of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 212-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.4.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-1-NFPA 30-2016 NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 1 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Where automatic sprinkler systems or low-expansion foam-water sprinkler systems are used to protect storage of liquids, Figure 16.4.1(a), Figure 16.4.1(b), or Figure 16.4.1(c), whichever is applicable, and the appropriate table in Section 16.5 shall be used to determine protection criteria. Figure 16.4.1(a) Fire Protection Criteria Decision Tree for Miscible and Nonmiscible Flammable and Combustible Liquids in Metal Containers. Figure 16.4.1(b) Fire Protection Criteria Decision Tree for Miscible and Nonmiscible Flammable and Combustible Liquids in Nonmetallic Containers. Figure 16.4.1(c) Fire Protection Criteria Decision Tree for Miscible Flammable and Combustible Liquids in Nonmetallic Containers. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 2 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Supplemental Information File Name Public_Comment_No._67_Figure_16.4.1_a_.pdf Description Shows revision to figure 16.4.1(a) Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 09:31:51 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Note: Response Message: The technical committee has amended Figure 16.4.1(a) to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. The Public Comment was initially accepted by the TC and resulted in Second Revision (SR) # 212. However, the Correlating Committee subsequently overturned the SR # 212 relegating the SR to CC # 212. Additionally, the Correlating Committee may or may not have created a Second Correlating Revision (SCR) # SCR-1-NFPA 30-2016. Accordingly, a NITMAM could be submitted to accept the resulting CC since this accomplishes that same action as 'accepting" the PC or to reject the SCR. Public Comment No. 67-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. 16.4.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Ballot Results NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 3 of 30
Revise Figure 16.4.1(a) as follows: Protected using Table 16.5.2.1, 16.5.2.3, or 16.5.2.8, or 16.5.2.13 NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 4 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Havens, Dwight H. Hicks, Donald B. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ordile, Anthony M. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Willse, Peter J. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 5 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee Negative with Comment Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 6 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 202-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-2-NFPA 30-2016 Paragraphs 16.5.2.1 through 16.5.2.12 13 and their related tables, Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.12 13, shall be used to determine the protection criteria and storage arrangement for the applicable liquid class, container type, and storage configuration, as described in 16.5.2.1 through 16.5.2.12 13 and subject to the provisions of 16.5.1. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 14:14:21 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Note: Response Message: This section has been revised to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. The Public Comment was initially accepted by the TC and resulted in Second Revision (SR) # 202. However, the Correlating Committee subsequently overturned the SR # 202 relegating the SR to CC # 202. Additionally, the Correlating Committee may or may not have created a Second Correlating Revision (SCR) # SCR-2-NFPA 30-2016. Accordingly, a NITMAM could be submitted to accept the resulting CC since this accomplishes that same action as 'accepting" the PC or to reject the SCR. Public Comment No. 52-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. 16.5.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 7 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM 0 Abstention Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Havens, Dwight H. Hicks, Donald B. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ordile, Anthony M. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Willse, Peter J. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 8 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Negative with Comment Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 9 of 30
of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 203-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-3-NFPA 30-2016 Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.12 13 shall apply only to stable liquids. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 14:16:06 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Note: Response Message: This section has been revised to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. The Public Comment was initially accepted by the TC and resulted in Second Revision (SR) # 203. However, the Correlating Committee subsequently overturned the SR # 203 relegating the SR to CC # 203. Additionally, the Correlating Committee may or may not have created a Second Correlating Revision (SCR) # SCR-3-NFPA 30-2016. Accordingly, a NITMAM could be submitted to accept the resulting CC since this accomplishes that same action as 'accepting" the PC or to reject the SCR. Public Comment No. 53-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. 16.5.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 10 of 30
0 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Havens, Dwight H. Hicks, Donald B. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ordile, Anthony M. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Willse, Peter J. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee Negative with Comment NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 11 of 30
1 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 12 of 30
2 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 204-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1.11 ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-4-NFPA 30-2016 16.5.1.11 The Fire Test Ref. number given for each entry in Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.12 13 shall be used to identify in Section D.2 or D.3 the information on the fire tests on which the protection criteria for that entry are based. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 14:18:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This section has been revised to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210 and explanatory reference information in Annex D via SR#206. Public Comment No. 54-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. 16.5.1.11] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 13 of 30
3 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Havens, Dwight H. Hicks, Donald B. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ordile, Anthony M. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Willse, Peter J. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee Negative with Comment Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 14 of 30
4 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 15 of 30
5 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 210-NFPA 30-2016 [ New Section after 16.5.2.12 ] This was a Second Revision that failed ballot. 16.5.2.13 Table 16.5.2.13 shall apply to the following: (1) Automatic sprinkler protection or foam-water sprinkler protection (2) Single- and double-row rack storage (3) Class II and Class III nonmiscible and Class II and Class III miscible liquids (4) Relieving-style metal containers Table 16.5.2.13 Design Criteria for Sprinkler Protection or Foam-Water Sprinkler Protection of Single- and Double-Row Rack Storage of Class II and Class III Liquids in Relieving-Style Metal Containers Capacity (gal) Maximum Storage Height (ft) Maximum Ceiling Height (ft) Sprinkler Protection Ceiling Sprinkler Protection In-Rack Sprinklers Notes Fire Test Ref. >5 and 60 Unlimited Unlimited See 16.6.4, Fire Protection System Design Scheme E See 16.6.4, Fire Protection System Design Scheme E 1, 2 See Section D.3 (new) For SI units, 1 gal = 3.8 L, 1 ft = 0.3 m. Notes: (1) Minimum aisle width in all cases is 6 ft (1.8 m). (2) Maximum rack depth in all cases is 9 ft (2.7 m). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 13:47:49 EDT 2016 Committee Statement NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 16 of 30
16 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Statement: Response Message: The technical committee has reviewed all of the supporting documentation that substantiates the inclusion of new Table 16.5.2.13, including the answers to all questions that were raised by the technical committee when the public input was first submitted. Based on its review, the technical committee agrees that this new table provides acceptable fire protection system design criteria for the commodities to which the table applies. Public Comment No. 55-NFPA 30-2016 [New Section after 16.5.2.12] Ballot Results This item has failed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 13 Negative with Comments 14 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Abstention Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Negative with Comment Apostoluk, Peter R. I agree with John LeBlanc. De Taeye, Claire V. I agree with John LeBlanc's comments. Havens, Dwight H. I have reviewed and agree with the concerns raised by Mr. LeBlanc. Hicks, Donald B. I agree with John Leblanc s comments. Kirby, David C. After reviewing John Leblanc's comments, they confirm my thoughts from the Meeting - that the tests were not conservative enough to meet worst credible case. I believe that there should at least be a safety factor. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to recommend a safety factor. Kraus, Richard S. agree with Mr LeBlanc comment Kulpit, Jonathan NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 17 of 30
7 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM This protection scheme for unlimited storage height was extrapolated from one fire test which does not represent a reasonable worst case scenario of what the protection scheme aims to protect. That fire test did not address the possibility that a spill fire originating at the top and spilling down the face of a storage arrangement greater than four barrier levels tall may open more than the seven sprinklers (three at the top level and two on each of the next two lower levels) required to be calculated and / or involve ceiling sprinklers which are not required to be calculated. The protection scheme should not permit unlimited height without requiring hydraulic consideration of all sprinkler levels or proving with multiple fire tests that the number of sprinkler levels involved is independent of the height of the arrangement / number of barrier levels below the spill fire level of origin. LeBlanc, John A. The testing that was done used a ~34 ft high rack (4 tiers of filled drums, 3 tiers of empty drums) in a 48 ft high building. Actual filled drums were only used in the lower 4 tiers of the rack. The spill location was located at the bottom of the third tier instead of at the bottom of the highest stored drum. Two barrier/in-rack levels were provided. No ceiling sprinklers were provided. I believe the testing has clearly shown that this in-rack arrangement will meet the goal of keeping steel drums cool when they are exposed to a spill fire, however, the next critical element, the sprinkler system design, was not validated to support unlimited storage heights and roof heights. When using large orifice, quick response sprinklers at the ceiling or as in-racks it is critical to design the sprinkler system for an adequate number of sprinklers to conserve the water supply. Past full scale fire tests by FM Global with barriers installed in racks has shown that a spill down the face of an array will operate a large number of quick response in-rack sprinklers at every barrier level. Extrapolating the test results beyond the building height and storage height tested ignores this potential. Also, if the spill was initiated at the bottom of the top level of storage, there would have been a possibility of ceiling sprinkler involvement if ceiling sprinklers were installed. Since this protection option involves the use of K 25.2 sprinklers flowing 138 gpm each, operating more sprinklers than were included in the design can quickly overtax a water supply. The bottom line is this testing does not support extrapolating the results to unlimited storage heights when large containers are being stored. Ordile, Anthony M. I am concerned about this proposed Table and Scheme being developed on a single fire test. The TC has previously developed the protection criteria Tables based on redundant large-scale fire tests. My concern about basing this on a single test is emphasized by the fact that the in-rack sprinklers operated at 6 seconds after ignition. Perhaps a second test altering the location of the spill and ignition would yield different results that could have resulted in a delay of sprinkler operation that may have also caused some drums of product to be more involved and more than 2 rack sprinklers to operate. I also have concern over the unlimited storage height involving drums, especially when standard lift trucks are involved. The unlimited ceiling height is a concern with larger containers should the spill incident occur in an aisle or staging area. Riegel, Roland A. A single test is not sufficient. There is a need for additional testing that would substantiate unlimited storage heights for drums. Additional test scenarios should evaluate if an alternate ignition source / location and subsequent fire propagation would bypass the rack sprinkler systems and operate ceiling sprinklers. Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 18 of 30
8 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. Willse, Peter J. After reviewing John Leblanc's comments, I vote negative. Workman, Martin H. The fire test provided showed an exceptional fast operation of the sprinkler within the rack. This occurred because the fuel was ignited upon fuel release. In the past, fuel was allowed to discharge from the container prior to igniting the fuel, which would have created a spill fire and would have had slower sprinkler operation and in the long term would have activated more sprinklers within the rack area. I don't think the sprinkler operation would be realistic in a true scenario. I think the committee should reconsider this testing and ask the submitter to modify the testing scenario. Affirmative All Carter, Glen A. Foley, John J. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Abstention Ozog, Nicholas Changes to this section should be based in research and testing. However, there is concern that existing industrial storage arrangements will be invalidated due to a vacuum in the current testing. How can the code provide additional options for those facilities? NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 19 of 30
9 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 211-NFPA 30-2016 [ New Section after 16.6.3 ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-5-NFPA 30-2016 16.6.4 Fire Protection System Design Scheme E. 16.6.4.1 Sprinklers and horizontal barriers shall be installed in accordance with Figure 16.6.4.1(a) or Figure 16.6.4.1(b), whichever is applicable. Horizontal barriers shall be of plywood having a minimum thickness of 3/8 in. (10 mm) or of sheet metal of minimum 22 gauge thickness. All liquid storage shall be located beneath a barrier. 16.6.4.2 Vertical baffles shall not be installed between in-rack sprinklers. 16.6.4.3 In-rack sprinklers shall meet the following requirements: (1) In-rack sprinklers shall be intermediate temperature rated, pendent sprinklers with a nominal K-factor of 25.2 and shall be listed as extended coverage control mode density/area storage sprinklers. (2) In-rack sprinklers shall be positioned in a transverse flue below each barrier level. (3) In-rack sprinklers shall not be positioned within 3.5 ft of a rack upright. (4) The minimum in-rack sprinkler discharge pressure shall not be less than a gauge pressure of 30 psi. (5) Where one level of in-rack sprinklers is installed, the design shall include the 3 most hydraulically remote sprinklers on a single line. (6) Where two levels of in-rack sprinklers are installed, the design shall include the 3 most hydraulically remote sprinklers on a single line, and the 2 most hydraulically remote sprinklers on the next adjacent level. (7) Where three or more levels of in-rack sprinklers are installed, the design shall include the 3 most hydraulically remote sprinklers on a single line, and the 2 most hydraulically remote sprinklers on the next two adjacent levels. (8) Foam-water sprinkler protection shall be permitted to be substituted for water sprinkler protection, provided the same design criteria is used, and that the sprinkler is listed for use with foam. 16.6.4.4 If there are adjacent bays of in-rack arrays that are not dedicated to storage of liquids, the barrier and in-rack sprinkler protection shall be extended at least 6 ft (1.8 m) beyond the area devoted to liquid storage. 16.6.4.5 Ceiling sprinkler demand shall not be included in the hydraulic calculations for in-rack sprinklers. 16.6.4.6 Water demand at point of supply shall be calculated separately for in-rack and ceiling sprinklers and shall be based on the greater demand. 16.6.4.7 Ceiling sprinklers shall meet the following requirements: (1) Ceiling sprinkler protection shall be designed to protect the surrounding occupancy. (2) Any sprinkler type shall be acceptable. (3) If standard spray sprinklers are used, they shall be capable of providing not less than 0.30 gpm/ft 2 over 3000 ft 2 (8 mm/min over 270 m 2) when supplied with water. Design area NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 20 of 30
0 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM can be reduced to 2000 ft 2 when using a pre-primed foam-water system installed in accordance with NFPA 16 and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25. (4) If the liquid storage does not extend to the full height of the rack, protection for commodities stored above the top horizontal barrier shall meet the requirements of NFPA13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for the commodities stored, based on the full height of the rack. 16.6.4.8 A 500 gpm (1900 L/min) hose stream allowance shall be provided. Supplemental Information File Name Figure_16_6_4_1_a_2016-06-21.pdf Figure_16_6_4_1_b_2016-06-21.pdf Description Figure 16.6.4.1(a) Figure 16.6.4.1(b) Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 14:16:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The technical committee has reviewed all of the supporting documentation that substantiates the inclusion of new Section 16.6.4, which accompanies new Table 16.5.2.13. Response Message: Public Comment No. 57-NFPA 30-2016 [New Section after 16.6.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 21 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 6 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 21 of 30
NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 22 of 30
NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 23 of 30
1 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Willse, Peter J. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee Negative with Comment Havens, Dwight H. Based on my revised vote on SR-210, this revision is no longer needed. Hicks, Donald B. I agree with Wechsler's comments. Lentz, Thomas S. The time heads operated from the ignition of the fire test. Did not simulate a worse case scenario of NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 24 of 30
2 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM possible obstructions or other delays Ordile, Anthony M. SAME RESPONSE AS SR-210 - I am concerned about this proposed Table and Scheme being developed on a single fire test. The TC has previously developed the protection criteria Tables based on redundant large-scale fire tests. My concern about basing this on a single fire test is emphasized by the fact that the in-rack sprinklers operated at 6 seconds after ignition. Perhaps a second test altering the location of the spill and ignition would yield different results that could have resulted in a delay of sprinkler operation that may have also caused some drums of product to be involved and more than 2 rack sprinklers to operate. I also have concern over the unlimited storage height with larger containers especially when standard lift trucks are involved. The unlimited ceiling height is a concern with larger containers should the spill incident occur in an aisle or staging area. Seuss, Jr., George A. I agree with John Leblanc's reasoning for why this resolution should not pass. Further, I am not comfortable with using only 3 in-rack sprinkler heads as the design basis. Wechsler, David B. After having reviewed the committee actions, the original submittal and the response from John Leblanc on SR210- I find the complete actions on all these related changes ill advised and We should not advocate an unlimited conditions. Again as my common voting comment: The proposed Scheme E is linked to the justification provided in Public Comment No. 52, which was associated with the test results of a single fire test conducted at UL. The protection recommendations are based on a single spill scenario and a single ignition source location. The two sprinklers that operated during the test both activated at 6 seconds after ignition, which leads to questions of whether a more delayed or relocated ignition or spill location, perhaps to a higher location in the rack structure, might have produced unsatisfactory results. It is unprecedented to base the entire protection scheme for an unlimited area, unlimited storage quantity of drums of Class II liquids on a worst case scenario of operating 3 in-rack sprinklers, particularly when that basis represents a single fire test and contemplates only a single additional operating sprinkler beyond the two that operated in the cited test as the factor of safety. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 25 of 30
3 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 206-NFPA 30-2016 [ New Section after D.2 ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-6-NFPA 30-2016 D.3 Design Criteria for Sprinkler Protection of Single- and Double-Row Rack Storage of Class II and Class III Liquids Fire protection criteria in Section 16.5.2.13, Table 16.5.2.13, and 16.6.4 is based on a full scale fire test documented in the report, Class II Combustible Liquids in 55-gallons Steel Drums Stored in Racks with Continues Combustible Horizontal Barriers Protect by K=25.2 EC In-Rack Sprinklers, prepared by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. dated June 13, 2014. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-SWC Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 21 14:24:35 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision provides a cross reference to the test report that supports new Table 16.5.2.13 and new Scheme E diagrams. Public Comment No. 65-NFPA 30-2016 [New Section after D.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 26 of 30
4 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Havens, Dwight H. Hicks, Donald B. Hild, Richard J. Kidd, Todd M. Kirby, David C. Kraus, Richard S. Kulpit, Jonathan LeBlanc, John A. Lentz, Thomas S. Nauman, Susan Nugent, David P. Ordile, Anthony M. Ozog, Nicholas Riegel, Roland A. Rindfuss, Lee T. Seuss, Jr., George A. Stephens, Ronald J. Swenson, David C. Wechsler, David B. Willse, Peter J. Wright, Scott Wypychoski, Kevin M. de Nooij, Tom Affirmative with Comment Workman, Martin H. agree with committee NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 27 of 30
5 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Committee Comment No. 3-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. I.1.2.6 ] This was a Second Revision that has been modified or deleted as the result of Second Correlating Revision: SCR-7-NFPA 30-2016 I.1.2.6 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM C1055, Standard Guide for Heated System Surface Conditions that Produce Contact Burn Injuries, 2003 (reapproved 2014). ASTM D4206, Standard Test Method for Sustained Burning of Liquid Mixtures Using the Small Scale Open-Cup Apparatus, 1996 (reapproved 2013). ASTM D4207, Standard Test Method for Sustained Burning of Low Viscosity Liquid Mixtures by the Wick Test, 1991 (withdrawn 1998). ASTM D4956, Standard Specification for Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic Control, 2013. ASTM D6469, Standard Guide for Microbial Contamination in Fuels and Fuel Systems, 2014. ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, 2015 2016. ASTM E502, Standard Test Method for Selection and Use of ASTM Standards for the Determination of Flash Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods, 2007e1 (reapproved 2013). ASTM E1529, Standard Test Methods for Determining Effects of Large Hydrocarbon Pool Fires on Structural Members and Assemblies, 2014a Manual on Flash Point Standards and Their Use, 1992. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: FLC-FUN Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 14:27:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Updates references Response Message: Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. I.1.2.6] Ballot Results NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 28 of 30
6 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM This item has passed ballot 27 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 24 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Cosey, William V. F. Crumholt, Curtis W. Drechsel, Carl M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Barber, Jonathan R. Brennecke, Gregory C. Cole, Anthony R. De Taeye, Claire V. Foley, John J. Garfunkel, Felix J. Havens, Dwight H. Jablonski, Jay J. King, John W. Kraus, Richard S. Morgan, Bob D. Nugent, David P. Ramirez, Alfredo M. Richmond, Sr., John W. Shank, Peter M. Stocker, Warren G. Tyler, Scott M. Upson, Robert Wagner, Paul Wang, Qingsheng Wechsler, David B. Wethington, Robert P. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 29 of 30
7 of 27 12/12/2016 12:23 PM Wieczorek, Christopher J. NFPA 30 Committee Comments Page 30 of 30