Safety and Buildings Division Commercial Buildings Fire Protection Advisory Code Council Meeting Summaries

Meeting summaries are considered draft until reviewed by council members at subsequent meetings.

Wednesday, November 29, 2005, 9 to Noon, Teleconference
 
Council member attendance: Brandon Bartow Present; Jeff Bateman P; Ron Bergquist P; Tom Binish Absent; Thomas Clark A; John Crook A; Joseph Donato Excused; John Eagon P; Joseph Feuling P; Janet Harter P; Chris Schoenbeck P; Curt Waddell, Chairperson P.
     
Department of Commerce staff:  Sam Rockweiler, James Smith.

Jim Smith opened the meeting with an explanation of the logistics for the teleconference, a round of introductions, and a review of the agenda.  The Council accepted the draft progress report from the preceding, July 14th Council meeting.

2006 changes for Chapters 9, 10, 15, and 27 in the International Building Code
Jim initiated discussion of the proposed 2006 changes for IBC Chapters 9, 10, 15, and 27, which were modified by the International Code Council in late October, and which were shown in documents that he had sent to the Council prior to the meeting. 

In reference to the ICC changes for IBC section 907.9.1.2, which were included in F153-04/05, the Council agreed that the revised text for fire alarm notification in employee work areas adequately accommodates visible-notification appliances.  Consequently, a previously proposed Wisconsin amendment for adding this accommodation to this IBC section is no longer needed.

Curt Waddell asked whether the Department has enforcement procedures for stopping a local fire department official from enforcing something that is not an adopted requirement.  Jim responded that the Department works with local fire departments on a regular basis, and he suggested asking for citation of a corresponding code section if a local official requires any compliance that seems unfounded by adopted codes and standards.  Curt explained that building owners usually prefer to not oppose fire code officials.  Jim suggested contacting the Department’s Fire Prevention Coordinators for assistance in those circumstances. 

The Council did not recommend any Wisconsin-based changes to the October ICC modifications.

Review of draft changes to the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code (WCBC)
Sam Rockweiler initiated discussion of the draft rule changes that were e-mailed to the Council on November 28th. 

In discussing Sections 1, 2, and 5 of the draft rules, which included proposed Wisconsin modifications for fire sprinkler protection in multifamily dwellings, John Eagon asked whether the 16,000-square-foot threshold for requiring sprinklers in townhouses would include floor areas that are excluded from the current, corresponding threshold, such as the areas of exterior balconies.  Jim responded that exterior floor areas are not included in the IBC definition of fire area.  John asked whether the draft rules would require sprinklers in multifamily dwellings that are not required by the Wisconsin Statutes to have sprinklers.  Jim responded that yes, the proposed code requirements go beyond the Statutes.  The Council had no objections to Sections 1, 2, and 5.

In discussing Section 8 of the draft rules, which included proposed Wisconsin modifications for sprinkler requirements for an outdoor area serving a dwelling unit, the Council agreed that supplemental informational material would be helpful for explaining where residential-type sprinkler heads can be installed on dry-pipe portions of a sprinkler system, such as for exterior balconies or unheated attics.

In discussing Section 9 of the draft rules, which included proposed changes to an informational note that addresses statutory requirements for residential smoke detectors, Curt Waddell commented that some confusion resulted after the building code’s corresponding smoke detector requirements for multifamily dwellings were repealed in 2002.  Curt said the statutory requirements are somewhat ambiguous.  John Eagon asked whether inspectors now cite the statutory section instead of a code section, and Jim responded yes.  Jim said the code requirements were repealed because compliance with them was being misconstrued as constituting compliance with the statutory requirements.  Curt asked whether the statutes require smoke detectors in hallways, and Jim responded no.  Curt commented that in NFPA terminology, smoke “detectors” are connected to a fire alarm system, and smoke “alarms” can be stand-alone devices.

Curt asked whether informational material could be developed as a supplement to the code criteria for fire alarm pull stations.  Curt noted concern that adoption of the 2006 IBC would delete a requirement to provide the pull stations in residential occupancies where sprinklers will be required instead.  Jim commented that the pull-station requirement has been deleted from the IBC due to concerns for false alarms and for the periodic testing which is needed.  Jim said fire departments are reporting that having sprinkler protection throughout all buildings with residential fire areas would be better than having pull stations and alarms instead of sprinklers in some residential buildings.

Next steps
Jim reported that staff would present the results of the Council’s discussions to the Commercial Building Code Council, and if corresponding changes are made there, staff would communicate those changes back to the Building Code Fire Protection Systems Council.  Jim added that public hearings on the draft changes to the WCBC are expected in the spring of 2006, and if issues arise then relating to building code fire protection system requirements, the BCFPS Council could reconvene then.

Thursday, July 14, 2005, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Room 3B, Thompson Commerce Center, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 

Council member atendance:  Brandon Bartow, Absent; Jeff Bateman, Present; Ron Bergquist, Excused; Tom Binish, E; Thomas Clark, P; John Crook, A; Joseph Donato, P;  John Eagon, P; Joseph Feuling, P; Janet Harter, P; Chris Schoenbeck, P; Curt Waddell (Chairperson), P

Guests:  Dan Gengler – National Fire Sprinkler Association

Department of Commerce Staff: Dan Meneguin, Sam Rockweiler, James Smith

Curt Waddell opened the meeting with a round of introductions, and initiated a discussion of issues that had arisen since the previous meeting.  Curt reported that some local jurisdictions are insisting on some type of alarm signaling for buildings where sprinkler systems are required, but no fire alarm system is required.  And, if this signaling is provided, it must be installed in accordance with NFPA 72.  Curt asked for Departmental clarification of the corresponding requirements.  Jim Smith responded that installation of this signaling is not a State-level requirement, and if a local authority claims otherwise, that claim should be appealed to the Department.

Curt reported there is concern for buildings with fewer than 16 dwelling units, which are no longer required to have fire alarms.  Jim countered that these smaller buildings are instead required by the 2003 IBC to have sprinkler systems.

Joe Donata questioned whether alarm signaling should be required in some of the I-2 occupancies where it currently is not required.  Jim responded that several other related safety features are required for these I-2 occupancies, and any signaling that would be required for these occupancies would need to be somewhat elaborate.  In addition, the Department of Health and Family Services administers additional safety-related requirements for these occupancies.

There was interest in clarifying what is intended by the reference in IBC Section 907.9.1.1 to providing visual alarm notification in “public areas and common areas.”  Jim indicated that a definition of “public-use areas” is included in the IBC requirements for accessibility, and he agreed to look into whether “common areas” are intended to be used only by employees. 

Tom Clark reported that non-required fire alarms are being provided in some new construction, through negotiations between developers and community development officials.  Tom added that some fires have occurred which have not activated a sprinkler system, but which have been communicated to occupants through fire alarm pull stations.

In reference to the proposed 2006 changes for IBC section 903.3.1.2, Jeff Bateman commented that the reference to four stories in height above grade plane may not be clear enough, especially on sloping sites.  Jim agreed to study the issue further, and indicated the text in this section should be parallel to a similar reference in the section for standpipes.  Jeff added that the NFPA 13R sprinkler systems referenced in this section do not include dry-pipe portions, which causes difficulty in providing sprinkler protection for exterior decks and balconies.  Jim agreed to research this issue further as well.

Curt asked whether the Wisconsin deletions of various requirements in the 2000 IBC would continue, and Jim said they likely would unless the Department is alerted to a need for the requirements.  Curt indicated that Exception 2.6 in IBC 907.2.3, relating to omitting fire alarm boxes in Group E occupancies, may be undesirable.

2003, 2004, and 2006 changes to IBC sections 909 and 910
Jim proceeded through an overview of the 2003, 2004, and 2006 changes to IBC sections 909 and 910, and no problematic issues arose.

2003, 2004, and 2006 changes to IBC sections 307, 404, and 414 to 419
Janet Harter and John Eagon reported that difficulties arise with alterations or changes of use that introduce hazardous materials into a building.  John noted there is a corresponding need to look for documentation on whether use of the hazardous materials predates the alteration or change of use.

John commented there is some uncertainty in how the atrium requirements in IBC 404 correlate to covered mall buildings, and Jim agree to research the topic further.

In reviewing the 2003 changes to IBC sections 414 to 419, no concerns arose except John asked how the IBC references to requirements in the International Fire Code would be addressed.  Staff explained that section Comm 61.03 (13) (a) 1. currently applies the design and construction requirements from the IFC sections that are listed therein.  John noted that 2006 IBC section 419.1 is opposite from the typical reference in a building code to a referenced standard, because this section states how to design and construct a component after the referenced standard states where the component is required.  Consequently, an informational Note about this unusual reference may be helpful.  In addition, the IFC sections listed in Comm 61.03 (13) (a) 1. should be updated if needed to reflect any 2003 or 2006 changes to the section numbering in the IFC.

Unfinished topics from the May 26 Council meeting
Curt asked whether the Council should revisit (1) Exemptions 2 and 3 for residential fire alarm pull stations in 2003 IBC 907.2.9 and (2) the criteria for smoke alarms in IBC 907.2.10 and in Comm 62.0907 Note 2.  Joseph Feuling, Tom Clark, and Janet Harter favored having the pull stations.  John Eagon noted justification would be needed to show why the stations should be required in Wisconsin, when they are not required in the IBC.  Curt suggested allowing the exemption only if smoke alarms are installed in corridors, and Jeff Bateman supported the suggestion.  Jim noted that the 2003 and 2006 IBC will newly require at least one pull station at an approved location.

Curt voiced concern that local jurisdictions are not adequately understanding the residential smoke-alarm criteria in IBC 907.2.10 and Comm 62.0907 Note 2.  Jim questioned whether a modification is needed to clarify that a smoke alarm is required at any door leading into an enclosed stairway.  There was interest in reviewing whether the corresponding requirements for these alarms were more clear in the Wisconsin Uniform Multifamily Dwelling Code that preceded Comm 61 to 65.

Next meeting: The next meeting was postponed until after the International Code Council votes in September on the 2006 changes to the IBC.

Thursday, May 26, 2005, 9 a.m., Room 3C, Thompson Commerce Center, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin
Council member attendance: Brandon Bartow Present; Jeff Bateman (Rob Hasler, Alternate)     P; Ron Bergquist Absent; Tom Binish P; Thomas Clark P; John Crook A; Joseph Donato P; John Eagon Excused; Joseph Feuling P; Janet Harter A; Chris Schoenbeck P; Curt Waddell Chairperson) P.
Commerce Staff: Sam Rockweiler P; James Smith P.

Jim Smith opened the meeting with a welcome and a round of introductions.

Scope and purpose
Jim explained that the purpose of the Council is to assist the Department in developing the next iteration of the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code (WCBC), by reviewing the 2003 and 2006 changes to the requirements for fire protection systems in the International Building Code.  According to Jim, the Department intends to continue minimizing any Wisconsin modifications of the IBC, but wants to be informed of any concerns with the corresponding current or upcoming requirements in the IBC.  Jim noted that the Council’s review would focus on IBC sections 307, 404, and 414 to 418, and IBC chapter 9.

Election of chairperson
Curt Waddell was unanimously elected chairperson.

Review of handouts
Jim distributed copies of pertinent text from the 2003 IBC, the 2004 IBC Supplement, draft changes for the 2006 IBC, and the corresponding current Wisconsin modifications to the 2000 IBC.  Jim explained that the number and extent of the handouts is somewhat large because the Department is moving from its 2002 adoption of the 2000 IBC, directly to adoption of the 2006 IBC.  Sam Rockweiler explained that due to the extensive efforts which were involved with transitioning to the 2000 IBC, the Department had delayed efforts to adopt the 2003 IBC, but future updates of the WCBC are expected to follow the three-year cycle of the IBC.  Jim noted that some of the current Wisconsin modifications will likely become unnecessary, particularly those which occurred with the miscellaneous updates to the WCBC that became effective on January 1, 2005.  Those updates included several of the 2003 and later changes for the IBC.  The Wisconsin modifications that are likely to remain include the administrative elements in chapter Comm 61, deletion of IBC requirements for various local permits, and informational notes throughout Comm 61 to 65 that address requirements in other Wisconsin codes or in the Wisconsin Statutes.

Current Wisconsin modifications to the IBC
In reference to the January 1, 2005, miscellaneous updates to the WCBC, Jim explained that IBC section 903.2 was modified, in section Comm 62.0903 (1m), in order to apply fire sprinkler requirements to existing buildings which are being changed to include certain occupancies, such as multifamily dwellings.  Sam noted that by statute, the WCBC requirements for multifamily dwellings are uniform statewide, except where preexisting local sprinkler ordinances are more restrictive.  Sections Comm 62.0903 (2) to (5) were added on January 1 to clarify how the level of exit discharge affects whether sprinklers are required in certain assembly and educational occupancies.  Comm 62.0903 (8) to (10) were likewise added on January 1 to clarify thresholds for providing sprinklers in S-2 occupancies and commercial parking garages.  The requirements in Comm 62.0904 for alternative fire-extinguishing systems were discussed, with an understanding that the included manual-wet systems cannot be used to obtain any of the construction trade-offs which may be associated with other types of sprinkler systems.

The January 2005 revision to the standpipe requirements in Comm 62.0905 was explained as being similar to the change-of-use modifications in Comm 62.0903 (1m). 

The January 2005 revision in Comm 62.0907 (1) was explained as clarifying the application of requirements for fire alarm systems.  Tom Binish commented that compliance and enforcement has been inadequate for fire alarm systems, such as systems which are intended to be activated by water-flow sensors in sprinkler systems.  Jim noted that the January 2005 code changes included additional submittal requirements for the most critical elements of fire protection systems, and those requirements were developed with input from the Department’s local agents.

The modifications to the IBC that are contained in Comm 62.0909 (1) to (5) were explained as deleting requirements for special inspections, because those inspections would generally duplicate the construction oversight by supervising professionals which is required in Wisconsin.

The global exemption from smoke and heat vents in the January 2005 modification in Comm 62.0910 (1) was explained.  Jim and Sam noted this requirement was strongly opposed by the sprinkler industry, and the exemption was supported by submitted data and the insurance industry.

Pertinent text from the 2003 IBC and the 2004 IBC Supplement
Because of the statutory sprinkler requirements for multifamily dwellings, staff agreed to review 2003 IBC section 903.2.7, which no longer exempts small Group R fire areas from having sprinkler protection.  Staff will likewise review the corresponding 2003 and 2004 IBC requirements in section 903.3.1.2.1 for sprinkler protection at exterior balconies, decks, and patios, for dwelling units.

Curt Waddell commented that 2003 IBC section 907.9.1.2, which newly imposes wiring requirements for fire alarm systems in employee work areas, would conflict with current use of wireless components in some of these systems.  Jim noted that IBC 907.9.1.4 similarly addresses visual alarm notification appliances, for dwelling units and sleeping areas, but does not impose a wiring requirement.  Curt recommended that both sections should not impose a wiring requirement. 

Joe Feuling commented that the current WCBC requirements for alarm notification do not include enough detail, whereas the preceding code contained better detail and continues to be relied upon instead for this topic.  Joe added that the Department of Health and Family Services has requirements for smoke detection that differ from the WCBC requirements.  Tom Binish commented that the applicable code requirements are not adequately enforced.  Jim explained that a building owner is the entity responsible for having a building comply with the code, and that the level of enforcement which can be provided by building officials is a separate topic.  Tom noted that Wisconsin currently does not require licensure of either contractors or installers of fire alarm and detection systems, but should require this licensure for any building system which protects life and property.  Tom recommended also increasing the plan submittal requirements further.  Curt noted that electrical contractors are frequently involved with installing these systems.

Jim explained that three or more attached, single-family townhouses which are separated from each other by nonpenetrated one-hour-rated construction are not within the scope of the IBC, and therefore the 2003 IBC does not require them to have sprinkler protection.  However, these buildings are within the scope of the WCBC, and would be required to have sprinkler protection if 2003 IBC section 903.2.7. is adopted without modification.  Jim indicated a draft modification for not applying this sprinkler requirement to these townhouses would be developed and circulated for discussion at a subsequent meeting. 

Curt commented that the requirements in 2003 IBC 907.2.11 for special amusement buildings are too vague and should be deleted or clarified.  Tom indicated the section may be used to require sprinkler protection in seasonal occupancies such as “haunted houses” during Halloween.  Jim explained that those houses should typically be addressed under the temporary-use requirements in Comm 61, and he indicated that special amusement buildings are generally built for a specific amusement purpose.

Curt commented that the requirements in 2003 IBC 907.2.12.2.2 for broadcasting a live voice message in an emergency communication system are based on an outdated, 1999 version of NFPA 72.  The 2002 version, as adopted in Wisconsin in January 2005, no longer requires stairways to have audio speakers for these messages.  Jim indicated this IBC section may need to be modified to avoid having the more restrictive, outdated IBC requirement override the NFPA standard.

Curt noted that the requirements in 2003 IBC 907.2.6 for a fire detection and alarm system address Group I-1 to I-3 occupancies, but do not specifically address I-4 occupancies, and should. 

For a parking occupancy that is separated from an overlying R-2 occupancy by two-hour-rated construction, Curt asked whether the 2003 IBC text is clear enough in addressing whether the fire alarm system must extend into the parking occupancy.  Jim agreed to review the corresponding text.

Pertinent text from changes proposed for the 2006 IBC
Curt suggested modifying the proposed changes to section 907.2.7 for the 2006 IBC, if needed, to be consistent with the January 2005 WCBC changes which clarified how the level of exit discharge affects whether sprinklers are required in certain assembly and educational occupancies.

Jim noted that the proposed changes to section 909.21 for the 2006 IBC consist of deleting some smoke-exhaust-system requirements which currently cause confusion.  Tom asked whether an owner of a building that has a smoke-exhaust system which complies with those requirements could remove that system after those requirements are deleted.  Staff responded that the WCBC generally requires a building to remain in compliance with the requirements which the building was constructed under, but alterations can be made that comply with the requirements which apply at the time of alteration.

Next meeting:  The next meeting was scheduled for July 14, for the same time period, but in Conference Room 3B.

Links -- County Web sites || City/Town/Village Web sites || State Portal || Licensing and Permitting || Build Your Business

Email this page's manager, Todd Taylor, ttaylor@commerce.state.wi.us or 608-267-3606

  The Department of Commerce Safety and Buildings Division is an equal opportunity service provider and employer. If you need assistance to access services or need material in an alternate format, please contact us, 608-266-3151, TTY 608-264-8777, or ttaylor@commerce.state.wi.us