Technical Committee on Animal Housing Facilities

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Animal Housing Facilities Tracy Vecchiarelli, Staff Liaison DATE: January 6, 2014 SUBJECT: NFPA 150 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results (A2015) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 24 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Ballots Not Returned (R. Brown and L. Krzastek) 16 Members Voted Affirmative (9 with comment on one or more First Revisions C. Aler, A. Farnham, M. Keenan, B. Morrison, P. Pressley, B. Rieck, M. Rosenberger, J. Scibetta and P. Wynnyczuk) 4 Members Voted Negative on one or more First Revisions (H. Cohen, M. Dominguez, B. Morrison and P. Wynnyczuk) 2 Members Abstained on one or more First Reivisons (P. Pressley and B. Rieck) The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision. There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 / 3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 / 3 : Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = = 12 ) As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

2 Page 1 of 50 First Revision No. 1-NFPA [ Section No ] 1.3.3* This standard shall also apply to existing facilities where any one of the following conditions applies: (1) A change of use or occupancy classification occurs where animals are introduced. (2) A change is made in the subclassification or category of the animals housed. (3) A renovation, An extensive modification, reconstruction, or addition is made. (4) A building or structure with an animal housing facility is relocated. (5) A building with an animal housing facility is considered damaged, unsafe, or a fire hazard. (6) A property line that affects compliance with any provision of this standard is created or relocated. Supplemental Information File Name 150_A _FR1.edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 08:51:55 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Renovations are not required to comply with new requirements per the Life Safety Code and the Building Code. In this instance, NFPA 150 should not be more restrictive than these Codes. Extensive modifications should trigger compliance with this code. A new annex note was developed to provide guidance on what an extensive modification includes and types of equipment that is excluded. Response Message: Public Input No. 12-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot

3 A An extensive modification includes modification of an entire building or an entire occupancy within a building and should be considered as a reconstruction. Modification work that is exclusively electrical, mechanical, or structural, or that exclusively involves plumbing or equipment used in the care or treatment of animals, or the fire protection system, should not be considered a reconstruction, regardless of its extent. Where the total area of all the rehabilitation work areas included in a modification exceeds 50 percent of the area of the building, the work should be considered as a reconstruction.

4 Page 2 of Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 16 Affirmative All 5 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Keenan, Michael J. I vote affirmatively but would like to add the word "extensively" to (5)so that it reads: (5)A building with a housing facility is considered extensively damaged, unsafe or a fire hazard. Pressley, Paul W. Sentence (5) needs to be modified to better define the extent of damage that gives rise to its application. To be consistent with the proposed change in sentence (3) to the section, the word "extensive" should be added to sentence 5 to clarify that it only applies to repair of extensive damage. Rieck, Brian L. Sentence (5) needs to be modified to better define the extent of damage that gives rise to its application. To be consistent with the proposed change in sentence (3) to the section, the word extensive should be added to sentence 5 to clarify that it only applies to repair of extensive damage. Rosenberger, Mark S. We need to provide a more succinct definition for "Extensive." For the Appendix A.1.3.3, "Extensive" needs to be isolated and defined and not comingled with "Reconstruction." Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committee's statement. Negative with Comment Cohen, Hal

5 Page 3 of 50 The wording is too vague and cannot be quantified. The wording should state when the building's interior is modified by more than fifty percent

6 Page 4 of 50 First Revision No. 2-NFPA [ Section No ] In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively any portions of this standard deemed appropriate. This standard shall apply to existing installations, as determined by the AHJ, that constitute imminent danger to animal occupant or animal handler safety. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 09:40:44 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The phrase "unacceptable degree of risk" is ambiguous as each party will have their own "acceptable degree of risk". The new language is similar to language in NFPA 1. Response Message: Public Input No. 13-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P.

7 Page 5 of 50 Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Scibetta, Joe The language needs to be altered in order to convey more accurately the intent of both the submitter and the committee. Please consider the following alternative language: "This standard shall apply to existing installations that are determined by the AHJ to constitute imminent danger to animal occupant or animal handler safety." Currently, the interjecting phrase "as determined by the AHJ" could convey to the reader that the AHJ is determining what an existing installation is when our intent is that the AHJ is actually determining the imminent danger presented by the existing installation. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committee's statement.

8 Page 6 of 50 First Revision No. 3-NFPA [ Section No ] ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Bar Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Material, a. ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:22:13 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update to standards edition date. Response Message: Public Input No. 2-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P.

9 Page 7 of 50 Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree current editions should be referenced.

10 Page 8 of 50 First Revision No. 24-NFPA [ Section No. 2.4 ] 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2012 edition. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, edition. ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Tracy Vecchiarelli Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Oct 31 10:35:09 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update to new edition dates. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 22 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L.

11 Page 9 of 50 Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Wynnyczuk, Peter

12 Page 10 of 50 First Revision No. 4-NFPA [ Section No ] Addition. An increase in the building area, aggregate floor area, building height, or number of stories of a structure. [ASCE/SEI 7: 5000, ] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:24:59 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: It is unclear why the definition in NFPA 150 is being extracted from ASCE/SEI 7 when the definition for the term is located in NFPA The ASCE definition is nearly identical to the definition in NFPA We believe the definition should be extracted from NFPA. Response Message: Public Input No. 38-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal

13 Page 11 of 50 Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Rosenberger, Mark S. We need to add NFPA to every instance of "5000." Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree NFPA definitions should be used when possible.

14 Page 12 of 50 First Revision No. 5-NFPA [ Section No ] Fire Resistance Rating. The time, in minutes or hours, that materials or assemblies have withstood a fire exposure, as established in accordance with the test procedures of NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Constuction and Materials. [ 220, 2012] tests or methods based on tests prescribed by this standard. [ 5000, 2015] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:25:49 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: NFPA 251 has been withdrawn and NFPA 220 now extracts this definition from NFPA ASTM E119 replaces NFPA 251. Public Input No. 30-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P.

15 Page 13 of 50 Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Rosenberger, Mark S. We need to add NFPA to every instance of "5000." Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree the most current references should be used.

16 Page 14 of 50 First Revision No. 6-NFPA [ Section No ] Appropriateness of Safeguards. Every facility shall be provided with means of egress and other fire and life safety safeguards of the kinds, numbers, locations, and capacities appropriate to the individual facility, with due regard to the following: (1) Character of the occupancy, including fire load (2) Capabilities Characteristics and capabilities of both the human and animal occupants and their responses to fire protection safeguards (3) Number of animals and persons exposed (4) Fire protection available (5) Height and type of construction of the facility (6) Other factors necessary to provide animal and human occupants with a reasonable degree of safety (7) Other factors necessary to protect the facility and contents from unacceptable damage Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:26:38 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Research and experience shows that some animals are sensitive to certain fire protection features such as strobes or horns. Consideration should be given to the animal's response to the fire protection features before they are installed. Response Message: Public Input No. 40-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot

17 Page 15 of Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Pressley, Paul W. For purposes of agricultural livestock, code users should refer to the appropriate local, state or national livestock association for research and industry animal care guidelines in taking into consideration the animals' "characteristics and capabilities" and "response to fire protection standards". Rieck, Brian L. I would suggest an addition to the Committee statement that in taking into consideration the animals "characteristics and capabilities" and "response to fire protection standards," that for purposes of agricultural livestock that code users should refer to the appropriate local, state or national livestock association for research and industry standards. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree that the specific animal characteristics should be taken into account when specifying annunciation devices. However, I would like to see some data/studies included into an annex that would help consulting engineers and AHJs make this determination.

18 Page 16 of 50 First Revision No. 7-NFPA [ Section No ] Where it is evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided, any requirement shall be permitted to be modified if, in the judgment of the AHJ, its application would be hazardous under normal occupancy conditions in the judgment of the AHJ. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:54:00 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The language was modified to match what is in NFPA 101 section Public Input No. 14-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T.

19 Page 17 of 50 Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Rosenberger, Mark S. The sentence as written is somewhat confusing and needs to be rewritten to more clearly define intent. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree NFPA definitions should be used when possible.

20 Page 18 of 50 First Revision No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] In accordance with the disaster/emergency management program, equipment designated as necessary for the evacuation or relocation of animals, such as halters and leads, shall be worn by or kept near each animal readily accessible at all times. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 10:58:54 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The original may be useful for equestrian facilities but is not appropriate for other types of livestock such as swine, poultry and cattle. Public Input No. 15-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal

21 Page 19 of 50 Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Pressley, Paul W. For purposes of agricultural livestock, code users should refer to the appropriate local, state or national livestock association animal care guidelines for research and industry standards on equipment. Rieck, Brian L. For purposes of agricultural livestock, code users should refer to the appropriate local, state or national livestock association for research and industry standards on equipment. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree that specific equipment should not be referenced when it does not apply to every animal covered.

22 Page 20 of 50 First Revision No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] Category B. Category B animals shall include all agricultural animals and any animals not in Category A, as specified in Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 14:29:28 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Livestock animals should not be included in Category A Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 19 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam

23 Page 21 of 50 Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree that this clarifies the definition of category B animals. Negative with Comment Dominguez, Matthew Removing livestock from basic fire protections is a departure from NFPA 150's fundamental principles include the facts that: (1) Animals are sentient beings with a value greater than that of simple property. (2) Animals, both domesticated and feral, lack the ability of self-preservation when housed in buildings and other structures. (3) Current building, fire, and life safety codes do not address the life safety of the animal occupants. Taking NFPA 150's fundamental principles into consideration, the members voted on the floor in favor of requiring sprinklers in all newly constructed farm animal confinement facilities. The vote was taken after hearing the Technical Committe's arguments against the amendment and after reviewing all reports previously issued from the committee. In other words, the Association membership resoundingly-by a nearly 3-1 margin-believes the Technical Committee's position against the amendment was not right. Further, some of the stated reasons by technical committee members for voting not to require sprinkler systems in newly constructed facilities are contrary to the committee's mandate and should not be given deference by the Council when considering the amendment. For example, one member admits to having voted against sprinklers because "animals and facilities would be easily replaced in the event of a fire loss." Other reasons stated by Technical Committee members for rejecting the amendment include "backlash from industry," and the need for "further study." None of these reasons are warranted or consistent with the standard's fundamental principles. Therefore, livestock should not be removed from NFPA 150's. Morrison, Brian Agricultural animals (livestock) should be categorized as Category A animals. If you look at Annex A (3) on page 22 of the 2013 edition, it states, "This includes animals that are feral, too large or too numerous, or in situations where there is inadequate staff-toanimal ratio for the evacuation purposes or inadequate safeguards to deal with evacuated animals." Rescuers, including firefighter's trying to rescue/remove 100 cows or 1,000 pigs in a facility that is on fire is unsafe, impractical, and unreasonable. I would consider 100 cows and 1,000 pigs too numerous and too impractical to rescue/remove during a fire. This is stated in (2) and (3) on page 12 of the 2013 edition (2) states, "Animal (s) that cannot be removed without potential risk to the health and welfare of the animal or other animals (3) states, " Animal (s) that are impossible or impractical to move. Especially a building that is on fire without fire sprinkler protection and/or a smoke control system which these facilities currently are not required to have. If agricultural animals (livestock) are categorized as Category B animals then the committee should look at having automatic sprinkler protection for Category B facilities. I also reference 5.2 Safety From Fire Goals. The fire safety goals of this standard shall be as follows: (3) page 9 of the 2013 edition states, "To provide reasonable safety for firefighters and emergency responders during search and rescue operations for animal and human occupants." Agricultural animals (livestock) should not be in Category B therefore I vote in the negative.

24 Page 22 of 50 First Revision No. 10-NFPA [ Section No. 7.3 ] 7.3 Stall, Cage, and Enclosure Requirements Stalls, cages, and enclosures housing one or more animals shall allow space for each animal to express all species-typical postures, social adjustment, behaviors, and movements. requirements shall be based on established standards for the specific animal and facility type * Animals shall be able to lie down with limbs extended in a normal manner without obstruction from enclosure sides or having to extend feet through feeder doors or bars. Animal enclosures shall not interfere with egress or extracation from the enclosure Modifications to and shall be permitted for temporary (i.e., less than 12 hours) holding areas with the approval of the AHJ. Supplemental Information File Name 150_A FR10.edited docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 12:27:16 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Animal enclosure size requirements are outside the scope of this document. Research is not available to support the required behavioral needs of every animal species. Section was modified to restrict animal enclosures from interfering with egress. The original language in was moved to an annex note to provide one example of egress interference. Section was not modified. Current annex section 7.3 should be removed. A new annex to section A was created from the current section Response Message: Public Input No. 21-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 22-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results

25 A Animals shall be able to lie down with their limbs extended in a normal manner without obstruction from enclosure sides or having to extend their feet through feed doors or bars.

26 Page 23 of 50 This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 14 Affirmative All 6 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Aler, Clay P. I have reservations against moving the previous code language for to the annex. I take no exception with the proposed wording change for nor Keenan, Michael J. I agree with the First Revision 10, however I believe the Annex should be deleted. The Statement in is sufficient. Morrison, Brian I agree with the committee statement. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Commission of Life Sciences have publications that speak to the presentation of animals and space recommendations. Pressley, Paul W.

27 Page 24 of 50 While we support the proposed changes made by the NFPA 150 Committee to Section 7.3, we oppose in the strongest terms possible the inclusion of this section at all - and especially the language of proposed Annex A within the NFPA 150 code, or its application to agricultural livestock. This section is beyond the clearly defined scope of both NFPA's powers and purpose and the purpose of the NFPA 150 code. Additionally, to the extent they are applicable to agricultural livestock (and especially with regard to the FR-10 annex language) it is not a consensus product, nor had the input or support of agricultural stakeholders for whom it will be seemingly be applied against, nor any experts or other individuals with any experience in animal husbandry, and is in direct conflict with long standing industry standards and practices. Article 2 of NFPA's Bylaws limit its powers and purpose to those "set forth" in NFPA's Articles of Organization. Article 2 of the Articles of Organization state that: "The purposes of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Association) shall be to promote the science and improve the methods of fire protection and prevention, electrical safety and other related safety goals; to obtain and circulate information and promote education and research on these subjects and to secure the cooperation of its members and the public in establishing proper safeguards against loss of life and property." NFPA 150 Section 1.2 defines the purpose of the 150 code to be "to prevent the loss of animal life, human life, and property from fire or other emergencies." These sections, and the associated Annex language, have no bearing on fire safety. Rather, in their current form, they are an attempt by animal activists to inappropriately use the fire code to further their attacks on animal agriculture, removing the freedom of farmers to choose amongst various longstanding and accepted animal husbandry practices those which are best implemented on their farm. Furthermore, as the NFPA states clearly in the current appendix A.7.3, the language is "derived from" the American Zoo and Aquarium Associations Minimum Husbandry Guidelines for Mammal and with a reference to additional guidance in the Laboratory Animal Resource Commission on Life Sciences "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." Neither of these organizations professes any expertise in animal husbandry or the raising of livestock for food and as such they are wholly unsuitable for that purposes. Furthermore, the vocal supporters of this provision on the committee have no experience raising livestock nor cited any existing industry standard in place to support this provision. It has no place in the NFPA 150 Code, undermines the trust and faith of the NFPA 150 by a significant segment of potential end users of the code, and should be stricken permanently from the code. Rieck, Brian L.

28 Page 25 of 50 While I support the proposed changes made by the NFPA 150 Committee to Section 7.3, I oppose in the strongest terms possible the inclusion of this section at all - and especially the language of proposed Annex A within the NFPA 150 code, or its application to agricultural livestock. This section is beyond the clearly defined scope of both NFPA's powers and purpose and the purpose of the NFPA 150 code. Additionally, to the extent they are applicable to agricultural livestock (and especially with regard to the FR-10 annex language) it is not a consensus product, nor had the input or support of agricultural stakeholders for whom it will be seemingly be applied against, nor any experts or other individuals with any experience in animal husbandry, and is in direct conflict with long standing industry standards and practices Article 2 of NFPA's Bylaws limit its powers and purpose to those "set forth" in NFPA's Articles of Organization. Article 2 of the Articles of Organization state that: "The purposes of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Association) shall be to promote the science and improve the methods of fire protection and prevention, electrical safety and other related safety goals; to obtain and circulate information and promote education and research on these subjects and to secure the cooperation of its members and the public in establishing proper safeguards against loss of life and property." NFPA 150 Section 1.2 defines the purpose of the 150 code to be "to prevent the loss of animal life, human life, and property from fire or other emergencies." These sections, and the associated Annex language, have no bearing on fire safety. Rather, in their current form, they are an attempt by animal activists to inappropriately use the fire code to further their attacks on animal agriculture, removing the freedom of farmers to choose amongst various longstanding and accepted animal husbandry practices those which are best implemented on their farm. Furthermore, as the NFPA states clearly in the current appendix A.7.3, the language is "derived from" the American Zoo and Aquarium Associations Minimum Husbandry Guidelines for Mammal and with a reference to additional guidance in the Laboratory Animal Resource Commission on Life Sciences "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." Neither of these organizations professes any expertise in animal husbandry or the raising of livestock for food and as such they are wholly unsuitable for that purposes. Furthermore, the vocal supporters of this provision on the committee have no experience raising livestock nor cited any existing industry standard in place to support this provision. It has no place in the NFPA 150 Code, undermines the trust and faith of the NFPA 150 by a significant segment of potential end users of the code, and should be stricken permanently from the code. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree that the scope of this document should not include animal enclosure size requirements. I do not believe that an AHJ has the knowledge or training to make a valid determination for each type of animal covered. Negative with Comment Cohen, Hal I disagree with the premise of the rationale. The basic requirements in the existing wording is minimal and should be retained. Dominguez, Matthew Having an animals legs extend into adjourning cages is a real fire safety issue. Housing systems should allow for animals to be safely removed during a fire. While the National Pork Producers Council may solely have a simple cost-benefit analysis, NFPA 150's fundamental principles require that each individual animal be regarded as "sentient beings with a value greater than that of simple property." Again, this revision is a departure from NFPA 150's fundamental principles and puts millions of animals lives at jeopardy.

29 Page 26 of 50 First Revision No. 16-NFPA [ Sections , ] In animal housing facilities not sprinklered in accordance with Section 9.2, exit travel distance shall not exceed 75 ft (23 m) from any point in the facility In animal housing facilities sprinklered in accordance with Section 9.2, exit travel distance shall not exceed 100 ft (30 m) from any point in the facility In animal housing facilities containing agricultural livestock, exit travel distance shall not exceed 200 ft (92 m) from any point in the facility. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 15:03:37 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Livestock facilities are more comparable to an industrial type facility. The travel distance requirements from NFPA 101 for industrial facilities is 200 ft. A new section was added to allow for 200 ft of travel distance for livestock facilities. Response Message: Public Input No. 24-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 25-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 16 Affirmative All 4 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta

30 Page 27 of 50 Affirmative All Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Aler, Clay P. It appears that the agreed to travel distance of 300 ft for and 400 ft for is not indicated in the code language. Because a new section was added for livestock facilities with its own exit travel distance limit of 200 ft, I believe the following disclaimer should be added to both and : In animal housing facilities, OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK FACILITIES,... Pressley, Paul W. The code should grandfather existing buildings and should also defer to prevailing industry standards and biosecurity needs, and allow for any for future adjustments deemed necessary. Rieck, Brian L. The code should grandfather existing buildings and should also defer to prevailing industry standards and biosecurity needs, and allow for any for future adjustments deemed necessary. Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree the modern livestock facilities are more in line with industrial facilities and NFPA 101 should apply. Negative with Comment Dominguez, Matthew There is a fundamental difference between a "livestock facilities" and a "industrial type facility" - there are animals living in these facilities and placing exits twice as far away as the original standards puts workers and animals at higher risk of injury and death. Morrison, Brian I agree that livestock facilities are more comparable to an industrial type facility which is stated in the committee statement. But an industrial facility most likely does not contain animals. The reason for a 75 ft travel distance ( non-sprinklered facility) and a 100 ft travel distance ( sprinklered facility) is because of the difficulty to rescue/remove/evacuate animals during an emergency or fire. An industrial facility can have a 200 ft travel distance because you are not trying to rescue/remove/evacuate animals. The further rescuers have to go into a facility to rescue/remove/evacuate animals the more dangerous and unsafe it becomes. 5.2 Safety From Fire Goals: (3) page 9 of the 2013 edition states, "To provide reasonable safety for firefighters and emergency responders during search and rescue operations for animal and human occupants." Therefore I vote in the negative and I recommend the committee delete

31 Page 28 of 50 First Revision No. 23-NFPA [ New Section after ] Livestock areas not typically occupied by humans shall have a minimum 2- A:10:B:C extinguisher located at each exit. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Oct 10 14:41:22 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: In animal agriculture structures such as hog farms and dairies many areas are not occupied by humans that can make use of the extinguishers. In modern livestock facilities such as these there are little no combustible materials, minimal electrical systems, and no fuel sources. Due to the large span of these facilities and the size of the animals there is no practical locations to mount the extinguishers. Response Message: Public Input No. 27-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P.

32 Page 29 of 50 Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Negative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I believe the current definition of is appropriate. Each facility is different in it's layout, function and operation and I believe that the AHJ is best positioned to determine fire extinguisher location for a specific facility.

33 Page 30 of 50 First Revision No. 18-NFPA [ Section No. 9.5 ] 9.5 Lightning Protection. Where lightning protection is required by this standard for the animal housing facility the local building code, lightning protection shall be in accordance with NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 15:47:42 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Lightning requirements are mandated by local building codes. Where required, NFPA 780 should be referenced. Public Input No. 28-NFPA [Section No. 9.5] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T.

34 Page 31 of 50 Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committee's statement.

35 Page 32 of 50 First Revision No. 19-NFPA [ Section No ] Smoking shall be prohibited except in designated safe areas in animal housing facilities. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 15:50:59 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: As improperly discarded smoking materials are a major cause of structural fires, smoking should not be allowed in animal housing facilities or associated structures. Response Message: Public Input No. 29-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T.

36 Page 33 of 50 Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committee's statement. Negative with Comment Morrison, Brian I agree that smoking shall be prohibited inside a facility. I believe there needs to be a designated location outside and away from and structure that houses animals. Employees at these facilities need to be able to smoke somewhere if it is allowed by their employer should state where smoking is allowed, such as outside and away from an animal housing facility or associated structure. I believe the committee needs to work on the wording so therefore I vote in the negative.

37 Page 34 of 50 First Revision No. 20-NFPA [ Section No ] Detached noncombustible trash containers located no less than 20 ft (6 m) from any animal housing structure, for other than animal waste, shall be provided and a frequent removal program shall be established. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 15:52:02 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: While it is important that waste containers be provided, they should also be located away from the structure to prevent the spread of fire to the building should one occur in the waste conatianer Response Message: Public Input No. 31-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal

38 Page 35 of 50 Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committee's statement.

39 Page 36 of 50 First Revision No. 21-NFPA [ Section No ] * Electrical systems and appliances shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. Supplemental Information File Name 150_A FR21.edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 15:52:35 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Agricultural Buildings are subject to the Article 547 standards in many jurisdictions and is appropriator for this standard. A new annex note was developed to address this. Response Message: Public Input No. 32-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All

40 A An extensive modification includes modification of an entire building or an entire occupancy within a building and should be considered as a reconstruction. Modification work that is exclusively electrical, mechanical, or structural, or that exclusively involves plumbing or equipment used in the care or treatment of animals, or the fire protection system, should not be considered a reconstruction, regardless of its extent. Where the total area of all the rehabilitation work areas included in a modification exceeds 50 percent of the area of the building, the work should be considered as a reconstruction.

41 Page 37 of 50 Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dominguez, Matthew Dvorscak, Michelle Farnham, Adam Gulati, Ajay Haas, Paul M. Keenan, Michael J. Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rieck, Brian L. Rosenberger, Mark S. Scibetta, Joe Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Wynnyczuk, Peter I agree with the committees statement.

42 Page 38 of 50 First Revision No. 11-NFPA [ Section No. 9.8 ] 9.8 Special Requirements for Category A Animals Sprinkler Systems. Animal housing facilities with Category A animals or horses shall be sprinklered throughout in accordance with Section Smoke Control Systems. Animal housing facilities with Category A animals or horses shall have a smoke control system unless modified as approved by the AHJ * Smoke control systems shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Control Systems, or nationally recognized standards, engineering guides, or recommended practices The engineer of record shall clearly identify clearly the intent of the system, the design method used, the appropriateness of the method used, and the required means of inspecting, testing, and maintaining the system Acceptance testing shall be performed by a special inspector in accordance with the following: (1) Special inspections and tests shall be performed to verify the operation of the smoke control system in its final condition for acceptance by the AHJ. (2) The design documents shall provide the procedures and methods to be used and items subject to special inspections and tests. (3) The special inspector shall submit an inspection and test report to the AHJ and registered design professional in responsible charge Smoke Control System Operation Smoke control systems shall be automatically activated activated automatically by sprinkler waterflow, smoke detection, or other approved detection systems in accordance with NFPA 72. Smoke control systems shall remain operational throughout the emergency Means for manual operation of smoke control systems shall be provided at an approved location * Areas Requiring Human Attendance. With the approval of the AHJ, surgical, procedure, and treatment areas where the animals are anesthetized or otherwise require human attendance shall be designed, constructed, and maintained with a defend-in-place strategy to allow continued human attendance to minimize the unnecessary loss of animal life * Additional Safeguards. For animal housing facilities with Category A animals, the AHJ shall be permitted to require additional safeguards necessary to protect animal occupants that cannot be evacuated safelyevacuated. Submitter Information Verification

43 Page 39 of 50 Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Oct 09 14:07:49 EDT 2013 Committee Statement Committee Statement: This revision extends sprinkler protection and smoke control beyond Category A animals to horses only and, given the scope of the document, this would apply primarily to newly constructed, commercial horse stables. NFPA 150 was originally written in response to racetrack stable fires and was written specifically for the protection of horses and their handlers in those types of facilities. However, with the document expanding its scope to all animals, horses have been relegated to Category B, which encompasses a wide array of animals that do not receive the required sprinkler or smoke control protection afforded to Category A animals. However, horses require this type of protection as they are a highly valuable animal both commercially and therapeutically, and most often die from fire at a time when no humans are on hand to rescue them. Response Message: Public Input No. 8-NFPA [Section No. 9.8] Public Input No. 17-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 33-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 34-NFPA [Section No ] Public Input No. 35-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 24 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 17 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 2 Abstention Not Returned Brown, Richard R. Krzastek, Loretta Affirmative All Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L.