Means of Earess 

If elevators are 

acceptable as 

areas of refuge, 

why can’t the 

general public 

also use them as 

a means of 

egress? 

resently, NFPA 101, the Life Safety 

Code@, doesn’t perniit the use of an eleva- 

- tor as a component in tlie means of egress. 

But elevators can provide access from an area of 

refuge to a public way. If elevators are acceptable as areas of refuge, why can’t the general 

public also use them as a means of egress? 

The NFPA Life Safety Technical Committee 

on Means of Egress has considered a series of 

public proposals that would permit the use of elevators as a component in the means of egress. 

The public proposals, as a complete package, require certain protection features, such as an elevator lobby, sprinklers, and protected power. 

Depending on the intended use, they may also 

require additional ele\7ator controls. 

In addition, the proposals address the need 

for more than one elel-ator senring the I >by. 

OReg. TAI, The Sational Rrc Protcctiun Assoc.. Inc. 

30 

-. . __ 

The capacity of the elevators serving a lobby is 

calculated based on an assumption that one elevator is out of service. 

.The action of the technical committee will be 

available for public review in the 1996 NFPA 

Fa11 Meeting Report on Proposals. We hope 

that the public will carefully consider the package of proposals-101-33 and 101-90-and submit public comments accordingly. The follo.r?-- 

ing list of considerations may help you review 

the changes and prepare public comments. 

Considerations 

Can the operation of an elevator be made 

reliable enough to permit the general public to 

use it as a means of egress during a fire or similar emergency? 

If elevators are considered acceptable for 

use as a component in a means of egress, 

should their purpose be limited to increased capacity only? 

May an elevator serve as the second means 

of egress where only two means of egress are 

required and provided? 

May an elevator serve to resolve means of 

egress arrangement issues such as travel distance, dead ends, common paths of travel, and 

remoteness? 

Since the Life Safety Code requires elevator 

lobbies to have access to at, least one exit, may 

the elevator serve as that means of egress? 

Does the exception in NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, which permits the 

omission of automatic sprinkler protection from 

certain elevator shafts, apply to elevators serving as a means of egress? 

Is any special marking of the means of 

egyess required where an elevator serves as a 

means of egress? 

If the elevator is considered an exit, are the 

requirements addressing the separation of exits 

applicable (see NFPA 101, 5-1.3.1)? 

What, if: y, requirements apply to eIevator 

doors where [he elevator serves as a means of 

egress? 

Should an elevator serving as a means of 

egress be included in the evaluation of the number and capacity of means of egress that are 

permitted to discharge through an area on the 

level of exit discharge? 

The NFPA Life Safety Technical Committee 

on Means of Egress has already discussed most 

of these issues but is seeking additional input 

from the public. Such a new concept will likely 

be of substantial interest to everyone involved 

in the design, use, and operation of buildings. 

The package of proposals consists of a small 

percentage of the public proposals for changes 

submitted to the Life So-fety Code. We encourage j70u to comment on the reported technical 

coninuttee action on any of these proposals. rk