memorandum - nfpa · steel up to 50 ksi (345 mpa) minimum yield point, with atmospheric corrosion...

National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

To: NFPA Technical Committee on Fundamentals

From: Kelly Carey, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: October 1, 2013

Subject: NFPA 5000 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A14 Cycle)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

28 Members Eligible to Vote 1 Not Returned (M. Gaubert) 19 Affirmative on All (1 with Comment: J. Pauls) 8 Negatives on one or more second revision: (F. Alfawakhiri, D. Frable, M. Gencarelli, R. Gerdes, M.

Hurley, D. Jacoby, D. Klein, M. Puchovsky) 0 Abstentions on one or more second revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

NFPA 5000 (BLD-FUN) FUNDAMENTALS

SECOND DRAFT BALLOT FINAL RESULTS

Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 27Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0



Eligible to Vote: 28

SR-82, Global Comment, See SR-82

Total Voted : 27

SR-45, Global Comment, See SR-45

Total Voted : 27

SR-14, Section No. 2.3.4, See SR-14

SR-74, Section No. 2.2, See SR-74

Total Voted : 27

Page 1 of 18

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/5000-2012.ditamap/2/C1370008182921.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl






Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 26Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Farid Alfawakhiri The following standards were not printed correctly in the ballot, and should read as

follows: (Correction to date. Add word “dated” after “Supplement 1,” but before “2012”,

and a comma after 2012, and add the parens and text within parens.) AISI-S211, North

American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing-Wall Stud Design, 2007, including

Supplement 1, dated 2012, (Reaffirmed 2012) (Should NOT be shown as deleted. Retain

in list of reference standards.) AISI-S220, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel

Framing — Nonstructural Members, 2011.

Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 26Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Farid Alfawakhiri Ballot item SR-15 was not printed correctly. The original submission read as follows:

(Missing were the comma and date following “Supplement 2”.) ASCE/SEI7, Minimum

Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2010, including Supplement 2, 2012.

Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes Comments


Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27


Page 2 of 18





Affirmative 26Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Farid Alfawakhiri Retain (Do not delete) the following ASTM standards as shown below: ASTM A6/A6M,

Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates,

Shapes, and Sheet Piling, 2011. ASTM A 36/A 36M, Standard Specification for Carbon

Structural Steel, 2008. ASTM A 252, Standard Specification for Welded and Seamless

Steel Pipe Piles, 2010. ASTM A 283/A 283M, Standard Specification for Low and

Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates, 2003 (2007). ASTM A 572/A 572M,

Standard Specification for High-strength Low-alloy Columbium-vanadium Structural Steel,

2007. ASTM A 588/A 588M, Standard Specification for High-strength Low-alloy Structural

Steel up to 50 ksi (345 MPa) Minimum Yield Point, with Atmospheric Corrosion

Resistance, 2010. ASTM A 690/A 690M, Standard Specification for High-strength Low-

alloy Nickel, Copper, Phosphorus Steel H-piles and Sheet Piling with Atmospheric

Corrosion Resistance for Use in Marine Environments, 2007. Sections 36.5.7, 36.5.7.2.1

and 36.5.7.2.3 reference the ASTM standards we see as being strikened in the ballot. For

example, Section 36.5.7 reads as follows: “36.5.7 Steel Steel used in steel pile

foundations shall comply with the following: (1) Structural steel H-pile and structural

sheet piling shall comply with ASTM A6. (2) Steel pipe piles shall comply with ASTM A252

(3) Fully welded steel piles fabricated from plates shall comply with ASTM A36, ASTM

A283, ASTM 572, ASTM A588, or ASTM A690.”

Abstain 0



Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27

Page 3 of 18







Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1


Total Voted : 27

SR-187, Section No. 2.4, See SR-187


Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Page 4 of 18







Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 27Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0


Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 26Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Michael O. Gencarelli Although “Accessible Route” is not defined in the DOJ ADA it is used throughout the DOJ

ADA as well as in NFPA 101. See < http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-

standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/ada-standards/single-file-version

Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 28

Total Voted : 27

SR-22, Section No. 3.3.28.2, See SR-22


Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Page 5 of 18






Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 27Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0



Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 27

Total Voted : 27


SR-24, Section No. 3.3.35.13.1, See SR-24

Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Page 6 of 18






Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0




Total Voted : 27

SR-26, Section No. 3.3.195 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-26

SR-66, New Section after 3.3.190, See SR-66

Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Page 7 of 18









Total Voted : 27

SR-34, Section No. 3.3.290 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See SR-34

Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27


Page 8 of 18












Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27


Page 9 of 18






Affirmative 26Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 1Michael O. Gencarelli “Structural Frame” is still used and is a definition in the DOJ ADA. See <

http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-

ada-standards/ada-standards/single-file-version

Abstain 0





Total Voted : 27


Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27

SR-43, Section No. 5.5.3.3.3.2, See SR-43

Page 10 of 18






Affirmative 27Affirmative with Comment 0Negative 0Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 20Affirmative with Comment 1Jake Pauls See my affirmative comment on SR-71.Negative 6Ralph D. Gerdes I do not understand how video monitoring will improve one's ability to evacuate the

building.David J. Jacoby See SR-71David W. Frable See Comment SR-71Farid Alfawakhiri see comment on SR-71Milosh T. Puchovsky No data or analysis has been presented that mandating the installation of such video

monitoring equipment will have a measurable positive impact on fire safety for building

occupants. Furthermore no provisions or protocols are in place as to how such data

generated by the video equipment is to be used real-time by responding personnel and

others. Standards addressing the design, installation, protection and maintenance of

such specific purpose life safety video equipment and systems are lacking. A broad

reference to NFPA 72 and NFPA 731 do not comprehensively address the related

concerns. Protocols pertaining the to the storage and access of generated video data are

also lacking. Mandating such video monitoring systems in all high rise buildings is pre-

mature, and in its current form will result in numerous design, installation and

enforcement concerns.

David P. Klein I agree with the comments from David Frable, David Jacoby, and Milosh Puchovsky.

Abstain 0


Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27

Page 11 of 18




Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 19Affirmative with Comment 1Jake Pauls See my affirmative comment on SR-71.Negative 7Morgan J. Hurley See negative ballot on SR-71.Ralph D. Gerdes I do not understand how video monitoring will improve one's ability to evacuate the

building.David J. Jacoby See SR-71David W. Frable See Comment SR-71Milosh T. Puchovsky No data or analysis has been presented that mandating the installation of such video











David P. Klein I agree with the comments from David Frable, Morgan Hurley, David Jacoby, and Milosh

Puchovsky.Farid Alfawakhiri see comment on SR-71Abstain 0

Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. Gaubert

SR-73, New Section after 33.3.5.5, See SR-73

Total Voted : 27

SR-71, New Section after 33.3.7, See SR-71

Page 12 of 18





Vote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 19Affirmative with Comment 1Jake Pauls The proposals on exit stair monitoring were submitted by NPFA’s High Rise Building Safety Advisory Committee

(HRBSAC, on which I serve) after a great deal of consideration and related work, most notably on the new NFPA

EAP guide from which excerpts are provided below. HRBSAC has broader expertise on high rise safety, in

relation to fire and other emergencies, than the FUN TC negative balloters appear to posses. Regarding the

monitor display system (noted by Mr. Hurley), in my presentation, to both HRBSAC and the FUN TC, I illustrated

how a display system could be arranged on a single screen to show, simultaneously, continuously, and in real

time, the images from multiple cameras. Modern display systems, as used ubiquitously in video-based security

systems, utilize high-definition screens that can easily display scores of very clear images simultaneously. I

explained that one option, easily implemented with current technology, is to have individual images active only

if there was activity (e.g., people movement, smoke movement, etc.) captured by a camera to help draw

attention only to the relevant areas of the stair system. Clearly, the application of widely-used technologies

(video and otherwise, such as access control systems) is late in being applied to building evacuation systems and

those voting against the HRBSAC proposals want to delay that application even more. HRBSAC has taken a multi-

pronged approach, especially with so much of its effort being applied to planning, management, and process

issues, such as covered in detail in the EAP guide, excerpted here (with underlining added). Guidelines to

Developing Emergency Action Plans (EAP) for All-Hazard Emergencies in High-Rise Office Buildings Section 4

OCCUPANT EVACUATION STRATEGIES 4.1 General. 4.1.1 Various potential threats to a building may require

best practice emergency management so as not to delay moving people to a safe area. This includes provision

for an effective means of initiating, monitoring, and managing the evacuation of a high-rise building, where a

large number of people could be at risk. 4.1.2 The evacuation of occupants in a building’s exit stairs should be

monitored to facilitate effective management of egress capacity, including prioritization of egress for those

occupants in greater danger. . . . . 4.2.3.2 The EAP should identify the safest and most efficient means of

evacuating persons from the building or designated floors or areas thereof. Priority should be given to building

occupants on floors or other areas of the building most at risk of harm and, in the designation of exit routes, to

the avoidance of congestion that would delay the movement of those with priority. The EAP should also ensure

that prioritization is actually accomplished (e.g., by implementing provisions for exit stair monitoring, such as

video systems, monitored from the Emergency Command Center). . . . . 6.2.3 Evaluation. Tests should be

conducted to evaluate the preparedness and capabilities of occupants and life safety staff (e.g., through “fire

drills”). Available stair monitoring system recordings, especially of occupant use of exit stairs, should be used to

assess performance and attain realistic expectations of what can be accomplished in an actual emergency.

Negative 7

Page 13 of 18



Morgan J. Hurley First, the requirement is ambiguous. It calls for cameras at the level of exit discharge and

at least every five stories above the level of exit discharge. These cameras would display

on monitor(s) in the emergency command center. What is not clear is how many

monitor(s) should be provided. One per camera? A single monitor that alternates

between potentially in excess of a hundred cameras? If a single monitor, how frequently

should it alternate between cameras? If there is a single monitor and more than a

hundred cameras, and the scanning frequency is five seconds, each camera would only

be viewed every eight minutes, so the data from these cameras would be of limited

utility. Without identifying how the images from the video cameras would be displayed,

this new requirement would be difficult to apply and enforce. Secondly, and more

importantly, exactly HOW the information obtained by the stairway video monitoring

equipment would be used is not identified. Similarly, no substantiation of the need for

this system is provided by the professionals that might actually use it. Instead, the

substantiation seems to focus more on how the system would address privacy concerns.

Ralph D. Gerdes I do not understand how video monitoring will improve one's ability to evacuate the

building.David J. Jacoby Stairwell monitoring installation is not well defined and adds more cost and complexity

for the potential benefit. The system requires a trained person to be able to intepret the

iformation in real time and relay the information to occupants and responders. Training,

staffing and proper installation guides do not currently exist.

Page 14 of 18



David W. Frable Conceptually, the proposal to install video cameras in high-rise building exit stairways has

the potential to provide useful information to first responders in monitoring occupant

evacuation during a building emergency. However, as written, the proposal language

may create enforcement issues as well as design issues because the language has not

specified any specific operational or performance criteria for the video monitoring

equipment. This lack of critical information will lead to designers questioning what

operational and performance criteria needs to be met as well as what acceptance criteria

is needed for the authority having jurisdiction to approve such systems. In addition, no

acceptance test criterion for the video monitoring equipment has been provided to assist

the authority of jurisdiction in their approval process. Lastly, the requirement for

installing the video monitoring equipment in a high-rise building having an occupant load

factor of 4,000 or more persons has not been sufficiently justified since building height

should be the key determining factor for installing such equipment within a building and

not occupant load since this requirement is proposed in the high-rise building section of

the Code. For example, it is possible that this requirement could require a building less

than 120 feet in height (which is typically not a very tall building) having an occupant

load of 4,000 persons, to require video monitoring equipment within the exit stairs.

Milosh T. Puchovsky No data or analysis has been presented that mandating the installation of such video











David P. Klein I agree with the comments from David Frable, Morgan Hurley, David Jacoby, and Milosh

Puchovsky.

Farid Alfawakhiri I am changing my vote to negative in support of the arguments provided by Hurley,

Puchovsky, Frable and Jacoby.Abstain 0

Page 15 of 18





Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 20Affirmative with Comment 1Jake Pauls See my affirmative comment on SR-71.Negative 6Ralph D. Gerdes I do not understand how video monitoring will improve one's ability to evacuate the

building.David J. Jacoby See SR-71David W. Frable See Comment SR-71

SR-29, New Section after A.3.3.210, See SR-29

Total Voted : 27

SR-77, Section No. A.3.3.170.3, See SR-77

Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27

SR-79, New Section after A.33.3.5, See SR-79

Page 16 of 18






Farid Alfawakhiri see comment on SR-71Milosh T. Puchovsky No data or analysis has been presented that mandating the installation of such video











David P. Klein I agree with the comments from David Frable, David Jacoby, and Milosh Puchovsky.

Abstain 0


Eligible to Vote: 28Not Returned : 1Marshall J. GaubertVote Selection Votes CommentsAffirmative 27Affirmative with Comment 0

SR-64, New Section after H.1.2.5, See SR-64

SR-188, Section No. H.1.1, See SR-188

Total Voted : 27

Total Voted : 27

Page 17 of 18





Negative 0Abstain 0




Total Voted : 27

SR-189, Section No. H.3, See SR-189

Total Voted : 27

SR-33, Section No. H.1.2.17, See SR-33

Total Voted : 27

SR-32, Section No. H.1.2.6, See SR-32

Total Voted : 27

Page 18 of 18




memorandum - nfpa · steel up to 50 ksi (345 mpa) minimum yield point, with atmospheric corrosion...

Documents