Current through Register Vol. 63, No. 9, September 1, 2024
(1) "High Life Hazard" definition: For the
purpose of this rule, a "high life hazard" is any condition, or combination of
conditions, where a reasonable adequate level of exiting safety has not been
provided for the building occupants in the event of a fire or fire-related
emergency.
(2) All existing
buildings and structures, that constitute a high hazard to the occupants in the
event of a fire or fire-related emergency, other than institutional, group care
and single family dwelling occupancies, must provide a reasonable adequate
level of exiting safety through substantial compliance with the requirements
for new construction under the 2010 Edition of Oregon Structural Specialty
Code, or any of the following methods or combinations thereof which the State
Fire Marshal or deputy approved for the building or structure:
(a) A partial automatic sprinkler system as
specified in N.F.P.A. Standard No. 13, 2007, installed throughout the complete
exit system and inside every unprotected opening into the exit system. The
sprinkler system must be fitted with a swing check valve on the supply side and
a fire department connection, except that the fire department connection may be
omitted when waived by the authority having jurisdiction. A water flow
detection device must be installed that sounds an alarm on the premises or when
a building has a fire alarm system, the device is connected into the building
fire alarm system.
(b) An automatic
smoke detection system engineered specifically for life safety and early
warning, installed throughout the premises as specified in N.F.P.A. Standard
No. 72 2007 Edition. Heat detectors may be installed in place of smoke
detectors in mechanical service rooms, storage rooms, kitchens, custodial
closets, and areas not normally occupied or traversed by people. Fire detection
system(s) must be interconnected with the building evacuation fire alarm
system.
EXCEPTION: In Group E Occupancies, detectors shall
not be required in classrooms normally under the direct supervision of a staff
member unless required by other Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon
Administrative Rules.
(c)
An approved direct means of egress from each room opening to the outside at
ground level. Direct exterior exits must consist of doors, landings, and
necessary stairs or ramps complying with the 2010 Edition of the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code.
(d) Any
other plan submitted by the owner, lessee, agent, or occupant and certified by
a registered architect or engineer of the State of Oregon of reasonably
adequate expertise in fire and life safety, which will provide a reasonable
adequate level of exiting safety from the building or structure in the event of
a fire or fire-related emergency.
(3) In determining whether a building or
structure constitutes a high life hazard and in determining whether to approve
a method of improvement, the State Fire Marshal or deputy shall determine
whether the level of hazard is unreasonable by considering among other factors
the following:
(a) Type of
construction;
(b) Type of
use;
(c) Type and density of
occupancy;
(d) Type of contents and
equipment;
(e) Fire division walls
creating horizontal exits;
(f)
Compartmentation;
(g) Areas of
refuge;
(h) Ceiling
height;
(i) Corridor and stair
construction;
(j) Alarm,
communication and detection systems;
(k) Fire suppression systems;
(l) Exit design and fire escapes;
(m) Automatic smoke control; and
(n) Fuel loading.
(4) The State Fire Marshal or deputy shall
submit to the owner, lessee, agent or occupant written findings setting forth
the facts supporting the determination that a high life hazard exists. Except
as provided in ORS 479.170, the owner, lessee,
agent or occupant must have sixty (60) days after receipt of such findings to
propose the method of improvement to the State Fire Marshal or deputy, who
shall have sixty (60) days thereafter to approve or disapprove of the proposed
method of improvement. If the proposed method of improvement is disapproved by
the State Fire Marshal or deputy, a written statement of the reasons for
disapproval shall be provided to the owner, lessee, agent or occupant within
such sixty (60) day period.
(5)
Except for governmental subdivisions exempt under ORS
476.030(3), the
owner, lessee, agent or occupant aggrieved by the determination that the
building or structure constitutes a high life hazard or by the disapproval of
the proposed method of improvement (hereafter the order) and desires a hearing,
the owner, lessee, agent or occupant may appeal in writing to the State Fire
Marshal within (10) days from the service of the written findings of a high
life hazard or the statement of reasons for disapproval of the proposed method
of improvement. The appeal must set forth the specific grounds of the appeal
and no other grounds shall be considered thereafter. The appeal must be
accompanied by a fee of $40 payable to the State Fire Marshal, and the State
Fire Marshal may refer the appeal to the Regional Appeal Advisory Board
established for that region by notifying the chairman of that board and sending
a copy of the notice to the appellant. The Board shall fix a time for a hearing
and notify the appellant of the time and place thereof which shall be within
ten (10) days after such referral by the State Fire Marshal. If the State Fire
Marshal does not refer the matter to a Regional Appeal Advisory Board, the
State Fire Marshal shall fix a time and place, not less than five (5) and not
more than ten (10) days thereafter, when and where the appeal will be heard by
the State Fire Marshal. Within ten (10) days after receiving a recommendation
from the Regional Appeal Advisory Board, or if no referral was made to such
Board, within ten (10) days after the hearing before the State Fire Marshal,
the State Fire Marshal may affirm, modify, revoke or vacate the order. If the
State Fire Marshal affirms the order, the State Fire Marshal shall fix the time
within which the owner, lessee, agent or occupant must comply with the
requirements of this rule. If the State Fire Marshal vacates or revokes the
order, or modifies it in any particular manner other than extending time for
compliance, the fee paid with the appeal shall be refunded. Otherwise, it shall
be credited to appropriate state funds, and the State Fire Marshal shall so
notify the State Treasurer.
(6) If
the appellant under section (5) of this rule is aggrieved by the final order of
the State Fire Marshal, the appellant may, within ten (10) days thereafter,
appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the building or structures
is situated, in the manner provided in ORS
479.180(2).
(7) In governmental subdivisions exempt under
ORS 476.030(3), the
owner, lessee, agent or occupant, aggrieved by the determination that the
building or structure constitutes a high life hazard or by the disapproval of
the proposed method of improvement, and desires a hearing, the owner, lessee,
agent or occupant may appeal in writing to the Board of Appeals as provided by
the ordinance and rules of the governmental subdivision.
(8) Commentary:
(a) Upgrading deficient exit facilities
should always be of primary concern in any occupancy, but it must be recognized
that there are degrees of deficiency from a very slight or negligible hazard to
what is defined as a high life hazard under this rule. Fire officials should
not equate the level of exiting safety required for new construction under the
current building code with the reasonably adequate level of exiting safety
required by this rule. The intent of this rule is to allow the continued use of
existing buildings which provide a level of exit safety that substantially
comply with the requirements for new construction under the current building
code or use one of the alternatives to come within the range of reasonable
safety that the public should be provided. Structural Changes shall not be
required in buildings built, occupied and maintained in conformity with state
building code regulations applicable at the time of construction, ORS
476.030(c).
NOTE: The state building code was first adopted in
1974.
(b) Rather than
looking strictly to the current standard for new construction under the
building code, fire officials must use their own judgment on a case-by-case
basis as to reasonableness of the degree of hazard and adequacy of exit safety
after evaluating all of the relevant factors stated in the rule and any other
factors unique to the building or structure (historical structures ORS
476.035). The written findings
required by this rule shall list and analyze the relevant factors so that if
the determination of the fire official is appealed, a written record of the
reasons for the determination will be available for review.
(c) While fire and life safety must be given
primary consideration, the determination of whether the existing level of
hazard is unreasonable requires the fire official to consider the cost of the
possible improvements in relation to the benefits provided by increased exiting
safety from such improvements. The cost benefit analysis shall be considered in
deciding which method of improvement to approve once the determination of high
life hazard has been made.
(d) The
rule has been amended to provide greater flexibility in the method of
improvement of deficient buildings. The fire official must not approve any
proposed plan of improvement unless it will provide the reasonably adequate
level of exiting safety required. While the fire official is not expected to
plan the method of improvement for the building owner, much time will be saved
if the fire official will actively assist the building owner or the owner's
engineer in finding the least expensive method of improvement providing the
reasonably adequate level of exiting safety.
(e) Substantial compliance with the
requirements for new construction under the current building code will often be
impossible or so expensive as to be impractical in existing buildings. The
approval for one or more of the remaining three alternatives shall always be
given on a case-by-case basis after a consideration of all of the same factors
considered in determining that the building constitutes a high life hazard and
after balancing the costs against the benefits provided by the different
methods. For example, in a hotel or apartment building the existence of a
passive occupancy where cooking, portable space heaters, smoking in bed and
other such activities create a significantly higher risk of undetected and/or
uncontrolled fire incidents, the fire official might justifiably refuse to
approve any plan that does not include significant use of automatic sprinklers.
In contrast, where an active occupancy is involved such as in an office
building, approval may be given for a plan of improvement consisting of
horizontal exits and areas of refuge.
(f) In approving a plan of improvement, the
fire official shall require a commitment to a date of completion for the
improvements, but shall allow a sufficient period for completion.
(g) Once the improvement is completed, unless
there is a significant change in one or more of the factors considered in the
determination of a high life hazard, no further improvements shall be required
under this rule.
Publications: Publications referenced are available from the
agency.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 476
Stats. Implemented: ORS
476.030(C)
