Technical Committee on Animal Housing Facilities. SUBJECT: NFPA 150 Second Draft TC Final Ballot Results (A2015)

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: December 10, 2014 SUBJECT: NFPA 150 Second Draft TC Final Ballot Results (A2015) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 25 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Ballots Not Returned (M. Dominguez and P. Haas) 18 Members Voted Affirmative (3 with comment A. Gulati, B. Rieck and P. Wynnyczuk ) 5 Members Voted Negative on one or more Second Revisions (A. Gulati, M. Keenan, P. Pressley, B. Rieck and P. Wynnyczuk) 0 Members Abstained The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision. There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 / 3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = = 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 Second Revision No. 2-NFPA [ Section No ] This standard shall apply to existing installations, as that are determined by the AHJ, that to 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: Tue Oct 07 08:22:58 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: "As determined by the AHJ" could convey to the reader that the AHJ is determining what an existing installation is when the intent is that the AHJ is actually determining the imminent danger presented by the existing installation. Response Message: Public Comment No. 267-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Dominguez, Matthew Haas, Paul M. Affirmative All Adams, Melanie Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dorko, Christopher W. Dvorscak, Michelle Keenan, Michael J.

3 Learned, Scott Lewis, James Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Meerschaert, Gary Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rosenberger, Mark S. Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Gulati, Ajay Accepted Rieck, Brian L. I agree with SR-2 Wynnyczuk, Peter Agree

4 Second Revision No. 1-NFPA [ Section No ] ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM E 84 E84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Material, 2013a ASTM E1591, 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: Tue Oct 07 08:21:03 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update to the edition date. Response Message: Public Comment No. 262-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 20 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Dominguez, Matthew Haas, Paul M. Affirmative All Adams, Melanie Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dorko, Christopher W. Dvorscak, Michelle Keenan, Michael J. Learned, Scott

5 Lewis, James Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Meerschaert, Gary Morrison, Brian Pressley, Paul W. Rosenberger, Mark S. Staniland, Richard C. Affirmative with Comment Gulati, Ajay Accepted Rieck, Brian L. I agree with SR-1 Wynnyczuk, Peter Agree

6 Second Revision No. 3-NFPA [ Section No ] In animal housing facilities not sprinklered in accordance with Section 9.2, or in animal housing facilities containing agricultural livestock, exit travel distance shall not exceed 75 ft (23 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: Tue Oct 07 08:32:23 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Since the committee agreed to move agricultural livestock to Category B, a category of animals that do not receive sprinkler protection, the exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should match the requirement for non-sprinklered facilities, namely 75 feet, not 200 feet. Response Message: Public Comment No. 268-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 5 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Dominguez, Matthew Haas, Paul M. Affirmative All Adams, Melanie Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dorko, Christopher W. Dvorscak, Michelle Learned, Scott Lewis, James

7 Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Meerschaert, Gary Morrison, Brian Rosenberger, Mark S. Staniland, Richard C. Negative with Comment Gulati, Ajay Committee motioned to create a second revision to this comment Keenan, Michael J. The exit travel distance should be 200 ft. This is in line with the Industrial Special Occupancy in NFPA 101 classifications that most AHJ's use in place of the NFPA 150 standard Pressley, Paul W. Exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should not be as stringent as high hazard occupancies. 200 feet appears much more reasonable. Rieck, Brian L. Exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should not be as stringent as high hazard occupancies. 200 feet appears much more reasonable. Wynnyczuk, Peter I do not believe reducing the travel distance to a means of egress solves anything when Minimum Width of Doors is taken into account. This standard appears to envision the animals exiting one by one in an orderly manner. I do not believe this is realistic in most livestock facilities. I believe the manner of egress for a specific type of animal and facility would be more important then the travel distance.

8 Second Revision No. 4-NFPA [ Section No ] 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: Tue Oct 07 08:40:40 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Since the committee agreed to move agricultural livestock to Category B, a category of animals that do not receive sprinkler protection, the exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should match the requirement for non-sprinklered facilities, namely 75 feet, not 200 feet. Response Message: Public Comment No. 269-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 25 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 18 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 5 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Dominguez, Matthew Haas, Paul M. Affirmative All Adams, Melanie Aler, Clay P. Biel, Michael J. Boucher, John P. Cohen, Hal Cronin, Bradford T. Davis, Chandra L. Day, Richard L. Dorko, Christopher W. Dvorscak, Michelle Learned, Scott Lewis, James

9 Loveman, Laurie McBride, Jeffery P. Meerschaert, Gary Morrison, Brian Rosenberger, Mark S. Staniland, Richard C. Negative with Comment Gulati, Ajay Committee motioned to create a second revision to this comment. Keenan, Michael J. The exit travel distance should be 200 ft. This is in line with the Industrial Special Occupancy in NFPA 101 classifications that most AHJ's use in place of the NFPA 150 standard Pressley, Paul W. Exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should not be as stringent as high hazard occupancies. 200 feet appears much more reasonable. Rieck, Brian L. Exit travel distance for facilities that house agricultural livestock should not be as stringent as high hazard occupancies. 200 feet appears much more reasonable. Wynnyczuk, Peter Same as SR-3