Meeting Agenda Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting October 23 rd and 24 th, 2012 San Antonio, TX

Transcription

1 Meeting Agenda Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting October 23 rd and 24 th, 2012 San Antonio, TX I. Welcome Chair Duane Kann II. Introductions- members and guests III. Review and accept minutes from the January 31 st to February 2 nd, 2012 meeting (see attached) IV. NFPA update Ken Holland, Staff Liaison V. Review of cycle for NFPA 403, NFPA 412, and discussion VI. Public comments for NFPA 403 (see attached) VII. Committee comments for NFPA 403 VIII. Public comments for NFPA 412 (see attached) IX. Committee comments for NFPA 412 X. Other Business a. Task group report from Danny Pierce XI. Next Meeting- First Draft Meeting for 405, 408, and 422 a. New process b. Dates and location

2 MEETING MINUTES Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting AIR-AAA 31 January-2 February 2012 Radisson Hotel Irvine, CA 31 January The full committee meeting was opened by Acting Chair Marc Tonnacliff at 08:15 on 31 January with the introduction of members and guests followed by opening remarks by the Chair. The minutes of the tele-meeting on 14 September were amended and approved as amended. Ken Holland, staff liaison, briefed the committee on Bob Lindstrom s status and the procedure that will be followed to select a new permanent chair, should the need arise. Ken reviewed the ROP process, code fund project status, doc info pages status, reengineering process and the new advisory process. Ken reviewed the possible timelines for publishing of 412. The Chair appointed task group chairs to work on 412 as follows: Ken Petit, chapter 6 (and associated annex items) and associated public comments Jason Shively, Annex B Robert Mattis, chapters 4&5 (and associated annex items) Task groups are to report back to the full committee at 11:00. Public comment logs and committee proposals on chapters 4 & 5 were processed by the committee. The committee broke for lunch at 12:15. Work resumed at 13:30 with the committee processing comments for chapter 6 and Annex B and 1 item concerning the scope of the document. The task groups established for work on 412 were dissolved. 1

3 MEETING MINUTES Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting AIR-AAA 31 January-2 February 2012 Radisson Hotel Irvine, CA The Chair appointed task group chairs to work on 403 as follows: Jason Shively, Chapters 1-3 Keith Bagot, Chapters 4-5 Paul Meyer, Chapters 6-7 Danny Pierce, Chapters 8-9 Nicholas Subbotin, Annex B&C RJ Jones, Annex D&E The chair informed the committee that 2 presentations pertaining to 403 will be given. The time for the presentations is limited to 1 hour each. Additional reference material was distributed concerning 1% agent. The proposal to add section about 1% agent to 412 will be processed first thing on Wednesday morning. Following a 15 minute break, a presentation concerning ACRP arguments was given by Danny Pierce. The Chair thanked Danny for his presentation. Joe Scheffey gave a presentation on a review of methodologies for calculating agent quantities to combat aircraft crash fires. The Chair thanked Joe for his presentation. After a brief review of tomorrow s activities, The Chair adjourned the meeting at 16:45. 1 February The Chair called the meeting to order at 08:03. The comment concerning 1% agent was processed. Ken discussed the idea of reengineering the committee s documents. The task groups assigned to 403 assembled to begin work on the document. The committee reassembled at 11:00 and began processing public comments and committee proposals for chapters 1-3. The committee broke for lunch at 12:00. 2

4 MEETING MINUTES Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting AIR-AAA 31 January-2 February 2012 Radisson Hotel Irvine, CA Work resumed at 13:30 with the committee processing committee proposals for chapters Task groups that were established for 403 were dissolved once their tasks were met. After a brief review of tomorrow s activities, The Chair adjourned the meeting at 17:40. 2 February Full committee met to work on and continue to develop text on 403. The committee addressed all public proposals for NFPA 412 and 403 and developed several committee proposals for each document that will be balloted by the entire technical committee. A task group was established, to be chaired by Danny Pierce, to look at re-engineering the existing cadre of documents the committee is responsible for. The task group members will be submitted for formal recognition by the next meeting. The committee also began to look at its existing committee scope to see if it needs refining or modification based on current ARFF technologies and practices. This will be addressed at the next meeting. The committee discussed dates and locations for the next meeting, which was decided, would need to be a physical one due to the changes that were proposed to 403 as well as to continue to work on the re-engineering of the committee and its documents. The dates were the week of October 22 nd, 2012 with the possible locations of San Antonio, Denver, or Kansas City. The committee is also reminded that anyone interested for consideration for the position of chair is to submit an expressing their desire to be chair to me by no later than May 11, 2012 for Standards Council consideration. Meeting adjourned by the Chair at 11:30. 3

5 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #2 Simon Webb, UK Civil Aviation Authority Foams should be classified by their performance and not by their composition names. For example foams meeting performance standard XX. Rather than AFFF or fluorine free. To use current chemical based names for foams hinders future developments. The key criteria is that they should do the job, so use that as the criteria and not their composition Log #1 John F. Bender, UL LLC Revise text as follows: Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall meet the performance requirements of EN1568, Part 3 or UL 162 Add reference to UL 162 which also includes the testing and listing of synthetic foams Log #4 Bernard Valois, Autopyro Revise text to read as follows: Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall be tested to meet the appropriate level of performance requirements of the most recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 or, the EN1568, Part 3 are required to be listed as conforming to the US MIL specification-f24325 or the most recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 level C requirements and tested at an application rate of.04 US gal per square foot.are required to be listed as conforming to the most recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 Level B requirements or the EN1568, Part 3 06 US gal per square foot are required to be listed as conforming to the most recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 Level A requirements 1.0 US gal per square foot Appendix in A currently mentions that other international test methods may be acceptable to the AHJ. Aviation safety is of international scope and the original NFPA numbers were derived from the ICAO; consequently the ICAO and other international standards need to be mentioned. 1

6 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #10 Graeme Day, BAA Add new text to read as follows: Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall meet the performance requirements of EN1568, Part 3 The committee added this requirement as International aviation regulators are now requiring that this category foam to be used on aerodromes and this insertion will reflect the International status of NFPA Log #11 Graeme Day, BAA Delete text to read as follows: All ARFF vehicles responding shall carry either one or both of the following categories of complementary agents: Potassium based bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical Halogenated agent In line with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the production of halon 1301, 1211 and 2402 has been banned since The USA Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals that are being phased out as part of its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Halons should not therefore, be discussed in this document but comment should be made stating that they may still be found in some aircraft fixed installations. This deletion will reflect recent changes to the ICAO Airport Services Manual Part 1 Rescue and Fire Fighting. 2

7 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #3 Bernard Valois, Autopyro , AFFF (column, for High performance foam concentrate), (Fluoroprotein and FFFP,Fluorine Free Synthetic (column 2, for Medium performance foam concentrate) and Protein Foams (column 3 with General use foam concentrate) New headers and numbers for the three columns based on the revised numbers published by the ICAO and the EASA and the performance of the current US Mil specification. Below I am providing the numbers for the new first column in metric and I am prepared to produce the equivalent table in US if the proposal is retained. First column Note: New numbers based on ICAO level C and MIL spec testing application rates Second column Third column The current table Q1 and Q2 numbers of the first column are based on lesser (medium performance level) application rates ICAO level B of 5.5 LPM per M 2. The numbers have never been adjusted following the evolution of agents to higher performance requirements such as ICAO level C and Mil F and appropriate test application densities. Safety considerations: The safety factor margins have been retained in the ICAO numbers to a level equivalent to what it was in the 3 existing levels. As an example the test application rate of the ICAO level C is of 1.75 LPM per M 2 for a calculated operational requirement of 3.75 LPM per M 2. Trade issues in support of identifying concentrates by performance levels: Applying a type of agent such as an AFFF or FFFP to a column just by name may constitute a trade restriction. As a hypothetical example, a newly developed super protein foam could outperform some of the lesser performing AFFF. 3

8 Category High performance concentrate Litres Q1 315 Q2 0 Q3 0 Total 315 Q1 420 Q2 113 Q3 0 Total 533 Q1 765 Q2 230 Q Total 2095 Q Q2 731 Q Total 4242 Q Q Q Total 8917 Q Q Q Total Q Q Q Total Q Q Q Total Q Q Q Total Q Q Q Total NFPA 403 Log #3 Rec A2013 ROC

9 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #5 Ross A. Davidson, US Department of the Navy Category 7 lists number of required vehicles as three. The Proposal suggests a change to two. I recommend leaving at the original requirement of three vehicles. Reducing the number of vehicles is a risk. If a vehicle breaks down or is unable to make it to the scene, the agent flow is drastically reduced. There is also a tactical advantage of 3 vehicles over two which would be lost by reducing the number of vehicles Log #6 Ross A. Davidson, US Department of the Navy Revise text to read as follows: The demonstrated response time of the first responding ARFF vehicle to reach any point on the operational runway and begin agent application shall be within three two minutes of the time of the alarm. The demonstrated response time of the first responding ARFF vehicle to reach any point remaining within the on-airport portion of the Rapid Response Area with improved surface conditions shall be within four 2 1 / 2 minutes from the line of the alarm. All demonstrated response times shall be in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions. Additional ARFF vehicles necessary to achieve the agent discharge rate shall arrive in accordance with the times specified in Table 5.3.1(a) or Table 5.3.1(b). I concur with the proposed wording and format changes, however, the proposed increased times were made arbitrarily without any analysis to determine the effect on burn through of aircraft and the result on life safety. I suggest leaving the current response time requirements that were previously established by this committee Log #8 Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc Delete proposed changed text and revert back to the 2009 original text which was deleted with the change. See substantiation for my negative vote on this proposal. The technical report cited does not support a change to 3 minute response time. A technical report recently published and made available to the technical committee, A Technical Review of Methodologies for Calculating Firefighting Agent Quantities Needed to Combat Aircraft Crash Fires, DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/29, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, April 2012 indicated that NFPA agent quantities were generally adequate assuming a 2 minute response time, the current criteria. 4

10 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #7 Ross A. Davidson, US Department of the Navy Revise text to read as follows: The demonstrated response time to reach an incident/accident involving any aircraft with passengers in the aircraft movement area beyond or outside the runway and rapid response area shall be 3 minutes or less, both in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions to meet the requirements in Table 5.3.1(a) or Table 5.3.1(b). Airport ARFF services shall develop/implement a plan for responding to an incident/accident involving any aircraft with passengers within the aircraft movement area beyond or outside the runway and RRA. The plan shall include expectations regarding number of minutes to respond to both optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions. I concur with the proposed format changes, however, the proposed elimination of a target response time completely eliminated the "STANDARD" in this standard. It no longer serves any purpose and weakens the integrity of this document. I suggest leaving the current response time requirements that were previously established by this committee. 5

11 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #12 Graeme Day, BAA Halogenated extinguishing agents are hydrocarbons in which one or more hydrogen atoms have been replaced by atoms from the halogen series fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine. This substitution confers not only non flammability but flame extinguishment properties to many of the resulting compounds. Halogenated agents are used both in portable fire extinguishers and in extinguishing systems. The three halogen elements commonly found in extinguishing agents are fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), and bromine (Br). The extinguishing mechanism of the halogenated agents is not clearly understood. However, there is undoubtedly a chemical reaction that interferes with the combustion processes. Halogenated agents act by chemically interrupting the continuing combination of the fuel radicals with oxygen in the flame chain reactions. This process is known as Extinguishing mechanisms vary for halogenated extinguishing agents. The primary extinguishing mechanism for Halon 1211 acted by chemically interrupting the continuing combination of the fuel radicals with oxygen in the flame chain reactions. This process is known as. Halogenated agents that have replaced Halon 1211 primarily act by increasing the heat capacity of the air within the fire zone. This results in a cooling of the fire by removing heat that the reaction needs to sustain the flame. The discharge of Halon 1211 halogenated agents can create hazards to personnel such as dizziness, impaired coordination, reduced visibility, and exposure to toxic decomposition products. In any proposed use of Halon 1211 halogenated agents where there is a possibility that people might be trapped in or enter into atmospheres made hazardous, suitable safeguards should be provided to ensure prompt evacuation of, and to prevent entry into, such atmospheres and also to provide means for prompt rescue of any trapped personnel. Breathing apparatus should be worn. Halon 1211 is a liquefied gas discharged as an 85 percent liquid stream that forms a vapor cloud when in contact with the fire, which permits penetration of obstructed and inaccessible areas. Halon 1211 Halogenated agents leaves no agent residue and areis the preferred agent for aircraft tire fires, engine fires, interior aircraft fires, electrical component fires, and flight line vehicle or equipment engine fires. Halon agent is, however, included in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed September 16, The protocol permitted continued availability of halogenated fire extinguishing agents at reduced production levels until the year Halon use should be limited to extinguishment of unwanted fire and should not be used for routine training of personnel. Due to its ozone depleting properties, production of new Halon 1211 stopped in 1994 and discharge of agent for training was no longer allowed. In June 1995, the FAA certified HCFC Blend B as an acceptable alternate agent to Halon 1211 for ARFF, FAA Cert-Alert Like Halon 1211, HCFC Blend B is a clean extinguishing agent effective on Class A, B, and C hazards. It does not leave a residue after application, and therefore minimal or no collateral damage occurs from the agent itself to equipment and other assets in the area where it is employed. In line with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the production of halon 1301, 1211 and 2402 has been banned since The USA Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals that are being phased out as part of its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Halons should not therefore, be discussed in this document but comment should be made stating that they may still be found in some aircraft fixed installations. This deletion will reflect recent changes to the ICAO Airport Services Manual Part 1 Rescue and Fire Fighting. 6

12 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #9 Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc Add new Section B.7. A recent pair of studies performed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) demonstrated that the PCA/TCA concept is still valid. The reports are: "A Technical Review of Methodologies for Calculating Firefighting Agent Quantities Needed to Combat Aircraft Crash Fires," DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/29, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, April 2012; and, "Analysis of Suppression Effects on Aviation Fuel Fires Around an Aircraft, Final Report," DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/27, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, November These analyses addressed various factors in assessing current ARFF agent requirements. These factors included the historical development of the existing methods and the recent fire-related loss history. The recent loss history includes the effectiveness of the ARFF response. A fire hazard analysis was performed for threats to occupants in an aircraft and those who have escaped the aircraft. The NFPA 403 methodology was found to be acceptable and appropriate for establishing agent quantities. These new analyses were just being published as the committee met in early As part of the Annex update, the methodology validation should be included in annex B along with the report citations, to continue the documentation of the historical basis of the methodology and associated agent quantities and response time. 7

13 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA Log #3 Kaare Holm, NoFoam Systems Revise text to read as follows: Foam solution concentration shall be determined using one of the following methods as described in or or When testing foam concentration from vehicles, the lowest flow rate outlet shall be tested first. One handheld refractometer or one handheld conductivity meter suitable for the foam concentrate being tested shall be used for the methods described in or Method B (in 6.2.3) shall be used only when using a refractometer. Refractive index readings shall be taken by placing a few drops of solution on the refractometer prism, closing the cover plate, and observing the scale reading at the dark field intersection. Or, if using conductivity, the probe shall be dipped into the sample and the digital scale read. Particularly in locations where environmental concerns call for minimizing the amount of dispensed foam during testing, input based testing (method C) may be used as a substitute for the methods A or B, only for the purpose of determining the foam solution concentrate. A determination of the flow rates shall be made possible using the following procedure and apparatus. A real-time flow meter connected to a digital flow rate read-out panel shall be used to determine the flow rate for the concentrate or the concentrate substitute. A test sheet with vehicle-specific water flow rates for each station, and the corresponding operational settings for the vehicle, as needed in order to provide a known water flow rate from the water pump during each test. Suitable concentrate substitute with similar viscosity may be used instead of actual concentrate. The foam concentration tank shall be closed off, and an alternative access to the concentrate supply pipes shall be opened and connected to the concentrate substitute supply in such a manner that the flow rates for the concentrate substitute can be read in real-time during testing. Using the vehicle s operational settings for producing foam, the operator shall test each station for about 30 seconds, or until the flow rates have stabilized at a stable value. The flow rates for each station shall then be noted down, together with any operational readings that may impact the water flow rates (e.g. rpm of the engine or water pressure). After completing the testing, the concentrate supply pipes shall be drained for any concentrate substitute in order to prevent dilution of the concentrate in the concentrate tank, once the concentrate tank is opened up again. The foam solution concentrate shall be determined using this formula: Concentrate (or substitute) flow rate x = % foam solution concentration Concentrate flow rate + Water flow rate (added definitions:) Testing the foam solution by measuring the flow rate of concentrate, or suitable substitute for concentrate, used during a specific time of the test, and comparing this flow rate to the flow rate of water used during the same time, then using those two numbers to calculate the proportions of concentrate and water in the foam solution. Testing the foam solution by collecting a sample of the solution after aerating and dispensing it, and using instruments and calculations to determine the sample s proportions of concentrate and water in the foam solution. This proposed method of testing the foam solution concentration will allow for a more environmentally responsible approach, when using plain or colored water as a substitute for AFFF concentrate during testing. Furthermore, by being able to test the proportioner and other key mechanical functions with water, there is an increased incentive to test more frequently most stations currently perform the NFPA 412 test annually, but with the proposed method it is observed that vehicles typically will get tested either quarterly or monthly, leading to better equipment readiness and higher operator confidence. Currently, under FAA rules, the airport fire chiefs are not required to follow NFPA 412, and local environmental regulations have already led many chiefs to test their vehicles using the proposed method, rather than following the 2

14 Report on Comments June 2013 NFPA 412 methods currently required by the standard. The proposed method is currently being used in numerous DoD airports in the US, Australia (all Australian Defense airports), Asia and 8 countries in Europe. It has now been in use for over 10 years, and the number of locations using it is growing by around 30% per year. This revision is a chance to bring the standard up to speed with what is already going on in the marketplace, and to allow the fire chiefs a way to follow the standard AND be in compliance with local environmental regulations. The proposed method is ONLY directed at the method for determining the foam solution concentration, it does not affect any other tests within the standard, and it is furthermore only suggested as an alternative for fire stations located where environmental concerns call for reducing the amount of AFFF dispensed during testing Log #1 John F. Bender, UL LLC Revise text as follows: Standard UL 162, U.S. Military Specification MIL-F Add most recent edition and revision date to UL