Report on Proposals F2006 Copyright, NFPA Report of the Committee on

Report on Proposals F2006 Copyright, NFPA Report of the Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems Jeffrey L. Harrington, Chair Harrington Group, Incorporated, GA [SE] Ronald C. Adcock, Marsh USA Incorporated, AZ [I] Maurizio Barbuzzi, North American Fire Guardian Technology, Incorporated, Italy [M] Douglas J. Barylski, US Department of the Navy, DC [E] Todd A. Dillon, GE Insurance Solutions, OH [I] Philip J. DiNenno, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] William A. Eckholm, Firetrace International, AZ [M] Dale R. Edlbeck, Tyco Fire & Security/Ansul, WI [M] Don A. Enslow, BP Exploration (Alaska), AK [U] William A. Froh, US Department of Energy, DC [U] Matthew T. Gustafson, US Social Security Administration, MD [U] Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts, DE [M] Robert H. Kelly, Fire Defense Equipment Company Incorporated, MI [IM] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, IL [IM] Bella A. Maranion, US Environmental Protection Agency, DC [E] Robert C. Merritt, FM Global, MA [I] Robert G. Richard, Honeywell, Incorporated, NY [M] Paul E. Rivers, 3M Fire Protection, MN [M] Patrick W. Schoening, General Motors Corporation, MI [U] Joseph A. Senecal, Kidde-Fenwal, Incorporated, MA [M] Clifford R. Sinopoli, II, Exelon Corporation, PA [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Louise C. Speitel, US Federal Aviation Administration, NJ [E] Brad T. Stilwell, Fike Corporation, MO [M] Al Thornton, Chemtura, TX [M] Klaus Wahle, US Coast Guard, DC [E] () Fred K. Walker, US Department of the Air Force, FL [E] Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates, NH [SE] Rep. Halon Alternatives Research Corporation Thomas J. Wysocki, Guardian Services, Incorporated, IL [SE] Jiann C. Yang, US National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] Alternates Philip B. Atteberry, Chemtura, IL [M] (Alt. to Al Thornton) Kenneth V. Blanchard, DuPont Fluoroproducts, DE [M] (Alt. to Howard S. Hammel) Charles O. Bauroth, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] (Voting Alt. to PCIAA Rep.) Randall Eberly, US Coast Guard, DC [E] (Alt. to Klaus Wahle) Steven A. Giovagnoli, GE Insurance Solutions, IL [I] (Alt. to Todd A. Dillon) Raymond N. Hansen, US Department of the Air Force, FL [E] (Alt. to Fred K. Walker) William Matt Hogan, Duke Power Company, SC [U] (Alt. to Clifford R. Sinopoli, II) Daniel J. Hubert, Kidde/Chemetron Fire Systems, IL [M] (Alt. to Joseph A. Senecal) Mary P. Hunstad, US Department of the Navy, DC [E] (Alt. to Douglas J. Barylski) Giuliano Indovino, North American Fire Guardian Technology, Incorporated, Italy [M] (Alt. to Maurizio Barbuzzi) Robert Kasiski, FM Approvals/FM Global, RI [I] (Alt. to Robert C. Merritt) Richard A. Malady, Fire Fighter Sales & Service Company, PA [IM] (Alt. to Norbert W. Makowka) Earl D. Neargarth, Fike Corporation, MO [M] (Alt. to Brad T. Stilwell) Ivan M. Nibur, Global Risk Consultants Corporation, KY [SE] (Voting Alt. to GRC Corp. Rep.) Steven W. Rhodes, US Social Security Administration, MD [U] (Alt. to Matthew T. Gustafson) James M. Rucci, Harrington Group, Incorporated, GA [SE] (Alt. to Jeffrey L. Harrington) John M. Schuster, 3M Company, MN [M] (Alt. to Paul E. Rivers) Len D. Seebaluck, Firetrace International, AZ [M] (Alt. to William A. Eckholm) Margaret A. Sheppard, US Environmental Protection Agency, DC [E] (Alt. to Bella A. Maranion) John C. Spalding, Healey Fire Protection, Incorporated, MI [IM] (Alt. to Robert H. Kelly) NFPA 12A George Unger, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, Canada [RT] (Alt. to George E. Laverick) Nonvoting Rudolf Klitte, Ginge-Kerr Danmark A/S, Denmark [M] Ingeborg Schlosser, VdS Schadenverhutung, Germany [I] Fernando Vigara, Fernando Vigara & Asociados, Spain [SE] Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation, maintenance, and use of carbon dioxide systems for fire protection. This Committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on fixed fire extinguishing systems utilizing bromotrifluoromethane and other similar halogenated extinguishing agents, covering the installation, maintenance, and use of systems. This Committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on alternative protection options to Halon 1301 and 1211 fire extinguishing systems. It shall not deal with design, installation, operation, testing, and maintenance of systems employing dry chemical, wet chemical, foam, aerosols, or water as the primary extinguishing media. 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. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book. The Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems is presenting three Reports for adoption, as follows: Report I: The Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, 2000 edition. NFPA 12 is published in Volume 1 of the 2004/2005 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. NFPA 12 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems, which consists of 32 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 edition. NFPA 12A is published in Volume 1 of the 2004/2005 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems, which consists of 32 voting members; of whom 31voted affirmatively, and 1 ballot was not returned (Dillon). Report III: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2004 edition. NFPA 2001 is published in Volume 12 of the 2004/2005 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems, which consists of 32 voting members; of whom 27 voted affirmatively, 5 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Barbuzzi, Edlbeck, Hammel, Stillwell, Wysocki). Mr. Barbuzzi voted negatively stating: Comment on Log #5: The standard makes no reference to the commercial evaluation criteria with regards to applicability and acceptability. Mr. Edlbeck voted negatively stating: Log #16: Testing done to UL test parameters does not indicate a substantial increase in extinguishing time of Class A fires when the discharge time is extended to 120 seconds. Detection and control systems used with Clean Agent systems are designed to suppress a fire in its incipient stage, long before it achieves a high burning rate that would allow increased damage caused by any longer extinguishing times associated with a 120 second discharge time. The USCG currently allows the 120 second discharge time for 85 percent of the design concentration as verified by the UL listing. The Marine chapter of this standard allows the 120 second discharge time based on the USCG listing. The benefits to the customer for the extended discharge outweigh any slight increase in extinguishing times. 12A-1

Report on Proposals F2006 Copyright, NFPA Mr. Hammel voted negatively stating: 1. There are a number of Accepted or Accepted in Principle proposals that if incorporated into the standard will cause a significant change in system design and will impact currently installed systems. There are no data or substantiation to support these changes. To the contrary, there are years of installed systems that indicate the current accepted practice achieves the necessary margin of safety in the design of Clean Agent Systems. 2. a) There is an effort to incorporate parts of an ISO standard that is still in the draft stage into NFPA 2001. This ISO standard utilizes Class A fire tests that are much larger than UL 2166/UL2127 and is based on visual interpretation only. There is very limited data for results from the ISO fire test. The reproducibility and consistency of this procedure is yet to be confirmed. In fact there was a wide difference in MEC data for the same agent depending if the system was super pressurized to 360 psig vs. 600 psig. UL standards have been used for many years. There is a proven margin of safety for systems based on the Class A fire test used in UL standards. b) Placing the Class A full-scale test data from the ISO method is not appropriate. Listing this data will only cause confusion. The hardware (especially nozzles) can effect the MEC and should be run for each hardware type, as is required by UL. If data is to place in NFPA 2001, it should be based on UL methodology. c) The current heptane cup burner data in NFPA is from the most current test method, current Annex B. It was determined form multiple tests from multiple sources. The ISO cup burner data is from one set of data from one source. Data derived from a different standard should not be included in NFPA 2001. NFPA 12A 12A-1 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept (6.2.1) Submitter: Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems Recommendation: Revise 6.2.1 to read as follows: 6.2.1 DOT, CTC, or similar design Halon 1301 cylinders shall not be recharged without a retest if more than 5 years have elapsed since the date of the last test and inspection. The retest shall be permitted to consist of a complete visual inspection as described in the CFR, Title 49. In Canada, the corresponding information is set forth in the Canadian Transport Commission s Regulations for the Transportation of Dangerous Commodities by Rail. Substantiation: The Department of Transportation revised the Code of Federal Regulations with a new numbering scheme. A general reference to CFR 49 is therefore more appropriate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Mr. Stilwell voted negatively stating: Log #18 Disagree with Committee Action. Log #11 and #21 Disagree with Committee Action. Mr.Wysocki voted negatively stating: After consideration of comments accompanying negative ballots of Edlbeck, Stillwell, Hammel and Barbuzzi, I vote negative on this document for the following reasons: There is insufficient technical justification for the proposed changes to design concentration requirements. On the other hand, there is justification for extension of the discharge time for Class A fire suppression using inert gases and this extension was rejected. The proposed document is inconsistent in its handling of the various competing agents. There is nothing of extreme urgency requiring immediate change in NFPA 2001 that justifies going forward with an ROP which is replete with such inconsistent handling of competing agents. 12A-2

FORM FOR COMMENTS ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2006 FALL REVISION CYCLE FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EST, 3/3/2006 For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Log #: For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 617-770-3000 Date Rec'd: Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: In choosing the download option you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our Website; no copy will be sent to you.) Date Name Tel. No. Company Street Address City State Zip Please Indicate Organization Represented (if any) 1. a) NFPA Document Title NFPA No. & Year b) Section/Paragraph 2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 3. Comment recommends: (check one) new text revised text deleted text 4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format: i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted ( deleted wording). 5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your comment including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it m ay be abstracted for publication.) 6. Copyright Assignment a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in this Comment. b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source) I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500 Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269 11/1/2005

Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document Step 1 Call for Proposals Proposed new Document or new edition of an existing Document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published. Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP) Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report. Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee. Step 3 Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment. Report on Comments (ROC) Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report. Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Reports goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee. Step 4 Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review. Technical Report Session Notices of intent to make a motion are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Technical Report Session. ( Consent Documents that have no certified motions bypass the Technical Report Session and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.) NFPA membership meets each June at the Annual Meeting Technical Report Session and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for Documents with certified amending motions. Step 5 Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting. Standards Council Issuance Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting. Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue Document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

The Technical Report Session of the NFPA Annual Meeting The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Technical Report Sessions that take place at the NFPA Annual Meeting. The Technical Report Session provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA s rules which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at a Technical Report Session. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled. What Amending Motions are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study. The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the World SafetyConference and Exposition, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Report Session now runs once each yearat the Annual Meeting in June. Who Can Make Amending Motions. Those authorized to make these motions is also regulated by NFPA rules. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, NFPA rules should be consulted. The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at a Technical Report Session, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Technical Report Session. Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be non-controversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These Consent Documents will bypass the Technical Report Session and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining Documents are then forwarded to the Technical Report Session for consideration of the NFPA membership. Important Note: The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion is a new requirement that takes effect beginning with those Documents scheduled for the Fall 2005 revision cycle that reports to the June 2006 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will not, therefore, be required in order to make a motion at the June 2005 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. For updates on the transition to the new Notice requirement and related new rules effective for the Fall 2005 revision cycle and the June 2006 Annual Meeting, check the NFPA website.

Action on Motions at the Technical Report Session. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Technical Report Session, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed Document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the Document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the Document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the session and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the Document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance. Standards Council Issuance One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents it also hears any appeals related to the Document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a Document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the Document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the Decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance. The illustration on page 9 provides an overview of the entire process, which takes approximately two full years to complete.