M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: NFPA Technical Committee on Assembly Occupancies and Membrane Structures Linda MacKay DATE: January 12, 2010 SUBJECT: NFPA 101 ROP Letter Ballot Circulation The January 11 date for receipt of the NFPA 101 ROP letter ballot has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, attached are reasons for negative votes for review so you may change your ballot if you wish. Abstentions and affirmative comments are also included. Reasons for negative votes, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. The preliminary ROP ballot results are as follows: 30 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Ballot was not returned (Hayward) All votes were affirmative on all ballot items with the exception of those noted in the attached report. If you wish to change your vote or submit your ballot, the change must be received at NFPA on or before Friday, January 22, 2010. Such changes should be sent to Linda MacKay via either e-mail to lmackay@nfpa.org or via fax to 617-984-7110. You may also mail your ballot to the attention of Linda MacKay, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169. The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. ATTACHMENT: Circulation of Comments Report
1 101-1 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Various Occupancy Chapters xx.1.1.2 and xx.1.1.3 [12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 18.1, 19.1, 20.1, 22.1, 23.1, 24.1, 26.1, 28.1, 29.1, 101-19 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 2.3.6 (Log # 117b ) 101-30e Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.x Aisle Stair and 3.3.x Ramped Aisle (Log # CP560 ) 101-59 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.246.2 Regular Stage (Log # CP11 ) 101-126 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.2.6.2, 8.6.7, 13.3.1, 18.3.7.9, 18.3.7.10, 19.3.7.6, 20.3.7.11, 20.3.7.12, Table 23.3.8, 32.2.3.6.1, 32.3.3.7.18, 33.2.3.6.1, and 43.10.5.4 101-232a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Chapter 12 (Log # CP550 ) 101-232b Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.1.2 and 13.1.2 (Log # CP557 ) 101-233 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Table 12.1.6 (Log # 131 ) 101-233a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.2.3.1(2), 12.4.5.1, 13.2.2.3.1(2) and 13.4.5.1 (Log # CP556 )
2 101-233b Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.2.3.1(3) and 13.2.2.3.1(3) (New) (Log # CP562 ) 101-233c Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.2.3.1(4) and 13.2.2.3.1(4) (New) (Log # CP563 ) 101-233d Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.2.3.2, 12.2.2.6(3), 13.2.2.3.2 and 13.2.2.6.2 (New) (Log # CP555 ) 101-234 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.3.6.2 (Log # 267 ) Schultz, Jr., R. I agree with the concept attempted and will work to revise wording. Tubbs, J. A Committee Task Group has been formed to review possible alternatives to better clarify the intent this provision. 101-234a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.4 and 13.2.4 (Log # CP552 ) 101-234b Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 27 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.2.5.6.4 and 13.2.5.6.4 (Log # CP561 ) Miller, G. For the same reasons as expressed by Mr. Ed Roether. Roether, E. There are many aisle transitions within an assembly seating area. This proposal only addresses one, specifically where an aisle transitions to an aisle stair or stair in a straight run. A 36 inch deep landing may be appropriate where a descending aisle stair with greater tread depth transitions to an aisle stair or stair having lesser tread depth, but 32 or 33 inches may be equally appropriate and a shallower landing may be appropriate where an aisle transitions to an aisle stair or stair having greater tread depth. This proposal might imply that a landing in accordance with 7.2.2.3.2.2 would be required in all other conditions. That is simply not appropriate or even possible in many situations, for example aisle transitions around a vomitory opening that is within the seating area where the seating rows are not as wide as the aisle, which is common. I agree that this issue needs to be clarified, but this proposal needs further development before it is adopted. 101-235 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.3.1 and 13.3.1 (Log # 375 )
3 Schultz, Jr., R. I do not believe that it was the will of the committee, but as written, this change could be interpreted that there is no restriction from having floor 2 open to floor 1, and in another part of the building floor 2 open to floor 3, et cetera, et cetera. 101-235a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.3.1 and 13.3.1 (Log # CP558 ) Schultz, Jr., R. As I understand 12/13.3.1, vertical openings are permitted, provided that they meet the applicable requirements of Section 8.6. If so, the addition of (4) or the current (3) is not necessary. 101-236 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.3.5.1 (Log # 266 ) Schultz, Jr., R. I agree with the concept attempted and will work to revise wording. Tubbs, J. A Committee Task Group has been formed to review possible alternatives to better clarify the intent of this provision. 101-237 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.3.5.3(3)(a) and (b) (Log # 130 ) Gerdes, R. While I support the committee action we need to think about some roof height threshold to delete sprinklers. Sprinklers in a high school basketball arena would be effective, but not in an NFL stadium. Most large stadiums today have multiple uses such as exhibition centers which require sprinklers. Design teams must go through an analysis to show sprinklers will not work. I am not sure DETACT is the proper tool since it is intended for lower roofs and gives conservative results on sprinkler activation which is then used in a liberal manner. Maybe the code should place the burden on the design team to prove sprinkler ineffectiveness. Tubbs, J. A Committee Task Group has been formed to review how the height of these spaces affects the intent of this provision. 101-237a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.4.2.4 and 13.4.2.4 (Log # CP559 ) 101-238 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.4.2.9 and 13.4.2.9 (Log # 374 ) 101-239 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 28 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.4.2.14 and 13.4.2.14 (New) (Log # 129 )
4 Battalora, R. My NEGATIVE vote on the ballot has the following reason: As the proponent, I included a photo of an open-air stadium with banners placed in the exterior wall openings that call into question whether smoke would adequately vent and meet the performance criteria for smoke-protected assembly seating if there was a fire in the concourse when the stadium was occupied. I have seen other much larger stadiums (85,000+ capacity) with banners placed within the openings on the exterior side of the facility. The argument made to reject the proposal indicated that this issue should be checked once a year during performance of a NFPA 101 life safety evaluation. I agree, however, the reality is that most stadiums have not had a NFPA 101 life safety evaluation performed. The argument made to reject also stated that Section 4.6.13 for maintenance is adequate. I add that this is also a design issue. The importance of this critical life safety feature that can so easily be diminished or totally defeated during initial stadium design, during stadium renovation/expansion design, or during ongoing stadium operations by the simple and low-cost act of installing a banner in an opening required for natural ventilation, or by the complicated and expensive act of placing a new building next to an existing open-air stadium having openings required for natural ventilation is too important to leave unhighlighted or specifically mentioned in the assembly occupancy chapters of NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000. 101-240 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 28 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.4.5.11.1, 12.4.5.11.2, and 12.7.5.3.4(4) (Log # 120 ) Miller, G. The application of NFPA 289 does not make sense in this context. For applications like cloth or drapes, etc. how much curtain needs to be tested? It makes a big difference in the heat released. NFPA 289 is designed for individual discrete objects not curtains or individual materials. 101-241 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.4.5.11.4, 12.7.4.3, 12.7.5.3.4 and 12.7.5.3.6.2 (Log # 86 ) 101-242 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.7.1.1 and 13.7.1.1 (Log # 58 ) 101-243 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.7.1.2 and 13.7.1.2 (Log # 59 ) 101-243a Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.7.9.1.2 and 13.7.9.1.2 (Log # CP553 ) 101-243b Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Chapter 13 (Log # CP551 )
5 101-243c Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 13.2.5.6.3(1)(b) and 13.2.5.6.3(4)(a) (Log # CP554 ) 101-244 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 13.2.5.7.3 and 13.2.5.7.4 (Log # 14 ) 101-245 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 13.4.5.11 (Log # 87 ) 101-246 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 28 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 13.4.5.11.1, 13.4.5.11.2, and 13.7.5.3.4(4) (Log # 121 ) Miller, G. The application of NFPA 289 does not make sense in this context. For applications like cloth or drapes, etc. how much curtain needs to be tested? It makes a big difference in the heat released. NFPA 289 is designed for individual discrete objects not curtains or individual materials. 101-247 Eligible To Vote:30 Affirmative: 29 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 13.7.4.3 13.7.5.3.4, and 13.7.5.3.6.2 (Log # 88 )