Report of the Committee on. Airport Facilities. Gene E. Benzenberg, Chair Alison Control Incorporated, NJ [M]

Transcription

1 Report of the Committee on Airport Facilities Gene E. Benzenberg, Chair Alison Control Incorporated, NJ [M] Dennis C. Kennedy, Secretary Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] (Alt. to C. J. Marsolo) Michael E. Aaron, The RJA Group, Incorporated, IL [SE] J. Robert Boyer, Edwards Systems Technology, Incorporated, NJ [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Thomas G. Burk, Federal Express Corporation, TN [U] David J. Burkhart, Code Consultants, Incorporated, MO [SE] Bruce G. Carpenter, AERO Automatic Sprinkler Company, AZ [IM] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section Jeffrey W. DeLong, GE Global Asset Protection Services, WA [I] Rep. GE Global Asset Protection Services James Devonshire, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, TX [M] James R. Doctorman, The Boeing Company, KS [U] Rockwood J. Edwards, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, MA [I] Scott Enides, SRI Fire Sprinkler Corporation, NY [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Joseph E. Gott, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DC [E] L. Matthew Gwinn, Delta Air Lines, GA [U] Donald C. Helsel, Pro Technologies Incorporated, GA [IM] Elwin G. Joyce, II, Lexington, KY [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Michael J. Kemmis, Qantas Airways Limited, Australia [U] Rep. Fire Protection Association Australia Kiran C. Kochhar, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, VA [U] L. M. Krasner, FM Global, MA [I] Rep. FM Global/FM Research, Keith C. Kremkow, Marsh USA Incorporated, IL [I] Richard J. Louis, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, NY [E] Rep. Airports Council International-North America Christy J. Marsolo, Tyco International Limited, GA [M] John J. O'Sullivan, British Airways, PLC, England [U] Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Limited, MA [SE] Jack Poole, Poole Consulting Services, Incorporated, KS [SE] Randy D. Pope, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Corporation, MO [SE] Robert W. Rees, Sunland Fire Protection, Incorporated, NC [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association, Incorporated Robert Saunders, Wasatch Design Consultants, UT [SE] (VL 415) Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] Michael T. Skinner, Massachusetts Port Authority Fire/Rescue, MA [E] Fred K. Walker, U.S. Air Force, FL [U] Alternates Nathaniel J. Addleman, The RJA Group, Incorporated, TX [SE] (Alt. to M. E. Aaron) Delbert R. Chase, Jr., Federal Express Corporation, TN [U] (Alt. to T. G. Burk) Ronald B. Coker, Coker Engineering, TX [IM] (Alt. to R. W. Rees) Ray W. Dillon, API Group, Incorporated, TX [IM] (Alt. to S. Enides) 1

2 Kevin M. Green, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [I] (Alt. to R. J. Edwards) John E. Loehle, U.S. Air National Guard Readiness Center, MD [U] (Alt. to F. K. Walker) Danny L. Luey, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, NJ [E] (Alt. to R. J. Louis) Robert C. Merritt, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to L. M. Krasner) Terry Schultz, Code Consultants, Incorporated, MO [SE] (Alt. to D. J. Burkhart) Robert J. Tabet, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, VA [E] (Alt. to J. E. Gott) Alison J. Wakelin, Hughes Associates, Inc., MD [SE] (Alt. to J. L. Scheffey) Jerome Lederer, Laguna Hills, CA Thomas J. Lett, Albuquerque Fire & Safety Associates, NM [SE] (Member Emeritus) Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy Nonvoting Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on fire safety for the construction and protection at airport facilities involving construction engineering but excluding airport fixed fueling systems. This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document. The Technical Committee on Airport Facilities is presenting two Reports for adoption, as follows: Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 409, Standard on Aircraft Hangars, 2001 edition. NFPA is published in Volume 8 of the 2003 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Aircraft Hangars which consists of 29 voting members and is reporting in three Segments. Segment No. 1 consists of Proposal 409-4a (Log #CP20). On Segment No. 1 Proposal 409-4a (Log #CP20), 27 voted affirmatively, and 2 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Gwinn, Walker). Mr. Gwinn voted negatively stating: The requirements for electrical equipment ( ) are too stringent for this application. A committee task group has been created to address the content of a new chapter on paint hangars. The addition of this should be deferred until investigation an recommendation of the task group. Mr. Walker voted negatively stating: The electrical requirements in are unsupported by any data. The requirements do not address aircraft size nor do the requirements adequately address the use of aircraft spray booths within hangars. Segment No. 2 consists of Proposal 409-9a (Log #6). On Segment No. 2 Proposal 409-9a (Log #6), 29 voted affirmatively. Segment No. 3 consists of the balance of Proposals (Log #CP3) through (Log #CP18), (Log #CP7) through (Log #2), and (Log #CP15) through (Log #CP6). On Segment No. 3 Proposals (Log #CP3) through (Log #CP18), (Log #CP7) through (Log #2), and (Log #CP15) through (Log #CP6), 29 voted affirmatively. 2

3 Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, a complete revision to NFPA 423, Standard for Construction and Protection of Aircraft Engine Test Facilities, 1999 edition. NFPA is published in Volume 8 of the 2003 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. NFPA 423 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Airport Facilities, which consists of 29 voting members; of whom 24 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Carpenter, Helsel, Kochhar, Pope, Skinner). 3

4 409-1 Log #CP3 (Entire Document) Keep all references to NFPA 11A to the 1999 edition. The Committee compared the requirements in the 1999 edition of NFPA 11A with the requirements in NFPA 11 for high expansion foam. The Committee feels that the information in the 1999 edition of NFPA 11A is technically more correct. The Committee has endorsed a TIA to remove the information from NFPA 11. The Committee plans to correlate the information through a joint task group with the Foam Committee Log #CP2 (3 Definitions (GOT)) Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Foam-Water Deluge System. (preferred) NFPA 16, 1999 ed. A foam-water sprinkler system employing open discharge devices, which are attached to a piping system that is connected to a water supply through a valve that is opened by the operation of a detection system, which is installed in the same areas as the discharge devices. When this valve opens, water flows into the piping system and discharges from all discharge devices attached thereto. Weathered-Membrane Material. (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. Membrane material that has been subjected to a minimum of 3000 hours in a weatherometer in accordance with ASTM G 155, Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials, or approved equivalent. Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes Log #1 (3.3.8 Gross Wing Area and Wing Area (New) ) in Principle in Part Submitter: Fred K. Walker, US Air Force Insert new definitions to read: Gross Wing Area. See Wing Area Wing Area. Total projected area of clean wing (no projecting flaps, slats, and so on) including all control surfaces and area of the fuselage bounded by the leading- and trailing-edges projected to the centerline (inapplicable to slender-delta aircraft with extremely large leading-edge sweep-angle). Net area excludes projected areas of fuselage, nacelles and so on. Note: Supporting material available upon request at NFPA headquarters. No consistent definition of wing area is used in the aircraft industry. This incorporates the internationally accepted definition used in Jane s from which NFPA 409 takes the wing area number. in Principle in Part Insert new definitions to read: Gross Wing Area. See Wing Area Wing Area. Total projected area of clean wing (no projecting flaps, slats, and similar items) including all control surfaces and area of the fuselage bounded by the leading- and trailing-edges projected to the centerline (inapplicable to slender-delta aircraft with extremely large leading-edge sweep-angle). Net area excludes projected areas of fuselage, nacelles and similar items. See artwork on next page Committee Statement: The Committee added the information with editorial changes and added a sketch to help clarify the intent. 4

5 5

6 409-4 Log #CP18 (3.3.10) 1. Delete the existing definition of membrane. 2. Add the following new definition: Membrane Hangar. The flexible structural fabric or film which supports the imposed loads and transmits them to the supporting structure. The membrane carries only tension or shear in the plane of the membrane. Replaced the existing membrane definition with one that specifically addresses hangars a Log #CP20 (3.3.11, through ) 1. Add the following new definition: Paint Hangar. An aircraft hangar that is occupied for spray painting operations involving an entire aircraft or major portions of an entire aircraft (greater than 80 sq. ft.). 2. Change through to through Change Existing Chapter 10 to Chapter Add the following new chapter on paint hangars: Chapter 10 Paint Hangars 10.1 An aircraft hangar that is occupied for spray painting operations involving an entire aircraft or major portions of an entire aircraft (greater than 80 sq. ft.), shall be as follows: Construction. Paint hangars shall be constructed in accordance with Chapter 5 of this standard Fire Protection The protection of an aircraft paint hangar housing other than unfueled aircraft, shall be in accordance with either Chapter 6 or Chapter 7, whichever is applicable The protection of an aircraft paint hangar housing unfueled aircraft shall be in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 13 for an extra hazard group 2 occupancy Ventilation The ventilation system in a paint hangar shall be in accordance with all of the ventilation provisions of NFPA 33 and the following In a down draft configuration, a minimum airflow rate of 100 ft. per minute shall be provided at the perimeter of the aircraft being painted. In a side draft configuration, a minimum airflow rate of 100 ft. per minute shall be provided across the cross sectional area of the booth filter media. In either arrangement, this ventilation shall prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors to within 25% of the Lower Flammable Limit (LFL) Recirculation of a portion of the exhaust stream back into the hangar shall be permitted, provided: (a) Solid particulates have been removed from the recirculated air. (b) The concentration of vapors in the exhaust airstream does not exceed 25 percent of the lower flammable limit. (c) Listed equipment is used to monitor the concentration of vapors in all exhaust airstreams. (d) An alarm will sound and the spray operation will automatically shut down if the concentration of any vapor in the exhaust airstream exceeds 25 percent of the lower flammable limit. (e) Equipment installed to process and remove contaminants from the air exhausted from spray operations is approved by the authority having jurisdiction The compressed air supply to the paint spraying equipment shall be interlocked with the ventilation system such that the loss of the number of either supply fans or exhaust fans that reduce the airflow to below 75 ft. per minute will interrupt the compressed air supply to the paint spray equipment Electrical equipment. The electrical equipment in a paint hangar shall be in accordance with NFPA 70 Article 513, Article 516 and the following Class I Division 1 equipment is required throughout the paint hangar up to the 10 ft. elevation above the finished floor. Class I Division 2 electrical equipment is required throughout the paint hangar to an elevation that is a minimum of 10 ft. above tallest aircraft tail height that could be placed inside this hangar. Above this level, Ordinary electrical equipment shall be permitted Internal Separations. All paint storage, paint mix and paint gun cleaning operations will be separated from the paint hangar by a minimum 2 hr rated fire separation, with the openings protected by 1-1/2 hr rated fire doors Flammable Liquids. Flammable liquids storage and handling will be in accordance with NFPA 30. The Aircraft Maintenance Operations Committee is reviewing and revising the requirements for painting in hangars. The scope of NFPA 410 covers the minimum requirements for fire safety to be followed during aircraft maintenance. It does not cover the construction, fire protection, ventilation and electrical criteria for a hangar dedicated for this purpose. The above material was added to this standard to cover these areas related to a hangar where painting is the primary function in order that the two documents are correlated. The Committee feels that these requirements provide a reasonable level of safety for this type of hangar. 6

7 409-5 Log #CP7 (5.2.3) 5.2.3* For aircraft hangars, other than those housing unfueled aircraft, partitions and ceilings separating aircraft storage and servicing areas from all other areas, shops, offices, and parts storage areas shall have at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating with openings protected by listed fire doors or shutters having a minimum fire resistance rating of 45 minutes. The fire load for hangars housing unfueled aircraft is not as high and therefore does not necessitate the same fire separations Log #CP8 (5.2.4) For aircraft hangars, other than those housing unfueled aircraft, where a storage and servicing area has an attached, adjoining, or contiguous structure, such as a lean-to, shop, office, or parts storage area, the wall common to both areas shall have at least a 1-hour fire resistance rating, with openings protected by listed fire doors having a minimum fire resistance rating of 45 minutes and actuated from both sides of the wall. The fire load for hangars housing unfueled aircraft is not as high and therefore does not necessitate the same fire separations Log #4 (5.3) Final Action: Reject Submitter: Fred K. Walker, US Air Force Replace 5.3 and all subparagraphs with the following: 5-3 Clear Space Distance Requirement Around Hangars Precautions shall be taken to ensure ready access to hangars from all sides. Adequate separations shall be provided to reduce fire exposure between buildings No minimum clear space/separation is required between adjacent Group I hangars meeting the requirements of this document No minimum clear space/separation is required between adjacent Group II hangars meeting the requirements of this document provided the total combined square footage does not exceed the single fire area or the most restrictive construction type present in accordance with Table No minimum clear space/separation is required between adjacent Group I and II hangars meeting the requirements of this document provided the total combined square footage does not exceed the single fire area or the most restrictive construction type present in accordance with Table The clear space distances in Table shall be maintained on all sides of a hangar or group of hangars meeting through Where mixed types of construction are involved, the least fire resistant type of construction present shall be used to determine the clear space required. See Table shown on the following page Where both exposing walls and openings therein of adjacent single hangar buildings have a minimum fire resistance rating of at least 3 hours, no minimum separation distance shall be required Where the exposing wall and any openings therein of one hangar have a minimum fire resistance rating of at least 2 hours, the minimum separation distance shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 25 ft (7.5 m) for single hangar buildings * Where the exposing walls of both buildings have a minimum fire resistance rating of at least 2 hours, with all windows protected by listed glass in fixed steel sash having a minimum fire resistance rating of 3/4 hour, with outside sprinkler protection and each doorway protected with one automatically operated listed fire door having a minimum fire resistance rating of 11/2 hours, the clear space distance shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 25 ft (7.5 m) between single hangar buildings. Under such conditions, the glass area in the exposing walls shall be not more than 25 percent of the wall area The clear spaces specified in Table shall not be used for the storage or parking of aircraft or concentrations of combustible materials, nor shall buildings of any type be erected therein. A single Group I hangar can be built to unlimited size. It follows that two adjacent Group I hangars can be considered as a single hangar, since their total square footage could have been built as a single undivided hangar. Likewise a Group II hangar can be built undivided up to the limits in Table 4.1.2, therefore, any group of Group II hangars can be considered as a single hangar up to the limits of Table This proposal was approved during the May 2001 ROP and later rejected during the May 2001 ROC. The basis for rejection presented an incomplete picture and gave the impression the proposal created a new situation not previously permitted. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The proposed text was unclear to the Committee. The Chair appointed a task group to study the material and correlate it with NFPA

8 409-8 Log #CP19 (5.3) 1. Delete the last sentence of Delete the last sentence of Delete all of section including paragraphs 5.3.3, , , and Table The Committee felt that hangar building cluster requirements for Group I and II hangars were unnecessary as all Group I and II hangars are provided with fire protection systems which would preclude fire jumping. The other clear space distance requirements are consistent with building code criteria Log #2 (5.3.2, , 5.3.3, , , and Table 5.3.3) Submitter: Fred K. Walker, US Air Force Delete last sentences of and Delete 5.3.3, all subparagraphs and Table Final Action: Reject The action during the May 2001 ROC indicated the committee did not wish to permit Group I and/or Group II hangars to be separated by less than the distances in Table without fire rated walls between the hangars. The concept of hangar clusters permits that condition to exist, therefore, this proposal eliminates the concept of hangar clusters for Group I and II hangars. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action on (Log #4) a Log #6 (5.9.5) in Principle Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Revise text to read as follows: The ventilation system shall be controlled by an approved continuous-reading combustible gas analyzing system that is arranged to operate the ventilation system at the rate specified in automatically upon detection of a specified flammable vapor concentration that is below the lower flammable limit. The detection system shall have sensors located throughout all ducts and tunnels. Sensors shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer s installation instructions and they shall not exceed their listed spacing. Without the added text, there is no guidance on how many sensors should be installed. Fire officials have to subjectively decide what is meant by sensors located throughout all ducts and tunnels. The added text clarifies how to decide how many sensors are required. in Principle Add the following to the annex: A Sensors should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions paying close attention to the recommended sensor spacing. Committee Statement: Installation instructions vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Documents referenced in the body of the standard should be reviewed by the committee. Not all gas analyzers are listed. The current requirement says approved, which would cover both listed analyzers and those acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction Log #CP15 ( ) Revise to read as follows: Sprinklers shall be nominal K-5.6 or K-8.0 sprinklers. Revised nomenclature to correlate with NFPA 13. 8

9 Log #CP4 (6.2.6, A.6.2.6) Add the following new material: The friction losses in piping carrying foam concentrate shall be calculated using the Darcy formula, also known as the Fanning formula. A For further information, see NFPA 16. The Committee felt that it was important to select one recognized methodology for calculating friction loss for concentrate Log #CP11 ( , A ) Add the following new material: The timing of foam system discharge shall be measured beginning at the time of system actuation. A System actuation is defined as actuation of the automatic water control valve. This clarifies when the time should start for foam system discharge acceptance tests Log #CP16 (7.2.6) Revise to read as follows: Sprinklers shall be nominal K-5.6 or K-8.0 sprinklers. Revised nomenclature to correlate with NFPA Log #CP5 (7.3, A.7.3) Add the following new material: 7.3 The friction losses in piping carrying foam concentrate shall be calculated using the Darcy formula, also known as the Fanning formula. A.7.3 For further information, see NFPA 16. The Committee felt that it was important to select one recognized methodology for calculating friction loss for concentrate Log #CP10 ( , A ) Add the following new material: The timing of foam system discharge shall be measured beginning at the time of system actuation. A System actuation is defined as actuation of the automatic water control valve. This clarifies when the time should start for foam system discharge acceptance tests. 9

10 Log #CP14 (7.4.6) Add the following new material The low-level foam system shall be designed to achieve distribution of foam over the entire aircraft storage and service area. The design objective shall be to achieve coverage of the entire aircraft storage and servicing area to within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the perimeter walls and doors within 3 minutes of system actuation. Provides a reasonable performance objective Log #CP13 (7.5.8, A.7.5.8) Add the following new material: The timing of foam system discharge shall be measured beginning at the time of system actuation. A System actuation is defined as actuation of the automatic water control valve. This clarifies when the time should start for foam system discharge acceptance tests Log #CP9 ( ) Revise to read as follows: Acceptance tests for foam extinguishing systems shall be performed in accordance with , , and The Committee felt it is important to identify this paragraph for acceptance testing to ensure proper concentration percentage Log #3 (8.9.1) Final Action: Reject Submitter: Fred K. Walker, US Air Force Revise following text: 8.9.1* The protection of aircraft storage and servicing areas of Group III aircraft hangars shall be in accordance with Chapter 7: (1) Where the hazardous operations including fuel transfer, welding, torch cutting, torch soldering, doping and spray painting are performed. (2) Where a single fire area, not separated by 1-hour rated non-combustible construction exceeds 929 m 2 (10,000 ft 2 ). A Fire loss history has shown in aircraft hangars, regardless of size, if the fire event involves aircraft fuels there is a significantly increased potential for loss of the hangar and contents when an automatic fire suppression is not provided. Fire loss data from NFPA has indicated there is a fire loss problem in hangers without fire suppression systems in the 10,000 ft 2 and larger size. Data previously provided to committee and is on file with NFPA. This also formats the protection paragraph the same as the Group I and II chapters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee felt that the substantiation was insufficient to support this major change. 10

11 Log #5 ( through (New) ) Final Action: Reject Submitter: Fred K. Walker, US Air Force Add new text to read as follows: Group III hangars in which hazardous operations including fuel transfer, welding, torch cutting, torch soldering, doping, and spray painting are performed shall be protected with the fire protection specified in Chapter 7 and also shall meet the requirements specified in Group III hangars used for aircraft storage and other nonhazardous aircraft operations of aircraft with fuel capacity, individual or aggregate, less than 110 gal (880 lb) shall be protected by a ordinary hazard sprinkler system discharging 0.2 gpm/ft 2. In multi-bay hangars with only one aircraft per bay and having not less than one-hour fire resistive walls between each bay, the fuel capacity may be calculated based on each individual bay Group III hangars used for aircraft storage and other nonhazardous aircraft operations of aircraft with fuel capacity, individual or aggregate, greater than 111 gal (888 lb) shall be protected by the fire protection specified in Chapter 7 and also shall meet the requirements specified in A Historical data has shown without a fire suppression system fires involving aircraft in hangars will in most cases destroy the aircraft and the hangar housing the aircraft. There is some test data that indicates even with a water sprinkler system there are situations where the system might be overwhelming and the hangar destroyed. This standard tries to find a balance between the more expensive, aggressive and effective foam systems and the more reasonably priced water sprinkler system. The purpose and scope of this standard indicates this document tell the user how to protect an aircraft hangar from fire such that should a fire occur there is a reasonable probability the facility will not be destroyed. 1.1 Scope. This standard contains the minimum requirements for the proper construction and protection of aircraft hangars from fire. 1.2 Purpose * The purpose of this standard is to provide a reasonable degree of protection from fire for life and property in aircraft hangars, based on sound engineering principles, test data, and field experience. The has acknowledged for sometime that a fire involving aircraft fuels or any combustibles will most likely destroy a hangar built to Group III standards. It is time to provide more complete guidance in protecting Group III hangars. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The Committee felt that the substantiation was insufficient to support this major change Log #CP17 ( ) Delete in it's entirety. Currently, fabric materials are not listed Log #CP12 ( , A ) Add the following new material: The timing of foam system discharge shall be measured beginning at the time of system actuation. A System actuation is defined as actuation of the automatic water control valve This clarifies when the time should start for foam system discharge acceptance tests. 11

12 Log #CP6 (10.1.1) Revise to read as follows: Inspection and testing of fire protection systems in aircraft hangars shall be performed in accordance with NFPA 25 as modified by Table NFPA 25 contains most of the information for conducting the inspection and testing of the systems. The table provides the frequencies for hangar systems. 12