Transcript
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 167 BLD-END (17.1.3.2) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise to read: 17.1.3.2 Educational occupancies part-day preschools include preschools, kindergartens, and other schools whose purpose is primarily educational, even though the children are of preschool age, but shall not have children under the age of 24 months. Substantiation: The committee originally established this requirement to take into account school programs that include pre-school aged children as part of their overall educational mission. Generally the large majority of the building would be devoted to school-aged children with 2-3 rooms holding the pre-school aged classes, blended into the overall school environment. But this could also be a center that meets some educational mission (such as a meeting state criteria for educational program) but only is occupied by children who are of preschool age. Part-time attendance does not insure that a fire or other emergency will not occur during those part-time hours that the pre-school aged children are in attendance. In this situation, with the life safety package of an educational occupancy in place, along with the mindset and continued training of staff and students along with limiting the age of the clients to “older” pre-schoolers that should be able to walk and take direction during evacuation, full-day operation of these centers should be permitted without compliance to Chapters 16 or 17. Additionally Chapters 14 and 15 already limit these students to the locations found on the LED. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2000 (FileMaker) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 130 BLD-END (17.3.4.3.1.1) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 17.3.4.3.1.1* Occupant notification shall be accomplished automatically utilizing an emergency voice/alarm communication system in accordance with 55.2.3. Positive alarm sequence shall be permitted in accordance with 55.2.3.4. Substantiation: Elementary and secondary education learning has gone through considerable changes in security measures, both operationally and hardware installations, due to the threat of acts of violence committed against students and staff. In the past, educational facilities had effective fire drill evacuation procedures and actions during system activation. Today there are written plans and training in place to ignore the activation of the fire alarm system if a “lockdown” has been declared because the activation of the fire alarm system may be a diversion tactic to bring staff and students out into the open to serve as victims. This very real situation has occurred throughout the country in response to the acts of violence at educational facilities. Though the exact procedure may vary site to site, the main premise of a “lockdown” is to gather staff and students into classrooms and offices and to lock the doors, preventing intruders from getting into the room and preventing staff and students from leaving the rooms until an all clear is announced. The staff and students are trained to ignore the audible fire alarm signal during a lockdown until they are ordered to evacuate after someone in authority, (could be a Principal or could be a Police Commander), makes a determination that the fire threat is real and that they must evacuate to survive the fire. Once the students and staff ignore the audible fire alarm signal, there needs to be a reliable method of communicating the message that now is the time to evacuate. PA systems that do not meet appropriate standards of care for installation or maintenance related to reliability at the time of a fire emergency do not satisfy that need. To address this issue this proposal would require the installation of an emergency voice/alarm communications system installed in accordance with the code and referenced standards. Recognizing that there is a related increase in the cost of construction Section 55.2.3.8.2 permits the emergency voice/alarm communication system to be used for other announcements to eliminate the need for a public address system for that purpose. Public Input Response: Educational occupancy public address systems are maintained so as to be usable on a daily basis. There is no substantiation to justify requiring voice/alarm communication systems in all new educational occupancies.
Printed on 10/4/2012
1
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 227 BLD-END (17.3.4.2.3) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas P. Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 17.3.4.2.3 Alternative Protection System. Manual fire alarm boxes shall be permitted to be eliminated in accordance with 17.3.4.2.3.1 or 17.3.4.2.3.2. 17.3.4.2.3.1* Manual fire alarm boxes shall be permitted to be eliminated where all of the following conditions apply: (1) Interior corridors are protected by smoke detectors using an alarm verification system as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code. (2) Areas such as auditoriums, cafeterias, and gymnasiums are protected by heat-detection devices or other approved detection devices. (3) Shops and laboratories involving dusts or vapors are protected by heat-detection devices or other approved detection devices. (4) Provision is made at a central point to manually activate the evacuation signal or to evacuate only affected areas. 17.3.4.2.3.2* Manual fire alarm boxes shall be permitted to be eliminated where both of the following conditions apply: (1) The building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3. (2) Provision is made at a central point to manually activate the evacuation signal or to evacuate only affected areas. Substantiation: This proposal provides for the option for education occupancies to eliminate manual fire alarm boxes and provide early warning smoke detection in egress corridors and other key hazard locations to provide notification to occupants when a smoke/fire danger exists in the specified areas. This proposal supports both the use of fire sprinklers and early warning smoke detection in New Educational Occupancies. The corridor is the primary means of egress and building occupants and fire service members need knowledge of a smoke condition in the corridors. Alarm verification should not be utilized as a default condition as it induces a delay in the activation of the alarm. The present generation of smoke detectors has been engineered to reduce the probability of unwanted alarm through drift compensation, multi-criteria functions and signal processing which identifies the products of combustion as opposed to environmental clutter. While alarm verification was a valid method when introduced during the 1980's, technology has advanced to a state which renders this means as obsolete, and is not applicable or in the best interest of Educational Occupancy Life Safety. This proposal will provide both fire sprinklers and smoke detection, when manual fire alarm boxes are eliminated, in corridors which are one of the key elements of life safety in our buildings of this occupancy. There are reports of loss of life when corridors are untenable due to smoke and fire in corridors, this will allow for early detection, notification and suppression to save the lives of occupants and fire service responders. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. This is not original material; its reference/source is as follows: Performance of Smoke Detectors and Sprinklers inResidential and Health-Care Occupancies, Report by Dr. Milke of Department of Fire Protection Engineering- University of Maryland ; 5-14-2010 Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2020 (FileMaker)
Printed on 10/4/2012
2
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 131 BLD-END (17.3.4.4, 17.3.4.4.1, and 17.3.4.4.2) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: 17.3.4.4 Carbon Monoxide Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems. 17.3.4.4.1 Carbon monoxide alarms or carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with Section 9.8 shall be provided in new educational occupancies in the locations specified as follows 1) On the ceilings of rooms containing permanently installed fuel-burning appliances 2) Centrally located within occupiable spaces served by the first supply air register from a permanently installed, fuel burning HVAC system 3) Centrally located within occupiable spaces adjacent to a communicating attached garage 17.3.4.4.2 Carbon monoxide alarms and carbon monoxide detectors as specified in 14.3.4.4.1 shall not be required in the following locations: 1) In garages 2) Centrally located within occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are open parking structures as defined by the building code 3) Centrally located within occupiable spaces with communicating attached garages that are mechanically ventilated in accordance with the mechanical code Substantiation: The purpose for this proposal is to protect students and faculty from serious injury or possibly death from unintentional non-fire related carbon monoxide (CO) exposure by mandating the installation of CO detection devices in education occupancies. In the absence of a national installation standard for education occupancies each jurisdiction is developing its own regulations with varying installation requirements. For example after several CO incidents Connecticut and Maryland signed bills into law for the installation CO detection in education occupancies and left the location, performance, inspection, testing, and maintenance of CO detection and warning equipment up to the Building Commission or the State Fire Marshal. The efficacy of voluntary national consensus standards, such as NFPA 5000, ensures a collaborative, balanced, and consensus-based process. This proposal models the location requirements for schools after the current requirements in the 2012 edition of NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, for CO detection in hotels, dormitories and apartment buildings as a basis. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2019 (FileMaker)
Printed on 10/4/2012
3
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 172 BLD-END (18.1.5.5 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 18.1.5.5* Multiple Levels 18.1.5.5.1 In occupancies that contain multiple levels, the Level of Exit Discharge can be combined with another level as long as the number of stair risers connecting these levels is less than eight (8). 18.1.5.5.2 In occupancies containing both a lower and upper level from the LED, one of the two levels may be combined with the LED and considered the same level as the LED, provided the number of stair risers connecting these level is less than eight (8). The other level that was not combined with the LED must be considered a separate story from the LED. 18.1.5.5.3 No more than two levels can be combined. Substantiation: The Building Code currently does not provide guidance in occupancies having multiple levels separated by a relatively short run of stairs (3, 4, 5, 6, etc). Short runs of stairs are most frequently found in multi-level homes (bi-level, tri-level, split-level, etc) and are often present in day-care homes, day-care centers, small residential board and care, educational, business and of course one- and two-family dwellings. This concept could theoretically be used for any occupancy to address requirements for short runs of stairs that would prohibitively require separation or enclosure. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Public Input Response: Committee Input CI 1 (FileMaker). The committee believes the concept is good but the details and language need work. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 168 BLD-END (18.6.2.6.2) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise to read: 18.6.2.6.2 Travel distances shall meet all of the following criteria: (1) The travel distance between any room door intended as an exit access and an exit shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m). (2) The travel distance between any point in a room and an exit shall a door leading directly to the outside with access to finished ground level shall not exceed 150 ft (45 m). (3) The travel distance between any point in a sleeping room and an exit access to that room shall and access to a means of escape shall not exceed 50 ft (15 m). (4) The travel distance specified in 18.6.2.6.2(1) and (2) shall be permitted to be increased by 50 ft (15 m) in buildings protected throughout by an approved, electrically supervised automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 55.3. Substantiation: Day-care home occupancies use the term "means of escape" in their requirements for egress. Means of escape does not reference the terms "exit access" and "exit". These terms are unique to the term "Means of Egress" as covered in Chapter 7. Additionally, by removing #1, this permits full use of the 150 ft travel distance. Similar to Health Care language. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2021 (FileMaker)
Printed on 10/4/2012
4
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 169 BLD-END (18.6.3.2.1(1)) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: (1) Dispensers shall be installed in rooms or spaces separated from corridors and exits, hallways, stairways and exterior doors. Substantiation: Day-care home occupancies use the term "means of escape" in their requirements for egress. Means of escape does not reference the terms "exit access" and "exit". These terms are unique to the term "Means of Egress" as covered in Chapter 7. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2022 (FileMaker) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 170 BLD-END (18.6.3.3.2.1) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise to read: 18.6.3.3.2.1 In group day-care homes, interior wall and ceiling finish materials in accordance with Chapter 10 shall be Class A or Class B in corridors, stairways hallways, lobbies, and exits stairways, foyers, lobbies. In family day-care homes, interior wall and ceiling finish materials in accordance with Chapter 10 shall be Class A or Class B in exits. Substantiation: Day-care home occupancies use the term "means of escape" in their requirements for egress. Means of escape does not reference the terms "exit access" and "exit". These terms are unique to the term "Means of Egress" as covered in Chapter 7. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2023 (FileMaker) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 171 BLD-END (18.6.3.3.3 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add new text to read: 18.6.3.3.3 Interior floor finish in stairways and enclosures providing separation from other stories shall be not less than Class II. Substantiation: This language is for consistency with the Life Safety code. Public Input Response: First Revision FR 2017 (FileMaker)
Printed on 10/4/2012
5
Report on Public Input – June 2014
NFPA 5000
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 5000 172a BLD-END (A.18.1.5.5 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Catherine L. Stashak, Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add a new section to read: A.18.1.5.5 Any changes in elevation that are purely ornamental and do not actually function to provide access other levels of the occupancy, such as a sunken living rooms or steps in foyers, should not be considered as part of the determination of different levels. Substantiation: The Building Code currently does not provide guidance in occupancies having multiple levels separated by a relatively short run of stairs (3, 4, 5, 6, etc). Short runs of stairs are most frequently found in multi-level homes (bi-level, tri-level, split-level, etc) and are often present in day-care homes, day-care centers, small residential board and care, educational, business and of course one- and two-family dwellings. This concept could theoretically be used for any occupancy to address requirements for short runs of stairs that would prohibitively require separation or enclosure. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Public Input Response: Committee Input CI 2 (FileMaker). The committee believes the concept is good but the details and language need work.
Printed on 10/4/2012
6
