Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA
NFPA 2001
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)
2001-
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 (T.
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 (M. Barbuzzi, D. Edlbeck, H. Hammel, B. Stillwell, T.
Wysocki).
Mr. M. Barbuzzi voted negatively stating:
Comment on 2001-1 (Log #5): The standard makes no reference to the
commercial evaluation criteria with regards to applicability and acceptability.
Mr. D. Edlbeck voted negatively stating:
2001-43 (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.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Mr. H. 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.

Mr. B. Stilwell voted negatively stating:

2001-1 (Log #18) – Disagree with Committee Action.
2001-37 (Log #11) and 2001-38 (Log #21) – Disagree with Committee
Action.

Mr. T. 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.

2001-
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________
2001-1 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
(Entire Document)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Delete all data for and references to the following three
agents now covered in this standard:
   FC-3-1-10, HCFC Blend A and HCFC-124.
Substantiation: Both FC-3-1-10 and HCFC-124 are being withdrawn from
ISO 14520. FC-3-1-10, according to the manufacturer, is not being employed
in new systems. Neither HCFC Blend A nor HCFC-124 have received
commercial acceptance in engineered systems in the U.S. and both are subject
to a production halt by 2020 mandated by the Clean Air Act.
   The inclusion of these three agents in this standard gives the false impression
that there are more alternatives to halon available than is actually the case. The
removal of these three agents will thus make the standard more useful by
presenting to the user information on only those agents that are truly
commercially viable.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part
   Delete all data for and references to the following two agents now covered in
this standard:
   FC-3-1-10 and HCFC Blend A.
Committee Statement: HCFC-124 is currently available in pre-engineered
systems, therefore the committee did not delete data and references to that
agent.
________________________________________________________________
2001-2 Log #89 Final Action: Accept
(1.1)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bill Eckholm, Firetrace International
Recommendation: Add a reference to local application systems in the first
sentence 1-1 as follows:
   This standard contains minimum requirements for total flooding and local
application clean agent fire systems.
Substantiation: As addressed in the other submissions, it addresses the
inclusion of local application systems in the standard.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-3 Log #60 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(Table 1.4.1.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
Recommendation: Revise Table 1.4.1.2 as follows:
   (first column) Halotron II
   (second column) tetrafluoromethane (86%), pentafluorethane (9%), carbon
dioxide (5%)
   (third column) CH2, FCF3, CHF2, CF3, CO2
   (Note: The EPA did not assign a generic name to this blend.)
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301
replacement for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on
increased customer interest in wider use of this agent.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise Table 1.4.1.2 as follows:
   (first column) HFC Blend B (this will be updated later)
   (second column) tetrafluoroethane (86%), pentafluorethane (9%), carbon
dioxide (5%)
   (third column) CH2, FCF3, CHF2, CF3, CO2
Committee Statement: Editorial changes.
________________________________________________________________
2001-4 Log #87 Final Action: Accept
(Figure 1.4.1.4.1(C))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul E. Rivers, 3M Fire Protection
Recommendation: 1. Revise graphs for 360 psig and 25 bar.
   2. Add new graphs for 610 psig and 42 bar.
See graphs on the next page
Substantiation: 1. Graphs have been updated since the last edition.
   2. High-pressure systems are now specified, designed and installed for which
the added data are useful to the designer.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-5 Log #64 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(Table 1.4.1(a))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
Recommendation: Revise Table A.1.4.1(a) as follows:
   Molecular weight: 99.4
   Boiling point at 760 mm Hg: -26.1°C
   Freezing point: -103°C
   Critical temperature: 101.1°C
   Critical pressure: 4060 kPa
   Critical volume: 198 cc/mol
   Critical density: 515.3 kg/m3
   Specific heat, liquid at 25°C: 1.44 kJ/kg°C
   Specific heat, vapor at 1 atm, 25°C: 0.848 kJ/kg°C
2001-
   Heat of vaporization at boiling point: 217.2°C
   Thermal conductivity of liquid at 25°C: 0.082 W/m°C
   Viscosity, liquid at 25°C: 0.202 centipoise
   Relative dielectric strength at 1 atm, 734 mm Hg, 25°C: 1.014
   Solubility of water in agent at 21°C: 0.11 %wt.
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301
replacement for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on
increased customer interest in wider use of this agent.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Heat of vaporization at boiling point should be 217.2 kJ/kg (instead of 217.2 o
C).
Committee Statement: Editorially corrected the units.
________________________________________________________________
2001-6 Log #97 Final Action: Reject
(Table 1.4.2.1, 3.3.13 Inert Gas Agent, 4.1.3, 4.1.3.6, 4.1.4.7, 4.2.3.7,
5.1.2.3.2, 5.4.2.6, Annex A)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Denyse DuBrucq, AirWars Defense
Recommendation: Add new text as follows:
   Table 1.4.2.1 - include N2 Nitrogen - Liquid Nitrogen
   3.3.13 (add) These agents can be used in Liquid form.
   Agent
   4.1.3 Quantity of LN for portable device, four liters volume is suggested. It
required topping off twice a week.
   For fire department truck or trailer, one thousand gallons is suggested. This
amount will produce Nitrogen gas sufficient to fill a three story home. For
larger facilities, additional fire departments can bring their supplies and the
supplier can send a truck for yet further needs. Not a drop will be left behind
and all Nitrogen gas will dissipate into the atmosphere upon ventilating
building.
   4.1.3.6 Storage Container Arrangement for LN portable, 4-liter units can be
kept inside buildings n locations appropriate for fire extinguishers with
markings notifying user of cryogenic material and cold temperature
precautions. The latched chain securing the dewar and sieve should be standard
and use evident. Training in application and removal from holster is required
with installation of the devices in a building, vehicle, public area, or industrial
site.
   Fire Department Liquid Nitrogen tanks, dewars, are to be stored out of doors,
but in a place where they can be driven or pulled without snow removal or
deicing area. A lean-to type covering or removable fabric cover is suggested
just off driveway or on parking lot.
   4.1.4.7 Storage Container for LN. Liquid Nitrogen must be stored in a dewar
built to contain cryogenic materials. Both 4-liter and 1,000 gallon supply must
be thermos-type containers.
   4.2.3.7 Fittings. The 4-liter dewar has a pull-off cap exposing a one inch (1
in.) diameter opening from which the Liquid Nitrogen is poured into the sieve
when it is over the event to be drowned in Nitrogen and cooled in its
evaporation.
   The 1,000 gallon tank has a valve opening with a quarter turn off to full on
rotation. The hose has a two-inch (2 in.) diameter and is expected to flow full
rate into the installed delivery equipment. The crisis facility may have fixed
Liquid Nitrogen equipment installed so the Liquid Nitrogen is poured directly
into that system. If not, the fire department will use its mobile equipment kit
components to build the appropriate configuration for Liquid Nitrogen
distribution.
   System Design 5.1.2.3.2 The portable Liquid Nitrogen device has a circular
twelve-inch (12 in.) sieve unit with sides at least one inch (1 in.) high attached
to the dewar so as to be horizontal and level.
   The Fixed Liquid Nitrogen system can be as simple as an outside wall
mounted semicircular sieve unit at or above door height with a clear drop to the
floor from that height giving the Liquid Nitrogen a good distance to fully
evaporate before encountering the floor. For broad buildings, piping can carry
Liquid Nitrogen to semicircular units in interior spaces. Tall buildings are
plumbed to accept Liquid Nitrogen from helicopters or have a roof-level
reservoir or higher if sharing availability among tall buildings.
   The mobile Liquid Nitrogen equipment kits contain 4 ft, 8 ft, and 12 ft
straight troughs, some solid, some sieve bottomed with joints for long trough
runs and elbows for encircling crisis. The joints and elbows have two sides,
one solid, one sieve so one unit fits both modes in any angular configuration.
Elbows come in 90° and 45° angles.
   Other kit contents include: the landmine legged “doughnut” shaped pan with
hydraulic inserts in the legs that expand forming a basket around the landmine.
With application of Liquid Nitrogen both the landmine and the hydraulic leg
units freeze allowing the whole thing, ring, landmine, and legs to be lifted or
shoveled into a shielded containment for bomb disposal.
   Piping with exhaust segments to build a structure in a flood circumstance on
the source side of the flow, which will freeze the liquid in place making a dam
covering a break or failure area of the material the original structure contains.
A dyke holding back a water flow will have an ice dyke made with the tubes.
While the pipe system is at cryogenic temperature, the dam will hold so the
break can be repaired and, once it is cured or set and certified strong enough to
hold, the Liquid Nitrogen application is stopped and the structure warms up
melting the water. Then the pipe system is removed and dismantled until
needed another time. Systematic checks for pipe condition is made after each
such application to insure equipment reused will hold.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

1600 1800
89.9 lb/ft³
1400 1600
92.4 lb/ft³ 88.6 lb/ft³
1200 1400
88.6 lb/ft³
Pressure / psig

1000 1200

Pressure / psig
800 1000

600 800
65.5 lb/ft³ 65.5 lb/ft³
400 600

200 400

0 200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
0
Temperature / °F 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Temperature / °F
(a) To 360 psig at 70°F
(c) To 610 psig at 70°F

120 120
1480 kg/m³ 1440 kg/m³
100 100
Pressure / bar (g)
Pressure / bar (g)

1420 kg/m³
80 80
1420 kg/m³
60 60
1050 kg/m³
40 40
1050 kg/m³
20 20

0 0
–20 0 20 40 60 80 100 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Temperature / °C Temperature / °C

(b) To 25 bar at 20°C (d) To 42 bar at 20°C

2001-
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
   The Liquid Nitrogen equipment kits can be divided having a reasonable
number of pieces of the fire trucks and extra and unique materials as part of
regional kits that can be flown to the scene or driven as the urgency of the
situation demands.
Where a known fault of weakness exists in a levee or dyke, the piping can be
installed so if it does give way, the Liquid Nitrogen application can be
immediate to prevent flood damage below the structure. It can be used during
planned repairs to contain the water away from the work area.
   5.4.2.6 Flame Extinguishments. Nitrogen drowning of flames is
instantaneous. Liquid Nitrogen can be rained directly over the flame event or
rained elsewhere flooding the area with Nitrogen gas. As the Nitrogen gas
takes over the area of the flames they are out.
   Annex A
   References: AirWars Defense lp’s Airport Manual. Quad Charts, and Liquid
Nitrogen Enabler patent.
Substantiation: Just what agent is as clean as Liquid Nitrogen in fire control,
flood control, chem and bio toxin control, spill recovery, ordnance explosion
prevention and as non-lethal weapon.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The standard does not cover portable devices. The
submittal is not in a form that can be integrated into the standard.
________________________________________________________________
2001-7 Log #99 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(1.4.2.3)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Giuliano Indovino, Maurizio Barbuzzi, Safety Hi-Tech S.R. L.
Recommendation: In clause 1.4.2.3 of NFPA 2001-2004 it is written that:
“Where a total flooding system is used, a fixed enclosure shall be provided
about the hazard that allows a specified agent concentration to be achieved and
maintained for a specified period of time,” however how long this period of
time should be is not specified.
Substantiation: A correct design of a gaseous fire extinguishing system should
guarantee not only that an effective agent concentration is achieved but also
that it is maintained for a specific period of time at the highest hazard area.
This time should be sufficient both to allow an effective emergency action by
trained personnel and to prevent a possible re-igniton.
   A protected enclosure could have unclosable openings which can
substantially lower the actual agent concentration, so that an extinguishing
concentration is not guaranteed over a certain height. This is a serious design
concern because a re-ignition source could be present above a certain height.
Where reasonable confinement of agent is not possible, an extended discharge
should be provided in order to maintain the extinguishing concentration for the
required duration of protection.
   Consequently, in order to ensure the safety of personnel and properties it
would be important to determine the time during which the protection of the
volume at the highest hazard area should be maintained so that at the end of
this time the agent concentration at this point is not lower than its extinguishing
concentration.
   We do also think that the Annex C of NFPA 2001 (Enclosure Integrity
Procedure) should be normative rather than recommended. A calibrated door
fan test should always be performed in order to determine the period (retention
time) during which the extinguishing concentration will be reached and
maintained within the protected enclosure at the highest hazard area.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 12-42 (Log #20)
________________________________________________________________
2001-8 Log #6 Final Action: Accept
(1.5.1.2.1(2))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
   1.5.1.2.1 (2) Halocarbon systems for spaces that are normally occupied and
designed to concentrations above the NOAEL [see Table 1.5.1.2.1(a)] shall be
permitted, given that means be provided to limit exposure to the design
concentrations shown in Table 1.5.1.2.1(b) through Table 1.5.1.2.1(e) that
correspond to a maximum permitted an allowable human exposure time of 5
minutes. Higher design concentrations associated with human exposure times
less than 5 minutes as shown in Table 1.5.1.2.1(b) through Table 1.5.1.2.1(e)
shall not be permitted in normally occupied spaces. Higher design
concentrations shall be permitted to be used, provided that exposure shall be
limited to the corresponding maximum permitted human exposure time shown
in Table 1.5.1.2.1(b) through Table 1.5.1.2.1(c) and an An exposure and egress
analysis shall be performed and approved.
Substantiation: The current language is unclear and is being misinterpreted by
some who are employing agents at concentrations not considered appropriate
by the technical committee where it developed the safe exposure requirements
based on the PBPK model. The proposed revision will leave no room for
misinterpretation.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
2001-
________________________________________________________________
2001-9 Log #22 Final Action: Accept
(Table 1.5.1.2.1(a))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts
Recommendation: Replace HFC-227ea LOAEL of >10.5 with 10.5.
   Replace HFC-23 LOAEL of >50 with >30.
Substantiation: The LOAEL of HFC-227ea is 10.5 percent. This is the actual
value.
   The LOAEL of HFC-23 is >30 percent. This is the highest value tested
without added oxygen.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-10 Log #61 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(Table 1.5.1.2.1(a))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
Recommendation: Revise Table 1.5.1.2.1(a) as follows:
   Agent: Halotron II
   NOAEL: 5.0
   LOAEL: 7.5
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer
interest in wider use of this agent.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise Table 1.5.1.2.1(a) as follows:
   Agent: HFC Blend B
   NOAEL: 5.0
   LOAEL: 7.5
   Add a note for these values as follows:
   These values are for the largest component of the blend (HFC 134A).
Committee Statement: Clarification.
________________________________________________________________
2001-11 Log #38 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(1.5.1.4.3 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows:
   1.5.1.4.3 Where the clean agent design concentration exceeds that approved
for use in normally occupied spaces (see Section 1.5) systems shall include
with the following:
   (1) System lockout valves
   (2) Pneumatic pre-discharge alarms
   (3) Pneumatic time delays
   (4) Warning signs
Substantiation: To protect personnel from inadvertent exposure to an agent-air
atmosphere where the design agent concentration exceeds recommended limits
for exposure in, for example, marine hazards such as those spaces referred to in
Section 7.3.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
   Add a new section to read as follows:
   1.5.1.4.3 Where the clean agent design concentration exceeds that approved
for use in normally occupied spaces, (see Section 1.5) systems shall include the
following:
   (1) Supervised system lockout valves
   (2) Pneumatic pre-discharge alarms
   (3) Pneumatic time delays
   (4) Warning signs
Committee Statement: Lockout valves should be supervised to ensure safety
while systems are locked out.
________________________________________________________________
2001-12 Log #98 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(1.5.1.5)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Daniel J. Hubert, Chemetron Fire Systems
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
   1.5.1.5 All persons who inspect, test, maintain or operate fire extinguishing
systems shall be trained in all aspects of safety related to the systems.
   1.5.1.5.1 Before system cylinders are handled or moved:
   (1) Cylinder outlets shall be fitted with antirecoil devices whenever the
cylinder outlet is not connected to the system pipe inlet.
   (2) Actuators shall be disabled or removed before cylinders are removed from
retaining bracketing.
   1.5.1.5.2 Safe handling procedures shall be followed when transporting
system cylinders.
   1.5.1.5.2.1 Proper equipment shall be used to transport cylinders. When
dollies or carts are used means to secure the cylinders are required.
   1.5.1.5.2 Consult system manufacturer’s representative and/or service
procedures for specific details on system operation, maintenance and/or safety
considerations.
Substantiation: Much detail has been given to exposure to fire suppression
agents, however minimal direction has been provided in regards to injury or
death due to mishandling, lack of training or election to ignore training and/
or safety measures developed for the handling of system equipment and or
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
components. prevent flow of agent to the protected area.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Substantiation: The new definition compliments the new requirement that a
   Add new text to read as follows: lockout valve be used as described in the proposed new 1.5.1.4.3.
   1.5.1.5 All persons who inspect, test, maintain or operate fire extinguishing Committee Meeting Action: Accept
systems shall be trained in all aspects of safety related to the systems. ________________________________________________________________
   1.5.1.5.1 Before system cylinders are handled or moved: 2001-15 Log #91 Final Action: Accept in Principle
   (1) Cylinder outlets shall be fitted with antirecoil devices, cylinder caps, or (3.3.14 Local Application)
both whenever the cylinder outlet is not connected to the system pipe inlet. ________________________________________________________________
   (2) Actuators shall be disabled or removed before cylinders are removed from Submitter: Bill Eckholm, Firetrace International
retaining bracketing. Recommendation: Add a new definition as follows:
   1.5.1.5.2 Safe handling procedures shall be followed when transporting    3.3.14 Local Application: The act and manner of discharging an agent for the
system cylinders. purpose of achieving a specified minimum agent concentration in proximity
   1.5.1.5.2.1 Equipment designed for transporting cylinders shall be used. to the specified fire hazard, but not necessarily throughout the hazards total
When dollies or carts are used, cylinders shall be secured. volume.
   1.5.1.5.2 System manufacturer’s service procedures shall be followed for    Renumber remaining sections.
specific details on system operation, maintenance, and safety considerations. Substantiation: Local applications were not included in the original NFPA
Committee Statement: Added criteria for safe handling of cylinders. 2001 document as no systems were listed or approved for local application
________________________________________________________________ with clean agents addressed by this document. This has changed. Therefore, the
2001-13 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept standard needs to incorporate the definition of Local Application.
(Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
________________________________________________________________    Add the following definition:
Submitter: Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems    Local application system. A system consisting of a supply of extinguishing
Recommendation: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of agent arranged to discharge directly on the burning material.
Terms for the following terms: Committee Statement: This definition was lifted from NFPA 12.
Class A Fire. (preferred) NFPA 10, 2002 ed
   A fire in ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, ________________________________________________________________
and many plastics. 2001-16 Log #56 Final Action: Accept in Principle
Class A Fires. (secondary) NFPA 2001, 2004 ed. (Figure 4.1.4.1(n), and Table 4.1.4.1)
   Fires in ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, ________________________________________________________________
and many plastics. Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
   Class B Fire. (preferred) NFPA 10, 2002 ed. Recommendation: Add the Halotron II total flooding agent into this standard.
   A fire in flammable liquids, combustible liquids, petroleum greases, tars, oils,    Table A.1.4.1:
oil-based paints, solvents, lacquers, alcohols, and flammable gases.    Max fill density: 58 lb/ft3
Class B Fires. (secondary) NFPA 2001, 2004 ed.    Minimum container working pressure: 400 psig
   Fires in flammable liquids, combustible liquids, petroleum greases, tars, oils,    Pressure at 70°F: 195 psig (vapor pressure of agent)
oil-based paints, solvents, lacquers, alcohols, and flammable gases.    Add new Figure A.4.1.4.1(n).
   Class C Fire. (preferred) NFPA 10, 2002 ed.
   A fire that involves energized electrical equipment. See Figures on the following pages
Class C Fires. (secondary) NFPA 2001, 2004 ed.
   Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement
nonconductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance. for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer
Substantiation: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by interest in wider use of this agent.
providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Codes.    Change name from Halotron II to HFC Blend B.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: Editorial.
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
2001-14 Log #39 Final Action: Accept 2001-17 Log #36 Final Action: Accept
(3.3.x Lockout Valve (New) ) (Table 4.2.1.1(b))
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression Submitter: David Rausch, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
Systems Association, Baltimore MD Recommendation: Add new system pressure data as shown in the following
Recommendation: Add a new definition to read as follows: table:
   Lockout Valve. A manually operated valve in the discharge pipe between the
nozzles and the agent supply, which can be locked in the closed position to
Table 4.2.1.1(b)  Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping 
Agent Agent Agent Container Charging Agent Container Minimum Piping
Container Pressure Pressure at 130°F Design Pressure at
Maximum Fill at 70°F (21°C) (psig) (55°C) (psig) 70°F (21°C) (psig)
Density (lb/ft3)
HFC-227ea 79 44*1 135 416
75 150 249 200
72 360 520 416
72 600 1025 820
FC-3-1-10 80 360 450 360
HCFC 56.2 600 850 680
Blend A
56.2 360 540 432
HFC 23 48 608.9* 1713 1371
45 608.9* 1560 1248
40 608.9* 1382 1106
35 608.9* 1258 1007
30 608.9* 1158 927
HCFC-124 74 240 354 283
HCFC-124 74 360 580 464
HFC-125 54 360 615 492
HFC-125 56 600 1045 836
HFC-236fa 74 240 360 280
HFC-236fa 75 360 600 480
HFC-238fa 74 600 1100 880
FK-5-1-12 90 360* 413 360
*Not superpressurized with nitrogen. 
1
Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pres-
sure is 1800 psig at 70°F (21°C).

2001-
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

2001-
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

2001-
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Substantiation: The proposed addition to Table 4.3.1.1(b) supplies technical Add new text to read as follows:
data that is presently absent for a commercially available HFC-227ea fire    4.2.4.4 Where directional valves are used for multi-hazard protection,
extinguishing system. the directional valves shall be listed or approved for use with the installed
Committee Meeting Action: Accept suppression system.
________________________________________________________________    4.3.4.1.1 Where directional valves are used for multi-hazard protection,
2001-18 Log #63 Final Action: Accept in Principle the control equipment shall be listed or approved for the number, type and
(Table 4.2.1.1(b)) operation of those valves.
________________________________________________________________ Committee Statement: Adding “or approved” allows the AHJ to decide on
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation installations in addition to the listing.
Recommendation: Revise Table 4.2.1.1(b) as follows: ________________________________________________________________
   Agent: Halotron II 2001-21 Log #40 Final Action: Accept in Principle
   Max Fill Density: 58 lb/ft3 (4.3.3.5.1, A.4.3.3.5.1 (New) )
Agent Charging Pressure: 360 psig ________________________________________________________________
   Container Pressure at 130°F: 586 psig Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
   Minimum Piping Design Pressure: 469 psig Systems Association, Baltimore MD
   Agent: Halotron II Recommendation: Add the following new sections:
   Max Fill Density: 58 lb/ft3    4.3.3.5.1* A discharge pressure switch shall be required where mechanical
   Agent Charging Pressure: 600 psig system actuation is possible.
   Container Pressure at 130°F: 888 psig    Add the following new annex material:
   Minimum Piping Design Pressure: 710 psig    A.4.3.3.5.1 A discharge pressure switch can serve to initiate electrical
functions that normally occur upon system actuation such as shutdown
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement functions and control panel actuation.
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer Substantiation: A discharge pressure switch provides a suitable means to
interest in wider use of this agent. initiate electrical functions that normally occur upon system actuation by
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle automatic or manual electric actuation.
   Change name from Halotron II to HFC Blend B. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: Editorial.    Add the following new sections:
________________________________________________________________    4.3.3.5.1* A discharge pressure switch shall be required where mechanical
2001-19 Log #88 Final Action: Accept system actuation is possible.
(Table 4.2.1.1(b)) 4.3.3.5.2 The discharge pressure switch shall provide an alarm initiating signal
________________________________________________________________ to the releasing panel.
Submitter: Paul E. Rivers, 3M Fire Protection    Add the following new annex material:
Recommendation: 1. Delete the asterisk next to the 360 psig reference for    A.4.3.3.5.1 A discharge pressure switch can serve to initiate electrical
FK-5-1-12. functions that normally occur upon system actuation such as shutdown
   2. Add pertinent data for FK-5-1-12 that applies to a system superpressurized functions and control panel actuation.
to 610 psig. Committee Statement: Correlated this requirement with NFPA 12.

Table 4.2.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping
Agent Agent Agent Container Agent Container Minimum Piping
Container Charging Pressure at Pressure at 130°F Design Pressure at
Maximum Fill 70°F (21°C) (55°C) 70°F (21°C)
Density (lb/ft3) (psig) (psig) (psig)
FC-3-1-10 80 360 450 360
FK-5-1-12 90 360* 413 360
FK-5-1-12 90 610 700 610
HCFC-124 74 240 354 283
HCFC-124 74 360 580 464
HCFC Blend A 56.2 600 850 680
HCFC Blend A 56.2 360 540 432
HFC-125 54 360 615 492
HFC-125 56 600 1045 836
HFC-227ea 62 150 247 198
HFC-227ea 72 360 520 416
HFC-227ea 72 600 1025 820
HFC 23 54 608.9* 2182 1746
HFC 23 49 608.9* 1765 1412
HFC-236fa 74 240 360 280
HFC-236fa 75 360 600 480
HFC-236fa 74 600 1100 880
* Not superpressurized with nitrogen.

Substantiation: 1. Editorial correction.
   2. High-pressure systems are now specified, designed and installed for which
the added data are useful to the designer.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-20 Log #17 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(4.2.4.3 and 4.2.4.4 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: David Rausch, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
   4.2.4.3 Where directional valves are used for multi-hazard protection,
the directional valves shall be listed or approved for use with the installed
suppression system.
   4.2.4.4 Where directional valves are used for multi-hazard protection,
the control equipment shall be specifically listed for the number, type and
operation of those valves.
Substantiation: There is no current text in NFPA 2001 to specifically address
multi-hazard, directional valve, system protection and the completeness
(i.e., Suppression system, Operation of and Control system) needed of these
systems.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
2001-
________________________________________________________________
2001-22 Log #41 Final Action: Accept
(4.3.5.5.1 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows:
   4.3.5.5.1 Warning and safety instruction signs shall be located such that they
will be readily visible to personnel in the area where the clean agent design
concentration exceeds that approved for use in normally occupied spaces. The
safety sign format, color, letter style of the signal words shall be in accordance
with ANSI Z535.
Substantiation: Life safety aspects of clean agent systems used at agent design
concentrations exceeding those approved for use in normally occupied spaces
will be enhanced by adoption of the generally recognized practice for the use
of safety signs as given in ANSI Z535.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-23 Log #42 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(4.3.5.5.2 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows:
   4.3.5.5.2 Warning and safety instruction signs shall be located outside
each entrance to clean agent cylinder storage rooms. The safety sign format,
color, letter style of the signal words shall be in accordance with ANSI Z535,
Standard for Environmental and Facility Safety Signs.
Substantiation: Clean agent concentrations higher than approved for normally
occupied spaces can occur in these areas. Life safety of personnel will be
enhanced by adoption of the generally recognized practice for the use of safety
signs as given in ANSI Z535.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: Corrected the ANSI reference.
________________________________________________________________
2001-24 Log #43 Final Action: Reject
(4.3.5.6.1)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Delete the last sentence of 4.3.5.6.1.
Substantiation: Elimination of the requirement that a time delay be employed
in the case of fast growth fire risk does not promote personnel safety. Time
delays are required in marine systems where fast growth fire hazards are the
norm; representatives of marine systems have not indicated that this is a
problem.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The statement does not require that time delays be
eliminated, only that they be permitted to be eliminated.
________________________________________________________________
2001-25 Log #44 Final Action: Accept
(4.3.6)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
   4.3.6* Unwanted System Operation. To avoid unwanted discharge of a clean
agent system, a supervised disconnect switch shall be provided. The disconnect
switch , when operated, shall interrupt the releasing circuit to the suppression
system.
Substantiation: Clarifies the fact that the disconnect switch only interrupts the
releasing circuit to the suppression system when the disconnect switch is
“operated.”
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-26 Log #92 Final Action: Accept
(5.1.1)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bill Eckholm, Firetrace International
Recommendation: Add a reference to local application systems in the first
sentence of 5.1.1 as follows:
   Specifications for total flooding and local application clean agent fire
systems...”
Substantiation: Recognizes that the same comments apply to local application
systems, as apply to total flooding systems.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-27 Log #29 Final Action: Accept
(5.1.2.2(10) (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jeffrey L. Harrington, Harrington Group, Inc.
Recommendation: Add the following as a new 5.1.2.2, item 10 and renumber
accordingly:
   5.1.2.2(10) For an enclosure protected by a clean agent fire extinguishing
system an estimate of the maximum positive and the maximum negative
pressure, relative to ambient pressure, expected to be developed upon the
discharge of agent shall be made. (see section 5.3.7)
Substantiation: The failure of an enclosure due to discharge pressures that
exceed the ability of the enclosure to remain intact presents a safety concern
for people in or near the protected space. Steps must be taken to assure safety.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-28 Log #62 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(Table 5.1.2(d))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
Recommendation: Add new Table 4.1.2(d):
   Component Amount (wt%)
   HFC-134a 86% ± 5%
HFC-125 9% ± 3%
CO2 5% ± 2%
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301
replacement for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on
increased customer interest in wider use of this agent.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Change Halotron II to HFC Blend B.
2001-10
Committee Statement: Editorial.
________________________________________________________________
2001-29 Log #45 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(5.3.5, 5.3.5.1, 5.3.5.3)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
   5.3.5* Other than the ventilating systems identified in 5.3.5.1 and 5.3.5.3, f F
orced-air ventilating systems , including self contained air re-circulation
systems, shall be shut down or closed automatically where their continued
operation would adversely affect the performance of the fire extinguishing
system or result in propagation of the fire.
   Delete 5.3.5.1.
   Delete 5.3.5.3.
Substantiation: The existing language is in conflict with 7.7.2 and with NFPA
75 (2003) 8.4.4.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
1. Revise text to read as follows:
   5.3.5* Other than the ventilating systems identified in 5.3.5.3, forced-air
ventilating systems , including self contained air re-circulation systems, shall
be shut down or closed automatically where their continued operation would
adversely affect the performance of the fire extinguishing system or result in
propagation of the fire.
   2. Delete 5.3.5.1.
Committee Statement: Ventilation systems necessary to ensure safety should
remain.
________________________________________________________________
2001-30 Log #34 Final Action: Accept
(5.3.5.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dale R. Edlbeck, Jeff Harris, Tyco Fire & Security/Ansul
Recommendation: Renumber 5.3.5.2 to 5.3.5.1.1 and revise to read as
follows:
   If not shut down or closed automatically, the volume of the self-contained
recirculating ventilation system and associated ductwork shall be considered as
part of the total hazard volume when determining the quantity of agent.
Substantiation: 5.3.5.2 applied only to self-contained recirculating ventilation
systems before the standard was rewritten to conform to the Manual of Style
requirement. As currently written, it now applies to all ventilation systems.
Renumbering will change it back to the original intent.
   Adding “If not shut down or closed automatically” and “self-contained
recirculating” clarifies under what circumstances the designer must include the
ductwork volume of self-contained recirculating ventilation systems in the
calculation for determining the agent quantity for the enclosure.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
Committee Statement: Needs to be renumbered due to 2001-31 (Log #46).
________________________________________________________________
2001-31 Log #46 Final Action: Accept
(5.3.5.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
   5.3.5.2 The volume of the ventilation system and associated ductwork un-
dampered ventilation system ducts and components mounted below the ceiling
height of the protected space shall be considered as part of the total hazard
volume when determining the quantity of agent.
Substantiation: The original wording is ambiguous, and the revised wording
guides the designer to employ dampers on affected ducts to avoid adding agent
to provide duct coverage.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-32 Log #30 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(5.3.7)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jeffrey L. Harrington, Harrington Group, Inc.
Recommendation: Add the following new section 5.3.7:
   5.3.7* An analysis shall be conducted of the protected enclosure to determine
the structural strength and integrity of the enclosure relative to the pressures
generated by the discharge of the system.
   5.3.7.1 An agent discharge pressure relief device shall be provided where the
pressure changes would otherwise cause damage to the enclosure.
   5.3.7.2 The enclosure strength shall be at least two times the greater of the
estimated peak positive or peak negative pressure that will be developed upon
discharge of the clean agent fire extinguishing system.
Substantiation: The failure of an enclosure due to discharge pressures that
exceed the ability of the enclosure to remain intact presents a safety concern
for people in or near the protected space. Steps must be taken to assure safety.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
   Add the following new section 5.3.7:
   5.3.7* An analysis shall be conducted of the protected enclosure to determine
the structural strength and integrity of the enclosure relative to the pressures
generated by the discharge of the system under worst case temperature
conditions.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
   5.3.7.1 An agent discharge pressure relief device shall be provided where the The Heptane cup burner EC and the Class A EC value from ISO 15420 and the
pressure changes would otherwise cause damage to the enclosure. ratio of the Class A to Class B EC is shown.
   5.3.7.2 The enclosure strength shall be at least two times the greater of the Historically the Class A extinguishing concentration has been greater than the
estimated peak positive or peak negative pressure that will be developed upon Heptane cup burner extinguishing concentration by at least 50 percent (see CO2
discharge of the clean agent fire extinguishing system. and Halon 1301). The initial recommendation in NFPA 2001 was to use the
Committee Statement: The analysis should include considerations under fire Heptane EC value for Class A fuels. This requirement was modified with the
conditions. introduction of the Class A polymeric sheet test, primarily to resolve a conflict
with the data for HFC Blend A.
________________________________________________________________    As of the last edition of the standard, the worst case ratio of Class A EC
2001-33 Log #47 Final Action: Reject to Class B EC was.87 for HFC 227ea. It is now as low as.78. This proposed
(5.3.7 (New) ) change returns the design of systems to a reasonable minimum value and
________________________________________________________________ avoids future problems associated with listing test method variability, and/or
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression hardware/enclosure effects.
Systems Association, Baltimore MD    Establishing minimum Class A concentrations based on in part Heptane
Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: cup burner values is further supported by a wide range of full scale testing
  5.3.7 The power to all electronic equipment shall be disconnected upon performed with a range of fuel packages and arrangements. A partial review of
activation of a total flooding clean agent system. this data, contained in the 19th edition of the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook
Substantiation: The effectiveness of total flooding clean agents has not been shows at least 7 failed extinguishing tests at concentrations above 85 percent of
tested or proven on energized electrical fires. the Heptane cup burner values for energized electrical wire fires. By contrast
Committee Meeting Action: Reject all of the successful extinguishing test data we have for Class A fuels is at an
Committee Statement: There are essential services where the equipment extinguishing concentration greater than 85 percent of the Heptane cup burner
should not be shut down upon activation of the system. value. Tests conducted at the Loss Prevention Council (UK) indicated that an
________________________________________________________________ extinguishing concentration of 85 percent Heptane cup burner gave marginal to
2001-34 Log #9 Final Action: Reject good performance on Class A fuels for a range of agents.
(5.4.2.2) Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
________________________________________________________________ Add a new sentence to the end of 5.4.2.2 to read:
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates    The Class A flame extinguishing concentration shall not be less than 77
Recommendation: Revise as follows: percent of the minimum extinguishing concentration for Heptane as determined
   5.4.2.2* The flame extinguishing concentration for Class A fuels shall be in accordance with 5.4.2.1.
determined by test as part of a listing program. As a minimum, the listing Committee Statement: Data supports a 77 percent minimum threshold.
program shall conform to UL 2127, Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent ________________________________________________________________
Extinguishing System Units, or UL 2166, Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent 2001-36 Log #19 Final Action: Accept in Principle
Extinguishing System Units, or “Gaseous Media Fire Extinguishing Systems (5.4.2.2.1 (New) )
— Physical Properties and System Design — Part 1: General Requirements, ________________________________________________________________
ISO 14520-1, or equivalent. Submitter: Philip J. DiNenno, Hughes Associates, Inc.
Substantiation: Add the reference to the ISO standard as an equivalent to Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows:
the UL standards in light of the fact that the most current Class A clean agent    5.4.2.2.1 The extinguishing concentration shall be the greater of 95 percent
fire extinguishing test results were achieved, reviewed and reported to the of the Heptane cup burner value as determined in 5.4.2.1 or the Class A
requirements of the referenced ISO document. flame extinguishing concentration as determined in 5.4.2.2, where any of the
Committee Meeting Action: Reject following conditions exist:
Committee Statement: The ISO document was not available for review by the    (a) cable bundles greater than 100 mm in diameter;
committee.    (b) cable trays with a fill density greater than 20 percent of the tray cross-
________________________________________________________________ section;
2001-35 Log #18 Final Action: Accept in Principle    (c) horizontal or vertical stacks of cable trays (closer than 250 mm);
(5.4.2.2)    (d) equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the
________________________________________________________________ collective power consumption exceeds 5 kW.
Submitter: Philip J. DiNenno, Hughes Associates, Inc. Substantiation: The extinguishing concentration needed for extinguishing
Recommendation: Add a new sentence to the end of 5.4.2.2 to read: fires in cable bundles and cable tray arrays are known to require higher
   The Class A flame extinguishing concentration shall not be less than 85 extinguishing concentrations than simple surface fire conditions. This is due to
percent of the minimum extinguishing concentration for Heptane as determined a number of factors including the possibility of char formation and smoldering,
in accordance with 5.4.2.1. hot metal surfaces in close proximity to cables, as well as energized electrical
Substantiation: Apparent weaknesses in the test procedure for Class A fuel equipment.
extinguishing concentration have resulted in the use of unacceptably low    This wording is extracted from ISO 15420 and represents the most recent
extinguishing concentrations for Class A fuels obtained from listing tests. For international consensus on the subject, including the position of USTAG.
example, over the past several years the minimum extinguishing concentration Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
for HFC-227ea has decreased from 5.8 to 5.25 percent, while the Class A    Add a new section to read as follows:
extinguishing concentration value for HFC 227ea in ISO 15420 is 6.1 percent.    A.5.4.2.2 Where any of the following conditions exist higher extinguishing
This is a range of 16 percent for the same agent in the same application. (See concentrations might be required:
Table below)    (a) cable bundles greater than 100 mm in diameter;
   One way to evaluate the consistency of the Class A EC values is by    (b) cable trays with a fill density greater than 20 percent of the tray cross-
comparison with Class B values for various agents is shown in Table section;
1. Extinguishment of a Heptane flame is a reasonable approximation of    (c) horizontal or vertical stacks of cable trays (closer than 250 mm);
extinguishing a flame above a thermoplastic polymer surface fire, (not    (d) equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the
electrically energized, heated in depth or charring). Further, the Heptane cup collective power consumption exceeds 5 kW.
burner EC has shown reasonable agreement with full scale data and there is Committee Statement: More appropriate as annex material.
excellent reproducibility of the test method and its results.
   Table 1
Agent Cup Burner Heptane Class A Extinguishing
Extinguishing Concentration(1) Ratio Class A/Class B
Concentration
Halon 1301 3 5 1.69
CO2 20 ~35 1.75
HFC-227 6.7 6.1/5.8/5.25(2) .91/.87/.78
HFC 125 9.3 8.6 .925
HFC 23 12.6 12.5 .99
IG 541 31.7 30.7 .97
IG 01 39.2 32.2 .82
IG 100 33.6 31.0 .9226
IG 55 36.5 31.0 .85
FK 5-1-12 4.5 4.1 .911
Notes:(1)All values except as noted from ISO 15420
(2)
5.8 and 5.25 values are UL/FM listing values in U.S.
2001-11
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________
2001-37 Log #11 Final Action: Accept
(5.4.2.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
   5.4.2.4* The minimum design concentration for a Class A surface fire hazard
shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.2 times a safety
factor of 1.2 1.3.
Substantiation: There is no technical basis for employing a safety factor of 1.3
for Class B fires and a safety factor of 1.2 for Class A fires. Both types of fires
are equally serious, can be equally intense and can be equally difficult to
extinguish. Further, both types of hazards are protected by systems made up of
identical components with identical reliability characteristics. In addition,
systems for Class A and Class B applications are both designed with the same
calculation methods and thus share identical uncertainties with regard to
predicted performance.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-38 Log #21 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(5.4.2.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Philip J. DiNenno, Hughes Associates, Inc.
Recommendation: Change 1.2 to 1.3.
Substantiation: The safety factor for Class A fires should be increased from
1.2 to 1.3 for the following reasons:
   1. The current safety factor for Class B hazards is 1.3; there is no practical or
theoretical reason for the safety factor to be different for Class A hazards.
   2. The historical safety factors for total flooding gases for Class A hazards
were in the range of 1.5 to 1.6 for Halon 1301 and carbon dioxide. There is no
demonstrated reason for the safety factor for Class A fuels to be so much lower
with these new alternative agents.
   3. Probability of failure calculations performed by I. Schlosser at VdS
indicate a decrease in the system failure probability from 17.5 percent to 10
percent as the safety factor is increased from 1.2 to 1.3.
   Reference: Schlosser, I, “Reliability and Efficacy of Gas Extinguishing
Systems with Consideration of System – Analytical Methods” Proceedings –
VdS Congress on Fire Extinguishing Systems, December 1 and 2, 1998,
Cologne, Germany.
   4. The international consensus view including the USTAG, as reflected in
ISO 15420, is that a minimum safety factor of 1.3 is required for Class A
hazards.
   5. Uncertainty in extinguishing concentration values (see proposals related to
5.4.2.2.) for Class A fuels provides an additional argument for a higher safety
factor.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-37 (Log #11).
________________________________________________________________
2001-39 Log #12 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(5.4.2.5)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Renumber paragraph 5.4.2.5 to 5.4.2.6 and insert a new
paragraph 5.4.2.5 to read:
   5.4.2.5* Where a Class A hazard exists that is likely to be more difficult to
extinguish than a surface fire, a minimum design concentration of 95 percent of
the minimum design concentration for heptane shall be used.
Substantiation: The standard provides no guidance on design concentrations
to be used for Class A applications beyond what is necessary for surface Class
A surface fires as determined in a very limited series of approval tests. Another
proposal for A.5.4.2.5 describes several possible conditions that might suggest
to the user of the standard that there may be a need for a higher concentration.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-36 (Log #19).
________________________________________________________________
2001-40 Log #80 Final Action: Reject
(5.4.2.5, 5.4.2.6, 5.4.2.6.1 and 5.4.2.6.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Richard L. Niemann, Modular Protection Corp.
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
   5.4.2.5 Minimum design concentration for de-energized Class C hazards shall
be at least that for Class A surface fire.
   5.4.2.6 The Class C energized concentration shall be determined by test.
5.4.2.6.1 The energized Class C concentration shall be used in determining the
agent design concentration when the energized equipment can cause reignition
or reflash.
5.4.2.6.2 The minimum design concentration for an energized Class C hazard
shall be determined by test to prevent reignition or reflash caused by the
energized equipment times a safety factor of 1.1.
Substantiation: Provides guidance for the fire protection engineer in designing
clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C energized fires, such as
those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data centers.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: There is no recognized test protocol to base a decision
upon.
2001-12
________________________________________________________________
2001-41 Log #48 Final Action: Reject
(5.4.2.5 and A.5.4.2.5)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Modify as follows:
   5.4.2.5* The minimum clean agent design concentration for de-energized
Class C hazards shall be at least that required for Class A surface fires.
   Add new Annex A material as follows:
   A.5.4.2.5 A basis for establishing the minimum extinguishing and minimum
design concentrations for a clean agent in Class C energized electrical hazards
has not been established.
Substantiation: The existing language suggests that fire hazards having
sources of continuously energized electrical ignition may be satisfactorily
protected by the Class A surface fire design concentration. The industry has not
established a basis of minimum agent design concentration in such cases.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: There is no such thing as a de-energized class C
hazard.
________________________________________________________________
2001-42 Log #20 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(5.6)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Philip J. DiNenno, Hughes Associates, Inc.
Recommendation: Add a new first sentence to Section 5.6 to read:
   The minimum duration of protection shall be 10 minutes.
Substantiation: The current wording in the standard provides no effective
requirements for hold time or the duration of protection afforded by the system.
A minimum hold time of 10 minutes should be required for the following
reasons:
   1. The test method which is the basis of the Class A System listing and
determination of extinguishing and design concentration allows flames to be
present for up to 10 minutes after discharge. The expectation is that the fire
will not be extinguished until 10 minutes after discharge. If the hold time is not
at least 10 minutes we can expect, by design, the fire to not be extinguished.
   2. 10 minutes is a reasonable minimum for response time by trained
personnel. It is difficult to envision a much quicker response on average, on a
24-hour, 7 day a week basis.
   3. Most other fire extinguishing agents have minimum duration of protection
requirements. These duration requirements generally greatly exceed 10
minutes.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Add a new first sentence to Section 5.6 to read:
A minimum concentration of 85 percent of the design concentration shall be
held at the highest level of combustibles for a minimum period of 10 minutes
or for a time period to allow for response by trained personnel.
Committee Statement: Modified the recommendation to provide a reasonable
level of protection with specific criteria.
________________________________________________________________
2001-43 Log #16 Final Action: Reject
(5.7.1.2.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
   5.7.1.2.2* For inert gas agents, the discharge time required to achieve 95
percent of the minimum design concentration for flame extinguishment based
on a 20 percent safety factor shall not exceed 60 seconds for Class B fires or
120 seconds for Class A surface fires, or as otherwise required by the authority
having jurisdiction.
Substantiation: A proposal has been introduced at ISO to modify ISO 14520
to permit discharge times up to 120 seconds for inert gas systems employed on
slow growth Class A fires. The following is the verbatim explanation of the
technical basis for the proposal:
   LPR 6 - Section 5.7 states: “The amount of fuel consumed after operation of
the extinguishing system will be a function of the extinction time, and the
degree of fanning resulting from the turbulence produced by the agent
application.
   The additional fuel loss resulting from the fanning action is a function of the
ferocity of the turbulence and the time for which it is applied whilst the fuel
load burns. Whilst the discharge of the halocarbons was generally more violent
than the inert agents, the duration of application was much shorter and a fire
control condition achieved sooner. The opposite was true for inerts.”
   Tabulation of the results for the inert agents shows that, for the more rapidly
burning fires, (Heptane and wood cribs) the correlation between discharge time
and fuel loss indicates that the faster the discharge the less fuel is burnt.
However, for the slow growth fires such as the 6 mm PVC cable and the ribbon
cable fires, THE OPPOSITE correlation exists, showing that the slower the
discharge the LESS fuel is consumed.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Substantiation: The present method of testing described in the referenced
Inert 1 Inert Inert UL standard to confirm the minimum operating temperature specified in a
2 3 manufacturer’s installation instructions is inadequate. The current requirements
Mean discharge time 35 s 42 s 62 s include conditioning the agent storage container to the minimum operating
Fuel loss – 455 dia. 284 gm 365 428 temperature but make no provisions for conditioning the other major
components of a system, including piping and nozzles, nor the test enclosure,
Heptane gm gm
to the minimum temperature for conducting the test. The test requirements
Fuel loss – 300 dia. 145 gm 154 144
in the current UL document do not represent real life operating conditions,
Heptane gm gm especially in industrial and marine applications, where — under low
Fuel loss – large wood crib 420 gm 577 823 temperature conditions - the entire system and the hazard enclosure are usually
gm gm at the same low temperature.
Fuel loss – small wood crib 13 gm 199 319    This additional requirement is especially important for halocarbon systems
gm gm with high boiling points where the agent vaporization and mixing with air to
Fuel loss – 6 mm PVC 343 gm 259 102 produce a uniform agent concentration is adversely affected with declining
ambient temperature in the protected space. The following boiling point
cable gm gm information (in °F) for the halocarbon agents covered by the standard is taken
Fuel loss – Ribbon cable 94 gm 45 gm 26 from Table A.1.4.1(c):
gm   In addition, I would suggest that the total flooding tables in Annex A, which
imply workable flooding factors, be reviewed by the technical committee
Committee Meeting Action: Reject to make certain the lowest temperature value for each halocarbon agent is
Committee Statement: Data does not support a benefit from extending the technically credible. The table below is the minimum temperature (in °F) for
discharge time. each halocarbon agent (source Tables A.5.5.1(a), etc.) The technical committee
________________________________________________________________ is invited to compare the boiling points in the above table with the lowest
2001-44 Log #33 Final Action: Reject – presumably usable – temperature incorporated in the tables for the individual
(5.7.1.2.2) agents.
________________________________________________________________ Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Submitter: Dale R. Edlbeck, Joe Behnke, Tyco Fire & Security/Ansul Committee Statement: While the committee agrees that agents shall be used
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: within the listing parameters, the addition of a test protocol which is undefined,
   For inert gas agents, the discharge time required to achieve 95 percent of the prompts the committee to reject this proposal.
minimum design concentration for flame extinguishment based on a 20 percent ________________________________________________________________
safety factor shall not exceed 60 120 seconds, or as otherwise required by the 2001-46 Log #93 Final Action: Accept in Principle
authority having jurisdiction. (New Chapter 6)
Substantiation: Fire testing has been conducted and approved by Underwriters ________________________________________________________________
Laboratories for the USCG to verify control and extinguishment of fires with Submitter: Bill Eckholm, Firetrace International
Inert Gas agents. The testing was performed according to testing criteria as Recommendation: Create new Chapter 6 Local Application Systems, then
defined in IMO MCS Circular 776 (Dec 1996) and Circular 848 (June 1998). renumber the remaining chapters.
The Inert Gas system performance has been accepted by this standard for Substantiation: Local Application systems were not included in the original
Marine Systems in Chapter 7, 7.9.2.3. NFPA 2001 document as no systems were listed or approved for local
Committee Meeting Action: Reject application with clean agents addressed by this document. This has changed.
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-43 (Log #16). Furthermore, the original position of the EPA on their SNAP document was
________________________________________________________________ that no clean agents could be used for local application. That too has changed.
2001-45 Log #37 Final Action: Reject Therefore, NFPA 2001 should acknowledge that Local Application systems
(5.9 (New) ) exist and provide minimum guidance on this topic.
________________________________________________________________ Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-47 (Log #94).
Recommendation: Insert a new section to read as follows:
   5.9 Low Temperature Applications of Halocarbon Systems.
   5.9.1 Halocarbon systems shall not be employed to protect hazards where the
minimum anticipated ambient temperature of the hazard space is less than that
for which the system has been listed.
   5.9.2 The testing program to determine the minimum acceptable temperature
listing of a halocarbon system shall include a nozzle distribution test
conforming to UL 2166, Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing
System Units, or equivalent, with the additional requirement that the agent
storage container, its contents, the distribution piping, the nozzles, the fuel, the
fuel test cans and the test enclosure itself are all conditioned to the minimum
listed temperature.

Table 1
Boiling Points of Halocarbon Agents (°F)
FC-3-1-10 FIC-13I1 FK-5-1-12 HCFC Blend A HCFC-124 HFC-125 HFC-227ea HFC-23 HFC-236fa
28 -8.5 120.2 -37 10.3 -55.3 1.9 -115.8 29.5

Table 2
Lowest Temperature Indicated in Total Flooding Tables for Halocarbon Agents (°F)
FC-3-1-10 FIC- FK-5-1- HCFC HCFC-124 HFC- HFC-227ea HFC-23 HFC-236fa
13I1 12 Blend A 125
30 0 -20 -50 20 -50 10 -70 30

2001-13
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________ (5) Power supply
2001-47 Log #94 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (a) Check routing, circuit breakers, fuses, disconnects
(New Chapter 6) (6) Emergency power
________________________________________________________________ (a) Check battery condition
Submitter: Bill Eckholm, Firetrace International (b) Check charger operation; check fuse
Recommendation: Insert new text for Chapter 6 as follows: (c) Check automatic changeover
   Chapter 6 Local Application Systems (d) Check maintenance of generator (if one exists)
6.1 Where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, Local Application (7) Detectors
systems, using clean agents contained in this standard, may be used. (a) Test each detector using heat or smoke or manufacturer’s approved test
6.1.1 Local Applications are defined as applications where the discharge of the device (See NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code.)
agent is for the purpose of achieving a specified minimum agent concentration (b)Electric type
within the proximity of the specified fire hazard, but not necessarily throughout i. Clean and adjust smoke detector and check sensitivity
the entire enclosure. ii. Check wiring condition
6.1.2 Local Application systems shall be used where it is not possible, or not (c) Pneumatic type
feasible to eliminate or limit the amount of unclosable openings, shut down i. Check tightness of tubing and operation of mercury checks, using manometer
fans, or otherwise contain and hold a concentration of the clean agent. (8) Time delay
6.1.2.1 Some typical local applications might include, but not be limited to: (a) Exercise functions
(1) Fume cabinets/exhaust hoods in laboratories (b) Check time limit
(2) Ventilated cabinets or enclosures (c) Check that timer will complete its cycle even though wiring between it and
(3) Cable trays or raceways the detector circuit is interrupted
(4) Equipment racks that are not enclosed (9) Alarms
(5) Open machines in large rooms (a) Test for operation (audible and visual)
(6) Other enclosures or cabinets with excessive unclosable openings (b) Check to see that warning signs are properly displayed
6.2 Local application systems shall discharge an adequate amount of clean (10) Selector (directional) valves
agent, such that they create an extinguishing concentration in the proximity of (a) Exercise functions
the fire hazard, and then extend the discharge of clean agent in order to (b) Reset properly
maintain the extinguishing concentration in the proximity of the hazard. (11) Release devices
6.2.1 To achieve the extended discharge, discharge times in excess of 10 (a) Check for complete closure of dampers
seconds for halocarbon agents and 60 seconds for inert gas agents is allowed. (b) Check doors; check for any doors blocked open
6.2.2 Additional agent shall be supplied in order to assure an extinguishing (12) Equipment shutdown
concentration is present for the desired length of protection. (a) Test shutdown function
6.3 Where acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, pre-engineered (b) Check adequacy (all necessary equipment included)
systems which have been tested or approved to protect fire hazards where there (13) Manual releases
is significant leakage or unenclosable openings are acceptable. (a) Mechanical type
6.3.1 Pre-engineered systems are those that have predetermined flow rates, i. Check pull, force, and length of pull required
nozzle pressures, quantities of agent, specific piping limitations, nozzle ii. Operate and adjust all devices
coverage’s, maximum number of fittings prescribed by a testing laboratory. The iii. Check tightness of connectors
hazards protected by these systems are specifically limited as to the type and iv. Check condition of conduit
size by a testing laboratory based upon actual fire tests. Limitations on hazards v. Check condition and operation of corner pulleys
that can be protected by these systems are contained in the manufacturer’s (b) Electric type
installation manual, which is referenced as part of the listing. i. Test manual release
Substantiation: By definition, if you cannot contain the agent within a room ii. Check that covers are in place
or enclosure, the application is not a total flooding system, but a local (c) Check pneumatic releases
application. Systems to protect these hazards exist today. Hence, the standard (d) Check accessibility during fire
needs to acknowledge their existence, and provide minimum guidance on how (e) Separate main and reserve manual pulls that require only one operation, to
to review or accept such systems. This text is submitted in order to provide obtain discharge of either main or reserve supply of gas
minimum guidance on how to address such systems. (f) Clearly mark and identify all manual releases
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part (14) Piping
   Add the following new chapter: (a) Check security; check that piping is adequately supported
Chapter 6 (b) Check condition; check for any corrosion
6.1 Where allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, local application (15) Nozzles
systems, using clean agents contained in this standard, shall be permitted. (a) Check orientation and orifice size; make sure it is unchanged from original
Committee Statement: The committee is soliciting input during the comment design
stage in order to further develop a new chapter on local application systems. (b) Check cleanliness
________________________________________________________________ (c) Check security
2001-48 Log #96 Final Action: Accept in Principle (d) Check seals where needed
(Chapter 6) (16) Containers
________________________________________________________________ (a) Check physical condition; check for any sign of corrosion
Submitter: Hendrik T. Lammertink, Kidde Fenwal Inc. (b) Check the contents for weight by acceptable methods for each cylinder. If
Recommendation: Revise by adding text as follows: the contents are below the required amount specified in 6.1.3.1 and 6.1.3.2 then
See table on the next page the containers must be refilled or replaced. (Proper operation of the liquid level
It is proposed for NFPA 2001 to include a section in Annex A that states a gauge should be verified.)
manufacturer’s maintenance procedure guideline. This annex should (c) Check that cylinders are securely held in position
correspond to section 6.5 of NFPA 2001 entitled “Maintenance”. Such a section (d) Check hydrostatic test date
(e) Check cylinder connectors for integrity and condition
would include the same text as A.4.8.3 of NFPA 12, with a few revisions to (f) Check weights and cables of mechanical release system
make it applicable to clean agent fire extinguishing systems. (g) Release devices; check for proper arrangement and security
   The proposal for the section and revisions can be found below: (h) Check explosive release devices; check replacement date and check
   A.6.5 Manufacturer’s maintenance procedure should be guided by the condition
following outline. (17) Test
(1) System (a) Perform recommended discharge tests when there is any question about the
(a) Check overall physical appearance adequacy of the system
(b) Disarm system prior to test (b) Perform recommended full discharge test when cylinder hydrostatic test is
(2) Hazard required
(a) Size (18) Return all parts of system to full service
(b) Configuration (19) Give Certificate of Inspection to owner
(c) Uncloseable openings (a) Regular service contracts with the manufacturer or installing company are
(d) Fuels recommended. Work should be performed by personnel thoroughly trained and
(e) Other aspects that could impact effectiveness of the extinguishing systems regularly engaged in providing such service.
(3) Supervised circuits Substantiation: The objective is to harmonize the Inspection, Maintenance,
(a) Exercise all functions testing and training requirements in NFPA 12 and NFPA 2001.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
(b) Check all electrical or pneumatic supervisory circuits for proper operation    Accept the changes but change “carbon dioxide” to “clean agent”.
(4) Control panel    Delete the reference to NFPA 72.
(a) Exercise all functions Committee Statement: The reference to NFPA 72 is inappropriate as it is not
(b) Check supervision if applicable, of each circuit (including releasing required in the body of the standard.
devices) as recommended by the manufacturer
2001-14
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
NFPA 12
4.8.3* Maintenance.
4.8.3.1.1
A manufacturer’s test and maintenance
procedure shall be provided to the owner
for testing and maintenance of the sys-
tem. This procedure shall provide for the
initial testing of the equipment as well as
for periodic test inspection and mainte-
nance of the system.
4.8.3.2
The following shall be verified by com-
petent personnel at least annually using
available documentation required in
4.4.2.14.
(1) Check and test the carbon dioxide
system for proper operation.
(2) Check that there have been no chang-
es to the size, type, and configuration of
the hazard and system
(3) Check and test all time delay for
operation
(4) Check and test all audible alarm for
operation
(5) Check and test all visual signal for
operation
(6) Check that all warning signs are
installed in accordance with 4.3.2.
(7) Check to ensure that the procedures in
4.3.3.1.1 are appropriate and the devices
in 4.3.3.1.1 are operable.
NFPA 2001
6.5 Maintenance.
6.5.1 These systems shall be main-
tained in full operating condition at
all times. Actuation, impairment, and
restoration of this protection shall be
reported promptly to the authority
having jurisdiction.
6.1.1 At least annually, all systems
shall be thoroughly inspected and
tested for proper operation by com-
petent personnel. Discharge tests are
not required.
6.5.3* Any penetrations made through
the enclosure protected by the clean
agent shall be sealed immediately.
The method of sealing shall restore
the original fire resistance rating of
the enclosure.
2001-15
Proposal to Harmonize
NFPA 12
4.8.3.1.1
A manufacturer’s test and maintenance
procedure shall be provided to the
owner for testing and maintenance of
the system. This procedure shall provide
for the initial testing of the equipment
as well as for periodic test inspection
and maintenance of the system.
Actuation, impairment, and restora-
tion of this protection shall be reported
promptly to the authority having juris-
diction.
4.8.3.8 Any penetrations made through
the enclosure protected by the clean
agent shall be sealed immediately. The
method of sealing shall restore the
original fire resistance rating of the
enclosure.
NFPA 2001
6.5.1 A manufacturer’s test and main-
tenance procedure shall be provided to
the owner for testing and maintenance
of the system.
These systems shall be maintained in
full operating condition at all times.
Actuation, impairment, and restora-
tion of this protection shall be reported
promptly to the authority having juris-
diction.
6.1.1 At least annually, all systems shall
be thoroughly inspected and tested for
proper operation by competent person-
nel. Discharge tests are not required.
The following shall be verified:
(1) Check and test the carbon dioxide
system for proper operation.
(2) Check that there have been no
changes to the size, type, and configura-
tion of the hazard and system
(3) Check and test all time delay for
operation
(4) Check and test all audible alarm for
operation
(5) Check and test all visual signal for
operation
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________    Pw = Pressure due to wind (Pa)
2001-49 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Principle    Vw = design velocity of the wind (m/s)
(6.1.1)    Fw = Fraction of ELA exposed to wind
________________________________________________________________ Substantiation: We have had complaints that several discharge tests failed
Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev. badly in windy conditions. Since then it is apparent that clean agents that can
Recommendation: Revise to read: have larger leakage areas for retention are even more susceptible to wind. In
   6.1.1 At least annually, all systems shall be thoroughly inspected and tested many cases the wind driven losses are far greater than the gravity losses
for proper operation by qualified and experienced personnel in the installation currently being calculated by Annex C. These losses are only significant where
and testing of clean agent extinguishing systems. Discharge tests are not a large number of leaks are in contact with the wind. Example 6 shows an
required. enclosure that is quite likely to exist as a cell site on top of a hill; notice the
Substantiation: Consistent with 72 language and deletes the term competent retention time due to wind is less than one minute! A very significant and
as that is a judgment that the code, code official or others should not be dangerous result if ignored.
making. The term qualified and some training requirement provides better    Using Annex C with the inert example below, the column pressure is 3.0
guidance. Pascals. That is the total driving force causing the agent to leak out. A 2 m/s
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle wind (4.45 mph) will create a pressure of 22 * 0.6 = 2.4 Pa which is a
   Accept the recommended text but delete “and experienced”. significant increasing the loss rate. When agent begins to be lost by gravity, the
Committee Statement: The words “and experienced” are redundant. column pressure of 3.0 Pa is split such that 1.5 is dropped across the ceiling
________________________________________________________________ and 1.5 across the floor making the pressure due to wind far greater.
2001-50 Log #49 Final Action: Accept    If we attempt a simple analysis shown in example 1 below the point should
(6.2.1) be easily demonstrated:
________________________________________________________________    The example depicts a HFC 227ea discharge at 7 percent where the retention
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression time is ten minutes.
Systems Association, Baltimore MD    This would mean the enclosure must have 0.47 m2 of leaks.
Recommendation: Delete “173.34(e)(10)” from the end of reference to 49    The pressure due to wind on a flat surface is well known and is Pw = 0.6 *
CFR. Vw2
Substantiation: Original proposal and acceptance was covered for NFPA 2001,    If the velocity is 2m/s then the pressure due to wind, Pw = 3.6 Pa.
2004 ed., ROC, Log #4 for annex material, however, 6.2.1 was not caught. 49    If one half the leaks were subject to wind and one half of those actually faced
CFR paragraph reference changes regularly with updates to the CFR therefore upwind such that wind would blow into them then we should easily be able to
we advise avoiding reference to specific paragraphs. calculate the flow using the ELA formula in Annex C.
   Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.    The airflow Qw would be:
Committee Meeting Action: Accept    Qw = ELA * Fw /1.271*Pw 0.5/2 = 0.143 m3/s
________________________________________________________________    Notice the flow is divided by 2 because we assume that half the leaks would
2001-51 Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept face the wind. Since the enclosure can lose 250 m 3 as its criteria for retention,
(6.2.1) then:
________________________________________________________________    250/.143 = 1746 seconds or 29.1 minutes
Submitter: Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems    This figure was checked against the Lawrence Berkley Labs wind infiltration
Recommendation: Delete “173.34(e)(10)” so that the paragraph will now read model that is the most widely used in the USA and it yielded a loss rate
as follows: equivalent to a 33.98 minute retention time indicating that our method is close.
   6.2.1* U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Canadian Transport    This table shows a cross section of typical enclosures with wind speeds and
Commission (CTC), or similar design clean agent containers shall not be the losses associated with them. The tw is the time with wind alone, the tc with
recharged without retesting if more than 5 years have elapsed since the date of the combined effects and the LBL model results for wind infiltration alone.
the last test and inspection. For halocarbon agent storage containers, the retest There is a good correlation.
shall be permitted to consist of a complete visual inspection as described in 49 Committee Meeting Action: Reject
CFR. Committee Statement: The validity of the equations was questioned by the
Substantiation: The Department of Transportation revised the Code of Federal committee. The committee could not follow the derivation of the equations.
Regulations with a new numbering scheme. A general reference to CFR 49 is The committee would like further clarification of the submittal during the
therefore more appropriate. comment stage.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________ 2001-53 Log #50 Final Action: Reject
2001-52 Log #75 Final Action: Reject (7.2.2 and A.7.2.2)
(6.7.2.3.1, C.2.7.1.7.1) ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Add section 6.7.2.3.1. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
   Where the leakage in enclosure boundaries face the wind, an evaluation shall    7.2.2* In addition to the limitations given in 1.4.2.2 , clean agent fire
be made to determine the agent loss rate due to wind (for guidance, see Annex extinguishing systems shall not be used to protect the following:
C.)    Dry cargo holds
   Add section C.2.7.1.7.1 Time for Wind Losses    Bulk cargo
   Calculate the time (tw) that it will take for wind to blow the volume    the clean agent fire extinguishing concentration required for the protection of
represented by (Ho-H)* room floor area out of the enclosure. dry cargo holds and bulk cargo shall be determined by test .
   Calculate the pressure due to wind:    Change A.7.2.2 as follows:
   Pw=0.6 * Vw2    General cargo should not be protected with halocarbon agents due to the
   Calculate the flow rate due to wind velocity, V possibility of deep seated cargo fires and due to wide variations in cargo
0.5
   Qw = ELA * Fw /1.271*Pw /2 materials. Dry cargoes, such as containerized cargoes, often include a wide mix
   Calculate tw : of commodities that can include materials or storage arrangements not suitably
   tw = (Ho-H)*AR = /Qw protected using halocarbon agents requiring special consideration . The volume
   Combine wind losses with gravity losses using the formula: of agent needed to protect cargo spaces varies depending on the volume of the
   tc = (1/ (1/t2 + 1/tw2 ))0.5 cargo space minus the volume of the cargo carried. This quantity varies as
   Where: cargo volume changes and can affect fire extinguishing effectiveness or agent
   tw = time for wind loss toxicity adversely affect life safety .
   tc = combined loses due to wind and gravity Substantiation: There is no technical justification supporting the prohibition
3
Examples of 1000 m enclosure, 3.6 m high with 2.7 m minimum protected height
# Agent/ ELA BCLA NFPA Wind speed Leaks tw tc Wind loss,
Concentration retention Exposed for wind combined LBL model
m2 m2 Min. m/s % Min. Min. Min.
1 HFC227ea @7% 0.47 .225 10.0 2 m/s, 4.45 mph 50 29.1 9.2 33.98
2 IG-541 @ 37.5% 0.94 .47 10 2 m/s, 4.45 mph 50 14.55 8 13.49
3 IG-541 @ 37.5% 0.94 .47 10 4 m/s, 8.9 mph 50 7.26 5.6 6.74
4 IG-541 @ 37.5% 0.94 .47 10 4 m/s, 8.9 mph 100 3.63 3.2 3.37
5 IG-541 @ 37.5% 1.88 .3384 10.2 4 m/s, 8.9 mph 100 1.81 1.7 1.69
6 IG-541 @ 37.5% 1.88 .3384 10.2 8 m/s, 17.8 mph 100 .91 0.8 .84
7 HFC227 ea @ 7% 0.9644 .1692 10.3 8 m/s, 17.8 mph 100 1.77 1.6 1.64

2001-16
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
of clean agents in these applications. ________________________________________________________________
Committee Meeting Action: Reject 2001-58 Log #55 Final Action: Accept in Principle
Committee Statement: The most appropriate agent for bulk cargo holds is (Table A.1.5.1.2(a))
carbon dioxide. There were several concerns raised with regard to halocarbons ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation
and the decomposition products over time and the hazards to vessel crew Recommendation: Add the Halotron II total flooding agent into this standard.
members. No substantiation data was submitted to support the use of clean    Table A.1.5.1.2(a):
agents for cargo holds.    Agent: Halotron II
________________________________________________________________    LC50: 56.7%
2001-54 Log #51 Final Action: Reject    NOAEL: 5.0
(7.2.3)    LOAEL: 7.5
________________________________________________________________ Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer
Systems Association, Baltimore MD interest in wider use of this agent.
Recommendation: Remove paragraph from body of standard, attach to A.7.2.2 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
and change wording as follows: Revise Table A.1.5.1.2.(a) as follows:
   The effects of agent decomposition products and combustion products on fire    Agent: HFC Blend B
LC50: 56.7%
protection effectiveness and equipment shall should be considered where when    NOAEL: 5.0
using halocarbon clean agents in hazards where there is with high ambient    LOAEL: 7.5
temperatures risk of agent decomposition due to environmental or surface Add a note for these values as follows:
temperatures exceeding the maximum exposure temperature recommended by These values are for the largest comoponent of the blend (HFC 134A).
the agent manufacturer (e.g., incinerator rooms, hot machinery and piping). Committee Statement: This Committee Action correlates with 2001-10 (Log
Substantiation: a) Does not follow the manual style requirements, and #61).
   b) The material is guidance information only and is more suitably placed in ________________________________________________________________
Annex A. 2001-59 Log #2 Final Action: Accept
Committee Meeting Action: Reject (A.3.5.2(f))
Committee Statement: The committee feels that it should remain as a ________________________________________________________________
requirement as there was no justification provided to change it to an annex Submitter: Dale R. Edlbeck, Tyco Fire & Security/Ansul
recommendation. Recommendation: Upon review of the information you provided we
________________________________________________________________ recommend you use the following table:
2001-55 Log #52 Final Action: Reject See Table A.3.5.2(f) on the next page
(7.4.1 and 7.8.5.1 (New) ) Substantiation: This table uses the k factors as currently listed under Table A-
3-5.2(f) in the 2000 edition of NFPA 2001. The worst case difference between
________________________________________________________________ our values and those listed in the current NFPA document (except for obvious
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression mistakes) are 0.004, which can be explained by rounding differences. There
Systems Association, Baltimore MD are a number of typographical errors in the current table (some of the lower
Recommendation: Add in 7.4.1: numbers in the 34% column and the entire 46% column are examples of the
   7.4.1 Subject to the requirements of 7.8.5.1 R r eserve quantities of agent are mistakes).
not required by this standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept
   Add a new paragraph to read as follows: ________________________________________________________________
   7.8.5.1 Additional clean agent shall be released as required to maintain 2001-60 Log #81 Final Action: Accept
control of the fire. (Table A.3.6(e))
Substantiation: This revision makes the requirements for the protection of ________________________________________________________________
cargo spaces equivalent to that required for CO2 systems as specified in NFPA Submitter: Jon Flamm, SEVO Systems, Inc.
12, 6.2.6(b) (2000 ed.). Provides focus on the importance of assuring sufficient Recommendation: Add new table with data for extinguishment of Class C
agent for the required duration of protection. See NFPA 12, A.6.2.6(b), p. 43. energized electrical hazards.
(2000 ed.). See Table A.3.6(e) on the next page
Committee Meeting Action: Reject Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection
engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-53 (Log #50). energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data
________________________________________________________________ centers.
2001-56 Log #54 Final Action: Accept in Principle Committee Meeting Action: Accept
(Table A.1.4.1(c)) ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________ 2001-61 Log #82 Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation (Table A.3.6(f))
Recommendation: Add the Halotron II total flooding agent into this standard. ________________________________________________________________
   Table A.1.4.1(c): Submitter: Jon Flamm, SEVO Systems, Inc.
   Molecular weight: 99.4 Recommendation: Add new table with data for extinguishment of Class C
   Boiling point at 760 mm Hg: -14.9°F energized electrical hazards.
   Freezing point: -153.9°F See Table A.3.6(f) on the next page
   Critical temperature: 219.9°F Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection
   Critical pressure: 588.9 psia engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C
   Critical volume: 0.031 ft3 /lb energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data
   Critical density: 32.17 lb/ft3 centers.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
   Specific heat, liquid at 77°F: 0.339 Btu/lb°F ________________________________________________________________
   Specific heat, vapor at 1 atm, 77°F: 0. 203 Btu/lb°F 2001-62 Log #83 Final Action: Accept
Heat of vaporization at boiling point: 93.4 Btu/lb (Table A.3.6(g))
   Thermal conductivity of liquid at 77°F: 0.0478 Btu/hr ft°F ________________________________________________________________
   Viscosity, liquid at 77°F: 0.485 lb/ft hr Submitter: Jon Flamm, SEVO Systems, Inc.
   Relative dielectric strength at 1 atm, 734 mm Hg, 77°F: 1.014 Recommendation: Add new table with data for extinguishment of Class C
   Solubility of water in agent at 70°F: 0.11 %wt. energized electrical hazards.
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement    See Table A.3.6(g) on page 19
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection
interest in wider use of this agent. engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data
   Change name from Halotron II to HFC Blend B. centers.
Committee Statement: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
2001-57 Log #23 Final Action: Accept 2001-63 Log #84 Final Action: Accept
(Table A.1.5.1.2(a)) (Table A.3.6(h))
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts Submitter: Jon Flamm, SEVO Systems, Inc.
Recommendation: Replace HFC-23 NOAEL of 50 with 30. Recommendation: Add new table with data for extinguishment of Class C
   Replace HFC-23 LOAEL of >50 with >30. energized electrical hazards.
   Replace HFC-236fa LC50 of >18.9 with >45.7.    See Table A.3.6(h) on page 20
Substantiation: The NOAEL of HFC-23 is 30 percent. This is the highest No Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection
Effect value tested without added oxygen. engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C
   The LOAEL of HFC-23 is >30 percent. This is the highest value tested energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data
without added oxygen. centers.
   The LC50 of HFC-236fa is >45.7 percent.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Meeting Action: Accept

2001-17
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
NFPA 2001
Table A-3-5-2(f) IG-541 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)
Recommended Corrections
Specific
Temp. Vapor
t Volume s
(C°) (m3/kg) Design Concentration (% by Volume)
34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62
–40 0.562 0.524 0.602 0.686 0.776 0.873 0.978 1.093 1.219
–30 0.586 0.502 0.578 0.658 0.745 0.838 0.938 1.048 1.169
–20 0.610 0.482 0.555 0.633 0.716 0.805 0.902 1.007 1.124
–10 0.634 0.464 0.534 0.609 0.689 0.775 0.868 0.969 1.081
0 0.659 0.447 0.515 0.587 0.664 0.746 0.836 0.934 1.042
10 0.683 0.432 0.497 0.566 0.640 0.720 0.807 0.901 1.005
20 0.707 0.417 0.480 0.547 0.619 0.696 0.780 0.871 0.971
30 0.731 0.403 0.464 0.529 0.598 0.673 0.754 0.842 0.940
40 0.755 0.391 0.449 0.512 0.579 0.652 0.730 0.816 0.910
50 0.779 0.379 0.436 0.496 0.562 0.632 0.708 0.791 0.882
60 0.803 0.367 0.423 0.482 0.545 0.613 0.687 0.767 0.855
70 0.827 0.357 0.410 0.468 0.529 0.595 0.667 0.745 0.831
80 0.851 0.347 0.399 0.455 0.514 0.578 0.648 0.724 0.807
90 0.875 0.337 0.388 0.442 0.500 0.563 0.630 0.704 0.785
100 0.900 0.328 0.378 0.430 0.487 0.548 0.613 0.685 0.764
NOTE: Formulas remain the same as currently displayed under the table in the 2000 edition of the standard.

Table A.3.6(e) FK-5-1-12 Modified Conductive Heating Tests with Sustained Electric Arc
Auto-ignition Commence-
Cable Type Ignition Design Achieved ment of Time of Initial Reignition [Yes/
Test Source Concentration [Yes/No] Discharge[s] Ext.[s] No]
[%]
COND089 - Electric
Arc 3.9 Yes 725 1109 No
COND094 KS- Electric
20921L2 Arc 4.5 Yes 935 951 No
COND106 Electric
- Arc 5.1 Yes 631 660 No
COND091 - Electric
Arc 3.9 Yes 615 623 Yes
COND101 KS- Electric
5482L28FR Arc 4.5 Yes 670 676 No
COND108 - Electric
Arc 5.1 Yes 549 579 No
References:
4. Smith, D., Niemann, R., Bengtson, G., “Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives and New Sustainable Agent Technology
in Suppressing Continuously Energerized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 288-298,
2001.
5. McKenna, L.A. Jr., Gottuck, D.T., DiNenno, P.J., “Extinguishment Tests of Continuously Energized Class C Fires.” Proceedings, Halon
Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 12-14, 1998.
6. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”,
Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.
7. Bengston, G., Flamm, J, Niemann, R., “Continuing the Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives in Preventing Reignition
on Continuously Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.

Table A.3.6(f) HFC-125 Modified Conductive Heating Tests with Sustained Electric Arc
Auto-ignition Commence-
Cable Type Ignition Design Achieved ment of Time of Initial Reignition [Yes/
Test Source Concentration [Yes/No] Discharge[s] Ext.[s] No]
[%]
KS-20921L1 Electric
COND151 Arc 11.9 Yes 10:33 11:04 Yes
KS-20921L2 Electric
COND192 Arc 12.0 Yes 10:19 10:32 No
KS- Electric
COND156 5482L28FR Arc 12.4 Yes 14:30 14:47 Yes

KS-
COND193 5482L28FR Electric 12.5 Yes 20:19 20:32 No
Arc
References:
1. Smith, D., Niemann, R., Bengtson, G., “Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives and New Sustainable Agent Technology in
Suppressing Continuously Energerized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 288-298, 2001.
2. McKenna, L.A. Jr., Gottuck, D.T., DiNenno, P.J., “Extinguishment Tests of Continuously Energized Class C Fires.” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical
Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 12-14, 1998.
3. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon
Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.
4. Bengston, G., Flamm, J, Niemann, R., “Continuing the Examinations and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives in Preventing Reignition on
Continuously Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.

2001-18
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

Table A.3.6(g) HFC-227ea Modified Conductive Heating Tests with Sustained Electric Arc
Auto-ignition Commence-
Cable Type Ignition Design Achieved ment of Time of Reignition [Yes/
Test Source Concentration [Yes/No] Discharge[s] Initial No]
[%] Ext.[s]
COND026 Electric
Arc 5.3
Yes 578 DNE DNE
COND015 Electric
Arc 5.6 Yes 530 DNE DNE
COND021 Electric
Arc 7 Yes 582 DNE DNE
COND020 KS- Electric
20921L2 Arc 8 Yes 543 661 Yes
COND047 Electric
Arc 8 Yes 596 615 No
COND048 Electric
Arc 8 Yes 647 DNE DNE
COND017 Electric
Arc 11 Yes 532 832 No
COND049 Electric
Arc 11 Yes 555 584 No
COND024 Electric
Arc 5.6 Yes 606 DNE DNE
COND053 Electric
Arc 5.6 Yes 675 DNE DNE
COND025 Electric
Arc 7 Yes 608 848 Yes
COND051 Electric
KS- Arc 8 Yes 663 DNE DNE
COND052 Electric
5482L28FR
Arc 8 Yes 750 766 No
COND050 Electric
Arc 11 Yes 615 639 Yes
COND023 Electric
Arc 11 Yes 580 702 Yes
References:
1. Smith, D., Niemann, R., Bengtson, G., “Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives and New Sustainable Agent
Technology in Suppressing Continuously Energerized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque,
NM, pp. 288-298, 2001.
2. McKenna, L.A. Jr., Gottuck, D.T., DiNenno, P.J., “Extinguishment Tests of Continuously Energized Class C Fires.” Proceedings,
Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 12-14, 1998.
3. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”,
Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.
4. Bengston, G., Flamm, J, Niemann, R., “Continuing the Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives in Preventing
Reignition on Continuously Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-
26, 2005.

2001-19
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

Table A.3.6(h) HFC-236fa Modified Conductive Heating Tests with Sustained Electric Arc
Auto-ignition Commence-
Cable Type Ignition Design Achieved ment of Time of Initial Reignition [Yes/
Test Source Concentration [Yes/No] Discharge[s] Ext.[s] No]
[%]
COND149 Electric
Arc 8.0 Yes 11:30 11:36 Yes
COND150 Electric
Arc 6.8 Yes 10:56 DNE DNE
COND151 Electric
Arc 7.5 Yes 11:26 DNE DNE
COND152 KS-20921L2 Electric
Arc 7.5 Yes 12:07 13:20 Yes
COND153 Electric
Arc 7.5 Yes 9:59 10.3 Yes
COND154 Electric
Arc 8.0 Yes 11:26 11:32 No
COND155 Electric
Arc 8.0 Yes 10:59 11:30 No
COND194 Electric
Arc 8.0 Yes 11:13 11:58 No
COND144 Electric
Arc 6.5 Yes 6:06 DNE DNE
COND145 Electric
Arc 8.0 Yes 10:43 DNE DNE
COND146 Electric
Arc 8.5 Yes 10:03 10:15 No
COND147 Electric
KS- Arc 8.5 Yes 12:45 13:00 No
COND148 Electric
5482L28FR
Arc 8.5 Yes 12:05 12:14 No
COND195 Electric
Arc 8.5 Yes 12:06 12:18 No
References:
1. Smith, D., Niemann, R., Bengtson, G., “Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives and New Sustainable Agent Technology in
Suppressing Continuously Energerized Fires,” Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 288-298, 2001.
2. McKenna, L.A. Jr., Gottuck, D.T., DiNenno, P.J., “Extinguishment Tests of Continuously Energized Class C Fires.” Proceedings, Halon Options
Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 12-14, 1998.
3. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon
Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.
4. Bengston, G., Flamm, J, Niemann, R., “Continuing the Examination and Comparison of Existing Halon Alternatives in Preventing Reignition on
Continuously Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.

2001-20
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________
2001-64 Log #53 Final Action: Reject
(Table A.4.1.4.1)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Spalding, Healey Fire Protection Inc. / Rep. Fire Suppression
Systems Association, Baltimore MD
Recommendation: Table needs completion and harmonizing:
   Table A.4.1.4.1 needs to be completed to include data for each combination
of gent, superpressure, fill density, container pressure rating.
Substantiation: Table is incomplete and/or in error and needs to be corrected.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: No recommended text provided.
Table A.5.4.3.1 – Heptane Flame Extinguishing Concentrations (vol %)
Heptane Fire FIC- FK- HCFC HFC- HFC- HFC-
Test 13I1 5-1-12 Blend 125 227ea 23
A
Cup burner 3.51 4.52 10.03 9.34 6.75 12.66
Room test 3.512 4.413 9.914 9.315 6.916 12.317
_______________________________________________________________
2001-65 Log #31 Final Action: Accept
(A.5.3.7 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jeffrey L. Harrington, Harrington Group, Inc.
Recommendation: Add the following new annex paragraph A.5.3.7:
   A.5.3.7 Designers should evaluate enclosures to determine whether they
can resist the momentary pressure changes that occur during the discharge
of a clean agent fire extinguishing system. The analysis should include a
recommendation of whether or not a discharge pressure relief device is needed
in order that the enclosure be able to withstand the peak pressure developed
relative to ambient. Annex D contains information for evaluating enclosures.
Substantiation: The failure of an enclosure due to discharge pressures that
exceed the ability of the enclosure to remain intact presents a safety concern
for people in or near the protected space. Steps must be taken to assure safety.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-66 Log #7 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
(A.5.4.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Renumber paragraph A.5.4.2 to A.5.4.2.1 and modify it to
read as follows:
   A.5.4.2. 1 Cup burner testing in the past has involved a variety of techniques,
apparatus, and investigators. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined
apparatus has now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Table A.5.4.2
. 1 presents cup burner flame extinguishing concentrations for n- heptane
determined both by cup burner and room testing as reported in the referenced
documents.
Substantiation: The information presented in the current Table A.5.4.2
predates more current data generated as a result of efforts to standardize the
cup burner apparatus and laboratory procedures and attempts to correlate
cup burner and room scale fire test results. The information proposed in the
new Table A.5.4.2.1 is more current and its source has a higher degree of
transparency than the existing information.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Renumber paragraph A.5.4.2 to A.5.4.2.1 and modify it to read as follows:
   A.5.4.2. 1 Cup burner testing in the past has involved a variety of techniques,
apparatus, and investigators. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined
apparatus has now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Table A.5.4.2
. 1 presents cup burner flame extinguishing concentrations for n- heptane
determined by cup burner as reported in the referenced documents.
Committee Statement: The committee wanted to further review room test
data.
________________________________________________________________
2001-67 Log #8 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(A.5.4.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Delete Table A.5.4.2 and replace with new Table A.5.4.2.1
along with a list of data references.
Table A.5.4.2 n Heptane Cup Burner Extinguishment
Concentrations
Agent Cup Burner Value
FC 3-1-10 5.5
FIC13I1* 3.2
FK 5-1-12 4.5
HCFC Blend A 9.9
HCFC 124 6.6
HFC 125 8.7
2001-21
HFC 227ea 6.6
HRC 23 12.9
HFC 236fa 6.3
IG 01 42
IG 100 * 31
IG 541 31
IG 55 35
Note: A value of cup burner extinguishing concentration of 6.7 percent for
HCF 227ea for commercial heptane fuel.
   *Not derived from standardized cup burner method
HFC- IG- IG- IG- IG-
236fa 01 100 55 541
6.57 39.28 33.69 36.510 31.711
7.518 33.719 33.620 30.221 29.622
References for data in Table A.5.4.2.1
   1. Harrison, Matthew A. and Robin, Mark L., PhD., “Cup Burner Testing of
Heptane with Iodotrifluoromethane in Accordance with ISO 14520-1, “report
HAI-8716A, Hughes Associates, Inc., April 8, 2002
   2. Acknowledgment of Cup Burner Measurements on NOVEC 1230, “Test
Report No. YN 02 6321, Centre National de Prevention et de Protection, Saint
Marcel, France: September 13, 2002
   3. Harrison, Matthew A. and Robin, Mark L., PhD., “Cup Burner Testing of
Heptane with NAF-S-III in Accordance with ISO 14520-1, “Report HAI-8719,
Hughes Associates, Inc., May 28, 2002.
   4. Harrison, M.A., and Robin, M. L., “Cup Burner Testing of Heptane with
HFC-125 and HFC-236fa in Accordance with ISO 14520-1,” Report HAI-
8715-A, Hughes Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, February 14, 2002
   5. Mark L. Robin, PhD., “Cup Burner Testing of Heptane with HFC-227ea in
Accordance with ISO 14520-1,” Report HAI-8711-B. Hughes Associates Inc.,
West Lafayette, IN, December 30, 2001.
   6. Harrison, Matthew A. and Robin, Mark L., PhD., “Cup Burner Testing of
Heptane with HFC-23 in Accordance with ISO 14520-1, “ Report HAI-8720A,
Hughes Associates, Inc., May 8, 2002.
   7. Harrison, M.A., and Robin, M. L., “Cup Burner Testing of Heptane with
HFC-125 and HFC-236fa in Accordance with ISO 1420-1,” Report HAI-8715-
A. Hughes Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, February 14, 2002.
   8. “Attestation of Test Results Following the Methods for Determination of
Extinguishing Concentrations in ISO 14520-1 (2000) Extinguishing Agent:
Argon: ISO 14520-12,” VdS Schadenverhutung, Koln, Germany, 12 December
2001.
   9. Yamane, Kenji, “Cup Burner Testing Report with IG-100 in Accordance
with ISO 14520-1:2000(E) Annex B,” National Maritime Research Institute,
Independent Administrative Institution, Report No. RA-001: March 6, 2002.
   10. “Cup Burner Class B Extinguishing Tests of Argonite Clean
Extinguishing Agent,” Project 3014580, Class 5611, FM Approvals, July 9,
2002.
   11. Yves Fleurimond, “Cup Burner Fire Test on Commercial Heptane with
Inergen in accordance with ISO 14520,” File EX4510, Project 02NK13115,
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL May 10, 2002
   12. Robin, M. L., Ouelette J. Hammett, A Ouelette, R. and Kennedy J.,
“Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of CF3I in Accordance with ISO
14520-1” Report HAI-8721B Hughes Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN,
August 30, 2002.
   13. Report, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing with 3MTM NovecTM 1230
Fire Protection Fluid in Accordance with ISO 14520-1-2000(E),” Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL: September 6, 2002.
   14. Borghetti, Luciano, “Report on fire testing of Safety Hi-Tech NAF S III
According to International Standard ISO 14520-1 First Edition 2000-08-001,
Annex C Wood Crib and Heptane Pan, “Hughes Associates Europe, srl Report
HAE-May 2, 2002.
   15. Robin, M. L., Ouelette, J., Hammett, A. Ouelette, R. and Kennedy, J.,
“Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of HFC-125 and HFC-236fa in
Accordance with ISO 14520-1,” Report HAI -8715-B, Hughes Associates, Inc.,
West Lafayette, IN, February 14, 2002
   16. Mark L. Robin, PhD., “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of
HFC-227ea in Accordance with ISO 14520-1”, Report HAI-8711-A, Hughes
Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, December 30, 2001.
   17. L. Jackman, “Test Report, FE13 Gaseous Extinguishing Testing to BS
ISO 14520:2000 and ISO/TR 20885:2001(E), “Test Report 206579, BRE Fire
and Risk Sciences Division, January 9, 2002.
   18. Robin, M. L., Ouelette, J., Hammett, A., Ouelette, R. and Kennedy. J.,
“Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of HFC-125 and HFC-236fa in
Accordance with ISO 14520-1,” Report HAI-8715-B, Hughes Associates, Inc.,
West lafayette, IN, February 14, 2002.
   19. English language report extract of “Test Report No. CHL 02051 on the
Extinguishing Tests with the Extinguishing Agent Argon according to ISO
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
14520-1, Appendix C,” VdS Schadenverhutung, D-50735, Koln, September 4,
2002. Table A.5.4.2.1 Minimum Flame Extinguishing
   20. Yamane, Kenji, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing With IG-100 in Concentration – MEC, vol. %
Accordance With ISO14520-1:2000(E) Annex C,” National Maritime Research Fuel: n-heptane
Agent By 2004 Test Method By 2006 Test Method
Institute, Independent Administrative Institution, Report No. RA-002: March
8, 2002. FC-3-1-10 5.5 TBD
   21. “Fire Extinguishing Test with Clean Agent “ARAGONITE” According to FIC-13l1* 3.2 TBD
the ISO/DIS14520-1,” Danish Institute of Fire Technology, (undated). FK-5-1-12 4.5 TBD
   22. Yves Fluerimond, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing with IG-541 HCFC Blend A 9.9 TBD
(Inergen) in accordance with ISO 14520-1:2000(E),” File EX4510, Project HCFC-124 6.6 TBD
02NK13115, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, L, May 10, 2002. HFC-125 8.7 TBD
Substantiation: The information presented in the current Table A.5.4.2 HFC-227ea 6.6(1) TBD
predates more current data generated as a result of efforts to standardize the HFC-23 12.9 TBD
cup burner apparatus and laboratory procedures and attempts to correlate HFC-236fa 6.3 TBD
cup burner and room scale fire test results. The information proposed in the IG-01 42 TBD
new Table A.5.4.2.1 is more current and its source has a higher degree of IG-100 31(2) TBD
transparency than the existing information. IG-541 31 TBD
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle IG-55 35 TBD
Make the recommended changes and add all the material except the second line
of the table concerning the room test data. Note 1: A value of cup burner extinguishing concentration of 6.7 percent
Committee Statement: The committee wanted to further review room test for HCF-227ea for commercial heptane fuel.
data. Note 2: Not derived from standardized cup burner method.
Substantiation: The NFPA Cup Burner Task Group has submitted a proposal
________________________________________________________________ to adopt replacement material for Annex B “Cup Burner Test Procedure”.
2001-68 Log #24 Final Action: Accept The new cup burner test method offers a number of improvements aimed at
(Table A.5.4.2) establishing a quality standard and greater consistency in test results among
________________________________________________________________ laboratories. The data currently appearing in Table A.5.4.2 were not developed
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts in accordance with the revised test method and, therefore, do not reflect the
Recommendation: Replace HFC-227ea cup burner value of 6.6 with 6.9. improved quality standard in flame extinguishing data for Class B fuels. Data
   Replace HFC-236fa cup burner value of 6.3 with 6.6. appearing in Table A.5.4.2 should be determined by application of the new
   Update values for other agent per manufacturer’s recommendation. standard cup burner test method if it is adopted by the Technical Committee.
Substantiation: These values were derived by the procedure contained in Committee Meeting Action: Accept
NFPA 2001, edition 2004, Annex B. ________________________________________________________________
Committee Meeting Action: Accept 2001-71 Log #10 Final Action: Reject
(A.5.4.2.2)
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
2001-69 Log #57 Final Action: Accept Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
(Table A.5.4.2) Recommendation: Renumber paragraph A.5.4.2.2 to read A.5.4.2 and create
________________________________________________________________ a new paragraph A.5.4.2.2 and Table A.5.4.2.2 to cover Class A concentrations
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation as follows):
Recommendation: Revise Table to read as follows: A.5.4.2.2 Class A extinguishing concentrations are determined by fire testing
   Cup Burner Value: 11.3% (measured per NFPA 2001 procedure by Fenwal on a wood crib and three different polymeric sheet materials including
Safety Systems). polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polypropylene (PP) and acrylonitrile-
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement butadiene-styrene polymer (ABS). Table A.5.4.2.2 contains extinguishing
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer concentrations for these Class A materials as reported in the referenced
interest in wider use of this agent. documents. If polymeric sheet fire test data are not available for an agent, an
Committee Meeting Action: Accept extinguishing concentration 95 percent of that determined from the heptane fire
Change Halotron II to HFC Blend B. test should be used
Committee Statement: Editorial. See Table A.5.4.2.2 below
References for data in Table A.5.4.2.2
________________________________________________________________    1. Robin, M. L., Ouelette, J., Hammett, A., Ouelette, R. and Kennedy J.,
2001-70 Log #95 Final Action: Accept “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of CF3I in Accordance with ISO
(A.5.4.2 & Table A.5.4.2) 14520-1,” Report HAI-8721B, Hughes Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN,
________________________________________________________________ August 30, 2002.
Submitter: Joseph A. Senecal, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.    2. Report, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing with 3mTM NovecTM 1230
Recommendation: Change wording in A.5.4.2 as follows: Fire Protection Fluid in Accordance with ISO 14520-1-2000(E)”, Underwriters
   A.5.4.2 Flame Extinguishment. Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, IL; September 6, 2002.
   A.5.4.2.1 Cup burner test method. This standard requires that the flame    3. Borghetti, Luciano, “Report on fire testing of Safety Hi-Tech NAF S III
extinguishing concentration of a gaseous agent for a Class B fuel be According to International Standard ISO 14520-1 First Edition 2000-08-01,
determined by the cup burner method. Cup burner testing in the past has Annex C Wood Crib and Heptane Pan,” Hughes Associates Europe, srl, Report
involved a variety of techniques, apparatus, and investigators. It was reported HAE - May 2002 -02.
by Senecal (Senecal, J.A., “Flame Extinguishing by Inert Gases: Theoretical    5. Mark L. Robin, PhD., “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of
& Experimental Analysis, “Central States Section/The Combustion Institute HFC-227ea in Accordance with ISO 14520-1”, Report HAI-8711-A. Hughes
Meeting, March 2004) that significant inconsistencies are apparent in Class B Associates, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, December 30, 2001.
flame extinguishing data for inert gases presently appearing in use in national    6. L. Jackman, “Test Report: FE13 Gaseous Extinguishing Testing, to BS
and international standards. In 2003 the NFPA 2001 Technical Committee ISO 14520:2000 & ISO/TR 20885-2001(E),” Test Report 206579, BRE Fire
appointed a Task Group to develop an improved cup burner test method. The and Risk Sciences Division, January 9, 2002
degree of standardization of the cup burner test method has been significantly    7. Robin, M. L., Ouelette, J., Hammett, A. Ouelette, R. and Kennedy, J.,
improved and appears for the first time in Annex B of the 2006 revision of this “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Fire Testing of HFC-125 and HFC-236fa in
document. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined apparatus has Accordance with ISO 14520-1.” Report HAI-8715-B, Hughes Associates, Inc.,
now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Values of minimum flame West Lafayette, IN, February 14, 2002.
extinguishing concentration (MEC) as determined by the revised test method    8. English language report extract of “Test Report No. CHL 02051 on the
for gaseous agents addressed in this standard are given in Table A.5.4.2.1. Extinguishing Tests with the Extinguishing Agent Argon according to ISO
Retained in the 2006 edition of this standard are values of MEC reported in the 14520-1, Appendix C:” VdS Schadenverhutung, D-50735 Koln.
2004 edition for the purpose providing an MEC reference where data obtained    9. Yamane, Kenji, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing with IG-100 in
by the revised test method is not available at the time of approval and adoption Accordance with ISO 14520-1:2000(E) Annex C,” National Maritime Research
of the 2006 edition. It is intended that in subsequent editions that the 2004 Institute, Independent Administrative Institution, Report No. RA_002: March
MEC data can be deleted. 8, 2002.
Delete current Table A.5.4.2.1 and insert the following new table.    10. “Fire Extinguishing Test with Clean Agent “ARGONITE” According to
the ISO/DIS14520-1,” Danish Institute of Fire Technology, (undated).
   11. Yves Fluerimond, “Wood Crib and Heptane Pan Testing with IG-541
(Inergen) in accordance with ISO 14520-1:2000(E_,” File EX4510, Project
02NK13115, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, IL, May 10, 2002.
   12. Letter from Ingeborg Schlosser, VdS Schadenverhutung, to Paul Rivers,
3M Fire Protection, Subject: “Class A Plastics Fire Test Results with FK-5-1-
2001-22
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

Table A.5.4.2.2 – Flame Extinguishing Concentrations for Class A Surface Fire Test Fuels (vol %)
Fuel Type FIC- FK-5- HCFC HFC- HFC- HFC- HFC- IG-01 IG- IG-55 IG
13I1 1-12 Blend 125 227ea 23 236fa 100 -541
A
Wood Crib 3.51 3.42 6.03 6.74 4.95 10.56 5.07 30.78 30.09 28.710 28.211
–
PMMA 4.112 –
8.613 6.114 12.515 6.816 31.617 28.818 30.719 30.720
–
PP 4.012 –
8.613 6.114 12.515 6.816 31.617 30.018 29.319 30.620
–
ABS 4.012 –
8.613 6.114 12.415 6.816 32.217 31.018 31.019 30.720

12,” July 12, 2004.

   13. Robin, Mark. et. al, “Suppression of Polymeric Sheet Fires with an FE-
25TM in Accordance with ISO TC 21/SC8 N220,” HAI Report 8747-25-ISO,
Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD: June 11, 2004
   14. Robin, Mark L. et al. “Suppression of Polymeric Sheet Fires with an FM-
200® Extinguishing System in Accordance with ISO TC 21/SC8 N220,” HAI
Report 8746-ISOf, Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD; May 26, 2004.
   15. L. Jackman, “Test Report: FE13 Gaseous Extinguishing Testing, to BS
ISO 14520:2000 & ISO/TR 20885:2001(E), “Test Report 206579, BRE Fire
and Risk Sciences Division, January 9, 2002.
   16. Robin, Mark L. et al, “Suppression of Polymeric Sheet Fires with FE-
36TM in Accordance with ISO TC 21/SC8 N220,” HAI Report 8747-36-ISO,
Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD: June 11, 2004.
   17. “Extinguishing Tests with the Extinguishing Agent Argon according to
ISO 14520 Annex C (Draft 2004), “Test Report No. GLA 04046, Laboratory
for Fire Extinguishing Systems, VdS SCHADENVERHUTUNG, Cologne, 12
July 2004.
   18. Yamane, Kenji, “Polymeric Sheet Fire Test with IG-100 in Accordance
with ISO/DIS 14520-1 (SC8 N220) Annex C,” Report No. RA-0401, National
Maritime Research Institute, Japan: March 26, 2004.
   19. “The Performance of Ginge-Kerr Argonite (300 bar) Fixed Gaseous
Extinguishing Systems Against ISO Polymeric Sheet Fires,” Test Report
216485, Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford, UK: March 2004.
   20. Robin, Mark L. et al, “Suppression of Polymeric Sheet Fires with
Inergen® in Accordance with ISO TC 21/SC8 N220,” HAI Report 8748-Ansul-
ISO, Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD: August 30, 2004.
Substantiation: The current treatment of agent requirements to deal with Class
A fires offers little guidance to the users of the standard. The proposed annex
material is intended to provide users of the standard with information on which
they can make informed decisions.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The data contains some different data than that
developed in the listing of the systems. This could create confusion in the field.
Additional data may be added at a later date with a more detailed explanation.
________________________________________________________________
2001-72 Log #13 Final Action: Accept
(A.5.4.2.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Change paragraph A.5.4.2.4 to read:
   A.5.4.2.4 Deep seated fires involving Class A fuels can require substantially
higher design concentrations and extended holding times than the design
concentrations and holding times required for surface type fires involving Class
A fuels. Hazards containing both Class A and Class B fuels should be evaluated
on the basis of the fuel requiring the highest design concentration.
Substantiation: This proposal merely moves the first sentence of A.5.4.2.4 to
a new paragraph A.5.4.2.5 that contains additional guidance on Class A fires
other than the surface type.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-73 Log #35 Final Action: Reject
(A.5.4.2.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dale R. Edlbeck, Tyco Fire & Security/Ansul
Recommendation: Revise as indicated and move the following sentence to
the body of the standard “Hazards containing both Class A and Class B fuels
should shall be evaluated on the basis of the fuel requiring the highest design
concentration.
Substantiation: Normal design practices dictate using worst case design
parameters. This requirement should be in the body of the standard not the
annex.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The requirement is already in 5.4.1.
________________________________________________________________
2001-74 Log #14 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(A.5.4.2.5)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Insert new paragraph A.5.4.2.5 as follows:
   A.5.4.2.5 Deep-seated fires involving Class A fuels can require substantially
higher design concentrations and extended holding times than the design
concentrations and holding times required for surface-type fires involving Class
A fuels. Wood crib and polymeric sheet Class A fire tests may not adequately
indicate extinguishing concentrations suitable for the protection of certain
plastic fuel hazards (e.g., electrical and electronic type hazards involving
grouped power or data cables such as computer and control room underfloor
voids, telecommunication facilities, etc.) An extinguishing concentration not
less than that determined by the Class A surface fire tests or not less than 95
percent of that determined from the heptane fire test, whichever is the greater,
should be used under certain conditions. These conditions may include:
   1. cable bundles greater than 100 mm in diameter.
   2. cable trays with a fill density greater than 20 percent of the tray cross-
section;
   3. horizontal or vertical stacks of cable trays (closer than 250 mm);
   4. equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the collective
power consumption exceeds 5 kW.
Substantiation: The standard provides no guidance on design concentrations
to be used for Class A applications beyond what is necessary for surface Class
A surface fires as determined in a very limited series of approval tests. This
proposal describes several possible conditions that might suggest to the user of
the standard that there may be a need for a higher concentration.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
   Add the following at the end of A.5.4.2.2:
   Deep-seated fires involving Class A fuels can require substantially
higher design concentrations and extended holding times than the design
concentrations and holding times required for surface-type fires involving Class
A fuels. Wood crib and polymeric sheet Class A fire tests may not adequately
indicate extinguishing concentrations suitable for the protection of certain
plastic fuel hazards (e.g., electrical and electronic type hazards involving
grouped power or data cables such as computer and control room underfloor
voids, telecommunication facilities, etc.).
Committee Statement: Further explanation was needed for Class A fuels. This
material will be added at the end of 2001-36 (Log #19).
________________________________________________________________
2001-75 Log #25 Final Action: Reject
(Table A.5.5.1(a) through (r))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts
Recommendation: Update tables with values from NIST Refprop software
program.
Substantiation: The tables are from a variety of sources and updates. This will
standardize the tables based on the latest data.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The committee felt that other programs are also
appropriate.
________________________________________________________________
2001-76 Log #15 Final Action: Accept
(Table A.5.5.1(i))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert T. Wickham, Wickham Associates
Recommendation: Change the footnote “d” to Table A.5.5.1(i) to remove an
extra “0” as shown:
   s = 2.7200 + 0. 0 0064t
   That is, the equation should read:
   s = 2.7200 + 0.0064t
Substantiation: This is an editorial correction that was supposed to have been
made in the 2004 edition.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept

2001-23
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
2001-77 Log #26 Final Action: Accept in Principle 2001-83 Log #28 Final Action: Reject
(Table A.5.5.1(i)) (Figure A.5.6(a))
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts
Recommendation: Replace the s – 2.7200 + 0.00064t with s = 2.7200 + Recommendation: Replace the figure with the current drawing of the
0.0064t. apparatus.
Substantiation: Editorial. The value was printed incorrectly. It contained too Substantiation: The apparatus has been revised.
many zeros. Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: The drawing was not available for review at the
Committee Statement: See Committee Action on 2001-76 (Log 15). meeting.
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
2001-78 Log #58 Final Action: Accept in Principle 2001-84 Log #78 Final Action: Accept
(Table A.5.5.1(s)) (Table A.5.6(i))
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation Submitter: Richard L. Niemann, Modular Protection Corp.
Recommendation: Add new table as follows: Recommendation: Revise table adding new data for extinguishment of Class
C energized electrical hazards and renumber.
See Table (English Units) on page 25
Table A.5.6(ei) Test Protocol
Fuel Energy
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer Test Sample/Wire Level Tests
interest in wider use of this agent. Protocol Configuration (W) Agent Conducted
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Change Halotron II to HFC Blend B. 1 48 FC-3-1-10 8
Committee Statement: Editorial. 4 in. long, 24 FK-5-1-12 2
________________________________________________________________ gauge, HFC-125 12
2001-79 Log #27 Final Action: Reject Nichrome wire HFC-23 7
(Table A.5.5.2(a) through (h)) Inserted in HFC-227ea 7
________________________________________________________________ center of HFC-236fa 1326
Submitter: Howard S. Hammel, DuPont Fluoroproducts PMMA block IG-541 9
Recommendation: Update tables with values from NIST Refprop software
program. (3 in. x 1 in. x
Substantiation: The tables are from a variety of sources and updates. This will 5/8 in.)
2 192 FC-3-1-10 12
standardize the tables based on the latest data.
12 in. long, 20 FK-5-1-12 7
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The committee felt that other programs are also gauge, HFC-125 8
appropriate. Nichrome wire HFC-23 5
________________________________________________________________ wrapped HFC-227ea 7
2001-80 Log #59 Final Action: Accept in Principle around PMMA HFC-236fa 8
(Table A.5.5.2(t)) block (3 in. x 2 IG-541 9
________________________________________________________________ in. x 1/4 in.)
Submitter: Bradford Colton, American Pacific Corporation References:
Recommendation: Add new table as follows: 1. Niemann, R., Bayless, H., and Craft, C., “Evaluation of Selected NFPA
2001 Agents for Suppressing Class “C” Energized Fires.” Proceedings, Halon
See Table (SI Units) on page 25 Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 399-412, 1996.
2. Driscoll, M., Rivers, P., 3M, “Clean Extinguishing Agents and Continuously
Substantiation: Halotron II is an EPA SNAP approved halon 1301 replacement
for total flooding. The timing for this submittal is based on increased customer Energized Circuits: Recent Findings, “Proceedings, Halon Options Technical
interest in wider use of this agent. Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 129-140, 1997.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle 3. Bayless, H., and Niemann, R., “Update on the Evaluation of Selected NFPA
Change Halotron II to HFC Blend B. 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class “C” Energized Fires” Proceedings, Halon
Committee Statement: Editorial. Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 293-294, 1998.
________________________________________________________________ 4. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA
2001-81 Log #86 Final Action: Accept 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon
(A.5.6)
________________________________________________________________ Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, 2005.
Submitter: Paul E. Rivers, 3M Fire Protection Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection
Recommendation: At the top of page 80, second column, correct the spelling engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C
from FC-2-1.8 to FC-2-1-8. energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data
Substantiation: Editorial. centers.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-82 Log #85 Final Action: Accept
(A.5.6, Paragraph 7)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jon Flamm, SEVO Systems, Inc.
Recommendation: Add new text for extinguishment of Class C energized
electrical hazards as follows:
   A.5.6 Paragraph 7, Sentence 4, The heater was energized throughout
the discharge and for 10 minutes thereafter to check for reflash (none was
observed), cable is de-energized without ignition. The results of test using
HFC-227ea as the extinguishing agent are reported in Table A.5.6(c). The
results of tests using FK-5-1-12 as the extinguishing agent are reported in Table
A.5.6(d). The third test reported by SEVO Systems replicates the conductive
heating test with the cable energized and providing the ignition source via
an electric arc. The third fourth test report is included in a report by Modular
Protection Group, Lenexa, KS, which is an update on the evaluation of selected
agents for suppression Class C energized fires.
Substantiation: Provides guidance for the fire protection engineer in designing
clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C energized fires, such as
those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data centers.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept

2001-24
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Halotron II Total Flooding Quantity Table (English Units)a
Temperature Specific Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (lb/ft3)b
Vapor
Volume Concentration (% by volume)e
t s
(°F)c (ft3/lb)d 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-40 2.9642 0.0293 0.0334 0.0375 0.0417 0.0460 0.0504 0.0549 0.0595 0.0643
-30 3.0332 0.0287 0.0326 0.0366 0.0407 0.0450 0.0493 0.0537 0.0582 0.0628
-20 3.1022 0.0280 0.0319 0.0358 0.0398 0.0440 0.0482 0.0525 0.0569 0.0614
-10 3.1712 0.0274 0.0312 0.0350 0.0390 0.0430 0.0471 0.0513 0.0556 0.0601
0 3.2402 0.0268 0.0305 0.0343 0.0381 0.0421 0.0461 0.0502 0.0545 0.0588
10 3.3092 0.0263 0.0299 0.0336 0.0373 0.0412 0.0452 0.0492 0.0533 0.0576
20 3.3782 0.0257 0.0293 0.0329 0.0366 0.0404 0.0442 0.0482 0.0522 0.0564
30 3.4472 0.0252 0.0287 0.0322 0.0359 0.0396 0.0433 0.0472 0.0512 0.0553
40 3.5162 0.0247 0.0281 0.0316 0.0352 0.0388 0.0425 0.0463 0.0502 0.0542
50 3.5852 0.0243 0.0276 0.0310 0.0345 0.0380 0.0417 0.0454 0.0492 0.0531
60 3.6542 0.0238 0.0271 0.0304 0.0338 0.0373 0.0409 0.0445 0.0483 0.0521
70 3.7232 0.0234 0.0266 0.0298 0.0332 0.0366 0.0401 0.0437 0.0474 0.0512
80 3.7922 0.0229 0.0261 0.0293 0.0326 0.0360 0.0394 0.0429 0.0465 0.0502
90 3.8612 0.0225 0.0256 0.0288 0.0320 0.0353 0.0387 0.0422 0.0457 0.0493
100 3.9302 0.0221 0.0252 0.0283 0.0314 0.0347 0.0380 0.0414 0.0449 0.0485
110 3.9992 0.0217 0.0247 0.0278 0.0309 0.0341 0.0374 0.0407 0.0441 0.0476
120 4.0682 0.0214 0.0243 0.0273 0.0304 0.0335 0.0367 0.0400 0.0434 0.0468
130 4.1372 0.0210 0.0239 0.0269 0.0299 0.0330 0.0361 0.0393 0.0427 0.0460
140 4.2062 0.0207 0.0235 0.0264 0.0294 0.0324 0.0355 0.0387 0.0420 0.0453
150 4.2752 0.0203 0.0231 0.0260 0.0289 0.0319 0.0350 0.0381 0.0413 0.0446
160 4.3442 0.0200 0.0228 0.0256 0.0285 0.0314 0.0344 0.0375 0.0406 0.0438
170 4.4132 0.0197 0.0224 0.0252 0.0280 0.0309 0.0339 0.0369 0.0400 0.0432
180 4.4822 0.0194 0.0221 0.0248 0.0276 0.0304 0.0333 0.0363 0.0394 0.0425
190 4.5512 0.0191 0.0217 0.0244 0.0272 0.0300 0.0328 0.0358 0.0388 0.0419
200 4.6202 0.0188 0.0214 0.0240 0.0268 0.0295 0.0323 0.0352 0.0382 0.0412
a
b
The manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.
W/V [Agent Weight Requirement (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature
specified.
V  C 
W=  
s  100 − C 
c
t [temperature (°F)] – The design temperature in the hazard area.
d
s [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of superheated Halotron II vapor can be approximated by the formula:
e
s = 3.2402 + 0.0069t
C [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of Halotron II in air at the temperature indicated.
Halotron II Total Flooding Quantity Table (SI Units)a
Temperature Specific Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (kg/m3)b
Vapor
Volume Concentration (% by volume)e

t s
(°C)c (m3/kg)d 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-40 0.1812 0.4799 0.5458 0.6132 0.6821 0.7526 0.8246 0.8984 0.9739 1.0512
-30 0.1902 0.4572 0.5200 0.5842 0.6498 0.7169 0.7856 0.8559 0.9278 1.0015
-20 0.1992 0.4365 0.4965 0.5578 0.6205 0.6846 0.7501 0.8172 0.8859 0.9562
-10 0.2082 0.4177 0.4750 0.5337 0.5936 0.6550 0.7177 0.7819 0.8476 0.9149
0 0.2172 0.4004 0.4553 0.5116 0.5690 0.6278 0.6880 0.7495 0.8125 0.8770
10 0.2262 0.3844 0.4372 0.4912 0.5464 0.6028 0.6606 0.7197 0.7802 0.8421
20 0.2352 0.3697 0.4205 0.4724 0.5255 0.5798 0.6353 0.6921 0.7503 0.8098
30 0.2442 0.3561 0.4050 0.4550 0.5061 0.5584 0.6119 0.6666 0.7226 0.7800
40 0.2532 0.3434 0.3906 0.4388 0.4881 0.5386 0.5901 0.6429 0.6970 0.7523
50 0.2622 0.3316 0.3772 0.4238 0.4714 0.5201 0.5699 0.6209 0.6730 0.7265
60 0.2712 0.3206 0.3647 0.4097 0.4557 0.5028 0.5510 0.6003 0.6507 0.7023
70 0.2802 0.3103 0.3530 0.3965 0.4411 0.4867 0.5333 0.5810 0.6298 0.6798
80 0.2892 0.3007 0.3420 0.3842 0.4274 0.4715 0.5167 0.5629 0.6102 0.6586
90 0.2982 0.2916 0.3317 0.3726 0.4145 0.4573 0.5011 0.5459 0.5918 0.6388
100 0.3072 0.2831 0.3219 0.3617 0.4023 0.4439 0.4864 0.5299 0.5744 0.6200
110 0.3162 0.2750 0.3128 0.3514 0.3909 0.4313 0.4726 0.5148 0.5581 0.6024
120 0.3252 0.2674 0.3041 0.3417 0.3801 0.4193 0.4595 0.5006 0.5427 0.5857
130 0.3342 0.2602 0.2959 0.3325 0.3698 0.4080 0.4471 0.4871 0.5280 0.5699
140 0.3432 0.2534 0.2882 0.3238 0.3601 0.3973 0.4354 0.4743 0.5142 0.5550
150 0.3522 0.2469 0.2808 0.3155 0.3509 0.3872 0.4243 0.4622 0.5011 0.5408
160 0.3612 0.2407 0.2738 0.3076 0.3422 0.3775 0.4137 0.4507 0.4886 0.5273
170 0.3702 0.2349 0.2672 0.3001 0.3339 0.3684 0.4036 0.4397 0.4767 0.5145
180 0.3792 0.2293 0.2608 0.2930 0.3259 0.3596 0.3941 0.4293 0.4654 0.5023
190 0.3882 0.2240 0.2548 0.2862 0.3184 03513 0.3849 0.4193 0.4546 0.4907
200 0.3972 0.2189 0.2490 0.2797 0.3112 0.3433 0.3762 0.4098 0.4443 0.4795
a
b
The manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.
W/V [Agent Weight Requirement (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated
concentration at temperature specified.
V C 
W=  
s  100 − C 
c
t [temperature (°C)] – The design temperature in the hazard area.
d
s [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of superheated Halotron II vapor can be approximated by the formula:
e
s = 0.2172 + 0.0009t
C [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of Halotron II in air at the temperature indicated.

2001-25
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
given fuel, the MEC of a gaseous agent. The cup-burner method is inherently
________________________________________________________________ empirical. The theoretical and parametric aspects of flame extinguishment
2001-85 Log #79 Final Action: Accept in this procedure have been addressed by many authors and is the subject of
(Table A.5.6(j)) ongoing research. A few recent references are given below., , 
________________________________________________________________ 1 Scope
Submitter: Richard L. Niemann, Modular Protection Corp. 1.1 This test method provides a standard measure of minimum flame
Recommendation: Revise table adding new data for extinguisher of Class C extinguishing concentration of a gaseous extinguishing agent for flames of
energized electrical hazards and renumber. flammable or combustible liquids and flammable gases.
Table A.5.6(fj) Test Results 1.2 This method has value as a means of meeting the requirements of
national and international standards for determination of the minimum design
Extinguish Prevent concentration of a gaseous agent.
(Minimum Reflash/Reignition 1.3 This method is applicable to gaseous fire extinguishing agents that can be
Energy Concentration, (Minimum introduced into the test apparatus as a gas that is uniformly mixed in air.
Level Percent by Concentration, 1.4 This test method is applicable to liquid fuels that have adequate fluidity
at the test temperature to allow accurate liquid level control in the cup. The
Agent (W) Volume) Percent by Volume)
method may be difficult to use with very viscous fuels.
FC-3-1-10 48 5.5 8.0 1.5 This method is applicable to fuels that are ignitable at the operating
temperature of the cup.
192 6.5 9.5
FK-5-1-12 48 4.1 4.5 1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values
192 4.5 5.1 given in parentheses are for information only.
HFC-125 48 11.5 12.0 1.7 This test method does not purport to address all of the safety concerns,
192 11.9 12.4 if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this test
HFC-23 48 13.0 16.0 method to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine
192 14.0 20.0 the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific hazard
HFC-227ea 48 6.5 8.0 statements, see Section 7.
192 8.0 9.0 2 Referenced documents.
HFC-236fa 48 6.3 6.5 8.7 2.1 ASTM E 176 Terminology of Fire Standards.
192 6.5 9.0 2.2 ASTM E 177 Standard Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in
IG-541 48 41.8 49.0
ASTM Test Methods
192 49.0 56.1 2.3 ASTM E 456 Standard Terminology for Relating to Quality and Statistics
References:
1. Niemann, R., Bayless, H., and Craft, C., “Evaluation of Selected NFPA 2.4 ASTM E 691 Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to
Determine the Precision of a Test Method
2001 Agents for Suppressing Class “C” Energized Fires.” Proceedings,
2.5 NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire extinguishing Systems, National
Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 399- Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2004).
412, 1996. 2.6 ISO 14520 Gaseous fire-extinguishing systems —Physical properties and
2. Driscoll, M., Rivers, P., 3M, “Clean Extinguishing Agents and system design —Part 1: General requirements (2000).
Continuously Energized Circuits: Recent Findings, “Proceedings, Halon 2.7 UL-2166 Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System
Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 129-140, Units (31 March 1999).
1997. 2.8 UL-2127 Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units
3. Bayless, H., and Niemann, R., “Update on the Evaluation of Selected (31 March 1999).
3 Terminology.
NFPA 2001 Agents for Suppressing Class “C” Energized Fires” Proceedings, 3.1 Definitions. For definitions used in this test method refer to NFPA 2001
Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 293- and ASTM E 176.
294, 1998. 3.2 Definitions of terms specific to this standard.
4. Bengtson, G., Niemann, R., “Update in the Evaluation of Selected NFPA 3.2.1 Agent. Fire extinguishing gas which when added to air in sufficient
2001 Agents for Suppressing Class C Energized Fires”, Proceedings, Halon quantity causes extinguishment of the test flame. Agents consisting of non-
Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 24-26, condensable gases, vapors of liquefied compressed gases, and vapors of
2005. volatile liquids are in commercial use.
3.2.1.1 Primary reference agent. Nitrogen. Minimum purity 99.9%.
3.2.1.2 Secondary reference agent. Agent more nearly similar to the study agent
Substantiation: Provides test data for use as guidance for the fire protection in extinguishing concentration for the reference fuel than nitrogen.
engineer in designing clean agent systems for hazards involving Class C 3.2.1.3 Study agent. Agent which is the subject of study in the cup-burner.
energized fires, such as those that exist in telecommunications facilities or data 3.2.2 Cup. Fuel reservoir and flame stabilizer.
centers. 3.2.3 Chimney. Transparent tube, usually glass, that contains the cup and
Committee Meeting Action: Accept confines air and agent flow.
________________________________________________________________ 3.2.4 Flow straightener. Mechanical means of establishing non-turbulent
2001-86 Log #4 Final Action: Accept uniform vertical flow at the base of the chimney.
(Annex B) 3.2.5 Extinguishing concentration. The concentration of agent in air that causes
________________________________________________________________ extinguishment of the test flame within the observation period.
Submitter: Joseph A. Senecal, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. 3.2.6 Extinguishment. Cessation of combustion above the cup.
Recommendation: Replace existing Annex B “Cup Burner Test Method” with 3.2.7 Fuel. Flammable or combustible liquid or flammable gas supplied to the
a revised “Cup Burner Test Method” cup.
NFPA Task Group on the Cup-burner Test Method 3.2.7.1 Reference fuel.
Draft Document, Rev 2 3.2.7.1.1 Liquid reference fuel: n-Heptane. Minimum purity 99%.
Issued May 10, 2005 for consideration of 3.2.7.1.2 Gaseous reference fuel: Methane. Minimum purity 99%.
GFE-AAA Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems 3.2.7.2 Study fuel. Fuel for which an extinguishing concentration of an agent is
Title. Cup-burner method for determining the minimum concentration of to be determined.
gaseous agent for flame extinguishment 3.2.8 Lifted flame. Flame for which the base becomes lifted above cup rim by
Introduction. Total flooding fire extinguishing systems are widely used for at least 10 mm at any non-extinguishing agent concentration. The occurrence
protection of enclosures where flammable materials, including liquids and of lifted flames should be noted in test report.
gases, are processed or stored. The fire extinguishing agent used in such a 3.2.9 Minimum extinguishing concentration - MEC. The lowest value of
system may be a gas or a liquid under storage conditions. When released into extinguishing concentration determined by this method.
the atmosphere of the protected space the agent disperses, and evaporates 3.2.10 Observation period. A period of at least 10 s after change in agent flow
if initially a liquid, to form a mixture of air and gaseous agent. Successful rate.
fire suppression occurs when the agent concentration exceeds the minimum 3.2.11 Pre-burn time. Period between ignition of fuel and start of agent flow.
extinguishing concentration (MEC) by a sufficient margin, or safety margin, to The pre-burn time should be 95 ± 5 s.
cause rapid flame extinguishment. Use of excessive amounts of agent may be 4 Summary of Test Method
undesirable for reasons related to total system cost or, often more importantly,
due to the need to avoid creating an agent-air atmosphere that is itself harmful
to people due to considerations of hypoxia, agent toxicity, or both. In the case
of flammable liquid hazards the minimum design concentration (MDC) of a
gaseous agent is specified in national and international standards as the MEC
times a safety factor. This test method uses the cup-burner to determine, for a

2001-26
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
4.1 Air is delivered to the base of the chimney. The measurements necessary
for determining the air flow rate are recorded.
4.2 The air stream passes through a flow straightener to establish uniformly
distributed flow and reduce turbulence.
4.3 A flame of the test fuel is established at the cup. For a liquid fuel the
liquid level in the cup is maintained within prescribe limits. The flow rate of a
gaseous fuel is kept at a fixed value.
4.4 The flame is allowed to burn in air for a prescribed period of time, the pre-
burn time.
4.5 Agent is added to the air stream in steps. The measurements necessary for
determining the agent flow rate, agent concentration in air, or other relevant
data are recorded as appropriate to the specific method of agent flow control.
4.6 After each change in agent flow rate the effect of the agent-air mixture
on the flame is observed. If the flame is extinguished during the observation
period the result is recorded as an extinguishing condition and the
determination is concluded. Otherwise, then the agent flow rate is increased.
4.7 The extinguishing concentration for each determination are calculated or
otherwise determined from the data.
4.8 At last five determinations of extinguishing concentration are made
exclusive of initial trials conducted for the purpose of determining the
approximate extinguishing point.
4.9 The results of the several determinations of extinguishing concentration are
analyzed statistically and reported.
5 Significance and Use
5.1 This test method provides a means to determine the MEC in air of a
gaseous agent to extinguish flames of a liquid and gaseous fuels.
5.2 An MEC value determined by this method is specific to the apparatus
and procedure employed herein. The minimum concentration of agent in air
necessary to extinguish combustion of the same fuel under other laboratory or
field conditions may be different than determined by this method.
5.3 The MEC determined by this method may be used as a basis of determining
minimum agent design concentration for a total flooding application in
accordance with the requirements of relevant standards for total flooding fire
extinguishing systems. In particular, this method meets the requirements of
NFPA 2001 for determining the MEC of an agent for a Class B liquid fuel.
6 Interferences
6.1 Fuel character. Some fuels may change character in the cup during the test
as a consequence of distillation, chemical reaction, precipitation of solids, or by
other means. In such cases the extinguishing concentration determined by this
method may not accurately reflect the fuel in its most difficult to extinguish
form.
6.2 Air. Some laboratories may employ compressed “air” supplied in cylinders
by a commercial source. In such instances the “air” must be certified as
compressed atmospheric air. Some commercially supplied “air” is prepared by
blending previously separated oxygen and nitrogen. The oxygen concentration
in such mixtures may deviate significantly from 20.95 mol %, the sea level
composition of dry air. Deviation of oxygen concentration from the standard
value in supplied “air” will have an effect on the measured extinguishing
concentration of the agent. Additionally, the argon content of prepared “air”
may deviate from the 0.93 mol % sea level value. Argon has a significantly
lower thermal conductivity than nitrogen and, as such, argon excess or
deficiency could have a measurable effect on the apparent extinguishing of an
agent.
6.3 Barometric pressure.
6.4 Deposits on cup rim. Deposits can cause the liquid fuel to wick down the
outside of the cup, making the flame burn from the outside of the cup as well
as from the inside.
6.5 Humidity. Water vapor is an inert gas fire extinguishing agent. The
temperature and relative humidity of air supplied to the chimney should be
measured and recorded. See footnote below on R.H. effect.
6.6 Fuel overflow. Fuel overflow from cup into chimney base invalidates test.
7 Safety Precautions
7.1 Pressurized equipment. Extinguishing agents may be supplied in
pressurized cylinders. Caution must be exercised securing pressurized
cylinders, tubing, valves and fittings.
7.2 Combustion product ventilation. Combustion products are, in general,
hazardous. They may contain carbon monoxide, soot and partial combustion
products the toxicity of which depends on the fuel chemistry. When
halogenated extinguishing agents are tested combustion will produce halogen
acids, such as HF, HCl, HBr and HI, and carbonyl compounds such as COF2
and COCl2. . An adequate means of ventilation should be employed to exhaust
combustion products, away from the work space.
7.3 General fire hazard. There is an attendant general flammable liquids fire
hazard associated with conducting cup-burner tests. Test technicians should
understand this hazard and be trained to respond appropriately in the event of a
fuel spill or uncontrolled fuel ignition.
8 Apparatus
8.1 Cup-burner apparatus. The basic cup-burner apparatus consists of the
following elements: base assembly, chimney, cup, and flow straightener and is
shown schematically in figure 1.10
8.1.1 Base assembly. The base assembly securely supports the chimney, cup
and flow straightener. The base assembly has provisions
2001-27
8.1.1.1 to admit air and agent to a plenum below the flow straightener
8.1.1.2 to admit fuel to the cup liquid connection
8.1.1.3 for electrical connections or other means of cup heating
8.1.1.4 for thermocouples or other temperature measuring means
8.1.2 Chimney. The chimney consists of a standard 90 ±1.3 mm O.D. glass
tube with 2.4 ±0.3 mm wall thickness suitable for high temperature use11.
The overall chimney tube length is sufficient to accommodate the following
minimum dimensions:
8.1.2.1 Flow straightener to cup rim: 250 mm (nominal)
8.1.2.2 Cup rim to top of chimney: 300 mm (nominal)
8.1.3 Fuel supply.
8.1.3.1 Liquid fuel reservoir. Liquid fuel should be supplied from a reservoir
that permits adjustment of the liquid fuel height in the cup. In one method fuel
is supplied by gravity flow from a reservoir mounted on a means of adjusting
its height, such as on a laboratory jack stand. The fuel reservoir should be
several times larger in diameter than the cup to minimize change in the fuel
liquid level during a test. Several methods are available for maintaining a
constant reservoir liquid level.
8.1.3.2 Gaseous fuel supply.
8.1.4 Cup.
8.1.4.1 Body. The cup should be made of quartz or other glass suitable for
high temperature use. The nominal dimensions of the cup at the top are: OD =
31 mm; ID = 21.5 mm. The cup rim have a 45 degree internal chamfer fully
crossing the glass annulus. The dimensional details and shape of the upper
portion of the cup should be as shown in Fig. 2.12
8.1.5 Cup preparation for gaseous fuels. When gaseous fuels are used it is
necessary to place packing material or screening in the cup in such manner
as to facilitate uniform fuel gas flow across the exit face of the cup. There is
discretion on how this is achieved.13
8.1.5.1 Heating element. A means of heating liquid fuel in the cup may be
incorporated by any method that does not cause localized boiling of liquid
fuel on the heating surface. Methods found suitable include use of a heating
element immersed in the fuel (fully below liquid surface) or use of a heating
element contained within the glass wall of the cup.
8.1.5.2 Temperature measurement. A means of measuring fuel temperature
prior to ignition is required. An in situ thermocouple (below liquid surface) for
fuel temperature measurement during a test may prove convenient.
8.1.6 Flow straightener. The flow straightener is a means of assuring uniform
non-turbulent upward air velocity at the base of the chimney. A suitable flow
straightener may employ a bed of glass bead above the air inlet plenum or
other flow straightening materials.
8.2 Gas flow rates and agent concentration measurement.
8.2.1 Air supply.
8.2.1.1 Flow rate. Measurement of air flow rate may be made with any of
several type of flow meters including rotameters, mass flow meters, bubble
flow meters.
8.2.1.2 Humidity. Air supplied to the cup-burner should be dry.14
8.2.2 Agent.
8.2.2.1 Gaseous agent. Measurement of gas or vapor flow rate may be made
with any of several type of flow meters including rotameters, mass flow
meters, bubble flow meters.
8.2.2.2 Liquid agent. The method employed to deliver and vaporize an agent
that is a liquid at ambient conditions should be reported.
8.2.2.3 Agent concentration. Direct measurement of agent concentration in the
agent-air stream is measured using any of several possible methods including,
but not limited to,
8.2.2.3.1 gas chromatographic, infrared absorption, or other type of analysis of
discreet air-agent samples
8.2.2.3.2 continuous sampling and measurement by detector based on thermal
conductivity, infrared absorption, or other measuring principle.
8.2.2.4 Oxygen concentration. Agent concentration can, in some instances,
be inferred with sufficient accuracy from determination of the oxygen
concentration in the agent-air mixture. Oxygen concentration in gases is
commonly measured using methods based on paramagnetic or electrochemical
sensors. Interference effects, if any, of agent gas on oxygen concentration
measurement must be determined and accounted for.
8.3 Gaseous fuel. Measurement of gaseous fuel flow rate may be made with
any of several type of flow meters including rotameters, mass flow meters,
bubble flow meters, or other means.
9 Calibration and Standardization
9.1 Measuring equipment should be calibrated on a regular basis and any time
when test conditions indicate that re-calibration is necessary.
9.2 The measurement uncertainty or precision of measuring equipment should
be determined and recorded.
9.3 The vertical alignment of the chimney should be verified periodically. A
spirit level should suffice for this purpose.
9.4 The cup should be aligned vertically and be concentric with the axis of the
chimney.
9.5 Flow regulating valves, where used, should be sized for the anticipated
flow rate and should not leak at the pressurized connections.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
9.6 System calibration. System calibration tests should be conducted using n-
heptane (reference fuel) and at least two reference agents.
9.6.1 Primary reference agent. Nitrogen should be employed as the primary
reference agent.
9.6.2 Second reference agent. The second reference agent should be
selected from among those for which consensus data is available which has
extinguishing performance nearer to the study agent.
9.6.3 Calibration interval. The interval between system calibrations should
be short enough to assure that measurable changes in results are detected and
causes identified and corrected.
9.7 Standardization.
9.7.1 Evaluation of a study fuel with a reference agent should include a
standardization test using a reference fuel with the reference agent.
9.7.2 Evaluation of a study agent with a reference fuel should include a
standardization test using a reference agent with a reference fuel.
9.7.3 Evaluation of a study agent with a study fuel should include two
standardization tests
9.7.3.1 Reference agent test using a reference agent with the study fuel.
9.7.3.2 Reference fuel test using study agent with a reference fuel.
10 Test Specimens
10.1 Air. “Air” should be supplied as compressed natural air either filtered (for
oil mist, particulate matter, and moisture condensate) from a local compressor
drawing in fresh ambient air or from high pressure cylinders of certified
compressed air. “Air” prepared by re-mixing previously separated oxygen and
nitrogen should not be used.
10.2 Fuel. The fuel should be of a certified type and purity.
10.3 Agent. The agent should be of a certified type and purity or composition.
11 Conditioning
11.1 Temperature, laboratory. Tests should be conducted at ambient laboratory
temperature, nominally in the range of 20 to 25°C.
11.2 Temperature, fuel. Fuel in the cup should be brought to a temperature of
20 to 25 °C or 5±1 °C above its open cup flash point, which ever is higher.
11.3 Barometric pressure should be measured and recorded.
12 Procedure
12.1 Liquid fuels
12.1.1 Establish air flow in chimney at 40±2 L/min at laboratory ambient
conditions.15
12.1.2 Admit liquid fuel to cup bringing liquid level to about 5 to 10 mm below
cup rim.
12.1.3 Adjust temperature of fuel as required by 11.2.
12.1.4 Ignite the fuel.
12.1.5 Begin the measurement of pre-burn time.
12.1.6 At the start of the pre-burn period the liquid level of the fuel is raised
to within 1 mm of the cup rim or as close to the rim as is practicable without
overflowing the cup. The fuel liquid level is to be maintained at this position
during the test.
12.1.7 At the end of the pre-burn time begin agent addition.
12.1.8 Agent addition.
12.1.8.1 Agent is added to the air flow in steps. After each change in agent flow
rate the flame is observed for a period long enough to make measurements, but
at least 10 s, before increasing the agent flow rate.
12.1.8.2 Begin addition of agent to the air stream. Where the extinguishing
point is known approximately, the initial agent flow rate can be brought to
about 80% of that value. Subsequent increases in agent flow rate should be no
more than 2% and should be smaller at the extinguishing point is approached.
The agent flow rate, or other characteristic measure of agent concentration,
should be recorded at each adjustment of agent flow at the extinguishing point
is approached. It is a matter of experience and judgement as to how small agent
flow adjustments should be at any point during the test and when to record
such pre-extinguishment data.
12.1.8.3 If the flame is not extinguished during the 10 s observation period
then the agent flow rate is increased. This step is repeated until flame
extinguishment occurs.
12.1.8.4 The agent flow rate at extinguishment is recorded.16
12.1.9 The temperature of the fuel at the time of extinguishment may be
measured and recorded. This is supplementary information which may be
helpful in analysis of results in some cases.
12.1.10 At the conclusion of each test the fuel liquid level should be lowered
several mm. A pipette should be employed to remove at least 10 mL of liquid
fuel from the top of cup to remove decomposition products of both the fuel and
agent and, where the fuel is a mixture, to remove fuel concentrated in species
of higher boiling point due to preferential evaporation of lighter species at
surface.
12.1.11 Number of test trials. A determination of extinguishing concentration
should be based on results from at least five (5) test trials in sequence exclusive
of initial trials conducted for the purpose of determining the approximate
extinguishing point.
12.2 Gaseous fuels
12.2.1 Establish air flow in chimney to achieve a nominal air velocity at the
cup-chimney annulus of 13.6±0.7 cm/s ( volumetric air flow rate of ~ 40±2
L/min in an 85 mm ID chimney with a cup diameter of 31 mm) at laboratory
conditions (pressure and temperature).
2001-28
12.2.2 Measure and record air temperature and humidity.
12.2.3 Admit gaseous fuel to cup and ignite.
12.2.4 Fuel flow rate & flame size. Adjust the fuel gas flow rate to achieve a
visible flame height of about 75 – 85 mm.17
12.2.5 Begin the measurement of pre-burn time.
12.2.6 At the end of the pre-burn time begin agent addition.
12.2.7 Agent addition.
12.2.7.1 Agent is added to the air flow in steps. After each change in agent flow
rate the flame is observed for a period long enough to make measurements, but
at least 10 s,before increasing the agent flow rate.
12.2.7.2 Begin addition of agent to the air stream. Where the extinguishing
point is known approximately, the initial agent flow rate can be brought to
about 80% of that value. Subsequent increases in agent flow rate should be no
more than 2%. The agent flow rate, or other characteristic measure of agent
concentration, should be recorded at each adjustment of agent flow at the
extinguishing point is approached. It is a matter of experience and judgement
as to how small agent flow adjustments should be at any point during the test
and when to record such pre-extinguishment data.
12.2.7.3 If the flame is not extinguished during the 10 s observation period
then the agent flow rate is increased. This step is repeated until flame
extinguishment occurs.
12.2.7.4 The agent flow rate at extinguishment is recorded. See foot 16.
12.2.8 At the conclusion of each test the cup rim should be checked for
deposits (soot) and cleaned if required.
12.2.9 Number of test trials. A determination of extinguishing concentration
should be based on results from at least five (5) test trials, exclusive of
preliminary ranging trials, in sequence.
13 Agent concentration
13.1 General. The concentration of interest is that of the agent gas in the
agent-air mixture. Concentration is often expressed as “volume per cent” but
this is not strictly correct as “concentration” is actually a measure of quantity
of substance per unit volume, e.g., mol/Liter or g/L. Volume per cent is a
measure of the volume fraction of an air-agent mixture that consists of agent
gas. This measure is convenient in practice and is not discouraged as long as
it is determined correctly. Caution is required in cases where the density of
agent vapor, either pure or diluted in air, departs measurably from that of an
ideal gas of the same molecular weight. It is recommended that concentration
be calculated as mole fraction or mole percent. The supplier of each agent
can guide their users as to conversion to volume percent for use in fire
extinguishing system design.
13.2 Flow rate methods.
13.2.1 Volumetric flow rate. Volumetric flow rate air or agent, measured using
calibrated flow meters, should be converted to molar flow rate by multiplying
by the gas density and dividing by the agent mean molecular weight. To
determine the density of some agents gases it may be necessary to consult the
physical property data (table or equation of state) supplied by the manufacturer.
13.2.2 Mass flow rate. Where a calibrated mass flow rate measuring device
is used convert the mass flow rate to molar flow rate by dividing by the
molecular weight.
N = Molar flow rate = mass flow rate / molecular weight
13.2.3 Calculate mole fraction, XG, of agent in the agent-air mixture.
NG
XG =
N G + N Air
13.2.4 Calculate agent concentration in mole percent as
Mole% _ Agent = 100 X G
13.3 Direct gas analysis method. Any of several types of gas analyzers may be
calibrated with prepared agent-air mixtures of known composition.
13.3.1 Continuous sampling analyzer. If the analyzer is of the continuous
sampling type the gas analyzer may then be used to measure the agent
concentration in sample of air-agent mixture drawn from the flowing stream
during the test and in particular at the times just before and just after flame
extinguishment.
13.3.2 Discreet sample analyzer. Agent concentration can be determined by
analyzing a sample of the agent-air mixture in a gas chromatograph or other
calibrated gas analyzer.
13.4 Oxygen analyzer measurement method. The concentration of agent
in an agent-air mixture can be calculated from a measurement of oxygen
concentration in the mixture. Dry atmospheric air consists of 20.95 mol %
oxygen18. The concentration of a diluting ideal gas (agent) is given by
 %O2 
% Agent = 1 −  ⋅100
 20.95 
Where the source “air” is not atmospheric air the actual oxygen concentration
of the source “air” (in volume or mole %) should be substituted for the value
20.95 in the above relation. It should be verified that the agent gas does not
have an interference effect oxygen analyzer response.
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
13.5 Statistics. The results of the separate determinations of extinguishing
concentration should be used to determine average and standard deviation
14 Test Report
14.1 The test report should contain the following information:
14.1.1 Apparatus description.
14.1.2 Summary of test procedure and exceptions
14.1.3 Date of report
14.1.4 Fuel name and grade.
14.1.5 Agent type and composition
14.1.6 Test conditions including
14.1.6.1 Barometric pressure
14.1.6.2 Laboratory temperature, or temperature of air entering base of
chimney if different from laboratory temperature
14.1.6.3 Humidity of air supplied to chimney.
14.1.7 Air flow rate at test conditions
14.1.8 Fuel temperature
14.1.8.1 Measure and record fuel temperature prior to ignition.
14.1.8.2 Measure and record fuel temperature at flame extinction.
14.1.9 Agent flow rate at test conditions, if measured.
14.1.10 Gas analyzer measurements, if used.
14.1.11 Sample calculation of agent concentration
14.1.12 Summary table of results including:
14.1.12.1 Data for each combination of agent and fuel tested including:
14.1.12.1.1 Calibration tests
14.1.12.1.2 Standardization tests
14.1.12.1.3 Study tests
14.1.12.2 Sample statistics including
14.1.12.3 Number of measurements, n
14.1.12.4 Average extinguishing concentration,
n in humidity of air supplied to the cup-burner can affect the extinguishing
1
x= ∑
xi
n 1
14.1.12.5 Standard deviation,
n velocity in the cup-chimney annulus of 13.5 ± 0.7 cm/s. The air flow rate
s= ∑ 1
( xi − x ) 2 (n − 1)
14.1.13 Comparison of study results with standardization
14.1.14 Notes on exceptions in the apparatus, procedure, and analysis.
15 Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision.
15.1.1 Repeatability. The repeatability should be calculated as follows. [To be point. Methods that do not use direct measurement of agent flow rate
developed]
15.1.2 Reproducibility. [To be developed]
15.2 Bias. [To be developed]
16 Keywords
16.1 cup-burner, extinguishing concentration, gaseous agent
17 Figures (Figure 1 to be revised to reflect dimensions and tolerances in
Section 8 of text). [revise figure for simplified apparatus w/o heating coil.
Design needs to be agreed.]
The large majority of total flooding fire extinguishing systems are used for
protection of Class A fire hazards such as data centers, clean rooms, telephone
central offices, control rooms, etc. These occupancies do not normally contain protection of Class A fire hazards such as data centers, clean rooms, telephone
Class B fire hazards.
2
Preece, Stephen, Paul Mackay and Adam Chattaway, The Cup Burner
Method – A Parametric Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Reported
Extinguishing Concentrations of Inert Gases, Proceedings of the Halon
Options Technical Working Conference, April 24-26, 2001, Albuquerque,
NM, May 13-15, 2003.
3
Senecal, Joseph A., Flame Extinguishing by Inert Gases: Theoretical &
Experimental Analysis, Proceedings of the 2004 Technical Meeting of the
Central States Section of the Combustion Institute, Austin, TX, March 21-22, Experimental Analysis, Proceedings of the 2004 Technical Meeting of the
2004.
4
Takahashi, Fumiaki, Gregory T. Linteris, and Viswanath R. Katta,
Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames, Fourth International Symposium on
Scale Modeling (ISSM-IV), Cleveland, OH, September 17-19, 2003.
5
Flames of gaseous fuels behave differently than liquids in this test.
Gaseous fuel flow is fixed at the start of the test. Liquid fuel vapor flow
decreases as the extinguishing point is approached due to reduction in heat
transfer rate. Also see Linteris, G.T., Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames
by Super-Effective Chemical Inhibitors and Inert Compounds, Proceedings
of the Halon Options Technical Working Conference, April 24-26, 2001,
Albuquerque, NM, pp. 187-196. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship of
liquid fuel consumption rate and agent concentration.
6
CO2 might serve well as a secondary reference agent as it is readily
available and has an extinguishing concentration ~2/3 that of nitrogen
thereby establishing a significant span useful in establishing bench mark
performance.
7
Fumiaki Takahashi commented: Methane, a main ingredient of natural
gas, is favorable because its reaction mechanism is most known and thus
most widely used in combustion research. Accurate numerical predictions
can be made with full chemistry. However, as Irv Glassman has frequently
mentioned, methane (C1) is unique kinetically compared to higher
hydrocarbons. Ethane (C2) represents kinetics of higher hydrocarbons more
2001-29
closely as they decompose to smaller HCs and the oxidation reaction pathway
is ethane to ethylene then to acetylene. When I was in Dayton (UDRI, on-site
at WPAFB), Sandia, NM, specifically requested us to use ethane as the fuel
for the extinguishing nitrogen concentration measurement in step-stabilized
flames. Propane is another popular fuel and attractive for research use,
although it (C3) is also somewhat unique kinetically. Therefore, methane and
propane may be practically reasonable, but ethane may be more scientifically
sound. 8 July 8, 2004
8
Note. NFPA 2001 (2004 ed., Annex B) specification is “90 to 120 s” for
liquids and 60 s for gases. At the recommendation of+10the VdS representative,
ISO TC 21/SC 8 opted in September 2003 for a 6 0 −0 s pre-burn time for
liquid fuels and 60 s with no tolerance, for gaseous fuels.
9
Note. It has yet to be demonstrated whether barometric pressure variation
from 101.3 Pa affects results obtained in this test. A controlled experimental
effort is required.
10
Simplified apparatus w/o heater recommended by FK and MLR.
Dimensioned cross sectional drawing needed.
11
The specified chimney dimensions are standard and available in Pyrex
and Kimax brand tube.
12
Note. The cup diameters given are from the ICI design which employs a
two-layer design that allows a platinum heating wire to be wrapped around
the cup. The OD of the cup is deemed more important than the ID. The liquid
pool diameter just below the chamfer is about 25 to 27 mm.
13
Takahashi et al (2003) filled the cup with 3 mm glass beads and placed two
layers of 40 mesh screen on top.
14
A systematic study by Kidde plc showed that for one halocarbon agent
the extinguishing concentration was linearly related to the humidity of the
supplied air. The MEC for 100% R.H. air (~21 C) was ~11% (relative) less
than that determined for ~0% R.H. air. Reference P. Mackay memorandum,
18 May 2004. In addition, analysis (July 2004 by J.A. Senecal) of humidity
effects on inert gas (nitrogen) extinguishment indicates that feasible variations
concentration, XG. Specifically, it is estimated that in the two extremes of (a)
dry air and (b) 70% R.H. air at 25°C the variation in XG is approximately
0.313 < XG < 0.295, or 6% which is at least twice the estimated uncertainty of
the measurement. An R.H. correction to results may be necessary.
15
(a) The air flow rate should be 40±2 L/min which, for the standard chimney
and cup configuration specified herein, corresponds to a superficial linear
should be adjusted in consideration of the actual chimney and cup dimensions
to achieve the same nominal annular air velocity.
(b) The literature has discussed a “plateau” region in the air flow rate, i.e. a
range of air velocities over which the MEC value is invariant, or nearly so.
Most investigators report that the “plateau for halocarbon agents is usually at
or near 40 L/min. It is also reported that there is no plateau for inert gas agents
and the MEC value creeps up with increasing air velocity.
16
The goal is to determine that agent concentration in at the extinguishing
are permitted. For example, composition analysis of agent-air mixture is
acceptable.
17
Takahashi et al (2003) studied a methane flame. They used an air flow
velocity of 10.7 cm/s (volumetric rate of ~36 L/min) and a methane cup-exit
velocity of 0.92 cm/s (flow rate ~0.34 L/min). This corresponds to an overall
equivalence ratio of about 0.090, i.e., about 900% excess air for complete
combustion. The uninhibited flame height was ~ 75 mm.
18
See Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 83rd ed., David R. Lide, editor, Ch.
14, p.19 “U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1976)”, CRC Press LLC (2002).
19
The large majority of total flooding fire extinguishing systems are used for
central offices, control rooms, etc. These occupancies do not normally contain
Class B fire hazards.
20
Preece, Stephen, Paul Mackay and Adam Chattaway, The Cup Burner
Method – A Parametric Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Reported
Extinguishing Concentrations of Inert Gases, Proceedings of the Halon
Options Technical Working Conference, April 24-26, 2001, Albuquerque,
NM, May 13-15, 2003.
Senecal, Joseph A., Flame Extinguishing by Inert Gases: Theoretical &
Central States Section of the Combustion Institute, Austin, TX, March 21-22,
2004.
21
Takahashi, Fumiaki, Gregory T. Linteris, and Viswanath R. Katta,
Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames, Fourth International Symposium on
Scale Modeling (ISSM-IV), Cleveland, OH, September 17-19, 2003.
22
Flames of gaseous fuels behave differently than liquids in this test.
Gaseous fuel flow is fixed at the start of the test. Liquid fuel vapor flow
decreases as the extinguishing point is approached due to reduction in heat
transfer rate. Also see Linteris, G.T., Suppression of Cup-Burner Flames
by Super-Effective Chemical Inhibitors and Inert Compounds, Proceedings
of the Halon Options Technical Working Conference, April 24-26, 2001,
Albuquerque, NM, pp. 187-196. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship of
liquid fuel consumption rate and agent concentration.
23
CO2 might serve well as a secondary reference agent as it is readily
available and has an extinguishing concentration ~2/3 that of nitrogen
thereby establishing a significant span useful in establishing bench mark
performance.
Figure 1. Cup-burner apparatus.
See Figure 1 on the next page
Figure 2. Details of cup design. From ICI.
See Figure 2 on the next page
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001

31 mm

90 mm

300 mm
CUP DETAIL
Scale: none

Fuel level

250 mm

Agent/air
mixture
To gas
analyzer

Figure 1
Cup-burner apparatus

252 mm

Small glass tube (at 90° to plane Outer tube

of loops) to be sealed off after 12 mm O.D.
leads, etc., are fixed in place. 10 mm I.D.
Rim, ground to knife edge
Inner tube 3 glass spacers (at 120° (as near as possible)
D 8.5 mm O.D. 25 mm from top rim) B A
7 mm I.D.
S13 21.5 mm I.D. 31 mm O.D.
joint (1 mm wall) (1 mm wall)

Tube for thermocouple C

E
37 mm 3 mm O.D., 1.5 mm I.D.
25 mm Double-start spiral groove etched
(end of tube 2 mm below rim) in glass. Both spirals end on top
70 mm capstan(A). One, 7 turns spaced
3 glass spacers (at 120°) ¹⁄₁₀ in. apart, starts at capstan B;
Platinum wire loops. the other, 7¹⁄₄ turns spaced ¹⁄₁₀ in.
(This wire, thicker than that of the apart, starts at capstan C.
coil, is carried up to and around the
capstans, which anchor the coil.)

Details of Thermocouple: Details of Heating Coil:

BURNER Chromel–alumel wires Heater: 0.005 in. platinum wire: (200 cm required)
Cup Burner Apparatus approx. 0.005 in. thick.
Mat — Glass Leads from Loops: 0.02 in. platinum wire (50 cm required)
Heater wire is welded to the heavier leads from the loops D and E,
9 – 23 – 77
each lead being given 2 “anchoring” turns around its appropriate
capstan (B or C). The heater wire is then wound in the double
groove from one capstan, up to and around capstan A (1 turn),
Figure 2 then back down the other groove to the other capstan.
Details of cup design. From ICI

2001-30
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
Substantiation: The proposal offers for consideration adoption of the work
product of a Task Group appointed in December of 2003 by the Chairman of
the NFPA 2001 Technical Committee for the purpose of developing a revised
cup burner test method.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-87 Log #1 Final Action: Reject
(Annex C)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: R.A. Whiteley, Wormald Ansul (UK) Ltd.
Recommendation: Delete all text in Annex C and replace with the text from
ISO 14520 Annex E - version 25.11.02, which is the text which ISO will
shortly publish.
   Note: ISO 14520 Annex E, version 25.11.02 is on file at NFPA.
Substantiation: The current methodology can predict ‘pass’ when a discharge
test would produce ‘fail’; it can also predict ‘fail’ where a discharge test would
produce ‘pass’.
Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The ISO document was not available for review.
________________________________________________________________
2001-88 Log #65 Final Action: Accept
(C.1.2.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   Subsection 2: Attached Volumes...will allow detrimental halon clean agent
leakage that would...”
   Subsection 4: Leak Location...is accounted for by assuming halon clean agent
leakage occurs through leaks...”
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard
and occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-89 Log #66 Final Action: Accept
(C.1.3.8)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   The theoretical maximum positive pressure created at the floor slab by the
column of the halon clean agent –air mixture.
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard
and occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-90 Log #67 Final Action: Accept
(C.1.3.11)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   The volume being tested by the door fan. This includes the halon clean agent
protected enclosure and any attached volumes.
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard
and occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-91 Log #73 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.2.1.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change the wording of paragraph to reflect the true
accuracy intended, that is plus OR minus 5 percent. Change as follows:
   The accuracy of airflow measurement should be +/ - 5 percent of the
measured flow rate.
Substantiation: The paragraph as it currently reads seems to require that the
flow measurement should be 5 percent higher than the measured flow rate.
Since an “accuracy” is specified, this should be “within” 5 percent of the
measured flow rate, hence should be plus or minus.
   This appears as if it was probably a legacy typographical error.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-92 Log #74 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.2.1.5)
________________________________________________________________
2001-31
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change wording of paragraph to reflect the true accuracy
intended, that is plus OR minus 1 Pascal. Change as follows:
   “...It should have an accuracy of +/- 1 Pa and divisions of 2 Pa or less...”
Substantiation: Accuracies should be expressed as a tolerance or range. This
appears as if it was probably a legacy typographical error. +/-1 Pa should be
the correct accuracy.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-93 Log #68 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.2.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   Subsection (1) Smoke pencil, fully charged
   CAUTION
   “...of building or halon clean agent system smoke detectors. Appropriate
precautions...”
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard
and occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
_______________________________________________________________
2001-94 Log #76 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.2.3.3)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change wording of paragraph as follows:
   Install a piece of rigid material less and 1/8 in. (3 mm) thickness (free of any
penetrations) in an unused blower port or other convenient enclosure opening
large enough to accept the approximately 15.5 in.2 (0.01 m2 ) 155 in.2 (0.1 m2 )
sharp-edged round or square opening.
Substantiation: This should be changed so to match Section C.2.2.3.6. 155 in.2
(0.1 m2 ). 144 in.2 (1 sq ft) is a good industry standard for the field calibration
opening. It is apparent that 15.5 in. 2 is a mistake and cannot see why that
wording would be there.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-95 Log #69 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.3.2.3)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   Calculate the effective floor area by dividing the net halon clean agent
protected volume by the maximum clean agent protected enclosure height.
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard and
occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-96 Log #70 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.3.3.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   Get the user’s personnel and/or the halon clean agent contractor to set up
the...”
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard and
occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-97 Log #77 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.6.1.4)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change wording of paragraph to reflect the true accuracy’s,
signs and values as they should be for the worded out examples:
   Depressurize the enclosure with a door fan blower(s) until the measured
pressure differential reading on the gauge (Pm ) goes through a total pressure
reduction (dPm) equal to the column pressure (Pc ). As an example, is the static
pressure (PST ) measured in C.2.6.1.2 was + 1 Pa - -1 Pa , and the calculated
column pressure is 10 Pa, blow air out of the enclosure until a Pm of +11Pa -11
Pa is obtained. If the static pressure (PST ) was + 1 Pa, and the calculated
column pressure is 10 Pa, blow air out of the enclosure until a Pm of +9 Pa -9
Pa is obtained. If using magnehelic gauges, tap both the room pressure and
flow pressure gauges for 10 seconds each. Wait a further 30 seconds before
taking the readings.
Substantiation: In the original wording of the paragraph, the signs and values
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
of the example were not correct for this depressurization case.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-98 Log #71 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.6.3.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change all references in paragraph from HALON to
CLEAN AGENT as follows:
   “...but allows for calculation at the halon clean agent column pressure...”
Substantiation: The clean agent standard applies to all clean agents (of which
Halon is not). The standard was originally derived from the Halon standard and
occurrences of Halon in this paragraph are incorrect carry-overs from that
document.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-99 Log #72 Final Action: Accept
(C.2.8.1.2)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Colin Genge, Retrotec Ltd
Recommendation: Change paragraph appending wording as follows:
   Leakage identification should focus on obvious points of leakage, including
wall to floor slab joint, wall to ceiling slab joint wall joints , penetrations of all
kinds, HVAC ductwork, doors, and windows.
Substantiation: In our experience testing and providing analysis on hundreds
of enclosures, one of the most overlooked causes of leakage in the enclosure
occurs at the joints between the wall and the floor slab and between the wall
and ceiling slab. This is typically due to the fact that the floor joint is covered
by a decorative molding, which means that the leak is not apparently visible to
naked eye and hence not sealed.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept
________________________________________________________________
2001-100 Log #32 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(Annex D)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Jeffrey L. Harrington, Harrington Group, Inc.
Recommendation: Add the following new Annex D and renumber existing
Annex D as Annex E:
   Annex D Enclosure Evaluation
   The discharge of a clean agent total flooding fire extinguishing system into a protected
enclosure creates pressure fluctuations therein. Normally, the enclosure will have enough
vent area and resistive strength to moderate and resist the pressure changes so that no
damage occurs. In some circumstances, however, the enclosure could be damaged by the
momentary pressure change. Damaging pressure can develop if there is insufficient vent
area provided by normal leakage in the enclosure boundary. Alternatively, enclosure
damage might occur due to a relatively weak construction, perhaps due to design or
fabrication deficiencies. Damage could occur due to a combination of these factors.
   The peak pressure created in an enclosure depends on many factors, including the agent
concentration and discharge time, humidity, opening characteristics of the system
discharge valve, and the aggregate vent area of the enclosure. The most influential
parameter is the aggregate vent area, which is comprised of all openings whether
unintentional or intentional.
   Pressures are developed within an enclosure during the discharge of both inert and
halocarbon clean agents. The discharge of an inert agent results in only a positive pressure
change, as illustrated by Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows the measured pressure changes within an enclosure during an
actual discharge of halocarbon clean agent. The measured pressure within the
enclosure initially dropped to a negative peak value of -387 Pa (8.1 pounds per    The manufacturer of the clean agent fire extinguishing system should be
square foot), then rose to the positive peak value of +671 Pa (14.0 pounds per consulted for means of estimating peak discharge pressure values.
square foot) before falling back down to 0, about 10 seconds after the end of    Once determined, the peak pressure values should be compared to the
the 5.5 second discharge. enclosure strength values. The enclosure strength value should be greater than
   Enclosures must be capable of withstanding peak pressures whether positive the largest peak pressure value, either negative or positive, by a factor of 2.0. If
in the case of the inert agents or both negative and positive in the case of the necessary to achieve this safety factor, the enclosure can be strengthened, or
halocarbon agents. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine the the enclosure can be provided with automatic pressure relief.
strength of the enclosure’s bounding walls, floor and ceiling in terms of their Substantiation: The failure of an enclosure due to discharge pressures that
ability to resist pressure decreases and increases as applicable to the specific exceed the ability of the enclosure to remain intact presents a safety concern
agent. for people in or near the protected space. Steps must be taken to assure safety.
   The strength of the enclosure walls and ceiling usually determine the overall Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
strength of an enclosure. The strength of the construction elements and their    Add the following new Annex D and renumber existing Annex D as Annex
physical dimensions play an important role. For example, a common wall E:
construction system consists of gypsum wallboard attached to vertical studs of    Annex D Enclosure Evaluation
either metal or wood. The inherent strength of the stud system will dictate the    The discharge of a clean agent total flooding fire extinguishing system into a
overall strength of the wall. The stud material, physical dimensions, and protected enclosure creates pressure fluctuations therein. Normally, for
spacing between studs have a significant influence on the overall strength of halocarbon agents, the enclosure will have enough vent area and resistive
the stud system. strength to moderate and resist the pressure changes so that no damage occurs.
   Gypsum board wall or ceiling construction is relatively strong and resilient. In some circumstances, however, the enclosure could be damaged by the
This type of construction will flex without breaking when subjected to momentary pressure change. Damaging pressure can develop if there is
significant negative and positive pressures. In contrast, walls constructed of insufficient vent area provided by normal leakage in the enclosure boundary.
masonry units (brick, concrete block, clay tile) are relatively brittle. They are Alternatively, enclosure damage might occur due to a relatively weak
less flexible and will crack or break when subjected to significant negative and construction, perhaps due to design or fabrication deficiencies. Damage could
positive pressures, unless they are reinforced. occur due to a combination of these factors.
   An engineer should be consulted in the determination of enclosure strength.    The peak pressure created in an enclosure depends on many factors,
Once determined, the strength of the enclosure elements should be used to including the agent concentration and discharge time, humidity, opening
evaluate the need for enclosure relief venting, or perhaps adding additional characteristics of the system discharge valve, and the aggregate vent area of the
strength to the construction components. enclosure. The most influential parameter is the aggregate vent area, which is
2001-32
Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 2001
comprised of all openings whether unintentional or intentional
   Pressures are developed within an enclosure during the discharge of both inert
and halocarbon clean agents. The discharge of an inert agent results in only a
positive pressure change, as illustrated by Figure 1.

   Figure 1: Example of actual IG-541 sixty-second discharge showing peak

pressure

  

Figure 2: Example of an actual HFC-227ea discharge showing peak pressures

   Figure 2 shows the measured pressure changes within an enclosure during an

actual discharge of halocarbon clean agent. The measured pressure within the
enclosure initially dropped to a negative peak value of -387 Pa (8.1 pounds per
square foot), then rose to the positive peak value of +671 Pa (14.0 pounds per
square foot) before falling back down to 0, about 10 seconds after the end of
the 5.5 second discharge.
   Enclosures must be capable of withstanding peak pressures whether positive
in the case of the inert agents or both negative and positive in the case of the
halocarbon agents. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine the
strength of the enclosure’s bounding walls, floor and ceiling in terms of their
ability to resist pressure decreases and increases as applicable to the specific
agent.
   The strength of the enclosure walls and ceiling usually determine the overall
strength of an enclosure. The strength of the construction elements and their
physical dimensions play an important role. For example, a common wall
construction system consists of gypsum wallboard attached to vertical studs of
either metal or wood. The inherent strength of the stud system will dictate the
overall strength of the wall. The stud material, physical dimensions, and
spacing between studs have a significant influence on the overall strength of
the stud system.
   Gypsum board wall or ceiling construction is relatively strong and resilient.
This type of construction will flex without breaking when subjected to
significant negative and positive pressures. In contrast, walls constructed of
masonry units (brick, concrete block, clay tile) are relatively brittle. They are
less flexible and will crack or break when subjected to significant negative and
positive pressures, unless they are reinforced.
   An engineer should be consulted in the determination of enclosure strength.
Once determined, the strength of the enclosure elements should be used to
evaluate the need for enclosure relief venting, or perhaps adding additional
strength to the construction components.
   The manufacturer of the clean agent fire extinguishing system should be
consulted for means of estimating peak discharge pressure values.
   Once determined, the peak pressure values should be compared to the
enclosure strength values. The enclosure strength value should be greater than
the largest peak pressure value, either negative or positive, by a factor of 2.0. If
necessary to achieve this safety factor, the enclosure can be strengthened, or
the enclosure can be provided with automatic pressure relief.
Committee Statement: Clarified the second sentence as it applies to
halocarbon agents.

2001-33
 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 OFFICE USE ONLY
For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes
and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 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
may 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.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 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.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 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.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 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.