Public Input No. 22-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Global Input ] Statement of ...

7/10/13 TerraView™

submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ViewerPage.jsp 1/139

Public Input No. 22-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Global Input ]

Type your content here ...

Replace “amount” with “quantity” in the following locations: 4.1.1.1; 5.1.2.3; 5.5.1; 5.5.2; 7.1.3.3; A.5.1.1in three places; A.5.5.2; A.5.5.3; A.6.1.3(1) and in following paragraph; A.7.5.(16)(b); B.1.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The standard is inconsistent in the use of the terms “amount” and “quantity” in relation to clean agent quantity. The word “quantity” is used in many locations in the table of contents, definitions, etc. The word “amount” makes its first appearance in 4.1.1.1. As a matter of consistency it is recommended that the word “amount” (“amounts”) be replaced with “quantity” (“quantities”) in the locations cited.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name:Joseph Senecal

Organization: UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.

Submittal Date: Mon Oct 01 15:14:16 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: FR-24-NFPA 2001-2013

Statement: The standard is inconsistent in the use of the terms “amount” and “quantity” in relation to clean agent quantity.The word “quantity” is used in many locations in the table of contents, definitions, etc. The word “amount”makes its first appearance in 4.1.1.1. As a matter of consistency it is recommended that the word “amount”(“amounts”) be replaced with “quantity” (“quantities”) in the locations cited.

Copyright Assignment

I, Joseph Senecal, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this

Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no

rights, including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is

used. I hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment.

By checking this box I aff irm that I am Joseph Senecal, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and

conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my

submission of this form, have the same legal force and effect as a handw ritten signature

Print Reload Page Close Show Cart

/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349118856509.xml





Delete the word “thoroughly” in the following locations: 7.1.1; 7.4; 7.6.1 in two places; 8.11


The word “thoroughly” is not quantifiable and has no effect. It should be deleted in the five places where it occurs in the main body of the standard.





Committee Statement


Statement: The word “thoroughly” is not quantifiable and has no effect. It should be deleted in the five places where it occursin the main body of the standard.













I humbly suggest the recommendation is that for systems clean extinguishing agents are stored incontainers having a weight greater than one or two people, or as authorized by the authority havingjurisdiction in the jurisdiction, which may be lifted for weighing cylinder which is held every 6 months, forexample in case of batteries of cylinders of 600 lbs or more, who are supported on a scale thatcontinuously checks the weight of the cylinders, to avoid the effort and risk in the boost when weighingthe cylinders for technical staff responsible for the task. We believe that if a study of engineering and installing a system as detailed in Figure 1, raising thelevels of security. Or that there is a change in marketing policy, and for these cylinders, does not increase the value, withthe provision of liquid level indicators.

****Insert Figure #1 Here******

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved

Open 2001_L2_Fig_1_R.docx Figure #1


The study and analysis of this proposal is the lack of detailed compliance with the applicable NFPA routines for monitoring and weighing of cylinders to control its state from analysis of weighing contrasting references need gas for the work detailed in the cylinders. There is also a lack of resources or space to maneuver in the manifolds of the systems, putting at risk the health of the technicians responsible for monitoring. The suggested solution is that measurement scales be installed in-situ, or weight control system batteries, or from a given quantity of 200 pounds or its equivalent in kilos of provision of medium, indicators liquid level are not taken to the price of the systems, but is subsidized. So it would raise security levels, and facing the possible loss of pressurizing agent, such as nitrogen, the control would be immediate.


Submitter Full Name:SEBASTIAN JIMENEZ

Organization: FIRE CONSULTING ARGENTINA

Submittal Date: Tue Dec 11 13:47:00 EST 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: The option for continuous weighing is one of several options available.


I, SEBASTIAN JIMENEZ, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in

this Public Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no


used. Except to the extent that I may lack authority to make an assignment of content identif ied above, I hereby w arrant that I am the author of

this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment.

By checking this box I aff irm that I am SEBASTIAN JIMENEZ, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms

and conditions contained therein. I understand and intend that, by checking this box, I am creating an electronic signature that w ill, upon my


Origin (from sources other than the submitter)

Graphics and draw ings reference Kidde Fenw all Systems, Chemetron System, Fike Clean agent system.


http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355251620915.xml:=root&imageId=2001_L2_Fig_1_R.G1355251702243.docx&altImageId=G1355251702243

F2014_NFPA 2001_Log #2_Figure 1_R




Manufacturers of Fire Equipment Shall make available to State Fire Marshal Offices Product Installationand Service Manuals and provide timely Product Safety Bulletins for Dissemination to all Authorized andLicensed Fire Equipment Service Companies for all Fire Equipment Products Manufactured, Listed andSold for Profit in those States. Also, Product Service Training and/or Listed Installation and servicemanuals Shall be offered and made available for a reasonable fee to any State Authorized and LicensedFire Equipment Service Company.


This would greatly improve the level of professionalism, Training and Quality of Service Inspections conducted by Authorized, Licensed and Permitted Fire Equipment service Personnel. Currently, there are many oversights or mistakes routinely being made and identification of Service Companies or their Employees performing at substandard levels is difficult to distinguish. By adding this requirement to all Standards would ensure the availability of proper training and flow of information. Non-Compliant issues could be readily identified. The purpose for these Standards is to ensure Minimum Requirements. This amendment would accomplish the best of what is achievable when it comes to protecting overall Public Safety and Property. It is time to reduce the politics and truly put Public Safety where it belongs - First. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.


Submitter Full Name:DON DAWKINS

Organization: DAWCO FIRE SAFETY INC


Committee Statement


Statement: Manufacturer's manuals and safety bulletins should be made available to all AHJ's for the purpose of enforcingNFPA 2001 and verifying that system installations are within the limitations of the listing.


I, DON DAWKINS, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am DON DAWKINS, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and







See uploaded document for this recommendation.



Open 2001_PI66_L1_Recommendation.docx Recommendation


This public input 2001-26 and comment 2001-17 were returned to Committee at the A2011 Association Technical Meeting and/or subsequent Standards Council Meeting. In accordance wtih 4.7.1(d) and 4.7.2(c) of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, it is now being processed as a public input for this revision cycle.


Submitter Full Name:TC GFE-AAA

Organization: NFPA

Affilliation: TC on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems


Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee does not wish to revise the text as accepted in the 2012 edition.


I, TC GFE-AAA, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public

Input (including both the Proposed Change and the Statement of Problem and Substantiation). I understand and intend that I acquire no rights,

including rights as a joint author, in any publication of the NFPA in w hich this Public Input in this or another similar or derivative form is used. I

hereby w arrant that I am the author of this Public Input and that I have full pow er and authority to enter into this copyright assignment.

By checking this box I aff irm that I am TC GFE-AAA, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and




http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355254935376.xml:=root&imageId=2001_PI66_L1_Recommendation.G1357845834725.docx&altImageId=G1357845834725

ROP Text Recommendation: Add new sections to read as follows: 5.4.2.5.1 The minimum design concentration for a hazard that includes electrical equipment, listed in Table 5.4.2.5.1, which 5.4.2.5.1, which remains powered during and after agent discharge, shall be 1.6 times the Class A extinguishing concentration as determined in 5.4.2.2. Table 5.4.2.5.1 Energized Electrical Hazards 1. Cable bundles greater in diameter than four inches (100 mm) which inches (100 mm), which include power distribution cables other than power-over-Ethernet (nominal 48 VDC, maximum 25 W) cables. 2. Cable trays with a fill density greater than twenty-percent (20%) of the tray cross-section 3. Cable trays spaced closer than 10 inches (250 mm) to each other 4. Individual equipment units in which the power consumption or production exceeds 5 kW 5.4.2.5.1 5.4.2.5.2 The minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized electrical hazards supplied at greater than 480 volts which 480 volts which, remains powered during and after agent discharge, shall be determined by testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis. For Annex A.5.4.2.5.1 The Class C design concentration equal to 1.6 times the Class A concentration was developed by averaging flame extinguishing concentrations reported in thirteen test reports reviewed by the Technical Committee and comparing the average to published Class A extinguishing concentrations for various agents. Item 4 in Table 5.4.2.5.1 refers to “Individual equipment units where the power consumption or production exceeds 5 kW.” This class of special hazard is intended to include electrically powered equipment items or modules such modules, such as a single cabinet which cabinet that exceeds 5KW 5 kW power consumption. This requirement would not apply collectively to arrays or collections of equipment. An IT room containing multiple units having a sum total power consumption exceeds exceeding 5 kW would not necessarily require application of paragraph 5.4.2.5.1 so long as individual unit has units have a power consumption or production not in excess of 5 kW. Another example, could be server rack containing 12 blade servers each rated at 500 watts collectively. Although the total power consumption within the rack exceeds 5 kW, 5.4.2.5.1 would not apply because the individual blade servers do not exceed 5 kW power consumption. 5.4.2.5.1 is intended to deal with the case in which a fire, started by an electrical initiating failure, could occur, and where augmented energy combustion (due to external heat flux to the burning Class A fuel substrates contained in the equipment or module, such as insulation, PC boards, combustible structural elements), owing to persistent electric arcing or ohmic heating due to continued electrical current flow. This results in flaming that is unable to be extinguished at the ordinary Class A agent design concentration. In cases where racks or cabinets contain multiple equipment units or modules, the 5 kW reference power level refers to that of individual modules, not to the collective power consumption of all units in a rack or cabinet. The latter point is made as each equipment item other than the primary failed unit, while subject to flame ignition from the primary failure, would offer a separate fire event requiring elevated agent concentration due to its own localized energy augmented combustion. Substantiation: The NIST study (ref 1) of energy augmented combustion shows that the minimum extinguishing concentration can be affected by energy flux to a burning surface. Analysis by the Class C Task Group in 2006 concluded that a body of test data (Ref 2) indicates the use of a clean agents design concentration at 1.6 times the minimum Class A extinguishing concentration where energy flux to burning fuels occurs at high levels. Ref. 1. “Clean Agent Suppression of Energized Electrical Equipment Fires,” Gregory T. Linteris, Ph.D., Building & Fire Research Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology, January 2009. Ref. 2. Collection of thirteen publications addressing the effects of added energy on flame extinguishing concentration of gaseous agents. ROC Text Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.4.2.5 The minimum design concentration for a Class C hazards shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined by 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.35.

5.4.2.5.1 The minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized electrical hazards supplied at greater than 480 volts which remains powered during and after agent discharge, shall be determined by testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis. Substantiation: To date there have been no reports of fires in the field that have failed to be extinguished by a clean agent system designed in accordance with NFPA 2001. In 2003 the minimum design concentrations of HFC-227ea Clean Agent systems protecting Class A and Class C fires was reduced to 6.25 percent. Although there have been no failures of these systems to extinguish fires there is always a question of how much real world data there is to support the 6.25 percent design concentration. This comment moves the minimum design concentration for HFC-227 ea back to 7 percent.



Public Input No. 51-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 1.5.1.5 ]

Original Hide Markup

1.5.1.5 5*

All persons who inspect, test, maintain, or operate fire extinguishing systems shall be trained in all aspects ofsafety related to the systems.

1.5.1.5.1

Before system cylinders are handled or moved, the following steps shall be taken:

(1) Cylinder outlets shall be fitted with anti-recoil devices, cylinder caps, or both whenever the cylinder outletis not connected to the system pipe inlet.

(2) Actuators shall be disabled or removed before cylinders are removed from retaining bracketing.

1.5.1.5.2

Safe handling procedures shall be followed when transporting system cylinders.

1.5.1.5.2.1

Equipment designed for transporting cylinders shall be used. When dollies or carts are used, cylinders shallbe secured.

1.5.1.5.2.2

The system manufacturer’s service procedures shall be followed for specific details on system operation,maintenance, and safety considerations.


Add Annex material to assist in the training of persons in the safety of handling system containers.


Submitter Full Name:John Spalding

Organization: Healey Fire Protection, Inc.

Affilliation: Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA)

Submittal Date: Thu Nov 29 15:14:48 EST 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: In much the same way that the FSSA assisted the fire protection industry in understanding the requirements ofthe ASME Power Piping with the publicatoin of the "FSSA Pipe Design Handbook", guidance is needed inunderstanding the requirements for the transportation and requalification (testing) of system containers. TheFSSA has a guide available to assist the servicing personnel in understanding the requirements of DOT, CGAand NFPA.


I, John Spalding, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am John Spalding, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and



Public Input No. 108-NFPA 2001-2013 [ Section No. 1.6 ]





1.6* Environmental Factors Clean Agent Selection .

When an agent is being selected to protect a hazard area, the

effects

following properties of the agent

on the environment

shall be considered

. Selection

:

(1) chemical reactivity of the

appropriate fire suppression agent shall include consideration of the following items:

agent

( 2) interaction of the agent with biological systems

(3) the physical state of the agent

(4) Potential environmental effect of a fire in the protected area

(5) Potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, ozone depletion potential (ODP) and globalwarming potential (GWP) of the clean agents that could be used


The chemical reactivity of an agent can affect its applicability and safety in use. Agents that are reactive with or otherwise incompatible with certain fuels should obviously not be employed for the protection of such fuels. Chemical reactivity with water and other chemicals demands special attention to agent transfer and storage procedures, for example, to prevent corrosion, whereas such special procedures are not required for chemically unreactive agents. Reactivity with biological species is a critical consideration related to safety in use, e.g., during an accidental discharge, and endusers should be made aware of any metabolism or reaction of a clean agent within the human body. The physical stare of an agent can directly affect its performance, e.g., its ability to rapidly vaporize and fill a protected enclosure.


Submitter Full Name:V. Balasubramanian

Organization: Ceasefire Industries Ltd

Submittal Date: Fri Jan 04 11:40:50 EST 2013

Committee Statement

Resolution: The paragraph was intended to focus on environmental issues only. The additional material proposed is alreadycovered in other sections of the standard.


I, V. Balasubramanian, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in




By checking this box I aff irm that I am V. Balasubramanian, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms










effects


on the environment

shall be considered

. Selection

:



agent

( 2) interaction of the agent with biological systems





The chemical reactivity of an agent can affect its applicability and safety in use. Agents that are reactive with or otherwise incompatible with certain fuels should obviously not be employed for the protection of such fuels. Chemical reactivity with water and other chemicals demands special attention to agent transfer and storage procedures, for example, to prevent corrosion, whereas such special procedures are not required for chemically unreactive agents. Reactivity with biological species is a critical consideration related to safety in use, e.g., during an accidental discharge, and endusers should be made aware of any metabolism or reaction of a clean agent within the human body. The physical stare of an agent can directly affect its performance, e.g., its ability to rapidly vaporize and fill a protected enclosure.


Submitter Full Name:Mitul Shah

Organization: NewAge Fire Protection Engineers


Committee Statement



I, Mitul Shah, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Mitul Shah, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and









effects


on the environment

shall be considered

. Selection

:



agent Specially with moisture





The chemical reactivity of an agent can affect its applicability and safety in storage & use. Agents that are reactive with or otherwise incompatible with certain fuels should obviously not be employed for the protection of such fuels. Chemical reactivity with water and other chemicals demands special attention to agent transfer and storage procedures, for example, to prevent corrosion, whereas such special procedures are not required for chemically unreactive agents.


Submitter Full Name:H. Kaprwan

Organization: Fire Protection Consultant

Submittal Date: Mon Jan 07 09:09:21 EST 2013

Committee Statement



I, H. Kaprw an, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am H. Kaprw an, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and







Public Input No. 116-NFPA 2001-2013 [ New Section after 1.8.2 ]

1.10 Physical State , In selecting a clean agent to protect a hazard area, the physical state of the agent shall beconsidered.


The performance of an agent can be affected by its physical state. For example, agents that are liquid at the temperatures of the hazard will vaporize less readily than agents which are gaseous at the hazard temperature, affecting the agent’s ability to provide rapid extinguishment.


Submitter Full Name:Mark Robin

Organization: DuPont

Submittal Date: Wed Jan 09 12:54:10 EST 2013

Committee Statement

Resolution: System manufacturers are required to test their systems with the properties of the agent in mind. Listings andapprovals address the physical characteristics of the agent in their testing. Manufacturers and installers, whoregularly engage in the design of clean agent systems, routinely analyze and determine the suitability of aparticular clean agent technology in end use. Section 1.2.2 specifies the need for competent engineeringjudgment when selecting and designing a clean agent system.


I, Mark Robin, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Mark Robin, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and







1.9 Chemical Reactivity . In selecting an agent to protect a hazard area, the chemical reactivity of the agent shallbe considered, including chemical reactions and/or metabolism of the agent in the human body.


Selection of an agent requires consideration of its affects on (1) the fuel or fuels involved, (2) non-fuel items present within the hazard zone, (3) personnel present in the hazard zone, and (4) the environment. The current standard addresses item 4, but does not address chemical reactivity, which can affect both the applicability and safety in use of an agent. An agent that is chemically reactive with a fuel should not be employed for protection of that fuel. Similarly, agents that are chemically reactive with non-fuel items should not be employed in hazard areas containing those items. The handling and transfer of agents which are reactive with water will obviously require special measures not required for non-reactive agents to avoid contamination or contact with water, which could lead to problems such as corrosion or could render the agent ineffective. End users should be aware of any reaction of an agent in the human body to allow for a proper evaluation of the safety in use of the agent.





Committee Statement

Resolution: This subject is already identified in various places throughout the standard. The standard does not do away withthe need for competent engineering judgment, per 1.2.2. Section 1.4.2.2 addresses chemical incompatibilitiesin a specific manner. Section 1.5 adequately addresses safety issues, as does the process of the EPA SNAPreview.












Public Input No. 96-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after 2.1 ]

2.1.1

See also Annex E.


Directs the reader to additional Informational References not listed in this chapter.





Submittal Date: Fri Dec 28 14:33:12 EST 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: It is not appropriate to reference non-mandatory texts within the mandatory chapters of the standard. Thecommittee considered adding the proposed text as annex material to Section 2.1. However, the NFPA Manualof Style does not permit Chapter 2 to have Annex A material. A more appropriate location could not bedetermined for inclusion in the First Draft. See also the last paragraph of the introductory text, located beforeChapter 1.














2.2 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition.

NFPA 72® , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2010 edition.

NFPA 75, Standard for the Protection of Information Technology Equipment, 2013 Edition.


A high percentage of the Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems are designed and installed in the Information Technology applications. The NFPA standard addressing these applications offers important information for the system designer to consider. The prevalence of Hot Aisle / Cold Aisle containment is only an example of the new challenges faced by the systems designer. The 2013 Edition of NFPA 75 provides gudance.





Submittal Date: Sun Dec 23 14:45:33 EST 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: NFPA 75 was not added to the list because it is not referenced in the main body of the standard.












Public Input No. 93-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 2.3.9 ]


2.3.9 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.

ANSI/ UL 2127, Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2001 2012 .

ANSI/ UL 2166, Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2001 2012 .


Update referenced standards to most recent edition as indicated.


Submitter Full Name:John Bender

Organization: UL LLC


Committee Statement


Statement: Update referenced standards to most recent edition as indicated.


I, John Bender, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am John Bender, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and








2.3.10 ULC Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 7 Underwriters Road, Toronto, Ontario M1R 3B4, Canada.

CAN/ULC S524-06, Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, 2006 2011 .

CAN/ULC S529-09, Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, 2009.


Update referenced standards to most recent edition as indicated.





Committee Statement


Statement: Update referenced standards to most recent edition as indicated.














3.3.20 Marine Systems.

Systems installed on ships, barges, floating offshore platforms, motorboats, and pleasure craft.


We have great difficulties in getting DNV to accept fixed off shore platforms not to be under the marine directive IMO circ 848/668 (Chapter 8 in NFPA 2001), having automatic system release etc. IMO covers ships i.e. vessels with their own propulsion or vessels being towed.


Submitter Full Name:Rudolf Klitte

Organization: Kidde Danmark A/S


Committee Statement

Resolution: Different authorities have different rules on whether fixed offshore platforms are treated under the rules for MarineSystems. It is not the intent of NFPA 2001 to define when it is appropriate to do so.


I, Rudolf Klitte, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Rudolf Klitte, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and







3.3.27 Recovered Agent .

Agent which has been removed from a system and kept for future use or until it is destroyed without necessarilytesting or processing it in any way.


To differentiate between new, recovered and recycled agent.





Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 14:09:45 EST 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: To differentiate between new, recovered, and recycled agent.













3.3.28 Recycled Agent.

Agent which is recovered and has been tested, processed as necessary, and found to be in compliance with thequality requirement of 4.1.2.


To differentiate between new, recovered and recycled agent.






Committee Statement


Statement: To differentiate between new, recovered, and recycled agent.














3.3.27 Safety 29 Safety Factor (SF).

A multiplier of the agent flame extinguishing or inerting concentration to determine the agent minimum designconcentration.


Renumbering due to the addition of two definitions.




Affilliation: Fire Suppression Systems Assocaition (FSSA)


Committee Statement

Resolution: Submitter did not provide a recommended revision.














3.3.28 Sea 30 Sea Level Equivalent of Agent.

The agent concentration (volume percent) at sea level for which the partial pressure of agent matches theambient partial pressure of agent at a given altitude.


Renumbering due to addition of two definitions.






Committee Statement















3.3.29 Sea 31 Sea Level Equivalent of Oxygen.

The oxygen concentration (volume percent) at sea level for which the partial pressure of oxygen matches theambient partial pressure of oxygen at a given altitude.








Committee Statement















3.3.30 Superpressurization 32 Superpressurization .

The addition of gas to a fire extinguishing agent container to achieve a specified pressure therein.








Committee Statement















3.3.31 Total 33 Total Flooding.

The act and manner of discharging an agent for the purpose of achieving a specified minimum agentconcentration throughout a hazard volume.








Committee Statement















3.3.32 Total 34 Total Flooding System.

A system consisting of an agent supply and distribution network designed to achieve a total flooding conditionin a hazard volume.








Committee Statement














4.1.2.2 Verification of Product Quality. Product quality shall be determined by verified industry standardanalytical techniques such as those in ASTM, ISO or ARI Standards.


Current Section 4.1.2 offers no guidance on how the quality of agent shall be tested. To provide such assurance that the product specifications of NFPA 2001 Section 4.1.2 are actually met, requires the use of analytical methods that are capable of producing valid results. Furthermore, the analytical methods employed to determine compliance with the specifications of NFPA 2001 Section 4.1.2 need to be repeatable and accurate. International standards (e.g., NFPA standards), certifying bodies, and regulatory agencies all require evidence that analytical methods are capable of producing accurate, repeatable and valid results.





Committee Statement

Resolution: The proposal precludes the use of manufacturer-established test methods. The manufacturer or agent recycleris responsible for the quality of the product they are producing and may have developed proprietary testmethods. The manufacturer or agent recycler should have the option to choose the test methods to verify thatthe quality requirements are met. See FR 30 (4.1.2).














4.1.2* Quality.

Agent properties shall Agent including recycled agent shall meet the standards of quality given in Table4.1.2(a) through Table 4.1.2(d). Each batch of agent manufactured , both recylced and newly manufactured,shall be tested and certified to the specifications given in the tables. Agent blends shall remain homogeneousin storage and use within the listed temperature range and conditions of service that they will encounter.

Table 4.1.2(a) Halogenated Agent Quality Requirements

Property Specification

Agent purity, mole %,

minimum99.0

Acidity, ppm (by weight HCl

equivalent), maximum3.0

Water content, weight %,

maximum0.001

Nonvolatile residues, g/100 ml maximum 0.05

Table 4.1.2(b) Inert Gas Agent Quality Requirements

Composition Gas IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55

Composition, % by volume N 2 Minimum 99.9% 52% ± 4% 50% ± 5%

Ar Minimum 99.9% 40% ± 4% 50% ± 5%

CO 2 8% + 1% - 0.0%

Water content,

% by weightMaximum 0.005% Maximum 0.005% Maximum 0.005% Maximum 0.005%

Table 4.1.2(c) HCFC Blend A Quality Requirements

ComponentAmount

(weight %)

HCFC-22 82% ± 0.8%

HCFC-124 9.50% ± 0.9%

HCFC-123 4.75% ± 0.5%

Isopropenyl-1-

methylcyclohexene3.75% ± 0.5%

Table 4.1.2(d) HFC Blend B Quality Requirements

ComponentAmount

(weight %)

HFC-134a 86% ± 5%

HFC-125 9% ± 3%

CO 2 5% ± 2%


The proposed changes and additions provide clear guidance for recovery and recycling of clean agents in an environmentally sound manner.






Committee Statement


Statement: The proposed changes and additions provide clear guidance for recovery and recycling of clean agents in anenvironmentally sound manner.













4.1.3.2 *

Storage containers shall be

located as close as possible to or within the hazard or hazards they protect

located such that the systems listed flow calculation will provide successful calculation results .


Location of storage containers should be based on the listed performance of the suppression system. Have current Annex material referenced instead to 4.1.3.3


Submitter Full Name:Katherine Adrian

Organization: Tyco Fire Protection Products


Committee Statement


Statement: Location of storage containers should be based on the listed performance of the suppression system. Thesection was revised to indicate that it is acceptable to locate the storage containers within the hazard withoutrequiring them to located as close as possible.


I, Katherine Adrian, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Katherine Adrian, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and









4.1.4.4

A

reliable means of indication

means for determining container pressure shall be provided

to determine the pressure in refillable superpressurized

for pressurized agent storage containers.


1. The word “reliable” is not needed. 2. All agent containers pressurized with a non-condensable gas should be provided with a means of determining the container pressure, even if not refillable.





Committee Statement


Statement: 1. The word “reliable” is not needed. 2. All agent containers pressurized with a non-condensable gas should beprovided with a means of determining the container pressure, even if not refillable.














4.1.4. 6

Storage temperatures shall not exceed or be less than

6* The temperature at which agent containers are stored shall be within the manufacturer’s listedlimits.

External heating or cooling shall be used to keep the temperature of the storage container within desiredranges.


The primary sentence is changed from a negative (“shall no”) to a positive statement (“shall”). The second sentence is advisory and is addressed in a proposed new annex paragraph.





Committee Statement


Statement: The primary sentence is changed from a negative (“shall not”) to a positive statement (“shall”). The secondsentence is advisory and is now addressed by the new annex material.












Public Input No. 14-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


Pipe shall be noncombustible material having physical and chemical characteristics such that its integrityunder stress can be predicted with reliability. Special corrosion-resistant materials or coatings shall berequired in severely corrosive atmospheres. The thickness of the piping shall be calculated in accordance withASME B31.1, including B31.1a 1999 addenda and B31.1b 2000 addenda. The internal pressure used for thiscalculation shall not be less than the greater of the following values:

(1) The normal charging pressure in the agent container at 70°F (21°C)

(2) Eighty percent of the maximum pressure in the agent container at a maximum storage temperature of notless than 130°F (55°C), using the equipment manufacturer’s maximum allowable fill density, if applicable

(3) For inert gas clean agents, the pressure for this calculation shall be as specified in 4.2.1.1.1 and4.2.1.1.2.


This addition would clarify the internal pressures to be used for the calculation of minimum pipe wall thickness for inert gases and correlate the minimum working pressure requirement for pipe with the minimum rated working pressure requirements in 4.2.3.1 for the fittings used with the pipe.


Submitter Full Name:Thomas Wysocki

Organization: Guardian Services, Inc.

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 27 11:58:23 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Update reference to ASME B31.1. The word "noncombustible" was removed from the paragraph, as this iscovered in 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.4. Item (3) was added to correlate with FR 37 (4.2.1.1.2). The committee hasformed a task group to review all of 4.2.1 and improve the text.


I, Thomas Wysocki, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Thomas Wysocki, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms






Public Input No. 97-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


Pipe shall be noncombustible of approved material having physical and chemical characteristics such that itsintegrity under stress can be predicted with reliability. Special corrosion-resistant materials or coatings shall berequired in severely corrosive atmospheres. The thickness of the piping shall be calculated in accordance with ASMEB31.1, including B31.1a 1999 addenda and B31.1b 2000 addenda. The internal pressure used for this calculation shallnot be less than the greater of the following values:

(1) The normal charging pressure in the agent container at 70°F (21°C)

(2) Eighty percent of the maximum pressure in the agent container at a maximum storage temperature of not lessthan

130°F (55°C), using the equipment manufacturer’s maximum allowable fill density, if applicable


“Noncombustible” is not defined in this standard and so it can be interpreted as “incapable of being burned” (Merriam-Webster). The use of this term is no longer necessary as section 4.2.1.4 allows for the use of nonmetallic discharge components of approved materials and pressure ratings. These nonmetallic materials meet the required fire resistive properties, but should not be considered “noncombustible”.Additionally, pipe installed outside of the fire hazard environment does not necessitate the same fire resistive qualities as pipe installed inside of this environment. As an example, many small enclosure assets are protected by individual fire suppression systems in such a way that only the discharge nozzles and detection components are installed within the hazard area. As the only hazard being protected by this system is contained within the enclosure, the agent storage container and discharge pipe (when installed outside of the enclosure) cannot be exposed to the heated conditions. By replacing the text with “approved”, the AHJ is allowed to evaluate the appropriateness of the thermal ratings of the chosen material in comparison with the anticipated environment.


Submitter Full Name:Ryan Gamboa

Organization: Firetrace USA

Submittal Date: Mon Dec 31 14:57:43 EST 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Update reference to ASME B31.1. The word "noncombustible" was removed from the paragraph, as this iscovered in 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.4. Item (3) was added to correlate with FR 37 (4.2.1.1.2). The committee hasformed a task group to review all of 4.2.1 and improve the text.


I, Ryan Gamboa, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Ryan Gamboa, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and






Public Input No. 16-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after 4.2.1.1.1 ]

4.2.1.1.2

For systems that employ the use of a pressure-reducing device, the minimum design pressure for pipingdownstream of the pressure reducing device shall be determined from the maximum anticipated pressure in thedownstream piping as predicted by system flow calculations.



The content of the proposed section clearly correlates the minimum design pressure for pipe downstream of a pressure reducing device in an inert gas clean agent system with the minimum working pressure for the pipe fittings specified in 4.2.3.1.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship

Open Public Input No. 14-NFPA 2001-2012 [Section No. 4.2.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]





Committee Statement


Statement: This revision incorporates TIA 12-1 with revised text. The annex material included with TIA 12-1 has beenremoved. The content of the proposed section clearly correlates the minimum design pressure for pipedownstream of a pressure reducing device in an inert gas clean agent system with the minimum workingpressure for the pipe fittings specified in 4.2.3.1.









Public Input No. 15-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1.1 ]


4.2.1.1.1

In no case shall the value used for the minimum pipe design pressure be less than that specified in Table4.2.1.1.1(a) and Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) for the conditions shown. For inert gas clean agents that employ the use ofa pressure reducing device , Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) shall be used for piping upstream of the pressure reducer and4 .2.1.1.2 should be used to determine minimum pipe design pressure for piping downstream of the pressurereducer. The pressure-reducing device shall be readily identifiable. For halocarbon clean agents, Table




4.2.1.1.1(b) shall be used. If different fill densities, pressurization levels, or higher storage temperatures thanthose shown in Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) or Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) are approved for a given system, the minimum designpressure for the piping shall be adjusted to the maximum pressure in the agent container at maximumtemperature, using the basic design criteria specified in 4.2.1.1(1) and 4.2.1.1(2).

Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping

Agent ContainerGauge Pressure at

70°F

(21°C)

Agent Container GaugePressure at 130°F (55°C)

Minimum Design Pressure at 70°F (21°C)of Piping Upstream of Pressure Reducer

Agent psi kPa psi kPa psi kPa

IG-01 2370 16,341 2650 18,271 2370 16,341

2964 20,436 3304 22,781 2964 20,436

IG-541 2175 14,997 2575 17,755 2175 14,997

2900 19,996 3433 23,671 2900 19,996

4503 31,050 5359 36,950 4503 31,050

IG-55 2222 15,320 2475 17,065 2222 15,320

2962 20,423 3300 22,753 2962 20,423

4443 30,634 4950 34,130 4443 30,634

IG-100 2404 16,575 2799 19,299 2404 16,575

3236 22,312 3773 26,015 3236 22,312

4061 28,000 4754 32,778 4061 28,000

Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping

Agent ContainerMaximum Fill Density

Agent ContainerCharging Pressure

at 70°F (21°C)

AgentContainerPressure

at 130°F (55°C)

Minimum PipingDesign Pressure

at 70°F (21°C)

Agent lb/ft 3 kg/m 3 psi bar psi bar psi bar

HFC-227ea

79 1265 44* 3 135 9 416 29

75 1201 150 10 249 17 200 14

72 1153 360 25 520 36 416 29

72 1153 600 41 1025 71 820 57

HCFCBlend A

56.2 900 600 41 850 59 680 47

56.2 900 360 25 540 37 432 30

HFC 23 54 865 608.9† 42 2182 150 1746 120

48 769 608.9† 42 1713 118 1371 95

45 721 608.9† 42 1560 108 1248 86

40 641 608.9† 42 1382 95 1106 76

35 561 608.9† 42 1258 87 1007 69

30 481 608.9† 42 1158 80 927 64

HCFC-124

74 1185 240 17 354 24 283 20

HCFC-124

74 1185 360 25 580 40 464 32

HFC-125 54 865 360 25 615 42 492 34

HFC 125 56 897 600 41 1045 72 836 58

HFC-236fa

74 1185 240 17 360 25 280 19

HFC-236fa

75 1201 360 25 600 41 480 33

HFC-236fa

74 1185 600 41 1100 76 880 61

HFCBlend B

58 929 360 25 586 40 469 32

58 929 600 41 888 61 710 50

FK-5-1-

1290 1442 150 10 175 12 150 10



90 1442 195 13 225 16 195 13

90 1442 360 25 413 28 360 25

75 1201 500 34 575 40 500 34

90 1442 610 42 700 48 610 42

*Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinderpressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70°F (21°C).

†Not superpressurized with nitrogen.


Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) does not address piping downstream of the pressure reducing device in inert gas clean agent systems. The revision addresses the piping downstream of the pressure reducing device when employed and correlates the pipe strength requirements for inert gas clean agent systems with the minimum working pressure requirements for fittings in 4.2.3.1.



Open Public Input No. 14-NFPA 2001-2012 [Section No. 4.2.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]





Committee Statement


Statement: Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) does not address piping downstream of the pressure reducing device in inert gas clean agentsystems. The revision addresses the piping downstream of the pressure reducing device when employed andcorrelates the pipe strength requirements for inert gas clean agent systems with the minimum working pressurerequirements for fittings in 4.2.3.1. This revision correlates with FR 37 (4.7.1.1.2) and FR 12 (4.2.1.1). A newrow was added to Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) for 300-bar IG-01 systems. NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment2001-24 (Log #12) which was held from the F10 ROC on Proposal 2001-36.














4.2.5 Discharge Nozzles.

4.2.5.1

Discharge nozzles shall be listed for the intended use. Listing criteria shall include flow characteristics, areacoverage, height limits, and minimum pressures. Discharge orifices and discharge orifice plates and insertsshall be of a material that is corrosion resistant to the agent used and the atmosphere in the intendedapplication.

4.2.5.2

Special corrosion-resistant materials or coatings shall be required in severely corrosive atmospheres.

4.2.5.3

Discharge nozzles shall be permanently marked to identify the manufacturer as well as the type and size ofthe orifice.

4.2.5.4

Where clogging by external foreign materials is likely, discharge nozzles shall be provided with frangible discs,blowoff caps, or other suitable devices. These devices shall provide an unobstructed opening upon systemoperation and shall be located so they will not injure personnel.

4.2.5.5*

Nozzles shall be located so as to be free of possible obstruction that could interfere with the proper projectionof the discharged agent.


It is necessary that the discharge of the extinguishing agent have sufficient clear distance to avoid frosting and to create a homogenous mix of the agent in the hazard. Nozzle obstruction is addressed for Local Application Systems, Section 6.5.4, but not for Total Flooding Systems.






Committee Statement


Statement: It is necessary that the discharge of the extinguishing agent have sufficient clear distance to avoid frosting andto create a homogenous mix of the agent in the hazard. Nozzle obstruction is addressed for Local ApplicationSystems, Section 6.5.4, but not for Total Flooding Systems. The advent of Hot Aisle/Clod Aisle containmentstructures presents additional challenges to the design of a total flooding clean agent extinguishing system.Compensating extinguishing agent must be added where the aisle containmnet or other obstructions do notallow the manufacturer's minimum nozzle clearance to be attained.














4.3.3.1

Operating devices shall include agent-releasing devices or , valves, discharge controls, and shutdownequipment necessary for successful performance of the system to its design specifications .


The word “shall” mandates an action and is not appropriately used in this statement. Both releasing devices and valves should be included. The word “successful” is not quantifiable and has no effect; the better reference is that the system operates “to its design specifications.”





Committee Statement

Resolution: The proposed text would not constitute a requirement. The committee does not wish to move this introductorytext to the annex, so the current text is being retained.












Public Input No. 98-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after 4.3.3.5.2 ]

4.3.3.5.3

A means of manual release shall not be required for automatic systems when the hazard being protected isunoccupiable and the hazard is not visible from where personnel may be present.


For protection of fully enclosed equipment where the space is unoccupiable and not visible from where personnel may be present, there is no necessity for a manual release of the system. In this scenario, the only reliable form of detection is from detectors installed inside of the enclosure. Manual actuators installed in this scenario only provide for a means of unwanted system activation.





Committee Statement


Statement: For protection of fully enclosed equipment where the space is unoccupiable and in a remote location, there isno necessity for a manual release of the system. In this scenario, the only reliable form of detection is fromautomatic detectors installed inside of the enclosure. Manual actuators installed in this scenario only provide fora means of unwanted system activation.














4.3.5.2

Audible and visual pre-discharge alarms shall be provided within the protected area to give positive warning ofimpending discharge. The operation of the warning devices shall be continued after agent discharge untilpositive action has been taken to acknowledge the alarm and proceed with appropriate action. If ADA strobecoverage is provided by a building fire alarm system, visual devices on the releasing control panel for 1st alarmand pre-discharge alarms will not be required


Currently when a Building Fire Alarm system provides an ADA Strobe and the Releasing Control Panel send a 1st alarm sygnal to the Building system, we end up with 2 circuits of strobes that cannot be syncronized. Since the Relesing panel is trigering an alarm in the building system visual devices on the Releasing is redundant. Should a building system not be present, then the visual devices for the releasing panel should be required.


Submitter Full Name:Kevin Murray

Organization: Siemens Industry, Inc.

Affilliation: AFAA

Submittal Date: Fri Nov 30 10:09:50 EST 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: It's imperative that the hazard's visual alarms remain active even after the building fire alarm system has beensilenced.


I, Kevin Murray, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Kevin Murray, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and








4.3.5.2

Audible and visual pre-discharge alarms shall be provided within the protected area of occupiable spaces togive positive warning of impending discharge. The operation of the warning devices shall be continued afteragent discharge until positive action has been taken to acknowledge the alarm and proceed with appropriateaction.


A space that is not occupiable should not require pre-discharge alarms. Without the possibility of personnel being present in the application area, and with appropriate discharge signaling and shutdown measures present, the pre-discharge alarms do not serve a purpose. This requirement unnecessarily complicates the design of simple automatic systems protecting unoccupiable enclosures.





Committee Statement


Statement: A space that is not occupiable should not require pre-discharge alarms. Without the possibility of personnelbeing present in the application area, and with appropriate discharge signaling and shutdown measures present,the pre-discharge alarms do not serve a purpose. This requirement unnecessarily complicates the design ofsimple automatic systems protecting unoccupiable enclosures.












Public Input No. 100-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after 4.3.6.1 ]

4.3.6.1.1

Where a clean agent system is completely mechanical, items 4.3.6.3 – 4.3.6.7 shall not be required. Instead, anapproved method of documented supervision shall be used.


A system that is completely mechanical normally has no electrical requirements for operation, allowing the system to be completely operational independent of the condition (or presence) of an electricity source. This is an important requirement in many instances. Addition of an electrically supervised disconnect switch may not be possible in these instances.

The requirements of 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.2 can still be met through the use of a physical disconnect switch and an approved method of documented supervision. The physical disconnect switch would be provided by the manufacturer, but the method of supervision would be put in place by the persons servicing the equipment. Such methods, such as “Lock Out Tag Out” or “LOTO” are already widely in place and accepted for use with other equipment. It would be up to the AHJ to determine if the system in place is acceptable.





Committee Statement


Statement: A system that is completely mechanical normally has no electrical requirements for operation, allowing thesystem to be completely operational independent of the condition (or presence) of an electricity source. This isan important requirement in many instances. Addition of an electrically supervised disconnect switch may notbe possible in these instances.











5.1.2.2




Working plans shall be drawn to an indicated scale and shall show the following items that pertain to thedesign of the system:

(1) Name of owner and occupant.

(2) Location, including street address.

(3) Point of compass and symbol legend.

(4) Location and construction of protected enclosure walls and partitions.

(5) Location of fire walls.

(6) Enclosure cross section, shown as a full-height or schematic diagram, including location andconstruction of building floor-ceiling assemblies above and below, raised access floor, and suspendedceiling.

(7) Agent being used.

(8) Design extinguishing or inerting concentration concentrations at the lowest and highest temperatures forwhich the enclosure is protected .

(9) Description of occupancies and hazards being protected, designating whether the enclosure is normallyoccupied.

(10) For an enclosure protected by a clean agent fire extinguishing system, an estimate of the maximumpositive pressure and the maximum negative pressure, relative to ambient pressure, expected to bedeveloped upon the discharge of agent.

(11) Description of exposures surrounding the enclosure.

(12) Description of the agent storage containers used, including internal volume, storage pressure, andnominal capacity expressed in units of agent mass or volume at standard conditions of temperature andpressure.

(13) Description of nozzle(s) used, including size, orifice port configuration, and equivalent orifice area.

(14) Description of pipe and fittings used, including material specifications, grade, and pressure rating.

(15) Description of wire or cable used, including classification, gauge [American Wire Gauge (AWG)],shielding, number of strands in conductor, conductor material, and color coding schedule. Segregationrequirements of various system conductors shall be clearly indicated. The required method of makingwire terminations shall be detailed.

(16) Description of the method of detector mounting.

(17) Equipment schedule or bill of materials for each piece of equipment or device showing device name,manufacturer, model or part number, quantity, and description.

(18) Plan view of protected area showing enclosure partitions (full and partial height); agent distributionsystem, including agent storage containers, piping, and nozzles; type of pipe hangers and rigid pipesupports; detection, alarm, and control system, including all devices and schematic of wiringinterconnection between them; end-of-line device locations; location of controlled devices such asdampers and shutters; and location of instructional signage.

(19) Isometric view of agent distribution system showing the length and diameter of each pipe segment; nodereference numbers relating to the flow calculations; fittings, including reducers, strainers, and orientationof tees; and nozzles, including size, orifice port configuration, flow rate, and equivalent orifice area.

(20) Scale drawing showing the layout of the annunciator panel graphics if required by the authority havingjurisdiction.

(21) Details of each unique rigid pipe support configuration showing method of securement to the pipe and tothe building structure.

(22) Details of the method of container securement showing method of securement to the container and tothe building structure.

(23) Complete step-by-step description of the system sequence of operations, including functioning of abortand maintenance switches, delay timers, and emergency power shutdown.

(24) Point-to-point wiring schematic diagrams showing all circuit connections to the system control panel andgraphic annunciator panel.

(25) Point-to-point wiring schematic diagrams showing all circuit connections to external or add-on relays.

(26) Complete calculations to determine enclosure volume, quantity of clean agent, and size of backupbatteries; method used to determine number and location of audible and visual indicating devices; andnumber and location of detectors.

(27) Details of any special features.

(28) * Pressure relief vent area, or equivalent leakage area, for the protected enclosure to preventdevelopment, during system discharge, of a pressure difference across the enclosure boundaries thatexceeds a specified enclosure pressure limit.




The “Design extinguishing concentration or inerting concentration” is meaningless without stating the applicable enclosure temperature. The agent quantity is based on the design concentration at the lowest protected enclosure temperature. The highest agent concentration, which relates to personnel safety, occurs at the highest protected enclosure temperature.





Committee Statement


Statement: Revised Item (8). The “Design extinguishing concentration or inerting concentration” is meaningless withoutstating the applicable enclosure temperature. The agent quantity is based on the design concentration at thelowest protected enclosure temperature. The highest agent concentration, which relates to personnel safety,occurs at the highest protected enclosure temperature.











5.3 Enclosure 3* Enclosure .

5.3.1

In the design of a total flooding system, the characteristics of the protected enclosure shall be considered.

5.3.2

The area of unclosable openings in the protected enclosure shall be kept to a minimum.

5.3.3

The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require pressurization/depressurization of the protectedenclosure or other tests to ensure performance that meets the requirements of this standard. (See Annex C.)

5.3.4

To prevent loss of agent through openings to adjacent hazards or work areas, openings shall be permanentlysealed or equipped with automatic closures. Where reasonable confinement of agent is not practicable,protection shall be expanded to include the adjacent connected hazards or work areas, or additional agentshall be introduced into the protected enclosure using an extended discharge configuration.

5.3.5

Where a clean agent total flooding system is being provided for the protection of a room with a raised orsunken floor, the room and raised or sunken floor shall be simultaneously protected.

5.3.5.1*

If only the space under the raised floor is to be protected by a total flooding system, an inert gas shall be usedto protect that space.

5.3.5.2

Each volume, room, and raised or sunken floor to be protected shall be provided with detectors, pipingnetwork, and nozzles.

5.3.6*

Other than the ventilation systems identified in 5.3.6.2, forced-air ventilating systems, including self-contained




Other than the ventilation systems identified in 5.3.6.2, forced-air ventilating systems, including self-containedair recirculation systems, shall be shut down or closed automatically where their continued operation wouldadversely affect the performance of the fire extinguishing system or result in propagation of the fire.

5.3.6.1

If not shut down or closed automatically, the volume of the self-contained recirculating undampered ventilationsystem ducts and components mounted below the ceiling height of the protected space shall be consideredas part of the total hazard volume when determining the quantity of agent.

5.3.6.2

Ventilation systems necessary to ensure safety shall not be required to be shut down upon activation of thefire suppression system. An extended agent discharge shall be provided to maintain the design concentrationfor the required duration of protection.

5.3.7*

The protected enclosure shall have the structural strength and integrity necessary to contain the agentdischarge. If the developed pressures present a threat to the structural strength of the enclosure, venting shallbe provided to prevent excessive pressures. Designers shall consult the system manufacturer’s recommendedprocedures relative to enclosure venting. [For pressure relief vent area or equivalent leakage area, see 5.1.2.2(28).]


Many buildings are constructed with no specific occupancy in mind. These rooms are later occupied by IT equipment. NFPA 75, Chapter 5 Construction Requirements assists in defining the enclosure. For example, requiring that "The fire-resistant-rated enclosures shall extend from the stuctural floor to the structural floor above to the roof." The Annex material directs the reader to consult with NFPA 75.






Committee Statement


Statement: Many buiildings are constructed for general occupancy and are later transformed into server rooms or IT rooms.These rooms need to be modified to hold the extinguishing agent in the protected space. Referencing the NFPA75 Standard will present guidance to the proper construction of these rooms.












Public Input No. 104-NFPA 2001-2013 [ Section No. 5.3.5 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


Where a clean agent total flooding system is being provided for the protection of a room with a raised or sunkenfloor, the room and raised or sunken floor shall be simultaneously protected.



Open

13_jan_4_NFPA_2001_proposed_changes_to_5.3.5.docx

Change for clarity to this paragraph, and is associated with a proposed change to 5.3.5.1 and the deletion of A.5.3.5.1.


Provides clarity.


Submitter Full Name:Paul Rivers

Organization: 3M Company

Affilliation: None


Committee Statement

Resolution: The current language adequately defines protection for subfloor-only applications and is in accordance withNFPA 75. Similar language was accepted for the 2013 edition of NFPA 75 at the ROC stage and accidentallyleft out of the final text. This committee is aware that an errata will be issued to add the missing paragraphs toNFPA 75.


I, Paul Rivers, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Paul Rivers, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and




http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357315048331.xml:=root&imageId=13_jan_4_NFPA_2001_proposed_changes_to_5.3.5.G1357315541072.docx&altImageId=G1357315541072

NFPA 2001 Clean Agents

5.3.5 Where a clean agent total flooding system is being provided for the protection of a room

with above a raised or sunken floor, the room and raised or sunken floor shall be

simultaneously protected.

Substantiation: Provides clarity.





5.3.5.1*

If It is permitted to protect only the space under the in a raised or sunken floor is to be protected by a totalflooding system, an inert gas shall be used to protect that space clean extinguishing agent system .


The justification to limit gaseous clean agent protection to only inert gas used in the last cycle and included in the annex to this paragraph is misleading or flawed.1. NFPA 75 does not limit underfloor only protection to automatic sprinklers, a carbon dioxide extinguishing system or an inert gas fire extinguishing system. Guidance in paragraph 8.1.1.2 from the 2013 edition of NFPA 75 does not differentiate what type of ‘gaseous’ fire extinguishing system be used provided one of two criteria be met. See below from the NFPA 75.8.1.1.2* An automatic sprinkler system or a gaseous fire extinguishing system shall be provided for the protection of the area below a raised floor in an information technology equipment room or information technology equipment area where one or more of the following exist: (1) There is a critical need to protect data in the process, reduce equipment damage, and facilitate return to service.(2) The area below the raised floor contains combustible material.While the annex material to this paragraph may indicate a preference of other technologies, there is no prohibition to the use of halocarbons.2. It was noted that paragraph NFPA 12A, 5.3.1.2, used as rationale to prohibit halocarbon agents, “prohibits” the use of halon 1301 in the space under a raised floor. It does not. From the 2009 NFPA 12A:5.3.1.2* To prevent loss of agent through openings to adjacent hazards or work areas, openings shall be permanently sealed or equipped with automatic closures. Where reasonable confinement of agent is not practicable, protection shall be extended to include the adjacent connected hazards or work areas.While the annex to this paragraph goes on to indicate that design of total flooding halon 1301 systems only beneath the raised floor is not aligned with the standard, there exists no “prohibition” on its use.3. No data were provided to quantify, what, if any problem exists. What was provided was only an opinion.



Open

Public Input No. 104-NFPA 2001-2013 [Section No. 5.3.5 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Subsection to this mainsection





Committee Statement















5.3.5.1*

If

Where only the

space under the

volume below a raised floor is to be protected by a

total flooding system, an inert gas shall be used to protect that space

clean agent system then 5.3.5.1.1 and 5.3.5.1.2 apply.

5.3.5.1.1 Where air exchange between the volumes below and above a raised floor is free to occur afteragent discharge then only inert gas clean agent shall be used.

5.3.5.1.2 Where air exchange between the volumes below and above a raised floor is not free to occur afteragent discharge then any clean agent can be used .


The existing language correctly restricts the use of halocarbon agents on the grounds that air exchange from the space below the raised floor to the upper space would results in an agent concentration in the upper space that is less than the extinguishing concentration with consequent formation of acid gases if a fire exists in the space above the floor. The proposed language makes allowance for the case where air exchange between the spaces below and above a raised floor is prevented owing to the design of an engineered air handling system which can be shut off prior to agent discharge.




Submittal Date: Tue Oct 02 09:59:13 EDT 2012

Committee Statement














TITLE OF NEW CONTENT - none


5.4.2.1.1 Measurement equipment used in applying the cup burner method shall be calibrated.


The use of calibrated measurement equipment is mandatory when using a test method. Annex B, section B.10.1 contains only advisory language "... should be calibrated ..." The proposal over rides the advisory aspect of Annex B.10.1. This revision assists in harmonizing the requirements related to use of the cup burner method in NFPA 2001 with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.



Open Public Input No. 2-NFPA 2001-2012 [Section No. B.9.2.1.1]


Open Public Input No. 4-NFPA 2001-2012 [Section No. B.4.2.11]

Open Public Input No. 5-NFPA 2001-2012 [Section No. B.18.1]






Submittal Date: Fri May 18 10:13:27 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: The use of calibrated measurement equipment is mandatory when using a test method. Annex B, sectionB.10.1 contains only advisory language "... should be calibrated ..." The proposal over rides the advisory aspectof Annex B.10.1. This revision assists in harmonizing the requirements related to use of the cup burner methodin NFPA 2001 with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.













5.4.2.7 Minimum Design Concentrations. Minimum design concentrations and agent requirements (% v/v and mass)are given in Table 5.4.2.7.

See Uploaded Table 5.4.2.7



Open Table_5.4.2.7.docx Table 5.4.2.7


With the recent changes in Class A and Class C minimum design concentrations (MDCs) introduced in the 2012 edition, numerous endusers of the standard have expressed confusion related to determining the MDC. Inclusion of this table alleviates that confusion and will be useful in system design.


Submitter Full Name:V. Balasubramanian

Organization: Ceasefire Industries Ltd


Committee Statement

Resolution: The addition of the chart into the body of the standard would set a minimum design concentration, which maybe adjusted in the future. Manufacturers have the ultimate responsibility for determining their minimum designconcentrations in end use.


I, V. Balasubramanian, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in




By checking this box I aff irm that I am V. Balasubramanian, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms




http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357317285009.xml:=root&imageId=Table_5.4.2.7.G1357317564082.docx&altImageId=G1357317564082

Table 5.4.2.7. Minimum Design Concentrations

Agent

Class A MDC

(% v/v)

Class C MDC

(% v/v)

Agent

Requirement

per 1000 ft3,

Class A (lb)

Agent

Requirement per

1000 ft3,

Class C (lb)

HFC‐227ea 6.7 7.0 32.5 34.1

HFC‐125 8.7 9.0 30.0 31.2

HFC‐13 15.1 17.0 32.5 37.4

FK‐5‐1‐12 4.5 4.7 40.7 42.6

IG‐541 34.2 38.5 36.9 42.8

IG‐55 37.9 42.7 41.8 48.9




5.4.2.7 Minimum Design Concentrations. Minimum Design Concentrations and agent requirements (% v/v andmass) are given in Table 5.4.2.7.

See uploaded table



Open 2001_Kaprwan_Tbl_5.4.2.7.docx Table 5.4.2.7


With the recent changes in Class A and Class C minimum design concentrations (MDCs) introduced in the 2012 edition, numerous endusers of the standard have expressed confusion related to determining the MDC. Inclusion of this table alleviates that confusion and will be useful in system design.





Committee Statement











http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357567476527.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Kaprwan_Tbl_5.4.2.7.G1357567543314.docx&altImageId=G1357567543314

Table 5.4.2.7. Minimum Design Concentrations

Agent

Class A MDC (% v/v)

Class C MDC (% v/v)

Agent Requirement per 1000 ft3, Class A (lb)

Agent Requirement per

1000 ft3, Class C (lb)

HFC‐227ea 6.7 7.0 32.5 34.1

HFC‐125 8.7 9.0 30.0 31.2

HFC‐13 15.1 17.0 32.5 37.4

FK‐5‐1‐12 4.5 4.7 40.7 42.6

IG‐541 34.2 38.5 36.9 42.8

IG‐55 37.9 42.7 41.8 48.9




5.4.2.7 Class A, B and C Minimum Design Concentrations. Class A, B and C minimum design concentrations are given in Table 5.4.2.7

New Table 5.4.2.7 is uploaded



Open 2001_Robin_Tbl_5.4.2.7.docx Table 5.4.2.7


The current standard does not indicate Class A, B or C minimum design concentrations, the inclusion of which is required in agent selection and comparison, and in system design.





Committee Statement











http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357754302814.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Robin_Tbl_5.4.2.7.G1357754354205.docx&altImageId=G1357754354205

Table 5.4.2.7. Class A, B, and C Minimum Design Concentrations

Agent

Class A MDC (% v/v)

Class B MDC (heptane) (% v/v)

Class C MDC (% v/v)

Agent

Requirement per 1000 ft3,

Class A (lb)

Agent Requirement per

1000 ft3, Class B (heptane)

(lb)

Agent

Requirement per 1000 ft3,

Class C (lb)

HFC-227ea 6.7 8.7 7.0 32.5 43.2 34.1 HFC-125 8.7 11.3 9.0 30.0 40.2 31.2 HFC-13 15.1 16.8 17.0 32.5 36.8 37.4 FK-5-1-12 4.5 5.9 4.7 40.7 54.2 42.6 IG-541 34.2 40.6 38.5 36.9 45.9 42.8 IG-55 37.9 39.1 42.7 41.8 43.6 48.9





The amount quantity of halocarbon agent required to achieve the design concentration shall be calculatedfrom the following formula:

(5.5.1)

where:

W = weight quantity of clean agent [lb (kg)]

V = net volume of hazard, calculated as the gross volume minus the volume of fixed structures imperviousto clean agent vapor [ft3 (m3)]

Ss

= specific volume of the superheated agent vapor at 1 atm and the minimum anticipated designtemperature [°F (°C)] of the protected volume [ft3/lb (m3/kg)]

C= agent design concentration (volume percent)


The proposal changes the requirement from “minimum anticipated temperature” to “minimum design temperature.” This change of wording is important because the minimum “anticipated” enclosure temperature may in fact be lower than the intended “design” temperature.

Changes “W” to “w” to be consistent with equation.

Changes “weight” to “amount” which is consistent with the intent. Also, “lb” and “kg” are units of mass (amount) not weight.

The designation of specific volume is changed from “S” to “s” to be consistent with equations 5.5.2, 5.5.2.1a, and 5.5.2.1b.





Committee Statement


Statement: “Minimum anticipated temperature” was changed to “minimum design temperature.” This change of wording isimportant because the minimum “anticipated” enclosure temperature may in fact be lower than the intended“design” temperature. “Weight” was changed to “quantity” to be consistent with FR 24 (global). The designationof specific volume is changed from uppercase “S” to lowercase “s” to be consistent with FR 48 (5.5.2), FR 72(A.5.5.2), and FR 49 (5.5.2.1).














5

.

5.1.1

This calculation includes an allowance for the normal leakage from a “tight” enclosure due to agent expansion.


Delete in its entirety. This statement is neither necessary nor useful. Further, the intent of the statement is addressed in the first paragraph of A.5.5.1.





Committee Statement


Statement: Delete in its entirety. This statement is neither necessary nor useful. Further, the intent of the statement isaddressed in the first paragraph of A.5.5.1.










TITLE OF NEW CONTENT


5.5.1.3 (NEW) The concentration of halocarbon clean agent that will be developed in the protected enclosure shall becalculated using the following equation

[See attachment for equation] (5.5.3a)

based on the following parameters:

(a) volume of the as-built enclosure;

(b) installed quantity of agent;

(c) minimum design temperature of the protected space;

(d) maximum design temperature of the protected space




where

C = agent concentration [vol%]

W = quantity of agent [lb (kg)]

V = volume of the hazard [ft3 (m3)]

s = specific volume of the gaseous agent at the temperature of the hazard [ft3/lb (m3/kg)]



Open NFPA-2001-New_Section-5.5.1.3.docx Text and equation for proposal 5.5.1.3


The agent concentrations that will be achieved, based on as-built and as-installed parameters, at the lowest and highest design temperatures of the protected space, are required in order to verify (a) that the minimum agent design concentration is achieved; and (b) that the highest achieved concentration is less than the maximum safe concentration as specified in 1.5.1.2.





Committee Statement


Statement: The agent concentrations that will be achieved, based on as-built and as-installed parameters, at the lowest andhighest design temperatures of the protected space, are required in order to verify (a) that the minimum agentdesign concentration is achieved; and (b) that the highest achieved concentration is less than the maximumsafe concentration as specified in 1.5.1.2.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349121934007.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001-New_Section-5.5.1.3.G1354654129831.docx&altImageId=G1354654129831

NFPA 2001 5.5.1.3 (NEW) The concentration of halocarbon clean agent that will be developed in the protected enclosure shall be calculated using the following equation

100∙ ⁄

∙ ⁄ (5.5.3a)

based on the following parameters: (a) volume of the as-built enclosure; (b) installed quantity of agent; (c) minimum design temperature of the protected space; (d) maximum design temperature of the protected space where C = agent concentration [vol%] W = quantity of agent [lb (kg)] V = volume of the hazard [ft3 (m3)] s = specific volume of the gaseous agent at the temperature of the hazard [ft3/lb (m3/kg)]





5.5.1.3.1 (NEW) Agent concentrations calculated based on as-built and as-installed data and the lowest and highestdesign temperatures of the protected space shall be recorded in accordance with the requirements of 5.1.2.4 and5.2.4.


Calculations for as-built systems are required to be recorded in 5.1.2.4 and, if prepared, 5.2.4.





Committee Statement


Statement: Calculations for as-built systems are required to be recorded in 5.1.2.4 and, if prepared, 5.2.4.











The

amount

quantity of inert gas agent required to achieve the design concentration shall be calculated using Equation5.5.2, 5.5.2.1a, or 5.5.2.1b:

(

Replace equation 5.5.2

)

. See attachment for revised equation 5.5.2

where:

X =




C = inert gas design concentration (volume percent)

X = volume of inert gas added at standard conditions of 14.7 psia,

70°F

70 °F (1.013 bar,

21°C

21 °C ) per volume of hazard space [

ft 3

ft3 /

ft 3

ft3 (m 3 /

m 3

m3 )]

V

s

0 =

specific volume of inert gas agent at

70°F

70 °F (

21°C

21 °C ) and 14.7 psia (1.013 bar)

s

=

specific volume of inert gas at 1 atm and the minimum anticipated design temperature [°F (°C)] of the

protected volume [ft 3 /lb (m 3 /kg)]

C = inert gas design concentration (volume percent)

calculated as follows: s = k 1 + k 2 t

t = hazard temperature [°F (°C)]

k 1 and k 2 are agent-specific constants. See Annex A, Tables A.5.5.2(a) through Table A.5.5.2(h).



Open NFPA-2001_Section-5.5.2.docx Text and equation for proposal 5.5.2


The proposal changes the designation of specific volume of inert gas agent at 14.7 psia, 70 °F from Vs to s0 [s subscript 0] which retains the use of “s” as the term for specific volume and avoids confusion of “Vs” with “V” used to designate volume

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349122549287.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001_Section-5.5.2.G1354655504929.docx&altImageId=G1354655504929



elsewhere.

The proposal changes the requirement from “minimum anticipated temperature” to from “minimum design temperature.” This change of wording is important because the minimum “anticipated” enclosure temperature may in fact be lower than the intended “design” temperature.





Committee Statement


Statement: The proposal changes the designation of specific volume of inert gas agent at 14.7 psia, 70 °F from Vs to s0 [ssubscript 0] which retains the use of “s” as the term for specific volume and avoids confusion of “Vs” with “V”used to designate volume elsewhere. The proposal changes the requirement from “minimum anticipatedtemperature” to from “minimum design temperature.” This change of wording is important because the minimum“anticipated” enclosure temperature may in fact be lower than the intended “design” temperature.










NFPA 2001 Revised 5.5.2 5.5.2* The amount of inert gas agent required to achieve the design concentration shall be calculated using Equation 5.5.2, 5.5.2.1a, or 5.5.2.1b:

Replace 2.303 (5.5.2)

With 2.303 (5.5.2)

where: C = inert gas design concentration (volume percent) X = volume of inert gas added at standard conditions of 14.7 psia, 70 °F (1.013 bar, 21 °C) per volume of hazard space [ft3/ft3 (m 3/m3)] s0 = specific volume of inert gas agent at 70 °F (21 °C) and 14.7 psia (1.013 bar) s = specific volume of inert gas at 1 atm and the minimum anticipated design temperature [°F (°C)] of the protected volume [ft3/lb (m3/kg)] calculated as follows: s = k1 + k2 t t = hazard temperature [°F (°C)] k1 and k2 are agent-specific constants. See Annex A, Tables A.5.5.2(a) through Table A.5.5.2(h).





5.5.2.1

This calculation includes an allowance for the leakage of agent from a “tight” enclosure. An alternativeequation for calculating the inert gas clean agent concentrations shall be permitted, as follows:

(5.5.2.1a)

where:

t = minimum anticipated temperature of the protected volume (°F)

(5.5.2.1b)

where:

t = minimum anticipated temperature of the protected volume (°C)


The first sentence in the original is neither necessary nor helpful. Its intent is addressed in A.5.5.2.





Committee Statement


Statement: The first sentence in the existing text was deleted because it was neither necessary nor helpful. Its intent isaddressed in A.5.5.2. In Equation 5.5.2.1b, the reference temperature is 21 C, as stated in 5.5.2. The value of 0C corresponds to 273.15 K. However, the existing text acknowledges that use of “273” to represent 0 C issufficiently accurate for the purposes of the standard. The numerator term was changed from “294.4” to “294”, inorder to make the significant digits consistent.














5.5.2.1

This calculation includes an allowance for the leakage of agent from a “tight” enclosure. An alternative equationfor calculating the inert gas clean agent concentrations shall be permitted, as follows:

(5.5.2.1a)

where:

t =minimum anticipated temperature of the protected volume (°F)

[Replace existing Eq 5.5.2.1b with revised Eq. 5.5.2.1b. See attachment].

(5.5.2.1b)

where:

t = minimum anticipated temperature of the protected volume (°C)



Open NFPA-2001_Section-5.5.2.1.docx Revised 5.5.2.1 with new Eq 5.5.2.1b


For Eq. 5.5.2.1b the reference temperature is 21 ?C, as stated in 5.5.2. The value of 0 ?C corresponds to 273.15 K. However, the existing text acknowledges that use of “273” to represent 0 ?C is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the standard so, the numerator term should be “294,” not “294.4.”





Committee Statement


Statement: The first sentence in the existing text was deleted because it was neither necessary nor helpful. Its intent isaddressed in A.5.5.2. In Equation 5.5.2.1b, the reference temperature is 21 C, as stated in 5.5.2. The value of 0C corresponds to 273.15 K. However, the existing text acknowledges that use of “273” to represent 0 C issufficiently accurate for the purposes of the standard. The numerator term was changed from “294.4” to “294”, inorder to make the significant digits consistent.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349123350456.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001_Section-5.5.2.1.G1349123443068.docx&altImageId=G1349123443068

NFPA 2001 Revised 5.5.2.1 5.5.2* The amount of inert gas agent required to achieve the design concentration shall be calculated using Equation 5.5.2, 5.5.2.1a, or 5.5.2.1b:

Replace 2.303 (5.5.2)

With 2.303 (5.5.2)

where: C = inert gas design concentration (volume percent) X = volume of inert gas added at standard conditions of 14.7 psia, 70 °F (1.013 bar, 21 °C) per volume of hazard space [ft3/ft3 (m 3/m3)] Vs s0 = specific volume of inert gas agent at 70 °F (21 °C) and 14.7 psia (1.013 bar) s = specific volume of inert gas at 1 atm and the minimum anticipated design temperature [°F (°C)] of the protected volume [ft3/lb (m3/kg)] s is calculated as follows: s = k1 + k2 t t = hazard temperature [°F (°C)] k1 and k2 are = agent-specific constants. See Annex A, Tables A.5.5.2(a) through Table A.5.5.2(h).






5.5.2.3 (NEW) The design quantity of inert gas agent can be calculated in mass units as follows:

[see attachment for full text of proposal including equations.]

(5.5.3a)

or

(5.5.3b)

where

C = inert gas agent concentration [vol%]

W = quantity of inert gas agent [lb (kg)]





Open NFPA-2001_Section_5.5.2.3_NEW_.docx Text and Equatiojns for Proposal 5.5.2.3


A cylinder of inert gas agent is typically filled by the manufacturer to a stated mass for a given cylinder volume. Being able to simply calculate the required agent mass will be useful, particularly in performing initial field estimates before flow calculations, which normally indicate the exact agent quantity requirement, are performed. Inclusion of this method also helps in harmonizing NFPA 2001 with ISO 14520 which cites this calculation approach.





Committee Statement


Statement: A cylinder of inert gas agent is typically filled by the manufacturer to a stated mass for a given cylinder volume.Being able to simply calculate the required agent mass will be useful, particularly in performing initial fieldestimates before flow calculations, which normally indicate the exact agent quantity requirement, are performed.Inclusion of this method also helps in harmonizing NFPA 2001 with ISO 14520 which cites this calculationapproach.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349183536174.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001_Section_5.5.2.3_NEW_.G1354655760038.docx&altImageId=G1354655760038

NFPA 2001, 5.5.2.3 (NEW) Proposal 5.5.2.3 (NEW) The design quantity of inert gas agent can be calculated in mass units as follows:

2.303 (5.5.3a)

or

(5.5.3b)

where C = inert gas agent concentration [vol%] W = quantity of inert gas agent [lb (kg)] V = volume of the hazard [ft3 (m3)] s = specific volume of the gaseous agent at the temperature of the hazard [ft3/lb (m3/kg)] Substantiation A cylinder of inert gas agent is typically filled by the manufacturer to a stated mass for a given cylinder volume. Being able to simply calculate the required agent mass will be useful, particularly in performing initial field estimates before flow calculations, which normally indicate the exact agent quantity requirement, are performed. Inclusion of this method also helps in harmonizing NFPA 2001 with ISO 14520 which cites this calculation approach. Submitted by Joseph A. Senecal October 2, 2012





5.5.2.4 (NEW) The concentration of an inert gas clean agent that will be developed in the protected enclosure shallbe calculated using one of the following equations

(5.5.4a)

(5.5.4b) [see attachment for equations and text]

based on the following parameters:

(a) volume of the as-built enclosure;

(b) installed quantity of agent;

(c) minimum design temperature of the protected space;

(d) maximum design temperature of the protected space

where

C = agent concentration [vol%]

W = quantity of agent [lb (kg)]





Open NFPA-2001_Section_5.5.2.4_NEW_.docx Text and equations for proposal on 5.5.2.4


The proposed equations allow calculation of the agent concentration given discharge of an actual agent mass, m, volume V, and agent specific volume s (at enclosure temperature t ) which may be differ from the initial design parameters.





Committee Statement


Statement: The agent concentrations that will be achieved, based on as-built and as-installed parameters, at the lowest andhighest design temperatures of the protected space, are required in order to verify (a) that the minimum agentdesign concentration is achieved; and (b) that the highest achieved concentration is less than the maximumsafe concentration as specified in 1.5.1.2.








http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1349183849969.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001_Section_5.5.2.4_NEW_.G1354720784518.docx&altImageId=G1354720784518

NFPA 2001, 5.5.2.4 (NEW) Proposal 5.5.2.4 (NEW) The concentration of an inert gas clean agent that will be developed in the protected enclosure shall be calculated using one of the following equations

100

∙. ∙

∙. ∙

(5.5.4a)

or

100 ∙ /

∙ / (5.5.4b)

based on the following parameters: (a) volume of the as-built enclosure; (b) installed quantity of agent; (c) minimum design temperature of the protected space; (d) maximum design temperature of the protected space where C = agent concentration [vol%] W = quantity of agent [lb (kg)] V = volume of the hazard [ft3 (m3)] s = specific volume of the gaseous agent at the temperature of the hazard [ft3/lb (m3/kg)] Substantiation The agent concentrations that will be achieved, based on as-built and as-installed parameters, at the lowest and highest design temperatures of the protected space, are required to verify (a) that the minimum agent design concentration is achieves; and (b) that the highest concentration is less than the maximum safe concentration as specified in 1.5.1.3. Submitted by Joseph A. Senecal December 4, 2012




Public Input No. 43-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 5.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


A minimum concentration of 85 percent of the adjusted minimum design concentration shall be held at thehighest level of combustibles for a minimum period of at least 10 minutes or for a time period to sufficient toallow for response by trained personnel.


The existing language allows for a duration of protection that is less than ten minutes. The proposer believes that the intent of the technical committee was that the duration of protection was that it should be at least ten minutes.




Submittal Date: Fri Nov 02 11:22:30 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: The text was revised to clarify that a 10 minute hold time is not a minimum duration. The duration may be lessor greater if the response time for trained personnel is known.















5.7.1.1

The minimum design rate of application shall be based on the quantity of agent required for the desiredconcentration and the time allotted to achieve the desired concentration.


Delete entirely. This statement is neither necessary nor useful. The design rate of application is specified by the design quantity (sections 5.4 and 5.5) and the discharge time limits (section 5.7.1.2).





Committee Statement


Statement: This statement is neither necessary nor useful. The design rate of application is specified by the design quantity(sections 5.4 and 5.5) and the discharge time limits (section 5.7.1.2).












Public Input No. 9-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 5.7.1.2.3 ]


5.7.1.2.3*

The discharge time period is defined as the time required to discharge from the nozzles 95 percent of theagent mass [at 70°F (21°C)] necessary to achieve the minimum design concentration based on a 20 percentsafety factor as defined for respective fire class for flame extinguishment.


As per NFPA, this clause requires the discharge time to achieve 95% design concentration, however this would be more clear, if NFPA states, the requirement of achieving the minimum design concentration remain same for both class A or class C, then 20 safety factor shall be used as stated in the current version.

But if the above case is not recommened, then this clause 5.7.1.2.3, shall state, the highlighted modified comment, i.e. the 95% of design concentration shall be reached withing 120 seconds based on safety factor for respective fire class for flame extinguishment.


Submitter Full Name: Inian Sivasankaran

Organization: Tyco Fire & Security

Submittal Date: Sat Jun 16 01:45:07 EDT 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: Delivering 95% of the agent mass necessary to achieve the design concentration based on a 20% safety factorrepresents acceptable system performance. It is not necessary to tie this requirement to the safety factor thatis applied to the design concentration, as defined in 5.4.2, that is used to calculate the supplied quantity ofagent.


I, Inian Sivasankaran, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Inian Sivasankaran, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms







6.4.3.4

The discharge time shall be increased to compensate for any mechanical rundown time associated with ventilationequipment present.


Forced ventilation can potentially lead to reignition of the fuel source. When the ventilation is shutdown with system activation, some time is needed for the rotational momentum to cease. Local application systems can utilize an extended discharge to apply agent throughout this period and prevent reignition from this source.





Committee Statement


Statement: Forced ventilation can potentially lead to reignition of the fuel source. When the ventilation is shutdown withsystem activation, some time is needed for the rotational momentum to cease. Local application systems canutilize an extended discharge to apply agent throughout this period and prevent reignition from this source.













6.4.3.5

The discharge time shall be increased to compensate for any electrical systems shutdown time associated with thehazard.


Electrical energy can potentially lead to reignition of the fuel source. If the hazard to be protected is energized and shutdown with system activation, some time may be needed for the system to shut down completely. Local application systems can utilize an extended discharge to apply agent throughout this period and prevent reignition from this source.





Committee Statement

Resolution: The committee is concerned with the requirement to consider "all electrical systems". This should be betterdefined before the requirement can be adopted into the standard.













6.5.1.1

Where linear pneumatic detection tubing is also utilized for agent discharge, the detection/discharge tubing shall beinstalled such that all potential hazard areas are completely covered by the listed performance data of the tubing.


Linear pneumatic detection/discharge tubing utilizes a nozzle formed by the breakdown of the tubing wall when heat detection occurs. This nozzle is formed at a single point of detection and shall have a listed area of coverage. It is important when using these systems to ensure that the installation path of this tubing adequately covers the entire surface area of the hazard. Multiple paths of the tubing may be necessary to ensure that all areas are protected adequately. An approved organization should list the limitations of this type of system.





Committee Statement


Statement: Linear pneumatic detection/discharge tubing utilizes a nozzle formed by the breakdown of the tubing wall whenheat detection occurs. This nozzle is formed at a single point of detection and shall have a listed area ofcoverage. An approved organization should list the limitations of this type of system.














6.5.4*

Nozzles Each nozzle shall be located so as to be free of possible obstructions that could interfere with theproper projection mounted and oriented such that the distance to the nearest object in line with the trajectoryof the discharged agent is at least that required by the manufacturer’s installation manual .


The proposed language includes reference to nozzle “orientation” and to the minimum mounting distance stated in the manufacturer’s installation manual and, as such, is enforceable.





Committee Statement


Statement: This section applied only to local application nozzles. A new, general requirement that applies to both totalflooding and local application nozzles has been added to Chapter 4. See FR 39 (4.2.5.5). The associated annexmaterial has been reassigned to 6.5.2 (see FR 41).











7.1 Inspection and Tests.

7.1.1

At least annually, all systems shall be thoroughly inspected and tested for proper operation by personnelqualified in the installation and testing of clean agent extinguishing systems. Discharge tests shall not berequired.

7.1.2 2*

The inspection report with recommendations shall be filed with the owner of the system.

7.1.3

At least semiannually, the agent quantity and pressure of refillable containers shall be checked.

7.1.3.1

For halocarbon clean agents, if a container shows a loss in agent quantity of more than 5 percent or a loss inpressure (adjusted for temperature) of more than 10 percent, it shall be refilled or replaced.




7.1.3.2

For inert gas clean agents that are not liquefied, pressure is an indication of agent quantity. If an inert gasclean agent container shows a loss in pressure (adjusted for temperature) of more than 5 percent, it shall berefilled or replaced. Where container pressure gauges are used for this purpose, they shall be compared to aseparate calibrated device at least annually.

7.1.3.3

Where the amount of agent in the container is determined by special measuring devices, these devices shallbe listed.

7.1.4*

All halocarbon clean agent removed from refillable containers during service or maintenance procedures shallbe collected and recycled or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner and in accordance with existinglaws and regulations.

7.1.5

Factory-charged, nonrefillable containers that do not have a means of pressure indication shall have the agentquantity checked at least semiannually. If a container shows a loss in agent quantity of more than 5 percent,it shall be replaced. All factory-charged, nonrefillable containers removed from useful service shall be returnedfor recycling of the agent or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner and in accordance with existinglaws and regulations.

7.1.6

For halocarbon clean agents, the date of inspection, gross weight of cylinder plus agent or net weight of agent,type of agent, person performing the inspection, and, where applicable, the pressure at a recordedtemperature shall be recorded on a tag attached to the container. For inert gas clean agents, the date ofinspection, type of agent, person performing the inspection, and the pressure at a recorded temperature shallbe recorded on a tag attached to the container.


Proposed annex material that will aid the service personnel and their company in providing the required information to the owner.




Affilliation: Fire Suppressionn Systems Association (FSSA)


Committee Statement


Statement: The inspection report requires a collection of various pieces of information that are outside the realm of themechanical equipment manufacturer or the detection and control manufacturer, not always the samemanufacturer. The servicing company must also be aware of the specifics of the owner's building, connectingbuilding fire alarm system and interlock functions. A "canned, off-the-shelf inspection report" may not be fullyadequate. The company should review their forms with a benchmark document to insure they are providing thenecessary information to the owner with a thorough and complete document.














7.1.2

The inspection report with recommendations shall be filed with the owner of the system and shall be permittedto be stored and accessed using paper or electronic media .


Currently, NFPA 72 provides specific language that allows inspection records to be retained in either hardcopy or electronic format. Additionally, a proposal for the 2014 edition was submitted and unanimously accepted by the NFPA 25 Technical Committee to add similar specific language to their document, allowing inspection records to be stored and accessed electronically. As in the case of those two documents, NFPA 2001 also contains code requirements with regard to inspection records. The proposed revision of 7.1.2 would follow the pattern of those two documents in allowing both paper and electronic media to be an acceptable means of storing and accessing inspection records.


Submitter Full Name:Joe Scibetta

Organization: BuildingReports

Submittal Date: Fri Aug 17 11:44:25 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Currently, NFPA 72 provides specific language that allows inspection records to be retained in either hardcopyor electronic format. Additionally, a proposal for the 2014 edition was submitted and unanimously accepted bythe NFPA 25 Technical Committee to add similar specific language to their document, allowing inspectionrecords to be stored and accessed electronically. As in the case of those two documents, NFPA 2001 alsocontains code requirements with regard to inspection records. The proposed revision of 7.1.2 would follow thepattern of those two documents in allowing both paper and electronic media to be an acceptable means ofstoring and accessing inspection records.


I, Joe Scibetta, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Joe Scibetta, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and








7.1.4*

All halocarbon clean agent removed from refillable containers during service or maintenance procedures shallbe collected and recycled or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner and in accordance with existinglaws and regulations. Recycled agent shall comply with the quality specifications of NFPA 4.2.1; productquality shall be tested utilizing verified analytical methods as described in international industry standards(e.g., ASTM, ISO).


Users of recycled clean agents require the assurance that recycled product has been tested to meet the required product specifications as defined in NFPA 2001 Paragraph 4.1.2. To provide such assurance, i.e., to guarantee that the product specifications are actually met, requires the use of analytical methods that are capable of producing valid results. A basic tenet of analytical methodology is the requirement of validation – confirmation that a method is suitable for its intended use and provides accurate and valid results. International standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025 , ASTM E2857-11 and numerous other international consensus standards), certifying bodies, and regulatory agencies all require evidence that analytical methods are capable of producing valid results. Procedures for the validation of analytical methods are well-established and are outlined, for example, in ASTM E2857, ISO 17025, and the Eurachem publication, The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods, A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics. Analytical methods such as those in ASTM, ISO, AHRI and other consensus standards are widely employed in a wide selection of industries. The fact the these methods have been subject to independent validation by third parties provides the user of the standards with confidence that the analytical results obtained/reported are accurate, repeatable and valid.The use of manufacturers’ unvalidated analytical methods fails to provide any guarantee that the results are accurate, and offers the recycler and the end user no assurance whatsoever that the required specifications have actually been met. As a result, the recycler and end user have no way of knowing whether or not the material they are placing into the field indeed meets the required specifications.Customers look for, and deserve the independent verification that validated technical standards provide, and it would be a disservice to the clean agent industry to recommend that unknown, unvalidated analytical methods be employed for verification of product quality.





Committee Statement

Resolution: The proposal precludes the use of manufacturer-established test methods. The manufacturer or agent recycleris responsible for the quality of the product they are producing and may have developed proprietary testmethods. The manufacturer or agent recycler should have the option to choose the test methods to verify thatthe quality requirements are met. See FR 30 (4.1.2).














7.1.4*

All halocarbon Halocarbon clean agent removed from refillable containers during service or maintenanceprocedures shall be collected recovered and recycled or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner andin accordance with existing laws with any applicable laws and regulations.








Committee Statement


Statement: The phrase "in an environmentally sound manner" was vague and unenforceable. The revised text provides clearinstruction on the intent of the committee.














7.1.5

Factory-charged, nonrefillable containers that do not have a means of pressure indication shall have the agentquantity checked at least semiannually. If a container shows a loss in agent quantity of more than 5 percent,it shall be replaced. All Halocarbon clean agent in factory-charged, nonrefillable containers removed fromuseful service shall be returned for recycling of the agent or disposed of be recovered and recycledor disposed of in an environmentally sound manner and in accordance with existing laws any applicable lawsand regulations.


The proposed changes and additions provide clear guidance for recovery and recycliing of clean agents in an environmentally sound manner.






Committee Statement


Statement: The phrase "in an environmentally sound manner" was vague and unenforceable. The revised text provides clearinstruction on the intent of the committee.











7.2 Container 2* Container Test.

7.2.1*

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Canadian Transport Commission (CTC), or similar design cleanagent containers shall not be recharged without retesting if more than 5 years have elapsed since the date ofthe last test and inspection. For halocarbon agent storage containers, the retest shall be permitted to consistof a complete visual inspection as described in 49 CFR.

7.2.2*




Cylinders continuously in service without discharging shall be given a complete external visual inspectionevery 5 years or more frequently if required. The visual inspection shall be in accordance with Section 3 ofCGA C-6, except that the cylinders need not be emptied or stamped while under pressure. Inspections shallbe made only by competent personnel, and the results recorded on both of the following:

(1) A record tag permanently attached to each cylinder

(2) A suitable inspection report

7.2.2.1

A completed copy of the inspection report shall be furnished to the owner of the system or an authorizedrepresentative. These records shall be retained by the owner for the life of the system.

7.2.3

Where external visual inspection indicates that the container has been damaged, additional strength testsshall be required.


There is confusion with understanding the DOT, CGA and NFPA requirements with regard to the container testing and intervals. The proposed annex material works to clarify the necessary requirements for fire supression containers, much like the FSSA Pipe Design Handbook did for the ASME Power Piping.






Committee Statement














Public Input No. 53-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 7.4 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


Other than as identified in 7.4.1, the enclosure protected by the clean agent shall be thoroughly be visuallyinspected at least every 12 months to determine if penetrations have occurred that could lead to agentleakage, if other changes have occurred that could change volume of hazard, or both. Where the inspectionindicates conditions that could result in the inability of the enclosure to maintain the clean agentconcentration, the conditions shall be corrected. If uncertainty still exists, the enclosure shall be . Biannuallythe enclosure shall be retested for integrity in accordance with 7.7.2.3.


The potential for room integrity changes is very high, and in most cases these changes are not identified during annual inspections. Currently most protected spaces are only tested once and room integrity is never verified again.


Submitter Full Name:Kevin Murray

Organization: Siemens Industry, Inc.

Submittal Date: Fri Nov 30 10:22:55 EST 2012

Committee Statement

Resolution: The existing text is adequate to require enclosures to be inspected and retested if changes are observed thatcould lead to a failure to retain the agent concentration.


I, Kevin Murray, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Kevin Murray, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and






Public Input No. 44-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. 7.7.2.2.12 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]


The piping pipe system shall be pneumatically pressure- tested in a closed circuit for a period of 10 minutesat 40 psi circuit using nitrogen, or other dry gas, by (a) pressurizing the pipe system to 40 psig (276 kPa), (b)removing the source of pressurizing gas, and (c) measuring the pressure after a hold time of 10 minutes . Atthe end of 10 minutes, the pressure drop shall not exceed 20 percent of the test pressure pressure in the pipesystem shall not be less than 32 psig (221 kPa) .


The existing language is potentially confusing as it requires the tester to calculate what “...pressure drop shall not exceed 20 percent of the test pressure” means. A person could incorrectly interpret the existing wording as meaning “the pressure at the end of the hold time must not be less than 8 psig which is 20% of the initial pressure.” The proposed language clarifies the procedure and is explicit as to the acceptable value of pipe system pressure at the end of the hold time.




Submittal Date: Wed Nov 07 12:12:14 EST 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: The existing language is potentially confusing as it requires the tester to calculate what “...pressure drop shallnot exceed 20 percent of the test pressure” means. A person could incorrectly interpret the existing wording asmeaning “the pressure at the end of the hold time must not be less than 8 psig which is 20% of the initialpressure.” The proposed language clarifies the procedure and is explicit as to the acceptable value of pipesystem pressure at the end of the hold time.












Public Input No. 77-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after A.1.5.1.4.4 ]

A.1.5.1.5

The Fire Suppression Systems Association has a valuable publication, "Test Guide for Use with Special Hazard FireSuppression Systems Containers", which provides essential information on regulatory requirements for thetransportation and requalification of cylinders used in special hazards fire supppression systems. It discusses thesafety precautions with the handling and transport of system containers.


Provides safety information to the persons who will be handling system containers.






Committee Statement











Public Input No. 115-NFPA 2001-2013 [ Section No. A.1.6 ]


Update text and Tables A.1.6(b) and A.1.6(c) ; add new Table A.1.6(d) and new Figure A.1.6 toSection A.1.6 as shown in the uploaded file (the revised and new Tables are attached as well asthe new Figure):

A.1. 6

Many factors impact the environmental acceptability of a fire suppression agent. Uncontrolled fires posesignificant impact by themselves. All extinguishing agents should be used in ways that eliminate or minimizethe potential environmental impact [see Table A.1.6(a)]. General guidelines to be followed to minimize thisimpact include the following:

(1) Not performing unnecessary discharge testing

(2) Considering the ozone depletion and global warming impact of the agent under consideration andweighing those impacts against the fire safety concerns

(3) Recycling all agents where possible




(4) Consulting the most recent environmental regulations on each agent

The unnecessary emission of clean extinguishing agents with the ODP, the GWP, or both should be avoided.All phases of design, installation, testing, and maintenance of systems using these agents should beperformed with the goal of no emission into the environment.

Greenhouse-Gas Effect. The GWPs of the agents [as listed in Table A.1.6(b)] provide a relative comparison ofthe direct greenhouse gas emissions of fire protection systems and do not take into account any effects fromindirect emissions. For most applications, the indirect effects are negligible compared with the direct effects.By contrast with other sectors, the amount of energy required to operate fire protection systems is trivial andlargely unaffected by the agent used.

GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to globalwarming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide(whose GWP is by convention equal to 1). A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, and that timevalue must be stated whenever a GWP is quoted or else the GWP value is meaningless.

The substances subject to restrictions in the Kyoto protocol either are rapidly increasing their concentrationsin Earth's atmosphere or have a large GWP.

The GWP depends on the following factors:

(1) The absorption of infrared radiation by a given species

(2) The spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths

(3) The atmospheric lifetime of the species

Thus, a high GWP correlates with a large infrared absorption and a long atmospheric lifetime. The dependenceof GWP on the wavelength of absorption is more complicated. Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at acertain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation atthat wavelength. A gas has the most effect if it absorbs in a “window” of wavelengths where the atmosphere isfairly transparent.

Global Warming Potential (GWP). It is important to understand that the impact of a gas on climate change isa function of both the GWP of the gas and the amount of the gas emitted. For example, carbon dioxide (CO2)

has one of the lowest GWP values of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) (GWP = 1), yet emissions of CO2

account for approximately 85 percent of the impact of all GHG emissions. The U.S. EPA has employed itsvintaging model (U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007) to estimatethe emissions of GHGs from various sources; the most recent results are shown in Table A.1.6(b) and TableA.1.6(c), which indicate the relative impact of GHG emissions [teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalents] for the

various GHGs [Table A.1.6(b)] and for HFCs as a function of industry [Table A.1.6(c)].

Table A.1.6(a) Potential Environmental Impacts

AgentGWP

(IPCC 2007)ODP

FIC-13I1 0.4 0*

FK-5-1-12 1 0

HCFC Blend A 1550 0.048

HFC Blend B 1540 0

HCFC-124 609 0.022

HFC-125 3500 0

HFC-227ea 3220 0

HFC-23 14800 0

HFC-236fa 9810 0

IG-01 0 0

IG-100 0 0

IG-541 0 0

IG-55 0 0

*Agent may have a nonzero ODP if released at altitudes high above ground level.

Table A.1.6(b) Relative Impact of GHG Emissions

GHGEmissions

(Tg CO2 Equivalents)

% of

(Total Impact)

CO2 6103.4 85.4

CH4 585.3 8.2

N2O 311.9 4.4



HFCs 125.5 1.7

PFCs 7.5 0.1

SF6 16.5 0.2

Total 7150.1 100

Source: EPA (4/15/2009).

Table A.1.6(c) Impact of HFC Emissions

Source Emissions (Tg CO 2 Equivalents)% of

Total Impact

Semiconductor industry 0.3 0.2

HCFC-22 production 17.0 13.5

Refrigeration/AC 97.5 77.7

Aerosol 6.2 4.9

Foams 2.6 2.1

Solvents 1.3 1.0

Fire protection 0.7 0.6

Total 125.5 100

Source: EPA (4/15/2009).

As can be seen from Table A.1.6(b) and Table A.1.6(c), the impact (in Tg of CO2 equivalents) of HFC

emissions from fire suppression applications represents 100 × (0.7/7150.1) = 0.0098 percentof the totalimpact of all GHGs; that is, the impact of HFC emissions from fire protection applications represents less than0.01 percent of the impact of all GHG emissions. Recent results from the HFC Emissions EstimatingProgram (HEEP), which estimates the emissions of HFCs from fire suppression, are in good agreement withthe results of EPA's vintaging model results for the emission of HFCs from fire suppression applications.



Open 2001_Kaprwan_A.1.6_Fig_Tbl.docx Tables & Figures for A.1.6


Current information in Section A.1.6 is outdated and more recent information is available.





Committee Statement


Statement: The data referenced in this section is outside the scope of NFPA 2001. There are other, better references withmore current data available. Regulators and policy-makers are better equipped to maintain and distribute thisinformation.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357568042822.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Kaprwan_A.1.6_Fig_Tbl.G1357568380618.docx&altImageId=G1357568380618

Table A.1.6(b) : Impact of GHG Emissions on Climate Change – Revised-

Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2010 (4/15/2012)

Table A.1.6(c) ; Impact of HFC Emissions on Climate Change –Revised-

Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2010 (4/15/2012)

Table A.1.6(d) ; Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression Applications on Climate Change -New-

Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990‐2010 (4/15/2012)

Figure A.1.6: Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression Applications on Climate Change – NEW‐

Source: Report of the HFC Emissions Estimating Program 2002-2012 Data Collection, August 2012



Public Input No. 123-NFPA 2001-2013 [ Section No. A.1.6 ]


A.1.6

Many factors impact the environmental acceptability of a fire suppression agent. Uncontrolled fires posesignificant impact by themselves. All extinguishing agents should be used in ways that eliminate or minimizethe potential environmental impact [see Table A.1.6(a)]. General guidelines to be followed to minimize thisimpact include the following:

(1) Not performing unnecessary discharge testing

(2) Considering the ozone depletion and global warming impact of the agent under consideration andweighing those impacts against the fire safety concerns

(3) Recycling all agents where possible

(4) Consulting the most recent environmental regulations on each agent

The unnecessary emission of clean extinguishing agents with the ODP, the GWP, or both should be avoided.All phases of design, installation, testing, and maintenance of systems using these agents should beperformed with the goal of no emission into the environment.

Greenhouse-Gas Effect. The GWPs of the agents [as listed in Table A.1.6(b)] provide a relative comparison ofthe direct greenhouse gas emissions of fire protection systems and do not take into account any effects fromindirect emissions. For most applications, the indirect effects are negligible compared with the direct effects.By contrast with other sectors, the amount of energy required to operate fire protection systems is trivial andlargely unaffected by the agent used.

GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to globalwarming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide(whose GWP is by convention equal to 1). A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, and that timevalue must be stated whenever a GWP is quoted or else the GWP value is meaningless.

The substances subject to restrictions in the Kyoto protocol either are rapidly increasing their concentrationsin Earth's atmosphere or have a large

GWP

.

The GWP

depends on the following factors:

(1) The absorption of infrared radiation by a given species

(2) The spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths

(3) The atmospheric lifetime of the species

Thus, a high GWP correlates with a large infrared absorption and a long atmospheric lifetime. The dependenceof GWP on the wavelength of absorption is more complicated. Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at acertain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation atthat wavelength. A gas has the most effect if it absorbs in a “window” of wavelengths where the atmosphere isfairly transparent.

Global Warming Potential (GWP). It is important to understand that the impact of a gas on climate change isa function of both the GWP of the gas and the amount of the gas emitted. For example, carbon dioxide(CO 2 ) has one of the lowest GWP values of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) (GWP = 1), yet emissions of CO 2

account for approximately 85 percent of the impact of all GHG emissions. The U.S. EPA has employed itsvintaging model (U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007

GHG Emissions & SinksL: 1990-2010 (US EPA, 4/15/2012 ) to estimate the emissions of GHGs from varioussources; the most recent results are shown in Table A.1.6(b) and Table A.1.6(c) , which indicate the relativeimpact of GHG emissions [teragrams (Tg) of CO 2 equivalents] for the various GHGs [ Table A.1.6(b) ] and for

HFCs as a function of industry [ Table A.1.6(c) ].

Table A.1.6(a) Potential Environmental Impacts

GWP



Agent (IPCC 2007) ODP

FIC-13I1 0.4 0*

FK-5-1-12 1 0

HCFC Blend A 1550 0.048

HFC Blend B 1540 0

HCFC-124 609 0.022

HFC-125 3500 0

HFC-227ea 3220 0

HFC-23 14800 0

HFC-236fa 9810 0

IG-01 0 0

IG-100 0 0

IG-541 0 0

IG-55 0 0

*Agent may have a nonzero ODP if released at altitudes high above ground level.

Table A.1.6(b) Relative Impact of GHG Emissions

GHGEmissions

(Tg CO 2 Equivalents)

% of

(Total Impact)

CO 2 6103.4 85.4

CH 4 585.3 8.2

N 2 O 311.9 4.4

HFCs 125.5 1.7

PFCs 7.5 0.1

SF 6 16.5 0.2

Total 7150.1 100

Source: EPA (4/15/2009).

Table A.1.6(c) Impact of HFC Emissions

Source Emissions (Tg CO 2 Equivalents)% of

Total Impact

Semiconductor industry 0.3 0.2

HCFC-22 production 17.0 13.5

Refrigeration/AC 97.5 77.7

Aerosol 6.2 4.9

Foams 2.6 2.1

Solvents 1.3 1.0

Fire protection 0.7 0.6

Total 125.5 100

Source: EPA (4/15/2009).

As can be seen from Table A.1.6(b) and Table A.1.6(c) , the impact (in Tg of CO 2 equivalents) of HFC

emissions from fire suppression applications represents 100 × (0.7/

7150

6821 .

1) = 0.0098 percentof

8) percent of the total impact of all GHGs; that is, the impact of HFC emissions from fire protectionapplications represents

less than

0.01 percent of the impact of all GHG emissions. Emissions data are also available for EU-15 countries, andas is the case for the US, indicate that the relative contribution of HFCs in fire suppression applications toclimate change is minuscule [Annual EU GHG Inventory 1990-2010, and Inventory Report 2012, (30 May2012)].

The US EPA’s Vintaging Model also indicates that the impact of HFCs in fire suppression applications hasremained steady since 2005 as seen in Table A.1.6(d). Recent results from the HFC Emissions Estimating



Program (HEEP), which estimates the emissions of HFCs from fire suppression, are in good agreement withthe results of EPA's vintaging model results for the emission of HFCs from fire suppression applications , asseen in Figure A . 1.6.



Open 2001_Robin_Tbl_A.1.6_b_c_d_.docx Tables A.1.6(b),(c),(d)

Open 2001_Robin_Fig_A.1.6.docx Figure A.1.6


The information in the current standard is outdated and new, more recent information is available related to the impact of HFCs in fire suppression applications on climate change. This information is important to allow for agent selection based on factual data.





Committee Statement


Statement: The data referenced in this section is outside the scope of NFPA 2001. There are other, better references withmore current data available. Regulators and policy-makers are better equipped to maintain and distribute thisinformation.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357754980728.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Robin_Tbl_A.1.6_b_c_d_.G1357755495844.docx&altImageId=G1357755495844

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357754980728.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Robin_Fig_A.1.6.G1357755520121.docx&altImageId=G1357755520121

Table A.1.6(b) : Impact of GHG Emissions on Climate Change

Greenhouse Gas

Impact of Emissions, Tg of CO2 equivalents

Percent of Total Impact

CO2 5706.4 83.6 CH4 666.5 9.8 N2O 306.2 4.5 HFC 123 1.8 PFC 5.6 0.1 SF6 14 0.2

All Greenhouse Gases 6821.8 100 Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2010 (4/15/2012)

Table A.1.6(c) ; Impact of HFC Emissions on Climate Change

Application

Impact of Emissions, Tg of CO2 equivalents

Percent of Total

Impact Refrigeration/Air Conditioning 97.6 79.4

Aerosol 9.3 7.6 Foam 5.4 4.4

R22 Production 8.1 6.6 Solvents 1.3 1.1

Fire Protection 0.9 0.7 Semiconductor manufacture 0.3 0.2

Total HFC 123.0 100 Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2010 (4/15/2012)

Table A.1.6(d) ; Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression Applications on Climate Change

Impact on Climate Change, Tg of CO2 Equivalents 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Refrigeration/AC 87.9 90.1 90.3 90.4 91.3 97.6 Aerosol 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.6 9.1 9.3 Foam 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.9 5.4 Solvent 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Fire Protection 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9

Semiconductor manufacture 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 R22 Manufacture 15.8 13.8 17 13.6 5.4 8.1 Total all HFCs 114.9 115.9 120.1 117.4 112.1 123.0 Total All Greenhouse Gases 7204.3 7159.2 7252.8 7048.4 6608.3 6821.7 Contribution to climate change from HFCs in fire extinguishing applications

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

Source: US EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions & Sinks: 1990‐2010 (4/15/2012)

Figure A.1.6: Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression Applications on Climate Change


Figure A.1.6: Impact of HFCs in Fire Suppression Applications on Climate Change




Public Input No. 121-NFPA 2001-2013 [ Section No. A.4.1.2 ]


A.4.1.2

The normal and accepted procedures for making these quality measurements will be provided by the chemicalmanufacturers in a future submittal. Because each clean agent varies in its quality characteristics, a morecomprehensive table than the ones currently in the standard will be developed. It will be submitted through thepublic proposal process. shall be verified analytical methods as described in international industry standards(e.g., ASTM, ISO). Recovered or recycled agents are currently not available, and thus quality standards donot exist at this time. As data become available, these criteria will be developed these international standardsshall be used for the verification of product quality for reclaimed and recycled agents .


Users of recycled clean agents require the assurance that recycled product has been tested to meet the required product specifications as defined in NFPA 2001 Paragraph 4.1.2. To provide such assurance, i.e., to guarantee that the product specifications are actually met, requires the use of analytical methods that are capable of producing valid results. A basic tenet of analytical methodology is the requirement of validation – confirmation that a method is suitable for its intended use and provides accurate and valid results. International standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025 , ASTM E2857-11 and numerous other international consensus standards), certifying bodies, and regulatory agencies all require evidence that analytical methods are capable of producing valid results. Procedures for the validation of analytical methods are well-established and are outlined, for example, in ASTM E2857, ISO 17025, and the Eurachem publication, The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods, A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics. Analytical methods such as those in ASTM, ISO, AHRI and other consensus standards are widely employed in a wide selection of industries. The fact the these methods have been subject to independent validation by third parties provides the user of the standards with confidence that the analytical results obtained/reported are accurate, repeatable and valid.The use of manufacturers’ unvalidated analytical methods fails to provide any guarantee that the results are accurate, and offers the recycler and the end user no assurance whatsoever that the required specifications have actually been met. As a result, the recycler and end user have no way of knowing whether or not the material they are placing into the field indeed meets the required specifications.Customers look for, and deserve the independent verification that validated technical standards provide, and it would be a disservice to the clean agent industry to recommend that unknown, unvalidated analytical methods be employed for verification of product quality.





Committee Statement


Statement: The proposed change provides sources for the procedures necessary to make the quality determinationsrequired by 4.1.2.














A.4.1.2

The normal and accepted procedures for making these quality measurements will be provided by the chemicalmanufacturers in a future submittal. Because each clean agent varies in its quality characteristics, a morecomprehensive table than the ones currently in the standard will be developed. It will be submitted through thepublic proposal process. Recovered or recycled agents are currently not available, and thus quality standardsdo not exist at this time. As data become available, these criteria will be developed

ASTM standards have been developed for “Standard Specifications” of several clean agents: D6064-11, HFC-227ea; D6126-11, HFC-23; D6231-11, HFC-125; D6541-11, HFC-236fa; D7327-07, HFC Blend B. Standardshave also been developed for “Standard Practice for Handling, Transportation, and Storage” for several cleanagents. ASTM documents can be obtained through www.ASTM.org .


The current paragraph has been in each edition of the standard, unchanged, since the first edition in 1994. It is no longer correct in at least two respects. ASTM standards have since been published that address standard specifications, test methods, standard practice for handling, transportation, and handling for some clean agents.





Committee Statement












http://www.astm.org/





A.4.1.2

The normal and accepted procedures for making these quality measurements will be provided by the chemicalmanufacturers in a future submittal . Because each clean agent varies in its quality characteristics, a morecomprehensive table than the ones currently in the standard will be developed. It will be submitted through thepublic proposal process. Recovered or recycled agents are currently not available, and thus quality standardsdo not exist at this time. As data become available, these criteria will be developed.


The proposed changes and additions provide clear guidance for recovery and recycling of clean agents in an environmentally sound manner






Committee Statement











Public Input No. 60-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. A.4.1.4.1 ]


A.4.1.4.1

Containers used for agent storage should be fit for the purpose. Materials of construction of the container,closures, gaskets, and other components should be compatible with the agent and designed for theanticipated pressures. Each container is equipped with a pressure relief device to protect against excessivepressure conditions.

The variations in vapor pressure with temperature for the various clean agents are shown in Figure A.4.1.4.1(a)through Figure A.4.1.4.1(m).

For halocarbon clean agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected by fill density andtemperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to fill density. If themaximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increase and present ahazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is very important that the maximum fill density limit specifiedfor each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density and pressurization levelsspecified in Table A.4.1.4.1 should prevent excessively high pressures from occurring if the agent container is




exposed to elevated temperatures. Adherence to the limits will also minimize the possibility of an inadvertentdischarge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should be consulted forsuperpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A.4.1.4.1.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(a) Isometric Diagram of FIC-13I1.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(b) Isometric Diagram of FK-5-1-12.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(b) Continued



Figure A.4.1.4.1(c) Isometric Diagram of HCFC Blend A.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(d) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-124 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(e) Isometric Diagram of HFC-125 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(e) Continued



Figure A.4.1.4.1(f) Isometric Diagram of HFC-227ea Pressurized with Nitrogen.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(f) Continued

Figure A.4.1.4.1(g) Isometric Diagram of HFC-23.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(h) Isometric Diagram of HFC-236fa Pressurized with Nitrogen.



Figure A.4.1.4.1(i) Isometric Diagram of IG-01.

Add the following isometric diagrams in figure A.4.1.4.1 (i) Isometric Diagram of IG-01 :

(1) Pressurized to 2894 psi at 70°F,

(2) Pressurized to 20,0 Mpa at 15°C,

(1) Pressurized at 4510 psi at 70°F

(2) Pressurized at 30,0 Mpa at 15°C



Figure A.4.1.4.1(j) Isometric Diagram of IG-100.



Figure A.4.1.4.1(k) Isometric Diagram of IG-541.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(l) Isometric Diagram of IG-55.



Figure A.4.1.4.1(m) Isometric Diagram of HFC Blend B.

With the exception of inert gas–type systems, all the other clean agents are classified as liquefiedcompressed gases at 70°F (21°C). For these agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected byfill density and temperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to filldensity. If the maximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increaseand present a hazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is important that the maximum fill density limitspecified for each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density andpressurization levels specified in Table A.4.1.4.1 should prevent excessively high pressures from occurring ifthe agent container is exposed to elevated temperatures. Adherence to the limits will also minimize thepossibility of an inadvertent discharge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should beconsulted for superpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A.4.1.4.1.

Insert the underscored data in table A.4.1.4.1 Storage Container Characteristics:

***Insert table A.4.1.4.1 here***

Table A.4.1.4.1 Storage Container Characteristics

Extinguishing

Agent

Maximum Fill Density forConditions Listed Below

(lb/ft3)

Minimum Container Design LevelWorking Pressure (Gauge)

(psi)

Total GaugePressure Level at

70°F

(psi)

FK-5-1-12 90 500 360

HCFC Blend A 56.2 500 360

HCFC-124 71 240 195

HFC-125 58 320 166.4a

HFC-227ea 72 500 360

HFC-23 54 1800 608.9a

FIC-13I1 104.7 500 360

IG-01 N/A 2120 2370

IG-100 (300) N/A 3600 4061



IG-100 (300) N/A 3600 4061

IG-100 (240) N/A 2879 3236

IG-100 (180) N/A 2161 2404

IG-541 N/A 2015+ 2175

IG-541 (200) N/A 2746 2900

IG-55 (222) N/A 2057+ 2222b

IG-55 (2962) N/A 2743+ 2962c

IG-55 (4443) N/A 4114+ 4443d

HFC Blend B 58 400 195e

For SI units, 1 lb/ft3 = 16.018 kg/m3; 1 psig = 6895 Pa; °C = (°F – 32)/1.8.

Notes:

(1) The maximum fill density requirement is not applicable for IG-541. Cylinders for IG-541 are DOT 3A or 3AA,are stamped 2015+, or greater.

(2) Total pressure level at 70°F (21°C) is calculated from the following filling conditions:

?IG-100 (300): 4351 psig (30.0 MPa) and 95°F (35°C)

?IG-100 (240): 3460 psig (23.9 MPa) and 95°F (35°C)

?IG-100 (180): 2560 psig (17.7 MPa) and 95°F (35°C)

?IG-55 (2222): 2175 psig (15 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

?IG-55 (2962): 2901 psig (20 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

?IG-55 (4443): 4352 psig (30 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

IG-01 (160): 2315 psig (16 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

IG-01 (200): 2894 psig (20 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

IG-01 (300): 4510 psig (30 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

a Vapor pressure for HFC-23 and HFC-125.

b Cylinders for IG-55 are stamped 2060+.

c Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 2750+, or greater.

d Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 4120+, or greater.

e Vapor pressure of agent.



Open 2001_L3_TableA.4.1.4.1_R.doc Table 4.1.4.1

Open Hold_NFPA2001GFE-AAA_A.4.1.4.1.pdf Held Comment 2001-24


NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 2001-24 (Log #12) which was held from the F10 ROC on Proposal 2001-36. In proposal NFPA 2001 Log 22 requirements for container pressure and minimum acceptable fittings are made to cover technical properties of IG-541 300 bar systems. The substantiation is that NFPA 2001 shall be up to date on technologies and equipment for 300 bar IG541 system, that the technology for 300 bar IG-541 is available and used in many countries and that in Europe most new IG-541 installations are 300 bar systems. IG-01 systems and installations using 200 bar and 300 bar system pressure are as well acknowledged as state of the art. Consequently NFPA 2001 should also include typical data for such IG-01 systems as described above in chapter 4. of this form.


Submitter Full Name:Thomas Claessen

Organization: MINIMAX GMBH & CO. KG


Committee Statement

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355252538786.xml:=root&imageId=2001_L3_TableA.4.1.4.1_R.G1355252980854.doc&altImageId=G1355252980854

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355252538786.xml:=root&imageId=Hold_NFPA2001GFE-AAA_A.4.1.4.1.G1357835400654.pdf&altImageId=G1357835400654

2001_L3_Table A.4.1.4.1_F2014_ROC_R

IG-01 (160) N/A 2120 2370

IG-01 (200) N/A 2669 2984

IG-01 (300) N/A 3960 4510

IG-100 (300) N/A

3600 4061




Statement: Data for 200-bar and 300-bar IG-01 systems was added to Figure A.4.1.4.1(i) and Table A.4.1.4.1. NOTE: Thisproposal appeared as Comment 2001-24 (Log #12) which was held from the F10 ROC on Proposal 2001-36.


I, Thomas Claessen, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Thomas Claessen, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms



Public Input No. 26-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after A.4.1.4.5(2) ]



A.4.1.4.6 The use of environmental controls should be considered when the storage location for clean agent systemcontainers is subject to conditions outside of the storage temperature limits stated in the listed manual for the cleanagent system.


The proposal moves and modifies advisory material from mandatory text to the annex.





Committee Statement


Statement: The primary sentence is changed from a negative (“shall not”) to a positive statement (“shall”). The secondsentence is advisory and is now addressed by the new annex material.















A.4.2.1.1

Paragraph 4.2.1.1 requires that “the thickness of the piping shall be calculated in accordance with ASMEB31.1.” To comply with this requirement, the guidelines found in the FSSA Pipe Design Handbook should befollowed. The FSSA Pipe Design Handbook provides guidance on how to apply ASME B31.1 in a uniform andconsistent manner in the selection of acceptable types of pipe and tubing used in special hazard firesuppression systems.

Insert the underscored data in table 4.2.1.1.1(a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean AgentSystem Piping:

***Insert Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) here***



Open 2001_L3_Table4.2.1.1.1_a_R.doc Table 4.2.1.1.1(a)








Committee Statement


Statement: Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) does not address piping downstream of the pressure reducing device in inert gas clean agentsystems. The revision addresses the piping downstream of the pressure reducing device when employed andcorrelates the pipe strength requirements for inert gas clean agent systems with the minimum working pressurerequirements for fittings in 4.2.3.1. This revision correlates with FR 37 (4.7.1.1.2) and FR 12 (4.2.1.1). A newrow was added to Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) for 300-bar IG-01 systems. NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment2001-24 (Log #12) which was held from the F10 ROC on Proposal 2001-36.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355253088994.xml:=root&imageId=2001_L3_Table4.2.1.1.1_a_R.G1355253139866.doc&altImageId=G1355253139866


2001_L3_Table 4.2.1.1.1(a)_F2014_ROC_R

IG-01 2370 16,341 2650 18,271 2370

16,341

2964 20,436 3304 22,781 2964

20,436

4510 31,097 5402 37,244 4510

31,097

IG-541 2175

14,997 2575 17,755 2175

14,997





A.4.2.3.1

Fittings that are acceptable for use in clean agent systems can be found in Table A.4.2.3.1(a) and TableA.4.2.3.1(b). The fittings shown in these tables are based on use in open-ended piping systems. For fittingsused in closed sections of pipe, Sections 4 and 7 of the FSSA Pipe Design Handbook should be consulted.

Insert the underscored data in table A.4.2.3.1(a) Piping System Fittings:

***Insert Table A.4.2.3.1(a) here***

Table A.4.2.3.1(a) Piping Systems Fittings

Pressure in Agent Containerat 70°F (21°C) (up to and

including)

Fitting MinimumDesign Pressure at

70°F (21°C)a

Clean Agent psi kPa psi kPaMinimum

AcceptableFittings

MaximumPipe Size

(NPS)

All halocarbonagents (exceptHFC-23)

360 2,482 416 2,868Class 300 threadedmalleable iron

6 in.

Class 300 threadedductile iron

6 in.

Groove type

fittingsb 6 in.

Class 300 flangedjoints

All

600 4,137 820 5,654Class 300 threadedmalleable iron

4 in.

Class 2,000 lbthreaded/weldedforged steel

All

HFC-23 609 4,199 1,371 9,453c Class 400 flangedjoint

All

Class 300 threadedmalleable iron

2 in.


All

Class 600 flangedjoint

All

IG-541 2,175 14,997 2,175 14,997Class 2,000 lbthreaded forgedsteel

2 1?2 in.


All

Upstream of thepressure reducer

Class 1,500 flangedjoint

All

Downstream of the

pressure reducerd—d —d

2,900 19,996 2,900 19,996Class 2,000 lbthreaded forgedsteel

1 in.


All



All



Downstream of the


4,508 31,050

Class 3,000 lbthreaded forgedsteel



1 in.

All

All


1 1?2 in.


All



All

Downstream of the



1 in.


All



All

Downstream of thepressure reducer

—d —d


2 1?2 in.


All



All

Downstream of the



1 in.


All



All

Downstream of the


4,350 29,993 4,350 29,993

Class 3,000 lbthreaded forgedsteel

1 in.


All



All

Downstream of the


IG-100 2,404 16,575 2,404 16,575Class 2,000 lbthreaded forged

steel

1 1?2 in.

Class 3,000 lb




All



All

Downstream of the



3?4 in.


All



All

Downstream of the



1 in.


All



All

Downstream of the


Notes:

(1) All fitting ratings shown are based on open-ended piping systems.

(2) The materials in this table do not preclude the use of other materials and other types and styles of fittingsthat satisfy the requirements of 4.2.3.1.

(3) The pressure ratings of the forged steel threaded or welded fittings are based on the pressure equivalent ofthe numerical class of the fitting or on the pressure rating of ASTM A 106B, Grade B seamless steel pipe,whichever is higher.

a Minimum design pressures taken from Table 4.2.1.1(a) and Table 4.2.1.1(b).

b Check with grooved fitting manufacturers for pressure ratings.

c This value good for all fill densities up to 48 lb/ft3.

d The minimum design pressure for fittings downstream of the pressure reducer should be determined bysystem flow calculations. Acceptable pipe fittings for several values of pressures downstream of the pressurereducer can be found in Table A.4.2.3.1(b).

Table A.4.2.3.1(b) Piping Systems Fittings for Use in Inert Gas Systems Downstream of the PressureReducer

Maximum Pressure Downstream

of the Pressure Reducer

at 70°F (21°C)

(up to and including)

Minimum Acceptable FittingsMaximum

Pipe Size (NPS)

psi kPa

1,000 6,895 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 4 in.

Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel All


Class 600 lb flanged joint All















Pressure-temperature ratings have been established for certain types of fittings. A list of ANSI standardscovering the different types of fittings is given in Table 126.1 of ASME B31.1. Where fittings not covered byone of these standards are used, the design recommendations of the manufacturer of the fittings should not beexceeded.



Open 2001_L3_TableA.4.2.3.1_a_R.doc Table A.4.2.3.1(a)








Committee Statement


Statement: Data was added to Table A.4.2.3.1(a) for 300-bar IG-01 systems. NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment2001-24 (Log #12) which was held from the F10 ROC on Proposal 2001-36.










http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355253290479.xml:=root&imageId=2001_L3_TableA.4.2.3.1_a_R.G1355253467590.doc&altImageId=G1355253467590


2001_L3_Table A.4.2.3.1(a)_F2014_ROC_R

2,964 (20,346)

2,964 (20,346) Class 2,000 lb thrd. forged steel

1 in.

Class 3,000 lb thrd./weld F.S.

All

Upstream the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint All

Downstream of the pressure reducer

__d __d

4.510 (31,097)

4.510 (31,097) Class 3,000 lb thrd. forged steel

1 in.

Class 6,000 lb thrd./weld F.S.

All


Downstream of the pressure reducer

__d _ _d

IG-55

2,175 (14,997)

2,175 (14,997) Class 2,000 lb thrd. forged steel

2 ½ in.

Class 3,000 lb thrd./weld F.S. All


Downstream of the pressure __d __d

Note: In all comments as shown above previous and subsequent passages as existing in NFPA2001 Ed. 2008 are noted to explain the new passages recommended position. These already existing passages are not underscored.



Public Input No. 69-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after A.4.2.4.2 ]

A.4.2.5.5

The impingment of the extinguishing agent during a discharge can adversely affect the development ofa homogenous concentration throughout the protected space. The manufacturer should be consulted for acceptabledistances for the discharge nozzles from obstructions; i.e.cable tray, hot aisle/cold aisle containment structures,duct work etc. Where minimum distances cannot be achieved, the manufacturer should be consulted to obtainagent loss calculations for the specific nozzle locations and add the necessary compensating quantity of agent.


The advent of Hot Aisle/Clod Aisle containment structures are presenting additional challenges to the design of a total flooding clean agent extinguishing system. Compensating extinguishing agent must be added where the aisle containmnet or other obstructions do not allow the manufacturer's minimum nozzle clearance to be attained.






Committee Statement


Statement: It is necessary that the discharge of the extinguishing agent have sufficient clear distance to avoid frosting andto create a homogenous mix of the agent in the hazard. Nozzle obstruction is addressed for Local ApplicationSystems, Section 6.5.4, but not for Total Flooding Systems. The advent of Hot Aisle/Clod Aisle containmentstructures presents additional challenges to the design of a total flooding clean agent extinguishing system.Compensating extinguishing agent must be added where the aisle containmnet or other obstructions do notallow the manufacturer's minimum nozzle clearance to be attained.












Public Input No. 70-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. A.5.1.2.2(28) ]


A.5.1.2.2(28)

“Specified enclosure pressure limit” is a value determined or estimated with confidence to be less than theenclosure pressure strength. It is not intended to necessarily be the same as the “enclosure pressurestrength” as would be determined by a structural engineering analysis.

Guidance to determine "Pressure Relief Vent Area" can be found in the Fire Suppression SystemsAssociation's guide book: "Pressure Relief Vent Area for Applications Using Clean Agent Fire ExtinguishingSystems", Second Edition. The book will assist the designer in accuarately determining the requiredinformation for inclusion on the working plans.


The standard requires the system designer to provide information on the working plan. The FSSA guide book offers the designer a reliable resource to confidently provide the required information.






Committee Statement


Statement: The standard requires the system designer to provide information on the working plan. The FSSA guide bookoffers the designer a resource to provide the required information.












Public Input No. 72-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after A.5.2.1 ]

A.5.3

NFPA 75 Standard for the Protection of Information Technology Equipment Chapter 5 Construction Requirementsoffers clear guidance on the construction of an enclosure being protected by Clean Agent Fire ExtinguishingSystems. Specifically, that "the fire-resistant-rated walls extend from the structural floor to the structural floor aboveor to the roof". Proper room construction will insure that the integrity of the room will be maintained and that theextinguishing agent concentration will be held for the required duration.


Many buiildings are constructed for general occupancy and are later transformed into server rooms or IT rooms. These rooms need to be modified to hold the extinguishing agent in the protected space. Referencing the NFPA 75 Standard will present guidance to the proper construction of these rooms.






Committee Statement


Statement: Many buiildings are constructed for general occupancy and are later transformed into server rooms or IT rooms.These rooms need to be modified to hold the extinguishing agent in the protected space. Referencing the NFPA75 Standard will present guidance to the proper construction of these rooms.














A.5.3.5.1

NFPA 75, 8.1.1.2, requires the following: “An automatic sprinkler system, a carbon dioxide extinguishingsystem, or an inert agent fire extinguishing system for the protection of the area below the raised floor in aninformation technology equipment room or information technology equipment area shall be provided.” NFPA75, A.8.1.1.2, notes that halocarbon agents should not be used to protect the space below a raised floorunless the space above the raised floor is likewise protected by the system and the system is designed todischarge simultaneously into both the space below the raised floor and the room above the raised floor.

During and after a discharge, some of the agent from the space under the raised floor will migrate into theroom above the raised floor. If any fire exists in the equipment above the raised floor, the agent at aconcentration below the extinguishing concentration may be exposed to the fire. If the agent is a halocarbon,considerable decomposition of the agent could occur. Note that NFPA 12A, in 5.3.1.2, also prohibits the useof Halon 1301 for flooding the space under a raised floor if the room above the raised floor is notsimultaneously protected by the Halon 1301 total flooding system.


See substantiation for Public Input #105.





Committee Statement















A.5.3.5.1

NFPA 75, 8.1.1.2, requires the following: “An automatic sprinkler system, a carbon dioxide extinguishingsystem, or an inert agent fire extinguishing system for the protection of the area below the raised floor in aninformation technology equipment room or information technology equipment area shall be provided.” NFPA75, A.8.1.1.2, notes that halocarbon agents should not be used to protect the space below a raised floorunless the space above the raised floor is likewise protected by the system and the system is designed todischarge simultaneously into both the space below the raised floor and the room above the raised floor.

During and after a discharge, some of the agent from the space under the raised floor will migrate into theroom above the raised floor. If any fire exists in the equipment above the raised floor, the agent at aconcentration below the extinguishing concentration may be exposed to the fire. If the agent is a halocarbon,considerable decomposition of the agent could occur. Note that NFPA 12A, in 5.3.1.2, also prohibits the useof Halon 1301 for flooding the space under a raised floor if the room above the raised floor is notsimultaneously protected by the Halon 1301 total flooding system.

The spaces above and below a raised floor may or may not exchange air freely. Some raised floor designsemploy perforated tiles or may have other openings that allow for free air exchange between the upper andlower spaces. Some raised floors are designed to allow only for engineered exchange of air between the upperand lower spaces. In the latter case, shut off of the air-exchange equipment results in isolation of the upperand lower space and air exchange is not free to occur. In this instance the space below a raised floor can betreated as a distinctly separate and isolated volume independent of the space above the floor.


This is explanatory information in support of proposal to revise 5.3.5.1 which considers the space below a raised floor can sometimes be treated as a distinctly separate and isolated volume independent of the space above the floor.





Committee Statement















A.5.4.2.2

The following steps detail the fire extinguishment/area coverage fire test procedure for engineered and pre-engineered clean agent extinguishing system units:

(1) The general requirements are as follows:

(a) An engineered or pre-engineered extinguishing system should mix and distribute its extinguishingagent and should totally flood an enclosure when tested in accordance with the recommendationsof A.5.4.2.2 (1)(c) through A.5.4.2.2 (6)(f) under the maximum design limitations and most severeinstallation instructions. See also A.5.4.2.2 (1)(b).

(b) When tested as described in A.5.4.2.2 (2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2 (5)(b), an extinguishing system unitshould extinguish all fires within 30 seconds after the end of system discharge. When tested asdescribed in A.5.4.2.2 (2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2 (3)(c) and A.5.4.2.2 (6)(a) through A.5.4.2.2 (6)(f),an extinguishing system should prevent reignition of the wood crib after a 10 minute soak period.

(c) The tests described in A.5.4.2.2 (2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2 (6)(f) should be carried out. Consider theintended use and limitations of the extinguishing system, with specific reference to the following:

i. The area coverage for each type of nozzle

ii. The operating temperature range of the system

iii. Location of the nozzles in the protected area

iv. Either maximum length and size of piping and number of fittings to each nozzle or minimumnozzle pressure

v. Maximum discharge time

vi. Maximum fill density

(2) The test enclosure construction is as follows:

(a) The enclosure for the test should be constructed of either indoor or outdoor grade minimum 3?8 in.(9.5 mm) thick plywood or equivalent material.

(b) An enclosure(s) is to be constructed having the maximum area coverage for the extinguishingsystem unit or nozzle being tested and the minimum and maximum protected area heightlimitations.

The test enclosure(s) for the maximum height, flammable liquid, and wood crib fire extinguishment testsneed not have the maximum coverage area, but should be at least 13.1 ft (4.0 m) wide by 13.1 ft (4.0 m)long and 3351 ft3 (100 m3) in volume.

(3) The extinguishing system is as follows:

(a) A pre-engineered type of extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using its maximum pipinglimitations with respect to number of fittings and length of pipe to the discharge nozzles and nozzleconfiguration(s), as specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions.

(b) An engineered-type extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using a piping arrangement thatresults in the minimum nozzle design pressure at 70°F (21°C).

(c) Except for the flammable liquid fire test using the 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) square pan and the wood crib

extinguishment test, the cylinders are to be conditioned to the minimum operating temperaturespecified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

(4) The extinguishing concentration is as follows:

(a) The extinguishing agent concentration for each test is to be 83.34 percent of the intended end usedesign concentration specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions at theambient temperature of approximately 70°F (21°C) within the enclosure.

(b) The concentration for inert gas clean agents can be adjusted to take into consideration actualleakage measured from the test enclosure.

(c) The concentration within the enclosure for halocarbon clean agents should be calculated using thefollowing formula unless it is demonstrated that the test enclosure exhibits significant leakage. Ifsignificant test enclosure leakage does exist, the formula used to determine the test enclosureconcentration of halocarbon clean agents can be modified to account for the leakage measured.

where:

W = weight of clean agents [lb (kg)]

V = volume of test enclosure [ft3 (m3)]

s = specific volume of clean agent at test temperature [ft3/lb (m3/kg)]

C= concentration (percent)



(5) The flammable liquid extinguishment tests are as follows:

(a) Steel test cans having a nominal thickness of 0.216 in. (5.5 mm) (such as Schedule 40 pipe) and3.0 in. to 3.5 in. (76.2 mm to 88.9 mm) in diameter and at least 4 in. (102 mm) high, containingeither heptane or heptane and water, are to be placed within 2 in. (50.8 mm) of the corners of thetest enclosure(s) and directly behind the baffle, and located vertically within 12 in. (305 mm) of thetop or bottom of the enclosure or both the top and bottom if the enclosure permits such placement.If the cans contain heptane and water, the heptane is to be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) deep. The levelof heptane in the cans should be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the can. For theminimum room height area coverage test, closable openings are provided directly above the cans toallow for venting prior to system installation. In addition, for the minimum height limitation areacoverage test, a baffle is to be installed between the floor and ceiling in the center of the enclosure.The baffle is to be perpendicular to the direction of nozzle discharge and to be 20 percent of thelength or width of the enclosure, whichever is applicable with respect to nozzle location. For themaximum room height extinguishment test, an additional test is to be conducted using a 2.5 ft2

(0.23 m2) square pan located in the center of the room and the storage cylinder conditioned to 70°F

(21°C). The test pan is to contain at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) of heptane, with the heptane level at least2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the pan. For all tests, the heptane is to be ignited and allowed toburn for 30 seconds, at which time all openings are to be closed and the extinguishing system is tobe manually actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure shouldbe at least 20 percent.

(b) The heptane is to be commercial grade having the following characteristics:

i. Initial boiling point: 90°C (194°F) minimum

ii. Dry point: 100°C (212°F) maximum

iii. Specific gravity: 0.69–0.73

(6) The wood crib extinguishment tests are as follows:

(a) The storage cylinder is to be conditioned to 70°F (21°C). The test enclosure is to have themaximum ceiling height as specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

(b) The wood crib is to consist of four layers of six, trade size 2 by 2 (1 1?2 by 1 1?2 in.) by 18 in. long,kiln spruce or fir lumber having a moisture content between 9 and 13 percent. The alternate layersof the wood members are to be placed at right angles to one another. The individual wood membersin each layer are to be evenly spaced, forming a square determined by the specified length of thewood members. The wood members forming the outside edges of the crib are to be stapled ornailed together.

(c) Ignition of the crib is to be achieved by the burning of commercial grade heptane in a square steelpan 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) in area and not less than 4 in. (101.6 mm) in height. The crib is to be centered

with the bottom of the crib 12 to 24 in. (304 to 609.6 mm) above the top of the pan, and the teststand constructed so as to allow for the bottom of the crib to be exposed to the atmosphere.

(d) The heptane is to be ignited, and the crib is to be allowed to burn freely for approximately 6 minutesoutside the test enclosure. The heptane fire is to burn for 3 to 3 1?2 minutes. Approximately 1?4 gal(0.95 L) of heptane will provide a 3 to 3 1?2 minute burn time. Just prior to the end of the pre-burnperiod, the crib is to be moved into the test enclosure and placed on a stand such that the bottomof the crib is between 20 and 28 in. (508 and 711 mm) above the floor. The closure is then to besealed.

(e) After the crib is allowed to burn for a period of 6 minutes, the system is to be actuated. At the timeof actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure at the level of the crib should be at least 20percent.

(f) After the end of system discharge, the enclosure is to remain sealed for a total of 10 minutes. Afterthe 10 minute soak period, the crib is to be removed from the enclosure and observed to determinewhether sufficient fuel remains to sustain combustion and to detect signs of re-ignition.

(7) The following is a schematic of the process to determine the design quantity:

(a) Determine hazard features, as follows:

i. Fuel type: Extinguishing concentration (EC) per 5.4.2 or inerting concentration (IC) per 5.4.3

ii. Enclosure volume

iii. Enclosure temperature

iv. Enclosure barometric pressure

(b) Determine the agent minimum design concentration (MDC) by multiplying EC or IC by the safetyfactor (SF):

(c) Determine the agent minimum design quantity (MDQ) by referring to 5.5.1 for halocarbons or 5.5.2for inert gases



(d) Determine whether design factors (DF) apply. See 5.5.3 to determine individual DF [DF(i)] and thendetermine sum:

(e) Determine the agent adjusted minimum design quantity (AMDQ):

(f) Determine the pressure correction factor (PCF) per 5.5.3.3

(g) Determine the final design quantity (FDQ) as follows:

Where any of the following conditions exists, higher extinguishing concentrations might be required:

(1) Cable bundles greater than 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter

(2) Cable trays with a fill density greater than 20 percent of the tray cross section

(3) Horizontal or vertical stacks of cable trays less than 10 in. (250 mm) apart

(4) Equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the collective power consumption exceeds5 kW

Fire extinguishment tests for (noncellulosic) Class A Surface Fires. The purpose of the tests outlined in thisprocedure is to develop the minimum extinguishing concentration (MEC) for a gaseous fire suppression agentfor a range of noncellulosic, solid polymeric combustibles. It is intended that the MEC will be increased byappropriate safety factors and flooding factors as provided for in the standard.

These Class A tests should be conducted in a draft-free room with a volume of at least 3530 ft3 (100 m3) and aminimum height of 11.5 ft (3.5 m) and each wall at least 13.1 ft (4 m) long. Provisions should be made for reliefventing if required.

The test objects are as follows:

(1) The polymer fuel array consists of 4 sheets of polymer, 3?8 in. (9.53 mm) thick, 16 in. (406 mm) tall, and8 in. (203 mm) wide. Sheets are spaced and located per Figure A.5.4.2.2(a). The bottom of the fuel arrayis located 8 in. (203 mm) from the floor. The fuel sheets should be mechanically fixed at the requiredspacing.

(2) A fuel shield is provided around the fuel array as indicated in Figure A.5.4.2.2(a). The fuel shield is 15 in.(381 mm) wide, 33.5 in. (851 mm) high, and 24 in. (610 mm) deep. The 24 in. (610 mm) wide × 33.5 in.(851 mm) high sides and the 24 in. (610 mm) × 15 in. (381 mm) top are sheet metal. The remaining twosides and the bottom are open. The fuel array is oriented in the fuel shield such that the 8 in. (203 mm)dimension of the fuel array is parallel to the 24 in. (610 mm) side of the fuel shield.

(3) Two external baffles measuring 40 in. × 40 in. (1 m × 1 m) and 12 in. (0.3 m) tall are located around theexterior of the fuel shield as shown in Figure A.5.4.2.2(a) and Figure A.5.4.2.2(b). The baffles are placed3.5 in. (0.09 m) above the floor. The top baffle is rotated 45 degrees with respect to the bottom baffle.

(4) Tests are conducted for three plastic fuels — polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polypropylene (PP), andacrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) polymer. Plastic properties are given in Table A.5.4.2.2(a).

(5) The ignition source is a heptane pan 2 in. × 2 in. × 7?8 in. deep (51 mm × 51 mm × 22 mm deep)centered 1?2 in. (12 mm) below the bottom of the plastic sheets. The pan is filled with 3.0 ml of heptaneto provide 90 seconds of burning.

(6) The agent delivery system should be distributed through an approved nozzle. The system should beoperated at the minimum nozzle pressure (±10 percent) and the maximum discharge time (±1 second).

The test procedure is as follows:

(1) The procedures for ignition are as follows:

(a) The heptane pan is ignited and allowed to burn for 90 seconds.

(b) The agent is discharged 210 seconds after ignition of heptane.

(c) The compartment remains sealed for 600 seconds after the end of discharge. Extinguishment timeis noted. If the fire is not extinguished within 600 seconds of the end of agent discharge, a higherminimum extinguishing concentration must be utilized.

(d) The test is repeated two times for each fuel for each concentration evaluated and theextinguishment time averaged for each fuel. Any one test with an extinguishment time above 600seconds is considered a failure.

(e) If the fire is extinguished during the discharge period, the test is repeated at a lower concentrationor additional baffling provided to ensure that local transient discharge effects are not impacting theextinguishment process.

(f) At the beginning of the tests, the oxygen concentration must be within 2 percent (approximately 0.5



percent by volume O2) of ambient value.

(g) During the post-discharge period, the oxygen concentration should not fall below 0.5 percent byvolume of the oxygen level measured at the end of agent discharge.

(2) The observation and recording procedures are as follows:

(a) The following data must be continuously recorded during the test:

i. Oxygen concentration (±0.5 percent)

ii. Fuel mass loss (±5 percent)

iii. Agent concentration (±5 percent) (Inert gas concentration can be calculated based on oxygenconcentration.)

(b) The following events are timed and recorded:

i. Time at which heptane is ignited

ii. Time of heptane pan burnout

iii. Time of plastic sheet ignition

iv. Time of beginning of agent discharge

v. Time of end of agent discharge

vi. Time all visible flame is extinguished

The minimum extinguishing concentration is determined by all of the following conditions:

(1) All visible flame is extinguished within 600 seconds of agent discharge.

(2) The fuel weight loss between 10 seconds and 600 seconds after the end of discharge does not exceed0.5 oz (15 g).

(3) There is no ignition of the fuel at the end of the 600 second soak time and subsequent test compartmentventilation.

Figure A.5.4.2.2(a) Four Piece Modified Plastic Setup.

Figure A.5.4.2.2(b) Chamber Plan View.



Table A.5.4.2.2(a) Plastic Fuel Properties

25 kW/m2 Exposure in Cone Calorimeter — ASTM E 1354

Density

(g/cm2)

Ignition Time180-Second Average

Heat Release RateEffective Heat of Combustion

Fuel Color sec Tolerance kW/m2 Tolerance MJ/kg Tolerance

PMMA Black 1.19 77 ±30% 286 25% 23.3 ±15%

PP Natural (white) 0.905 91 ±30% 225 25% 39.8 ±15%

ABS Natural (cream)1.04 115 ±30% 484 25% 29.1 ±15%

Update values in Table A.5.4.2.2(b):

See uploaded file

Table A.5.4.2.2(b) Class A and Class B Flame Extinguishing and Minimum Design Concentrations Tested toUL 2166 and UL 2127

Agent Class A MEC Class A Design Class B MEC Class B Design

FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.2 4.5 5.9

HFC-125 6.7 8 8.7 11.3

HFC-227ea 5.2–5.8 6.25–7 6.7 8.7

IG-541 28.5 34.2 31.25 40.6

IG-55 31.6 37.9 30.1 39.1

Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class B values are for heptane, Class A design values areat a safety factor of 1.2, and Class B design values are at a safety factor of 1.3.

Deep-seated fires involving Class A fuels can require substantially higher design concentrations and extendedholding times than the design concentrations and holding times required for surface-type fires involving ClassA fuels. Wood crib and polymeric sheet Class A fire tests may not adequately indicate extinguishingconcentrations suitable for the protection of certain plastic fuel hazards (e.g., electrical- and electronic-typehazards involving grouped power or data cables such as computer and control room underfloor voids andtelecommunication facilities).



The values in Table A.5.4.2.2(b) are representative of the minimum extinguishing concentrations and designconcentrations for various agents. The concentrations required can vary by equipment manufacturer.Equipment manufacturers should be contacted for the concentration required for their specific system.



Open 2001_Kaprwan_Tbl_A.5.4.2.2_b_.docx Table 5.4.2.2(b)


None given.





Committee Statement


Statement: Table A.5.4.2.2(b) was not reviewed at the 2011 ROC meeting subsequent to changing the MDC requirementsfor Class A and addition of new requirements for “Class C.” See paragraphs 5.4.2.4 and 5.2.4.5. 1. The MDCvalues for the halocarbon agents were revised to reflect the requirements under NFPA 2001 (2012) 5.4.2.4. 2.The table was revised to explicitly state the MDC values for applications meeting the requirements of the new5.4.2.5. 3. The statement of Class A MEC for HFC-227ea was corrected from “5.2 – 5.8” to “5.2”, which is thevalue that is recognized by UL and FM. 4. A new row was added to the table for HFC-23.











A.5.4.2.2







http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357567638224.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Kaprwan_Tbl_A.5.4.2.2_b_.G1357567705194.docx&altImageId=G1357567705194






















where:








(21°C). The test pan is to contain at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) of heptane, with the heptane level at least



2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the pan. For all tests, the heptane is to be ignited and allowed toburn for 30 seconds, at which time all openings are to be closed and the extinguishing system is tobe manually actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure shouldbe at least 20 percent.
















































(f) At the beginning of the tests, the oxygen concentration must be within 2 percent (approximately 0.5percent by volume O2) of ambient value.























25 kW/m2 Exposure in Cone Calorimeter — ASTM E 1354

Density

(g/cm2)

Ignition Time180-Second Average

Heat Release RateEffective Heat of Combustion

Fuel Color sec Tolerance kW/m2 Tolerance MJ/kg Tolerance

PMMA Black 1.19 77 ±30% 286 25% 23.3 ±15%

PP Natural (white) 0.905 91 ±30% 225 25% 39.8 ±15%



ABS Natural (cream)1.04 115 ±30% 484 25% 29.1 ±15%

See the uploaded Table A.5.4.2.2(b)


Agent Class A MEC Class A Design Class B MEC Class B Design

FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.2 4.5 5.9

HFC-125 6.7 8 8.7 11.3

HFC-227ea 5.2–5.8 6.25–7 6.7 8.7

IG-541 28.5 34.2 31.25 40.6

IG-55 31.6 37.9 30.1 39.1

Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class B values are for heptane, Class A design values areat a safety factor of 1.2, and Class B design values are at a safety factor of 1.3.





Open 2001_Robin_Tbl_A.5.4.2.2_b_.docx Table A.5.4.2.2(b)


The Class A values in the current table are incorrect. HFC-23 and Class C information also added to aid designers.





Committee Statement












http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1357754784195.xml:=root&imageId=2001_Robin_Tbl_A.5.4.2.2_b_.G1357754843125.docx&altImageId=G1357754843125

Table A.5.4.2.2(b) Class A, B and C Design Concnetrations

Agent Class A MEC Class A Design Class B MEC Class B Design Class C Design FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.5 5.9 4.7 HFC-125 6.7 88.7 8.7 11.3 9.0 HFC-227ea 5.2-5.85.2 6.25-76.7 6.7 8.7 7.0 HFC-23 12.6 15.1 12.9 16.8 17.0 IG-541 28.5 34.2 31.25 40.6 38.5 IG-55 31.6 37.9 30.1 39.1 42.7

Table A.5.4.2.2(b) Class A, B and C Design Concnetrations

Agent Class A MEC Class A Design Class B MEC Class B Design Class C Design FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.5 5.9 4.7 HFC-125 6.7 8 8.7 8.7 11.3 9.0 HFC-227ea 5.2-5.8 5.2 6.25-7 6.7 6.7 8.7 7.0 HFC-23 12.6 15.1 12.9 16.8 17.0 IG-541 28.5 34.2 31.25 40.6 38.5 IG-55 31.6 37.9 30.1 39.1 42.7





A.5.4.2.2



























where:








(21°C). The test pan is to contain at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) of heptane, with the heptane level at least2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the pan. For all tests, the heptane is to be ignited and allowed toburn for 30 seconds, at which time all openings are to be closed and the extinguishing system is tobe manually actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure shouldbe at least 20 percent.





















(f) At the beginning of the tests, the oxygen concentration must be within 2 percent (approximately 0.5percent by volume O2) of ambient value.























25 kW/m 2 Exposure in Cone Calorimeter — ASTM E 1354

Density

(g/cm 2 )

Ignition Time

180-SecondAverage

Heat Release Rate

Effective Heat ofCombustion

Fuel Color sec Tolerance kW/m 2Tolerance MJ/kg Tolerance

PMMA Black 1.19 77 ±30% 286 25% 23.3 ±15%

PP Natural (white) 0.905 91 ±30% 225 25% 39.8 ±15%

ABSNatural(cream)

1.04 115 ±30% 484 25% 29.1 ±15%


Agent Class A MEC

Class AMinimumDesign

Concentration

Class CMinimumDesign

Concentration

Class B MECClass B

MinimumDesign

Concentration

FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.

2



5 4. 7 4. 5 5.9

HFC-125 6.7 8 8.7 9.0 8.7 11.3

HFC-227ea 5.

2–5.8

2 6.

25–7

7 7.0 6.7 8.7

HFC-23 15 18 20.3 15* 19.5

IG-541 28.5 34.2 38.5 31.25 40.6

IG-55 31.6 37.9 42.7 30.1 39.1

Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class B values are for heptane

,

. Class A design values are

at

the greater of (1) the Class A extinguishing concentration, determined in accordance with 5.4.2.2, times asafety factor of 1.2

, and

; or (2) the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.1. Class B designvalues are at a safety factor of 1.3.

* Listed and approved Class B extinguishing concentration determined in accordance with 5.4.2.2.





Open NFPA-2001_Table_A.5.4.2.2_b_.docx Text and table for proposal on 5.4.2.2b


Table A.5.4.2.2(b) was not reviewed at the 2011 ROC meeting subsequent to changing the MDC requirements for Class A and addition of new requirements for “Class C.” See paragraphs 5.4.2.4 and 5.2.4.5. 1. The as-stated MDC values for the halocarbon agents reflect the requirements under NFPA 2001 (2008) 5.4.2.4, not the requirements under NFPA 2001 (2012) 5.4.2.4. Thus, Annex A conflicts with the body of the standard. 2. Table A.5.4.2.2 was added to 2001 in the 2008 edition (p. 54) as a clarifying aid in selecting the correct MDC values for Class A and Class B applications. With the adoption of Class C minimum design requirements, the table should have been revised to explicitly state the MDC values for applications meeting the requirements of the new 5.4.2.5. 3. The statement of Class A MEC for HFC-227ea needs to be corrected from “5.2 – 5.8” to “5.2.” I am not sure how the TC

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1348773174084.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA-2001_Table_A.5.4.2.2_b_.G1354727632475.docx&altImageId=G1354727632475



agreed on stating such a split value. The value of 5.2 is that which is recognized by UL and FM. 4. Add new row to table for HFC-23.




Submittal Date: Thu Sep 27 15:12:54 EDT 2012

Committee Statement












Table A.5.4.2.2(b) Proposal: Revise Table A.5.4.2.2(b) by correcting Class A MEC and MDC values as shown and to add a new column for Class C MDC values. Add row for HFC-23. Revise note.

Agent Class A MEC

Class A Minimum

Design Concentration

Class C Minimum


Class B MEC

Class B Minimum


FK-5-1-12 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.5 5.9

HFC-125 6.7 8 8.7 9.0 8.7 11.3

HFC-227ea 5.2-5.8 5.2 6.25-7 6.7 7.0 6.7 8.7

HFC-23 15 18 20.3 15* 19.5

IG-541 28.5 34.2 38.5 31.25 40.6

IG-55 31.6 37.9 42.7 30.1 39.1

Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class B values are for heptane. Class A design values are the greater of (1) the Class A extinguishing concentration, determined in accordance with 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.2; or (2) the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.1. at a safety factor of 1.2, and Class B design values are at a safety factor of 1.3. * Listed and approved Class B extinguishing concentration determined in accordance with 5.4.2.2. Substantiation Table A.5.4.2.2(b) was not reviewed at the 2011 ROC meeting subsequent to changing the MDC requirements for Class A and addition of new requirements for “Class C.” See paragraphs 5.4.2.4 and 5.2.4.5.

1. The as-stated MDC values for the halocarbon agents reflect the requirements under NFPA 2001 (2008) 5.4.2.4, not the requirements under NFPA 2001 (2012) 5.4.2.4. Thus, Annex A conflicts with the body of the standard.

2. Table A.5.4.2.2 was added to 2001 in the 2008 edition (p. 54) as a clarifying aid in selecting the correct MDC values for Class A and Class B applications. With the adoption of Class C minimum design requirements, the table should have been revised to explicitly state the MDC values for applications meeting the requirements of the new 5.4.2.5.

3. The statement of Class A MEC for HFC-227ea needs to be corrected from “5.2 – 5.8” to “5.2.” The value of 5.2 is that which is recognized by UL and FM.

4. Add new row to table for HFC-23. Submitted by Joseph A. Senecal November 6, 2012



Public Input No. 74-NFPA 2001-2012 [ New Section after A.6.6 ]

A.7.1.2

The inspection report provides the owner with information pertaining to their fire system, its condition and anynecessary repairs or modifications. The servicing company should review their inspection report to insure that theycapture the necessary data and perform the inspection thru a safe and thorough procedure. The Fire SuppressionSystems Association has prepared a book, " Fire Protection Systems Inspection Form Guidelines" that can assist inthis review and assist a new servicing company develop a complete inspection report form.


The inspection report requires a collection of various pieces of information that are outside the realm of the mechanical equipment manufacturer or the detection and control manufacturer, not always the same manufacturer. The servicing company must also be aware of the specifics of the owner's building, connecting building fire alarm system and interlock functions. A "canned off the shelf inspection report" may not be fully adequate. The company should review their forms with a benchmark document to insure they are providing the necessary information to the owner with a thorough and complete document.






Committee Statement


Statement: The inspection report requires a collection of various pieces of information that are outside the realm of themechanical equipment manufacturer or the detection and control manufacturer, not always the samemanufacturer. The servicing company must also be aware of the specifics of the owner's building, connectingbuilding fire alarm system and interlock functions. A "canned, off-the-shelf inspection report" may not be fullyadequate. The company should review their forms with a benchmark document to insure they are providing thenecessary information to the owner with a thorough and complete document.













A.7.2

The requirements of the DOT, CGA, and NFPA can be overwhelming to decipher. The Fire Suppression SystemsAssociation has prepared a guide that provides essential information on the regulatory requirements for transportationand requalification of cylinders used in clean agent fire extinguishing systems. "Test Guide for Use with SpecialHazard Fire Suppression Systems Containers" lists manufacturer specific cylinder data. The quick reference guidewill assist service personnel to determine the required test and requalification of the system container.


In much the same way that the FSSA assisted the fire protection industry in understanding the requirements of the ASME Power Piping with the publicatoin of the "FSSA Pipe Design Handbook", guidance is needed in understanding the requirements for the transportation and requalification (testing) of system containers. The FSSA has a guide available to assist the servicing personnel in understanding the requirements of DOT, CGA and NFPA.






Committee Statement
















A.7.1.4

All inert Inert gas clean agents based on those gases normally found in the earth’s atmosphere need not berecycled.

It is preferable to recycle recovered halogenated clean agents rather than to destroy them. If recoveredhalogenated agent is found by test to contain contaminants which make it either technically or economicallyunfeasible to process the recovered agent to bring it into compliance with 4.1.2, the agent should be destroyedin an environmentally acceptable manner.

The Code of Practice for Recovery and Recycling of Halogenated Clean Agents (published by the HalonAlternative Research Corporation 2012) provides practical guidance for handling of halogenated clean agentsremoved from service.








Committee Statement


Statement: The proposed changes and additions provide clear guidance for recovery and recycling of clean agents in anenvironmentally sound manner.













A.7.7.1 The acceptance testing required by Section 7.7 should be documented in a test report similar to FigureA.7.7.1. The acceptance test report should be maintained by the system owner for the life of the system.

Figure A.7.7.1 Sample Acceptance Test Report.



Open NFPA_2001_Figure_A.7.7.1.xlsx Figure A.7.7.1


Acceptance test results should be documented prior to placing the system in service. This form provides a sample of how acceptance tests can be documented.


Submitter Full Name:David Hague

Organization: Liberty Mutual Insurance

Submittal Date: Mon Sep 24 10:43:09 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: Acceptance test results should be documented in a report as part of the system commissioning process. Anexample of an acceptance form is added to the annex.


I, David Hague, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am David Hague, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and




http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1348497789234.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA_2001_Figure_A.7.7.1.G1348497837302.xlsx&altImageId=G1348497837302

DATE

PROPERTY ADDRESS

ACCEPTED BY APPROVING AUTHORITIES (NAMES)

ADDRESS

INSTALLATION CONFORMS TO ACCEPTED PLANS YES NO

EQUIPMENT USED IS APPROVED YES NO

IF NO, STATE DEVIATIONS

HAS PERSON IN CHARGE OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BEEN

INSTRUCTED AS TO LOCATION OF CONTROL VALVES AND CARE YES NO

AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS NEW EQUIPMENT?

IF NO, EXPLAIN

HAVE COPIES OF APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS AND CARE AND

MAINTENANCE CHARTS BEEN LEFT ON PREMISES? YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

ENCLOSURE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS? YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

YES NO

SYSTEM TYPE TOTAL FLOODING LOCAL APP

AGENT STORAGE CONTAINERS PROPERLY LOCATED (in accordance with approved system drawings)? YES NO

STORAGE CONTAINERS AND MOUNTING BRACKETS FASTENED SECURELY? YES NO YES NO

YES NO

PIPE SIZE REDUCTION AND TEE FITTING POSITION IN CONFORMANCE WITH DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

PIPING JOINTS, DISCHARGE NOZZLES AND PIPE SUPPORTS SECURELY FASTENED? YES NO

DISCHARGE NOZZLE ORIENTATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

NOZZLE DEFLECTORS (if installed) ORIENTATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ENCLOSURE TEST REPORT RECEIVED? YES NO

ALL INSTALLED EQUIPMENT LISTED FOR USE? YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

PIPING PNEUMATICALLY TESTED TO 40 PSI (276kPa) FOR 10 MINUTES? YES NO

PIPE CONFORMS TO STANDARD YES NO

FITTINGS CONFORM TO STANDARD YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

PUFF TEST COMPLETED AND CONTINUOUS FLOW AND UNOBSTRUCTED PIPING AND NOZZLES VERIFIED YES NO

ALARM FUNCTIONS VERIFIED FOLLOWING DETECTION INITIATION YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO YES NO

WEIGHT BEFORE AND AFTER DISCHARGE

FOR INERT GAS SYSTEMS ‐ PRESSURE BEFORE AND AFTER DISCHARGE

REMOTE MONITORING

ALARM SIGNAL FROM EACH INOUT DEVICE ON STAND‐BY OWER VERIFIED? YES NO

TROUBLE SIGNAL VERIFIED FOR EACH ALARM CONDITION ON EACH SIGNAL CIRCUIT? YES NO

CONTROL PANEL PRIMARY POWER SOURCE YES NO

CONTROL PANEL CONNECTED TO A DEDICATED CIRCUIT YES NO

CONTROL PANEL LABELED PROPERLY YES NO

CONTROL PANEL READILY ACCESSIBLE YES NO

CONTROL PANEL SECURED FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS YES NO

SYSTEM RETURNED TO FULLY OPERATIONAL DESIGN CONDITION YES NO

NAME OF INSTALLING CONTRACTOR:

TITLE: DATE:

TITLE: DATE:

MANUAL RELEASE FUNCTIONS ACCORDING TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

ABORT SWITCH FUNCTIONS ACCORDING TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

AUTOMATIC VALVES TESTED AND OPERAITON VERIFIED

ALL PNEUMATIC EQUIPMENT TESTED AND VERIFIED

TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL DETECTION DEVICES VERIFIED

MANUAL PULL STATIONS INSTALLED PROPERLY, READILY ACCESSIBLE, ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED AND PROTECTED TO

PREVENT DAMAGE

MAIN / RESERVE TRANSFER SWITCH INSTALLED PROPERLY, READILY ACCESSIBLE AND CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

PROPER TROUBLE RESPONSE VERIFIED FOR ALL SUPERVISED CIRCUITS

PRE‐FUNCTIONAL

TESTS

POLARITY VERIFIED FOR ALL POLARIZED ALARM DEVICES AND AUXILIARY RELAYS

EOL RESISTORS INSTALLED ACROSS ALL ALARM AND DETECTION CIRCUITS (where required)

EACH DETECTOR CHECKED FOR PROPER RESPONSE

PLANS

ENCLOSURE INTEGRITY REPORT RECEIVED AND APPROVED?

NOTES:

FULL OPERATIONAL TEST FOR SINGLE OR MULTIPLE HAZARDS

LBS LBS

PSI PSIOPERATIONAL TEST

ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT

PROPER OPERATION VERIFIED FOR ALL AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS INCLUDING ALARM‐SOUNDING OR DISPLAYING DEVICES,

REMOTE ANNUNCIATORS, AIR‐HANDLING SHUTDOWN, AND POWER SHUTDOWN.

Clean Agent System Acceptance Test Report

PROCEDURE: Upon completion of work, inspection and test shall be made by the contractor’s representative and witnessed by an owner’s representative. All defects shall be corrected and system left in service before contractor's personnel leave the job. A

certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities, owners, and contractor. it is understood the owner's representative's signature in no way prejudices any claim against contractor for faulty material,

poor workmanship, of failure to comply with approving authority's requirements or local ordinances.

SIGNATURES

TESTS WITNESSED BY

FOR PROPERTY OWNER:

FOR CONTRACTOR:

PIPING, EQUIPMENT, AND DISCHARGE NOZZLES PROPER SIZE AND LOCATION?

LOCATION OF ALARMS AND MANUAL EMERGENCY RELEASES ACCEPTABLE?

CURRENT HAZARD CONFIGURATION COMPARIBLE TO ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION?

INSTRUCTIONS

ENCLOSURE

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT

PIPE AND FITTINGS

PROPERTY NAME




A.7.7.1 The acceptance testing required by Section 7.7 should be documented in a test report similar to FigureA.7.7.1. The acceptance test report should be maintained by the system owner for the life of the system.

Figure A.7.7.1 Sample Acceptance Test Report.



Open NFPA_2001_Figure_A.7.7.1.xlsx Figure A.7.7.1


Acceptance test results should be documented prior to placing the system in service. This form provides a sample of how acceptance tests can be documented.


Submitter Full Name:David Hague

Organization: Liberty Mutual Insurance


Committee Statement


Statement: Acceptance test results should be documented in a report as part of the system commissioning process. Anexample of an acceptance form is added to the annex.


I, David Hague, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this Public




By checking this box I aff irm that I am David Hague, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and




http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/XmlImageManager?objId=/TerraView/Content/2001-2012.ditamap/2/C1355254011244.xml:=root&imageId=NFPA_2001_Figure_A.7.7.1.G1355254048416.xlsx&altImageId=G1355254048416

DATE

PROPERTY ADDRESS

ACCEPTED BY APPROVING AUTHORITIES (NAMES)

ADDRESS

INSTALLATION CONFORMS TO ACCEPTED PLANS YES NO

EQUIPMENT USED IS APPROVED YES NO

IF NO, STATE DEVIATIONS

HAS PERSON IN CHARGE OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BEEN

INSTRUCTED AS TO LOCATION OF CONTROL VALVES AND CARE YES NO

AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS NEW EQUIPMENT?

IF NO, EXPLAIN

HAVE COPIES OF APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS AND CARE AND

MAINTENANCE CHARTS BEEN LEFT ON PREMISES? YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

ENCLOSURE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS? YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

YES NO

SYSTEM TYPE TOTAL FLOODING LOCAL APP

AGENT STORAGE CONTAINERS PROPERLY LOCATED (in accordance with approved system drawings)? YES NO

STORAGE CONTAINERS AND MOUNTING BRACKETS FASTENED SECURELY? YES NO YES NO

YES NO

PIPE SIZE REDUCTION AND TEE FITTING POSITION IN CONFORMANCE WITH DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

PIPING JOINTS, DISCHARGE NOZZLES AND PIPE SUPPORTS SECURELY FASTENED? YES NO

DISCHARGE NOZZLE ORIENTATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

NOZZLE DEFLECTORS (if installed) ORIENTATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED DESIGN DRAWINGS? YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

ENCLOSURE TEST REPORT RECEIVED? YES NO

ALL INSTALLED EQUIPMENT LISTED FOR USE? YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

PIPING PNEUMATICALLY TESTED TO 40 PSI (276kPa) FOR 10 MINUTES? YES NO

PIPE CONFORMS TO STANDARD YES NO

FITTINGS CONFORM TO STANDARD YES NO

IF NO, EXPLAIN

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

PUFF TEST COMPLETED AND CONTINUOUS FLOW AND UNOBSTRUCTED PIPING AND NOZZLES VERIFIED YES NO

ALARM FUNCTIONS VERIFIED FOLLOWING DETECTION INITIATION YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO YES NO

WEIGHT BEFORE AND AFTER DISCHARGE

FOR INERT GAS SYSTEMS ‐ PRESSURE BEFORE AND AFTER DISCHARGE

REMOTE MONITORING

ALARM SIGNAL FROM EACH INOUT DEVICE ON STAND‐BY OWER VERIFIED? YES NO

TROUBLE SIGNAL VERIFIED FOR EACH ALARM CONDITION ON EACH SIGNAL CIRCUIT? YES NO

CONTROL PANEL PRIMARY POWER SOURCE YES NO

CONTROL PANEL CONNECTED TO A DEDICATED CIRCUIT YES NO

CONTROL PANEL LABELED PROPERLY YES NO

CONTROL PANEL READILY ACCESSIBLE YES NO

CONTROL PANEL SECURED FROM UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS YES NO

SYSTEM RETURNED TO FULLY OPERATIONAL DESIGN CONDITION YES NO

NAME OF INSTALLING CONTRACTOR:

TITLE: DATE:

TITLE: DATE:

MANUAL RELEASE FUNCTIONS ACCORDING TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

ABORT SWITCH FUNCTIONS ACCORDING TO DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

AUTOMATIC VALVES TESTED AND OPERAITON VERIFIED

ALL PNEUMATIC EQUIPMENT TESTED AND VERIFIED

TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL DETECTION DEVICES VERIFIED

MANUAL PULL STATIONS INSTALLED PROPERLY, READILY ACCESSIBLE, ACCURATELY IDENTIFIED AND PROTECTED TO

PREVENT DAMAGE

MAIN / RESERVE TRANSFER SWITCH INSTALLED PROPERLY, READILY ACCESSIBLE AND CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

PROPER TROUBLE RESPONSE VERIFIED FOR ALL SUPERVISED CIRCUITS

PRE‐FUNCTIONAL

TESTS

POLARITY VERIFIED FOR ALL POLARIZED ALARM DEVICES AND AUXILIARY RELAYS

EOL RESISTORS INSTALLED ACROSS ALL ALARM AND DETECTION CIRCUITS (where required)

EACH DETECTOR CHECKED FOR PROPER RESPONSE

PLANS

ENCLOSURE INTEGRITY REPORT RECEIVED AND APPROVED?

NOTES:

FULL OPERATIONAL TEST FOR SINGLE OR MULTIPLE HAZARDS

LBS LBS

PSI PSIOPERATIONAL TEST

ELECTRICAL

EQUIPMENT

PROPER OPERATION VERIFIED FOR ALL AUXILIARY FUNCTIONS INCLUDING ALARM‐SOUNDING OR DISPLAYING DEVICES,

REMOTE ANNUNCIATORS, AIR‐HANDLING SHUTDOWN, AND POWER SHUTDOWN.

Clean Agent System Acceptance Test Report

PROCEDURE: Upon completion of work, inspection and test shall be made by the contractor’s representative and witnessed by an owner’s representative. All defects shall be corrected and system left in service before contractor's personnel leave the job. A

certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities, owners, and contractor. it is understood the owner's representative's signature in no way prejudices any claim against contractor for faulty material,

poor workmanship, of failure to comply with approving authority's requirements or local ordinances.

SIGNATURES

TESTS WITNESSED BY

FOR PROPERTY OWNER:

FOR CONTRACTOR:

PIPING, EQUIPMENT, AND DISCHARGE NOZZLES PROPER SIZE AND LOCATION?

LOCATION OF ALARMS AND MANUAL EMERGENCY RELEASES ACCEPTABLE?

CURRENT HAZARD CONFIGURATION COMPARIBLE TO ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION?

INSTRUCTIONS

ENCLOSURE

MECHANICAL

EQUIPMENT

PIPE AND FITTINGS

PROPERTY NAME



Public Input No. 55-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. A.7.7.2.2.10 ]


A.7.7.2.2.10

A discharge test is generally not recommended.


This statement should be removed since the most effective way to ensure safety and that the system will behave as designed is to perform a discharge test.


Submitter Full Name:Katherine Adrian

Organization: Tyco Fire Suppression & Buildi


Committee Statement


Statement: The revised text clarifies that a test is not required, while removing the committee's judgment on whether a testshould be performed.


I, Katherine Adrian, hereby irrevocably grant and assign to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) all and full rights in copyright in this




By checking this box I aff irm that I am Katherine Adrian, and I agree to be legally bound by the above Copyright Assignment and the terms and






Public Input No. 4-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. B.4.2.11 ]


B.4.2.11 Pre-Burn Time.

8

B.4.2.11 Pre-burn time. Period between ignition of fuel and start of agent flow. The pre-burn time should be

95 seconds ± 5 seconds. 8

80 ± 20 s.


Those experienced in performing this test method agree that the value of MEC obtained is not sensitive to the length of the pre-burn time in the 60 to 100 s range. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: Those experienced in performing this test method agree that the value of MEC obtained is not sensitive to thelength of the pre-burn time in the 60 to 100 s range. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.












Public Input No. 7-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. B.9.1.4.1 ]


B.9.1.4.1 Body.

The cup should be made of quartz or other glass suitable for high temperature use, or steel . The nominaldimensions of the cup at the top are OD = 31 mm and ID = 21 26 mm . 5 mm. The cup rim has a 45 degreean internal chamfer fully crossing the glass annulus of approximately 45 degrees .


Correct erroneous ID dimension and add steel as a material of constriction. Reduce chamfer requirement from a full annulus bevel which is not needed. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: Correct erroneous ID dimension and add steel as a material of constriction. Reduce chamfer requirement from afull annulus bevel which is not needed. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex Bwhich also describes the cup burner method.














B.9.2.1.1 Flow Rate.

Measurement of air flow rate can be made with any of several types of flow meters, including rotameters,mass flow meters, and bubble flow meters

B.9.2.1.1.1 Air flow regulation. The arrangement for delivering air to the cup burner should include a means ofregulating the flow rate.

B.9.2.1.1.2 Air flow rate measurement. The rate of flow of air to the cup burner should be measured using acalibrated apparatus. Types of apparatus commonly used for this purpose include, but are not restricted to,rotameters and mass flow meters .


Adds guidance on use of calibrated measurement equipment. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: The revision adds guidance on use of calibrated measurement equipment and assists in harmonizing this annexwith ISO 14520 Annex B, which also describes the cup burner method.














B.9.2.2.1 Gaseous Agent.

Measurement of gas or vapor flow rate can be made with any of several types of flow meters, includingrotameters, mass flow meters, and bubble flow meters.

B.9.2.2.1 Agent flow rate

B.9.2.2.1.1 Agent flow regulation. The arrangement for delivering agent to the cup burner should include ameans of regulating the flow rate.

B.9.2.2.1.2 Agent flow rate measurement. The rate of flow of agent to the cup burner should be measuredusing a calibrated apparatus. Types of apparatus commonly used for this purpose include, but are notrestricted to, rotameters and mass flow meters.

B.9.2.2.1.3 Agent concentration measurement. Where the concentration of agent in the agent-air mixture isdetermined by measurement, the method of such measurement should be calibrated.


The proposal adds guidance on use of calibrated measurement apparatus. This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: The revision adds guidance on the use of calibrated measurement apparatus and assists in harmonizing thisannex with ISO 14520 Annex B, which also describes the cup burner method.














B.13.1.8.2

Addition

Begin flow of extinguishing agent

to the air stream is begun. Where the approximate extinguishing point is known, the initial agent flow rate canbe brought to about 80 percent of that value. Subsequent increases

. Increase the flow rate of extinguishing agent in a step-wise manner until flame extinguishment occurs. A briefinterval (about 10 s) should be allowed between changes in flow rate. As the extinguishing point isapproached, the size of increments in agent flow rate should be

no more than 2 percent and should be smaller as the extinguishing point is approached. The agent flow rateor other characteristic measure of agent concentration should be recorded at each adjustment of agent flow asthe extinguishing point is approached. Experience and judgment will determine how small agent flowadjustments should be at any point during the test and when such pre-extinguishment data should berecorded.

as small as practicable. Final flow rate adjustments should be of the size of the smallest scale division of themeasuring apparatus. The means of flow regulation and measurement should allow for adjustments in flow rateof 2% or less of the total flow rate at extinguishment.


This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burnermethod.









Public Input No. 5-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. B.18.1 ]


B.18.1 Endnotes.

1The large majority of total flooding fire extinguishing systems are used for protection of Class A fire hazardssuch as data centers, clean rooms, telephone central offices, and control rooms. These occupancies do not




normally contain Class B fire hazards.

2Preece, S., P. Mackay, and A. Chattaway, The Cup Burner Method — A Parametric Analysis of the FactorsInfluencing the Reported Extinguishing Concentrations of Inert Gases, Proceedings of the Halon OptionsTechnical Working Conference. April 24–26, 2001, Albuquerque, NM.

3Senecal, J. A., Flame Extinguishing by Inert Gases: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis, Proceedings ofthe 2004 Technical Meeting of the Central States Section of the Combustion Institute, Austin, TX, March 21–22, 2004.

4Takahashi, F., G. T. Linteris, and V. R. Katta, Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames, Fourth InternationalSymposium on Scale Modeling (ISSM-IV), Cleveland, OH, September 17–19, 2003.

5Flames of gaseous fuels behave differently than do flames of liquids in this test. Gaseous fuel flow is fixed atthe start of the test. Liquid fuel vapor flow decreases as the extinguishing point is approached due to reductionin heat transfer rate. Also see Linteris, G. T., Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames by Super-Effective ChemicalInhibitors and Inert Compounds, Proceedings of the Halon Options Technical Working Conference, April 24–26, 2001, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 187–196. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship of liquid fuel consumptionrate and agent concentration.

6CO2 might serve well as a secondary reference agent, because it is readily available and has an

extinguishing concentration approximately two-thirds that of nitrogen, thereby establishing a significant spanthat is useful in establishing benchmark performance.

7 F. Takahashi commented: “Methane, a main ingredient of natural gas, is favorable because its reactionmechanism is most known and thus most widely used in combustion research. Accurate numericalpredictions can be made with full chemistry. However, as Irv Glassman has frequently mentioned, methane(C1) is unique kinetically compared to higher hydrocarbons. Ethane (C2) represents kinetics of higher

hydrocarbons more closely as they decompose to smaller HCs and the oxidation reaction pathway is ethaneto ethylene then to acetylene. When I was in Dayton (UDRI, on-site at WPAFB), Sandia, NM, specificallyrequested us to use ethane as the fuel for the extinguishing nitrogen concentration measurement in step-stabilized flames. Propane is another popular fuel and attractive for research use, although it (C3) is also

somewhat unique kinetically. Therefore, methane and propane may be practically reasonable, but ethane maybe more scientifically sound.” (July 8, 2004)

8The specification in Annex B of the 2004 edition of NFPA 2001 is “90 to 120 sec” s” for liquids and 60 sec sfor gases. At the recommendation of the VdS representative (Germany) , ISO TC 21/SC 8 opted, inSeptember 2003, for a 60 sec s pre-burn time for liquid fuels and a 60 sec s pre-burn time, with notolerance, for gaseous fuels. In technical collaboration among those experienced in performing this test it wasagreed that the value of MEC for liquid fuels is not sensitive to variation of pre-burn time in the 60 to 100 stime period,

9It has yet to be demonstrated whether barometric pressure variation from 101.3 Pa affects results obtained inthis test. A controlled experimental effort is needed.

10The specified chimney dimensions are standard and available in Pyrex® and Kimax® brand tubes.

11Takahashi et al. (2003) filled the cup with 3 mm glass beads and placed two layers of 40 mesh screen ontop.

12A systematic study by Kidde, PLC, showed that for one halocarbon agent, the extinguishing concentrationwas linearly related to the humidity of the supplied air. The MEC for 100 percent RH air (~21°C) was ~11percent (relative) less than that determined for ~0 percent RH air. (P. Mackay memorandum, 18 May 2004.) Inaddition, analysis (J. A. Senecal, July 2004) of humidity effects on inert gas (nitrogen) extinguishmentindicates that feasible variations in humidity of air supplied to the cup burner can affect the extinguishingconcentration, X G . Specifically, it is estimated that in the two extremes of (a) dry air and (b) 70 percent RH

air at 25°C, the variation in X G is approximately 0.313 < X G < 0.295, or 6 percent, which is at least twice

the estimated uncertainty of the measurement. An RH correction to results may be necessary.

13 The air flow rate should be 40 L/min ± 2 L/min, which, for the standard chimney and cup configurationspecified herein, corresponds to a superficial linear velocity in the cup-chimney annulus of 13.5 cm/sec ± 0.7cm/sec. The air flow rate should be adjusted in consideration of the actual chimney and cup dimensions toachieve the same nominal annular air velocity.

The literature discusses a “plateau” region in the air flow rate (i.e., a range of air velocities over which the MECvalue is invariant, or nearly so). Most investigators report that the plateau for halocarbon agents is usually at ornear 40 L/min. It is also reported that there is no plateau for inert gas agents and that the MEC value creepsup with increasing air velocity.

14 The goal is to determine the agent concentration at the extinguishing point. Methods that do not use directmeasurement of agent flow rate are permitted. For example, composition analysis of agent-air mixture isacceptable.

15 Takahashi et al. (2003) studied a methane flame. They used an air flow velocity of 10.7 cm/sec (volumetricrate of ~36 L/min) and a methane cup-exit velocity of 0.92 cm/sec (flow rate ~0.34 L/min), which corresponds



to an overall equivalence ratio of about 0.090 (i.e., about 900 percent excess air for complete combustion). Theuninhibited flame height was ~75 mm.

@


This revision assists in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex B which also describes the cup burner method.





Committee Statement


Statement: See the attachment. The revisions to endnote 8 will assist in harmonizing this annex with ISO 14520 Annex Bwhich also describes the cup burner method. The correct abbreviation for seconds is "s", not "sec".












Public Input No. 78-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. E.1.1 ]


E.1.1 NFPA Publications.

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.

NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition.

NFPA 70 ®, National Electrical Code ®, 2011 edition.

NFPA 72 ®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2010 edition.

NFPA 75, Standard for the Protection of Information Technology Equipment, 2009 2013 edition.

NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, 2007 edition.

NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems, 2012 edition.

NFPA 90B, Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Systems, 2012 edition.

NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 edition.




Updated edition year for NFPA 75 and added the soon to be replaced NFPA 2001 standard edition.






Committee Statement


Statement: Updated references. Past editions of this standard were removed from the reference list. References to thesepast editions, which are found in A.5.4.2 and B.18.1, are included only as a historical record of this document.Where text from past editions is necessary in order to understand this document, that text should be includedin the current edition, rather than referenced. In addition, the Manual of Style requires that only the current,approved edition of a referenced document be referenced.












Public Input No. 79-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. E.1.2.6 ]


E.1.2.6 FSSA Publications.

Fire Suppression Systems Association, 5024-R Campbell Boulevard 3601 E. Joppa Road , Baltimore, MD21236-5974 21234 (www.FSSA.Net).

FSSA Pipe Design Handbook for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems, 1st ed., June 2001.2nd Edition 2011.

FSSA Test Guide for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems Containers, 3rd Edition 2012.

FSSA Pressure Relief Vent Area fo Applications Using Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2ndEdition.

FSSA Fire Protection Systems Inspection Form Guidelines.

FSSA Application Guide Detection & Control for Fire Suppression Systems, 3rd Edition.


Updated Fire Suppression Systems Association address, updated the edition of the FSSA Pipe Design Handbook, listed additional FSSA publications pertinent to the NFPA 2001 Standard.






Committee Statement

Resolution: FR-83-NFPA 2001-2013 - The FSSA Application Guide Detection & Control for Fire Suppression Systems wasnot added to this reference list because it is not referenced in any of the annexes.

Statement: Updated Fire Suppression Systems Association address. Updated the edition of the FSSA Pipe DesignHandbook. Listed additional, newly-referenced FSSA publications. See FR 67 (A.5.1.2.2(28), FR 62 (A.7.1.2),and FR 64 (A.7.1.4).












Public Input No. 95-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. E.1.2.9 ]


E.1.2.9 UL Publications.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062–2096.

ANSI/ UL 2127, Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 1999 2012 .

ANSI/ UL 2166, Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 1999 2012 .


Add ANSI approval designation to ANSI/UL 2127 and ANSI/UL 2166, and update referenced standards to most recent edition as indicated.





Committee Statement


Statement: Add ANSI approval designation to ANSI/UL 2127 and ANSI/UL 2166, and update referenced standards to mostrecent edition as indicated.









Public Input No. 19-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Section No. E.1.3 ]


E.1.3 Other References.

Bayless, H., and Niemann, R., “Update on the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for SuppressingClass ‘C' Energized Fires, Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp.293–294, 1998.

Bengtsom, G., and Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for SuppressingClass C Energized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May24–26, 2005.

Cholin, R. R., “Testing the Performance of Halon 1301 on Real Computer Installations,” Fire Journal, Sept.1972.

Coll, J. P., Fenwal CRC Report No. PSR-661, “Inerting Characteristics of Halon 1301 and 1211 Using VariousCombustibles,” August 16, 1976.

Cotton, F. A., and G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980, p. 364.

Dalby, W., Evaluation of the toxicity of hydrogen fluoride at short exposure times. Stonybrook Laboratories,




Inc., 311 Pennington-Rocky Hill Road, Pennington, NJ, sponsored by the Petroleum Environmental ResearchForum (PERF), PERF Project No. 92-90, 1996.

Dalzell, W., Fenwal CRC Report No. PSR-624, “A Determination of the Flammability Envelope of Four TernaryFuel-Air-Halon 1301 Systems,” October 7, 1975.

DiNenno, P. J., Engineering Evaluation and Comparison of Halon Alternatives and Replacements, 1993International CFC & Halon Alternatives Conference, Washington, DC, 1993.

DiNenno, P. J., et al., “Modeling of the Flow Properties and Discharge of Halon Replacement Agents,”Process Safety Progress, Vol. 14, No. 1, January 1995.

Driscoll, M., and P. Rivers (3M), “Clean Extinguishing Agents and Continuously Energized Circuits: RecentFindings,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 129–140, 1997.

DuPont, “Acute inhalation of hydrogen fluoride in rats,” Haskell Laboratory Report HLR 365-90, 1990.

Elliot, D. G., et al., “Flow of Nitrogen-Pressurized Halon 1301 in Fire Extinguishing Systems,”JPL Publication84-62, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, November 1984.

Fernandez, R., “DuPont’s Alternatives to Halon 1301 and 1211, Recent Findings,” Proceedings of the HalonTechnical Working Conference, April 30–May 1, 1991, Albuquerque, NM.

Ford, C. L., Halon 1301 Computer Fire Test Program: Interim Report, 1972.

HT Research Institute, 1973.

Hanauska, C., “Perfluorocarbons as Halon Replacement Candidates,” Proceedings of the Halon TechnicalWorking Conference, April 30–May 1, 1991, Albuquerque, NM.

Hesson, J. C., “Pressure Drop for Two Phase Carbon Dioxide Flowing in Pipe Lines,” Master of ScienceThesis in CH.E. Illinois Institute of Technology, Jan. 1953.

Hughes Associates, Inc., Hazard Assessment of Thermal Decomposition Products of FM-200™ inElectronics and Data Processing Facilities, Hughes Associates, 1995.

Largent, E. J., The metabolism of fluorides in man. Arch Ind. Health 21:318-323, 1960.

Machle, W., and K. R. Kitzmiller, The effects of the inhalation of hydrogen fluoride. II. The response followingexposure to low concentrations. J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol. 17:223-229, 1935.

Machle, W., F. Tharnann, K. R. Kitzmiller, and J. Cholak, The effects of the inhalation of hydrogen fluoride. I.The response following exposure to high concentrations. J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol. 16:129-145, 1934.

Meacham, B. J., Fire Technology, First Quarter, 1993, 35.

Meldrum, M. Toxicology of Substances in Relation to Major Hazards: Hydrogen Fluoride. Health and SafetyExecutive (HSE) Information Centre, Sheffield S37HQ, England, 1993.

NIST 1998.

Naval Research Laboratory Report Ser 6180/0049.2 of 26 January 1995, “Agent ConcentrationInhomogeneities in Real Scale Halon Replacement.”

Niemann, R., H. Bayless, and C. Craft, “Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class ‘C'Energized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 399–412,1996.

Peatross, M. J., and E. W. Forssell, A Comparison of Thermal Decomposition Product Testing of Halon 1301Alternative Agents, 1996 Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 1996.

Pedley, M. D., Corrosion of Typical Orbiter Electronic Components Exposed to Halon 1301 PyrolysisProducts, NASA TR-339-001, 1995.

Robin, M. L., “Evaluation of Halon Alternatives,” Proceedings of the Halon Technical Working Conference, April30–May 1, 1991, Albuquerque, NM, p. 16.

Sax, N. I., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 6th ed., Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York, 1984.

Senecal, J. A., Fenwal Safety Systems CRC Technical Note No. 361, Agent Inerting Concentrations for Fuel-Air Systems, May 27, 1992.

Senecal, J. A., “Flame Extinguishing by Inert Gases: Theoretical & Experimental Analysis,” Central StatesSection/The Combustion Institute Meeting, March 2004.

Senecal, J. A., “Flame Extinguishing in the Cup-Burner by Inert Gases,” Fire Safety Journal, Volume 40, Issue6, pp. 579–591, September 2005.

Senecal, Joseph A., "Standardizing the Measurement of Minimum Extinguishing Concentrations of GaseousAgents," Fire Technology, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 207-220, September 2008.

Sheinson,, R. S., et al., J. Fire & Flamm., 12, 229, 1981.

Sheinson, R. S., “Halon Alternatives — Compartment Total Flooding Testing,” Proceedings of the InternationalConference on CFC and Halon Alternatives, December 3–5, 1991, Baltimore, MD, 1991, p. 629.

Sheinson, R. S., et al., “Halon 1301 Total Flooding Fire Testing, Intermediate Scale,” Proceedings Halon



Alternatives Technical Working Conference, May 3–5, 1994, Albuquerque, NM.

Sheinson, R. S., et al., “Large Scale (840M3) Total Flooding Fire Extinguishment Results,” Proceedings HalonAlternatives Technical Working Conference, May 1995, Albuquerque, NM.

Skaggs, S. R., and T. Moore, Toxicological Properties of Halon Replacements, 208th ACS National Meeting,Washington, DC, 1994.

Skaggs, S. R., and T. Moore, Toxicology of Halogenated Halon Substitutes, Fire Safety Without HalonConference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1994.

Tamanini, F., “Determination of Inerting Requirements for Methane/Air and Propane/Air Mixtures by an AnsulInerting Mixture of Argon, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen,” Factory Mutual Research, August 24, 1992.

Western Fire Center, Kelso, WA.

Wysocki, T. J., “Single Point Flow Calculations for Liquefied Compressed Gas Fire Extinguishing Agents,”Halon Options Technical Working Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM, 1996.

Wysocki, T. J., and B. C. Christensen, “Inert Gas Fire Suppression Systems Using IG541 (Inergen) Solvingthe Hydraulic Calculation Problem,” Halon Options Technical Working Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque,NM, 1996.


The subject reference is the basis of the stated values of n-heptane MEC for HFC-227ea and IG-100 cited in Table A.5.4.2(a). The cited values of MEC, with standard deviation, are as follows: HFC-227ea 6.62 ± 0.14% IG-100 (nitrogen) 32.2 ± 0.7 %




Submittal Date: Thu Sep 27 14:21:30 EDT 2012

Committee Statement


Statement: The new reference to the paper by Senecal is the basis of the stated values of n-heptane MEC for HFC-227eaand IG-100 cited in Table A.5.4.2(a). The reference to 'NIST 1998' was expanded to include the document editor(Grosshandler) and title. See FR 17 (A.5.7.1.2). Deleted "Western Fire Center, Kelso, WA" because there is nosuch reference in the document.










Public Input No. 22-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Global Input ] Statement of ...

Documents

Transcript of Public Input No. 22-NFPA 2001-2012 [ Global Input ] Statement of ...