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 Mercantile and Business Occupancies Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 101 Second Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2017) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 27 Members Eligible to Vote 4 Members Not Returned (Burrus, Donovan, Jacobs, Martin) 10 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions 4 Members Voted Affirmative with Comment on one or more Revisions (Bellamy, Bush, Gauvin, Smith) 8 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Bush, Derr, Frable, Freels, Gauvin, Humble, Rice, Smith) 1 Member Abstained on one or more Revisions (Aaby) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision. To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2 /3 of ballots returned. See Sections 3.3.4.3.(c) and 4.4.10.1 of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
NFPA 101 TC ON MERCANTILE AND BUSINESS OCCUPANCIES SECOND DRAFT BALLOT FINAL RESULTS For Simple majority and also two third majority election; the simple affirmative votes needed are 14 and the two third affirmative votes needed are 16 SR 6501, Detail, See SR 6501 Affirmative 20 Negative 3 David W. Frable I cannot support this public comment that requires a risk analysis be performed to determine the need for a mass notification system in all new business occupancies strictly based on when a fire alarm system is required to be installed. This comment goes well beyond the intent for determining which buildings and/or structures are deemed at a higher than normal risk of being subjected to acts characterized as terrorist threats that warrant a mass notification system. No technical justification or cited events have been provided to justify this threshold trigger for requiring a risk analysis. In addition, this public comment seems contrary to the direction the Technical Committee took on Second Revision No. SR 6502 which also requires a risk analysis to be completed in a business occupancy. Lastly, the public comment is contrary to the direction the Technical Committee on Fundamentals proposed in Chapter 11 regarding what threshold triggers a risk analysis for a mass notification system in a high rise building. The threshold used for a high rise building was based on NFPA 5000, Section 4.2.1 and its annex material when it discusses associated events that have a comparable impact on a building and its occupancy and when a risk assessment may be appropriate for buildings at risk. To strictly base requiring a risk assessment based on when a fire alarm system is required is not reasonable, appropriate, or cost effective to determine a building at risk. Page 1 of 20
Kevin L. Derr The justification for the need of a risk assessment is based on emergency events other than fire. The primary events referenced were threats to homeland security, i.e. terrorism. The ability to provide occupants real time emergency communication during these types of events has been cited as a key benefit. However, the requirements, as written, do not provide definitive requirements and will be difficult to enforce. For example, what is the role of the AHJ? Are they required to review and approve a risk assessment? The requirement for mass notification systems should be definitive and/or more owner driven. An annex section would be more appropriate for this revision. Sarah A. Rice We are putting in a requirement for a risk analysis to be done that is more restrictive that what is required for a high rise building. SR 6502, Detail, See SR 6502 Affirmative 18 Negative 4 Kenneth E. Bush This provision could be interpreted to require a risk analysis to determine the need for a mass notification system without establishing the need for a building fire alarm system. There are no specifications on the nature, sizes, or intended uses of classrooms which would trigger this requirement. In addition, the ownership of a building is many times difficult to determine, particularly where there are multiple or temporary tenant spaces available. Page 2 of 20
David W. Frable Sarah A. Rice Kevin L. Derr Agree with negative comment submitted by Mr. Bush. In addition, the Technical Committee statement does not address the proposed comment appropriately. The points made in the negative ballots are valid. The justification for the need of a risk assessment is based on emergency events other than fire. The primary events referenced were threats to homeland security, i.e. terrorism. The ability to provide occupants real time emergency communication during these types of events has been cited as a key benefit. However, the requirements, as written, do not provide definitive requirements and will be difficult to enforce. For example, what is the role of the AHJ? Are they required to review and approve a risk assessment? The requirement for mass notification systems should be definitive and/or more owner driven. An annex section would be more appropriate for this revision. Abstain 1 Mark J. Aaby In accordance with the policy of the Standards Council, I have abstained from voting on the item. SR 5502, New Section after 36.2.1.5, See SR 5502 Affirmative 16 Negative 7 Page 3 of 20
Kenneth E. Bush Although the presence of grab bars at showers and tubs may be a reasonable requirement for overall occupant safety, and while it is understood that the Scope of the Life Safety Code has been expanded to address additional occupant safety measures, these requirements should not be a part of this document. It is beyond the scope of the responsibility of fire officials to inspect and approve the installation of this type of protection. In addition, the consideration of these spaces as part of the required means of egress introduces a number of issues; to include adequacy of headroom, the levelness and slip resistance of walking surfaces, the operation of tub and shower opening protectives to include swinging and sliding doors and curtains, latches and locking devices installed for security measures, and levels of illumination, that are not regulated by current Code provisions. These issues are of particular importance where curbs or sides are installed to control the spread of water during normal operations, and where the installation of grab bars or poles could be considered as an obstruction to egress travel or reduction to required egress capacity. The limited application to this occupancy precludes the introduction of these restrictions to the Code. David W. Frable While I acknowledge there may be a need for such protective devices, I am not convinced that these devices should be regulated by the fire code official who may be responsible for enforcing this Code. I am also concerned with the introduction of this material into the Chapter regarding Means of Egress and with associating these devices to a means of protection along the egress path since there are other requirements associated with this portion of the egress path, such as floor levels (including stepping over the edges of tubs and shower curbs), which is not addressed. Jonathan Humble James B. Smith Please see attached pdf file titled "NFPA MER Second Revision 5502 5503 AISI Negative" Even though I understand the safety which is gained by the installation of these types of grab bars, I do not feel the provisions are best located in the mercantile egress section of a code which should be about fire safety. Page 4 of 20
Douglas R. Freels Kevin L. Derr The installation of grab bars for bath tubs and showers should not be a mandatory requirement of the LSC. The submitter has provided a substantial amount of information with regards to the accident rates of bathroom use. However, the installation of grab bars is not an issue that should be addressed in the Life Safety Code. Requirements for grab bars for bathrooms would more appropriate be located in Chapter 12 of NFPA 5000 and the referenced ADAAG and ANSI A117.1. Sarah A. Rice I agree with the comments made in the negative ballots, the requirement for the inclusion of grab bars are issues that belong in a plumbing code, not in a life safety code. SR 5503, New Section after 38.2.1.4, See SR 5503 Affirmative 17 Negative 6 Page 5 of 20
Kenneth E. Bush Although the presence of grab bars at showers and tubs may be a reasonable requirement for overall occupant safety, and while it is understood that the Scope of the Life Safety Code has been expanded to address additional occupant safety measures, these requirements should not be a part of this document. It is beyond the scope of the responsibility of fire officials to inspect and approve the installation of this type of protection. In addition, the consideration of these spaces as part of the required means of egress introduces a number of issues; to include adequacy of headroom, the levelness and slip resistance of walking surfaces, the operation of tub and shower opening protectives to include swinging and sliding doors and curtains, latches and locking devices installed for security measures, and levels of illumination, that are not regulated by current Code provisions. These issues are of particular importance where curbs or sides are installed to control the spread of water during normal operations, and where the installation of grab bars or poles could be considered as an obstruction to egress travel or reduction to required egress capacity. The limited application to this occupancy precludes the introduction of these restrictions to the Code. David W. Frable Jonathan Humble While I acknowledge there may be a need for such protective devices, I am not convinced that these devices should be regulated by the fire code official who may be responsible for enforcing this Code. I am also concerned with the introduction of this material into the Chapter regarding Means of Egress and with associating these devices to a means of protection along the egress path since there are other requirements associated with this portion of the egress path, such as floor levels (including stepping over the edges of tubs and shower curbs), which is not addressed. Please see attached pdf file titled "NFPA MER Second Revision 5502 5503 AISI Negative" Page 6 of 20
Kevin L. Derr James B. Smith Sarah A. Rice The submitter has provided a substantial amount of information with regards to the accident rates of bathroom use. However, the installation of grab bars is not an issue that should be addressed in the Life Safety Code. Requirements for grab bars for bathrooms would more appropriate be located in Chapter 12 of NFPA 5000 and the referenced ADAAG and ANSI A117.1. Even though I understand the safety which is gained by the installation of these types of grab bars, I do not feel the provisions are best located in the business egress section of a code which should be about fire safety. I agree with the comments made in the negative ballots, the requirement for the inclusion of grab bars are issues that belong in a plumbing code, not in a life safety code. SR 5511, Section No. 36.4.4.2, See SR 5511 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 Kenneth E. Bush Further explanation may be necessary to clarify the intent that the measurement of solid wall areas defining mall concourse perimeters could also include storefront openings to tenant spaces within the mall that are defined by gates or other devices that are not of solid construction. SR 5512, Section No. 36.4.4.3, See SR 5512 Page 7 of 20
SR 5513, Section No. 36.4.4.4, See SR 5513 SR 5514, Section No. 36.4.4.6.1, See SR 5514 SR 5519, Section No. 36.4.4.6.8, See SR 5519 Page 8 of 20
SR 5515, Section No. 36.4.4.7.3.3, See SR 5515 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 Daniel J. Gauvin The term "Approved" should also be added to 37.3.4.3.2(2) for correlation and consistency. SR 5509, New Section after 36.4.4.7.4, See SR 5509 Affirmative 20 Negative 3 David W. Frable I agree with the negative comments submitted by Mr. Derr and Ms. Rice. Page 9 of 20
Kevin L. Derr Sarah A. Rice The justification for the need of a risk assessment is based on emergency events other than fire. The primary events referenced were threats to homeland security, i.e. terrorism. The ability to provide occupants real time emergency communication during these types of events has been cited as a key benefit. However, the requirements, as written, do not provide definitive requirements and will be difficult to enforce. For example, what is the role of the AHJ? Are they required to review and approve a risk assessment? The requirement for mass notification systems should be definitive and/or more owner driven. An annex section would be more appropriate for this revision. Consistent with my ballot to NFPA 5000, after consideration on this topic I do not believe that an acrossthe board requirement for a risk analysis is warranted for all mall structures. As there is no minimum size associated with a mall structure, this would be requirement for mall structures of any size big or small. I do not believe a risk analysis is warranted for small mall structures. SR 5516, Section No. 36.4.4.11, See SR 5516 SR 5517, Section No. 36.4.4.12, See SR 5517 Page 10 of 20
Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 Daniel J. Gauvin Compliance with 8.6.7(6) should also be required. For correlation, this would also apply to NFPA 5000 Section 27.4.4.9. SR 5518, Section No. 36.4.4.13, See SR 5518 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 James B. Smith Although I am agreeing with the pointers to Section 9.7, I feel there will be less confusion if the provision said "... where required by Section 9.7" instead of "... in accordance with Section 9.7". SR 5520, Section No. 37.4.4.2, See SR 5520 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 Page 11 of 20
Kenneth E. Bush Further explanation may be necessary to clarify the intent that the measurement of solid wall areas defining mall concourse perimeters could also include storefront openings to tenant spaces within the mall that are defined by gates or other devices that are not of solid construction. SR 5521, Section No. 37.4.4.3, See SR 5521 SR 5522, Section No. 37.4.4.4, See SR 5522 SR 5523, Section No. 37.4.4.6.1, See SR 5523 Page 12 of 20
SR 5524, Section No. 37.4.4.6.8, See SR 5524 SR 5525, Section No. 37.4.4.7.3.3, See SR 5525 SR 5526, Section No. 37.4.4.11, See SR 5526 Page 13 of 20
Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 James B. Smith Although I am agreeing with the pointer to Section 9.7, I feel there will be less confusion if the provision said "... where required by Section 9.7" instead of "... in accordance with Section 9.7". SR 5507, New Section after 38.2.2.2.1, See SR 5507 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 1 Tracey D. Bellamy While I agree with the concept of allowing for use of a locking mechanism for protection of building occupants against an unwanted intruder, I see the provisions of the proposed section as possibly being misapplied to require that all doors be provided with a external key or other means to release the door. Many exterior doors on buildings are intentionally designed to have no external key to enhance the intrusion security of the building. Additionally internal doors are sometimes installed in the same manner to provide the occupant with a level of assurance that the space they are occupying is secure against unwanted entry by other who have a key. Such spaces might include a private restroom or other space where the occupant desires the additional level of security during use. I believe there is a benefit to allowing occupants to enhance their protection during situations that involve imminent danger but have concerns that this section will be misapplied to require entry provisions to all doors. Negative 3 Page 14 of 20
Kenneth E. Bush David W. Frable Kevin L. Derr This provision seems to be unnecessary for new construction. Adequate locking means are available and have been demonstrated to be capable of providing adequate security measures for new installations. The installation of additional locking hardware introduces an additional level of hazard to the use of required means of egress. I agree with negative comments submitted by Messrs. Bush and Derr. The requirements included in this revision are redundant to requirements currently contained in Chapter 7, specifically sections 7.2.1.5.3, 7.2.1.5.10.1, 7.2.5.10.2 and 8.3.3.1. Additionally, the need to be able to unlock the door from outside the room should not be mandated as part of the Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code currently would permit this approach in a business occupancy and the business chapters should not restrict design options to security designers. SR 5510, New Section after 38.3.4.4, See SR 5510 Affirmative 19 Negative 3 Kenneth E. Bush David W. Frable Kevin L. Derr Abstain 1 Mark J. Aaby This Annex Note would not be needed if this paragraph is not accepted as a part of the Code requirements. See response to SR 6502. See response to SR 6502 In accordance with the policy of the Standards Council, I have abstained from voting on the item. Page 15 of 20
SR 5504, Section No. 38.7.8, See SR 5504 Affirmative 22 Affirmative with Comment 1 Daniel J. Gauvin The requirement for Integrated System ("end to end") Testing should not be limited to High Rise buildings. Regardless of the building size, where integrated systems are required to provide life safety functions, periodic testing is required to verify these systems operate as intended. Not verifying the functionality and interoperability of integrated life safety systems is a catastrophe waiting to happen. SR 5508, New Section after 39.2.2.2.1, See SR 5508 Affirmative 18 Affirmative with Comment 2 Page 16 of 20
Tracey D. Bellamy Kenneth E. Bush Negative 3 David W. Frable Kevin L. Derr Sarah A. Rice While I agree with the concept of allowing for use of a locking mechanism for protection of building occupants against an unwanted intruder, I see the provisions of the proposed section as possibly being misapplied to require that all doors be provided with a external key or other means to release the door. Many exterior doors on buildings are intentionally designed to have no external key to enhance the intrusion security of the building. Additionally internal doors are sometimes installed in the same manner to provide the occupant with a level of assurance that the space they are occupying is secure against unwanted entry by other who have a key. Such spaces might include a private restroom or other space where the occupant desires the additional level of security during use. I believe there is a benefit to allowing occupants to enhance their protection during situations that involve imminent danger but have concerns that this section will be misapplied to require entry provisions to all doors. These provisions represent reasonable restrictions to secure adequate security measures for existing doors where conditions prevent modifications to existing doors and hardware. I have issues with item #4 in the list regarding existing doors hardware does exist, and could be used, that allows two locking mechanisms/devices with one releasing action. The requirements included in this revision are redundant to requirements currently contained in Chapter 7, specifically sections 7.2.1.5.3, 7.2.1.5.10.1, 7.2.5.10.2 and 8.3.3.1. Additionally, the need to be able to unlock the door from outside the room should not be mandated as part of the Life Safety Code. The Life Safety Code currently would permit this approach in a business occupancy and the business chapters should not restrict design options to security designers. As demonstrated by the negative ballots, the language proposed to regulate these devices is not fully developed and leaves too many items to interpretation. Page 17 of 20
SR 5506, New Section after 39.3.2.4, See SR 5506 SR 5505, New Section after 39.4.2.3, See SR 5505 Affirmative 21 Affirmative with Comment 1 Daniel J. Gauvin The requirement for Integrated System ("end to end") Testing should not be limited to High Rise buildings. Regardless of the building size, where integrated systems are required to provide life safety functions, periodic testing is required to verify these systems operate as intended. Not verifying the functionality and interoperability of integrated life safety systems is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Negative 1 Page 18 of 20
Kevin L. Derr The adoption of the proposed change will require unnecessary paperwork or approvals from the AHJ for the elimination of the requirement for an integrated test plan that is not needed for typical business occupancies. Acceptance testing, including documentation for complicated systems, is currently covered in other documents, including and not limited to, NFPA 10, NFPA 25, NFPA 72, NFPA 92, NFPA 101, NFPA 110 and the elevator code. The adoption of NFPA 4, if determined appropriate, would more appropriately be located in Chapter 9, Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment or Chapter 11, Special Structures and High Rise Buildings and not in the individual occupancy chapters. SR 5527, Section No. 39.7.8, See SR 5527 Affirmative 22 Negative 1 Daniel J. Gauvin The requirement for Integrated System ("end to end") Testing should not be limited to High Rise buildings. Regardless of the building size, where integrated systems are required to provide life safety functions, periodic testing is required to verify these systems operate as intended. Not verifying the functionality and interoperability of integrated life safety systems is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Page 19 of 20
NFPA 101 MER (Mercantile and Business Occ.) Committee Input Nos. 175 and 176 Second Revision Nos. 5502 and 5503 (Grab bars for showers and bath tubs) American Iron and Steel Institute 9/29/2016 Negative Ballot We are submitting a negative ballot for the following reasons: The purpose of NFPA 101 is limited The scope of the proposals is outside of the purpose The purpose of NFPA 101 is limited: Section 1.2 states: 1.2* Purpose. The purpose of this Code is to provide minimum requirements, with due regard to function, for the design, operation, and maintenance of buildings and structures for safety to life from fire. Its provisions will also aid life safety in similar emergencies. The Annex material for Section 1.2 further states: A.1.2 The Code endeavors to avoid requirements that might involve unreasonable hardships or unnecessary inconvenience or interference with the normal use and occupancy of a building but provides for fire safety consistent with the public interest. Protection of occupants is achieved by the combination of prevention, protection, egress, and other features, with due regard to the capabilities and reliability of the features involved. The level of life safety from fire is defined through requirements directed at the following: (1) Prevention of ignition (2) Detection of fire (3) Control of fire development (4) Confinement of the effects of fire (5) Extinguishment of fire (6) Provision of refuge or evacuation facilities, or both (7) Staff reaction (8) Provision of fire safety information to occupants The scope of the proposal is outside of the purpose: It is our view that the proposal to incorporate requirements for grab-bars in shower and bath tub areas is a safety issue, however we do not believe that this is part of life safety from fire principal of NFPA 101. (END) NFPA Second Revision 5502 and 5503 9/29/2016 Page 1 Page 20 of 20