M E M O R A N D U M. NFPA Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems. NFPA 2001 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (F2014 Cycle)

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: M E M O R A N D U M To: From: NFPA Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects Date: July 10, 2014 Subject: NFPA 2001 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (F2014 Cycle) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot with the exception of those shown in the attached report. 31 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Not Returned (Linteris, Maranion, Speitel) 12 Affirmative on Revisions 2 Affirmative with Comment on one or more Revisions (Senecal, Wysocki) 16 Negatives on one or more Revisions (Adcock, Adrian, Cary, Dellogono, Herzog, Kasiski, Makowka, Murray, Richard, Rivers, Robin, Senecal, Shugarman, Spalding, Stilwell, Wysocki) 0 Abstentions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision. There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 /3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 /3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = = 12 ) As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

2 Committee Comment No. 19-NFPA [ New Section after ] This was a Second Revision that failed ballot * Effects of Noise. Effects of acoustical noise in an occupancy containing noise-sensitive equipment shall be considered. Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR19_A _edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:21:15 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Insert new body and annex material. Some clean agent systems, as well as the associated alarms or other non-fire-protection equipment, are capable of producing acoustic noise that might affect noisesensitive equipment located within the protected space. The stakeholders should be aware of this possibility and should consider whether a mitigation strategy is necessary. Ballot Results This item has failed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 12 Negative with Comments 16 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Negative with Comment Adrian, Katherine In particular the annex section states there is guidance that does not exist nor that is ascertainable from system manufacturers. of 3 7/10/2014 9:04 AM

3 Herzog, Mark E. I do not agree that a general advisory is helpful to the user. Makowka, Norbert W. AFter further consideration I do not belive this is within the scope of NFPA Also the annex section refers the users to systems manufacturer's data, however there is no such data available. Murray, Kevin The main issue here is we have no way to determine what noise levels will be in a given application, nor do we know what frequencies and or sound pressure levels are too high. This is also a moving target as what is acceptable today might not be acceptable next year. I m concerned placing this into code would open the door to potential legal issues for installers and manufacturers as well. Also the last sentance the the Annex Material "modification of the clean agent system design in accordance with manufacturer s recommendations." makes it sound like the manufacturers have a solution, which we do not. Richard, Robert G. Currently data does not warrant this change. Rivers, Paul E. I voted against this in committee noting lack of evidence/data for halocarbon systems causing damage/data loss. There was not consensus for it in committee, although it barely passed (Final vote Accept in Principal. The language below is a 'nondenominational' assessment making a general comment on hard drive effects to include all clean agents including halocarbons. It was discussed in the sub task group last January to note the lack of any evidence of halocarbon systems causing hard drive malfunction to date. 3M has not received inquiries or notification of any incidence of damage to hard drives or disruption of hard drive operation from a discharge of a system using Novec 1230 fluid, nor have we seen any evidence of such presented. Similar has been noted regarding the other halocarbons included in the standard. This fact is not reflected in the NFPA language as included, but should be. Therefore, 3M does not support this language as shown. Robin, Mark L. Acoustical damage to HDDs by inert gas agents has been verified, for example by IBM. Acoustical damage to HDDs is limited to inert gas agents - there is not a single documented example of HDD damage during an in-field discharge of a halocarbon system - in the case of HFC-227ea this corresponds to over 20 years of in-field use. The proposed body text points out a real, verified problem that should be considered in agent selection, but fails to point out that this problem has been observed only with inert gas systems; hence, the proposed text is misleading. The proposed Annex material is false and is misleading in indicating that "some" clean agents are capable of producing acoustic noise that might affect noise-sensitive equipment. It is known that this effect has been reported only for inert gas agents. The new body and Annex material should be altered to reflect the fact that this phenomenon has been restricted to inert gas system discharges. Senecal, Joseph A. I originally endorsed SR-19 action at the 2nd Draft meeting. However, on rereading and A I feel that neither the language of nor A , as written, belong in the standard for the following reasons: 1. The statement Effects of acoustical noise in an occupancy containing noise-sensitive equipment shall be considered. makes no reference to clean agent systems at all and, as such, provides no guidance thereto. It is the kind of statement that the manufacturer of noise-sensitive equipment should be making. 2. The annex material makes an unsubstantiated statement, i.e., Acoustical noise from a range of sources and those not related to clean agent systems I am aware only of reports of noise from clean agent systems, specifically from inert gas systems, resulting in hard drive damage. 3. The suggestion for mitigation strategies to the facility owner to use equipment that is less noise sensitive ( enterprise-quality disks) is outside the realm of the fire protection system provider and transfers the noise-effects issue to the victim not the source. 4. The statement modification of the clean agent system design in accordance with the manufacturer s recommendation. suggests that manufacturers have such recommendations. To my knowledge it is not a matter of public record that such is the generally case. Shugarman, Blake M. The effects of acoustical noise is not within the scope or purpose of this Standard. Any such requirements should be included in the Standard covering the protection of the noise-sensitive equipment. Spalding, John C. While the proposed text for the body of the standard is suitable, the mitigation strategies proposed in the annex material prescribe remedies that are unobtainable. Due to the unpredictable acoustic characteristics of any protected volume, manufacturer s recommendations for system modifications cannot exist. No two systems (even by the same manufacturer) will ever produce the same sound, in regards to both intensity and frequency, unless exactly the same system is installed in exactly the same enclosure with exactly the same geometric footprint and the same furnishings. No clean agent system design recommendation can address all of the possible variables effecting acoustics. However, it has been verified by major a manufacturer of information technology equipment that hard drives located in frames or cabinets can be buffered from acoustical noise using commercially available means. of 3 7/10/2014 9:04 AM

4 Stilwell, Brad T. I believe there are too many factors at stake for a system installation to determine if the noise from a system discharge will cause a problem with equipment in the hazard. Addition of this text will cause more questions than solve any issues. Wysocki, Thomas J. Including "modification of the clean agent system design in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations" in proposed Annex A as a possible mitigation strategy is greatly misleading and does a disservice to the user of the standard. The phenomenon of acoustic energy interacting with HDD is caused by sympathetic vibration of mechanical parts of some HDD caused by specific acoustic frequencies. Data loss and/or damage to HDD may be caused when the frequency of sound generated by an external source matching the natural frequency of certain components of the HDD impinges on these components. If the intensity of the sound is sufficient to induce sympathetic vibration of the HDD component, data loss and/or damage to the HDD may occur. The resonant frequencies of the affected parts of HDD vary with make and model of HDD. Also the intensity of sound waves of resonant frequency needed to cause unwanted vibration of the HDD component varies depending on the mass and configuration of the mechanical components of the HDD. Ways to prevent unwanted sympathetic vibration of parts of a given HDD are 1) prevent exposure of the HDD to the sound by acoustically shielding the HDD; 2) prevent generation of the sound with the resonant frequency within the enclosure housing the HDD; 3) manufacture the HDD with more robust components (Enterprise Class HDD are an example of HDD built with more robust components). Although it may be possible to specially design and manufacture a clean agent system for a specific enclosure and equipment configuration that will not generate a specific sound frequency at sufficient level to cause sympathetic vibration of parts within a specific HDD, introduction of a different HDD with parts having the harmonic frequencies generated by the specially designed and manufactured clean agent system is always likely. Addition of new HDD of varying manufacture to a data center is a very common practice. Furthermore, changes to the enclosure, addition or removal of objects from the enclosure can affect the frequencies reaching a given HDD during any physical event in the enclosure including a clean agent discharge. Modification of the clean agent system is not a viable mitigating strategy - the standard should not even imply that it is - much less state outright that modification of the clean agent system should be considered as a mitigating strategy. Realistically, the potential problem of data loss/damage in a HDD is a problem that must be addressed by acoustic shielding of the HDD or by the design of the HDD itself. system discharges as well as a myriad other events cause noise of various frequencies. Historically the resonant frequencies of HDD components have changed over time with various HDD designs. Since the resonant frequency of components within HDD continues to vary among models/manufacture of the HDD, there is no target frequency to which a system can be designed. Since the possible effect of acoustic energy on HDD is well known in the data center community, alerting the user of the standard to this physical phenomenon is probably unnecessary but is nonetheless acceptable. But indication that modification of a clean agent system design can mitigate HDD damage or data loss due to acoustic phenomenon is a misleading statement which should not be included in NFPA The proposal would be acceptable if "modification of the clean agent system design in accordance with manufacturer s recommendations" were deleted from the possible mitigating strategies. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. of 3 7/10/2014 9:04 AM

5 A Effects of Noise. Acoustical noise from a range of sources, including those related to some types of clean agent systems and those not related to clean agent systems (e.g., alarms), has been shown to have an impact on the performance of hard disk drives under certain conditions. These impacts are dependent on the type of disk and have included temporary degradation of disk performance and permanent data loss. Mitigation strategies include the use of enterprise-quality and solid state disks which are less susceptible to acoustical noise, enclosing disks in acoustic enclosures, the shutdown of electronic equipment in accordance with NFPA 75 prior to discharge, and modification of the clean agent system design in accordance with manufacturer s recommendations. Additional information can be found in the following references: Siemens White Paper, Potential damage to hard disk drives during discharges of dry extinguishing systems, Siemens, September Brian P. Rawson and Kent C. Green. Inert Gas Data Center Fire Protection and Hard Disk Drive Damage. Data Center Journal, August 27, 2012 ( Juan Jose Merlo Latorre., Hard Drive Damage, Industrial Fire Journal, Autumn 2013, issue no.93, pp Eurofeu, Fixed Extinguishing Installation Section, Guidance paper on Impact of noise on Computer hard drives, October 2012.

6 Second Revision No. 1-NFPA [ Section No ] * Storage containers shall be permitted to be located within or outside the hazard or hazards they protect. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 15:41:30 EDT 2014 Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: Response Message: The First Revision text inadvertently removed the requirement which allows for storage cylinders to be located outside the hazard area as identified in the current edition of NFPA Public Comment No. 20-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. of 2 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

7 Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. of 2 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

8 Second Revision No. 2-NFPA [ Sections , ] A means for determining pressure shall be provided for agent storage containers to determine the pressure in containers of inert gas agents, superpressurized liquid agents, and superpressurized liquefied compressed gas agents Liquefied halocarbon agents stored under their own vapor pressure shall not be required to comply with Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 15:49:25 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Editorial clarification. Response Message: Public Comment No. 4-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 5-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

9 Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

10 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 13-NFPA [ Section No ]

11 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

12 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM In no case shall the value used for the minimum pipe design pressure be less than that specified in Table (a) and Table (b) for the conditions shown. For inert gas clean agents that employ the use of a pressure-reducing device, Table (a) shall be used for piping upstream of the pressure reducer, and shall be used to determine minimum pipe design pressure for piping downstream of the pressure reducer. The pressure-reducing device shall be readily identifiable. For halocarbon clean agents, Table (b) shall be used. If different fill densities, pressurization levels, or higher storage temperatures from those shown in Table (a) or Table (b) are approved for a given system, the minimum design pressure for the piping shall be adjusted to the maximum pressure in the agent container at maximum temperature, using the basic design criteria specified in (1) and (2). Table (a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping Agent Container Gauge Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent Container Gauge Pressure 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 , , , , , , , , ,097 IG , , , , , , , , ,050 IG ,320 15, ,065 17, ,320 15, ,423 20, ,753 23, ,423 20, ,634 30, ,130 36, ,634 30,000 IG , , , , , , , , ,000 Table (b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping Agent Container Maximum Fill Density Agent Container Charging Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent Container Pressure at 130 F (55 C) Minimum Piping Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent lb/ft 3 kg/m 3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HFC-227ea * HCFC Blend A HFC HCFC

13 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Agent Container Maximum Fill Density Agent Container Charging Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent Container Pressure at 130 F (55 C) Minimum Piping Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent lb/ft 3 kg/m 3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HCFC HFC HFC HFC-236fa HFC-236fa HFC-236fa HFC Blend B FK *Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70 F (21 C). Not superpressurized with nitrogen. Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR13_Table_A _a_edited.docx 2001_SR13_Table_A _b_edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 16:51:23 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Revise Tables A (a) and A (b) per the attached file. The values for IG-55 are adjusted in accordance with the revised isometric data in Figure A (l). (See SR12.) The temperature specification was removed from the minimum piping design pressure. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot

14 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

15 Table (a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping Agent Container Gauge Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent Container Gauge Pressure 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 , , , , , , , , ,097 IG , , , , , , , , ,050 IG , , ,065 17, ,320 15, , , ,753 23, ,423 20,000 IG ,634 30, ,130 36, ,634 30, , , , , , , , , ,000

16 Table (b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping Agent Container Maximum Fill Density Agent Container Charging Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent Container Pressure at 130 F (55 C) Minimum Piping Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) Agent lb/ft 3 kg/m 3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HFC-227ea * HCFC Blend A HFC HCFC HCFC HFC HFC HFC-236fa HFC-236fa HFC-236fa HFC Blend B FK *Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70 F (21 C). Not superpressurized with nitrogen.

17 Second Revision No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] Cast-iron fittings shall not be used. Class 150 lb (PN 20) fittings shall not be used unless it can be demonstrated that they comply with the appropriate American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) stress calculations Class 150 lb (PN 20) fittings shall not be used unless it can be demonstrated that they comply with the appropriate American National Standards Institute Inc. (ANSI) stress calculations. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:09:25 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot The revisions update the pipe and fitting requirements per the latest edition of ASME codes and standards. 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. 0 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

18 Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 1 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

19 Second Revision No. 14-NFPA [ New Section after ] For flanged valves, the class and style of flanges required to match the valve s flanged connection shall be used. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:07:15 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Different valve sizes and flange classes can use different bolt patterns. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. 2 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

20 Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 3 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

21 Second Revision No. 6-NFPA [ Section No ] * Detection, actuation, alarm, and control systems shall be installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with appropriate NFPA protective signaling systems standards. (See NFPA 70 and NFPA 72. In Canada refer to CAN/ULC S and CAN/ULC S ) Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR6_A _edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 17:18:39 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Add new annex material. Information contained in the FSSA Guide will assist the designer in understanding the application techiques involved with an automatic fire detection system. Public Comment No. 10-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 11-NFPA [New Section after A ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine 4 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

22 Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 5 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

23 A The "FSSA Application Guide Detection & Control for Fire Suppression Systems" offers the designer information of the various types of detection and control equipment.

24 6 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 3-NFPA [ Section No ]

25 7 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

26 8 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Working plans shall be drawn to an indicated scale and shall show the following items that pertain to the design 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 and construction of building floor-ceiling assemblies above and below, raised access floor, and suspended ceiling (7) Agent being used (8) Extinguishing or inerting concentrations Agent concentration at the lowest temperature and the highest temperatures for which the enclosure is protected (9) Description of occupancies and hazards being protected, designating whether the enclosure is normally occupied (10) For an enclosure protected by a clean agent fire extinguishing system, an estimate of the maximum positive pressure and the maximum negative pressure, relative to ambient pressure, expected to be developed 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, and nominal capacity expressed in units of agent mass or volume at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (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; segregation requirements of various system conductors; and required method of making wire terminations. (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 distribution system, including agent storage containers, piping, and nozzles; type of pipe hangers and rigid pipe supports; detection, alarm, and control system, including all devices and schematic of wiring interconnection between them; end-of-line device locations; location of controlled devices such as dampers and shutters; and location of instructional signage (19) Isometric view of agent distribution system showing the length and diameter of each pipe segment; node reference numbers relating to the flow calculations; fittings, including reducers, strainers, and orientation of 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 having jurisdiction (21) Details of each unique rigid pipe support configuration showing method of securement to the pipe and to the building structure (22) Details of the method of container securement showing method of securement to the container and to the building structure (23) Complete step-by-step description of the system sequence of operations, including functioning of abort and maintenance switches, delay timers, and emergency power shutdown (24) Point-to-point wiring schematic diagrams showing all circuit connections to the system control panel and graphic annunciator panel

27 9 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM (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 backup batteries; method used to determine number and location of audible and visual indicating devices; and number and location of detectors (27) Details of any special features (28) * Pressure relief vent area, or equivalent leakage area, for the protected enclosure to prevent development, during system discharge, of a pressure difference across the enclosure boundaries that exceeds a specified enclosure pressure limit Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 16:03:40 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Extinguishing and inerting concentrations are not generally known as a function of temperature. that the system plans can say is what agent concentration will be achieved in the protected space for the given quantity of agent to be discharged. Response Message: Public Comment No. 6-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A.

28 Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 0 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

29 1 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 4-NFPA [ Section No ] The concentration of halocarbon clean agent that will be developed in the protected enclosure shall be calculated at both the minimum and maximum design temperature using the following equation: [ ] where: C = agent concentration [vol %] W = installed quantity of agent [lb (kg)] s=specific volume of the gaseous agent at the minimum/maximum design temperature of the hazard [ft 3 /lb (m 3 /kg)] V = volume of the as-built enclosure [ft 3 (m 3 )] Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR4_Equation_ docx Description Correct equation Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 16:05:52 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Equation is incorrect. Replace the minus signs in the equation with multiplication. Response Message: Public Comment No. 1-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments

30 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 2 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

31 W s 100 V C W s V 1 Equation

32 Second Revision No. 5-NFPA [ Section No. 5.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] A minimum concentration of 85 percent of the adjusted minimum design concentration shall be held at the highest level of combustibles height of protected content within the hazard for a period of 10 minutes or for a time period sufficient to allow for response by trained personnel. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 16:14:14 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Combustibles as stated could be anything in the room, including structure. The hazard content combustibles are what are being protected by a clean agent system. Structural or building combustible are typically protected by code required automatic sprinklers. Response Message: Public Comment No. 13-NFPA [Section No. 5.6 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 22 Affirmative 1 Affirmative with Comments 5 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. 3 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

33 Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Affirmative with Comment Senecal, Joseph A. The statement as written is awkward. Improved wording with the same effect would be: "An agent concentration equal at least 85 percent of the adjusted minimum design concentration shall be maintained at the height of the highest protected content within the hazard for a period of 10 minutes or for a time period sufficient to allow for response by trained personnel Negative with Comment Adcock, Ronald C. The MEC for some Class A fires is based on a maximum flame extinguishment time of 10 minutes (See ). SR-5 introduces the possibility that Class A fires are not extinguished within the protected enclosure when the concentration of agent is not held for at least 10 minutes. Too many variables are introduced with the wording of SR-5, such as arrival time of trained personnel, and possible failure of the protected enclosure to maintain the extinguishment concentration for the required 10 minutes. It would be clearer to the user, system designer, and AHJ if the previous wording requiring a minimum hold time of 10 minutes were returned to Section 5.6. Cary, William J. Adding the wording about sufficent response time for trained personnel will introduce judgemental confusion such as who are trained first responders (structural fire brigade, public FD). I suggest the previous wording of a 10 minute hold time be restored to the standard. Dellogono, John E. Too many variables introduced with this wording including arrival times and trained personal. Kasiski, Robert Adequate protection from clean agent systems should be provided for a minimum time period of 10 minutes. This revision (initiated as FR-52 and carried into SR-5 deleting "minimum") allows for protection to be designed and provided for a shorter period relying on the human element to intervene, defeating the purpose of fixed protection. If response time from trained personnel is extended or trained personnel no longer available from the original design time period at a later date, there may be inadequate protection provided to the occupancy. In additon this revision will effect the listings with FM Approvals as the Class 5600 have a 600 second time limit for extinguishment in the Class A fire test. Fires may not be extinguished if the minimum time period is removed. Wysocki, Thomas J. Considering the comments accompanying the negative ballots of Mr. Adcock and Mr. Kasiski, I change my vote to negative on this item. It should be clarified that for Class A combustibles at least 85% of the minimum design concentration must be maintained at the high level of protected contents for at least 10 minutes. 4 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

34 Second Revision No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] Discharge Time. The minimum design discharge time shall be determined by dividing the design quantity by the design rate The discharge time shall be increased to compensate for any hazard condition that would require a longer cooling period or for mechanical rundown time associated with ventilation equipment present to prevent re-ignition Where there is a possibility that metal or other material can become heated above the ignition temperature of the fuel, the effective discharge time shall be increased to allow adequate cooling time * Where the fuel has an auto-ignition point below its boiling point, such as paraffin wax and cooking oils, the effective discharge time shall be increased to permit cooling of the fuel to prevent re-ignition The discharge time shall be increased to compensate for any mechanical rundown time associated with ventilation equipment present. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 17:25:24 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Editorial revision. Response Message: Public Comment No. 14-NFPA [Section No ] Public Comment No. 15-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. 5 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

35 Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 6 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

36 7 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 11-NFPA [ Section No. A.1.6 ]

37 8 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM A.1.6 Many factors impact the environmental acceptability of a fire suppression agent. Uncontrolled fires pose significant impact by themselves. extinguishing agents should be used in ways that eliminate or minimize the potential environmental impact [ ( see Table A.1.6] ). General guidelines to be followed to minimize this impact include the following: (1) Not performing unnecessary discharge testing (2) Considering the ozone depletion and global warming impact of the agent under consideration and weighing 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 non-zero ODP, the non-zero GWP, or both should be avoided. phases of design, installation, testing, and maintenance of systems using these agents should be performed with the goal of no emission into the environment. GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to the same mass of carbon dioxide whose GWP is by convention equal to 1. It is important to understand that the impact of a gas on climate change is a function of both the GWP of the gas and the amount of the gas emitted. The U.S. EPA employed its vintaging model (U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: ) to estimate the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from various sources. This model indicated that fire protection emissions accounted for 0.6 percent of total GHG emissions. For current U.S. emissions data, refer to the HFC Emissions Estimating Program (HEEP). The ODP of an agent provides a relative comparison of the ability to react with ozone at altitudes within the stratosphere. ODP values are reported relative to the same mass CFC-11, which has an ODP equal to 1. When the environmental profile of a compound is considered, both the ODP and the GWP values should be considered to ensure that the agent selected complies with all local and regional regulations balanced with end user specifications. Good independent resources for environmental properties in terms of GWP and ODP of clean agent alternatives are available from the Montreal Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Table A.1.6 Potential Environmental Impacts Agent GWP (IPCC ) ODP FIC-13I * FK HCFC Blend A HFC Blend B HCFC HFC HFC-227ea HFC ,400 0 HFC-236fa IG IG IG IG Note: GWP is reported over a 100-year integrated time horizon. *Agent might have a nonzero ODP if released at altitudes high above ground level.

38 Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR11_Table_A.1.6_edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 27 13:50:13 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: ODP and GWP for the agents are listed in the table. It is important to have independent references with the most current data on which to rely. Environmental data maintained and regularly updated by the Montreal Protocol and the IPCC are available sources. The values reported in Table A.1.6 were updated to reflect the most recent data. Response Message: Public Comment No. 16-NFPA [Section No. A.1.6] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 27 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. 9 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

39 Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. Negative with Comment Robin, Mark L. NFPA 2001 requires the user to consider the impact of clean agents on climate change/global warming when selecting a clean agent, but the proposed text fails to guide the user to factual information related to the impact of the clean agents on global warming that would facilitate such a consideration. This is a change from the current (2012) edition of NFPA 2001, which references US EPA data from 2009 indicating that the impact of HFCs in fire protection represents % of the impact of all GHGs on global warming. The latest US EPA data, from 2014, indicates that the impact of HFCs in fire protection represents 0.015% of the impact of all GHGs on global warming and should be included in the 2015 edition for the same reason such data was included in the 2012 edition - to provide the user with a means of meeting the requirement of NFPA 2001 to consider the effects of clean agents on global warming. 0 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

40 Table A.1.6 Potential Environmental Impacts Agent GWP (IPCC ) ODP FIC-13I1 < * FK <1 1 0 HCFC Blend A HFC Blend B HCFC HFC HFC-227ea HFC HFC-236fa IG IG IG IG *Agent might have a nonzero ODP if released at altitudes high above ground level. Note: GWP is reported over a 100 year integrated time horizon.

41 Second Revision No. 10-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A The normal and accepted procedures for making these quality measurements are provided in international standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO Air-conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute ) or by the chemical manufacturer. Refer to the Code of Practice for Use of Recycled Halogenated Clean Agents for additional information. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 27 12:40:04 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: At the public input stage, the referenced document was not finalized. The committee has reviewed the final version of the document and believes that it provides important information. The reference to ISO was removed because ISO does not publish any applicable standards. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 27 Affirmative 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. 1 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

42 Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Affirmative with Comment Wysocki, Thomas J. Add reference to "Code of Practice for Use of Recycled Halogenated Clean Agents" in Annex E. 2 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

43 3 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 12-NFPA [ Section No. A ]

44 4 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM A

45 5 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM 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 the anticipated pressures. Each container is equipped with a pressure relief device to protect against excessive pressure conditions. The variations in vapor pressure with temperature for the various clean agents are shown in Figure A (a) through Figure A (m). For halocarbon clean agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected by fill density and temperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to fill density. If the maximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increase and present a hazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is important that the maximum fill density limit specified for each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density and pressurization levels specified in Table A 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 inadvertent discharge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should be consulted for superpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A Figure A (a) Isometric Diagram of FIC-13I1. Figure A (b) Isometric Diagram of FK

46 6 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Figure A (c) Isometric Diagram of HCFC Blend A. Figure A (d) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-124 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

47 7 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Figure A (e) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-125 Pressurized with Nitrogen. Figure A (f) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-227ea Pressurized with Nitrogen.

48 8 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Figure A (g) Isometric Design of HFC-23. Figure A (h) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-236fa Pressurized with Nitrogen. Figure A (i) Isometric Diagram of IG-01.

49 9 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Figure A (j) Isometric Diagram of IG-100. Figure A (k) Isometric Diagram of IG-541.

50 0 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Figure A (l) Isometric Diagram of IG-55. Figure A (m) Isometric Diagram of HFC Blend B.

51 1 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM With the exception of inert gas type systems, all the other clean agents are classified as liquefied compressed gases at 70 F (21 C). For these agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected by fill density and temperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to fill density. If the maximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increase and present a hazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is important that the maximum fill density limit specified for each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density and pressurization levels specified in Table A 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 inadvertent discharge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should be consulted for superpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A Table A Storage Container Characteristics Extinguishing Agent Maximum Fill Density for Conditions Listed (lb/ft 3 ) Minimum Container Design Level Working Pressure (Gauge) (psi) Total Gauge Pressure Level at 70 F (psi) FK HCFC Blend A HCFC HFC a HFC-227ea HFC a FIC-13I IG-01 N/A IG-100 (300) N/A IG-100 (240) N/A IG-100 (180) N/A IG-541 N/A IG-541 (200) N/A IG-55 ( ) N/A b IG-55 (2962) N/A c IG-55 (4443) N/A d HFC Blend B e For SI units, 1 lb/ft 3 = kg/m 3 ; 1 psi = 6895 Pa; C = ( F 32)/1.8. Notes:

52 2 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM (1) The maximum fill density requirement is not applicable for IG-541. Cylinders for IG-541 are DOT 3A or 3AA and are stamped or greater. (2) Total pressure level at 70 F (21 C) is calculated from the following filling conditions: IG-100 (300): 4351 psi (30.0 MPa) and 95 F (35 C) IG-100 (240): 3460 psi (23.9 MPa) and 95 F (35 C) IG-100 (180): 2560 psi (17.7 MPa) and 95 F (35 C) IG-55 (2222): 2175 psi (15 MPa) and 59 F (15 C) IG-55 (2962): 2901 psi (20 MPa) and 59 F (15 C) IG-55 (4443): 4352 psi (30 MPa) and 59 F (15 C) a Vapor pressure for HFC-23 and HFC-125. b Cylinders for IG-55 are stamped c Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped or greater. d Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped or greater. e Vapor pressure of agent. Supplemental Information File Name G r1.jpg Description Figure A (l)-revised Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 16:07:32 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Replace Figure A (l) Isometric Diagram for IG-55 with corrected charts, per attached. Examination of the isometric charts currently in Figure A (l) shows that the pressure vs. temperature relations are exactly according to the ideal gas law. However, the accuracy of the ideal gas law for predicting pressure for IG-55 progressively decreases as the mixture pressure increases. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments

53 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 3 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

54 Figure A (l) Isometric Diagram of IG psig system bar system Pressure (psig) psig system Pressure (bar) bar system psig system bar system Temperature ( F) Temperature ( C) FOR REFERENCE ONLY: *Per Manual of Style, units in psig are not permitted. Replace with psi in the final figure (4 places, as marked). U.S. customary units T, F P, psig P, psig P, psig Metric units T, C P, bar P, bar P, bar

55 Second Revision No. 16-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Piping should be installed in accordance with good commercial practice. Care should be taken to avoid possible restrictions due to foreign matter, faulty fabrication, or improper installation. The piping system should be securely supported with due allowance for agent thrust forces and thermal expansion and contraction and should not be subjected to mechanical, chemical, vibration, or other damage. ASME B31.1 should be consulted for guidance on this matter. Where explosions are likely, the piping should be attached to supports that are least likely to be displaced. Although clean agent piping systems are not subjected to continuous pressurization, provisions should be made to ensure that the type of piping installed can withstand the maximum stress at maximum storage temperatures. Maximum allowable stress levels for this condition should be established at values of 67 percent of the minimum yield strength or 25 percent of the minimum tensile strength, whichever is less. joint factors should be applied after this value is determined. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:13:09 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot The revisions update the pipe and fitting requirements per the latest edition of ASME codes and standards. 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. 4 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

56 Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 5 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

57 Second Revision No. 17-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Paragraph requires that the thickness of the piping shall be calculated in accordance with ASME B31.1. To comply with this requirement, the guidelines found in the FSSA Pipe Design Guide for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems should be followed. The FSSA Pipe Design Guide for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems provides guidance on how to apply ASME B31.1 in a uniform and consistent manner in the selection of acceptable types of pipe and tubing used in special hazard fire suppression systems. ASME B31.1 allows the pressure to exceed the maximum design pressure, provided it is for short operating periods. Clean agent piping systems are not subjected to continuous pressurization. When discharge times are less than 60 minutes in duration, NFPA 2001 allows the yield stress factors (SE) published in ASME B31.1 to be increased by 20 percent when calculating the pipe thickness. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:14:02 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot The revisions update the pipe and fitting requirements per the latest edition of ASME codes and standards. 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded 6 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

58 Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 7 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

59 8 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 18-NFPA [ Section No. A ]

60 9 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM A

61 0 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Fittings that are acceptable for use in clean agent systems can be found in Table A (a) and Table A (b). The fittings shown in these tables are based on use in open-ended piping systems. For fittings used in closed sections of pipe, Sections 4 and 7 of the FSSA Pipe Design Guide for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems should be consulted. Table A (a) Piping Systems Fittings Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent halocarbon agents (except HFC-23) psi kpa psi kpa 360 2, , , ,654 Minimum Acceptable Fittings Class 300 threaded malleable iron Class 300 threaded ductile iron Groove type fittings b Class 300 flanged joints Class 300 threaded malleable iron Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 400 flanged joint HFC ,199 1,371 9,453 c Class 400 flanged joint IG-541 2,175 14,997 2,175 14,997 Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 300 threaded malleable iron Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 flanged joint Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) 6 3 in. 6 in. 6 in. 4 in. 2 in in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d

62 1 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa 2,900 19,996 2,900 19,996 4,508 31,050 Upstream of the pressure reducer IG-01 2,370 16,341 2,370 16,341 Minimum Acceptable Fittings Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) 1 in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer 2,964 20,346 2,964 20,346 Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 2,500 flanged joint Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint 1 in in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer 4, ,097 4, ,097 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint 1 in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 2,500 flanged joint 1 in.

63 2 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa Downstream of the pressure reducer IG-55 2,175 2,222 14,997 15,320 2,175 2,222 14,997 15,320 Upstream of the pressure reducer 2,900 2,962 19,996 20,422 2,900 2,962 19,996 20,422 d Minimum Acceptable Fittings Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) d in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer 4,350 4,443 29,993 30,633 4,350 4,443 29,993 30,633 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint 1 in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer IG-100 2,404 16,575 2,404 16,575 Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 2,500 flanged joint 1 in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer 3,236 22,312 3,236 22,312 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel 3 4 in.

64 3 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa Upstream of the pressure reducer 4,061 28,000 4,061 28,000 Minimum Acceptable Fittings Class 3,000 lb 6,000 threaded/welded forged steel Class 1,500 flanged joint Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 2,500 flanged joint 1 in. Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Notes: (1) 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 fittings that satisfy the requirements of (3) The pressure ratings of the forged steel threaded or welded fittings are based on the pressure equivalent of the 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 (a) and Table (b). b Check with grooved fitting manufacturers for pressure ratings. c This value good for all fill densities up to 48 lb/ft 3. d The minimum design pressure for fittings downstream of the pressure reducer should be determined by system flow calculations. Acceptable pipe fittings for several values of pressures downstream of the pressure reducer can be found in Table A (b). Table A (b) Piping Systems Fittings for Use in Inert Gas Systems Downstream of the Pressure Reducer Maximum Pressure Downstream of the Pressure Reducer at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Minimum Acceptable Fittings Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) psi kpa 1,000 6,895 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 4 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 lb flanged joint

65 4 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Maximum Pressure Downstream of the Pressure Reducer at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) psi kpa Minimum Acceptable Fittings Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) 1,350 9,308 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 2 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 lb flanged joint 1,500 10,343 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 2 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 900 lb flanged joint 2,000 13,790 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 1 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 900 lb flanged joint Pressure-temperature ratings have been established for certain types of fittings. A list of ANSI standards covering the different types of fittings is given in Table of ASME B31.1. Where fittings not covered by one of these standards are used, the design recommendations of the manufacturer of the fittings should not be exceeded. Supplemental Information File Name 2001_SR18_Table_A _a_edited.docx 2001_SR18_Table_A _b_edited.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Mar 28 17:15:10 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Revised Tables A (a) and A (b) per the attached files. The revisions update the pipe and fitting requirements per the latest edition of ASME codes and standards. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters

66 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Linteris, Gregory T. Maranion, Bella A. Speitel, Louise C. Affirmative Adcock, Ronald C. Adrian, Katherine Aron, Oded Barbuzzi, Maurizio Cary, William J. Dellogono, John E. Dillon, Todd A. Eckholm, William A. Enslow, Don A. Fisher, Laurence E. Froh, William A. Goldhammer, Edward S. Harrington, Jeffrey L. Herzog, Mark E. Hill, Scott A. Kasiski, Robert Makowka, Norbert W. Murray, Kevin Richard, Robert G. Rivers, Paul E. Robin, Mark L. Senecal, Joseph A. Shugarman, Blake M. Spalding, John C. Stilwell, Brad T. Walker, Fred K. Wickham, Robert T. Wysocki, Thomas J. 5 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM

67 Table A (a) Piping Systems Fittings Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa halocarbon agents (except HFC-23) 360 2, ,868 Minimum Acceptable Fittings Class 300 threaded malleable iron Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) 6 3 in. Class 300 threaded ductile iron 6 in. Groove type fittings b 6 in. Class 300 flanged joints 600 4, ,654 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 4 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 400 flanged joint HFC ,199 1,371 9,453 c Class 400 flanged joint Class 300 threaded malleable iron 2 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 flanged joint IG-541 2,175 14,997 2,175 14,997 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 2,900 19,996 2,900 19,996 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel 1 in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Class 3,000 lb threaded 4,508 31,050 forged steel 1 in. Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 2,500 flanged joint IG-01 2,370 16,341 2,370 16,341 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint

68 Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa Minimum Acceptable Maximum Pipe Fittings Size (NPS) Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 2,964 20,346 2,964 20,346 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel 1 in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d , ,097 Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel 1 in. Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 2,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d IG-55 2,175 2,222 14,997 xxx Class 2,000 lb threaded 2,175 2,222 14,997 xxx forged steel in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 2,900 2,962 19,996 xxx Class 2,000 lb threaded 2,900 2,962 19,996 xxx forged steel 1 in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 4,350 4,443 29,993 xxx Class 3,000 lb threaded 4,350 4,443 29,993 xxx forged steel 1 in. Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 2,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d IG-100 2,404 16,575 2,404 16,575 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel in. Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel

69 Pressure in Agent Container at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Fitting Minimum Design Pressure at 70 F (21 C) a Clean Agent psi kpa psi kpa Minimum Acceptable Fittings Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 3,236 22,312 3,236 22,312 Class 2,000 lb threaded forged steel 3 4 in. Class 3,000 lb 6,000 threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 1,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d 4,061 28,000 4,061 28,000 Class 3,000 lb threaded forged steel 1 in. Class 6,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Upstream of the pressure reducer Class 2,500 flanged joint Downstream of the pressure reducer d d d Notes: (1) 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 fittings that satisfy the requirements of (3) The pressure ratings of the forged steel threaded or welded fittings are based on the pressure equivalent of the 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 (a) and Table (b). b Check with grooved fitting manufacturers for pressure ratings. c This value good for all fill densities up to 48 lb/ft 3. d The minimum design pressure for fittings downstream of the pressure reducer should be determined by system flow calculations. Acceptable pipe fittings for several values of pressures downstream of the pressure reducer can be found in Table A (b).

70 Table A (b) Piping Systems Fittings for Use in Inert Gas Systems Downstream of the Pressure Reducer Maximum Pressure Downstream of the Pressure Reducer at 70 F (21 C) (up to and including) Minimum Acceptable Fittings Maximum Pipe Size (NPS) psi kpa 1,000 6,895 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 4 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 lb flanged joint 1,350 9,308 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 2 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 600 lb flanged joint 1,500 10,343 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 2 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 900 lb flanged joint 2,000 13,790 Class 300 threaded malleable iron 1 in. Class 2,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 3,000 lb threaded/welded forged steel Class 900 lb flanged joint

71 6 of 66 7/10/2014 8:59 AM Second Revision No. 9-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A A sample test report is provided in Figure A An alternative form that assures that all the applicable design, operational, and safety requirements of this standard are documented to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction can be used. Figure A Sample Acceptance Test Report. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 27 09:21:23 EDT 2014