TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON PYROTECHNICS TO:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON PYROTECHNICS

FROM:

G. R. Colonna, Staff Liaison

DATE:

February 22, 2010

SUBJ: Minutes of Meeting - Salt Lake City, UT ______________________________________________________________ I.

Attendance:

Members and Alternates: James K. Lathrop, Chair, Koffel Associates, Inc., CT Arthur H. Barber, representing National Association of Rocketry, VA Gary Brown, Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., CA Anthony Cesaroni, Cesaroni Technology Incorporated, FL Edward Cochran, MN Jeffrey Collins, Palm Beach County Fire/Rescue, FL John Conkling, MD Randall W. A. Davidson, Risk International & Associates, Inc., CO Glenn Dean, Virginia Department of Fire Programs, Office of SFM, VA Jerald Farley, American Promotional Events, Inc., WA H. Stephen Frantz, Zambelli Fireworks Internationale, PA Phil Grucci, Fireworks by Grucci, Inc., NY Julie Heckman, American Pyrotechnics Association, MD Daryl Marmon, Wald-All American Fireworks, Pyrotechnics Guild International, Inc., KS J. Patrick Miller, Hardin-Simmons University, TX Daniel Peart, B.J. Alan Company, OH Mary Roberts, Estes Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hobbico, Inc., CO Gary Rosenfield, Industrial Solid Propulsion (ISP), UT David Shatzer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, DC John Steinberg, Pyrotechnics Guild International, Inc., MD Bill Stine, Quest Aerospace, Inc., CO Tad Trout, American Promotional Events, Inc., CA Darren Wright, Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc., DE Guy R. Colonna, NFPA, Staff Liaison

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 2 Guests: Karl Bauman, RCS RMC Inc./Aerotech-ISP Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm Co. (NFPA 1) Keith Farmer, DuPont (NFPA 1) Ronald Farr, Office of the State Fire Marshal - Michigan, MI (Chair NFPA 1) Bob James, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., FL Cathy Stashak, Office of the State Fire Marshal - Illinois, IL (NFPA 1) Rick Thornberry, Code Consortium, Inc., CA II. Minutes of Meeting: 1. The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m., Monday, February 1, 2010, at the Hilton Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT. 2. All members and guests were self-introduced. The Chair noted that the agenda for this meeting involved several action items: complete the ROP for NFPA 1125; ongoing work of three task groups to address the Standards Council decision regarding NFPA 1124 and the consumer fireworks retail sales provisions; the Standards Council decision regarding the request of the Pyrotechnics Committee to prepare two fire test standards; and the NFPA 1123 ballistics task group. The Chair also acknowledged the attendance of members from the NFPA 1 Committee as task groups from both committees continue their work on developing approved actions that address Issues 1, 2, and 6 from the Standards Council October 2008 decision regarding consumer fireworks retail sales. 3. The minutes of the previous meeting (August 31 - September 1, 2009) were approved with an amendment requested by Jerry Farley to include the draft output from the task group working on NFPA 5000 correlation Issue 3 - heights and area limitations. With this addition to the previous meeting minutes, the minutes were approved by the Committee. 4. The Staff Liaison reported on the current membership of the Committee, which stands at 32 principal voting members (pending appointment at the March Council meeting is the replacement for Sam Fowler, Clark County Fire Department).The membership total exceeds the target limit of 30 established for technical committees. Staff reported that NFPA 1124 had previously been moved to the A2011 revision cycle (from the A2010) in order to continue with the review and possible revisions stemming from the Standards Council direction to substantiate specific requirements currently in NFPA 1124, Chapter 7. NFPA 1125 is also currently in the A2011 revision cycle. 5. The Chair requested reports from the three NFPA 1124 task groups as part of the initial business before the Committee; additional update reports were provided during the two days as the task groups continued their work: Tad Trout on NFPA 1 issues (Items 1, 2, 6 from the recommendations) Jerry Farley on NFPA 5000 issues (Items 3, 7, 8) Jerry Farley NFPA 101, 13, 204 issues (Items 4, 9, 5). A. Task Group A working with NFPA 1 on issues 1, 2, and 6 - Tad Trout, leader.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 3 Tad reported that action on Item 6 addressing flame breaks had already passed both the Pyrotechnics Committee and the Fire Code Committee. Since the Pyrotechnic Committee's last meeting in 2009, letter ballots for both Draft CP1 (Item 1) and Draft CP2 (Item 2) had been processed by the Committee and achieved the required majority to pass both items. The results from those letter ballots had been presented to the Fire Code Committee following the approval of the Pyrotechnics Committee just prior to this meeting. With the opportunity for joint discussion between the two committee task groups during this meeting to resolve any issues, these actions should be acted on by the Fire Code Committee very shortly. Following task group work during breakout sessions, the task group reported that they had worked with the NFPA 1 task group to review the remaining two issues. Tad reported that the NFPA 1 task group recommended no changes to the balloted results from Issues 1 and 2. This means the Fire Code Committee will now review and consider action on the Pyrotechnics Committee recommended changes to NFPA 1124. This concludes the work of Task Group A working on the NFPA 1 issues as all have been submitted to NFPA 1 for approval. B. Task Group B working with NFPA 5000 on issues 3, 7, and 8 - Jerry Farley, leader. Their three areas of responsibility are height and area limitations (Item 3), separation distances (Item 7), and construction types (Item 8). Jerry reported that he attended a meeting of both NFPA 101 and 5000 in Fall 2009. The Pyrotechnics task group completed strategies for all three items at the Committee's prior meeting (as presented in the minutes from that meeting). The NFPA 5000 task group includes Rick Thornberry and Pete Wilse, and they supported the strategy presented by Jerry's task group. He has been informed by the Building Code Committee staff liaison that their committee is prepared to review and consider recommendations from the Pyrotechnics Committee on these items once they have been approved through letter ballot. The Committee will receive letter ballots on these 3 items (Issue 3, 7, 8 from Council decision) as draft committee proposals in mid-tolate March. Once approved by the Pyrotechnics Committee the actions can be forwarded by staff to the Building Code Committee (BLD-BCS). Following task group work during breakout sessions (where due to the shared participation by specific members in attendance at this meeting, Task Groups B and C worked together), the task group reported the following on their three NFPA 5000 issues: Based upon their review of issues 3, 7, and 8, they have recommended that the Committee take no action to revise the code with regard to these issues. The Task Group indicated that it believes the existing provisions in the code can all be documented and show that the current requirements are as strict if not more restrictive than relevant requirements found in NFPA 101 and 5000 (see the attached matrices for Issues 3, 7, and 8 at the end of the minutes). Following a conference call of the Pyrotechnics Committee in mid-to-late March, letter ballots for each item will be sent to the Committee for review and action. C. Task Group C working with NFPA 101, 13, and 204 on issues 4, 5, and 9 - Jerry Farley, leader.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 4 Jerry Farley reported that the task group for the Means of Egress Committee (issue 4) identified questions pertaining to Chapter 6 of NFPA 1124 that require review and discussion; he expects to use time at this meeting to address those questions during breakout work of the task group. In his work with a task group from the Smoke Management Committee, responsible for NFPA 204, questions have been raised regarding the use of typical fire plume modeling since the energetics of the pyrotechnic materials cause interruptions in the fire plume. It has been noted in these discussions that the NFPA 1124 requirements rely on activation of the smoke and heat venting by smoke detection and not heat detection. A conclusion being reached by the task group that appears to be supported by the NFPA 204 task group is that the current requirement in NFPA 1124 for smoke control should be deleted since it cannot be technically substantiated. The task group will be recommending to the Committee that two letter ballots be prepared - one for the removal of the current requirement in 7.3.10 and a second that would raise the minimum ceiling height to 12 feet (from the current 10 feet) with respect to the travel distance to an exit. Item 9 of their tasks, automatic sprinkler design, remains the most difficult of all 9 issues defined by the Standards Council. A task group from the Automatic Sprinkler Committee, Sprinkler Discharge Committee (AUT-SSD) has been created; members from the NFPA 13 Committee are Ken Isman, Ken Linder, and Rich Pehrson. The AUT-SSD task group provided a response in October 2009 with a series of questions/issues raised. The task group used time during the breakout sessions to address those questions. Following the breakout sessions, Task Group C provided this updated status report on its activities: The new language proposed regarding the change in ceiling height does not need to be submitted to the SMO-AAA Committee. With respect to the Means of Egress requirements Tad Trout and Daniel Peart were asked to provide the Chair with relevant information from their typical CFRS on travel distance, capacity, and door width so that an assessment could be made of how the current requirements in NFPA 1124 match the means of egress requirements for NFPA 101. Referencing section 7.11 of NFPA 101 does not work; the Committee needs to specify reasons why not incorporating all of this section. With respect to the sprinkler system design, the response provided by the AUT-SSD (Sprinkler System Discharge Technical Committee) is included as an attachment to these minutes. The Pyrotechnics Committee task group has now suggested deleting all references to design densities from NFPA 1124; this would mean deleting paragraph 6.5.1.1 and annex A.7.5.1.1. This would retain a reference for sprinkler systems to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13, but without specific test data for NFPA 13 to use for establishing design criteria, engineering judgment would be the default action. The Committee approved a motion to delete paragraphs 6.5.1.1 and A.7.5.1.1 from NFPA 1124. In approving this action, the Committee stated that it believes the criteria presented in Chapter 6 and 7 of NFPA 1124 have been based on limited testing, and represents acceptable design. However, to satisfy more detailed requirements means more extensive testing for which data are not currently available. Thus, without more testing, the requirements in the current code are removed.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 5

See information for Task Group B and C actions in the attached matrices. Please review and be prepared to discuss or raise any final issues during a conference call and web assisted meeting to be scheduled for mid-to-late March. These items will then be letter balloted following the March meeting. 6. Patrick Miller reported that the Rocketry members met on Sunday, January 31st to prepare their recommendations for a number of Committee Proposals (as initially developed at the August/September 2009 meeting) and to review and prepare recommendations for action on the Public Proposals. He reported that their work on Committee Proposals includes addressing model rocket sized "sparky" motors that are not intended to be classified as model rocket motors; revising the motor definition based on mesh size; including limits on casing temperature; and addressing motor design requirements that are offered with user adjusted time delay. The specific actions from their work are included in agenda item 9 as part of the Report on Proposals preparation. 7. Steve Frantz, Phil Grucci, Gary Brown, and Glenn Dean worked on this activity during the task group breakout sessions. Ken Kosanke and Larry Weinman were unable to attend the meeting so no updates were presented regarding the calculations or further testing. The task group's work during this meeting focused on two approaches: developing a table that would show the increase in distances based on shell size and angle of inclination for the mortar at 5 degree increments and developing a second table that would address increase in distance based upon elevation change (possibly showing percentage increase for elevation changes of 50 ft and 100 ft). Since NFPA 1123 is not scheduled for revision, the task group has more time to process the various approaches and could also recommend a TIA if deemed necessary. 8. The work of the breakout sessions is reported with the respective agenda items. Following the adjournment of the meeting, members of the Committee remained behind to complete a task group review of Public Proposals submitted to NFPA 1124. The preliminary actions of the task group are provided as an attachment to the minutes. 9. The Committee completed action on the Report on Proposals (ROP) for NFPA 1125. With the assistance of the Rocketry Task Group, Patrick Miller guided the Committee through review and action on 13 Public Proposals and 16 Committee Proposals. The Committee approved a motion to direct staff to prepare the ROP letter ballot for NFPA 1125. The actions on the proposals will be included in the ROP letter ballot that will be distributed to the Committee separately from these minutes. 10. The Chair discussed the October 2009 Standards Council decision regarding the Committee's request for approval to proceed with the draft Fire Test Standards for flame breaks and covered fuses. John Conkling offered to request a more detailed letter from SWRI that would more specifically outline how the fire test standards had been used to conduct the 2007 fire tests at SWRI. With that letter, staff would request further consideration by the Council to approve the Committee's request to develop the two new standards.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 6 The Chair also requested that the Committee consider correspondence from Galaxy Fireworks regarding an advisory service inquiry as to the applicability of the National Electrical Code to fireworks tents. Paragraph 7.4.9.1.1 of NFPA 1124 requires temporary wiring for temporary structures, including tents and stands, to comply with Article 305 of NFPA 70. The response from the NEC staff indicated that the correct reference for the NEC requirement is Article 590. The Committee approved a Committee Proposal to NFPA 1124 to revise 7.4.9.1.1 by replacing Article 305 with Article 590. The Committee agreed that staff should submit a request to the Standards Council to change the NFPA 1124 revision cycle to A2012. [Request was submitted and is included in the agenda for the March 2 - 3, 2010 Council meeting.] 11. The following outline provides a preliminary time frame for meetings that will be required in order to process the revisions to the Rocketry codes (1125 first, followed by 1122 and 1127) and the ongoing work with NFPA 1124 (being changed to A2012). A2011 ROC 1125 - last date to meet is November 5, 2010 (Phoenix proposed for September 30 - October 1, 2010) A2012 ROP 1122, 1127, and 1124** - last date to meet is February 25, 2011 (San Diego suggested) A2012 ROC 1124, 1127 and 1124** - last date to meet is November 4, 2011 (Albuquerque or Las Vegas suggested) The locations were proposed during the August/September 2009 meeting and are subject to further discussion. 12. The Committee scheduled its next meeting for September 30 - October 1, 2010 in Phoenix, AZ. This meeting will be the ROC meeting for NFPA 1125 and pre-ROP meeting for NFPA 1122, 1127, and 1124. 13. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

G. R. Colonna, Staff Liaison Attachments:

Task Group B and C reports NFPA 1124 Public Proposal actions as reviewed by task group

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 7 Task Group B & C Report Standards Council Area of Concern # 3, NFPA 5000: NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #3, that pertains to ―Height and Area Limitations‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That NFPA 1124-2006, remain unchanged as to NFPA Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and safety concern #3 ―The Council directs that the limits pertaining to size and space, type of construction, and fuel loading as addressed by chapter 7 of NFPA 1124 and as represented by the Mercantile Occupancy classification be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Building Construction (NFPA 5000). Task Group B has reviewed all areas of Standards Council Decision D#08-19, safety concern #3, Height and Area Limitations, and believes that it is justified in recommending that all language in NFPA 1124-2006 relative to safety concerns remain unchanged. This recommendation is based on the fact that NFPA 1124 is equal to or more strict than any applicable or referenced, nationally recognized, code or standard or provides a requirement when no other code addresses the situation at all. The attached document supports Task Group B’s recommendation. Standards Council Area of Concern # 7, NFPA 5000: NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #7, that pertains to ―Separation Distances‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That NFPA 1124-2006, remain unchanged as to NFPA Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and safety concern #7 “The Council directs that the separation distances be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and the associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Building Construction (NFPA 5000).” Task Group B has reviewed all areas of Standards Council Decision D#08-19, safety concern #7, Separation Distances, and believes that it is justified in recommending that all language in NFPA 1124-2006 relative to safety concern remain unchanged. This recommendation is based on the fact that NFPA 1124 is equal to or more strict than any applicable or referenced, nationally recognized, code or standard or provides a requirement when no other code addresses the situation at all. The attached document supports Task Group B’s recommendation.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 8 Standards Council Area of Concern # 8, NFPA 5000: NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #8, that pertains to ―Construction Materials‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That NFPA 1124-2006, remain unchanged as to NFPA Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and safety concern #8 “The Council directs that further research be conducted in this regard and that the 8000 ft2 or any other similar proposed threshold regarding construction materials be adequately substantiated. Supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies are to be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and the associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Building Construction (NFPA 5000).” Task Group B has reviewed all areas of Standards Council Decision D#08-19, safety concern #8, Construction Material, and believes that it is justified in recommending that all language in NFPA 1124-2006 relative to safety concern remain unchanged. This recommendation is based on the fact that NFPA 1124 is equal to or more strict than any applicable or referenced, nationally recognized, code or standard or provides a requirement when no other code addresses the situation at all. The attached document supports Task Group B’s recommendation.

Standard Council Area of Concern # 5: NFPA 204 issue: NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #5, that pertains to ―Smoke and Heat Venting‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.5.3 of NFPA 1124-2006, be kept. Substantiation: The committee agrees that there is probably no research directly related to the use of smoke and heat venting as a strategy specific to the storage of consumer fireworks. But smoke and heat venting has for decades and decades been an accepted strategy in firefighting operations, especially when the fire is located in a large open facility where the base of the fire would be difficult to find, due to heavy smoke. Consumer fireworks can and will create substantial amounts of smoke and automatic and manual smoke/heat operations will contribute to more efficient suppression of the fire and contribute to improved life safety operations and property conservation.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #5, that pertains to ―Smoke and Heat Venting‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 7.3.10 of NFPA 1124-2006, be deleted in its entirety.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 9 Substantiation: The committee agrees with the report of the Standards Council, dated October 1, 2008 that there does not exist adequate technical justification to require the installation of smoke and heat venting in buildings with retail sales of consumer fireworks and is thereby removing Section 7.3.10 related to smoke and heat venting for retail sales of consumer fireworks. The committee would further like to voice its concern that the Battelle experiment was used as a part of the substantiation for the FPRF’s report. That test was not a representation of the criteria for consumer product retail display as found in NFPA 1124. The product was confiscated product, not in its original packaging material, with fuses exposed and the random display method was inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 7 of NFPA 1124. Additionally, funding limited the testing to only a single test.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #5, that pertains to ―Smoke and Heat Venting‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That a new subsection be added to Section 7.3.14 of NFPA 1124-2006, to read as follows:

In the CFRS area of new permanent CFRS facilities or stores, where the ceiling height is 12 ft (3.66 m) or less, the travel distance to an exit shall not be greater than 25 ft (7.6 m).

Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 204 Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended that Section 7.3.10 be removed because the smoke venting requirements were not technically justified. But, the Committee has chosen to keep the maximum travel distance of 25 ft (7.6 m) when the ceiling height of a CFRS area is 12 ft. or less. The Committee believes that, if a CFRS area has a ceiling height of 12 ft or less and a fire ensues, the smoke could quickly affect the visibility of any occupant. Thus, a very short travel distance to an exit is warranted.

Standards Council Area of Concern # 4, NFPA 101: NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That that the word ―permanent‖ in Section 6.8.1 of NFPA 1124-2006, be removed.

Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended the removal of the word ―permanent‖. The NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee correctly pointed out that Section 6.8.1 of NFPA 1124 did not address requirements for means of egress from temporary buildings. By removing the word ―permanent‖, the provisions of 6.8.1 would require compliance with NFPA 101.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 10 NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.3.1 of NFPA 1124-2006, be amended to read: 6.8.3.1 Exterior Exit and exit access doors shall open outward in the direction of egress travel.

Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended changing the wording of 6.8.3.1 so that the provision will address the concern of the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee that the current language does not address interior exit doors in the means of egress.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.3.2 of NFPA 1124-2006, be kept as in the current document. Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended keeping the wording of 6.8.3.2. The Committee points out that Section 6.8.1 already requires compliance with NFPA 101 and, further, the Pyrotechnics Committee emphasizes that doors in the means of egress shall be at least 36 in wide, even for existing; this would then provide a clearance that is at least 32‖ for both new and existing structures. This provision would be more restrictive than NFPA 101 for existing.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.3.3 of NFPA 1124-2006, be changed to read as follows: 6.8.3.3 Exit Ddoors located within the means of egress that are capable of locking or latching shall be equipped with have approved panic or fire-exit hardware. Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended changing the wording of 6.8.3.3 so that the provision will address the concern that the current language does not address all egress doors. It also clarifies that fire-exit hardware can be used.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 11 Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.3.4 of NFPA 1124-2006, be changed to read as follows: 6.8.3.4 Exit Ddoors located within the means of egress shall be unlocked in the direction of egress when the building is occupied.

Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended changing the wording of 6.8.3.4 but keeping the provision in NFPA 1124. The Pyrotechnics Committee recommends changing the language so that the term ―means of egress‖ is maintained. But, the Pyrotechnics Committee believes that redundancy in stating the requirement is better.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.4.2 of NFPA 1124-2006, be kept as in the current document. Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended keeping the wording of 6.8.4.2. The Pyrotechnics Committee points out that Section 6.8.4.1 is discussing aisles in a storage arrangement and not corridors. The aisles are for separation of stored consumer fireworks in DOT-approved cartons and not for the movement of people.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That Section 6.8.5 of NFPA 1124-2006, be kept as in the current document. Substantiation: Section 6.8.5 regulates egress travel distances in storage facilities. Employees in storage facilities are required to have specialized DOT and OSHA training related to the special hazards of consumer fireworks. OSHA uses NFPA 1124 as the basis for its inspections of consumer fireworks work places including storage facilities. Because of this, the Pyrotechnics Committee chose the travel distance to be based on that for un-sprinklered ordinary hazard storage occupancies. It is important to note that no increase in the travel distance is permitted if the storage facility is sprinklered. In addition, in a storage facility all of the product is required to be in a DOT-certified container.

NFPA 1124-2006 Draft Committee Proposal This action relates to Standards Council Decision D#08-19 and specifically safety concern #4, that pertains to ―Means of Egress Provisions‖. Submitter: Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Recommendation: That a new section, Section 6.8.6 be added to NFPA 1124-2006, to read as follows: 6.8.6 The numbers of means of egress shall comply with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 12 Substantiation: Upon discussions with the NFPA 101 Means of Egress Committee, the Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics has recommended adding a new section, 6.8.6. The Pyrotechnics Committee points out that Section 6.8.1 already requires compliance with NFPA 101. However, the Pyrotechnics Committee favors stating this requirement explicitly in the text so that it is not overlooked. [NEEDS WORK…]

7.11 Special Provisions for Occupancies with High Hazard Contents. See Section 6.2. 7.11.1* Where the contents are classified as high hazard, exits shall be provided and arranged to allow all occupants to escape from the building or structure, or from the hazardous area thereof, to the outside or to a place of safety with a travel distance of not more than 75 ft (23 m), measured as required in 7.6.1, unless otherwise provided in 7.11.2. We already limit travel distance to 75 ft in chapter 7 (7.3.14.2). 7.11.2 The requirement of 7.11.1 shall not apply to storage occupancies as otherwise provided in Chapter 42.

7.11.3 Egress capacity for high hazard contents areas shall be based on 0.7 in./person (18 mm/person) for stairs or 0.4 in./person (10 mm/person) for level components and ramps in accordance with 7.3.3.1. This not a problem for storage, chapter 6 but the committee believes that storage and retail arrangements are not high hazard but are in fact ordinary hazard. So, we wrote 1124 under the belief that consumer fireworks are more like ordinary hazard. When we wrote requirements in chapter 7 that make us comply with high hazard requirements we did so under the belief that we wanted to err on the side of safety even though we were exceeding ordinary hazard requirements—that is, the hazard level that is the right one. So,

7.11.4 Not less than two means of egress shall be provided from each building or hazardous area thereof, unless all of the following criteria are met: (1) Rooms or spaces do not exceed 200 ft2 (18.6 m2). (2) Rooms or spaces have an occupant load not exceeding three persons. (3) Rooms or spaces have a travel distance to the room door not exceeding 25 ft (7620 mm). We already meet or exceed in chapter 7 and see above on how we solve it for chapter 6. 7.11.5 Means of egress, for rooms or spaces other than those that meet the criteria of 7.11.4(1) through 7.11.4(3), shall be arranged so that there are no dead ends in corridors.

7.11.6 Doors serving high hazard contents areas with occupant loads in excess of five shall be permitted to be provided with a latch or lock only if the latch or lock is panic hardware or fire exit hardware complying with 7.2.1.7.

Task group observations on hazard classification: To adequately evaluate the documented egress requirements of chapters 6 and 7 of NFPA 1124 the task group attempted to identify the hazard contents classification that has been set for NFPA 1124. NFPA 1124

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 13 does not have specific language to address the hazard contents classification or the use group classification for facilities, (permanent or temporary) that operate as manufacturing, storage, or retail sales of fireworks and pyrotechnic articles. Based on a review of NFPA 1124 it is the observation of this task group that NFPA 1124 has set the hazard classification as ORDINARY HAZARD throughout the standard regardless of size of building, level of fire protection for the building or quantity of flammable/explosive solid composition within the building.

We like our approach because our approach is based upon our sense of what consumer fireworks really are— ordinary hazard. Then, we looked at each provision in 1124 and decided whether or not we wanted to require a more stringent standard—that for high hazard—when we wanted to err on the side of safety and not because we agree that consumer fireworks are high hazards.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 14 Task Group B Council Decision # 3 Height and Area Limitations The Council directs that the limits pertaining to size of space, type of construction, and fuel loading as addressed by chapter 7 of NFPA 1124 and as represented by the Mercantile Occupancy classification be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Building Construction (NFPA 5000). NFPA 1124 Paragraph 7.2.3.

7.3.5.

Any building or structure used for the retail sales of consumer fireworks, including their related storage, shall comply with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, for mercantile occupancy, except as provided in this code.

Reference Documents NFPA 101 Section 6.1.10 and Chapter 36 for New and Chapter 37 for Existing mercantile occupancies and IBC Sections 309, 903.2.6, 1014.4.1, 1014.4.2 and NFPA 5000 Chapter 27

Substantiation

NFPA 101 Section 6.1.10 and Chapter 36 for New and Chapter 37 for Existing mercantile occupancies and IBC Sections 309, 903.2.6, 1014.4.1, 1014.4.2, and NFPA 5000 Chapter 27

The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics believes that sales of consumer fireworks should only be allowed in mercantile occupancies that meet all applicable codes for mercantile occupancies and all additional requirements in NFPA 1124.

Fire protection for CFRS facilities and stores is similar to those of mercantile facilities when there are mitigation techniques in place (Fuse covers/Flame breaks). The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics believes that sales of consumer fireworks should only be allowed in mercantile occupancies that meet all applicable codes for mercantile occupancies and all additional requirements in NFPA 1124.

Construction of Buildings and Structures. Consumer fireworks shall only be permitted to be sold in any of the following buildings or structures, provided that any new building or structure does not exceed one story in height: 1) Permanent buildings or structures constructed in accordance with the building code enforced by the AHJ

2) Tents, canopies, or temporary membrane structures complying with NFPA 102

3) Temporary structures constructed in accordance with this chapter

NFPA 102 The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics believes that sales of consumer fireworks should only be allowed in tents, under canopies or in temporary membrane structures that meet all applicable codes for mercantile occupancies and all additional requirements in NFPA 1124. IBC Section 3103 The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics believes that sales of consumer fireworks should only be allowed in mercantile occupancies that meet all applicable codes for mercantile

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 15 4) Temporary CFRS stands greater than 800 ft2 in area that also met the requirements for a permanent structure

5) Vehicles…..complying with applicable requirements for CFRS stands

7.3.15.2

Height of sales displays. To provide for visual access of the retail sales area by the employees and customers, partitions, counters, shelving, cases and similar space dividers shall not exceed 6ft (1.8m) in height above the floor surface inside the permitted of the retail sales area.

occupancies and all additional requirements in NFPA 1124. The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine the size and length of the temporary stands in which consumer fireworks were being sold. The Committee then developed a large number of additional requirements such as relating to travel distances to exits, width of aisles and width of doors and other requirements. Then, the Committee decided that any temporary CFRS stand longer than 100 feet should have to meet all requirements for permanent structures. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety.

The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the unique issues of sales of consumer fireworks in other kinds of structures, vehicles all other equipment. The Committee then decided that all of these other kinds of selling venues should be required to meet all of the same requirements that a CFRS stand is required to meet. Examples of these requirements are minimum travel distances to exits, width of aisles and width of doors and other requirements. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety. The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the need for persons working in CFRS facilities and stores to be able to have visual supervision of sales areas. The Committee then decided that all selling venues should meet a higher level of safety than is required for selling venues that do not sell consumer fireworks. Mercantile occupancies

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 16 typically have shelving that exceeds 6 ft. in height. hese committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety. 7.3.15.2.1.

Merchandise on display or located on shelves or counters or other fixtures shall not be displayed to a height greater than 6ft (1.8m) above the floor surface within the CFRS area.

The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the need for persons working in CFRS facilities and stores to be able to have visual supervision of sales areas. The Committee then decided that all selling venues should meet a higher level of safety than is required for selling venues that do not sell consumer fireworks. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety.

7.3.15.2.2.

Where located along the perimeter of the consumer fireworks retail sales area, the maximum height of sales displays shall be limited to 12 ft (3.66 m).

The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the need for persons working in CFRS facilities and stores to be able to have visual supervision of sales areas. The Committee then decided that all selling venues should meet a higher level of safety than is required for selling venues that do not sell consumer fireworks. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety.

7.4.10

Quantity Limitations. The floor area occupied by the retail displays of consumer fireworks in permanent CFRS facilities shall not exceed 40 percent of the available floor area within the retail sales area.

The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the need for persons working in CFRS facilities and stores to be able to have visual supervision of sales areas. The Committee then decided that all selling venues should meet a higher level of safety than is required for selling venues that do not sell consumer fireworks. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety.

7.5.1.1.

For the purpose of this chapter, stores in

The Technical Committee on

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 17 which retail sales of consumer fireworks are conducted shall not be considered CFRS facilities as defined in 3.3.29.1 where both the following exist: 1) The area of the retails sales floor occupied by the rental displays of consumer fireworks does not exceed 25 percent of the area of the retail sales floor in the building or 600ft2 whichever is less 2) The consumer fireworks are displayed and sold in a manner approved by the AHJ and comply with applicable provisions of this code, federal and state law, and local ordinances

NFPA 5000

(1) Class A—All mercantile occupancies having an aggregate gross area of more than 30,000 ft2 (2800m2) or occupying more than three stories for sales purposes (2) Class B, as follows: (a) All mercantile occupancies of more than 3000 ft2 (280 m2), but not more than 30,000 ft2 (2800 m2), aggregate gross area occupying not more than three stories for sales purposes (b) All mercantile occupancies of not more than 3000 ft2 (280 m2) gross area and occupying two or three stories for sales purposes (3) Class C — All mercantile occupancies of not more than 3000 ft2 (280 m2) gross area used for sales purposes occupying one story only.

Pyrotechnics surveyed then current practices across the country to determine how best to address the need for persons working in CFRS facilities and stores to be able to have visual supervision of sales areas. The Committee then decided that all selling venues should meet a higher level of safety than is required for selling venues that do not sell consumer fireworks. These committee decisions were based upon the collective judgments of committee members all of whom believed the standard should err on the side of extra safety.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 18 Task Group C Council Decision # 4 Means of Egress Provisions The Council directs that the means of egress provisions of chapters 6 and 7 be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Means of Egress (NFPA 101, NFPA 5000). NFPA Paragraph 6.8.5

6.8.3.2

6.8.4.1

Exits provided for consumer fireworks storage or work buildings or areas shall be located such that maximum egress travel as measured from the remotest point to an exit along the natural and unobstructed path of egress travel shall not exceed 200 ft (60.8m) Doors in the means of egress shall be at least 36in wide and kept free of obstructions Aisles shall be at least 36 in. wide and shall be kept free of obstructions

Reference Documents 101 42.2.6

Substantiation

101 7.2.1.2.3.2

Same as life safety code 101.

7.3.4.1.2

Note: NFPA 231 1998 edition deals with storage – section on aisles does not give specifications on aisle width.

Ordinary hazard storage occupancy – whole facility is not protected with an approved sprinkler system

Should default to min. width of any means egress – not less than 36in. Dead end aisles shall not exceed 50 ft in length The minimum number of exits provided in the retail sales area shall not be less than three or as determined in accordance with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, whichever number is greater

42.2.5 Table 101 4.5.3.1 36.2.4. Number of Exits

Not protected by sprinklers – 50ft – Protected is 100ft.. Exceeds life safety code 101 that requires 2.

7.3.14.2

Maximum means of egress does not exceed 75ft – measured from the most remote point to an exit along the natural and unobstructed path of egress travel

101 36.2.6

Used in life safety life 101 high hazard is not to exceed 75ft. – conservative

7.3.14.3.1

Aisles shall have a minimum clear width of 48 in. (1.2m)

SWRI

Validated by SWRI Testing – 48in width was used.

7.3.14.3.2.5

Where more than one aisle is provided, not less than one cross-aisle shall have an unobstructed connection with every aisle, other than cross aisles Cross-aisle connection shall be

6.8.4.2

7.3.14.1

7.3.14.3.2.6

Committee

Include Annex note for 7.3.14.3.2. Figure A.7.3.14.3.2. The purpose of 7.3.14.3.2. is to ensure that a readily available path of travel is provided to reach the required exits and that such travel – Need to finish the text As above

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 19 provided for each aisle at intervals not greater than 50ft as measured across the aisle. 7.3.14.3.2.7

Where cross-aisle are required, not less than one cross-aisle shall have at least one end terminate at or within 10ft of an exit

Committee

As above

7.3.14.4

Egress doors shall be not less than 36in in width

101 7.2.1.2.3.2

Same as life safety code 101.

NFPA 1124 Paragraphs have referenced NFPA 101 Life Safety Code: NFPA Paragraph 6.8.1

6.8.2

7.3.14.1

Means of egress in permanent consumer fireworks storage or work buildings or areas will comply with the applicable requirements of 101 Trailers, semitrailers, and metal shipping containers that are not normally occupied shall not be required to comply with 101 Minimum number of exits – no less than three or as determined in accord. With 101

101 Reference Paragraph 101 – Chapter 42

Substantiation 101

These structures are not occupied therefore 101 does not apply.

4.5.3.1

Meet and in some instances exceed 101 to reduce the risk of incident that occurred at Scotttown happening again.

7.3.14.4.2

Egress door that has a latching device must be providing with panic hardware as per 101

7.2.1.7.1

Meet and in some instances exceed 101 to reduce the risk of incident that occurred at Scotttown happening again

7.3.14.5.1

Exit signs shall be marked by an approved exit sign in accordance with 101

7.10.1.5.1

Meet and in some instances exceed 101 to reduce the risk of incident that occurred at Scotttown happening again

7.3.14.6.1

Means of egress will illuminated whenever the facility is occupied in accordance with 101

7.10.8.1.1

Meet and in some instances exceed 101 to reduce the risk of incident that occurred at Scotttown happening again

7.3.14.6.2

Emergency lighting shall be provided for CFSR facilities and stores and shall comply with 101.

37.2.8 Means of egress will be illuminated in accordance with 7.8.

Meet and in some instances exceed 101 to reduce the risk of incident that occurred at Scotttown happening again

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 20 Task Force C Council Decision # 5 Smoke and Heat Venting The Council directs that the application and use of smoke vents as currently required by chapters 6 and 7 of NFPA 1124 be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Smoke Management Systems (NFPA 204). NFPA Paragraph 6.5.3

7.3.10.1

Smoke and heat vents designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 204 shall be provided in consumer fireworks storage buildings exceeding 50,000 ft in undivided area. Smoke and heat vents designed and installed in accordance with 204 shall be provided in the CFRS area of new permanent CFRS facilities or stores where the ceiling height is less than 10ft and the travel distance to reach an exit is greater than 25ft.

Reference International Building Code (IBC) – Section 910.2.1 Smoke and Heat vents

n/a

Substantiation Based on S-1 Occupancy - moderate hazard storage. When evaluating the codes, smoke and heat vent requirements are only applied to S-1 and it is reasonable to apply this requirement to H3 buildings to be more restrictive.

Based on formal and informal testing, smoke obscuration is a big issue. In a small area, smoke builds up quickly in an event. It is important to have the smoke and heat vents if the travel distance is greater than 25ft. Smoke and heat vents provide an additional factor of safety.

PYR-AAA Minutes February 1 - 2, 2010/Page 21 Task Group B Council Decision # 7 Separation Distances The Council directs that the separation distances be adequately substantiated and that supporting testing, data, and other relevant studies be submitted and referenced. Approval of these provisions and the associated substantiation must be obtained by the Technical Committee on Building Construction (NFPA 5000). NFPA 1124 Paragraph Table 6.7.1 6.7.1.

6.7.2

6.7.3.1

6.7.3.2

Separation Distances Consumer fireworks storage or work buildings at distribution facilities shall be separated from adjacent permanent buildings and structures in accordance with Table 6.7.1.

Consumer fireworks storage or work buildings at manufacturing Need to add text Consumer fireworks storage or work buildings shall not be located within 50ft of the following: 1) Motor vehicles fuel-dispensing station dispensers 2) Retail propane dispensing station dispensers 3) Compressed natural gas dispensing facilities 4) Abovegrounds storage tanks for flammable or combustible liquid, flammble gas, or flammable liquefied gas Consumer fireworks storage or work buildings shall not be located within 300ft2 of any aboveground bulk storage or bulk dispensing area for the following: 1) Flammable or combustible liquid 2) Flammable gas 3) Flammable liquefied gas

Reference Documents IBC - Table 602

Substantiation Based on occupancy group H Note: Occupancy Classification H-3 From 30 – 60, 1124 kept 1 hr and exceeded IBC code which has 0 for all types of construction. **Rick to review three legacy codes**

IME Table – American Table of Distances NFPA 30A

Based on the IME Table

NFPA 58 Check more codes

NFPA 58 Table 6.3.1. Separation Distances between Containers, Important Buildings and Line of Adjoining Property That can be Built upon. 300ft SD aboveground for containers (>200,000gal 200,000gal