• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Proposed Change to NFPA 101

LGreene

Registered User
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,155
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
Several changes have been proposed for the 2018 edition of NFPA 101, which would allow the locking devices on classroom doors to be released with 2 operations instead of 1. I haven't found any research or data to show that this would not have a negative impact on life safety.

The NFPA Technical Committee on means of Egress is opposed to the change...here is their statement:

"It is the position of the TC on Means of Egress that increasing the number of latch/lock releasing operations is dangerous and could create a hazard to occupants. Technology exists that will meet the current code requirement for not more than one latch/lock releasing operation. The need for multiple operations is contrary to decades of experience resulting in fatalities in schools and other buildings. Single-action egress is an important aspect of life safety for all emergencies."

Am I missing something? What is the justification for this change?

There's more info here: http://idighardware.com/2017/05/classroom-security-and-classroom-safety-why-compromise-june-2017/
 
School shootings....Knee jerk reaction to a tragedy that may result in more tragedies....

I agree, but I don't see a lot of successful knee-jerk reactions in code development. There are usually enough people involved to vet the proposals and make sure the changes are being made for the right reasons. The fact that the TC on MOE disagrees is a red flag, no? This seems like kind of a big deal and hard to accept without any life-safety data.
 
I don't know how code development works in NFPA 101, but I can't see anything like that ever flying in the IBC. But, who know? Stranger things happen.........

And, FWIW, I would be strongly opposed to anything along those lines in the IBC.
 
Not sure if below is pertinent or even relevant, but we had an internal debate a bit back where Fire said it was OK to lock an autistic kid in a room per 101 and we wouldn't allow it per IBC....

2012 NFPA 101 Sections 14.2.11.2 and 15.2.11.2 allows “lockups” in new and existing educational occupancies. Section 22.4.5 contains the prescriptive requirements. We have in the pass approved modifications to utilize the use of 22.4.5.
 
Top