national fire protection association...item (1) is inconsistent with the remainder of the list; item...

Revised 11/15

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection FROM: Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator

DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 502 SD TC Ballot Circulation (A2016) The receipt due date of January 4, 2016 for the NFPA 502 Second Draft ballot has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, the preliminary Second Draft ballot results are attached for your review. These results include explanation of negative votes, abstentions and affirmative votes with comments. 30 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Ballots Not Returned (Colella, Dalton, Debs, Fitzpatrick)

If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA prior to January 13, 2016. Members who did not return a ballot initially may do so now. Changes to ballot votes should be submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot Site. The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA

Standards.

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

NFPA 502 ROA-AAA Second Draft Ballot A2016

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 22

Affirmative with Comment 4

Norris Harvey NA

Adrian Cheong Wah Onn Nil Comments

Tim Gian van der Waart van Gulik affirmative

Ana Ruiz I agree with the specified NFPA Codes.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 22


Norris Harvey NA



Ana Ruiz I agree with the new definition.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-21, New Section after 3.3.46, See SR-21

Results by Revision

SR-1, Chapter 2, See SR-1

Page 1 of 17

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/502-2014.ditamap/2/C1445569279899.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl




Affirmative 21


Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston The factors listed are appropriate, however: the terma 'holistic mutidisciplinary' adds

nothing to the clause and is not addressed through any of the listed factors; the form of

item (1) is inconsistent with the remainder of the list; item (10) appears redundant to

(9); item (18) should likely be included under item (3) in that traffic mix is speaking to

the potential to cargo vehicle; traffic mix and volume (item 3) are separate issues.



Ana Ruiz I agree wirh the list of items.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-18, Section No. 4.3.1, See SR-18

Page 2 of 17




Affirmative 20


Norris Harvey NA



Negative 3

William G. Connell Proposed change adds confusion as to when this Chapter applies and is also creates a

conflict with Paragraph 6.2.1.

Jarrod Alston While the intent of the proposed edits are reasonable, the wording is confusing and

runs contrary to the subsequent clauses which defines fire/life safety requirements in

terms of bridge or elevated highway length.

Ana Ruiz I think that the the length is the most important factor.

Abstain 0

SR-7, Section No. 6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-7

Page 3 of 17




Affirmative 22


Norris Harvey NA



Ana Ruiz I agree with the term chapter.

Negative 0

Abstain 0


Page 4 of 17




Affirmative 19


Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston The revised arrangement is sensible; however, it is presumed that 'life safety' is still an

objective in protecting the facility structure. Also, though not the subject of the

proposed revision the mention of minimizing 'economic impact' extends beyond the

stated scope of the standard. The intention and meaning of it are understood and

absolutely shoudl be considered in facility design, but are broader context than should

be directly addressed within the standard. This sort of consideration should be dealt

with in normative text within the standard annexes, specifically in reference to section

4.3.1.



Negative 3

Ahmed Kashef one of the functional requirements should be "to maintain fire safety"

William G. Connell The undefined phrase "acceptable means" in 6.3.1 is unenforceable and therefore

inappropriate in the context of this paragraph.

Ana Ruiz I agree with the original definition.

Abstain 0


Page 5 of 17




Affirmative 20


Norris Harvey NA




Negative 2

William G. Connell The proposed revision to 6.3.2 implies the possibility that a bridge or elevated highway

collapse might NOT impact life saftey or have unacceptable implications. The proposed

revision is incorrectly stated and introduces unenforcable language by use of the phrase

"unacceptable implications" which is not defined.

Jarrod Alston The proposed language in terms of using the selected design fire to define the time-

temperature exposure does not have an agreed basis. Where there are limited test

results that provide both transient temperature and heat release rate data, this may be

done. Otherwise, analysis of the design conditions to determine the exposure

conditions resulting from a particular design fire heat release rate history.

Abstain 0


Page 6 of 17




Affirmative 21


Norris Harvey NA



Negative 2

Ahmed Kashef 7.3.4.1(c) should not include [assuming a minimum cover of 25 mm (1 in.)] 7.3.4.5 "The

material shall meet the fire protection requirements with less than 5 percent humidity

by weight and also when fully saturated with water, in accordance with the approved

time-temperature curve." no reason given for the 5 percent humidity requirement.

Ana Ruiz I agree with original definition.

Abstain 0


Page 7 of 17




Affirmative 20


Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston Discussion of risk analysis is where it would be appropriate to discuss issues relating to

operational continuity, down-time/repair time, repair costs, economic impact. It is

within the risk context that fire safety provisions in excess of the minimum required for

life safety would be identified as being necessary for satisfying economic objectives.

Such discussion can be expanded upon in future revisions if deemed appropriate by the

committee.


Igor Y. Maevski Misleading standard language: "Risk analysis should be conducted as an adjunct to, and

not a substitute for, qualified professional judgment".


Negative 1

Ana Ruiz I do not agree with risk analysis.

Abstain 0

SR-19, New Section after A.4.2.1.1, See SR-19

Page 8 of 17




Affirmative 22


Norris Harvey NA



Ana Ruiz I agree with new definition.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-10, New Section after A.6.2.2, See SR-10

Page 9 of 17




Affirmative 19


David M. Plotkin Last (1), "6 mm", not "6 m".

Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston The proposed text provides useful context and examples. However: (1) Are there only

British or European standards concerning water ingress. If not, what are the appropriate

or equivalent North American standards. (2)There is a typographical error in the last

section: "The diameter should be limited to a maximum of 6 m (1?4 in.)..." The SI units

should read as 6 mm.


Tim Gian van der Waart van Gulik comment 1: ...speed limits; amount of cycles to be determined... (the 's' behind cycles is

now missing) comment 2: ...limited to a maximum of 6 mm (1?4 in.) to reduce... (the

second 'm' of 6 mm is now missing)

Negative 2

Igor Y. Maevski References to STUVA Guideline, British Standards and other nations' documents and

specifications should be avoided. The standard should be developed as a stand alone

document. Extraction the important language from other documents is acceptable with

references to those documents. Terminology of emergency time/temperature

certification is unclear.

Ana Ruiz I do not aree with the new definition.

Abstain 0

SR-5, Section No. A.7.3.2, See SR-5

Page 10 of 17




Affirmative 20


Norris Harvey NA

William G. Connell In para (4) the new reference CIE 193, Emergency Lighting in Road Tunnels, should be

added to Chapter 2 References.

Jarrod Alston The proposed language relating to 'wayfinding lighting' is helpful and useful, but appears

out of place in the context of the subject matter of the leading paragraph of A7.16.6.3.

Or rather, the leading paragraph covering travel speeds should more appropriately be

incoroporated with A.7.16.6.2; the wayfinding lighting discussion, pertaining to the

egress pathway, belongs withi A7.16.6.3.



Ana Ruiz I agree with the new definitions.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-14, Section No. A.7.16.6.3, See SR-14

Page 11 of 17




Affirmative 19


Norris Harvey NA



Negative 3

William G. Connell The maximum SIL level of 78dBLeq is extremely difficult and likely impossible to attain

in road tunnels equipped with jet fans and/or fixed fire suppression systems both of

which must be assumed active during an emergency.

Jarrod Alston Although the revised text limits the prescriptive content of the proposed Annex and

defers to NFPA 72 where appropriate, as written the language may still be interpreted

to impose noise limitations within the tunnel that may not be practical in that

environment. As written, the language implies that some level of noise limitations are

required as there will either be uamplified or amplified communications. Audible or

voice communication systems are not requirements under Chapter 7; as such the

proposed language (while not statutory being in Annex B) imposes restrictions that are

not aligned with trainway requirements. The efforts of the working group are

recognized; it is preferrable that the work done to date is not lost. The issue can be

addressed through inclusion of an additional sub-clause that identifies noise levels

appropriate to trainways not utilizing audible communication systems (such as pain

thresholds or similar).

Igor Y. Maevski This eliminates the previously established minimum requirements (criteria) for noise

levels and replaces it with the discussion on specific case of reliance upon unamplified

speech.

SR-20, Section No. B.2.6, See SR-20

Page 12 of 17



Abstain 1

Adrian Cheong Wah Onn The proposed clause:"sound pressure level from all active systems measured inside a

tunnel along the path of evacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52 m) above the walking surface

speech intelligibility of fixed voice communication systems to achieve a measured

speech transmission index (STI) of not less than 0.45 [0.65 common intelligibility scale

(CIS)] and an average STI of not less than 0.5 (0.7 CIS) as per D.2.4.1 in NFPA 72. Refer to

Annex D of NFPA 72 for further information on speech intelligibility for voice

communication systems." is not properly phrased because there is a disjoint between

the SPL at the start of the proposed clause and the STI values mentioned.

Page 13 of 17



Affirmative 21


Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston The research to date, as reviewed by the committee, supports the proposed changes.

However, given the variation in K1 it is suggested that the form of the equation is

incorrect in that K1 is not constant and has a functional relationship to heat release

rate. As such, revisions to the form of equation D.1 should be explored by the

committee working group for the next standard cycle.



Ana Ruiz I agree with the new definition of critical control velocity.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-13, Section No. D.1, See SR-13

Page 14 of 17




Affirmative 21


Norris Harvey NA

Jarrod Alston The additional information provides useful summaries from which additional research

reviews can be undertakan. To be useful references need to be provided, so it need sto

be verified that the corresponding report titles are incorporated either in Annex E or in

Annex M. The editors are advised that there are various typographical and grammatical

errors within the second revision that should be addressed prior to publication.



Ana Ruiz I agree with this comment.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-3, Sections E.5.7, E.5.8, E.5.9, See SR-3

Page 15 of 17




Affirmative 20


Norris Harvey NA

Haukur Ingason Change the ref in M7 Ingason, H. et al. “Development of a test method for fire detection

in road tunnels,” SP Report, 13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014. to a

better ref: H. Ingason, G. Appel, J. Gehandler, Y. Z. Li, H. Nyman, P. Karlsson, and M.

Arvidson, Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels, Fire

Technology, SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden.

Jarrod Alston The proposed language pertaining to automatic fire detection within tunnels is useful

and warrants inclusion within the standards. In future cycles, the committee should look

to provide additional references as the current list is incomplete. Of particular interest

would be ones discussing unwanted alarms (sources and mitigation)and relative

performance of detection technologies.



Ana Ruiz I agree with this comment.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-12, New Section after L.1, See SR-12

Page 16 of 17




Affirmative 21


Norris Harvey NA

Haukur Ingason You can delete these ref. in N1.2.20 as they are also given later in N2 "Ingason, H. et al.

“Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels,” SP Report, 13, SP

Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014. Ingason H., G. Appel, and Y. Z. Li, “Large

Scale Fire Tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in Runehamar Tunnel,” SP Technical

Research Institute of Sweden, 2014."


Tim Gian van der Waart van Gulik N.1.2.8: - The address has changed into: Efectis Group, Brandpuntlaan Zuid 16, 2665 NZ,

Bleiswijk, the Netherlands - A reference has forgotten. As agreed during the meeting in

Dallas, there must be a reference to report Efectis-R0894(E), "Investigation of fire in the

Lloydstraat car park, Rotterdam," 2008. N.2: Nieman, B., “Cracking on the Unheated...

(Nieman is written with single 'n' at the end; delete the last 'n')

Ana Ruiz I agree with references.

Negative 0

Abstain 0

SR-2, Chapter M, See SR-2

Page 17 of 17


national fire protection association...item (1) is inconsistent with the remainder of the list; item...

Documents