sentence of the third paragraph of 32-1; add die following to the end of that sentence: "as de termined by the authority having jurisdiction." Thus, die sentence will read: "Existing buildings or installations that do not comply with the provisions of the following referenced publications shall be permit ted to be cont inued in service provided the lack of conformity with these standards does no t present a serious hazard to die occupants as de termined by the authority having jurisdiction." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Although the reference to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) is not being deleted entirely, the committee action should meet some of the submitter 's intent. By repositioning the phrase to the end of the sentence and rewording it, the AHJ will not have to specifically approve the use of the allowance, but rather file AHJ wiUjudge whether a serious hazard results from using die allowance. This revision should be useful to the submitter. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 7 NOT RETURNED: 2 Behrens, Rodante

(Log #149) BSF

101- 589 - (32-1.2): Accept SUBlVlITTER: Edward A. Donoghue, National Elevator Industry, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

ASME/ANSI A17.1-1993, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, including Addenda A17.1 a-1994. American Society of Mechanical E/~Mneers, 345 East 47th Street, NewYork, NY 10017.

E/ANSI A17.3-1993, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, including Addenda A17.3a-1994. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, NewYork, NY 10017. SUBSTANTIATION: To reference the latest edition of referenced elevator code. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #CP612) AXE

101- 590 - (32-2.2.9 and 33-2.2.9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Assembly and Educational Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: In the new Chapters 32 and 33 being created for day-care occupancies [via Proposal 101 - 587 (Log #CP606) ], add a new 32-2.2.9 and 33-2.2.9 to read:

"Elevators. Elevators complying with 5-2.13 shall be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: A new sub-section 5-2.13 on elevators within means of egress is being added to Chapter 5 via the referenced proposal. Recognition by the occupancy chapters will permit the elevators to be used within the means of egress in accordance with the limitations and conditions of the Chapter 5 requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 Landry, Lattey and' Wertheimer

(Log #52) FUN

101- 591 - (A-1-3.4 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix to read:

"In order to unders tand these considerations and their relation- shi p.s that are essential to life. safety s p ecialists, such as .fire protection engineers and local fire offioals, should be consulted m the early stages of planning and design." SUBSTANTIATION: This will provide guidance to die user that there are special experts available and that they should be involved in the early stages of the project planning and design. COMMITTEE- -ACTI O N:- R~ je ct_ - - - COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Submitter 's intent is not evident from file proposed text. It seems not to explain the intent of current 1- 3.4. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


203

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

( Log #451 ) FUN

101-592- (A-1-4.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix note A-1-4.2 to read: A-1-4.2 The Commit tee on Safety to Life recognizes that it is

sometimes impractical to continually upgrade existing buildings or installations to comply with all the requirements of the referenced standards in Chapter $2 of this Code. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the language is similar to that of 32- 1 it needs to be restated in 1-4 so it is not mtssed by those organizations enforc'mg the Code. COMMITTEEACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See new 1-3.5 that was added by the action on Proposal 101 - 9 (Log #423). There is no benefit to saying the same thing in both the base paragraph and its appendix note. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERB ELIGIBLETO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #918) FUN

101-593- (A-3-2 Building, Existing): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Ken Faulstich, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Replace the text for appendix note A-3-2 on the definition of Building, Existing as follows:

"Building, Existing. With respect to judging whether a building should be considered existing, the deciding factor is no t when the building was designed or when construction started but rather the date plans were approved for construction by the appropriate anthority having jurisdiction. It is in tended that any initial assess- men t of the building should be based on new occupancy require-

* ments for the edition of the Code in effect at the date of plan approval. Any subsequent assessments of the building should be based on existing occupancy requirements for the edition of the Code in effect at that time. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe this revised text would clarify dais issue. The proposed text would no t change the current intent but is written around new and existing occupancy terminology. Although an argument could be made that assessments of all existing buildings should use the new occupancy requirements for the edition of the Code in effect when plan approval was given, it would be impractical and would create a Code enforcement problem, especially as renovations are made to a building. The opportunity for assuring that new construction or renovations comply with new occupancy requirements is when the buildings are designed and built through the building construction permit process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Replace the text for appendix note A-3-2 on the definition of Building, Existing as follows:

"Building, Existing. With respect to judging whether a building should be considered existing, the deciding factor is not when the building was designed or when construction started but rather the date plans were approved for construction by the appropriate authority having jurisdiction. It is in tended that the initial assessment of the building, when new, should be based on new occupancy requirements for the edition of the Code in effect on the date of flPllan approval. Subsequent assessments of the building made while

aat edition of the Code is still in effect should also be based on new occupancy requirements. Subsequent assessments of the building made when a later edition of the Code is in effect should be based on existing occupancy requirements for the edition of the Code in effect at the time of each assessment. However, existing llfe safety features that do not meet the requirements for new buildings but exceed the requirements for existing buildings are prohibi ted from being diminished further. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action makes all the changes r ecommended by the submitter except for his last sentence. The committee believes that i f a building is constructed per the requirements for new construction in accordance with a given edition of the Code, the building should be judged for compliance with the requirements applicable to new construction contained in that edition of the code for as long as the edition is in effect in that jurisdiction. Once a newer edition of the code is adopted and put into effect in the jurisdiction, the building is permit ted to be j udged for compliance with the requirements applicable to existing buildings contained in that newer edition of the Code. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #260) FUN

101-594- (A-3-2 Building, Existing): Reject SUBMITTER: Eugene & Cable, U.S. Deparmaent of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: In the A-3-2 appendix note for "Building, Existing ~, delete the last two sentences. SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminates confusion. This appendix note was added to the 1994 edition in order to retire a Formal Interpretation dated October 1979, F.I. 76-118. The 1979 F.I. seems to address the situation of an agency first adopting the Code, and buildings under construction at the time of adoption. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The proposer ' s delet ion would not eliminate confusion. See Committee Action on Proposal 101 - 593 (Log #'218) which revises this appendix note to clarify Committee intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #66) FUN

101- 595 - (A-4-1.9 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Add Section A-4-1.9:

"Historically laboratories using hazardous chemicals have been classified industrial occupancies. In evaluating the appropriate classification, the authority having jurisdiction should determine each case individually based on the extent and nature of the associated hazards. Some laboratories may be classified as occupancies other than industrial. For example, a physical therapylabora- tory in a health care occupancy, or a computer laboratory in an educational occupancy may more appropriately be classified business or some other occupancy. SUBSTANTIATION: As a result of action taken for the '94 Code the user was left with absolutely no guidance on how to classify laboratories. This Appendix note, based on Committee Proposal 101-71 for the Fall 1993 revision cycle, restores some guidance on how to classify labs. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add A-4-1.9 to read: "In evaluating the appropriate classification of laboratories, the

authority having jurisdiction should de termine each case individually based on the extent and nature of the associated hazards. Some laboratories may be classified as occupancies other than industrial, for example, a physical therapy laboratory or a computer laboratory." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #223) FUN

101- 596 - (A-4-2.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: T.G. Clayton/D.J. Sheridan, Black & Veatch RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph at end of existingA-4- 9.2.3 as follows:

Combustible dust presenting a deflagration potential may be considered as ordinary hazard content in industrial occupancies (see Chapter 28). This is based on historical fire experience in some industrial occupancies. The high rate of propagation o f a deflagration limits the benefi t of the shorter travel distances and other more stringent means of egress criteria required for high hazard contents. In addition, after the deflagration occurs conditions typically do not

unduly dangerous exposure during the period necessary to ave the area, assuming there are proper exits.

SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 850, Recommended Practice for Fire Protection of Electric Generating Plants, r ecommends a High Hazard Industrial classification for coal handling areas, as defined by NFPA 101. As a Principal Member of the NFPATechnical Commit- tee on Electric Generating Plants, B&V feels that this recommendation was suppor ted by the Committee as an in tended reflection of NFPA 101 definitions without realization of the far reaching impact of this classification. This classification creates several problems with regard to travel distance, number of means of egress, common path of travel, etc. for practical design and construction of coal handl ing areas. In addition, historical fire experiences for these areas at power plants, seem to indicate that a Special Purpose Industrial

204


classification may be more appropriate . This is illustrated by the following sections.

• A r r a n g e m e n t of Typical Coal Handl ing Areas. • History of Coal Fires/Explosions. 1.0 A r r a n g e m e n t of Typical Coal Handl ing Areas. 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to describe typical coal

hand l ing areas with respect to the requ i rements of NFPA 101 for h igh hazard industrial occupancies, and the impact of these requi rements on the design.

1.2 Typical Coal Handl ing Building. A typical coal t ransfer bui lding contains coal hand l ing e q u i p m e n t des igned to complete the transfer of coal f rom one conveyor to another , or to mult iple conveyors. Typical floor plans and section are shown in Figures 1 th rough 4. These plans have been ar ranged to mee t the require- men t s of NFPA 101, 1994 for High Hazard Industrial occupancies.

1•2.1 Normal Occupan t Loads. Expected occupan t loads for a typical coal t ransfer bui lding are as follows.

• One man per day passing th rough the bui lding for rout ine inspection of equ ipmen t dur ing periods of normal operation.

• Four m e n per day (8-hour shift) dur ing scheduled main tenance outage for a small t ransfer bui lding as shown in the figures. Six m e n per day (8-hour shift) dur ing scheduled ma in tenance outage for a larger transfer building, crusher building, or coal silo fill area. Outages are typically scheduled twice per year.

1.3 IMPACT OF HIGH HAZARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA- TION NFPA 101, 1994 contains the following key criteria (para-

p hrased f rom the sections indicated) for h igh hazard contents and igh hazard industrial occupancies. • M a x i m u m travel distance of 75 ft (5-11.1). • Min imum two means of egress, except for rooms or spaces no t

more than 200 sq ft, occupan t load of no t more than $ persons, and m a x i m u m travel distance of 25 ft (5-11.3).

• No dead end corridors (5-11.4), except spaces as described in the exception to 5-11.3.

• C o m m o n path of travel is prohibi ted (28-2.5.4), except in areas as described by the exception to 5-113.

As indicated on Figures 1 t h rough 4, the floor plans have the following approximate floor areas including stair enclosures.

• Ground Floor - - 1100 sq ft. • Second F l o o r - - 1000 sq ft. • Th i rd Floor - - 1000 sq ft. Each stair enclosure is approximately 200 sq ft in plan area.

Consequently, the stair enclosures represen t 40 percent of the plan area on the uppe r floors, and 36 percent of the plan area g round floor area.

If the coal hand l ing bui lding is classified as a Special Purpose Industrial occupancy, than NFPA 101 would allow a single means of egress f Iom each story or section (28-2.4.1) if the m a x i m u m c o m m o n path o f travel is no t exceeded (50 ft, or 100 ft if fuily sprinklered). This would allow delet ion of "Exit stair #2" in the figures, and reduce the bui lding space approximately 20 percent . Assuming no sprinklers, "Exit Stair #1" would remain a fire rated exit stair providing the single means of egress requi red f rom each "section" per 28-2.4.1.

EXIT STAIR

)

®

@ ,__ \ ,---/i l \ AccEss I -~ f HAY I "X~ CONCRE TE

,, OOR-% I SERVICE L A WALKWAY~ I I . . . . . . (TYP, / II I I

30' -0"

QROUND FLOOR EL 0"-0" N.T.S.

o

X--EXIT STAIR #I I

Figure I T r a n s f e r H o u s e Ske tch G r o u n d F loor EL 0 ft - 0 in.

? Exit H FI l -~uP I STAIR 11--I I I I I I I I ITi~ I

Lp \ - A F0u o ACCESS [I" .{

I HAY ~ ~ GFRL~TIN G

I C - -HOPPER

WJ NN TRANSFER/ II::I::ll=t::l

l 30" -0" :

2ND FLOOR PUIN EL I$ ' -0 "

N.T.S.

Figure 2 T r a n s f e r H o u s e Ske tch 2 n d F l o o r EL 15 ft - 0 in.

205

NFPA 1 0 1 I ~ 6 ROP

EXIT STAIR

©

G

30" -0" 30" -0"

UP TO

~E~ ~GU~RO RRIL~

"L-14-LRC; ~ F " ~ CRAT I N C ( o P E N } ~ _FLOOR_. - ~

I I

Y O R ~ ~ N,~LKNfiY ( TYP )

3RD FLOOR PLAN EL 30'-0"

N.T,S.

Figure 3 Transfer House Sketch 3rd Floor EL 30 ft - 0 in.

CONVEYOR "~" ANO SERVICE O00RS

CONVEYOR " ~

r - - 1

] i i I I I I

I I

! ! I I I I I !

3 i

~/Y//////////////~ 30" "0"

/ - ~00:s._0.

/ , - 3RO FLOOR EL 30"-0"

~--EXIT II

ELEVATION N.T.S.

Figure 4 Transfer House Sketch Elevation

1.3 LIFE SAFETY BENEFIT. In the case of coal dus t f i res / explosions at power plants, we feel that two exits at each level, shorter travel distance, e t~ required to mee t the High Hazard criteria provides little or no benefi t in the level of life safety for buildings with contents subject to deflagrations. Deflagrations due to ignition of coal dus t propagate faster than the t ime needed to travel the 75 ft allowed by NFPA 101 for High Hazard contents. In addition, after the deflagrafion occurs, condit ions typically do no t

reSent undu ly dangerous exposure dur ing the period necessary to ave the a rea . Fires result ing f rom coal dus t deflagrations (if any)

propagate very slowly, and do no t p roduce undu ly large amou n t s of smoke dur ing the t ime it takes to exit the building.

According to the typical coal hand l ing example illustrated above, the building size is increased by approximately 20 percent based on High Hazard Industrial classification. This is due to addit ion of "Exit Stair #2" which is only 30 ft f rom "Exit Stair #1 ". As indicated above, we feel that the addit ion of "Exit Stair #2" provides little or no benefi t in the level of life safety. For these reasons, we feel that the Special Purpose Industrial egress requi rements provide an equivalent level of protect ion with substantially less hardship for these types of structures. The history of coal f i res /explosions in the power industry supports this analysis, as indicated by the following narrative.

2.0 HISTORY OF COAL FIRES/EXPLOSIONS 2.1 PURPOSE. The purpose of tiffs section is to describe fires and

explosions related to coal hand l ing equ ipmen t at power plants. In present ing dais information, the reader may gain insight as to the general f requency of fires, the severity of f i res/explosions, the effects and foremost how these occurrences may effect requi rements of life safety design.

2.2 FIRE RECORDS. The informat ion on fires in this discussion are not quoted verbatim but are generalized so as to give an overall view of fires associated with coal, coal dus t and related equ ipmen t at power plants. The fires discussed in this section come f rom NFPA reports, Edison Electric Institute fire records, company fire records, personal investigation reports, and newspaper reports.

The coal f i res /explosions discussed are divided into four distinct a r e a s / e q u i p m e n t of the power plant. They are as follows:

• Enclosed coal hand l ing structures (reclaim hoppers , coal conveyors, transfer structures, c rusher s tructures and s i t e /bunke r fill areas of the main plant).

• Coal dus t collect collectors * Coal s i los /bunkers • Pulverizers 2.2.1 Enclosed Conveyors and Coal Handl ing Structures (Crusher

Buildings, Reclaim Hoppers, Silo Fill Galleries) Coal conveyor fires have been reported as early as the late 1940's by

the NFPA. These fires normally occur because of seized rollers becoming white ho t due to friction, thereby igniting the conveyor belt and consequent ly coal and coal dus t on the belts. Reports have also indicated tha t these fires have occurred with little or no coal on the belts. The major fire contr ibut ion related to these types of fires are the conveyor belting. The na ture of these fires are slow starting and propagat ion is fairly slow compared to a f lammable or combustible liquid.

There have been a n u m b e r of fires associated with coal conveyors. The f requency of coal conveyor fires have been calculated by B&V as approximately 1 fire per genera t ing un i t every 85 unit-years. This is quite low, however, it is greater than turbine lube oil fires as repor ted by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report NP- 4144. O n e of the most impor tan t facts to note at this point is that within the past 40 years there has been only 1 repor ted fatality at tr ibuted to a coal conveyor fire and it is no t clear as to the reason. Tha t is, was it smoke f rom the fire, was it heat, was it due to possible. collapse of the conveyor while the person was on the conveyor?

Explosions associated with enclosed coal conveyor structures occur but the fire records indicate that no explosion has originated with a coal conveyor or coal conveyor fire. Usually, explosions in enclosed conveyors occur as secondary explosions due to a deflagration that occurred f rom ano the r area of the system such as dus t collector, crusher, etc.

The largest coal conveyor explos ion/f i re occurred in 1980. This incident originated in the dus t collection system causing an explosion tha t propagated t h r o u g h enclosed conveyor s~tructures to main power plant. The explosion caused 20 million dollars in damage no fatalities and several injuries.

Life safe egress criteria was no t a factor in the injuries associated with conveyor fires or explosions.

2.2.2 Coal Dust Collectors. Coal dus t collector fires in general , were no t repor ted as a rule until the late 1970's. The reason for this is that the EPA did no t require s t r ingent fugitive dus t requ i rements at power j~lants until that time. In addition, the western suhbitumi- nous coal create more dus t t han the eastern coals therefore to this date, the majority of power plants (Eastern U.S.) do no t have the fabric type coal dus t collectors.

206


Where these types of collectors are utilized, primarily western coals, fires and deflagrations have been reported. The fires originate with spontaneous ignitions then when the dust collector fans are energized the smoldering dust is thrown in suspension causing a deflagration. The magnitude of damage to the collector is normally to activate the explosion vents or doors that are exhausted to the outside. The larger problem is that these small deflagration can cause larger

explosions as described previously with coal conveyors. The fire records indicate one fatality associated with coal dust

collector fires or explosions. This fatality was caused by an employee opening a hopper door to investigate a fire in the hopper. The collector was located outdoors, and life safety egress criteria was not a factor in dais fatality.

2.2.3 Coal Silos/Bunkers. Coal /dust s tored in either silos or bunkers in a power plant can be as much as 1700 tons for the plant use in one day. These si los/bunkers are located in the boiler building, adjacent to die boiler.

Fires in bunkers have been reported for years. These fires have been caused by spontaneous ignition even with the eastern bituminous coal. As a rule, these fires were treated as a nuisance and late as 1983 NFPA 85F (now NFPA 850~) stated that if a fire was repor ted in a bunker the way to extinguish it would be to run it out of the bunker in the pulverizer and into the boiler.

Traditionally, these fires were treated as a nuisance because it was perceived as difficult to cause an explosion, and because actual explosions were rare. The reason is because even though coal dust is classified as a combustible dust the ignition sensitivity varies depending on type of coal. The frequency of silo fires and explosions increased with the increased use of western sub bituminous coals. Favored due to emission requirements, the western coals have a higher volatile content than bituminous coals as a rule. The ignition sensitivity is lower for the western coals and ignites. As with increased use of western coals, NFPA 85F was changed such that all wording referring to running burning coal through the pulverizer was eliminated. The largest f i re/explosion associated with a coal silo occurred at a midwestem plant in approximately 1987. This explosion lifted 6 inch concrete floor support ing silo fill conveyors approximately six feet in the air, pressurized the plant such that all r()[l up doors were ballooned, block wails knocked over and thousands of square feet of siding blown off. The estimated damage was approximately 6 million dollars. There were approximately 30 workers in the plant at the time of the explosion, some in the direct path of the explosion or adjacent to the silo. There were no fatalities in this deflagration, and only one minor injury.

2.2.4 Coal Pulverizers. Coal pulverizers are utilized at power plants to grind coal to the consistency of face powder. This piece of equipment is normally located on the ground floor adjacent to boiler. It grinds coal and transports the dust to the burners at the boiler face via large coal pipes. The driving force in tile transportation of dais coal dust is the primary air system which is air heated to as much as 750°F. Tempering air controls the final a i r /dus t temperature leaving the pulverizers. This temperature is normally around 125°F. ff this temperature is exceeded for tile purpose of drying coal, conditions exist such that the ignition sensitivity is lowered to point where any additional input of energy will create fire conditions.

If a fire condition is established in an operating pulverizer and the air to coal dust ratio approaches the lower explosive limit, an explosion will occur and in some cases it will occur quite violently.

In the early to mid 1980's, the utility concerns required that NFPA 85F was revised extensively, and research was conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute on the problem of coal dust combustibility in the dynamic mode.

The fire records indicate that at lest four fatalities have occurred due to pulverizer fire/explosions. These explosions originated i n t ema i to the pulverizer and fatalities were caused by massive pieces of metal and debris as opposed to extreme heat, pressure wave or bums. In each of d~ese cases llfe safety egress and exit criteria were not a factor in these fatalities.

2.4 Conclusion. Coal fires occur with coal dust due to spontaneous ignition and as a rule bums slowly and produces little smoke as compared to flammable and combustible liquids.

Explosions occur wida coal dust when smoldering coal dust is thrown into suspension such as dust collector fans or pulverizer startup.

The fire records indicate one fatality in file utility industry in the past forty years due to a coal conveyor fire. The specifics of the fatality are no t known.

There have been four fatalities attributed to pulverizer explosions. The pulverizer explosion fatalities were caused by metal and debris, not heat, smoke or pressure wave. In essence, they were adjacent to pulverizers when the explosion occurred, and travel distance criteria required by the high hazard occupancy would not have helped these people.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's substantiation provides one example using limited data from one industry to request a significant change that would exempt dust from the considerations used in classifying the hazard of contents. Thus, the substantiation is inadequate to justify the proposed change. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log 0223a) .FUN

101- 597 - (A-4-2.2.4): Reject SUBMITTER: T.C. Glayton/D.J. Sheridan, Black & Veatch RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-4-2.2.4 as follows: A-4-2.~.4 High hazard contents may include occupancies where

gasoline and other flammable liquids are handled or used or are stored under conditions involving possible release of flammable vapors: ,,Lc,,. g, ad,, dc~,t, ;;..~d tic,,;, .,, v.l,~;3,~ d , ~ , ~,, ,~d, ,~v,; ,~ c,i-

. . . . o J . . . . . i i _ ~ 1 , _ _ L J _ _ _ J t

~"7_~'%7 7'_"_,7~_7Y~ ~;YU;~i YTv'."7_'7 " , f ~ ,,,~7 _~ v , 7 " * y ? 7 ~ , . . . . . . . : ' _ ' ~ " T 7 t ' ~ : ' " ~ ° ~' y ~ v : , . . . . . . . 3 " ' _ ~ . ~ , ~ 7 ~ " ' Y TM 7~_ " . . . . . ~ _ _

CGub..,~i~. SUBSTANTIATION: See substantiation on Proposal 101- (Log #223) on A-4-2.2.3. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 101 - 596 (Log 0223). NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #230) MEA

101-598- (A-5-1.6.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-5-1.6.2 as follows:

A-5-1.6.2 Aside from the problems created for persons who are mobility impaired, small changes of elevations in floors are best avoided because of the increased occurrence of missteps where the presence of single steps, a series of steps, or a ramn is not readily apparent. While small chan~es of elevation nose s'ignificant fMI risks in the case of indivi~Joa/mo~Tement, they are'even more undesirable where ¢rowds traverse the area.

For steus not subiect to crowd movement, a contrasting marking stripe or] each stepping surface may be ~ ~ at the nosing or leading edge such that the location of each step is readily apparent, especially when viewed in descent. Such stripes should be at least 1 in (2.5 cm) but not more than 2 in. (5.0 cm) in width. Other methods could include a relatively higher level of lighting wt: ~ ,dJ ~ , d , contrasting colors, contrastiag textures, especially prominent handrails, warning signs, a combination daereof, or other similar means. The construction or application of marking stlipes should be such that slip resistance is consistent over the walking surface and no tr ipping hazard is created (see also A-5-2.2.3.4). Depending on the distractions of die surroundings, the familiarity of users with a particular small change of level, and especially the number of people that might be in a group traversing the change of level (thereby reducing visibility of the level changes), a strong argument can be made for the elimination of steps and ramps ill.at might nose a risk of misstens, add~d,,,al -.;a, , ; , g ,~i,.o~u, ~o a~;~s.'.,~ bc acT.de2 ~ . . . . . . . . "d,.; :h~ " , , t ~ , , J ~ , , ,~f ah' ;,di.id,.-ol'~ ;~ d . . . . . . ;~

: 7 : Y ~ . ' 2 ° : . . . . . . . V : ~. ' ;" , : '~ '? . "_ . . . . . . 7_7. 7 ~ T ' _ ' L l k " ~ : " " : . . . . . . . t v ~ J t a ~ t i ~ O t ~ l J o , ~ t a ~ t u ~ t l l l ~ t l ~ l l ~ L ~ L t t O L ~ I J ~ y t l l U l l t l l l ~ l . l ~ t i .

SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal (and an accompanying one on 5-1.6.2) are based on considerable litigation experience in relation to situations wiaere there are lhnited elevation changes, usually by stairs. This experience clearly justifies special attention to these situations. The falls that occur disproportionately in these situations would be especially problematic in a crowd situation such as during egress. Thus tile language of the appendix note has been strength- ened somewhat. Short of prohibiting such stairs and ramps when they will be used by crowds of a size exceeding some limit (which would be difficult to specify in the Code) the s t rengthening of die appendix note seems to be prudent. These situations require that especially good judgmen t is exercised; the appendix note provides a basis for this on the parts o f the owner, designer and authority baring jurisdiction. If they fail to exercise good judgment , the

207


. • p e n d i x at least provides information useful in the assignment litigation actions ~ of responsibility for injurious falls.

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise A-5-1.6.2 as follows: A-5-1.6.2 Aside from the problems created for persons who are

mobility impaired, small changes of elevations in floors are best avoided because of the increased occurrence of missteps where the presence of single steps, a series of steps, or a ramp is not readily apparent. While small changes of elevation pose significantfall n~s.ks in the case of individual movement, they are even more unctesirat)te where crowds traverse the area.

A contrasting marking stripe on each stepping surface may be ~;6-,~dcd helpful at tl~e nosing or leading edge such that the |ocation of each step is readilyapparent, especially when viewed in descent. Such stripes should be at least 1 in (2.5 cm) but not more than 2 in. (5.0 cm) in width. Other methods could include relatively hi~her level of lighting ~f cad, ~ .ad, contrasting colors, contxasting'{extures, especially prominent handrails, warning simas. a combination thereof, or other similar means. The construction or application of marking stripes should be such that slip resistance is consistent over the walking surface and no tripping hazard is created (see also A-5-2.2.3.4). Depending on the distractions of the surroundings, the familiarity of users with a particular small change of level, and esneciallv the number ofpeople that might be in a group traversirig the change of level (thereby reducing visibility of the le-vel changes), a $tr()ng argument can be made for the elimination of stens and ramos that might nose a risk of misstens. ~ d d l : ~ . 2

, 3 . . . . . . " n , • " ~ ' t _ ] . . . . . t . , t ? . . , ~ _ _ c

_ 1 1 ? _ ] ~ _ ~ J _ _ I } ] . . . . . L l . r _ J . . . . .

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The first seven words of the second paragraph have been deleted because it is important, even in crowds, for the first persons to reach the area with elevation difference to recognize it as such. This should meet the submitter's intent. Although Committee has accepted in principle the submitter's wording, the committee advises that it is NOT its intent to assign the responsibility for injurious falls to any party (see last sentence of submitter's substantiation). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #231) MEA

101- 599 - (A-5-2.2.3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: In the middle of the second paragraph of appendix note A-5-2.2.3.4 change the reference, that is contained in italics and parentheses, from "(see the Templet publication NBS BSS 120)" to the more up-to-date, accessible reference "(Templet, J.A. The Staircase: Studies of Hazards, Falls, and Safer Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992)". SUBSTANTIATION: This updates the reference. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #232) MEA

101-600- (A-5-2.2.4.5(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa Jake Pauls, Building Use & Safety Institute RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-5-2.2.4.5(b) as follows:

(b) This 1 1/2-in. (3.8 cm) clearance assumes that the wall other surfaces adjacent to the handrail is a smooth surface. Where rough ~ surfaces are used, greater clearances are . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ d required. In fact. ergonomic studies suggest that the 1 1/2 in. clearance is subminirnal: 2 1/4 in. (5.7 crn) is a more annronriate minimum clearance even to smootl~ surfaces and. for o'u'tdo~)r situations where gloved hands might be used to orasn a h~[ldrall. 1/2 in. (6.4 cm~ i~s more anoronr~te as a minimum clearance, Ngt¢ that the 3 1/2 in. (8.9 cm~ t~roi'ection requirement does not nrohibit ~uch latter dearances: the3172 in. (8.9"cm~ refers tO ~taiF ~ d t h re~uiredfor ecress canadtv for exam[)le, not the actua~ w~dtja. SLCBSTANTIA'TION: "Theergonomic research is addressed in Templer, JJk. The Staircase, Studies of Hazards, Falls, and Safer Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992. BOCA has also addressed this by increasing minimum handrail clearances as suggested here. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise A-5-2.2.4.5(b) as follows:

(b) This 1 1/2-in. (3.8 cm) clearance assumes that the wall and other surfaces adjacent to the handrail is a smooth surface. Where rough ,~II surfaces are used, greater clearances are recommended. In fact. ergonomic studies suggest that 2 1/4 in. (5.7 cm~ is a more annrouria~e minimum d e a r a ~ e even to smooth Surfaces. Note that tfa~ 3 ~ /2 in. (8.9 cmi uroiection reauirement does not urohibit such lar~er dearances-th~ 3 1 / 2 in.'(8.9 cm~ refers to srdr width reauired'for e~ress canacitv for examble, not the actual width. C(5~TrEE~STATEMENT: The Committee Action makes the changes recommended by the submitter but uses slightly different wording. The 2 1/4 in. clearance is adequate for gloved hands, inside or out of doors. The Committee wording deletes reference to a "subminimal" condition because it could be incorrectly interpreted to mean that the Code requirement is inadequate. This shouldmeet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #158) MEA

101- 601 - (A-5-2.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: John H. Klote, Building and ~re Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: In A-5-2.3.2 replace 'Design of Smoke Control Systems for Buildings, by Klote and Fothergill" with "Design of Smoke Management Systems, by Klote and Milke. SUBSTANTIATION: This new publication has been extensively revised and includes new information based on research and the experience of designers. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. N ~ E R OF COMMITTEE MEMBER~ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2" Behrens, Tomy

(Log #159) MEA

101- 602 - (A-5-2.12.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER= John H. Klote, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: In the secondparagraph of A-5-2.12.3.2 replace "ASHRAE's Design of Smoke Control Systems for Buildings" with "ASHRAE/SFPE's Design of Smoke Management Systems." SUBSTANTIATION: This new publication has been extensively revised and includes new information based on research and the experience of designers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #39) MEA

101- 603 - (A-5-5.1.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RoffJensen & Assodates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix paragraphs A-5-5.1.1 to read as follows: A-5-5.1.1 High security may be a necessity in certain occupancies.

Incompatibility between security and fire safety measures may be difficult to reconcile if not addressed in building design. Security provided as an afterthought tends to conflict with emergency evacuation requirements of the building and fire codes. Conflicm can be evaluated and minimized, through simultaneous consideration of fire safety and security needs while the facility is still in planning and design phases.

Fire walls, for example, not. only compartmentalize to. reduce the fire exposure but also permit the use of horizontal exits, whereby -- people are channeled into another building, rather than evacuated to the outside, on a fwe occurrence. Courtyards and fenced-in grounds can be secure places of refuge for persons evacuated from a high-security building. SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph will provide guidance on considering security issues in the planning and design phases. COMM1TYEEACTION: Reje~ . COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The'proposed appendix note provides no additional guidance with respect to arrangement of the means of egress. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


208

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F96 R O P

(Log #70) MEA

101- 604 - (Table A-5-6.1 footnote (a)): Accept SUBMITrER: Philip R.Jose, VA Regional Division Office

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise footnote (a) so that the second "50" is preceeded bya "_<" sign, not a ">" sima SUBSTANTIATION: So the footnote~'accurately reflects the actual code requirement. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #93) MEA

101-605- (Table A-5-6.1 footnote (a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Poole Fire Protection Engineering, Inc.

J RECOMMENDATION: Revise Note a to read: 20 ft (6.1 m) for common path serving >50 persons; 75 ft (23 m)

for common path serving <50 persons. SUBSTANTIATION: Common path is permitted to be longer with less pe t le. C~ PM~°~EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP303) FIR

101- 606 - (A-6-2.3.6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features, RECOMMENDATION: In A-6-2.3.6.2 add a new sentence to the end of the paragraph at the bottom of the left column of page 101- 253 to read: "Membrane penetrations for electrical outlet boxes of any material should be permittedprovided that such boxes are tested for use in fire rated assemblies and installed in accordance with the tested assembly." SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording comes from a recent BCMG reporL ff the item is tested for use then it should be permitted, regardless of the type of material. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bender, Notarianni

(Log #CP308) FIR

I01- 607 - (A-6-2.4.2 Exception No. 5 and B-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Protection Features, RECOMMENDATION: Add a new appendix item A-6-2.4.2 Exception No. 5 to read:

A-6-2.4.2 Exception No. 5 One method of determining the fire resistance rating of expansion and seismic joints is by UL 2079, Test for Fire Resistance of Building Joint systems.

To B-1.2 add: UL 2079, Test for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems, 1 st

edition, 1994, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Rd., Nonhbrook, IL 60062 (A-6-2.4.2 Exception No. 5) SUBSTANTIATION: The user of the Code should be made aware of the availability of the new UL 2079 standard because it provides test procedures for the expansion and seismic joints addressed by Exception No. 5 to 6-2,4,2. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #85) FIR

101- 608- (A-6-2.4.6): Accept in Part SUBM/TTER: John H. Klote, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Replace A-6-2.4.6 with: A-6-2.4.6 There is the potential for dangerous concentrations of

smoke to develop due to atrium fires. For information about systems to provide smoke protection in these spaces see NFPA 92B, Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas, and Design of Smoke Management Systems by Klote and Milke.

SUBSTANTIATION: The generalizations ofA-6-2.4.6 are no longer appropriate now that engineering methods are available to design atrium smoke management systems based on smoke filling, smoke exhaust, or both. The references given above provide this informa- dOno COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Add the following to the end of current appendix item A-6-2.4.6: For information about systems that can be used to provide smoke

protection in these spaces see: (a) NFPA 92B, Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls,

Atria, and Large Areas, and (b) Design of Smoke Management Systems. In B-1.2 add the complete reference to the Klote and Milke

publication "Design of Smoke Management Systems" shown in (b) above. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current wordin~ ofA-6-2.4.6 should be retained. The submitter's recommendation for the referenced publications has been included in the above Committee Action. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 2 Bender, Notarianni

(Log #94) FUR

101- 609- (Table A-6-5.2): Accept SUBMI'ITER: Jack Poole, Poole Fire Protection Engineering, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change: "Office - New" to "Business New"

Change: "Office - Existing" to "Business - Existing" SUBSTANTIATION: This will make the table match the occupancy nallle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 17

(Log #456) FUR

101- 610 - (A-6-5.2.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James Lathrop, GenCorp RECOMMENDATION: Add a new appendix note to read: A-6-5.2.4 It is not the intent of this prohibition to apply to

expanded vinyl wall coverings. See the definition of "Plastic, Cellular or Foamed" in Chapter 3. SUBSTANTIATION: Some authorities having jurisdiction have refused to allow the installation of expanded vinyl wall covering based on the prohibition in 6-5.2.4 against cellular or foamed plastic. This was also the subject of litigation in the fatal June 30, 1989 Atlanta high rise office building fire. The prohibition was first introduced to file Code in 1976. A review of committee documentation, including meeting minutes resulting in that prohibition indicates that this prohibition is based on the FTC consent order as the result of the major FTG action against the plastics industry in the early 1970's. This encompassed polyurethane and polystyrene foamed plastics. . It was. primarily aimed .at insulatin g.-material bein g used as an interior fimsh or as major braiding material. It did not involve expanded vinyl wall coverings. It should be noted that the definition in Chapter 3 does not define an expanded vinyl but this is difficult to explain to an authority having jurisdiction on a case by case basis. This proposal should help eliminate this problem in die future. Also see related proposal for a new 6-5.2.5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new appendix note to read: A-6-5.2.5 It is not the intent of this prohibition to apply to products

described in A-6-5.2.4. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee's rewording of the submitter's proposed exception is for consistency with the action on Proposal 101 - 149 (Log #455) which creates a detailed appendix note that can be referenced. This should meet the submitter's intent. Note that the renumbering is based on the insertion of the new material being added to the Code by Proposal 101 - 149 (Log #455). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 17

209

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP

(Log #CP506) BSF

161- 611 - (A-7-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment, RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-7-3.1 as follows: A-7-3.1 For guidance on designing, installing, acceptance testing,

periodic testing, and maintaining engineered smoke control systems, s e e :

NFPA 97.A, Recommended Practice for Smoke-Control Systems. NFPA 92B, Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria,

and Large Areas. NFPA SPP-53, Smoke Control in Fire Safety Design, by Butcher and

Parnell. Desi~cn of Smoke Management Systems. bv KIote and Milke. ASHilAE I Ia,~,l"c~vk ~ d P,vd,~it BL~ctoiS---~a,,da,.~.~a~l=

Guideline 5: Guideline for Commissionin~ Smoke Management Systems.

See A-15-3.1.3 for existing detention and correctional occupancies. Make corresponding changes to the Appendix Bd.2 list of cited

references. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes update the references to list those currently available and expert on the subject of smoke control, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #CP506) BSF

101- 612 - (A-7-6.3.2): Accept SUBMrI~I'ER: Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment, RECOMMENDATION: Delete A-7-6.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The subject is adequately covered by NFPA 72 wilose use is mandated by Section 7-6 of the Life Safety Code. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #21) BSF

101- 613 - (A-7-6.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RoffJensen & Assodates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add appendix item to paragraph 7-6.6 to read: A-7-6.6 The choice of location(s) for the fire command station

should also consider the ability of the fire alarm system to operate and function during any probable "single event". SUBSTANTIATION: This recommendation is based upon the NFPAfire investigation report of the World Trade Center explosion and fire. COMMITITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The submitter's term "single event" remains undefined so that the appendix note would no tbe of much help to the user. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #266) BSF

101- 614 - (A-7-7.5 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Eugene A. Cable, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add a new appendix note to paragraph 7- 7.5 to read: A-7-7.5 A fire watch should at least involve some special action

beyond normal staffing, such as assigning additional security guard(s) to walk the areas affected. These individuals should be specially trained in fire prevention, use of fire extinguishers and occupant hose lines, in notifying the fire department, in sounding the building fire alarm, and understanding the particular fire safety situation for public education purposes. Some Authorities Having Jurisdiction require firefighters be assigned to the area, with direct radio communication to the local Fire Department.

SUBSTANTIATION: There is a great disparity between "evacuating a building ~ and asking the security guard to take an extra tour through the building, given the building is occupied. This guidance is intended to highlight the importance of a fire watch, so as not to shrug it off easily. COMMYI=rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new appendix note to paragraph 7-7.5 to read: A-7-7.5 A fire watch should at least involve some special action

beyond normal staffing, such as assigning additional security guard(s) to walk the areas affected. These individuals should be specially trained in fire prevention, use of fire extinguishers and occupant hose lines, in notifying the fire department, in sounding the building fire alarm, and understanding the particular fire safety situation for public education purposes. Some authorities having jurisdiction require firefighters be assigned to the area, with direct radio communication to the local fire departlnent. Also see NFPA 601, Standard on Guard Services in Fire Loss Prevention. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes all that the submitter requested and adds a reference to NFPA 601. This should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 14 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 14

(Log #CP615) AXE

101- 615 - (A-8-2.5.9.8 and A-9-2.5.9.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Assembly and Educational Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to the end of current A~,pendix items A-8-2.5.9.8 and A-9-2.5.9.8:

luminescent, self-luminous, and electro-luminescent gype tread markings have the advantage of being apparent in reduced light or absence of light- SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed Appendix note explains the benefits of providing tread markings that are of the luminescent, self-luminous or electro-luminescent type. This should be useful information to the Code user. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 27 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 24 NOT RETURNED: 3 I~andry, Lattey and Wertheimer

(Log #CP654) HEA

101- 616 - (A-12-1.2.2 and A-13-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add an Appendix Note to 12-1.2.2 and 13- 1.2.2 to read: A-12-1.2.2 (A-13-1.2.2) It is the intent of the Committee that these

requirements apply to mobile, transportable and relocatable structures (in accordance with 1-2.5) when such structures are used to provide shared medical services on an extended or a temporary basis. When properly separated from the health care occupancy and intended to provide services simultaneously for three or less health care patients who are litter-borne, the level of protection for those structures should be based upon the appropriate occupancy classification of other chapters of this Code. Mobile, transportable, or relocatable structures which are not separated from a contiguous health care occupancy or which are intended to provide services simultaneously for four or more health care patients who are litter- borne should be classified and designed as a health care occupancy. SUBSTANTIATION: Numerous installations have been observed where mobile structures are brought to health care facilities without regard to the elements of safety required by the Life Safety Code. Apparently the current requirements of the Code found in Section 1-3.5 are unknown to the operators of the facility. Putting an Appendix note within Chapters 12 and 13 will bring this requirement to the attention of those using these chapters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: lfi NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

210

N F P A 1 0 1 - - F 9 6 R O P

(Log #219) HEA

101- 617- (A-12-3.2.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMYVI'ER: Ken Faulstich, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add another sentence to this appendix note as follows:

"It is not the intent to require rooms or spaces primarily used for healthcare, administrative, or other purposes which contain employee lockers to be classified as a hazardous area." SUBSTANTIATION: Some authorities having jurisdiction have interpreted 12-3.2.1 as requiring rooms to be protected as hazardous areas which contain as few as 10 small employee lockers used to store purses, etc. (no change of clothing). These rooms have been classified as hazardous areas even though the primary use is as an office, conference room, nurses station, etc. This appendix note would help to clarify what constitutes an employee locker room and hazardous areas. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 257 (Log #426) on 12-3.2.1.

COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The referenced Committee Action should satisfy the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #13) HEA

101- 618 - (A-12-3.5.3 and A-13-3.5.6): Reject Note: This proposal appeared as comment 101-397 which was held

for fur ther study from the Fall 93 TGD, which was on proposal 101- 463 and 101-505. SUBMITTER: EugeneA. Cable, Altm2ny, NY RECOMMENDATION: Revise appendix note A-12-3.5.3 third sentence and A-13-3.5.0 third sentence to read:

"Many options are available to the designer including, but not limited to: placing a sprinkler head within each cubicle area, hanging the cubicle curtain 18 in. below the sprinkler deflector, or designing the system to have a horizontal and minimum vertical distance that meets NFPA 13, Section 4-4.1.3.3." SUBSTANTIATION: The Life Safety Code should no t compound a very questionable position by referencing a seriously flawed and unsubstantiated NFPA 13 appendix note. The language concerning "1/9 mesh" and water sprinkler obstruction is not based on any test known to the NFPA 13 committee. The referenced NBSIR 80-9097 only substantiates the horizontal and minimum vertical distances in NFPA 13 table.

The idea of "1/2 mesh on the diagonal or 70 percent open weave" comes f rom the NFPA 13 committee assumption that open grid ceiling tests (oriented horizontally under a sprinkler head) can be applied to vertically oriented cur ta ins--a quick and inappropriate committee action. (See NFPA 13-1.4.6.)

The Fire Departlnent, VA Medical Center Canandaigua, NewYork, conducted several cubicle curtain vs sprinkler tests. They found that an 18 in. mesh, 5 /8 x 3 /8 in. obstructed 50 percent of the sprinkler discharge to a location 6 f t f f om vertical axis of sprinkler head. The curtains were h u n g 3 ft from the head. A secondstyle curtain, 22 in. mesh, 1/8 in. x 1 /2 in., obstructed 60 percent of the sprinkler discharge. Test results and video are available from Mr. Ken Faulstich.

It is my recommendat ion that cubicle curtain mesh of any size no t be accepted and certainly not be r ecommended at this time (based on the above noted VA informal test results, and the fact that no other testing has been conducted). The unders tood objective of Quick Response Sprinkler activation

to protect the life of other patients in the same room can easily be negated by a 50 percent obstruction of water delivery, particularly when such systems are of light hazard design. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: There is data from testing done by file National Bureau of Standards to support the current code wording. No new data has been provided by the submitter to substantiate the proposed change. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP655) HEA

101- 619 - (A-12-3.5.3 and A-13-3.5.6): Accept SUBMITIER: Technical Committee on Health Care Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sentence to A-19-3.5.5 and A-13- 3.5.6 to read: "The test data that forms the basis of the NFPA 13 requirements is f rom fire tests with sprinkler discharge that penetra ted a single privacy curtain." SUBSTANTIATION: Although the current Code language contemplates that some of the sprinkler discharge will be blocked by the curtain, there is no testing to show the effectiveness of sprinkler water in penetrat ing multiple curtains. The proposed appendix wording warns the user of this. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMI'ITEE ACTION:


(Log #89) HEA

101- 690 - (A-12-3.fi.3.1, A-13-3.6.3.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTERt Philip 1L Jose, VA Regional Division Office RECOMMENDATION: Add new appendix notes A-12-3.6.3.1 and 13-3.6.3.1 to read: "The intent is that the same 1/8 inch clearance requirements found in NFPA 80 be applied to the top and sides of these corridor doors to assure a reasonable degree o f smoke resistance." SUBSTANTIATION: To provide guidance to the code user as to the degree of door "tightness" in tended by the code. This proposed Appendix note is similar to the current note for smoke barrier doors, A-6.3.4.1. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's proposed language would introduce too resa'ictive an interpretation of the intent behind the current code requirement. See Proposals 101 - 267 (Log #427) and 101 - 621 (Log#4fi2). There is information in the Code that stops are needed at the top and sides of the door frame, but there is no stipulation on the maximum clearance permitted because these are not fire doors. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #452) HEA

101- fi21 - (A-12-3.6.3.4 (New)): Accept in Pr indple SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add a new appendix note to read: A-12-3.0.3.4 The most important function of a corridor door is

that the door latches and remains in the closed position which may be prevented if the door is gasketed. While specific criteria may not exist for non-rated corridor doors, minor door deflections may develop due to seasonal changes. Fire rated doors, tested in accordance with UL 10B, may have a deflection of one times the door thickness during the first half o f the fire test and one and a half time the door thickness during the endre test period. SUBSTANTIATION: Manyauthorit ies having jurisdiction are requiring corridor doors to be smoke gasketed because 15'-3.6.3.1 states that door openings shall be protected by construction to resist the passage of smoke. It is not uncommon for wood doors to warp with seasonal changes, deflecting away from the stop on the flame. As with fire rated doors, corridor doors are expected to deflect a certain percentage of their thickness and still be classified as resisting the passage of smoke. Fire doors tested in accordance with UL 10B may deflect one times the thickness of the door during the first half o f the test and one and a half times the door th ickness . during the entire test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. See Proposal 101 - 267 (Log #427) on 19-3.6.3.4.

COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The referenced Committee Action should adequately address the subject. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


211

N F P A 1 0 1 - - !796 R O P

(Log #395) HEA

101- 622 - (A-12-3.7.3 Exception No. 2, A-1 ?,-3.7.3 Exception No. 2): Reject SUBMITTER: John W. McCormick, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add an additional paragraph as follows:

This exception is no t in tended to prevent the use of p lenum returns when ducting is used to return air f rom a ceiling plenum through smoke barrier walls. SUBSTANTIATION: The absolute term "fully ducted" can be interpreted to prohibit ceiling p lenum returns when taking this exception.

Typically, in recirculating HVAC systems, air is supplied f rom a supply fan via t runk ducting to branch ducting, which directly supply air diffusers in a room. Air is then re turned to the mechanical equipment room for conditioning and recirculation to the space. This return air is sometimes directly ducted f rom return air registers in a space by way of branch ducting to a t runk duct, which then returns to the MER. More often though, ducted p lenum returns are used. Such systems

~ rovlde for return air t runk ducting which serves an entire area of a uilding, drawing air f rom suspended ceiling p lenum spaces direcdy

to the trunk ducting without use of direct connect ion of room diffusers or branch ducts.

Reference the Committee Documentat ion, whichaccep ted this exception. Committee Documentat ion No. 101-304 (Log No. 245) inserted this exception. The substantiation for doing so indicated that "It is our belief that in order to receive this trade-off, the HVAC system must be ducted. This new language will prohibi t open air transfers above a d ropped ceiling, or a short section of duct installed in the smoke barrier wall no t connected on either side of the barrier." I conclude f rom this substantiation that the Committee 's intent in permitt ing the exception and use of the te rm "fully-ducted" was to prohibi t open air transfers above a d ropped ceiling at a smoke

. barrier or a short section of duct ( jumper d u c t ) a t the smoke barrier. The proposed commentary is in tended to clarify the Committee 's

intent, thereby, allowing more than one technology for HVAC systems. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter 's proposed language would seem to allow for the omission of the damper even if there were just a short stub (no min imum length specified) of duct penetrat ing the smoke barrier with all o ther space open to the plenum. This short stub would no t have the desired performance to justify omitting the damper. This does not represent the Committee 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CROWLEY: It was no t the submitter 's intent to allow the. arrange-

men t stated in the committee statement. The absolute term full~, ducted must be more clearly defined. The use of smoke tight ceiling and unigue isolation room atya~.gements may dictate a supply and return mr system that meets the in tent of a fully ducted system while no t meet ing the absolute definition. More guidance is needed for the appencFtx note.

(Log #220) HEA

101- 623 - (A-13-3,2.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Ken Faulstich, Depar tment of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Add an appendix note as follows: A-13-3.2.1 It is not the intent to require rooms or spaces primarily

used for healthcare, administrative, or other purposes which contain employee lockers to be classified as a hazardous area. SUBSTANTIATION: Some authorities having jurisdiction have interpreted 13-3.2.1 as requiring rooms to be protected as hazardous areas which contain as few as 10 small employee lockers used to store purses, etc. (no change of clothing). These rooms have been classified as hazardous areas even though thepr imary use is as an office, conference room, nurses station, etc. This appendix note would help to clarify what constitutes an employee [dcker room and hazardous areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -297 (Log #436) on 13-B.2.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The referenced Committee Action should safisfty the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 1O NOT RETURNED: 2 Carson, Deal

(Log #453) HEA

101- 624- (A-13-$.6.2.2 (New)): Accept in Pr indple SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add an appendix note to read: A-[3-3.6.2.2 The purpose of extending a corridor wall above a lay-

in ceiling or through a concealed space ts to provide a barrier to limit the passage o f smoke. This section was not in tended to require "light" tight barriers above lay-in ceilings or to be an absolute seal of the room from the corridor. Small holes, penetrations or gaps around ductwork, conduit, telecommunication lines, etc. will not derate this barrier below one that limits the passage of smoke. SUBSTANTIATION: This section of the code states that corridor walls shall limit the passage of smoke. Unfortunately, authorities having jurisdiction have been taking this to mean the wall shall be light ught with absolutely no gaps or holes, not even the size of a piece of pencil lead. Millions ofdoUars are being spent to seal and patch small penetrations and gaps around conduits or ducts, that in the overall scheme of preventing the loss of life or proper ty are minor or of no concern. This proposed change will permit the small hole or gap to exist without the need to patch insignificant Pcenetrations.

OMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add an appendix note to read: A-13-3.6.2.2 The purpose of extending a corridor wall above a lay-

in ceiling or through a concealed space is to provide a barrier to limit the passage of smoke. This section was no t in tended to require "light" tight barriers above lay-in ceilings or to be an absolute seal of the room from the corridor. Small holes, penetrations or gaps around ductwork, conduit, telecommunication lines, etc. should not affect the ability of this barrier to limit the passage of smoke. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action editorially revises the submitter 's proposed language for clarification purposes. This should meet the submitter 's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GAU_,AGHER: The basis of the submltters' proposals is valid. The

proposed exception under Log #438 was a step in the right direction towards developing performance based code Ian!guage. ~'l:te result of both 438 a n d 453 is a proposal for an Appendix A commentary to 13-3.6.2.2. Unfortunately, many AHJ's do not recognize this appendix. Those AHJ's who do use this appendix will not be any better served by subjective language such as "small holes, penetrations or gaps...". This subjectivity was the basis of the proposal under Log #438 in the first place. Code users would be better served with objective language in 13-$.6.2.2 which log 453 could then clarify and support.

(Log #454) HEA

101- 625 - (A-13-3,fi.3.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas S. Erickson, American Hospital Association RECOMMENDATION: Add an appendix note to read:

A-13-$.6.$.4 The most impor tant function of a corridor door is that the door latches and remains in the closed position which may be prevented if the door is g~keted . While specific criteria may not exist for non-rated corridor doors, minor door deflections may develop due to seasonal changes. Fire rated doors, tested in accorffance with UL 10B, may have a deflection of one times the door thickness during the first half of the fire test and one and a half time the door thickness during the entire test period. SUBSTANTIATION: Many authorities havinl~ iurisdiction are re quiring corridor doors, to be smoke gaskete(i~becanse 12-3.. .6 3 1 states that door openings shall be protected by construction to resist the passage of smoke. Ft is not uncommon for wood doors to wi - - " warp th seasonal changes, deflectmg away from the stop_ on the flame. As with fire rated doors, corridor doors are expected to deflect a certain percentage of their thickness and still be classified as resisting the p _assage of smoke. Fire doors tested in accordance with UL 10B may deflect one times the thickness of the door during the first half of the test and one and a half t imes the door thickness duriul~ the entire test. COMlgtlq[WEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

See Proposal 101 -312 (Log #~39) on 13-5.6.3.4: COMMITITEE STATEMENT: The action on the referenced

meet the submltter 's intent. OF COMMITIT.,E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: 18


212


(Log #CP702) DET

101- 626 - (A-14-1.2.1and A-15-1.2.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Detention and Correctional Occupancies, RECOMMENDATION: Create new appendix notes to 14-1.2.1 and 15-1.2.1 to read: A-14-1.2.1 (A-15-1.2.1) Key operated locking hardware should be

institutional grade. Lesser grade hardware might not be suitable for the heavy use that these locks are expected to receive. SUBSTANTIATION: Areas of detention and correctional facilities that correspond to other occupancies are often subject to constant locking and unlocking of doors by staff. Whereas institutional hardware is typically installed within the resident housing areas, this might not be the case for these ancillary spaces. Door locking{ hardware of a lesser grade than "institutional grade" might fail due to a heavier use than intended by the device's design and construction. The proposed appendix note suggests to the user that better grade hardware is desirable. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NOT RETURNED: 3" Barbaro, Stone, Whitehead

(Log #221) BCF

101- 627- (A-22-1.3 Evacuation Capability): Accept SUBMITTER: Ken Faulstich, Department of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence of paragraph two of this appendix note on the definition of evacuation capabifity to reflect the revised fire drill requirements for board and care occupancies as follows:

"... fire drills six times per year on a bimonthly basis with a minimum of two drills conducted during the night when residents are sleeping, and that the facility..." SUBSTANTIATION: The current requirement in 31-7.3 is for six drills per year, not twelve. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LENIN: Suggested fire safety levels'may exceed code minimums.

No technical information has been provided to justify the proposed change.

(Log #148) BCF

101- 628 - (A-23-1.3 Evacuation Capability): Reject SUBMITTERa Jack B. Messer, Michigan State Police-Fire Marshal Division RECOMMENDATION: Revise third paragraph, subpart (2) to read:

"(2) Over 3 minutes, but not in excess of 10 a'-~minutes, slow;," SUBSTANTIATION: Thirteen minutes appears too long a time period to effect evacuation. Testing conducted by IAAI and others indicate buildings untenable within 10 minutes. Fire experience in Michigan (Bolser AFC Fire - 1994) corroborates. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter's proposed change might require many existing facilities to be classified as having impractical evacuation capability. No specific data was submitted for th~Committee to review as substantiation for such a change. NUMBER OF COMbHTTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18

(Log #222) BCF

101- 629 - (A-23-1.3 Evacuation Capability): Accept SUBMITTER: Ken Faulstich, Department of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence of paragraph two of this appendix note on the definition of evacuation capability to reflect the revised fire drill requirements for board and care occupancies as follows: %. fire drills six times per year on a bimonthly basis with a

minimum of two drills conducted during the night when residents are sleeping, and that the facility... SUBSTANTIATION: The current requirement in 31-7.3 is for six drills per year, not twelve.

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LENIN: Suggested fire safety levels may exceed code minimums.

No technical information has been provided to justify the proposed change.

(Log #223c) IND

101- 630 - (A-28-1.4.1 (c)): Reject SUBMrITER: T.C. Clayton/D.J. Sheridan, Black & Veatch RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-28-1.4.1 (c) as follows: A-28-1.4.1 (c) High hazard contents may include occupancies

where gasoline and other flammable liquids are handled or used or are stored under conditions . , posslblereleaseofflammable, . • vapors ; . . . . c i ~ g io~, . . .Gs; , . G G d .%G, G; r . . . ~ . c ..Gut, zaum:~.a . , - - . ,~,.~s,...~:G;~. d.,o~, ..; ..~c. zx~Ic,~i;-c dG~ ma)-b~ t....du.;cd; where hazardous chemicals or explosives are manufactured, stored or handled; where cotton or other combustible fibers are processed or handled under conditions producing flammable flyings; and other situations of similar hazard.

Chapter 28, "Industrial Occupancies," and Chapter 29, "Storage Occupancies," include detailed provisions on high hazard occupancies. SUBSTANTIATION: See subsmsatlation on Proposal 101- (Log 223b) on 28-1.4.1. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: See Proposal 101 - 522 (Log #223b) on 28-1.4.1. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMITFEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #88) IND

101- 63t - (A-30-8.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Martin H. Reiss, RolfJensen & Associates, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add to end of existing text: The choice of locations(s) for the central control station should also consider the ability of the systems to operate and function during any possible "single event". SUBSTANTIATION: This recommendation is based upon the NFPA fire investigation report of the World Trade Center explosion and fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter has not defined or explained the term "single event". To make systems failure-proof is a complicated, expensive undertaking. It is not justified to suggest via an appendix note that this be done for all high rise buildings. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 15 VOTE ON COMMrITEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 13 NOT RETURNED: 2 Rodante, Shaner

(Log #359) FUR

101- 632 - (A-31-1.4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add to A-31-1.4.3:

"Evaluation of newly introduced upholstered furniture into high risk occupancies should also consider the fire hazard in the occupancy, as based on the fire properties of the component materials, when this is warrantedby the environment." SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording should be added to the language in the present version of the code. In certain high risk occupancies fire testing of products using a single test scenario may be insufficient to yield enough information about the potential fire hazard of the product, due to possible misuse or to the combination of products in the environment, which may lead to a more severe fire insult than would have been predicted from the results of a single test. Consideration of data from other fire tests, for example of the component materials, will result in a better overall assessment of the potential fire hazard. This is particularly important when dealing with products which have high fuel content, such as upholstered furniture or mattresses. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

213

NFPA 101m F96 ROP

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The suggested wording does not provide anything nseful to the user. The committee disagrees with the submitter on the usefulness of component materials test data in the evaluation. The current appendix verbiage is adequate. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 17

(Log #357) FUR

101- 633 - (A-31-1.4.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Marceio M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-$1-1.4.4 as follows:

The test procedures described in this section for fire tesfingof mattresses, hamely NFPA 267, Standard Method of Test for Fire Characteristics of Mattresses and Bedding Exposed to Flaming Ignition Source and ASTM E1590 Standard Metho¢~i for Fire Testing of Real Scale Mattresses are not suitable for fire testing of mattresses for use in detention and correctional occupancies. For newly introduced mattresses in such occupancies fire testing is more appropriate when conducted in accordance with California Technical Bulletin 121, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in High Risk Occupancies. In such testing, mattresses shall have limited mass loss, so that total mass loss does not exceed 0.7 kg.

(This should replace the language in the present version of the code, which reads: A-31-1.4.4 The following test procedures may be utilized to

ascertain the heat release of mattresses: Cal TB 129, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in Public Buildings, and UL 1895 Standard for Safety Fire Tests of Mattresses.) SUBSTANTIATION: There is a problem with testing mattresses for detention and correctional occupancies using California Technical Bulletin 129 with a peak rate of heat release RS0 kW. Such testing, is inappropriate, because it has been shown that mattresses with

~ oorer fire performance than those traditionally used will then ecome acceptable for such veryhigh risk applications. Before the

issuing of the 1991 edition of NFPA 101, in practice mattresses for detention and correctional occupancies were specified to meet CA TB 121 (although itwas not actually referred to in NFPA 101), and we would revert to that, but with a lower mass loss tolerance. See information provided, which shows actual testing a~d ~ simple fire hazard assessment. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Calfornia TB 121 test procedure has not beenprocessed through a consensus standards system. Adoption of the submitter's wording would create conflict between 31-1.4 text and the requirements imposed on mattresses by the detention and correctional occupancy chapters. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 17 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: STONE: I agree with the committee action to reject. For future

consideration I would like to be on record in preferring CAL TB-129 or equivalent over CAL TBd21. TB-129 has requirements for maximum weight loss and total heat release in addition to peak rate. A mattress passing all of these should be acceptable. Side ignition is also more realistic than bottom ignition in TB-121. It should be clear that requirements apply only to mattress not full system with bed clothes, pillows, etc. TB-121 is a poor test. It used 10 pieces of newspaper under the mattress. If the mattress constluction consists of melting materials such as a vinyl cover and a melamine filled PU foam this source will melt a hole in the mattress without involving the mattress in flaming. The burning newspaper then will exceed the allowable temperature above the mattress although the mattress is not burning.

(Log#$61) FUR

101- 634- (A-31-1.4.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Marce[o M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add to A-$L1.4.4, as a new paragraph, the following:

The intent of the provisions of $1-1.4.4 are the same as those of $I- 1.4.3, as outlined in A-31-1.4.3, with the exception of substituting the word "mattress" for the word "upholstered" furniture item". SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording should be added to the language in the present version of the code. There is a problem ofinconsistedcy in that there is an explanation in A-31-1.4.3 for the heat release criteria chosen, but there is none in this section, and both are parallel issues. COMMIITEEACTION: Accept in Principle. Add to A-31-1.4.4 the following: A-31-1.4.4 The intent of the provisions of 31-1.4.4 is as follows: (a) The maximum 250 kW peak rate of beat release for a single

mattress was chosen based on maintaining a tenable environment within the room of fire origin. The sprinkler exception was developed because the sprinkler system will help to maintain tenable conditaons even if the single mattress were to have a peak rate of heat release in excess of 250 kW.

(b) The maximum 40 MJ total energy release by the single mattress during the first five minutes of the test was established as an additional safeguard to protect against the adverse conditions that would be created by a mattress that released its heat in other than the usual measuredscenario. During the test for measurement of rate of heat release, the instantaneous heat release value usually peaksquickly and then quickly falls off so as to create a triangle- shapedcurve. In the atypical case, if the heat release were to peak and remain steady at that elevated level, as opposed to quickly falling off, the maximum 250 kW limit would not ensure safety. Again, only a sprinlder exception is allowed in lieu of the test because of the ability of the sprinkler system to control the fire. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action accomplishes what the submitter requested, but does so by repeating the wording rather than referencing a paragraph and telling the user to substitute wording. This should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16 NEGATIVE: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CABLE: I submit that the current appendix note to A-31-1.4.3 is

wrong and should not be wrongly repeated here for mattresses. The sprinkler exception was developed as an exception to the old 500 KW heat release limit which was first proposed as a possible means to prevent flashover. I frankly do not agree that a standard sprinkler head would help to maintain "tenable" conditions in a room. Didn't all the residential sprinkler tests provide strong evidence that a fast acting head was required? Here again it appears the focus is misguided to providing "tenable" conditions in the building, rather than the current code objective to provide tenable conditions in the ROOM. Defining objectives is important to definitive life safety decisionsl

(Log #362) FUR

101- 635 - (A-31-1.4A): Reject SI.~MITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, Safety Engineering Laborato- ties, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add to A-31-1.4.4 the following:

Evaluation of newly introduced mattresses into high risk occupancies should also consider the fire hazard in the occupancy based on the fire properties of the component materials, when this is warranted by the environment. SUI~TANTIATION: The proposed wording should be added to the language in the present version of the Code. In certain high risk occupancies fire testing of products using a single test scenario may be insufficient to yield enough information about the potential fire hazard of the product, due to possible misuse or to the combination of products in the environment, which may lead to a more severe fire insult than would have been predicted from the results in a better overall assessment of the potential fire hazard. This is particularly important when dealing with products which have high fuel content, such as upholstered furniture or mattresses. COMMIq[TEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Proposal 101 - 632 (Log #359) on A-$1-1.4.3. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 17

214


(Log #65) HEA

101- 636 - (A-31-4.5.5): Accept SUBMITTER= Phil Jose, Guilderland, NY RECOMMENDATION: Delete A-31-4.5.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Now that the Base Code Section permits receptacles up to 32 gallons in capacity, the Appendix is no longer necessary. Containers greater than 32 gallons should not be considered "small," which further justifies elimination of this section. COMMrI'TEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #366) DET

101- 637- (A-31-5.4.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Carl Ogburn, Chestnut Ridge'Foam, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new A-31-5.4.3 to read as follows:

"Evaluation of mattresses for detention occupancies should also consider hazards presented by composite testing depicting various scenarios reflective of this type of environment. Due to the nature of this environment, fire testing of components should also be considered to achieve a comprehensive evaluation. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no comprehensive composite test procedure which accurately depicts the detention environment. The best method, to date, is CAL TB #121 for testing detention mattresses. Thus, results of additional composite tests reflective of the environment, should also be taken into consideration.

The detention environment lends itself to a considerable amount of vandalism which frequently comprises the mattress composite. Thus, performance of component fire tests should also be taken into consideration. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Such verbiage, Kit belongs in the Code, belongs better as an addition to the requirements or appendix advisory text associated with material specific to mattresses in 31-1.4, not in the requirements of 31-5.4.3 which are specifically applicable to detention and correctional occupancies. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE T O VOTE: 18 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #160) MEA

101- 638 - (B-l-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John H. Klote, Building and Fire Research Lab, NIST RECOMMENDATION: Add references to B-l-2 as follows:

Groner, N.E. and Levin, M.L. 1992. Human Factors Considerations in the Potential for Using Elevators in Building Emergency Evacuation Plans, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-92-615.

Klote,J.H. and Alvord, D.M. Routine for Analysis of the People Movement Time for Elevator Evacuation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 4730.

Klote, J.H., Alvord, D.M., Levin, B.M., and Groner, N.E. 1992. Feasibility and Design Considerations of Emergency Evacuation by Elevators, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 4870.

Klote,J.H., Levin, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1994. Feasibility of Fire Evacuation by Elevators at FAA Control Towers, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5445.

Klote,J.K. and Milke, J.A. Design of Smoke Management Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta GA, 30329.

Levin, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1992. Human Behavior Aspects of Staging Areas for Fire Safety in C, SA Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-92-606.

Levin, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1994. Human Factors Considerations for The Potential Use of Elevators for Fire Evacuation of FAA Air Traffic Control Towers, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-94-656.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. SUBSTANTIATION: These publications are referenced in other proposed changes to Chapter 5 of NFPA 101 that allows an elevator to be a component of a means of egress.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. To the end of the appendix item A-5-2.13.1, created by the

committee action on Proposal 101 - 90 (Log #155) on 5-2.13, add the following: "For additional information see Human Factors Considerations in the Potential for Using Elevators in Building Emergency Evacuation Plans; Routine for Analysis of the People Movement Time for Elevator Evacuation; Feasibility and Design Considerations of Emergency Evacuation by Elevators; Feasibility of Fire Evacuation by Elevators at FAA Control Towers; Design of Smoke Management Systems; Human Behavior Aspects of Staging Areas for Fire Safety in GSA Buildings; and Human Factors Considerations for The Potential Use of Elevators for Fire Evacua- tion of FAA Air Traffic Control Towers. (See B-1.2.) Add references to B-l-2 as follows: Groner, N.E. and Levin, M.L. 1992. Human Factors Considerations

in the Potential for Using Elevators in Building Emergency EvacuatiOn Plans, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-92-615.

Klote, J.H. and Alvord, D.M. Routine for Analysis of the People Movement Time for Elevator Evacuation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 4730.

Klote, j.H., Aivord, D.M., Levin, B.M., and G~'oner, N.E. 1992. Feasibility and Design Considerations of Emergency Evacuation by Elevators, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 4870.

Klote,J.H., Lewn, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1994. Feasibility of Fire Evacuation by Elevators at FAA Control Towers, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5445.

Klote,J.K. and Milke, J.A~ Design of Smoke Management Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Adanta GA, 30329.

Levin, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1992. Human Behavior Aspects of Staging Areas for Fire Safety in GSA Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-92-606.

Levin, B.M. and Groner, N.E. 1994. Human Factors Considerations for The Potential Use of Elevators for Fir.e Evacuation of FAA Air Traffic Control Towers, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST-GCR-94-656. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: For publications to be listed in Appendix B they must first be referenced by title in Appendix A. The Committee Action should meet the submitter's intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 26 VOTE O N COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP101) FUN

101- 639 - (Appendix C): Accept Note: The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life

(AAC) directs that a public comment be submitted in the correlating committee's name that the Life Safety Technical Committee on Fundamentals (FUN) reconsider its action with respect to the wording of the last sentence o f the fin-st paragraph of proposed Appendix C and the wording of the last sentence of the substantiation. The time frame for issuance of a complete performance-based design option cannot be assured.

The Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life recognizes that further work on this subject is needed and welcomes input during the public review period. SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Fundamentals, RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Appendix C tiffed "Perfor- mance-Based Design Option" to read as follows:

Appendix C Performance-Based Design Option Future editions of this Code are expected to provide detailed

guidance on methods of demonstrating equivalency, which will be presented within the body of the Code as a performance-based design option, with the existing code, in its traditional format, identified as a prescriptive-based design option. This appendix introduces this approach, defines its structure, and presents elements in as much detail as the work to this point permits. It is the intent of the committee to circulate drafts for comment of other parts of this approach as they are prepared through the peer reviewed fire protection engineering literature over the next few years, with the objective of including a complete performance-based design option in the next edition of the Code.

C-1 Definitions. C-I.1 Fire Model. Calculation tool that contains engineering and

scientific principles. Due to the complex nature of the principles involved, models are often packaged as computer software. Attached to the fire models will be any relevant input data, assumptions and limitations needed to properly implement the model.

C-1.2 Fire Safety Goal. OveraU outcome to be achieved with regard to fire. Goals are non-specific and are measured on a qualitative

215

N F P A 1 0 1 ~ F96 R O P

basis. They should be stated in terms of conditions (like loss avoidance) that are intrinsically desirable and do not rely on any assumptions. For example, "avoidance offlashover" would not be a goal because it relies on assumptions about what kinds of fires cause harm. Goals should be stated in terms that are potentially measur- able, even if the precise measurement scale is not specified. Thus, they maybe stated in terms of impact on people or property, business interruption or environmental impact.

G-1.3 Fire Scenario. Specification of fire conditions under which a proposed solution is expected to meet the fire safety goals. The fire scenario describes factors critical to the outcome of the fire such as ignition sources, nature and configuration of the fuel, ventilation, characteristics and locations of occupants, and conditign of the supporting structure and other equipment.

G-1.4 Performance-Based Design Option. An option within a code or standard whereby compliance is achieved by demonstratiqg that a proposed design will meet specified fire safety goals using referenced approved methods. More specifically, fire safety goals are translatedintoperformance objectives and performance criteria. Fire models and other calculation methods are used in combination with the building design specifications, specified fire scenarios, and specified assumptions, to calculate whether the performance criteria are met, in which case there is compliance with the Code under the performance-based design option.

G-1.5 Performance Criteria. Performance objectives for individual products, systems, assemblies or areas that are further quantified and stated in engineering terms. (Engineering terms include temperatures, radiant heat flux~ and levels of exposure to fire products). Performance criteria provide threshold values which are treated as data for calculations used to develop a proposed solution. Examples of performance criteria include linuting a structural member to a critical temperature, limiting COHb levels to less than 25%, limiting upper layer temperatures to less than 500°C above ambi~ent, and limiting radiant flux at floor level to less than 20 kW/m ;.

C-1.6 Performance Objectives. Requirement of the fire, building, or occupants which needs to be obtained in order to achieve a fire safety goal. Examples include prevention of structural damage, no life loss in the room of fire origin, separating occupants from fire effects for a specified length of time, and containing the fire to the room of origin.

In general, objectives define a series of actions necessary to make the achievement of a goal much more likely. Objectives are stated in more specific terms than goals and are measured on a more quantitative rather than qualitative basis. -

C.1.7 Prescriptive-Based Design Option. An option within a code or standard whereby comlpliance is achieved by demoustratin Son compliance with specifiedconstruction characteristics, limits dimensions, protection systems, or other features, but without explicit reference to how these requirements collectively achieve explicitly stated fire safe~y goals.

G2 Creating the Two Options. G-2.1 In the Code, Chapter 1 will include a new section titled

"Design Options" that will state certain chapters of the Code appl)~ to a performance-based design option and certain chapters apply to a prescriptive-based design option. Code compliance is achieved if either option is used. Because the performance-based design option is an elaboration of the existing and established concept of equiv~alency, the new section on design options will appear next to the section on equivalency or will be combined with it.

G-2.2 It has not yet been determined whether the performance- based design option will use the traditional occupancy structure of the Code. If it does not, it will be because it has been determined that occupancy categories are not needed to specify the fire safety goals, fire scenarios, and assumptions relevant to a particular building design. If the occupancy structure is used, then the performance-based design option, like the current prescriptive-based approach, will rely on both general chapters and specified occupancy-specific chapters to set its requirements.

G-2.3 An example of a design option section not employing the occupancy structure would be as follows: Section 1-x Design Options 1-x.1 Performance-Based Design Option. A design in accordance

with Chapters 1 through 3 and the performance-based criteria of Chapter 4 (Performance-Based Designs) shall be considered as meeting the objectives of this Code.

1-x.2 Prescriptive-Based Design Option. A design in accordance with Chapters 1 through 3 and the prescriptive criteria of Chapters 5 through 30 shall be considered as meeting the objectives of this Code.

G-3 Requirements of a Performance-Based Design Option. G-3.1 The fire safetygoal (s) of the Code are contained within the

scope, application, andpurpose sections of Chapter 1. O/fly in the performance-based design options section will these fire safety goals be translated into quantitative performance objectives and performance criteria suitable fro: quantitative calculation and assessment.

Associated safety factors will be presented here as well. The fire safety goals would continue to be understood as providing the justification for the prescriptive-based chapters as well.

C-3.2 Fire scenarios provide the fire challenge or "load" against which one determines whether the performance criteria are meg • C-3.3 Fire models and other calculation methods are used to determine whether the building design will achieve the performance criteria, given each of the fire scenarios.

C-3.4 Assumptions are any conditions or features that affect the achievement or failure to achieve performance criteria but are not part of the fire scenario or the building design specifications. Examples include:

(a) Assumptions regarding the status and capabilities of the occupants. Occupancy categories are one way of organizing appropriate assumptions regarding occupants.

(b) Assumptions regarding characteristics of the building or its contents, equipment, or operations not inherent in the design specifications. Such assumptions may be needed to determine how quickly fire and its effects will spread (e.g., doors normally open vs. normally closed). Issues of reliability are a major part of this group of assumptions.

G-3.5 Some prescriptive requirements will be needed even in a performance-based design option. Some such requirements will reflect the absence of any logical alternative to the requirement (e.g., a sprinkler system requires an adequate water supply, consistent with its design). Some such requirements will be necessary to support the assumption embedded in the building design specifications (e.g., the use of listed parts assures that the building design will perform as intended) or to support other assumptions (e.g., a detector maintenance program provides assurance that an assumption of detector operationality is reasonable).

G-3.6 The quantitative characterization of the building design must be sufficiently complete and in a format to support the calculations. For example, building characteristics that effect occupant behavior e.g. a complex, maze-like layout) must be assessed.

(G-4' Performance Objectives and Performance Criteria. C-4.1 The fire safety goal(s) of the Code, as stated in Chapter I are

captured in the following quantitative performance objective: Protection of Occupants. A structure shall be~ designed, con-

structed and maintained to prevent instantaneous or cumulative exposure to conditions that exceed the survivability criteria of the Code by occupants not intimate with ignition for the period of time necessary for occupant evaluation.

C-4.2 The performance objective above requires specific survivability criteria. Criteria in the following format can be developed from the scientific literature but additional technical review is needed before specific values are presented. (Note that all x's refer to unspecified parameters, and there is no significance to the number of x's shown). Survivability Criteria: (a) Carbon monoxide. Cumulative exposure shall not exceed xxx

ppm-min., except for children under age 0, adults age 65 or older, individuals impaired by drugs or alcohol, physically disabled individuals, and individuals with heart disease, for whom cumulative exposure shall not exceed xxx ppm-min.

(b) Hydrogen cyanide. Cumulative exposure shall not exceed xxx ppm-min, arid instantaneous concentrations shall not exceed xxx ppm-min.

(c) ~_e_C.i_e,.a~. Cumulative exposure to all toxic products combined shall not exceed xxx g-min/m 3.

(d) Oxygen. Oxygen concentrations shall be maintained at x% or greater.

(e) Convected heat;. Cumulative exposure shall be maintained at a fractional effective dose less than x, where fractional effective dose is calculated by weighting each minute of exposure by [1/exp[xx - (xxx T) ], where T is the average temperature during that time in degrees Celsius.

(f) Radiant heat. InstantaneoLls exposure shall not exceed a floor- level heat flux value ofx kW/m ~.

(g) Combined major effects. Instead of (a), (b), (d) and (e), it will be sufficient to taaaintain a fractional effective dose less than x for the sum of four cumulative exposure terms defined as follows:

(1) Carbon monoxide. For each minute of exposure, calculate a fractional dose by dividing the average CO concentration (call it CO) by the product of two terms. The first term is (x CO)/(CO - xx), which adjusts for the allowable total dose of carbon monoxide and the low dose that can be tolerated indefinitely. The second term is (xxx- CO2)/xxx , where CO 2 is the average carbon dioxide concentration; this adjusts for the effect of carbon dioxide on breathing rate. Sum these terms for the total exposure time; this is the first of the four cumulative exposure terms.

(2) Hydrogen cyanide. For each minute of exposure, calculate a fractional dose by dividing the average hydrogen cyanide concentra-

216 t

NFPA 101~ 106 ROP

tion by xx. Sum these terms for the total exposure time; this is the second of the four cumulative exposure terms.

(3) Oxygen. For each minute of exposure to oxygen concentration less than x%, calculate a fractional dose by dividing (x - 02) by xx, where 0 2 is the average oxygen concentration. Sum these terms for the total exposure time; this is the third of the four cumulative exposure terms.

(4) Heat and burns. For each minute of exposure, calculate a fractional dose as 1 /exp [xx - (xx T) ], where T is the average temperature in degrees Celsius. Sum these terms for the total exposure time; this is the last of the four cumulative exposure terms.

G4.3 Note that the survivability criteria above include physical characteristics o f the building and its spaces but are always of interest relative to occupant exposure. Therefore, oxygen levels, for example, need not be maintained above the stated threshold in any area or at any time when occupant exposure is no t an issue.

C-4.4 The specifications of survivability criteria implies a j udgmen t on acceptable risk, just as the choices in the prescriptive-based Code imply such judgments. For example, there will be people whose condition before the fire is so frail that any degradation in their environment can lead to death. Survivability criteria cannot be reasonably established to save such people.

Threshold values identified in the literature and reflected in the criterion listed above, are those at which it is predicted that roughly haft the exposedpopula t ion will be fatally affected. More conserva- tive criteria wouidbe needed to assure that most people will be protected from loss of life but are more difficult to set with available evidence. Data on 50% lethality levels are more available than data on the distribution of lethality levels.

C-5 Fire Scenarios. C-5.1 The choice of the atptpropriate fire scenarios is a critical step

in the performance-based design option. The fire is the driving force for the development of smoke, heat and other products of combustion. The choice of the fire scenarios should consider the most common and the most severe fires to be reasonably expected in the building under evaluation. Be sure to have enough fire scenarios that every type of severe fire that will challenge the building in a distinctive manne r is adequately represented.

C-5.2 There are dangers if the chosen fire scenarios are too severe or not severe enough.

C-5.3 f fa fire scenario is too severe, then a building in compliance with the prescriptive-based code will fail to achieve the fire safety goal(s) if confronted with such a fire. This will unreasonably discourage use of the performance-based design option and shed doubt unrealistically on the adequacy of the prescriptive-based design option. There are always fires too severe for the Code (e.g., a ground-zero explosion of a strategic nuclear weapon). The challenge is to f ind d~e boundary that meets the limits of reasonable design expectations.

C-5.4 If none of the fire scenarios is sufficiently severe, however, then a building in compliance with the performance-based code will fail to achieve the fire safety goal(s) in fires that would not have led to failure in buildings in compliance with the prescriptive-based code.

C-5.5 The three fire scenarios described below illustrate a generic approach, in which many of the specific details of the scenario either need to be provided, are referenced to a more detailed guide, or are deferred to those presenting a performance-based design proposed, who mustjustLfy the reasonableness of their detailed specifications:

(a) Common Scenario #1 - Ordinary Fire in Occupied Room. Common scenario #1 shall be designed to be representative of a free-burning fire in ordinary combustiblesl ignited by a small open- flame source, in one of the principal occupied spaces of the occupancy under consideration, with testing a n d m o d e l i n g specifications for the scenario as specified in (whatever new NFPA standard is used to present and specify the standard scenarios).

(b) Common Scenario #2 - Fire with Initial Smoldering Stage in Occupied Room. Common scenario #2 shall be designed to be representative of a fire started by cigarette ignition of upholstered furniture, in one of the principal occupied spaces of the occupancy under consideration, with testing and modeling specifications for the scenario as specified in (whatever new NFPA standard is used to present and specify the standard scenarios).

(c) High-Challenge Scenario #1 - Fire Originating in Means of Egress. High-challenge scenario #1 shall be designed to be representative of a free-burning fire in ordinary combustibles, ignited by a small open-flame source, in the entryway of the occupancy under consideration, with testing and modeling specifications for the scenario as specified in (whatever new NFPA standard is used to present and specify the standard scenarios).

C-5.6 Shown below are constructive steps to be used in specifying fire scenarios.

C-5.6.1 Common scenarios can be partly specified through routine statistical analysis of fire experience in similar buildings. An advantage of common or typical scenarios is that they provide a

good picture of what the buildings performance will usually be if fire occurs. Such scenarios also t end to fit easily within the scope of available fire models and calculation methods. This means the authority having jurisdiction can review results for these scenarios to obtain a basic sense of the building's level of safety and the designer 's competence in preparing the calculations.

C-5.6.2 High-challenge scenarios are any scenarios that pose unusual fire challenges to the building design. High-challenge scenarios can be developed by refining common scenarios (e.g., changing the area of fire origin) to create a greater challenge. Also, high-challenge scenarios can be developed by reducing the challenge in scenarios previously identified as beyond the design expectations, i.e., too severe to use as the basis for evaluation.

C-5.7 Shown below are illustrative techniques for developing high- challenge scenarios from common scenarios.

C-5-7.1 Change file area of fire origin. Consider an area (e.g., bedroom) where occupants are likely to be in a particularly vulnerable status. Consider an area (e.g., concealed spaces, external surfaces) where fire can develop outside the effective range of key fire protection features (e.g., detectors, sprinklers). Consider an area (e:g., means of egress) that is critical to occupant movement to safety.

C-5-7.2 Increase the initial size or speed of development of the fire. This may be done by adjusting parameters in af i re growth model (e.g., increasing the alpha value in a t z modeled fire, reflecting a fast or ultra-fast fire, increasing the peak heat release rate value for the fire) or by increasing the assumed room fuel load or decreasing the space between major combustible items.

C-5-7.3 Assume common degradations in design assumptions. For example, assume doors are blocked open, allowing fire passage of fire efforts to secondary spaces. Or, assume an unlimited oxygen supply for fire growth, which could result f rom open doors, broken windows, or other circumstances.

C-5.8 Developing high:challenge scenarios from scenarios beyond design expectations will involve less challenging quantitative assumptions. For example, if the bomb used in the World Trade Center incident of 1993 is deemed too severe for a high-rise office building, how small a bomb would constitute an appropriate high- challenge test.> Or, if the Code cannot assure protection of occupants who are intimate with ignition, how close to the ignition can occupants be and not be considered intimate with ignition?

C-6 Fire Models and Calculation Methods. C-6.1 Calculation methods are tools that permit a proposed

solution to be assessed with regard to the applicable fire safety goals, assumptions and fire scenarios. Due to the complex nature of the principles and relationships involved, calculation methods are often packaged as computer software. Calculation methods contain scientific and mathematical relationships needed to model the behavior of certain aspects of a fire event, such as the growth and spread of the fire, the generation of harmful products, the response of fire protection systems, the behavior of occupants or others, or the impact of the fire on exposed people orproper ty . Fire related models are useful in codes and standards if they permit the user to assess whether or predict when a critical evefit will be reached (e.g., the achievement of the fire safety goals or the failure of the fire safety system).

C-6.2 Several fire models or calculation methods will typically be employed during the design and assessment process as it is unlikely that a single model will be capable of simulating all that is needed. As technology advances, it is likely that new models will be developed to fill gaps in needed calculations or to improve on the performance of existing models. Also, existing models are likely to be integrated into more comprehensive packages that will need to be re-evaluated in their new form.

C-6.3 It is not appropriate for the Code to prescribe specific models by name, although it may be appropriate to provide appendix lists of existing specific models known to be capable of providing the generic calculations that are set out in a requirement. Through the process of selecting and identifying fire safety goals, including objectives and criteria; assumptions about the condition and location of who or what is being protected; and applicable fire scenarios; modeling needs can be defined in the form of quantities that need to be calculated, data from which these quantities can be calculated, and mathematical relationships linking the data to calculated outputs. To do this, it is likely to be useful to decompose the problem using the timelines of fire development, response to fire, and fire effects (e.g., ignition sequence, initial fire growth and generation of fire products within the room of origin, fire growth and spread of fire products outside the room of origin, response of occupants to notification of fire, effect of fire products on occupants, and response and interaction of the fire safety system).

C-6.4 Before a particular fire model or calculation method is used, its purpose and limitations must be known. The technical documentation needs to clearly identify any assumptions included in the evaluation.

217

NFPA 1 0 1 - - F96 ROP

C-7 Assumptions Regarding Occupants. C-7.1 Assumptions regarding occupants are needed so that the

assessment can calculate for each occupant whether, and if so when, the occupant will act in response to the fire; what actions the occupant will take and how effectively, with particular attention to speed of movement; and any occupant characteristics that affect survivability, i.e., fire conditions that will lead to loss of life.

C-7.2 Form 5-1 in NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, illustrates an index number approach to the specification of occupant assumptions. SUBSTANTIATION: Future editions of this Code are expected to ~erovide detailed guidance on methods of demonstrating equiva-

ncy, which will be presented within the body of the Code as a performance-based design option, with the existing Code, in its traditional format, identifiedas a prescriptive-based design option. This appendix introduces this app-roach, defines its structure, and presents elements in as much detail as the work to this point permits. It is the intent of the Committee on Safety to Life to circulate drafts for comment of other parts of this approach, as they are prepared, through the peer-reviewed fire protecuon engineering literature, over the next few years, with the objective of including a complete performance-based design option in the next edition of the Code. COMMrFrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 9 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


218

NFPA 101-- F96 ROP - National Fire Protection …...NFPA 101m F96 ROP COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The...

Documents

Transcript of NFPA 101-- F96 ROP - National Fire Protection …...NFPA 101m F96 ROP COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The...