FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE

FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Correlating Committee on Flammable and Combustible Liquids R. P. Benedetti DATE: October 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Agenda for NFPA 30 Second Draft Correlating Web Conference Monday, October 31, 2016, 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) Gentlemen: Attached is the Agenda for the NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, Second Draft Correlating Web Conference to be held from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) on Monday, October 31, 2016, via AdobeConnect web conference service. The web conference link has already been sent to you via email. This Agenda will also be posted to the NFPA 30 Document Information Page at: http://www.nfpa.org/30 If you have anything to add to the agenda, please let me know as soon as possible. rpb/ cc FLCC Folders

FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE AGENDA NFPA 30 Second Draft Correlating Web Conference Correlating Committee on Flammable and Combustible Liquids Monday, October 31, 2016, 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) 1. Call to Order. 2. Introduction of Attendees. Update of Committee Roster. [Attachment A1] 3. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting. (November 2013 Web Conference.) [Attachment A2] 4. Report of Committee Chair. 5. Report of Staff Liaison. Correlating Committee Membership. [Attachment A3] Annual 2017 Document Revision Schedule. [Attachment A4] 6. Member Reports on Current Issues. 7. Review and Correlating Action on Second Revisions to NFPA 30. Because Second Revision 210 failed ballot, all related Second Revisions that passed ballot must be reversed (i.e., resolved by rejecting). These include Second Revisions s 212, 202, 203, 204, 211, and 206. Public Comment 5 (proposed addition of ASTM E 1529 to A.22.5.2.4) was rejected. However, Second Revision 3 added this same reference to Annex I. Since the source reference was not added to Annex A it must be deleted from Annex I. The action on Public Comment 30 was to reject the addition of UL 142A to the body of the code, because it is an Outline of Investigation (OI) and not a full Standard. However, Second Revision 101 added UL 2152, which is also an OI, to the body of the code. These actions contradict each other and must be resolved to be consistent, one way or the other. [See Attachment A5 for the items in question, in order of discussion.] [Attachment A6 is a complete set of Second Revisions.] 8. Recent Correspondence. [NONE] 9. Other Old Business. [NONE] 10. New Business. [NONE] 11. Schedule Next Meeting(s). 12. Adjournment.

Address List No Phone Flammable and Combustible Liquids 08/25/2016 Robert P. Benedetti FLC-AAC Dwight H. Havens Chair Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation 20 Bellflower Road Malta, NY 12020-4431 U 10/23/2003 FLC-AAC Luis F. Arango Principal Global Asset Protection Services 21707 Shallow Glen Lane Katy, TX 77450-5489 XL Global Asset Protection Services I 7/16/2003 FLC-AAC Tracey D. Bellamy Principal Telgian Corporation 900 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 680 Atlanta, GA 30339-3084 The Home Depot U 10/29/2012 FLC-AAC William V. F. Cosey Principal Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC 118 Beauregard Lane Aiken, SC 29803 U 03/03/2014 FLC-AAC Douglas W. Fisher Principal Fisher Engineering, Inc. 10475 Medlock Bridge Road, Suite 520 Johns Creek, GA 30097-4437 SE 10/29/2012 FLC-AAC John J. Foley Principal JENSEN HUGHES 3500 Piedmont Road, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30305-1559 Alternate: Joseph L. Scheffey SE 3/21/2006 FLC-AAC Richard S. Kraus Principal API/Petroleum Safety Consultants 210 East Fairfax Street, Apt. 600 Falls Church, VA 22046-2909 American Petroleum Institute Alternate: Clark D. Shepard M 1/1/1989 FLC-AAC David P. Nugent Principal TUV SUD America Inc./Global Risk Consultants 2037 Clover Road Northbrook, IL 60062-6422 SE 04/08/2015 FLC-AAC Leo T. Old Principal Ensafe, Inc. 5724 Summer Trees Drive Memphis, TN 38134 SE 08/11/2014 FLC-AAC Roland A. Riegel Principal UL LLC 1285 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-3085 Alternate: Alfredo M. Ramirez RT 4/15/2004 FLC-AAC John P. Woycheese M 08/11/2014 Principal FLC-AAC Saudi Aramco Engineer I 712 Nasiriyah Street P.O. Box 13933 Eastern Province, Dhahran, 31311 Saudi Arabia Scott Wright Principal 3M Company 3M Center Building 224 6W 28 St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 U 12/08/2015 FLC-AAC Alfredo M. Ramirez Alternate UL LLC 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL 60062-2096 Principal: Roland A. Riegel RT 4/15/2004 FLC-AAC Joseph L. Scheffey Alternate JENSEN HUGHES 3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 Principal: John J. Foley SE 08/11/2014 FLC-AAC 1

Address List No Phone Flammable and Combustible Liquids 08/25/2016 Robert P. Benedetti FLC-AAC Clark D. Shepard Alternate ExxonMobil Corporation Research & Engineering 3225 Gallows Road, Room 3A2111 Fairfax, VA 22037 American Petroleum Institute Principal: Richard S. Kraus M 7/19/2002 FLC-AAC Scott Ayers Nonvoting Member US Consumer Product Safety Commission 5 Research Place Rockville, MD 20850 C 03/07/2013 FLC-AAC Stephen W. Haines Nonvoting Member Haines Fire & Risk Consulting Corp. 1 Linda Lane, Suite B Southampton, NJ 08088 TC on Tank Storage and Piping Systems SE 08/09/2012 FLC-AAC John A. LeBlanc Nonvoting Member FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA 02062-9102 TC on Storage and Warehousing of Containers and Portable Tanks I 1/14/2005 FLC-AAC Christopher J. Wieczorek Nonvoting Member FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA 02062-9102 TC on Fundamentals I 11/2/2006 FLC-AAC Peter J. Willse Nonvoting Member XL Global Asset Protection Services 100 Constitution Plaza, 12th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 I 3/21/2006 FLC-AAC David L. Blomquist Member Emeritus 114 Golden Ridge Road Alamo, CA 94507-2869 10/1/1993 FLC-AAC Brooke B. Smith, Jr. Member Emeritus 1324 Longs Point Woodland Park, CO 80863-5306 SE 1/1/1982 FLC-AAC Jack Woycheese Member Emeritus 1649 Constable Street Prescott, AZ 86301 SE 1/1/1991 FLC-AAC Robert P. Benedetti Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169-7471 FLC-AAC 2

FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE Minutes of NFPA 30 Second Draft Correlating Web Conference Correlating Committee on Flammable and Combustible Liquids Monday, November 4, 2013, 12:00 PM Eastern Time I. Participation T. D. Bellamy, Telgian Corporation (Rep. The Home Depot) J. Campbell, Telgian Corporation (Alternate to T. D. Bellamy, Rep. The Home Depot) J. J. Foley, Hughes Associates/RJA Group D. H. Havens, Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corp. / Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory (Nonvoting Member - Rep. NFPA 30 T/C on Operations) R. S. Kraus, Petroleum Safety Consultants (Rep. American Petroleum Institute) J. A. LeBlanc, FM Global (Nonvoting Member - Rep. NFPA 30 T/C on Container and Portable Tank Storage) W. E. Rehr, International Code Council R. A. Riegel, UL LLC D. A. Rivers, 3M Company C. D. Shepard, ExxonMobil Corporation (Alternate to R. S. Kraus - Rep. American Petroleum Institute) C. J. Wieczorek, FM Global (Nonvoting Member - Rep. NFPA 30 T/C on Fundamentals) P. J. Willse, XL Global Asset Protection Services J. Woycheese, Hughes Associates, CHAIR R. P. Benedetti, National Fire Protection Association, STAFF LIAISON GUESTS: S. D. Curran, Fiberglass Tank & Pipe Institute D. Matthews, NFPA R. Peterson, ExxonMobil Corporation Members Not in Attendance L. F. Arango, XL Global Asset Protection Services (Alternate to P. J. Willse) S. Ayers, U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Nonvoting Member) D. W. Fisher, Fisher Engineering, Inc. J. M. Eisenberg, RJA Group (Alternate to J. J. Foley) S. W. Haines, Haines Fire & Risk Consulting Corporation (Nonvoting Member - Rep. NFPA 30 T/C on Tank Storage and Piping Systems) A. M. Ramirez, UL, LLC (Alternate to R. A. Riegel) R. E. Stutzki, 3M Company (Alternate to D. A. Rivers) II. Minutes 1. The meeting was called to order at 12:10 PM on Monday, November 4, 2013 by Correlating Committee Chair Jack Woycheese. FLCAAC.2013-11 Minutes.doc

2. Attendees introduced themselves. The Correlating Committee roster was corrected as needed. An updated roster will be posted on the Correlating Committee s web page. 3. The Minutes of the previous meeting were unanimously approved as issued. 4. The Correlating Committee Chair had nothing to report. 5. The Staff Liaison reported on the following: Committee Scope Statements. The Correlating Committee agreed to the need for revised scopes that accurately reflects the various committee responsibilities. The Staff Liaison was directed to develop a set of revised scope statements for the review. Membership Status. The Staff Liaison reported on recent changes to committee membership and on the balance of interests on the committees. At this time, there is no balance issue. Document Revision Schedule for NFPA 30-2015. The Staff Liaison reviewed the Annual 2014 revision schedule for the 2015 edition of NFPA 30. 6. There were no reports on current issues. 7. Review Technical Committee Second Draft Ballot Reports. [NOTE: The Second Draft Report of the T/C on Fundamentals was unanimously affirmative. There was no Second Draft Report of the T/C on Storage & Warehousing of Containers & Portable Tanks.] The Correlating Committee reviewed the Second Draft report of the NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Operations, specifically Second Revisions SR-3, SR-6, and SR-7. The Correlating Committee took the actions described as follows: SR-3 / 17.3.1.1 & 17.3.1.2 / Negative Vote Ordile: The Correlating Committee created a Second Revision to make these Paragraphs an annex item to 17.3.1, because the referenced documents contain unenforceable language. SR-6 / 18.4.4 / Affirmative Comment Wechsler: The Correlating Committee determined that the comment presented technical issues that were not within the purview of the Correlating Committee; therefore, no action was taken. The issue should be revisited next cycle. SR-7 / 19.6.5 / 19.7 / Affirmative Comment Wechsler: The Correlating Committee determined that the issue was fully considered by the Technical Committee and agreed that listing incorporates temperature limitations; therefore, no action taken. The Correlating Committee reviewed the Second Draft report of the NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Tank Storage and Piping Systems, specifically Second Revisions SR-14, SR-15, SR-16, and SR-17. The Correlating Committee took the actions described as follows: SR-14 / 22.11.4.6 / Affirmative Comment Geyer: The Correlating Committee determined this is just clarification; therefore, no action was taken. SR-16 / 27.2.3 / Affirmative Comments Geyer & Wechsler & Negative Curran: The Correlating Committee determined that the issues raised were technical and not within the purview of the Correlating Committee; therefore, no action was taken. See Agenda Item 8 below for details. SR-17 / 27.4.4 / Negative Cignatta: The Correlating Committee that the issues raised were technical and not within the purview of the Correlating Committee; therefore, no action was taken. See Agenda Item 8 below for details. SR-15 / A.21.7.1 / Affirmative Comment Rocco: The Correlating Committee determined that the issue raised was technical and not within the purview of the Correlating Committee; therefore, no action was taken. FLCAAC.2013-11 Minutes.doc

8. Review of Potential Complaint to Standards Council on Second Revisions Nos. SR-16 and SR-17. The Correlating Committee discussed the complaint involving SR-16 & SR-17. The committee noted that the complaint was actually submitted outside the valid time frame and therefore should be resubmitted during the time frame for submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion ( January 1, 2014 to February 7, 2014. Mr. Curran (proponent) presented justification for change, but change would be of substantive nature and, therefore no action can be taken by the Correlating Committee. At the Correlating Committee Chair s direction, the Staff Liaison had prepared a timeline of the text in question, which has remained almost unchanged since 1966 edition. Proposed changes via SR-16 and SR-17 do not amend the text, but do move the definition to a more appropriate place in Chapter 27 of NFPA 30 and do set stricter requirements for piping in diked areas and impoundments. Given the technical nature of the changes, the Correlating Committee suggested this be handled during the next document revision cycle, with the inclusion of technical data to justify handling glass fiber-reinforced plastic piping and thermoplastic piping differently. 9. There was no correspondence requiring the Technical Committee s attention. 10. There was no old business requiring the Technical Committee s attention. 11. The Technical Committee discussed the following new business items: Next Revision Cycle for NFPA 30. The Correlating Committee discussed planning for the next document revision cycle for NFPA 30. 12. The Technical Committee deferred action on scheduling future meetings. 13. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 PM. FLCAAC.2013-11 Minutes.doc

FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BALANCE TCC on Flammable & Combustible Liquids - FLC-AAC Principals: 12 M: 2 (17%)* U: 4 (33%) Voting Alternates: 0 I/M: 0 L/C: 0 Alternates: 4 R/T: 1 (8%) E: 0 Non-Voting: 5 I: 1 (8%) SE: 4 (33%) Emeritus: 3 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 1 Balance: OK *(containers: 0 liquids: 2) FLCC Scope Statements & Member Balance.doc - 9/29/2016

2017 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE *Public Input Dates may vary according to standards and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA Website for the most up to date information on Public Input Closing Dates and schedules at www.nfpa.org/document # (i.e. www.nfpa.org/101) and click on the Next Edition tab. Process Stage Process Step Dates for TC Dates for TC with CC Public Input Closing Date* 7/6/15 7/6/15 Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/14/15 9/14/15 Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 2/1/16 10/26/15 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 2/22/16 11/16/15 `(First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot recirc 2/29/16 11/23/15 Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/30/15 Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/11/16 Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 2/1/16 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/22/16 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot recirc 2/29/16 Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 3/7/16 3/7/16 Public Comment closing date 5/16/16 5/16/16 Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards that 5/30/16 5/30/16 received no Comments) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received 6/13/16 6/13/16 no Comments) Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 10/31/16 7/25/16 Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/12/16 9/5/16 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/2/17 9/26/16 (Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/9/17 10/3/16 Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/10/16 Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/21/16 Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/12/16 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/2/17 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/9/17 Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/16/17 1/16/17 Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 2/20/17 2/20/17 Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent 4/17/17 4/17/17 Standards (& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 5/2/17 5/2/17 SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 5/12/17 5/12/17 Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/4 7/2017 6/4 7/2017 Appeals and Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 6/27/17 6/27/17 Issuance SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/10/17 8/10/17 Approved: October 30, 2012 Revised

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 4 10/18/2016 10:44 AM 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 Singleand 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 and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 4 10/18/2016 10:44 AM Response Message: 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 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

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 3 of 4 10/18/2016 10:44 AM 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 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 4 of 4 10/18/2016 10:44 AM 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? Editorial Comment Click here

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 5 10/18/2016 10:48 AM Second Revision No. 212-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.4.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 5 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 3 of 5 10/18/2016 10:48 AM Figure 16.4.1(c) Fire Protection Criteria Decision Tree for Miscible Flammable and Combustible Liquids in Nonmetallic Containers. 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:

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 4 of 5 10/18/2016 10:48 AM State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 09:31:51 EDT 2016 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: Response Message: Committee Notes: The technical committee has amended Figure 16.4.1(a) to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. Date Jun 28, 2016 Submitted By Janna Shapiro The only change section 16.4.1 is in Figure 16.4.1(a), as shown in the attachment. No other changes should be made to this section (Terra is showing struck text that should not be). Public Comment No. 67-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. 16.4.1 [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 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 5 of 5 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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 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. Editorial Comment Click here

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 2 10/18/2016 10:45 AM Second Revision No. 202-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Paragraphs 16.5.2.1 through 16.5.2.1316.5.2.12 and their related tables, Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.13Table 16.5.2.12, 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 16.5.2.1316.5.2.12 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 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: This section has been revised to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. Response Message: 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 0 Abstention Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 2 10/18/2016 10:45 AM 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 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 2 10/18/2016 10:45 AM Second Revision No. 203-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.13Table.16.5.2.12 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 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes Committee Statement: This section has been revised to reflect the adoption of new Table 16.5.2.13 via SR#210. Response Message: 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 Not Returned Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M. Affirmative All Apostoluk, Peter R. Carter, Glen A.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 2 10/18/2016 10:45 AM 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 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 2 10/18/2016 10:46 AM Second Revision No. 204-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. 16.5.1.11 ] 16.5.1.11 The Fire Test Ref. number given for each entry in Table 16.5.2.1 through Table 16.5.2.13Table 16.5.2.12 shall be used to identify in Sections D.2or 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 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes 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. Fitzgerald, Keric M.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 2 10/18/2016 10:46 AM 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 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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM Second Revision No. 211-NFPA 30-2016 [ New Section after 16.6.3 ] 16.6.4 Fire Protection System Design Scheme E.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 16.6.4.1

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 3 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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. Figure 16.6.4.1(a) Single-Row Rack Sprinkler Layout for Design Scheme "E." Figure 16.6.4.1(b) Double-Row Rack Sprinkler Layout for Design Scheme "E."

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 4 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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 (1 m) of a rack upright. (4) The minimum in-rack sprinkler discharge pressure shall not be less than a gauge pressure of 30 psi (207 kpa). (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.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 5 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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 can be reduced to 2000 ft 2 when using a preprimed 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 NFPA 13 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 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes 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: Committee Notes: Date Submitted By

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 6 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM Jun 27, 2016 Janna Shapiro Corresponding figures added as attachments 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 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

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 7 of 7 10/18/2016 10:48 AM 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 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. Editorial Comment Click here

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 2 10/18/2016 10:47 AM Second Revision No. 206-NFPA 30-2016 [ New Section after D.2 ] 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 16.5.2.13, Table 16.5.2.13, and 16.6.4 are based on a fullscale fire test documented in the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. report, Class II Combustible Liquids in 55-Gallon Steel Drums Stored in Racks with Continuous Combustible Horizontal Barriers Protected by K=25.2 EC In-Rack Sprinklers. 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 Correlating Committee Actions The correlating committee may override this SR with a Second Correlating Revision Committee Statement and Meeting Notes 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 Bellamy, Tracey D. Cosey, William V. F. Fitzgerald, Keric M.

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 2 of 2 10/18/2016 10:47 AM 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 Editorial Comment Click here

http://submittals.nfpa.org/terraviewweb/formlaunch?id=/terraview/c... 1 of 2 10/18/2016 2:58 PM Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 30-2016 [ Section No. A.22.5.2.4 ] A.22.5.2.4 For further information, see ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, and ANSI/UL 1709, Standard for Rapid Rise Fire Tests of Protection Materials for Structural Steel or ASTM E1529. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved ASTM_vs_NFPA_vs_UL_vs_ISO_vs_IEC_tests_with_titles_Nov_2015.pdf Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Comparison between ASTM, NFPA and UL tests ASTM E1529 is the same type of test as UL 1709 - I attach a file that shows the comparison by ASTM E05 (Fire Standards committee) between ASTM, NFPA and UL standard tests. I cannot provide a copy due to copyright reasons. The standard needs to be added also to the list of referenced standards in the annex. Related Public Comments for This Document Related Comment Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 30-2016 [Section No. I.1.2.6] Related Item Public Input No. 83-NFPA 30-2015 [Section No. A.22.5.2.4] Relationship Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Mar 24 20:10:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Action: Resolution: Rejected The annex is intended to provide examples of standards and it is unnecessary for the list to be complete.