building code-life safety technical committee on building … · 2016-03-28 · building code-life...
TRANSCRIPT
Building Code-Life Safety Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment
NFPA 101 & NFPA 5000
REPORT ON COMMENTS (ROC) MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Hotel Monteleone New Orleans, Louisiana
1. Call to order. Call meeting to order by Chair Joe Jardin at 8:00 AM.
2. Introduction of attendees. For committee roster, see pg. 02.
3. Previous meeting minutes. For the September 24, 2009 meeting minutes, see
pg. 05.
4. Chair’s report – J. Jardin.
5. Staff liaison’s report – G. Harrington.
a. Revision process. Staff presentation on permitted actions at the ROC meeting. See PowerPoint presentation handout and the revision cycle schedule, pg. 08.
6. NFPA 101 ROC preparation. For comments, see pg. 14.
7. NFPA 5000 ROC preparation. For comments, see pg. 26.
8. Other business.
9. Future meetings.
10. Adjournment.
Attachments
Page 1 of 29
Address List No PhoneBuilding Service and Fire Protection Equipment SAF-BSF
Safety to Life
Gregory E. Harrington9/2/2010
SAF-BSF
Joseph M. Jardin
ChairFire Department City of New York16 Dexter CourtHauppauge, NY 11788NFPA Fire Service SectionAlternate: Greg Gottlieb
C 1/1/1991SAF-BSF
Gregory E. Harrington
Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471
6/2/1998
SAF-BSF
Keith A. Ball
PrincipalTyco International10255 Fortune Parkway, Suite 120Jacksonville, FL 32256Alternate: Rodger Reiswig
M 4/17/2002SAF-BSF
Brian D. Black
PrincipalBDBlack Codes, Inc.4034 North Hampton Brook DriveHamburg, NY 14075National Elevator Industry Inc.Alternate: Gary L. Nuschler
M 01/10/2008
SAF-BSF
Harry L. Bradley
PrincipalMaryland State Fire Marshals Office5 West Riding DriveBel-Air, MD 21014International Fire Marshals AssociationAlternate: Andrew M. Schneider
E 1/1/1991SAF-BSF
Pat D. Brock
PrincipalOklahoma State UniversityFire Protection & Safety Technology1424 West Liberty AvenueStillwater, OK 74075Alternate: James D. Brown
SE 1/1/1987
SAF-BSF
Phillip A. Brown
PrincipalAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.12750 Merit Drive, Suite 350Dallas, TX 75251Alternate: Stephen M. Leyton
IM 10/6/2000SAF-BSF
Paul M. Donga
PrincipalBoston Fire Department115 Southampton StreetBoston, MA 02118
E 7/20/2000
SAF-BSF
Raymond A. Grill
PrincipalArup Fire1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20036
SE 3/2/2010SAF-BSF
Thomas P. Hammerberg
PrincipalAutomatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.14 Sammy McGhee Boulevard, #103PO Box 1569Jasper, GA 30143Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Alternate: J. Robert Boyer
M 10/23/2003
SAF-BSF
Kenneth E. Isman
PrincipalNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.40 Jon Barrett RoadPatterson, NY 12563Alternate: Jeffrey M. Hugo
M 1/1/1987SAF-BSF
Ignatius Kapalczynski
PrincipalConnecticut Department of Public SafetyOffice of the State Fire Marshal1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457-9294Alternate: Michael Kellett
E 10/6/2000
1Page 2 of 29
Address List No PhoneBuilding Service and Fire Protection Equipment SAF-BSF
Safety to Life
Gregory E. Harrington9/2/2010
SAF-BSF
David A. Killian
PrincipalWalt Disney Parks & ResortsPO Box 10000Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
U 8/2/2010SAF-BSF
Roy C. Kimball
PrincipalBrooks Equipment Company, Inc.PO Box 481888Charlotte, NC 28269Fire Equipment Manufacturers' Association
M 4/15/2004
SAF-BSF
David L. Klepitch
PrincipalWhitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP801 South Caroline StreetBaltimore, MD 21231
SE 8/2/2010SAF-BSF
Richard L. Klinker
PrincipalKlinker & Associates, Inc.2355 Davidsonville RoadGambrills, MD 21054Alternate: Claudia Hagood
SE 1/1/1981
SAF-BSF
Peter A. Larrimer
PrincipalUS Department of Veterans Affairs323 North Shore Drive, Suite 400Pittsburgh, PA 15212Alternate: Peter Leszczak
U 4/1/1994SAF-BSF
Martin H. Reiss
PrincipalThe RJA Group, Inc.1661 Worcester Road, Suite 501Framingham, MA 01701-5401
SE 7/1/1993
SAF-BSF
Robert A. Schmidt
PrincipalCombustion Science & Engineering, Inc.8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite LColumbia, MD 21045
SE 10/28/2008SAF-BSF
Lawrence J. Shudak
PrincipalUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096
RT 4/15/2004
SAF-BSF
Carl D. Wren
PrincipalAustin Fire DepartmentOne Texas Center, Suite 200505 Barton Springs RoadAustin, TX 78704
E 10/6/2000SAF-BSF
David M. Wyatt
PrincipalBattelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory2201 South Cleveland StreetKennewick, WA 99338
U 3/2/2010
SAF-BSF
J. Robert Boyer
AlternateGE Security62 Airport RoadPittstown, NJ 08867Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.Principal: Thomas P. Hammerberg
M 4/14/2005SAF-BSF
James D. Brown
AlternateOklahoma State Universtiy303 Campus Fire StationStillwater, OK 74078Principal: Pat D. Brock
SE 7/24/1997
SAF-BSF
Greg Gottlieb
AlternateHauppauge Fire District855 Wheeler RoadHauppauge, NY 11788NFPA Fire Service SectionPrincipal: Joseph M. Jardin
C 4/1/1993SAF-BSF
Claudia Hagood
AlternateKlinker and Associates, Inc.2355 Davidsonville RoadGambrills, MD 21054Principal: Richard L. Klinker
SE 7/1/1993
2Page 3 of 29
Address List No PhoneBuilding Service and Fire Protection Equipment SAF-BSF
Safety to Life
Gregory E. Harrington9/2/2010
SAF-BSF
Jeffrey M. Hugo
AlternateNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.1088 West Borton RoadEssexville, MI 48732Principal: Kenneth E. Isman
M 7/26/2007SAF-BSF
Michael Kellett
AlternateConnecticut Department of Public SafetyOffice of the State Fire Marshal1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457-9294Principal: Ignatius Kapalczynski
E 7/26/2007
SAF-BSF
Peter Leszczak
AlternateUS Department of Veterans Affairs950 Campbell AvenueWest Haven, CT 06516Principal: Peter A. Larrimer
U 11/2/2006SAF-BSF
Stephen M. Leyton
AlternateProtection Design and Consulting8849-B Complex DriveSan Diego, CA 92123American Fire Sprinkler AssociationPrincipal: Phillip A. Brown
IM 9/30/2004
SAF-BSF
John J. McSheffrey, Jr.
Alternateen-Gauge Inc.11 C Commerce RoadRockland, MA 02370Fire Equipment Manufacturers' AssociationPrincipal: Roy C. Kimball
M 4/15/2004SAF-BSF
Gary L. Nuschler
AlternateOtis Elevator Company5 Farm Springs RoadFarmington, CT 06032-2575National Elevator Industry Inc.Principal: Brian D. Black
M 4/15/2004
SAF-BSF
Rodger Reiswig
AlternateTyco/SimplexGrinnell3640 Haddington CourtApopka, FL 32712Principal: Keith A. Ball
M 01/10/2008SAF-BSF
Andrew M. Schneider
AlternateMaryland State Fire Marshals Office200 Duke Street, Suite 1500Prince Frederick, MD 20678International Fire Marshals AssociationPrincipal: Harry L. Bradley
E 7/14/2004
SAF-BSF
Gregory E. Harrington
Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471
6/2/1998
3Page 4 of 29
BLD/SAF-BSF September 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes / Page 1
ROP MEETING MINUTES
Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee on Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown
1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Joseph Jardin at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2009, at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland - Downtown, Cleveland, OH.
2. Introduction of attendees. The following committee members and guests were
in attendance:
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
NAME REPRESENTING
Joseph Jardin, Chair Fire Department City of New York – Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section J. Robert Boyer GE Security – Rep. (Alternate to T. Hammerberg) Automatic Fire Alarm Association Harry Bradley, Principal Maryland State Fire Marshals Office – Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Pat Brock, Principal Oklahoma State University Phillip Brown, Principal American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. Thomas Hammerberg, Principal Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Jeffrey Hugo National Fire Sprinkler (Alternate to K. Isman) Association, Inc. Ignatius Kapalczynski, Principal Connecticut Department of Public Safety – Office of State Fire Marshal Richard Klinker, Principal Klinker & Associates, Inc. Peter Larrimer, Principal US Department of Veterans Affairs Gary Nuschler Otis Elevator
Page 5 of 29
BLD/SAF-BSF September 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes / Page 2
(Alternate to B. Black) Rep. National Elevator Industy, Inc. Rodger Reiswig Tyco/SimplexGrinell (Alternate to K. Ball) Robert Schmidt, Principal Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc. Lawrence Shudak, Principal Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Gregory Harrington, Secretary NFPA (Nonvoting)
GUESTS NAME REPRESENTING Josh Elvove General Services Administration Dan Finnegan Siemens Fire Dave Frable General Services Administration TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT NAME REPRESENTING
Paul Donga, Principal Boston Fire Department Roy Kimball, Principal Brooks Equipment Company, Inc. – Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ Association Richard Osman, Principal AON/Schirmer Engineering Corp. Martin Reiss, Principal The RJA Group, Inc. Carl Wren, Principal Austin Fire Department
3. Approval of minutes. The minutes of the October 2, 2007 meeting were
approved as written and distributed.
4. Chair’s report – J. Jardin. a. The chair thanked and welcomed the committee members and guests
present, and advised the purpose of the meeting was to prepare the Reports on Proposals (ROPs) for the 2012 editions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, and NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code.
b. The chair recognized Immediate Past Chair Dick Klinker and thanked him for his years of service to the committee, and also reported that he was awarded a Committee Service Award from NFPA at the June 2008 NFPA Conference and Exposition.
5. Staff Report – G. Harrington.
a. Staff added his thanks and welcome to the committee. b. Staff updated the committee on NFPA’s financial position given the
current economic downturn. NFPA is well positioned to “weather the storm” and is taking the appropriate precautions to ensure its long-term viability.
Page 6 of 29
BLD/SAF-BSF September 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes / Page 3
c. Staff gave a brief presentation on the document revision process and meeting procedures.
6. Review of NEC proposal re. life safety equipment. The committee reviewed the
proposal (see agenda p. 7) – no action required.
7. Standardization of language on sprinkler system supervision. Staff reported that this agenda item stemmed from the TCC planning teleconference meeting that took place prior to the TC meetings. It was noted that TCs should review their sprinkler system requirements, and verify that such requirements are consistent with regard to supervision. Staff reviewed Ch. 9 of 101 and Ch. 55 of 5000, and did not identify any inconsistencies. No action required.
8. Consistency of list-based options. Staff reported this is another item from the TCC planning meeting. It was requested that TCs review their requirements that include lists to verify that it’s clear when all of the items in the list must be met, or only one of the items in the list must be met. Staff reviewed the list-based requirements in the applicable chapters, and did not identify any that required clarification. No action required.
9. NFPA 101 proposals. The committee reviewed and acted on the public proposals
on NFPA 101, and generated committee proposals. See the Report on Proposals for the committee actions.
10. NFPA 5000 proposals. The committee reviewed and acted on the public proposals on NFPA 5000, and generated committee proposals. See the Report on Proposals for the committee actions.
11. Other business. There was no other business.
12. Future meetings. The committee will meet in the Fall of 2010, at a location to be determined, to prepare the Reports on Comments (ROCs) for the 2012 editions of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. Meeting notices will be distributed when the dates and location are confirmed.
13. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Attachments
Page 7 of 29
Page 1
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 ROC Meetings
1
Meetings
October 2010
Monteleone Hotel
New Orleans, LA
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
NFPA is concerned with your Safety
If the fire alarm sounds, we will evacuate
2
,
Exiting…exits are ……..
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
OverviewGeneral Procedures for Meeting
Timeline for Processing the Code
3
Committee Actions
Committee Statements
Balloting
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is generally limited to Committee Members and NFPA Staff
4
Participation by guests is usually granted by the Chair
The Chair may limit the time of any presentation (member or guest)
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
All guests are requested to sign-in and identify their affiliation
Members please verify/update your contact
5
Members, please verify/update your contact information on pages attached to sign-in
Use of tape recorders or other means of reproducing verbatim transcriptions of the meeting are prohibited
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Formal voting Secured by post-meeting letter ballot (2/3
majority agreement)
V ti d i ti i i l
6
Voting during meeting requires simple majority vote and is used to establish a sense of agreement that can be letter balloted
Only the results of the letter ballot determine the official position of the Committee on any Comment
Page 8 of 29
Page 2
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Reminder to Members in Special Expert (SE) Category: If representing a non-SE interest (such as a consultant representing a manufacturer or an association of
7
a manufacturer or an association of users), this must be declared. The member should refrain from voting on the issue.
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Remaining timeline for processing the 2012 edition of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000
Comment Closing Date: September 3, 2010 TC ROC meetings:
8
g Core Chapters October 4-8; balloting follows Occupancy Chapters October 18-22; balloting follows
TCCs meet: January 5-6, 2011 NITMAM Closing Date: April 8, 2011 NFPA Annual Meeting: June 12-15, 2011 Amendment ballots: mid to late June (TCC – July) Standards Council Issuance: August 11, 2011
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Report on Comments (ROC) preparation - today
9
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
General Procedures Follow Robert’s Rules of Order
Prior to discussion, a motion is
10
o to d scuss o , a ot o srequired
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Member participation:
Member addresses the Chair
Member receives recognition from the
11
e be ece es ecog t o o t eChair
Member speaks to the Chair
Member poses questions to others through the Chair
Member answers questions through the Chair
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Chair Actions:
States the Motion
Calls for discussion
12
Ca s o d scuss o
Ensures all issues have been heard
Takes the Vote
Announces the result of the Vote
Page 9 of 29
Page 3
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Actions on Comments:
Accept
Accept In Principle
13
Accept In Principle
Accept In Part
Accept In Principle In Part
Reject
Hold
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Accept: The Comment is accepted by the Committee
without change
No Committee Statement is required for an
14
No Committee Statement is required for an Accept, but one is permitted to be provided for clarification
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Accept in Principle: The Committee agrees with the change in
principle, and accepts the Comment but with change in wording
15
change in wording
Committee must indicate change in Committee Action and rationale in Committee Statement
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Accept in Part: Only part of the Comment is accepted
Committee must indicate accepted part in Committee Action and address rejected part and
16
Committee Action and address rejected part and rationale for rejection in Committee Statement
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Accept in Principle in Part: A combination of Accept in Principle and Accept
in Part
Committee must indicate accepted and changed
17
Committee must indicate accepted and changed parts in Committee Action
Committee must indicate rejected parts and rationale for changed/rejected parts in Committee Statement
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Reject: The Committee rejects the Comment in entirety
Committee must indicate reasons for rejection in Committee Statement
18
Committee Statement
Page 10 of 29
Page 4
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Hold:The Committee holds for processing as a proposal for next cycle, a Comment that:
19
introduces concept that has not had public review
changes text to point TC would have to restudy ROP or other affected parts of document
proposes something that can’t be handled within time frame for processing the ROC
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Statements (Explaining the Committee Action): Action of “Accept” requires no
20
Committee Statement
All other actions require a Committee Statement to explain the action of the Committee
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Statement must include a valid reason for the action
The reason should be technical where li bl
21
applicable
Must explain why the Comment was not accepted
Acceptance of another Comment is not an adequate reason to reject a Comment
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Committee Statements (continued)
Should not reference a Comment with opposing action unless the referenced C t ti f t il l i th
22
Comment satisfactorily explains the rejection
Should not make a vague reference to intent
Should explain how submitter’s substantiation is inadequate
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Letter ballots are on the Committee Action
The Ballot form allows you to vote
Affirmative on all actions
23
Affirmative on all actions except those specifically noted
The Ballot form provides a column for affirmative with comment
Note: This box only needs to be checked if there is an accompanying comment
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Your ballot form is electronically submit-ableYou can save a copy f lf
24
for yourself
You can also print and fax/mail it to NFPA
All you need is (free) Adobe Reader
Page 11 of 29
Page 5
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Alternates are encouraged to return ballots (insurance if Principal’s ballot not received)
B ll ti P
25
Balloting Process: Initial letter ballot
Circulation of Negatives, if any received
Circulation serves as second ballot to allow change of vote
Final vote reported
BLD/SAF CommitteesReport on Comments (ROC) Meetings
Questions?
26
Questions?
Page 12 of 29
ANNUAL 2011 REVISION CYCLE
NFPA 101 AND NFPA 5000
PROCESS STAGE PROCESS STEP
DATES FOR TC
DATES FOR TCC
1 PRELIMINARY 1.0 Notification of intent to enter cycle
2 REPORT ON PROPOSALS
(ROP)
2.1 Proposal closing date 7/31/09 7/31/09 2.2 Final date for ROP meeting 12/11/09 2.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 12/18/09 2.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 1/8/10 2.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 1/22/10 2.6 Final date for TCC meeting 3/31/10 2.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 4/6/10 2.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 4/27/10 2.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 5/14/10 2.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 5/18/10 2.11 Completion of Reports 6/4/10 2.12 ROP Published and Posted 6/25/10
3 REPORT ON COMMENTS
(ROC)
3.1 Comment closing date 9/3/10 9/3/10 3.2 Final date for ROC meeting 10/22/10 3.3 Final date for mailing TC ballots 10/29/10 3.4 Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 11/12/10 3.5 Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 11/26/10 3.6 Final date for TCC meeting 1/6/11 3.7 Final date for mailing TCC ballots 1/11/11 3.8 Receipt of TCC ballots 1/21/11 3.9 Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 2/1/11 3.10 Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 2/10/11 3.11 Completion of Reports 2/17/11 3.12 ROC Published and Posted 2/25/11
4
TECH SESSION PREPARATION
ON & ISSUANCE OF
CONSENT DOCUMENTS
4.1 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 4/8/11 4/8/11 4.2 Posting of Filed NITMAM 5/6/11 5/6/11 4.3 Council Issuance Date for Consent Documents 5/31/11 5/31/11
4.4 Appeal Closing Date for Consent Documents 6/15/11 6/15/11
5 TECHNICAL SESSION
5.0 Association Meeting for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 6/12-16/11 6/12-16/11
6
APPEALS & ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTS
W/CAMS
6.1 Appeal closing date for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 7/6/11 7/6/11
6.2 Council issuance for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 8/11/11 8/11/11
Schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) for the most up-to-date information on schedules. March 2009 REVISED: September, 2010
Page 13 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-123 Log #222 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Steve Henning, Botsford Hospital
NADo not change the existing code for this section.
Hospitals are already drowning in a sea of unnecessary regulations. We have adequate fuel storageon site for 72 hours, should our natural gas or electricity supply be interrupted (blackout of 2003 proved this). We alsohave a contract with an emergency back-up fuel provider should the emergency exceed 72 hours.Adding this requirement would cause us to have to add another underground fuel storage tank. We have neither the
resources or real estate needed to undertake this type of project.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-124 Log #244 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-195aRevise text to read as follows:
Reconsider.9.6.1.6 “. . . more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancy
for the occupancy (i.e., in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”
If fire alarms can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average daily occupancy occurswithout additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having fire alarms becomes questionable. There islittle reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normal business hours yet the original proposalwould allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-125 Log #278 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-195aReconsider.
9.6.1.6 “. . . more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”
If fire alarms can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average daily occupancy occurswithout additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having fire alarms becomes questionable. There islittle reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normal business hours yet the original proposalwould allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
1Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 14 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-126 Log #287 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-195aReconsider.
9.6.1.6 “. . . more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”
If fire alarms can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average daily occupancy occurswithout additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having fire alarms becomes questionable. There islittle reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normal business hours yet the original proposalwould allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
2Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 15 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-127 Log #3 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________John Lake, City of Gainesville
101-196Reconsider Proposal 101-196 (Log #64).
In areas that are not continuously occupied, and unless otherwise permitted by 9.6.1.8.1.1 or 9.6.1.8.1.2,or 9.6.1.8.1.3, automatic smoke detection shall be installed to provide notification of fire at the following locations:(1) Each fire alarm control unit(2) Notification appliance circuit power extenders(3) Supervising station transmitting equipment
The provisions of 9.6.1.8.1(2) and 9.6.1.8.1(3) shall not apply to existing alarm systems.Where ambient conditions prohibit installation of a smoke detector, a heat detector shall be used.Automatic smoke detection shall not be required where buildings are protected throughout by an approved,
supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapter 12 through 42.(TCC) notes that the Committee Meeting Action text, as Accepted in Principle by the SAF-BSF
committee was further revised by the TCC action on Proposals 101-194a and 101-194b.Submitter: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co., Inc./Rep. Technical Committee Fundamentals of Fire Alarm SystemsRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows:9.6.1.8 Protection of Fire Alarm System.9.6.1.8.1* In areas that are not continuously occupied, and unless otherwise permitted by 9.6.1.8.1.1 or 9.6.1.8.1.2
automatic smoke detection shall be installed to provide notification of fire at the following locations:(1) Each fire alarm control unit.(2) Notification appliance circuit power extenders(3) Supervising station transmitting equipment9.6.1.8.1.1 Where ambient conditions prohibit installation of a smoke detector, a heat detector shall be used.9.6.1.8.1.2 Automatic smoke detection shall not be required where buildings are protected throughout by an approved,
supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, and where permitted in Chapter 12 through 42.A.9.6.1.8.1 The Code intends that only one smoke detector is required to be installed at the fire alarm control units,
notification, appliance circuit power extenders, and the supervising station transmitting equipment even when the area ofthe room would require more than one smoke detector if installed according to the spacing rules in NFPA 72, Chapter 5.NFPA 72®, The National Fire Alarm Code®, has required the protection of fire alarm control units, notification
appliance circuit power extenders and supervising station transmitting equipment for a number of cycles. During thecycle just completed for the 2007 edition, an exception was added to 4.4.5 which states "Fully sprinklered buildings shallnot require protection in accordance with 4.4.5."The Technical Committee for the Fundamentals Fire Alarm Systems (SIG-FUN) is of the opinion that this requirement
belongs in the occupancy based codes as opposed to NFPA 72® which is an installation standard. The purpose of thisrequirement for the protection of the fire alarm system, so that in the event of a fire near one of the three units listedwithin the proposed code text, the alarm system will be activated prior to the possible destruction of the controlequipment.Committee Meeting Action: Accept
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-128 Log #34 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Safety to Life,
101-197Reconsider the proposal in light of members Hammerburg’s and Reiswig’s Explanation of Negative
as NFPA 72 4.4.5 Exception No. 2 was deleted for the 2010 edition. Follow the Standards Council policy for processinga deviation by an occupancy standard (in this case, NFPA 101) of requirements of an installation standard (in this case,NFPA 72).
The Explanation of Negative from members Hammerburg and Reiswig provide new information thatmight not have been available to the committee when it took action at its ROP meeting.
3Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 16 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-129 Log #201 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration
101-198Revise text to read as follows:
Elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke detectors used solely for elevator recall, andheat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall operate as follows, unless modified by another section ofthis Code. not be required to activate the building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to suchdetectors are monitored by the building fire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisorysignal at a constantly attended location.(1) For new alarm system installations, the elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke detectors
used solely for elevator recall, and heat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall be required to activatethe building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to such detectors are monitored by the buildingfire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisory signal at a constantly attended location.(2) For existing alarm system installations. the elevator lobby, hoistway, and associated machine room smoke
detectors used solely for elevator recall, and heat detectors used solely for elevator power shutdown, shall not berequired to activate the building evacuation alarm if the power supply and installation wiring to such detectors aremonitored by the building fire alarm system, and if the activation of such detectors initiates a supervisory signal at aconstantly attended location.
Elevator lobbies have been considered areas subject to unwanted alarms due to factors such as lowceilings and smoking. In the past several years, new features have become available to reduce this problem. Thesefeatures are, however, not necessarily included in any specific installation.
The intent of this code change is to revise section 9.6.3.2.1 for new alarm system installations anddelete its associated annex material. The basis for this requirement was that the subject elevator lobbies, hoistways,and machine rooms were subject to unwanted alarms due to occupant smoking and reliability concerns regardingsmoke and heat detectors. However, those concerns have been addressed over the years due to the advancements insmoke and heat detector technology as well as laws concerning smoking in buildings. Therefore, the threat of unwantedalarms has been greatly reduced in these specific areas of a building for new alarm system installations. In addition,elevators are now playing a more prominent role in the evacuation strategy for a building and therefore the smoke andheat detectors used to address elevator functions need to activate the buildings evacuation alarm.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-130 Log #246 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-199Add new text to read as follows:
Reconsider.When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do not
receive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.
Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area. Most commonly the fire barrier will be a floor.
4Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 17 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-131 Log #289 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-199Reconsider:
When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do notreceive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.
Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area. Most commonly the fire barrier will be a floor.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-132 Log #247 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-202Revise text to read as follows:
Reconsider.9.7.1.5 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require a
fire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non-occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-133 Log #290 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-202Reconsider.
9.7.1.5 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require afire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included.
5Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 18 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-134 Log #248 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-203aReconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons:1) for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by water2) for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a consideration.The second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”.Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-135 Log #291 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-203aReconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons1) for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by water2) for fires adversely affected by the application of water
The first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
6Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 19 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-136 Log #292 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-203bReconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of water
The first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-137 Log #249 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-204bReconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons:a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a consideration.The second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”.Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
7Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 20 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-138 Log #293 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-204Reconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-139 Log #294 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-204aReconsider.
Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasonsa. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 9.7.3.3 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
8Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 21 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-140 Log #245 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-205aRevise text to read as follows:
Reconsider.9.7.6.1 “. . . more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancy
for the occupancy (i.e., in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”
If automatic sprinkler systems can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average dailyoccupancy occurs without additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having automatic sprinklersystems becomes questionable. There is little reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normalbusiness hours yet the original proposal would allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-141 Log #279 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-205aReconsider.
9.7.6.1 “. . . more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities) , the authority having. . .”
If automatic sprinkler systems can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average dailyoccupancy occurs without additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having automatic sprinklersystems becomes questionable. There is little reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normalbusiness hours yet the original proposal would allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-142 Log #288 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-205aReconsider.
9.7.6.1 “. . . more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period, or more than half of the period of average highest daily occupancyfor the occupancy (ie in schools when children are present, in assemblies during events, in residential when occupantsare asleep, in business when employees are working or in health care during patient care activities), the authority having. . .”
If automatic sprinkler systems can be impaired for the entire time that the highest average dailyoccupancy occurs without additional safeguards then the validity of the requirement for having automatic sprinklersystems becomes questionable. There is little reason to be concerned about impairments occurring outside of normalbusiness hours yet the original proposal would allow impairments to span the typical occupancy period.The revised wording would permit the new longer impairments to be permitted only outside of normal business hours.
9Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 22 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-314 Log #271 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-411aReconsider to Accept.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connectedto standby generators, rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informationaland requires nothing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-315 Log #272 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-411bReconsider to Reject.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connectedto standby generators, rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informationaland requires nothing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-316 Log #273 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-411c, 101-411dReconsider to Accept.
A.9.1.3 Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages andthat require a fire pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildingsusing generators only for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systemsshall not be required to support the fire pump.Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fire protection systems need
to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protection equipment, it does not needto be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connected to standby generators,rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informational and requires nothing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-317 Log #274 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
101-411dReconsider to Reject.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included. The proposal does not require all electric driven fire pumps to be connectedto standby generators, rather it clarifies when doing so would be appropriate. This is an annex note. It is informationaland requires nothing.
10Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 23 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-318 Log #216 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Peter A. Larrimer, US Department of Veterans Affairs
101-197Continue to accept the proposal and add the following annex note to comply with NFPA policy for
variations to an installation standard.The Life Safety Code recognizes that a building protected throughout with a supervised sprinkler system
meets the goals of the code without the need for protecting the fire alarm equipment with smoke detection, unless thatsmoke detection is specifically required within the occupancy chapters. Although this exception to eliminate smokedetection for protection of fire alarm equipment is currently not recognized by NFPA 72, the Life Safety Code recognizesmeans and methods other than fire alarm devices to meet the goals of the Chapter 4 to provide an environment foroccupants that is reasonably safe from fire.
In accordance with NFPA policy, the annex note explains that NFPA 101 differs with the installationstandard NFPA 72 and informs the user why the requirements are different.The occupancy chapters can require protection of the equipment with smoke detection to meet the goals of the code,
but they can also use many other means and methods.Even when smoke detection is provided over the equipment identified by this section (control unit, power extenders,
and transmission equipment), a fire can easily render the entire fire alarm system completely inoperable if the fire was toburn through the fire alarm cabling in a room or area that has no detection or sprinklers. The Life Safety Codeaddresses this fact and relies on sprinkler and other criteria in addition to alarm systems to meet the goals of the code.
11Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 24 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-319 Log #172 SAF-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
101-204Insert a new annex note to 9.7.3.1 as follows:
There are typically two different ways that extinguishing systems other than fire sprinkler systems are used.The first is when the entire building is protected with one of these alternate systems. When this is the case, theexceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered as options when fire sprinkler systems areinstalled should not be granted to the other extinguishing system unless the other system has demonstrated the sametemperature control during a fire and reliability of operation as a fire sprinkler system. Reliability of operation needs toextend to the long-term use of the other system and an analysis of the reliability of the component parts. Somecomponent of other extinguishing systems can show reliability data from their use in systems outside of fire protectionwhere they get exercised on a regular basis, but acceptance on this basis is cautioned because many mechanical partsthat sit for a long time without being exercised, as fire protection systems need to do, may not have the same reliability.A reliability analysis should also take into account inspection, testing and maintenance criteria and the likelihood of abuilding owner knowing and understanding what needs to be performed to keep the other system operational.The second manner in which other systems are used as alternatives to fire sprinkler systems are in individual rooms or
spaces of otherwise sprinklered occupancies. Here the Authority Having Jurisdiction needs to use some judgment inthe application of exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered for sprinklered occupancies.The permission to utilize such exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions far from the space with the otherfire protection system should be granted. Closer to the space with the alternate system, exceptions, reductions andalternate code provisions for sprinklers could be granted if the system was analyzed as discussed above and found tobe equivalent to a fire sprinkler system.
After experiencing the discussion from the SAF-BSF committee and several of the occupancycommittees, it is clear that something needs to be said in the Life Safety Code about this subject. But a blanket ban onusing the sprinkler “trade-ups”, or a blanket statement that you can always use the sprinkler “trade-ups”, does not seemto work either way. Some judgment needs to be used depending on the type of alternative system proposed and theextent to which it is substituting for the sprinkler system. Some of these alternative systems are very good fireprotection agents with a good history. Others are just coming to the market place and are using equipment that has nottraditionally been used in fire protection systems and we just don’t know how well they will work in the long-run. Theannex note seemed to be the best way to provide guidance to AHJ’s for now.
12Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 25 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-167 Log #157 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
5000-238Revised/New text to read as follows:
Reconsider.55.x Buildings that have generators to permit continued occupancy during utility power outages and that require a fire
pump for required fire protection systems shall provide generator power for the fire pump. Buildings using generatorsonly for non occupancy related conditions such as refrigeration, computers, or non life safety systems shall not berequired to support the fire pump.
Original text clarified. If a building uses generator power to remain occupied, then required fireprotection systems need to be included. If the generator is only for non occupant systems exclusive of fire protectionequipment, it does not need to be included.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-168 Log #86 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
5000-239Reconsider the proposal from BLD-MER on Proposal 5000-239a that does not support inclusion of
this text.Determine if there a reason to retain the new section due to the scope differences between NFPA 101
and NFPA 5000 or if the requirements should be identical.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-169 Log #158 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
5000-239New text to read as follows:
Reconsider.Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons
a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 55.2 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
1Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 26 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-170 Log #159 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
5000-239aNew text to read as follows:
Reconsider.Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons
a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by waterb. for fires adversely affected by the application of waterThe first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a considerationThe second condition is addressed by other standards.Adding 55.2 clarifies “protected throughout an approved sprinkler system”Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists
areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. Thecommentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states “Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, suchas a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not beconsidered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would beapplicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed” recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance withNFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should.To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety
would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agentextinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protectionwithin the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automaticsprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-171 Log #162 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
5000-240New text to read as follows:
Reconsider.NFPA 720 is now an accepted reference in new Section 9.8.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-172 Log #87 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code,
5000-241Reconsider the proposal in light of the Explanation of Negative ballots. NFPA 72, 4.4.5 Exception
No. 2 was deleted for the 2010 edition.The Explanation of Negative provides new information not available to the committee when it took
action at its ROP meeting. The Standards Council policy on actions that an occupancy document committee needs totake if it wants to deviate from an installation document must be followed.
2Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 27 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-173 Log #156 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal
5000-243New text to read as follows:
Reconsider.When selective occupant notification is utilized in accordance with 9.6.3.6.2, the portions of the building that do not
receive the initial notification of alarm shall be separated from areas of the immediate emergency and initial evacuationby construction having a fire resistance rating of at least 1 hour.
Without a fire barrier it is possible for selective occupant notification to occur within a single commonfire area.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-174 Log #137 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
5000-239Insert a new annex note to 55.5 as follows:
“A.55.5 There are typically two different ways that extinguishing systems other than fire sprinkler systems are used.The first is when the entire building is protected with one of these alternate systems. When this is the case, theexceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered as options when fire sprinkler systems areinstalled should not be granted to the other extinguishing system unless the other system has demonstrated the sametemperature control during a fire and reliability of operation as a fire sprinkler system. Reliability of operation needs toextend to the long-term use of the other system and an analysis of the reliability of the component parts. Somecomponent of other extinguishing systems can show reliability data from their use in systems outside of fire protectionwhere they get exercised on a regular basis, but acceptance on this basis is cautioned because many mechanical partsthat sit for a long time without being exercised, as fire protection systems need to do, may not have the same reliability.A reliability analysis should also take into account inspection, testing and maintenance criteria and the likelihood of abuilding owner knowing and understanding what needs to be performed to keep the other system operational.The second manner in which other systems are used as alternatives to fire sprinkler systems are in individual rooms or
spaces of otherwise sprinklered occupancies. Here the Authority Having Jurisdiction needs to use some judgment in theapplication of exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered for sprinklered occupancies. Thepermission to utilize such exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions far from the space with the other fireprotection system should be granted. Closer to the space with the alternate system, exceptions, reductions andalternate code provisions for sprinklers could be granted if the system was analyzed as discussed above and found tobe equivalent to a fire sprinkler system.”
After experiencing the discussion from the SAF-BSF committee and several of the occupancycommittees, it is clear that something needs to be said in the Life Safety Code about this subject. But a blanket ban onusing the sprinkler “trade-ups”, or a blanket statement that you can always use the sprinkler “trade-ups”, does not seemto work either way. Some judgment needs to be used depending on the type of alternative system proposed and theextent to which it is substituting for the sprinkler system. Some of these alternative systems are very good fire protectionagents with a good history. Others are just coming to the market place and are using equipment that has not traditionallybeen used in fire protection systems and we just don’t know how well they will work in the long-run. The annex noteseemed to be the best way to provide guidance to AHJ’s for now.
3Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 28 of 29
Report on Comments – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-175 Log #138 BLD-BSF
_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
5000-246Accept proposal 5000-246.
The building code needs to contain all of the provisions for constructing a building. It is completelyirresponsible of a design professional (architect or engineer) to consider constructing a building and not consider wherethe water is going to come from to fight a fire in that building. It is completely within the scope of the “BuildingConstruction and Safety Code” to force a design professional to think about fire safety when they are constructing thebuilding.
4Printed on 9/15/2010
Page 29 of 29