Question Re: Odd Egress Situation

[Dan Helphrey]

Here is the condition: No part of the building is required to be rated per 2018 IBC or IFC, however it is an Owner requirement that we comply with NFPA 75. NFPA 75 requires the data equipment room to be rated.

Here is the question: The data room exits to a corridor system, which would not otherwise need to be rated (U occupancy, sprinklered, very low occupant load). Does the required rating of the equipment room trigger a requirement to maintain the same rating for the entire egress path? Does it make a difference that NFPA 75 is a voluntary standard?

Thanks!

 

[cda]

Welcome,,

There is nothing odd in calif!!

 

[cda]

My answer would be no.

Not required to rate anything else.

 

[RLGA]

I concur with cda, the requirement in NFPA 75 is basically a separation requirement for that one space, and as long as that one space is separated, then nothing else needs to be rated.

 

[e hilton]

Need to ask the owner what the intent is. Does the rating stop at the walls of the data room, or are they expecting a rating all the way to the outside?

 

[Sifu]

I vote no. The requirement that the level of protection not be reduced is for exits. 2018 IBC 1022.1 "Once a given level of exit protection is achieved, such level of protection shall not be reduced". Like RLGA said, a separation of occupancies, incidental spaces, etc. is not the same as exit protection.

 

[Dan Helphrey]

Thanks, everyone.

 

[ADAguy]

Love it, "oh the hairs sometimes split on our site"; as usual, "it depends" on a case by case basis.
Terms: if provided, separate use vs separate occupancy, equipment protection, safety of maintenance personnel vs others, sprinklered/unsprinklered, existing vs new, as applicable & subject to (x)?

 

[tmurray]

Required, no, but it depends on why the owner has required compliance with NFPA 75. depending on their reasons, it might make sense to rate the access corridor as well.

 

[Micah Padgett]

My take on this: Both the title of NFPA 75 and Sections 1.1 & 1.2 state the purpose of this standard to be the protection of the equipment (the data), not the people. So unless the owner intends to evacuate the equipment, I see no reason to protect the corridor.