Fire pumps are required by NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection (2013 edition) to be protected against possible interruption of service through various hazards, including damage due to water infiltration into the fire pump controller. With suction piping, discharge piping, overhead sprinkler protection, etc., located within the fire pump room, these areas are inherently wet locations with multiple direct sources for water that have the potential to harm the fire pump controller in the event of a failure. NFPA 20 includes specific safeguards to address issue of water damage to the fire pump controller(s), including the following:
- Controllers are to be located or protected so that they will not be damaged by water escaping from pumps or pump connections (NFPA 20 §10.2.2)
- All equipment shall be suitable for use in locations subject to a moderate degree of moisture, such as a damp basement (NFPA 20 §10.3.1)
- The fire pump controller enclosure shall be minimally rated for NEMA Type 2, dripproof enclosure(s) or an enclosure with an ingress protection (IP) rating of IP31 (NFPA 20 §10.3.3.1)
Specific requirements for junction boxes located within the fire pump room and serving the fire pump controller (e.g. transition from 2-hour MI cable to standard cable) and raceway terminations into the fire pump controller are also included in NFPA 20 which prohibit the installation of such components in a manner which violates the integrity of the fire pump controller enclosure type rating (i.e. minimum NEMA Type 2). Additional guidance is provided in NEMA Standards Publication ICS 14-2015 Application Guide for Electric Fire Pump Controllers, which recommends all “top-entry conduit fittings into the fire pump controller should be, as a minimum, watertight”; and, side-entry conduit fittings into the fire pump controller “should be suitable for the environment and enclosure type”. These requirements correlate and are generally consistent with Article 695 of NFPA 70 National Electrical Code (2017 edition) for fire pump installations. For NEMA Type 2 controllers, NFPA 70 Table 110.28 considers the enclosure as providing a degree of protection against “falling liquids and light splashing” and notes that such equipment is generally considered “driptight”.
In order to help safeguard fire pump controller from water damage, the City of Boston’s expectation is for all electrical components located within the fire pump room and connected to the fire pump controller to minimally carry the same rating for water ingress as the fire pump controller served (i.e. minimum NEMA Type 2). Where fire pump controller enclosures are listed for a greater level of protection than NEMA Type 2, the higher degree of protection against water infiltration should be extended to the associated and connected junction boxes, conduits and other connections located within the fire pump room. Table 110.28 of NFPA 70 and NEMA ICS 14 can be consulted for additional information, including a comparison of the various types of NEMA enclosures relative to water infiltration requirements.
It should be noted that a wide variety of environmental and installation conditions may exist that will impact the general requirements discussed above. As such, it is important to consult with the Design Team and Authorities Having Jurisdiction during the design phase to ensure that suitable protection methods are being utilized to help safeguard against potential interruption of the fire pump service due to infiltration of water into the fire pump controller. Additional recommendations may also exist due to unique circumstances with the installation, insurance recommendations, and/or manufacturer’s requirements that may exceed the minimum requirements described above.
If load bearing walls are required to have a fire-resistance rating based on their construction type per IBC Section 601, wouldn’t all doors within the wall need to be protected accordingly? This question often comes up where load bearing walls are located within residential units, and if interpreted incorrectly, could result in substantial cost implications on a project.
The short answer to the question is not necessarily. The fire-resistance ratings required for load bearing elements are for structural integrity, not fire separation, purposes under IBC Section 601. This section (shown below) states that “the protection of openings, ducts, and air transfer openings in building elements shall not be required unless required by other provisions of this code”.
2015 International Building Code Section 602
Therefore, the doors located in load bearing walls are not required to have a fire rating unless due to other requirements mandated in the code (i.e. residential corridor walls, unit separation walls, etc.). The IBC Code & Commentary further clarifies the intent of Chapter 6, which is solely for structural integrity.
2015 International Building Code & Commentary Section 602.1
Do you have a hoist or operated elevator to move men or materials on your construction site? 524 CMR 36.00, Personnel Hoists and Employee Elevators on Construction and Demolition Sites, regulates the installation of man/material hoists in the State. A few key components of the installation of the hoist related to the emergency operation of the hoists are outlined below:
- Inspections: Prior to placing the elevator into service and after installation is complete, a representative from both the installing company (elevator contractor) and operating company (general contractor) are required to review the operation with the fire department having jurisdiction (524 CMR 36 Section 24.2.16.1).
- Approval: In order for the elevator installation to pass the state elevator inspection, written approval from the fire department having jurisdiction of the aforementioned training is required (524 CMR 36 Section 24.2.16.1).
- Certification: The state elevator inspector will inspect and issue a certificate for use during construction.
Key components that are required for the construction hoist/elevator are as follows:
- Phase I Emergency Control: All hoists are required to be outfitted by a three position Emergency Control Operation switch located in front of each elevator bank with RESET, OFF, and ON positions which is operable with a 3502 Key. The 3502 key is required to be removable in the ON and OFF positions. When Phase I Emergency Control is in effect, a visual signal, i.e. firefighters’ hat, is required to be illuminated until normal operation of the elevator is returned (524 CMR 36 Section 24.2.17).
- Phase II Emergency Control: All hoists are required to be outfitted by a two position Emergency Control Operation switch located in the operating panel of each car with OFF and ON positions which is operable with a 3502 Key. The 3502 key is required to be removable in only the OFF position during Phase II Emergency Control (524 CMR 36 Section 24.2.18).
- Top Emergency Exit: Where provided, the top emergency exit on hoist cars is only permitted to be operable by a 3502 Key. When opened, the car shall only be operated with the assistance of a Massachusetts Licensed elevator mechanic at a speed of no more than 0.25 m/s.
- Return to Service: Upon completion of emergency use, the fire department is required to lock out/tag out the elevator to prevent further use of the elevators until a Massachusetts licensed elevator inspector is able to arrive on site and review the elevator, at which point it can be returned to normal operation if in satisfactory condition (524 CMR 36 Section 24.2.21).
Have any questions on how these inspections may affect your construction schedule? Feel free to reach out for additional information.
The Massachusetts State Building Code 780 CMR (9th edition), based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), has specific requirements regarding the protection of fire pump rooms. In order to meet the protection requirements, a fire pump room must be enclosed in a fire-resistant barrier or meet minimum separation requirements.
For fire pumps located inside of fully sprinklered buildings, 780 CMR §913.2.1, Exception 1 allows for a 1-hour fire barrier to protect a pump room in low-rise construction. For high-rise buildings, a minimum fire-resistance rating of 2-hours is required. These requirements are consistent with NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Fire Pumps for Fire Protection (2013 edition) §4.12.1.1, which is adopted via reference by 780 CMR §913.1.
Access to the fire pump room is addressed separately by NFPA 20 §4.12.2. Access is required to be pre-planned with the Fire Department and consist of either (1) direct exterior access or, (2) through a fire-rated passageway (e.g. enclosed stairway, access corridor, etc.) with the rating to match the fire pump room enclosure (1- or 2-hr as determined by the above). The rating of the fire pump room is independent of whether access is provided direct from the exterior or via rated passageway.
780 CMR §913.2.1, Exception 2 allows for the protection requirements to be met through the physical separation of the fire pump from the building it protects. The overall goal of this requirement is to limit the exposure of the fire pump to a potential fire inside the protected building. Exception 2, in conjunction with NFPA 20 Table 4.12.1.1.2, allows for this objective to be met through the physical separation of the fire pump from the building by a minimum of 50 feet.
Standpipe systems are required in buildings to provide a quick, convenient water source for fire department use where hose lines would otherwise be impractical, such as in high-rise buildings. One of the locations for Class I standpipe connections is at the intermediate landings within every required exit stairway. However, the International Building Code (IBC) also requires standpipe systems to be installed in accordance with NFPA 14.
Up until the 2010 Edition of NFPA 14, hose connections were required to be located on the intermediate landing. When the 2010 Edition was developed, the location for the hose connections was changed to the main floor landings. The reasoning behind the change was that the preferred location by fire fighters for hose connections was the main landing, and that jurisdictions only required them at intermediate landings because of the way the standard is written (Proposal 14-52, F2009).
This code change was carried into subsequent versions of the standard, which created a conflict when the 2015 IBC was printed and referenced the 2013 Edition of NFPA 14. Due to this code change, confusion was created for projects being designed under the 2015 IBC. The following items should be considered for these projects:
- Where conflicts occur between the provision in the IBC and the referenced codes/standards, the provisions in the IBC shall apply (2015 IBC 102.4.1).
- Both the IBC and NFPA 14 specifically permit the fire official/AHJ to allow the standpipe connections to be at either main or intermediate landings (2015 IBC 905.4.1-1 & 2013 NFPA 14, 7.3.2.1).
To align the IBC with NFPA 14, the 2018 IBC was changed to require standpipe connections at the main landing (F187-16). These changes have also be carried into the 2021 IBC.
Want to learn more about this code change and how it may impact/help your projects? Contact us at info@crcfire.com for more information.
As code consultants, there are certain questions from clients that come up quite often. One of these is related to whether tenant separations in buildings are required to be fire-resistance rated. It appears that much of this uncertainty is related to changes in the code provisions over the years.
In many older buildings constructed under the BOCA National Building Code, you will find that 1-hour rated walls were commonly provided between different tenants within the same building. These are observed in the field as full height walls with fire doors and penetrations/joints sealed with firestopping. Why are they there? Are such tenant separations required for new construction?
Up until the 1999 BOCA National Building Code (6th Edition and earlier in Massachusetts), 1-hour rated fire partitions were required to be provided between tenants in buildings with protected construction types, regardless if the walls were bearing or not. This 1-hour rating would span all occupancy classifications and uses including office buildings. As states transitioned toward adopting the newly introduced International Building Code (IBC) beginning in 2000, these requirements changed. Under the IBC, fire-resistance rated tenant separations are no longer required outside of covered malls.
Reference: 1999 Edition of BOCA National Building Code Table 602
It is important to remember, that although most tenant separations are no longer required by current codes, existing fire-resistance ratings between tenant spaces must be sufficiently maintained if required by the code at the time of construction. Further, there may be various conditions requiring fire-resistance rated partitions/barriers between different tenants including, but not limited to, control area boundaries, occupancy separations, vertical opening protection, etc.
From open office floor layouts to exterior glass curtain walls, visible connectivity between buildings and floor levels remains one of the major features in architectural design desired by our clients. One of the challenges with incorporating such connectivity is reconciling the building and fire codes’ requirement for rated separations. While there are various prescriptive and performance-based options available, a common preference is to use non-rated glazing with automatic sprinkler protection.
There are very limited applications where the code recognizes sprinkler protected glazing as a prescriptive alternative to a rated assembly. One of these applications is an alternative to a 1-hour atrium separation. In other instances, specialized sprinklers are used to protect glazing that has been tested as a 2-hour fire resistance rated wall assembly. With this approach, the glazing is not subject to some of the limitations imposed on typical opening protectives by the building code, such as size.
Under the 8th Edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR), it was unclear if sprinkler protected glazing could be used as a prescriptive alternative to a 2-hour wall. This ambiguity allowed for the design consultant to negotiate the reasonableness of substituting an active fire protection system for a fire-rated passive barrier. Now under the 9th Edition of 780 CMR, the newly added Section 703.4 requires the fire resistance rating of a building element, component or assembly to be established without the use of sprinklers or any other fire suppression system. With this new section, it is clear that the use of sprinkler protected glazing in lieu of a rated wall assembly under the 9th Edition of 780 CMR requires either approval from the building official or a state variance.
The City of Cambridge Inspectional Services Department (ISD), is in lock step with Cambridge Fire Department’s (CFD) mandate, requiring a Construction Fire Safety Plan as a component to all building permit applications for both new construction and renovation projects. This requirement is consistent with the expectations set forth in the Massachusetts State Building Code and Fire Codes, which reference NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations.
What does this mean for you? If you file for a building permit in the City of Cambridge, then you must include a project specific Construction Fire Safety Plan. The complexity of the plan depends on the individual project, the associated hazardous operations, and the proposed means to mitigate the risk of construction fires.
This requirement must include a completed CFD fire prevention program manager (FPPM) identification form (as explained in this CRC Blog Cambridge FPPM Identification Form Blog).
See Cambridge’s Construction Site Fire Safety Regulations for more information: Click Here
For more information on how to create a living Construction Fire Safety Plan, contact peterh@crcfire.com.
A question that comes up from time to time on renovations is why some stairs have smoke hatches at the top and others don’t. Under early versions of the BOCA Basic Building Code, all enclosed vertical shafts extending through more than two stories (except for elevators and dumbwaiter hoistways) were required to be automatically vented to the outer air. Compliance with this requirement required the shafts to be provided with skylights, windows of equivalent area or with other approved automatic means of removing hot air and gases. Operation of these devices were required to be controlled by one of the following:
- Fusible links designed to operate at a fixed temperature of not more than 160° F or
- Electric or pneumatic operation under a rapid rise in temperature or 15-20° F per minute
- By other approved means
In Massachusetts, this applied to all buildings constructed between January 1975 and March 1991 (1st – 4th Editions of 780 CMR). Under the base International Building Code (IBC), this is no longer a requirement; however, in some jurisdictions, like New York City, these skylights / hatches are still required (2014 NYCBC 708.12.1). If you are interested in decommissioning this system in a jurisdiction where it is no longer required, it should be discussed and approved by the local code officials as an existing, previously required fire protection system
