502-�

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 Report of the Committee on

Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection

William G. Connell, ChairParsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., MA [SE]

Ian E. Barry, IEB Consulting Ltd., United Kingdom [M] Rep. Isolatek International Arthur G. Bendelius, A&G Consultants, Inc., GA [SE] Alan Brinson, European Fire Sprinkler Network, United Kingdom [M] Rep. International Fire Sprinkler Association, Ltd. Carmen W. Daecher, The Daecher Consulting Group, Inc., PA [SE] Rep. American Society of Safety Engineers Arnold Dix, Counsel at Law/Adj. Prof. Engineering, Australia [C] R. G. Irvine, MTA Bridges and Tunnels, NY [U] Joseph Kroboth, III, Washington County, MD [E] David J. LeBlanc, Tyco Fire & Building Products, RI [M] Roger Lichtenwald, American Warming and Ventilating, OH [M] Colin Macedo, HNTB Corporation, WA [SE] Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering, NY [SE] John Nelsen, Seattle Fire Department, WA [E] Dharam Pal, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, NJ [U] Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Ltd., MA [SE] Jesus M. Rohena, US Department of Transportation, DC [E] Rene van den Bosch, Promat BV The Netherlands, The Netherlands [M]

Alternates

Francis J. Brennan, Seattle Fire Department, WA [E] (Alt. to John Nelsen) Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [M] (Alt. to Alan Brinson)

NonvotingArthur L. Elliott, Sacramento, CA [SE] (Member Emeritus)George E. Ralph, Southport, ME [SE] (Member Emeritus)

Staff Liaison: James D. Lake

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on fire prevention and fire protection measures to reduce loss of life and property damage for road tunnels, air-right structures, bridges, and limited access highways. Excluded from this scope is the protection for facilities for the storage, repair, and parking of motor vehicles.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 502, Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways, 2004 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2007 June Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, which consists of �7 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

502-2

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 _______________________________________________________________ 502-� Log #CC�2 Final Action: Accept (Chapter 3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-3 Recommendation: Revise the following definitions: 3.3.28 Fixed Water-Based Fire Fighting System. A system permanently attached to the tunnel that is able to spread a water-based extinguishing agent in whole or part of the tunnel. This includes sprinkler systems, water spray systems, and water mist systems. Delete 3.3.�4 Deluge System Delete 3.3.27 Fixed Fire Protection System Delete 3.3.46 Sprinkler Systems Delete 3.3.49 Water Mist Replace the term Fixed Fire Protection System where it appears in the standard and replace with Fixed Water-Based Fire Fighting System. Substantiation: Harmonization of definitions within the standard and the industry. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-2 Log #�7 Final Action: Accept (5.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Comment on Proposal No: 502-�8 Recommendation: Revise to read: 5.2 (6) Emergency Communications devices shall be connected to a an approved constantly attended location. or monitored facility. Substantiation: I don’t believe that it is the intent of this section to a facility that is monitored, since a “facility” as defined in this Standard is as “a limited access highway, road tunnel, bridge or elevated highway”. Also, it should state monitoring not monitored. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-3 Log #CC2 Final Action: Accept (5.7 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-24 Recommendation: Add a new section as follows: 5.7* Fire Hydrants (Reserved) A.5.7 Where a municipal or privately owned waterworks system is available, consideration should be given to providing fire hydrants along limited access highways at spacing not to exceed 305 m (�000 ft). The minimum required water supply for fire hydrants should not be less than 3780 L/min (�000 gpm) at �.4 bar (20 psi) from each of two hydrants flowing simultaneously. Substantiation: Provides fire hydrants for limited access highways where a municipal or privately owner waterworks system is available. This was not addressed in previous NFPA 502 standards. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-4 Log #CC5 Final Action: Accept (7.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-32 Recommendation: Revise 7.2. Reinsert the word Category in (�) through (5). And revise table as shown for Redundant Power reference and Emergency Ventilation for Category D tunnels to the mandatory requirement symbol. Substantiation: Editorial corrections. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C.

_______________________________________________________________ 502-5 Log #�6 Final Action: Accept in Principle (7.2, Table 7.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-32 Recommendation: Change the requirement for emergency ventilation for tunnels where the length equals or exceeds �,000 m (3,280 ft) from conditionally mandatory to mandatory. Substantiation: Original Section �0.� allowed engineering analysis to determine requirements for tunnels category C - 300 m or �,000 ft (category D did not exist). This will eliminate the illusion of possible elimination of emergency ventilation for road tunnels. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on 502-4 (Log #CC5). Committee Statement: 502-4 (Log #CC5) addresses the submitter’s comment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-6 Log #�9 Final Action: Reject (7.3.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-33 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (4) It shall meet the fire protection requirements with <5% humidity by weight and also when fully saturated with water in accordance with RWS Fire Test Procedure 998 CVB R 6 (Rev) the large-scale test in EFNARC test specification and guidelines entitled “Specification and Guidelines for Testing of Passive Fire Protection for Concrete Tunnels Linings, March 2006”. Substantiation: The procedure for testing of concrete is identified as RWS Fire Test Procedure “�998-CVB-R 6 (Rev)”. This reference appears incorrect, based on an Internet search. The search brings up an EFNARC test specification and guidelines dated March 2006 entitled “Specification and Guidelines for Testing of Passive Fire Protection for Concrete Tunnels Linings.” While this appears a reasonable test, the requirement for this standard should reference only the “large-scale” furnace, since the small-scale is intended only for development work. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This comment is incorrect. There is in fact an RWS fire test procedure. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-7 Log #CC�� Final Action: Accept (7.3.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-33 Recommendation: Title the first Table as Table 7.3.2 Furnace Temperatures. Substantiation: Clarifies the temperatures in the Table. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-8 Log #CC�8 Final Action: Accept (7.4.1.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-36 Recommendation: Revise proposed text to read as follows: 7.4.�.� For systems other than manual systems, the performance of such systems shall include details of the heat release rate or other fire signature required to initiate alarm. Substantiation: Further identification of the included details. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-9 Log #CC�5 Final Action: Accept (7.6.2(3)) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-40 Recommendation: Revise 7.6.2(3) as follows: (3)* Means shall be provided downstream of an incident site to expedite the flow of vehicles from the tunnel. A.7.6.2(3) Consideration should be given to the various scenarios that impact

502-3

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 flow from the tunnel and the various means to mitigate their impact. These include the control of heat and smoke, or the installation of fixed water-based fire fighting systems. Substantiation: Annex note provides further guidance on how expediting traffic flow may be achieved. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �4 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Explanation of Negative: MAEVSKI, I.: The proposed text reads: “These include the control of heat and smoke, or the installation of fixed water-based fire fighting systems.” The way it reads - It is require either to control heat and smoke, OR to install fixed fire fighting system. This contradicts with the other chapters of NFPA 502, that require to control heat and smoke. From my point of view the word OR in the 502-9 (Log #CC�5) is not acceptable. PAL, D.: The installation of fixed water-based fire fighting systems should not be included as there are many concerns regarding their use. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�0 Log #CC�3 Final Action: Accept (7.10) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-44 Recommendation: Revise 7.�0 as follows: 7.10* Fixed Water-Based Fire Fighting Systems. 7.10.1 Fixed water-based fire fighting systems shall be permitted in road tunnels as part of an integrated approach to the management of fire and life safety. 7.10.2 Where fixed water-based fire fighting systems are installed in road tunnels, the fixed water-based fire fighting system shall be installed, inspected, and maintained in accordance with NFPA ��, NFPA �3, NFPA �5, NFPA �6, NFPA �8, NFPA 25, and NFPA 750. Substantiation: Further clarifies the intent of the committee to include the performance of these systems as part of an integrated approach to fire/life safety in tunnels. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �5 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Explanation of Negative: PAL, D.: See My Explanation of Negative on 502-9 (Log #CC�5). Comment on Affirmative: MAEVSKI, I.: 7.�0.� could be affirmed only with reference to D.4.�. This reference is missing. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�� Log #CC�7 Final Action: Accept (7.12.5) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-75 Recommendation: Revise 7.�2.5 as follows: 7.�2.5* The drainage collection system shall drain to a storage tank or transfer pumping station of sufficient capacity to receive, as a minimum, the rate of flow from use of the standpipe system the simultaneous rate of flow from two fire hoses in accordance with Chapter 9, without causing flooding on the roadway. Substantiation: ROP 502-75 revised 9.� of the standard necessitating this change for further clarity regarding drainage system sizing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Comment on Affirmative: CONNELL, W.: Recommendation: The proposed wording should be further revised as follows: “...the rate of flow from use of the standpipe and, where installed, fixed water-based fire suppression system...”. Substantiation: This acknowledges the growing use of fixed fire suppression systems in road tunnels and ensures that the road tunnel drainage systems are designed to account for this potential inflow during their activation in addition to the flow from use of the manual standpipe system. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�2 Log #CC7 Final Action: Accept (7.17.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-50 Recommendation: Add a new Annex A.7.�7.�. Only the exit design and construction requirements from NFPA �0� should be

applied to tunnels. It is not the intent of these requirements to apply the requirements for travel distances and accessible means of egress in NFPA �0� to road tunnels. However the protection of mobility impaired individuals and their impact on the egress should be addressed as part of the emergency response plans in Chapter �2 and Annex E. Substantiation: Proposal 502-50 and 502-66 revised this requirement. The committee action inadvertently lost the Annex note associated with 7.�7.6.2. This revision replaces that language in the Annex for 7.�7.� and provides further clarification for addressing those with mobility impairments. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�3 Log #CC6 Final Action: Accept (7.17.1.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-53 Recommendation: Change “reflectorized” to “reflective”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�4 Log #� Final Action: Accept in Principle (7.17.3.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-� Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 7.�7.3.3 Tenable environment. A tenable environment shall be provided in those portions of the tunnel that are not involved in an emergency and in all emergency exits and cross passageways while those portions of the tunnel that are involved in an emergency shall be managed so as to best ensure the tenable environment can be provided in those portions of the tunnel that are not involved in an emergency and all emergency exits and cross passageways by managing the ventilation system and any fire suppression systems. so as to minimize fire growth, minimize the discharge of noxious combustion products, and contain all, and where applicable dilute, combustion products, a products so as enhance tenability of the environment. Substantiation: Suggest deleting text: So as to minimize fire growth, minimize the discharge of noxious combustion products, and contain all, and where applicable dilute, combustion products so as enhance tenability of the environment. Reasons: �. Very difficult to minimize fire growth by ventilation system. No ventilation (no oxygen supply) would be best option to minimize fire growth. 2. Conflict with minimize fire growth statement as incomplete combustion increases noxious. 3. Contain all requires single point extraction only and precludes other vent systems application. 4. Dilute increases fire growth. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise proposed 7.�7.2 from ROP 502-52 (Log #95) as follows: 7.�7.2. Tenable environment. A tenable environment shall be provided in the tunnel during the evacuation phase in accordance with the emergency response plan for a specific incident. A.7.�7.2 The duration of the evacuation phase may be impacted by travel distances to emergency exits. Committee Statement: This change was actually addressed in ROP 502-52 (Log #95) and moved to 7.�7.2. See also Committee Action on 502-35 (Log #CC9) which moves the proposed annex language to this paragraph. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�5 Log #CC4 Final Action: Accept (9.1.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-75 Recommendation: Delete 9.�.2 and change the proposed 9.�.�.� to 9.�.2. Substantiation: This paragraph is not necessary as the requirements are covered by the reference in 9.�.�. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C.

502-4

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 _______________________________________________________________ 502-�6 Log #CC3 Final Action: Accept (9.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-8� Recommendation: Revise the following sections in 9.3. 9.3 Fire Department Connections. 9.3.1 Fire department connections shall be of the threaded two-way or three-way type or shall consist of one a minimum �00 mm (4 in.) quick-connect coupling that is accessible to a fire department pumper. 9.3.4 Wherever possible, f Fire department connection locations shall be approved and shall be coordinated with emergency access and response locations. Substantiation: Provides further guidance on the approval of fire department connection locations. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�7 Log #2 Final Action: Reject (10.1, 10.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-� Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: �0.� General. Emergency ventilation systems and tunnel operating procedures shall be developed to maximize the use of the road tunnel ventilation system for the control of fire growth, the removal and control of smoke and heated gases that result from fire emergencies within the tunnel. �0.2.2 In all cases, the desired goal shall be to provide an evacuation path for motorists who are exiting from the tunnel, to control fire growth rate and to facilitate fire fighting operations. �0.2.3 In tunnels with bidirectional traffic where motorists can be on both sides of the fire site, the following objectives shall be met: (�) Fire growth rate shall be minimized; (2) Smoke stratification shall not be disturbed; (3) Longitudinal air velocity shall be kept at low magnitudes; (4) Smoke extraction through ceiling openings or high openings along the tunnel wall(s) is effective and shall be considered. �0.2.4 In tunnels with unidirectional traffic where motorists are likely to be located upstream of the fire site, the following objective shall be met: (�) Longitudinal systems (a) minimize fire growth rate; (a) (b) prevent back layering by producing a longitudinal air velocity that was greater than the critical velocity of direction of traffic flow; (b) (c) avoid disruption of the smoke layering initially by not operating jet fans that are located near the fire site. Operate fans that are farthest away from the site first. (2) Transverse or reversible semi transverse systems. (a) maximize the exhaust rate in the ventilation zone manage the exhaust rate in the ventilation zone so as to minimize the fire growth rate in the area that contains the fire and minimize the amount of inside air that is introduced by transverse systems. (b) create a longitudinal air flow in the direction of the traffic flow by operating the upstream ventilation zone(s) in maximum supply and the down stream ventilation zone(s) in maximum of the exhaust. Substantiation: Suggest deleting added text: See 502-86 (Log #9) and TC Meeting Action Reject. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee Action for this proposal was on 502-8 (Log #68) and 502-9 (Log #78) which were rejected proposals making this comment redundant. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�8 Log #3 Final Action: Reject (10.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-� Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: �0.4 Design Objectives. The design objectives of the emergency ventilation system shall be to minimize fire growth rate, control, extract, or to control and extract, smoke and heated gases as follows: (�) A stream of non contaminated air is provided to motorists in a path of egress away from the fire (see Annex B). (2) Longitudinal air flow rates are produced by the back layering of smoke in a path of egress away from the fire (see Annex C). Substantiation: Suggest deleting added text: See 502-87 (Log #�0) and TC Meeting Action Reject. Committee Meeting Action: Reject

Committee Statement: The Committee Action for this proposal was on 502-87 (Log #�0) which was a rejected proposal making this comment redundant. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-�9 Log #4 Final Action: Reject (10.5) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-� Recommendation: Delete the following text: �0.5.� The design fire size [heat-release rate produced by a vehicle(s)] shall be used to design the emergency ventilation system. �0.5.�.� Consideration should be given to using different design fire sizes for different design questions. The design fire for structural integrity may be a different design fire to that used for emergency evacuation. Because the rate of growth of a fire is critical to the tenability of a tunnel and users ability to escape criteria including rate of growth of a fire may be considered as part of the engineering design process for the tunnel. Substantiation: Suggest deleting added text: See 502-88 (Log #��) and TC Meeting Action Reject. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee Action for this proposal was on 502-88 (Log #��) which was a rejected proposal making this comment redundant. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-20 Log #2� Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.3.2.1 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-98 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.3.2.� Cables installed in confined spaces shall be low toxicity, low smoke and zero halogen and meet the following:..”. Substantiation: I did not see a definition for confined spaces. Given that the scope of this document is “Document Scope: �.�.� This standard provides fire protection and fire life safety requirements for limited access highways, road tunnels, bridges, elevated highways, depressed highways, and roadways that are located beneath air-right structures.” Therefore, all areas will be somewhat confined. Given there is no definition for a confined space, and all areas in this document will be covered, it would make this section clear by deleting “installed in confined spaces.” Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise comment as follows: ��.3.2.� Cables installed in confined spaces installed in tunnels shall be low toxicity, low smoke and zero halogen and meet the following:..”. Committee Statement: Term confined space has a strict definition and it is not the intent to apply it here. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-2� Log #28 Final Action: Reject (11.3.5.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James S. Conrad, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-�02 Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted. Substantiation: The plenum is probably the safest place to put critical circuits using fire-rated cables and with the volume of air being pulled through the plenum it is very unlikely that the air temperature would reach the proposed temperature outlined in the new 7.3.2. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee Action on 502-22 (Log #CC�0) addresses the submitter’s concerns. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-22 Log #CC�0 Final Action: Accept (11.3.5.4, 11.3.5.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-�02 Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Conductors in a raceway or cable shall not be installed exposed or surface mounted in air plenums that can be exposed to elevated temperatures unless conductors or cables are a classified fire resistive cable in accordance with UL2�96 for a period of not less than 2 hours and the cables are shielded at the vent openings from direct flame impingement.

502-5

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 ��.3.5.4.� The requirement of ��.3.5.4 does not apply to bidirectional antennas used for emergency communication circuits. Substantiation: The committee recognizes that the cable installed in elevated air temperature plenum(s) above the roadway would not be exposed to the same fire conditions as in the tunnel itself. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-23 Log #23 Final Action: Reject (11.3.6 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�03 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.3.6 Essential power, control and communication circuits shall be protected from fire by an electrical circuit protective system (UL FHIT or equal) or other fire protection system approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Substantiation: Original proposal has merit. Determining if a circuit will survive in a fire is more complicated than specifying a time/temperature curve. There is no industry accepted circuit integrity cable procedure for the RWS time temperature curve (There is one for protecting concrete though). The test procedure (use of an open flame such as in an IEC 6033� test, vs. the enclosed oven test of UL 2�96) can have a great effect on the survivability of the cable. As an example, using the open flame apparatus as specified in IEC 6033�-�� and the test procedure of IEC 6033�-2�, a cable may pass three hours at 2000°F or greater. Our experience has been that this same cable may not meet UL 2�96 utilizing the ASTM E��9 flame profile for even one hour, even though the flame profile would only be �700°F at one hour. The difference is that with an open flame, the cable conductor does not experience the same temperature (because of radiation and convection) as it would in an oven test. It should also be noted that UL 2�96 can use the UL �709/ASTM �529 rapid rise profile (2000°F within five minutes). There is at least one cable commercially available that has passed the UL 2�96 test with the 2000°F rapid rise profile. Cable that passes this test may pass an IEC 6033�-��/2� test modified to use the RWS time temperature curve. This will be verified in the near future. In the meantime, UL 2�96 circuit integrity test with the rapid rise profile is the most stringent cable test procedure commercially available. UL 2�96 also addressed many installation issues that could cause a cable to fail. There is no clear correlation of these tests to actual fires. Some people would argue that an open flame is more like a “real” fire. Others would argue that an oven test is more uniform and repeatable, and allows testing of the entire system. This can be debated for future revisions, but at this point, the best commercially available technology should be specified. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-24 Log #20 Final Action: Reject (11.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-�03 Recommendation: This proposal has merit. The proposal would set a minimum standard for cables used in the critical circuits that are for life-safety and firefighting purposes. Substantiation: This proposal called for an “Electrical circuit protective system” (UL FHIT) which would establish a minimum cable performance requirement for cables used in fire-protected circuits in tunnels. The test (UL 2�96) involves retaining electrical circuit integrity during a rigorous full scale fire test involving a time temperature curve that reaches �0�0°C in 2 hours, and is followed by the impact of a fireman’s hose. The proposal therefore only attempts to set a minimum standard, and does not attempt to deal with how performance against the RWS curve would be achieved. The RWS Time-temperature curve reaches �350°C, which far exceeds the capability of copper electrical cables (copper starts to melt around �040°C). In an environment where temperatures can reach �350°C, fire resistive electrical cables have to be protected by a suppression system or barrier system that lowers the temperature sufficiently to allow copper cables to perform. With the demonstrated ability of a suppression or barrier system to limit the temperature to below �000°C, a high level of safety can be achieved as part of an integrated approach to the management of safety. Reliance on a barrier system alone to protect cables is not a good idea for critical circuits; they are prone to damage either during installation or subsequently. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C.

_______________________________________________________________ 502-25 Log #29 Final Action: Accept (11.4) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James S. Conrad, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-�04 Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted in part only. Accept proposed changes to ��.4 and ��.4.� and reject proposed Sections ��.4.2 and ��.4.3. Substantiation: The wording in proposed ��.4.2 and ��.4.3 is redundant and covered in the referenced standards mentioned in ��.4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Comment on Affirmative: MACEDO, C.: In the ROP (Proposal 502-�04 Log #�03) “(7) Fire Detection” was added. As a comment to that ballot, I had requested adding “Fire Protection” to cover the power for Air Compressors on Dry Pipe Valves, solenoids on Deluge Valves and other similar components, of Fire Protection Systems requiring power, that do not fall under the Fire Detection category. Please add “Fire Protection” (or edit (7) to read: “Fire Detection/Fire Protection) to the list. _______________________________________________________________ 502-26 Log #22 Final Action: Accept (11.4.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�04 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.4.� The following systems shall be fire connected to the emergency power system utilizing fire rated cables:..”. Substantiation: The wording “fire connected” is not clear. This wording is suggested to clarify the intent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-27 Log #�8 Final Action: Reject (11.4.1.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-�06 Recommendation: This proposal has merit. The proposal would set a minimum standard for cables used in the critical circuits that are for life-safety and firefighting purposes. Substantiation: This proposal called for electrical cables having a minimum �-hour fire resistive rating in accordance with UL 2�96 which would establish a minimum cable performance requirement for cables used in fire-protected circuits in tunnels. The UL 2�96 listing test involves retaining electrical circuit integrity during a rigorous full scale fire test involving a time temperature curve that reaches �0�0°C in 2 hours, and is followed by the impact of a fireman’s hose. The proposal therefore only attempts to set a minimum standard, and does not attempt to deal with how performance against the RWS curve would be achieved. The RWS Time-temperature curve reaches �350°C, which far exceeds the capability of copper electrical cables (copper starts to melt around �040°C). In an environment where temperatures can reach �350°C, fire resistive electrical cables have to be protected by a suppression system or barrier system that lowers the temperature sufficiently to allow copper cables to perform. With the demonstrated ability of a suppression or barrier system to limit the temperature to below �000°C, a high level of safety can be achieved as part of an integrated approach to the management of safety. Reliance on a barrier system alone to protect cables is not a good idea for critical circuits; they are prone to damage either during installation or subsequently. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-28 Log #24 Final Action: Reject (11.4.1.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�06 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.4.�.2 Fire resistive cable used for the requirements listed in Section ��.4 shall be listed having a minimum �-hour fire resistive rating in accordance with UL 2�96 (or equal) or other fire protection system approved by the authority having jurisdiction and shall be installed per the listing requirements.

502-6

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 Substantiation: Original proposal has merit. There may be alternative test procedures that are equal to UL 2�96, or other methods of fire protection that would be acceptable. See additional substantiation on Comment to 502-�03. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-29 Log #25 Final Action: Reject (11.4.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�08 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.4.2 Supply circuits shall remain functional during a �-hour fire exposure when tested in accordance with the time/temperature curve in 7.3.2. the test method of UL 2�96 (or equal) utilizing the rapid rise profile as shown in UL �709 or other fire protection system approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Substantiation: Determining if a circuit will survive in a fire is more complicated than specifying a time/temperature curve. There is no industry accepted circuit integrity cable procedure for the RWS time temperature curve (There is one for protecting concrete though). The test procedure (use of an open flame such as in an IEC 6033� test, vs. the enclosed oven test of UL 2�96) can have a great effect on the survivability of the cable. As an example, using the open flame apparatus as specified in IEC 6033�-�� and the test procedure of IEC 6033�-2�, a cable may pass three hours at 2000°F or greater. Our experience has been that this same cable may not meet UL 2�96 utilizing the ASTM E��9 flame profile for even one hour, even though the flame profile would only be �700°F at one hour. The difference is that with an open flame, the cable conductor does not experience the same temperature (because of radiation and convection) as it would in an oven test. It should also be noted that UL 2�96 can use the UL �709/ASTM �529 rapid rise profile (2000°F within five minutes). There is at least one cable commercially available that has passed the UL 2�96 test with the 2000°F rapid rise profile. Cable that passes this test may pass an IEC 6033�-��/2� test modified to use the RWS time temperature curve. This will be verified in the near future. In the meantime, UL 2�96 circuit integrity test with the rapid rise profile is the most stringent cable test procedure commercially available. UL 2�96 also addressed many installation issues that could cause a cable to fail. There is no clear correlation of these tests to actual fires. Some people would argue that an open flame is more like a “real” fire. Others would argue that an oven test is more uniform and repeatable, and allows testing of the entire system. This can be debated for future revisions, but at this point, the best commercially available technology should be specified. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-30 Log #27 Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.4.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: James S. Conrad, Tyco Thermal Controls Comment on Proposal No: 502-�08 Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted in principle only. Proposal should read: Supply Emergency circuit wiring shall remain functioning for a period of not less than � hour when exposed to fire conditions. exposure when tested in accordance with the time/temperature curve in 7.3.2. The method of protecting the emergency wire shall be acceptable to the AHJ. Substantiation: The new wording allows different methods of protection such as sprinkler and high temp cables or embedded conduits with fire rated cables. Also, the RWS curve does not have a test procedure for electrical cables. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Emergency circuit wiring shall remain functioning for a period of not less than � hour when exposed to fire conditions in accordance with the RWS Fire Test Procedure or shall be protected by other means acceptable to the AHJ. Committee Statement: Clarifies the reference to a test procedure and provides the AHJ the ability to accept alternate methods. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-3� Log #30 Final Action: Reject (11.4.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mike Rowan, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�08 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.4.2 Supply circuits Cables shall remain functional during a �-hour fire exposure when tested in accordance with the time/temperature curve in 7.3.2. UL 2�96 utilizing the rapid rise profile as shown in UL �709.

Substantiation: Determining if a circuit will survive in a fire is more complicated than specifying a time/temperature curve and specifying the UL 2�96 test procedure with the rapid rise curve allowed in the standard, is likely to be more severe than just specifying the RWS time/temperature curve. The survivability of the cable depends on the entire system functioning, from supports to boxes, to vertical strength, etc. This is addressed by UL 2�96. There are other issues to consider with cable that are different than with protecting concrete. Limiting the surface temperature of the concrete to 7�6°F, would not limit the cable temperature inside the barrier to this same temperature, since the cable may be in a tray away from the wall, at a much higher temperature. Air is a good thermal insulator, and if the barrier needs to be six feet for the concrete to have the temperature below 7�6°F (average or peak?), the temperature behind the barrier at a joint may have a peak temperature much much higher than this. Standard cables can fail at temperature much below this (example, a communication cable with LDPE would melt around �76°F, and may fail from deformation at a bend significantly below this). From a practical perspective, maintenance and operability need to be addressed for the life of the system. There would also be a need to have boxes accessible, penetrations in the barriers (such as for lighting), doors, etc. Additionally, thermal barriers may be damaged in normal use, breached to run other equipment, removed for maintenance, subjected to installation expertise, etc. Therefore, a cable that is subjected to the most stringent commercially available test procedure would provide the highest level of safety available. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-32 Log #26 Final Action: Reject (11.6.8 (New) ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Konnik, Rockbestos-Surprenant Comment on Proposal No: 502-�22 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.6.8 Cables for emergency lighting and power to emergency lighting shall be protected from fire by the use of fire rated cables listed for �-hour to UL 2�96 (or equal) or by a minimum cover of 2 in. of concrete utilizing the rapid rise profile as shown in UL �709 or other fire protection system approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Substantiation: Original proposal has merit. There may be alternative test procedures that are equal to UL 2�96, or other methods of fire protection that would be acceptable. See additional substantiation on Comment to 502-�03. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-30 (Log #27). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-33 Log #5 Final Action: Accept (Annex A) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.7.�7.3.3 For additional information on tenable environment in road tunnels, see Annex B. Substantiation: Word “additional” is confusing as no other information on tenable environment is provided in Annex A. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-34 Log #CC8 Final Action: Accept (A.7.17.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-4� Recommendation: Reject Proposal 502-4�. Substantiation: At this point the committee has not seen sufficient documentation to demonstrate the effectiveness and suitability of these appliances in a tunnel environment. The ROP action was intended to provide time for such documentation to be collected and this has not occurred. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C.

502-7

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 _______________________________________________________________ 502-35 Log #CC9 Final Action: Accept (A.7.17.2) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Change Annex reference from A.7.�7.3.3 to A.7.�7.2. Substantiation: ROP Action changed the section number. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-36 Log #�4 Final Action: Accept (A.7.17.3.3) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: If a project does not establish a time-of-tenability criterion, the system should be designed to maintain the tenable conditions indefinitely for at least � hour. Substantiation: Mechanical Equipment that is supposed to maintain tenable environment can withstand high temperatures for at least � hour in accordance with �0.6.� and �0.7.�. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-37 Log #�5 Final Action: Accept (Annex B ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: B.2.4 Air Velocities. Air velocities in the enclosed tramway tunnel should be greater than or equal to 0.76 m/s (�50 fpm) and less than or equal to ��.0 m/s (2200 fpm). B.4.5 The time for emergency personnel to arrive at the station platform to the fire site...”. Substantiation: The tramway or station platform in a typical road tunnel. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Comment on Affirmative: NELSEN, J.: Errata not captured at ROC meeting - “sight” should read “site” in the following: B.4.5 The time for emergency personnel to arrive at the station platform to the fire sight _______________________________________________________________ 502-38 Log #CC�9 Final Action: Accept (A.10.5.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-�0 Recommendation: Revise Table A.�0.5.� as follows:Revise Table A.�0.5.� as follows:

Substantiation: The fire HRR is the only information to this requirement and the table does not need to contain the other information.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Comment on Affirmative: MACEDO, C.: To make grammatical and logical sense, the first sentence in Note 3 at the bottom of Table A.�0.5.� should be amended to read as follows: “In the case of flammable and combustible liquids spill from a tanker, the design should include adequate drainage to limit the area of the potential pool fire and its duration”. MAEVSKI, I.: Temperatures directly above the fire can be expected to be as high as �000 to �400°C WITH NO OR NEGLIGIBLE LONGITUDINAL AIR FLOW ONLY. With longitudinal airflow temperatures are lower and are a function of longitudinal air velocity. NELSEN, J.: Last sentence in footnote #3 should become stand alone footnote #4 as follows as it applies across all vehicle types: 4. The heat release rate may be greater than in the table if more than one vehicle is involved. _______________________________________________________________ 502-39 Log #6 Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Delete the following text: B.2.� Heat Effects. Exposure to heat can lead to life threat three basic ways: �) Hypothermia 2) Body surface burns 3) Respiratory tract burns. Substantiation: Information does not bring value to the standard. Besides heat effect can lead to pain; blistering, heat stroke and etc. Note that factors mentioned above usually occur in close proximity to the fire source, under a heated smoke layer or within a smoke layer. It is impossible to provide a tenable environment at the fire source. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Comment on Affirmative: MAEVSKI, I.: The proposed description is incomplete as pain, blistering, heat stroke and etc. are not mentioned. _______________________________________________________________ 502-40 Log #7 Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: For use in the modeling of life threat due to heat exposure in fires, it is necessary to consider only two criteria - the threshold of burning of the skin and the exposure at which hypothermia is sufficient to cause mental deterioration and thereby threaten survival. Note that thermal burns to the respiratory tract from inhalation of air containing less than �0 percent by volume of water vapor do not occur in the absence of burns to the skin or the face; thus, tenability limits with regard to skin burns normally are lower than for burns to the respiratory tract. However, thermal burns to the respiratory tract can occur upon inhalation of air above 60°C (�40°F) that is saturated with water vapor. �) Air temperatures as follows: Maximum of 60°C (�40°F) for a few seconds, averaging 49°C (�20°F) or less for the first 6 minutes of the exposure and decreasing thereafter. Substantiation: Information does not bring value to the standard. The original text is clear and straight forward. Suggest to return back to the original heat effects requirements. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �5 Abstain: � Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Explanation of Abstention: MAEVSKI, I.: The result of the proposed change is the loss of temperature criteria necessary for calculations and modeling.

Fire Data for Typical Vehicles1,2

Cause of Fire

Peak Fire Heat-Release Rate

MWPassenger car 5-�0Multiple passenger Cars (2-4 Vehicles) �0-20Bus 20-30Heavy goods truck 70-200Tanker3 200-300Notes� The designer should consider the rate of fire development (peak heat release rates may be reached within �0 minutes), the number of vehicles that could be involved in the fire and the potential for the fire to spread from one vehicle to another.2 Temperatures directly above the fire can be expected to be as high as �000 to �400˚C 3 Flammable and combustible liquids for the tanker fire the design should include adequate drainage to limit the area of the pool fire and its duration. The heat release rate may be greater than in the table if more than one vehicle is involved.

502-8

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 _______________________________________________________________ 502-4� Log #8 Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Delete the following text: As with toxic gases, an exposed occupant can be considered to accumulate a dose of radiant heat over a period of time. The fraction equivalent dose (FED) of radiant heat accumulated per minute is the reciprocal of tirad. Radiant heat tends to be directional, producing localized heating of particular areas of skin even though the air temperature in contact with other parts of the body might be relatively low. Skin temperature depends on the balance between the rate of heat applied to the skin surface and the removal of heat subcutaneously by the blood. Thus, there is a threshold radian flux below which significant heating of the skin is prevented but above which rapid heating occurs. Substantiation: Information does not bring value to the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-42 Log #9 Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Delete the following text: Calculation of the time to incapacitation under condition of exposure to convected heat from air containing less than �0 percent by volume of water vapor can be made using either equation (2) or equation (3). As with toxic gases, an exposed occupant can be considered to accumulate a dose of convected heat over a period of time. The FED of convected heat accumulated per minute is the reciprocal of ticonv. Convected heat accumulated per minute depends on the extent to which an exposed occupant is clothed and the nature of the clothing. For fully clothed subjects, equation (2) is suggested: tlconv = (4.�*�08)T - 3..6� (2) where: tlconv - time in minutes T = temperature in °C For unclothed or lightly clothed subjects, it might be more appropriate to use equation (3): tlconv = (5.0*�07) T--3.4 (3) where: itcmiv = time in minutes T = temperature in °C. Substantiation: Information complicates and does not bring value to the standard. It is difficult to evaluate �0 percent of water vapor and in road tunnels very unrealistic, as vehicles used in road tunnels contain a lot of liquid and tunnel environment contains more than �0 percent of water. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-43 Log #�0 Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Delete the following text: Equations (2) and (3) are empirical fits to human data. It is estimated that the uncertainty is + 25 percent. Thermal tolerance data for unprotected human skin suggest a limit of about �20°C (248°F) for convected heat, above which there is, within minutes, onset of considerable pain along with the production of burns. Depending on the length of exposure, convective heat below this temperature can also cause hypothermia. Substantiation: Information does not bring value to the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-44 Log #�� Final Action: Reject (B.2.1) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-56 Recommendation: Delete the following text: Note �: In areas within an occupancy where the radiant flux to the skin is under 2.5 kW/m2, the first term in equation.

Note 2: The uncertainty associated with the use of this last equation would be dependent on the uncertainties with the use of the three earlier equations. The time at which the FED accumulated sum exceeds an incapacitating threshold value of 0.3 represents the time available for escape for the chosen radiant and convective heat exposures. Substantiation: Information does not bring value to the standard. Provides a lot of confusions and uncertainties. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee is of the opinion that this material is helpful in determining tenability of the environment. Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-45 Log #�2 Final Action: Accept (Annex C) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-�26 Recommendation: Revise text as follows:

Current Text Proposed ChangeK� = 0.606 K� = 0.606 (Froude number factor, K� = Fr ^(-�/3)Cp = …/lb r Cp = …/lbRTf = [K(r)] Tf = [K (R)]T = ….[K(r)] T = ….[K (R)]

Substantiation: Minor corrections. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-46 Log #CC�4 Final Action: Accept (Annex D) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection Comment on Proposal No: 502-�3� Recommendation: Revise Annex A.7.�0 and Annex D as follows:This comment effects material from ROP 502-45, �29, �3� and �4�.

Annex A Explanatory Material

A.7.10 For additional information on water-based fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels, see Annex D.

Annex D Water-Based Fixed Fire Fighting Systems in Road Tunnels

This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.

D.1 General. This annex provides considerations for the incorporation of water-based fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels.

D.2 Water-Based Fixed Fire Fighting Systems. Equipment permanently attached to a road tunnel which when operated has the intended effect of reducing the heat release and fire growth rates by being able to spread an extinguishing agent in whole or part of the tunnel using a network of pipes and nozzles.

Fixed Water-Based Fire Fighting Systems should be used as a component of an integrated fire engineering approach to fire protection to reduce the rate of fire growth and the ultimate heat release rate.

Examples of water-based fixed fire fighting systems include Sprinkler Systems, Deluge Systems, Mist Systems and Foam Systems.

D.3 Background. NFPA has included material regarding water-based fixed fire fighting systems (formerly called sprinkler systems) since the �998 Edition of this Standard. This material had been contained in a separate annex in each edition since then.

The World Road Association (PIARC) addressed the subject of fixed fire fighting systems (formerly called sprinkler systems) in road tunnels in the reports presented at the World Road Congresses held in Sydney (�983), Brussels (�987), and Montreal (�995). In addition, The subject of fixed fire fighting systems were addressed in PIARC’s technical reports titled Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels (�999) and Systems and Equipment for Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels and Road Tunnels: An Assessment of Fixed Fire Fighting Systems.

502-9

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 No European country currently installs fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels on a regular basis. In some road tunnels in Europe, sprinkler fixed fire suppression systems have been used for special purposes. Catastrophic road tunnel fires have encouraged a re-evaluation of these systems for use in future road tunnels in Europe. Below is a list of tunnels in Europe that currently have fixed water-based fire fighting systems installed.

• Austria

o Mona Lisa Tunnel)o Felbertauern Tunnel.

• Franceo A86 Tunnel

• Italyo Brennero Tunnel

• The Netherlandso Roermond Tunnel

• Norway o Válreng tunnel o Fløyfjell tunnel,

• Spaino M30 Tunnelso Vielha Tunnel

• Sweden o Tegelbacken Tunnel.

Tests on fixed fire fighting systems have recently been conducted by France, the Netherlands and UPTUN,

In Australia, deluge-type fixed water-based fire fighting systems are installed in all major urban road tunnels. It is the Australian view is that it is more likely that small fires could – if not suppressed – develop more often into large (and uncontrollable) fires, particularly since this type of fire development is more typical than the occurrence of instantaneously large fires. Below is a list of road tunnels in Australia the have fixed water-based fire fighting systems installed

Sydney Harbor TunnelM5 East TunnelLanecove TunnelEastern DistributerCity Link TunnelGraham Farmer TunnelM4 TunnelAdelaide Hills TunnelMitchham/Frankstone TunnelNorth/South Busway TunnelNorth/South TunnelWater fixed fire fighting systems have been installed in road tunnels for more

than four decades in Japan. The decision for a specific tunnel project has to be based on the Japanese safety standards. In Japan,In Japan, sprinkler fixed fire suppression systems are required in all tunnels longer than �0,000 m (32,808 ft) and in shorter tunnels longer than 3000 m (9843 ft) with heavy traffic.

There are five United States road tunnels that have been equipped with water-based fixed fire fighting systems: the Battery Street Tunnel in Seattle, Washington; the Central Artery North Area (CANA) Route � tunnel in Boston, MA, and the I-90 First Hill Mercer Island and Mt. Baker Ridge tunnels in Seattle, WA and the I-5 Tunnel in Seattle, Washington. The decision to provide water-based fixed fire fighting systems in these tunnels was motivated primarily by the fact that these tunnels were planned will to be operated to allow the unescorted passage of vehicles carrying hazardous materials as cargo. See Table D�.� below.

Traditionally the reason why most countries have not used water-based fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels is that most fires start in the motor room or in the compartment, and fixed fire suppression systems are of limited use until the fire is open. Fixed fire fighting systems can be used, however, to cool down burning vehicles, to stop the fire from spreading to other vehicles (i.e., to diminish the fire area and property damage), and to stop secondary fires in lining materials. Experiences from Japan show that fixed fire suppression systems are effective in cooling down the area around the fire, so that fire fighting can be more effective.

D.3.1 In the past, the use and effectiveness of fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels were not universally accepted. It is now acknowledged that fixed fire fighting systems are highly regarded by fire protection professionals and fire fighters and can be effective in controlling a fuel road tunnel fire by actually limiting the spread of the fire. One of the reasons why most countries were reluctant to use fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels is that most fires start in the motor compartment of a vehicle, and fixed fire fighting systems are of limited use in suppressing the fire until the fire is out in the open. Fixed fire fighting systems can be used, however, to cool down vehicles, to stop the fire from spreading to other vehicles (i.e., to diminish the fire area and property damage), and to stop secondary fires in tunnel lining materials. Experiences from Japan show that fixed firefighting systems have been extremely effective in cooling down the area around the fire, so that fire fighting can be performed more effectively.

D.3.2 The major concerns expressed, in the past, by tunnel designers and engineers worldwide (authorities) regarding the use and effectiveness of water-based fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels for many years included the issues listed below along with the current assessment of these issues.

�) Typically fires in road tunnels usually occur inside vehicles or

Table D.1.1 Road Tunnel Fixed Fire Suppression Fighting Systems in the United States North America

Tunnel Location RouteOpened

toTraffic

LengthMeters(feet)

Bores/Lanes

Fixed FireSuppression

SystemType

SystemZones

Battery Street SeattleWashington SR99 �952 67�

(2,200) 2/4 DelugeWater �4

Mercer island SeattleWashington I-90 �989 9�4

(3,000) 3/8 DelugeFoam 37

Mt. Baker Ridge SeattleWashington I-90 �989 �,067

(3,500) 3/8 DelugeFoam 50

CANA Northbound BostonMassachusetts US � �990 470

(�,540) �/3 DelugeFoam �5

CANA Southbound BostonMassachusetts US � �990 275

(900) �/3 DelugeFoam 9

I-5 Tunnel SeattleWashington I-5 �988 �67

(547) �/�2 DelugeFoam 9

George Massey Tunnel

VancouverBC 99 �959 630 m 2/4 Sprinkler System N/A

502-�0

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 inside passenger or engine compartments designed to be waterproof from above; therefore, sprinkler water-based fixed fire fighting systems would not have an extinguishing effect.

It is now recognized that the purpose of a water-based fixed fire fighting fire fighting system is to prevent fire spread to other vehicles so that the fire does not grow to a size that cannot be attacked by the fire service and not to extinguish the fire.

2) If any delay occurs between ignition and water-based fixed fire fighting system activation, a thin water spray on a very hot fire could produce large quantities of superheated steam without material suppressing the fire.

Fire tests have now shown this concern not to be valid. A properly designed water-based fixed fire fighting system suppresses the fire and cools the tunnel environment. Since a heavy goods vehicle fire only needs �0 minutes to exceed �00 MW and �,200°C, which are fatal conditions, it is important to operate the fixed fire fighting system as soon as possible.

3) Tunnels are very long and narrow, often sloped laterally and longitudinally, vigorously ventilated, and never subdivided, so heat normally will not be localized over a fire.

Nevertheless advances in fire detection technology have now made it possible to pinpoint the location of a fire in a tunnel with sufficient accuracy to operate a zoned water-based fixed fire fighting system.

4) Because of stratification of the hot gas plume along the tunnel ceiling, a number of the activated fixed fire suppression systems would not, in all probability, be located over the fire. A large number of the activated water-based fixed fire fighting systems would be located away from the fire scene, producing a cooling effect that would tend to draw this stratified layer of smoke down toward the roadway level, thus impeding the rescue and firefighting effort.

Independent laboratories have commented that they do not observe smoke stratification. Any activated water-based fixed fire fighting system, not over the fire, would cool the tunnel to help rescue services to intervene. Zoned systems are releasedby a detection system that is accurate even with forced ventilation.

5) Water spraying from the ceiling of a subaqueous tunnel could suggest tunnel failure and induce panic in motorists.

This was a theoretical concern not borne out in practice. In the event of fire motorists are likely to recognize water spraying from nozzles as a fire safety measure. Behavioral studies have shown that people do not panic in a fire, even when they are unable to see.

6) The use of water-based fixed fire fighting systems could cause the delamination of the smoke layer and induce turbulence and mixing of the air and smoke, thus further threatening the safety of persons in the tunnel.

This has been shown not to be a valid concern. Fire tests have demonstrated that smoke does not usually form a layer at the top of the tunnel but quickly fills the cross-section. Normal air movement in the tunnel accelerates this process. A water-based fixed fire fighting system reduces temperatures and the risk of fire spread to other vehicles.

7) Testing of a water-based fixed fire fighting system on a periodic basis to determine its state of readiness is impractical and costly.

A full discharge test is normally only performed at system commissioning. During routine testing the system can be configured to discharge flow to the drainage system.

D.4 Recommendations.

D.4.1 Application. The installation of water-based fixed fire fighting systems should be considered where an engineering analysis demonstrates that the level of safety can be equal or exceeded by the use of water-based fixed fire fighting systems and is a part of an integrated approach to the management of safety. The tunnel operator and the local fire department or authority having jurisdiction should consider the advantages and disadvantages of such systems as they apply to a particular tunnel installation.

D.4.3 System Operation. To help ensure against accidental discharge, the

fixed fire fighting system can be designed as a manually activated deluge system with an automatic release after a time delay. To prevent development of a major fire the time delay should not exceed 3 minutes. The sprinkler system piping should be arranged using interval zoning so that the discharge can be focused on the area of incident without necessitating discharge for the entire length of the tunnel. Each zone should be equipped with its own proportioning valve set to control the appropriate water/foam mixture percentage. Nozzles should provide an open deluge and be spaced so that coverage extends to roadway shoulders and, if applicable, maintenance/patrol walkways. The system should be designed with enough water and/or foam capacity to allow operation of at least two zones in the incident area. Zone length should be based on activation time as determined by the authorities having jurisdiction and shoul be coordinate with detection and ventilation zones. Piping should be designed to allow drainage through nozzles after flow is stopped. D.4.4 System Control. It can be assumed that a full-time, attended control room is available for any tunnel facility in which safe passage necessitates the need for sprinkler fixed fire suppression system protection. Therefore, consideration should be given to human interaction in the sprinkler fixed fire suppression system control and activation design to ensure against false alarm and accidental discharge. Any automatic mode of operation can include a discharge delay to allow incident verification and assessment of in-tunnel conditions by trained operators.

D.4.4.1 An integrated graphic display of the fixed fire fighting system zones, fire detection system zones, tunnel ventilation system zones & limits, and emergency access and egress locations should be provided at the control room to allow tunnel operators and responding emergency personnel to make appropriate response decisions.

Substantiation: Editorial changes and updates to information from the pro-posal stage. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �4 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. Explanation of Negative: PAL, D.: Although information in this Annex is supposed to be for informa-tion purposes only, however, the language used seems to give the impression that water-based fixed fire fighting systems should be considered. The language needs to be revised to make it clear that it is for information only and no rec-ommendation is made. ROHENA, J.: • Annex D, Page 2: Please delete the following paragraph since this text is repeated in D3.� “Traditionally the reason why most countries have not used water-based fixed fire fighting systems in road tunnels is that most fires start in the motor room or in the compartment, and fixed fire suppression systems are of limited use until the fire is open. Fixed fire fighting systems can be used, however, to cool down burning vehicles, to stop the fire from spreading to other vehicles (i.e., to diminish the fire area and property damage), and to stop secondary fires in lin-ing materials. Experiences from Japan show that fixed fire suppression systems are effective in cooling down the area around the fire, so that fire fighting can be more effective”, • Annex D, Page 3: We should provide the reference to the tests mentioned here. 2) If any delay occurs between ignition and water-based fixed fire fighting sys-tem activation, a thin water spray on a very hot fire could produce large quan-tities of superheated steam without material suppressing the fire.

Fire tests have now shown this concern not to be valid. • Annex D, Page 3: We should provide the reference to the laboratories and the tests that support this claim. 4) Because of stratification of the hot gas plume along the tunnel ceiling, a number of the activated fixed fire suppression systems would not, in all probability, be located over the fire. A large number of the activated water-based fixed fire fighting systems would be located away from the fire scene, producing a cooling effect that would tend to draw this stratified layer of smoke down toward the roadway level, thus impeding the rescue and firefighting effort. Independent laboratories have commented that they do not observe smoke stratification. Any activated water-based fixed fire fighting system, not over the fire, would cool the tunnel to help rescue services to intervene. Zoned systems are released by a detection system that is accurate even with forced ventilation. • We should provide the reference to the behavioral studies that support this claim. I do not agree with this claim. 5) Water spraying from the ceiling of a subaqueous tunnel could suggest tunnel failure and induce panic in motorists. This was a theoretical concern not borne out in practice. In the event of fire motorists are likely to recognize water spraying from nozzles as a fire safety measure. Behavioral studies have shown that people do not panic in a fire, even when they are unable to see. • We should provide reference to whom and how this has been shown not to be

502-��

Report on Comments A2007 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 502 a valid concern. 6) The use of water-based fixed fire fighting systems could cause the delamination of the smoke layer and induce turbulence and mixing of the air and smoke, thus further threatening the safety of persons in the tunnel. This has been shown not to be a valid concern. Fire tests have demonstrated that smoke does not usually form a layer at the top of the tunnel but quickly fills the cross section. Normal air movement in the tunnel accelerates this process. A water-based fixed fire fighting system reduces temperatures and the risk of fire spread to other vehicles. Comment on Affirmative: BENDELIUS, A.: Table D�.� is a table of United States road tunnels having water-based fixed fire fighting systems installed. Vancouver, BC is not in the United States. In addition, there is no data for the Fraser Tunnel. The Fraser tunnel should be deleted from the table if proper comparable data is not available. In any case the title for Table D�.� should be changed as follows to agree with the decisions made at the September meeting: If the Fraser Tunnel is deleted from the table (due to lack of proper data) the table title should be: Table D1.1 - Road Tunnel Water-Based Fixed Fire Fighting Suppression Systems in the United States If, however, the proper Fraser Tunnel data is provided and inserted in the table the table title should be changed to: Table D1.1 - Road Tunnel Water-Based Fixed Fire Fighting Suppression Systems in North America the United States MACEDO, C.: Change the title of Table D�.� to “Road Tunnel Fixed Fire Suppression Systems in North America” as agreed to in the meeting. Also the information for the one tunnel in Vancouver BC should be updated to read as follows: Tunnel: George Massey Tunnel Route: Hwy 99. Opened to Traffic: �959 Length Meters: 630 m Bores/Lanes: Immersed tube tunnel with a concrete dividing wall down the middle, providing for two lanes in each direction. Fixed Fire Suppression Type: Water based sprinkler system. System Zones: NA MAEVSKI, I.: The current assessment of the issues expressed in section D.3.2 have not been proven to the committee and most of the old issues are still valid. Fixed fire suppression system does not allow achieving a visibility tenable environment; it destroys stratification and makes a smoke extraction ventilation system ineffective. If the system should not be activated over the fire and should be for structural protection only, there is no need to activate it immediately, but await for people evacuation first. Depending on ventilation system, smoke can form a layer at the top of the tunnel and makes a single point extraction system effective. NELSEN, J.: Errata not captured at ROC meeting - Table D�.� should be amended as follows: The route served by the Battery Street Tunnel is “SR 99” not “Battery Street” _______________________________________________________________ 502-47 Log #�3 Final Action: Reject (Annex K) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Igor Y. Maevski, Jacobs Engineering Comment on Proposal No: 502-�48 Recommendation: Add new text as follows:

Country Organization Research Institute

Activities

Russia State Construction Committee

(GOSSTROI) Code Writer/RegulatorIssued Construction Rules and Regulations (SNIP) #32-04-97 “Railway and Road Tunnels” that sets requirements for tunnels construction and operation under normal operation and under fire emergency.

Substantiation: Suggest to add Russian standard to the proposed table. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 502-48 (Log #CC�). Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C. _______________________________________________________________ 502-48 Log #CC� Final Action: Accept (Annex K ) _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection, Comment on Proposal No: 502-�48 Recommendation: Delete the proposed Annex K. Substantiation: The committee has determined that the current format of this material is not complete, could be confusing and needs further development. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 17 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �6 Ballot Not Returned: � Daecher, C.

FORM FOR FILING NOTICE OF INTENT TO MAKE A MOTION (NITMAM)

AT AN ASSOCIATION TECHNICAL MEETING 2007 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF NITMAM: 5:00 pm EST, April 6, 2007

If you have questions about filling out or filing the NITMAM, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249

For further information on the Codes- and Standards-Making Process, see the NFPA

website (www.nfpa.org)

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #: Date Rec'd:

Date________________Name________________________________________________Tel. No.

Company or Affiliation __________________________________________________Email Address

Street Address_________________________________City________________________State______Zip _________________ 1. (a) NFPA Document (include Number and Title)_______________________________________________________________ (b) Proposal or Comment Number____________________ (c) Section/Paragraph _____________________________________

2. Motion to be made. Please check one: (See also 4-6 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects) (a) Proposal _(1) Accept. (2) Accept an Identifiable Part.* __ (3) Accept as modified by the TC. (4) Accept an Identifiable Part as modified by TC.* (b) Comment (1) Accept. (2) Accept an Identifiable Part.* (3) Accept as modified by the TC. (4) Accept an Identifiable Part as modified by TC.* __ (5) Reject (6) Reject an Identifiable Part.* (c) Return Technical Committee Report for Further Study _____ (1) Return entire Report. (2) Return a portion of a Report in the form of a proposal and related comment(s). _____ (3) Return a portion of a Report in the form of identifiable part(s) of a proposal and related comments (s). (Identify the specific portion of the proposal and the related comments below)* * Clearly identify the Identifiable Part(s) indicated above (use separate sheet if required). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________

3. I am entitled to make this motion in accordance with 4.6.8 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, as follows: (check (a), (b), or (c). (a)____ This motion may be made by the original submitter or their designated representative, and I am the (if you check (a) indicate

one of the following):

___I am the Original submitter, or

___I am the submitter’s designated representative (attach written authorization signed by the original submitter), or

___ I am an Organizational Member delegate permitted to represent the submitter on behalf of the Organization Member in accordance with 4-6.5 (c). (b)____This motion may be made by a Technical Committee Member and I am a Member of the responsible Technical Committee.

(c)____This motion may be made by anyone.

(Form continued on next page)

NITMAM form (continued) 4. Comments or Clarification (optional): This NITMAM will be reviewed by a Motions Committee. In addition to determining whether your Amending Motion is proper, the Committee may take other actions as described in 2.3 of the Technical Meeting Convention Rules as follows:

Restating and Grouping of Motions. Upon request or on its own initiative, and in consultation with the mover(s), the Motions Committee may: (a) restate an Amending Motion to facilitate the making of a proper motion or to clarify the intent of the mover; and (b) group Amending Motions that are dependent on one another into a single Amending Motion. Dependent motions are motions that the mover(s) wish to be considered by the assembly and voted on as single up or down package. In addition to the foregoing, the Motions Committee may take such other actions or make such other recommendations as will facilitate the fair and efficient consideration of amending.

The NFPA Staff may contact you to clarify your motion or to consult on the permitted actions in 2.3. If you have any comments, suggestions, or requests of the Motions Committee as it reviews your NITMAM and considers actions permitted in 2.3, please provide them below. (Use additional sheet if necessary): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name (please print):_____________________________________________________________________

Signature (Required)_____________________________________________________________________ (Note: This NITMAM will be reviewed, and if proper, your Amending Motion will be certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules and posted on the NFPA website by May 4, 2007. Documents that have Certified Amending Motions will be considered at the June 2007 Annual Meeting Technical Committee Report. In order to have your Certified Amending Motion considered at that meeting, you must appear, sign in, and make the motion as prescribed in the Convention Rules).

PLEASE USE A SEPARATE NITMAM FORM FOR EACH AMENDING MOTION YOU WISH TO MAKE,

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500

Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new Document or new edition of an existing Document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Reports goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Technical Report Session

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Technical Report Session. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Technical Report Session and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Annual Meeting Technical Report Session and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for Documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue Document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

I

The Technical Report Session of the NFPA Annual Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Technical Report Sessions that take place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Technical Report Session provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at a Technical Report Session. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

What Amending Motions are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the World SafetyConference and Exposition®, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Report Session now runs once each yearat the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. Those authorized to make these motions is also regulated by NFPA rules. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, NFPA rules should be consulted.

The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at a Technical Report Session, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Technical Report Session.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be non-controversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Technical Report Session and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining Documents are then forwarded to the Technical Report Session for consideration of the NFPA membership.

Important Note: The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion is a new requirement that takes effect beginning with those Documents scheduled for the Fall 2005 revision cycle that reports to the June 2006 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will not, therefore, be required in order to make a motion at the June 2005 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. For updates on the transition to the new Notice requirement and related new rules effective for the Fall 2005 revision cycle and the June 2006 Annual Meeting, check the NFPA website.

II

Action on Motions at the Technical Report Session. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Technical Report Session, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed Document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the Document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the Document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the session and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the Document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents it also hears any appeals related to the Document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a Document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the Document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the Decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance. The illustration on page 9 provides an overview of the entire process, which takes approximately two full years to complete.

III