rop meeting agenda building code – life safety technical

ROP MEETING AGENDA

Building Code – Life Safety Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Meeting Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown

Cleveland, OH

1. Call to Order. Call meeting to order by Henry Paszczuk at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at the Embassy Suites Hotel Cleveland – Downtown, Cleveland, OH.

2. Introduction of Attendees. For a committee roster, see pg. 02.

3. Approval of Minutes. Approve the October 1, 2007 meeting minutes. See pg. 03.

4. Standardization of Language Where Supervision of Sprinkler Systems Is

Required.

5. Consistency of List Based Options – i.e., when all conditions must be met or some conditions must be met.

6. NFPA 101 ROP Preparation. For public proposals, see pg. 05.

• NFPA 286 for Wall and Ceiling Tile Materials – 101:10.2.4.1 and

5000:10.4.1. • NFPA 101 Paragraph 10.2.7.2 and 10.2.8.2 Floor Coverings. • Upholstered Furniture Heat Release Rates – NFPA 101: 10.3.3 and 10.3.4.

7. NFPA 5000 ROP Preparation. For public proposals, see pg. 42.

8. Other Business.

9. Future Meetings.

10. Adjournment.

Enclosures

1 of 59

Address List No PhoneFurnishings and Contents SAF-FUR

Safety to Life

Kristin Collette8/19/2009

SAF-FURHenry PaszczukChairConnecticut Department of Public Safety1111 Country Club RoadMiddletown, CT 06457

E 4/15/2004SAF-FUR

Kristin ColletteSecretary (Staff-Nonvoting)National Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

6/29/2007

SAF-FURVytenis BabrauskasPrincipalFire Science and Technology Inc.9000 - 300th Place SEIssaquah, WA 98027

SE 10/1/1993SAF-FUR

William E. FitchPrincipalPhyrefish Enterprises, Inc.31 SE 5th Street, Suite 3815Miami, FL 33131-2528

SE 1/1/1991

SAF-FURMarcelo M. HirschlerPrincipalGBH International2 Friar’s LaneMill Valley, CA 94941

SE 1/1/1991SAF-FUR

Alfred J. HoganPrincipal3391 Lakeview Drive, SEWinter Haven, FL 33884-3172New England Association of Fire Marshals

E 7/26/2007

SAF-FURE. Ken McIntoshPrincipalCarpet and Rug InstitutePO Box 2048Dalton, GA 30722-2048Alternate: James K. Lathrop

M 1/1/1996SAF-FUR

C. Anthony PenalozaPrincipalIntertek Testing Services NA, Inc.16015 Shady Falls RoadElmendorf, TX 78112

RT 3/21/2006

SAF-FURShelley SiegelPrincipalUniversal Design and Education Network9268 Palomino DriveLake Worth, FL 33467-1024American Society of Interior Designers

U 7/20/2000SAF-FUR

Dwayne E. SloanPrincipalUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.12 Laboratory DrivePO Box 13995Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995Alternate: Randall K. Laymon

RT 7/26/2007

SAF-FURT. Hugh TalleyPrincipalHugh Talley Company3232 Landmark DriveMorristown, TN 37814American Furniture Manufacturers Association

M 1/1/1990SAF-FUR

James K. LathropAlternateKoffel Associates, Inc.81 Pennsylvania AvenueNiantic, CT 06357The Carpet and Rug InstitutePrincipal: E. Ken McIntosh

M 4/17/2002

SAF-FURRandall K. LaymonAlternateUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Principal: Dwayne E. Sloan

RT 7/26/2007SAF-FUR

Kristin ColletteStaff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

6/29/2007

12 of 59

Meeting Minutes

NFPA Technical Committee on Furnishings and Contents (BLD-FUR, SAF-FUR)

1 October 2007

Marriott Providence Downtown Providence, RI

(via Teleconference)

1. Call to Order. Chair Fitch called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. 2. Introduction of Committee Members and Guests. The following committee

members were in attendance NAME REPRESENTING William Fitch Phyrefish Enterprises, Inc. Lisa Bonneville American Society of Interior Designers Eugene Cable US Department of Veterans Affairs Marcelo Hirschler GBH International Henry Paszczuk Connecticut Department of Public Safety Anthony Penaloza Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. James Lathrop The Carpet and Rug Institute (Alternate to Ken

McIntosh) Kristin Collette NFPA Staff Liaison The following committee members were absent: NAME REPRESENTING Vytenis Babrauskas Fire Science and Technology Inc. Alfred Hogan New England Association of Fire Marshals Ken McIntosh (Note: Alternate member James Lathrop present)

The Carpet and Rug Institute

Dwayne Sloan Underwriters Laboratories Inc. T. Hugh Talley American Furniture Manufacturers Association 3. Approval of Minutes from 2006 November 2 Meeting. The minutes were

approved without any modification. 4. Preparation of NFPA 101 ROC. All comments were addressed. See the ROC letter

ballot package. 5. Preparation of NFPA 5000 ROC. All comments were addressed. See the ROC

letter ballot package. The Committee found that the issue addressed by comment

13 of 59

BLD/SAF-FUR 1 October 2007 Meeting Minutes

5000-41 regarding the references of NFPA 255 (due for withdrawal during the Annual 2009 cycle), required further action. Committee comments regarding this issue were developed for the respective committees to be addressed at their ROC meetings.

6. Other Business. No new business was addressed. 7. Scheduling of Next Meeting. No meeting was scheduled as of this time. The next

meeting will most likely be held at the ROP stage in the fall of 2009. 8. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 AM by Chair Fitch. Meeting minutes prepared by:

Kristin Collette, NFPA Staff Liaison

24 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-22 Log #117e SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International

Revise text to read as follows:2.3.6 ASTM Publications.ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. www.astm.orgASTM D 1929, Standard Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperatures of Plastic,1996 (2001 e1) 2001.ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006

2004.ASTM D 2898, Standard Test Methods for Accelerated Weathering of Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood for Fire Testing,

2008 (e1) 1994 (1999).ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2009a 2004.ASTM E 108, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings, 2007a 2004.ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2008a 2007a.ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C, 2009

2004.ASTM E 648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy

Source, 2009a 2006.ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2008b 2002.ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,

2008a 2002.ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,

2008a 2002.ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2002.ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2002.ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007 2000.ASTM E 1966, Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 2001.ASTM E 2010, Standard Test Method for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Window Assemblies, 2001.ASTM E 2073, Standard Test Method for Photopic Luminance of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Markings, 2007.ASTM E 2074, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, Including Positive Pressure Testing of

Side-Hinged and Pivoted Swinging Door Assemblies, 2000e1.ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using

Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2004 e1.ASTM F 851, Standard Test Method for Self-Rising Seat Mechanisms, 1987 (2005) 2000.ASTM F 1577, Standard Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors, 2005 2001.ASTM G 155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials,

2005a 2000ae1.This proposal updates ASTM standards to the most recent editions. ASTM E 2010 and ASTM E 2074

have been withdrawn.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-40 Log #CP2 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Committee on Fundamentals,

Revise text to read as follows:. Any movable objects in a building that normally are secured or otherwise put in

place for functional reasons, excluding (1) parts of the internal structure of the building and (2) any items meeting thedefinition of interior finish. [ 2009]

This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondarydefinition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.

1Printed on 8/21/2009

5 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-41 Log #CP3 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:The level of incident radiant heat energy in units of W/cm2 on a floor covering system at

the most distant flameout point. [ 2006]This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary

definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-45 Log #31 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee / Marcelo Hirschler,

Revise text to read as follows:3.3.84.2* Interior Finish. The exposed surfaces of walls, ceilings, and floors within buildings.

It is important to have consistent definitions of terms within NFPA. The term “interior finish is theresponsibility of NFPA 850 but would be more appropriate for NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000.The committee was created by NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA

documents.


6 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-207 Log #20 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas W. Jaeger, Jaeger and Associates, LLC

Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulatingactual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of anymaterial on which a rating by standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.2.1.2 or 10.2.1.3..

Materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a total thickness of less than 1/28 in. (0.9 mm)shall not be considered interior finish and shall be exempt from tests simulating actual installation if they meet therequirements of Class A interior wall or ceiling finish when tested in accordance with 10.2.3 using fiber cement board asthe substrate material.

Approved existing installations of materials applied directly to the surface of walls and ceilings in a totalthickness of less than 1/28 in. (0.9 mm) shall be permitted to remain in use and the provisions of 10.2.2 through10.2.3.7.2 shall not apply.

Fixed or movable walls and partitions, paneling, wall pads, and crash pads applied structurally or fordecoration, acoustical correction, surface insulation, or other purposes shall be considered interior finish and shall notbe considered decorations or furnishings.

Facilities are being cited for not having flame spread rating/fire test data on existing interior finishes(wallpaper, paint) that is less than 1/28 inches in thickness. Prior to the 2000 edition of the , interiorfinishes less than 1/28 inches in thickness, i.e. paint and wallpaper, were largely exempted from complying with interiorfinishes requirements. A judgment comparing the material to the fire behavior characteristics of paper of a similarthickness was the basic requirement. Because these wall finish materials were not regulated in the same manner as thecriteria imposed in the 2000 and later editions of the Code, the facilities have no surface burning characteristics dataavailable to judge their performance as noted in Section 10.2.1.2. The facility is then cited for a deficiency and requiredto replace the existing finish material. Please see excerpts from the 1997 edition of the below. We doagree that newly installed interior finishes in new and existing buildings must comply with Section 10.2.1.2 of the 2000and 2009 . We do not agree that previously approved existing wall finishes must comply with Section10.2.1.2. If existing wall finishes that are less than 1/28 inches in thickness were required to comply with Section10.2.1.2, this would be a retroactive requirement to all existing wall finishes less than 1/28 inches in thickness. We alsowant to point out that these wall finishes have a useful life and will eventually be replaced with finishes complying withSection 10.2.1.2.We are asking that the TIA apply to the 2000 because every existing health care facility in the United

States is required to comply with the 2000 edition in accordance with Federal Medicare and Medicaid Regulations. TheCenter for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has clearly stated in the past that changes in newer editions of theCode do not apply to the 2000 edition and the 2000 edition is the law of the land. CMS has in the past accepted,through their regulatory process, TIA’s. That is why we are asking to have the TIA apply to both the most recent edition,the 2009 edition and the 2000 edition.Although all existing health care facilities, approximately 30.000, came under the enforcement of the 2000

in 2003, it has not been until recently that the surveyors have discovered the oversight for existing buildingfinishes in the Exception to Sections 10.2.1 and 10.2.1.2. We are now having thousands of facilities being cited for nothaving the documentation of finishes less than 1/28 inch, which they were never required to have in the past. The entireSection 10.2 was reformatted when Sections 6-5 and 6-6 where moved into a new Chapter 10 in the 2000 edition. SeeROP 101-274 for 2000 edition. It was here that the new language and requirement were added to the Exception toSection 10.2.1 and no relieve was given for existing buildings. We believe this was an oversight and now needs to becorrected in the 2000 and 2009 editions.Occupancies that have yet to replace these existing finishes seem to be caught in an oversight of the code when the

revision was made in the 2000 edition. This TIA is asking to address the issue of the existing buildings that seem to bean inadvertent oversight.


7 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-208 Log #69 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.2.1.1 Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating

actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of anymaterial on which rating classification by a standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.2.1.2.

The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 orless and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, inaccordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating andfire protection rating.


8 of 59


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International / Rep. American Fire Safety Council

New text to read as follows:Lockers constructed of combustible materials shall be considered interior finish.

Where lockers constructed of combustible materials other than wood are used, thelockers shall be considered interior finish and shall comply with Section 10.2, except as permitted by 10.3.8.2.

Lockers constructed entirely of wood and of noncombustible materials shall be permitted to beused in any location where interior finish materials are required to meet a Class C classification in accordance with10.2.3.

Traditionally lockers, in schools (high schools, middle schools, universities), clubs, swimming poolsand gymnasiums, were constructed of steel. In recent years, the use of lockers constructed of combustible materials hasbecome prevalent. These lockers typically line an entire wall (for example a corridor in a school) and are not regulatedby the life safety code. Lockers are not usually considered interior finish. The only other materials regulated by NFPA101 at present are: interior trim, upholstered furniture, mattresses and decorations. Lockers do not fall into any of thosecategories.Combustible lockers can present a significant fire load and, if ignited, are likely to spread fire the same way that interior

finish materials spread fire. They should be considered interior finish materials and regulated like all other interior finishmaterials for any occupancy.The following wording comes from an advertisement for “Rust Free Plastic Lockers”. “Our waterproof plastic lockers

are convenient for many types of locations, from boat decks to pool areas. Along with their rustproof quality, they aredurable for many years of use. Available as single or multiple tiered units, our plastic lockers are ideal for any area nearwater or humidity whether a spa, pool, shower or beach area. Plastic lockers withstand the humidity and corrosivenessof water and pool areas and last much longer than traditional metal lockers. Wet swimsuits and towels, or even sweatyclothing will never rust, corrode delaminate or crack our 100% plastic foot lockers or stand-up plastic locker solutions!”The lockers by this particular manufacturer are constructed of 3/8 inch thick solid plastic bodies and heavy duty ½ inchthick doors. Typically the “solid plastic” used is either high density polyethylene or polypropylene.

***Insert Figure 1 here***

In some “high-end” environments, such as country clubs, plastic lockers are not found. Instead, lockers are made with“the highest quality materials and meticulous attention to detail. Locker sides, top and bottom are made of ¾ inchindustrial grade particleboard with stain and impact resistant white melamine finish inside and out. Locker back is thesame particleboard in a ½ inch thickness. All exposed edges are finished with matching edge banding. These clublockers include number plates and heavy duty keyed cam locks for security. Wooden Lockers feature highly durable ¾inch solid wood raised panels. Wood locker surfaces are finished with 1 coat of sealer and 2 coats of lacquer formaximum durability. Laminate Lockers feature high pressure laminate doors.”



One manufacturer advertises 100% polypropylene lockers, which “will not rust, corrode, fade, or require repainting, Ourplastic lockers will save you money from having to replace rusty metal lockers or warped wood and wood laminatedlockers in a few short years.” This manufacturer also states that the 100% polypropylene lockers last “ten times longerthan metal lockers” and last “longer than wood lockers, or plastic laminated lockers in humid environments such as intropical climates, and where there are locker rooms near showers, saunas, pools or in facilities which require frequentsanitation. Wood lockers, in a humid environment will warp. Plastic-laminated lockers are simply particle board coveredwith a laminate sheet. Moisture will seep into connector and hinge screw holes in the locker and eventually will softenthe particle board.” This manufacturer states that plastic lockers are impervious to moisture and will not fade, warp, ordelaminate.In another proposal I have already discussed the fire performance of polyethylene and polypropylene.Wood interior finish corresponds typically to Class C interior finish, which is usually allowed other than in corridors and


9 of 59

NFPA101/L84/Figure 1/A2011/ROP

10 of 59


11 of 59


12 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101exits. Therefore, lockers made exclusively out of wood should be allowed anywhere that Class C interior finish isallowed without additional testing. If there is some doubt as to whether the material is wood or a plastic resemblingwood, it would be up to the manufacturer to demonstrate that the lockers are made of wood in order to be exemptedfrom testing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-210 Log #70 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.2.3.4* Products required to be tested in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning

Characteristics of Building Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, shall be classified as follows in accordance with their flame spread index and smoke developed indexdevelopment, except as indicated in 10.2.3.4(4):(1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:

(a) Flame spread index, 0–25(b) Smoke developed index, 0–450

(2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:(a) Flame spread index, 26–75(b) Smoke developed index, 0–450

(3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish shall be characterized by the following:(a) Flame spread index, 76–200(b) Smoke developed index, 0–450

(4) Existing interior finish shall be exempt from the smoke developed index development criteria of 10.2.3.4(1)(b),(2)(b), and (3)(b).

This is purely an editorial change; the terms to be used should be flame spread index and smokedeveloped index.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-211 Log #71 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:Products shall be tested using method B of the test protocol of NFPA 265,

. The followingconditions shall be met:(1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.(2) During the 150 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:(a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.(b) Flashover shall not occur.The interior finish shall comply with the following:1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the samples on the 8 foot by 12 foot (2440 by 3660 mm) walls.3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 265, shall not occur.4. For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m2.

Most of this proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail thecriteria if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of theroom or ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test if flashover occurswhen the burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burnscompletely within a minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case. This proposaladds the smoke requirements for new installations, to be consistent with IBC building code requirements.


13 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:The following conditions shall be met when using the test protocol of NFPA 286,

:(1) Flames shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.(2) During the 160 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:(a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.(b) Flashover shall not occur.(3) The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.(4) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1000 m2.1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling.3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur.4. The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.5. For new installations the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m2.

This proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the criteriaif the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the room orceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test if flashover occurs when theburner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns completely within aminute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case.


14 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.2.4.1* Textile Wall and Textile Ceiling Materials. The use of textile materials on walls or ceilings shall comply with

one of the following conditions:(1) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted onthe walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.(2) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted onpartitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,whichever is less.(3) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted toextend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.(4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of having a Class A when

tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.(5) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard

Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels andWalls. (See 10.2.3.7.)(6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,

Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.(See 10.2.3.7.)

This proposed change is both editorial and clarification.1. Classifications based on ASTM E 84 or UL 723 are not called ratings, since that term is used for fire resistance

ratings and fire protection ratings (using a standard time-temperature curve).2. It is possible to get Class A for an interior finish material by testing to NFPA 265 and NFPA 286, so the clarification

about the test is important to ensure that a wall covering material that passed a room corner test is not subject to thesame restrictions as one that passed the Steiner tunnel test.3. Testing wall coverings in the Steiner tunnel needs to be done with the specimen preparation and mounting method

of ASTM E 2404.4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by

NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee hasnot reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.


15 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.2.4.2* Expanded Vinyl Wall and Expanded Vinyl Ceiling Materials. The use of expanded vinyl wall or expanded vinyl

ceiling materials shall comply with one of the following conditions:(1) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,

using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on thewalls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.(2) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,

using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted onpartitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,whichever is less.(3) Materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723,

using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted toextend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.(4) Previously approved existing Existing installations of materials meeting the requirements for the occupancy

involved, and with classification in accordance with the provisions of 10.2.3.4 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723 (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.(5) Materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard Methods

of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls. (See10.2.3.7.)(6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,





of ASTM E 2404.4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by



16 of 59


_______________________________________________________________________________________________James Lathrop, Koffel Associates, Inc. / Rep. Bobrick

Add a NEW 10.2.4.4 to read:10.2.4.4 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE). High density polyethylene (HDPE) shall not be permitted as an interior

wall or ceiling finish unless it has been tested in accordance with NFPA 286,

Renumber the existing 10.2.4.4 through 10.2.4.6 as appropriate.HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling

flammable liquids fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard.These tests had to be terminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was stillmuch of the product left to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same materialwhen tested in accordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting testis so intense some labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. Thisproposal will assure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard thatthey present. Following is some of the date from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR )(excl. burner) 1733 kW; TotalHeat Released (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m2; Peak Avg. Ceiling Temp 805oC, 1481oF.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-216 Log #75 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.2.4.6 Metal Ceiling and Wall Panels. Listed factory finished Class A metal ceiling and wall panels meeting the

requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to befinished with one additional application of paint. Such painted panels shall be permitted for use in areas where Class Ainterior finishes are required. The total paint thickness shall not exceed 1/28 in. (0.9 mm).

This proposed change is simply editorial clarification.I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created by



17 of 59



New text to read as follows:High density polyethylene and polypropylene

materials shall not be used as interior wall or ceiling finish unless the material complies with the requirements of Section10.2.3.7.2. The tests shall be performed on a finished assembly related to the actual end-use configuration and on themaximum thickness intended for use.

Polypropylene and high density polyethylene interior finish materials need to be treated the same way,because polypropylene and polyethylene behave in a very similar fashion in fires.James Lathrop has explained the problems associated with polyethylene (HDPE), when it is used as an interior finish

material, as follows (exact quote):“HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling flammable liquids

fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard. These tests had to beterminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was still much of the productleft to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same material when tested inaccordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting test is so intensesome labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. This proposal willassure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard that theypresent. Following is some of the data from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR (excl burner) 1733 kW; Total HeatReleased (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m2; Peak Avg Ceiling Temp 805oC, 1481oF.”He has also explained that HDPE is extensively used in toilet room privacy partitions.It is worth putting the data Jim Lathrop presented into perspective by noting that pass/fail criteria are 800 kW and that

those materials which perform well in the room-corner test usually exhibit heat release rates less than 400 kW, asopposed to over 1700 kW for HDPE.The materials in Table 1 (attached) were tested in a room corner test and in the Steiner tunnel test (ASTM E 84). Most

materials were tested in the NFPA room corner tests but some were tested in the much more severe ISO 9705 roomcorner test (where the ignition burner is at 100 kW for 10 min and then at 300 kW for a further 10 min, as opposed to 40kW/150 kW or 40 kW/160 kW for NFPA room-corner tests). Even here, some materials perform with low peak heatrelease rates.

***Table 1 here***

Experience in the past has long shown that materials with FSI values of less than 25 when tested in accordance withASTM E 84, particularly if they are thermally thin materials or materials that melt and drip during the test (such as HDPEor polypropylene) cannot be guaranteed to be safe enough to be permitted to be used based simply on ASTM E 84testing.A new product has now become available in the market: polypropylene toilet room privacy partitions.Polypropylene is a material that is very similar to polyethylene. Polypropylene is also a thermoplastic polyolefin

material, just like polyethylene and there is almost no difference in fire performance. Both materials melt and drip andcause flaming drips when they burn and release large amounts of heat. The consequence of this is that pool fires areformed on the floor beneath the material. Table 2 shows cone calorimeter (ASTM E 1354) data for polypropylene andpolyethylene. These materials should not be used as interior finish unless they comply with the criteria for tests to NFPA286.

***Table 2 here***

***Figure 1 here***

The photograph above shows a 3 mm (1/8 inch) thick sheet of polypropylene exposed to fire and the resulting poolfire (Photo and quotes below from NIST Technical Note 1493, T.J. Ohlemiller and J.R. Shields, “Aspects of the ThermalBehavior of Thermoplastic Materials”, 2008).In the above work, NIST tests were conducted with thin sheets of polypropylene and revealed the problems associated

with the generation of melt pool fires and the role of a pool fire in the overall fire growth process. The publication states


18 of 59

NFPA101/L77/Table 1/A2011/ROP

Table 1: Steiner tunnel and room corner test data FSI Pk RHR (kW) FSI Pk RHR (kW)

ASTM E 84 Room Corner Test (NFPA 286)


15 195 Old Textile Wall Covering Data (1986) 27 359 Cases Where E 84 is Poor Predictor 10 40 25 684 70 1460 15 5771 15 128 15 928 15 153 25 1166 0 40 0 35 Cases Where E 84 Is not a Poor Predictor

15 22 15 310 28 120 15 182 25 106 15 297

200 930 25 249 200 945 25 309 200 1070 200 1075 25 125

< 25 234 < 25 1733 (Jim Lathrop Data on HDPE)

ASTM E 84 Room Corner Test (ISO 9705)

Room Corner Test Comments (ISO 9705)

22 120 (walls and ceiling) < 25 54 (ceiling only) < 25 160 (ceiling only) < 25 154 (walls and ceiling) 22 20 @ 10 min – 548 @ 11

min (walls and ceiling)

22 110 (ceiling only) < 25 517 (walls and ceiling) < 25 58 (ceiling only)

19 of 59


Table 2 – Cone calorimeter test data for standard polypropylene and polyethylene materials – 6 mm, 0.25 inch, thick (1992)

PP PE Average of Plastics (*)Pk HRR @ 20 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 1,170 913 295 Pk HRR @ 40 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 1,509 1,408 443 Pk HRR @ 70 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 2,421 2,735 640

Total Heat Released @ 20 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231 162 92 Total Heat Released @ 40 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 207 221 126 Total Heat Released @ 70 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231 228 131

*: based on cone calorimeter study of 35 materials, published in: “Heat Release in Fires” by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson – Elsevier, 1992.

20 of 59


21 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101that the results showed the following: “Thermoplastic materials yield extra complexity when they burn in the context ofthe products in which they are found. Under the influence of gravity, the liquid phase formed during thermal degradationflows downward. If, as is typical, this liquid is burning, then it extends the flaming zone on the solid downward ontowhatever surfaces are available to catch the liquid (ultimately a horizontal floor or ground surface). This constitutes, atthe least, a new form of flame spread on the object containing the thermoplastic (in addition to normal forms of flamespread over solid surfaces, which are typically fastest in the upward direction), extending the area of fuel that is burningand thereby increasing the overall heat release rate from the object. In many cases this downward flow of flaming liquidresults in a pool fire under the object. If that pool fire is close enough to the object that its plume reaches the object, theresult can be a self feeding pool fire that further enhances the rate of heat release from the burning system. In additionto this penchant for liquid-assisted flame spread, thermoplastic materials also tend to deform significantly as they burn.Thus large changes in the geometric shape of the burning object are common. These two aspects of thermoplasticsmake modeling fire growth on them, or on objects containing them, extraordinarily difficult.”With regard to the polypropylene sheet experiment described in the photograph the report states: “The pool fire is

centered near the rear edge of the sample, not under the leading edge of the flames on the sheet. This is because it isbeing fed flaming polymer melt most rapidly from an area several centimeters behind the forward-most portion of thesample flame front where the shape of the trailing edge of the sheet curves rapidly from near vertical toward thehorizontal. There is a flow separation region there that tends to dump nearly all of the melt flow accumulated from higherup on the trailing edge of the sheet. From this flow impingement area on the catch surface, the melt tends to flow radiallyat first. That portion of the melt that is going forward (in the direction of flame spread) under the leading edge of theflames on the base of the sheet encounters a cold catch surface that extracts heat from the melt, lowers its temperatureand rapidly raises its viscosity. This nearly halts the flow in this direction, which, in fact, greatly slows the potential rate offire spread. Because much of the “forward” flow of melt is inhibited and, because the catch surface in the oppositedirection has been pre-heated by the pool fire in its march forward, there is a preferential melt flow backward, away fromthe direction of fire spread and toward the rear end of the pool fire. This tends to somewhat disengage the pool fire fromthe overall forward fire spread process. The melt flow on the catch surface appears to be driven by the small hydrostatichead that develops due to the finite thickness of the melt layer on this horizontal surface. Near the foot of the pool fireflames, the flow is also driven outward, away from the pool fire center, by the surface tension gradient that is large in thisregion. (One can often see a step up in melt layer thickness beneath the flame foot.) Note that the region of the pooldirectly beneath the flames is bubbling, indicating in-depth generation of gaseous degradation products from thepolymer melt. Also note that, on the left (just to the left of the flame foot), the pool fire has burned out by locallyconsuming all of the melt, leaving a dry central area. Around this area, however, there is a substantial amount of meltthat has not burned and is left by the fire. Evidently, this residue has cooled sufficiently (and remains sufficientlyheat-sunk to the catch surface) that it will not allow flame spread onto its surface (in effect, its temperature cannot beraised to the point where it will ignite). Note that the polymer sheet itself is somewhat wavy on its rear edge (warped outof the plane defined by the cold portion of the sample sheet). This is a consequence of the heat induced softening (and,perhaps, expansion) of the sheet before it actually begins to melt and flow at an appreciable rate. This aspect of thesample behavior was not reproducible. It interacts with the location of the separation point on the rear edge of thesample and thus influences where the bulk of the melt gets deposited in relation to the leading edge of the fire on thebase of the sample. This appeared to be a major source of scatter in the evolution of the heat release rate from the fire,as described further below. The above processes could conceivably produce an essentially steady-state, propagatingfire after some initial transient. Interestingly, while the flame spread rate along the bottom edge of the sample sheet isnearly steady in all cases, other aspects of the fire, including the heat release rate, are not steady.”It needs to be pointed out that this is not an indictment of all polypropylene materials. It is possible to prepare

polypropylene materials that exhibit excellent fire performance, including no significant flaming when tested in the ASTME 84, Steiner tunnel. When one non fire retarded polypropylene material (1.5 mm, 0.06 inch thick) was subjected to asmall open flame screening test, it ignited, dripped a flaming stream of plastic to the floor and continued to burn on thefloor until it was consumed on the specimen holder and on the floor. On the other hand, a fire retarded polypropylenematerial (3 mm, 1/8 inch thick) was subjected to the same small open flame screening test and caused no flaming drips.When it was then subjected to the ASTM E 84 test, it produced a flame spread index of 50 and a smoke developedindex of 215, without flaming drips. Table 3 shows some cone calorimeter results on nine fire retarded polypropylenematerials, which gave very adequate fire performance.

***Table 3 here***


22 of 59


Table 3 - Cone Calorimeter Tests on Fire Retarded Polypropylene Specimens (3 mm, 1/8 inch, thick)

Tests at 20 kW/m2 Tests at 40 kW/m2

Material Pk HRR Pk HRR

kW/m2 kW/m2

FR PP 1 236 243 FR PP 2 168 206 FR PP 3 207 209 FR PP 4 195 206 FR PP 5 301 231 FR PP 6 215 193 FR PP 7 228 193 FR PP 8 207 188 FR PP 9 202 172

PP Car HVAC duct 480 (at 25 kW/m2)

23 of 59



New text to read as follows:10.2.4.7 Site-fabricated stretch systems. The use of site-fabricated stretch systems shall comply with one of the

following conditions:(1) Materials meeting the requirements of Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, using the

specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2573, (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted on walls and ceilings.(2) Materials shall be permitted on walls and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286, Standard Methods of

Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth. (See 10.2.3.7.)(3) Previously approved existing installations of site-fabricated stretch systems meeting the requirements for the

occupancy involved shall be permitted to be continued to be used.

. A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,that is comprised of three elements: a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to holdfabric in place, a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and an outside layer,comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taut and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via theframe.

This proposed adds a product, site-fabricated stretch systems, that is not presently explicitlyaddressed in the code but for which ASTM E05 (committee on fire standards) has developed a specimen preparationand mounting method for testing in accordance with the Steiner tunnel test, ASTM E 84 or UL 723. When these systemsare not tested using the requirements of ASTM E 2573, the test is not fully representative of the hazard of the materialbecause the frame is not properly tested. Existing site-fabricated stretch systems already tested and previouslyapproved should not be required to be ripped out.Two particular concerns exist regarding the testing of these systems: (a) some manufacturers/jurisdictions believe that

these systems are simply textiles and have required testing based on NFPA 701, which is not safe and (b) some stretchsystems that do not contain the frame and core material are being confused with these systems and they need to beaddressed and tested differently.A definition is being added of the type of products in question, for clarification.


24 of 59



New text to read as follows:. For new installations, site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three

components described in the definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use, and shall complywith the requirements of Section 10.2.3. If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimenpreparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2573.

Site-fabricated stretch system. A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,that is comprised of three elements: (a) a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to holdfabric in place, (b) a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and (c) an outside layer,comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taunt and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via theframe.

The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2573,Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of site-fabricated stretch systems. Until now there was nocorrect mandatory way to test these systems. These systems are now being used extensively because they can stretchto cover decorative walls and ceilings with unusual looks and shapes. The systems consist of three parts: a fabric (orvinyl), a frame and an infill core material. The testing has often been done of each component separately instead oftesting the composite system. That is an inappropriate way to test and not the safe way to conduct the testing. Now thata consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The proposed definition was taken fromthe standard, ASTM E 2573, word for word.Some systems do not consist of all three components of site-fabricated stretch systems and they should be tested in a

manner appropriate to their use. In particular systems that contain a stretch membrane only and no core material havebeen shown to behave very differently in a fire situation from the site-fabricated stretch systems. It is important that thecorrect mounting method be used for each system.This type of product is not exclusive to any individual manufacturer. Three examples, taken from different

manufacturers, are shown as illustrations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-220 Log #79 SAF-FUR


New text to read as follows:. Reflective insulation materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use,

and shall comply with the requirements of Section 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance withASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2599.

Reflective insulation. Thermal insulation consisting of one or more low emittance surfaces bounding one or moreenclosed air spaces.

The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2599,Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of reflective insulation materials and radiant barrier materials.Until now there was no correct mandatory way to test these materials. In fact, unless the materials are mounted asindicated in ASTM E 2599, the results of testing in the Steiner tunnel (ASTM E 84) are misleading and can lead tounsafe implications. Now that a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. Theproposed definition was taken from the standard, ASTM E 2599, word for word.


25 of 59


26 of 59


27 of 59


28 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.2.6.1* The required flame spread index or smoke developed index development classification of existing surfaces of

walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings shall be permitted to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings tosurfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted. Such treatments shall be tested, or shall belisted and labeled for application to the material to which they are applied, and shall comply with the requirements ofNFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials.

This is purely an editorial change; the terms to be used should be flame spread index and smokedeveloped index.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-222 Log #33 SAF-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________George M. Lanier, Rome, GA

Revise 10.2.6.1* to read as follows:"10.2.6.1* The required flame spread or smoke development classification of existing or new walls, partitions,

columns, and ceilings shall, based upon technical documentation submitted to and approved by the authority havingjurisdiction, be permitted to be secured by applying approved fire -retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flamespread ratings than permitted. Such treatments shall be tested, or shall be listed and labeled for application to thematerial to which they are applied, and shall comply to the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for FireRetardant-Treated Wood and Fire Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, or other standard deemed equivalent bythe authority having jurisdiction."

The proposed changes open the door for fire retardant coatings to be used on "new" building materialssubject to the approval of the authority having jurisdiction, which is consistent with 1.4; 1.4.1; 1.4.2; 1.4.3; 1.6; 3.2.1;3.2.4; and 3.2.5. It is not uncommon for owners and architects to desire to use materials such as wood decorativeproducts that have flame spread ratings or smoke generation classifications that exceed general code limitations. Thesecould be considered "new" for new projects. Rather than prohibiting the use of "new" materials outright, establish a clearprocedure whereby the authority having jurisdiction can evaluate products for use on "new" materials as well as"existing" materials. See a proposal for revisions to A.10.2.6.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-223 Log #81 SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.2.7.4 Interior floor finishes shall be classified as follows in accordance with their the critical radiant flux values

ratings:(1) Class I interior floor finish shall be characterized by a critical radiant flux not less than 0.45 W/cm2, as determined

by the test described in 10.2.7.3.(2) Class II interior floor finish shall be characterized by a critical radiant flux not less than 0.22 W/cm2 but less than

0.45 W/cm2, as determined by the test described in 10.2.7.3.10.2.8.2 Unless specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Code, where an approved automatic sprinkler system is in

accordance with Section 9.7, Class II interior floor finish shall be permitted in any location where Class I interior floorfinish is required, and where Class II is required, no critical radiant flux classification rating shall be required.

This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and fireprotection rating.


29 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.3.1* Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, draperies, curtains, and other similar loosely hanging

furnishings and decorations shall comply with one of the following:(a)* they shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria contained in NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire

Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films or(b) they shall exhibit a heat release rate not exceeding 100 kW when tested in accordance with NFPA 289, Standard

Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, using the 20 kW ignition source .A.10.3.1(a) Testing per NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films,

applies to textiles and films used in a hanging configuration. If the textiles are to be applied to surfaces of buildings orbacking materials as interior finishes for use in buildings, they should be treated as interior wall and ceiling finishes inaccordance with Section 10.2 of this Code, and they should then be tested for flame spread index and smoke developedindex values in accordance with ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or for flamespread and flashover in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire GrowthContribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels and Walls. Films and other materials used as interior finishapplied to surfaces of buildings should be tested for flame spread index and smoke developed index values inaccordance with ASTM E 84 or ANSI/UL 723 or for heat and smoke release and flashover in accordance with NFPA286, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Contribution of Wall and Ceiling Interior Finish to Room Fire Growth.The test results from NFPA 701 are suitable for classification purposes but should not be used as input into fire

models, because they are not generated in units suitable for engineering calculations.A.10.3.1(b) NFPA 289 was developed specifically to

address testing of individual fuel packages, such as decorations or combustible vegetation. The test method assessesvarious fire properties, including heat and smoke release, when an individual fuel package is exposed to a gas burnerignition source. The test results are generated in units suitable for engineering calculations.

The NFPA Fire Tests developed modern fire testing technology for decorations and single fuelpackages, by using a propane gas burner. NFPA 289 is more versatile than NFPA 701 and is also likely to offer lowervariability. The 20 kW gas burner ignition source in NFPA 289 was specifically designed with the intent of being asubstitute for UL 1975 and for use with decorations. This should be permitted as an alternate option for items tested toNFPA 701.


30 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.3.7* Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, furnishings and contents made with foamed plastic

materials that are unprotected from ignition shall have a heat release rate not exceeding 100 kW when tested inaccordance with UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, or when tested inaccordance with NFPA 289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, using the 20 kW ignitionsource.A.10.3.7 Neither ANSI/UL 1975, Standard for Fire Tests for Foamed Plastics Used for Decorative Purposes, nor NFPA

289, Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages, are is not intended for evaluating interior wall andceiling finish materials.Actual test results for heat, smoke, and combustion product release from ANSI/UL 1975 or from NFPA 289 might be

suitable for use as input into fire models intended for performance-based design.

UL 1975 was developed in the 1970s and uses a 340 g wood crib as the ignition source. More moderntechnology, using a propane gas burner, has recently been developed by the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Tests,specifically for this type of product. NFPA 289 is more versatile than UL 1975 and is also likely to offer lower variability.The 20 kW gas burner ignition source in NFPA 289 was specifically designed with the intent of being a substitute for UL1975. This proposal does not recommend the deletion of the use of UL 1975 but simply offers a more modern alternateoption.


31 of 59



New text to read as follows:Containers for rubbish, waste or

linen, including their lids, with a capacity of 20 gallons (75.7 L) or more shall be constructed of noncombustible materialsor of materials that meet a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m2 when tested, at an incident heat flux of50 kW/m2 in the horizontal orientation, at a thickness as used in the container but not less than 0.25 in. (6 mm), inaccordance with ASTM E 1354, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and ProductsUsing an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter, or NFPA 271, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible SmokeRelease Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter. Metal wastebaskets and othermetal rubbish, waste or linen containers with a capacity of 20 gallons (75.7 L) or more shall be in accordance withUL 1315, Standard for Safety for Metal Waste Paper Containers, and shall be provided with a noncombustible lid.

Large waste or linen containers made of polyethylene burn vigorously and produce high heat releaserates.If this requirement is in Chapter 10 it can be picked up by any of the occupancy chapters as needed. This proposal

also tries to get consistent language between codes, since the UFC talks about rubbish containers and the IFC talksabout waste containers, and addresses containers above 20 gallons. IFC requires that metal containers be listed to UL1315.Since the UFC (NFPA 1) is trending to become very much of an extract code, it is important to get the key information

from it and place it in the Life safety code. I will not repeat information I have given elsewhere about the problem ofmelting and high heat release polyethylene. I just want to state that an investigation of the UL web site indicates thatthere are several pages (over 70 materials) of listed polyethylene materials that have been fire retarded, meeting a UL94 V-2 flammability requirement or better, so that they are easily available and can also easily be designed, so that thepass/fail criterion proposed is not very severe.Also, a test I conducted on a 22.4 lb polyethylene garbage can resulted in us having to extinguish the fire at 13.35 min

when it had reached over flashover conditions in a small 8 ft x 12 ft x 8 ft room, with a maximum of 1.342 MW. The heatrelease was still growing when we extinguished the fire.The Uniform Fire Code already has the following section:“19.2.1.2 Nonmetallic Containers.19.2.1.2.1* Nonmetallic rubbish containers exceeding a capacity of 5 ft3 [40 gal (0.15 m3)] shall be manufactured of

materials having a peak rate of heat release not exceeding 300 kW/m2 at a flux of 50 kW/m2 when tested in thehorizontal orientation, at a thickness as used in the container but not less than of 0.25 in. (6 mm), in accordance withASTM E 1354, Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an OxygenConsumption Calorimeter, or NFPA 271, Standard Method of Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates forMaterials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter.”The Uniform Fire Code also has an annex A item that explains that ASTM E 1354 or NFPA 271 is the cone

calorimeter. The cone calorimeter test standard does not indicate the exact conditions (heat flux and orientation) neededfor testing. The annex also explains that the value of 300 kW/m2 for peak rate of heat release of the rubbish containermaterial corresponds to the value that Douglas fir wood emits under the same conditions and that rubbish containers areoften manufactured of polyethylene [effective heat of combustion ca. 19,000 Btu/lb (45 MJ/kg)], which releases muchmore heat in a fire than the typical contents of the container, much of which is paper (effective heat of combustion ca.6400 Btu/lb (15 MJ/kg]). The annex then contains Table A.19.2.1.2.1 (shown below), which shows peak heat releaserates of a series of materials (34 plastics and Douglas fir wood) at an incident heat flux of 40 kW/m2, in the horizontalorientation and at a thickness of 0.25 in. (6 mm).

***Figure 1 here***

Table Source: Hirschler 1992. “Heat release from plastic materials”, M.M. Hirschler, Chapter 12 a, in “Heat Release inFire,” Elsevier, London, UK, Eds. V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson, 1992. pp. 375–422."


32 of 59


33 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:Table A.10.2Textile wall coverings - Column on Application requirement – Row on Section 10.2.4.1(4)Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A having a Class A

rating permitted to be continued to be usedTextile ceiling coverings - Column on Application requirement – Row on Section 10.2.4.1(4)Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of Class A having a Class A

rating permitted to be continued to be usedFire-retardant coatings - Column on Application requirementRequired flame spread index or smoke developed index values development classification of existing surfaces of walls,

partitions, columns, and ceilings permitted to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces havinghigher flame spread index values ratings than permitted; such treatments required to be tested, or listed and labeled forapplication to material to which they are appliedTable A.10.2.2 NotesNotes:(1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 0–25 (new applications), smoke developed index,

0–450.(2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 26–75 (new applications), smoke developed index,

0–450.(3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index, 76–200 (new applications), smoke developed index,

0–450.(4) Class I interior floor finish — critical radiant flux, not less than 0.45 W/cm2.(5) Class II interior floor finish — critical radiant flux, not more than 0.22 W/cm2, but less than 0.45 W/cm2.(6) Automatic sprinklers — where a complete standard system of automatic sprinklers is installed, interior wall and

ceiling finish meeting requirements of at least with a flame spread rating not exceeding Class C is permitted to be usedin any location where Class B is required and meeting requirements with a rating of Class B in any location where ClassA is required; similarly, Class II interior floor finish is permitted to be used in any location where Class I is required, andno critical radiant flux classification rating is required where Class II is required. These provisions do not apply to newdetention and correctional occupancies.(7) Exposed portions of structural members complying with the requirements for heavy timber construction are

permitted.†See corresponding chapters for details.

The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 orless and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, inaccordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating andfire protection rating.


34 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:A.10.2.3.4 It has been shown that the method of mounting interior finish materials might affect actual performance.

Where materials are tested in intimate contact with a substrate to determine a classification, such materials should beinstalled in intimate contact with a similar substrate. Such details are especially important for “thermally thin” materials.For further information, see ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials.Some interior wall and ceiling finish materials, such as fabrics not applied to a solid backing, do not lend themselves to

a test made in accordance with ASTM E 84. In such cases, the large-scale test outlined in NFPA 701, StandardMethods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films, is permitted to be used.Prior to 1978, the test report described by ASTM E 84 included an evaluation of the fuel contribution as well as the

flame spread index rating and the smoke developed index development value. However, it is now recognized that themeasurement on which the fuel contribution is based does not provide a valid measure. Therefore, although the dataare recorded during the test, the information is no longer normally reported. Classification of interior wall and ceilingfinish thus relies only on the flame spread index and the smoke developed index development value.The 450 smoke developed index development value limit is based solely on obscuration. (See A.10.2.4.1.)A.10.2.6.1 It is the intent of the Code to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that obtain their fire

performance and smoke developed characteristics in their original form. However, in renovations, particularly thoseinvolving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, the required fire performance or smoke developedcharacteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings might have to be secured by applyingapproved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted. Suchtreatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood andFire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials. When fire-retardant coatings are used, they need to be applied tosurfaces properly prepared for the material, and application needs to be consistent with the product listing. Deteriorationof coatings applied to interior finishes can occur due to repeated cleaning of the surface or painting over appliedcoatings, but permanency must be assured in some appropriate fashion. Fire-retardant coatings must possess thedesired degree of permanency and be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the serviceconditions encountered in actual use.

The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 orless and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, inaccordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating andfire protection rating.Also: smoke development value should be smoke developed index.


35 of 59


_______________________________________________________________________________________________George M. Lanier, Rome, GA

Revise the first paragraph of A.10.2.6.1 to read as follows: "A.10.2.6.1 It is the primary intent of theCode to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that obtain their fire performance and smoke developmented-characteristics in their original form. It is not the intent of the Code to infringe on the duties and powers of theauthority having jurisdiction to evaluate and permit the use of fire retardant coatings on new or existing buildingmaterials. However, In renovations, particularly those involving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, therequired fire performance or smoke development ed characteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns,and ceilings might have to be secured by applying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flamespread ratings than permitted. Situations arise where the owner or architect of new construction may desire the use ofmaterials that may have higher flame spread ratings that have similar issues as existing surfaces in existing buildings. Itis the responsibility of authority having jurisdiction to evaluate the appropriateness of the specific fire-retardant coatingfor use on a specific material in the configuration that the material is to be used and installed. It is the primary intent ofthe Code that such treatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703,

provided however, the authority having jurisdiction is notrestricted by the Code from utilizing other standards, and technical documentation in evaluating and approving the useof flame-retardant coatings to existing or new materials."The remiander on the annex note remains unchanged.

The proposed revisions to A.1 0.2.6.1 are in support of proposed revisions to the Code text. Theproposed changes open the door for fire retardant coatings to be used on "new" building materials subject to theapproval of the authority having jurisdiction, which is consistent with 1.4; 1.4.1; 1.4.2; 1.4.3; 1.6; 3.2.1; 3.2.4; and 3.2.5.It is not uncommon for owners and architects to desire to use materials such as wood decorative products that haveflame spread ratings or smoke generation classifications that exceed general code limitations. These could beconsidered "new" for new projects. Rather than prohibiting the use of "new" materials outright, establish a clearprocedure whereby the authority having jurisdiction can evaluate products for use on "new" materials as well as"existing" materials. See a proposal for revisions to 10.2.6.1.


36 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 101_______________________________________________________________________________________________101-432 Log #118c SAF-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:D.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA

19428-2959. www.astm.orgASTM C 1629/C 1629M, Standard Classification for Abuse-Resistant Nondecorated Interior Gypsum Panel Products

and Fiber-Reinforced Cement Panels, 2006 2005.ASTM D 2859, Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials, 2006

2004.ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2009a 2004.ASTM E 119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2008a 2007a.ASTM E 814, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops, 2008b 2002.ASTM E 1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies,

2008a 2002.ASTM E 1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture,

2008a 2002.ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, 2005a 2004.ASTM E 1472, Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models, 2007 2003.ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Upholstered Furniture, 2007 2002.ASTM E 1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Mattresses, 2007 2002.ASTM E 1996 E 1966 Standard Test Method for Fire-Resistive Joint Systems, 2007 2001.ASTM E 2030, Guide for Recommended Uses of Photoluminescent (Phosphorescent) Safety Markings, 2008 2002.ASTM E 2174, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops, 2004 2001.ASTM E 2238, Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams, 2002.ASTM E 2307, Standard Test Method for Determining Fire Resistance of Perimeter Fire Barrier Systems Using

Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test Apparatus, 2004 e1.ASTM E 2393, Standard Practice for On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Resistive Joint Systems and Perimeter Fire

Barriers, 2004.ASTM E 2484, Standard Specification for High-Rise Building External Evacuation Controlled Descent Devices, 2008

2006.ASTM E 2513, Standard Specification for Multi-Story Building External Evacuation Platform Rescue Systems, 2007.ASTM F 1637, Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces, 2007 2004.ASTM F 1870, Standard Guide for Selection of Fire Test Methods for the Assessment of Upholstered Furnishings in

Detention and Correctional Facilities, 2005.This proposal updates ASTM standards to the most recent editions.


37 of 59

38 of 59

39 of 59

Subject: FW: For your next FUR meeting

From: Harrington, Greg Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:12 PM To: Collette, Kristin Cc: Cote, Ron Subject: For your next FUR meeting Kristin: In 101-2009, there appears to be an inconsistency between 10.2.7.2 and 10.2.8.2. I always understood 10.2.7.2 must be met for all floor coverings other than carpet (min. CRF of 0.1 W/cm2) regardless of sprinkler protection. 10.2.8.2 permits the reduction from Class II to no rating where sprinklers are provided, but I don’t think that impacts 10.2.7.2. Can you ask FUR to clarify this for the next cycle? We also discussed adding language to 10.2.4.1 and 10.2.4.2 to preclude the use of 10.2.8.1 for textile and expanded vinyl wall and ceiling materials. (I didn’t look, but I imagine there are corresponding provisions in 5000.) Thanks! ‐‐Greg

Page 1 of 1

9/1/2009file://C:\Documents and Settings\lmackay\Desktop\10.2.7.2 floor coverings.htm

40 of 59

Subject: FW: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4 From: Cote, Ron Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:50 AM To: Harrington, Greg Cc: Collette, Kristin Subject: RE: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4 Please assume we can not delete the annex, and prepare commentary explaining the discrepancy. Ron

From: Harrington, Greg Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:46 AM To: Cote, Ron Cc: Collette, Kristin Subject: LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4 In preparing Handbook commentary for Ch. 10, I discovered that FUR revised the heat release rate values for upholstered furniture and mattresses in 10.3.3 and 10.3.4, but neglected to revise the associated annex text which refers to the old values. This creates a conflict between the code language and the annex; the annex notes are now wrong. I’m not sure the annex notes would be correct if we substituted in the new values. Can the annex notes be deleted, or should I write commentary explaining this is a committee oversight? Thanks. Gregory Harrington, P.E. Principal Fire Protection Engineer NFPA – Quincy, MA USA

Page 1 of 1

9/1/2009file://C:\Documents and Settings\lmackay\Desktop\LSC A.10.3.3 and A.10.3.4.htm

41 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-27 Log #40 BLD-FUR


New text to read as follows:. Reflective insulation materials shall be tested in the manner intended for use,

and shall comply with the requirements of Section 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance withASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparation and mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2599.

Reflective insulation. Thermal insulation consisting of one or more low emittance surfaces bounding one or moreenclosed air spaces.

The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2599,Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of reflective insulation materials and radiant barrier materials.Until now there was no correct mandatory way to test these materials. In fact, unless the materials are mounted asindicated in ASTM E 2599, the results of testing in the Steiner tunnel (ASTM E 84) are misleading and can lead tounsafe implications. Now that a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. Theproposed definition was taken from the standard, ASTM E 2599, word for word.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-41 Log #CP5 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:. Any movable objects in a building that normally are secured or otherwise put in

place for functional reasons, excluding (1) parts of the internal structure of the building and (2) any items meeting thedefinition of interior finish. [ 2009]

This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondarydefinition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-42 Log #CP6 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:The level of incident radiant heat energy in units of W/cm2 on a floor covering system at

the most distant flameout point. [ 2006]This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary

definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.


42 of 59


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Glossary of Terms Technical Advisory Committee / Marcelo Hirschler,

Revise text to read as follows:The exposed surfaces of walls, ceilings, and floors within buildings.

It is important to have consistent definitions of terms within NFPA. The term “interior finish is theresponsibility of NFPA 850 but would be more appropriate for NFPA 101 or NFPA 5000.The committee was created by NFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA

documents.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-105 Log #32 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.1.1 Classification of interior finish materials shall be in accordance with tests made under conditions simulating

actual installations, provided that the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to establish the classification of anymaterial for which a rating classification by a standard test is not available, unless otherwise provided in 10.1.2.

The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 orless and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, inaccordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance ratingand fire protection rating.


43 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.2.4.1* Textile Wall and Textile Ceiling Materials. The use of textile materials on walls or ceilings shall comply with

one of the following conditions:(1) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted onthe walls or ceilings of rooms or areas protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system.(2) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted onpartitions that do not exceed three-quarters of the floor-to-ceiling height or do not exceed 8 ft (2440 mm) in height,whichever is less.(3) Textile materials meeting the requirements of having a Class A when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL

723, using the specimen preparation and mounting method of ASTM E 2404, rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted toextend not more than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the finished floor on ceiling-height walls and ceiling-height partitions.(4) Previously approved existing installations of textile material meeting the requirements of having a Class A when

tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723 rating (see 10.2.3.4) shall be permitted to be continued to be used.(5) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls and partitions where tested in accordance with NFPA 265, Standard

Methods of Fire Tests for Evaluating Room Fire Growth Contribution of Textile Coverings on Full Height Panels andWalls. (See 10.2.3.7.)(6) Textile materials shall be permitted on walls, partitions, and ceilings where tested in accordance with NFPA 286,





of ASTM E 2404.4. Existing wall coverings already tested and previously approved should not be required to be ripped out.

I am the chairman of the NFPA Advisory Committee on the Glossary on Terminology. The committee was created byNFPA Standards Council to provide consistency in terminology throughout the NFPA documents. The committee hasnot reviewed this recommendation and therefore, this proposal is not being submitted in the name of the committee.


44 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:Products shall be tested using the Method B test protocol of NFPA 265. The following conditions shall be

met:(1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.(2) During the 150 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:

(a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.(b) Flashover shall not occur.

The interior finish shall comply with the following:1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the samples on the 8 foot by 12 foot (2440 by 3660 mm) walls.3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 265, shall not occur.4. The total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m2.

Most of this proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail thecriteria if the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of theroom or ceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test is flashover occurswhen the burner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burnscompletely within a minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case. This proposaladds the smoke requirements for new installations, to be consistent with IBC building code requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-108 Log #34 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:Products shall be tested using the test protocol of NFPA 286. The following conditions shall be met:

(1) Flame shall not spread to the ceiling during the 40 kW exposure.(2) During the 160 kW exposure, the following criteria shall be met:

(a) Flame shall not spread to the outer extremities of the sample on the 8 ft × 12 ft (2440 mm × 3660 mm) wall.(b) Flashover shall not occur.

(3) The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.(4) For new installations, the total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 10,760 ft2 (1000 m2).1. During the 40 kW exposure, flames shall not spread to the ceiling.2. The flame shall not spread to the outer extremity of the sample on any wall or ceiling.3. Flashover, as defined in NFPA 286, shall not occur.4. The peak heat release rate throughout the test shall not exceed 800 kW.5. The total smoke released throughout the test shall not exceed 1,000 m2.

This proposal is editorial and intended for simplification. Clearly the interior finish should fail the criteriaif the material has flame spreading to the outer extremity of the sample (meaning all the way to the end of the room orceiling) even before the burner is raised to 150 kW. Also, the material should fail the test is flashover occurs when theburner is still at 40 kW. The present language could be interpreted to mean that a material that burns completely withina minute and/or reaches flashover does not fail the test. That should not be the case.The clause about new installations is removed because it is redundant since the building code applies only to new

installations.


45 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:10.4.3.1.2 Cellular or foamed plastic materials tested in accordance with ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of

Insulated Wall Construction, or FM 4880, Approval Standard for Class I Fire Rating of Insulated Wall or Wall andRoof/Ceiling Panels, Interior Finish Materials or Coating, and Exterior Wall Systems shall also be tested for smokerelease. Suitable smoke tests include the following:(1) Additional measurements of smoke release into the duct that demonstrate that the total smoke released throughout

the test does not exceed 1000 m2(2) NFPA 286, with the acceptance criterion of 10.2.3.7.2(4) 10.3.6.2(3) NFPA 255, ASTM E 84, or UL 723, with a smoke developed index not exceeding 450

This proposal addresses two minor issues: (a) it corrects the section associated with pass/fail criteriafor NFPA 286 and (b) it eliminates the reference to NFPA 255, which is slated for withdrawal.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-110 Log #36 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:10.4.3.2 Cellular or foamed plastic shall be permitted for trim not in excess of 10 percent of the wall or ceiling area,

provided that it is not less than 20 lb/ft3 (320 kg/m3) in density, is limited to ½ in. (13 mm) in thickness and 4 in. (100mm) in width, and complies with the requirements for Class A or Class B interior wall and ceiling finish, as described in10.3.2; however, the smoke release rating shall not be limited.



46 of 59



New text to read as follows:High density polyethylene and polypropylene

materials shall not be used as interior wall or ceiling finish unless the material complies with the requirements of Section10.3.6.2. The tests shall be performed on a finished assembly related to the actual end-use configuration and on themaximum thickness intended for use.

Polypropylene and high density polyethylene interior finish materials need to be treated the same way,because polypropylene and polyethylene behave in a very similar fashion in fires.James Lathrop has explained the problems associated with polyethylene (HDPE), when it is used as an interior finish

material, as follows (exact quote):“HDPE is a thermoplastic that when it burns gives off considerable energy and produces a pooling flammable liquids

fire. Recent full scale room-corner tests using NFPA 286 have demonstrated a significant hazard. These tests had to beterminated prior to the standard 15 minute duration due to flashover occurring, yet there was still much of the productleft to burn. Extensive flammable liquid pool fires occurred during the tests. Yet this same material when tested inaccordance with the tunnel test, ASTM E-84, is often given a FSI of 25 or less. However the resulting test is so intensesome labs will not test HDPE partitions in their tunnel due to the damage it can do to the tunnel. This proposal willassure that when using HDPE partitions they will be formulated in such a manner to reduce the hazard that theypresent. Following is some of the data from one of the NFPA 286 tests: Peak HRR (excl burner) 1733 kW; Total HeatReleased (excl. burner) 121 MJ; Peak Heat Flux to the floor 35.2 kW/m2; Peak Avg Ceiling Temp 805oC, 1481oF.”He has also explained that HDPE is extensively used in toilet room privacy partitions.It is worth putting the data Jim Lathrop presented into perspective by noting that pass/fail criteria are 800 kW and that

those materials which perform well in the room-corner test usually exhibit heat release rates less than 400 kW, asopposed to over 1700 kW for HDPE.The materials in Table 1 (attached) were tested in a room corner test and in the Steiner tunnel test (ASTM E 84). Most

materials were tested in the NFPA room corner tests but some were tested in the much more severe ISO 9705 roomcorner test (where the ignition burner is at 100 kW for 10 min and then at 300 kW for a further 10 min, as opposed to 40kW/150 kW or 40 kW/160 kW for NFPA room-corner tests). Even here, some materials perform with low peak heatrelease rates.

***Table 1 here***

Experience in the past has long shown that materials with FSI values of less than 25 when tested in accordance withASTM E 84, particularly if they are thermally thin materials or materials that melt and drip during the test (such as HDPEor polypropylene) cannot be guaranteed to be safe enough to be permitted to be used based simply on ASTM E 84testing.A new product has now become available in the market: polypropylene toilet room privacy partitions.Polypropylene is a material that is very similar to polyethylene. Polypropylene is also a thermoplastic polyolefin

material, just like polyethylene and there is almost no difference in fire performance. Both materials melt and drip andcause flaming drips when they burn and release large amounts of heat. The consequence of this is that pool fires areformed on the floor beneath the material. Table 2 shows cone calorimeter (ASTM E 1354) data for polypropylene andpolyethylene. These materials should not be used as interior finish unless they comply with the criteria for tests toNFPA 286.

***Table 2 here***

***Figure 1 here***

The photograph above shows a 3 mm (1/8 inch) thick sheet of polypropylene exposed to fire and the resulting pool fire(Photo and quotes below from NIST Technical Note 1493, T.J. Ohlemiller and J.R. Shields, “Aspects of the ThermalBehavior of Thermoplastic Materials”, 2008).In the above work, NIST tests were conducted with thin sheets of polypropylene and revealed the problems associated

with the generation of melt pool fires and the role of a pool fire in the overall fire growth process. The publication states


47 of 59


Table 1: Steiner tunnel and room corner test data FSI Pk RHR (kW) FSI Pk RHR (kW)



15 195 Old Textile Wall Covering Data (1986) 27 359 Cases Where E 84 is Poor Predictor 10 40 25 684 70 1460 15 5771 15 128 15 928 15 153 25 1166 0 40 0 35 Cases Where E 84 Is not a Poor Predictor

15 22 15 310 28 120 15 182 25 106 15 297

200 930 25 249 200 945 25 309 200 1070 200 1075 25 125

< 25 234 < 25 1733 (Jim Lathrop Data on HDPE)

ASTM E 84 Room Corner Test (ISO 9705)

Room Corner Test Comments (ISO 9705)

22 120 (walls and ceiling) < 25 54 (ceiling only) < 25 160 (ceiling only) < 25 154 (walls and ceiling) 22 20 @ 10 min – 548 @ 11

min (walls and ceiling)

22 110 (ceiling only) < 25 517 (walls and ceiling) < 25 58 (ceiling only)

48 of 59


Table 2 – Cone calorimeter test data for standard polypropylene and polyethylene materials – 6 mm, 0.25 inch, thick (1992)

PP PE Average of Plastics (*)Pk HRR @ 20 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 1,170 913 295 Pk HRR @ 40 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 1,509 1,408 443 Pk HRR @ 70 kW/m2 (in kW/m2) 2,421 2,735 640

Total Heat Released @ 20 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231 162 92 Total Heat Released @ 40 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 207 221 126 Total Heat Released @ 70 kW/m2 (in MJ/m2) 231 228 131

*: based on cone calorimeter study of 35 materials, published in: “Heat Release in Fires” by V. Babrauskas and S.J. Grayson – Elsevier, 1992.

49 of 59


50 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 5000that the results showed the following: “Thermoplastic materials yield extra complexity when they burn in the context ofthe products in which they are found. Under the influence of gravity, the liquid phase formed during thermal degradationflows downward. If, as is typical, this liquid is burning, then it extends the flaming zone on the solid downward ontowhatever surfaces are available to catch the liquid (ultimately a horizontal floor or ground surface). This constitutes, atthe least, a new form of flame spread on the object containing the thermoplastic (in addition to normal forms of flamespread over solid surfaces, which are typically fastest in the upward direction), extending the area of fuel that is burningand thereby increasing the overall heat release rate from the object. In many cases this downward flow of flaming liquidresults in a pool fire under the object. If that pool fire is close enough to the object that its plume reaches the object, theresult can be a self feeding pool fire that further enhances the rate of heat release from the burning system. In additionto this penchant for liquid-assisted flame spread, thermoplastic materials also tend to deform significantly as they burn.Thus large changes in the geometric shape of the burning object are common. These two aspects of thermoplasticsmake modeling fire growth on them, or on objects containing them, extraordinarily difficult.”With regard to the polypropylene sheet experiment described in the photograph the report states: “The pool fire is

centered near the rear edge of the sample, not under the leading edge of the flames on the sheet. This is because it isbeing fed flaming polymer melt most rapidly from an area several centimeters behind the forward-most portion of thesample flame front where the shape of the trailing edge of the sheet curves rapidly from near vertical toward thehorizontal. There is a flow separation region there that tends to dump nearly all of the melt flow accumulated from higherup on the trailing edge of the sheet. From this flow impingement area on the catch surface, the melt tends to flow radiallyat first. That portion of the melt that is going forward (in the direction of flame spread) under the leading edge of theflames on the base of the sheet encounters a cold catch surface that extracts heat from the melt, lowers its temperatureand rapidly raises its viscosity. This nearly halts the flow in this direction, which, in fact, greatly slows the potential rate offire spread. Because much of the “forward” flow of melt is inhibited and, because the catch surface in the oppositedirection has been pre-heated by the pool fire in its march forward, there is a preferential melt flow backward, away fromthe direction of fire spread and toward the rear end of the pool fire. This tends to somewhat disengage the pool fire fromthe overall forward fire spread process. The melt flow on the catch surface appears to be driven by the small hydrostatichead that develops due to the finite thickness of the melt layer on this horizontal surface. Near the foot of the pool fireflames, the flow is also driven outward, away from the pool fire center, by the surface tension gradient that is large in thisregion. (One can often see a step up in melt layer thickness beneath the flame foot.) Note that the region of the pooldirectly beneath the flames is bubbling, indicating in-depth generation of gaseous degradation products from thepolymer melt. Also note that, on the left (just to the left of the flame foot), the pool fire has burned out by locallyconsuming all of the melt, leaving a dry central area. Around this area, however, there is a substantial amount of meltthat has not burned and is left by the fire. Evidently, this residue has cooled sufficiently (and remains sufficientlyheat-sunk to the catch surface) that it will not allow flame spread onto its surface (in effect, its temperature cannot beraised to the point where it will ignite). Note that the polymer sheet itself is somewhat wavy on its rear edge (warped outof the plane defined by the cold portion of the sample sheet). This is a consequence of the heat induced softening (and,perhaps, expansion) of the sheet before it actually begins to melt and flow at an appreciable rate. This aspect of thesample behavior was not reproducible. It interacts with the location of the separation point on the rear edge of thesample and thus influences where the bulk of the melt gets deposited in relation to the leading edge of the fire on thebase of the sample. This appeared to be a major source of scatter in the evolution of the heat release rate from the fire,as described further below. The above processes could conceivably produce an essentially steady-state, propagatingfire after some initial transient. Interestingly, while the flame spread rate along the bottom edge of the sample sheet isnearly steady in all cases, other aspects of the fire, including the heat release rate, are not steady.”It needs to be pointed out that this is not an indictment of all polypropylene materials. It is possible to prepare

polypropylene materials that exhibit excellent fire performance, including no significant flaming when tested in the ASTME 84, Steiner tunnel. When one non fire retarded polypropylene material (1.5 mm, 0.06 inch thick) was subjected to asmall open flame screening test, it ignited, dripped a flaming stream of plastic to the floor and continued to burn on thefloor until it was consumed on the specimen holder and on the floor. On the other hand, a fire retarded polypropylenematerial (3 mm, 1/8 inch thick) was subjected to the same small open flame screening test and caused no flaming drips.When it was then subjected to the ASTM E 84 test, it produced a flame spread index of 50 and a smoke developedindex of 215, without flaming drips. Table 3 shows some cone calorimeter results on nine fire retarded polypropylenematerials, which gave very adequate fire performance.

***Table 3 here***


51 of 59


Table 3 - Cone Calorimeter Tests on Fire Retarded Polypropylene Specimens (3 mm, 1/8 inch, thick)

Tests at 20 kW/m2 Tests at 40 kW/m2

Material Pk HRR Pk HRR

kW/m2 kW/m2

FR PP 1 236 243 FR PP 2 168 206 FR PP 3 207 209 FR PP 4 195 206 FR PP 5 301 231 FR PP 6 215 193 FR PP 7 228 193 FR PP 8 207 188 FR PP 9 202 172

PP Car HVAC duct 480 (at 25 kW/m2)

52 of 59



New text to read as follows:. Site-fabricated stretch systems containing all three components described in

the definition in Chapter 3 shall be tested in the manner intended for use, and shall comply with the requirements ofSection 10.3.2 or 10.3.6.2. If the materials are tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, specimen preparationand mounting shall be in accordance with ASTM E 2573.

Site-fabricated stretch system. A system, fabricated on site and intended for acoustical, tackable or aesthetic purposes,that is comprised of three elements: (a) a frame (constructed of plastic, wood, metal or other material) used to holdfabric in place, (b) a core material (infill, with the correct properties for the application), and (c) an outside layer,comprised of a textile, fabric or vinyl, that is stretched taunt and held in place by tension or mechanical fasteners via theframe.

The ASTM committee on fire standards, ASTM E05, has issued a standard practice, ASTM E 2573,Standard practice for specimen preparation and mounting of site-fabricated stretch systems. Until now there was nocorrect mandatory way to test these systems. These systems are now being used extensively because they can stretchto cover decorative walls and ceilings with unusual looks and shapes. The systems consist of three parts: a fabric (orvinyl), a frame and an infill core material. The testing has often been done of each component separately instead oftesting the composite system. That is an inappropriate way to test and not the safe way to conduct the testing. Nowthat a consensus standard method of testing exists, the code should recognize it. The proposed definition was takenfrom the standard, ASTM E 2573, word for word.Some systems do not consist of all three components of site-fabricated stretch systems and they should be tested in a

manner appropriate to their use. In particular systems that contain a stretch membrane only and no core material havebeen shown to behave very differently in a fire situation from the site-fabricated stretch systems. It is important that thecorrect mounting method be used for each system.This type of product is not exclusive to any individual manufacturer. Three examples, taken from different

manufacturers, are shown as illustrations.

***Figure 1 here***

***Figure 2 here***

***Figure 3 here***

_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-113 Log #41 BLD-FUR


Revise text to read as follows:Interior floor finishes shall be grouped in the classes specified in 10.6.4.1 and 10.6.4.2 in accordance with the

critical radiant flux requirements ratings.This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance rating and fire

protection rating.


53 of 59


54 of 59


55 of 59


56 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:Table A.10.2(a) Interior Finish Classification LimitationsNotes:(1) Class A interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 0-25, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.(2) Class B interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 26-75, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.(3) Class C interior wall and ceiling finish — flame spread index 76-200, (new) smoke developed index 0-450.(4) Class I interior floor finish — critical radiant flux not less than 0.45 W/cm2.(5) Class II interior floor finish — critical radiant flux not less than 0.22 W/cm2, but less than 0.45 W/cm2.(6) Where a complete standard system of automatic sprinklers is installed, interior wall and ceiling finish meeting

requirements of at least with a rating not exceeding Class C is permitted to be used in any location where Class B isrequired, and interior wall and ceiling finish meeting requirements with a rating of Class B is permitted to be used in anylocation where Class A is required; similarly, Class II interior floor finish is permitted to be used in any location whereClass I is required, and no critical radiant flux classification rating is required where Class II is required. Theseprovisions do not apply to new health care facilities.(7) Exposed portions of structural members complying with the requirements for heavy timber construction are

permitted.†Paragraph 11.1.4.2 requires Class I or Class II interior floor finish in exits.‡ See corresponding chapters for details.



57 of 59



Revise text to read as follows:A.10.3.1 ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723,

Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials are considered nationally recognizedconsensus standard test methods for determining the flame spread index and smoke developed index developmentindex of building materials and are likely to yield equivalent test results to those of ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method ofSurface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials. (See also A.10.3.2.)A.10.3.1.3 It is the intent of the Code to mandate interior wall and ceiling finish materials that have had their fire

performance and smoke developed characteristics determined in their original form. However, in renovations,particularly those involving historic buildings, and in changes of occupancy, the required fire performance or smokedeveloped characteristics of existing surfaces of walls, partitions, columns, and ceilings might have to be secured byapplying approved fire-retardant coatings to surfaces having higher flame spread index values ratings than permitted.Such treatments should comply with the requirements of NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant–Treated Wood andFire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials. Where fire-retardant coatings are used, they need to be applied toproperly prepared surfaces, and the application needs to be consistent with the product listing. Deterioration of coatingsapplied to interior finishes can occur due to repeated cleaning of the surface or painting over applied coatings, butpermanency must be ensured in some appropriate fashion. Fire-retardant coatings must possess the desired degree ofpermanency and be maintained so as to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditionsencountered in actual use.A.10.3.2 It has been shown that the method of mounting interior finish materials can affect actual performance. Where

materials are tested in intimate contact with a substrate to determine a classification, such materials should be installedin intimate contact with a similar substrate. Such details are especially important for thermally thin materials. For furtherinformation, see ASTM E 84, Standard Test Method of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, or UL 723,Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials .Some interior wall and ceiling finish materials, such as fabrics not applied to a solid backing, do not lend themselves to

a test made in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. In such cases, if the material is not treated as interior finish, theappropriate test outlined in NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films,should be considered.Prior to 1978, the test report described by ASTM E 84 or UL 723 included an evaluation of the fuel contribution as well

as the flame spread index rating and the smoke developed index development value. However, it is now recognized thatthe measurement on which the fuel contribution is based does not provide a valid measure. Therefore, although the dataare recorded during the test, the information is no longer normally reported. Classification of interior wall and ceilingfinish thus relies only on flame spread index and smoke developed index development value .The smoke developed index development value limit of 450 is based solely on obscuration.

The term rating should not be used since Classes are based either on a flame spread index of 25 orless and a smoke developed index of 450 or less or on a low heat release rate, low smoke release and no flashover, inaccordance with NFPA 286. This is purely an editorial change; the term rating is being used for fire resistance ratingand fire protection rating.Also: smoke development value should be smoke developed index.


58 of 59

Report on Proposals – June 2011 NFPA 5000_______________________________________________________________________________________________5000-266 Log #84b BLD-FUR

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:H.1.2.17 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.ANSI/UL 10B, Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, 1997 2008, Revised 2001 2009.ANSI/UL 10C, Standard for Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, 2001 2009.ANSI/UL 263, Standard for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2003.ANSI/UL 580, Standard for Tests for Uplift Resistance of Roof Assemblies, 2006, Revised 2009.ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2003, Revised 2005 2008.ANSI/UL 1040, Standard for Fire Test of Insulated Wall Construction, 1996, Revised 2001 2007.ANSI/UL 1256, Standard for Fire Test of Roof Deck Constructions, 2007.ANSI/UL 1479, Standard for Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Firestops, 2006, Revised 2007 2008.UL Subject 1588, Outline of Investigation for Roof and Gutter De-Icing Cable Units, 2002.ANSI/UL 1715, Standard for Fire Test of Interior Finish Material, 2004 1997, Revised 2008.ANSI/UL 1820, Standard for Fire Test of Pneumatic Tubing for Flame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004, Revised 2009.ANSI/UL 1887, Standard for Fire Test of Plastic Sprinkler Pipe for Visible Flame and Smoke Characteristics, 2004,

Revised 2009.ANSI/UL 1897, Standard for Uplift Tests for Roof Covering Systems, 2004, Revised 2008.ANSI/UL 2024, Standard for Optical Fiber Cable Raceway, 2004, Revised 2007.ANSI/UL 2043, Standard for Fire Test for Heat and Visible Smoke Release for Discrete Products and Their

Accessories Installed in Air-Handling Spaces, 2001 2008.ANSI/UL 2079, Standard for Tests for Fire Resistance of Building Joint Systems, 2004, Revised 2006 2008.UL, Fire Resistance Directory, 2007 2009.

Update referenced standards to reflect ANSI approvals and most recent revisions.


59 of 59