National Fire Protection Association. 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "National Fire Protection Association. 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax:"

Kevin Glenn
5 years ago
Views:

National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection Sarah Caldwell, Project Administrator DATE: January 6, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 502 SD TC Ballot Circulation (A2016) The receipt due date of January 4, 2016 for the NFPA 502 Second Draft ballot has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, the preliminary Second Draft ballot results are attached for your review. These results include explanation of negative votes, abstentions and votes with comments. 30 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Ballots Not Returned (Colella, Dalton, Debs, Fitzpatrick) If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA prior to January 13, Members who did not return a ballot initially may do so now. Changes to ballot votes should be submitted through the NFPA Vote.net Ballot Site. The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards. Revised 11/15

2 Results by Revision SR-1, Chapter 2, See SR-1 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 4 I agree with the specified NFPA Codes. SR-21, New Section after , See SR-21 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 4 I agree with the new definition. Page 1 of 17

3 SR-18, Section No , See SR-18 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 5 The factors listed are appropriate, however: the terma 'holistic mutidisciplinary' adds nothing to the clause and is not addressed through any of the listed factors; the form of item (1) is inconsistent with the remainder of the list; item (10) appears redundant to (9); item (18) should likely be included under item (3) in that traffic mix is speaking to the potential to cargo vehicle; traffic mix and volume (item 3) are separate issues. I agree wirh the list of items. Page 2 of 17

4 SR-7, Section No. 6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-7 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 3 Negative 3 William G. Connell Proposed change adds confusion as to when this Chapter applies and is also creates a conflict with Paragraph While the intent of the proposed edits are reasonable, the wording is confusing and runs contrary to the subsequent clauses which defines fire/life safety requirements in terms of bridge or elevated highway length. I think that the the length is the most important factor. Page 3 of 17

5 SR-8, Section No , See SR-8 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 4 I agree with the term chapter. Page 4 of 17

6 SR-9, Section No , See SR-9 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 4 The revised arrangement is sensible; however, it is presumed that 'life safety' is still an objective in protecting the facility structure. Also, though not the subject of the proposed revision the mention of minimizing 'economic impact' extends beyond the stated scope of the standard. The intention and meaning of it are understood and absolutely shoudl be considered in facility design, but are broader context than should be directly addressed within the standard. This sort of consideration should be dealt with in normative text within the standard annexes, specifically in reference to section Negative 3 Ahmed Kashef one of the functional requirements should be "to maintain fire safety" William G. Connell I agree with the original definition. The undefined phrase "acceptable means" in is unenforceable and therefore inappropriate in the context of this paragraph. Page 5 of 17

7 SR-11, Section No , See SR-11 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 4 I agree with the new definition. Negative 2 William G. Connell The proposed revision to implies the possibility that a bridge or elevated highway collapse might NOT impact life saftey or have unacceptable implications. The proposed revision is incorrectly stated and introduces unenforcable language by use of the phrase "unacceptable implications" which is not defined. The proposed language in terms of using the selected design fire to define the timetemperature exposure does not have an agreed basis. Where there are limited test results that provide both transient temperature and heat release rate data, this may be done. Otherwise, analysis of the design conditions to determine the exposure conditions resulting from a particular design fire heat release rate history. Page 6 of 17

8 SR-6, Section No , See SR-6 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 3 Negative 2 Ahmed Kashef (c) should not include [assuming a minimum cover of 25 mm (1 in.)] "The material shall meet the fire protection requirements with less than 5 percent humidity by weight and also when fully saturated with water, in accordance with the approved time-temperature curve." no reason given for the 5 percent humidity requirement. I agree with original definition. Page 7 of 17

9 SR-19, New Section after A , See SR-19 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 5 Discussion of risk analysis is where it would be appropriate to discuss issues relating to operational continuity, down-time/repair time, repair costs, economic impact. It is within the risk context that fire safety provisions in excess of the minimum required for life safety would be identified as being necessary for satisfying economic objectives. Such discussion can be expanded upon in future revisions if deemed appropriate by the committee. Igor Y. Maevski Misleading standard language: "Risk analysis should be conducted as an adjunct to, and not a substitute for, qualified professional judgment". Negative 1 I do not agree with risk analysis. Page 8 of 17

10 SR-10, New Section after A.6.2.2, See SR-10 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 4 I agree with new definition. Page 9 of 17

11 SR-5, Section No. A.7.3.2, See SR-5 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 5 David M. Plotkin Last (1), "6 mm", not "6 m". The proposed text provides useful context and examples. However: (1) Are there only British or European standards concerning water ingress. If not, what are the appropriate or equivalent North American standards. (2)There is a typographical error in the last section: "The diameter should be limited to a maximum of 6 m (1?4 in.)..." The SI units should read as 6 mm. comment 1:...speed limits; amount of cycles to be determined... (the 's' behind cycles is now missing) comment 2:...limited to a maximum of 6 mm (1?4 in.) to reduce... (the second 'm' of 6 mm is now missing) Negative 2 Igor Y. Maevski I do not aree with the new definition. References to STUVA Guideline, British Standards and other nations' documents and specifications should be avoided. The standard should be developed as a stand alone document. Extraction the important language from other documents is acceptable with references to those documents. Terminology of emergency time/temperature certification is unclear. Page 10 of 17

12 SR-14, Section No. A , See SR-14 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 6 William G. Connell In para (4) the new reference CIE 193, Emergency Lighting in Road Tunnels, should be added to Chapter 2 References. The proposed language relating to 'wayfinding lighting' is helpful and useful, but appears out of place in the context of the subject matter of the leading paragraph of A Or rather, the leading paragraph covering travel speeds should more appropriately be incoroporated with A ; the wayfinding lighting discussion, pertaining to the egress pathway, belongs withi A I agree with the new definitions. Page 11 of 17

13 SR-20, Section No. B.2.6, See SR-20 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 I agree with the new definition. Negative 3 William G. Connell The maximum SIL level of 78dBLeq is extremely difficult and likely impossible to attain in road tunnels equipped with jet fans and/or fixed fire suppression systems both of which must be assumed active during an emergency. Although the revised text limits the prescriptive content of the proposed Annex and defers to NFPA 72 where appropriate, as written the language may still be interpreted to impose noise limitations within the tunnel that may not be practical in that environment. As written, the language implies that some level of noise limitations are required as there will either be uamplified or amplified communications. Audible or voice communication systems are not requirements under Chapter 7; as such the proposed language (while not statutory being in Annex B) imposes restrictions that are not aligned with trainway requirements. The efforts of the working group are recognized; it is preferrable that the work done to date is not lost. The issue can be addressed through inclusion of an additional sub-clause that identifies noise levels appropriate to trainways not utilizing audible communication systems (such as pain thresholds or similar). Igor Y. Maevski This eliminates the previously established minimum requirements (criteria) for noise levels and replaces it with the discussion on specific case of reliance upon unamplified speech. Page 12 of 17

14 Abstain 1 The proposed clause:"sound pressure level from all active systems measured inside a tunnel along the path of evacuation at any point 5 ft (1.52 m) above the walking surface speech intelligibility of fixed voice communication systems to achieve a measured speech transmission index (STI) of not less than 0.45 [0.65 common intelligibility scale (CIS)] and an average STI of not less than 0.5 (0.7 CIS) as per D in NFPA 72. Refer to Annex D of NFPA 72 for further information on speech intelligibility for voice communication systems." is not properly phrased because there is a disjoint between the SPL at the start of the proposed clause and the STI values mentioned. Page 13 of 17

15 SR-13, Section No. D.1, See SR-13 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 5 The research to date, as reviewed by the committee, supports the proposed changes. However, given the variation in K1 it is suggested that the form of the equation is incorrect in that K1 is not constant and has a functional relationship to heat release rate. As such, revisions to the form of equation D.1 should be explored by the committee working group for the next standard cycle. I agree with the new definition of critical control velocity. Page 14 of 17

16 SR-3, Sections E.5.7, E.5.8, E.5.9, See SR-3 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 5 The additional information provides useful summaries from which additional research reviews can be undertakan. To be useful references need to be provided, so it need sto be verified that the corresponding report titles are incorporated either in Annex E or in Annex M. The editors are advised that there are various typographical and grammatical errors within the second revision that should be addressed prior to publication. I agree with this comment. Page 15 of 17

17 SR-12, New Section after L.1, See SR-12 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 6 Haukur Ingason Change the ref in M7 Ingason, H. et al. Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels, SP Report, 13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, to a better ref: H. Ingason, G. Appel, J. Gehandler, Y. Z. Li, H. Nyman, P. Karlsson, and M. Arvidson, Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels, Fire Technology, SP Report 2014:13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden. The proposed language pertaining to automatic fire detection within tunnels is useful and warrants inclusion within the standards. In future cycles, the committee should look to provide additional references as the current list is incomplete. Of particular interest would be ones discussing unwanted alarms (sources and mitigation)and relative performance of detection technologies. I agree with this comment. Page 16 of 17

18 SR-2, Chapter M, See SR-2 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 5 Haukur Ingason You can delete these ref. in N as they are also given later in N2 "Ingason, H. et al. Development of a test method for fire detection in road tunnels, SP Report, 13, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Ingason H., G. Appel, and Y. Z. Li, Large Scale Fire Tests with Fixed Fire Fighting System in Runehamar Tunnel, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, 2014." N.1.2.8: - The address has changed into: Efectis Group, Brandpuntlaan Zuid 16, 2665 NZ, Bleiswijk, the Netherlands - A reference has forgotten. As agreed during the meeting in Dallas, there must be a reference to report Efectis-R0894(E), "Investigation of fire in the Lloydstraat car park, Rotterdam," N.2: Nieman, B., Cracking on the Unheated... (Nieman is written with single 'n' at the end; delete the last 'n') I agree with references. Page 17 of 17

MEMORANDUM. Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities. NFPA 101 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017)

MEMORANDUM. Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities. NFPA 101 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017) National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities