FIRE PROTECTION DEVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Davis, California
June 25, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT:
| Larry Larson | National Fire Sprinkler Association |
| Randy Collins | Healdsburg Fire Department |
| Ben Lehr Honeywell H & BC | Honeywell H & BC |
| Robert Evans | Stockton Fire Department |
| Terri Simmons-Leyton | Central Sprinkler Company |
| Bruce Lecair | Woodland Fire Department |
| John Gillilan | CAFAA |
| Linda Brandelius | Roseville Fire Department |
| Lynn Trickle | Napa Fire Department |
| David Secoda | Bay Alarm Company |
| Bill Sallee | System Sensor |
| Darrell Harguth | Fire Equipment Mfg. Association |
| Mary Cornelison | Contra Costa Fire Protection District |
| John Guhl l | Office of the State Fire Marshal |
| Joy Rizzitello | Consumer Products Safety Commission |
| Elaine Clark | City of Sacramento |
Wes Arvin provided a very nice facility for our June 1999 NorCal meeting. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend the Fire Protection Devices Committee morning meeting. We understand he was herding chickens from the Plutonium Research Facility for Genetic Mutation to a kitchen for preparation of the main course on the lunch menu. However, he left some notes on four items.
OLD BUSINESS
ELEVATOR REGULATIONS
Wes is collecting information on the "new elevator regulations" reported in the May minutes. According to a letter from Dover Elevator Company, Sacramento, Title 8 has been modified by reference to ASME A17.1. I could not discover these regulations in Title 8. Maybe you will have better results. I searched the California Agencies web site at www.ca.gov/s/search/hello.html, from here, go to Occupational Safety & Health, then California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Cal/OSHA Standards, then Elevator (Section 3000-3139). Incidentally, this site is also handy for accessing the Contractor’s License Board to check if a contractor has a valid license.
According to the letter from Dover Elevator, the following is required:
We also discussed regulations that require a heat detector to shut down the power before the sprinkler system may activate which would require a preaction system. I am not certain where to find these regulations either. However, assuming heat detectors are required by the Elevator Unit to initiate recall and power shutdown before sprinkler activation, National Fire Protection Association Standard 72 Section 3-8.15, 1996 Editions tells you where to locate them (this is not a new section). However, you may want to review Section 3-8.14.6 that precedes Section 3-8.15. This is a new section that requires three separate control circuits for proper operation of the recall sequence. It is intended to improve safety for fire department personnel.
One other concern that came to my attention through Mr. Sprinkler, Roseville, is the smallest preaction valve he could find was 4 inch for a one-sprinkler head project! Terri promised to see if smaller valves are available through her affiliated companies.
IFCI INTREPRETATION FOR MONITORED SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Copies of the International Fire Code Institute response to a letter from Byron Carniglia, Napa County Fire were distributed and discussed. Copies we received were not clear. I retyped the letter, including any mistakes after trying my OCR scanner. The attached code opinion mentioned in Answer 3 was not provided to me. Beth Tubbs, PE and Staff Engineer made the response. Anyone wishing a copy of the original letter, along with the following retyped questions and answers, can contact me with your request and business address faxed to (209) 937-7087.
Question 1: Is it the intent of the Uniform Fire Code Section 1003.3.2 (UBC 904.3.2) to require the following when a building sprinkler system water flow alarm is monitored in accordance with Section 1002.3.1 (UBC 904.3.1)?
Answer 1: The intent of Section 1003.3.2 (UBC 904.3.2) is simply to require a sprinkler flow alarm such as a water motor gong located at the exterior and single alarm signaling device within the interior of the building at a normally attended location such as a receptionist desk.
It was never the intention to have this section require visual and audible notification throughout the building. This section was placed into the code with intention of increasing the likelihood that an occupant would call the fire department. It was not the intention to provide the alarm to initiate evacuation.
When a sprinkler system is required to be monitored per Section 1003.3.1 (UBC 904.3.1), the water flow alarm required by Section 1003.3.2 (UBC 904.3.2) was not intended to require audible and visual notification throughout the building. Those sections are independent of one another.
Question 2: Is it the intent of Section 1003.3.2 that the interior sprinkler water flow alarm, installed in a normally occupied location, be discernable throughout (in all areas) the sprinkler protected building?
Answer 2: See Answer 1.
Question 3: Because an automatic smoke detector at the control panel, installed in accordance with Section NFPA 72, 1993, is included in the sprinkler water flow alarm monitoring system, is the monitoring system now considered to be a "fire alarm system" thus requiring audible and visual notification throughout the sprinkler protected building?
Answer 3: No. Section 1003.3.1 (UBC 904.3.1) requires monitoring in accordance with UFC Standard 10-2 (NFPA 72) since it is the most appropriate standard available for monitoring requirements. The application of NFPA 72 for monitoring was not intended to declare such systems as full fire alarm system requiring audible and visual notification throughout the building. The intent was simply to monitor the water flow in the sprinkler system and report to a central, remote or proprietary monitoring station. See attached code opinion for more detailed discussion on this issue.
Question 4: Because a "fire alarm box" is located at the control panel as directed by the authority having jurisdiction and installed in accordance with Section 3-8.1.2 of UFC Standard 10-2 (NFPA 72, 1993), and is included in the sprinkler water flow alarm monitoring system, is the monitoring system now considered to be a "fire alarm system" thus requiring audible and visual notification throughout the sprinkler protected building?
Answer 4: See Answer 3.
A question was raised as to whether the required outside bell can be 110-volts, unsupervised and without a dedicated power supply. Our position, based on the discussion that followed, is yes to all three parts of the question. As pointed out in Answer 1, a water motor gong would not be electric and thus could not be supervised.
A related question came up for the required interior audible. Can this device be a 110-volt appliance, unsupervised and without a dedicated power supply. Again, our position is yes to all three parts of the question.
IBC
We briefly discussed some of the features of the International Building Code. Several members expressed concern over the allowable area increases and incredible number of tradeoffs. During the meeting John Guhl provided me with a 38-page position paper by the ICBO Fire Safety Review Committee entitled: "Fire Sprinkler Tradeoffs to the Final Drafts of the International Building Code and the International Fire Code."
SPRINKLER FOR MEDICAL GAS (NITROUS OXIDE) SYSTEMS
A recent permit assigned to me forced me to open my fire code manual. Section 7404.2.1.2 for a one-hour exterior room requires one automatic sprinkler. The next section, 7404.2.1.3, for a one-hour interior room, requires sprinkler protection. These are not new sections. I guess the writers of this code thought it would be OK if ½-inch copper waterlines are used and a plumber install the sprinkler(s).
Respectfully submitted,
| _________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
| ROBERT EVANS, CO-CHAIR FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE |
WESTON ARVIN, CO-CHAIR FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT COMMITTEE |
G:\FD\priv\Fire Prevention\EVANS\NORCAL\99\6-25.doc
HTML CONVERSION AND PAGE SETUP BY REE