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

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: NFPA Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies Kristin Collette, Staff Liaison DATE: November 19, 2010 SUBJECT: NFPA 5000 ROC TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2011) The Final Results of the NFPA 5000 ROC Letter Ballot are as follows: 22 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Not Returned (M. Bedell) 4 Negatives (Bush, Frable, Rice and Schultz) 2 Members submitted Abstentions on all ballot items. 1 additional Abstention was submitted by R. Thornberry ( ) Please note that there were no more than 3 abstentions on any ballot item. There are two criteria necessary to pass ballot [(1) affirmative 2 / 3 vote and (2) simple majority]. (1) The number of affirmative votes needed for the proposal/comment to pass is 12. (22 eligible to vote - 1 not returned - 3 abstentions = = 11.88) (2) In all cases, an affirmative vote of at least a simple majority of the total membership eligible to vote is required. This is the calculation for simple majority: [22 eligible 2 = = (12] Reasons for negative votes, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary 2 / 3 required affirmative votes to pass ballot.

2 Log #34 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, c Revise the definition to read as follows: Fifty percent of all major tenant areas and one hundred percent of all other floor areas designated for tenant occupancy and exclusive use including storage areas. The area of tenant occupancy is measured from the centerline of joint partitions to the outside of the tenant walls. All tenant areas including areas used for storage, are part of the gross leasable area. The last sentence of the definition currently starts with the words all tenant areas which include major tenants and then the newly added text adds in 50 percent of the major tenant areas so as to create a conflict in language. The suggested revision above clarifies these points. AABY, M.: Newly appointed to the Technical Committee, October 27, DAWE, N.: Newly appointed to the Technical Committee in November Log #54 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, Review the action taken by BLD-BLC on proposal Proposal considers removal of the story height limits and area criteria from Chapter 7. No correlative action was considered as to how the allowable construction types for the occupancy chapters would be handled (in the Section) without such content. The Mercantile and Business committee reviewed the actions of the Building Construction committee. No further action is needed at this time. It is the committee's understanding that, during their ROC meeting, the Building Construction committee has voted to retain the height and area table in NFPA Chapters 36 through 39 do not contain construction requirements in the x.1.6 subsections and will not be affected by the actions of the Building Construction committee. 1

3 Log #66 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, a Reconsider the action on this proposal to determine if latching is required or not. Section (3) appears to not require the latching hardware but implies that the occupancy chapters can offer a different option. The Occupancy Chapter TCs should review their chapter provisions applicable to smoke barriers and, if it is the TC s desire, revise text so as to specifically require latching in the appropriate locations. The occupancy chapters might need to be correlated with the change made to (3). The committee has reviewed proposal a and the provisions of the Mercantile and Business occupancy chapters. No provisions, specific to smoke barriers are located in Chapters 36 through 39. In response to proposal a, no additional language is required at this time. 2

4 Log #77 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, The committee is asked to develop an occupant load factor specific to high density call centers. The Comment on Affirmative correctly identifies the need to address non-typical, commercial office building work settings such as high-density call centers now that the occupant load factor for business occupancies is being changed from 100 sq ft per person to 150 sq ft per person. The committee has addressed this recommendation in Comment (Log #125a). See committee action on Comment (Log #125a). The committee action on Comment (Log #125a) returns the occupant load factor back to the current text of 100 sq. ft. per person. With this change no additional occupant load factor specific to high density areas is needed at this time. No definition of "high density" or "concentrated use" was provided for the application to business occupancies. Affirmative: 18 Negative: 1 Abstain: 2 SCHULTZ, T.: The current occupant load factor of 100 square feet per person applies to all business uses, "high density" or otherwise. I agree that if the occupant load factor is changed to 150 square feet per person, such may not be appropriate for "high density". However, Comment Nos and address this issue by keeping the occupant load factor at 100 square feet per person for such "high density" / "concentrated" business uses. FRABLE, D.: I concur with the action taken by the Technical Committee (TC) to reject because the 100 ft 2 /person occupant load factor for Business Use-concentrated use may not be the correct occupant load factor to use for concentrated use. However, I do not agree with the TC that a definition for "concentrated use" is necessary since Assembly Use uses similar terminology in Table In addition, I also disagree with the TC substantiation that the occupant load factor for Business Use should revert back to 100 ft 2 /person (See my comment on ). 3

5 Log #125a BLD-MER Dave Frable, U.S. General Services Administration Portions of Table not shown remain unchanged Business Use (other than below) 150 (ft 2 per person) 13.9 (m 2 per person) Concentrated use f 100 (ft 2 per person) 9.3 (m 2 per person) f For example, telephone call centers Several Technical Committee members raised a concern that revising the occupant load factor for business occupancies from 100 ft 2 per person to 150 ft 2 per person has not take into consideration non-typical commercial office building work settings such as concentrated use call centers. Therefore, I have attempted to address this concern by including a separate condition for determining the occupant load factor for non-typical commercial office building work settings (i.e., concentrated use ) that will remain at 100 ft 2 per person. The term concentrated use has been taken from the assembly use occupancy. The committee has reconsidered the data that was provided in proposal as well as the negative comments received from committee members. The committee is in agreement that the data is not adequate for changing the current occupant load factor from 100 sq. ft. per person to 150 sq. ft. per person for business occupancies. In addition, no definitions were provided for the definitions of 'concentrated use'. While there may be a concern for business occupancies with a higher density of occupants, the term 'concentrated use' cannot be enforced without a definition or additional guidance. The first statement of the submitter's substantiation is correct. The report that was provided in the ROP was limited and did not provide data for 'concentrated' or 'high density' that would properly justify changing the occupant load factor from a higher density occupant load factor to a lower density one. The second statement of the substantiation is not valid for all requirements listed by the submitter. All of the items listed by the submitter are not dependent on the occupant load and therefore, would not be affected by a change in occupant load factor. Affirmative: 18 Negative: 1 Abstain: 2 SCHULTZ, T.: The data submitted to support the occupant load factor change consisted not only of a 1996 study of 23 office buildings with 55 samples (floors evaluated), but also the description and summary of 6 previous studies. The overall conclusion of these studies is that an occupant load factor in excess of 100 square feet is appropriate. In fact, the proposed 150 square feet per person occupant load factor is conservative according to most of the studies. Although a definition for "concentrated use" is not provided for the 100 square feet per occupant load factor, this is no different than the use of the term for determining Assembly occupancy occupant load factors. It is somewhat subjective, but allows the designer or AHJ to determine when the more concentrated use is appropriate. BELLAMY, T.: The final paragraph of the Committee Statement pertained to the Comment from Ignatius Kapalczynski and should not have been included here. This should be removed as an editorial correction. FRABLE, D.: See my comment on

6 Log #180 BLD-MER Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal Delete text to read as follows: Reconsider to Reject. The substantiation is limited, US centric and a statistically small sample. It will also require reconsideration of single exit, common path, travel distance, and fire alarm thresholds based on occupant load. Proposal deferred to the Mercantile and Business Committee to take action on this issue which was done in Proposal No action should be taken in response to proposal The committee addressed this topic in Comment (Log #181). See committee action on Comment (Log #181). Affirmative: 15 Negative: 4 Abstain: 2 BUSH, K.: The actions of the Technical Committee taken at the ROP phase should be retained. There appears to be sufficient justification submitted by the US General Services Administration and referenced NIST study to substantiate this change. Existing wording in the Code also provides for opportunity to increase the occupant load where appropriate arrangements have been incorporated to accommodate additional occupants. There is no such opportunity to decrease the occupant load where less occupants may be present. Therefore, the lower occupant load can be justified as a base figure, and adjusted where necessary to account for additional occupants. I have not submitted a Negative Vote for any of the other Comments which have introduced a concentrated occupant load for specific conditions, as this action introduces a specific listing of conditions which may not be inclusive of all possible conditions and arrangements. There is no need to establish an occupant load for a specific business office arrangement. FRABLE, D.: I do not agree with the action taken by the Technical Committee (TC) on comment based on the lack of specific rationale stated in the TC statement. The TC has only provided a general statement that the data referenced in the NIST-GCR report is not adequate for increasing the current occupant load factor from 100 ft 2 /person to 150 ft 2 /person for business occupancies. The TC has not refuted that the existing occupant load factor of 100 ft 2 /person first appeared in the 3rd edition of the Building Exits Code that was published in 1934 and this same occupant load factor of 100 ft 2 /person was specified for office, factories, and workrooms; three occupancies with vastly different uses. Regarding the concern that the data is U.S. centric, the NIST report was referenced to form the basis for this code change and just happens to have been conducted within the U.S., as are many other reports and studies which become the basis for code changes in NFPA codes and standards; hence, this is not a valid reason for rejecting its results. Also, the concern that the sample size of the buildings evaluated in the studies referenced in the report is too small; we feel the sample size is a statistically reasonable size to form the conclusion held; especially when it substantiates similar conclusions drawn in 5 previous studies. In addition, the TC has not provided the proponent of the code change any information regarding how many buildings the sample size needs to be to address their concern. In addition, it appears the TC has not addressed the one common similarity in all of the referenced studies; that each study concluded that the current 100 ft 2 /person occupant load factor for business occupancies is very conservative. Each of the studies conducted between 1966 and 1992 have indicated that occupant load factors in business occupancies ranged from 150 ft 2 /person (gross) to 278 ft 2 /person (gross). In addition, a 1995 study of 23 Federal sector and private sector office buildings also indicated a mean occupant load factor of 248 ft 2 /person for all office buildings. It is therefore our belief that permitting the occupant load factor for business occupancies to be increased from 100 ft 2 /person to 150ft 2 /person is still a conservative factor and will not adversely impact the overall safety of the occupants in commercial office buildings for such things as the minimum number of exit stairs, minimum width of exit stairs, common path travel allowances, travel distance requirements, fire alarm system thresholds, etc. Lastly, it should be noted that during the Report on Proposals (ROP), the TC approved this code change in proposal , and in our opinion, has now reversed their action without providing any valid substantiation. Therefore, for the reasons stated above; comment should be rejected. RICE, S.: I concur with comments provided. SCHULTZ, T.: I disagree with many parts of the substantiation. The data submitted to support the occupant load 5

7 factor change consisted not only of a 1996 study of 23 office buildings with 55 samples (floors evaluated), but also the description and summary of 6 previous studies. The overall conclusion of these studies is that an occupant load factor in excess of 100 square feet is appropriate. In fact, the proposed 150 square feet per person occupant load factor is conservative according to most of the studies. The change in occupant load factor will not impact the common path of travel or travel distance limitations. The single exit criteria and the fire alarm thresholds (in part) are based on the number of business occupants. The proposed occupant load factor change would potentially allow for a larger business use area before two exits or a fire alarm system is required. But the occupant load threshold to require a second exit and fire alarm system would not change Log #181 BLD-MER Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal Deleted text to read as follows: Reconsider to Reject. The substantiation is limited, US centric and a statistically small sample. It will also require reconsideration of single exit, common path, travel distance, and fire alarm thresholds based on occupant load. The committee has reconsidered proposal and is in agreement with the submitter to reject the proposal. The committee has reconsidered the data that was provided in proposal as well as the negative comments received from committee members. The committee is in agreement that the data is not adequate for changing the current occupant load factor from 100 sq. ft. per person to 150 sq. ft. per person for business occupancies. The first statement of the submitter's substantiation is correct. The report that was provided in the ROP was limited and did not provide data for 'concentrated' or 'high density' that would properly justify changing the occupant load factor from a higher density occupant load factor to a lower density one. The second statement of the substantiation is not valid for all requirements listed by the submitter. All of the items listed by the submitter are not dependent on the occupant load and therefore, would not be affected by a change in occupant load factor. Affirmative: 15 Negative: 4 Abstain: 2 BUSH, K.: See comments on FRABLE, D.: See my comment on RICE, S.: See my Explanation of Negative on Comment (Log #180). SCHULTZ, T.: I disagree with many parts of the substantiation. The data submitted to support the occupant load factor change consisted not only of a 1996 study of 23 office buildings with 55 samples (floors evaluated), but also the description and summary of 6 previous studies. The overall conclusion of these studies is that an occupant load factor in excess of 100 square feet is appropriate. In fact, the proposed 150 square feet per person occupant load factor is conservative according to most of the studies. The change in occupant load factor will not impact the common path of travel or travel distance limitations. The single exit criteria and the fire alarm thresholds (in part) are based on the number of business occupants. The proposed occupant load factor change would potentially allow for a larger business use area before two exits or a fire alarm system is required. But the occupant load threshold to require a second exit and fire alarm system would not change. 6

8 Log #168 BLD-MER Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal n Revised/New text to read as follows: Reconsider to Accept In Part. Interior wall finish materials complying with 10.2 shall be Class A, B, or C and interior ceiling finish materials complying with 10.2 shall be Class A or B. The proponents substantiation is based on wall finishes. The ceiling finish should remain unchanged. The committee accepts the proposed language but notes that the legislative text was not displayed properly in the comment. The submitter is proposing addition of all text after 'or C'. Affirmative: 17 Negative: 1 Abstain: 3 BUSH, K.: The difference between required flame spread ratings for the interior finish materials of walls and ceilings in the same space is very confusing and would be unique to this paragraph of the Code. Regardless of the wording of the substantiation, the exposure of ceiling finishes to fires originating in materials attached to adjacent walls could be just as great as that exposure to adjacent wall finish materials. There has been no technical justification for the difference in wall and ceiling requirements, and, as the Technical Committee viewed Class C finish materials as appropriate in Mercantile Occupancies, that same restriction should apply to all interior finish materials within a common space. THORNBERRY, R.: In accordance with the NFPA Regulations for Committee Projects, I'm required to abstain on this item because of a direct client interest. 7

9 Log #CC6 BLD-MER Technical Committee on Fundamentals, Revise text as follows: The storage, arrangement, protection, and quantities of hazardous commodities shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the following: (1) NFPA 1, (2) NFPA 13, (3) NFPA 30, (4) NFPA 30B, (5) (6) NFPA 400,, Chapter 14 for organic peroxide formulations NFPA 432, (6) (5) NFPA 400,, Chapter 15 for oxidizer solids and liquids NFPA 430, (7) NFPA 400,, various chapters depending on characteristics of a particular pesticide NFPA 434, (8) NFPA 1124, NFPA 430, 432 and 434 were withdrawn and incorporated into new NFPA 400. NFPA 400 replaces the withdrawn documents and should serve as the mandatory referenced publication for the three categories of products addressed in (5) through (7). 8

10 Log #80 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, d Reconsider the proposal so as not to make the change. The current text was written specifically to address two-story townhouse-type office buildings where each tenant has a two story space that abuts its neighbor s two story space. The change made by the proposal will no longer permit a single means of egress [with an unenclosed stair as permitted by )] within such tenant space. The change was made without technical substantiation as to why the arrangement does not provide adequate life safety. The committee has reconsidered Proposal d and is in agreement to not made the change accepted in the proposal. Revise the text to read as follows: A single exit shall be permitted for a maximum two-story, single-tenant space/ or building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 and where the total travel to the outside does not exceed 100 ft (30 m). Single-tenant building/ or spaces two or fewer stories in height... The current text was written specifically to address two-story townhouse-type office buildings where each tenant has a two-story space that abuts its neighbor s two-story space. The change made by the proposal will no longer permit a single means of egress [with an unenclosed stair as permitted by ] within such tenant space. The slash has been replaced in both section and with 'or' which does not change the intent of the requirement but rewrites the requirement in appropriate code language. 9

11 a Log #CC700 BLD-MER Technical Committee on Mercantile and Business Occupancies, a Revise text to read as follows: Unless otherwise permitted by Chapters 15 through 31 and 33 through 34, the standby power system shall be connected to the following:... As an occupancy based Code, the occupancy chapters should have the option to respond to a requirement located in a core chapter. See committee action on ROP o and a for new language that requires the addition of correlative text to be located in Chapter 33. Correlating language was also proposed and accepted for addition to NFPA 101 Chapter 11. FRABLE, D.: I concur with the action of the Technical Committee (TC) to accept a. I also concur with the TC statement that the occupancy chapter should have the option to eliminate this requirement. HOLMES, W.: Under NFPA s Comprehensive Consensus Codes, NFPA 5000 is featured as an occupancy-based code. The occupancy chapter must be allowed to indicate when requirements shall be applied. This action provides for occupancy-based implementation of core chapter items. Requirements for air compressors for gas supplies for dry pipe or preaction systems are covered by NFPA 13. NFPA 13 does not require air compressors for these systems. If air compressors are provided NFPA 13 does not require that they since air compressors are not critical to the proper functioning of the system in the event of fire. Failure of an air compressor will not result in a reduction of the system to effectively respond to a fire. Installation requirements for dry-pipe or preaction systems should be coordinated with the NFPA Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinkler systems which has primary responsibility for such systems. During the revision cycle for the 2010 Edition of NFPA 20, the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps carefully considered requirements for fire pumps for high-rise buildings and added a new Chapter 5 on this subject. This special chapter on Fire Pumps for High-Rise Buildings does not require standby or emergency power for jockey pumps. Rather, for high-rise building fire pump applications, the general requirements for jockey pumps in NFPA 20, 4.25 apply. Paragraph clearly states, The pressure maintenance pump is not required to have secondary or standby power. During the revision cycle for the 2010 Edition of NFPA 20, the responsible technical committee clarified requirements for jockey pumps. In adding new information in NFPA 25, the Committee Statement affirms, the equipment associated with the pressure maintenance (jockey) pump that is not required to be listed. This is an important point that has been ignored by the standard. The statement needs to be clearly made that the equipment is not required to be listed. The pressure maintenance pump is not critical from a fire protection standpoint. If the pressure maintenance pump fails to operate, the fire pump will still provide protection in case of fire. Likewise, the pressure maintenance pump valves should not be required to be supervised. If the valves get shut, the fire protection system will still work during a fire. Contrary to the claim by the proponent, the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps confirms that jockey pump failures will not lead to fire protection system failures that could lead to uncontrolled fires. If changes are desirable for installation requirements for fire pumps in high rise buildings, they should be made in NFPA 25 by the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps which has primary responsibility for the installation of fire pumps, including pumps for high-rise applications. There has been no compelling technical justification presented for requiring emergency or standby power for jockey pumps or air compressors in Business or Mercantile Occupancies where the floor of an occupiable story is greater than 75 ft. above the lowest level of fire department access. These accessories are not necessary to assure fire safety in Business or Mercantile Occupancies. 10

12 Log #84 BLD-MER Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code, a Make changes to address the issues raised in the Comment on Affirmative ballots. The text as revised is confusing and incorrect. It can be fixed by addressing the issues raised. Revise text to read as follows: Each individual major tenant of a mall building shall be permitted to have a maximum minimum of one-half of its required means of egress independent of the mall. The revised text incorporates the revisions as suggested in the ballot comments. The revised text addresses the concerns of the Technical Correlating Committee. The resulting language clarifies the intent of the committee with regards to means of egress from major tenant spaces in mall buildings. The committee notes that the print line of the comment, as shown in the ballot, references Chapter 37. The reference should be