NFPA Technical Committee on Residential … Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 FIRST DRAFT MEETING AGENDA Monday-Tuesday, August …

NFPA Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 FIRST DRAFT MEETING AGENDA

Monday-Tuesday, August 13-14, 2012 St. Louis Union Station Marriott

St. Louis, Missouri

1. Call to order. Call meeting to order by Chair Warren Bonisch at 8:00 AM (CDT) on

Monday, August 13, 2012.

2. Introduction of committee members and guests. For a current committee roster, see page 03.

3. Approval of previous meeting minutes. Approve the October 19, 2010 meeting

minutes, see page 06.

4. Review re-engineered NFPA codes and standards development process. See page 10.

5. Correlating Committee: Accessibility scoping. Topic of appeal to NFPA Standards Council involving jurisdiction of BSY and RES on visitability issue. Do Occupancy TCs have the ability to modify BSY actions on this subject? See page 26.

6. Correlating Committee: Dormitory requirements. Evaluate whether dormitory

requirements justify their own chapters, independent of those for hotels. (See related public input.)

7. CO Detection Task Group report – J. Versteeg.

8. NFPA 101 new construction/NFPA 5000 requirements correlation. Create first revisions to NFPA 101/5000 as directed by correlating committees. (Draft first revisions (FRs) to be provided via separate distribution prior to meeting.)

9. Review of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 core chapter first revisions (FRs). Drafts to be

provided via separate distribution prior to meeting.

10. NFPA 101 public input (formerly public proposals). For public input review, see page 28.

11. NFPA 5000 public input (formerly public proposals). For public input review, see page 45.

12. Other business.

Page 1 of 53

13. Future meetings.

14. Adjournment. Adjourn by 12:00 Noon (CDT), Tuesday, August 14, 2012.

Page 2 of 53

Address List No PhoneResidential Occupancies BLD-RES

Building Code

Gregory E. Harrington07/24/2012

BLD-RES

Warren D. Bonisch

ChairAon/Schirmer Engineering Corporation1701 North Collins Blvd., Suite 235Richardson, TX 75080-3553

I 11/14/1997BLD-RES

Gregory E. Harrington

Secretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

BLD-RES

H. Wayne Boyd

PrincipalUS Safety & Engineering Corporation2365 El Camino AvenueSacramento, CA 95821-5647

M 7/17/1998BLD-RES

Harry L. Bradley

PrincipalMaryland State Fire Marshals Office5 West Riding DriveBel-Air, MD 21014International Fire Marshals Association

E 1/1/1982

BLD-RES

Phillip A. Brown

PrincipalAmerican Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.12750 Merit Drive, Suite 350Dallas, TX 75251

IM 10/6/2000BLD-RES

Bradford T. Cronin

PrincipalNewport Fire Department21 West Marlborough StreetNewport, RI 02840Rhode Island Association of Fire Marshals

E 03/05/2012

BLD-RES

Daniel P. Finnegan

PrincipalSiemens Industry, Inc.Building Technology DivisionFire Safety Unit8 Fernwood RoadFlorham Park, NJ 07932Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.

M 8/5/2009BLD-RES

Sam W. Francis

PrincipalAmerican Wood Council1 Dutton Farm LaneWest Grove, PA 19390American Forest & Paper AssociationAlternate: Dennis L. Pitts

M 4/1/1996

BLD-RES

Ralph D. Gerdes

PrincipalRalph Gerdes Consultants, LLC5510 South East Street, Suite EIndianapolis, IN 46227Alternate: David Cook

SE 1/1/1987BLD-RES

Stanley C. Harbuck

PrincipalSchool of Building InspectionPO Box 1643Salt Lake City, UT 84110American Public Health AssociationAlternate: Jake Pauls

C 10/4/2001

BLD-RES

Kenneth E. Isman

PrincipalNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.40 Jon Barrett RoadPatterson, NY 12563Alternate: Donald J. Pamplin

M 1/1/1987BLD-RES

Marshall A. Klein

PrincipalMarshall A. Klein & Associates, Inc.6815 Autumn View DriveEldersburg, MD 21784-6304Alternate: David M. Hammerman

SE 1/1/1981

BLD-RES

James K. Lathrop

PrincipalKoffel Associates, Inc.81 Pennsylvania AvenueNiantic, CT 06357Alternate: Diana E. Hugue

SE 1/1/1992BLD-RES

Richard T. Long, Jr.

PrincipalExponent, Inc.17000 Science Drive, Suite 200Bowie, MD 20715Upholstered Furniture Action Council

M 10/18/2011

1Page 3 of 53


Building Code


BLD-RES

Alfred J. Longhitano

PrincipalAlfred J. Longhitano, P.E., LLC26 Salem RoadChappaqua, NY 10514

SE 10/20/2010BLD-RES

Eric N. Mayl

PrincipalCore Engineers Consulting Group, LLC5171 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 200Washington, DC 20016

SE 3/21/2006

BLD-RES

Ronald G. Nickson

PrincipalNational Multi Housing Council1850 M Street NW, Suite 540Washington, DC 20036

U 4/1/1995BLD-RES

Steven Orlowski

PrincipalNational Association of Home Builders1201 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-2800Alternate: Lawrence Brown

U 7/26/2007

BLD-RES

Henry Paszczuk

PrincipalConnecticut Department of Public Safety1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457

E 4/15/2004BLD-RES

Peter Puhlick

PrincipalUniversity of ConnecticutFacilities OperationsUnit 3038 Co-Generation/Central Utilities PlantStorrs, CT 06269-3038

U 1/1/1988

BLD-RES

Richard Jay Roberts

PrincipalHoneywell Life Safety3825 Ohio AvenueSt. Charles, IL 60174National Electrical Manufacturers Association

M 7/23/2008BLD-RES

Robert C. Schultz, Jr.

PrincipalUniversity of Texas at AustinFire Prevention ServicesPO Box 7729Austin, TX 78713-7729Alternate: Waymon Jackson

U 3/1/2011

BLD-RES

John A. Sharry

PrincipalBeakmann PropertiesSharry & Associates, Inc.1958 Winward PointDiscovery Bay, CA 94514-9510

U 7/16/2003BLD-RES

Jeffrey L. Shearman

PrincipalZurich Services CorporationPO Box 15844Pittburgh, PA 15244NFPA Lodging Industry Section

U 9/30/2004

BLD-RES

Joseph H. Versteeg

PrincipalVersteeg Associates86 University DriveTorrington, CT 06790

SE 7/14/2004BLD-RES

Andrew F. Weisfield

PrincipalMichael Baker Jr. Corporation100 Airside DriveMoon Township, PA 15108

SE 10/20/2010

BLD-RES

Bartholomew T. Wright

PrincipalMaitland Fire Rescue Department1776 Independence LaneMaitland, FL 32751

E 03/05/2012BLD-RES

Jeffrey D. Zwirn

PrincipalIDS Research & Development, Inc.405 Cedar LaneTeaneck, NJ 07666

SE 3/1/2011

2Page 4 of 53


Building Code


BLD-RES

Lawrence Brown

AlternateNational Association of Home Builders1201 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 20005-2800Principal: Steven Orlowski

U 1/15/1999BLD-RES

David Cook

AlternateRalph Gerdes Consultants, LLC5510 South East Street, Suite EIndianapolis, IN 46227Principal: Ralph D. Gerdes

SE 10/1/1995

BLD-RES

David M. Hammerman

AlternateMarshall A. Klein and Associates, Inc.3950 Chaffey RoadRandallstown, MD 21133Principal: Marshall A. Klein

SE 4/5/2001BLD-RES

Diana E. Hugue

AlternateKoffel Associates, Inc.8815 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200Columbia, MD 21045-2107Principal: James K. Lathrop

SE 3/1/2011

BLD-RES

Waymon Jackson

AlternateUniversity of Texas at Austin1 University Station, Stop C2600PO Box 7729Austin, TX 78713Principal: Robert C. Schultz, Jr.

U 10/18/2011BLD-RES

Michael F. Meehan

AlternateVSC Fire & Security1417 Miller Store Road, Suite CVirginia Beach, VA 23455American Fire Sprinkler AssociationPrincipal: Phillip A. Brown

IM 4/15/2004

BLD-RES

Donald J. Pamplin

AlternateNational Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.1436 Harrison AvenueBlaine, WA 98230Principal: Kenneth E. Isman

M 10/23/2003BLD-RES

Jake Pauls

AlternateJake Pauls Consulting Services in Building Use & Safety12507 Winexburg Manor Drive, Suite 201Silver Spring, MD 20906American Public Health AssociationPrincipal: Stanley C. Harbuck

C 7/12/2001

BLD-RES

Dennis L. Pitts

AlternateAmerican Wood Council1721 West Plano Parkway, #224Plano, TX 75075American Forest & Paper AssociationPrincipal: Sam W. Francis

M 5/15/2000BLD-RES

Gregory E. Harrington

Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

3Page 5 of 53

BLD/SAF-RES October 19, 2010 Meeting Minutes / Page 1

Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies

ROC MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Hotel Monteleone New Orleans, Louisiana

1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Warren Bonisch at 8:00 AM.

2. Introduction of attendees. The following committee members and guests were in attendance:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

NAME REPRESENTINGWarren Bonisch, Chair Aon Fire Protection Engineering

Corporation

Harry Bradley, Principal Maryland State Fire Marshals Office - Rep. International Fire Marshals Assn.

Phillip Brown, Principal American Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc.

Daniel Finnegan, Principal Siemens Industry, Inc. – Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Assn., Inc.

Sam Francis, Principal American Wood Council

Marshall Klein, Principal Marshall A. Klein & Associates, Inc.

James Lathrop, Principal Koffel Associates, Inc.

Eric Mayl, Principal Core Engineers Consulting Group, LLC

Page 6 of 53


Ronald Nickson, Principal National Multi Housing Council

Steven Orlowski, Principal National Assn. of Home Builders

Henry Paszczuk, Principal Connecticut Department of Public Safety

Jake Pauls, Alt. to S. Harbuck Jake Pauls Consulting Services in Building Use & Safety – Rep. American Public Health Assn.

Dennis Pitts, Alt. to S. Francis American Forest & Paper Assn.

Richard Roberts, Principal Honeywell Life Safety – Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Assn.

John Sharry, Principal Beakmann Properties – Sharry & Associates, Inc.

Joseph Versteeg, Principal Versteeg Associates

Gregory Harrington, Nonvoting Secretary NFPA

GUESTS

NAME REPRESENTINGTracy Golinveaux NFPA

Barbara Rose Concrete Change

Eleanor Smith Concrete Change

Robert Solomon NFPA

Karl Wiegand National Fire Sprinkler Assn.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT

NAME REPRESENTING

Gordon Bates, Principal Minneapolis Fire Department

James Bell, Principal Marriott International, Inc. Rep. American Hotel & Lodging Assn.

H. Wayne Boyd, Principal US Safety & Engineering Corp.

Page 7 of 53


Ralph Gerdes, Principal Ralph Gerdes Consultants, LLC

Ken Isman, Principal National Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Peter Puhlick, Principal University of Connecticut

Jeffrey Shearman, Principal Zurich Services Corporation – Rep. NFPA Lodging Industry Section

Stephen Skalko, Principal Portland Cement Assn.

T. Hugh Talley, Principal Hugh Talley Company – Rep. American Furniture Manufacturers Assn.

3. Approval of previous meeting minutes. The minutes of the December 9, 2009 meeting were approved as written and distributed.

4. Chair’s report – W. Bonisch. The chair welcomed and thanked the committee for attending the ROC meeting for the 2012 editions of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000.

5. Staff liaison’s report – G. Harrington.a. Added his thanks and welcome to the committee. b. Gave a brief presentation on the document revision process, ROC meeting

procedures, and the letter ballot process.

6. CO Detection Task Group Report – J. Versteeg. The task group held several teleconference meetings following the ROP meeting and developed several draft comments for review by the committee. The draft comments modified the proposed requirements for carbon monoxide alarms in one- and two-family dwellings and lodging or rooming houses. In addition, draft comments were submitted to the committee for review to add requirements for carbon monoxide detection in hotels and dormitories and apartment buildings. The draft comments were discussed and modified by the committee. See the A2011 Report on Comments (ROC) for the accepted committee comments.

7. NFPA 101 ROC preparation. The committee reviewed and acted on the public comments on NFPA 101. See the A2011 Report on Comments for the committee actions.

8. NFPA 5000 ROC preparation. The committee reviewed and acted on the public comments on NFPA 5000. See the A2011 Report on Comments for the committee actions.

Page 8 of 53


9. Other business. J. Pauls requested the minutes reflect if an intra-committee task group is established by the NFPA 5000 TCC to address the issue of visitability in one- and two-family dwellings, this committee should participate. (So noted.)

10. Future meetings. The committee will likely next meet late 2012, at a location to be determined, to prepare the Reports on Proposals (ROPs) for the 2015 editions of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. Meeting notices will be distributed when the dates and location have been determined.

11. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 PM.

Page 9 of 53

NFPA 101/5000 First Draft MeetingBLD/SAF‐RES

1

TC on Residential Occupancies

First Draft (Public Input)

NFPA 101 / 5000

7/19/2012

( p )

Technical Committee Meeting

NFPA First Draft Meetings

At this and all NFPA committee meetings we are concerned with your safety. If the fire alarm sounds,concerned with your safety. If the fire alarm sounds, please proceed to an exit.

7/19/2012

Page 10 of 53


2


Members, please verify/update your contact informationinformation

Use of tape recorders or other means capable of reproducing verbatim transcriptions of this or any NFPA meeting is not permitted

7/19/2012


Guests All guests are required to sign in and identify All guests are required to sign in and identify

their affiliations. Participation is limited to those individuals who

have previously requested of the chair time to address the committee on a particular subject or individuals who wish to speak to Public Input they have submitted

7/19/2012

they have submitted.Guest chairs are located around the room as a

courtesy.

Page 11 of 53


3


Members categorized in ANY interest category who have been retained to represent thewho have been retained to represent the interests of ANOTHER interest category (with respect to a specific issue or issues that are to be addressed by a TC/CC) shall declare those interests to the committee and refrain from voting on any Public Input Comment or other

7/19/2012

voting on any Public Input, Comment, or other matter relating to those issues.

NFPA First Draft MeetingsNew Process

General ProceduresFollow Robert’s Rules of Order

Discussion requires a motion

7/19/2012

Page 12 of 53


4

Motions for Ending Debate Previous Question or “Call the Question”


Call the Question Not in order when another has the floor

Requires a second

This motion is not debatable and DOES NOT automatically stop debate

A 2/3 affirmative vote will immediately close debate and

7/19/2012

return to the original motion on the floor. Less then 2/3 will allow debate to continue.


Committee member actions:

Member addresses the chair

Receives recognition from the chair

Introduces the motion

Another member seconds the motion

7/19/2012

Page 13 of 53


5

Committee chair actions:


States the motion

Calls for discussion

Ensures all issues have been heard

Takes the vote

7/19/2012

Announces the result of the vote


Technical Committee on Residential Occupancies (27)(27) Consumers, 1 Member: 4%

Enforcers, 4 Members: 15%

Insurance, 1 Member: 4%

Installer/Maintainer, 1 Member: 4%

Manufacturers, 6 Members: 22%

S i l E t 8 M b 30%

7/19/2012

Special Experts, 8 Members: 30%

Users, 6 Members: 22%

Page 14 of 53


6

NFPA 101/NFPA 5000 – New Process

Timeline Public Input Stage (First Draft):

PI Cl i D t M 4 2012 PI Closing Date: May 4, 2012 First Draft Meeting:

Core Chapters: May 21-25, 2012 Occupancy Chapters: August 12-16, 2012 Correlating Committees: November 5-7, 2012

Posting of First Draft for Balloting Date: Varies by TC Posting of First Draft for Public Comment: February 22, 2013

Comment Stage (Second Draft): Public Comment Closing Date: May 3, 2013 Second Draft Meeting:

7/19/2012

g Core Chapters: May 20-23, 2013 Occupancy Chapters: June 24-27, 2013 Correlating Committees: October 2013

Posting of Second Draft for Balloting Date: Varies by TC Posting of Second Draft for NITMAM: January 3, 2014

NFPA 101/NFPA 5000 – New Process

Tech Session Preparation:NITMAM Closing Date: February 7, 2014g yNITMAM /CAM Posting Date: April 4, 2014NFPA Annual Meeting: June 9-12, 2014

Standards Council Issuance: Issuance of Documents with CAM: August 14, 2014

with 2015 edition date

Page 15 of 53


7

NFPA First Draft MeetingsNew Process – What’s New?

Changes in Terms:

New Term Old Term

Input Stage ROP Stage

Public Input Proposal

First Draft Meeting ROP Meeting

Committee Input“Trial Balloon”

(or later, FR that fails ballot)

Committee Statement (CS) Committee Statement

7/19/2012

Committee Statement (CS) Committee Statement

First Revision (FR)Committee Proposal or Accepted

Public Proposal

First Draft Report ROP

First Draft ROP Draft

NFPA First Draft MeetingsNew Process – What’s New?

Changes in Terms:

New Term Old Term

Comment Stage ROC Stage

Public Comment Public Comment

Second Draft Meeting ROC Meeting

Committee CommentComment that Failed Ballot

(Second Revision that failed ballot)

7/19/2012

( )

Second RevisionCommittee Comment or Accepted

Public Comment

Second Draft Report ROC

Second Draft ROC Draft

Page 16 of 53


8

Flowchart

See page 4 for flowchart overview

7/19/2012

NFPA First Draft MeetingsNew Process

NEW Committee Actions and Motions:

Resolve Public Input

Create a First Revision

Create a Committee Input (Trial Balloon)

7/19/2012

Page 17 of 53


9

First DraftNew Process

• Resolve a Public Input (No Change to Text):

Committee does not want to incorporate the Public Input as a revision.

Committee develops a Committee Statement (CS) to respond (resolve) a Public Input.

Committee must clearly indicate reasons for not ti th d ti i CS

7/19/2012

accepting the recommendation in CS.

Does not get balloted


• Create a First Revision (FR) Committee wants to make a change to a current

section.

Committee develops a Committee Statement (CS) substantiating the change.

If the revision is associated with one or more P bli I t ( ) th C itt d l CS t

7/19/2012

Public Input (s), the Committee develops a CS to respond to each PI.

Each FR gets balloted

Page 18 of 53


10


• Create a Committee Input (Trial B ll )Balloon) Committee wants to receive Public Comment on a

topic, but not ready to incorporate it into the draft

Need to have a Committee Statement

Does not get balloted

7/19/2012


Committee Statements (Substantiation):

All P bli I t t h C ittAll Public Input must have a Committee Statement

Must include a valid technical reason

No vague references to “intent”

Explain how the submitter’s substantiation

7/19/2012

Explain how the submitter’s substantiation is inadequate

Page 19 of 53


11


Committee Statements (Substantiation):

Sh ld f th Fi t R i i if itShould reference the First Revision if it addresses the intent of the Submitter’s Public Input

7/19/2012


Formal Voting Voting during meeting is used to establish

a sense of agreement (simple majority)

Secured by letter ballot (2/3 agreement)

Only the results of the formal ballot determine the official position of the

7/19/2012

determine the official position of the committee on the First Draft

Page 20 of 53


12


Ballots are on the First Revisions (FR) ONLY Public Input and Committee Input not balloted Public Input and Committee Input not balloted Reference materials are available:

First Draft, PI, CI, CS, etc

Ballot form allows you to vote: Affirmative on all FR Affirmative on all FR with exceptions specifically noted

Ballot form provides a column for affirmative

7/19/2012

Ballot form provides a column for affirmative with comment Note: This box only needs to be checked if there is an

accompanying comment.

Reject or abstain requires a reason


Initial ballot Initial ballotCirculation of negatives and commentsMembers may change votes during

circulation First Revision that fails letter ballot

7/19/2012

becomes Committee Input (CI) – just like the trial balloon version of CI – so as to solicit Public Comment

Page 21 of 53


13


Balloting

Ballots will be an online formatBallots will be an online format

Alternates are strongly encouraged to return ballots

7/19/2012


No New Material after the Public Input Stage

What constitutes new material is to some extent a judgment call

7/19/2012

Page 22 of 53


14

TC Struggles with an Issue

Code Fund Lends a Hand

Research Project Carried Outwith an Issue

• TC needs data on a new technology or emerging issue

• Two opposing views on an issue with no real data

a Hand

• TC rep and/or staff liaison submits a Code Fund Request

• Requests are reviewed by a Panel and chosen based

Carried Out

• Funding for project is provided by the Code Fund and/or industry sponsors

• Project is completed real data

• Data presented is not trusted by committee

chosen based on need / feasibility

completed and data is available to TC

www.nfpa.org/codefund7/19/2012

Legal

Antitrust: the single most important provision-Federal law prohibits contracts combinationsFederal law prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies which unreasonably restrain trade or commerce. Section 1 of the Sherman Act

Patent: Disclosures of essential patent claims should be made by the patent holder, but others may also notify NFPA if they believe that a

7/19/2012

y y yproposed or existing NFPA standard includes an essential patent claim.

Page 23 of 53


15

Legal

Activities Disapproved by the CourtsP ki ti Packing meetings

Hiding commercial interest throwing the committees out of balance

No final decision-making authority to unbalanced Task Groups; include all interested parties.

7/19/2012

Hiding scientific or technical information from committees

Doc Info Pages

Document Information Next Edition Technical Committee

• Document scope• Current/Previous

Edition information• Issued TIAs, FIs and

Errata• Archived revision

information• Standard Council

Decisions

• Meetings and Ballots• ROP/ROC or First

Draft Report and Second Draft Report

• NITMAM and Standard Council Decisions

• Submission of Public Input/Comment

f

• Committee name, responsibility and scope

• Staff liaison• Committee list

• Private committee contact information

• Current committee documents in PDF f

7/19/2012

• Articles and Reports• Read only document

• Private TC info• Ballot circulations,

informational ballots and other committee info

format• Committees seeking

members and committee online application

Page 24 of 53


16


Questions

7/19/2012

Page 25 of 53

BLD‐AACandSAF‐AACpre‐FirstDraftplanningmeeting–March13,2012 Page6

Sprinkler Project. Bill Koffel reported.

Revisions to NFPA 13, 13D and 13R are reporting to the Association at the 2012 Conference and Expo in Las Vegas in June.

The NFPA 13/13R/13D revision process will result in the 2013 editions of each document being released in August 2012.

Progress has been made relative to permitting sprinklers to be omitted from elevator machine rooms, in recognition of provisions in NFPA 101, 5000 (and proposed for NFPA 72) relative to occupant evacuation elevators. The text proposed for NFPA 13 should move forward to address the subject. Refinement of text can be made for the subsequent edition of NFPA 13.

The sprinkler committee acted favorably to change NFPA 13 to recognize the omission of sprinklers in health care occupancy patient sleeping room clothes closets where the back wall is within discharge range of room sprinklers, regardless of the presence of closet doors.

No other sprinkler issues were identified as needing consideration by the NFPA 101/5000 technical committees during the Annual 2014 revision cycle.

5. Assembly Technical Committee Name Change. A motion carried, with no dissenting

votes, to request the Standards Council to approve the change in name of the BLD/SAF-AXM committee from “Technical Committee on Assembly Occupancies and Membrane Structures” to “Technical Committee on Assembly Occupancies”.

6. Scope of Furnishings and Contents TC. Following some discussion, it was informally agreed that staff would draft changes to the BLD/SAF-FUR committee scope to add, preferably as the first item before any mention of furnishings and contents, responsibility for interior finish materials. The draft scope is to be reviewed by the BLD/SAF-FUR committee at its May 2012 Public Input meeting. The draft scope, with any amendments suggested by BLD/SAF-FUR, would be presented to the Correlating Committees at their November 2012 meetings before transmittal to the Standards Council.

7. Scope of Building Systems TC. Following some discussion, it was informally agreed that the BLD/BSY building systems committee would discuss, at its May 2012 Public Input meeting, the issue of whether it could require an occupancy chapter to adopt an accessibility provision deemed needed by BLD/BSY. Then, the subject would be addressed by the BLD/SAF-RES residential occupancy committee at its August 2012 Public Input meeting. A report is to be presented to the Correlating Committees at their November 2012 meetings.

8. Increasing Enforcer (E) Representation on TCs. Robert Solomon reported on on-going efforts to attract additional Enforcers to technical committee membership. The Enforcer travel expense funding project has attracted new Enforcer members. A recent request for Principal members to have Alternates has attracted additional Enforcer members. Additional means are being considered.

Page 26 of 53

gharrington

Highlight

Report on First Revision – June 2014 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #FR700 BLD-BSY Final Action:(12.33.1.1, 12.33.1.2, 12.33.1.2.1, 12.33.1.2.2)_______________________________________________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee Building SystemsRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:

12.33.1 General.

12.33.1.1 Residential dwelling units in lodging or rooming house and apartment building occupancies shall comply withSection 12.33.

12.33.1.2 One & two family dwelling units shall comply with section 12.33.

12.33.1.2.1 For new one and two family dwellings, a minimum of one entrance for each dwelling unit shall comply withICC/ANSI A117.1, section 1005, requirements for Type C Dwellings.

12.33.1.2.2 The critera of ICC/ANSI A117.1, section 1005, requirements for Type C Dwellings shall not apply wherethere is site impracticality as determined by 12.33.3.2.4.Statement: The committee agrees with the intent of the submitter and made revisions on that basis. The insertion ofnew section 12.33.1.2.2 is conceptually where the committee is headed, but the committee will assign a task group tofurther look at this provision and the potential effects of including all the other requirements of ANSI 117.1 section 1005and will report back as a public comment prior to the next phase. The committee also seeks public comments for otherson this provision.

1Printed on 7/9/2012

Page 27 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #528 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Steven Orlowski, National Association of Home Builders

Delete the following:24.1.3 Multiple Occupancies.24.1.3.1 Multiple occupancies shall be in accordance with 6.1.14.24.1.3.2 No dwelling unit of a residential occupancy shall have its sole means of egress pass through any

nonresidential occupancy in the same building, unless otherwise permitted by 24.1.3.2.1 or 24.1.3.2.2.24.1.3.2.1 In buildings that are protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7, dwelling

units of a residential occupancy shall be permitted to have their sole means of egress pass through a nonresidentialoccupancy in the same building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) The dwelling unit of the residential occupancy shall comply with Chapter 24.(2) The sole means of egress from the dwelling unit of the residential occupancy shall not pass through a high hazardcontents area, as defined in 6.2.2.4.24.1.3.2.2 In buildings that are not protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7,

dwelling units of a residential occupancy shall be permitted to have their sole means of egress pass through anonresidential occupancy in the same building, provided that all of the following criteria are met:(1) The sole means of egress from the dwelling unit of the residential occupancy to the exterior shall be separated fromthe remainder of the building by fire barriers having a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating.(2) The dwelling unit of the residential occupancy shall comply with Chapter 24.(3) The sole means of egress from the dwelling unit of the residential occupancy shall not pass through a high hazardcontents area, as defined in 6.2.2.4.24.1.3.3 Multiple dwelling units of a residential occupancy shall be permitted to be located above a nonresidential

occupancy only where one of the following conditions exists:(1) Where the dwelling unit of the residential occupancy and exits therefrom are separated from the nonresidentialoccupancy by construction having a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating(2) Where the nonresidential occupancy is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler systemin accordance with Section 9.7(3) Where the nonresidential occupancy is protected by an automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section9.6

Based upon the defition of a one- and two- family dwelling there is no need for this entire sectionregarding multiple occupancies. One and two family dwellings, by defition are buildings that contain no more than twodwelling units with independent cooking and bathroom facilities, hence no other occupancies are permitted within thebuilding. If other occupancies are present within the same building it no longer can be classified as a one- and two-family dwelling.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #489 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Altamonte Springs Building/Fire Safety Division

Extract the provisions of NFPA 1 2012 edition section 20.11.4 into NFPA 101/5000 section 24.1.6Minimum Constuction Requirements.

The extract of this text from NFPA 1 into NFPA 101/5000 would provide improved correlation betweenthe NFPA codes and standards documents that address building construction. This would assist the AHJ, designer andend user in ensuring compliance with the NFPA code set.


Page 28 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Doug Hohbein, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise to read:(No special requirements.)

These chapters include the word “special” under construction requirements. There doesn’t appear tobe a reason to include this word as it could cause confusion. Chapters 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 40 and 42 do not include theword “special”.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #21 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Alfred J. Longhitano, Alfred J. Longhitano, P.E., LLC

Add new text to read as follows:Smoke detectors in 1- and 2-family dwellings shall not transmit an alarm of “FIRE” to the public fire

department or a central station alarm company.alarm initiated by a smoke detector in my volunteer fire district is an unwarranted alarm

from a 1- or 2-family residence (i.e. an alarm for a condition for which a human being of ordinary intelligence would nothave dialed 911). Alarms in my fire district have more than tripled from 150+/- in 1988 to over 500 in 2011.of the growth is attributable to smoke detectors activated by dust from contractors' work, steam from showers, spiders inthe detector, faulty detectors, overdone toast, and smoke from frying.This demoralizes members, discourages businesses from allowing employees to respond to alarms during daytime

hours. Our experience with alarms from residential heat detectors and residential sprinkler water flow alarms has beenexcellent.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #274 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Joseph H. Versteeg, Versteeg Associates

Revise text to read as follows:26.1 .6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (No special requirements.)

Standardizes the wording in the residential occupancy chapters with all the other occupancies. Norequirements means no requirements. Current wording appears to indicate that although there are no specialrequirements, there might be some requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #70 SAF-RES





Page 29 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

Delete text:26.3.4.7* Protection of Fire Alarm System. The provision of 9.6.1.8.1.3 shall not apply to the smoke detection required

at each fire alarm control unit by 9.6.1.8.1(1).There is no section 9.6.1.8.1.3 sprinkler exemption. The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the

fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smoke detection when the building is protected throughout byan approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The requirement for automatic smoke detection above controlequipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarm system and not a building or fire code issue. Protection ofthe fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure the system generates the occupant emergency evacuation signalprior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler system because once the automatic sprinkler system activates it willrender the fire alarm control equipment non-operational due to water and heat damage because of the followingreasons:• Fire alarm control equipment is listed for “Indoor Dry” (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Water and

electronics do not mix.• Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees f. Fire alarm control panels operate at a

maximum of 120 degrees f. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system.• At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the

control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics andwater don’t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #87 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bill Galloway, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise text as follows:All new lodging or rooming houses, other than those meeting the requirements of 26.3.6.2, shall be protected

throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 26.3.6.3.An automatic sprinkler system shall not be required where every sleeping room has a door opening directly to

the outside of the building at street or the finished ground level, or has a door opening directly to the outside leading toan exterior stairway that meets the requirements of 26.2.1.1.2.

This proposal eliminates the exemption for fire sprinklers in new lodgings in rooming houses. NFPA101 now requires fire sprinkler protection in all new one-and-two family dwellings and does not contain a similarexemption to the exception in 26.3.6.2. If this level of care is established in new one-and two-family dwellings, a similarlevel of protection should be provided for all new lodging and rooming houses, an arguably similar or greater hazardoccupancy since the occupants may be transient and a fire in one sleeping room could compromise the safety of anoccupant in an adjacent space. In addition, section 30.3.5 for new apartments, does not contain this exemption either.The TC on residential occupancies removed this provision for apartments last cycle. Lastly, the IBC/IFC has requiredcomplete fire sprinkler protection for all new residential occupancies for the last four code cycles. There is no similarsprinkler exemption provided in the IBC/IFC.


Page 30 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Keith E. Pardoe, Door and Hardware Institute

Add a new section to read:Door openings shall be inspected in accordance with Section 7.2.1.15, Inspection of

Door Openings.

In the 2012 edition of the NFPA 101, Section 7.2.1.15, Inspection of Door Openings was revised fromrequiring the inspection of all door assemblies where the door leaves where required to swing in the direction of egresstravel to Access-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies, Electrically-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies, Doors withSpecial Locking Arrangements, and doors equipped with fire exit hardware or panic hardware. A new requirement toinspect smoke door assemblies in accordance with NFPA 105, Standard for Smoke Doors and Other OpeningProtectives was also added in the 2012 edition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #274a SAF-RES


Revise text to read as follows:28.1.6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (No special requirements.)


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #279 SAF-RES


Revise text to read as follows:28.2.2.2.2.2 Delayed-egress locks complying with 7.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted, provided that not more than one such

device is located in any one egress path.The limitation of a single delayed egress lock in any one egress path is overly restrictive since the

assembly and educational occupancy chapters that address occupants egressing in mass do not contain the samelimitation. Additionally, the Healthcare occupancy chapter removed an identical limitation for the 2012 edition of theCode based on the same logic.


Page 31 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Thomas P. Hammerberg, Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:A corridor smoke detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 shall be provided in interior

corridors.in buildings other than those protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with 28.3.5.3.

This proposal supports both the use of fire sprinklers and early warning smoke detection in HotelOccupancies were people sleep and live. The corridor is the primary means of egress and building occupants and fireservice members need knowledge of a smoke condition in the corridors

Report by Dr. Milke of Department of Fire ProtectionEngineering University of Maryland. The report states “The review of data obtained in several experimental programsunanimously indicates that smoke detectors respond prior to sprinklers. In addition, tenability analyses conducted usingdata from several of the experimental programs concluded that sufficient egress time is provided by smoke detectors,considering conditions existing at the time of their response”. This document can be downloaded athttp://www.afaa.org/pdf/Performance of Smoke Detectors and Sprinklers in Residential and Healthcare Facilities.pdfThis proposal will provide both fire sprinklers and smoke detection in corridors which are one of the key elements of lifesafety in our buildings of this occupancy. There are reports of loss of life when corridors are untenable due to smokeand fire in corridors, this will allow for early detection, notification and suppression to save the lives of occupants and fireservice responders.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #88 SAF-RES


Revise text as follows:All buildings, other than those complying with 28.3.5.2, shall be protected throughout by an approved,

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 28.3.5.3.Automatic sprinkler protection shall not be required in buildings where all guest sleeping rooms or guest

suites have a door opening directly to either of the following:(1) Outside at the street or the finished ground level(2) Exterior exit access arranged in accordance with 7.5.3 in buildings three or fewer stories in height

This proposal eliminates the exemption for fire sprinklers in new hotels and dormitories. NFPA 101now requires fire sprinkler protection in all new one-and-two family dwellings and does not contain a similar exemptionto the exception in 28.3.5.1. If this level of care is established in new one-and two-family dwellings, a similar level ofprotection should be provided for all new hotels and dormitories, an arguably similar or greater hazard occupancy sincethe occupants may be transient and a fire in one sleeping room could compromise the safety of an occupant in anadjacent space. In addition, section 30.3.5 for new apartments, does not contain this exemption either. The TC onresidential occupancies removed this provision for apartments last cycle. Lastly, the IBC/IFC has required complete firesprinkler protection for all new residential occupancies for the last four code cycles. There is no similar sprinklerexemption provided in the IBC/IFC.


Page 32 of 53




Door Openings.In the 2012 edition of the NFPA 101, Section 7.2.1.15, Inspection of Door Openings was revised from

requiring the inspection of all door assemblies where the door leaves where required to swing in the direction of egresstravel to Access-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies, Electrically-Controlled Egress Door Assemblies, Doors withSpecial Locking Arrangements, and doors equipped with fire exit hardware or panic hardware. A new requirement toinspect smoke door assemblies in accordance with NFPA 105, Standard for Smoke Doors and Other OpeningProtectives was also added in the 2012 edition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #274b SAF-RES




_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #279a SAF-RES






Page 33 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Thomas G. Daly, The Hospitality Security Consulting Group, LLC

Delete as follows:AII high-rise buildings, other than those where each guest room or guest suite has exterior exit access in

accordance with Section 7.5.3, shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system inaccordance with Section 29.3.5.3.

A. Background:In the United States civilian fire deaths in hotels and motels over the past two decades have occurred exclusively in

non-sprinklered low-rise hotels and motels as predicted by the hotel industry1.Notable National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and/or media reported multiple loss of life low-rise hotel/motel

fires include:1. Fontana Hotel – Miami Beach, FL – three stories – 9 civilian fire deaths – 4/6/19902. Paxton Hotel – Chicago, IL – four stories – 21 civilian fire deaths - 3/23/19933. Howard Johnson Hotel - Bowling Green, KY – two stories – 4 civilian deaths - 1/6/19964. Comfort Inn Hotel – Greenville, SC – three stories – 6 civilian deaths – 1/25/20045. Mason Hotel – San Diego, CA – three stories – 2 civilian deaths – 12/17/20046. Mitzpah Hotel – Reno, NV – three stories – 12 civilian deaths – 10/31/20067. Zanzibar Motel – Reno, NV – two stories – 2 civilian deaths – 12/10/20078. Days Inn Hotel – Hoover, AL – two stories – 4 civilian deaths - 1/16/2010Civilian fire deaths in hotels/motels averaged 7.7 per 1000 fires with no automatic suppression system present for the

1994-1998 timeframe2. Civilian fire deaths in hotel/motel fires averaged 11 each year from 2003-2007.4

Civilian fire injuries in hotel/motel fires averaged 151 per year for the period 2003-2007.B. Code provisions remain inadequate to address hazardDespite fire safety improvements for existing buildings mandated by the Life Safety Code over the past two decades,

those changes have not resulted in a reduction in the annual civilian fire death statistics in non-sprinkleredhotels/motels.Comparatively, no fire civilian fire deaths have been reported in sprinklered hotels/motels5.After a decade of these codes changes fire deaths and injuries continue to occur in low-rise non-sprinklered

hotels/motels. Without further code enhancements for existing hotels/motels, this carnage will continue. As such, adistinct hazard continues to be present to occupants of non-sprinklered hotels and motels with regard to fires therein.

C. Cost/benefitsThe U.S. lodging industry has largely completed the mostly voluntary sprinkler retrofitting of existing high-rise hotels,

an effort which resulted in zero fire fatalities over the past two decades in such hotels6.Leading lodging operators and franchisors including Hilton, Marriott and Starwood have also completed the sprinkler

retrofitting of their low-rise hotels, dispelling the myth that such retrofit costs are prohibitive. Those costs are no moreexpensive than the routinely scheduled replacement of furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) including mattresses,case goods, carpeting, draperies and wall covering done by the industry. A hotel/motel sprinkler retrofit project is aone-time capital cost whereas the replacement of FF&E is a continuing periodic capital cost which the industry routinelybears.A hotel/motel sprinkler retrofit provides for a reduction in property insurance premiums and reduces the risk to

firefighters engaged in fire suppression activities therein.As a result of these sprinkler system retrofits none of those cited hotel chains has experienced a civilian fire fatality in

any of their hotels in the last two decades. Nonetheless, some lodging chains and many independent low-rise hotelowners/operators have not taken the same proactive action to protect their guests.The cost of such retrofits for commercial buildings including hotels and motels has been mitigated significantly by the

permitted use of NFPA 13R as the installation standard for residential occupancies including hotels and motels of 4stories and less 7, the use of listed CPVC pipe in lieu of steel pipe or copper tube, the use of extended coveragesprinklers, the lack of the need in most cases for a fire pump in low-rise Group R-1 buildings and through tax incentivesin the forms of grants, tax credits, tax deductions and/or low interest loans for doing so, see for example state statutes inAlaska 8, South Carolina 9 and California 10 as well as numerous local ordinances.

Existing Life Safety Code provisions have failed to prevent hotel/motel fire fatalities and thus a distinct hazard to


Page 34 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 101occupants of existing hotels and motels continues to exist. The code change proposed herein, if adopted, will eliminatethe distinct hazard to life for such occupants.

1Tri-Data Corporation, Arlington, VA.,, December 1994, pg. 23.

2Ahrens, Marty - National Fire Protection Association, , March2006, p. 103.

3Flynn, Jennifer D. - National Fire Protection Association, ,March 2010, Table 2.4Ibid., Table 1.5Op cit., Ahrens, Marty NFPA, , 2006, page 103.6NFPA Journal, September-October 2010, p. 12.7See NFPA 13R8Alaska Statutes, Article 45.81.200 -210.9South Carolina Act 357 (2008), R385, H4470 AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

1976, BY ADDING SECTION 58-5-390 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY MAY NOTIMPOSE A TAP FEE, RECURRING MAINTENANCE FEE, OR OTHER FEE, HOWEVER DESCRIBED FOR THEINSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS THE ACTUAL COSTSASSOCIATED WITH THE WATER LINE TO THE SYSTEM AND TO DEFINE ACTUAL COSTS; BY ADDING SECTION12-6-3622 SO AS TO ALLOW A PROPERTY TAX CREDIT, AT THE OPTION OF THE PROPERTY-TAXING ENTITYFOR TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE COSTS OF INSTALLING A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A COMMERCIALOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHEN SUCH INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, TO ALLOW ANINCOME TAX CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT, TO PROVIDE THE MANNER IN WHICHTHESE CREDITS ARE USED WHEN EARNED BY PASS-THROUGH ENTITIES, AND TO MAKE UNUSED CREDITSTRANSFERABLE BY THE STRUCTURE'S OWNER TO A TENANT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-3130, ASAMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA REAL PROPERTYVALUATION REFORM ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACOMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHEN THE INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW IS NOTAN ADDITION OR IMPROVEMENT; BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-80 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ENFORCEMENT OF THATPORTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OR NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FIRE CODE THAT PROHIBITSTHE USE OF NATURAL CUT TREES IN CELEBRATIONS IN HOUSES OF WORSHIP; AND TO AMEND SECTION12-37-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE VALUE OFFIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHENTHE INSTALLATION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS EXEMPTION APPLIES UNTIL THEPROPERTY UNDERGOES AN ASSESSABLE TRANSFER OF INTEREST.

10California Constitution Article 13A Tax Limitation Sec. 2(c)(2) & Taxation & Revenue Code Sec. 74(a)-(e).


Page 35 of 53



Add new text:29.3.5.2 Reserved. When an existing hotel has a change of occupancy to a primary use as extended stay occupancy

shall be considered an apartment building and shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automaticsprinkler system in accordance with 29.3.5.3.

There are many instances where buildings that were constructed for occupancy as a hotel with thedefinition of use by transient occupants are converting to extended stay facilities with permanent long time occupants.These buildings were not built for this use and in many instances make shift kitchen arrangements and use of hot plates,etc., are installed. The fire load in these occupancies is much more than a “normal” hotel room. Approved automaticsprinkler protection should be required in these facilities as in other residential occupancies in the code. Even if notrequired at time of construction due to the edition of code adopted and occupancy, the change of occupancy toextended stay should trigger this requirement for existing buildings.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #412 SAF-RES





_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #274c SAF-RES





Page 36 of 53





_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #280 SAF-RES





_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #290 SAF-RES


Revise as follows:

A smoke detection system in accordance with Section 9.6 shall be provided in interior corridors.This proposal supports both the use of fire sprinklers and early warning smoke detection in Residential

Apartment Occupancies where people sleep and live. The corridor is the primary means of egress and buildingoccupants and fire service members need knowledge of a smoke condition in the corridors

Report by Dr. Milke of Department of FireProtection Engineering University of Maryland. The report states “The review of data obtained in several experimentalprograms unanimously indicates that smoke detectors respond prior to sprinklers. In addition, tenability analysesconducted using data from several of the experimental programs concluded that sufficient egress time is provided bysmoke detectors, considering conditions existing at the time of their response”. This document can be downloaded athttp://www.afaa.org/pdf/Performance of Smoke Detectors and Sprinklers in Residential and Healthcare Facilities.pdfThis proposal will provide both fire sprinklers and smoke detection 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 smokeand fire in corridors, this will allow for early detection, notification and suppression to save the lives of occupants and fireservice responders.


Page 37 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Michael A. Anthony, University of Michigan / Rep. APPA.ORG

Add new text to read as follows:Interlocking of kitchen exhaust fans with cooking appliances shall be permitted in student residence facilities.

When resident cooking sets off nuisance fire alarms in student residence facilities a fire safety problememerges when students ignore fire alarms. Also, the cost of nuisance alarms affects many colleges and universities thatuse municipal fire protection resources.Several interlocking arrangements are possible in lieu of better fire detection apparatus.This proposal is crafted in optional language to present a solution to this problem; though it is understood that

interlocking may be costly without appliance and/or installation innovations. It may also complicate energy conservationgoals because make-up air would be necessary. This proposal is a corresponding proposal to a series presented byAPPA’s Code Advocacy Task Force to engage the fire safety problem in the education facilities industry.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #219 SAF-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Michael A. Anthony, University of Michigan / Rep. APPA.ORG - Leadership in Education

Use the existing “Reserved Section 30.6 for the following:30.6.1 (NEW) Student residence facility power outlets. 120-volt branch circuits that supply 15- and 20-ampere outlets

installed in sleeping quarters in student residence facilities shall be provided with arc-fault circuit interrupters.This proposal is intended to raise the level of debate on the suitability of AFCI protection for student

residence facilities – particularly in sleeping quarters where, arguably, the conditions of occupancy resemble a Class 2Division 2 classified location. We believe that a corresponding requirement, coordinated with NEC Section 210.12 thatis occupancy specific belongs in NFPA 101.The cost of AFCI protection and its reliability have been broadening discussions in the past few cycles of the NEC. Asthe US education facilities industry’s representative on the NEC (CMP-1) I would like to see the cost driven downwardand the reliability upward. Broadening the discussion beyond the NEC may help create the conditions and economy ofscale among AFCI manufacturers and suppliers that will make AFCI technology cost effective in reducing electricalaccidents in student residence facilities. Student residence facilities are the highest risk occupancies on our campuses.This proposal is related to a coordinated proposal submitted to the Chapter 6 committee regarding the definition ofstudent residence facility. That proposal is also related to a proposal presented to the International Code Council, IBCGroup B committee. For the convenience of the committee the definition that has been proposed by the educationfacilities industry is shown below:“


Page 38 of 53



Add new text to read as follows:There shall be no fewer than four 20-ampere, 120V branch circuit outlets per bed in the sleeping quarters of

student residence facilities.This is one of several proposals coordinated with ICC and NFPA document development by APPA’s

Code Advocacy Task Force to reduce the fire safety risk in student residence facilities. While it may seem to thecommittee that this requirement belongs in the NEC more occupancy-specific electrical information is needed in thisdocument. The intent is to reduce the number of extension cords and to provide enough outlets for the numerouselectrical loads students bring into their bedrooms.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #414 SAF-RES





_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #274d SAF-RES


Revise text to read as follows:31.1 .6 Minimum Construction Requirements. (No special requirements.)


_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #72 SAF-RES





Page 39 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #280a SAF-RES





_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #415 SAF-RES






Page 40 of 53



Reserve existing “Reserved” Chapter 34 for future student residence facilities requirements asfollows:

As reported by “Campus Firewatch” (Ed Comeau, Director), the education facilities industry hasobserved about 10 fire-related fatalities per year, since 2000. As of May 4th , 16 fire-related events have occurred oncollege campuses since the beginning of the year that have resulted in either fatalities, injuries, and/or property loss.More up to date information is available at the following link:http://www.campus-firewatch.com/incidents/Most of them have occurred in off-campus housing, but not all. For the moment, the education facilities industry ismanaging the off-campus fire safety problem through the ANSI standards process as best as it can given its grimresources, uncertain liability obligations and variety in local rule. We can put our best foot forward in those facilities thatare under our control, however.This principle was one of the key drivers for submitting “complete” draft chapters to this committee during the lastrevision cycle (Proposal 101-379 and Comment 101-277). Admittedly, these draft chapters were a work in progress buthelped established the broad contours around the subtle safety concepts that apply to this occupancy class – typicallythe highest risk occupancy class in the education facilities industry. For the convenience of the committee, some of thesubstantiation from the 2012 ROP, written by Ted Weidner of the University of Nebraska, is reproduced below.“….The fire safety requirements for dormitories present unique challenges to architects, engineers, facility operators,and fire safety professionals. They fall into a unique category of facility due to ownership, occupancy (the people),organizational mission, and expectations. In the 35+ years of my involvement in higher education, I have seendormitories from virtually all sides; they are not the same as any other category of facility.

Dormitories are owned by colleges in and universities to support the mission of educating students. The educationcomes in several forms: socialization with people of different backgrounds, interaction with fellow students and faculty,and learning to live independently (with supervision).The occupants are familiar with the facility and can walk it in their sleep within a few days or weeks of becomingresident. However, they are often the source of safety problems due to their new-found independence and limitedsupervision. Some of the accoutrements of home, cigarettes, candles, incense burners, and other heat sources areusually prohibited items that are still found in a dormitory room. Even with automatic shut-off features, curling irons andother appliances can be used carelessly. And young, independent students can also obtain alcohol or other drugswhich inhibit their ability to react correctly in an emergency or they become the source of the emergency.Some colleges and universities have an organizational structure which places the control and operation of dormitoriesunder the student life area where students are to be supported and guided as they mature; not forced into compliancewith societal rules other than those of mutual respect. The focus individuals makes dormitory occupants more aware oftheir surroundings and attentive to things outside the norm.Despite the social independence, many dormitory occupants are not financially independent and rely on parents forsupport. Parents have an expectation that the college or university will exercise and protect the studentfrom himself and others. This expectation clashes with the independence-focus on the student and educational effortsof the institution….”For the 2015 revision cycle of NFPA 101 the APPA Code Advocacy Task Force continues its effort. It links proposalsrecently presented to the International Building Code that are coordinated with the concepts proposed for this document.We seek acknowledgement that student residence facilities are a distinct occupancy class which, once affirmed in theIBC, will begin to track technical specifics in this document and others. To paraphrase the thinking of Dana Peterson ofthe University of New Hampshire in his substantiation for changes to the IBC :“…The purpose of the proposed change is to clarify the classification of the Residential Group R occupancy typesespecially as it applies to student residence facilities, formerly commonly referred to, and sometimes still referred to asdormitories. Currently, dormitories are listed as R-2 occupancies which we feel is a correct designation for today’sstudent residence facilities. However, the definition provided for a dormitory suggests a student lifestyle and buildingtype of a bygone day. Today’s residence halls are anything but formulaic. Many are a mix of apartments, suites,double-doubles, and single occupant rooms. These kinds of facilities make for interesting architectural arrangements ofspace and complex interior floor plans that don’t always have intuitively obvious exit routes. Cooking facilities, both in


Page 41 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 101individual rooms and communal kitchens, as well as food service facilities, are becoming increasingly more common ifnot the norm. A trend toward “Living and Learning” has created buildings that have increasing amounts of assemblyspace within them. Classrooms, recreation facilities, and movie/concert/dance venues are all becoming commonplace innewer facilities.That said, there are still buildings that are akin to the old-style dormitory, such as summer camps, hostels, homelessshelters, bunkhouses, and barracks, and the code should have a classification to recognize those facilities too. So ourproposal recognizes dormitories as a potential R-1 occupancy as well and judges the difference the same way as allother R-1 occupancies are judged, by the transient or nontransient nature of the occupants. Although it is not central toour purpose, we also took this opportunity to suggest that vacation timeshare properties also be located to the R-1occupancy for the same reason and so that the logic for classification based upon the familiarity with the buildingremains consistent.The proposal also specifically designates that nontransient student residence facilities are an R-2 occupancy, removingthe necessity for the “dormitory” definition to do double duty to both describe the defining features and giveall-encompassing examples. It also slightly modifies the definition of “transient” to put the emphasis on the definingcharacteristic of short term occupancy, with “30 days” given more as a guidepost than an absolute.APPA is also seeking this strengthening and clarification for the occupancy classification of student residence facilitiesunder IBC in support of its ongoing efforts with the National Fire Prevention Association to facilitate a change in thatcode to classify student residence facilities with apartment buildings or in a separate chapter, rather than with hotels asthey do currently. Adoption of our proposal would clarify IBC’s position that APPA is in concurrence with and strengthenAPPA’s argument for consistency in NFPA’s view of the same issue….”While that process is ongoing, we have made a number of specific technical proposals to different committees in thisrevision of NFPA 101 instead of submitting entirely new chapters as we did last cycle. We would still like to keep thepossibility open that these two chapter numbers – 34 and 35 --be set aside as “Reserved” (as 25, 27 and 41 are now) sothat dedicated workgroups can visualize where the material they develop and present to this committee in the futuremight be placed.In order to succeed in using the code-making process to increase student safety, many concepts have to move together-- in many places and in many documents. We do not undertake this work because it is easy; we undertake it becauseit part of our stewardship obligation, despite the complex interdependencies. We hope that be keeping these safetyconcepts on the table for discussion by our nation’s fire safety thought leaders, others will join the discussion andcontribute specifics that meet the challenge of providing leading practices for optimal student fire safety.


Page 42 of 53



Reserve existing “Reserved” Chapter 35 for future student residence facilities requirements asfollows:

As reported by “Campus Firewatch” (Ed Comeau, Director), the education facilities industry hasobserved about 10 fire-related fatalities per year, since 2000. As of May 4th , 16 fire-related events have occurred oncollege campuses since the beginning of the year that have resulted in either fatalities, injuries, and/or property loss.More up to date information is available at the following link:http://www.campus-firewatch.com/incidents/Most of them have occurred in off-campus housing, but not all. For the moment, the education facilities industry ismanaging the off-campus fire safety problem through the ANSI standards process as best as it can given its grimresources, uncertain liability obligations and variety in local rule. We can put our best foot forward in those facilities thatare under our control, however.This principle was one of the key drivers for submitting “complete” draft chapters to this committee during the lastrevision cycle (Proposal 101-379 and Comment 101-277). Admittedly, these draft chapters were a work in progress buthelped established the broad contours around the subtle safety concepts that apply to this occupancy class – typicallythe highest risk occupancy class in the education facilities industry. For the convenience of the committee, some of thesubstantiation from the 2012 ROP, written by Ted Weidner of the University of Nebraska, is reproduced below.“….The fire safety requirements for dormitories present unique challenges to architects, engineers, facility operators,and fire safety professionals. They fall into a unique category of facility due to ownership, occupancy (the people),organizational mission, and expectations. In the 35+ years of my involvement in higher education, I have seendormitories from virtually all sides; they are not the same as any other category of facility.Dormitories are owned by colleges in and universities to support the mission of educating students. The educationcomes in several forms: socialization with people of different backgrounds, interaction with fellow students and faculty,and learning to live independently (with supervision).The occupants are familiar with the facility and can walk it in their sleep within a few days or weeks of becomingresident. However, they are often the source of safety problems due to their new-found independence and limitedsupervision. Some of the accoutrements of home, cigarettes, candles, incense burners, and other heat sources areusually prohibited items that are still found in a dormitory room. Even with automatic shut-off features, curling irons andother appliances can be used carelessly. And young, independent students can also obtain alcohol or other drugswhich inhibit their ability to react correctly in an emergency or they become the source of the emergency.Some colleges and universities have an organizational structure which places the control and operation of dormitoriesunder the student life area where students are to be supported and guided as they mature; not forced into compliancewith societal rules other than those of mutual respect. The focus individuals makes dormitory occupants more aware oftheir surroundings and attentive to things outside the norm.Despite the social independence, many dormitory occupants are not financially independent and rely on parents forsupport. Parents have an expectation that the college or university will exercise and protect the studentfrom himself and others. This expectation clashes with the independence-focus on the student and educational effortsof the institution….”For the 2015 revision cycle of NFPA 101 the APPA Code Advocacy Task Force continues its effort. It links proposalsrecently presented to the International Building Code that are coordinated with the concepts proposed for this document.We seek acknowledgement that student residence facilities are a distinct occupancy class which, once affirmed in theIBC, will begin to track technical specifics in this document and others. To paraphrase the thinking of Dana Peterson ofthe University of New Hampshire in his substantiation for changes to the IBC :“…The purpose of the proposed change is to clarify the classification of the Residential Group R occupancy typesespecially as it applies to student residence facilities, formerly commonly referred to, and sometimes still referred to asdormitories. Currently, dormitories are listed as R-2 occupancies which we feel is a correct designation for today’sstudent residence facilities. However, the definition provided for a dormitory suggests a student lifestyle and buildingtype of a bygone day. Today’s residence halls are anything but formulaic. Many are a mix of apartments, suites,double-doubles, and single occupant rooms. These kinds of facilities make for interesting architectural arrangements ofspace and complex interior floor plans that don’t always have intuitively obvious exit routes. Cooking facilities, both inindividual rooms and communal kitchens, as well as food service facilities, are becoming increasingly more common if


Page 43 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 101not the norm. A trend toward “Living and Learning” has created buildings that have increasing amounts of assemblyspace within them. Classrooms, recreation facilities, and movie/concert/dance venues are all becoming commonplace innewer facilities.That said, there are still buildings that are akin to the old-style dormitory, such as summer camps, hostels, homelessshelters, bunkhouses, and barracks, and the code should have a classification to recognize those facilities too. So ourproposal recognizes dormitories as a potential R-1 occupancy as well and judges the difference the same way as allother R-1 occupancies are judged, by the transient or nontransient nature of the occupants. Although it is not central toour purpose, we also took this opportunity to suggest that vacation timeshare properties also be located to the R-1occupancy for the same reason and so that the logic for classification based upon the familiarity with the buildingremains consistent.The proposal also specifically designates that nontransient student residence facilities are an R-2 occupancy, removingthe necessity for the “dormitory” definition to do double duty to both describe the defining features and giveall-encompassing examples. It also slightly modifies the definition of “transient” to put the emphasis on the definingcharacteristic of short term occupancy, with “30 days” given more as a guidepost than an absolute.APPA is also seeking this strengthening and clarification for the occupancy classification of student residence facilitiesunder IBC in support of its ongoing efforts with the National Fire Prevention Association to facilitate a change in thatcode to classify student residence facilities with apartment buildings or in a separate chapter, rather than with hotels asthey do currently. Adoption of our proposal would clarify IBC’s position that APPA is in concurrence with and strengthenAPPA’s argument for consistency in NFPA’s view of the same issue….”While that process is ongoing, we have made a number of specific technical proposals to different committees in thisrevision of NFPA 101 instead of submitting entirely new chapters as we did last cycle. We would still like to keep thepossibility open that these two chapter numbers – 34 and 35 --be set aside as “Reserved” (as 25, 27 and 41 are now) sothat dedicated workgroups can visualize where the material they develop and present to this committee in the futuremight be placed.In order to succeed in using the code-making process to increase student safety, many concepts have to move together-- in many places and in many documents. We do not undertake this work because it is easy; we undertake it becauseit part of our stewardship obligation, despite the complex interdependencies. We hope that be keeping these safetyconcepts on the table for discussion by our nation’s fire safety thought leaders, others will join the discussion andcontribute specifics that meet the challenge of providing leading practices for optimal student fire safety.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101- Log #149a SAF-RES


Delete text:A.26.3.4.7 It is the intent that smoke detection be provided at each fire alarm control unit, regardless of the presence of

sprinkler protection.There is no section 9.6.1.8.1.3 sprinkler exemption The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the

fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smoke detection when the building is protected throughout byan approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The requirement for automatic smoke detection above controlequipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarm system and not a building or fire code issue. Protection ofthe fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure the system generates the occupant emergency evacuation signalprior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler system because once the automatic sprinkler system activates it willrender the fire alarm control equipment non-operational due to water and heat damage because of the followingreasons:• Fire alarm control equipment is listed for “Indoor Dry” (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Water and

electronics do not mix.• Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees f. Fire alarm control panels operate at a

maximum of 120 degrees f. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system.• At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the

control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics andwater don’t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system.


Page 44 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #275 BLD-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Sean DeCrane, City of Cleveland-Division of Fire

Add new text to read:Fire protection of floors. Floor assemblies, not required elsewhere in this code to be fire resistance rated, shall

be provided with a ½ inch gypsum wallboard membrane, 5/8 inch wood structural panel membrane, or equivalent on theunderside of the floor framing member.

Exceptions:1. Floor assemblies located directly over a space protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with

Section P2904, NFPA13D, or other approved equivalent sprinkler system.2. Floor assemblies located directly over a crawl space not intended for storage or fuel-fired appliances.3. Portions of floor assemblies can be unprotected when complying with the following:

3. The aggregate area of the unprotected portions shall not exceed 80 square feet per story3. Fire blocking in accordance with Section R302.11.1 shall be installed along the perimeter of the unprotected

portion to separate the unprotected portion from the remainder of the floor assembly.4. Wood floor assemblies using dimension lumber or structural composite lumber equal to or greater than 2-inch by

10-inch nominal dimension, or other approved floor assemblies demonstrating equivalent fire performance.

I am having difficulty placing the substantiation into the box but will fax it in but want to forward thisreport and I am traveling so I do not have access to a fax machine.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/basementfires/

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #276 BLD-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Sean DeCrane, City of Cleveland-Division of Fire

Add new text to read:Fire protection of floors. Floor assemblies, not required elsewhere in this code to be fire resistance rated, shall

be provided with a ½ inch gypsum wallboard membrane, or equivalent on the underside of the floor framing member.Exceptions:1. Floor assemblies located directly over a space protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with

Section P2904, NFPA13D, or other approved equivalent sprinkler system.2. Floor assemblies located directly over a crawl space not intended for storage or fuel-fired appliances.3. Portions of floor assemblies can be unprotected when complying with the following:

3. The aggregate area of the unprotected portions shall not exceed 80 square feet per story3. Fire blocking in accordance with Section R302.11.1 shall be installed along the perimeter of the unprotected

portion to separate the unprotected portion from the remainder of the floor assembly.

I am traveling and do not have access to a fax machine and I can't seem to upload my supportingstatement but am attaching this report as supporting information and will send in my substantiation this weekend. I canuse the same substantiation used for a similar proposal for the last NFPA 1 cycle.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/basementfires/


Page 45 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #133b BLD-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services

Revise text to read as follows:Accessibility. (No requirements.) See 12.33.

(This public input complements one separately submitted, by another proponent, addressing anaccessibility problem with a “visitability” substantiation for the same changes to NFPA 5000 text.) The problemaddressed here is one of ever-increasing dependency on homes as key adjuncts to (1) public health and (2) health caresystems. For (1) the concern is the prevention of predictable and preventable injuries which are a significant and, forsteps/stairs, a growing problem necessitating medical treatment. For example, in the USA between 1997 and 2009, theincrease in the rate (per 100,000 population) of home step/stair-related injuries requiring hospital admission, as afunction of victim age, was 85 percent for the 65-and-older population and 103 percent for the under-65 population.These data are based on analyses of US CPSC/NEISS national estimates publicly available at www.cpsc.gov. Forensicand other investigations have implicated combinations of doors and stairs (including, especially single steps) asrelatively dangerous because negotiating one or more steps while dealing with one (or two, in the case of storm/screen)doors is very difficult in terms of the ergonomics (human factors). For (2), aside from the problem of adding to thepressure on health care resources, dysfunctional features of homes—including difficult-to-use circulation facilities, toiletsand food-preparation areas (the key focus areas for Type C dwellings)—reduce the critical usability of homes as highlydesired places to recuperate for example, thus reducing pressures on institutional settings such as hospitals and othercare facilities. Dysfunctional facilities in homes pose problems, including safety concerns, for those recovering and thosecaring for them, including families, friends, home-care professionals and emergency responders. Many of theseproblems were directly or indirectly considered in the Health Care Summit that NFPA hosted on March 28, 2012, inBaltimore (with information on the presentations and discussions there available from NFPA). Thus this public inputaddresses growing concerns about the ability of the health care system to cope with increasing demands posed bychanging demographics and national, state, local, family and personal economic conditions. To date, a prime focus hasbeen to make institutional settings more homelike; now (with changes like those proposed by this public input) homesmust incorporate certain basic features that have long been absolutely essential in institutional and other non-homesettings—including no-step entrances and interior acess to essential, functional services that do not require use ofstairs.

Finally, while it is not a straightforward matter, I would like to see the responsible technical committees make this publicinput also apply to the extent possible (due to document scope) to NFPA 101, specifically by amending section24.2.4.8(2) to require compliance with Type C dwelling requirement of ICC/ANSI A117.1 in addition to making otherchanges that might be considered appropriate by the technical committees addressing this public input. Here it shouldbe noted that there are more-general discussions occurring on expansion of the scope of NFPA 101 to address abroadened range of emergencies.


Page 46 of 53


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Eleanor Smith, Concrete Change

Revise to read:22.1.7 Accessibility. (No requirements.) See 12.33.

Problem and Resolution Just as NFPA has frequently recommended other requirements forsafety and the public good, so it is important that NFPA address disability access issues in houses.Thisrecommendation would significantly resolve health and safety problems caused by current, typical house constructionpractices. While federal laws have required architectural access in public buildings (Americans with Disabilities Act)and in new multi-family housing (Fair Housing Act), the great majority of new single-family homes continue to presentegregious barriers to people who develop disabilities. The current practice of building steps at all entrances of adwelling and narrow interior passage doors causes or exacerbates the following problems:--Inability to exit one’s own home independently in case of emergency because there are steps at all entrances.--Inability to exit one’s home to participate in community activities, resulting in isolation and depression.--Increased falls because one must be carried up and down steps in a wheelchair or must struggle with steps whileusing crutches, canes, walkers, etc.and at the same time attempt to open or close an entry door.--Inability to enter one’s own bathroom because of the typically narrow door, leading to poor hygiene, and chronicallyrestricting intake of fluids, which in turn leads to kidney and bladder infections and other urinary tract ailments.--Isolation and depression due to inability to participate in gatherings in the homes of friends and extended family whosehomes have steps at all entrances and/or narrow bathroom doors.

--Increased physical and mental stress on the part of persons caring for disabled relatives because they must doincreased lifting, carrying and hygiene tasks due to steps and narrow doors. Numerous studies have documented thatpersons doing significant amounts of care-giving suffer poorer health and higher mortality than control groups ofnon-caregivers.--Steps and narrow doors impede the ability of fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and other emergency

responders as they attempt to evacuate people experiencing home fires, heart attacks, strokes, etc.--Further, lack of a home entrance without steps increases injuries to emergency responders. A two-year study of more

than 200 EMT’s showed that the most frequent injuries were back injuries, and that the majority of these injuriesoccurred at the location from which the victim was transported as opposed to the location (such as a hospital) to whichthe victim was transported. (“Evaluation of the Injury Profile of Emergency Personnel in a Busy Urban EMS System,”American Journal of Emergency Medicine, P.T. Hoqya and L. Ellis, July 1990.)

Numbers of Houses AffectedThe current practice with regard to housing and disability is to build homes with no access and later react in crisis

mode when a resident experiences a disability, resulting in the above-mentioned health and safety problems as well asincreased institutionalization. The number of houses that need to have basic access features is often severelyunderestimated. Low estimates fail to recognize the following: that not just wheelchair users but a host of other peoplewith mobility impairment are affected; that when one member of a household develops a disability the whole householdis affected; and that people with disabilities, like non-disabled people, move from house to house, with each individualimpacting the need for access in a series of houses. A study published in The Journal of the American PlanningAssociation (Summer, 2008) projects that 25% to 60% of all new houses built in 2000 would have at least one residentwith severe, long-term mobility impairment during the lifetime of the house. “Aging and Disability: Implications for theHousing Industry and Housing Policy in the United States,” Volume 74, Issue 3, June 2008, Stanley K. Smith, StefanRayer, Eleanor A. Smith) Recent conversations with the primary author of that article indicate that 60% the morelikely figure due to the conservative parameters used in the article.

Demonstrated Practicality of the Proposed RecommendationA number of local ordinances, state laws and agency policies over the past two decades have yielded some 40,000

single family detached houses and duplexes built with at least one entrance without steps and adequately wide interiordoors. These houses were built for the general public as opposed to being designated for people who currently havedisabilities. The fact that no attempts have been made to rescind these laws or policies since constructionrequirements first were employed is an indication that such features are not difficult or costly to incorporate in newconstruction (as opposed to the much higher cost of retrofitting existing houses for access after barriers have alreadybeen constructed.

Practicality in a variety of terrains and climates The above-mentioned existing houses have proven practical in both


Page 47 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 5000southern and northern climates; on concrete slabs and over basements; and on both level and steep terrains. (Theprovision to provide access from a driveway or attached garage facilitates entrance on steep terrain.)

Cost issues. The low costs cited are based on already-constructed houses. Experienced builders of these housesestimate $200 or less as the added cost for new houses built on a concrete slab, and around $600 for houses built overa basement. These costs are in contrast to the unintended high financial costs of continuing to build with barriers,which include health problems and injuries; retrofitting to remove barriers; and increased institutionalizations of peoplefor whom architectural barriers in their home was an issue in their placement in nursing homes or other institutions.

The most comprehensive study to date of the history, health and social implications, strategies and costs relevant tothis issue was commissioned by AARP and published in 2008: Increasing Home Access: Designing for Visitability,AARP Public Policy Institute, Jordana L. Maisel, Eleanor Smith, Edward Steinfeld, August, 2008.The Issue of Single-family Attached Houses, commonly referred to as “Townhouses” or “Row houses”, as opposed tosingle-family detached houses and duplexes, was raised by a commenting committee. Although incorporating basicaccess (“visitability”) in townhouses can be more complex than in single-family, a variety of solutions can be applied totownhouses. Some of these are illustrated in the Townhouse section of the Photo Gallery at www.concretechange.org.Nevertheless, for purposes of this recommendation it is best to defer addressing townhouse specifications to local,state or federal entities for future deliberation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #126 BLD-RES


Delete the following text:Smoke detection as required by 55.2.1.4.1(2) and 55.2.1.4.1(3) shall not be

required in buildings protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance withSection 55.3.

23.3.4.6 is not needed if 55.2.1.4.1.2 is deleted.The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smokedetection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. Therequirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarmsystem and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure thesystem generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler systembecause once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operationaldue to water and heat damage because of the following reasons:· Fire alarm control equipment is listed for “Indoor Dry” (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Waterand electronics do not mix.· Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panelsoperate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system.· At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel,then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders.Electronics and water don’t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm systemcomponents for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system.


Page 48 of 53



Revise text to read as follows:Delayed-egress locks complying with 11.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted, provided that not more than one such



_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #229 BLD-RES


Revise as follows:A corridor smoke detection system in accordance with Section 55.2 shall be provided in buildings other than

those protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 24.3.5.This proposal supports both the use of fire sprinklers and early warning smoke detection in Hotel

Occupancies were people sleep and live. The corridor is the primary means of egress and building occupants and fireservice members need knowledge of a smoke condition in the corridors

Report by Dr. Milke of Department of Fire Protection EngineeringUniversity of Maryland. The report states “The review of data obtained in several experimental programs unanimouslyindicates that smoke detectors respond prior to sprinklers. In addition, tenability analyses conducted using data fromseveral of the experimental programs concluded that sufficient egress time is provided by smoke detectors, consideringconditions existing at the time of their response”. This document can be downloaded athttp://www.afaa.org/pdf/Performance of Smoke Detectors and Sprinklers in Residential and Healthcare Facilities.pdfThis proposal will provide both fire sprinklers and smoke detection in corridors which are one of the key elements of lifesafety in our buildings of this occupancy. There are reports of loss of life when corridors are untenable due to smokeand fire in corridors, this will allow for early detection, notification and suppression to save the lives of occupants and fireservice responders.


Page 49 of 53



Delete the following text:The provision of 55.2.1.4.1.2 shall not apply to the smoke detection

required at each fire alarm control unit by 55.2.1.4.1.24.3.4.10 and A.24.3.4.10 is not needed if 55.2.1.4.1.2 is deleted.

The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smokedetection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. Therequirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarmsystem and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure thesystem generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler systembecause once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operationaldue to water and heat damage because of the following reasons:· Fire alarm control equipment is listed for “Indoor Dry” (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Waterand electronics do not mix.· Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panelsoperate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system.· At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel,then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders.Electronics and water don’t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm systemcomponents for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #193 BLD-RES

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Scott J. Harrison, Marioff Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 7, where modifications are permitted by this , based on the

installation of an automatic sprinkler or water mist system, such modifications shall be permitted where the automaticsprinkler system or water mist complies with NFPA 13, or NFPA 13R,

.or NFPA 750

Water Mist systems have been approved and installed in many hotel sprinkler applications globally forover 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as:(Ordinary Hazard Group 1), (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery &spaces), (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), (LightHazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), (Light Hazard, OrdHaz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fireprotection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear optionto accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowingconstruction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system.


Page 50 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #220a BLD-RES


Revise text to read as follows:Delayed-egress locks complying with 11.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted, provided that not more than one such



_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #230 BLD-RES


Revise as follows:

A smoke detection system in accordance with Section 55.2 shall be provided in interior corridors.This proposal supports both the use of fire sprinklers and early warning smoke detection in Residential

Apartment Occupancies were people sleep and live. The corridor is the primary means of egress and building occupantsand fire service members need knowledge of a smoke condition in the corridors

Report by Dr. Milke of Department of Fire ProtectionEngineering University of Maryland. The report states “The review of data obtained in several experimental programsunanimously indicates that smoke detectors respond prior to sprinklers. In addition, tenability analyses conducted usingdata from several of the experimental programs concluded that sufficient egress time is provided by smoke detectors,considering conditions existing at the time of their response”. This document can be downloaded athttp://www.afaa.org/pdf/Performance of Smoke Detectors and Sprinklers in Residential and Healthcare Facilities.pdfThis proposal will provide both fire sprinklers and smoke detection in corridors which are one of the key elements of lifesafety in our buildings of this occupancy. There are reports of loss of life when corridors are untenable due to smokeand fire in corridors, this will allow for early detection, notification and suppression to save the lives of occupants and fireservice responders.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.


Page 51 of 53



Delete the following text:The provision of 55.2.1.4.1.2 shall not apply to the smoke detection

required at each fire alarm control unit by 55.2.1.4.1.25.3.4.6 is not needed if 55.2.1.4.1.2 is deleted.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #127a BLD-RES


Delete the following text:It is the intent that smoke detection be provided at each fire alarm control unit regardless of the presence of

sprinkler protection.

24.3.4.10 and A.24.3.4.10 is not needed if 55.2.1.4.1.2 is deleted.The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smokedetection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. Therequirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarmsystem and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure thesystem generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler systembecause once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operationaldue to water and heat damage because of the following reasons:· Fire alarm control equipment is listed for “Indoor Dry” (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Waterand electronics do not mix.· Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panelsoperate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system.· At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel,then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders.Electronics and water don’t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm systemcomponents for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system.


Page 52 of 53

Report on Proposals – June 2014 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000- Log #128a BLD-RES


Delete the following text:It is the intent that smoke detection be provided at each fire alarm control unit regardless of the pressure of

sprinkler protection.25.3.4.6 is not needed if 55.2.1.4.1.2 is deleted.



Page 53 of 53