California FPO State Code Review
North/South Building, Fire, HazMat & Devices Committees
March 18, 2005
The timeline released by SFM (3/15 as date for stakeholder review of draft amendment packages) is no longer valid and a new one is pending. The CBSC is meeting today and the new timeline is on the agenda.
SFM – CBSC originally established July 1 as submittal date (no one could meet it). At Jan CBSC meeting, they asked State agencies to report on ability to meet a November deadline. State agencies have general agreement to present an effective date of 2007 to CSBC today. Takes about 1.5 years to get to effective date from date of submission to CBSC. Working group of 10 staff working on review of NFPA’s 1st draft – two levels of review are underway. Currently, SFM staff is halfway through 1st level and 10% of the way through the 2nd level. September 2nd may be date for stakeholder review, which will be 6 months in length. It will be distributed electronically and SFM needs to identify a process for reviewing stakeholder comments.
OSHPOD – focus on structural more than fire/life safety. They have not started the formal review process. Looking to ensure all state amendments have been added and that hospitals will be as safe as they are under current standards. Fire and life safety drafts complete by Hughes & Assoc. but structural draft is 7 – 9 months from completion.
DSA – attend few meetings due to Exec Order and workload with school construction as well as travel restrictions. Initial feedback is that the document looks good. We also need to look at SFM amendments to IRC.
HCD – Five NFPA chapters on housing so they have a broad scope and have been providing input on the approach NFPA should take in developing the draft (mainly organizing the code).
BSC set up 4 committees, 3 having members from state agencies. The 4th, General Design, has 16 different agency reps. However, Exec Order has halted participation. NFPA was asked to keep the process going so they have continued work in developing drafts that 1) add state amendments to NFPA 1 and 5000; and, 2) making amendments to ensure the NFPA codes are equivalent in safety to current code.
All changes are in underline/strikeout format. There is also a designation to distinguish between old (current state amendments – includes which state agency) and new amendments made to make NFPA more restrictive. To date, no comments have been made by any state agencies.
Approach to less restrictive issue was developed under time constraints. For example, amend height and area table to be exactly the same numbers we currently have in current code. With more time, a more formal analysis may have been conducted. Another example is the current code provision that an "A" occupancy with a balcony have exits via a passageway. NFPA allows exiting via floor below. NFPA’s draft will allow through floor below with commentary explaining why.
Another issue is what the State adopts – lots of the Fire Code is not adopted by State so NFPA is not working on it…therefore, a larger burden falls on locals. However, NFPA has committed to assist the local agencies after the state process is complete. Need to start this process when draft released but have more time during the 180-day local adoption period (but really need work done before then). NFPA will help when bulk of State work is done. It will be helpful to start by identifying the differences between the codes first.
Bob Wheeler with Hughes compared the hazmat provisions and the referenced standards were used to conduct the review. H-8 occupancies were carried over "as is" and awaiting comment from State if there should be only one H occupancy or translate to hazard level. For most areas, the referenced standards were not reviewed. SFM is making a determination on which standards should be amended, when it is better to bring standard language into the code, etc.
Need to coordinate efforts and avoid duplication. Scott Alber, Marin County Fire, proposed a web-based approach to doing review that facilitates sharing info as we develop document(s). Cost of $500-$600/year…maybe CalChiefs will assist with cost.
Start review with identified method
by occ class – use "Effective use of UBC" in the front of that code
using plan review
each chapter/each provision
other/mix?
The South proposed a matix and approach using occ class. Cheryl agreed this is the best approach and would work well with the draft that is released. Cheryl used NFPA 5000 as a base document and feels that using current code as base is a good balance.
Cheryl will recommend a list of NFPA docs we’ll need for review….hazmat will need several additional pamphlets to complete the review.
Wait until State drafts released
No! Start process for non-state adopted provisions. Committee members voted to begin comparison process with non-state adopted provisions as Phase I utilizing current work groups (see attachment). This local review will include HPS and other subjects where there is no corresponding chapter in NFPA 1. NFPA would like to see FPOs review standard before brining CFC language into NFPA 1. There may also be an issue with copyright.
No one could speak to status, if any, of reviews being conducted by other stakeholders: CalBO, BIA, AIA, etc. BIA did review 3 chapters of NFPA 5000 from DSA via public records act request and noted lots of extractions from other codes and is questioning copyright infringement.
New emergency regs for adult day cares and bedridden clients in R-2s will be brought to BSC by SFM.
There is a proposed bill on sprinklers in residential day cares that will need our support!