5000- Log #12 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2 (New) ) NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 5000-168 (Log #86) which was held from the A11 ROC on Proposal 5000-239. Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on Building Code Recommendation: Reconsider the proposal from BLD-MER on Proposal 5000-239a that does not support inclusion of this text. Substantiation: Determine if there a reason to retain the new section due to the scope differences between NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 or if the requirements should be identical. There is ongoing debate as to whether water mist and other alternative extinguishing systems are equivalent to automatic sprinkler systems. Such determination should be case-specific and evaluated by the AHJ. 5000- Log #16 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2 (New) ) NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 5000-169 (Log #158) which was held from the A11 ROC on Proposal 5000-239. Submitter: Ignatius Kapalczynski, CT Office of State Fire Marshal Recommendation: New text to read as follows: Reconsider. Substantiation: Alternative fire suppression systems are generally provided for one of two reasons a. for the protection of equipment that is sensitive to damage by water b. for fires adversely affected by the application of water The first condition is not a life safety concern and should not be a consideration The second condition is addressed by other standards. Adding 55.2 clarifies protected throughout an approved sprinkler system Protected throughout by an approved sprinkler system, refers to a system in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 lists areas where sprinkler protection may be omitted. These should be the only areas that this chapter recognizes. The commentary to IFC 903.1.1 which states Although the use of an alternative extinguishing system allowed by 904, such as a carbon dioxide system or clean-agent system, would satisfy the requirements of Section 903.2, it would not be considered an acceptable alternative for the purpose of exceptions, reductions of other code trade-offs that would be applicable if an automatic sprinkler system were installed recognizes the value of a sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13. If ICC recognizes NFPA 13 as the standard for the installation of sprinkler systems, NFPA 101 should. To accept a clean agent fire extinguishing system as an equivalent to automatic sprinklers for the purpose of life safety would not be an even exchange. Just one example of this is duration. Total flooding fire suppression for a clean agent extinguishing system involves the discharge of a clean extinguishing agent that is typically required to provide protection within the design envelope for a minimum ten to twenty minute period. The average required duration for an automatic sprinkler system protecting an ordinary hazard occupancy is 60 minutes. There is ongoing debate as to whether water mist and other alternative extinguishing systems are equivalent to automatic sprinkler systems. Such determination should be case-specific and evaluated by the AHJ. 1
5000- Log #125 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.1.4.1) Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 55.2.1.4.1* In areas that are not continuously occupied and unless otherwise permitted by 55.2.1.4.1.1 or 55.2.1.4.1.2, automatic smoke detection shall be installed to provide notification of fire at the following locations: (1) Each fire alarm control unit (2) Notification appliance circuit power extenders (3) Supervising station transmitting equipment Substantiation: The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smoke detection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The requirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarm system and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure the system generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler system because once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operational due to water and heat damage because of the following reasons: Fire alarm control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Water and electronics do not mix. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. **Additional information Section/Par: 55.2.1.4.1 NFPA 72 2010 and 2007 require Protection of the Fire Alarm System, to better insure that the fire alarm signal is transmitted to the occupants, and communication to the 1st responders is started, prior to parts of the system made inoperable by water or fire. Once sensed by the smoke detector the operations are started within 10 seconds The rationale for this are: The control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, not mist, not waterproof. Sprinkler systems typically have an alarm delay built in to compensate for changes in water pressure. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees f. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees f. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. NFPA 72 allows for selective coverage of the control equipment by paragraph: 17.5.3.2* Partial or Selective Coverage. Where codes, standards, or laws require the protection of selected areas only, the specified areas shall be protected in accordance with this Code. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR602 (FR-16-NFPA 5000-2012), which deletes 55.2.1.4 in its entirety. 2
5000- Log #129 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.1.4.1.2) Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Delete the following text: 55.2.1.4.1.2* Automatic smoke detection in accordance with 55.2.1.4.1(1), 55.2.1.4.1(2), and 55.2.1.4.1(3) shall not be required where the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 55.3 and the area containing the fire alarm control unit is sprinklered Substantiation: The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smoke detection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The requirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarm system and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure the system generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler system because once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operational due to water and heat damage because of the following reasons: Fire alarm control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Water and electronics do not mix. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. ** Additional information Section/Par: 55.2.1.4.1.2, A.55.2.1.4.1.2-- NPFA 72 2010 and 2007 require Protection of the Fire Alarm System, to better insure that the fire alarm signal is transmitted to the occupants, and communication to the 1st responders is started, prior to parts of the system made inoperable by water or fire. Once sensed by the smoke detector the operations are started within 10 seconds The rationals for this are: The control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, not mist, not waterproof. Sprinkler systems typically have an alarm delay built in to compensate for changes in water pressure. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees f. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees f. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. NFPA 72 allows for selective coverage of the control equipment by paragraph: 17.5.3.2* Partial or Selective Coverage. Where codes, standards, or laws require the protection of selected areas only, the specified areas shall be protected in accordance with this Code. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR602 (FR-16-NFPA 5000-2012), which deletes 55.2.1.4 in its entirety. 3
5000- Log #196 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.1.4.1.2) 55.2.1.4.1.2* Automatic smoke detection in accordance with 55.2.1.4.1(1), 55.2.1.4.1(2), and 55.2.1.4.1(3) shall not be required where the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler or approved, supervised automatic water mist system in accordance with Section 55.3 and the area containing the fire alarm control unit is sprinklered. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR602 (FR-16-NFPA 5000-2012), which deletes 55.2.1.4 in its entirety. 5000- Log #132 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.2.6) Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Revise as follows: 55.2.2.6 Smoke Alarms. Smoke alarms shall comply with 55.2.2.6.1 through 55.2.2.6.57 Substantiation: This proposal is intended to reduce nuisance alarms attributed to locating smoke alarms or smoke detectors in close proximity to cooking appliances and bathrooms in which steam is produced. The proposed provisions are based on the findings in the Task Group Report - Minimum Performance Requirements for Smoke Alarm Detection Technology - February 22, 2008 and are consistent with similar requirements included in the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. Section 55.2.2.6.2 already requires smoke alarms to be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, which theoretically describes where alarms should and should not be installed. As a convenience to the code user, requirements on where smoke alarms should not be installed in proximity to permanently installed cooking appliances and steam producing bathrooms will be included in this section. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR604 (FR-17-NFPA 5000-2012) which extracts portions of NFPA 72 relating to smoke alarm areas of exclusion. 4
5000- Log #282 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.2.6.6 and 55.2.2.6.7 (New) ) Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Add new sections to read: 55.2.2.6.6 Smoke alarms shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Smoke alarms installed between 10 ft and 20 ft of a stationary or fixed cooking appliance shall be photoelectric technology or be ionization technology equipped with an alarm-silencing means. 2. Smoke alarms shall not be installed less than 10 ft from a permanently installed cooking appliance. 3. Photoelectric smoke alarms shall be allowed to be installed between 6 feet and 10 feet of a permanently installed cooking appliance when the 10 ft area of exclusion would prohibit the placement of a smoke alarm required by other sections of the code. 55.2.2.6.7 Smoke alarms shall not be installed within a 3 feet from a door to a bathroom that contains a shower or tub. Substantiation: This proposal is intended to reduce nuisance alarms attributed to locating smoke alarms or smoke detectors in close proximity to cooking appliances and bathrooms in which steam is produced. The proposed provisions are based on the findings in the Task Group Report - Minimum Performance Requirements for Smoke Alarm Detection Technology - February 22, 2008 and are consistent with similar requirements included in the 2010 edition of NFPA 72. Section 55.2.2.6.2 already requires smoke alarms to be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, which theoretically describes where alarms should and should not be installed. As a convenience to the code user, requirements on where smoke alarms should not be installed in proximity to permanently installed cooking appliances and steam producing bathrooms will be included in this section. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR604 (FR-17-NFPA 5000-2012) which extracts portions of NFPA 72 relating to smoke alarm areas of exclusion. 5000- Log #197 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.8.4) 55.2.8.4 Where the building is protected by an automatic sprinkler or water mist system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1), the area of the fire alarm zone shall be permitted to coincide with the area of the sprinkler or water mist system. Substantiation: Where buildings are protected by an automatic water mist system, the area of the fire alarm zone should be permitted to coincide with that of an automatic sprinkler system. Water mist systems installed in the same applications as sprinklers should be addressed as an equivalent protection and related fire alarm zone areas designed appropriately. The PI makes reference to water mist systems in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1), which references NFPA 13. Water mist systems are outside the scope of NFPA 13. 5
5000- Log #198 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.8.5) 55.2.8.5 Unless otherwise prohibited elsewhere in this Code, where a building not exceeding four stories in height is protected by an automatic sprinkler or water mist system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(1), the sprinkler or water mist system shall be permitted to be annunciated on the fire alarm system as a single zone Substantiation: Where buildings are fully protected by an automatic water mist system, the fire alarm zone should be permitted to be annunciated the same as an automatic sprinkler system. To avoid confusion, water mist systems installed in the same applications as sprinklers should be addressed as equivalent protection and the system annunciated as a single zone on the fire alarm panel. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR611 (FR-24-NFPA 5000-2012) which incorporates the suggested revision as a new 55.2.7.4.4. 5000- Log #199 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.8.6) 55.2.8.6 Where the building is protected by an automatic sprinkler or water mist system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(2), the sprinkler or water mist system shall be permitted to be annunciated on the fire alarm system as a single zone. Substantiation: Where buildings are fully protected by an automatic water mist system, the fire alarm zone should be permitted to be annunciated the same as an automatic sprinkler system. To avoid confusion, water mist systems installed in the same applications as sprinklers should be addressed as equivalent protection and the system annunciated as a single zone on the fire alarm panel. The public input references water mist systems in accordance with 55.3.1.1(2), which references NFPA 13R. Water mist systems are outside the scope of NFPA 13R. 5000- Log #200 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.2.8.7) 55.2.8.7 Where the building is protected by an automatic sprinkler or water mist system in accordance with 55.3.1.1(3), the sprinkler or water mist system shall be permitted to be annunciated on the fire alarm system as a single zone Substantiation: Where buildings are fully protected by an automatic water mist system, the fire alarm zone should be permitted to be annunciated the same as an automatic sprinkler system. To avoid confusion, water mist systems installed in the same applications as sprinklers should be addressed as equivalent protection and the system annunciated as a single zone on the fire alarm panel. The public input references water mist systems in accordance with 55.3.1.1(3), which references NFPA 13D. Water mist systems are outside the scope of NFPA 13D. 6
5000- Log #201 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.3.1.4) 55.3.1.4* In areas protected by automatic sprinklers or an automatic water mist system, automatic heat-detection devices required by other sections of this Code shall not be required. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR616 which incorporates the public input. 5000- Log #202 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.3.1.5) 55.3.1.5 Automatic sprinkler or water mist systems installed to make use of an alternative permitted by this Code shall be considered required systems and shall meet the provisions of this Code that apply to required systems. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. The Code does not contain alternatives based on the installation of water mist systems. 7
5000- Log #203 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.3.1.7) 55.3.1.7 Basements exceeding 2500 ft 2 (232 m 2 ) in new buildings shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler or water mist system. [1:13.3.2.2]. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. The PI revises language extracted from NFPA 1. In accordance with NFPA regulations, the PI must be submitted on NFPA 1. 5000- Log #278 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.3.1.7.x (New) ) Submitter: Matt Scarpuzzi, Scar Designs Recommendation: Add a new section to read: Control of non fire related sprinkler head activations. Substantiation: Millions of dollars in damages occur annually as a result of non fire related sprinkler activations. Today, multiple types of inexpensive, simple to operate sprinkler tools are now available on the market. Some of these tools (Shutgun, Quickstoptool) are actually designed to keep a buildings complete fire protection system intact if activated sprinkler heads cannot be immediately replaced. These tools allow the user to stop the flow of water from an activated head before the system can be fully shut off or drained externally. If such a tool were kept in the fire sprinkler control room with the replacement heads and associated tools, content and structural damages would be greatly reduced. These systems are known to expell approximately 35-100 gallons per minute, per head, and can easily flow for long periods of time if the shut off valve cannot be located. With each gallon of water weighing approximately 8.35 lbs, it is easy to see what kind of structural damages could be averted by stopping the flow of water sooner. Stopping the water flow more quickly would also reduce the amount of fresh water being wasted as well as contaminated water from entering our storm drains and oceans. A reduction in damaged structural contents (carpet, drywall, furniture) would result in less waste entering our local landfills because of preventable water damage. Having a sprinkler tool on site would result in very positive safety, financial and environmental impacts. An average of 38 million sprinkler heads are installed in the US every year and those numbers are expected to increase. An estimated 3.4 billion dollars in water damage is reported every year in the state of California alone. Over 4.6 million commercial buildings have fire sprinkler systems in the U.S., the addition of these tools could save millions of dollars in damages, millions of gallons of fresh water and reduce landfill waste by thousands of tons. A single sprinkler tool can be purchased for less than $100 and would offer an entire building protection from water damage while allowing the fire alarm and sprinkler system to stay intact. No revised code language has been proposed by the submitter. 8
5000- Log #204 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.5.1) Recommendation: Add asterisk to indicate annex material as follows: 55.5.1 * Alternative Systems. In any occupancy where the character of the fuel for fire is such that extinguishment or control of the fire is accomplished by a type of automatic extinguishing system in lieu of an automatic sprinkler system, such extinguishing system shall be installed in accordance with the applicable standard referenced in Table 55.5.1. 15 yrs. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1 occupancies), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. Determination of equivalency of water mist systems to automatic sprinklers should be case-specific and evaluated by the AHJ. 5000- Log #206 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.5.3) 55.5.3 Construction Alternatives. Construction alternatives for automatic sprinkler or automatic water mist systems shall not be permitted for those portions of buildings protected by alternative extinguishing systems, unless equivalency is demonstrated in accordance with Section 1.5. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. The Code contains no construction alternatives for the installation of water mist systems. 9
5000- Log #207 BLD-BSF Final Action: (55.13 (New) ) Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 55.13 Water Mist Systems Each automatic sprinkler system required by another section of this code that is substituted with an approved, automatic water mist system, shall not be considered an alternative extinguishing system and qualifies for the same construction alternatives as the required automatic sprinkler system. 15 years. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR617 which incorporates the public input. 10
5000- Log #129a BLD-BSF Final Action: (A.55.2.1.4.1.2) Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Recommendation: Delete the following text: A.55.2.1.4.1.2 It is recognized that a building protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system meets the goals of the Code without the need for protecting fire alarm equipment by smoke detection, unless such smoke detection is specifically required by the applicable occupancy chapters. Although this exemption is not permitted by NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, this Code recognizes means and methods other than fire alarm devices to meet its goals, as specified in Chapter 4, to provide an environment for occupants that is reasonably safe from fire. Substantiation: The proposal seeks to delete the exception for the fire alarm control equipment to be protected by automatic smoke detection when the building is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system. The requirement for automatic smoke detection above control equipment is a fundamental reliability concept of the fire alarm system and not a building or fire code issue. Protection of the fire alarm control equipment is essential to insure the system generates the occupant emergency evacuation signal prior to the activation of the automatic sprinkler system because once the automatic sprinkler system activates it will render the fire alarm control equipment non-operational due to water and heat damage because of the following reasons: Fire alarm control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, mist or waterproof. Water and electronics do not mix. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees F. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees F. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. ** Additional information Section/Par: 55.2.1.4.1.2, A.55.2.1.4.1.2-- NPFA 72 2010 and 2007 require Protection of the Fire Alarm System, to better insure that the fire alarm signal is transmitted to the occupants, and communication to the 1st responders is started, prior to parts of the system made inoperable by water or fire. Once sensed by the smoke detector the operations are started within 10 seconds The rationals for this are: The control equipment is listed for Indoor Dry (NEMA 1 Enclosure) not wet, not mist, not waterproof. Sprinkler systems typically have an alarm delay built in to compensate for changes in water pressure. At typical sprinkler activation takes a maximum of 90 seconds of discharge before it triggers the control panel, then the control panel takes an addition maximum of 10 seconds to notify occupants and alert 1st responders. Electronics and water don t mix. Water could be flowing on the control panel or other critical Fire Alarm system components for up to 110 seconds, almost 2 minutes prior to activating the system. Heat generated by a fire will trigger a sprinkler head at around 150 degrees f. Fire alarm control panels operate at a maximum of 120 degrees f. This excess heat can affect the operation of the fire alarm system. NFPA 72 allows for selective coverage of the control equipment by paragraph: 17.5.3.2* Partial or Selective Coverage. Where codes, standards, or laws require the protection of selected areas only, the specified areas shall be protected in accordance with this Code. See First Revision 5000- Log #FR618 which incorporates the public input. 11
5000- Log #15 BLD-BSF Final Action: (A.55.5 (New) ) NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 5000-174 (Log #137) which was held from the A11 ROC on Proposal 5000-239. Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Insert a new annex note to 55.5 as follows: A.55.5 There are typically two different ways that extinguishing systems other than fire sprinkler systems are used. The first is when the entire building is protected with one of these alternate systems. When this is the case, the exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered as options when fire sprinkler systems are installed should not be granted to the other extinguishing system unless the other system has demonstrated the same temperature control during a fire and reliability of operation as a fire sprinkler system. Reliability of operation needs to extend to the long-term use of the other system and an analysis of the reliability of the component parts. Some component of other extinguishing systems can show reliability data from their use in systems outside of fire protection where they get exercised on a regular basis, but acceptance on this basis is cautioned because many mechanical parts that sit for a long time without being exercised, as fire protection systems need to do, may not have the same reliability. A reliability analysis should also take into account inspection, testing and maintenance criteria and the likelihood of a building owner knowing and understanding what needs to be performed to keep the other system operational. The second manner in which other systems are used as alternatives to fire sprinkler systems are in individual rooms or spaces of otherwise sprinklered occupancies. Here the Authority Having Jurisdiction needs to use some judgment in the application of exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions that are offered for sprinklered occupancies. The permission to utilize such exceptions, reductions and alternative code provisions far from the space with the other fire protection system should be granted. Closer to the space with the alternate system, exceptions, reductions and alternate code provisions for sprinklers could be granted if the system was analyzed as discussed above and found to be equivalent to a fire sprinkler system. Substantiation: After experiencing the discussion from the SAF-BSF committee and several of the occupancy committees, it is clear that something needs to be said in the Life Safety Code about this subject. But a blanket ban on using the sprinkler trade-ups, or a blanket statement that you can always use the sprinkler trade-ups, does not seem to work either way. Some judgment needs to be used depending on the type of alternative system proposed and the extent to which it is substituting for the sprinkler system. Some of these alternative systems are very good fire protection agents with a good history. Others are just coming to the market place and are using equipment that has not traditionally been used in fire protection systems and we just don t know how well they will work in the long-run. The annex note seemed to be the best way to provide guidance to AHJ s for now. See First Revision 5000- Log #619 which incorporates the public input. 12
5000- Log #205 BLD-BSF Final Action: (A.55.5.1) Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: A.55.5.1 Where automatic water mist systems are installed in lieu of automatic sprinkler systems, they should be considered as providing equivalent protection and allowed the same construction trade-off benefits as an automatic sprinkler system. 15 yrs. They have been listed by national and internationally recognized testing laboratories such as: UL (Ordinary Hazard Group 1 occupancies), FM (Light Hazard occupancies, Computer Rooms, Subfloors, Special Hazard Machinery & spaces), City of New York (Light Hazard Occupancies, Combustion Turbines, Machinery Spaces), VdS Germany (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I,II parking garages & III selected occupancies, Cable Tunnels), KfV Austria (Light Hazard, Ord Haz Grp I, Combustion Turbines) and other agencies. These listings and installations have demonstrated equivalent fire protection to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The addition of the proposed text will provide the AHJ a clear option to accept water mist systems as an equivalent system to an approved automatic sprinkler system thereby allowing construction alternatives without having to prove equivalency or be considered an alternative extinguishing system. Determination of equivalency of water mist systems to automatic sprinklers should be case-specific and evaluated by the AHJ. 13