NFPA Technical Committee on Cultural Resources NFPA 909 Pre-First Draft Meeting Agenda

Transcription

1 NFPA Technical Committee on Cultural Resources NFPA 909 Pre-First Draft Meeting Agenda September 30-October 1, 2014 Old Faithful Snow Lodge Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 1. Call to order, 9:00 AM, Tuesday, September 30, 2014 D. Moeller. 2. Self-introduction of members and guests. For a current committee roster, see Page Approval of the April 24-25, 2014 NFPA 914 Second Draft meeting minutes Page Chair s report D. Moeller. 5. Review schedule for future committee meetings D. Moeller. i) Spring 2015: NFPA 909 First Draft Meeting, Buffalo, New York. April 20-22, 2015 (tentative) R. Fleming. ii) Fall 2015: NFPA 909 Pre-Second Draft Meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia. September 21-23, 2015 D. McDaniel. iii) Spring 2016: NFPA 909 Second Draft Meeting, location TBD. Not later than May 2, iv) Fall 2016: NFPA 914 Pre-First Draft Meeting, location TBD. 6. Task Group Break-Out Discussions i) NFPA 909 Task Group C. Greczek. Break out - Scoping discussion - Renovations and protecting archaeological sites and outdoor collections from wildfires, vacant structures. ii) NFPA 914 Task Group S. Palmer. Break Out discussion. 7. Portable Fire Extinguisher Agent Task Group report C. Greczek Page Guest presentation: James McDonald, AIA, Preservation Architect, A&E Architects PC, Missoula, Montana. 9. Guest Presentation: Corrosion Control in Fire Sprinkler Systems, Jeff Kochelek, CEO, Engineered Corrosion Solutions, St. Louis, Missouri. 10. NY Heritage Responder Team S. Palmer 11. Task Group Reports i) NFPA 909 C. Greczek ii) NFPA 914 S. Palmer Page 1 of 17

2 12. Other business. 13. Adjournment. Page 2 of 17

3 Address List No Phone Cultural Resources 09/19/2014 Gregory E. Harrington Donald C. Moeller E 7/26/2007 Chair The Fire Consultants, Inc Durant Court Walnut Creek, CA California State Historical Building Safety Board Michael Coull SE 11/2/2006 Secretary Heritage Fire and Safety Ltd. 4 Lochinch Road Cove Bay, Aberdeen, AB12 3SL Scotland, United Kingdom Historic Scotland Clare Ray Allshouse City of Shoreline, Washington Planning & Community Development Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA E 3/21/2006 Nicholas Artim Fire-Safety Network Function engineer designer Box 895 Middlebury, VT : Steven Rocklin SE 1/1/1990 Eileen E. Brady Washington State University Owen Science & Engineering Library Pullman, WA U 11/2/2006 Steve Carter Orr Protection Systems, Inc Interchange Drive Louisville, KY Fire Suppression Systems Association : Daniel J. Hubert M 7/19/2002 John E. Chartier Rhode Island State Fire Marshal 118 Parade Street Providence, RI National Association of State Fire Marshals E 8/2/2010 Grant Crosby US Department of the Interior National Park Service 240 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK : Todd J. Neitzel E 03/07/2013 Laura E. Doyle US General Services Administration 301 7th Street SW, Room 2080 Washington, DC : Joseph Dafin U 9/30/2004 Wilbur Faulk Pepperdine University Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA U 1/1/1989 Robert F. Fisher FM Global Country Club Blvd., Suite 300 North Olmsted, OH I 7/1/1995 Russell P. Fleming National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. 40 Jon Barrett Road Patterson, NY : Scott T. Franson M 10/10/1998 Deborah L. Freeland Arthur J. Gallagher & Company 505 North Brand Blvd., Suite 600 Glendale, CA I 1/1/1988 Page 3 of 17 1

4 Address List No Phone Cultural Resources 09/19/2014 Gregory E. Harrington Cindy Greczek Colonial Williamsburg Foundation PO Box 1776 Williamsburg, VA : Danny L. McDaniel U 10/4/2001 Michael Kilby Smithsonian Institution 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 7106 MRC 514, PO Box Washington, DC U 7/22/1999 George A. Krabbe East Raintree Drive Scottsdale, AZ Halon Alternatives Research Corporation SE 10/1/1994 A. M. Fred Leber Leber/Rubes Inc. (LRI) Yonge Eglinton Center 2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2100 PO Box 2372 Toronto, ON M4P 1E4 Canada : Ronald P. Bertone SE 10/28/2008 Nancy Lev-Alexander US Library of Congress Conservation Division, LMG Independence Avenue, SE Washington, DC U 7/29/2005 Wayne D. Moore Hughes Associates/RJA Group 117 Metro Center Boulevard, Suite 1002 Warwick, RI : James H. Antell SE 1/1/1992 Kevin D. Morin Code Consultants, Inc. 215 West 40th Street, Floor 15 New York, NY : Joseph Plati SE 3/4/2009 Luca Nassi Italian National Fire Department Comando P.le VV.F. di Siena V.le Cavour 163 Siena, Italy E 10/27/2005 Daniel E. Nichols State of New York Department of State 99 Washington Avenue, #1160 Albany, NY E 8/9/2011 Thomas F. Norton Norel Service Company, Inc. 37 Buckmaster Drive Concord, MA Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. : Shane M. Clary M 1/1/1988 Sheila Palmer Chubb & Son Insurance Company 55 Water Street New York, NY : Richard P. Luongo I 1/15/2004 Milosh T. Puchovsky Worcester Polytechnic Institute Department of Fire Protection Engineering 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA SE 10/27/2009 Page 4 of 17 2

5 Address List No Phone Cultural Resources 09/19/2014 Gregory E. Harrington John M. Watts, Jr. Fire Safety Institute PO Box 674 Middlebury, VT : Marilyn E. Kaplan SE 1/1/1977 Robert D. Wilson National Gallery of Art 6th Street & Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC U 1/10/2002 James H. Antell Hughes Associates/RJA Group 600 West Fulton Street, Suite 500 Chicago, IL : Wayne D. Moore SE 08/09/2012 Ronald P. Bertone Robson Forensic Ivanhoe Lane Wellington, FL : A. M. Fred Leber SE 07/29/2013 Shane M. Clary Bay Alarm Company 60 Berry Drive Pacheco, CA Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. : Thomas F. Norton M 11/2/2006 Joseph Dafin US General Services Administration 301 7th Street SW, Room 2080 Washington, DC : Laura E. Doyle U 8/5/2009 Scott T. Franson The Viking Corporation 210 North Industrial Park Road Hastings, MI National Fire Sprinkler Association : Russell P. Fleming M 08/09/2012 Daniel J. Hubert Janus Fire Systems 1102 Rupcich Drive Millennium Park Crown Point, IN Fire Suppression Systems Association : Steve Carter M 3/15/2007 Marilyn E. Kaplan Preservation Architecture 43 Marion Avenue Albany, NY : John M. Watts, Jr. SE 1/14/2005 Richard P. Luongo Chubb & Son Insurance Company 202 Hall s Mill Road Whitehouse Station, NJ : Sheila Palmer I 7/26/2007 Danny L. McDaniel Colonial Williamsburg Foundation PO Box 1776 Williamsburg, VA : Cindy Greczek U 1/1/1980 Todd J. Neitzel US Department of the Interior National Park Service West Alameda Parkway Lakewood, CO : Grant Crosby E 10/20/2010 Page 5 of 17 3

6 Address List No Phone Cultural Resources 09/19/2014 Gregory E. Harrington Joseph Plati Code Consultants, Inc. 215 West 40th Street, 15th Floor New York, NY : Kevin D. Morin SE 10/23/2013 Steven Rocklin T.Y. Lin International One Commerce Plaza, Suite Washington Avenue Albany, NY : Nicholas Artim SE 10/04/2001 Stewart Kidd Nonvoting Member Loss Prevention Consultancy, Ltd. 26 Broadway, Wilburton Ely, Cambridgeshire, CB6 3RT United Kingdom SE 4/1/1993 Russell B. Leavitt Nonvoting Member Telgian Corporation 2615 South Industrial Park Avenue Tempe, AZ TC on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria SE 08/09/2012 Stefano Marsella Nonvoting Member National Fire Corps Ministry of Internal Affairs-Italy Via Pennetti Pennella, 1 Perugia, I Italy SE 10/6/2000 Stephen E. Bush Member Emeritus 1850 Kershaw Lane Winchester, VA SE 1/1/1974 William Jackson Member Emeritus 55 Albany Drive Lanark, ML11 9AF Scotland SE 1/1/1992 Gregory E. Harrington Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA /29/2007 Page 6 of 17 4

7 NFPA Technical Committee on Cultural Resources NFPA 914 Second Draft Meeting Minutes April 24-25, 2014 Hilton Waikoloa Village Waikoloa, Hawaii 1. Call to Order/Welcome. The meeting was called to order by Chair Donald Moeller on Thursday, April 24, 2014, at 8:30 AM. Don welcomed the committee to Waikoloa, Hawaii, and thanked Fred Leber of the Automatic Fire Alarm Association (AFAA) for his work in putting the meeting together in conjunction with their conference. Paid registrants for the AFAA conference could take advantage of all of the conference amenities; others were welcome to visit display areas and network with conference attendees. 2. Introduction of Committee Members and Guests. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT NAME COMPANY Donald Moeller, Chair The Fire Consultants, Inc. Rep. California State Historical Building Safety Board Deborah Freeland, Acting Secretary Arthur J. Gallagher & Company Clare Ray Allshouse City of Shoreline, Washington Grant Crosby US Department of the Interior National Park Service Russell Fleming National Fire Sprinkler Association A. M. Fred Leber Leber/Rubes Inc. (LRI) Wayne Moore Hughes Associates, Inc. Thomas Norton Norel Service Company, Inc. Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Sheila Palmer Chubb & Son Insurance Company Milosh Puchovsky Worcester Polytechnic Institute James Antell The RJA Group, Inc. Alt. to M. Reiss Shane Clary Bay Alarm Company Page 7 of 17

8 Alt. to T. Norton Richard Luongo Alt. to S. Palmer Joseph Plati Alt. to K. Morin Gregory Harrington, Staff Liaison Rep. Automatic Fire Alarm Association, Inc. Chubb & Son Insurance Company Code Consultants, Inc. NFPA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT PRESENT (NOT LISTED WHERE ALTERNATE ATTENDED) NAME Michael Coull, Secretary Nicholas Artim Eileen Brady Steve Carter John Chartier Laura Doyle Wilbur Faulk Robert Fisher Cindy Greczek Michael Kilby George Krabbe Nancy Lev-Alexander Luca Nassi Daniel Nichols John M. Watts, Jr. Robert Wilson Stewart Kidd, Nonvoting Russell Leavitt, Nonvoting Stefano Marsella, Nonvoting COMPANY Heritage Fire and Safety Ltd. Rep. Historic Scotland Fire-Safety Network Washington State University Orr Protection Systems Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association Rhode Island State Fire Marshal Rep. National Association of State Fire Marshals US General Services Administration Pepperdine University FM Global Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Smithsonian Institution Rep. Halon Alternatives Research Corporation US Library of Congress Italian National Fire Department State of New York Department of State Fire Safety Institute National Gallery of Art Loss Prevention Consultancy, Ltd. Telgian Corporation Rep. TC on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria National Fire Corps Ministry of Internal Affairs-Italy Dan Finnegan William Koffel NAME GUESTS PRESENT COMPANY Siemens Koffel Associates Page 8 of 17

9 3. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes. The September 24-25, 2012 meeting minutes were approved as written and distributed. 4. Chair s Report. i) Joseph Plati of Code Consultants, Inc. has been appointed to the committee as alternate to Kevin Morin. ii) There are a couple openings for committee membership, and we are actively looking for individuals with special expertise that would be especially useful in the committee's efforts to expand our documents, especially in the international arena. Members who have someone to recommend, please advise the chair. 5. Review Schedule for Future Meetings. i) Fall 2014: NFPA 909 Pre-First Draft Meeting, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, September 30 October 1, 2014 Todd Neitzel and Grant Crosby. Grant presented a brief slideshow (available on the NFPA 909 document information website at and discussed accommodations being arranged at the Old Faithful Snow Lodge and Frontier and Western Cabins. Options for airports are Boseman, MT (more reliable weather - approximately 2-3 hour drive) and Jackson Hole, WY (more temperamental weather conditions, 3-4 hour drive, but exquisite scenery). Our meeting will be overlapped by a historic preservation conference hosted by the American Institute of Architects, and there was some discussion as to whether we might be able to network to coordinate efforts or share information. ***Chair Moeller advised that there is a short window of time when the rooms will be available; members need to book promptly as soon as the notification comes out. Once the deadline passes, rooms will not be held, and some dates for lodging have already been noted as sold out. ii) Spring 2015: NFPA 909 First Draft Meeting. April 20-22, 2015 (tentative). We were unable to arrange the proposed meeting site, so we are looking for another location for this meeting. Several possible locations were discussed. iii) Fall 2015: NFPA 909 Pre-Second Draft Meeting. Williamsburg, VA, September 21-23, 2015 (confirmed) Danny McDaniel. iv) Spring 2016: NFPA 909 Second Draft Meeting. Not later than May 2, 2016, location TBD (possibly Chester, England Mike Coull). v) Other potential future meeting locations include: WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts new fire lab and Worcester Art Museum, which now houses the Higgins Armory collection (Puchovsky); Long Beach, California - Queen Mary (Clary); Pepperdine University, Malibu, California (Faulk); Historic Aircraft Carrier USS Hornet Museum, Alameda, California (Clary); New York Public Library unique stacks, interesting project (Palmer and Plati); Page 9 of 17

10 Kennecott, Alaska (Crosby). Please contact Chair Moeller with other meeting location ideas. 6. Review NFPA Public Comment (Second Draft) Meeting Procedures. Staff Liaison Greg Harrington presented a slideshow on second draft meeting procedures; slides were also included in the handouts for this meeting. Highlights included: Requirement that members in one interest category retained to represent the interests of another interest category on a particular issue declare those interests and refrain from voting on that issue at the meeting and on the ballot Review of NFPA 914 processing schedule, including posting of the second draft for notices of intent to make a motion (NITMAMs), and how a NITMAM becomes a certified amending motion (CAM) Changes in procedure so committee is voting on the second draft of the document, rather than all of the meeting actions, and how the voting process works A reminder that second revisions must be related to something from the public input stage (public input, committee input, or first revision), and that new material cannot be introduced at this time The shortcut to the document information website for accessing ballots and other committee information is: Electronic balloting - use the "submit" button to save your work; ballot session will time out after 90 minutes! Members can edit and submit ballot comments as many times as they would like before the closing date; the last ballot submitted is the one that counts. Greg recommended drafting comments in a Word document and pasting them into the electronic ballot so that the Word document will serve as a backup if needed. Note that the electronic balloting platform uses the term "election" rather than vote. Any problems with the sign-in or other issues, contact Greg and he will connect you with the staff who can assist. And finally, in going forward with the activities on this next draft, Greg recommended not getting hung up on procedural items; rather, focus on the technical issues and he would walk the committee through any procedural issues. 7. NFPA 914 Task Group Report. (S. Palmer, Chair; Caroline Alderson, GSA; R. Allshouse; N. Artim; S. Clary; G. Crosby; M. Coull; J. Dafin; C. Domnitch; L. Doyle; M. Kaplan; F. Leber; R. Luongo; L. Nassi; T. Neitzel; S. Rocklin; J. Watts) i) Task Group Chair Sheila Palmer walked the committee through the public comments and the NFPA 914 Task Group's recommended actions. Much of the activity centered on a reorganization of the security information, which has been consolidated into a new Chapter 12, Security. The committee voted to accept the task group recommendations on both the public comments and the second revisions. ii) Sheila advised that, going forward, the task group will look to focus on some of the "all perils" section items, such as, earthquake, flood and windstorm, as well as additional focus on procedures to address the many fires that occur in historic properties during renovation work. Page 10 of 17

11 8. Special Siemens Presentation. Dan Finnegan of Siemens gave an excellent presentation titled Value of Smoke Detection in Cultural and Historic Applications. The slideshow has been posted on the NFPA 909 and NFPA 914 document information pages at and 9. Portable Extinguisher Task Group. Debbie Freeland reported for TG Chair Cindy Greczek that the activities on the portable extinguisher project were moving forward rapidly. The Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF) project panel met on November 4, 2013, at the Smithsonian Institution Museum of the American Indian to review the final project scope and iron out other details. The test protocol had been essentially finalized, and scoping and workup evaluations were being conducted this week at Hughes. It was anticipated that the neat agent tests were to be conducted at Hughes the week of April 28, 2014, and the final test plan was expected at the end of this current week. Kudos to Cindy, Nancy Lev-Alexander, and Emily Williams of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation for the tremendous amount of effort they have put into this project. Additional information is available online at: Committee History. Debbie passed out copies of the updated and reformatted Committee History - with special thanks to Danny McDaniel for his work in bringing much of the material up to date. Previous work was done by Ralph Lewis, Jack Watts, Steve Bush, and others. It has been posted on the NFPA 909 and NFPA 914 document information pages at and Special Exposure Sprinkler Presentation. In follow up to his discussion of the September 2013 Seaside Heights, New Jersey boardwalk fire, Russ Fleming showed a video produced by the Swedish Sprinkler Association over a decade ago, showing the retrofit of exposure sprinklers to protect closely spaced wooden facades in historic areas in Sweden. The use of exposure sprinklers to protect individual buildings from fire in another building nearby was well known, but this video highlighted the use of such systems to contain fires to a certain group of buildings within a historic district, or to keep fires from jumping across alleyways. 12. NFPA 909. It was noted that a number of ideas were discussed at the last meeting for possible inclusion in the next edition of NFPA 909. The committee requested that individuals now follow up by providing the committee with some draft wording to address these issues, which included protection of vacant structures, buildings under renovation, wildfire threats to archeological sites, and outside collections. 13. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned prior to lunchtime on April 25, 2014, enabling members to tour the historic Volcano House and other assorted cultural properties on the island. Respectfully submitted by: Deborah Freeland, Acting Secretary. Page 11 of 17

12 FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCE COLLECTIONS 1.0 ASSESSMENT OF NEED Portable fire extinguishers and their associated fire extinguishing agents play an important role in reducing the impact of fire within museum and library collections (Wilson, 1991; Wilson, 2004). A fire which can be extinguished in its incipient stage will not grow to threaten adjacent materials. A range of extinguisher agents are commonly used in museums and libraries including water, clean gaseous agents, dry chemical, and foam. Their effectiveness in combating fires has been studied and is well-understood; their effects on collections materials with which they come into contact has not been verified. Contact with collection materials can occur by overspray during firefighting efforts. There are reports of situations where the discharge of an extinguisher and its subsequent mitigation has caused more damage and offline time than the incipient fire incident (IPG, 2000). Contact between extinguishing agents and collections materials may also be the result of vandalism or accidental discharge. In one incident in England a malicious discharge of a single 5kg powder and two 9 liter water extinguishers caused over 320,000 in damages (Kidd, 2011). To fully evaluate the appropriateness of selecting and using an extinguisher in a cultural heritage environment, its effectiveness at extinguishing a fire should be compared to the potential for damage to collection materials from the agent and its thermal decomposition products and the degree to which the agents can be removed from collections materials after exposure. While conservators are well versed in the effects of moisture and water on collections, little data is available on the effects of short or long term exposure to non-water based extinguishing agents. To date only one study, commissioned by the Norwegian Archive Library and Museum Authority (ABM) and Rijksantikvaren, the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage (RNDCH), has examined the effects of extinguishing agents on cultural property, (IPG 2000; Jensen, 2006). It was limited in its scope and while it provides some useful information, its results are not reproducible as information on the material of the test enclosure, the mechanical ventilation in the test enclosure, the fuel package and the attempts to control temperature were not published. Additionally it failed to establish a systematic method for assessing results and did not take cleaning into account. In 2009, recognizing the need for further investigation, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Technical Committee on Cultural Resources Page 12 of 17

13 submitted a project proposal to the Fire Protection Research Foundation (the research arm of NFPA) to develop test specifications and procedures for measuring the impact of portable fire extinguisher agents on cultural resource collections. The Fire Protection Research Foundation commissioned a scoping report from Hughes Associates, Inc, a leader in fire protection engineering. The report (see supplementary materials) included a literature review and established the theoretical parameters testing the impact of extinguishing materials agents on collections materials. The report was vetted by a technical panel consisting of conservators, fire protection engineers and extinguisher manufacturers. Due to costs, no actual testing was carried out at the time. The project currently under consideration seeks to conduct the fire-testing and materials assessment. The results will be of tremendous use to museums and libraries both nationally and internationally, allowing them to better match their fire preventionprotection needs to their preservation mission. 2.0 IMPACT Curators, conservators and museum managers currently do not know how to assess the impact of extinguishing agents on artifacts. There is little data in the literature, and a standardized assessment methodology has not been established. This project is intended to quantify the impact of discharging portable fire extinguisher agents on cultural resource materials, and establish a scientific method for this assessment. The research will also validate and refine a test protocol which can be used by other organizations to continue to assess various materials and add to the database of known extinguisher effects. A cost-effective, repeatable test method will be established to allow comparison of test data between users. It is intended that the results will provide the cultural resource community with guidance on extinguisher selection. This information will be proposed for adoption by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the world s leading advocate of fire prevention protection and an authoritative source on public fire safety. NFPA publishes two consensus standards, Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properties Museums, Libraries and Places of Worship (NFPA 909, ), and the Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures (NFPA 914, 2007). These documents are widely used by the cultural resource community throughout the world as a reference for fire safe practices. Incorporating the results in these standards will assure worldwide recognition and use of the data and guidance. 3.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND EVALUATION PLAN The Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), an independent nonprofit associated with NFPA, sponsored a project which established a plan for this proposed effort. The preliminary work included a comprehensive literature review, the development of prototype test specifications, and procedures to test the effects of extinguishers [Scheffey and Forssell, 2010]. This follow-on effort proposes to carry out the recommendations in the prototype specifications by conducting extinguisher impact tests on actual cultural resource materials. The data, along with a validated test procedure, would be created for use by the cultural resource community at large. The approach proposed includes: Page 13 of 17

14 Carefully controlled experimentation by world recognized conservators and fire scientists; Ongoing peer review of the project by leading authorities; and, Widespread dissemination of the data and guidance to the cultural resource community via the leading international fire safety advocate. 3.1 Project Management The project will be a partnership between the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (CWF), Hughes Associates, Inc (HAI) and the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF). Colonial Williamsburg will lead the project and supply both management and conservation expertise. HAI will provide the fire science expertise and will conduct all the exposure tests detailed below. FPRF will disseminate the information and convene an independent technical review committee to assure that the methodology and results are technically valid. This partnership builds on a long history of collaboration between the three institutions both with regard to this project and broader issues of fire safety in cultural heritage organizations. 3.2 Technical Approach Summary of Work to Date In the planning phase, a detailed review of portable fire extinguishers was performed. The characteristics of extinguishing agents, multi-purpose (ABC) dry chemical, carbon dioxide, clean agent halocarbon, and water mist extinguishers were documented along with collection material characteristics. While the effect of water/moisture on materials is well known, the effects of other agents have not been well characterized. In order to establish a fire protocol, early stage fire scenarios were assessed. A fire loss review of museums, libraries, and other heritage and cultural buildings revealed that fires are most likely to involve ordinary, solid combustibles. A fire size on the order of 350 kw using a standardized wood crib was selected as a representative fire threat. Test and measurement techniques were identified. Tradeoffs were analyzed in terms of a detailed, scientific approach compared to ad hoc discharge tests. A middle ground was adopted, with the goal to provide a cost-effective, repeatable test method using actual collection materials. Three basic tests were recommended, including non-fire exposure tests, fire exposure tests, and physical impact tests. A prototype test specification was developed based on material and agent variables. Anticipated agent effects were considered in specifying the test set up, procedures, and instrumentation. This research project will adopt the recommendations from this prior effort Sample Materials and Extinguishing Agents to be assessed Sample Materials A review of a number of collections in museums both nationally and internationally suggests that the materials most likely to be on open display are metals, stone, ceramic, wood (typically as frames, furniture or sculpture), painting and textiles (typically in the form of curtains, bedhangings or upholstery). Typically works of art on paper, costumes, and more exotic Page 14 of 17

15 materials such as silver, horn, and feathers are protected either by glazing or vitrines. While some luxury materials such as tortoiseshell and ivory, may be present as inlay in furniture or as small artifacts in period rooms (particularly in European collections), it was felt that the difficulty and expense of acquiring adequately sized samples overshadowed their prevalence. Based on this assessment, the following materials were chosen for assessment: iron, copper, aluminum, leather (vegetable tanned), unpainted wood (either yellow pine or poplar to simulate the secondary wood often found in furniture), varnished wood, oil painting on canvas, acrylic painting on canvas, stone (sandstone/limestone), stone (marble), stone (granite), low fired ceramic (terracotta), and high fired ceramic (stoneware or porcelain). No textile samples were selected for testing at this juncture because it was felt strongly by both the team and a number of external textile conservators who were consulted that there are too many factors to consider. Variables such as fiber, mordant, nap, dye and weave make it difficult to choose one or two samples whose behavior can represent the material class in a meaningful manner. A more meaningful study of the exposure of textiles to portable fire extinguishers can and should be made once the protocol is tested and standardized. Storage materials (such as acid free card and tyvec) were also excluded because the permeability of the material to the extinguishing agent was more of a factor than its cleanability. Most museums are more likely to replace contaminated storage materials than to take on the expense of cleaning them. The samples will be 4 inches by 4 inches in size and will be mounted on non-acid cardboard target arrays measuring 22 inches by 22 inches. Two sets of samples will be mounted to each target array one towards the interior and the second along the exterior to ensure that results are not skewed by the samples placement on the board. Due to the problems inherent with acquiring nearly 50 samples of the requisite size of any of these materials that have also been aged in an identical manner, modern samples will be prepared by the project staff. Control samples of the materials that are exposed during the fire and non-fire exposure tests will be prepared. They will be conditioned similarly to the exposed samples. These samples will be bagged and packaged for examination with the exposed samples Fire Extinguishers and Agents Portable extinguishers will be used including those applicable for use in a museum/cultural heritage type application. The units agentsidentified include (in order of testing priority): ABC Dry Chemical (monoammonium phosphate); Water Mist; Clean agent (HCFC Blend B (Halotron I); potentially Novec); ABC and water; Foam (AFFF or non-fluorosurfactants foam); and, IG-001 (CO 2 carbon dioxide). These extinguishers are typically classified by Underwriters Laboratories as to their size and effectiveness on various fires. They will have a minimum UL 711 1A or 2A rating [Underwriters Laboratories, 2005] for use on incipient, ordinary combustible fires. Page 15 of 17

16 3.3 Proposed Test Methodology Test Enclosure An important test parameter is the fire size to room volume ratio. Keeping this ratio low is consistent with the typical application of portable extinguishers, i.e., small fires in large spaces. Scenarios involving larger ratios are typically dealt with by fixed suppression systems, i.e., sprinklers, or left for the local fire department. Portable extinguishers also are not meant to develop a uniform agent concentration or application density throughout the enclosure, but are meant to develop a high concentration or application density locally at the fire, with lower concentrations elsewhere in the space. A room/enclosure will be used which exhibits these aspects. The room will be conditioned similar to that in a typical museum space [Erhardt et al., 2007]. 3.4 Agent-Only Exposure Tests Non-fire exposure tests will evaluate the effects of portable extinguisher agent spray on representative materials both within and outside of the extinguisher spray pattern. The objective is to evaluate the effects of the neat agents on representative materials under normal environmental conditions. During these tests, the portable extinguishers will be discharged directly onto the representative materials from a distance representing the nominal effective range of the extinguisher. A second set of representative materials will be indirectly exposed, mounted outside of the extinguisher spray pattern to assess the effects incidental exposure from overspray. The controlling parameters are illustrated in Figure 1. Each target array will hold 26 samples. Given the 13 sample materials identified, each target array will have two of each sample, one located directly within the extinguisher spray pattern and one on the periphery. This is predicated on the spray pattern being wide enough to cover the target array. Some fire training of this approach is anticipated during scoping tests. Two sets of representative material/object mounts will be used. They will be mounted on the back wall of the enclosure or on a vertical stand. The direct exposure target will be in front of the extinguisher discharge. Indirectly exposed objects will be mounted on the side wall of the enclosure or on a stand. The temperature and relative humidity will be monitored outside of extinguisher spray. Temperature will also be monitored at the face of the directly exposed materials. One test for each agent will be conducted, so there will be a total of two direct and two indirect samples of each material to investigate for effects. A total of 6 exposure tests are anticipated, with 312 total samples exposed Fire Tests The objective of the fire exposure tests is to evaluate the effects of the combination of the agents, decomposition products and fire effluent on representative materials while the extinguisher is utilized to extinguish a fire involving Class A (solid) materials. The effects of a fire alone on the representative materials by itself will not be evaluated in this test program, since there is data available on this [Roberts et al., undated]. The portable extinguisher will be Page 16 of 17

17 used to extinguish a wood crib fire with the representative materials mounted downstream of the wood crib. A second set of representative materials would be located outside of the direct discharge to assess the effects of a reduced exposure. The arrangement is illustrated in Figure 2. The magnitude of the Class A fire will be well below the limits of a 2-A rated extinguisher. When a test is performed, it is desirable to have a fire which is easily suppressed by the extinguisher. This eliminates the variable of whether or not the fire is extinguished. A Class A wood crib fire on the order of kw will be used. The total burn duration will be 1 3 minutes. Scoping tests of this procedure will be needed to fine tune this scenario. The exposure arrays will be the same as in the non-fire exposure tests. Three hundred and twelve samples will be exposed. The total number of exposure samples in the fire and non-fire tests is Post Exposure Assessment After each test, the exposed samples from both arrays will be removed from the enclosure and weighed. The samples will then be visually examined for any sign of damage due to the exposure. This examination will include checks for tears, cracks, distortions, residue, and discolorations. The samples will then be placed in a conditioned space (same temperature and RH) and allowed to acclimatize for up to 24 hours. The exposed samples will be divided into four quadrants and cleaned and assessed for damage or change at the following post-test intervals: Within one week of the 24 hour acclimatization period; this scenario is designed to simulate the conditions in a larger institution that might have a team of conservators on staff. These samples will be reassessed after six months and then again after twelve months. Another set of boards will be stored, and cleaned at 6 months; this scenario is designed to simulate conditions in a smaller institution where it may be necessary to seek funding or expertise prior to mitigation. These samples will be reassessed six months after cleaning and then again after twelve months. The cleaning techniques to be used will consist of swabbing with deionized water; removalwith a soft brush vacuuming and the use of a soot eraser. Each technique will be conducted in one of the four quadrants of the sample. Assessments will include identification of planar distortions, adhesion of soot or other by products (agents can be carriers of combustion products), accretions, acid effects including corrosion and embrittlement, stains, and discoloration. Photographic documentation will be made during the examinations. (See supplemental materials for a sample assessment sheet). Page 17 of 17