Technical advisory group keeps NFPA 13 requirement for 4–6‑story single‑exit multiplexes after vote; fire‑alarm, escape and department criteria discussed

The Single‑Exit Multiplex Housing Technical Advisory Group voted Oct. 7 to retain a proposed requirement that four‑, five‑ and six‑story single‑exit apartment buildings be protected by a full NFPA 13 sprinkler system, and spent most of the meeting hashing out fire‑alarm, smoke‑detection, emergency‑escape and professional fire‑department conditions that would need to accompany any allowance for single‑exit construction.

The group debated whether to let jurisdictions allow NFPA 13R (a lighter “residential” sprinkler standard) on four‑story single‑exit buildings or require full NFPA 13 for any building of four stories or higher. A motion to strike the draft provision requiring full NFPA 13 for four‑ through six‑story buildings (mover: Spencer Gardner; second: Derek Quagle) failed at roll call, leaving the draft text intact. The group’s discussion also covered manual and automatic fire alarm requirements, occupant notification tied to sprinkler water flow and whether in‑unit smoke alarms should be permitted to interconnect to the building fire alarm control panel.

Why it matters: single‑exit designs remove the redundant egress path used in conventional apartment buildings. Fire officials and the advisory group said that if a jurisdiction permits single‑exit buildings, the buildings’ fire‑safety systems and the responding fire department must be able to compensate for the lost redundancy to protect life and property.

Fire alarms and detection

Fire‑safety presenters urged the group to close a gap that exists in baseline code language: where a sprinkler water flow is monitored by a fire‑alarm panel but the building lacks occupant notification devices, occupants are not alerted automatically when a sprinkler activates. Mike Messer (fire group presenter) said the draft closes that gap by requiring an alarm panel that monitors sprinkler water flow and initiates occupant notification—horns and strobes—when a sprinkler or a pull station activates. “We are asking for a manual fire alarm system,” Messer said, and for the panel to “initiate the occupant notification system throughout the building.”

The draft separates three functions, following the industry practice Messer described: a manual fire‑alarm system (pull station and panel), automatic smoke detection that signals the panel, and single‑ or multi‑station smoke alarms in dwelling units. Messer and industry reviewer Chris Russell emphasized the difference between smoke detectors (which signal the fire alarm control panel) and single‑station smoke alarms (the 120‑V or battery devices in many homes that both detect and sound locally). Russell said single‑station alarms or in‑unit smoke detectors “should be programmed so that they only activate the end unit on end‑unit detection,” while a sprinkler water‑flow or building detection should report as a general alarm that notifies the whole building.

The group discussed whether in‑unit smoke alarms should “shall” interconnect to the building alarm (making each unit alarm trigger general alarm) or whether that should be left to the authority having jurisdiction. Presenters recommended leaving the choice to the local jurisdiction because mandatory interconnection can increase false general alarms (for example, accidental cooking smoke) that erode public responsiveness and drain fire‑department resources.

Emergency escape and rescue openings (EEROs)

Members debated emergency‑escape and rescue openings (EEROs), larger windows intended to be accessible to ladders or exterior rescue. The group reached consensus to require EEROs for all sleeping rooms on all floors of buildings built under the single‑exit appendix rather than limit the openings to the first three stories as in some baseline code text. Several speakers said requiring EEROs on every sleeping room elevation simplifies design and avoids repeated plan‑review coordination to determine whether a specific side of a building will receive aerial access. Presenters stressed that whether an aerial ladder can actually reach a particular EERO depends on apparatus access, right‑of‑way and local topography.

Sprinklers: 13 vs. 13R

A central point of contention was whether four‑story single‑exit buildings should be allowed to use NFPA 13R (the residential/light‑hazard standard limited by height) or be required to use full NFPA 13. Fire‑group presenters argued that stepping beyond three stories and removing a second means of egress increases both evacuation time and the need for more robust automatic suppression; that was the basis for the draft requirement that four‑through‑six‑story single‑exit buildings use NFPA 13. Opponents of the change pointed to cost and to jurisdictions that already do not permit 13R. The motion to delete the draft requirement failed; the advisory group therefore left the draft text in place, preserving the proposed NFPA 13 requirement for four‑ to six‑story single‑exit buildings.

Professional fire‑department and infrastructure considerations

Fire presenters said the single‑exit proposal must be accompanied by local jurisdiction capabilities: an aerial device of sufficient reach, reliable staffing to operate that apparatus (minimum skeleton staffing described as three firefighters for ladder operations), adequate hydrant spacing and waterflow, and enforceable apparatus‑access roads. The presenters referenced International Fire Code appendices (B, C and D) as standard methods to determine flow, hydrant distribution and aerial apparatus access; they noted that appendices are enforceable only when adopted by a local jurisdiction. The group did not finalize precise, adoptable language for “professional fire‑department” qualifications and asked staff to produce revised text for a future meeting.

Next steps and timing

Committee staff will revise the draft appendix to reflect the meeting’s decisions and clarifications and circulate updated language before the next group meeting. Members flagged additional topics for future discussion on Nov. 18, including sprinkler details, trash and storage on floors, and whether the appendix should apply only to certain R‑2 building types or more broadly.

Votes at a glance

- Motion (Spencer Gardner, second Derek Quagle) to strike draft section that would require full NFPA 13 for four‑through‑six‑story single‑exit buildings: failed at roll call (mover and second recorded; roll‑call votes were taken; the motion did not carry). The advisory group therefore kept the existing draft language requiring full NFPA 13 for 4–6 story single‑exit buildings.

What was not decided

The group did not finalize a statewide, prescriptive definition of “professional fire department.” Presenters recommended drafting minimum, objective criteria (apparatus reach, minimum staffing, hydrant/waterflow requirements and periodic inspections) and asking staff to redraft the appendix’s opening language so that a jurisdiction must confirm it meets those criteria before using the single‑exit allowance.

Who spoke (selection)

- Mike Messer, Staff member (fire‑safety presenter) — explained alarm/panel and notification language and sprinkler rationale. - Chris Russell, Fire‑alarm industry reviewer — clarified device programming and interconnection behavior. - Bridal Jala, Building Official, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections — participated on code alignment and section placement. - Patrick Hanks, Building Industry Association of Washington — public/industry commenter about alarm interconnection impacts. - Spencer Gardner, Technical advisory group member — moved the motion to delete the NFPA 13 draft requirement. - Derek Quagle, Technical advisory group member — seconded Spencer Gardner’s motion.

The meeting record contains fuller roll‑call detail for the motion. The advisory group will circulate revised draft language before its next scheduled meeting.