Technical Committee Documentation

Transcription

1 1984 Fall Meeting Technical Committee Documentation TCD~4-F A Compilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting Town and Country Hotel San Diego, CA November 12-15, 1984 Please Bring to the Fall Meeting Copyright 1984 All Rights Reserved National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA M-9/84-SM Printed in U.S.A.

2 SUPPLEMENTARY Report of Committee on Aviation Correlating Committee James J. Brenneman, Chairman United Air Lines Inc. Bruce W. Teele, Secretary NFPA (nonvoting) Gene E. Benzenberg, Alison Control Inc. B. V. Hewes, Air Atlanta Inc-Atlanta Intl Airport L. M. Krasner, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Paul O. Mason, Pan American World Airways Inc. John A. O'Donnell, San Diego, CA James F. O'Regan, Feecon Corp. Technical Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing John A. O'Donnell, Chairman San Diego, CA Paul 0. Mason, Vice Chairman Pan American World Airways Inc. Oscar W. Bush, DeLand, F[. William C. Clayton, Gates Rubber Co. Rep. Rubber Manufacturers Assn. (Vote Limited to Chapter 3) William T. G. Cowan, British Airways Bert Kiesel, Frank B. Hall Ins. Brokerage Co. Fred McGowan, Insurance Co. of North America Bruce R. Pashley, Allied Maintenance Corp. Richard K. Russell, Chevron USA Inc. Rep. American Petroleum Inst. Richard L. Twiss, Port Authority of NY & NJ Rep. Airport Operators Council Intl Alternates Gregory G. Noll, American Petroleum Institute (Alternate to R. K. Russell) Stanley J. Wolek, Port Authority of NY & NJ (Alternate to R. L. Twiss) Nonvoting Jerome Lederer, Laguna Hills, CA Edward J. McCarthy, Rubber Manufacturers Assn. Technical Committee on Airport Facilities L. M. Krasner, Chairman Factory Mutual Research Corp. Gene E. Benzenberg, Vice Chairman A')ison Control Inc. James M. Dewey, Secretary Professional Loss Control Inc. Philip H. Agee, Air Transport Assn. of America James R. Ballinger, M & M Protection Consultants James J. Brenneman, United Air Lines Inc. J. Walter Coon, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. William T. G. Cowan, British Airways J. D. Dick, Kemper Group Rep. Alliance of American Insurers Donald P. Eadens, U S Dept of the Navy V. G. Findlay, Air Canada Base-72 Ronald A. Hemond, Armtec Industries Inc. E. B. Hoge, Miami, FL James M. Ingalls, Industrial Risk Insurers Thomas J. Lett, U S Dept. of the Air Force Fred M. Linde, Natl Foam System Inc. Donald Maddock, Ansul Co Rep. Fire Equipment Mfrs. Assn. Harvey B. Meadow, Wollard Airport Equipment Inc. Robert C. Savery, Fenwal Inc. Rep. NEMA Donald J. Slater Jr, United Technologies Corp. Arnold M. Sloane, Port Authority of NY & NJ Rep. Airport Operators Council Intl Calvin E. Smith, Pan Am Building Alternates William Biscontini, Walter Kidde Alternate to Maddock) Willard Ham, M & M Protection Consultants Alternate to J. R. Ballinger) John F. McLean, Kemper Group Alternate to J. D. Dick) Robert C. Merritt, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Alternate to L. M. Krasner) Joseph H. Priest, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. Inc. Alternate to Grinnell Fire Protection Systems) V. G. Pyrpyris, Port Authority of NY & NJ Alternate to A. M. Sloane) David R. Whiting, Industrial Risk Insurers Alternate to J. M. Ingalls) (Nonvoting) Jerome Lederer, Laguna Hills, CA This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Aviation is presented in two parts. Part I, prepared by the Technical Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing, proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents its action on the public comments received on its Report on NFPA , Standard on Aircraft Fuel Servicing, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1984 Fall Meeting. Part I has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing which consists of 10 voting members; of whom 8 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Clayton and Twiss). Part I has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of 7 voting members; of whom 5 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Krasner and Mason). Part II, prepared by the Technical Committee on Airport Facilities. proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents its action on the public comments received on its Report on NFPA , Standard on Aircraft Hangars, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1984 Fall Meeting. Part II has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Airport Facilities which consists of 23 voting members; of whom 18 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively (Mr. Coon), 1 recorded as not voting (Mr. Meadow) and 3 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Agee, Hoge, and Savery). Mr Coon voted negatively for the following reasons: (1) , 33, 34: The justification for the "Committee Action" (Reject) is an insult to the manufacturers who, in all sincerity, prepared these submittals. To reject for improper wording format on this important consideration degrades the technical integrity of the Committee. The technical merit of the submittal, not the wording, should determine Committee Action. (2) : Have requested a Formal Interpretation of Part II has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of 7 voting members; of whom 5 voted affirmatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Krasner and Mason).

3 PART I (1-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: John Ao O'Donnell, San Diego, CA ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: On sixth line change "base" to "hose". SUBSTANTIATION: This will correct an obvious typographical error (2-16): Accept COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: Fourth line should read "fuel system maintenance or testing... " SUBSTANTIATION: See Item 6 in the Minutes of August 23-24, 1983 Meeting (3-2.1): Accept COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : RECOMMENDATION: After "saturation" on fourth line add "or separation", SUBSTANTIATION: See Item 9, of the same Minutes. PART II ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: David Doherty, Wausau Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add to the definition as follows: "Excluding aircraft with wing areas less than 500 sq it." SUBSTANTIATION: Protection required for Group I hangars exceeds that needed for protection of small aircraft, since the fuel loading would be much less. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee believes that the exception to i is not appropriate because the exposure to the building by many small aircraft may be no less than that of a fewer number of larger aircraft (i-3.2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: David Doherty, Wausau Insurance Companies RECOMMENDATION: Add to the definition: "or housing aircraft with a wing area less thanb 500 sq it". SUBSTANTIATION: Protection required for small aircraft can be delivered by Group II requirements. This should apply even though the hangar area might exceed 40,000 sq ft. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No. 409-i (3-2.1): Accept ~ O N PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: The text does not agree with that in the copy circulated for ballot. It should be changed back to that text. SUBSTANTIATION: See Comment on COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees that there is an error in the TCR. The term "carcass separation" has been defined in NFPA 407 for over a decade. We will add "or separation" to further clarify this requirement ( ): Accept COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : RECOMMENDATION: As a matter of style, would a reference to the NEC be appropriate? SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE COMMENT: Revise second sentence to to read: "... Class I, Group D, Division 2 locations as defined in Article 500 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code." (Editorial Changes): Accept COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-N/A RECOMMENDATION: In Section A , renumber to "A". SUBSTANTIATION: This will still be an Appendix item and should start with an "A" ( (New)): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Add this paragraph to include a definition of a water deluge system, i-3.17 Water Deluge System. A system employing open sprinklers attached to and including a piping system and the connected water supply. Water is delivered to open sprinklers through a valve which is opened by the operation of a detection system installed in the same areas as the sprinklers. When this valve opens, water flows into the piping system and discharges from all sprinklers attached thereto. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed if is revised to include Water Deluge Systems as a means of protecting Group I hangars ( (New)): Reject COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: RECOMMENDATION: Add this paragraph to include a definition of a water deluge system. i-3.17 Water Deluge System. A system employing open sprinklers attached to and including a piping system and the connected water supply. Water is delivered to open sprinklers through a valve which is opened by the operation of a detection system installed in the same areas as the sprinklers. When this valve opens, water flows into the piping system and discharges from all sprinklers attached thereto. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed if is revised to include Water Deluge Systems as a means of protecting Group I Hangars (2-2.1): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: It is customary to use listed fire doors on either side of a 4-hour fire wall, but with 3-hour fire doors available, why impose additional cost by requiring 3-hour doors on both sides of a 3-hour wall? SUBSTANTIATION: No substantiation submitted. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No A A - (2-2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Calvin E. Smith, Pan Am World Services When two or more aircraft storage and servicing areas adjoin, they shall be separated by a fire wall of not less than 3-hr fire resistance rating. Any openings in such fire walls communicating directly between two aircraft storage and servicing areas shall be provided with listed 3-hr doors or shutters on both sides of the wall,

4 When two or more aircraft storage and servicing areas are separated by contiguous offices, shops and parts storage areas, the walls between the aircraft storage and servicing areas and the offices, shops and parts storage areas shall have at least a 1 1/2 hr fire resistance rating, Any openings in such fire walls shall be provided with listed fire doors having a minimum fire resistance of 45 minutes. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording requiring a three hour fire wall appears to be in conflict with Section Would also suggest revising from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours When two or more aircraft storage and servicing areas adjoin, they shall be separated by a fire wall of not less than 3 hour fire resistance rating. Any openings in such fire walls communicating directly between two aircraft storage and servicing areas shall be provided with a listed 3 hour fire door or shutter actuated from both sides of the wall When two or more aircraft storage and servicing areas separated by continuous offices, shops, and parts storage areas, one of the two walls between the aircraft storage and servicing areas and the offices, shops and parts storage areas shall comply with The other wall shall comply with COMMITTEE COMMENT: The proposal was modified to have the standard (409) consistent 'with NFPA (2-6.2): Reject ~OIi[~e~T-ON PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: Editorial comment for consideration. A trade-off of structural protection for mechanical protection cannot be equated. A mechanical system, no matter how reliable with redundant equipment, is subject to failure. SUBSTANTIATION: Do we have test results that water or foam/water discharge into a column web will provide a 2-hour fire resistance rating? How can you maintain a 2-hour fire resistance with a 60 or 45 minute water supply? COMMITTEE COMMENT: The ~ubmitter did not provide proposed text and did not offer any technical substantiation ( ): Reject "O01~ik'lO~-ON PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Appendix sketches for hangar drainage similar to sketches in NFPA 415, for guidance. )ecommended guidance of design engineers and users of 409. SUBSTANTIATION: ~ : The submitter did not propose any sketches for consideration ( ): Reject Hangar drainage system shall be a dedicated system and not inter-connected to shop/office drainage system. SUBSTANTIATION: If the intent is to have the hangar drainage system separate from shop/office system, it should be clearly spelled out. ~ : The Committee does not believe that a dedicated system is justified to accomplish fire protection objectives ( ): Reject -COI4~f#T-i~N PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: Should at least have appendix item to effect that most airport waste treatment facilities are not capable of accepting the discharge flow rate of foam/water hangar protection systems-holding tank may be required. SUBSTANTIATION: Very expensive engineering surprise. 409 user should be alerted. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter did not propose any text and the co~wnent is outside the scope of the standard (2-16.1): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: "To secure minimum interior travel distance for occupants" isn't worth a tinker's damn. The Committee should agree on a fixed travel distance, using NFPA 101 and Building Code as a guide. Providing exit doors not more than 150 ft on exterior walls? Rated exits can and should be provided to discharge through rated shop/office exit corridors. SUBSTANTIATION: Exit travel distance should be from any point in hangar. "All doors designated as exits, except sliding doors, shall swing in direction of exit travel." Sliding doors are not approved exits, and should not be included in this context Means of egress from the aircraft hangar shall comply with NFPA Delete Delete Move to COMMITTEE COMMENT: Exit requirements for buildings are the responsibility of the Life Safety Code Committee (3-1.1): Reject PROPOSAL NO. : RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "or water deluge system" to this paragraph so that "Group I aircraft hangar... with an approved foram water deluge system or water deluge system as specified in Section " SUBSTANTIATION: The current edition of this standard and the latest edition of other NFPA standards (such as HFPA 15) recognize the ability of water to "protect structures" even "without extinguishment" of a flammable liquid fire. Further, NFPA 15, Appendix A, Section "indicates that extinguishment is possible" by surface cooling when the water spray covers the entire surface and the flash point of the liquid is not below 140 F. Per NFPA 325M, Properties of Flammable Liquid Gases, Solids, some jet juels have a flash point as high as 150 F (Jet A and Jet A-l). JP-5 could have a flash point above 140 F. In addition, NFPA 13, Sprinkler Systems, provides protection of occupancies with "substantial amounts of flammable of combustible liquids" with closed, automatic sprinklers through Extra Hazard (Group 2) systems. Since the scope of this standard is the protection of aircraft hangar (not extinguishment) this standard should continue to include water deluge protection as a means of providing that protection. ~ : The Committee believes that water deluge system will not protect the Group I hangar in all fire conditions that can be encountered. The submitters substantiation addresses NFPA 15, Water Spray Systems which is not applicable to this installation. Flash points of many aircraft fuels are below 150 F as well as above (3-1.1): Reject RE~UMMENDATIOH: Add the words "or water deluge system" to this section so that "Group I aircraft hangar... with an approved foam-water deluge system or water deluge system as specified in Section " SUBSTANTIATION: The current edition of this standard and the latest editlon of other NFPA standards'(such as NFPA 15) recognize the ability of water to "protect structures" even "without extinguishment" of a flammable liquid fire. Further, NFPA 15, Appendix A, Section , indicates that "extinguishment is possible" by surface cooling when the water spray covers the entire surface and the flash point of the liquid is not below 140OF. Per NFPA 325M, Properties of Flammable Liquids, Gases, Solids, some jet fuels have a flash point as high as 150OF (Jet A, and Jet A-l) JP-5 could have a flash point above 140 F. In addition, NFPA 13, Sprinkler Systems, provides protection of occupancies with "substantial amounts of flammable or combustible liquids" with closed, automatic sprinklers through Extra Hazard (Group 2) systems. Since the scope of this standard is the protection of aircraft hangars (not extinguishment), this standard should continue to include water deluge systems as a means of providing that protection. 3

5 ( (g)): Reject CO~MENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: "Make and type of discharge devices, operating equipment and, when used, air-foam liquid concentrate to be installed." ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: J. F, McLean, Kemper Group RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "When a foam-water deluge system is installed" to this section so that "When a foam-water deluge system is installed, the discharge devices... " SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to clarify the intent of the section if Section is revised to include water ( (g)): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "when used," to this section so that "Make and type of discharge devices, operating equipment and, when used, air-foam liquid concentrate to be installed." COMMITTEE COW,lENT: See Comment No ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: J. D, Dick, Kemper Group RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "When a foam-water deluge system is installed," to this section so that "When a foam-water deluge system is installed, the discharge devices... " SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to clarify the intent of the section if is revised to include water deluge systems as a means of prote'cting Group I hangars ( (I)): Reject C'OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No, ( (I)): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "when used," to this section so that CO~41TTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ : See Comment No ( ): Accept SUBMITTER: James M. Ingalls, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read: "Welded fittings shall be steel." SUBSTANTIATION: As it now reads, "Wedged fittings shall be steel" is improper. It appears that a spelling error has continued for several printings. There is no such fitting as a "wedged" fitting ( ): Reject ][O-#~[~'-NT--ON PROPOSAL NO. : ( ): Reject ( ): Reject COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "foam-water" and "When a water deluge system is installed, standard sprinklers having a nominal I/2 in. (12.7 mm) or 17/36 in. (13.5 mm) orifice shall be used", so that the section reads: "The foam-water discharge devices shall have a minimum nominal 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) orifice and shall be listed for use with the particular type of air foam liquid concentrate to be used in the system. When a water deluge system is installed, standard sprinklers have a nominal 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) of in. (13.5 mm) orifice shall be used." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to restrict the type of sprinkler used in a water deluge system if is revised to include water deluge systems as a means of protecting Group I hangars. The restrictions paralled those for sprinkler systems protecting Group II hangars in section ( ): Reject (FO-R~FE-NT-~)N PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: Add the words "foam-water" and "When a water deluge system is installed, standard sprinklers having a nominal 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) or 17/32 in. (13.5 mm) orifice shall be used", so that the section reads: "The foam-water discharge devices shall have a minimum nominal 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) orifice and shall be listed for use with the particular type of air foam liquid concentrate to be used in the system. When a water deluge system is installed, standard sprinklers have a nominal 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) of 17/32 in. (13.5 mm) orifice shall be used." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to restrict the type of sprinkler used in a water deluge system if is revised to include water deluge systems as a means of protecting Group I hangars, The restrictions paralled those for sprinkler systems protecting Group II hangars in section ( ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James J. Brenneman, United Airlines, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new as follows and renumber present through as required Strainers shall be installed in main water supply lines feeding orifices (or water passages) 3/8 in. (9.6 mm) and smaller. Strainers shall be installed on systems having large orifices where water supply conditions warrant. Normally 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) performations are suitable. Space shall be provided for access to service strainers and basket removal. SUBSTANTIATION: Sprinklers and other discharge devices in deluge type foam-water systems are prone to plugging due to high flow velocities and resulting turbulence particularly where 3/8 in. and smaller orifice discharge devices are used. Believe this requirement was in prior editions (pre-1979) of 409 and overlooked when revised to conform to new style manual Strainers shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 16 Section COMMITTEE COMMENT: The material is taken from NFPA 16 which ]s the system standard.

6 40g ( ): Reject PROPOSAL NO. : RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new section numbered and renumber the existing through and A by adding the number one to the fourth digit. The new section should read as follows: The discharge density from water deluge systems shall be a minimum of 0.25 gal of water per sq ft (10.2 L/mln/m 2) of floor area. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to reinstate the discharge density i'f is revised to include water deluge systems as a means of protecting Group I hangars. 40g ( ): Accept in Principle ~ O N PROPOSAL NO.: 40g-6 RECOMMENDATION: Reword to require sprinkler protection in diesel ~ ump room or pump house. UBSTANTIATION: "Waste basket fire" could easily involve diesel engine. A motion was made and seconded to eliminate "exposed fuel storage tanks for" in The motion passed with 3 negative votes. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Submitter did not provide specific wording and not only diesel engines are affected. The Committee recognized that the fire potential was similar with or without the storage tank inside the pump house ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new section numbered and renumber the existing through and A by adding the number one to the fourth digit. The new section should read as follows: The discharge density from water deluge systems shall be a minimum of 0.25 ga~ of water per sq ft (10.2 L/min/m 2) of floor area. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. This change is needed to reinstate the discharge density of is revised to include water deluge systems as a means of protecting Group I hangars. COMMIT-FEE COMMENT: See Comment No in Principle RECOMMENI~TION: These sections infer that deluge valves, O.S.E.Y control valves, foam generators and restricted orifices -- valve header "packages" of water and foam deluge valves with control valves -- cannot be located in the hangar. SUBSTANTIATION: Sections should be clarified. Recon~ended adding that even foam storage (bladder tanks) can be in hangar area if enclosed in fire rated-l-hour-enclosure The control valves, air foam liquid concentrate storage, and injection system equipment shall be located outside aircraft storage and servicing areas. The environmental conditions shall be suitable for the particular agent involved. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The wording is changed to clarify that all control valves are included and not Just liquid concentrate equipment ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Delete. Committee should require draft curtains and then use ft radius rule -- or delete all references to draft stop areas in radius rule sections and replace with "operate all detection systems within a radius." SUBSTANTIATION: If draft stops are not p~ed, all systems in the hangar area must be calculated to operate? This cannot be accomplished with some modern hangar designs requiring systems -- and since draft curtains are not a "shall" item, an airline client will not spend the money for them. COMMITTEE ACTION: Rejec't. COMMITTEE COMMENT: It i.~ not the Conwnittee's believe that draft curtains should be mandated and, if they are not provided, water supplies should be based on all systems operating ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Delete ".... and where applicable additional protection is installed "in accordance with Section 3-4 of this standard." SUBSTANTIATION: What if no aircraft with wing area exceeding 3000 sq ft in hangar area? Still use 45 minute water supply? COMMITTEE COMMENT: Paragraph states requirement for water supply without additiona'[ protection ( ): Reject "Fire pumps shall be started automatically by a drop in water pressure or by the hangar detection system. When detection system activates the fire pumps, drop in water pressure starting shall be included as back-up starting for reliability." SUBSTANTIATION: Some large diesel drive fire pumps take considerable time to come up-to-speed. Even with pressure maintainance on supply lines, pumps cannot take up the demand slack for several minutes. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that the comment has merit but is in excess of the minimum requirement for protection, Nothing would prohibit the type of system from being installed in addition to the requirement of the standard A - (3-3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Calvin E. Smith, Pan Am World Services R~CDMMENDATIDN: In locating manual actuation stations inside, multiple stations should be considered so occupants have a selection of paths of exit in which they may actuate the system. The location of exterior actuation systems should assure accessibility to an exterior actuation station once the occupant has exited the hangar through any of the emergency exits. Security fences, adjacent buildings or other obstructions may prevent access around the hangar. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording has been interpreted by installers to require them to provide only one interior and one exterior actuation station. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle, A In locating manual actuation stations inside, multiple stations should be considered so occupants have a selection of paths of exit from which they can actuate the system. The location of exterior actuation stations should assure accessibility once the occupant has exited the hangar through any of the emergency exits. Security fences, adjacent buildings or other obstructions should be considered when locating exterior actuation stations. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee reworded the proposed text for clarity (3-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Alan H. Petersen, Detector Electronics Corp. L~b-I~FFE-I~'ON PROPOSAL NO.: Each system shall be designed to cover a specified floor area beneath the aircraft being protected. The design objective shall be to achieve control of the fire within the protected area within 30 seconds of system actuation and extinguishment of the fire within 60 seconds. Detection systems for the supplementary systems should be either a radiation (infrared or ultraviolet or combination infrared/ultraviolet) or a heat responsive (continuous strip or thermistor type) system. They should be arranged to automatically actuate the extinguishing equipment as soon as operational experience indicates the detection devices are stable. SUBSTANTIATION: Supplementary fire protection is an integral need in the overall hangar fire protection system. Radiation and heat responsive detection systes are required to detect and annunciate or actuate the supplementary systems and therefore must be identified in the above text. ~UMMIIIEL UiJMI~EIVF: The proposed wording for the body of the document was submitted as advisory material which cannot go into the body. A covers this material presently. Also, is the correct paragraph for addressing actuation of systems.

7 (3-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: John Cholin, Firetek Corp. ON PROPOSAL NO.: Each system shall be designed to cover a specified floor area beneath the aircraft being protected. The design objective shall be to achieve control of the fire within the protected area within 30 seconds of system actuation and extinguishment of the fire within 60 seconds. Detection systems for the supplementary systems should be either a radiation (infrared or ultraviolet or combination infrared/ultraviolet) or a heat responsive (continuous strip or thermistor type) system. They should be arranged to automatically actuate the extinguishing equipment as soon as opertional experience indicates the detection devices are stable. SUBSTANTIATION: Supplementary fire protection is an integral need in the overall hangar fire protection system. The temperature required to cause structural damage to the wing support members can be reached in 10 to 30 seconds after ignition of a 3 ft x 4 ft Tel-A-Fire. Radiation and heat responsive detection systems are necessary to detect and annunciate the supplementary systems and, therefore, must be identified in the above text. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No (3-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Paul C. Belding, Systron Donner COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO, : ,2 Each system shall be designed to cover a specified floor area beneath the aircraft being protected. The design objective shall be to achieve control of the fire within the protected area within 30 seconds of system actuation and extinguishment of the fire within 60 seconds. Detection systems for the supplementary systems should be either a radiation (infrared or ultraviolet) or a heat responsive Ccontinuous strip or thermistor type) system. If there is any doubt as to the stability of these actuating devices when initially installed because of environmental factors, it is recommended that the devices be utilized to actuate only an alarm rather than trigger the extinguishing systems. As soon as operational experience indicates that the devices are stable, they should be arranged to automatically actuate the extinguishing equipment. Spacing of detection devices should be no greater than the maximum recommended by the manufacturer. SUBSTANTIATION: Detectors with wide field of view and rapid response capability such as flame radiation and heat respsonsive detectors are required to support the extinguishing system goals. We recommend that this information be included in the main text of the standard. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment ( ): Reject ~TOI~RE']TF-I)N PROPOSAL NO.: RECOMMENDATION: How can you locate foam generators "at the ceiling or on exterior walls" and still comply with 3-4,8.5? Section 3-4,8.5 references not locating injection equipment in hangar area, SUBSTANTIATION: COMMITTEE COMMENT: Foam generators in are not considered as injection equipment referenced in 3-4, ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Appendix to should be in body of standard. Much too important to be appendix item even if you leave out "shall" when it is brought into standard body. SUBSTANTIATION: Better spell out what Committee wants. Activation supplementary system does not simultaneously activate primary system. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No (4-I): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Why can't (won't) the Committee come up with some criteria for protecting Type II hangars with a closed head/foam/water preaction system? SUBSTANTIATION: Insurance interests are approving them. Air Force Manual includes them and the economic impact is substantial, especially where water supplies are limited. CO~ITTEE COMMENT: No proposed text was submitted. There does exlst a subcommittee that is presently working on this (4-2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: James M. Ingalls, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read: "Welded fittings shall be steel." SUBSTANTIATION: As it now reads, "'Wedged' fittings shall be steel" is improper. It appears that a spelling error has continued for several printings. There is no such fitting as a "wedged" fitting (4-5.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Calvin E. Smith, Pan Am World Services RECOMMENDATION: Suggest that Appendix material be provided as follows: "In locating manual actuation stations inside, multiple stations should be considered so occupants have a selection of paths of exit in which they may actuate the system. The location of exterior actuation systems should assure accessibility to an exterior actuation station once the occupant has exited the hangar through any of the emergency exits. Security fences, adjacent buildings or other obstructions may prevent access around the hangar." SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording has been interpreted by installers to require them to provide only one interior and one exterior actuation station. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment No A. 6