Building Codes Division 1535 Edgewater Street NW P.O. Box 14470 Salem, OR 97309-0404 503-378-4133 Fax: 503-378-2322 oregon.gov/bcd Kate Brown, Governor Building Codes Structures Board Regular meeting agenda Wednesday, August 2, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Conference Room A Board meetings are broadcast live via the Internet at http://www.oregon.gov/bcd Click on “View live meetings” I. Board business A. Call to order B. Roll call C. Approval of agenda and order of business D. Approval of the May 3, 2017, board meeting draft minutes E. Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting: November 1, 2017 II. Public comment This time is available for individuals wanting to address the board on non-agenda items only. The board will not take action on non-agenda items raised under public comment at this meeting. Testimony on agenda items will be heard when the item is called. (See "Issues to remember when addressing the board" at the end of this agenda.) III. Reports Program update IV. Communications - None V. Appeals - None VI. Unfinished business Review and make a recommendations to the Administrator on the proposed code amendments to provisions for Aircraft-Related Occupancies Introduction memo Aron Faegre’s memo Section 412.4.6 - Foam Section 412.4.1 - Exterior Wall Section 412.4.3 - Floor Surface Section 412.4.4 - Heating Equipment Division memo
Transcript
Building Codes Division 1535 Edgewater Street NW
P.O. Box 14470 Salem, OR 97309-0404
503-378-4133 Fax: 503-378-2322
oregon.gov/bcd
Kate Brown, Governor
Building Codes Structures Board
Regular meeting agenda
Wednesday, August 2, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
Conference Room A
Board meetings are broadcast live via the Internet at
http://www.oregon.gov/bcd
Click on “View live meetings”
I. Board business A. Call to order
B. Roll call
C. Approval of agenda and order of business
D. Approval of the May 3, 2017, board meeting draft minutes
E. Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting: November 1, 2017
II. Public comment This time is available for individuals wanting to address the board on non-agenda items only. The board will not
take action on non-agenda items raised under public comment at this meeting. Testimony on agenda items will be
heard when the item is called. (See "Issues to remember when addressing the board" at the end of this agenda.)
III. Reports Program update
IV. Communications - None
V. Appeals - None
VI. Unfinished business Review and make a recommendations to the Administrator on the proposed code amendments
Members present: Dan Carlson, building official Gary Heikkinen, Owner/manager of commercial office building Bill Kisselburgh, building trade representative Gregory Nelson, energy supplier Eric Sandoval, architect William Schmidt, disabilities commission representative Members absent: Stephen Forster, fire protection agency representative Rene Gonzalez, three-plus stories general contractor Vacancy - Heavy industry construction contractor Staff present: Mark Long, administrator, Building Codes Division Brett Salmon, manager, Policy and Technical Services Richard Rogers, chief building official, Policy and Technical
Services Rex Turner, structural program chief, Policy and Technical
Services Mark Heizer, P.E., policy analyst, Policy and Technical Services Warren Jackson, building code specialist, Policy and Technical
Services Alana Cox, senior policy advisor, Policy and Technical Services Todd Smith, policy analyst, Policy and Technical Services
Debi Barnes-Woods, boards administrator, Policy and Technical Services
Guests Present: Sharon Nobbe, AMA Kail Zuschlag, Building Trades Gregg Mecham, Mecham Air Cranfar Ted Millar, Southend Corp. Airpark Jimmy Seversoy, Centrex Construction Tom Severson, Centrex Construction Kristine Evertz, Summit Strategies Michael Trabue, assistant chief deputy, State Fire Marshal Donald Krause, Viking Sprinkler Company Aron Faegre, AIA, PE, code proponent Al Gerard, Springfield Fire Department Miguel Mavtista, Hillsboro Fire Mark Prince, Hillsboro Fire
I. Board business A. Call to order
Rex Turner, structural program chief, called the Building Codes Structures Board
meeting of May 3, 2017, to order at 9:31 a.m. The meeting was held at Building
Codes Division in Conference Room A, 1535 Edgewater Street NW, Salem,
Oregon.
Agenda
Item
I.D.
Page 2 of 5
B. Roll call Stephen Forster and Rene Gonzalez were absent excused.
This board has one vacancy for the following position: A contractor specializing
in construction for heavy industry.
C. Approval of the meeting agenda and order of business The agenda was amended by the addition of welcoming another new member to the board. Agenda Item I.H. The amended agenda and order of business was approved by unanimous consent.
D. Approval of the February 1, 2017, draft board meeting minutes
The minutes of February 1, 2017, were ruled final by unanimous consent.
E. Date of the next regularly scheduled meeting: August 2, 2017.
II. Public comment - None
III. Reports Program update:
Fire Code project – Rex Turner, structural program chief, Policy and Technical Services, distributed and then briefly discussed the construction provisions contained in 2014 Oregon Fire Code document that the division is working on.
Code discussion - Chief Turner reminded the board that twenty-two
proposed code changes were received and may be viewed anytime on the committee web page.
Chief Turner said that at the last board meeting, some of the members
went on record supporting the use of the 2018 International Building Code as the base model code during the code review process. He asked the board if there were any objections. There were no objections.
Richard Rogers, chief building official, Building Codes Division, said the temporary rule filed November 2016 for Emergency Responder Radio Coverage expired May 1, 2017. Mr. Rogers said the division refiled the temporary rule with clarifying language to ensure all questions on authority were addressed, and to keep the requirements for safety.
hazardous conditions, which already exists in the Fire Code and Chapter 4 of the
structural code, but they are not the same.
Mark Prince, Hillsboro Fire, said with a fuel pooling fire, foam is the first line of
defense. It is the only thing that can be used to keep the vapors down and the fire
from re-igniting
Ted Millar, Southend Corp. Airpark, was in support of the proposal. Mr. Millar
said all of the hangers on his Airpark are sprinkled and most have fire curtain
walls. Portable foam carts are located at each corner of hangers and the Aloha
Fire Department just purchased a foam truck that is based at the center of the
Airpark. All the aircraft mechanics are being trained as early responders.
Jimmy Seversoy, Centrex Construction, said that if the code proposals become a
requirement of foam, it may stop or slow down development of aviation in
Oregon.
Aron Faegre, AIA, PE, said that modern aircraft are filled with sensitive
electronic equipment, and foam is not an appropriate use inside a modern hanger.
Dan Carlson would have liked to see a recommendation from the Office of State
Fire Marshal or the Fire Service on the code proposals. He added that a staff
analysis would have been appropriate for the board to review and make an
informed decision on the possibility of amending the state code. Mr. Carlson
would like to see more vetting done on this code proposal.
Eric Sandoval suggested a further evaluation on Chapter 409, and aligning it with
NFPA 13 of the Fire Code before receiving a possible approval from the board.
Motion by Eric Sandoval to disapprove the proposed code proposal because of
the misalignment with NFPA 13 in the Fire Code and NFPA 409 and request that
the proponent re-propose at a later date with modifications.
Gary Heikkinen agreed with the motion and said he would like to see the proposal
come back with modifications as soon as the next scheduled board meeting.
Chief Turner said another option would be to table the item/items until the next
scheduled board meeting to give the proponent the opportunity to meet with the
fire industry and other interested individuals to modify the proposals as needed.
Aron Faegre, AIA, PE, code proponent, agreed to meet with appropriate industry,
and to address all four of the code proposals to come up with practical solutions.
It was suggested that the Fire Service, Office of State Fire Marshal, and the
proponent facilitate a workgroup to resolve issues in the proposals and bring
Page 5 of 5
modified code proposals back to the board at its next scheduled meeting, August
2, 2017.
Eric Sandoval withdrew his motion to disapprove to allow the proponent to meet
with Fire Service and the State Fire Marshal to resolve the issues within the four
code proposals and to bring the modified proposals back to the board at its next
scheduled meeting.
Aron Faegre, AIA, PE, code proponent, agreed to having the Fire Service
facilitate a meeting to resolve issues within all four of the code proposals and
bring back the modified versions to the next board meeting.
All members agreed to table the four code proposals to be heard at the next
scheduled board meeting August 2, 2017.
VIII. Announcements - None
IX. Adjournment
Structural Program Chief Turner adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by Debi Barnes-Woods, boards administrator/coordinator.
State of Oregon Board memo
Building Codes Division August 2, 2017
To: Building Codes Structures Board
From: Richard S. Rogers
Chief Building Official
Subject: Fire and Life Safety Provisions for Aircraft-Related Occupancies,
Section 412.4.6
2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)
Action requested:
Board consideration of a code change to the 2014 OSSC addressing Aircraft Hangar Fire and
Life Safety and recommendation for permanent rule making.
Background:
At its May 3, 2017, board meeting, the Building Codes Structures Board recommended that code
change proposals of the Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. be tabled to allow time for industry and
the fire service to discuss. The board asked the group to develop a consensus based proposal for
board consideration at the August 2, 2017, meeting.
Revised code change proposals/options have been submitted by Oregon Aviation Industries and
are attached for board consideration.
If the board fails to approve a version of Oregon Aviation Industries’ proposals, the division
requests board consideration of another attached proposal utilizing foam based systems with
manual activation. The division believes a manually activated foam based suppression system (as
allowed by NFPA 409) can safely allow for larger hangars while protecting against accidental
discharge.
The division supports a code path to mitigate the hazards associated with larger hangars while
limiting the exposure of aircraft to damaging chemicals. If the board does not make a
recommendation to move any of the proposals to permanent rulemaking, it may be necessary for
the division to explore other options to address the issue.
Agenda
Item
VI. Introduction
memo
Board memo August 2, 2017
To: Building Codes Structures Board From: Aron Faegre, Founding President Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Subject: Proposed Code Amendment – Provisions for Aircraft-Related Occupancies, 412.4.6 Foam 412.4.1 Exterior Wall 412.4.3 Floor Surface 412.4.4 Heating Equipment 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) Action requested: Board consideration of code change to the 2014 OSSC. Background: See attached memo which provides an update to the previous submitted information at the May 3, 2017 board meeting. That meeting was put on hold for time to work with the State Fire Marshal, which unfortunately did not result in any agreement by them with how to go forward with the amendment. My request for using fire walls to allow an exception to the yard requirement of the existing exception was not considered by them, as they told me they thought that was solely a Building Codes issue. As to the specific code amendment requests: Foam: The federal government and military have finally become aware that the foam is a hazardous material that will have to be replaced to avoid contamination of human water sources and wildlife habitat. No safe replacement material has yet been established. Our amendments provide reasonable alternatives to the use of foam. Exterior Wall: This section of the code has been acknowledged by ICC as an old code section, without known reason or purpose, needing change.
Aron Faegre’s
memo
Floor Surface: We have provided clarification as to how it slopes in from hangar perimeter to contain any spill – while not sending it to sanitary or to storm waters as that would pollute those systems. Heating Equipment: We have provided an alternative that allows all types of listed equipment that borrows language from NFPA. Code Change (see attached):
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code Amendment Requests 7/17/2017
Page 1
Aviation-related Proposed Code Amendments for the OSSC Additional Information submitted 7-17-2017 The National Academies of Science has just issued a major new study about AFFF foam that elevates the issue to one of national environmental importance. Their report, issued a couple of months ago is titled Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing PFASs at Airports (I have asked that a copy be placed in the record for this amendment request so that all of the Committee members can review it - it is available as a free download at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24800/use-and-potential-impacts-of-afff-containing-pfass-at-airports ). The report describes the foam as being a hazardous material that is now a major pollution problem for both humans and wildlife. The foam is of such concern that the report says that if hangar foam is used, it should never be allowed to get out of the hangar. The historic record shows that foam almost always goes out of the hangar when it goes off by accidental triggering or testing. In addition, the report says foam piping should never be placed underground out of fear that the foam could accidentally get into groundwater. The report says that disposal of the foam should be at a hazardous waste site. Modern hangar foam technologies have no way of meeting these requirements, since they don’t provide systems for collecting the foam, nor methods for its disposal. They simply call for floor drains going to sanitary or storm systems. One of the consultants of the report is Oregon State University professor Jennifer Field who spends much of her time on the environmental problems with foam under DoD grants. We called and talked to her about her work and she describes the existing foam systems in hangars as being “locked and loaded” -- disasters ready to shoot off and cause horrendous pollution of the environment. Fields told us that until 2013 it was not known that the foam degraded into PFOS and PFOA poisons for which there is no known biodegradation – now we know it just stays in the biota and is passed from food chain to food chain. She reports that under EPA rules, for the foam to be safe, it must be diluted to the level of “ten to the ninth power” – i.e. a factor of a billion. The fire protection manufacturing industry is attempting to provide a substitute foam with “shorter carbon chains” in its chemistry, but Field’s belief is that these are no better. She says that in Norway and Australia, where totally new foams have been invented with completely different chemistry, she is hopeful that a safe firefighting foam will emerge. She recently spent several weeks in Norway with some involvement with their government program in switching to new foams. The Norwegian and Australian foams are not available in nor approved for use in the U.S. After talking to Fields we called DEQ staff Nina Diconcini to find out if DEQ is aware of any foam pollution problems. I learned that the Air National Guard is involved in a nationwide study of their hangars with respect to hangar foam contamination of the environment. At PDX the ANG has performed an initial investigation of foam use areas, and is currently creating a general work plan. Site investigation work of soil and groundwater testing is expected to occur in 2018.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code Amendment Requests 7/17/2017
Page 2
I called the Portland Water Bureau testing division, and learned that there have been some months where the PFOS type chemicals have shown up in their drinking water tests, and it is of concern. It is an ongoing issue they are tracking. Since our May meeting with the OSSC code amendment review committee, we have spent considerable time with the Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office and their user group. This included a presentation of the foam issue and environmental issues to about 25 fire staff at the OSFM office, followed by a second presentation to about 25 fire staff at a user group meeting. Finally, we attended and participated with the user group’s meeting about foam presented at the Portland Fire Bureau’s training center where there were approximately 35 fire staff in attendance, as well as NFPA staff from Washington, D.C. In each meeting with the fire staff and NFPA staff we noted that the foam systems often go off accidentally, and asked if anyone in the room had ever heard of an example of an actual modern hangar having a pool fire and it being extinguished by foam. No one has yet been able to even find one example. Despite our work with and discussions with the fire staff and user group, our understanding from Deputy Fire Marshal David Mills is that the OSFM and their user group do not find the information we have provided as important enough to consider changing the Fire Code relative to the use of foam in hangars. It was mentioned that they believe these issues should be determined by NFPA as the authority, and not revised by local or state determination. In providing public safety through the establishment of building code mandated requirements, shouldn’t we take the position:
“first do no harm?”
Our request is at heart, a request to not be forced to use hazardous materials that have great risk of contaminating our state’s wildlife habitats and our human drinking water supplies. In addition, there is the troubling issue that there is no statistical record that modern fire sprinklered hangars have pool fires, which is what the foam is designed to put out. The current OSSC code requires the use of foam in hangars over a certain size. We are offering amendments that provide reasonable alternates to the use of foam in these larger aircraft hangars. Further to this issue we are attaching two recent 2017 news reports of existing hangar foam causing major pollution problems from accidental activations (not fires): a) PFOA in spilt foam killing marine life in waterway near Brisbane Airport, and b) Military Airstrips Are Poisoning People’s Wells. The point is, these are not hypothetical problems, they are current problems that need to be addressed as a public health issue. The prior materials provided to the Committee contain documentation that the accidental foamings have even killed workers, who were suffocated by the accidental foam. With this narrative we are also offering alternate language options for each of the aircraft hangar proposed code changes, to give the State Building Codes Division some choices in resolution. We are of course open to discussion of other alternatives, if the Division sees other options.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code Amendment Requests 7/17/2017
Page 3
In summary, the alternatives attached to this narrative are: 1. 412.4.6: For the foam amendment, we offer up an alternative that uses only fire
walls to accomplish larger area hangars without triggering the requirement of foam.
2. 412.4.1: For the 30 feet wall distance, we offer an alternative with clarification that the distance should be to the opposite side of a public way (which was the original intended language when put into the IBC), and that also includes an exception for construction Type I or II hangars.
3. 412.4.3: For the flat floor amendment, we revise language in paragraph 2.2 to attempt to make that section clearer.
4. 412.4.4: For the heating equipment, we offer up language used in NFPA 409 that allows any listed equipment in a suspended position.
Respectfully submitted,
by Aron Faegre Attachments: original and revised alternative language for each code section; two recent newspaper articles concerning accidental foamings from hangars.
Recommendations to the Administrator on proposed code amendments to provisions for aircraft-related occupancies
Options:
Approve amendments to be sent to public hearing with the findings that the added cost, if any, is necessary to the health and safety of the occupants or the public or necessary to conserve scarce resources.
Recommend modifications, and send to public hearing with the findings that the added cost, if any, is necessary to the health and safety of the occupants or the public or necessary to conserve scarce resources.
Disapprove amendments, stating reason for disapproval.
Aron Faegre’s Recommendations
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.6 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
412.4.6 Fire Suppression Exception 2 Options:
412.4.6 Fire Suppression [Original Revised Language]
412.4.6 Fire suppression. Aircraft hangars shall be provided with a fire suppression system designed in accordance with NFPA 409, based upon the classification for the hangar given in Table 412.4.6.
Exceptions:
1. Where a fixed base operator has separate repair facilities on site, Group II hangars operated by a fixedbase operator used for storage of transient aircraft only shall have a fire suppression system, but the system is exempt from foam requirements.
2. Aircraft hangars that have an aircraft access door height less than 28 feet (8534 mm), and do not haveprovisions for housing aircraft with a tail height over 28 feet (8534 mm), are exempt from foam requirements, provided the building complies with all of the following criteria:
2.1. The building is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet (18 288 mm) in width.
2.12. The building is provided with an automatic sprinkler system throughout with an Extra Hazard Group I NFPA 13 fire sprinkler (typically a design density of 0.25 gallons per minute (0.016 L/s)).
2.3. The total fuel capacity of all aircraft located within a single fire area does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L).
2.4. No single fire area exceeds 65,000 square feet (3716 m2).
2.5. The gross building area does not exceed 75,000 square feet (4288 m2).
2.2. Hangar construction must be Type I or II.
2.3. No hazardous operations are permitted within the hangar, where those are defined as:
2.3.1. Doping.
2.3.2. Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering.
2.3.3. Fuel transfer.
2.3.4. Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled.
2.3.5. Spray finishing operations.
2.4. Provide 33 gallon foam cart in each of the four corners of the hangar.
412.4.6 Fire Suppression [Alternative Revised Language]
Exceptions:
2. Aircraft hangars that have an aircraft access door height less than 28 feet (8534 mm), and do not haveprovisions for housing aircraft with a tail height over 28 feet (8534 mm), are exempt from foam requirements, provided the building complies with all of the following criteria:
2.1. The building is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet (18 288 mm) in width, unless separated from an adjacent building by 1 hour fire walls and sprinkler water curtains on both adjacent building walls that are separated less than 60 feet.
2.2. The building is provided with an automatic sprinkler system throughout with an Extra Hazard Group I NFPA 13 fire sprinkler (typically a design density of 0.25 gallons per minute (0.016 L/s)).
2.3. The total fuel in capacity of all aircraft located within a single fire area does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L). A sign shall be prominently placed in the hangar stating this requirement.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.6 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
2.4. No single fire area exceeds 65,000 square feet (3716 m2).
2.5. The gross building area does not exceed 75,000 square feet (4288 m2).
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.1 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
412.4.1 Exterior walls. Exterior walls located less than 30 feet (9144 mm) from lot lines or a public way shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than 2 hours.
[Note: Proposal is to either delete the section or add the following exception:]
412.4.1 Exterior walls. Exterior walls located less than 30 feet (9144 mm) from lot lines or the opposite side of a public way shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than 2 hours.
Exception: Construction Type I or II hangars.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.3 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
412.4.3 Floor surface Exception Options:
412.4.3 Floor surface [Original Revised Language]
412.4.3 Floor surface. Floors shall be graded and drained to prevent water or fuel from remaining on the floor. Floor drains shall discharge through an oil separator to the sewer or to an outside vented sump.
Exceptions:
1. Aircraft hangars with individual lease spaces not exceeding 2,000 square feet (186 m2) each in which servicing, repairing or washing is not conducted and fuel is not dispensed shall have floors that are graded toward the door, but shall not require a separator
2: Floors may be flat with no drain under the following conditions:
2.1. Construction is Type I or II and hangar is fire sprinklered.
2.2. Interior area of hangar floor is depressed 1/2 inch from perimeter to keep any fuel spill away from perimeter walls.
2.3. Floors will be cleaned by mechanical floor cleaning equipment with all products disposed of as hazardous material.
2.4. No hazardous operations will be allowed in the hangar where those are defined as:
2.4.1 Doping.
2.4.2 Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering.
2.4.3 Fuel transfer.
2.4.4 Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled.
2.4.5 Spray finishing operations.
412.4.3 Floor surface [Optional Revised Language]
412.4.3 Floor surface. Floors shall be graded and drained to prevent water or fuel from remaining on the floor. Floor drains shall discharge through an oil separator to the sewer or to an outside vented sump.
Exceptions:
1. Aircraft hangars with individual lease spaces not exceeding 2,000 square feet (186 m2) each in which servicing, repairing or washing is not conducted and fuel is not dispensed shall have floors that are graded toward the door, but shall not require a separator
2: Floors may be flat with no drain under the following conditions:
2.1. Construction is Type I or II and hangar is fire sprinklered.
2.2. Interior area of hangar floor is flat and depressed 1/2 inch deep from perimeter floor near walls, to contain any potential spill away from perimeter walls.
2.3. Floors will be cleaned by mechanical floor cleaning equipment with all products disposed of as hazardous material.
2.4. No hazardous operations will be allowed in the hangar where those are defined as:
2.4.1 Doping.
2.4.2 Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.3 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
2.4.3 Fuel transfer.
2.4.4 Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled.
2.4.5 Spray finishing operations.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.4 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
412.4.4 Heating equipment. Heating equipment shall be placed in another room separated by 2-hour fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. Entrance shall be from the outside or by means of a vestibule providing a two-doorway separation.
Exceptions:
1. Unit heaters and vented infrared radiant heating equipment suspended not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the upper surface of wings or engine enclosures of the highest aircraft that are permitted to be housed in the hangar need not be located in a separate room provided they are mounted not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) above the floor in shops, offices and other sections of the hangar communicating with storage or service areas.
2. Entrance to the separated room shall be permitted by a single interior door provided the sources of ignition in the appliances are not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor.
3. Except as complying with the following:
3.1 Type I or II fire sprinklered hangars.
3.2 No hazardous operations will be allowed in the hangar where those are defined as:
3.2.1 Doping.
3.2.2 Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering.
3.2.3 Fuel transfer.
3.2.4 Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled.
1. Unit Listed electric, gas, or oil heaters and vented infrared radiant heating equipment suspended not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the upper surface of wings or engine enclosures of the highest aircraft that are permitted to be housed in the hangar need not be located in a separate room provided they are mounted not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) above the floor in shops, offices and other sections of the hangar communicating with storage or service areas.
Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. Building Code 412.4.4 Amendment Request 7/17/2017
412.4.4 Heating equipment. Heating equipment shall be placed in another room separated by 2-hour fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. Entrance shall be from the outside or by means of a vestibule providing a two-doorway separation.
Exceptions:
1. Unit heaters and vented infrared radiant heating equipment suspended not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the upper surface of wings or engine enclosures of the highest aircraft that are permitted to be housed in the hangar need not be located in a separate room provided they are mounted not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) above the floor in shops, offices and other sections of the hangar communicating with storage or service areas.
2. Entrance to the separated room shall be permitted by a single interior door provided the sources of ignition in the appliances are not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above the floor.
3. Except as complying with the following:
3.1 Type I or II fire sprinklered hangars.
3.2 No hazardous operations will be allowed in the hangar where those are defined as:
3.2.1 Doping.
3.2.2 Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering.
3.2.3 Fuel transfer.
3.2.4 Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled.
1. Unit Listed electric, gas, or oil heaters and vented infrared radiant heating equipment suspended not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the upper surface of wings or engine enclosures of the highest aircraft that are permitted to be housed in the hangar need not be located in a separate room provided they are mounted not less than 8 feet (2438 mm) above the floor in shops, offices and other sections of the hangar communicating with storage or service areas.
Page 1 of 2
State of Oregon Board memo
Building Codes Division August 2, 2017
To: Building Codes Structures Board
From: Richard S. Rogers
Chief Building Official
Subject: Alternate Code Amendment – Provisions for Aircraft-Related Occupancies,
Manual Activation of Foam Suppression Systems
Section 412.4.6
2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC)
Action requested:
Pending outcome of board action on Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. proposal; Board
consideration of code change to the 2014 OSSC and recommendation for public hearing.
Code Change Summary (see attached text):
NFPA 409 currently allows for a manual activation of foam suppression systems where approved
by the building official. It is appropriate for the state building code to capture parameters
appropriate for the use of such systems throughout the state. Specifically, the proposal stipulates
the following:
Location of actuator:
o Shall be readily accessible and located on the exterior of the hangar
o Shall be mounted in an unobstructed location within 10 feet horizontally of an
exit door, where exit discharge is provided
o Shall be mounted no more than 54 inches above grade
Actuation shall be by means of a double-action station. A tamperproof cover will satisfy
this requirement. Both actions shall be accomplished from the exterior.
Color: Actuating buttons, switches or plungers shall be a primary color, red, yellow or
blue (not green) and have a contrasting background color.
Manual foam discharge stations must be distinctively different in shape and color from
the fire alarm stations and will have distinctive signage at each device stating "Start
Division
memo
Page 2 of 2
FOAM System" in red lettering not less than 76 millimeters (3 inches) high on a lime
yellow background.1
Alarms: Activation of the foam suppression system shall initiate both a visible and
audible alarm throughout the hangar.
Options:
Approve amendments to be sent to public hearing with the findings that the added cost, if
any, is necessary to the health and safety of the occupants or the public or necessary to
conserve scarce resources.
Recommend modifications, and send to public hearing with the findings that the added
cost, if any, is necessary to the health and safety of the occupants or the public or
necessary to conserve scarce resources.
Disapprove amendments, stating reason for disapproval.
1 Department of the Air Force, “Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 98-7: Fire Protection Engineering Criteria – New Aircraft
