B08_Attach_5_Signed_Consolidated_Sperry_Rebuild_Waiver_Dec_2018.pdf

National Park Service Fire Protection Variance/Waiver Request

Date Filed: 10/19/2018

Park: Glacier National Park

Submitted by: Jim Foster, Chief of Facilities Management

PMIS #: 246349

D Variance rg] Waiver

A Variance or Waiver documents noncompliance with a variety of fire or life safety related issues, not just the RM 58 requirements or code requirements. A Variance is to be used for an equivalent solution. A Waiver is to be used when the requirement cannot be met, but does not impact life safety.

Why is the Variance/Waiver being requested (provide technical details of request)?

Sperry Chalet is located in an extremely remote, mountainous back country environment with no existing utility infrastructure or access to other reliable water sources. It is approximately 7 trail miles from the nearest road and electricity. Over the history of the Chalet it never had a fire suppression system installed. To install a fire sprinkler system is problematic because access to the site is difficult and the site is not operated during the winter which presents freeze concerns for any water based systems. Additionally, there is no existing electrical system at Sperry Chalet which reduces the ignition sources within the Chalet. During the operating season occupants are not allowed to smoke in or near the Chalet; the use of an open flame for any purpose is prohibited within the Chalet or on its balconies and decks ( communicated via signage ). The storage of flammable liquids and/or gas is prohibited within the Chalet, further eliminating potential hazards. Battery powered egress lighting is to be provided in the hallways, stairways and lobbies to provide sufficient lighting to egress routes.

Regarding the fire alarm system, a battery operated combination smoke/CO2 with audible alarm are being installed. Additionally, fire extinguishers will be provided at each floor. The operating and ITM of this system will continue to be the responsibility of the Concessioner, Belton Chalets Inc., that operates the Sperry Chalet. Over the past 20 years previous smoke alarm systems have proven to be difficult and expensive to operate for two primary reasons. The first reason is the industry moved away from conventional fire alarm/detection systems powered by PY systems.

The second is the remoteness of this location making it difficult for the Concessioner to find responsive qualified technicians to perform the required annual ITM.

This waiver is also requesting continued approval (from the 2016 Variance) to install the battery powered wirelessly interconnected fire alarm system that was in place before the Sprague Creek Fire that destroyed the chalet. The battery powered wirelessly interconnected fire alarm systems takes advantage of modem technology that provides similar alarm and detection capabilities, without the difficult and expensive ITM.

General Property Description

• FMSS Asset ID No: 7948

• Structure Location and FMSS #: Sperry Developed Area, B796

• Name of Superintendent: Jeff Mow

• Useage: 65, 54 transient guests and 11 employees

• Utility Resources: Extremely limited, seasonal water source and no public utility electricity on site, only limited photovoltaic

• Type of construction:

o Exterior Walls: 20-inch thick stone o Interior Walls: 1-hour rated walls with T&G wood panel finish, all new construction in 2018 o Floors: lx T&G wood flooring (painted), second floor assembly is 1-hour rated, new in 2019 o Ceiling: T &G exposed wood paneling (painted), new in 2019 o Roof: Class B impregnated cedar shingle over Class A mineral surfaced fiberglass ice and water sheeting for a Class A fire rating, new in 2018 & o Supporting members: predominately log framing with some embedded steel o Number of floors : 2 o Floor Area: 4,931 sq. ft.

o Existing Fire Protection System: battery powered wirelessly interconnected fire alarm system, installed in 2019

Regional Structure Fire Management Officer Determination

Code Issue:

The newly constructed structure is considered as Dormitory, as define by NFP A 101:

Dormitory: A building or a space in a building in which group sleeping accommodations are provided/or more than 16 persons who are not members of the same family in one room, or a series of closely associated rooms, under joint occupancy and single management, with or without meals, but without individual cooking facilities.

Based on this occupancy, an automatic fire alarm system and automatic sprinkler system 13R system is required.

Code Requirement:

NFP A 101/Life/Safety Code 28.3.5.1 All buildings shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 28.3.5.3.

28.3.5.3 Where an automatic sprinkler system is installed, either for total or partial building coverage, the system shall be in accordance with Section 9.7, as modified by 28.3.5.4. In hotel or dormitory occupancies up to and including four stories in height that are located in buildings not exceeding 60 ft (18.3 m) in height above grade plane, systems in accordance with NFP A 13R shall be permitted.

NFP A 101, 28.3.4.1 General.

A fire alarm system in accordance with Section 9.6, except as modified by 28.3 .4.2 through 28.3.4.7, shall be provided.

Code Intent:

Based on the unique mission in NPS and the remote locations of many historic structures in NPS, the NFPA codes are difficult to apply in a prescriptive manner. The RM-58, NPS policy document for structural fire, allows the AHJ to make final determinations on the best protection to the historic structures and occupants.

The intent of an automatic 13R sprinkler system is for life/safety only (to provide sufficient time for occupants to escape the building). Although could contribute to fire control until fire department arrival, due to the remote location, a fire department will most likely not respond due to elevation and terrain difficulty.

The intent of the fire alarm systems is to protect and evacuate occupants of the Dormitory during a fire event and provide a "call out" to park designated monitor station. Due to remoteness, call out is not practical, and occupant notification will be accomplished by equivalent equipment.

Proposed Condition:

Due to the remoteness of this structure and lack of utilities, meeting the prescriptive requirements of the life/safety code is not feasible. Although the building is only used for a very short summer season, the occupant load is significant with an average of 60+ concession employees and guests during the summer months. The park has researched at great lengths to ensure the AHJ concerns were mitigated with other type technology, materials, processes and procedures.

Basis for Approval:

A Value Analysis (VA) was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of prescriptive code compliance. (notes attached), the VA team composition was fire protection subject matter experts with expertise in code, and code enforcement. The VA concluded that a life/safety fire sprinkler system would not be practical due to the site conditions and resources. With architect and engineer proposed construction features, occupant risk is significantly reduced by providing construction, detection, lighting, exiting, and escape assuring other prescriptive requirements are met.

Actions that need to be taken by the Park:

1. Chalet guests must be informed that smoking is prohibited within the chalet and on the exterior balconies and decks.

2. Chalet guests must be informed that the use of any open flame for any purpose is prohibited within the chalet and on the exterior balconies and decks.

3. The storage of flammable liquids and/or gas is prohibited within the chalet.

4. The Concessioner must ensure that a trained employee is available 24 hours a day, 7 days per week during the operating season to facilitate the evacuation of the building in the event of a fire and/or alarm. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) must be developed outlining in-brief a safety message to the occupants, and emergency procedures for the staff. The document must be available for review during the commissioning of the building.

5. If equipped with exterior deadbolt latches on the lobby doors they must be disabled and/or removed during the operating season to prevent unauthorized locking of the doors.

6. All mattresses must meet the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule - 16 CFR 1633 as defined in Consumer Product Safety Commission of the Federal Register. All mattresses must also carry a General Conformity Certificate.

7. All non-bedding soft goods within the chalet ( e.g. wall rugs, floor rugs, window curtains, canvas chairs, etc.) must be treated with topical fire retardant.

8. The park must install battery powered lighting in the hallways, stairways, and lobbies to provide sufficient illumination of primary emergency egress routes.

9. The park must install obtain photo-electric smoke alarms. Combination smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors are preferred.

10. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is required for seasonal ' start up' and ' shut down'. The SOP must be finalized and reviewed by the AHJ representative during the building commissioning. The intent is to ensure the level of protection designed and approved is sustained through the cyclic use of the building.

11 . At minimum one 10 lb Type ABC portable fire extinguisher is required on each floor.

Signatures:

Requestor:

James E. Foster II, P.E.

Date: · _#~ Requestor:

Steven Byrd

Date:

Cultural Support:

_m Approved D Rejected

Park Cultural Resource: -- ~ -----· ~o

Date: tt;/~"'l/1~

Park Authorization:

¢ Approved D Rejected

Park Superintendent:

Date: {b/$1 /rt;, IMRO:

~pproved D Rejected

IMRO Chief of Maintenance:

Date: ___ ) ( -J 1,-[ - _{_ ~ ______ _

~ Approved D Rejected

IMRO ARD, Facilities & Lands:

Date: // /(1 /~ ---------------~[ __ ~_: ______________ _

~Approved D Rejected

IMRO Chief Ranger:

Date: II (t::r {-u>t< IMRO Authority Having Jurisdiction:

~ Approved D Rejected

Brian Bergsma

Mike Archer

Regional Structural Fire Management Officer~· ---.,,C.,,..4-L---=-~~--,,,,,£--

Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)

Date: !2/3(! f'

Webinar Meeting Notes

GLAC 246349 - Sperry Chalet Risk Based Analysis

April 20, 2018

Particpants:

CL Chris Lewis – Faciliator NPS-DSC JS Jimmy Stewart NPS-SERO

BP Bob Pilk NPS-DSC VE Vincent Esposito NPS-NEPH

TN Todd Neitzel NPS-IMRO BW Brent Woffinden NPS-IMRO

ES Eric Smith NPS-GLAC LH Liz Hallas AE - AHMB

JF Jim Foster NPS-GLAC AW Andy Wilson ?

SB Steve Byrd NPS-GLAC

Purpose/approach

CL – Meeting will follow a two-step process

- Is a fire protection system needed?

- If so, determine type of fire protection system to go with?

TN – This project will be considered a “new” structure protection, as a rebuild to former building with interior mods for “creature comforts”

- The 1992/94 waiver exempted structure, however this would not be consistent with today’s codes. There are less options.

- Regional Director wants to make sure we make the right decisions to move forward. What is the best protection? Other fire protection options for occupants? Occupied 65-70 days a year. This discussion will serve as documentation.

- 1988 mitigation efforts incorporated smoke proofing doors.

LH – Just beginning phase 2 work which includes code improvements handrails, fire rating with 1 hr.

walls, etc.

- fire upgrades in walls with wood finishes

TN – This facility won’t meet prescriptive requirements. It is not considered a historic structure anymore.

- NPS follows Director’s Orders, NFPA – There are some inconsistencies with “I” codes, gray areas

- NPS adopts NFPA for all facilities

CL – Can there be additional park staff training to address fire prevention, include fire extinguishers on site?

TN – Prescriptive requirements require a system be installed.

AW – What is objective? Is tit life-safety or building protection? Codes were developed for buildings on the grid – not same as this facility – with remote location, difficult and delayed access.

TN – How to best protect it? What is the intent? Life-safety was provided with what was there before.

Additional fire separation is being planned in the new design.

ES - Objective: life-safety is the priority. Most, if not all of objective is life-safety. Protection of the structure is secondary.

- Risk that caused it to be lost will be addressed.

TN – Risk of interior fire is low. There is no source of ignition. Need to look at from a wildland fire perspective. There are various options. It’s possible to include an interior sprinkler system that wildland fire crews can connect to. Interior sprinkler systems are intended to control, not extinguish fire. Furnish a water curtain around perimeter? Previously, they couldn’t install (EE?) system due to lack of fall protection.

VE - Is high level priority just to provide for life-safety?

JS – Start with code definitions first, then determine how to implement what is applicable. Deal with occupancy, If codes can’t be met, come up with alternatives.

TN – Secondary, is some level of building protection.

Review/discussion of Todd Neitzel’s outline, which was furnished in advance (refer to table for responses)

PROPOSED BUILDING DESCRIPTION/CHARACTERISTICS

- Not to exceed 90 days occupancy, due to weather, snow clearing.

- Access needs to go thru wilderness to get to developed site. Site is considered “Recommended

Wilderness” and is managed as “Wilderness”.

- LH - Floor assemblies need to change slightly. At 2nd floor - three layers, log framing, tongue & groove (T&G), and finish flooring. Plywood + finish floor at 1st floor. Shear wall, 5/8” gyp board, ½” plywood at each side of wall assembly, and possibly acoustic insulation. Design is being developed in two phases: structural stabilization incl. seismic first, with phase 2 including windows, doors, everything else – not yet started that aspect of the design.

- JF - Changes to former design to be made. “Flitch” plate in log assembly to maintain log appearance. Flitch log has steel member inserted into log to get additional strength for snow loads and seismic. If log burns, steel elements holds building together.

- Former alarm system photovoltaic powered. Replaced with low-voltage battery system. Intent was not to introduce ignition source (PV) in the building. TOPIC – discuss whether consider PV now?

- JF Water: Surface cistern fed from snow melt, a trickle system, distributed to dining hall. Cistern over 2000 gal. , also a steel storage tank for water residency which is 1700 gallon, gravity fed.

Tank is drained and decommissioned at end of season. To begin season, dug out, test water, by

July 10 guest arrival, water is on, tanks are full. Tank is 1500’ distance, 150’ above dormitory site. Pressure is 56 psi at dining hall, would be less at dorm since higher (30’ at peak). About ¼ mile away near campground is a small pond, used as possible water source in dry years.

Originally sought for drinking water use. Ran out of water once in 2015. Can run out with very dry year.

- There are no fire protection systems in other buildings.

- 4 guest rooms did not have access to balcony.

- Roofing system? LH is reviewing with SHPO, cedar wood with fire treatment. Currently cannot do a replicated look-alike of modern materials. Re-coating of cedar shingle? – class B on 90 lb.

mineral paper (close to class A). No topical treatment, 20-yr replacement. Park uses no battens used due to snow loads. Can use fire retardant ply? Possible. Shingles can be lapped instead of

1x material. If saturated prior to fire event, increases fire resistance (absorption).

INTERIOR

- LH - Not considering aluminum studs at this time; all wood.

- LH - Log treatment: not considering intumescent yet. (?? stated) Can add fire retardant that can be mixed with stain for interior paneling.

- LH – Doors: will have smoke seal, similar to Many Glacier approach. Historic Sperry had vertical

T&G with “z” pattern, with stain sealer. Propose “real” door closers, 20 min. rating at bedrooms.

CODES

NFPA & “I”(International) codes

- Need two means of egress, not a window. (exceeds NFPA) New design = meets.

- Window escape height meets requirement. Matches historic window.

- LH - stairs considered as exit “access” and not “enclosure”, allows Class B. JS – can work.

- SB – Battery system detection, 3 zones reported to employee room (senior staff). Devices inter-communicated.

- 13 R system = 4 head discharge for 30 minutes. 13 D not appropriate. With current water supply, only a 13D one system would have enough water.

EXTERIOR

- Aside stone, former had combustible balconies, railings are wood. SHPO seeks similar. No direct impingement of flame. If not pre-treated, need 5-year re-application. Intumescent treatment not an option. Propose fire-resistant treated exterior finish.

- Concern under overhangs and decking. LH – Building had deep eave 3-4’. Under decks there were shutters stored. Enclose? = SHPO concern. Shutters were put up at windows before the fire.

- For the four rooms that don’t have access to a balcony, meet IBC. Don’t need balcony for each room. (Looking at risk, non-existent)

- Corridor fire door is not a requirement. Corridor is designed for egress. For purpose of life-safety, justification is low. No benefit for property protection.

FIRE ALARM

- Code requires system? = No. Code does require a fire alarm system, however the original smoke alarm system meets the intent of code

AUTOMATIC FIRE SYSTEM

- Interior 13R system = might be able to meet pressure requirement without a pump.

- VE: using code, do not believe sprinkler needed for life safety.

- What if looking at property protection? Asset is important – can’t maintain system (high $).

AW(?) - Sprinkler system would not be beneficial. No infrastructure exists to do an exterior spray system. JS – determine what is required by prescriptive code, and then determine challenges to meet that code. Consensus = Do not include 13R system. Admin section of code refers to alternates, difficulties to implement (AHJ discretion). Same applies to other 13D system, etc.

- TN had contact with NPS Cult Res., OK for stand pipe for wildland fire. JS - Not practical.

- Exterior only system? Nestle under roof, not visible. Will need maintenance, cleaning – insects, birds, etc. due to exposed heads. Slotted pipe? Use small pond near campground for water supply. Incorporate FDC on structure to connect supply? - not too visible to public. VE – there are other less obtrusive systems. AW – no. JS – no. Park – no.

GLAC mitigation plan prepared by Steve Byrd. There are SOP’s for guests, staff. Addresses materials in building. Waiver form to be provided by TN.

Focus fire resistance/prevention efforts interior of structure. No water/piping for interior/exterior.

TN – As of today, building is NEW CONSTRUCTION.

End of meeting.

6. The exterior deadbolt latches on the lobby doors must be disabled and/or removed during the operating season to prevent unauthorized locking of the doors.

7. The inoperable 48 volt alarm/detection system and the photovoltaic power supply must be completely removed to eliminate a potential ignition source.

8. All mattresses must meet the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets;

Final Rule - 16 CFR 1633 as defined in Consumer Product Safety Commission of the Federal Register. All mattresses must also carry a General Conformity Certificate.

9. All non-bedding soft goods within the chalet (e.g. wall rugs, floor rngs, window curtains, canvas chairs, etc.) must be treated with topical fire retardant.

I 0. The park must install battery powered lighting in the hallways, stairways, and lobbies to provide sufficient illumination of primary emergency egress routes.

I 1. The park must install obtain photo-electric smoke alarms. Combination smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors are preferred.

12. The installation new fire smoke alarm system must be overseen by a delegate from the IMR Structural Fire Management Officer.

13. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is required for seasonal 'start up' and 'shut down'.

The SOP must be finalized and reviewed by the AHJ representative during the building commissioning visit in 2016. The intent is to ensure the level of protection designed and approved in 2016 is sustained through the cyclic use of the building .

.I 4. At minimum one IO lb Type ABC portable fire extinguisher is required on each floor.

APPROVAL:

~ Approved D Rejected

Park Divis ion Manger submitting the request:

!p Approved D Rejected

Park Superintendent:

Date : ~ jmjo'6

El] Approved D Rejected D Not ApplicaJ': L Regional Facility Management Chief ~e:::_ ____ _::,.-=C:.-=....::.._1+-1,~-----==--

(if applicable): S -13 - I<,, (S ignacurc)

Date:

~Approved D Rejected D Not Applicable

Regional Concessions Asset Manager:

(if applicable):

Date: S- 13- )LP

01. Eh~~~,----..:::,,___ (Signature)

~Approved D Rejected

Regional Structural Fire Management Officer-· ~-'"~-~-7#_...,,,c..,;t?~:-. ~a,c..-~,...7'------- Date: 2i/1J/1<., ~

GLACIER NATIONAL PARK

SPERRY CHALET

PACKAGE NO. 357

NOVEMBER 1994

SPERRY CHALET

FIRE SPRINKLER

EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

ll7 /1)-5~

SPERRY CHALET FIRE SPRINKLER EVALUATION

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this evaluation is to clarify the life safety issues at Sperry Chalet and evaluate these issues to allow a final decision to be made on whether a fire sprinkler system is needed.

Work planned for Sperry Chalet next year hinges on a decision being made as soon as possible.

METHOD:

The Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) as adapted for use on NPS overnight accommodations has been used to point out where deficiencies occur and evaluate which improvements would be most beneficial. It is important to note that the FSES evaluation factor-s recognize the fire and life safety value of sprinkler systems, thus are heavily weighted toward them and allowing deficiencies in other parameters if this one is met. It is also policy of the NPS to install such systems in new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovation by NPS-50.

BACKGROUND:

Fire safety at the backcountry chalets has been identified as a problem for at least the past six years. Installation of a fire sprinkler system for Sperry Chalet has been a central recommendation in proposals to correct the life safety deficiencies. In November 1988 a committee of representatives from the park, region and DSC met to define what actions would be required to bring the chalet up to a safe standard. The FSES evaluation prepared at that time is included as an attachment (Evaluation 1). The following list of actions were recommended and presented to the regional director:

1. Remove the heat stoves from the entrance lobbies. · (This has since been done).

Nd' 2. Remove wing nuts on the window screens and replace with Ludwick

2 .... 'Lf\.,._.,~lips to allow for window exiting. (This has since been done).

3. Smoke proof corridor walls and install door closures and battery operated exit lights. (Exit lights have since been installed.)

4. Apply a fire retardant coating to walls, floors and ceilings.

(This has since been done).

5. Construct an internal corridor on both floors and install a fire-door between the two halves of the building.

6. Install a fire sprinkler system. Increase the water storage capacity.

7. Install room lighting, emergency lighting, and 24-hour corridor

I lighting. Room lights are to have the ability to be both manually operated and activated by the fire alarm system.

8. Install a hard wired smoke detector system with battery backup, interconnected to corridor, rooms, and sprinkler system, with manual pull stations at the stair entrances.

There was no funding for any of these actions at the time, however some of the easy to accomplish, less costly portions of the work have since been accomplished. We are now faced with implementing the remaining actions to bring up the level of life safety before the chalet will be ready to reopen to the public. Following is an evaluation of the life safety benefits and cultural resource effects that the remaining actions will have on the structures.

ANALYSIS OF 1988 RECOMMENDATIONS:

1988 RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2, 3 !EXIT LIGHTS), 4: Since these actions have already been accomplished no further discussion is necessary.

1988 RECOMMENDATION 3 (SMOKE PROOFING): This recommendation calls for smoke proofing corridor walls. In this category, separation of bedrooms from corridor walls are rated at three levels of treatment: smoke resisting, 20 minute fire resistant walls, or one hour fire resistant walls with 20 minute doors.

Achieving the level of smoke resistant walls, ceiling, and doors (intact, to resist the passage of smoke), can be achieved without significant change to the building. Gaps between wall boards should be addressed to achieve this minimum rating. Smoke resisting walls by themselves without a sprinkler system and unenclosed stairways cannot meet the equivalency evaluation target (see evaluation 2).

A higher separation rating can be achieved by sheathing corridor walls and enclosing stairways with one hour fire resistant walls.

This would provide enough factor of safety to pass the equivalency test without the additional installation of a sprinkler system (see Evaluation 3 and Chalet drawings for required alterations).

However, this method of achieving life safety was evaluated for its effects on cultural resources in the Environmental Assessment for the Management of Backcountry Chalets (EA), November 1993. The conclusion was, separating the spaces and enclosing the stairs would "totally destroy the interior character-defining features".

1988 RECOMMENDATION 5: This recommendation calls for the construction of an internal corridor connecting stairways on, both floors and a door dividing two halves of the building (a horizontal exit). Installation of a second floor corridor connection and a horizontal exit would provide two routes of egress from each second floor room and a fire separation between the two halves of the building. Although by strict code interpretation the two stairways

L---~----relied upon for exits are still non-conforming (they are not enclosed), the mitigating circumstances would be a quick response by guests (because of the smoke detectors) and a short travel distance to a safe, smoke free exit route. The advantages are (1) Construction of exterior or additional interior stairs are avoided, ( 2) There is only a small loss of fabric, and ( 3) There is no complete loss of guest rooms (two rooms are made smaller).

There does not appear to be a need to connect the corridors on the first floor. The objective is to provide two ways out from any room. The first floor rooms already provide these exits; the existing exit and the window. While the use of a window is generally not an acceptable exit in most buildings, the location of this facility at the top of a mountain assures that some measure of physical ability is necessary to get there. The windows are simple to operate, large enough for easy exiting, and are located less than 36 inches from the floor. As noted in recommendation 2,· the window screens are outfitted with Ludwig clips which allow one to push the screen off from the inside.

An additional requirement of the horizontal exit is a 2-hour fire separation wall the full height and width of the building. This is achievable without adversely affecting the building.

1988 RECOMMENDATION 6: The central recommendation of this list is the installation of a fire sprinkler system. Installation of a complete system would overcome the life safety deficiencies of the chalet (see Evaluation 1). The recommendation was included in the alternatives in the Environmental Assessment, and its effects were analyzed to have "minimal impact on the interior". However, this facility is located in a remote location which requires a closer evaluation of the types of systems that could be installed. The two systems discussed are a dry pipe system and an antifreeze system.

Automatic Sprinkler Systems

For both systems, water entry to the building would be on the north side of the chalet under the building to avoid exposure of piping to freezing temperatures. Space must be provided in the crawl space or first floor for the valve assembly, with slightly greater space required for a dry pipe system. The valve location must be maintained above 40 deg. F. Space must also be provided to route the sprinkler riser up through the second floor for both systems.

The water supply will not be active during the winter, so neither system would be operable during that time. Copper piping would be used to avoid the potential for pipe corrosion and to provide a more aesthetic appearance.

Dry Pipe System with Nitrogen A dry pipe sprinkler system utilizing nitrogen for piping pressurization was evaluated. The dry pipe valve keeps water out of the system. Nitrogen pressure on the building side of the valve holds a check valve shut, preventing water from entering the system. When a sprinkler is fused, the nitrogen escapes through the head, decreasing the pressure holding the dry pipe valve shut.

The nitrogen pressure drops low enough to allow the dry pipe valve to trip, and water floods the system and flows out the fused sprinkler to put out the fire. Nitrogen is preferred over air since there is no electricity available to power a compressor and air dryer in this location.

Advantages This system provides greater assurance against freezing since the piping does not contain water unless a sprinkler is activated.

Disadvantages The system requires considerable inspection and maintenance.

Approximately two nitrogen cylinders must be transported to and from the site each year to maintain the system pressure. The safety of transporting pressurized cylinders should be considered.

Maintenance Approximately two nitrogen cylinders weighing 16 to 25 pounds each must be transported to the chalet each operating season. The system must then be charged with nitrogen, tested, and charged again. Twice per operating season the water supply and gages must be checked. At the close of the season the nitrogen must be shut off and empty cylinders would be transported out. A full trip test must be performed every three years. This consists of charging the system, obtaining full flow through the inspector's test station, draining the piping, and recharging the system.

Wet Pipe System with Antifreeze This is a wet-pipe system with 30% propylene glycol in solution which provides freeze protection to 9 °F and burst protection to minus 20°F. Propylene glycol is considered preferable to ethylene glycol because of its low oral toxicity. The entire piping system is filled with the water-glycol mixture during the operating season and this solution flows out of the fused sprinkler.

Advantages:

This system has simpler components than a dry pipe system. Yearly transportation of materials to the site is not required.

Disadvantages:

This system also requires considerable inspection and maintenance.

The piping must be drained and the antifreeze solution stored in a tank during the winter season as the use of glycol does not provide freeze protection from this location's extreme winter temperatures.

The solution, approximately 50 gallons, must be pumped back into the system each spring. If replacement of the solution is required, new antifreeze must be transported to the site and the old solution removed and disposed of according to governing regulations.

Maintenance Requirements The system must be drained into a tank and stored at the close of each season. The solution must be tested at the beginning of each season and pumped back into the system. Gages and water supply must be checked monthly. The alarm valve must be tested each operating season. The test involves simulation of a flow condition. The antifreeze may require replacement during the life of the system, depending on water conditions, concentration, and other factors. For estimating purposes, replacement after fifteen years is assumed. Replacement would require transporting approximately 15 gallons of antifreeze to the site, mixing and testing the new solution, and transporting and disposing of the old solution according to governing regulations.

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS COST COMPARISON*

System Type

25-Year Costs Dry-Pipe with Nitrogen Antifreeze

First Cost $19,543 $16,748

Annual Material Cost $519 - Annual Maintenance Cost $16,313 $14,830

Future Material and Maintenance Costs - $754

Total Life Cycle Cost $36,375 $32,338 -* The compar~son above does not conta~n costs for the water storage and del~very system which will be the same for both types.

Water Supply The integrity of fire sprinkler systems is in part due to the reliability of the water supply system. Water for the area is supplied by surface water which is collected from a stream and pumped to a 2,500 gallon storage tank. A larger capacity water storage tank (a minimum of 15,000 gallons) would be required to supply a sprinkler system. This tank could be used for both domestic water supply and fire storage. A stand-pipe could be placed in the inside of the tank to ensure that a minimum of 10,000 gallons of water storage is available in the event of a fire. The unreliability inherent in a surface water collection system is that the water quantity is dependent upon the amount of snowmelt which can be collected. In a dry year, the water supply available may not be adequate to fill the water storage tank with the 15,000 gallons required. There may be some years in which the system could not provide an adequate amount of water for fire storage and water for domestic use.

system Operation There do not seem to be unsolvable technical problems regarding the construction of such a system, however the advisability of installation may be due to other factors. Due to the solid rock, water lines are not buried very deep, allowing the possibility of freezing or a break in the line. There also must be continual inspection and maintenance work on the system. All maintenance and supply of needed parts is difficult due to the remoteness of the site. The park has indicated that use of park personnel to maintain systems in these remote areas cannot be guaranteed in the future, and from past experience, reliance upon the concessioner has proven to be unworkable. The reliability of all aspects of the system must be high for the system to operate when needed. The existence of a system which is unreliable or inoperable for any reason, may be more of a liability than having no system.

Fire Risk Assessment of Present Building A risk of a fire starting from a source on the interior of the building is low due to the following: 1) Exterior walls are load bearing stone, which would not be affected by fire. 2) Interior framing is log. This can provide additional time for evacuation since these structural elements can resist collapse during a fire better than unprotected standard wood framing. However, due to floor and roof construction, the building cannot qualify for a rating as heavy timber framing. 3) The building contains no hazardous areas. 4) There are no electrical systems. The new proposed system for alarms and emergency lights would be a battery powered low voltage system. 5) Stoves for heating have been removed. 6) Candles for lighting and smoking are not permitted.

Flashlights are provided. 7) New mattresses would be fire retardant or old ones could be treated. 8) Cooking is not allowed and would be even more unlikely to occur if payment for meals would be required of all guests. 9) Wooden surfaces of rooms have been treated to reduce ignition and flame spread. 10) Furnishings in rooms are very limited and none occur in the hallways or lobby areas. 11) The building is fully occupied each night of operation, reducing the likelihood that a fire would go undetected.

Installation of a sprinkler system would increase the level of life safety and property protection in this structure. Without a sprinkler system a fire in the interior would probably result in a total loss.

1988 RECOMMENDATION 7: Install room lighting, 24 hour corridor lighting, and emergency lighting. Because of the difficulties in both design and maintenance of such a system, it is not recommended to install room lighting or general corridor lighting. During the day light enters into the open first floor lobbies. On the second floor, light can penetrate up the open stair, or if this amount of light is determined to be insufficient, new skylights could be added above the hall. Only installation of battery operated hallway emergency lighting and one emergency light on the exterior to light the first floor balcony stair is recommended.

1988 RECOMMENDATION 8: Install a hard-wired smoke detector system.

A system with at least one smoke detector in each space, wired together so that if one detector is tripped the building alarm would be activated, is recommended. Manual pull stations would also be provided.

CONCLUSION:

Due to the remoteness of this facility and the state of present technology, it is not possible to bring this building to the safety standard of an equivalent building at a more accessible location.

A recommended minimum to increase life safety at Sperry Chalet includes the following improvements:

1. Repair gaps between boards walls to achieve smoke resistance.

2. Construct a second floor corridor connecting the stairs, a corridor door between the two halves of the building, and a 2-hour fire wall separating the two halves of the building {full height and width).

3. Provide battery operated emergency lights in hallways and one exterior light.

4. Install a hard-wired smoke detection system with manual pull stations at exits.

The building with these improvements will not meet a passing rating on the FSES, but fire and life safety risk is mitigated by the factors listed in the Fire Risk Assessment section. Visitor education by the concessioner could also be required to increase visitor/building protection.

To increase safety from this level to one that achieves a passing code equivalency would involve correcting deficiencies in the exiting system and corridor separation. Two primary methods exist;

one depends on installation of a fire sprinkler system and the other depends on construction of a 1-hour separation of all spaces within the structure and enclosing the stairways. Fire sprinklers are an active system that will require inspection and maintenance, but has been evaluated to have low cultural resource impact.

Corridor and stair separation is a passive system, maintenance and inspection is low, however this requires alterations to character defining features of the chalet.

The minimum level of safety recommended for this structure includes a fire alarm system, smoke detectors, and emergency hall lighting.

Corridor and stair separation would provide an additional level of safety. A properly maintained fire sprinkler system would provide an even greater level of safety if management determines that installation of a system is justified. Dependability of the fire sprinkler system is highly dependent on the maintenance provided.

EVALUATION 1

(Prepared November 1988)

Full sprinkler system No major change to walls - smoke resisting Horizontal exit on second floor

Evaluation includes actions already completed plus emergency lighting and a hard wired smoke detection system.

Table 1. SAFETY PARAMETER VALUES-LARGE FACILITIES

SAFETY PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUES

NOTES:

1. CONSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE I NONCOMBUSTIBLE a- Use (-I x hetgnt 1n stones}

BUILDING TYPE 'i I TYPE V T"IPE 'II I TYPE Ill TYPE IV TYPE II TYPE II TYPE I /. II if Ou11d1ng IS sneathed w1th

HEIGHT 000 Ill p ?00 . 211 p 2HH 1 OQQ; 111' p 222 plaster. gypsum board or Similar mateT!als.

1 STORY -2! a 0 I -z al 0 I 0 -2! ,a 2 2 a! I£6~J b- Use 1n multl·StOry

2 STORY -51 0 0 0 -5i a 2 2 Jutldtn~s 1f 1tem I :s ;Jased I

3-6 STORY -81 I a -2 I~ 3 1 a -2 -a1 a 2 2 on Type v .000 .. Type 111 200; or Type II iOOO "' tnout

Note a .. J•ld 1tem 5 :: 4

WITHIN BORMS SUITES OR ON EXIT ROUTES ELSEWHERE IN BUILDING

c- Use ~ tf 1tem 1 is oasea on

NONE. OR NO Type V 000:. Type ill .200;

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY I DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY DEFICIENCY JnO Type II !000!.

-7 -4 -41-71 b 01-41 b (OJ d- Use : tf ttem 7 is -5.

3. MANUAL FIRE

MANUAL ALARM e- Use I if 1tem g 1s based an

NO ALARM

w a F 0. NOTIF I -11/ F D. NOTIF

··None or Incomplete . or ALARM ··walls or Doors· are

0111 l.m fY I 3 "' 20 m1n. ana 1tem 5 <S :: 4.

tNTERCONNECTEO SYSTEM COVERING CORRIDORS f- Use 1 : If seoarat1ons

NONE OR

SiNGLE STATION & COMMON SPACES

TOTAL between bedroom suites

4. SMOKE DETECTION INCOMPlETE

UNITS IN EACH

w/a BORM/ SINGLE STATION INTERCONNECTED BUILDING also meet CT!tena.

& ALARM

BEDROOM

SUITE BORM/SUITE BORMtSUITE m j,l.m OEiECTORS DETECTORS DETECTORS g- Rate separation different

-4!01 012: I 2101 e 3101 e ro 6 than actual construction as follows:

BORMS/SUITES CORRS .. COMMON BORMS/SUITES. CORRs-::- TOTAL BUILDING

· ··smoke Res1stmg."· 1f

5. AUTOMATIC NONE ONlY SPACES COMMON SPACES STA~ARO parameter 5 is < 6.

SPRINKLERS

SPECIAL parameter 1 1s VIOOOI.

0 2101 c 4101 c 6 (a) 10 11112001 or 111000::

and Note a does nat

COMPLETE SEPARATION OF 3R SUITES FROM CORRIDOR ·LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS: apply.

6. SEPARATION OF NONE OR ITEM 5 IS< 6 & DOORS w.o ··zo m1n."' if Note a INCOMPLETE AUTO. CLOSERS ITEM 5 IS~ G OR DOORS ARE All w DOOR CLOSERS aoplies ana separation

BEDROOMS/SUITES

SMOKE RESISTINGf20 MIN SMOKE_ASISTINGj 20 MIN JI·HR WALLS.20 MIN DOORS 1s 20 mm or more.

-6 -1 g I o g f1R !213if.g I 3141 f,g

· ··zo m1n.·· if parameter 5 is ~ G and separation SINGLE OR MULTIPlE RG'!l'fES is < 20 m1n.

EXPOSED DIRECT EXIT

7. EXIT SYSTEM ROUTE DEFICIENT w o~IZ. HORIZ. EXIT SMOKE PROOF STAIRS h· Use 0 in 1 story buildings foJ that have no vertical -6 -2 2 2 4 openmgs.

MAX. DEAD END NO 0"r.ro END ,..35· & TRAVEL IS: j- Use I I where less than l 5

8. EXIT ACCESS >100" >35"~ 100' >150" IOD". 150' 50'·100' <SO'

guests are accommodated ana item 1 is not based on

-610id -4101 d -2 -1 0 1(2J VIOOO); 11112001 or IIIDOOI

9. INTERIOR FINISH FLAME SPREAD RATINGS k- 30 m1n. 10 existing blllgs.

EXIT ROUTES >75~ zoo > 25::: 75 ::; 25 1- Use I I where 1tem 7 is 4

ROOMS. SUITES >75:::200 ~ 75 > 75 ~ ZOD ::; 75 > 25::: 200 ::; 25

1n buildings not over 3 stones.

-fO}ll· -1101m 0111m 1 I 2 ffi· Use I I where item 5 is ~ S.

10. VERTICAL

OPEN 'OR INCOMPLETE ENCLOSURE! ENCLOSED {h) p- Use this column for

OPENINGS CONNECTS 5 OR MORE FLRS 3·4 FLRS. 2~ <30M ;;>30 M <1 Hr ;;.1 Hr 1naicatell type regardless

-10 -7 (-2.J -1 0 1(0)b of sheathing if item 5 is 10.

SMOKE PARTITIONS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

NONE

PASSIVE MECHANICALLY ASSISTED -

0 (2) 3

PART B. COMPUTE INDIVIDUAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS-USE TABLE 2.

1. Transfer eacn of the 11 circled safety parameter values on Table 1 to every unshaded block in the line with the corresponding safety parameter in Table 2. Where the block is indicated ( ~ 2) enter only one·half the vaiue shown in Table i.

2. Add the tour columns, keeping in mind that any negative numbers deduct.

3. Transfer the resulting values for s,, S2, S3, ana S4 on page 4 of this worksheet.

Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE C(J(TROL EGRESS PROVIDED REFUGE PROVIDED SAmY PROVIDED

1Sll !S2J (S3) (S41

1. CONSTRUCTION -(p t!!:::{:;:):,:,:,:,=::;::::=:;:=:;:;:;:;::;:;::;:;:::::,:;

-CP t:::::::::::::· .. :;::=tttt -~ t:::::;:;:;:::::::,:,:: .:· .·· _:· .=' _:.

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 +2 0 0 0

3. MANUAL FIRE ALARM .;.2 J 2. 1:::::::::::::=::::::::;:;::! :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::,:,:;: 2.. t=::::::;::;:;:;:;:;:;::::::::::::;

4. SMOKE DETECTION

+2 Z-5' 5" +2 z.s 'S & ALARM

5. AUTOMATIC

8 +2 4 (7-2)A 4- B SPRINKLERS

6. SEPARATION OF I f2 .5 1 l BEDROOMS/SUITES

7. E.XIT SYSTEM 0 :2 0 0

8. E.XIT ACCESS '2 z

9. INTERIOR FINISH :2 0 0 :::::: D

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS +2 -I -2. -2. -'2..

11. SMOKE CONTROL

f;:;:;: :::::::::;:;::::::::::::: '2. z z_ ..

TOTAL SJ= 5.5 S2= J-;.~ S3= J.5 S4= JZ.

NOTE: A • Use full yalue if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V (000}, Type 11112001 or

Type II !IXXJ] construction. Divide by 2 (7-2) in all other cases.

15c

PART C. DETERMINE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS-USE TABLE 3.

Transfer the circled values from Table 3 to the blanks marked Sa. Sb, Sc, and Sd in Table 4.

Table 3. Mandatory Requirements

Building Control Egress Refuge General Fire Safety

Height Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement (Sa) (So) (Sc) (Sct)

1 Story I 3 I 5 i 2 I 5 I

2 Story I (j) I (:) I ( 1) I (4) 3-6 Story I 4 I 5 I 3 I 6

I

PART D. EQUIVALENCY EVALUATION

1. Peform the indicated subtractions in Table 4. Enter the differences in the appropriate answer blocks.

2. For each row checK "YES" if the value in the answer block is zero or greater. Check "NO" if the value in the answer block is a negative number.

Table 4. Equivalency Evaluation YES NO

. 51 Sa Control

(51) minus Required (S ) ;;J;Q ~-[I]=~ x Provided Control a

~ sb Egress

(S2} minus Required (S ) ~0 ~-~=[Hl )( Provided Egress b

53 Sc Refuge

(53) minus Required (S ) ;:,;o [@-OJ=~ X Provided Refuge c s4 Sct General Required ~-(1]=~ Fire (54) minus Gen. Fire (Sd) ~0 X Safety Safety

Return to page (1) of this form.

15d

EVALUATION 2

No sprinkler system No major change to walls - smoke resisting Horizontal exit on second floor Open stairways

Evaluation includes actions already completed plus

Table 1. SAFETY PARAMETER VAlUES-LARGE FACILJTIES

NOTES:

1. CONSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE .~ONCOMBUSTIBLE a- Use (-1 x ne1gnt '" stones)

BUILDING TYPE 'I i''(PE V TYPE Ill I TYPE Ill TYPE IV TYPE 11 TYPE II TYPE I I. II ,f ouJid<ng 1s sneatheo w<ttl

HEIGHT 000 '11 p 200 c)t p 2HH· 000' 111 p 222 p<aster. gypsum ooard or s<milar mater~als.

1 STORY -2: a J I -2: 3) 0 0 -2: a 2 2 b- use '" multi·S tory

2 STORY -6i a 0 'F__61-:fl 0 I 0 -5i al 2 1 bUII!lln~s ,( >tern 1 1s based '" 3-6 STORY -a! a ~ 1~3j 0 -2 -81 a 2 2 on Type v 000 .. Type Ill -t. 200! or Type II ·QQQ; Nlthout

.~ate ··a .. a•1d <tem 5 ::; •

WITHIN BORMS 3UJTES OR 0,~ EXIT ROUTES ELSEWHERE IN BUILDING c- ~se . 1f <tem 1 <S based on NONE. OR NO iyoe v ;QOOi. Type Ill :200

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS DOUBLE DEFICIENCY SINGLE DEFICIENCY DOUBLE DEFICIENCY I SINGLE DEFICIENCY OEFICIEHCY JnO Type II ,QQOI.

-7 I -4 I -41-71 b I 01-41 b 0 d- use , . <f <tem 7 is -6

MANUAL FIRE

,'11ANUAL ALARM I e- Use : · 1f item g <S based an

3. NO AlARM N a F.D. NOTJF I H/ F D. NOTJF

"Hone or Incomplete ·. or ALARM "Walls or Doors" are

Oil! l.m I CiJ I 3 < 20 m<n. ano 1tem 5 1s ::; 4 iNTERCONNECTED SYSTEM COVERING CORRIDORS f- use i ; 1f separations

NONE OR

SINGlE STA TIOH I. COMMON SPACES

TOTAL between oeoroom su1tes

4. SMOKE DETECTION INCOMPLETE

UNITS IN EACH

H/0 BDRM/ SINGLE STATION I INTERCONNECTED BUILDING also meet cr~ter1a.

8. ALARM

BEDROOM SUITE BDRM/SUITE BORM!SUITE m j,l,m DETECTORS DETECTORS DETECTORS - g- Rate separation dtfferent

-4101 0121 2(01 e 3101 e I 5 (s] than actual construct1on as follows:

80RMS/SUITES I CORRS .. COMMON BORMS/SUITES. CORRS .. TOTAL 'M:OJNG

··smoke Resisting:· 1f

5. AUTOMATIC NONE ONLY SPACES COMMON SPACES STANDARD J SPECIAL

parameter 5 ts ~ 6.

SPRINKlERS parameter I is VIOOOi.

l 0l 2101 c I 4101 c 6 8 10 111\2001 or 1110001:

and Note a does not - COMPLETE SEPARATION OF BR SUITES FROM CORRIDOR ·LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS: apply.

6. SEPARATION OF tiONE OR ITEM 5 IS< 6 & DOORS w a ··zo m1n:· if Note a

INCOMPLETE AUTO. CLOSERS

ITEM 5 IS::: 6 OR DOORS ARE ALL w DOOR CLOSERS applles and separation

BEDROOMS 1 SUITES

SMOK~TJNGJZD MIN SMOKE RESISTING I 20 MIN Ji·HR 'IIALLS.ZD MIN DOORS is 20 m1n or more.

-6 f-1g) l 0 g 1 g 1213!f.g l 3141 f,g ··zo mm:· if parameter 5 1s ::: S an!l separat•on

Sli'IGLE OR ~ MULTIPlE ROUTES is < 20 mm.

EXPOSED DIRECT EXIT

7. EXIT SYSTEM ROUTE DEFICIENT w o HORIZ. HORIZ. EXIT SMOKE ?ROOF STAIRS h· Use D in I story buildings

rz) that have no vertical

-6 -2 0 2 4 openmgs.

MAX. DEAD ENO NO DEAD END >35TTRAVEL IS: j- use I I where Jess than 15

8. EXIT ACCESS >100' >35'~ 100' >\50' 100'·\50' 50'·100' <50' guests are accommodated and item 1 is not based on

-610id -4101 d -2 -1 0 1('_2) VIOOOI: 11112001 or 11(0001

9. INTERIOR FINISH FLAME SPREAD RATINGS k- 30 min. in ex1sting hldgs.

EXIT ROUTES > 75 ~ 200 > 25 ~ 75 ~ 25 I· Use I l where 1tem 7 is 4

ROOMS, SUITES >75~ 200 ~ 75 > 75 ~ 200 ~..l.( > 25 ~ 200 ~ 25 1n buildings not over 3 S!DfleS.

-3101 m -lform Oll!m flJ 1 2 m· Use I I where 1tem 5 is ::: 6.

10. VERTICAL

OPEN lOR INCOMPLETE ENCLOSUR£: ENCLOSED I hi p- Use this column tor

OPENINGS CONNECTS 5 OR MORE FLRS 3·4 FLRS. 2 FLRS. <30M ;,30 M <1 Hr ;,1 Hr indicated type regardless of sheathmg if item 5

-10 -7 l(-2) -1 0 l(O)b IS 10.

SMOKE PARTITIONS

11. SMOKE CONTROL

NONE

PASSIVE MECHANICALLY ASSISTED -

0 (2J 3 -

1. Transfer each of the 11 circled safety parameter values on Table 1 to every unshaded block in the line w1th the corresponding safety parameter in Table 2. Where the block is indicated (- 2) enter only one-half the value shown in Table 1.

2. Add the four columns, keeping in mind that any negative numbers deduct.

3. Transfer the resulting values for S1, Sz, S3, and So~ on page 4 of this worksheet.

Table 2. Individual Safety Evaluations

GENERAL FIRE

SAFETY PARAMETER FIRE CIMROL EGRESS PROVIDED REFUGE PROVI D£D SAFETY PROVIDED

[Sl) [S2) [S3] (S4]

1. CONSTRUCTION -~

~ttJf!:::t::;:;:::::=:::;:::::::::::::;:~;:::;:;

~:;:;:;::::::;::;:;:;:;:;:;::;::::: :;:::::;:;:;:::::: -~ -G:,

2. HAZARDOUS AREAS 0 -t2 0 0 0

3. MANUAl FIRE AlARM :2 l '2.

1::!::::=:::::=:::,:;:;:;:;:::::

-2. 1::::::::::::;:;::::·:::::::::=:::·::::::::::::;::~:::::::;:;:;:

4. SMOKE DETECTION .;-2 ~ +2 ? cp &ALARM ~

5. AUTOMATIC

0 7-2 [7-2)A 0 SPRINKLERS 0 0

6. SEPARATION OF -J -:-2 -,5 I -l BEDROOMS/SUITES -

7. EXIT SYSTEM ;:;:;:::::: -~ 7-2 -I -1.

8. EXIT ACCESS ~ 2 ..

9. INTERIOR FINISH .;-2 () C> 0 . ..

10. VERTICAL OPENINGS ~2 -1 -z. -2 -2.

11. SMOKE CONTROL .

1.. i. 2.. ~::::,:,:=:::=:::;:;:;: .

t=:::::;:::::::::;::;::::::;::::;:,::::::::;:::::;:::::::;:::;::

TOTAl Sl= -4 S2= 1. 5 S3::: -5 54= 1 NOTE: A - Use full ~alue if Safety Parameter 1 is based on Type V [000), Type Ill [200) or

Type II [000} constructioll Divide by 2 [+2) in all other cases.

NOTES:

1. CONSTRUCTION COMBUSTIBLE NONCOMBUSTIBLE a- Use (-1 x ne1~Mt 1n stems)

BUILDING TYPE 'I 7YPE IJ TYPE !II I TYPE Ill TYPE !V TYPE II T'IPE II TYPE I & II rf building 1s sneatnea w •th

HEIGHT 000 111 p…