Report of the on Uniform Fire Code Ronald R. Farr, Chair Kalamazoo Township Fire Department, MI [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Scott W. Adams, Park City Fire Service District, UT [E] Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Altamonte Springs Building/Fire Safety Division, FL [E] Rep. NFPA Architects, Engineers, & Building Officials Section Carl F. Baldassarra, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [I] John F. Bender, Maryland State Fire Marshal s Office, MD [E] Lawrence Brown, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] Rep. National Association of Home Builders Thomas T. Bulow, Tucson, AZ [U] Rep. NFPA Health Care Section Jeffrey P. Collins, Palm Beach County Fire/Rescue, FL [E] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section Brian J. Denk, Sara Lee Corporation, IL [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Douglas S. Erickson, American Society for Healthcare Engineering, VI [U] Rep. American Society for Healthcare Engineering Keith L. Farmer, The DuPont Company, DE [U] Robert Fash, Las Vegas Fire & Rescue, NV [E] Reinhard Hanselka, Integrated Engineering Services Inc., FL [SE] Alfred J. Hogan, Reedy Creek Improvement District, FL [U] Howard Hopper, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CA [RT] Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., VA [SE] Robert J. James, City of Bloomington, MN [E] Richard S. Kraus, PSC Petroleum Safety Consultants, VA [U] Rep. American Petroleum Institute Michael J. Laderoute, MJL Associates, Inc., VA [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association James K. Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc., CT [SE] Bart T. Massey, Charlotte Fire Department, NC [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs Wayne D. Moore, Hughes Associates, Inc., RI [M] Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Joseph L. Navarra, Pepco Holdings Inc., DC [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Kenneth R. Quick, Jr., City of Culver City Fire Department, CA [E] Rep. South Bay Section Fire Prevention Officer Association Robert Rowe, City of Downey Fire Department, CA [E] Rep. Western Fire Chiefs Association Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants, TX [M] Rep. The Chlorine Institute, Inc. Randolph W. Tucker, The RJA Group, Inc., TX [SE] Wayne Waggoner, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc., TN [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Peter J. Willse, GE Global Asset Protection Services, CT [I] Rep. GE Global Asset Protection Services Alternates Timothy A. Bancroft, Integrated Engineering Services Inc., CA [SE] (Alt. to Reinhard Hanselka) Kenneth E. Bush, Maryland State Fire Marshals Office, MD [E] (Alt. to John F. Bender) John A. Davenport, West Point, VA [I] (Alt. to Peter J. Willse) Kenneth A. Ford, National Association of Home Builders, DC [U] (Alt. to Lawrence Brown) Raymond A. Grill, The RJA Group, Inc., VA [SE] (Alt. to Randolph W. Tucker) Bill Hopple, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell, CA [M] (Voting Alt. to NEMA Rep.) Kevin J. Kelly, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [M] (Alt. to Wayne Waggoner) Roy C. (Chuck) Kimball, Brooks Equipment Company, Inc., NC [M] (Alt. to Michael J. Laderoute) William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to James K. Lathrop) John Lake, Marion County Fire Rescue, FL [E] (Alt. to Jeffrey P. Collins) Jennifer Nelson, AT&T - EH&S, NY [U] (Alt. to Brian J. Denk) James S. Peterkin, HLM Design/Heery International, PA [U] (Alt. to Thomas T. Bulow) Alfredo M. Ramirez, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Howard Hopper) Anthony Sanfilippo, Michigan Dept. of Consumer & Industry Services, MI [E] (Alt. to Ronald R. Farr) Chester W. Schirmer, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, NC [I] (Alt. to Carl F. Baldassarra) Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc., CA [M] (Voting Alt. to W.R. Grace Rep.) Gary F. Trojak, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., VA [M] (Alt. to Jeffrey M. Shapiro) Nonvoting Robert Bourke, Lynn Fire Department, MA [E] Rep. Northeast Regional Fire Code Development James E. Everitt, Tualatin Valley Fire/Rescue, OR [E] Rep. Western Regional Fire Code Development Jon Nisja, Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division, MN [E] Rep. North Central Regional Fire Code Development Eddie Phillips, City of East Ridge Fire and Police, TN [E] Rep. Southeast Regional Fire Code Development Walter Smittle, Ripley, WV [SE] (Member Emeritus) Staff Liaison: Martha H. Curtis Scope: This shall have primary responsibility for documents on a Fire Prevention Code that includes appropriate administrative provisions, to be used with the National Fire Codes for the installation, operation, and maintenance of buildings, structures, and premises for the purpose of providing safety to life and property from fire and explosion. This includes development of requirements for, and maintenance of, systems and equipment for fire control and extinguishment. Safety to life of occupants of buildings and structures is under the primary jurisdiction of the on Safety to Life. This list represents the membership at the time the was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book. The on Uniform Fire Code is presenting two Reports for adoption, as follows: Report I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical on Uniform Fire Code, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, 2003 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2005 June Meeting. NFPA 1 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical on Uniform Fire Code, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. Report II of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical on Uniform Fire Code, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 230, Standard on Fire Protection of Storage, 2003 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2005 June Meeting. NFPA 230 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical on Uniform Fire Code, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. 1-1
1.7.13.4 Fire Watch. 1-1 Log #34 Final Action: Reject (a) Fire watch personnel shall be familiar with the facility. (1.3.8.1) (b) Fire watch personnel shall have a method of notifying occupants and the SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-5 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Who signs a certificate of occupancy for new construction is a local administrative issue that is best left to jurisdictional managers. Many jurisdictions don t have adequate inspection resources for the fire code to reasonably sign off on all new certificates of occupancy, and the proposed requirement would lead to unnecessary delays or unnecessary liability if a C/O is signed by a fire official without proper verification of fire code compliance. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The agency responsible for enforcement of the fire code should be involved with the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy. This is a customer service issue. The building owner should not get a Certificate of Occupancy from the building official, then have the fire code official raise issues that were not addressed or corrected prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SHAPIRO: See my ballot comment on Comment 1-17 (Log #42). fire department in the event of an emergency and shall be instructed on occupant and fire department notification procedures. (c) A walk-through of the facility shall be conducted every thirty minutes. (d) A log shall be maintained of each tour of the facility under fire watch. (e) The fire watch shall watch for fires. Any fire, smoke, or other sign of fire shall result in notification of the occupants and the fire department. (f) Fire watch personnel shall be permitted to perform duties related to crowd control and other emergency duties. 1.7.13.4.1 When approved by the AHJ and subsequent to notification of the facility occupants and the fire department, fire watch personnel may, if properly trained and equipped, extinguish small fires. Extinguishment shall only be attempted when the fires are obviously within the capabilities of the personnel and the equipment available. If the fire watch determines that the fire is not within the capacity of the equipment or within the scope of training, he or she shall evacuate the facility immediately. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change clarifies some of the concerns of the committee on the originally submitted wording. The proposal provides code text on the duties of a fire watch and the actions that must be taken. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The wording is too specific and does not provide flexibility in the duties assigned. The term fire watch is used broadly throughout the code and does not address all the circumstances these individuals could be involved in. A few of the other concerns are that 30 minutes may be too long between tours, the fire watch may not have sufficient 1-2 Log #2 Final Action: Reject time in 30 minutes to cover the area on a tour due to the size of the building, (1.7.x) and hot work operations require that the fire watch not leave the site. SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-7 1-5 Log #36 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text to 1.7.x: (1.12.3) The authority having jurisdiction is authorized to seize, take, remove or cause to be removed, at the expense of the owner, explosive materials offered or exposed for sale, stored, possessed, used or transported in violation of this code. SUBSTANTIATION: This text was proposed to NFPA 495. The Technical stated The proposed language would extend police powers to the authority having jurisdiction. It is not within the scope of this to extend such powers to the AHJ. We believe that the text is better placed in NFPA 1 UFC. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The is concerned that not all agencies responsible for enforcing this code want to be or are in a position to properly handle or have the facilities to store the types of products that could be seized under this provision. The is also concerned that as written, this requirement could be misinterpreted to extend the power of the AHJ to include other items. Explosive materials is a broad term. SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-14 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal is unreasonably broad in scope. Many regulatory agencies govern aspects of building construction and operations that are beyond the scope of the fire code, and requiring an owner to provide proof to the fire code official demonstrating approvals by all other regulatory agencies would be inappropriate. Theoretically, this section would allow the fire official to be the final approval agency on any structure of operation, and although it is recognized that there may be cases where additional authority is necessary, text of this section needs to be more focused. in Principle in Part Revise the text proposed in proposal 1-14 to read as follows: 1.12.3 Approvals by Other Authorities Having Jurisdiction. 1.12.3.1 The AHJ shall have the authority to require that the laws, rules, and regulations of other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction shall be met before a permit is issued or an approval is granted. 1-3 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle 1.12.3. 2 1 The AHJ shall have the authority to require evidence in writing (1.7.2) to show that other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the design, SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-6 RECOMMENDATION: None provided SUBSTANTIATION: The Action recorded in the draft ROP ballot is not accurate. This proposal was actually assigned Accept in Principle. The action approved by the was to keep the proposed text and add an annex reference referring to the new annex that will be added based on Proposal 1-205. in Principle Add a new annex note to 1.7.2 to read: A.1.7.2 For additional information on qualifications of code enforcement construction, alteration, repair, equipment, maintenance, process and relocation of structures have issued appropriate approvals. 1.12.3. 3 2 The AHJ shall not be held responsible for enforcement of the regulations of such other regulatory agencies unless specifically mandated to enforce that agencies regulations. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revision better clarifies the original intent of the proposed wording. The deletion of the words in writing permits the AHJ to accept other means of evidence, such as a phone call, to comply with this section. personnel, see Annex X, AHJ Minimum Qualifications and Job Descriptions 1-6 Log #37 Final Action: Accept for Code Enforcement Personnel. (1.12.16(6)) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The added a cross reference in Annex A to help the user find the information on qualifications for code enforcement personnel. Ed. note: This is the annex added by action on Proposal 1-205 (Log #114). SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-19 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text of Item 6 to read Inspection requirements and other permit conditions. SUBSTANTIATION: Properly reflects the s ROP action, which 1-4 Log #9 Final Action: Reject clarifies the intent. (1.7.13.4) SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-8 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section to read and renumber the remaining: 1-2
definition to clarify the application of the MAQ provisions in this Code. The 1-7 Log #38 Final Action: Accept source text is to remain in the Code. (Chapter 3) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-26 1-10 Log #39 Final Action: Reject RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 1. The definition of BULK OXYGEN SYSTEM should include (Standard Cubic Feet) after 20,000 ft 3 which is needed to specify the basis of determining gas volume and to correlate with the NFPA 55 definition proposed for 2005. 2. The definition of CEILING LIMIT should be moved to 3.3.123.1, replacing the text that presently appears in that section. 3.3.25 should be deleted. 3. The preferred definition of CLEANROOM which is derived from NFPA 5000 should be selected 4. The committee elected to use the optional text associated with the preferred definition of COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID, which includes the definitions for Class II and Class III liquids. 5. The definition for COMPRESSED GAS should be NFPA 5000 extract material. 6. The definition for COMPRESSED GAS CONTAINER should be NFPA 55 extract material. 7. The Annex material from NFPA 30:A3.3.7 should not be extracted into NFPA 1 since the source material is in error (it conflicts with the parent section of NFPA 30:3.3.7). NFPA 30 staff has been notified of this inconsistency. 8. The committee modified the definition of CONTROL AREA by deleting limited quantities of and replacing this text with in quantities not exceeding the MAQ. (3.3.94, A.3.3.94, Flame Spread Rating, Flame Spread Index, Smoke Dev. Index) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-36 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the definition of SMOKE DEVELOPED INDEX and add NFPA 101 annex material for the definition of FLAME SPREAD INDEX. SUBSTANTIATION: The did not accept the proponent s definition of SMOKE DEVELOPED INDEX because the term is not use in NFPA 1 UFC. In addition, the directed that the annex section associated with NFPA 101:3.3?? for FLAME SPREAD INDEX be extracted into NFPA 1 UFC along with the definition, but this was not included in the ROP ballot text. Presumably, this definition and the associated annex section are submittals to the 2006 edition of NFPA 101 because they were not found in NFPA 1 UFC-2003. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Action as shown in the ROP is the action that the intends. The extract policy requires that if extracted text has Annex A material, that annex material also be extracted. 9. The definition of CRYOGENIC FLUID should be tagged to NFPA 1-11 Log #40 Final Action: Accept in Principle 55:3.3.10. 10. The definition of CYLINDER should be NFPA 55 extract material. 11. The definition of EXPLOSION should be revised to use the preferred source, NFPA 69. 12. The definition of FLAMMABLE LIQUID should include the optional liquid Class definitions to correlate with the committee s direction for COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID. 13. The definition of FLASHPOINT should be NFPA 30-2000 extract. SUBSTANTIATION: The Action recorded in the draft ROP ballot is not accurate according to my notes. The recommendations above are intended as corrections to properly reflect the Action. (3.3.111.1 Hazardous Production Material) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-38 RECOMMENDATION: Maintain the definition of HEALTH HAZARD MATERIAL. SUBSTANTIATION: The Action is in error. The approved adding a new definition for HAZARDOUS PRODUCTION MATERIAL as opposed to replacing the existing definition for HEALTH HAZARD MATERIAL. The existing definition of HEALTH HAZARD MATERIAL must be maintained. in Principle Retain the definition of health hazard material as found in the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 UFC and add the definition of hazardous production material as 1-8 Log #78 Final Action: Accept in Principle accepted in proposal 1-38 (Log #31). (Chapter 3) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The also wishes to retain the SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-27 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the proposed definition for definition of hazard production material. Noncombustible. 1-12 Log #51 Final Action: Accept in Principle SUBSTANTIATION: Section 3.3.130.6 already contains a definition for Noncombustible Material which is extracted from NFPA 102. NOTE: The may want to consider extracting that definition from NFPA 5000 Section 3.3.340.11 rather than NFPA 102. in Principle Delete the definition of noncombustible and extract the definition of noncombustible material from NFPA 5000. That definition reads: Noncombustible Material. A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors, when subjected to fire or heat. Materials that are reported as passing ASTM E136 are considered noncombustible materials. [ 5000 :2003] COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The is agreeable to deleting the definition of noncombustible and to extracting the definition of noncombustible material from NFPA 5000. (3.3.138.25.1 Mini-Storage Facility) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 3.3.138.25.1 Mini-Storage Facility. A storage occupancy, which are not owner occupied, partitioned into areas which are rented or leased by individuals or companies for the purpose of storing personal or business items. SUBSTANTIATION: The has agreed that mini-storage storage facilities present distinct problem for fire code enforcement. Mini-Storage facilities can be constructed in a number of different configurations, using a both fire rated and non-rated partitions to separate tenant s belongings from others, mainly for security. These facilities can also have interior corridors situated within windowless structures. A new trend is to have portable containers loaded by homeowners, then brought back to a facility, without ever knowing the contents of those containers. The issue isn t fire-rated versus non-rated partitions; it is the AHJ s and even 1-9 Log #CC6 Final Action: Accept the facility owner s ability to verify that the items being stored do not violate (3.3.x Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ)) SUBMITTER: Technical on Uniform Fire Code COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-171 RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition of Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ) to read: 3.3.x Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ)*. The quantity of hazardous material permitted in a control area. A.3.3.x Maximum Allowable Quantity (MAQ). Quantities are permitted to exceed the MAQ when they are located in an area complying with protection levels 1-5 in accordance with the Building Code. SUBSTANTIATION: The relocated the text to become a fire and building code requirements. Even though most facilities outline to renters that hazardous materials cannot be stored, it is not uncommon to find gasoline storage containers and LPG barbecue cylinders. in Principle 1. Revise the definition of Mini-Storage Facility proposed in Proposal 1-40 (Log #32) to read as follows: 3.3.138.25.1* Mini-Storage Building. A storage occupancy partitioned into areas that are rented or leased for the purposes of storing personal or business items where all of the following apply: (1) the storage areas are separated from each other by less than a 1-hr fire resistance rated barrier, (2) the owner of the facility does not have unrestricted access, 1-3
(3) the items being stored are concealed from view from outside the unit. 2. Retain the annex material accepted by action on Proposal 1-40 (Log #32) which reads: 1-14 Log #41 (4.1.4.2.2) Final Action: Reject A.3.3.138.25.1 Garage units that are primarily intended for vehicular storage as part of a multi-family development are not intended to be classified as ministorage buildings. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised definition addresses the issues of the problems of mini-storage buildings. It attempts to merge the concerns of the Uniform Fire Code and the TC on Industrial and Storage Occupancies of the NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 projects. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: THORNBERRY: I have voted negatively on the definition as revised by the Technical because it still does not address the concerns I expressed in my Public Comment submitted on behalf of my client, the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), which has been designated as Comment 1-13. I still have concerns regarding the following components of the 3 items incorporated into the definition for Mini-Storage Building : (1) What is a 1-hour fire resistance rated barrier:? Is it intended to be a fire partition, a fire barrier, or a fire wall, or can it also be a horizontal assembly such as a floor or floor-ceiling assembly? If this term is to included in the definition, it needs to be very specific and should refer to the appropriate type of fire resistive construction intended based on terminology used in NFPA 5000. (2) How is unrestricted access determined? If someone puts new locks on the doors to their warehouse space that is leased within a large warehouse building which is shared by other tenants, is that then considered as not having unrestricted access? If that is the case, then this definition is still too broad and would apply, as I have previously expressed concerns about, to speculative warehouse buildings that are leased to multiple tenants. (3) I don t think the term concealed from view from outside the unit adds anything to clarifying the definition for Mini-Storage Building. Aren t spec warehouses like this when they have multiple tenants? Furthermore, what is a SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-46 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Adding the word sited to this section is too simplistic to address a complex issue. As proposed, the code would require that buildings be sited to provide adequate separation from life safety systems, outdoor storage and structural elements. How one would use building location to minimize impact of a fire or explosion on life safety systems or structural elements is unknown. With respect to outdoor storage, quantities and location of outdoor storage are typically unknown at the time of design and frequently change as the property is used. While outdoor storage can be regulated with respect to building locations, buildings cannot be reasonably designed to be separated from hypothetical outdoor storage configurations. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes that siting is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The stands on its original substantiation for the change as published in Proposal 1-46 (Log #CP17). BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SHAPIRO: The committee s statement is not responsive to the issues raised in the substantiation for the comment. The comment does not disagree with the concept that siting of buildings and facilities should be regulated by the fire code. This is already done throughout the code. The comment objects to the simplistic approach taken by Proposal 1-46 to deal with this issue. The change proposed by Proposal 1-46 introduces a number of problems into the code as identified in the substantiation for Comment 1-14, and this item should be held for further study to resolve identified issues. unit? Obviously, the definition for Mini-Storage Building is still too broad and will capture many types of warehousing occupancies not intended by the proposed definition and will subsequently trigger the requirement for sprinklers at 2,500 sq. ft. This is also a problem as expressed in the Annex Note A.3.3.138.25.1 which already implies that there is potential confusion with the application of the definition. I would also ask how one would address storage lockers provided in the basement of an apartment complex where the lockers are enclosed with solid partitions and padlocked doors? Wouldn t they meet the definition for a Mini-Storage Building? To me it is obvious that the definition for Mini-Storage Building needs a lot more consideration and work before we trigger sprinkler requirements for these types of buildings. Therefore, I must vote negative on this Comment. 1-13 Log #75 Final Action: Reject (3.3.138.25.1 Mini-Storage Facility) SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc. / Rep. American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-40 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the proposed new definition for Mini- Storage Facility. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal creates a definition for a mini-storage facility that goes way beyond what we believe was intended by the proponent. As it is written, it would apply to any general warehouse type facility that is being subleased to various tenants. This would, in effect, circumvent the jurisdiction of NFPA 5000 for establishing automatic sprinkler system thresholds for storage occupancies based on the s Accept in Principle of related Proposal 1-97 (Log #44) which requires automatic sprinkler protection for mini-storage facilities that exceed 2,500 sq. ft. in area. It should be noted that the sprinkler threshold area for general storage occupancies is 12,000 sq. ft. in Section 13.3.2.23.2 and in NFPA 5000, Section 30.3.5.1. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes the revision made to the definition by Action on Comment 1-12 (Log #51) addresses the submitter s concerns. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: THORNBERRY: See my Explanation of Negative for Comment 1-12 (Log #51). 1-15 Log #79 Final Action: Reject (4.5.2) SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-45 RECOMMENDATION: Revise current Section 4.5.2 as follows: 4.5.2 Historic Structures Buildings. The provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be modified by the AHJ for buildings or structures identified and classified as historic buildings or structures where it is evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided in accordance with Section 20.17. SUBSTANTIATION: This corrects a publication error. According to my notes from the Technical ROP meeting, the action we took is correctly reflected in this Comment. Evidently, some of the legislative text shown in the Proposal was based on the Performance-Based Design Task Group s report to the and not on the final action taken by the. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Action on Proposal 1-45 (Log #93) contains the changes the submitter is requesting. The original Action also included adding and Cultural Resources Buildings to the title of 4.5.2 for consistency with NFPA 909. 1-16 Log #29 Final Action: Reject (10.3.1.1) SUBMITTER: Lawrence Brown, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-60 RECOMMENDATION: Do not accept the text of Proposal 1-60 (Log #102). SUBSTANTIATION: This text may cause a problem towards the adoption of NFPA 1 in many jurisdictions. The addition of the proposed text will now pose a requirement on the contractor, owner and others of a new or renovated building that go beyond the intent of issuing a COO in compliance with NFPA 5000 and all other adopted model building codes. In affect, this interjects a territorial battle between code officials that will be of no benefit to the adopting community on the whole. With the issuance of a COO, the AHJ who enforces the building code through plan review and multiple inspections, has accepted and certified that the construction complies with all applicable building and life code regulations. Now pushing another code official s oversight on to the owner of a building, possibly having another code official proclaim that the building code official may be wrong, sends the wrong message to the public. If the jurisdiction has established a building department to oversee plan review, 1-4
construction inspection, and the issuance of a COO, the other code official of that jurisdiction should accept the building code official s findings. What more enforcement could the fire official possibly bring to the acceptance of the COO then has already been determined by the Building Code Official? The fire code should not be trying to regulate the construction of a building. The building code provides the provisions needed to construct a building - provisions that include those of firesafety. It is the fire code that provides the provisions needed to maintain the effectiveness of those fire-safety provisions. The building code and fire code officials need to work together prior to the issuance of the COO, not try to claim who is the ultimate authority after the fact. In addition, the proposed provision would seem to be outside the scope of the Technical of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC-AAA). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The agency responsible for enforcement of the fire code should be involved with the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy. This is a customer service issue. The building owner should not get a Certificate of Occupancy from the building official then have the fire code official raise issues that were not addressed or corrected prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SHAPIRO: See my ballot comment on Comment 1-17 (Log #42). 1-17 Log #42 Final Action: Reject (10.3.1.1) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-60 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Who signs a certificate of occupancy for new construction is a local administrative issue that is best left to jurisdictional managers. Many jurisdictions don t have adequate inspection resources for the fire code to reasonably sign off on all new certificates of occupancy, and the proposed requirement would lead to unnecessary delays or unnecessary liability if a C/O is signed by a fire official without proper verification of fire code compliance. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The agency responsible for enforcement of the fire code should be involved with the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy. This is a customer service issue. The building owner should not get a Certificate of Occupancy from the building official then have the fire code official raise issues that were not addressed or corrected prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SHAPIRO: The committee s statement is not responsive to the issues addressed in the substantiation for the comment. There is no disagreement that different departments involved in the development process in a jurisdiction should cooperate on code enforcement issues. However, jurisdictions traditionally rely on a building official to administer the development process and issue certificates of occupancy. If a jurisdiction wants to require additional signatures on the certificate, they are empowered to do so. Having the fire code mandate that the fire official must sign the certificate of occupancy doesn t ensure cooperation. Instead, it is more likely to encourage conflict and delay projects. 1-18 Log #52 Final Action: Reject (10.11.7) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-63 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal and accept. 10.11.7 For other than one- and two-family dwellings, no hibachi, gas-fired grill, or other similar devices used for cooking, heating, or any other purpose, shall be used or kindled on any balcony or under any overhanging portion or within 10 ft (3 m) of any structure. Listed electric ranges, grills, or similar electrical apparatus shall be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change submitted is a good step toward eliminating these fires. Fixed system provide the same fire problems as portable units. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The stands by its original action and statement as published in the ROP. The submitter has provided no new information for the to consider when asking for a change in the requirements. 1-19 Log #43 Final Action: Accept (10.13.4) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-67 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the intent of this proposal is well founded and the modified version is preferred to the original submittal, the text is still not suitable for inclusion in the code. By stating The intentional design...of buildings or premises to disable...intruders shall be prohibited the code has technically eliminated such security devices such as electrified or barbed wire fences. The terms disable, maim and premises are simply too broad to be suitable for inclusion in the code, particularly considering that systems designed to temporarily disable intruders are necessary to accomplish heightened security goals in some high security facilities. As written, criminals would have a code-related basis for suing building owners based on injuries that might be sustained during a criminal act. 1-20 Log #53 Final Action: Accept (10.14.2.2) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-68 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 10.14.2.2 When required by the AHJ, other systems or components pertaining to fire protection shall be maintained. SUBSTANTIATION: The should reconsider this additional requirement for vacant buildings. A number of structures are built with increases to height and area or even with alternatives materials or methods to achieve code compliance. Most life safety requirements are not a factor in vacant buildings, but there may be some structures that an AHJ may need to have certain systems or components maintained. An example would be a windowless building or one that may have limited access for fire department response. Heat vents are essential to prevent early failure of building structural components. Fire rated doors, walls and other passive fire protection features should remain. 1-21 Log #14 Final Action: Accept in Principle (10.15.3, 10.15.3.1 & A.10.15.3) SUBMITTER: Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-69 RECOMMENDATION: The original proposal should have been Rejected. SUBSTANTIATION: UL 411 Outline of Investigation for Artificial Christmas trees was withdrawn in 1999. in Principle Retain the original action on 10.15.3 and 10.15.3.1 as published in Proposal 1-69 (Log #166) in the ROP. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes 10.15.3.1 as revised is correct. See Action on Comment 1-78 (Log #22) which modifies A.10.15.3 to clarify that UL 411 has been withdrawn. 1-22 Log #74 Final Action: Reject (10.17.5) SUBMITTER: David Stringfield, University of Minnesota COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-72 RECOMMENDATION: Change TC action to delete A.13.3.2.4 and figure. SUBSTANTIATION: Errors between A.13.3.2.4 with figure and NFPA 13 are: 1) 15 ft. is the maximum spacing. 2) Sprinkler deflectors are to be parallel with roof. 3) 1/2 in K=5.6 sprinklers are assummed. 4) The 7 6 distance assumes ordinary hazard group II or less. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The material has been extracted from NFPA 13 and so it is not within the purview of the UFC TC to change it. If the material is incorrect, proposals need to be submitted to change NFPA 13 and then the revised material will get extracted into NFPA 1 UFC. 1-5
plastic insulation and wall coverings) are required to meet the room-corner test 1-23 Log #CC3 Final Action: Accept (NFPA 286), and all other interior finish materials are also permitted to use (10.20.3.2.1) NFPA 286 instead of NFPA 255. SUBMITTER: Technical on Uniform Fire Code COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-74 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new requirement as 10.20.3.2.1 to read as follows: 10.20.3.2.1 The clearance between the deflector and the top of storage shall be permitted to be less than 18 (46 cm) when permitted by NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: The noted an inconsistency between the extracted text and NFPA 13. The proposed text permits storage closer to the deflector in those instances where lesser clearance distances are permitted by NFPA 13. 4. There is not yet any heat release test for decorations or decorative vegetation, but NFPA 701 is commonly required for such applications for decorations and drapes, etc. and is included here, with the correct wording for pass/fail criteria. in Principle See Action on Comment 1-25 (Log #13). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes the action taken on Comment 1-25 (Log #13) addresses the submitter s concerns. 1-25 Log #13 Final Action: Accept in Principle (10.20.8) SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International 1-24 Log #12 Final Action: Accept in Principle COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-59 (10.20.8) RECOMMENDATION: Continue accepting this proposal in principle in part, SUBMITTER: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-59 RECOMMENDATION: Continue accepting this proposal in principle in part, but add a section 10.20.8 to the language approved in proposal 1-74: 10.20.8 Atrium Furnishings. Atrium furnishings located within an area that is more than 20 feet (6096 mm) below ceiling-level sprinklers shall comply with one of the following requirements. 10.20.8.1 Upholstered furniture shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E 1537, as follows. 1. The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 200 kw. 2. The total energy released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 5 minutes of the test shall not exceed 40 megajoules (MJ). 10.2.8.2 Mattresses shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E 1590, as follows. 1. The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 200 kw. 2. The total energy released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 5 minutes of the test shall not exceed 40 megajoules (MJ). 10.2.8.3 Foam plastics and other decorative materials not suspended from walls and ceilings. Exposed foam plastic materials, unprotected materials containing foam plastics used for decorative purposes or stage scenery or exhibit booths and other decorative materials not suspended from walls and ceilings shall have a maximum heat release rate of 100 kilowatts (kw) when tested in accordance with UL 1975. 10.2.8.4 Decorative materials suspended from walls and ceilings Curtains, draperies, fabrics, hangings and other decorative materials suspended from walls or ceilings shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701 or be noncombustible. 10.2.8.5 Interior wall finish shall comply with the following requirements, when tested in accordance with NFPA 286. 1. During the 40 kw exposure, the flames shall not spread to the ceiling. 2. During the 160 kw exposure, the flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling and flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur. 3. During the entire test, the total smoke released test shall not exceed 1000 m2. 10.2.8.6 Interior wall finish, other than foam plastic insulation, textile wall coverings and expanded vinyl wall coverings, shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and a smoke developed index not exceeding 450, when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment differs from the other comment on NFPA 1-59 in that it gives pass/fail criteria of 200 kw for upholstered furniture and mattresses instead of 250 kw. The rationale for this more severe requirement is that California requires 200 kw as maximum rate of heat release for all (including residential) mattresses effective January 1, 2005. Therefore, this criterion is consistent with that change, and the requirement for upholstered furniture is simply an equivalency. As the committee states in its substantiation, limitation of the combustibility of furnishings should be based on a test method criterion such as heat release. Criteria already exist for several furnishings in the codes for some applications, and they should then be used here. 1. The Life Safety Code already has a criterion whereby upholstered furniture and mattresses must meet the heat release criteria shown here, for various occupancies using ASTM E 1537 (for furniture) and ASTM E 1590 (for mattresses). 2. The Life Safety Code (and the Building Code) also have pass/fail criteria for foam plastics based on the test shown here (UL 1975). 3. There are criteria for interior finish in NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000, as but add a section 10.20.8 to the language approved in proposal 1-74: 10.20.8 Atrium Furnishings. Atrium furnishings located within an area that is more than 20 feet (6096 mm) below ceiling-level sprinklers shall comply with one of the following requirements. 10.20.8.1 Upholstered furniture shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E 1537, as follows. 1. The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 250 kw. 2. The total energy released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 5 minutes of the test shall not exceed 40 megajoules (MJ). 10.2.8.2 Mattresses shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E 1590, as follows. 1. The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 200 kw. 2. The total energy released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 5 minutes of the test shall not exceed 40 megajoules (MJ). 10.2.8.3 Foam plastics and other decorative materials not suspended from walls and ceilings. Exposed foam plastic materials, unprotected materials containing foam plastics used for decorative purposes or stage scenery or exhibit booths and other decorative materials not suspended from walls and ceilings shall have a maximum heat release rate of 100 kilowatts (kw) when tested in accordance with UL 1975. 10.2.8.4 Decorative materials suspended from walls and ceilings Curtains, draperies, fabrics, hangings and other decorative materials suspended from walls or ceilings shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria of NFPA 701 or be noncombustible. 10.2.8.5 Interior wall finish shall comply with the following requirements, when tested in accordance with NFPA 286. 1. During the 40 kw exposure, the flames shall not spread to the ceiling. 2. During the 160 kw exposure, theflame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling and flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur. 3. During the entire test, the total smoke released test shall not exceed 1000 m2. 10.2.8.6 Interior wall finish, other than foam plastic insulation, textile wall coverings and expanded vinyl wall coverings, shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and a smoke developed index not exceeding 450, when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment differs from the other comment on NFPA 1-59 in that it gives pass/fail criteria of 250 kw for upholstered furniture and mattresses instead of 200 kw. The rationale for this more severe requirement is that California requires 200 kw as maximum rate of heat release for all As the committee states in its substantiation, limitation of the combustibility of furnishings should be based on a test method criterion such as heat release. Criteria already exist for several furnishings in the codes for some applications, and they should then be used here. 1. The Life Safety Code already has a criterion whereby upholstered furniture and mattresses must meet the heat release criteria shown here, for various occupancies using ASTM E 1537 (for furniture) and ASTM E 1590 (for mattresses). 2. The Life Safety Code (and the Building Code) also have pass/fail criteria for foam plastics based on the test shown here (UL 1975). 3. There are criteria for interior finish in NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000, as shown here. For most interior finish materials a Class A (flame spread index no more than 25 and smoke developed index no more than 450) in the Steiner tunnel (NFPA 255, ASTM E 84) is the best requirement. Some materials (foam plastic insulation and wall coverings) are required to meet the room-corner test (NFPA 286), and all other interior finish materials are also permitted to use NFPA 286 instead of NFPA 255. shown here. For most interior finish materials a Class A (flame spread index no more than 25 and smoke developed index no more than 450) in the Steiner tunnel (NFPA 255, ASTM E 84) is the best requirement. Some materials (foam 1-6
4. There is not yet any heat release test for decorations or decorative vegetation, but NFPA 701 is commonly required for such applications for decorations and drapes, etc. and is included here, with the correct wording for pass/fail criteria. in Principle Extract the text from NFPA 101 and add the occupancies that require compliance with that extracted section. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The understands the same material was submitted for inclusion in NFPA 101. The believes it is best to extract the requirements from NFPA 101 for consistency between codes. BALLOT RESULTS: Affirmative: 30 Negative: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LATHROP: Without the actual extracts I cannot vote affirmatively on this comment. I do not see how these extracts are going to be done. 1-26 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.1.7) SUBMITTER: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-78 RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new 11.1.7 to read: 11.1.7 Service Disconnecting Means. A service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors in a room with a direct access from the exterior. In large buildings or industrial applications an alternate location may be allowed as needed for an orderly shutdown if approved by the authority having jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the negative ballot of Tony Apfelbeck. We believe that this is a fire code issue. We also believe that the service disconnect must be identified as to what part of the building, area or process it controls. in Principle 1. Add a new 11.1.7 to read as follows: 11.1.7 Building Disconnect Access. 11.1.7.1* Means shall be provided for the fire department to disconnect the electrical service to a building, structure or facility when the electrical installation is covered under the scope of the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. 11.1.7.2 The disconnecting means shall be maintained accessible to the fire department. 2. Add an annex to 11.1.7.1 to read as follows: A.11.1.7.1 Section 230.70 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) includes requirements for the location and marking of service disconnect means. The NEC applies to most public and private buildings, structures, yards, parking lots and similar installations. It does not apply to certain electrical installations under the exclusive control of communications utilities or electric utilities, and other specific installations. See NEC Section 90.2. Multiple service disconnect means could be provided as allowed by the NEC. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes that these requirements meet the intent of the submitter s comment and are consistent with requirements in the National Electrical Code (NEC). The Annex note directs the code user to the applicable NEC requirements. 1-27 Log #26 Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.1.7) SUBMITTER: Ben Greene, Uniform Fire Code Association COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-78 RECOMMENDATION: UFCA Code agrees with the proponent and the Explanation of Negative and requests that the TC reconsider their rejection of this item. There does not appear to be a scoping question with NFPA 70 and both the proponent and the negative vote argue that this issue would in fact be fire fighter safety issue and fall within the scope of NFPA 1 UFC. This proposal addresses the issue of access to the service disconnect, not the means of wiring. SUBSTANTIATION: See substantiation of the proposal and explanation of negative vote by Apfelbeck. in Principle See Action on Comment 1-26 (Log #3). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes its action on Comment 1-26 (Log #3) addresses the submitter s concerns. 1-28 Log #54 Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.1.7) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-78 RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider the original proposal and accept. 11.1.7 Service Disconnecting Means. A service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors in a room with a direct access from the exterior. In large buildings or industrial applications an alternate location may be allowed as needed for an orderly shutdown if approved by the authority having jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: The should reconsider this requirement for access to Service Disconnecting Means. As stated by the negative comment of Person Apfelbeck, the access for emergency responders to main electrical service disconnect is not considered within the scope of the NFPA 70 and should be address in the NFPA 1 UFC Code. If a building or structure has multiple feeds, then those feeds can be addressed individually. Most fire departments will preplan commercial and industrial properties and discuss processes that may be affected by disconnecting power to processes with business owners. The answer is not to limit access to emergency responders, but to make sure that access is available if needed. in Principle See Action on Comment 1-26 (Log #3). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The believes its action on Comment 1-26 (Log #3) addresses the submitter s concerns. 1-29 Log #44 Final Action: Accept (12.3.2) SUBMITTER: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, International Code Consultants / Rep. Chlorine Institute COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-85 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the recommended Section 10.4.6. SUBSTANTIATION: I have no record that the voted to extract NFPA 101:4.6.1.3 into NFPA 1 UFC. This section is so poorly worded, it is difficult to understand the purpose, and it is inconsistent with the NFPA Manual of Style regarding the use of vague and ambiguous text, such as reasonable degree. 1-30 Log #80 Final Action: Accept (12.3.2) SUBMITTER: Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-85 RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed new Section 10.4.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Refer to my Comment on Affirmative ROP ballot. This added section was not a part of the s action on this Proposal. It has nothing to do with the issue of maintenance, inspection, and testing. 1-31 Log #30 Final Action: Reject (13.3.2.3) SUBMITTER: Lawrence Brown, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1-94 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 13.3.2.3 in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: With the event of NFPA 5000, and the continued development of NFPA 101, imposing a provision on this type of occupancy or use would seem to be outside the scope of the UFC-AAA. As specified in Annex A-9 of the NFPA Officer s Guide on Potential Jurisdictional Scope Issues, it is the occupancy committee s responsibility to define the hazards common to those occupancies, and it is the installation committee s responsibility to define the hazards common to those occupancies, and it is the installation committee s responsibility to address the hazards identified by the occupancy committee. As the TC on the Uniform Fire Code (UFC-AAA) is neither an occupancy or installation committee, it would seem inappropriate for the UFC-AAA to impose provisions on the occupancy or use that is regulated by a TC of NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000. If the UFC-AAA believes there is a hazard in this occupancy or use that the respective TC needs to address, it should submit a proposal. 1-7