NFPA Riser & Pathway survivability question

[Demoh]

We have an AHJ who's plan review (Fire Marshall's office, not Electrical) is a bit behind the times and everything is overdone. We have no problem with following their lead because we will just issue a change order to get paid and Ill just tell the GC tough Sh* you have to pay, but I need some clarification. This is a BDA job.

The PR (plans reviewer) is telling me the riser cables must meet pathway survivability level 1. Ok great, everything is in conduit instead of free-air. The riser must be routed through a 2 hour enclosure. Great the GC is building us a 12" x 12" x 6 floors tall 2 hour chase with 2 hour access doors at each floor. Prior jobs the GC got away with conduit ending in the chase and everything free-air from there "because the 2 hour room protects the cable beyond pathway survivability level 1." I asked the PR the exact question if I also need my cables to be inside conduit and she said yes and cited 9.6.2.1.1.1 and 9.6.2.1.3.

Are there any references that state a 2 hour enclosure (chase) in a 1 hour building qualifies for pathway survivability level 1? We are using NFPA 72 (2016) and 1221 (2016)

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Being inside a conduit does not necessarily provide pathway survivability however I believe this only is need for circuits that supply pathway lighting etc.

Here is a good read from EC&M. Looka like level 2 needs 2 hours firewall. BTW, I know nothing about this-- just found some info on the internet

On the Path to Survival

One of the first things you discover when reading NFPA 72 (2010), the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, is the interdependence of the chapters. For example, you will find the application, installation and performance requirements for emergency communications systems and their components in...

www.ecmag.com

 

[gadfly56]

We have an AHJ who's plan review (Fire Marshall's office, not Electrical) is a bit behind the times and everything is overdone. We have no problem with following their lead because we will just issue a change order to get paid and Ill just tell the GC tough Sh* you have to pay, but I need some clarification. This is a BDA job.

The PR (plans reviewer) is telling me the riser cables must meet pathway survivability level 1. Ok great, everything is in conduit instead of free-air. The riser must be routed through a 2 hour enclosure. Great the GC is building us a 12" x 12" x 6 floors tall 2 hour chase with 2 hour access doors at each floor. Prior jobs the GC got away with conduit ending in the chase and everything free-air from there "because the 2 hour room protects the cable beyond pathway survivability level 1." I asked the PR the exact question if I also need my cables to be inside conduit and she said yes and cited 9.6.2.1.1.1 and 9.6.2.1.3.

Are there any references that state a 2 hour enclosure (chase) in a 1 hour building qualifies for pathway survivability level 1? We are using NFPA 72 (2016) and 1221 (2016)

Well, you're overthinking the Level 1 requirements. The only requirement is that the cables be in metallic raceway. You DO NOT need 2-hour survivability. You DO need a fully sprinklered building, but unless your company does sprinklers as well, that's not your concern.

Now, if the BDA requires Level 2 by spec or plan, you DO NOT need to also install everything in metallic raceway, unless you are doing a CIC cable that requires it. Leaky coax is tricky, because no one makes 2-hour rated cable, so the code just requires the risers to be in 2-hour rated enclosures.

Finally, if the requirement is for Level 1, by spec or plan, the 2-hour enclosure doesn't meet the letter of the code, even though it's a higher level of reliability for the system. Stupid, but there you have it. Now, if the PR is calling for this on his/her own and it's not part of the local code, you might tell them, "thanks, but no thanks."

 

[Demoh]

Finally, if the requirement is for Level 1, by spec or plan, the 2-hour enclosure doesn't meet the letter of the code, even though it's a higher level of reliability for the system. Stupid, but there you have it. Now, if the PR is calling for this on his/her own and it's not part of the local code, you might tell them, "thanks, but no thanks."

Its a 13 building, fully sprinklerd, (apartments, wood frame, all 1 hour including floors) so all the requirements are level 1. We are using EMT to achieve level 1 in the corridors for all of our laterals but they want the riser to be 2 hour (not survivability, but 2 hour enclosure)

My thoughts are along yours. A 2 hour enclosure I would think exceeds 1 hour survivability, I am just fishing for something in the code to prove this so I can go back to the PR so we can install the system like we have in every other AHJ except this one.

At least we didnt do this job a few years ago where this AHJ required CI cable and level 2 for everything. Turning a $100-200k project into $1m because the cable cost goes from $2.5/ft to $97/ft.

 

[Demoh]

Well, let me rephrase. Its a 13 building that is 1 hour however the envelope of the building and stairwells are 2 hour which is why they are requiring the riser to be 2 hours. If the envelope and stairs were 1 hour they would allow the riser to be 1hour. There is a 3 hour that separates the 2 halves of the building but im told that doesnt apply here.

 

[gadfly56]

Well, let me rephrase. Its a 13 building that is 1 hour however the envelope of the building and stairwells are 2 hour which is why they are requiring the riser to be 2 hours. If the envelope and stairs were 1 hour they would allow the riser to be 1hour. There is a 3 hour that separates the 2 halves of the building but im told that doesnt apply here.

Who is "they" and what is the basis for the requirement? Do you have building code requirements driving this? Nothing in 72 mandates this, unless you are doing partial evacuation. Are they doing floor-above-floor-below-floor-of-incident evacuation? I'm assuming "a 13 building" is a 13-storey building. I don't recall the particulars on high rise buildings at the moment.

 

[Demoh]

Who is "they" and what is the basis for the requirement? Do you have building code requirements driving this? Nothing in 72 mandates this, unless you are doing partial evacuation. Are they doing floor-above-floor-below-floor-of-incident evacuation? I'm assuming "a 13 building" is a 13-storey building. I don't recall the particulars on high rise buildings at the moment.

Sorry, this is a NFPA 13 building (fully sprinklerd) and not a NFPA 13R (I guess the more-residential version of 13.) It is a 5 floor apartment building. I dont think high rise stuff applies as there is no fire command or fire pumps or anything I see in larger buildings. (Im not a fire guy)

For "they" I am referring to the AHJ / Fire Marshall / plans reviewer.

 

[gadfly56]

Sorry, this is a NFPA 13 building (fully sprinklerd) and not a NFPA 13R (I guess the more-residential version of 13.) It is a 5 floor apartment building. I dont think high rise stuff applies as there is no fire command or fire pumps or anything I see in larger buildings. (Im not a fire guy)

For "they" I am referring to the AHJ / Fire Marshall / plans reviewer.

Ask him to quote chapter and verse for the survivability requirements. "Don't you think it's a good idea?" isn't a sufficient answer. You could be survivability Level 0 for that matter, and it would be within code, if the standard ICC and NFPA codes are applied without any amendments. The apartment building is going to be an R-2 occupancy and only requires an occupant notification system and signal to the central station when the sprinkler system is activated.