M E M O R a N D U M

Home , Gaseous fire suppression, Inert gas asphyxiation, Tripoint

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Technical Committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems

FROM: Barry Chase, Staff Liaison

DATE: March 20, 2019

SUBJECT: NFPA 12/12A/2001 First Draft Meeting Agenda (F2020) April 24-26, 2019, Memphis, TN

1. Call to Order – April 24, 2019, 8:00am ET 2. Chair’s comments 3. Previous minutes [April 25, 2017, Linthicum Heights, MD] 4. NFPA Staff Liaison Presentation a. NFPA Standards Development Process b. NFPA Resources 5. NFPA 2001 First Draft a. Public input [see attached] b. Report of the Task Group on Total Flooding Design Concentration Requirements (5.4.2) [P. Rivers] c. Presentation on Halocarbon Blend 55 (related to PI 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 58, 60) [Robert Richard – Honeywell] d. April 25, 8:00AM - Presentation on Toxicity of Halocarbon Impurities (related to PI 74) [Kurt Werner, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager, 3M Electronics Materials Solutions Division] e. April 25, 9:00AM - Presentation on Toxicity of Halocarbon Impurities [Steve Hodges, Alion Science and Technology] f. Committee revisions g. Staff notes and editorial issues 6. NFPA 12 First Draft a. Public input [see attached] b. Report of the Task Group on Low Pressure Containers (4.6.6.1.1) [K. Adrian] c. Committee revisions d. Staff notes and editorial issues 7. NFPA 12A First Draft a. Public input [see attached] b. Committee revisions c. Staff notes and editorial issues 8. Other business 9. Next meeting location and dates

1 of 371 All NFPA Technical Committee meetings are open to the public. Please contact me for information on attending a meeting as a guest. If a guest wishes to address the committee regarding a specific agenda item, the request should be submitted at least seven days before the meeting. Read NFPA's Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Section 3.3.3.3) for further information.

Additional Meeting Information: See the Meeting Notice on the Document Information Page (nfpa.org/12, nfpa.org/12A, or nfpa.org/2001) for meeting location details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Yiu Lee, Project Administrator at 617-984-7683 or by email [email protected].

C. Standards Administration

2 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 41-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Global Input ]

Type your content here ...Annex F Pure N2 Nitrogen Performance and Applications How a cloud of cohesive, pure, inert, cryogenically cold to start, N2 Nitrogen ends fires Evaporated from liquid Nitrogen which is a liquid clear as water but flows like Mercury, the Nitrogen gas cloud has the same affinity for its own molecules as the liquid allowing it to form a transparent space in a smoke-filled environment by displacing Oxygen, water, Carbon dioxide, toxins, and smoke particles thus staying pure and transparent. This cloud ends the flames because there is no Oxygen where the cloud exists. And starting at cryogenic temperature, -195.8oC., it cools the fuels. The original size of the cloud is 230 times the volume of the evaporated liquid. As it cools the fuel, it expands to 250 times the liquid volume at ambient temperatures and heating to inferno temperatures it becomes 600 to 700 times the volume. The volume increase causes the cloud to be lighter weight so it rises in the air. As the winds in the fire exist, it is wind driven. The winds move it cross-wise and the cooling causes it to rise upward. As the cloud of evaporated Nitrogen moves, it stays together, not losing volume and not being dissipated because of its inertness as N2, double Nitrogen molecules. Where the cloud has been, no flames exist unless or until the cooled fuels which, still within re-ignition temperature, start to flicker little flames. In outdoor fires including wildland fires and structure fires having escaping burning embers extinguished halts fire expansion. With the flames out, smoke production ends. With re-ignition, there is but a trickle of smoke until its expansion speeds up. Another Nitrogen application ends this fire. The area where the fire occurred, if controlled with evaporated Nitrogen clouds, has no residual material left by the fire suppressant since Nitrogen leaves the fire moving into the air where it mixes with the atmosphere which has 78% (N2)Nitrogen content. Recovery is limited to replacing what burned away, melted, warped or charred. One finds no water damage, no electrical arcing leaving electrical and electronics equipment functional unless it was in the fire. Food, paper and fabrics not in the fire are in usable condition and can be eaten, worn, walked on, sat upon and used. The smell of smoke is removed using Febreze ™ (Proctor and Gamble). Stored liquid Nitrogen does dissipate in large cryogenic containers at 1% per day and in smaller units as much as 10% per day. This going cost of replenishment assures less loss were a fire event to occur, less recovery time, and possibly lower insurance rates. Nitrogen use also can handle crises events as spills, overheating, and flooding. This evaporated Nitrogen as a fire suppressant differs from all other means of fire control because it is the only cohesive cloud. Helium, Neon, Argon, and even compressed Nitrogen gas also are inert, but they form no cohesive clouds, but rather lower the Oxygen percentage in the air by mixing with the air when released in the pure state. Other molecules as carbon dioxide dissipate by photosynthesis or, in the case of water, condensing making clouds and wetting things down and dissolving salts. In fire fighting as water puddles it is useless in fire control. Also, below 0oC. water is ice which must be melted to be useful. Water is a fire suppressant as a liquid or extremely o hot steam. Nitrogen (N2), a gas from -195.8 C through inferno temperatures, always displaces Oxygen and other atoms and molecules which ends flames, and cools fuels that are hotter than the Nitrogen gas encountered. As it cools, Nitrogen gas warms expanding its volume and making the cloud ride higher and higher in the air space. When it escapes the fire and cools to match the air, it mixes into the atmosphere sustaining the 78% Nitrogen level. The Nitrogen had been removed from the atmosphere in the liquefaction process. After fire use, it is returned. Evaporated Nitrogen does not reduce air Oxygen ratio as other gas fire suppressants do. It displaces Oxygen and stays pure pushing Oxygen aside, ending flames. Finally, the term rain was defined in the patent process for the Liquid Nitrogen Enabled, patent USP 7,631,506 as releasing liquid Nitrogen through perforated pan, cap or trough, as falling by gravity. My patent attorneys, the late, brilliant Christopher J. Kukowski and Jim Boyle of Boyle Fredrickson

3 of 371

1 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

SC of Milwaukee and examiner William C. Doerrler worked out the necessities for issuance. Falling by gravity, water falls as rain, snow, sleet, hail, compared to dew and frost which condense from water vapor onto solid items in the air. Liquid Nitrogen, as the patent states, falls as drops through a matrix of small holes by gravity creating the evaporated Nitrogen gas cloud as here described. We call this cryorain since the original cloud starts at liquid Nitrogen temperature as these drops fall and evaporate forming the evaporated pure Nitrogen N2 molecule, cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold cloud which retains purity by displacing all other gases and airborne particles and ending the flames as it moves in the fire rising as it warms when cooling the fuel. And use of Nitrogen here described saves the portion of fresh water normally expended in water fire control for community and agricultural applications. Patent USP7,631,506 covers all uses of evaporated Nitrogen and rights are in place until December 15, 2029. It is assigned to AirWars Defense lp and will be licensed to CryoRain Inc. where the short term transport and dispersing tools will be made. This evaporated Nitrogen adds both the thermal factor and its cohesive purity to handling crises ending fires instantly, stopping floods, solidifying spills to be skimmed up, preventing ordnance from exploding, and handling criminal situations saving all, restraining criminals and freeing innocents, preserving their homes and communities. This changes fire control, law enforcement and defense department practices. It reduces the migration levels as they flee the ruins in the Middle East. Ending coal mine fires in-situ does not disturb surface features and can halt sea level rise by year 2021. The fires ended no longer perpetually heat the earth's crust which cradles now cooled oceans so less snow mass melts, and tops the mountains allowing glaciers to grow. Freeze fracking oil shale and hot Nitrogen extracting fuel stops man made earthquakes, ends ground water contamination, and yields cleaner fuel and separating the fuel types at well locations. Our fresh water is preserved when Nitrogen is used in fighting fires. Applications in Nuclear Reactor Coolant and Nuclear Facility Protection Reference - communications regarding the Fukushima crisis; https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1132 /ML11322A196.pdf Pages: 57/374 - 62/374 with additional communications on Nitrogen uses on pages 63/374 - 92/374. Entire list of Nitrogen isotopes Nuclide N(n) Isotopic mass (u) half-life decay mode(s) daughter isotope(s) granddaughter isotope(s) 10N 3 10.04 200(140) x 10-24s p 9C B+ 9Be, 8Be 5Li 11N 4 11.03 590(210) x 10-24s p 10C B+ 10Be 11mN 6.90(80) x 10-22s spin reverse 12N 5 12.02 11.000(16) ms B+ (96.5%) 12C stable B+. a (3.5%) 8Be [n 2] a 4He stable

decays 3 4He + e stable 13N 6 13.0057 9.65(4) min, B+ 13C stable 14N 7 14.003 stable 15N 8 15.000 stable 16N 9 16.006 7.13(2) s B- (99.99%) 16O stable B-. a (.001%) 12C stable 17N 10 17.008 4,173(4) s B- n (95.0%) 16O stable B- (4.99%) 17O stable B-, a (.0025%) 13C stable

4 of 371

2 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

18N 11 18.014 622(9) ms B- (76.9%) 18O stable B-, a (12.2%) 14C B- 14N stable B-, n (10.9%) 17O stable 19N 12 19.017 271 (8) ms B-,n (54.6%) 18O stable B- (45.4%) 19O B- 19F stable 20N 13 20.023 130(7) ms B-, n (56.99%) 19O B- 19F stable B- (43.00%) 20O B- 20F B- 20Ne stable 21N 14 21.027 87(6) ms B-, n (80.0%) 20O B- 20F B- 20Ne stable B- (20.0%) 21O B- 21F B- 21Ne stable 22N 15 22.034 13.9(14) ms B- (65.0%) 22O B- 22F 78.0% stable B-, n (35%) 21O B- n 21F 22.0% stable 23N 16 23.041 14.5(24) ms B- 23O B- n 22F 58% stable 14.1 (+12-15) ms B- n 23F 42% 24N 17 24.051 <52 ns n 23N B- 23O B-n22F stable 23F B- 23Na*. 25N 18 25.061 <260 ns

Beryllium isotopes 8Be a 4He - stable; 9Be stable; 10Be B- 10B – stable Fluorine isotopes 19F – stable; 20F – B- 21Ne; 21F – B- 21Ne; 22F B- 22Ne (89%), B- n 21 Ne (11%); 23 F B- 23 Ne (86%), B-n 22 Ne (14%). Neon isotopes – 20Ne – stable; 21Ne – stable; 22Ne – stable. 23Ne B- * 23Na – stable. Lithium isotope 5Li p 4He stable 13N used in positron emission tomography

Referenced from Wikipedia Isotope lists on these elements. No element other than Nitrogen has such a stable isotopic situation. The molecule N2, Nitrogen- Nitrogen, is 100% these nearest to stable atoms, and as a liquid, liquid Nitrogen is the fourth coldest liquid on earth with only liquid Helium, liquid Hydrogen, and liquid Neon being colder. And it is readily available because N2, Nitrogen-Nitrogen, gas is 78% of the earth's atmosphere and evaporant, Nitrogen gas leaves no residual in that it mixes with the atmosphere when the pure Nitrogen gas cloud dissipates. Present technology uses water as the coolant for Nuclear Power and Heating Plants and dissipates high temperature cooling water in the vicinity of these plants making an infrared detectible locator for these crucial facilities where the plant provides the electricity for the region. Long term non- stable Hydrogen isotopes, dueterium, 2H, and tridium, 3H, persist in their radioactivity as do some of the isotopes of Oxygen. Water, when extremely hot, reacts with the Zirconium pipes, holding the radioactive materials in the primary reactor, oxidizing the Zirconium and giving off Hydrogen, H2, Hydrogen-Hydrogen, gas which, being extremely light weight, settles under the roof of the facility. 5 of 371

3 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Hydrogen, being extremely reactive with Oxygen present, causes the explosion blowing the roof off he facility, an event termed melt-down. This term masks the significance of the event which ended the use of Hydrogen gas in dirigibles with the 1937 burning in the Hindenburg where the air ship exploded and burned low in the skies over New Jersey. It also is blamed for the serious damage in the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima which spread radiation over large parts of the planet Earth. Changing the cooling material from water to Evaporated Nitrogen Gas from liquid Nitrogen has many advantages. A few include: 1. Nitrogen has fewer radioactive isotopes and those which are not stable have half-lives in nano-, micro- and whole seconds, or at most 13N which has a half-life of 9.65 minutes and is used in positron emission tomography, a human medical procedure, where H2O is long term radioactive. Refer here to the above isotope profile of Nitrogen. 2. If you want to cool material, why not start below zero (0oC.)? Liquid Nitrogen evaporates at -195.8oC. so the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud starts really cold. Liquid Nitrogen is the fourth coldest liquid on earth. 3. Where water cooling leaves a residual and can dissolve and carry particles, Evaporated Nitrogen Gas leaves no residual and goes off into the air as a stable molecule of two like atoms of 14N or 15N or a Nitrogen that rapidly disappears as its halflife is so short, it becomes a stable Oxygen, Carbon or Fluorine atom most often in decay. 4. Making a still of the cooling wash over the zirconium pipes filled with radioactive material, there can be a separation of many useful compounds, some radioactive, and some not, that can be sold to chemical suppliers. 5. Residual Nitrogen molecules, Nitrogen-Nitrogen, can be liquefied into liquid Nitrogen and recycled or allowed be be released into the air. Water is a marker for nuclear plants and with an infrared camera, they can be located very easily were an air attack planned. The hot ring of cooling water around the power plants just gives them away. Converting to Nitrogen there would be no hot ring of water. The Nuclear Plant south of Holland Michigan on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan gas allowed a delightful early spring swim for me and my pups while traveling Boston to Milwaukee. 6. This conversion can be done by inserting a small part on the massive, aging plants or make newer plants smaller to serve localities rather than putting power on a nation-wide grid. 7. Power losses in transport through the grid are massive. One could coat the wires enabling a ventilating coolant, Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, and possibly get superfluidity in the wires greatly reducing power losses. 8. Replacing water sprinkler systems in the nuclear facilities with Fixed Nitrogen Fire Control prevents the damage water causes to the electrical and electronics needed in controlling the functions of the nuclear facility since the cold Nitrogen gas does not conduct electricity nor react with any chemical nor dissolve materials nor leave a residual to contaminate and change the function of these tools nor destroy paper and other information containing or function driving materials.

6 of 371

4 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Gas excerpt from Nitrogen coverage in Wikipedia Nitrogen edited August 18, 2018 - proposed additions The applications of Nitrogen compounds are naturally extremely widely varied due to the huge size of this class: hence, only applications of pure Nitrogen itself will be considered here. Two-thirds of Nitrogen produced by industry is sold as the gas and the remaining one-third as the liquid. The gas is mostly used as an inert atmosphere whenever the Oxygen in the air would pose a fire, explosion, or oxidizing hazard. Some examples include:[67] ꞏ As a modified atmosphere, pure or mixed with Carbon dioxide, to nitrogenate and preserve the freshness of packaged or bulk foods (by delaying rancidity and other forms of oxidative damage). Pure Nitrogen as food additive is labeled in the European Union with the E number E941.[70] ꞏ In incandescent light bulbs as an inexpensive alternative to Argon.[71] ꞏ In fire suppression systems for Information technology (IT) equipment.[67] ꞏ In the manufacture of stainless steel.[72] ꞏ In the case-hardening of steel by nitriding.[73] ꞏ In some aircraft fuel systems to reduce fire hazard (see inerting system).[74] ꞏ To inflate race car and aircraft tires,[75] reducing the problems caused by moisture and Oxygen in natural air.[67] Nitrogen is commonly used during sample preparation in chemical analysis. It is used to concentrate and reduce the volume of liquid samples. Directing a pressurized stream of Nitrogen gas perpendicular to the surface of the liquid causes the solvent to evaporate while leaving the solute(s) and un-evaporated solvent behind.[76] Nitrogen can be used as a replacement, or in combination with, Carbon dioxide to pressurize kegs of some beers, particularly stouts and British ales, due to the smaller bubbles it produces, which makes the dispensed beer smoother and headier.[77] A pressure-sensitive Nitrogen capsule known commonly as a "widget" allows Nitrogen-charged beers to be packaged in cans and bottles. [78][79] Nitrogen tanks are also replacing Carbon dioxide as the main power source for paintball guns. Nitrogen must be kept at higher pressure than CO2, making N2 tanks heavier and more expensive.[80]Nitrogen gas has become the inert gas of choice for inert gas asphyxiation, and is under consideration as a replacement for lethal injection in Oklahoma.[81][82] Nitrogen gas, formed from the decomposition of Sodium azide, is used for the inflation of airbags. TEXT CHANGES I SUBMITTED LAST WEEK – 9/6/18 - to Wikipedia for addition to their just updated Nitrogen publication. Introduction could include what control the inert N2 molecule has on atmospheric content: I find, since it is 78% of the earth’s sea level atmosphere, it must police the Oxygen content. And, it also supports the water cycle distributing fresh water throughout the earth as rain, dew, snow, sleet, frost, and more depending on temperature and pressure. This gives the atmosphere power to allow lift if one does a molecular study as I have put together in Molecular Air Chemistry a booklet to be published. In my years of thinking what liquid Nitrogen might do besides cool vacuum systems for tighter vacuum and, when thrown on a lab floor, carry the dust, shavings, and scraps to the end of the flow of the balls of liquid Nitrogen putting the mess at the wall junction or under cabinets out of sight of guests which I experienced in 1959, I offered: In 1991 my offering flooding a moat around Kuwait oil fires and lining it with black plastic so liquid Nitrogen could be poured in. The heat of the sun and the fire burning above would evaporate the liquid Nitrogen quickly and the resulting Nitrogen gas rise enveloping the fire would end the burn and cool the wellhead. The Romanain Canon was the choice for this oil well fire control, flooding the well sites with sea water - salt water contaminating the ground around the wells. Then, early 2003, I discovered that putting liquid Nitrogen through a container with a perforated bottom so the liquid Nitrogen would fall like rain, powered by gravity, formed a cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold to start, pure N2 Nitrogen gas cloud. This is different from compressed Nitrogen gas which when pressured is pushed into the atmosphere diluting the Oxygen content. This cohesive cloud (having the same molecule to molecule attraction as the liquid which flows like Mercury) displaces everything but N2 Nitrogen molecules. This displacement removes Oxygen from the transparent cloud of Nitrogen gas which ends flames as if one has switched off the light 7 of 371

5 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

switch. And it cools the fuel reducing re-ignition. The US Federal Agencies refuse to test this instant fire control, among them the US Forest Service, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and ignored by the Department of Defense - perhaps because the discoverer is a woman. My first request for testing was to George Jackson, Director of the Missoula MT USFS test site in my letter of July, 2003. From 2004 through 2017 the United States spent $22trillion on wildfire suppression alone. Had they tested this cohesive Nitrogen cloud, I'll wager the cost to the government would have been under $11trillion since pure Nitrogen gas should end these fires swiftly and cleanly with small clouds moving through the fire ending the flames and cooling the fuel. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue keeps having the US Forest Service women administrators write me. They use the same stupid reasons stated in 2003 for not testing this technology or providing me $15,000 to do the test on currently burning fires. What a loss to this nation and the world this has been! Other countries cannot use it because it is not in practice in the United States according to the Commerce Nation's desks. An August 18, 2003 letter went to Darryl Alverson, Iraq Purchasing Agent for the US Army Corps of Engineers, telling him that my Nitrogen method would end the Iraq Oil Pipeline fires in one day. On television nightly, it showed the US contractor ending these fires in ten days each. Two women got the letter and in November 2003 demanded that these fires which were taking ten days each to control be ended in one day starting January 1, 2004, since my Nitrogen means would do that. The contractor for the $7billion Iraq Oil Contract complied with the demand. Then, by June, 2004 the terrorists that were lighting the fires stopped doing so because only $75million per fire rather than the earlier 2003 $750million per fire loss of Iraq's oil resources was below their risk level. The first move reduced oil fire control costs by 90% and the terrorists' move, and the terrorists' decision reduced it further to 100%. In November 2004 the Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered who the contractor was and put out a press release including remarks from officers of the Halliburton Corporation stating sadly that they were only able to bill the US Government $2.6billion of the $7billion Iraq Oil Contract, which they thought they would be collecting had not the limit be put upon them January 1, 2004 to end the fires in one day. The loss to their bottom line, the $4.4billion loss, was blamed on me and brought revenge. They kept me from freezing levees around New Orleans in 2005 and after Katrina, Halliburton received the $2.4billion contract to rebuild the levees around New Orleans using the same drawings as were used in building the levees that failed. I offered them my piping of the levees to freeze a 4' wide core in the levee from sea floor to levee top and shore to shore, freezing it when the threat of a major hurricane was made, and I was turned down. I offered to freeze the crude on the Gulf of Mexico from the BP Oil Spill, and collect it in a conveyor ahead of catamaran fishing boats to store and melt in barrels and sell to area refineries to cover the costs of the cleanup, but the word given to proposal evaluators for BP and later the US Coast Guard was "Freezing is not feasible." And now we have 500 square miles of dead space in the Gulf of Mexico floor where after they were burning square miles of crude on the surface, they sunk the rest with detergent killing the life at the bottom of the sea. This is all politics. What is wrong with their science must come through somehow. As a woman, I am not believed. I have a few videos. One, the Oil Fire video shows instant flame control - 17 second video with 7 seconds applying N2 and ending flames. A second, the home simulation, uses a clear plastic covered 8' cube on the grass with a barbecue grill pan with a long burning log fire inside. The ceiling cover has an "X" serving as a chimney. The fire is burning inside the space filling it with smoke. An LN-4 dewar with liquid Nitrogen and a 12" diameter cake pan, with 1/4" holes 1" center to center, are brought into the space and liquid Nitrogen poured into the perforated pan causing the liquid Nitrogen to fall as drops (cryorain) evaporating into a transparent cloud of Nitrogen gas resting on the grass floor of the space. The flames go out and cool cloud warms as it cools the fuel, but the internal heat of the logs starts the flames after some 30 - 45 seconds. A second infusion of cryorain at the opening again ends the flames and causes water vapor at the grass level. This water vapor is pushed out the top of the transparent cloud making it again transparent - you can see the grass on the other side of the enclosed space clearly. Two more infusions of cryorain are done well spaced after the flames return to the log, with the fourth application getting the log cooled sufficiently that it does no longer flare up in a flame so the fire is out and the small amount, probably ½ gallon, of Nitrogen filling 1/3 the space of the 8' cube remains transparent. A third is ending the long burning log fire in the open air which takes several doses of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas to end re-ignition. Were there a way to share these video segments, I will do it. Compressed Nitrogen gas reduces the Oxygen level which will most likely cause more Carbon monoxide production than using this pure Nitrogen gas from cryorain with liquid Nitrogen as the source and the perforated dispersion tool producing this cohesive cloud that is transparent in a 8 of 371

6 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

smoke atmosphere. This uniqueness is covered in my US Patent USP 7,631,506 and my textbook and information marketing text, print ready, Nitrogen Pure and Powerful. It covers fire control uses and the 150 or so other uses of this unique Nitrogen form. Most recently Mike Richmond of the Office of Surface Mines Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has recognized liquid Nitrogen as a means to end coal mine fire. He states this in the last sentence in this web space on Coal Mine Fires. He said it is based on my proposed coal mine fire control where we pulse the liquid Nitrogen drop through a drilling size perforated pan so the Evaporated Nitrogen Cloud grows pushing its way through the crevices in the soil and rock ending the burning and the coldness cools the coal taking away all but fuel in what is needed for a fire to burn. Fire = Oxygen, Heat, and Fuel. Nitrogen gas here takes away Oxygen as it remains pure, and Heat as it is very cold. The remaining Fuel can be coal, oil, food cooking, your home and furnishings, many precious items, the art and artifacts in the Brazil Museum taking our history proofs from the world. If we end the US Coal Mine Fires and see the effect on the NOAA data on air, water and soil temperatures, we can judge how many coal mine fires elsewhere in the world we need to end in order to halt sea level rise by 2021. The perpetual burning coal mine fires heat the earth's crust which is thermally transmitting and covers mountain tops and the ocean floor cradling the heating waters. If the crust cools, so do the ocean waters and cooling the ocean waters will halt sea level rise because the glaciers at the poles and throughout Greenland stop melting. The permafrost areas of Siberia, Norway, Greenland, Canada and Alaska, if they melt further will release disease organisms preserved in the frozen state causing diseases long controlled to flare up throughout the world. Ending these fires will prevent that event as well as destruction of ocean shore lines and islands as predicted. Later in the Nitrogen presentation and included in the Molecular Air Chemistry booklet is the fact that Titan, the largest moon of Saturn also has a Nitrogen atmosphere and a proliferation of Methane as does Triton, the Neptunian moon going the wrong way against the rotation direction of Neptune. Like the earth's atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen where the 21% level is maintained, there must be an optimum for Methane dilution which would prevent Natural Gas explosions. In handling pipe breakages and coal mine collections of Methane which cause powerful explosions, if this cohesive Nitrogen cloud would be piped into the digging, perhaps the explosiveness of the leaking Methane can be modified by the pure Nitrogen mixing with the pure Methane preventing the huge damage these leakages have done in the past. I have not been able to find a curious team of youngsters to do the experiment needed to know if one can fly in the cohesive Evaporated Nitrogen gas cloud. I suggest a clear plastic cube with launch entrances for a bird, a butterfly and a bat. Releasing them in the 100% Nitrogen cloud, they will attempt to fly. Will they be successful? If not, my flyable construction of atmospheric gas with the wrapped Oxygen molecules and the interrupting water vapor since higher humidity makes for mushier air when flying a light aircraft, is correct. If it is a flight supporting medium, I'll have to think up a new model for its percentage of Oxygen preservation. These points should be made available to the selected editor of the Nitrogen article. He or she has edited in many new uses including the Oklahoma death penalty means of carrying out the deed. It should be noted that organs can be harvested for transplant from the bodies of those succumbed to Nitrogen coma because, though the breathing stops, the heart continues to beat carrying the remaining Oxygen in the blood to be passed to vital organs. The brain sleeps as the diaphragm stops so the maximum amount of oxygen is carried by the blood to preserve the function of these organs, heart and all. With other means of killing these individuals, the poison prevents the transfer of vital, live organs to those needing them to preserve their lives. This is all covered in the Nitrogen Pure and Powerful text which can be made available to you. Respectfully submitted, Denyse Claire DuBrucq EdD Inventor: USP 7,631,506 with rights thru Dec. 14, 2029 Author: Nitrogen Pure and Powerful and Molecular Air Chemistry Chief Trainer and Managing General Partner AirWars Defense LP 2300 Eden Lane 937 253-2300 Dayton Ohio 45431-1909 USA [email protected]

Additional Proposed Changes 9 of 371

7 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

File Name Description Approved The textbook and marketing tool for Evaporated Nitrogen Gas Nitrogen_Pure_and_Powerful_- covering many aspects of uses and how it fits in my live, my _Corrected.pdf believes and the universe. This booklet is a graphic description of relation of Nitrogen N2 gas in an atmosphere with water, Oxygen, Carbon dioxide, Molecular_Air_Chemistry_Book_- methane and Hydrogen considered in the makeup of the air _final_manuscript.pdf here on Earth, on Titan - a moon of Saturn which is similar to Triton, the moon of Neptune, and of Pluto, the planet. A 17 second video showing me ending an oil fire in the last seven seconds using the dispersion tool of a pint peanut butter Oil_Fire-v3.m4v jar with a cap perforated with 1/32nd inch holes 1/4" center to center. This tool can cast the drops of liquid Nitrogen as far as 12 feet before they fall evaporating into the pure Nitrogen gas. This over two minute video has a clear plastic covered 8 foot cube with the top pierced with an "X" to provide a chimney and set on a grass lawn floor. The LN4- dewar holding four liters of liquid Nitrogen which is just partially used in this effort applies the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas four times. What is to note is the location of the transparent Nitrogen cloud in the 8 foot cube. Home_Simulation-V2.mov With each application the white water vapor is cleared rapidly. The flames go out instantly and three times re-ignite. This rekindled flame can be ended applying the Evaporated Nitrogen gas at the entrance or more directly on the long burning logs being cooled to the point where they do not re- ignite. Here is the open air long term burning logs having the fire Home_Simulation-V2.mov ended with a series of applications of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

This unique Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud is obviously unknown to those administering grants and contracts from governments and in academic pursuits at universities, even among the material scientists who obviously are not pilots or they would know how air feels when hot or cold, dry or humid, or when flying over a hot smoke exiting chimney or understand why con-trials persist after an airliner flies overhead on some days and not others. Had they the across science experiences and pilot endeavors as I have mixed over my 81 years, this now patented discovery (USP 7,631,506) could not have been made. It is as simple as the discovery of fire. Lightning introduced it. The fire is hard to preserve and people learned to carry a torch, light a candle, cook food, clear land, extract metals from ore, and much more. It is like this now with our transparent cloud of the pure Nitrogen gas produced by evaporating the water-clear, Mercury-flowing liquid Nitrogen which keeps the cohesiveness, expresses the inertness, and shares the coldness at evaporation with the world around it. And its purity likes company as seen in the Home simulation video where each of the four applications of liquid Nitrogen just expands the transparent cloud in the space of the 8' clear plastic cube with the "X" cut in the ceiling side for a chimney.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Sep 24 09:26:49 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

10 of 371

8 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM PUBLIC INPUT NO. 41 ATTACHMENTS

Note that the video files that were submitted as substantiation are not publicly available, but they will be available to the committee at the meeting.

To limit the size of this agenda, the two PDF files have not been included. Detailed instructions for downloading and viewing the documents are provided below.

1. Visit nfpa.org/2001next and click on the ‘View Public Input’ link.

2. At the top of the screen, click on ‘Public Reports’ to open the menu and click ‘Report on all Public Input/Comments/NITMAMs for NFPA 2001.’

3. After the Document Search Tool opens: (a) Click the check box next to ‘Public Inputs’ (b) Type “41” into the Item Number box

(d)

4. Scroll down to the ‘Additional Proposed Changes’ section of Public Input No. 41 and click ‘Open’ next to the attachment that you want to download.

11 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 64-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Global Input ]

Type your content here ...Remove “ANSI/” and “Standard for” from all UL publications referenced in this code.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Update of references and removal of repetitive wording and removal of ANSI because many years ago, UL preferred the ANSI/UL reference because there was a transition of traditional UL standards towards an ANSI standards development process.

Now, years later, a large majority of UL Standards are ANSI approved and follow the ANSI development and maintenance process. However, sometimes readers are confused because they don't understand the standards are UL standards, not developed by ANSI. There are many other references to standards promulgated by different standards development organizations where they are considered ANSI approved but do not include ANSI in the reference.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: UL LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 15:10:11 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

12 of 371

9 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 69-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.4 ]

1.4 * General Information. Add Annex Material: The Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA) has published a "Guide to Clean Fire Extingushing Agents and Their Use in Fixed Systems" which offers a user-friendly presentation of the essential properties of the agents. 1.4.1* Applicability of Agents. 1.4.1.1 The fire extinguishing agents addressed in this standard shall be electrically nonconducting and leave no residue upon evaporation.

13 of 371

10 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

1.4.1.2* Agents that meet the criteria of 1.4.1.1 shall be shown in Table 1.4.1.2. Table 1.4.1.2 Agents Addressed in NFPA 2001

Agent Chemical Name Chemistry Designation FK-5-1-12 Dodecafluoro-2-methylpentan-3-one CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 Dichlorotrifluoroethane HCFC-123 HCFC Blend A CHCl CF (4.75%) 2 3 Chlorodifluoromethane HCFC-22 CHClF (82%) 2 Chlorotetrafluoroethane HCFC-124 CHClFCF (9.5%) 3 Isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexene

(3.75%) HCFC-124 Chlorotetrafluoroethane CHClFCF3 HFC-125 Pentafluoroethane CHF2CF3 HFC-227ea Heptafluoropropane CF3CHFCF3 HFC-23 Trifluoromethane CHF3 HFC-236fa Hexafluoropropane CF3CH2CF3 FIC-13I1 Trifluoroiodide CF3I IG-01 Argon Ar IG-100 Nitrogen N2 IG-541 Nitrogen (52%) N2 Argon (40%) Ar Carbon dioxide (8%) CO2 IG-55 Nitrogen (50%) N2 Argon (50%) Ar HFC Blend B Tetrafluoroethane (86%) CH2 FCF3 Pentafluoroethane (9%) CHF2CF3 Carbon dioxide (5%) CO2

Notes: (1) Other agents could become available at later dates. They could be added via the NFPA process in future editions or by amendments to the standard. (2) Composition of inert gas agents is given in percent by volume. Composition of HCFC Blend A is given in percent by weight. (3) The full analogous ASHRAE nomenclature for FK-5-1-12 is FK-5-1-12mmy2. 1.4.1.3 The design, installation, service, and maintenance of clean agent systems shall be performed by those skilled in clean agent fire extinguishing system technology. 1.4.2* Use and Limitations.

14 of 371

11 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

1.4.2.1 All pre-engineered systems shall be installed to protect hazards within the limitations that have been established by the listing. Pre-engineered systems shall be listed to one of the following types: (1) Those consisting of system components designed to be installed according to pre-tested limitations by a testing laboratory. These pre-engineered systems shall be permitted to incorporate special nozzles, flow rates, methods of application, nozzle placement, and pressurization levels that could differ from those detailed elsewhere in this standard. All other requirements of the standard shall apply. (2) Automatic extinguishing units incorporating special nozzles, flow rates, methods of application, nozzle placement, actuation techniques, piping materials, discharge times, mounting techniques, and pressurization levels that could differ from those detailed elsewhere in this standard. 1.4.2.2 Clean agents shall not be used on fires involving the following materials unless the agents have been tested to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction: (1) Certain chemicals or mixtures of chemicals, such as cellulose nitrate and gunpowder, which are capable of rapid oxidation in the absence of air (2) Reactive metals such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium, uranium, and plutonium (3) Metal hydrides (4) Chemicals capable of undergoing autothermal decomposition, such as certain organic peroxides, pyrophoric materials, and hydrazine 1.4.2.3* 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. 1.4.2.4* The effects of agent decomposition on fire protection effectiveness and equipment shall be considered where clean agents are used in hazards with high ambient temperatures (e.g., furnaces and ovens).

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved FSSA "Guide to Clean Fire Extinguishing Agents & Their Use in Clean_Fire_Extinguishing_Agents_in_Fixed_Systems_- Fixed Systems" for Annex material to _for_NFPA_TC_Jan_2019.pdf Chapter 1.4 and to be added to the Annex E Informational References, E.1.2.8 FSSA Publications.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The FSSA guide serves to compliment the the NFPA 2001 Standard and is intended to assist the designer and end user to better understand the concepts of the Clean Agents.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: John Spalding Organization: Healey Fire Protection, Inc. Affiliation: Fire Suppression Systems Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Dec 31 12:38:33 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

15 of 371

12 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 49-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.4.1.2 ]

1.4.1.2* Agents that meet the criteria of 1.4.1.1 shall be shown in Table 1.4.1.2. Table 1.4.1.2 Agents Addressed in NFPA 2001

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA2001_table_1_4_1_2.docx addition to table 1.4.1.2

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

16 of 371

13 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Addition of new fire suppression agent.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 11:56:27 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

17 of 371

14 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA2001-2018 [Section No. 1.4.1.2 ]

1.4.1.2 - Add to table 1.4.1.2

Agent Designation Chemical Name Chemistry Halocarbon Blend 55 Trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene HFO-1233zd(E) (50 %) CF3-CH=CHCl Dodecafluoro-2-methylpentan-3-one FK-5-1-12 (50 %) CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2

18 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.4.1.2 ]

1.4.1.2* Agents that meet the criteria of 1.4.1.1 shall be shown in Table 1.4.1.2. Table 1.4.1.2 Agents Addressed in NFPA 2001

Notes: (1) Other agents could become available at later dates. They could be added via the NFPA process in future editions or by amendments to the standard. (2) Composition of inert gas agents is given in percent by volume. Composition of HCFC Blend A is given in percent by weight. (3) The full analogous ASHRAE nomenclature for FK-5-1-12 is FK-5-1-12mmy2. (4) Nitrogen, N 2 , included as IG-100 IG-100 400 Evaporated Nitrogen – ambient pressure, evaporated from liquid Nitrogen by cryorain. Cryorain is liquid Nitrogen falling in drops by gravity from a perforated containment - one having common size holes spaced a common distance, center to center. The drops evaporate into Evaporated Nitrogen gas which has unique characteristics compared to compressed Nitrogen N 2 gas.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

19 of 371

15 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

The IG 100 is the proper category for Nitrogen. The three listed are various pressures of compressed Nitrogen gas. That evaporated from liquid Nitrogen with the liquid Nitrogen as the carrier of the substance to the event or crises differs from the canisters for compressed gases and it will be expanded upon as the changes I have prepared are inserted. I am suggesting Evaporated Nitrogen Gas be IG 100-400.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Aug 31 15:10:09 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

20 of 371

16 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 42-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 1.4.2.4 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT 1.4.2.5 Effects of acoustical noise in an occupancy containing noise-sensitive equipment shall be considered.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

To bring awareness and some guidance on protecting noise sensitive equipment with clean agent systems.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 43-NFPA 2001-2018 [New Section after A.1.4.2.4]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Katherine Adrian Organization: Johnson Controls Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Nov 08 12:01:49 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

21 of 371

17 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 50-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.5.1.2.1 ]

22 of 371

18 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

1.5.1.2.1*

23 of 371

19 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Unnecessary exposure to halocarbon clean agents — including exposure at and below the no observable adverse effects level (NOAEL) — and halocarbon decomposition products shall be avoided. Means shall be provided to limit exposure to no longer than 5 minutes. Unprotected personnel shall not enter a protected space during or after agent discharge. The following additional provisions shall apply: (1) Halocarbon systems for spaces that are normally occupied and designed to concentrations up to the NOAEL [see Table 1.5.1.2.1(a)] shall be permitted. The maximum exposure in any case shall not exceed 5 minutes. (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 if means are 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 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. (3) In spaces that are not normally occupied and protected by a halocarbon system designed to concentrations above the lowest observable adverse effects level (LOAEL) [see Table 1.5.1.2.1(a)] and where personnel could possibly be exposed, means shall be provided to limit exposure times using Table 1.5.1.2.1(b) through Table 1.5.1.2.1(e). (4) In spaces that are not normally occupied and in the absence of the information needed to fulfill the conditions listed in 1.5.1.2.1(3), the following provisions shall apply: (a) Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than 1 minute, the halocarbon agent shall not be used in a concentration exceeding its LOAEL. (b) Concentrations exceeding the LOAEL shall be permitted provided that any personnel in the area can escape within 30 seconds. (c) A pre-discharge alarm and time delay shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of 4.3.5.6 of this standard. Table 1.5.1.2.1(a) Information for Halocarbon Clean Agents NOAEL LOAEL Agent (vol %) (vol %) FK-5-1-12 10.0 >10.0 HCFC Blend A 10.0 >10.0 HCFC-124 1.0 2.5 HFC-125 7.5 10.0 HFC-227ea 9.0 10.5 HFC-23 30 >30 HFC-236fa 10 15 HFC Blend B* 5.0* 7.5*

*These values are for the largest component of the blend (HFC 134A). Table 1.5.1.2.1(b) Time for Safe Human Exposure at Stated Concentrations for HFC-125

HFC-125 Maximum Permitted Concentration Human Exposure Time vol % ppm (min) 7.5 75,000 5.00 8.0 80,000 5.00 8.5 85,000 5.00 9.0 90,000 5.00 9.5 95,000 5.00 10.0 100,000 5.00 10.5 105,000 5.00 11.0 110,000 5.00 11.5 115,000 5.00

24 of 371

20 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

HFC-125 Maximum Permitted Concentration Human Exposure Time vol % ppm (min) 12.0 120,000 1.67 12.5 125,000 0.59 13.0 130,000 0.54 13.5 135,000 0.49 Notes: (1) Data derived from the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model or its equivalent. (2) Based on LOAEL of 10.0 percent in dogs. Table 1.5.1.2.1(c) Time for Safe Human Exposure at Stated Concentrations for HFC-227ea

HFC-227ea Maximum Permitted Concentration Human Exposure Time vol % ppm (min) 9.0 90,000 5.00 9.5 95,000 5.00 10.0 100,000 5.00 10.5 105,000 5.00 11.0 110,000 1.13 11.5 115,000 0.60 12.0 120,000 0.49

Notes: (1) Data derived from the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed PBPK model or its equivalent. (2) Based on LOAEL of 10.5 percent in dogs. Table 1.5.1.2.1(d) Time for Safe Human Exposure at Stated Concentrations for HFC-236fa

HFC-236fa Maximum Permitted Concentration Human Exposure Time vol % ppm (min) 10.0 100,000 5.00 10.5 105,000 5.00 11.0 110,000 5.00 11.5 115,000 5.00 12.0 120,000 5.00 12.5 125,000 5.00 13.0 130,000 1.65 13.5 135,000 0.92 14.0 140,000 0.79 14.5 145,000 0.64 15.0 150,000 0.49

Notes: (1) Data derived from the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed PBPK model or its equivalent. (2) Based on LOAEL of 15.0 percent in dogs. Table 1.5.1.2.1(e) Time for Safe Human Exposure at Stated Concentrations for FIC-13I1 FIC-13I1 Maximum Permitted Concentration Human Exposure Time 25 of 371

21 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

vol % ppm (min) 0.20 2000 5.00 0.25 2500 5.00 0.30 3000 5.00 0.35 3500 4.30 0.40 4000 0.85 0.45 4500 0.49 0.50 5000 0.35 Notes: (1) Data derived from the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed PBPK model or its equivalent. (2) Based on LOAEL of 0.4 percent in dogs.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_addition_to_table_1_5_1_2_1.docx Addition to table 1.5.1.2.1.a

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of NOAEL and LOAEL for new agent.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:12:33 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

26 of 371

22 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.5.1.2.1 ]

1.5.1.2.1 - Add agent to table 1.5.1.2.1(a)

Agent NOAEL LOAEL Halocarbon Blend 55 10.0 >10.0

27 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 16-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 1.5.1.3 ]

1.5.1.3* Inert Gas Clean Agents. Unnecessary exposure to inert gas agent systems resulting in low oxygen atmospheres shall be avoided. The maximum exposure time in any case shall not exceed 5 minutes. See Table 5.5.3.3 for atmospheric correction factors that shall be considered when determining the design concentrations. One objective of pre-discharge alarms and time delays is to prevent human exposure to agents. A pre-discharge alarm and time delay shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of 4.3.5.6 of this standard. Unprotected personnel shall not enter the area during or after agent discharge. The following additional provisions shall apply: (1) Inert gas systems designed to concentrations below 43 percent (corresponding to an oxygen concentration of 12 percent, sea level equivalent of oxygen) shall be permitted where means are provided to limit exposure to no longer than 5 minutes. (2) Inert gas systems designed to concentrations between 43 and 52 percent (corresponding to between 12 and 10 percent oxygen, sea level equivalent of oxygen) shall be permitted where means are provided to limit exposure to no longer than 3 minutes. (3) Inert gas systems designed to concentrations between 52 and 62 percent (corresponding to between 10 and 8 percent oxygen, sea level equivalent of oxygen) shall be permitted given the following: (4) The space is normally unoccupied. (5) Where personnel could possibly be exposed, means are provided to limit the exposure to less than 30 seconds.

(6) Inert gas systems designed to concentrations above 62 percent (corresponding to 8 percent oxygen or below, sea level equivalent of oxygen) shall be used only in unoccupied areas where personnel are not exposed to such oxygen depletion. (7) Inert gas clouds created by evaporating drops of liquid Nitrogen from a dispensing tool falling by gravity produces a transparent, pure, inert, cryogenically cold to start, cohesive cloud of N 2 Nitrogen gas. It displaces all but N 2 including Oxygen ending flames and cools the fuel warming as it expands and rises from the floor or ground level to midway and warming further to inferno temperatures leaves an outdoor fire through the canopy of the woods ending the burning embers so just charcoal chunks fly ahead of the fire stopping the advance. Breathing by SCBA or in the smoke-filled section of the space allows what Oxygen the fire has not consumed to be inhaled. Cloud expansions at evaporation is 230 times liquid volume, at ambient temperatures 250 times and at inferno temperatures 600 to 700 times liquid volume.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

These edits to 2018 NFPA 2001 enables the inclusion of a fourth Nitrogen entry which both does not conduct electricity and leaves no residual, Evaporated Nitrogen Gas evaporated from liquid Nitrogen stored at ambient pressure in cryogenic tanks or dewars. Passing the liquid Nitrogen through the matrix of constant sized holes, most used, 1/4" (quarter inch) diameter holes, at constant center to center distances, most used 1" (one inch) in a pan or trough. Pouring liquid Nitrogen into there perforated containers allows cryorain, liquid Nitrogen falling in drops by gravity which evaporates into the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas Cloud which is cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold at the start, and pure N2 Nitrogen gas. This transparent cloud displaces Oxygen ending flames instantly and cools the fuel warming and expanding as it reduces re-ignition of the fire. Hundreds of uses are possible.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City:

28 of 371

23 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Sep 06 11:49:45 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

29 of 371

24 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 65-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 2.3.9 ]

2.3.9 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/ UL 2127,Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2012 (revised 2015) 2018 .ANSI/ UL 2166,Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2012 (revised 2015) 2018 .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 66-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 2.3.10] Public Input No. 67-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. E.1.2.14]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: UL LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 15:11:23 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

30 of 371

25 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 66-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 2.3.10 ]

2.3.10 ULC Publications. Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 7 Underwriters Road, Toronto, ON M1R 3B4, Canada. ULC Standards, 171 Nepean Street, Suite 400, Ottawa, ON K2P 0B4 Canada CAN/ULC S524-14,Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, 2014. CAN/ULC S529-16, Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, 2016.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

A new address for ULC was provided to reflect the company location change and "Standard for" was removed to come in line with ULC title changes that remove unnecessary or repetitive wording.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 65-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 2.3.9] Public Input No. 67-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. E.1.2.14]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: UL LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 15:13:04 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

31 of 371

26 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 10-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.3 ]

3.3.3 Agent Concentration. The portion of agent in an agent-air mixture expressed in volume percent. AMEND: For IG-100 –400 Evaporated Nitrogen gas from liquid Nitrogen, Nitrogen gas is cohesive displacing all but N 2 molecules so what might start as a mixture quickly works contaminating molecules from the pure N 2 gas. (See Home Video - return of Evaporated Nitrogen’s cloud to transparency.)

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Home_Simulation-V2.mov

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

See the video where the LN-4 dewar holding four liters of liquid Nitrogen is partially used to end a long burning log fire in the fire container in a 8' x 8' x 8' clear plastic enclosure with the top covered and pierced with an "X" to serve as a chimney. The clear plastic covers five sides of the cube leaving the sixth be the grass of a yard where we did 21 demonstrations using 14 liters of liquid NItrogen over a two hour period. This one shows the transparency of the Evaporated Nitrogen gas created by pouring some liquid Nitrogen into a 12" diameter cake pan with a matrix of holes 1/4" diameter placed 1" apart center to center making it a perforated pan, a dispersion tool for liquid Nitrogen to produce cryorain, the liquid Nitrogen falling in drops by the force of gravity, evaporating into a cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold to start, pure N2 Nitrogen cloud. This pure Nitrogen cloud is transparent and when disturbed, will recover its transparency. Here, with each of four doses of liquid Nitrogen, the coldness condenses water vapor from the grass which makes its way through the Nitrogen cloud and comes out on top of the cloud because water vapor is lighter weight than cryogencially cold Nitrogen gas. Note how fast the flames go out with each dose. Note, too, that the second dose was done at the entry and had the same affect on the fire and on the return to transparency. It tool four doses to cool the fuel enough that it no longer rekindled the fire. Note, too, how gentle and candle-like the returned flames appear. Can you imagine a cloud, a transparent cloud of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas drawn in from the fire draft and putting out the flames where the cloud exists. Then as it warms it enlarges and rises and as it is caught in the fire winds it moves horizontally, and the flames go out and the fuel is cooled. And when it heats to inferno temperatures it expands more, rises, and leaves the fire through the canopy taking the burning embers and converting them to charcoal chunks that fly ahead of the fire ending the movement of the fire to new territory stopping fire advance. Yes, as the trees and fallen logs rekindle the fire, the flames are tender and a fire fighter with a insulated vessel of liquid Nitrogen and a dispersion tool can again cool these fuels until the no longer burn. If undergrowth and ground material is burning, the fire fighter can apply the Evaporated Nitrogen directly on the once treated fire zone and the cryogenically cold Evaporated Nitrogen gas can penetrate down into the ground cover ending its smoldering and again bathe the logs and heavy tree growth until it no longer can re- ignite. How many homes would be saved. This was offered to put out the Nov. 2017 Thomas Fire in California in time for Christmas so those people whose homes were still standing could enjoy the holidays without the worry that they would lose their homes. The proposal was denied. It was offered again to end the fire by New Years and again the proposal was turned down. So God got mad and started the rain January 7, 2018 and didn't stop it until most of the homes still standing were destroyed in mudslides sending refrigerator sized boulders down the hills bowling down the homes, flooding the roadways, destroying the vehicles and costing unbelievable amounts of money in ending the mud slides and clearing the roadways and then the double recovery from both the wildfires and the mudslides. And it all could have ended by Christmas, 2017 with a much less cost on both fire control and recovery. Will the Forest Service ever read my rebuttals to the dangers they concoct for Nitrogen gas. We live in it. It regulates the Oxygen level in the atmosphere and controls the water cycle putting fresh water everywhere on earth. We breathe it from birth until we turn in our chips, so to speak.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: 32 of 371

27 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Aug 31 16:14:56 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

33 of 371

28 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 19-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 3.3.18 ]

3.3.18 Local Application System. A system consisting of a supply of extinguishing agent arranged to discharge directly on the burning material. [12, 2018] AMEND: For IG-100-400 Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, the supply of extinguishing agent is liquid Nitrogen which when run through a perforated container rains falling by gravity (cryorain*) evaporating into the extinguishing agent, cohesive, inert, pure, cryogenically cold, Nitrogen (N 2 ) gas. The pure N 2 cloud displaces all but N 2 molecules. Having displaced Oxygen, flames go out instantaneously. And with each application starting at cryogenic temperature, the fuel is cooled reducing re-ignition potential and the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud warms in the process rising to a higher level and expanding the size of the transparent cloud. This Evaporated Nitrogen Gas can be applied in the fire draft so the pull of the fire brings the cloud into the fire. Once the raging burn is reduced, the application can be directly on the fire. This will allow the second bath of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas to penetrate the ground cluttere ending smoldering burning there and bathes the hot, long burning fuel components as logs and heavy tree trunks and branches to again end the flames and cool the fuel until the fuel is too cool to re-ignite.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

With evaporated Nitrogen gas pure one best provide it in the fire draft, the fresh air pulled into the fire so it gets sufficient Oxygen to continue burning, the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud is pulled into the fire laying on the ground level ending the flames as if they were ended by turning off a light switch. As this cohesive, transparent cloud heats it moves upward and with the fire winds it moves horizontally ending the flames and cooling the fuel and rising further. This leaves a very weak fire consisting of what can still reignite. Now one can apply the Evaporated Nitrogen Cloud directly to the fire detailing it or of flooding it so it can soak down into the ground clutter ending the smoldering and again cool the fuel until it no longer can re-ignite. In 1991 I offered Kuwait the ability to end the oil well fires by creating a moat around the well that was burning, line it with black plastic and pour liquid Nitrogen into the high side of the moat so it surrounds the fire evaporating with the heat of the sun, the earth beneath it and the fire of the well, the evaporated Nitrogen will displace the Oxygen needed for the burn and end that fire. Then our team offered the Stinger technique of flooding the well stem with mud which stops the flow but can be washed out when it is time to put the well in service. This was provided to Safety Boss of Canada who ended 40% of the fires competing with 29 teams in the field. Once the flow stopped, my contribution was to use a water cutter to trim the well head without sparking a fire and Kuwait provided this to Halliburton Corporation. We could not pay our agent the requested $35,000 so he gave our technology to Kuwait at a meeting he had with them in Pittsburgh. When our team went over there, they sent the team home since our stinger and well head trimmer methods were being used. And the Romanian Canon spewing sea water on the well fires was the practice chosen to end the fires. Early 2003, I discovered the liquid Nitrogen use with perforated containers - pans, troughs or caps on jars.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 11:15:05 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

34 of 371

29 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 51-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.1.2 ]

4.1.2* Quality. Agent, including recycled agent, shall meet the standards of quality given in Table 4.1.2(a) through Table 4.1.2(d). Each batch of agent, both recycled and newly manufactured, shall be tested and certified to the specifications given in the tables. Agent blends shall remain homogeneous in storage and use within the listed temperature range and conditions of service that they will encounter. Table 4.1.2(a) Halogenated Agent Quality Requirements

Property Specification Agent purity, mole %, minimum 99.0 Acidity, ppm (by weight HCl equivalent), maximum 3.0 Water content, weight %, maximum 0.001 Nonvolatile residues, g/100 ml maximum 0.05

Table 4.1.2(b) Inert Gas Agent Quality Requirements

Composition Gas IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55 Composition, % by volume N2 Minimum 99.9% 52% ± 4% 50% ± 5% Ar Minimum 99.9% 40% ± 4% 50% ± 5% CO2 8% + 1% - 0.0% Water content, % by Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum weight 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005%

Table 4.1.2(c) HCFC Blend A Quality Requirements Amount Component (weight %) HCFC-22 82% ± 0.8% HCFC-124 9.50% ± 0.9% HCFC-123 4.75% ± 0.5% Isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexene 3.75% ± 0.5%

Table 4.1.2(d) HFC Blend B Quality Requirements Amount Component (weight %) HFC-134a 86% ± 5% HFC-125 9% ± 3% CO2 5% ± 2%

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_add_to_table_4_1_2_e_.docx Add table 4.1.2(e)

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of composition and tolerances for new fire suppression agent.

Submitter Information Verification

35 of 371

30 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:22:22 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

36 of 371

31 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 4.1.2] Add table 4.1.2(e)

Table 4.1.2(e) Halocarbon Blend 55

Component Amount (weight%) HFO-1233zd(E) 50% ± 3% FK-5-1-12 50% ± 3%

37 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 74-NFPA 2001-2019 [ Section No. 4.1.2 ]

38 of 371

32 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

4.1.2* Quality.

39 of 371

33 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent, including recycled agent, shall meet the standards of quality given in Table 4.1.2(a) through Table 4.1.2(d). Each batch of agent, both recycled and newly manufactured, shall be tested and certified to the specifications given in the tables. Agent blends shall remain homogeneous in storage and use within the listed temperature range and conditions of service that they will encounter. 4.1.2.1* Upper limit threshold concentrations shall be established for any impurity that may result in acute toxicity at concentrations below the cardiac sensitization NOAEL. A.4.1.2.1 The NFPA 2001 purity specifications and cardiac sensitization NOAEL help to address the safety of agents included in the standard. Historically, the unstated safety assumptions have been as follows: The NOAEL for cardiac sensitization will be protective for all other end points of acute toxicity 99% purity precludes the presence of impurities that could impact the NOAEL for agent acute toxicity However, impurities less than 1% can result in a NOAEL for acute toxicity below the cardiac sensitization threshold. Table 4.1.2(a) Halogenated Agent Quality Requirements

Property Agent purity, mole %, minimum Acidity, ppm (by weight HCl equivalent), maximum Water content, weight %, maximum Nonvolatile residues, g/100 ml maximum Cis + trans kinetic dimer of HFP, ppm maximum*

Thermodynamic dimer of HFP + HF addition product, ppm maximum** Note:

The quality specifications for the kinetic and thermodynamic dimers noted below shall apply for agents manufac

*cis + trans kinetic dimer of HFP (CAS 2070-70-4)

** thermodynamic dimer of HFP (CAS 1584-03-8) + HF adduct of the thermodynamic dimer of HFP (CAS 30320

Table 4.1.2(b) Inert Gas Agent Quality Requirements Composition Gas IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55 Composition, % by Minimum N 52% ± 4% 50% ± 5% volume 2 99.9% Minimum Ar 40% ± 4% 50% ± 5% 99.9% 8% + 1% - CO 2 0.0% Water content, % by Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

weight 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005%

Table 4.1.2(c) HCFC Blend A Quality Requirements Amount Component (weight %) HCFC-22 82% ± 0.8% HCFC-124 9.50% ± 0.9% HCFC-123 4.75% ± 0.5% Isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexene 3.75% ± 0.5%

Table 4.1.2(d) HFC Blend B Quality Requirements Amount Component

40 of 371

34 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

(weight %) HFC-134a 86% ± 5% HFC-125 9% ± 3% CO2 5% ± 2%

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved 18_jan_2_NFPA_GFE_PI_-_Quality_2001- Word document of PI for Section_4.1.2_specification_modification_FINAL.docx Section 4.1.2

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The NFPA 2001 purity specifications and cardiac sensitization NOAEL help to address the safety of agents included in the standard. But, the unstated safety assumptions ignore the possibility that impurity levels less than 1.0% can result in a NOAEL for acute toxicity below the cardiac sensitization NOAEL. Inclusion of upper limit impurity thresholds in industry standards for these impurities provides transparency on the need to address these impurities to preserve the safety of agent supplied from all manufacturers and all agent manufacturing processes.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Paul Rivers Organization: 3M Company Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jan 02 16:16:08 EST 2019 Committee: GFE-AAA

41 of 371

35 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA PI – Quality requirements change

PI-xx Add subsection to 4.1.2 and associated annex material as follows: 4.1.2* Quality. Agent, including recycled agent, shall meet the standards of quality given in Table 4.1.2(a) through Table 4.1.2(d). Each batch of agent, both recycled and newly manufactured, shall be tested and certified to the specifications given in the tables. Agent blends shall remain homogeneous in storage and use within the listed temperature range and conditions of service that they will encounter. 4.1.2.1* Upper limit threshold concentrations shall be established for any impurity that may result in acute toxicity at concentrations below the cardiac sensitization NOAEL. A.4.1.2.1 The NFPA 2001 purity specifications and cardiac sensitization NOAEL help to address the safety of agents included in the standard. Historically, the unstated safety assumptions have been as follows: . The NOAEL for cardiac sensitization will be protective for all other end points of acute toxicity . 99% purity precludes the presence of impurities that could impact the NOAEL for agent acute toxicity However, impurities less than 1% can result in a NOAEL for acute toxicity below the cardiac sensitization threshold.

Substantiation The NFPA 2001 purity specifications and cardiac sensitization NOAEL help to address the safety of agents included in the standard. But, the unstated safety assumptions ignore the possibility that impurity levels less than 1.0% can result in a NOAEL for acute toxicity below the cardiac sensitization NOAEL.

42 of 371 PI-xx Add Important properties and Note to Table 4.1.2(a) as follows:

Table 4.1.2(a) Halogenated Agent Quality Requirements Property Specification Agent purity, mole %, 99.0 minimum Acidity, ppm (by weight HCl 3.0 equivalent), maximum Water content, weight %, 0.001 maximum Nonvolatile residues, g/100 ml maximum 0.05 Cis + trans kinetic dimer of HFP, ppm 1000 maximum* Thermodynamic dimer of HFP + HF 100 addition product, ppm maximum** Note: The quality specifications for the kinetic and thermodynamic dimers noted below shall apply for agents manufactured using hexafluoropropylene – HFP (CAS 116-15-4) in the process: *cis + trans kinetic dimer of HFP (CAS 2070-70-4) ** thermodynamic dimer of HFP (CAS 1584-03-8) + HF adduct of the thermodynamic dimer of HFP (CAS 30320-28-6)

Substantiation Inclusion of upper limit impurity thresholds in industry standards for these impurities provides transparency on the need to address these impurities to preserve the safety of agent supplied from all manufacturers and all agent manufacturing processes.

43 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 61-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.1.4.1 ]

4.1.4.1* Storage Containers. (See also Annex X) Agent shall be stored in containers designed to hold that specific agent at ambient temperatures. Containers shall be charged to a fill density or superpressurization level within the range specified in the manufacturer’s listed manual.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_Public_Input_61_-_New_Annex_on_Storage.docx NFPA_2001_Public_Input_61_-_New_Annex_on_Storage.pdf

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Nitrogen-pressurized storage containers of vaporizing-liquid agents are at risk of developing high non-equilibrium pressures upon temperature swings from low to high temperatures. Such temperature changes are common and, cold be of large magnitude, as in shipment of containers in very cold weather followed by off-loading and storage in warm facilities. Under certain conditions, though uncommon, container pressure could exceed the pressure rating of a container's safety rupture disc.

This Public Input proposes creation of a new annex that contains technical information that could be helpful in estimating non-equilibrium pressures under stated temperature change scenarios. The proposed information would be more extensive than found in Annex E of NFPA 12a which addresses Halon 1301 storage containers.

A draft of Annex X will be provided to NFPA Staff.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Joseph Senecal Organization: FireMetrics LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 13:44:31 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

44 of 371

36 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001, Public Input 61

Revise 4.1.4 Original 4.1.4.1* Agent Storage Containers. Revised 4.1.4.1* Agent Storage Containers. [see also Annex X]

Annex X Storage Containers for Vaporizing-liquid Agents

X.1 Introduction. Containers of vaporizing-liquid agents are usually pressurized with nitrogen, which facilitates liquid discharge. (Gases other than nitrogen can also be used.) Some of the nitrogen dissolves in the agent liquid phase, in accordance with Henry’s Law, which has the effect of decreasing the liquid density and increasing its volume. Changes in storage temperature cause the container pressure, the liquid and gas-phase volumes, and in the amount of nitrogen in each phase to change.

The graphic below depicts how temperature changes can affect container contents. Here, the estimated relative volumes of gas and liquid are shown at three temperatures for HFC-227ea pressurized to 360 psig at 70 °F at a fill density of 70 lb/ft3, cooled to 32 °F, followed by heating to 100 °F. After initial container fill and equilibration, the estimated relative the relative liquid and gas volumes are about 87 and 13 %. On cooling to 32 °F, say during transport in the winter, the liquid density increases and its volume decreases. The new relative liquid and gas volumes change to about 81 and 19 %, a relative gas volume increase of 46 %. The pressure in the expanded gas volume decreases and is initially no longer in pressure-equilibrium with the liquid phase. Pressure equilibrium between the phases is restored by nitrogen bubbling out of solution (effervescence) to achieve a new equilibrium pressure of about 310 psig. In this example, it is estimated that the amount of nitrogen in the gas phase increases about 48 %. Removal of the cooled container to a warm storage space causes liquid expansion and gas phase contraction. In this example, the storage area is assumed to be at 100 °F and that the container and contents heat rapidly without agitation. The new estimated relative liquid and gas volumes are 92.1 and 7.9 %. Gas-phase pressure increases significantly due to (a) the volume reduction of 58 % from the cooled state and (b) very slow transport of nitrogen back to the liquid phase. In the limit of negligible nitrogen movement to the liquid, it is estimated that the pressure in the warmed container could exceed 850 psig. It is feasible that there are scenarios where non-equilibrium pressures could exceed the pressure rating of the container burst disc.

45 of 371 Figure X.1(a). Estimated volumes of liquid and gas phases of HFC-227ea at a fill density of 70 lb/ft3 pressurized with nitrogen to 360 psig at 70 °F.

The intent of this annex is to present information, where available, that could be useful in estimating non-equilibrium pressures in storage containers subject to rapid temperature rise. Useful information includes: • Agent liquid density and vapor pressure at the storage temperature • Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility in agent liquid • Agent and nitrogen fill-density • Density of nitrogen-saturated liquid phase1

X.2 Agent properties.

X.2.1 HFC-125 properties.

X.2.1.1 HFC-125: Liquid density and vapor pressure.

Table X.2.1.1(a) HFC-125: Liquid density and vapor pressure. T, P, Density, T, P, Density, °C bar kg/m3 °C bar kg/m3 -20 3.38 1407 20 15.68 1159 -15 4.05 1386 25 17.78 1126 -10 4.83 1365 30 20.08 1089 -5 5.71 1343 35 22.60 1048 0 6.71 1320 40 25.37 1001 5 7.83 1296 45 28.39 945 10 9.09 1272 50 31.71 870 15 10.49 1246 55 35.38 730 20 12.05 1219 60 15.68 1159 25 13.78 1190 65 17.78 1126

The pressure and density are correlated with temperature, t, in °C, as follows: • Density = -0.0013*t3 + 0.02584*t2 - 4.259*t + 1312, kg/m3 • Pressure = 0.00001774*t3 + 0.002381*t2 + 0.2101*t + 6.730, bar

1 Density of nitrogen-saturated liquid phase can be estimated from measurements of container liquid level.

46 of 371

X.2.1.2 HFC-125: Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility.

Figure X.2.1.2(a) HFC-125 Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility, US customary units.

Figure X.2.1.2(b) HFC-125 Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility, SI units.

47 of 371

X.2.1.3 HFC-125: Nitrogen required for pressurization

Table X.2.1.3(a) HFC-125: nitrogen required Fill Pressure Fill Pressure 360 psig 600 psig HFC-125 Fill Density, Nitrogen / Agent Nitrogen /Agent lb/ft3 lb/lb lb/lb 40 0.0216 0.0486 45 0.0189 0.0425 50 0.0168 0.0376 55 0.0150 0.0337 60 0.0136 0.0303 65 0.0123 0.0276 70 0.0119 0.0265 75 0.0113 Source: DuPont H-92064-2

The ratio of nitrogen to agent is correlated with agent fill-density as follows: 2 • 360 psig: N2 / Agent = 0.00000732*FD – 0.00113*FD + 0.0552, lb/lb 2 • 600 psig: N2 / Agent = 0.0000175*FD – 0.00266*FD + 0.127, lb/lb where FD is fill-density in lb/ft3.

X.2.2 HFC-227ea properties.

X.2.2.1 HFC-227ea: Liquid density and vapor pressure.

Table X.2.2.1(a) HFC-227ea: Liquid density and vapor pressure T, P, Density, T, P, Density, °C bar kg/m3 °C bar kg/m3 -20 - - 20 5.268 1364 -15 1.068 1539 25 6.089 1342 -10 1.316 1521 30 7.003 1319 -5 1.608 1503 35 8.017 1295 0 1.946 1486 40 9.138 1269 5 2.338 1466 45 10.373 1243 10 2.786 1447 50 11.730 1214 15 3.298 1427 55 13.220 1184 20 3.878 1407 60 5.268 1364 25 4.533 1386 65 6.089 1342

The pressure and density are correlated with temperature, t, in °C, as follows: • Density = -0.000122*t3 -0.00610*t2 - 3.71*t + 1480, kg/m3

48 of 371 • Pressure = 0.00000826*t3 + 0.00101*t2 + 0.0726*t + 1.95, bar

X.2.2.2 HFC-227ea: Henrys Law constant for nitrogen solubility.

Figure X.2.2.2(a) HFC-227ea Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility, US customary units.

Figure X.2.2.2(b) HFC-227ea Henry’s Law constant for nitrogen solubility, SI units.

49 of 371 X.2.2.3 HFC-227ea: Nitrogen required for pressurization

Table X.2.2.3(a) HFC-227ea: Nitrogen required Fill Pressure Fill Pressure 360 psig 600 psig HFC-227ea Fill Density, Nitrogen / Agent Nitrogen/Agent lb/ft3 lb/lb lb/lb 40 0.0334 0.0590 45 0.0289 0.0512 50 0.0254 0.0449 55 0.0226 0.0398 60 0.0202 0.0355 65 0.0182 0.0319 70 0.0164 0.0288 75 0.0149 0.0261 Source: DuPont K2361

The ratio of nitrogen to agent is correlated with agent fill-density as follows: 2 • 360 psig: N2 / Agent = 0.00000927*FD – 0.00158*FD + 0.0815, lb/lb 2 • 600 psig: N2 / Agent = 0.0000165*FD – 0.00281*FD + 0.145, lb/lb where FD is fill-density in lb/ft3.

X.3 References.

X.3.1 DuPont H-92064-2, “DuPont FE-25 Fire Extinguishing Agent (HFC-125) - Properties, Uses, Storage, and Handling,” (11/03).

X.3.2 DuPont K2361, “DuPont FE-227 Fire Extinguishing Agent (HFC-227ea) - Properties, Uses, Storage, and Handling,” (09/09).

50 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 20-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.1.4.2 ]

4.1.4.2* Each agent container shall have a permanent nameplate or other permanent marking that indicates the following: (1) For halocarbon agent containers, the agent, tare and gross weights, and superpressurization level (where applicable) of the container (2) For inert gas agent containers, the agent, pressurization level of the container, and nominal agent volume (3) AMEND: (3) For IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, the container shall indicate the following: Content: Liquid Nitrogen, cryogenic liquid, ambient pressure, cryogenic tank volume: 5 gallons –Evaporated Nitrogen Gas volume 1,150 gallons. starting at -195.8 o C, 1,250 gallons volume at ambient temperature. The containers connected to a manifold shall meet the following criteria: AMEND: (3) For IG-100-400– Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, shall be permitted to use one or more cryogenic containers for liquid Nitrogen connected to a common manifold, or hand-held with dispersing tool for distribution being fed by one or more containers of liquid Nitrogen. Amendment inserts: Does this not just apply to compressed Nitrogen gas, but here include liquid Nitrogen?

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Up to this current version of NFPA 2001 - 2018, only compressed Nitrogen methods are included in the IG 100 category, but with my discovery under USP 7,631,506, I bring the liquid Nitrogen (the fourth coldest liquid on earth) to the event and evaporate it on the spot either in the fire draft drawing the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas into the fire, or, directly onto the fire where the fire intensity is weaker so the heat does not just quickly heat the Evaporated Nitrogen Cloud so it rises avoiding the fire entirely. On the fire applications are best after the initial draft intake of the Evaporated Nitrogen Cloud so the new wash of the gas can seep into the ground ending the undergrowth burning as well as give a second cooling of re-igniting dense material in the original fire situation.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Denyse Dubrucq Name: Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp NFPA Member 3019224 - I reinstated my 2004-2012 membership Affiliation: 2185023 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 11:20:32 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

51 of 371

37 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 21-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]

]

Pipe shall be of material having physical, chemical and chemical thermal characteristics such that its integrity and shape under stress can be predicted with reliability. Special corrosion-resistant materials or coatings shall be required in severely corrosive atmospheres. The thickness of the piping shall be calculated in accordance with ASME B31.1. The internal pressure used for this calculation shall not be less than the greater of the following values: (1) The normal charging pressure in the agent container at 70°F (21°C) (2) Eighty percent of the maximum pressure in the agent container at a maximum storage temperature of not less than 130°F (55°C), using the equipment manufacturer’s maximum allowable fill density, if applicable (3) For inert gas clean agents, the pressure for this calculation shall be as specified in 4.2.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1.2.

(4) For IG-100-400, Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, dimension stability at -320 o F (-195.8 o C). To preserve the liquid Nitrogen state as long as possible, a double piping shall insulate thermally as carrier piping.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

With piping to carry liquid NItrogen which evaporates at -195.8oC, some pipes change dimension - a straight white plastic water pipe went from straight at 10 feet long to arced so the far end was 18" from the original ambient temperature pipe end. This would rip a pipe off a wall if mounted and the liquid Nitrogen cooled it in passage.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 11:37:16 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

52 of 371

38 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 18-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1.1 ]

53 of 371

39 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

4.2.1.1.1

54 of 371

40 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

In no case shall the value used for the minimum pipe design pressure be less than that specified in Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) and Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) for the conditions shown. For inert gas clean agents that employ the use of a pressure-reducing device, Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) shall be used for piping upstream of the pressure reducer, and 4.2.1.1.2 shall be used to determine minimum pipe design pressure for piping downstream of the pressure reducer. The pressure-reducing device shall be readily identifiable. For halocarbon clean agents, Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) shall be used. If different fill densities, pressurization levels, or higher storage temperatures from those shown in Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) or Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) are approved for a given system, the minimum design pressure for the piping shall be adjusted to the maximum pressure in the agent container at maximum temperature, using the basic design criteria specified in 4.2.1.1(1) and 4.2.1.1(2). Table 4.2.1.1.1(a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping

Agent Container Gauge Pressure at Agent Container Minimum Design Pressure 70°F Gauge Pressure at of Piping Upstream of 130°F (55°C) Pressure Reducer (21°C) Agent psi kPa psi kPa psi kPa IG-01 2370 16,341 2650 18,271 2370 16,341 2964 20,436 3304 22,781 2964 20,436 4510 31,097 5402 37,244 4510 31,097 IG-541 2175 14,997 2575 17,755 2175 14,997 2900 19,996 3433 23,671 2900 19,996 4351 30,000 5150 35,500 4351 30,000

IG-55 2175 15,000 2541 17,600 2175 15,000 2900 20,000 3434 23,700 2900 20,000 4350 30,000 5222 36,100 4350 30,000 IG-100 2404 16,575 2799 19,299 2404 16,575 3236 22,312 3773 26,015 3236 22,312 4061 28,000 4754 32,778 4061 28,000

Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HFC-227ea 79 1265 44* 3 135 9 416 29 75 1201 150 10 249 17 200 14 72 1153 360 25 520 36 416 29 72 1153 600 41 1025 71 820 57 HCFC 56.2 900 600 41 850 59 680 47 Blend A 56.2 900 360 25 540 37 432 30 HFC 23 54 865 608.9† 42 2182 150 1746 120 48 769 608.9† 42 1713 118 1371 95 45 721 608.9† 42 1560 108 1248 86 40 641 608.9† 42 1382 95 1106 76 35 561 608.9† 42 1258 87 1007 69

55 of 371

41 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

*Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70°F (21°C). †Not superpressurized with nitrogen.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

A system is commercialized that incorporated FK-5-1-12 at a charge pressure of 60 Bar. this information is added to allow users of the standard information regarding working pressures.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Brad Stilwell Organization: Fike Corporation Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Sep 19 11:51:08 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

56 of 371

42 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 22-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1.1 ]

57 of 371

43 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

4.2.1.1.1

58 of 371

44 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

59 of 371

45 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar 30 481 608.9† 42 1158 80 927 64 HCFC-124 74 1185 240 17 354 24 283 20 HCFC-124 74 1185 360 25 580 40 464 32 HFC-125 54 865 360 25 615 42 492 34 HFC 125 56 897 600 41 1045 72 836 58 HFC-236fa 74 1185 240 17 360 25 280 19 HFC-236fa 75 1201 360 25 600 41 480 33 HFC-236fa 74 1185 600 41 1100 76 880 61 HFC Blend 58 929 360 25 586 40 469 32 B 58 929 600 41 888 61 710 50 FK-5-1-12 90 1442 150 10 175 12 150 10 90 1442 195 13 225 16 195 13 90 1442 360 25 413 28 360 25 75 1201 500 34 575 40 500 34 90 1442 610 42 700 48 610 42 *Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70°F (21°C). †Not superpressurized with nitrogen. For Table 4.2.1.1.1.(a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping Note beneath the table should read: IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas is provided as liquid Nitrogen at ambient pressure and temperature at -320 o F (-195.8 o C).

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

In adding the fourth Nitrogen component which is carried in liquid form and serves as a fire suppressant in gas form as Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, the 4.2.1.1.1.(a) note is needed to express the difference between this new addition and the current compressed Nitrogen gas levels of purity, where the new gas is a cohesive 100% Nitrogen N2 gas cloud moving in the fire zone expelling all other material which stays outside this cloud.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 11:50:48 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

60 of 371

46 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 23-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1.1 ]

61 of 371

47 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

4.2.1.1.1

62 of 371

48 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

For Table 4.2.1.1.1.(a) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Inert Gas Clean Agent System Piping Note beneath the table should read: IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas is provided as liquid Nitrogen at ambient pressure and temperature at -320 o F (-195.8 o C). Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

63 of 371

49 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Charging Minimum Container Pressure Piping Pressure Maximum Fill Design Density at 130°F Pressure at 70°F (55°C) (21°C)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar 48 769 608.9† 42 1713 118 1371 95 45 721 608.9† 42 1560 108 1248 86 40 641 608.9† 42 1382 95 1106 76 35 561 608.9† 42 1258 87 1007 69 30 481 608.9† 42 1158 80 927 64 HCFC-124 74 1185 240 17 354 24 283 20 HCFC-124 74 1185 360 25 580 40 464 32 HFC-125 54 865 360 25 615 42 492 34 HFC 125 56 897 600 41 1045 72 836 58 HFC-236fa 74 1185 240 17 360 25 280 19 HFC-236fa 75 1201 360 25 600 41 480 33 HFC-236fa 74 1185 600 41 1100 76 880 61 HFC Blend 58 929 360 25 586 40 469 32 B 58 929 600 41 888 61 710 50 FK-5-1-12 90 1442 150 10 175 12 150 10 90 1442 195 13 225 16 195 13 90 1442 360 25 413 28 360 25 75 1201 500 34 575 40 500 34 90 1442 610 42 700 48 610 42 *Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70°F (21°C). †Not superpressurized with nitrogen. For Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) * Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation, Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70 o F (21 o C) , except for IG 100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas which, with liquid Nitrogen its source, operates at ambient pressures, just colder than others.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Since you are defining ambient temperature materials in current NFPA 2001-2018, adding Liquid Nitrogen transfer at its -195.8 evaporating temperature, this must be indicated and defined in 4.2.1.1.1(a). And in Table 4.2.1.1.1(b), the unique pressure, ambient pressure, for liquid Nitrogen storage, has to be indicated. One might want to indicate also that the liquid Nitrogen storage must breathe since large thermal storage evaporates 1% volume per day usually and requires topping off. No sealing caps allowed. This last concept may be added at reviewers' discretion.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State:

64 of 371

50 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 12:01:52 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

65 of 371

51 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 52-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.1.1 ]

66 of 371

52 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

4.2.1.1.1

67 of 371

53 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent Container Minimum Design Pressure of Gauge Pressure at Agent Container Gauge Piping Upstream of Pressure 70°F Pressure at 130°F (55°C) Reducer (21°C) Agent psi kPa psi kPa psi kPa IG-01 2370 16,341 2650 18,271 2370 16,341 2964 20,436 3304 22,781 2964 20,436 4510 31,097 5402 37,244 4510 31,097 IG-541 2175 14,997 2575 17,755 2175 14,997 2900 19,996 3433 23,671 2900 19,996 4351 30,000 5150 35,500 4351 30,000

Table 4.2.1.1.1(b) Minimum Design Working Pressure for Halocarbon Clean Agent System Piping

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Container Charging Pressure Minimum Piping Maximum Fill Density Pressure Design Pressure at 70°F (21°C) at 130°F (55°C)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HFC-227ea 79 1265 44* 3 135 9 416 29 75 1201 150 10 249 17 200 14 72 1153 360 25 520 36 416 29 72 1153 600 41 1025 71 820 57 HCFC Blend 56.2 900 600 41 850 59 680 47 A 56.2 900 360 25 540 37 432 30 HFC 23 54 865 608.9† 42 2182 150 1746 120 48 769 608.9† 42 1713 118 1371 95 45 721 608.9† 42 1560 108 1248 86 40 641 608.9† 42 1382 95 1106 76 35 561 608.9† 42 1258 87 1007 69 30 481 608.9† 42 1158 80 927 64 HCFC-124 74 1185 240 17 354 24 283 20 HCFC-124 74 1185 360 25 580 40 464 32

68 of 371

54 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Agent Agent Container Container Agent Container Charging Pressure Minimum Piping Maximum Fill Density Pressure Design Pressure at 70°F (21°C) at 130°F (55°C)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar HFC-125 54 865 360 25 615 42 492 34 HFC 125 56 897 600 41 1045 72 836 58 HFC-236fa 74 1185 240 17 360 25 280 19 HFC-236fa 75 1201 360 25 600 41 480 33 HFC-236fa 74 1185 600 41 1100 76 880 61 HFC Blend 58 929 360 25 586 40 469 32 B 58 929 600 41 888 61 710 50 FK-5-1-12 90 1442 150 10 175 12 150 10 90 1442 195 13 225 16 195 13 90 1442 360 25 413 28 360 25 75 1201 500 34 575 40 500 34 90 1442 610 42 700 48 610 42 *Nitrogen delivered to agent cylinder through a flow restrictor upon system actuation. Nitrogen supply cylinder pressure is 1800 psi (124 bar) at 70°F (21°C). †Not superpressurized with nitrogen.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Addition of piping pressure rating for new agent to NFPA_2001_Section_No_4_2_1_1_1.docx table to table 4.2.1.1.1 (b).

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of piping pressure rating for new agent to table to table 4.2.1.1.1 (b).

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:28:20 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

69 of 371

55 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 4.2.1.1.1]

Table 4.2.1.1.1(b)

Agent Container Agent Container Agent Container

Max Fill Press @ 70 °F Press @ 130 °F Min Piping Density (21 °C) (55 °C) Design Press

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 psi bar psi bar psi bar

Halocarbon Blend 55 75 1201.5 360 25 430 30 360 25 Halocarbon Blend 55 75 1201.5 510 35 590 41 510 35 Halocarbon Blend 55 75 1201.5 610 42 700 48 610 42 Halocarbon Blend 55 70 1121.3 360 25 440 30 360 25 Halocarbon Blend 55 70 1121.3 510 35 590 41 510 35 Halocarbon Blend 55 70 1121.3 610 42 700 48 610 42

70 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 4.2.1.6 ]

4.2.1.6.1 Single nozzle systems with a single pipe run from a clean agent container to the nozzle are not required to have a dirt trap.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Main, secondary and branch lines (supplying multiple nozzles) have tees provided at each branch which can facilitate the installation of a dirt trap. Single nozzle systems typically have straight runs of pipe connected directly to the single nozzle with no branch tees. In addition, single nozzle systems are typically short pipe runs required to be free of particulate matter and oil residue (as are all systems; see section 4.2.1.5).

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Daniel Hubert Organization: AmerexJanus Fire Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 09 17:35:28 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

71 of 371

56 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 5-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 4.2.1.6 ]

4.2.1.6 Dirt Trap. A dirt trap consisting of a tee with a capped nipple, at least 2 in. (50 mm) long, shall be installed at the end installed beyond the last branch connection of each main supply pipe run, secondary (cross main) pipe runs and branch lines supplying multiple nozzles .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The additional language further details where dirt traps should be required to be installed.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Daniel Hubert Organization: AmerexJanus Fire Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 09 17:29:16 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

72 of 371

57 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 24-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 4.2.2.10 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT AMEND: 4.2.2.11 For IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas systems, fittings shall corner with 45 o turns taking two 45 o turns to comprise a 90 o turn to prevent further bounce-back of liquid Nitrogen. All transitions downhill will have the fitting and tubing on equal plane or the upper component from the source will be higher than the one leading to dispersion tool so there is no splash back currents in the flow of liquid Nitrogen.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Patent drawing for fixed nitrogen fire control showing 45o angle turns combined for 90oturn and .1537636427432 flat flow so not to have liquid Nitrogen splashback slowing the flow. See first 7 drawings. Liquid Nitrogen flows like Mercury, rapid movement in mass, balls, keeping clear liquid with no inclusion of other than N2 Nitrogen. When it hits a "T" or turns a 90o corner "L" it will splash back disrupting smooth flow. Using 45o corners, two for a 90o turn, Patent- the flow will just move along as it did. If you have a Cryogenictransport_color_print_and_scan.ppt smooth flow surface, it will move along undisturbed; however if there are ridges to climb as it flows, again the flow will be disrupted. These are to be avoided to get the whole amount of liquid Nitrogen to the location of the crisis.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Liquid NItrogen is clear as water, but flows like Mercury having the same attraction: Mercury to Mercury atoms are self attracting as are Nitrogen N2 molecules. The flow is in masses of liquid Nitrogen. When they hit a wall as they would with either a "T" intersection of 90o turn "L" the mass of liquid Nitrogen hits the wall and splashes back disturbing the flow, slowing the delivery. Similarly, if a ridge happens in the joining of two sections of pipe, it too disturbs the flow slowing the delivery of liquid Nitrogen to its destination and use.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 13:10:58 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

73 of 371

58 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM Numbering Index64. Cool to separate 1. Nitrogen gas 36. Ventilated cap 65. Cool to liquefy 10. Liquid Nitrogen 37. Fused seams 66. Keep hot for Fuels 11. CryoRain - drops 38. Slow flow pipe 67. Smoke 7. Signals 12. Stored N2 to fill pipes 39. Oxygen supply & tube 70. Smoke detector 13. Liquefying N2 4. Valves, motion 71. Fuel/water separator 14. Cooling N2 40. Allow/stop flow 72. Battery operating 15. Heating N2 to gather fuels 41. One way 73. Fire 16. Purifying N2 42. Tippers – fill & spill 17. Perforated surfaces 43. Cycling - evaporator 74. Thermal indicator 18. Evaporator 5. Electronics 75. Thermal flow control 19. Air - atmosphere 50. Lighting 76. Lift with scale 2. Insulating spaces 51. Batteries – solar 77. CO2 filter 20. Parallel pipe space 52. Situation switching 78. Nitrogen release signal 21. Molded components 53. Valve motion 8. Item 22. Fitting other products 54. Wiring 80. Motor 23. Frame induced spacing 55. Indicators 81. Truck 24. Insulating material 56. Regulators 82. Cap 3. Plastic 57. Remote control 83. Oil spill 30. Pipes 58. Chain puller 84. Water 31. Connectors 6. Thermal qualities 85. Oven 32. Roller bearings 60. Switch by cold 86. Clothing 33. Seamed materials 61. No frost or icing 87. Skimmer, net 34. High temperature 62. Heat74 of to 371 kill bedbugs 88. Ties holding equipment 35. Installed components 63. Heat to select fuel 89. Cover to protect from rain 1 20 12 30 20 1 31 Figure 1

37 37 37

75 of 371 1 20 30 5 50 51 54 31 Figure 2

76 of 371 30 20 1 50 51 4 53 40 10 1 54 53 31 40 Figure 3

. .

77 of 371 Figure 4

54 30 20 1 31 54 51 78 of 371 Figure 5

50 31

31 79 of 371 10 53 40 31 30 Figure 6

80 of 371 Figure 7(b) Figure 7(a) Figure 7

. . .

1 17 21 41 11 81 of 371 17 37 41 31 53 40 30 Figure 8(a) Figure 8(b) Figure 8

40 11 1 73 10 17 81 30 17 37 30 11 20

Figure8(c)

87 64 1 83

82 of 371 17 21 36 Figure 9(a) Figure 9 37 37 Figure 9(b) 30 38

83 of 371 42 17 Figure 10a Figure 10(b) Figure 10 10 21

37 11 50 1

20 30 72 51 37 34 73 21 Figure 10(c) 84 of 371 10 Figure 11(b) Figure 11

36 21 37

17 82 30 20 21 37

85 of 371 22 Figure 11(a) Figure 11(c) 82 Figure 12 Figure 12(a) Figure 12(b) 17 20

10 11 22 1 86 of 371 73 86 1 11 10 Figure 13

Figure 13(b)

Figure 13(c)

Figure 13(a)

73 85 1 11 10

87 of 371 Figure 14 17

88 of 371 76 Figure 15 80 57 35

22 32 58 31

89 of 371 76 Figure 16 17 Figure 16(a) Figure 16(b) 77 81 57 1 31 Figure 16(c) 30 58 10 82 35 10 32 30 22

33 23 58

90 of 371 76 Figure 17

Figure 17(a) Figure 17(b) Figure 17(c) 1 80 57

33 31 22 58 32 81 76 10 23 30 30 17 11 82 1

91 of 371 Figure 18

33 19 23 74 10 17 40 30 84

92 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 Figure 19

33 23 2 74 10 17 40 30 84

93 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 30 Figure 20

40 . 80 20 17 18

14 20 37 94 of 371 30 Figure 21 40 . 10 80 17 18

1 11 20

30 95 of 371 1 Fig. 22(a) Fig. 22(b) 30 Figure 22 65 10 66 H2/He 43 64 77 75 1 30 Neon 66 18 24 LNG 1 10 LPG CH Ether4 N2 13 74 Heating oil Kerosene 71 Gasoline Water 17 84 1 Fig. 22(d)

O2/Ar

96 of 371 15 63 73 74 30 37 20 Fig. 22(c) 40 15 73 63 78 10 11 40 17 54 70 67 1 73 30 Figure 23 36 88 39 85 70

“N” “2”

97 of 371 Figure 24(a) 78 11 40 1 70 67 73 30 Figure 24

“2” “N” 89 20 36 1

98 of 371 Figure 24(b) 88 10 39 17 85 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 25-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 4.2.3.4.2 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT AMEND: 4.2.3.4.3 For IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen, pressure nozzles are not used, but dispersion tools with tubing entering a perforated outlet which enables cryorain (drops of liquid Nitrogen falling by force of gravity and evaporating into Evaporated Nitrogen Gas.). Entry from tubing into dispensing tool will be flush or the tubing outlet from the source shall be above the dispensing tool entry for smooth flow of liquid Nitrogen....

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved .1537637557007 Same reference as for 4.2.1.1.1(b) Same as used for 4.2.1.1.1.(a) and (b). 90o turns causes liquid Nitrogen to splash back so use two 45o turns in sequence and the flow will be rapid Patent- and smooth. Similarly, ridges in the pathway as Cryogenictransport_color_print_and_scan.ppt when pipe sections are joined will cause flow disruption as well slowing the arrival of the liquid Nitrogen to event.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

For most efficient use of liquid Nitrogen, the flow must not meet with abrupt ends as with a "T" or "L" configuration needing 90o turns. Using two 45o turns in sequence will get an undisturbed flow around a corner or in a choice of direction where using a "Y" configuration with additional 45o turn will get the same choice and direction change without the flow diturbance of the liquid Nitrogen. Also ridges in the pathway disturb flow as well so eliminate any abrupt uphill movement of the liquid Nitrogen.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 13:30:02 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

99 of 371

59 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM Numbering Index64. Cool to separate 1. Nitrogen gas 36. Ventilated cap 65. Cool to liquefy 10. Liquid Nitrogen 37. Fused seams 66. Keep hot for Fuels 11. CryoRain - drops 38. Slow flow pipe 67. Smoke 7. Signals 12. Stored N2 to fill pipes 39. Oxygen supply & tube 70. Smoke detector 13. Liquefying N2 4. Valves, motion 71. Fuel/water separator 14. Cooling N2 40. Allow/stop flow 72. Battery operating 15. Heating N2 to gather fuels 41. One way 73. Fire 16. Purifying N2 42. Tippers – fill & spill 17. Perforated surfaces 43. Cycling - evaporator 74. Thermal indicator 18. Evaporator 5. Electronics 75. Thermal flow control 19. Air - atmosphere 50. Lighting 76. Lift with scale 2. Insulating spaces 51. Batteries – solar 77. CO2 filter 20. Parallel pipe space 52. Situation switching 78. Nitrogen release signal 21. Molded components 53. Valve motion 8. Item 22. Fitting other products 54. Wiring 80. Motor 23. Frame induced spacing 55. Indicators 81. Truck 24. Insulating material 56. Regulators 82. Cap 3. Plastic 57. Remote control 83. Oil spill 30. Pipes 58. Chain puller 84. Water 31. Connectors 6. Thermal qualities 85. Oven 32. Roller bearings 60. Switch by cold 86. Clothing 33. Seamed materials 61. No frost or icing 87. Skimmer, net 34. High temperature 62. Heat100 ofto 371 kill bedbugs 88. Ties holding equipment 35. Installed components 63. Heat to select fuel 89. Cover to protect from rain 1 20 12 30 20 1 31 Figure 1

37 37 37

101 of 371 1 20 30 5 50 51 54 31 Figure 2

102 of 371 30 20 1 50 51 4 53 40 10 1 54 53 31 40 Figure 3

. .

103 of 371 Figure 4

54 30 20 1 31 54 51 104 of 371 Figure 5

50 31

31 105 of 371 10 53 40 31 30 Figure 6

106 of 371 Figure 7(b) Figure 7(a) Figure 7

. . .

1 17 21 41 11 107 of 371 17 37 41 31 53 40 30 Figure 8(a) Figure 8(b) Figure 8

40 11 1 73 10 17 81 30 17 37 30 11 20

Figure8(c)

87 64 1 83

108 of 371 17 21 36 Figure 9(a) Figure 9 37 37 Figure 9(b) 30 38

109 of 371 42 17 Figure 10a Figure 10(b) Figure 10 10 21

37 11 50 1

20 30 72 51 37 34 73 21 Figure 10(c) 110 of 371 10 Figure 11(b) Figure 11

36 21 37

17 82 30 20 21 37

111 of 371 22 Figure 11(a) Figure 11(c) 82 Figure 12 Figure 12(a) Figure 12(b) 17 20

10 11 22 1 112 of 371 73 86 1 11 10 Figure 13

Figure 13(b)

Figure 13(c)

Figure 13(a)

73 85 1 11 10

113 of 371 Figure 14 17

114 of 371 76 Figure 15 80 57 35

22 32 58 31

115 of 371 76 Figure 16 17 Figure 16(a) Figure 16(b) 77 81 57 1 31 Figure 16(c) 30 58 10 82 35 10 32 30 22

33 23 58

116 of 371 76 Figure 17

Figure 17(a) Figure 17(b) Figure 17(c) 1 80 57

33 31 22 58 32 81 76 10 23 30 30 17 11 82 1

117 of 371 Figure 18

33 19 23 74 10 17 40 30 84

118 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 Figure 19

33 23 2 74 10 17 40 30 84

119 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 30 Figure 20

40 . 80 20 17 18

14 20 37 120 of 371 30 Figure 21 40 . 10 80 17 18

1 11 20

30 121 of 371 1 Fig. 22(a) Fig. 22(b) 30 Figure 22 65 10 66 H2/He 43 64 77 75 1 30 Neon 66 18 24 LNG 1 10 LPG CH Ether4 N2 13 74 Heating oil Kerosene 71 Gasoline Water 17 84 1 Fig. 22(d)

O2/Ar

122 of 371 15 63 73 74 30 37 20 Fig. 22(c) 40 15 73 63 78 10 11 40 17 54 70 67 1 73 30 Figure 23 36 88 39 85 70

“N” “2”

123 of 371 Figure 24(a) 78 11 40 1 70 67 73 30 Figure 24

“2” “N” 89 20 36 1

124 of 371 Figure 24(b) 88 10 39 17 85 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 70-NFPA 2001-2019 [ Section No. 5.1 ]

5.1 * Specifications, Plans, and Approvals. 5.1.1 Specifications. Specifications for total flooding and local application clean agent fire extinguishing systems shall be prepared under the supervision of a person fully experienced and qualified in the design of such systems and with the advice of the authority having jurisdiction. The specifications shall include all pertinent items necessary for the proper design of the system, such as the designation of the authority having jurisdiction, variances from the standard to be permitted by the authority having jurisdiction, design criteria, system sequence of operations, the type and extent of the approval testing to be performed after installation of the system, and owner training requirements. 5.1.2 Working Plans. 5.1.2.1 Working plans and calculations shall be submitted for approval to the authority having jurisdiction before system installation or remodeling begins. These documents shall be prepared only by persons fully experienced and qualified in the design of total flooding and local application clean agent fire extinguishing systems. Deviation from these documents shall require permission of the authority having jurisdiction.

125 of 371

60 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

5.1.2.2

126 of 371

61 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Working plans shall be drawn to an indicated scale and shall show the following items that pertain to the design of the system: (1) Name of owner and occupant (2) Location, including street address (3) Point of compass and symbol legend (4) Location and construction of protected enclosure walls and partitions (5) Location of fire walls (6) Enclosure cross section, shown as a full-height or schematic diagram, including location and construction of building floor-ceiling assemblies above and below, raised access floor, and suspended ceiling (7) Agent being used (8) Agent concentration at the lowest temperature and the highest temperature for which the enclosure is protected (9) Description of occupancies and hazards being protected, designating whether the enclosure is normally occupied (10) For an enclosure protected by a clean agent fire extinguishing system, an estimate of the maximum positive pressure and the maximum negative pressure, relative to ambient pressure, expected to be developed upon the discharge of agent (11) Description of exposures surrounding the enclosure (12) Description of the agent storage containers used, including internal volume, storage pressure, and nominal capacity expressed in units of agent mass or volume at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (13) Description of nozzle(s) used, including size, orifice port configuration, and equivalent orifice area (14) Description of pipe and fittings used, including material specifications, grade, and pressure rating (15) Description of wire or cable used, including classification, gauge [American Wire Gauge (AWG)], shielding, number of strands in conductor, conductor material, and color coding schedule; segregation requirements of various system conductors; and required method of making wire terminations (16) Description of the method of detector mounting (17) Equipment schedule or bill of materials for each piece of equipment or device showing device name, manufacturer, model or part number, quantity, and description (18) Plan view of protected area showing enclosure partitions (full and partial height); agent distribution system, including agent storage containers, piping, and nozzles; type of pipe hangers and rigid pipe supports; detection, alarm, and control system, including all devices and schematic of wiring interconnection between them; end-of-line device locations; location of controlled devices such as dampers and shutters; and location of instructional signage (19) Isometric view of agent distribution system showing the length and diameter of each pipe segment; node reference numbers relating to the flow calculations; fittings, including reducers, strainers, and orientation of tees; and nozzles, including size, orifice port configuration, flow rate, and equivalent orifice area (20) Scale drawing showing the layout of the annunciator panel graphics if required by the authority having jurisdiction (21) Details of each unique rigid pipe support configuration showing method of securement to the pipe and to the building structure (22) Details of the method of container securement showing method of securement to the container and to the building structure (23) Complete step-by-step description of the system sequence of operations, including functioning of abort and maintenance switches, delay timers, and emergency power shutdown (24) Point-to-point wiring schematic diagrams showing all circuit connections to the system control panel and graphic annunciator panel (25) Point-to-point wiring schematic diagrams showing all circuit connections to external or add-on relays (26) Complete calculations to determine enclosure volume, quantity of clean agent, and size of backup batteries; method used to determine number and location of audible and visual indicating devices; and number and location of detectors 127 of 371

62 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM Numbering Index64. Cool to separate 1. Nitrogen gas 36. Ventilated cap 65. Cool to liquefy 10. Liquid Nitrogen 37. Fused seams 66. Keep hot for Fuels 11. CryoRain - drops 38. Slow flow pipe 67. Smoke 7. Signals 12. Stored N2 to fill pipes 39. Oxygen supply & tube 70. Smoke detector 13. Liquefying N2 4. Valves, motion 71. Fuel/water separator 14. Cooling N2 40. Allow/stop flow 72. Battery operating 15. Heating N2 to gather fuels 41. One way 73. Fire 16. Purifying N2 42. Tippers – fill & spill 17. Perforated surfaces 43. Cycling - evaporator 74. Thermal indicator 18. Evaporator 5. Electronics 75. Thermal flow control 19. Air - atmosphere 50. Lighting 76. Lift with scale 2. Insulating spaces 51. Batteries – solar 77. CO2 filter 20. Parallel pipe space 52. Situation switching 78. Nitrogen release signal 21. Molded components 53. Valve motion 8. Item 22. Fitting other products 54. Wiring 80. Motor 23. Frame induced spacing 55. Indicators 81. Truck 24. Insulating material 56. Regulators 82. Cap 3. Plastic 57. Remote control 83. Oil spill 30. Pipes 58. Chain puller 84. Water 31. Connectors 6. Thermal qualities 85. Oven 32. Roller bearings 60. Switch by cold 86. Clothing 33. Seamed materials 61. No frost or icing 87. Skimmer, net 34. High temperature 62. Heat128 ofto 371 kill bedbugs 88. Ties holding equipment 35. Installed components 63. Heat to select fuel 89. Cover to protect from rain National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

(27) Details of any special features (28)* Pressure relief vent area, or equivalent leakage area, for the protected enclosure to prevent development, during system discharge, of a pressure difference across the enclosure boundaries that exceeds a specified enclosure pressure limit 5.1.2.3 The detail on the system shall include information and calculations on the quantity of agent; container storage pressure; internal volume of the container; the location, type, and flow rate of each nozzle, including equivalent orifice area; the location, size, and equivalent lengths of pipe, fittings, and hose; and the location and size of the storage facility. Pipe size reduction and orientation of tees shall be clearly indicated. Information shall be submitted pertaining to the location and function of the detection devices, operating devices, auxiliary equipment, and electrical circuitry, if used. Apparatus and devices used shall be identified. Any special features shall be adequately explained. 5.1.2.3.1 Pre-engineered systems shall not be required to specify an internal volume of the container, nozzle flow rates, equivalent lengths of pipe, fittings, and hose, or flow calculations, when used within their listed limitations. The information required by the listed system design manual, however, shall be made available to the authority having jurisdiction for verification that the system is within its listed limitations. 5.1.2.4 An “as-built” instruction and maintenance manual that includes a full sequence of operations and a full set of drawings and calculations shall be maintained on site. 5.1.2.5 Flow Calculations. 5.1.2.5.1 Flow calculations along with the working plans shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval. The version of the flow calculation program shall be identified on the computer calculation printout. 5.1.2.5.2 Where field conditions necessitate any material change from approved plans, the change shall be submitted for approval. 5.1.2.5.3 When such material changes from approved plans are made, corrected “as-installed” plans shall be provided. 5.1.3 Approval of Plans. 5.1.3.1 Plans and calculations shall be approved prior to installation. 5.1.3.2 Where field conditions necessitate any significant change from approved plans, the change shall be approved prior to implementation. 5.1.3.3 When such significant changes from approved plans are made, the working plans shall be updated to accurately represent the system as installed.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Add Annex Material: The Fire Suppression Systems Association is in the process of publishing "Design Guide for Total Flooding Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems" that will be completed during the Fall 2020 Revision Cycle.

This PI is to be a placeholder for future review of the the document by the NFPA GFE-AAA TC and, subject to acceptance, inclusion into the next edition of the standard.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: John Spalding Organization: Healey Fire Protection, Inc.

129 of 371

63 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Affiliation: Fire Suppression Systems Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jan 02 13:50:32 EST 2019 Committee: GFE-AAA

130 of 371

64 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 68-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 5.4 ]

5.4 Design Concentration Requirements. 5.4.1 The flame extinguishing or inerting concentrations shall be used in determining the agent design concentration for a particular fuel. For combinations of fuels, the flame extinguishment or inerting value for the fuel requiring the greatest concentration shall be used unless tests are made on the actual mixture. 5.4.2 Flame Extinguishment. 5.4.2.1* The flame extinguishing concentration for Class B fuels shall be determined by the cup burner method described in Annex B. CAUTION: Under certain conditions, it can be dangerous to extinguish a burning gas jet. As a first measure, the gas supply shall be shut off. 5.4.2.1.1 Measurement equipment used in applying the cup burner method shall be calibrated. 5.4.2.2* The flame extinguishing concentration for Class A fuels shall be determined by test as part of a listing program. As a minimum, the listing program shall conform to ANSI/UL 2127 or ANSI/UL 2166 or equivalent. 5.4.2.3 The minimum design concentration for a Class B fuel hazard shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.1, times a safety factor of 1.3. 5.4.2.4* The minimum design concentration for a Class A surface-fire hazard shall be determined by the greater of the following: (1) The extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.2 (2) Equal to the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.1 5.4.2.5 The minimum design concentration for a Class C hazard shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.35. 5.4.2.5.1 The minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized electrical hazards supplied at greater than 480 volts that remain powered during and after discharge shall be determined by testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis. 5.4.2.6* The minimum design concentration for a smoldering combustion hazard (deep-seated fire hazard) shall be determined by an application-specific test. 5.4.3* Inerting. 5.4.3.1 The inerting concentration shall be determined by test. 5.4.3.2* The inerting concentration shall be used in determining the agent design concentration where conditions for subsequent reflash or explosion exist. 5.4.3.3 The minimum design concentration used to inert the atmosphere of an enclosure where the hazard is a flammable liquid or gas shall be the inerting concentration times a safety factor of 1.1. 131 of 371

65 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved See the attached for proposed change to the existing Section 5.4.2 Flame 18_dec_21_2001-5.4.2_TaskGroupReport_2018-12-14_FINAL.docx Extinguishment. as directed at the final GFE committee meeting last cycle.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Section 5.4.1 is revised to comply with the Manual of Style, including a new subsection title and separating the requirements into individual paragraphs. Section 5.4.2 is revised to more clearly establish the basis for minimum extinguishing concentrations and minimum design concentrations for each class of fire. Protection of smoldering (deep-seated) combustion hazards is deleted from 5.4.2, since minimum extinguishing concentrations have not been established by test for any clean agent. Addressing this type of hazard in 5.4.2 could lead to confusion over the applicability of clean agent systems to deep-seated hazards. Therefore, “Class A materials subject to smoldering (deep-seated) combustion” is added to the list in 1.4.2.2, which identifies materials that cannot be protected with a clean agent without testing. This is a more appropriate location for this requirement. A new definition of ‘smoldering (deep-seated) combustion’ is added as would be needed.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Paul Rivers Organization: 3M Company Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Dec 28 13:12:21 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

132 of 371

66 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM REPORT OF THE TASK GROUP ON SECTION 5.4.2 OF NFPA 2001

TASK GROUP CHARGE: To review 5.4.2 (“Flame Extinguishment”) of NFPA 2001 for possible reorganization.

TASK GROUP MEMBERS: P. Rivers (TG Chair), J. Harrington, B. Stilwell, B. Shugarman, and R. Kasiski

DRAFT SUBSTANTIATION FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES: Section 5.4.1 is revised to comply with the Manual of Style, including a new subsection title and separating the requirements into individual paragraphs. Section 5.4.2 is revised to more clearly establish the basis for minimum extinguishing concentrations and minimum design concentrations for each class of fire. Protection of smoldering (deep-seated) combustion hazards is deleted from 5.4.2, since minimum extinguishing concentrations have not been established by test for any clean agent. Addressing this type of hazard in 5.4.2 could lead to confusion over the applicability of clean agent systems to deep-seated hazards. Therefore, “Class A materials subject to smoldering (deep-seated) combustion” is added to the list in 1.4.2.2, which identifies materials that cannot be protected with a clean agent without testing. This is a more appropriate location for this requirement. A new definition of ‘smoldering (deep-seated) combustion’ is added for clarification.

PROPOSED CHANGES: The task group proposes three changes.

(Proposed Change #1) Revise Section 5.4 as follows: 5.4 Design Concentration Requirements. 5.4.1 General. 5.4.1.1 The flame extinguishing or inerting concentrations shall be used in determining the agent design concentration for a particular fuel. 5.4.1.2 For combinations of fuels, the flame extinguishment or inerting value for the fuel requiring the greatest concentration shall be used unless tests are made on the actual mixture. 5.4.2 Flame Extinguishment. 5.4.2.1 Class A Hazards. 5.4.2.25.4.2.1.1* The flame minimum extinguishing concentration for Class A fuels shall be determined by test as part of a listing program in accordance with 5.4.2.3. As a minimum, the listing program shall conform to ANSI/UL 2127 or ANSI/UL 2166 or equivalent. Commented [CB1]: Sentence relocated to 5.4.2.3 5.4.2.45.4.2.1.2* The minimum design concentration for a Class A surface-fire hazard shall be determined by the greater of the following: (a) The extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.25.4.2.1.1, times a safety factor of 1.2 for systems with automatic detection and actuation (see 4.3.1.2) or 1.3 for systems with manual-only actuation (see 4.3.1.2.1) (b) Equal to the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.15.4.2.2.1(b)

133 of 371 A.5.4.2.4 Hazards containing both Class A and Class B fuels should be evaluated on the basis of the fuel requiring the highest design concentration. Commented [CB2]: This is also stated in 5.4.1.2.

5.4.2.2 Class B Hazards. 5.4.2.15.4.2.2.1* The flame extinguishing concentration for Class B fuels shall be determined by the cup burner method described in Annex B.greater of the following: a) The Class B concentration as determined by a listing program in accordance with 5.4.2.3. a)b) The flame extinguishing concentration for the specific fuel, as determined by the cup burner method. (See Annex B.) CAUTION: Under certain conditions, it can be dangerous to extinguish a burning gas jet. As a first measure, the gas supply shall be shut off.

A.5.4.2.1A.5.4.2.2.1 This standard requires that the flame extinguishing concentration of a gaseous agent for a Class B fuel be determined by the cup burner method. Cup burner testing in the past has involved a variety of techniques, apparatus, and investigators. It was reported by Senecal (2005) that significant inconsistencies are apparent in Class B flame extinguishing data for inert gases currently in use in national and international standards. In 2003, the Technical Committee for NFPA 2001 appointed a task group to develop an improved cup burner test method. Through this effort, the degree of standardization of the cup burner test method was significantly improved. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined apparatus has now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Values for minimum flame extinguishing concentration (MEC) for gaseous agents addressed in this standard, as determined by the revised test method, are given in Table A.5.4.2.1A.5.4.2.2.1. Values for MEC that were determined by the 2004 test method are retained in this edition for the purpose of providing an MEC reference where data obtained by the revised test method were not available. It is intended that in subsequent editions the 2004 MEC data can be deleted. Table A.5.4.2.1A.5.4.2.2.1 Minimum Flame Extinguishing Concentration (Fuel: n-heptane)

MEC (vol %) Agent 2004 Test Method 2008 Test Method** FIC-13I1 3.2* FK-5-1-12 4.5 HCFC Blend A 9.9 HCFC-124 6.6 HFC-125 8.7 HFC-227ea 6.6† 6.62 HFC-23 12.9 HFC-236fa 6.3 HFC Blend B 11.3 IG-01 42 IG-100 31* 32.2 IG-541 31 IG-55 35 *Not derived from standardized cup burner method. †A value of cup burner extinguishing concentration of 6.7 percent for HCF-227ea for commercial heptane fuel. **A working group appointed by the then NFPA 2001 technical committee revised Annex B to include a refinement of the method reported in the 2004 and earlier editions.

5.4.2.1.15.4.2.2.2 Measurement equipment used in applying the cup burner method shall be calibrated. 5.4.2.35.4.2.2.3

134 of 371 The minimum design concentration for a Class B fuel hazard shall be the extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.15.4.2.2.1, times a safety factor of 1.3. 5.4.2.3* Listing Program. The listing program shall conform to ANSI/UL 2127 or ANSI/UL 2166 or an equivalent standard. A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3 The following steps detail the fire extinguishment/area coverage fire test procedure for engineered and pre-engineered clean agent extinguishing system units: (1) The general requirements are as follows: (a) An engineered or pre-engineered extinguishing system should mix and distribute its extinguishing agent and should totally flood an enclosure when tested in accordance with the recommendations of A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(1)(c) through A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(6)(f) under the maximum design limitations and most severe installation instructions. See also A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(1)(b). (b) When tested as described in A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(5)(b), an extinguishing system unit should extinguish all fires within 30 seconds after the end of system discharge. When tested as described in A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(3)(c) and A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(6)(a) through A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(6)(f), an extinguishing system should prevent reignition of the wood crib after a 10 minute soak period. (c) The tests described in A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(6)(f) should be carried out. Consider the intended use and limitations of the extinguishing system, with specific reference to the following: i. The area coverage for each type of nozzle ii. The operating temperature range of the system iii. Location of the nozzles in the protected area iv. Either maximum length and size of piping and number of fittings to each nozzle or minimum nozzle pressure v. Maximum discharge time vi. Maximum fill density (2) The test enclosure construction is as follows:

(a) The enclosure for the test should be constructed of either indoor or outdoor grade minimum 3⁄8 in. (9.5 mm) thick plywood or equivalent material. (b) An enclosure(s) is to be constructed having the maximum area coverage for the extinguishing system unit or nozzle being tested and the minimum and maximum protected area height limitations. The test enclosure(s) for the maximum height, flammable liquid, and wood crib fire extinguishment tests need not have the maximum coverage area, but should be at least 13.1 ft (4.0 m) wide by 13.1 ft (4.0 m) long and 3351 3531 ft3 (100 m3) in volume. (3) The extinguishing system is as follows: (a) A pre-engineered type of extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using its maximum piping limitations with respect to number of fittings and length of pipe to the discharge nozzles and nozzle configuration(s), as specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions. (b) An engineered-type extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using a piping arrangement that results in the minimum nozzle design pressure at 70°F (21°C). (c) Except for the flammable liquid fire test using the 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) square pan and the wood crib extinguishment test, the cylinders are to be conditioned to the minimum operating temperature specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions. (4) The extinguishing concentration is as follows: (a) The extinguishing agent concentration for each Class A test is to be 83.34 percent of the intended end use design concentration specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions at the ambient temperature of approximately 70°F (21°C) within the enclosure. (b) The extinguishing agent concentration for each Class B test is to be 76.9 percent of the intended end- use design concentration specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions at the ambient temperature of approximately 70°F (21°C) within the enclosure. (c) The concentration for inert gas clean agents can be adjusted to take into consideration actual leakage measured from the test enclosure. (d) The concentration within the enclosure for halocarbon clean agents should be calculated using the following formula unless it is demonstrated that the test enclosure exhibits significant leakage. If significant test enclosure leakage does exist, the formula used to determine the test enclosure concentration of halocarbon clean agents can be modified to account for the leakage measured.

135 of 371 [A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3a] where:

W = weight of clean agents [lb (kg)]

V = volume of test enclosure [ft3 (m3)]

s = specific volume of clean agent at test temperature [ft3/lb (m3/kg)]

C = concentration (vol %)

(5) The flammable liquid extinguishment tests are as follows: (a) Steel test cans having a nominal thickness of 0.216 in. (5.5 mm) (such as Schedule 40 pipe) and 3.0 in. to 3.5 in. (76.2 mm to 88.9 mm) in diameter and at least 4 in. (102 mm) high, containing either heptane or heptane and water, are to be placed within 2 in. (50.8 mm) of the corners of the test enclosure(s) and directly behind the baffle, and located vertically within 12 in. (305 mm) of the top or bottom of the enclosure or both the top and bottom if the enclosure permits such placement. If the cans contain heptane and water, the heptane is to be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) deep. The level of heptane in the cans should be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the can. For the minimum room height area coverage test, closable openings are provided directly above the cans to allow for venting prior to system installation. In addition, for the minimum height limitation area coverage test, a baffle is to be installed between the floor and ceiling in the center of the enclosure. The baffle is to be perpendicular to the direction of nozzle discharge and to be 20 percent of the length or width of the enclosure, whichever is applicable with respect to nozzle location. For the maximum room height extinguishment test, an additional test is to be conducted using a 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) square pan located in the center of the room and the storage cylinder conditioned to 70°F (21°C). The test pan is to contain at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) of heptane, with the heptane level at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the pan. For all tests, the heptane is to be ignited and allowed to burn for 30 seconds, at which time all openings are to be closed and the extinguishing system is to be manually actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure should be at least 20 percent. (b) The heptane is to be commercial grade having the following characteristics: i. Initial boiling point: 194°F (90°C) minimum ii. Dry point: 212°F (100°C) maximum iii. Specific gravity: 0.69–0.73 (6) The wood crib extinguishment tests are as follows: (a) The storage cylinder is to be conditioned to 70°F (21°C). The test enclosure is to have the maximum ceiling height as specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

(b) The wood crib is to consist of four layers of six, trade size 2 by 2 (11⁄2 by 11⁄2 in.) by 18 in. long, kiln spruce or fir lumber having a moisture content between 9 percent and 13 percent. The alternate layers of the wood members are to be placed at right angles to one another. The individual wood members in each layer are to be evenly spaced, forming a square determined by the specified length of the wood members. The wood members forming the outside edges of the crib are to be stapled or nailed together. (c) Ignition of the crib is to be achieved by the burning of commercial grade heptane in a square steel pan 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) in area and not less than 4 in. (101.6 mm) in height. The crib is to be centered with the bottom of the crib 12 in. to 24 in. (304 to 609.6 mm) above the top of the pan, and the test stand constructed so as to allow for the bottom of the crib to be exposed to the atmosphere. (d) The heptane is to be ignited, and the crib is to be allowed to burn freely for approximately 6 minutes outside the test enclosure. The heptane fire is to burn for 3 to 31⁄2 minutes. Approximately 1⁄4 gal (0.95 L) of heptane will provide a 3 to 31⁄2 minute burn time. Just prior to the end of the pre-burn period, the crib is to be moved into the test enclosure and placed on a stand such that the bottom of the crib is between 20 in. and 28 in. (508 mm and 711 mm) above the floor. The closure is then to be sealed. (e) After the crib is allowed to burn for 6 minutes, the system is to be actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure at the level of the crib should be at least 20 percent. (f) After the end of system discharge, the enclosure is to remain sealed for 10 minutes. After the 10 minute soak period, the crib is to be removed from the enclosure and observed to determine whether sufficient fuel remains to sustain combustion and to detect signs of re-ignition. (7) The following is a schematic of the process to determine the design quantity: (a) Determine hazard features, as follows:

136 of 371 i. Fuel type: Extinguishing concentration (EC) per 5.4.2 or inerting concentration (IC) per 5.4.3 ii. Enclosure volume iii. Enclosure temperature iv. Enclosure barometric pressure (b) Determine the agent minimum design concentration (MDC) by multiplying EC or IC by the safety factor (SF):

[A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3b] (c) Determine the agent minimum design quantity (MDQ) by referring to 5.5.1 for halocarbons or 5.5.2 for inert gases (d) Determine whether design factors (DF) apply. See 5.5.3 to determine individual DF [DF(i)] and then determine sum:

[A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3c] (e) Determine the agent adjusted minimum design quantity (AMDQ):

[A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3d] (f) Determine the pressure correction factor (PCF) per 5.5.3.3 (g) Determine the final design quantity (FDQ) as follows: [A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3e] Where any of the following conditions exist, higher extinguishing concentrations might be required: (1) Cable bundles greater than 4 in. (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 less than 10 in. (250 mm) apart (4) Equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the collective power consumption exceeds 5 kW Fire extinguishment tests for (noncellulosic) Class A Surface Fires. The purpose of the tests outlined in this procedure is to develop the minimum extinguishing concentration (MEC) for a gaseous fire suppression agent for a range of noncellulosic, solid polymeric combustibles. It is intended that the MEC will be increased by appropriate safety factors and flooding factors as provided for in the standard. These Class A tests should be conducted in a draft-free room with a volume of at least 3530 ft3 (100 m3) and a minimum height of 11.5 ft (3.5 m) and each wall at least 13.1 ft (4 m) long. Provisions should be made for relief venting if required. The test objects are as follows:

(1) The polymer fuel array consists of four sheets of polymer, 3⁄8 in. (9.53 mm) thick, 16 in. (406 mm) tall, and 8 in. (203 mm) wide. Sheets are spaced and located per Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a). The bottom of the fuel array is located 8 in. (203 mm) from the floor. The fuel sheets should be mechanically fixed at the required spacing. (2) A fuel shield is provided around the fuel array as indicated in Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a). The fuel shield is 15 in. (381 mm) wide, 33.5 in. (851 mm) high, and 24 in. (610 mm) deep. The 24 in. (610 mm) wide × 33.5 in. (851 mm) high sides and the 24 in. (610 mm) × 15 in. (381 mm) top are sheet metal. The remaining two sides and the bottom are open. The fuel array is oriented in the fuel shield such that the 8 in. (203 mm) dimension of the fuel array is parallel to the 24 in. (610 mm) side of the fuel shield. (3) Two external baffles measuring 40 in. × 40 in. (1 m × 1 m) and 12 in. (0.3 m) tall are located around the exterior of the fuel shield as shown in Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a) and Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(b). The baffles are placed 3.5 in. (0.09 m) above the floor. The top baffle is rotated 45 degrees with respect to the bottom baffle. (4) Tests are conducted for three plastic fuels — polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polypropylene (PP), and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) polymer. Plastic properties are given in Table A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a).

(5) The ignition source is a heptane pan 2 in. × 2 in. × 7⁄8 in. deep (51 mm × 51 mm × 22 mm deep) centered 1⁄2 in. (12 mm) below the bottom of the plastic sheets. The pan is filled with 3.0 ml of heptane to provide 90 seconds of burning. (6) The agent delivery system should be distributed through an approved nozzle. The system should be operated at the minimum nozzle pressure (±10 percent) and the maximum discharge time (±1 second). The test procedure is as follows: (1) The procedures for ignition are as follows: (a) The heptane pan is ignited and allowed to burn for 90 seconds.

137 of 371 (b) The agent is discharged 210 seconds after ignition of heptane. (c) The compartment remains sealed for 600 seconds after the end of discharge. Extinguishment time is noted. If the fire is not extinguished within 600 seconds of the end of agent discharge, a higher minimum extinguishing concentration must be utilized. (d) The test is repeated two times for each fuel for each concentration evaluated and the extinguishment time averaged for each fuel. Any one test with an extinguishment time above 600 seconds is considered a failure. (e) If the fire is extinguished during the discharge period, the test is repeated at a lower concentration or additional baffling provided to ensure that local transient discharge effects are not affecting the extinguishment process. (f) At the beginning of the tests, the oxygen concentration must be within 2 percent (approximately 0.5 percent by volume O2) of ambient value. (g) During the post-discharge period, the oxygen concentration should not fall below 0.5 percent by volume of the oxygen level measured at the end of agent discharge. (2) The observation and recording procedures are as follows: (a) The following data must be recorded continuously during the test: i. Oxygen concentration (±0.5 percent) ii. Fuel mass loss (±5 percent) iii. Agent concentration (±5 percent) (Inert gas concentration can be calculated based on oxygen concentration.) (b) The following events are timed and recorded: i. Time at which heptane is ignited ii. Time of heptane pan burnout iii. Time of plastic sheet ignition iv. Time of beginning of agent discharge v. Time of end of agent discharge vi. Time all visible flame is extinguished The minimum extinguishing concentration is determined by all of the following conditions: (1) All visible flame is extinguished within 600 seconds of agent discharge. (2) The fuel weight loss between 10 seconds and 600 seconds after the end of discharge does not exceed 0.5 oz (15 g). (3) There is no ignition of the fuel at the end of the 600 second soak time and subsequent test compartment ventilation. Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a) Four-Piece Modified Plastic Setup.

Figure A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(b) Chamber Plan View.

138 of 371

Table A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(a) Plastic Fuel Properties

25 kW/m2 Exposure in Cone Calorimeter — ASTM E1354 180-Second Average Density Ignition Time . Effective Heat of Combustion . Heat Release Rate (g/cm2) Fuel Color sec Tolerance kW/m2 Tolerance MJ/kg Tolerance PMMA Black 1.19 77 ±30% 286 25% 23.3 ±15% PP Natural (white) 0.905 91 ±30% 225 25% 39.8 ±15% ABS Natural (cream) 1.04 115 ±30% 484 25% 29.1 ±15% Table A.5.4.2.2A.5.4.2.3(b) Class A Flame Extinguishing and Minimum Design Concentrations Tested to UL 2166 and UL 2127

Agent Class A MEC Class A Minimum Design Concentration Class C Minimum Design Concentration FK-5-1-12 3.3 4.5 4.5 HFC-125 6.7 8.7 9.0 HFC-227ea 5.2 6.7 7.0 HFC-23 15.0 18.0 20.3 IG-541 28.5 34.2 38.5 IG-55 31.6 37.9 42.7

139 of 371 Agent Class A MEC Class A Minimum Design Concentration Class C Minimum Design Concentration IG-100 31.0 37.2 41.9 Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class A design values are the greater of (1) the Class A extinguishing concentration, determined in accordance with 5.4.2.25.4.2.1.1, times a safety factor of 1.2; or (2) the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.15.4.2.2(b). 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 and telecommunication facilities). The values in Table A.5.4.2.2(b)this table are representative of the minimum extinguishing concentrations and design concentrations for various agents. The concentrations required can vary by equipment manufacturer. Equipment manufacturers should be contacted for the concentration required for their specific system.

5.4.2.4 Class C Hazards. 5.4.2.55.4.2.4.1 The minimum design concentration for a Class C hazard shall be the Class A minimum extinguishing concentration, as determined in 5.4.2.25.4.2.1.1, times a safety factor of 1.35. 5.4.2.5.15.4.2.4.2 The minimum design concentration for spaces containing energized electrical hazards supplied at greater than 480 volts that remain powered during and after discharge shall be determined by a hazard analysis and testing, as necessary, and a hazard analysis. 5.4.2.6* The minimum design concentration for a smoldering combustion hazard (deep-seated fire hazard) shall be determined by an application-specific test. Commented [CB3]: Concept is relocated to 1.4.2.2 as a new (5) [see recommended change #2 below] A.5.4.2.6 Two types of fires can occur in solid fuels: (1) one in which volatile gases resulting from heating or decomposition of the fuel surface are the source of combustion and (2) one in which oxidation occurs at the surface of or in the mass of fuel. The first type of fire is commonly referred to as “flaming” combustion, while the second type is often called “smoldering” or “glowing” combustion. The two types of fires frequently occur concurrently, although one type of burning can precede the other. For example, a wood fire can start as flaming combustion and become smoldering as burning progresses. Conversely, spontaneous ignition in a pile of oily rags can begin as a smoldering fire and break into flames at some later point. Flaming combustion, because it occurs in the vapor phase, can be extinguished with relatively low levels of clean agents. In the absence of smoldering combustion, it will stay out. Unlike flaming combustion, smoldering combustion is not subject to immediate extinguishment. Characteristic of this type of combustion is the slow rate of heat losses from the reaction zone. Thus, the fuel remains hot enough to react with oxygen, even though the rate of reaction, which is controlled by diffusion processes, is extremely slow. Smoldering fires can continue to burn for many weeks, for example, in bales of cotton and jute and heaps of sawdust. A smoldering fire ceases to burn only when either all the available oxygen or fuel has been consumed or the fuel surface is at too low a temperature to react. Smoldering fires usually are extinguished by reducing the fuel temperature, either directly by application of a heat-absorbing medium, such as water, or by blanketing with an inert gas. The inert gas slows the reaction rate to the point where heat generated by oxidation is less than heat losses to surroundings. This causes the temperature to fall below the level necessary for spontaneous ignition after removal of the inert atmosphere. For the purposes of this standard, smoldering fires are divided into two classes: (1) where the smoldering is not “deep seated” and (2) deep-seated fires. Whether a fire will become deep seated depends, in part, on the length of time it has been burning before application of the extinguishing agent. This time is usually called the “preburn” time. Another important variable is the fuel configuration. While wood cribs and pallets are easily extinguished with Class A design concentrations, vertical wood panels closely spaced and parallel can require higher concentrations and long hold times for extinguishment. Fires in boxes of excelsior and in piles of shredded paper also can require higher concentrations and long hold times for extinguishment. In these situations, heat tends to be retained in the fuel array rather than being dissipated to the surroundings. Radiation is an important mechanism for heat removal from smoldering fires. Commented [CB4]: Text is relocated to A.3.3.XX and 5.4.3* Inerting. associated with a new definition of “Smoldering (Deep- Seated) Combustion” [see recommended change #3 below] 5.4.3.1* The inerting concentration shall be determined by test.

A.5.4.3A.5.4.3.1

140 of 371 The following paragraphs summarize a method of evaluating inerting concentration of a fire extinguishing vapor. One characteristic of halons and replacement agents is frequently referred to as the inerting, or inhibiting, concentration. Flammability diagram data (Dalzell, 1975, and Coll, 1976) on ternary systems can be found in NFPA 12A. The procedures used to generate those data have been used more recently to evaluate inerting concentrations of halons and replacement chemicals against various fuel-air systems. Differences between the earlier studies and the recent work are that the test vessel volume used in the more recent work was 2.1 gal (7.9 L) versus the 1.5 gal (5.6 L) used previously. The igniter type — carbon rod corona discharge spark — was the same, but the capacitor-stored energy levels in the later studies were higher, approximately 68 J (16.2 cal) versus 6 or 11 J (1.4 or 2.6 cal) in the earlier work. The basic procedure, employing a gap spark, has been adopted to develop additional data. Ternary fuel-air agent mixtures were prepared at a test pressure of 1 atm and at room temperature in a 2.1 gal (7.9 L) spherical test vessel (see Figure A.5.4.3A.5.4.3.1) by the partial pressure method. The vessel was fitted with inlet and vent ports, a thermocouple, and a pressure transducer. First, the test vessel was evacuated, then agent was admitted; if the agent was a liquid, sufficient time was allowed for evaporation to occur. Fuel vapor and finally air were admitted, raising the vessel pressure to 1 atm. An internal flapper allowed the mixtures to be agitated by rocking the vessel back and forth. The pressure transducer was connected to a suitable recording device to measure any pressure rise that occurred on actuation of the igniter. Figure A.5.4.3A.5.4.3.1 Spherical Test Vessel.

Table A.5.4.3A.5.4.3.1 Inerting Concentrations for Various Agents

Inerting . Concentration . Fuel Agent (vol %) Reference i-butane HFC-227ea 11.3 Robin HCFC Blend A 18.4 Moore IG-100 40 Zabetakis 1-chloro-1, . 1-difluoroethane HFC-227ea 2.6 Robin . (HCFC-142b)

1,1-difluoroethane HFC-227ea 8.6 Robin . (HFC-152a) HCFC Blend A 13.6 Moore

Difluoromethane HFC-227ea 3.5 Robin . (HFC-32) HCFC Blend A 8.6 Moore Ethane IG-100 44 Zabetakis Ethylene oxide HFC-227ea 13.6 Robin Hexane IG-100 42 Zabetakis Methane FK-5-1-12 8.8 Schmeer HFC-125 14.7 Senecal HFC-227ea 8 Robin HFC-23 20.2 Senecal HCFC Blend A 18.3 Moore IG-100 37 Zabetakis

141 of 371 Inerting . Concentration . Fuel Agent (vol %) Reference IG-541 43 Tamanini Pentane HFC-227ea 11.6 Robin IG-100 42 Zabetakis Propane FK-5-1-12 8.1 Schmeer FC-5-1-14 7.3 Senecal FIC-13I1 6.5 Moore HFC-125 15.7 Senecal HFC-227ea 11.6 Robin HFC-23 20.2 Senecal HFC-23 20.4 Skaggs HCFC Blend A 18.6 Moore IG-541 49.0 Tamanini IG-100 42 Zabetakis

The igniter employed consisted of a bundle of four graphite rods (“H” pencil leads) held together by two wire or metal brand wraps on either end of the bundle, leaving a gap between the wraps of about 0.12 in. (3 mm). The igniter was wired in series with two 525 mF 450 V capacitors. The capacitors were charged to a potential of 720 to 730 V dc. The stored energy was, therefore, 68 to 70 J (16.2 to 16.7 cal). The nominal resistance of the rod assembly was about 1 ohm. On switch closure, the capacitor discharge current resulted in ionization at the graphite rod surface. A corona spark jumped across the connector gap. The spark energy content was taken as the stored capacitor energy; in principle, however, stored capacitor energy must be somewhat less than this amount due to line resistance losses. The pressure rise, if any, resulting from ignition of the test mixture was recorded. The interior of the test vessel was wiped clean between tests with a cloth damp with either water or a solvent to avoid buildup of decomposition residues, which could influence the results. The definition of the flammable boundary was taken as that composition that just produces a pressure rise of 0.07 times the initial pressure or 1 psi (6.9 kPa) when the initial pressure is 1 atm. Tests were conducted at fixed fuel-air ratios and varying amounts of agent vapor until conditions were found to give rise to pressure increases that bracket 0.07 times the initial pressure. Tests were conducted at several fuel-air ratios to establish that condition requiring the highest agent vapor concentration to inert. Data obtained on several chemicals that can serve as fire protection agents are given in Table A.5.4.3A.5.4.3.1.

5.4.3.2* The inerting concentration shall be used in determining the agent design concentration where conditions for subsequent reflash or explosion exist.

A.5.4.3.2 These conditions exist where both the following occur: (1) The types and quantity of fuel permitted in the enclosure have the potential to lead to development of a fuel vapor concentration equal to or greater than one-half of the lower flammable limit throughout the enclosure. (2) The system response is not rapid enough to detect and extinguish the fire before the volatility of the fuel is increased to a dangerous level as a result of the fire.

5.4.3.3 The minimum design concentration used to inert the atmosphere of an enclosure where the hazard is a flammable liquid or gas shall be the inerting concentration times a safety factor of 1.1.

(Proposed Change #2) Revise 1.4.2.2 as follows: 1.4.2.2

142 of 371 Clean agents shall not be used on fires involving the following materials unless the agents have been tested to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction: (1) Certain chemicals or mixtures of chemicals, such as cellulose nitrate and gunpowder, which are capable of rapid oxidation in the absence of air (2) Reactive metals such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium, uranium, and plutonium (3) Metal hydrides (4) Chemicals capable of undergoing autothermal decomposition, such as certain organic peroxides, pyrophoric materials, and hydrazine (5) Class A fuels subject to smoldering (deep-seated) combustion (See 3.3.XX.)

(Proposed Change #3) Add a new definition for “Smoldering (Deep-Seated) Combustion” as follows: 3.3.XX Smoldering (Deep-Seated) Combustion. A form of combustion without flame that occurs in fuel that is comprised of finely divided fibers or particles that have a relatively large surface area to mass ratio.

A.5.4.2.6A.3.3.XX Smoldering (Deep-Seated) Combustion. Two types of fires can occur in solid fuels: (1) one in which volatile gases resulting from heating or decomposition of the fuel surface are the source of combustion and (2) one in which oxidation occurs at the surface of or in the mass of fuel. The first type of fire is commonly referred to as “flaming” combustion, while the second type is often called “smoldering” or “glowing” combustion. The two types of fires frequently occur concurrently, although one type of burning can precede the other. For example, a wood fire can start as flaming combustion and become smoldering as burning progresses. Conversely, spontaneous ignition in a pile of oily rags can begin as a smoldering fire and break into flames at some later point. Flaming combustion, because it occurs in the vapor phase, can be extinguished with relatively low levels of clean agents. In the absence of smoldering combustion, it will stay out. Unlike flaming combustion, smoldering combustion is not subject to immediate extinguishment. Characteristic of this type of combustion is the slow rate of heat losses from the reaction zone. Thus, the fuel remains hot enough to react with oxygen, even though the rate of reaction, which is controlled by diffusion processes, is extremely slow. Smoldering fires can continue to burn for many weeks, for example, in bales of cotton and jute and heaps of sawdust. A smoldering fire ceases to burn only when either all the available oxygen or fuel has been consumed or the fuel surface is at too low a temperature to react. Smoldering fires usually are extinguished by reducing the fuel temperature, either directly by application of a heat-absorbing medium, such as water, or by blanketing with an inert gas. The inert gas slows the reaction rate to the point where heat generated by oxidation is less than heat losses to surroundings. This causes the temperature to fall below the level necessary for spontaneous ignition after removal of the inert atmosphere. For the purposes of this standard, smoldering fires are divided into two classes: (1) where the smoldering is not “deep seated” and (2) deep-seated fires. Whether a fire will become deep seated depends, in part, on the length of time it has been burning before application of the extinguishing agent. This time is usually called the “preburn” time. Another important variable is the fuel configuration. While wood cribs and pallets are easily extinguished with Class A design concentrations, vertical wood panels closely spaced and parallel can require higher concentrations and long hold times for extinguishment. Fires in boxes of excelsior and in piles of shredded paper also can require higher concentrations and long hold times for extinguishment. In these situations, heat tends to be retained in the fuel array rather than being dissipated to the surroundings. Radiation is an important mechanism for heat removal from smoldering fires. Smoldering combustion is commonly referred to as deep-seated combustion. The fuel aggregate must be permeable allowing oxygen transport to the combustion reaction zone below the surface of the fuel. The fuel aggregate must also be dense enough to form an effective insulation layer that slows down heat losses from the reaction zone. Smoldering combustion can occur only in solid fuels.

143 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 26-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 5.5.2 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT 5.5.2 The quantity of inert gas agent required to achieve the design concentration shall be calculated using Equation 5.5.2, 5.5.2.1a or 5.5.2.b , or 5.5.2.1.c where 5.5.2.1.c applies to IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas breaking loose of the water temperature restraints and starting at evaporating temperature of liquid Nitrogen, -195.8 o C or -320.4 o F.

AMEND: 5.5.2.1c For IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, upon evaporation of liquid Nitrogen at -195.8 o C, expands 230 times liquid volume, warming to ambient temperature it reaches 250 times liquid volume and at inferno temperatures becomes 600-700 times liquid volume. (Make this into equations if you like.) The Inert Gas equations use 2.303 rather than the 100 of Halon gases which must divide the 230 cryogenic evaporation expansion of liquid Nitrogen indicating the tanks are filled with a weight of liquid Nitrogen to secure a stated pressure in the tank. Using liquid Nitrogen at ambient pressure as the source has the 230 expansion as 100% of released gas at -195.8oC. Also, evaporation of liquid Nitrogen gives cohesive Nitrogen gas in forming cloud displacing Oxygen in cloud volume, not an averaged mix as the other Nitrogen sources are stated to create which reduce Oxygen concentration, not displace the Oxygen. The space around this tranparent Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud has the same Oxygen content as it had before cloud invasion. In a fire where the fire consumes Oxygen, one cannot depend on full 21% Oxygen content, but that amount declining by the Oxygen reduction by the current fire conditions over time.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Compressed Nitrogen gas released mixes with the air as it squirts out of the nozzle into the atmosphere. Depending on volume one gets a portion of the Oxygen depending on balance of air:compressed Nitrogen. With the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas cloud being cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold to start and pure N2 Nitrogen gas, one gets a transparent cloud of 100% Nitrogen gas in the midst of the air and it clears itself to stay pure. Thus the air portion has its Oxygen level constant or reduce by the presence of fire. To breath the Oxygen and building toxin levels, one breaths the smokey air in a fire with the transparent Nitrogen cloud ending the flames and cooling the fuel, or wearing SCBA gear, operates within the Evaporated Nitrogen Gas Cloud with this supplemental Oxygen.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 13:45:00 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

144 of 371

67 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 27-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 5.5.3.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]

]

Other than as identified in 5.5.3.1.3, where a single agent supply is used to protect multiple hazards, a design factor from Table 5.5.3.1 shall be applied. Table 5.5.3.1 Design Factors for Piping Tees will need a fourth column, IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas. Here tees are comprised of two pairs of 45 o turns, one heading left and other to the right so the flow is deflected, not bounced back were the turn a 90 o angle. Measurements must be tested so there is no loss of distance covered in tube run lengths. Table 5.5.3.1 Design Factors for Piping Tees

Design Factor Halocarbon Inert Gas

Tee Count Design Factor Design Factor 0–4 0.00 0.00 5 0.01 0.00 6 0.02 0.00 7 0.03 0.00 8 0.04 0.00 9 0.05 0.01 10 0.06 0.01 11 0.07 0.02 12 0.07 0.02 13 0.08 0.03 14 0.09 0.03 15 0.09 0.04 16 0.10 0.04 17 0.11 0.05 18 0.11 0.05 19 0.12 0.06

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved See the drawings with 90o turns made with two Patent- 45o turns in a sequence to avoid splashback as Cryogenictransport_color_print_and_scan.ppt would be caused by either a "T" or "L" cornering situation.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Since liquid Nitrogen flow is different from compressed Nitrogen flow, a fourth column in the table is needed to accommodate this added type of IG 100 Nitrogen use.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City:

145 of 371

68 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 14:00:17 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

146 of 371

69 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM Numbering Index64. Cool to separate 1. Nitrogen gas 36. Ventilated cap 65. Cool to liquefy 10. Liquid Nitrogen 37. Fused seams 66. Keep hot for Fuels 11. CryoRain - drops 38. Slow flow pipe 67. Smoke 7. Signals 12. Stored N2 to fill pipes 39. Oxygen supply & tube 70. Smoke detector 13. Liquefying N2 4. Valves, motion 71. Fuel/water separator 14. Cooling N2 40. Allow/stop flow 72. Battery operating 15. Heating N2 to gather fuels 41. One way 73. Fire 16. Purifying N2 42. Tippers – fill & spill 17. Perforated surfaces 43. Cycling - evaporator 74. Thermal indicator 18. Evaporator 5. Electronics 75. Thermal flow control 19. Air - atmosphere 50. Lighting 76. Lift with scale 2. Insulating spaces 51. Batteries – solar 77. CO2 filter 20. Parallel pipe space 52. Situation switching 78. Nitrogen release signal 21. Molded components 53. Valve motion 8. Item 22. Fitting other products 54. Wiring 80. Motor 23. Frame induced spacing 55. Indicators 81. Truck 24. Insulating material 56. Regulators 82. Cap 3. Plastic 57. Remote control 83. Oil spill 30. Pipes 58. Chain puller 84. Water 31. Connectors 6. Thermal qualities 85. Oven 32. Roller bearings 60. Switch by cold 86. Clothing 33. Seamed materials 61. No frost or icing 87. Skimmer, net 34. High temperature 62. Heat147 ofto 371 kill bedbugs 88. Ties holding equipment 35. Installed components 63. Heat to select fuel 89. Cover to protect from rain 1 20 12 30 20 1 31 Figure 1

37 37 37

148 of 371 1 20 30 5 50 51 54 31 Figure 2

149 of 371 30 20 1 50 51 4 53 40 10 1 54 53 31 40 Figure 3

. .

150 of 371 Figure 4

54 30 20 1 31 54 51 151 of 371 Figure 5

50 31

31 152 of 371 10 53 40 31 30 Figure 6

153 of 371 Figure 7(b) Figure 7(a) Figure 7

. . .

1 17 21 41 11 154 of 371 17 37 41 31 53 40 30 Figure 8(a) Figure 8(b) Figure 8

40 11 1 73 10 17 81 30 17 37 30 11 20

Figure8(c)

87 64 1 83

155 of 371 17 21 36 Figure 9(a) Figure 9 37 37 Figure 9(b) 30 38

156 of 371 42 17 Figure 10a Figure 10(b) Figure 10 10 21

37 11 50 1

20 30 72 51 37 34 73 21 Figure 10(c) 157 of 371 10 Figure 11(b) Figure 11

36 21 37

17 82 30 20 21 37

158 of 371 22 Figure 11(a) Figure 11(c) 82 Figure 12 Figure 12(a) Figure 12(b) 17 20

10 11 22 1 159 of 371 73 86 1 11 10 Figure 13

Figure 13(b)

Figure 13(c)

Figure 13(a)

73 85 1 11 10

160 of 371 Figure 14 17

161 of 371 76 Figure 15 80 57 35

22 32 58 31

162 of 371 76 Figure 16 17 Figure 16(a) Figure 16(b) 77 81 57 1 31 Figure 16(c) 30 58 10 82 35 10 32 30 22

33 23 58

163 of 371 76 Figure 17

Figure 17(a) Figure 17(b) Figure 17(c) 1 80 57

33 31 22 58 32 81 76 10 23 30 30 17 11 82 1

164 of 371 Figure 18

33 19 23 74 10 17 40 30 84

165 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 Figure 19

33 23 2 74 10 17 40 30 84

166 of 371 24 82 1 62 31 54 30 Figure 20

40 . 80 20 17 18

14 20 37 167 of 371 30 Figure 21 40 . 10 80 17 18

1 11 20

30 168 of 371 1 Fig. 22(a) Fig. 22(b) 30 Figure 22 65 10 66 H2/He 43 64 77 75 1 30 Neon 66 18 24 LNG 1 10 LPG CH Ether4 N2 13 74 Heating oil Kerosene 71 Gasoline Water 17 84 1 Fig. 22(d)

O2/Ar

169 of 371 15 63 73 74 30 37 20 Fig. 22(c) 40 15 73 63 78 10 11 40 17 54 70 67 1 73 30 Figure 23 36 88 39 85 70

“N” “2”

170 of 371 Figure 24(a) 78 11 40 1 70 67 73 30 Figure 24

“2” “N” 89 20 36 1

171 of 371 Figure 24(b) 88 10 39 17 85 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 5.6 ]

5.6 * Duration of Protection. A minimum concentration 5.6.1 A minimum concentration of 85 percent of the adjusted minimum flame extingishment design concentration shall be held at the highest height of protected content within the hazard for a period of 10 minutes or for a time period sufficient to allow for response by trained personnel. 5.6. 2 A minimum concentration of (percent TBD by NFPA 2001 Committee, but no less than inerting concentration per 5.4.3. 1 ) percent of the adjusted minimum inerting design concentration shall held at the highest height of protected content within the hazard for a period of 10 minutes or for a time period sufficient to allow for response by trained personnel. 5.6.3 * It is important that the adjusted minimum design concentration of agent not only shall be achieved but also shall be maintained for the specified period of time to allow effective emergency action by trained personnel.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

NFPA 2001 Section 5.6 as currently written does not account for inerting concentrations. If the end user were to apply the 85% reduction to an inerting system design concentration, the end result would be below the minimum inerting concentration determined by Section 5.4.3.1. E.g.: FK-5-1-12 methane inerting concentration is 8.8% (per Table A.5.4.3). The minimum inerting design concentration with a 1.1 safety factor (per 5.4.3.3) would be 9.68%. If the end user were to follow Section 5.6, the resulting concentration would be approximately 8.23%, which is less than the 8.8% methane inerting concentration. Breaking existing section 5.6 into two sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 will assist in differentiating between flame extinguishment and inerting design concentrations, as well as allow percentages to be employed to address each independent design approach. A minimum inerting concentration percentage was intentionally not included, but rather, deferred to the NFPA 2001 technical committee to evaluate and establish the parameter along with the guidance to not be less than the inerting concentration required by 5.4.3.1. Existing section 5.6.2 was renumbered to 5.6.3.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Brendan Karchere Organization: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Jun 15 19:41:46 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

172 of 371

70 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 28-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 5.8.2 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Add: 5.8.3 The type of dispensing tool for Evaporated Nitrogen Gas is a perforated release of drops falling by gravity (cryorain) and evaporating as these drops warm forming a transparent cloud of cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold to start pure N 2 Nitrogen gas. Perforated means a matrix of common size holes at a given distance between holes, a common center to center or edge to edge distance.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Drawing on pages 8, 9, and 10 are spectacular and show business_plan_-_AirWars_- a perforated pan on page 8, a perforated cap on a pint jar _July_2018.pdf to shoot the cryorain on page 9 and the airdrop dream device for ending large and wildfires. Here is the means to apply Evaporated Nitrogen Gas in the fire draft and have the fire pull it into itself so it can stop burning. The trough here is 20 feet placed so the liquid Nitrogen is applied on the high side and it runs down the trough dropping cryorain the length of the trough. The perforation is 1/4" diameter holes drilled so the holes are 1" center to center. The tilt of the trough Trough_for_fires_and_lava_cooling.pptx should allow even rain along the length. Once the fire is down at this location, the trough, a dispersion tool, is taken to the next place where it is set up, properly tilted, and the liquid Nitrogen is poured in so the cryorain evaporates making the Evaporatede Nitrogen Gas cloud that will help put out the fire drawing the cloud into itself.

This shows a means of detailing a fire. Here the cap of the pint peanut butter jar has a matrix of 1/32" holes 1/4" center to center. The cryorain can be shot 12' before it falls evaporating into the evaporated Nitrogen gas. The oil used here is Canola oil floating on water. The one application ended the fire. A second one, not Oil_Fire-v3.m4v photographed, solidified the oil on the water so with a skimming tool I picked the oil out of the water and put it in a container. Once melted, I could have poured the oil out into my mixing bowl and made a batch of cookies. There was only a light film of a most delicate oil remaining after the oil was skimmed off. That is the oil that makes normal butter softer. Sometime you just can't get 'em all.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Seeing is believing and the effect of the three business plan illustrations show the perforated pan, cap and airdrop sphere so you see how these dispersion tools make the liquid Nitrogen release so it evaporates efficiently putting the whole cloud together to drop as a cohesive, inert, cryogenical to start, pure N2 Nitrogen cloud which displaces Oxygen, cools the fuel, leaves no residual, does not conduct electricity so when the fire is controlled, recovery requires only to replace what burned away, charred, melted or warped. No water damage, no electrical arcing, no dissolving of material or destroying what sops up water and softens like wallboard comprising walls and ceilings of enclosures.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp 173 of 371

71 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 14:07:22 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

174 of 371

72 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM Business Plan

AirWars Defense lp Colorado registered July 26, 2002 Duns 117944343 – Cage Code 3B0P9 – SAM Registered

Executive Summary

AirWars Defense lp, a partnership owned 80% by Denyse Claire DuBrucq EdD, with 11.2% held by David M. Berry of Toronto, Canada and Richard Farrell of California, holds the assets of the Evaporated Nitrogen discovery and is ready for market entry. Market entry for three income streams include, for AirWars Defense lp, training and certification, grants and contracting, and for CryoRain Inc, production and marketing of dispersion tools. This Evaporated Nitrogen discovery is a most basic discovery of our time. Nowhere else does one have a cohesive, inert, starting at cryogenic temperature, pure cloud which is only possible using the Nitrogen molecule N2. Evaporated Nitrogen is the optimum fire suppressant speeding fire control with no damage or mess. Training first responders and people interested in doing specialty projects as team members takes place in two parts: Home study followed by the five day lab experience to qualify for certification. Contracting, subcontracting and Grant recipient AirWars Defense will apply for opportunities in emergency management, energy and environment throughout Federal, state and local agencies. Products, sourced from CryoRain Inc., include short term transport containers for liquid Nitrogen and dispersion tools for evaporating liquid Nitrogen at the right time, location and quantity to optimize use of Evaporated Nitrogen.

175 of 371 Both AirWars Defense and CryoRain market items. AirWars training and complete program contracting, CryoRain, the tools. AirWars Defense lp was awarded SAM Registered qualification for Federal government grants and contracts on July 3, 2018.

The projections for the first year are rough. We take on people over the year so by year end we have a staff of 30 salaried and 30 wage earning people. It will take a ten year, low interest loan, $1,180,000, and a line of credit covering expenses not covered by income over the first year. Profit? How’s $2.3million? We’ll try.

Company Description

AirWars Defense lp, a partnership owned 80% by Denyse Claire DuBrucq EdD, with 11.2% held by David M. Berry of Toronto, Canada and Richard Farrell of California, holds the assets of the Evaporated Nitrogen discovery and is ready for market entry. These assets include the assignment of US Patent 7,631,506, Liquid Nitrogen Enabled, with rights through December 14, 2029; and the copyrights for Nitrogen Pure and Powerful and Molecular Air Chemistry, the textbook and chemistry lesson written by Dr. Denyse Claire DuBrucq. Both are print ready e-books. The discovery of Evaporated Nitrogen and its methods with techniques in handling emergency management, energy and environmental tasks happened in March, 2003. Over the fifteen years, DuBrucq has worked to ready this technology for market world-wide. She encountered difficulties with practices and regulations set to protect current practices as water use because it is “free” and, because it carries major financial gain, protective measures. Of late, DuBrucq is working to include Evaporated Nitrogen in National Fire Protection Association Code 2001 and with Underwriters’ Laboratory LLC for certifications.

176 of 371 Market entry for three income streams include, for AirWars Defense lp,

 training and certification of emergency management and specialty crew members to use these cryogenic methods and to carry liquid Nitrogen in their vehicles along with dispersion tools to handle crises they encounter. This will limit much of crises fighting as well as recovery costs. Having trained personnel for the major projects enables wildland fire fighting, coal mine fire control, freeze fracking oil shale and hot Nitrogen extracting the fuels, and remediation, spill control and collection, and even converting nuclear steam power generating plants from water cooling to using Evaporated Nitrogen gas.  Government grant work and contracting for projects which are exclusive to Evaporated Nitrogen use characteristics. And for CryoRain Inc., a C-corporation registered in Delaware,

 Production and marketing of dispersion tools and short term transport for liquid Nitrogen to enable the trained personnel to carry out the methods and techniques of Evaporated Nitrogen uses for emergency management, energy and environmental efforts. Services and Products This Evaporated Nitrogen discovery is one of the most basic discoveries of our time.

 Nowhere else does one have a cohesive, inert, and starting at cryogenic temperature, pure cloud which is only possible

using the Nitrogen molecule N2.

177 of 371  At -195.8oC coldness, liquid Nitrogen looks like water, but flows like Mercury. It evaporates into Nitrogen gas which retains its self-affinity eliminating all other material from within its space, thus this cloud displaces Oxygen.

 N2 molecules are inert, don’t react with other elements unless charged by lightning level energy, so its presence does not burn or react with material in the environment.  Being pure, it forms a transparent cloud in a smoke-filled space. Yes, Evaporated Nitrogen is the optimum fire suppressant speeding fire control without damaging anything in its space, which does not dissipate, but keeps unchanged as it moves in the winds of a fire and rises as the cloud heats until rising above the fire where the N2 molecules mix with the 78% Nitrogen gas level of the air leaving no residual substance, no water damage, no electrical arcing. As for ease of use, one carries liquid Nitrogen to the event in thermos-like containers and using dispersion tools

 evaporates the liquid Nitrogen volume which creates 230 times the liquid volume in Evaporated Nitrogen gas clouds starting at -195.8oC.  As the cloud warms, at ambient (room) temperature, it becomes 250 times the liquid volume, and  in fires as it cools the fuels, it reaches inferno temperatures and expands to 600 to 700 times the volume. And since Evaporated Nitrogen is the cloud filling space that is the fire suppressant at all volumes based on temperature, it does not take much to end even a huge fire. Four cubic feet of liquid

178 of 371 Nitrogen evaporates at room temperature to 1,000 cubic feet, a space 10’ x 10’ x 10’ – the size of a small bedroom or kitchen. Liquid Nitrogen is sourced from Industrial Gas entities where today three entities carry much of the market. They include AirGas which is held by Air Liquide of France, Air Products and Chemicals, and Praxair who recently acquired Linde.

Training first responders and people interested in doing specialty projects as team members takes place in two parts:

 Home study with the textbook, Nitrogen Pure and Powerful and the booklet Molecular Air Chemistry, and five lectures and 35 demonstrations video-recorded, the interested parties get to learn about the technology and how it can be applied to situations. This will cost $50 for the materials and some phone time discussion with AirWars instructors.  Lab experiences at the planned Riverside location where there will be five days of using Evaporated Nitrogen for groups of 30 people working together which will cost $100 and those successful will be certified to carry liquid Nitrogen and dispersing tools in the vehicles and/or participate in team effort crews for major tasks.

Contracting, subcontracting and Grant recipient AirWars Defense will propose and apply for these opportunities, manage these efforts, gather data and use it for optimizing the results of the work, applying it to future efforts, and justifying its value to the programs it applied to. Areas of these efforts include:

 remediation to protect the ground water used in the Dayton,  algae control for lake and river water sources as in Toledo,

179 of 371  fire department conversions from water use to Nitrogen,  coal mine fire control in eastern US region followed by selected location worldwide which can halt sea level rise,  wildland fire control in western states where 100 fires now burn  lava flow control to see if Evaporated Nitrogen cooling and fire control can limit the Hawaiian volcano which has now destroyed some 700 homes and expanded to 12 square miles and invaded the ocean expanding its landmass, and  Department of Defense and police work in handling terrorists, hostage takers, provide safer removal of unexploded ordnance and quiet warfare. These efforts can protect embassies and consulate locations of the US State Department and make warfare efforts free of collateral damage so innocent families survive attacks, retain their homes and communities ending the migration surge, and terrorists targeted are interrogated and imprisoned taking the “shine” off of terrorist participation.

Products, sourced from CryoRain Inc., include short term transport containers for liquid Nitrogen and dispersion tools for evaporating liquid Nitrogen at the right time, location and quantity to optimize use of Evaporated Nitrogen. For comparison, a gallon of water in fire suppression gives one gallon of fire control. A gallon of liquid Nitrogen gives 230 gallons of Evaporated Nitrogen gas at evaporating temperature and more volume as it cools things warming to inferno temperature at 600 times volume. And a gallon of water weighs 8 pounds while a gallon of liquid Nitrogen weighs 6.4 pounds. A lighter load, but extremely cold – liquid Nitrogen is the fourth coldest liquid.

180 of 371 Because of the diversity of the transport containers and dispersion tools, CryoRain Inc. will be contracting with current manufacturers of metal, plastic and accommodating products. Transport containers for liquid Nitrogen allow people and their rigging of situations to take the liquid Nitrogen from large containers – silo-like tanks or cryotanks in eighteen-wheeler truck configurations which evaporate about 1% of their volume per day to dewars and small tanks which lose 10% by evaporation a day. None of these are hand portable so our efforts will provide containers for up to five gallons of liquid Nitrogen, 32 pounds, for the run to the dispersion tool or apply the liquid Nitrogen to the fire or other situation either by spout or by perforated flow, “cryorain,” raining of the cryogenic liquid Nitrogen which evaporated into the Evaporated Nitrogen cloud. These short term transport containers can be only for hand carry or nest in a vehicle in groups of one to three gallon containers. They will have adequate handles for carriage and pouring, and for groupings design includes the vehicle installed nest and removable units. Currently available commercially available dewars to hold a gallon of liquid Nitrogen weigh several times the weight of a gallon of liquid Nitrogen – 6.4 pounds – making use of this technology difficult. We aim to have containers half the weight, 3.2 pounds or less, implementing easier use of Nitrogen. Dispersion tools vary in size and scope, but all are perforated, have a matrix of holes through which the liquid Nitrogen flows dispersing in drops (cryorain) which evaporate into the cohesive, inert, cryogenically cold to start, pure Nitrogen gas which we label Evaporated Nitrogen gas clouds. These tools range from the fun device, the peanut butter jar with perforated cap, to fixed Nitrogen

181 of 371 fire control which allows Evaporated Nitrogen’s Fixed Nitrogen Fire Control system to displace current water sprinkler systems which prevent water damage, electrical arcing, and reaction with environment contents. Here are a few dispersing tool designs:

The pan

And dewar

Allowing pouring liquid Nitrogen into the pan which creates

Cryorain

Evaporating into Evaporated Nitrogen gas in a cloud.

182 of 371

Peanut butter Jar with Perforated Cap And large to a 300 gallon airdrop unit carried by a helicopter which weighs about 100 pounds tare weight carrying 1,920 pounds or up to 2,100 pound payload coming returning for refilling at 180 pounds. When filled, the perforated area is upward so there is no spillage. At scene and in right location to flood a fire draft zone with Evaporated Nitrogen, the perforated area is down as shown here. The extra control allows ground crew to activate drop. Drop can be a spot drop, or with helicopter moving, linear.

183 of 371

Marketing Plan

Both AirWars Defense and CryoRain market items. Government contracting is done by AirWars selling training and tooling, taking on individual first responders for training and first kit of tools for their vehicles or specialty equipment for wildland fire or coal mine fire work. Where business is in operation, entities may want to stock, along with liquid Nitrogen availability, the dispersion tools. These arrangements can be handled directly by CryoRain Inc. as well as their contracting for Fixed Nitrogen Fire Control and then having the facility security staff trained by AirWars.Defense.

184 of 371 Operational Plan

With discovery of this result of evaporating liquid Nitrogen and getting the stand alone Evaporated Nitrogen cloud which pushes out flames and cools the fuel to lower the chance of re-ignition while it allows fire fighters to find the people and pets in the burning environment happening in March, 2003, it has taken until now, July of 2018, to be ready to train users of the methods and get some final designs of the dispersion equipment for the huge range of uses of the methods.

AirWars Defense stands ready to train all employees we take on in uses of liquid Nitrogen – some to join in training people, some marketing, some accounting, but all able, if they would like, to take part in the vast, week long experience of preparing others to ably use the technology to protect their communities or carry out the special tasks from coal mine and wildland fire control, freeze fracking oil shale and hot Nitrogen extracting, spill cleanup on land or sea – remediation, handling spills and possible explosive situations, and more.

AirWars Defense lp was finally awarded the SAM Registered qualification for Federal government grants and contracts on July 3, 2018 and we are working to subcontract with AmWater, a General Contractor with Wright Patterson Air Force Base here, to clean up the spilled fire prevention foam which is currently polluting the fresh water supply here in the Dayton area. We can do remediation to pull the poisons from the soil which are washing into the ground water supplies.

We are also working to offer the City of Toledo, Ohio, a means to advance the temperature so the algae blocking their fresh water supply goes into autumn remission by cooling the waters near the water intake units.

Wildland and coal mine fire control tasks are being requested.

185 of 371 We have requests to do Evaporated Nitrogen testing at Dayton Fire Department joint area test site so some first responders can experience this new technology and we get a movement to work for use, use our methods, and interest their communities in the potential provided. Some fire departments might want to consider using Evaporated Nitrogen rather than water to reduce costs of crises management and recovery for their communities.

The operation in doing this might well get established fire control suppliers to make dispersion tools and convert the pumper trucks from water tanks to cryotanks to carry liquid Nitrogen with a 1% daily Nitrogen loss and to bracket the unit to carry the dispersion tools preparing the Fire Department for the conversion.

We are now ready to take this major step of involving others, organizing the group between the two businesses here, tapping those groups working with me over the years to fit into the plan and move forward surprising many at the advantage of change in emergency management, energy and environmental practices.

If we can interest those at World Bank into supporting our coal mine fire efforts, we can end those fires in the USA east of the Mississippi and from what we learn of earth crust temperature changes determine which ones and how many of the other coal mine fires to control to halt sea level rise by year 2021. And, with this saving of coal resources and combining it with the remaining oil and gas resources, we can then fit the power and heating plants burning Carbon fuels with Evaporated Nitrogen means to totally capture all the smoke which allow burning the remainder of Carbon fuel resources without polluting the air and fresh water.

When the US Forest Service will test our wildland fire control, or, with Underwriter Laboratory Certification and/or NFPA Code 2001 inclusion, CAL-Fire will test this technology, we can save lands, property, homes and communities from these fires.

186 of 371 Management & Organization

Currently AirWars Defense lp and CryoRain Inc. are operating at 2300 Eden Lane, Dayton Ohio 45431-1909 USA. As we are funded, we can bring in two workers while we design and build out the K-Mart abandoned building at 601 Woodman Drive in Dayton, Ohio.

We can expand the office to use some space at the Springfield exit off Woodman Drive – Harshman Road owned by the City of Riverside once those at Underwriters’ Laboratory LLC in Chicago We are working to certify or get a draft included in the NFPA 2001 as a fourth IG-100, Nitrogen, entry with the three other Nitrogen compressed gas listings. This takes our covering their costs of time and experimenting. Mr. Blake Shugarman, heading our team at UL is a committeeman on the roster for NFPA 2001.

We are seeking two business leaders to work harmoniously, to head AirWars Defense lp and the other CryoRain Inc. We will continue videotaping five lectures and the 34 demonstrations, listed on page 140 of Nitrogen Pure and Powerful, for the home study segment of training. We will also lead each lab exercise for the visiting section of Evaporated Nitrogen certification and see that the modification of the building at 601 Woodman allows each in a safe manner and eliminating smoke so the neighborhood is not adversely affected. For the certification, we will be training 30 candidates to participate in the lab exercises and certification needs, as well as serve either company in some capacity.

The companies can share duty officers as secretary, treasure, bookkeeper, billing officers and personnel director and team. Contract marketing will be exclusively an AirWars Defense function with possible assistance given to CryoRain Inc for fixed Nitrogen fire control installations in hospitals, senior homes, office buildings and high rises. CryoRain will house the engineers and

187 of 371 software developers, equipment design team and fire department conversion specialists.

Each entity will have its own accounts and once a project is assigned, that account will be assigned. For contracts and grants, AirWars will buy from CryoRain and for training in construction work CryoRain will assign training to AirWars covering those expenses for their account.

We will have to be sure to get these situations done correctly to not have parties falling through the cracks getting service from each but being no-accounts. AirWars will mostly be dealing with governments and CryoRain with corporations, other businesses and the private sector.

Startup Expenses & Capitalization

With a 15 year history of development, and disappointment that it has taken so long, we are assuming $100,000 in loans, contract work and wages earned.

The Dayton area is not a high-salary region so our plan is to hire personnel with salaries at $60K per year to start, and wages at $15/hour both with benefits of 20% to cover employee needs from loan coverage to insurance and retirement accounts.

As the team expands, there will be an assignment time late in the first year with salary or wage adjustments to merit the change.

Parties working with me to get this underway can do contracting with AirWars Defense lp and each situation is agreed upon in advance. I also can only give appreciation to SCORE Advisor, Dr. Al Torres and to retired Dayton Mayor Gary Leitzell for their contributions to the advancement of this technology.

Mayor Leitzell hosted a demonstration of the technology in his back yard in 2015.

188 of 371 Because this Evaporated Nitrogen technology is in the emergency management section of operations, we dare not step out and try each method.

Financial Plan

A Financial Plan will be available upon request.

Appendices

SAM Registration activation DuBrucq references – one pager, landscape, Dahlawi letter Capability Statement Evaporated Nitrogen Fire Performance Water Saver Coal Mine fire – Halting Sea Level Rise w/ budget Wildland Fire Work – Chap. 4, Nitrogen Pure and Powerful Oil Fire Video – 17 seconds using Peanut Butter Jar tool. Molecular Air Chemistry (upon request) Nitrogen Pure and Powerful (upon request)

For further information and documentation support, please contact me at 937 253-2300.

Respectfully submitted:

Denyse Claire DuBrucq EdD 2300 Eden Lane Dayton, Ohio 45431-1909 USA [email protected]

189 of 371 Trough for fires and lava cooling

190 of 371 191 of 371 192 of 371 193 of 371 194 of 371 195 of 371 196 of 371 197 of 371 198 of 371 199 of 371 200 of 371 201 of 371 202 of 371 203 of 371 204 of 371 205 of 371 206 of 371 207 of 371 208 of 371 209 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 29-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 6.6 ]

6.6* Operation. The system shall be designed for automatic operation except where the authority having jurisdiction permits manual operation. 6.6 Operation . The system shall be designed for automatic operation except where the authority having jurisdiction permits manual operation. Placing the cryorain into a fire draft uses the power of the fire to draw the Nitrogen cloud into the fire interrupting the fresh air intake. The fresh air provides Oxygen where the cohesive Nitrogen cloud displaces Oxygen. Lacking Oxygen the flames end immediately. The cloud temperature allows cooling of the fuel to reduce re-ignition and this warms the cloud causing it to rise to new space in the fire zone. Eventually, heated, it rises through the canopy if outside ending burning embers causing the fire to release just chunks of charcoal which will not move the fire to further and new territory.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

This allows the definition of the evaporated Nitrogen gas in a fire situation which is in concert with the prior inclusions on this topic.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:03:05 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

210 of 371

73 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 30-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 7.2.3.6 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT AMEND: 7.2.3.6.1 For IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, container weight shall be recorded before and after the discharge test since liquid Nitrogen is the delivery agent and its mass tells quantity remaining. Specific gravity of water is 1.0 where liquid Nitrogen has a 0.8 specific gravity thus one gallon of water weighs 8 pounds where one gallon of liquid Nitrogen weighs 6.4 pounds.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

To tell how much fire suppressant one is using, it is easiest when considering Evaporated Nitrogen Gas to determine the amount of liquid Nitrogen released. This is done by recording the pre-task weight of the container with liquid Nitrogen and after the release, again weigh the container with liquid Nitrogen. Then subtract the pre- weight from the post-weight and that amount in pounds (grams) of liquid Nitrogen was used. The volume of fire suppressant is then determined with the temperature expansion factored in...as 6.4 pounds of liquid Nitrogen used gives the same gas weight, but the volume of the evaporated gas is 230 times the liquid volume of one gallon or 230 gallons. At ambient temperatures the volume is 250 times the liquid volume. And at inferno temperatures 600 to 700 times or 600 to 700 gallons. Hitting the gallon to cubic feet conversion one gets: Liquid volume is 0.133681 cubic feet, gas volume at cryogenic temperature is 30.74653 cubic feet; at ambient temperature is 33.4201 cubic feet and at inferno temperatures is 80.2083 to 93.5764 cubic feet. And what is most spectacular, you'll see the transparent cloud that size in the smoke-filled space of the fire. To start, if one fills a space with 10% volume of cryogenic temperature Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, this will hug the ground allowing a low to the ground camera to find people and pets while the rescuer roams the smokey space and gets the life out of the fire zone. Then fill the space with Evaporated Nitrogen gas and the flames are gone, the fuel is cooling and one can extinguish the rekindling fuel with a small squirt of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas from the pint jar with perforated cap holding one cup of liquid Nitrogen doing the final cooling to below re-ignition temperature. I hope you'll find this useful in fire control.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:08:12 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

211 of 371

74 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 63-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 8.3 ]

Add annex 8.3 Determination of Agent Quantity To determine the quantity of halocarbon agent in a cylinder, the cylinder may be weighed or a listed device such as a liquid level indicator may be used. Cylinders can be heavy and bulky so proper precautions must be taken to avoid personnel injury if cylinders are to be weighed. To avoid the need for lifting cylinders, dedicated in place weighing systems may be used or a listed liquid level indicator may be used.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Agent cylinders can be very heavy as well as bulky. Cylinders may weigh 1000 pounds or more. Moving or lifting such large heavy cylinders presents the potential for injury to service personnel. The suggested addition to the Annex highlights some options to moving and lifting cylinders for the purpose of determining the quantity of agent in the cylinder.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Thomas Wysocki Organization: Guardian Services, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 11:55:24 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

212 of 371

75 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 7-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 8.3.2 ]

8.3.2 For halocarbon agent containers without a means of pressure indication, if a container shows a loss in agent quantity of more than 5 percent, it shall be refilled or replaced.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Halocarbon systems which require inert gas superpressurization as the energy source to drive the the clean agent out of the container and through the piping system and nozzle/s should be required to be monitored for pressure.

Section 8.3.2 is in direct conflict with section 4.1.4.4: "A means shall be provided to determine the pressure in containers of inert gas agents, superpressurized liquid agents, and superpressurized liquefied compressed gas agents."

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Daniel Hubert Organization: AmerexJanus Fire Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 09 17:42:43 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

213 of 371

76 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 44-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 8.6.1 ]

8.6.1* U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Canadian Transport Commission (CTC), or similar design clean agent containers shall not be recharged without retesting if more than 5 years the requaliﬁcaon period speciﬁed by the regulang authority for the container have elapsed since the date of the last test and inspection. 8.6.1.1 For halocarbon agent storage containers, the retest shall be permitted to consist of a complete visual inspection as described in 49 CFR 49 CFR . 8.6.1.2 For inert gas agent storage containers, the retest shall be in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Canadian Transport Commission (CTC), or similar design and requalification regulations

A cylinder may be requalified at any me during or before the month and year that the requalificaon is due. However, a cylinder filled before the requalificaon becomes due may remain in service unl it is emped. A cylinder with a specified service life may not be refilled and offered for transportaon aer its authorized service life has expired .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The proposed 8.6.1 language is consistent with 49CFR180.209(a) which allows 5, 10, 12 and 20 year hydrostatic test intervals depending on the cylinder rating and contents. ref. https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d7f82b896661949587ed7f3eea36cc2f&mc=true& node=se49.3.180_1209&rgn=div8

The proposed 8.6.1.1 wording is consistent with 49CFR180.205(c) - in fact it's a copy and paste from the last part of that section. ref. https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d7f82b896661949587ed7f3eea36cc2f&mc=true& node=se49.3.180_1205&rgn=div8

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 45-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 8.6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]] Public Input No. 45-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 8.6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Steven Hodges Organization: Alion Science And Technology Affiliation: US Army TARDEC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Dec 07 11:11:57 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

214 of 371

77 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

215 of 371

78 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 45-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 8.6.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

Containers continuously in service without discharging need for reﬁll or repair shall be given a complete external visual inspection every 5 years or more frequently if required.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The proposed revision will bring this section more inline with 49CFR180.209(g) which, in addition to discharging, addresses leakage and damage.

ref. https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d7f82b896661949587ed7f3eea36cc2f&mc=true& node=se49.3.180_1209&rgn=div8

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 44-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 8.6.1] Public Input No. 44-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 8.6.1]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Steven Hodges Organization: Alion Science And Technology Affiliation: US Army TARDEC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Dec 07 11:21:51 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

216 of 371

79 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 31-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 8.7.2 ]

8.7.2

1 A test pressure equal to 1 ⁄2 times the maximum container pressure at 130°F (54.4°C) shall be applied within 1 minute and maintained for 1 minute. Except with IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas where liquid Nitrogen is at ambient pressure and -195.8 o C temperature were hose shape is not to be affected by the cryogenic temperature holding the temperature applied within 1 minute and maintained for 1 minute.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

One does not want a wet hose when using Nitrogen fire suppressant as Evaporated Nitrogen gas. It does, however, need testing at the cryogenic temperature (-195.8oC) to know that the integrity of the hose is maintained. Rubber and some plastics can be brittle and fly into little chunks which will not serve well for any use of Evaporated Nitrogen gas or liquid Nitrogen.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:31:01 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

217 of 371

80 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 32-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 8.7.3 ]

8.7.3 The testing procedure shall be as follows: (1) The hose is removed from any attachment. (2) The hose assembly is then placed in a protective enclosure designed to permit visual observation of the test. (3) The hose must be completely filled with water before testing. [Eliminate (3) – the hose must be completely filled with water before testing .] For Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, a hose must contain liquid Nitrogen or the just evaporated Nitrogen gas without deforming. Some plastic pipes at 10’ long displace the loose end as much as 2’ when cooled to this extent. This occurred with the white plumbing pipes tested. One must find types of plastic and fabric which hold their form and strength over the range of temperature from cryogenic to ambient. (4) Pressure then is applied at a rate-of-pressure rise to reach the test pressure within 1 minute. The test pressure is then maintained for 1 full minute. Observations are then made to note any distortion or leakage. (5) After observing the hose for leakage, movement of couplings, and distortion, the pressure is released.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

If used in sprinkler systems or what we call Fixed Nitrogen Fire Control, the piping carrying the liquid Nitrogen and Evaporated Nitrogen gas must hold their shape going from the ambient temperature as unused to the active use -195.8oC temperature during operating. If the pipe warps, as normal water drain pipe, the white stuff, we tried, arched so the end of the 10' pipe was two feet off straight center, it will pull the pipe from the wall or ceiling mounting. This action could also pull the fire fighter from his or her footing which can be dangerous.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:38:53 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

218 of 371

81 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 33-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 9.1.1 ]

9.1.1 Scope. This chapter is limited to marine applications of clean agent fire extinguishing systems on commercial and government vessels. Explosion inerting systems were not considered during development of this chapter. 9.1.1 ….. Explosion inerting systems were not considered during development of this chapter. IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas can inert explosions by taking, first, the battery to below function temperature, and then, continuing cooling until the ingredients are below their window of reaction, thus preventing explosion. Explosives most often contain sufficient Oxygen to react, but they become powerless below their temperature to function or react.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

No place but this to get Evaporated Nitrogen Gas' use for ending potential explosions into the minds of fire fighters who might encounter situations like this with IEDs, old battle grounds, and experimenting people that could bring danger to the community.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:46:17 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

219 of 371

82 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 34-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 9.2.2 ]

9.2.2* In addition to the limitations given in 1.4.2.2, clean agent fire extinguishing systems shall not be used to protect the following: (1) Dry cargo holds (2) Bulk cargo 9.2.2 . .with the exception of . IG-100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, which can protect both (1) dry cargo holds and (2) bulk cargo. Dry cargo holds when bathed periodically in evaporated Nitrogen gas will displace Oxygen which can cause explosions and toxin formation, which can poison those that breathe the gases, and Carbon dioxide from rotting or burning. The Nitrogen gas leaves the contained material in an anaerobic state. Replaced by filtered air, the dry cargo hold and bulk cargo are returned to an aerobic state with reduced losses from rodents and aerobic biologic entities that eat or decompose the stored material. For Bulk cargo, periodic bathing the cargo in Evaporated Nitrogen Gas can kill invaders that consume the cargo, rats, insects, mold and bacteria. During starvation situations, cargo ships come with holds of grain to feed the starving and, with overload of help, the ships cannot be unloaded quickly. By the time a ship can be unloaded, it sometimes losses a great percentage of its cargo to invading life making the shipment useless in fighting hunger. Nitrogen washes reduce this type of loss considerably.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Today, in Yemen people are starving in their Northwestern sectors since there is little or no food or water and the harbor serving the folks is controlled by the enemy. Though the UN and other ships carrying food have arrived, unloading and transferring the food is slow and much must be lost to the invading rodents, bacteria, mold and the like making it useless to handle the starving masses. Why they are not using helicopters to take loads of food from the ships at sea, I could not tell you.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:49:43 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

220 of 371

83 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 35-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 9.2.3 ]

9.2.3 The effects of agent decomposition products and combustion products on fire protection effectiveness and equipment shall be considered where using clean agents in hazards with high ambient temperatures (e.g., incinerator rooms, hot machinery and piping). 9.2.3 …. It can also remain inert and effective in hazards with high ambient temperatures (e.g. incinerator rooms, hot machinery and piping.) since Nitrogen, N 2 , is a stable gas throughout a very wide temperature range, like -195.8oC through 10,000oC.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Evaporated Nitrogen Gas is a very versatile crises handling material. Not only holding its own as an inert, pure gas through the temperature range - as good in the dead of winter as the heat of summer plus the flame environment through molten steel. We may as well flaunt it. It might be most useful in some very hot fires where water in gone up in steam and the Nitrogen just fights right on displacing the Oxygen ending flames and cooling the fuel reducing re-ignition.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 15:56:18 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

221 of 371

84 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 36-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 9.3 ]

TITLE OF NEW CONTENT 9.3.3 With IG 100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, flooding of any confined space with this self-purifying transparent Nitrogen cloud, only those with sufficient supplemental Oxygen (SCBA Equipment) should enter, and only for the length of time the Oxygen supply will maintain sufficient Oxygen to sustain consciousness and breathing.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

This answers the confined space fear of using Nitrogen gas. It narrows down the situation to specify when to avoid Nitrogen in the pure state and, if one must, how to safely enter the space with the requirement that the time in the space must be less than the amount of available supplemental Oxygen one has in hand. Be it known that the exhaled water vapor and Carbon dioxide will be pushed out of the Evaporated Nitrogen Cloud by its cohesion, causing only N2 Nitrogen in the pure cloud environment. Lots of toxins can be avoided using this strategy. Toxins are also kept from inside the cloud. There may be a way to use this for poisonous gas attacks. I'm not an expert on this, but others may be and should be asked how this can be used.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 16:03:52 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

222 of 371

85 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 37-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 9.4 ]

9.4.9 for IG 100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, agent is stored as cryogenic liquid Nitrogen at ambient pressure and thermally insulated so contents can remain at below -320 o F or -195.8 o C. Losses over time from large cryotanks is 1% per day and small, like LN-4, 10% per day. Routine topping off stored systems keeps supply sufficient to handle a crisis when it happens. ... Also, amendment to the 9.4 - Agent Supply: IG100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas is not stored in storage cylinders, pressured; but in cyrotanks at ambient pressure.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The versatility of having Nitrogen available without having it in a weighty pressure tank can open its uses in crises fighting a great deal. This gives the differences in storage and duration time compared with the compressed air uses.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPAMember 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 16:12:27 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

223 of 371

86 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 38-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 9.7.1.1 ]

9.7.1.2 for IG 100-400 for IG 100-400, Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, application within a confined space, automatic releases will be limited to 1/10 th volume of the space until first responders check for occupants, and, then, if the fire is not ended and people and pets are removed from the space, full flooding is allowed with calculated quantity of liquid Nitrogen released to meet the space dimensions of the confined space when manually initiated by first responders.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

This explains a safe use of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas as Fixed Nitrogen Fire Control systems are installed in facilities. Its transparent cloud allows camera viewing to find victims, people and pets, in a fire. Removing them, the location can be flooded. Were first responders with supplemental Oxygen located in the fire zone, with full flooding of the space, anybody missed can be provided with the shared Oxygen and guided out of the fire space. If overcome with NItrogen coma, they can be rapidly resuscitated with the normal amount of Oxygen needed. Compare this with the panting of being overcome with Carbon dioxide in a fire where a victim in a coma can deplete an Oxygen supply in a few breaths.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 16:19:43 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

224 of 371

87 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 39-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. 9.9.2.3 ]

9.9.2.3 The discharge time for inert gas agents shall not exceed 120 seconds for 85 percent of the design concentration or as otherwise required by the authority having jurisdiction. for IG 100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, application within a confined space, automatic releases will be limited to 1/10 th volume of the space until first responders check for occupants, and, then, if the fire is not ended and people and pets are removed from the space, full flooding is allowed with calculated quantity of liquid Nitrogen released to meet the space dimensions of the confined space when manually initiated by first responders. First responders entering the fire zone with full flooding of Nitrogen finding a victim overcome with Nitrogen coma can share the Oxygen supply with this victim resuscitating them with the normal Oxygen levels needing for breathing. However, finding a victim in a fire zone overcome with Carbon dioxide, when being resuscitated, their breathing will consume all of the Oxygen in a few breaths since the victim is panting to get the Carbon dioxide level in the lungs down to normal. This will consume a supplemental Oxygen supply in a few breaths endangering both the one being rescued and the rescuer.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

One has to use research done in Canada and France where they allow respiratory research. Nitrogen coma leaves lungs flooded with Nitrogen when they normally are flooded with 78% Nitrogen N2 gas from the air. Having 100% Nitrogen lung content only requires getting the Oxygen percentage from zero percent to 21% for normal breathing. However, having the lungs flooded with Carbon dioxide, one must empty the lungs and replace the Carbon dioxide with Nitrogen at 78% and Oxygen at 21%. No amount of Oxygen can affect the Carbon dioxide coma until the triggering gas, Carbon dioxide is down to normal levels as the Nitrogen at 78% and Oxygen at 21% operates so the Oxygen exchange for Carbon dioxide in the blood in the capillaries in the lungs returns to operational. Thus the panting thrusts the Carbon dioxide out of the lungs. This could be compared to bathroom use. One can come and get a drink of water and leave satisfied with a half cup from a glass, or one can want to rid the toilet of excretions and flush the toilet so the toilet bowl is empty of wastes, clean and not smelly. This takes a toilet tank of water. It represents normal breathing with Nitrogen coma and panting to end a Carbon dioxide coma.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 16:28:32 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

225 of 371

88 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 40-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after 9.11.3.1 ]

9.11.3.2 For IG 100-400 For IG 100-400 – Evaporated Nitrogen Gas, an inert gas stored as liquid Nitrogen, testing and continual weekly top off of liquid Nitrogen volume in large cryotank is mandatory as is refilling after use. Liquid Nitrogen bleeds off these large tanks at an anticipated rate of 1% of the volume per day. Smaller dewars and other short term transport vessels may bleed off 10% per day with good insulation and thus would best be topped off more frequently as twice weekly to keep a useful supply on hand and refilled after use.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

This storing the inert gas that is not electrically conductive nor leaves any residual material done for Evaporated Nitrogen Gas requires storage of liquid Nitrogen at ambient temperature accommodating its evaporation from large insulated tanks at 1% per day and smaller insulated tanks, often called dewars, at 10% per day requiring weekly or for the small ones bi-weekly topping off and refilling after any use. Attention is required to the fact that this bleeding off must be accommodated with safe carriage of the evaporated gas to release in the atmosphere where this Nitrogen N2 adds to the 78% Nitrogen N2 gas atmosphere we have here on earth.

Also, the containers are not dangerous as the highly compressed gas cylinders where they can be stored pressurized over a century and as the cylinder disintegrates could burst open, or where a bullet hitting it just right will pierce the armor of the cylinder and cause the pressured gas to move the cylinder at increasing speeds.

One does have to be mindful that large, well insulated tanks dissipate 1% per day and smaller vessels, often called dewars, dissipate evaporated Nitrogen at 10% per day so topping off weekly for the large vessels and bi-weekly for the small ones allows a good supply for use when needed. When an event requires use of Evaporated Nitrogen Gas these vessels must be filled immediately to keep a working supply available.

Liquid Nitrogen is purchased from Industrial Gas companies which are located throughout the world. Also there are independent compressors to supply massive users of liquid Nitrogen where the supply might not be readily available like aboard ship of in remote areas where large quantities might be needed. Reusable rockets might be the proper large supply conveyance for wildfire control or coal mine fire control in remote areas where roads are limited and time is of the essence.

Any Annex inclusions suggested by reviewers will be made to be submitted at this time for the next revision of NFPA 2001. Please let Member 3019224 know in advance of the final days for submission to enable preparation of this added material.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Denyse Dubrucq Organization: Air Wars Defense Lp Affiliation: NFPA Member 3019224 Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sat Sep 22 16:47:07 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

226 of 371

89 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 53-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.4.1 ]

227 of 371

90 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.1.4.1

228 of 371

91 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

The agents currently listed possess the physical properties as detailed in Table A.1.4.1(a) through Table A.1.4.1(d). These data will be revised from time to time as new information becomes available. Additional background information and data on these agents can be found in several references: Fernandez (1991), Hanauska (1991), Robin (1991), and Sheinson (1991). Table A.1.4.1(a) Physical Properties of Clean Halocarbon Agents (U.S. Units)

HCFC HFC Physical Units FIC-13I1 FK-5-1-12 Blend Blend HCFC-124 HFC-125 HFC-227ea HFC-23 HFC-2 Property A B Molecular N/A 195.9 316.04 92.9 99.4 136.5 120.0 170 70.01 152 weight Boiling point at °F −8.5 120.2 −37 −14.9 10.5 −54 2.4 −115.6 29. 760 mm Hg Freezing °F −166 −162.4 161 −153.9 −326 −153 −204 −247.4 −153 point Critical °F 252 335.6 256 219.9 252.5 150.8 214 79.1 256 temperature Critical psi 586 270.44 964 588.9 527 525 424 700 464 pressure Critical 3 0.0184 0.0251 0.028 0.031 0.0286 0.0279 0.0280 0.0304 0.029 volume ft /lbm Critical 3 54.38 39.91 36 32.17 34.96 35.81 35.77 32.87 34.4 density lbm/ft Specific 0.987 at heat, liquid Btu/lb-°F 0.141 0.2634 0.3 0.339 0.271 0.354 0.281 0.30 68°F at 77°F Specific heat, vapor at constant 0.175 at Btu/lb-°F 0.86 0.2127 0.16 0.203 0.18 0.19 0.193 0.20 pressure 68°F (1 atm) and 77°F Heat of vaporization Btu/lb 48.1 37.8 97 93.4 71.3 70.5 56.6 103 68.9 at boiling point Thermal conductivity Btu/hr- 0.04 0.034 0.052 0.0478 0.0395 0.0343 0.034 0.0305 0.04 of liquid at ft-°F 77°F Viscosity, liquid at lb/ft-hr 0.473 1.27 0.508 0.485 0.622 0.338 0.579 0.107 0.69 77°F Relative dielectric strength at 1.014 1.41 at 2.3 at 1.32 at 1.55 at 0.955 at 2 at 1.04 at 1.016 N/A at 1 atm at 77°F 77°F 77°F 70°F 77°F 77° 734 mm 77°F 77°F 77°F Hg, (N2 = 1) Solubility of 0.01 at <0.001 at 0.12 at 0.11 at 770 at 770 at 500 at 740 water in wt% 0.06 at 70°F 70°F 70°F 70°F 70°F agent 77°F 77°F 50°F 68°

Table A.1.4.1(b) Physical Properties of Inert Gas Agents (U.S. Units) Physical Property Units IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55 Molecular weight N/A 39.9 28.0 34.0 33.95 Boiling point at 760 mm Hg °F −302.6 −320.4 −320 −310.2 229 of 371

92 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Physical Property Units IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55 Freezing point °F −308.9 −346.0 −109 −327.5 Critical temperature °F −188.1 −232.4 N/A −210.5 Critical pressure psia 711 492.9 N/A 602 Specific heat, vapor at constant pressure (1 atm) and 77°F Btu/lb °F 0.125 0.445 0.195 0.187 Heat of vaporization at boiling point Btu/lb 70.1 85.6 94.7 77.8 Relative dielectric strength at N/A 1.01 1.0 1.03 1.01 1 atm at 734 mm Hg, 77°F (N2 = 1.0) Solubility of water in agent at 77°F N/A 0.006% 0.0013% 0.015% 0.006% Table A.1.4.1(c) Physical Properties of Clean Halocarbon Agents (SI Units)

HCFC HFC Physical Units FIC-13I1 FK-5-1-12 HCFC-124 HFC-125 HFC-227ea HFC-23 HFC- Property Blend Blend A B Molecular N/A 195.91 316.04 92.90 99.4 136.5 120 170 70.01 15 weight Boiling point at °C −22.5 49 −38.3 −26.1 −12.0 −48.1 −16.4 −82.1 −1 760 mm Hg Freezing °C −110 −108 <107.2 −103 −198.9 −102.8 −131 −155.2 −1 point Critical °C 122 168.66 124.4 101.1 122.6 66 101.7 26.1 12 temperature Critical kPa 4041 1865 6647 4060 3620 3618 2912 4828 32 pressure Critical cc/mole 225 494.5 162 198 243 210 274 133 27 volume Critical 3 871 639.1 577 515.3 560 574 621 527 55 density kg/m Specific 1.256 heat, 0.592 at 1.103 at 1.44 at 1.153 at 1.407 at 1.184 at 4.130 at 1.26 kJ/kg - °C at 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25 liquid at 25°C 20°C 25°C Specific heat, vapor 0.848 at constant 0.3618 at 0.891 at 0.67 at 0.742 at 0.797 at 0.808 at 0.731 at 0.84 kJ/kg - °C at pressure (1 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 25 25°C 20°C atm) and 25°C Heat of vaporization kJ/kg 112.4 88 225.6 217.2 165.9 164.1 132.6 239.3 16 at boiling point Thermal conductivity W/m - °C 0.07 0.059 0.09 0.082 0.0684 0.0592 0.069 0.0534 0.0 of liquid at 25°C Viscosity, liquid at centipoise 0.196 0.524 0.21 0.202 0.257 0.14 0.184 0.044 0.2 25°C Relative dielectric strength at 1.014 1.41 at 2.3 at 1.32 at 1.55 at 0.955 at 1.04 at 1.01 N/A at 2 at 25°C 1 atm at 25°C 25°C 25°C 25°C 21°C 25°C 25 25°C 734 mm Hg (N2 = 1.0)

230 of 371

93 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

HCFC HFC Physical Units FIC-13I1 FK-5-1-12 HCFC-124 HFC-125 HFC-227ea HFC-23 HFC- Property Blend Blend A B Solubility of 0.12% 0.11% 1.0062% 700 at 700 at 0.06% by 500 at 740 water in ppm <0.001 by by by weight 25°C 25°C weight 10°C agent weight weight 20 Table A.1.4.1(d) Physical Properties of Inert Gas Agents (SI Units)

Physical Property Units IG-01 IG-100 IG-541 IG-55 Molecular weight N/A 39.9 28.0 34.0 33.95 Boiling point at 760 mm Hg °C −189.85 −195.8 −196 −190.1 Freezing point °C −189.35 −210.0 −78.5 −199.7 Critical temperature °C −122.3 −146.9 N/A −134.7 Critical pressure kPa 4,903 3,399 N/A 4,150 Specific heat, vapor at constant pressure (1 atm) and 25°C kJ/kg °C 0.519 1.04 0.574 0.782 Heat of vaporization at boiling point kJ/kg 163 199 220 181 Relative dielectric strength at N/A 1.01 1.0 1.03 1.01 1 atm at 734 mm Hg, 25°C (N2 = 1.0) Solubility of water in agent at 25°C N/A 0.006% 0.0013% 0.015% 0.006%

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Addition of physical properties columns for new agent to table NFPA_2001_A_1_4_1.docx A.1.4.1(a) and (c).

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of physical properties columns for new agent to table A.1.4.1(a) and (c).

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:36:02 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

231 of 371

94 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.4.1 ]

Table A.1.4.1(a) Molecular Weight N/A 184.72 Boiling Point at 760 mmHg °F 69.3 Freezing Point °F -161 Critical Temperature °F 318 Critical Pressure psia 416.6 Critical Volume ft3/lbm 0.0313 Critical Density lbm/ft3 31.9 Specific heat, liquid at 77 °F Btu/lb -°F 0.2800 Specific Heat, vapor at Btu/lb -°F 0.2033 constant Pressure (1 atm) and 77 °F Heat of Vaporization at Boiling Point Btu/lb 62.23 Thermal Conductivity of liquid at 77 °F Btu/hr-ft-°F 0.0390 Viscosity, liquid at 77 °F lb/ft-hr 1.214 Relative dielectric strength N/A N/A at 1 atm at 734 mm Hg, (N2=1) Solubility of water in agent wt% N/A

Table A.1.4.1(c) Molecular Weight N/A 184.72 Boiling Point at 760 mmHg °C 20.7 Freezing Point °C -107 Critical Temperature °C 158.8 Critical Pressure kPa 2873 Critical Volume cc/mole 361.5 Critical Density kg/m3 511.0 Specific heat, liquid at 25 °C kJ/kg-°C 1.1717 Specific Heat, vapor at kJ/kg-°C 0.8512 constant Pressure (1 atm) and 25 °C Heat of Vaporization at Boiling Point kJ/kg 144.7 Thermal Conductivity of liquid at 25 °C W/m -°C 0.0675 Viscosity, liquid at 25 °C centipoise 0.502 Relative dielectric strength N/A N/A at 1 atm at 734 mm Hg, (N2=1) Solubility of water in agent ppm N/A

232 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 43-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after A.1.4.2.4 ]

A.1.4.2.5 Acoustical noise from a range of sources, including those related to some types of clean agent systems and those not related to clean agent systems (e.g., alarms), has been shown to have an impact on the performance of hard disk drives under certain conditions. Generally, noise in excess of 110dB has been shown to impact hard disk drive (HDD) performance. The HDD impact can range from temporary degradation of disk performance up to permanent drive damage and data loss. Mitigation strategies should begin with the creation of an acoustic study or calculation for the specific room being protected by a fire suppression system. The study should focus on determining the sound pressure level at a HDD. From this study, the design of the suppression system, room environment and HDD location can be modified to obtain the acoustic impact at the HDD below 110dB. Some of the modifications to obtain sound pressure at a HDD below 110dB is to, locate suppression nozzles further away from the HDD , mount HDD using vibration isolation damping fixtures in data racks, shutdown the electronic equipment in accordance with NFPA 75 prior to discharge, increase room sound absorbing materials, modify the clean agent system design in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and give consideration to the use of discharge nozzles specifically designed to reduce the noise energy during discharge.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Provide additional education and guidance on the use of clean agents with noise sensitive equipment.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 42-NFPA 2001-2018 [New Section after 1.4.2.4]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Katherine Adrian Organization: Johnson Controls Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Nov 08 12:06:29 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

233 of 371

95 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 48-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.5.1.2 ]

234 of 371

96 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.1.5.1.2

235 of 371

97 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Table A.1.5.1.2(a) provides information on the toxicological effects of halocarbon agents covered by this standard. The no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) is the highest concentration at which no adverse physiological or toxicological effect has been observed. The lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) is the lowest concentration at which an adverse physiological or toxicological effect has been observed. An appropriate protocol measures the effect in a stepwise manner such that the interval between the LOAEL and NOAEL is sufficiently small to be acceptable to the competent regulatory authority. The EPA includes in its SNAP evaluation this aspect (of the rigor) of the test protocol. Table A.1.5.1.2(a) Toxicity Information for Halocarbon Clean Agents

LC50 or ALC NOAEL LOAEL

Agent (%) (%) (%) FIC-13I1 >12.8 0.2 0.4 FK-5-1-12 >10.0 10 >10.0 HCFC Blend A 64 10 >10.0 HCFC-124 23–29 1 2.5 HFC-125 >70 7.5 10 HFC-227ea >80 9 10.5 HFC-23 >65 30 >30 HFC-236fa >45.7 10 15 HFC Blend B 56.7* 5.0* 7.5*

Notes: (1) LC50 is the concentration lethal to 50 percent of a rat population during a 4 hour exposure. The ALC is the approximate lethal concentration. (2) The cardiac sensitization levels are based on the observance or nonobservance of serious heart arrhythmias in a dog. The usual protocol is a 5-minute exposure followed by a challenge with epinephrine. (3) High concentration values are determined with the addition of oxygen to prevent asphyxiation. *These values are for the largest component of the blend (HFCB 134A). For halocarbons covered in this standard, the NOAEL and LOAEL are based on the toxicological effect known as cardiac sensitization. Cardiac sensitization occurs when a chemical causes an increased sensitivity of the heart to adrenaline, a naturally occurring substance produced by the body during times of stress, leading to the sudden onset of irregular heart beats and possibly heart attack. Cardiac sensitization is measured in dogs after they have been exposed to a halocarbon agent for 5 minutes. At the 5-minute time period, an external dose of adrenaline (epinephrine) is administered and an effect is recorded if the dog experiences cardiac sensitization. The cardiac sensitization potential as measured in dogs is a highly conservative indicator of the potential in humans. The conservative nature of the cardiac sensitization test stems from several factors; the two most pertinent are as follows: (1) Very high doses of adrenaline are given to the dogs during the testing procedure (doses are more than 10 times higher than the highest levels secreted by humans under maximum stress). (2) Four to ten times more halocarbon is required to cause cardiac sensitization in the absence of externally administered adrenaline, even in artificially created situations of stress or fright in the dog test. Because the cardiac sensitization potential is measured in dogs, a means of providing human relevance to the concentration at which this cardiac sensitization occurs (LOAEL) has been established through the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. A PBPK model is a computerized tool that describes time-related aspects of a chemical’s distribution in a biological system. The PBPK model mathematically describes the uptake of the halocarbon into the body and the subsequent distribution of the halocarbon to the areas of the body where adverse effects can occur. For example, the model describes the breathing rate and uptake of the halocarbon from the exposure atmosphere into the lungs. From there, the model uses the blood flow bathing the lungs to describe the movement of the halocarbon from the lung space into the arterial blood that directly feeds the heart and vital organs of the body. It is the ability of the model to describe the halocarbon concentration in human arterial blood that provides its primary utility in relating the dog cardiac sensitization test results to a human who is unintentionally exposed to the halocarbon. The concentration of halocarbon in the dog arterial blood at the time the cardiac 236 of 371

98 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

sensitization event occurs (5-minute exposure) is the critical arterial blood concentration, and this blood parameter is the link to the human system. Once this critical arterial blood concentration has been measured in dogs, the EPA-approved PBPK model simulates how long it will take the human arterial blood concentration to reach the critical arterial blood concentration (as determined in the dog test) during human inhalation of any particular concentration of the halocarbon agent. As long as the simulated human arterial concentration remains below the critical arterial blood concentration, the exposure is considered safe. Inhaled halocarbon concentrations that produce human arterial blood concentrations equal to or greater than the critical arterial blood concentration are considered unsafe because they represent inhaled concentrations that potentially yield arterial blood concentrations where cardiac sensitization events occur in the dog test. Using these critical arterial blood concentrations of halocarbons as the ceiling for allowable human arterial concentrations, any number of halocarbon exposure scenarios can be evaluated using this modeling approach. For example, in the dog cardiac sensitization test on Halon 1301, a measured dog arterial blood concentration of 25.7 mg/L is measured at the effect concentration (LOAEL) of 7.5 percent after a 5-minute exposure to Halon 1301 and an external intravenous adrenaline injection. The PBPK model predicts the time at which the human arterial blood concentration reaches 25.7 mg/L for given inhaled Halon 1301 concentrations. Using this approach, the model also predicts that at some inhaled halocarbon concentrations, the critical arterial blood concentration is never reached; thus, cardiac sensitization will not occur. Accordingly, in the tables in 1.5.1.2.1, the time is arbitrarily truncated at 5 minutes, because the dogs were exposed for 5 minutes in the original cardiac sensitization testing protocols. The time value, estimated by the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed PBPK model or its equivalent, is that required for the human arterial blood level for a given halocarbon to equal the arterial blood level of a dog exposed to the LOAEL for 5 minutes. For example, if a system is designed to achieve a maximum concentration of 12.0 percent HFC-125, means should be provided such that personnel are exposed for no longer than 1.67 minutes. Examples of suitable exposure-limiting mechanisms include self-contained breathing apparatuses and planned and rehearsed evacuation routes. The requirement for pre-discharge alarms and time delays is intended to prevent human exposure to agents during fire fighting. However, in the unlikely circumstance that an accidental discharge occurs, restrictions on the use of certain halocarbon agents covered in this standard are based on the availability of PBPK modeling information. For those halocarbon agents in which modeling information is available, means should be provided to limit the exposure to those concentrations and times specified in the tables in 1.5.1.2.1. The concentrations and times given in the tables are those that have been predicted to limit the human arterial blood concentration to below the critical arterial blood concentration associated with cardiac sensitization. For halocarbon agents where the needed data are unavailable, the agents are restricted based on whether the protected space is normally occupied or unoccupied and how quickly egress from the area can be effected. Normally occupied areas are those intended for human occupancy. Normally unoccupied areas are those in which personnel can be present from time to time. Therefore, a comparison of the cardiac sensitization values to the intended design concentration would determine the suitability of a halocarbon for use in normally occupied or unoccupied areas. In specialized applications, such as explosion protection, where agent concentration may be measured at a much faster rate than human respiration periods, brief pulses of high concentration levels may be observed. In these cases, a time-weighted average of the concentration level with a period of one second may be used to compare to the safe levels given in the tables in 1.5.1.2.1. Clearly, longer exposure of the agent to high temperatures would produce greater concentrations of these gases. The type and sensitivity of detection, coupled with the rate of discharge, should be selected to minimize the exposure time of the agent to the elevated temperature if the concentration of the breakdown products must be minimized. In most cases the area would be untenable for human occupancy due to the heat and breakdown products of the fire itself. These decomposition products have a sharp, acrid odor, even in minute concentrations of only a few parts per million. This characteristic provides a built-in warning system for the agent but at the same time creates a noxious, irritating atmosphere for those who must enter the hazard following a fire. Background and toxicology of hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) vapor can be produced in fires as a breakdown product of fluorocarbon fire extinguishing agents and in the combustion of fluoropolymers. The significant toxicological effects of HF exposure occur at the site of contact. By the inhalation route, significant deposition is predicted to occur in the most anterior (front part) region of the nose and extending back to the lower respiratory tract (airways and lungs) if sufficient exposure concentrations are achieved. The damage induced at the site of contact with HF is characterized by extensive tissue damage and cell death (necrosis) with inflammation. One day after a single, 1-hour exposure of rats to HF concentrations of 950 ppm to 2600 ppm, tissue injury was limited exclusively to the anterior section of the nose (DuPont, 1990). No effects were seen in the trachea or lungs.

237 of 371

99 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

At high concentrations of HF (about 200 ppm), human breathing patterns would be expected to change primarily from nose breathing to primarily mouth breathing. This change in breathing pattern determines the deposition pattern of HF into the respiratory tract, either upper respiratory tract (nose breathing) or lower respiratory tract (mouth breathing). In studies conducted by Dalby (1996), rats were exposed by nose-only or mouth-only breathing. In the mouth-only breathing model, rats were exposed to various concentrations of HF through a tube placed in the trachea, thereby bypassing the upper respiratory tract. This exposure method is considered to be a conservative approach for estimating a “worst-case” exposure in which a person would not breathe through the nose but inhale through the mouth, thereby maximizing the deposition of HF into the lower respiratory tract. In the nose-only breathing model, 2-minute or 10-minute exposures of rats to about 6400 or 1700 ppm, respectively, produced similar effects; that is, no mortality resulted but significant cell damage in the nose was observed. In contrast, marked differences in toxicity were evident in the mouth-only breathing model. Indeed, mortality was evident following a 10-minute exposure to a concentration of about 1800 ppm and a 2-minute exposure to about 8600 ppm. Significant inflammation of the lower respiratory tract was also evident. Similarly, a 2-minute exposure to about 4900 ppm produced mortality and significant nasal damage. However, at lower concentrations (950 ppm) following a 10-minute exposure or 1600 ppm following a 2-minute exposure, no mortality and only minimal irritation were observed. Numerous other toxicology studies have been conducted in experimental animals for longer durations, such as 15, 30, or 60 minutes. In nearly all of these studies, the effects of HF were generally similar across all species; that is, severe irritation of the respiratory tract was observed as the concentration of HF was increased. In humans, an irritation threshold appears to be at about 3 ppm, where irritation of the upper airways and eyes occurs. In prolonged exposure at about 5 ppm, redness of the skin has also resulted. In controlled human exposure studies, humans are reported to have tolerated mild nasal irritation (subjective response) at 32 ppm for several minutes (Machle et al., 1934). Exposure of humans to about 3 ppm for an hour produced slight eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Even with an increase in exposure concentration (up to 122 ppm) and a decrease in exposure duration to about 1 minute, skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation occurs (Machle and Kitzmiller, 1935). Meldrum (1993) proposed the concept of the dangerous toxic load (DTL) as a means of predicting the effects of, for example, HF in humans. Meldrum developed the argument that the toxic effects of certain chemicals tend to follow Haber’s law:

[A.1.5.1.2]

where: C = concentration t =time k = constant The available data on the human response to inhalation of HF were considered insufficient to provide a basis for establishing a DTL. Therefore, it was necessary to use the available animal lethality data to establish a model for the response in humans. The DTL is based on an estimate of 1 percent lethality in an exposed population of animals. Based on the analysis of animal lethality data, the author determined that the DTL for HF is 12,000 ppm/ - min. Although this approach appears reasonable and consistent with mortality data in experimental animals, the predictive nature of this relationship for nonlethal effects in humans has not been demonstrated. Potential human health effects and risk analysis in fire scenarios. It is important for a risk analysis to distinguish between normally healthy individuals, such as fire fighters, and those with compromised health. Exposure to higher concentrations of HF would be expected to be tolerated more in healthy individuals, whereas equal concentrations can have escape-impairing effects in those with compromised health. The following discussion assumes that the effects described at the various concentrations and durations are for the healthy individual. Inflammation (irritation) of tissues represents a continuum from “no irritation” to “severe, deep penetrating” irritation. Use of the terms slight, mild, moderate, and severe in conjunction with irritation represents an attempt to quantify this effect. However, given the large variability and sensitivity of the human population, differences in the degree of irritation from exposure to HF are expected to occur. For example, some individuals can experience mild irritation to a concentration that results in moderate irritation in another individual. At concentrations of <50 ppm for up to 10 minutes, irritation of upper respiratory tract and the eyes would be expected to occur. At these low concentrations, escape-impairing effects would not be expected in the healthy individual. As HF concentrations increase to 50 ppm to 100 ppm, an increase in irritation is expected. For short duration (10 to 30 minutes), irritation of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract would occur. At 100 ppm for 30 to 60 minutes, escape-impairing effects would begin to occur, and continued 238 of 371

100 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

exposure at 200 ppm and greater for an hour could be lethal in the absence of medical intervention. As the concentration of HF increases, the severity of irritation increases, and the potential for delayed systemic effects also increases. At about 100 to 200 ppm of HF, humans would also be expected to shift their breathing pattern to mouth breathing. Therefore, deeper lung irritation is expected. At greater concentrations (>200 ppm), respiratory discomfort, pulmonary (deep lung) irritation, and systemic effects are possible. Continued exposure at these higher concentrations can be lethal in the absence of medical treatment. Generation of HF from fluorocarbon fire extinguishing agents represents a potential hazard. In the foregoing discussion, the duration of exposure was indicated for 10 to 60 minutes. In fire conditions in which HF would be generated, the actual exposure duration would be expected to be less than 10 minutes and in most cases less than 5 minutes. As Dalby (1996) showed, exposing mouth-breathing rats to HF concentrations of about 600 ppm for 2 minutes was without effect. Similarly, exposing mouth-breathing rats to a HF concentration of about 300 ppm for 10 minutes did not result in any mortality or respiratory effects. Therefore, one could surmise that humans exposed to similar concentrations for less than 10 minutes would be able to survive such concentrations. However, caution needs to be employed in interpreting these data. Although the toxicity data would suggest that humans could survive these large concentrations for less than 10 minutes, those individuals with compromised lung function or those with cardiopulmonary disease can be more susceptible to the effects of HF. Furthermore, even in the healthy individual, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes would be expected, and escape could be impaired. Table A.1.5.1.2(b) provides potential human health effects of hydrogen fluoride in healthy individuals. Occupational exposure limits have been established for HF. The limit set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the Threshold Limit Value (TLV®), represents exposure of normally healthy workers for an 8-hour workday or a 40-hour workweek. For HF, the limit established is 3 ppm, which represents a ceiling limit; that is, the airborne concentration that should not be exceeded at any time during the workday. This limit is intended to prevent irritation and possible systemic effects with repeated, long-term exposure. This and similar time-weighted average limits are not considered relevant for fire extinguishing use of fluorocarbons during emergency situations. However, these limits may need to be considered in clean-up procedures where high levels of HF were generated. Table A.1.5.1.2(b) Potential Human Health Effects of Hydrogen Fluoride in Healthy Individuals Concentration of Exposure Hydrogen Reaction Time Fluoride

(ppm) Slight eye and nasal 2 minutes <50 irritation 50–100 Mild eye and upper respiratory tract irritation Moderate eye and upper respiratory tract 100–200 irritation; slight skin irritation Moderate irritation of all body surfaces; >200 increasing concentration may be escape impairing Mild eye and nasal 5 minutes <50 irritation Increasing eye and nasal irritation; slight skin 50–100 irritation Moderate irritation of skin, eyes, and respiratory 100–200 tract Definite irritation of tissue surfaces; will cause >200 escape-impairing effects at increasing concentrations Definite eye, skin, and 10 minutes <50 upper respiratory tract irritation 50–100 Moderate irritation of all body surfaces Moderate irritation of all body surfaces; escape- 100–200 impairing effects likely 239 of 371

101 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Concentration of Exposure Hydrogen Reaction Time Fluoride

(ppm) Escape-impairing effects will occur; increasing >200 concentrations can be lethal without medical intervention In contrast to the ACGIH TLV, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) represents limits established for emergency release of chemicals. These limits are established to also account for sensitive populations, such as those with compromised health. The ERPG limits are designed to assist emergency response personnel in planning for catastrophic releases of chemicals. These limits are not developed to be used as “safe” limits for routine operations. However, in the case of fire extinguishing use and generation of HF, these limits are more relevant than time-weighted average limits such as the TLV. The ERPG limits consist of three levels for use in emergency planning and are typically 1-hour values; 10-minute values have also been established for HF. For the 1-hour limits, the ERPG 1 (2 ppm) is based on odor perception and is below the concentration at which mild sensory irritation has been reported (3 ppm). ERPG 2 (20 ppm) is the most important guideline value set and is the concentration at which mitigating steps should be taken, such as evacuation, sheltering, and donning masks. This level should not impede escape or cause irreversible health effects and is based mainly on the human irritation data obtained by Machle et al. (1934) and Largent (1960). ERPG 3 (50 ppm) is based on animal data and is the maximum nonlethal level for nearly all individuals. This level could be lethal to some susceptible people. The 10-minute values established for HF and used in emergency planning in fires where HF vapor is generated are ERPG 3 = 170 ppm, ERPG 2 = 50 ppm, and ERPG 1 = 2 ppm.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Unit correction: ppm/min should be ppm-min.

Added a paragraph intended to eliminate interpreting very brief (sub second) excursions of agent concentration to high levels as a failure to meet NFPA 2001 safe breathing limits.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Steven Hodges Organization: Alion Science And Technology Affiliation: US Army TARDEC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Dec 17 08:14:19 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

240 of 371

102 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 54-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.5.1.2 ]

241 of 371

103 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.1.5.1.2

242 of 371

104 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

LC50 or ALC NOAEL LOAEL Agent (%) (%) (%) FIC-13I1 >12.8 0.2 0.4 FK-5-1-12 >10.0 10 >10.0 HCFC Blend A 64 10 >10.0 HCFC-124 23–29 1 2.5 HFC-125 >70 7.5 10 HFC-227ea >80 9 10.5 HFC-23 >65 30 >30 HFC-236fa >45.7 10 15 HFC Blend B 56.7* 5.0* 7.5*

105 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

blood parameter is the link to the human system. Once this critical arterial blood concentration has been measured in dogs, the EPA-approved PBPK model simulates how long it will take the human arterial blood concentration to reach the critical arterial blood concentration (as determined in the dog test) during human inhalation of any particular concentration of the halocarbon agent. As long as the simulated human arterial concentration remains below the critical arterial blood concentration, the exposure is considered safe. Inhaled halocarbon concentrations that produce human arterial blood concentrations equal to or greater than the critical arterial blood concentration are considered unsafe because they represent inhaled concentrations that potentially yield arterial blood concentrations where cardiac sensitization events occur in the dog test. Using these critical arterial blood concentrations of halocarbons as the ceiling for allowable human arterial concentrations, any number of halocarbon exposure scenarios can be evaluated using this modeling approach. For example, in the dog cardiac sensitization test on Halon 1301, a measured dog arterial blood concentration of 25.7 mg/L is measured at the effect concentration (LOAEL) of 7.5 percent after a 5-minute exposure to Halon 1301 and an external intravenous adrenaline injection. The PBPK model predicts the time at which the human arterial blood concentration reaches 25.7 mg/L for given inhaled Halon 1301 concentrations. Using this approach, the model also predicts that at some inhaled halocarbon concentrations, the critical arterial blood concentration is never reached; thus, cardiac sensitization will not occur. Accordingly, in the tables in 1.5.1.2.1, the time is arbitrarily truncated at 5 minutes, because the dogs were exposed for 5 minutes in the original cardiac sensitization testing protocols. The time value, estimated by the EPA-approved and peer-reviewed PBPK model or its equivalent, is that required for the human arterial blood level for a given halocarbon to equal the arterial blood level of a dog exposed to the LOAEL for 5 minutes. For example, if a system is designed to achieve a maximum concentration of 12.0 percent HFC-125, means should be provided such that personnel are exposed for no longer than 1.67 minutes. Examples of suitable exposure-limiting mechanisms include self-contained breathing apparatuses and planned and rehearsed evacuation routes. The requirement for pre-discharge alarms and time delays is intended to prevent human exposure to agents during fire fighting. However, in the unlikely circumstance that an accidental discharge occurs, restrictions on the use of certain halocarbon agents covered in this standard are based on the availability of PBPK modeling information. For those halocarbon agents in which modeling information is available, means should be provided to limit the exposure to those concentrations and times specified in the tables in 1.5.1.2.1. The concentrations and times given in the tables are those that have been predicted to limit the human arterial blood concentration to below the critical arterial blood concentration associated with cardiac sensitization. For halocarbon agents where the needed data are unavailable, the agents are restricted based on whether the protected space is normally occupied or unoccupied and how quickly egress from the area can be effected. Normally occupied areas are those intended for human occupancy. Normally unoccupied areas are those in which personnel can be present from time to time. Therefore, a comparison of the cardiac sensitization values to the intended design concentration would determine the suitability of a halocarbon for use in normally occupied or unoccupied areas. Clearly, longer exposure of the agent to high temperatures would produce greater concentrations of these gases. The type and sensitivity of detection, coupled with the rate of discharge, should be selected to minimize the exposure time of the agent to the elevated temperature if the concentration of the breakdown products must be minimized. In most cases the area would be untenable for human occupancy due to the heat and breakdown products of the fire itself. These decomposition products have a sharp, acrid odor, even in minute concentrations of only a few parts per million. This characteristic provides a built-in warning system for the agent but at the same time creates a noxious, irritating atmosphere for those who must enter the hazard following a fire. Background and toxicology of hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) vapor can be produced in fires as a breakdown product of fluorocarbon fire extinguishing agents and in the combustion of fluoropolymers. The significant toxicological effects of HF exposure occur at the site of contact. By the inhalation route, significant deposition is predicted to occur in the most anterior (front part) region of the nose and extending back to the lower respiratory tract (airways and lungs) if sufficient exposure concentrations are achieved. The damage induced at the site of contact with HF is characterized by extensive tissue damage and cell death (necrosis) with inflammation. One day after a single, 1-hour exposure of rats to HF concentrations of 950 ppm to 2600 ppm, tissue injury was limited exclusively to the anterior section of the nose (DuPont, 1990). No effects were seen in the trachea or lungs. At high concentrations of HF (about 200 ppm), human breathing patterns would be expected to change primarily from nose breathing to primarily mouth breathing. This change in breathing pattern determines the deposition pattern of HF into the respiratory tract, either upper respiratory tract (nose breathing) or lower respiratory tract (mouth breathing). In studies conducted by Dalby (1996), rats were exposed by nose-only or mouth-only breathing. In the mouth-only breathing model, rats were exposed to various concentrations of HF through a tube placed in the trachea, thereby bypassing the upper respiratory tract. 244 of 371

106 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

This exposure method is considered to be a conservative approach for estimating a “worst-case” exposure in which a person would not breathe through the nose but inhale through the mouth, thereby maximizing the deposition of HF into the lower respiratory tract. In the nose-only breathing model, 2-minute or 10-minute exposures of rats to about 6400 or 1700 ppm, respectively, produced similar effects; that is, no mortality resulted but significant cell damage in the nose was observed. In contrast, marked differences in toxicity were evident in the mouth-only breathing model. Indeed, mortality was evident following a 10-minute exposure to a concentration of about 1800 ppm and a 2-minute exposure to about 8600 ppm. Significant inflammation of the lower respiratory tract was also evident. Similarly, a 2-minute exposure to about 4900 ppm produced mortality and significant nasal damage. However, at lower concentrations (950 ppm) following a 10-minute exposure or 1600 ppm following a 2-minute exposure, no mortality and only minimal irritation were observed. Numerous other toxicology studies have been conducted in experimental animals for longer durations, such as 15, 30, or 60 minutes. In nearly all of these studies, the effects of HF were generally similar across all species; that is, severe irritation of the respiratory tract was observed as the concentration of HF was increased. In humans, an irritation threshold appears to be at about 3 ppm, where irritation of the upper airways and eyes occurs. In prolonged exposure at about 5 ppm, redness of the skin has also resulted. In controlled human exposure studies, humans are reported to have tolerated mild nasal irritation (subjective response) at 32 ppm for several minutes (Machle et al., 1934). Exposure of humans to about 3 ppm for an hour produced slight eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Even with an increase in exposure concentration (up to 122 ppm) and a decrease in exposure duration to about 1 minute, skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation occurs (Machle and Kitzmiller, 1935). Meldrum (1993) proposed the concept of the dangerous toxic load (DTL) as a means of predicting the effects of, for example, HF in humans. Meldrum developed the argument that the toxic effects of certain chemicals tend to follow Haber’s law:

[A.1.5.1.2]

where: C = concentration t =time k = constant The available data on the human response to inhalation of HF were considered insufficient to provide a basis for establishing a DTL. Therefore, it was necessary to use the available animal lethality data to establish a model for the response in humans. The DTL is based on an estimate of 1 percent lethality in an exposed population of animals. Based on the analysis of animal lethality data, the author determined that the DTL for HF is 12,000 ppm/min. Although this approach appears reasonable and consistent with mortality data in experimental animals, the predictive nature of this relationship for nonlethal effects in humans has not been demonstrated. Potential human health effects and risk analysis in fire scenarios. It is important for a risk analysis to distinguish between normally healthy individuals, such as fire fighters, and those with compromised health. Exposure to higher concentrations of HF would be expected to be tolerated more in healthy individuals, whereas equal concentrations can have escape-impairing effects in those with compromised health. The following discussion assumes that the effects described at the various concentrations and durations are for the healthy individual. Inflammation (irritation) of tissues represents a continuum from “no irritation” to “severe, deep penetrating” irritation. Use of the terms slight, mild, moderate, and severe in conjunction with irritation represents an attempt to quantify this effect. However, given the large variability and sensitivity of the human population, differences in the degree of irritation from exposure to HF are expected to occur. For example, some individuals can experience mild irritation to a concentration that results in moderate irritation in another individual. At concentrations of <50 ppm for up to 10 minutes, irritation of upper respiratory tract and the eyes would be expected to occur. At these low concentrations, escape-impairing effects would not be expected in the healthy individual. As HF concentrations increase to 50 ppm to 100 ppm, an increase in irritation is expected. For short duration (10 to 30 minutes), irritation of the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract would occur. At 100 ppm for 30 to 60 minutes, escape-impairing effects would begin to occur, and continued exposure at 200 ppm and greater for an hour could be lethal in the absence of medical intervention. As the concentration of HF increases, the severity of irritation increases, and the potential for delayed systemic effects also increases. At about 100 to 200 ppm of HF, humans would also be expected to shift their breathing pattern to mouth breathing. Therefore, deeper lung irritation is expected. At greater concentrations (>200 ppm), respiratory discomfort, pulmonary (deep lung) irritation, and systemic effects are possible. Continued exposure at these higher concentrations can be lethal in the absence of medical 245 of 371

107 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

treatment. Generation of HF from fluorocarbon fire extinguishing agents represents a potential hazard. In the foregoing discussion, the duration of exposure was indicated for 10 to 60 minutes. In fire conditions in which HF would be generated, the actual exposure duration would be expected to be less than 10 minutes and in most cases less than 5 minutes. As Dalby (1996) showed, exposing mouth-breathing rats to HF concentrations of about 600 ppm for 2 minutes was without effect. Similarly, exposing mouth-breathing rats to a HF concentration of about 300 ppm for 10 minutes did not result in any mortality or respiratory effects. Therefore, one could surmise that humans exposed to similar concentrations for less than 10 minutes would be able to survive such concentrations. However, caution needs to be employed in interpreting these data. Although the toxicity data would suggest that humans could survive these large concentrations for less than 10 minutes, those individuals with compromised lung function or those with cardiopulmonary disease can be more susceptible to the effects of HF. Furthermore, even in the healthy individual, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes would be expected, and escape could be impaired. Table A.1.5.1.2(b) provides potential human health effects of hydrogen fluoride in healthy individuals. Occupational exposure limits have been established for HF. The limit set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the Threshold Limit Value (TLV®), represents exposure of normally healthy workers for an 8-hour workday or a 40-hour workweek. For HF, the limit established is 3 ppm, which represents a ceiling limit; that is, the airborne concentration that should not be exceeded at any time during the workday. This limit is intended to prevent irritation and possible systemic effects with repeated, long-term exposure. This and similar time-weighted average limits are not considered relevant for fire extinguishing use of fluorocarbons during emergency situations. However, these limits may need to be considered in clean-up procedures where high levels of HF were generated. Table A.1.5.1.2(b) Potential Human Health Effects of Hydrogen Fluoride in Healthy Individuals

Concentration of Exposure Hydrogen Reaction Time Fluoride (ppm) 2 minutes <50 Slight eye and nasal irritation 50–100 Mild eye and upper respiratory tract irritation 100–200 Moderate eye and upper respiratory tract irritation; slight skin irritation Moderate irritation of all body surfaces; increasing concentration may be >200 escape impairing 5 minutes <50 Mild eye and nasal irritation 50–100 Increasing eye and nasal irritation; slight skin irritation 100–200 Moderate irritation of skin, eyes, and respiratory tract Definite irritation of tissue surfaces; will cause escape-impairing effects at >200 increasing concentrations 10 minutes <50 Definite eye, skin, and upper respiratory tract irritation 50–100 Moderate irritation of all body surfaces 100–200 Moderate irritation of all body surfaces; escape-impairing effects likely Escape-impairing effects will occur; increasing concentrations can be >200 lethal without medical intervention

In contrast to the ACGIH TLV, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Emergency Response Planning Guideline (ERPG) represents limits established for emergency release of chemicals. These limits are established to also account for sensitive populations, such as those with compromised health. The ERPG limits are designed to assist emergency response personnel in planning for catastrophic releases of chemicals. These limits are not developed to be used as “safe” limits for routine operations. However, in the case of fire extinguishing use and generation of HF, these limits are more relevant than time-weighted average limits such as the TLV. The ERPG limits consist of three levels for use in emergency planning and are typically 1-hour values; 10-minute values have also been established for HF. For the 1-hour limits, the ERPG 1 (2 ppm) is based on odor perception and is below the concentration at which mild sensory irritation has been reported (3 ppm). ERPG 2 (20 ppm) is the most important guideline value set and is the concentration at which mitigating steps should be taken, such as evacuation, sheltering, and donning masks. This level should not impede escape or cause irreversible health effects and is based mainly on the human irritation data obtained by Machle et al. (1934) and Largent (1960). ERPG 3 (50 ppm) is based on animal data and is the maximum nonlethal level for nearly all individuals. This level could be lethal to some susceptible people. The 10-minute values established for HF and used in emergency planning in fires where HF vapor is generated are ERPG 3 = 170 ppm, ERPG 2 = 50 ppm, and ERPG 1 = 2 ppm. 246 of 371

108 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_Section_No_A_1_5_1_2.docx Addition of ACL or LC50 for new agent

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of ACL or LC50 for new agent

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:40:51 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

247 of 371

109 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM

NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.5.1.2 ]

Add to Table A.1.5.1.2(a)

Agent LC50 or ALC NOAEL LOAEL Halocarbon Blend 55 >11 10 >10

248 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 55-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.6 ]

A.1.6 Many factors impact the environmental acceptability of a fire suppression agent. Uncontrolled fires pose significant impact by themselves. All extinguishing agents should be used in ways that eliminate or minimize the potential environmental impact (see Table A.1.6). General guidelines to be followed to minimize this impact include the following: (1) Not performing unnecessary discharge testing (2) Considering the ozone depletion and global warming impact of the agent under consideration and weighing those impacts against the fire safety concerns (3) Recycling all agents where possible (4) Consulting the most recent environmental regulations on each agent The unnecessary emission of clean extinguishing agents with non-zero ODP, non-zero GWP, or both should be avoided. All phases of design, installation, testing, and maintenance of systems using these agents should be performed with the goal of no emission into the environment. GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to the same mass of carbon dioxide whose GWP is by convention equal to 1. It is important to understand that the impact of a gas on climate change is a function of both the GWP of the gas and the amount of the gas emitted. The ODP of an agent provides a relative comparison of the ability to react with ozone at altitudes within the stratosphere. ODP values are reported relative to the same mass CFC-11, which has an ODP equal to 1. When the environmental profile of a compound is considered, both the ODP and the GWP values should be considered to ensure that the agent selected complies with all local and regional regulations balanced with end user specifications. Good independent resources for environmental properties in terms of GWP and ODP of clean agent alternatives are available from the Montreal Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Table A.1.6 Potential Environmental Impacts GWP Agent ODP (IPCC 2013) FIC-13I1 ≤1 0* FK-5-1-12 <1 0 HCFC Blend A 1500 0.048 HFC Blend B 1400 0 HCFC-124 527 0.022 HFC-125 3170 0 HFC-227ea 3350 0 HFC-23 12,400 0 HFC-236fa 8060 0 IG-01 0 0 IG-100 0 0 IG-541 0 0 IG-55 0 0

Note: GWP is reported over a 100-year integrated time horizon. *Agent might have a non-zero ODP if released at altitudes high above ground level.

Additional Proposed Changes

249 of 371

110 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

File Name Description Approved Addition of environmental properties for new fire NFPA_2001_addition_to_table_A_1_6.docx suppression agent.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of environmental properties for new fire suppression agent.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:44:43 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

250 of 371

111 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.1.6

Add to Table A.1.6 Agent GWP ODP Halocarbon Blend 55 1 0.00017

251 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 17-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.4.1.4.1 ]

252 of 371

112 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.4.1.4.1

253 of 371

113 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Containers used for agent storage should be fit for the purpose. Materials of construction of the container, closures, gaskets, and other components should be compatible with the agent and designed for the anticipated pressures. Each container is equipped with a pressure relief device to protect against excessive pressure conditions. The variations in vapor pressure with temperature for the various clean agents are shown in Figure A.4.1.4.1(a) through Figure A.4.1.4.1(m). For halocarbon clean agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected by fill density and temperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to fill density. If the maximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increase and present a hazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is important that the maximum fill density limit specified for each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density and pressurization levels specified in Table A.4.1.4.1 should prevent excessively high pressures from occurring if the agent container is exposed to elevated temperatures. Adherence to the limits will also minimize the possibility of an inadvertent discharge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should be consulted for superpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A.4.1.4.1. Figure A.4.1.4.1(a) Isometric Diagram of FIC-13I1.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(b) Isometric Diagram of FK-5-1-12.

254 of 371

114 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Include two new graphs for FK-5-1-12 pressurized to 60 Bar (870 psig) at 21 C (70 F)

Figure A.4.1.4.1(c) Isometric Diagram of HCFC Blend A.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(d) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-124 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

255 of 371

115 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(e) Isometric Diagram of HFC-125 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

Add two new graphs for HFC-125 pressurized to 360 psig (24.8 bar) @ 70 F (21 C)

Figure A.4.1.4.1(f) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-227ea Pressurized with Nitrogen.

256 of 371

116 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(g) Isometric Design of HFC-23.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(h) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-236fa Pressurized with Nitrogen.

257 of 371

117 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(i) Isometric Diagram of IG-01.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(j) Isometric Diagram of IG-100.

258 of 371

118 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(k) Isometric Diagram of IG-541.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(l) Isometric Diagram of IG-55 Filled at 59°F (15°C).

259 of 371

119 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(m) Isometric Diagram of HFC Blend B.

With the exception of inert gas–type systems, all the other clean agents are classified as liquefied compressed gases at 70°F (21°C). For these agents, the pressure in the container is significantly affected by fill density and temperature. At elevated temperatures, the rate of increase in pressure is very sensitive to fill density. If the maximum fill density is exceeded, the pressure will increase rapidly with temperature increase and present a hazard to personnel and property. Therefore, it is important that the maximum fill density limit specified for each liquefied clean agent not be exceeded. Adherence to the limits for fill density and pressurization levels specified in Table A.4.1.4.1 should prevent excessively high pressures from occurring if the agent container is exposed to elevated temperatures. Adherence to the limits will also minimize the possibility of an inadvertent discharge of agent through the pressure relief device. The manufacturer should be consulted for superpressurization levels other than those shown in Table A.4.1.4.1. Table A.4.1.4.1 Storage Container Characteristics

Total Gauge Maximum Fill Density for Minimum Container Design Level Pressure Extinguishing Conditions Listed Working Pressure (Gauge) Level at 70°F Agent (lb/ft3) (psi) (psi) FK-5-1-12 90 500 360 HCFC Blend A 56.2 500 360 HCFC-124 71 240 195 HFC-125 58 320 166.4a HFC-227ea 72 500 360 HFC-23 54 1800 608.9a FIC-13I1 104.7 500 360 IG-01 N/A 2120 2370 IG-100 (300) N/A 3600 4061 IG-100 (240) N/A 2879 3236 IG-100 (180) N/A 2161 2404 IG-541 N/A 2015 2175 IG-541 (200) N/A 2746 2900

260 of 371

120 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

For SI units, 1 lb/ft3 = 16.018 kg/m3; 1 psi = 6895 Pa; °C = (°F – 32)/1.8. Notes: (1) The maximum fill density requirement is not applicable for IG-541. Cylinders for IG-541 are DOT 3A or 3AA and are stamped 2015 or greater. (2) Total pressure level at 70°F (21°C) is calculated from the following filling conditions: IG-100 (300): 4351 psi (30.0 MPa) and 95°F (35°C) IG-100 (240): 3460 psi (23.9 MPa) and 95°F (35°C) IG-100 (180): 2560 psi (17.7 MPa) and 95°F (35°C) IG-55 (2222): 2175 psi (15 MPa) and 59°F (15°C) IG-55 (2962): 2901 psi (20 MPa) and 59°F (15°C) IG-55 (4443): 4352 psi (30 MPa) and 59°F (15°C)

a Vapor pressure for HFC-23 and HFC-125.

b Cylinders for IG-55 are stamped 2060.

c Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 2750 or greater.

d Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 4120 or greater.

e Vapor pressure of agent.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved FK-5-1-12_870_psi_70_F.JPG FK-5-1-12_60_bar_21_C.JPG HFC-125_360_psig_at_70_F.JPG HFC-125_25_bar_at_21_C.JPG

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

A new system using FK-5-1-12 @ 60 bar is developed and this information is needed for users of this system.

These new curves for HFC-125 give better resolution and are generated at 70 F.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Brad Stilwell Organization: Fike Corporation Street Address: City: State:

261 of 371

121 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Sep 19 11:31:08 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

262 of 371

122 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM 263 of 371 264 of 371 265 of 371 266 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 56-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.4.1.4.1 ]

267 of 371

123 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.4.1.4.1

268 of 371

124 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(b) Isometric Diagram of FK-5-1-12.

269 of 371

125 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(c) Isometric Diagram of HCFC Blend A.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(d) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-124 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

270 of 371

126 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(e) Isometric Diagram of HFC-125 Pressurized with Nitrogen.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(f) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-227ea Pressurized with Nitrogen.

271 of 371

127 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(g) Isometric Design of HFC-23.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(h) Isometric Diagram of HCFC-236fa Pressurized with Nitrogen.

272 of 371

128 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(i) Isometric Diagram of IG-01.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(j) Isometric Diagram of IG-100.

273 of 371

129 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(k) Isometric Diagram of IG-541.

Figure A.4.1.4.1(l) Isometric Diagram of IG-55 Filled at 59°F (15°C).

274 of 371

130 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.4.1.4.1(m) Isometric Diagram of HFC Blend B.

Total Gauge Maximum Fill Density for Minimum Container Design Level Extinguishing Pressure Conditions Listed Working Pressure (Gauge) Agent Level at 70°F (lb/ft3) (psi) (psi) FK-5-1-12 90 500 360 HCFC Blend A 56.2 500 360 HCFC-124 71 240 195 HFC-125 58 320 166.4a HFC-227ea 72 500 360 HFC-23 54 1800 608.9a FIC-13I1 104.7 500 360 IG-01 N/A 2120 2370 IG-100 (300) N/A 3600 4061 IG-100 (240) N/A 2879 3236 IG-100 (180) N/A 2161 2404 IG-541 N/A 2015 2175 IG-541 (200) N/A 2746 2900 IG-55 (2222) N/A 2057 2222b

275 of 371

131 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

a Vapor pressure for HFC-23 and HFC-125.

b Cylinders for IG-55 are stamped 2060.

c Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 2750 or greater.

d Cylinders for IG-55 are DOT 3A or 3AA stamped 4120 or greater.

e Vapor pressure of agent.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Addition of isochoric charts for new NFPA_2001_addition_of_isochoric_graphs_A_4_1_4_1.docx agent.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of isochoric charts for new agent.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:50:39 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

276 of 371

132 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.4.1.4.1 ]

Figure A.4.1.4.1(n)

45 1308 kg/m3 1268 40 1068 35

30 Pressure (bar)Pressure 25

20 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Temperature ( °C )

Figure 1a — Isometric Diagram of Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 25 bar at 20 °C

690 81.6 lb/ft3 79.1 590 66.7

490 Pressure(psig) 390

290 10 40 70 100 130 160 190 Temperature ( °F )

Figure 2b — Isometric Diagram of Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 360 psig at 68 °F

277 of 371 50

1308 kg/m3 46 1268 1068

38 P P ressure (bar)

30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Temperature ( °C )

Figure 2a— Isometric Diagram of Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 35 bar at 20 °C

730

3 680 81.6 lb/ft 79.1 66.7

) 630

580

Pressure(psig 530

480

430 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 Temperature ( °F )

Figure 2b — Isometric Diagram of Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 510 psig at 68 °F

278 of 371 65

3 60 1308 kg/m 1268

55 1068

Pressure (bar)Pressure 45

35 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Temperature ( °C )

Figure 3a — Isometric Diagram of Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 42 bar at 20 °C

81.6 lb/ft3 79.1 885

810 66.7 735

Pressure(psig) 660

585

510 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 Temperature ( °F)

Figure 3b — Isometric Diagram of for Halocarbon Blend 55 Pressurized with Nitrogen to 610 psig at 68 °F

279 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 62-NFPA 2001-2018 [ New Section after A.4.1.4.2 ]

A.4.1.4.2 (1)* For refillable halocarbon agent containers, liquid level indicators (LLI) may be considered, when available from the system manufacturer as a standard optional offering. The liquid level indicator (LLI) device provides the means to determine the quantity of halocarbon agent in accordance with the requirements of 8.3.1. Further, the LLI device allows the fire protection service technician a means to safely determine the halocarbon agent quantity without lifting or moving the container.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Most manufacturers of refillable halocarbon agent containers offer an optional liquid level device (LLI), in at least part of the product line, to assist the servicing personnel to determine the quantity of halocarbon agent in the storage container, without the need to lift or move the container. This allows for “safe” handling practices to avoid injury to the service personnel. Where available, this liquid level indicator (LLI) option should be provided.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Daniel Hubert Organization: Amerex/Janus Fire Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 11:17:40 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

280 of 371

133 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 47-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.4.2.1 ]

281 of 371

134 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.5.4.2.1

282 of 371

135 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

This standard requires that the flame extinguishing concentration of a gaseous agent for a Class B fuel be determined by the cup burner method. Cup burner testing in the past has involved a variety of techniques, apparatus, and investigators. It was reported by Senecal (2005) that significant inconsistencies are apparent in Class B flame extinguishing data for inert gases currently in use in national and international standards. In 2003, the Technical Committee for NFPA 2001 appointed a task group to develop an improved cup burner test method. Through this effort, the degree of standardization of the cup burner test method was significantly improved. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined apparatus has now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Values for minimum flame extinguishing concentration (MEC) for gaseous agents addressed in this standard, as determined by the revised test method, are given in Table A.5.4.2.1. Values for MEC that were determined by the 2004 test method are retained in this edition for the purpose of providing an MEC reference where data obtained by the revised test method were not available. It is intended that in subsequent editions the 2004 MEC data can be deleted. While MEC data is presented for n-heptane, this does not replace the requirement to determine MEC for the specific fuel. Other fuels can require significantly higher extinguishing concentrations (HFC-227ea with some turbine lube oils for instance). System designers should not assume n-heptane values as worst case for their specific fuels. Table A.5.4.2.1 Minimum Flame Extinguishing Concentration (Fuel: n-heptane)

MEC (vol %) Agent 2004 Test Method 2008 Test Method** FIC-13I1 3.2*

FK-5-1-12 4.5

HCFC Blend A 9.9

HCFC-124 6.6

HFC-125 8.7

HFC-227ea 6.6† 6.62 HFC-23 12.9

HFC-236fa 6.3

HFC Blend B 11.3

IG-01 42

IG-100 31* 32.2 IG-541 31

IG-55 35

*Not derived from standardized cup burner method. †A value of cup burner extinguishing concentration of 6.7 percent for HCF-227ea for commercial heptane fuel. **A working group appointed by the then NFPA 2001 technical committee revised Annex B to include a refinement of the method reported in the 2004 and earlier editions.

283 of 371

136 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Graph showing the impact of higher MEC value for a specific fuel on the HFC-227ea_design_challenges_for_large_frame_GTs_PI-47- predicted agent concentration and NFPA_2001-2018.pdf corresponding system requirements for a large frame gas turbine hazard.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

We have had experienced suppliers assume that n-heptane MEC values are worst case for system design in lieu of specific cup burner testing for our fuel. Cup burner testing shows that certain mineral oil turbine lubrication fluids can actually require higher extinguishing concentrations, to the point that the system would require the safety features listed in 1.5.1.4.3. When we came across this issue we had trouble finding a listed system with those safety features available, and eventually abandoned the specific clean agent system design. A little bit of additional text here may help prevent someone else falling into that same hole. Attached graph shows the impact on the design for a hypothetical project.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 13 16:04:52 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

284 of 371

137 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 57-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.4.2.1 ]

A.5.4.2.1 This standard requires that the flame extinguishing concentration of a gaseous agent for a Class B fuel be determined by the cup burner method. Cup burner testing in the past has involved a variety of techniques, apparatus, and investigators. It was reported by Senecal (2005) that significant inconsistencies are apparent in Class B flame extinguishing data for inert gases currently in use in national and international standards. In 2003, the Technical Committee for NFPA 2001 appointed a task group to develop an improved cup burner test method. Through this effort, the degree of standardization of the cup burner test method was significantly improved. A standard cup burner test procedure with defined apparatus has now been established and is outlined in Annex B. Values for minimum flame extinguishing concentration (MEC) for gaseous agents addressed in this standard, as determined by the revised test method, are given in Table A.5.4.2.1. Values for MEC that were determined by the 2004 test method are retained in this edition for the purpose of providing an MEC reference where data obtained by the revised test method were not available. It is intended that in subsequent editions the 2004 MEC data can be deleted. Table A.5.4.2.1 Minimum Flame Extinguishing Concentration (Fuel: n-heptane)

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Addition of MEC from NFPA cup burner test with NFPA_2001_Section_No_A_5_4_2_1.docx heptane fuel for new fire suppression agent.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of MEC from NFPA cup burner test with heptane fuel for new fire suppression agent.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard

285 of 371

138 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 12:57:19 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

286 of 371

139 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.4.2.1 ]

Table A.5.4.2.1 Agent By 2004 Test Method by revised test method Halocarbon Blend 55 - 6.0

287 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 58-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.4.2.2 ]

288 of 371

140 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.5.4.2.2

289 of 371

141 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

The following steps detail the fire extinguishment/area coverage fire test procedure for engineered and pre-engineered clean agent extinguishing system units: (1) The general requirements are as follows: (a) An engineered or pre-engineered extinguishing system should mix and distribute its extinguishing agent and should totally flood an enclosure when tested in accordance with the recommendations of A.5.4.2.2(1)(c) through A.5.4.2.2(6)(f) under the maximum design limitations and most severe installation instructions. See also A.5.4.2.2(1)(b). (b) When tested as described in A.5.4.2.2(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2(5)(b), an extinguishing system unit should extinguish all fires within 30 seconds after the end of system discharge. When tested as described in A.5.4.2.2(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2(3)(c) and A.5.4.2.2(6)(a) through A.5.4.2.2(6)(f), an extinguishing system should prevent reignition of the wood crib after a 10 minute soak period. (c) The tests described in A.5.4.2.2(2)(a) through A.5.4.2.2(6)(f) should be carried out. Consider the intended use and limitations of the extinguishing system, with specific reference to the following: i. The area coverage for each type of nozzle ii. The operating temperature range of the system iii. Location of the nozzles in the protected area iv. Either maximum length and size of piping and number of fittings to each nozzle or minimum nozzle pressure v. Maximum discharge time vi. Maximum fill density (2) The test enclosure construction is as follows:

3 (a) The enclosure for the test should be constructed of either indoor or outdoor grade minimum ⁄8 in. (9.5 mm) thick plywood or equivalent material. (b) An enclosure(s) is to be constructed having the maximum area coverage for the extinguishing system unit or nozzle being tested and the minimum and maximum protected area height limitations. The test enclosure(s) for the maximum height, flammable liquid, and wood crib fire extinguishment tests need not have the maximum coverage area, but should be at least 13.1 ft (4.0 m) wide by 13.1 ft (4.0 m) long and 3351 ft3 (100 m3) in volume. (3) The extinguishing system is as follows: (a) A pre-engineered type of extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using its maximum piping limitations with respect to number of fittings and length of pipe to the discharge nozzles and nozzle configuration(s), as specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions. (b) An engineered-type extinguishing system unit is to be assembled using a piping arrangement that results in the minimum nozzle design pressure at 70°F (21°C).

(c) Except for the flammable liquid fire test using the 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) square pan and the wood crib extinguishment test, the cylinders are to be conditioned to the minimum operating temperature specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions. (4) The extinguishing concentration is as follows: (a) The extinguishing agent concentration for each Class A test is to be 83.34 percent of the intended end use design concentration specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions at the ambient temperature of approximately 70°F (21°C) within the enclosure. (b) The extinguishing agent concentration for each Class B test is to be 76.9 percent of the intended end-use design concentration specified in the manufacturer’s design and installation instructions at the ambient temperature of approximately 70°F (21°C) within the enclosure. (c) The concentration for inert gas clean agents can be adjusted to take into consideration actual leakage measured from the test enclosure. (d) The concentration within the enclosure for halocarbon clean agents should be calculated using the following formula unless it is demonstrated that the test enclosure exhibits significant leakage. If significant test enclosure leakage does exist, the formula used to determine the test enclosure concentration of halocarbon clean agents can be modified to account for the leakage measured.

290 of 371

142 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

[A.5.4.2.2a]

where: W = weight of clean agents [lb (kg)] V = volume of test enclosure [ft3 (m3)] s = specific volume of clean agent at test temperature [ft3/lb (m3/kg)] C = concentration (vol %) (5) The flammable liquid extinguishment tests are as follows: (a) Steel test cans having a nominal thickness of 0.216 in. (5.5 mm) (such as Schedule 40 pipe) and 3.0 in. to 3.5 in. (76.2 mm to 88.9 mm) in diameter and at least 4 in. (102 mm) high, containing either heptane or heptane and water, are to be placed within 2 in. (50.8 mm) of the corners of the test enclosure(s) and directly behind the baffle, and located vertically within 12 in. (305 mm) of the top or bottom of the enclosure or both the top and bottom if the enclosure permits such placement. If the cans contain heptane and water, the heptane is to be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) deep. The level of heptane in the cans should be at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the can. For the minimum room height area coverage test, closable openings are provided directly above the cans to allow for venting prior to system installation. In addition, for the minimum height limitation area coverage test, a baffle is to be installed between the floor and ceiling in the center of the enclosure. The baffle is to be perpendicular to the direction of nozzle discharge and to be 20 percent of the length or width of the enclosure, whichever is applicable with respect to nozzle location. For the maximum room height extinguishment test, an additional test is to be conducted using a 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) square pan located in the center of the room and the storage cylinder conditioned to 70°F (21°C). The test pan is to contain at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) of heptane, with the heptane level at least 2 in. (50.8 mm) below the top of the pan. For all tests, the heptane is to be ignited and allowed to burn for 30 seconds, at which time all openings are to be closed and the extinguishing system is to be manually actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure should be at least 20 percent. (b) The heptane is to be commercial grade having the following characteristics: i. Initial boiling point: 194°F (90°C) minimum ii. Dry point: 212°F (100°C) maximum iii. Specific gravity: 0.69–0.73 (6) The wood crib extinguishment tests are as follows: (a) The storage cylinder is to be conditioned to 70°F (21°C). The test enclosure is to have the maximum ceiling height as specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

1 1 (b) The wood crib is to consist of four layers of six, trade size 2 by 2 (1 ⁄2 by 1 ⁄2 in.) by 18 in. long, kiln spruce or fir lumber having a moisture content between 9 percent and 13 percent. The alternate layers of the wood members are to be placed at right angles to one another. The individual wood members in each layer are to be evenly spaced, forming a square determined by the specified length of the wood members. The wood members forming the outside edges of the crib are to be stapled or nailed together. (c) Ignition of the crib is to be achieved by the burning of commercial grade heptane in a square steel pan 2.5 ft2 (0.23 m2) in area and not less than 4 in. (101.6 mm) in height. The crib is to be centered with the bottom of the crib 12 in. to 24 in. (304 to 609.6 mm) above the top of the pan, and the test stand constructed so as to allow for the bottom of the crib to be exposed to the atmosphere. (d) The heptane is to be ignited, and the crib is to be allowed to burn freely for approximately 1 6 minutes outside the test enclosure. The heptane fire is to burn for 3 to 3 ⁄2 minutes. 1 1 Approximately ⁄4 gal (0.95 L) of heptane will provide a 3 to 3 ⁄2 minute burn time. Just prior to the end of the pre-burn period, the crib is to be moved into the test enclosure and placed on a stand such that the bottom of the crib is between 20 in. and 28 in. (508 mm and 711 mm) above the floor. The closure is then to be sealed. (e) After the crib is allowed to burn for 6 minutes, the system is to be actuated. At the time of actuation, the percent of oxygen within the enclosure at the level of the crib should be at least 20 percent. (f) After the end of system discharge, the enclosure is to remain sealed for 10 minutes. After the 291 of 371

143 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

10 minute soak period, the crib is to be removed from the enclosure and observed to determine whether sufficient fuel remains to sustain combustion and to detect signs of re-ignition. (7) The following is a schematic of the process to determine the design quantity: (a) Determine hazard features, as follows: i. Fuel type: Extinguishing concentration (EC) per 5.4.2 or inerting concentration (IC) per 5.4.3 ii. Enclosure volume iii. Enclosure temperature iv. Enclosure barometric pressure (b) Determine the agent minimum design concentration (MDC) by multiplying EC or IC by the safety factor (SF):

[A.5.4.2.2b]

(c) Determine the agent minimum design quantity (MDQ) by referring to 5.5.1 for halocarbons or 5.5.2 for inert gases (d) Determine whether design factors (DF) apply. See 5.5.3 to determine individual DF [DF(i)] and then determine sum:

[A.5.4.2.2c]

(e) Determine the agent adjusted minimum design quantity (AMDQ):

[A.5.4.2.2d]

(f) Determine the pressure correction factor (PCF) per 5.5.3.3 (g) Determine the final design quantity (FDQ) as follows:

[A.5.4.2.2e]

Where any of the following conditions exist, higher extinguishing concentrations might be required: (1) Cable bundles greater than 4 in. (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 less than 10 in. (250 mm) apart (4) Equipment energized during the extinguishment period where the collective power consumption exceeds 5 kW Fire extinguishment tests for (noncellulosic) Class A Surface Fires. The purpose of the tests outlined in this procedure is to develop the minimum extinguishing concentration (MEC) for a gaseous fire suppression agent for a range of noncellulosic, solid polymeric combustibles. It is intended that the MEC will be increased by appropriate safety factors and flooding factors as provided for in the standard.

These Class A tests should be conducted in a draft-free room with a volume of at least 3530 ft3 (100 m3) and a minimum height of 11.5 ft (3.5 m) and each wall at least 13.1 ft (4 m) long. Provisions should be made for relief venting if required. The test objects are as follows:

3 (1) The polymer fuel array consists of four sheets of polymer, ⁄8 in. (9.53 mm) thick, 16 in. (406 mm) tall, and 8 in. (203 mm) wide. Sheets are spaced and located per Figure A.5.4.2.2(a). The bottom of the fuel array is located 8 in. (203 mm) from the floor. The fuel sheets should be mechanically fixed at the required spacing. (2) A fuel shield is provided around the fuel array as indicated in Figure A.5.4.2.2(a). The fuel shield is 15 in. (381 mm) wide, 33.5 in. (851 mm) high, and 24 in. (610 mm) deep. The 24 in. (610 mm) wide × 33.5 in. (851 mm) high sides and the 24 in. (610 mm) × 15 in. (381 mm) top are sheet metal. The remaining two sides and the bottom are open. The fuel array is oriented in the fuel shield such that the 8 in. (203 mm) dimension of the fuel array is parallel to the 24 in. (610 mm) side of the fuel shield. (3) Two external baffles measuring 40 in. × 40 in. (1 m × 1 m) and 12 in. (0.3 m) tall are located around the exterior of the fuel shield as shown in Figure A.5.4.2.2(a) and Figure A.5.4.2.2(b). The baffles are placed 3.5 in. (0.09 m) above the floor. The top baffle is rotated 45 degrees with respect to the bottom baffle. 292 of 371

144 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

(4) Tests are conducted for three plastic fuels — polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polypropylene (PP), and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) polymer. Plastic properties are given in Table A.5.4.2.2(a).

7 (5) The ignition source is a heptane pan 2 in. × 2 in. × ⁄8 in. deep (51 mm × 51 mm × 22 mm deep) 1 centered ⁄2 in. (12 mm) below the bottom of the plastic sheets. The pan is filled with 3.0 ml of heptane to provide 90 seconds of burning. (6) The agent delivery system should be distributed through an approved nozzle. The system should be operated at the minimum nozzle pressure (±10 percent) and the maximum discharge time (±1 second). The test procedure is as follows: (1) The procedures for ignition are as follows: (a) The heptane pan is ignited and allowed to burn for 90 seconds. (b) The agent is discharged 210 seconds after ignition of heptane. (c) The compartment remains sealed for 600 seconds after the end of discharge. Extinguishment time is noted. If the fire is not extinguished within 600 seconds of the end of agent discharge, a higher minimum extinguishing concentration must be utilized. (d) The test is repeated two times for each fuel for each concentration evaluated and the extinguishment time averaged for each fuel. Any one test with an extinguishment time above 600 seconds is considered a failure. (e) If the fire is extinguished during the discharge period, the test is repeated at a lower concentration or additional baffling provided to ensure that local transient discharge effects are not affecting the extinguishment process. (f) At the beginning of the tests, the oxygen concentration must be within 2 percent (approximately 0.5 percent by volume O2) of ambient value. (g) During the post-discharge period, the oxygen concentration should not fall below 0.5 percent by volume of the oxygen level measured at the end of agent discharge. (2) The observation and recording procedures are as follows: (a) The following data must be recorded continuously during the test: i. Oxygen concentration (±0.5 percent) ii. Fuel mass loss (±5 percent) iii. Agent concentration (±5 percent) (Inert gas concentration can be calculated based on oxygen concentration.) (b) The following events are timed and recorded: i. Time at which heptane is ignited ii. Time of heptane pan burnout iii. Time of plastic sheet ignition iv. Time of beginning of agent discharge v. Time of end of agent discharge vi. Time all visible flame is extinguished The minimum extinguishing concentration is determined by all of the following conditions: (1) All visible flame is extinguished within 600 seconds of agent discharge. (2) The fuel weight loss between 10 seconds and 600 seconds after the end of discharge does not exceed 0.5 oz (15 g). (3) There is no ignition of the fuel at the end of the 600 second soak time and subsequent test compartment ventilation. Figure A.5.4.2.2(a) Four-Piece Modified Plastic Setup.

293 of 371

145 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure A.5.4.2.2(b) Chamber Plan View.

Table A.5.4.2.2(a) Plastic Fuel Properties

25 kW/m2 Exposure in Cone Calorimeter — ASTM E1354 180-Second Effective Heat of Ignition Time Average Density Combustion Heat Release Rate (g/cm2) Fuel Color sec Tolerance kW/m2 Tolerance MJ/kg Tolerance PMMA Black 1.19 77 ±30% 286 25% 23.3 ±15% Natural PP 0.905 91 ±30% 225 25% 39.8 ±15% (white) Natural ABS 1.04 115 ±30% 484 25% 29.1 ±15% (cream)

Table A.5.4.2.2(b) Class A Flame Extinguishing and Minimum Design Concentrations Tested to UL 2166 and UL 2127 Agent Class A Class A Minimum Design Class C Minimum Design 294 of 371

146 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

MEC Concentration Concentration FK-5-1-12 3.3 4.5 4.5 HFC-125 6.7 8.7 9.0 HFC-227ea 5.2 6.7 7.0 HFC-23 15.0 18.0 20.3 IG-541 28.5 34.2 38.5 IG-55 31.6 37.9 42.7 IG-100 31.0 37.2 41.9 Note: Concentrations reported are at 70°F (21°C). Class A design values are the greater of (1) the Class A extinguishing concentration, determined in accordance with 5.4.2.2, times a safety factor of 1.2; or (2) the minimum extinguishing concentration for heptane as determined from 5.4.2.1. 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 and telecommunication facilities). The values in Table A.5.4.2.2(b) are representative of the minimum extinguishing concentrations and design concentrations for various agents. The concentrations required can vary by equipment manufacturer. Equipment manufacturers should be contacted for the concentration required for their specific system.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Addition of preliminary values for new agent. Testing NFPA_2001_Section_No_A_5_4_2_2.docx per ANSI/UL-2166 planned for by mid 2019.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of preliminary values for new agent. Testing per ANSI/UL-2166 planned for by mid 2019, Table A 5.4.2.2 (b)

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 13:02:06 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

295 of 371

147 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.4.2.2 ]

Table A.5.4.2.2(b) UL2166 and UL2127

Agent Class A MEC Class A MDC Class C MDC Halocarbon 4.4* 6.0* 5.9* Blend 55

* Provisional values. To be revised on completion of testing conformant to ANSI/UL-2166.

296 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 59-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.5.1 ]

297 of 371

148 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.5.5.1

298 of 371

149 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

The quantity of clean agent required to develop a given concentration will be greater than the final quantity of agent in the same enclosure. In most cases, the clean agent must be applied in a manner that promotes progressive mixing of the atmosphere. As the clean agent is injected, the displaced atmosphere is exhausted freely from the enclosure through small openings or through special vents. Some clean agent is therefore lost with the vented atmosphere, and the higher the concentration, the greater the loss of clean agent. For the purposes of this standard, it is assumed that the clean agent-air mixture lost in this manner contains the final design concentration of the clean agent. This represents the worst case from a theoretical standpoint and provides a built-in safety factor to compensate for nonideal discharge arrangements. Table A.5.5.1(a) through Table A.5.5.1(r) provide the quantity of clean agent needed to achieve design concentration.

Table A.5.5.1(a) FK-5-1-12 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3)b Temp(t) Specific Vapor Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 345678910 −20 0.93678 0.0330 0.0445 0.0562 0.0681 0.0803 0.0928 0.1056 0.1186 −10 0.96119 0.0322 0.0433 0.0548 0.0664 0.0783 0.0905 0.1029 0.1156 0 0.9856 0.0314 0.0423 0.0534 0.0648 0.0764 0.0882 0.1003 0.1127 10 1.01001 0.0306 0.0413 0.0521 0.0632 0.0745 0.0861 0.0979 0.1100 20 1.03442 0.0299 0.0403 0.0509 0.0617 0.0728 0.0841 0.0956 0.1074 30 1.05883 0.0292 0.0394 0.0497 0.0603 0.0711 0.0821 0.0934 0.1049 40 1.08324 0.0286 0.0385 0.0486 0.0589 0.0695 0.0803 0.0913 0.1026 50 1.10765 0.0279 0.0376 0.0475 0.0576 0.0680 0.0785 0.0893 0.1003 60 1.13206 0.0273 0.0368 0.0465 0.0564 0.0665 0.0768 0.0874 0.0981 70 1.15647 0.0267 0.0360 0.0455 0.0552 0.0651 0.0752 0.0855 0.0961 80 1.18088 0.0262 0.0353 0.0446 0.0541 0.0637 0.0736 0.0838 0.0941 90 1.20529 0.0257 0.0346 0.0437 0.0530 0.0624 0.0721 0.0821 0.0922 100 1.22970 0.0252 0.0339 0.0428 0.0519 0.0612 0.0707 0.0804 0.0904 110 1.25411 0.0247 0.0332 0.0420 0.0509 0.0600 0.0693 0.0789 0.0886 120 1.27852 0.0242 0.0326 0.0412 0.0499 0.0589 0.0680 0.0774 0.0869 130 1.30293 0.0237 0.0320 0.0404 0.0490 0.0578 0.0667 0.0759 0.0853 140 1.32734 0.0233 0.0314 0.0397 0.0481 0.0567 0.0655 0.0745 0.0837 150 1.35175 0.0229 0.0308 0.0389 0.0472 0.0557 0.0643 0.0732 0.0822 160 1.37616 0.0225 0.0303 0.0382 0.0464 0.0547 0.0632 0.0719 0.0807 170 1.40057 0.0221 0.0297 0.0376 0.0456 0.0537 0.0621 0.0706 0.0793 180 1.42498 0.0217 0.0292 0.0369 0.0448 0.0528 0.0610 0.0694 0.0780 190 1.44939 0.0213 0.0287 0.0363 0.0440 0.0519 0.0600 0.0682 0.0767 200 1.47380 0.0210 0.0283 0.0357 0.0433 0.0511 0.0590 0.0671 0.0754 210 1.49821 0.0206 0.0278 0.0351 0.0426 0.0502 0.0580 0.0660 0.0742 220 1.52262 0.0203 0.0274 0.0346 0.0419 0.0494 0.0571 0.0650 0.0730

aThe manufacturer's listing specifies the temperature range for the operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of FK-5-1-12 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.9856 + 0.002441t, where t is the temperature (°F). 299 of 371

150 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of FK-5-1-12 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(b) FK-5-1-12 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3)b Temp(t) Specific Vapor Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°C)c (m3/kg)d 345678910 −20 0.0609140 0.5077 0.6840 0.8640 1.0479 1.2357 1.4275 1.6236 1.8241 −15 0.6022855 0.4965 0.6690 0.8450 1.0248 1.2084 1.3961 1.5879 1.7839 −10 0.0636570 0.4859 0.6545 0.8268 1.0027 1.1824 1.3660 1.5337 1.7455 −5 0.0650285 0.4756 0.6407 0.8094 0.9816 1.1575 1.3372 1.5209 1.7087 0 0.0664000 0.4658 0.6275 0.7926 0.9613 1.1336 1.3096 1.4895 1.6734 5 0.0677715 0.4564 0.6148 0.7766 0.9418 1.1106 1.2831 1.4593 1.6395 10 0.0691430 0.4473 0.6026 0.7612 0.9232 1.0886 1.2576 1.4304 1.6070 15 0.0705145 0.4386 0.5909 0.7464 0.9052 1.0674 1.2332 1.4026 1.5757 20 0.0718860 0.4302 0.5796 0.7322 0.8879 1.0471 1.2096 1.3758 1.5457 25 0.0732575 0.4222 0.5688 0.7184 0.8713 1.0275 1.1870 1.3500 1.5167 30 0.0746290 0.4144 0.5583 0.7052 0.8553 1.0086 1.1652 1.3252 1.4888 35 0.0760005 0.4069 0.5482 0.6925 0.8399 0.9904 1.1442 1.3013 1.4620 40 0.0773720 0.3997 0.5385 0.6802 0.8250 0.9728 1.1239 1.2783 1.4361 45 0.0787435 0.3928 0.5291 0.6684 0.8106 0.9559 1.1043 1.2560 1.4111 50 0.0801150 0.3860 0.5201 0.6570 0.7967 0.9395 1.0854 1.2345 1.3869 55 0.0814865 0.3795 0.5113 0.6459 0.7833 0.9237 1.0671 1.2137 1.3636 60 0.0828580 0.3733 0.5029 0.6352 0.7704 0.9084 1.0495 1.1936 1.3410 65 0.0842295 0.3672 0.4947 0.6249 0.7578 0.8936 1.0324 1.1742 1.3191 70 0.0856010 0.3613 0.4868 0.6148 0.7457 0.8793 1.0158 1.1554 1.2980 75 0.0869725 0.3556 0.4791 0.6052 0.7339 0.8654 0.9998 1.1372 1.2775 80 0.0883440 0.3501 0.4716 0.5958 0.7225 0.8520 0.9843 1.1195 1.2577 85 0.0897155 0.3447 0.4644 0.5866 0.7115 0.8390 0.9692 1.1024 1.2385 90 0.0910870 0.3395 0.4574 0.5778 0.7008 0.8263 0.9547 1.0858 1.2198 95 0.0924585 0.3345 0.4507 0.5692 0.6904 0.8141 0.9405 1.0697 1.2017 100 0.0938300 0.3296 0.4441 0.5609 0.6803 0.8022 0.9267 1.0540 1.1842

aThe manufacturer's listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of FK-5-1-12 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.0664 + 0.0002741t, where t is the temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of FK-5-1-12 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(c) HCFC Blend A Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 8.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 −50 3.2192 0.0292 0.0307 0.0345 0.0384 0.0424 0.0464 0.0506 0.0548 300 of 371

151 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 8.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 −40 3.2978 0.0285 0.0300 0.0337 0.0375 0.0414 0.0453 0.0494 0.0535 −30 3.3763 0.0279 0.0293 0.0329 0.0366 0.0404 0.0443 0.0482 0.0523 −20 3.4549 0.0272 0.0286 0.0322 0.0358 0.0395 0.0433 0.0471 0.0511 −10 3.5335 0.0261 0.0280 0.0314 0.035 0.0386 0.0423 0.0461 0.0499 0 3.6121 0.0260 0.0274 0.0308 0.0342 0.0378 0.0414 0.0451 0.0489 10 3.6906 0.0255 0.0268 0.0301 0.0335 0.0369 0.0405 0.0441 0.0478 20 3.7692 0.0250 0.0262 0.0295 0.0328 0.0362 0.0396 0.0432 0.0468 30 3.8478 0.0245 0.0257 0.0289 0.0321 0.0354 0.0388 0.0423 0.0459 40 3.9264 0.0240 0.0252 0.0283 0.0315 0.0347 0.0381 0.0415 0.0449 50 4.0049 0.0235 0.0247 0.0277 0.0309 0.0340 0.0373 0.0406 0.0441 60 4.0835 0.0230 0.0242 0.0272 0.0303 0.0334 0.0366 0.0399 0.0432 70 4.1621 0.0226 0.0238 0.0267 0.0297 0.0328 0.0359 0.0391 0.0424 80 4.2407 0.0222 0.0233 0.0262 0.0291 0.0322 0.0352 0.0384 0.0416 90 4.3192 0.0218 0.0229 0.0257 0.0286 0.0316 0.0346 0.0377 0.0409 100 4.3978 0.0214 0.0225 0.0253 0.0281 0.0310 0.0340 0.0370 0.0401 110 4.4764 0.0210 0.0221 0.0248 0.0276 0.0305 0.0334 0.0364 0.0394 120 4.5550 0.0207 0.0217 0.0244 0.0271 0.0299 0.0328 0.0357 0.0387 130 4.6336 0.0203 0.0213 0.0240 0.0267 0.0294 0.0322 0.0351 0.0381 140 4.7121 0.0200 0.0210 0.0236 0.0262 0.0289 0.0317 0.0345 0.0375 150 4.7907 0.0196 0.0206 0.0232 0.0258 0.0285 0.0312 0.0340 0.0368 160 4.8693 0.0193 0.0203 0.0228 0.0254 0.0280 0.0307 0.0334 0.0362 170 4.9479 0.0190 0.0200 0.0225 0.0250 0.0276 0.0302 0.0329 0.0357 180 5.0264 0.0187 0.0197 0.0221 0.0246 0.0271 0.0297 0.0324 0.0351 190 5.1050 0.0184 0.0194 0.0218 0.0242 0.0267 0.0293 0.0319 0.0346 200 5.1836 0.0182 0.0191 0.0214 0.0238 0.0263 0.0288 0.0314 0.0340

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HCFC Blend A vapor can be approximated by s = 3.612 + 0.0079t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HCFC Blend A in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(d) HCFC Blend A Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 8.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 −50 0.1971 0.4774 0.5018 0.5638 0.6271 0.6919 0.7582 0.8260 0.8954 −45 0.2015 0.4669 0.4908 0.5514 0.6134 0.6767 0.7415 0.8079 0.8758 −40 0.2059 0.4569 0.4803 0.5396 0.6002 0.6622 0.7256 0.7906 0.8570

301 of 371

152 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 8.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 −35 0.2103 0.4473 0.4702 0.5283 0.5876 0.6483 0.7104 0.7740 0.8390 −30 0.2148 0.4381 0.4605 0.5174 0.5755 0.6350 0.6958 0.7580 0.8217 −25 0.2192 0.4293 0.4513 0.507 0.5639 0.6222 0.6818 0.7428 0.8052 −20 0.2236 0.4208 0.4423 0.497 0.5528 0.6099 0.6683 0.7281 0.7893 −15 0.2280 0.4127 0.4338 0.4873 0.5421 0.5981 0.6554 0.7140 0.7740 −10 0.2324 0.4048 0.4255 0.4781 0.5318 0.5867 0.6429 0.7004 0.7593 −5 0.2368 0.3973 0.4176 0.4692 0.5219 0.5758 0.6309 0.6874 0.7451 0 0.2412 0.3900 0.4100 0.4606 0.5123 0.5652 0.6194 0.6748 0.7315 5 0.2457 0.3830 0.4026 0.4523 0.5031 0.5551 0.6083 0.6627 0.7183 10 0.2501 0.3762 0.3955 0.4443 0.4942 0.5453 0.5975 0.6510 0.7057 15 0.2545 0.3697 0.3886 0.4366 0.4856 0.5358 0.5871 0.6397 0.6934 20 0.2589 0.3634 0.3820 0.4291 0.4774 0.5267 0.5771 0.6288 0.6816 25 0.2633 0.3573 0.3756 0.422 0.4694 0.5178 0.5675 0.6182 0.6702 30 0.2677 0.3514 0.3694 0.415 0.4616 0.5093 0.5581 0.6080 0.6591 35 0.2722 0.3457 0.3634 0.4083 0.4541 0.5010 0.5490 0.5981 0.6484 40 0.2766 0.3402 0.3576 0.4017 0.4469 0.4930 0.5403 0.5886 0.6381 45 0.2810 0.3349 0.3520 0.3954 0.4399 0.4853 0.5318 0.5793 0.6280 50 0.2854 0.3297 0.3465 0.3893 0.4331 0.4778 0.5236 0.5704 0.6183 55 0.2898 0.3247 0.3412 0.3834 0.4265 0.4705 0.5156 0.5617 0.6089 60 0.2942 0.3198 0.3361 0.3776 0.4201 0.4634 0.5078 0.5533 0.5998 65 0.2987 0.3151 0.3312 0.372 0.4138 0.4566 0.5003 0.5451 0.5909 70 0.3031 0.3105 0.3263 0.3666 0.4078 0.4499 0.4930 0.5371 0.5823 75 0.3075 0.3060 0.3216 0.3614 0.4020 0.4435 0.4860 0.5294 0.5739 80 0.3119 0.3017 0.3171 0.3562 0.3963 0.4372 0.4791 0.5219 0.5658 85 0.3163 0.2975 0.3127 0.3513 0.3907 0.4311 0.4724 0.5146 0.5579 90 0.3207 0.2934 0.3084 0.3464 0.3854 0.4252 0.4659 0.5076 0.5502 95 0.3251 0.2894 0.3042 0.3417 0.3801 0.4194 0.4596 0.5007 0.5427

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HCFC Blend A vapor can be approximated by s = 0.2413 + 0.00088t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HCFC Blend A in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(e) HCFC-124 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3)b Temp(t) Vapor Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°F)c Volume(s) (ft3/lb)d 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 2.4643 0.0214 0.0259 0.0305 0.0353 0.0401 0.0451 0.0502 0.0553

302 of 371

153 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3)b Temp(t) Vapor Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°F)c Volume(s) (ft3/lb)d 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 30 2.5238 0.0209 0.0253 0.0298 0.0345 0.0392 0.0440 0.0490 0.0540 40 2.5826 0.0204 0.0247 0.0291 0.0337 0.0383 0.0430 0.0479 0.0528 50 2.6409 0.0199 0.0242 0.0285 0.0329 0.0374 0.0421 0.0468 0.0516 60 2.6988 0.0195 0.0237 0.0279 0.0322 0.0366 0.0412 0.0458 0.0505 70 2.7563 0.0191 0.0232 0.0273 0.0315 0.0359 0.0403 0.0448 0.0495 80 2.8136 0.0187 0.0227 0.0268 0.0309 0.0352 0.0395 0.0439 0.0485 90 2.8705 0.0183 0.0222 0.0262 0.0303 0.0345 0.0387 0.0431 0.0475 100 2.9272 0.0180 0.0218 0.0257 0.0297 0.0338 0.0380 0.0422 0.0466 110 2.9837 0.0176 0.0214 0.0252 0.0291 0.0331 0.0372 0.0414 0.0457 120 3.0400 0.0173 0.0210 0.0248 0.0286 0.0325 0.0365 0.0407 0.0449 130 3.0961 0.0170 0.0206 0.0243 0.0281 0.0319 0.0359 0.0399 0.0440 140 3.1520 0.0167 0.0203 0.0239 0.0276 0.0314 0.0353 0.0392 0.0433 150 3.2078 0.0164 0.0199 0.0235 0.0271 0.0308 0.0346 0.0385 0.0425 160 3.2635 0.0161 0.0196 0.0231 0.0266 0.0303 0.0340 0.0379 0.0418 170 3.3191 0.0159 0.0192 0.0227 0.0262 0.0298 0.0335 0.0372 0.0411 180 3.3745 0.0156 0.0189 0.0223 0.0258 0.0293 0.0329 0.0366 0.0404 190 3.4298 0.0153 0.0186 0.0219 0.0254 0.0288 0.0324 0.0360 0.0398 200 3.4850 0.0151 0.0183 0.0216 0.0250 0.0284 0.0319 0.0355 0.0391

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HCFC-124 vapor can be approximated by s = 2.3580 + 0.0057t where t = temperature in (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HCFC-124 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(f) HCFC-124 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 56789101112 −10 0.1516 0.3472 0.4210 0.6524 0.5736 0.6524 0.7329 0.8153 0.1346 −5 0.1550 0.3396 0.4119 0.6382 0.5612 0.6382 0.7170 0.7976 0.1317 0 0.1583 0.3325 0.4032 0.6248 0.5493 0.6248 0.7019 0.7808 0.1289 5 0.1616 0.3257 0.3950 0.6120 0.5381 0.6120 0.6876 0.7649 0.1263 10 0.1649 0.3192 0.3872 0.5999 0.5274 0.5999 0.6739 0.7497 0.1238 15 0.1681 0.3131 0.3797 0.5883 0.5172 0.5883 0.6609 0.7352 0.1214 20 0.1714 0.3071 0.3725 0.5772 0.5074 0.5772 0.6484 0.7213 0.1191 25 0.1746 0.3015 0.3656 0.5665 0.4981 0.5665 0.6364 0.7080 0.1169 30 0.1778 0.2960 0.3590 0.5563 0.4891 0.5563 0.6250 0.6952 0.1148 35 0.1810 0.2908 0.3527 0.5465 0.4805 0.5465 0.6140 0.6830 0.1128

303 of 371

154 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 56789101112 40 0.1842 0.2858 0.3466 0.5371 0.4722 0.5371 0.6034 0.6712 0.1108 45 0.1873 0.2810 0.3408 0.5280 0.4642 0.5280 0.5932 0.6598 0.1089 50 0.1905 0.2763 0.3351 0.5192 0.4565 0.5192 0.5833 0.6489 0.1071 55 0.1936 0.2718 0.3296 0.5108 0.4491 0.5108 0.5738 0.6383 0.1054 60 0.1968 0.2675 0.3244 0.5026 0.4419 0.5026 0.5646 0.6281 0.1037 65 0.1999 0.2633 0.3193 0.4947 0.4350 0.4947 0.5558 0.6183 0.1021 70 0.2030 0.2592 0.3144 0.4871 0.4283 0.4871 0.5472 0.6087 0.1005 75 0.2062 0.2553 0.3096 0.4797 0.4218 0.4797 0.5390 0.5995 0.0990 80 0.2093 0.2515 0.3050 0.4726 0.4155 0.4726 0.5309 0.5906 0.0975 85 0.2124 0.2478 0.3005 0.4657 0.4094 0.4657 0.5231 0.5819 0.0961 90 0.2155 0.2442 0.2962 0.4589 0.4035 0.4589 0.5156 0.5735 0.0947 95 0.2186 0.2408 0.2920 0.4524 0.3978 0.4524 0.5083 0.5654 0.0934

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HCFC-124 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.1585 + 0.0006t, where t is the temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HCFC-124 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(g) HFC-125 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a 3 b Specific Vapor Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft ) Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (˚F)c (ft3/lb)d 7 8 9 10111213141516 −50 2.3902 0.0315 0.0364 0.0414 0.0465 0.0517 0.0571 0.0625 0.0681 0.0738 0.0797 −40 2.4577 0.0306 0.0354 0.0402 0.0452 0.0503 0.0555 0.0608 0.0662 0.0718 0.0775 −30 2.5246 0.0298 0.0344 0.0392 0.0440 0.0490 0.0540 0.0592 0.0645 0.0699 0.0754 −20 2.5909 0.0291 0.0336 0.0382 0.0429 0.0477 0.0526 0.0577 0.0628 0.0681 0.0735 −10 2.6568 0.0283 0.0327 0.0372 0.0418 0.0465 0.0513 0.0562 0.0613 0.0664 0.0717 0 2.7222 0.0276 0.0319 0.0363 0.0408 0.0454 0.0501 0.0549 0.0598 0.0648 0.0700 10 2.7872 0.0270 0.0312 0.0355 0.0399 0.0443 0.0489 0.0536 0.0584 0.0633 0.0683 20 2.8518 0.0264 0.0305 0.0347 0.0390 0.0433 0.0478 0.0524 0.0571 0.0619 0.0668 30 2.9162 0.0258 0.0298 0.0339 0.0381 0.0424 0.0468 0.0512 0.0558 0.0605 0.0653 40 2.9803 0.0253 0.0292 0.0332 0.0373 0.0415 0.0458 0.0501 0.0546 0.0592 0.0639 50 3.0441 0.0247 0.0286 0.0325 0.0365 0.0406 0.0448 0.0491 0.0535 0.0580 0.0626 60 3.1077 0.0242 0.0280 0.0318 0.0358 0.0398 0.0439 0.0481 0.0524 0.0568 0.0613 70 3.1712 0.0237 0.0274 0.0312 0.0350 0.0390 0.0430 0.0471 0.0513 0.0556 0.0601 80 3.2344 0.0233 0.0269 0.0306 0.0344 0.0382 0.0422 0.0462 0.0503 0.0546 0.0589 90 3.2975 0.0228 0.0264 0.0300 0.0337 0.0375 0.0414 0.0453 0.0494 0.0535 0.0578 100 3.3605 0.0224 0.0259 0.0294 0.0331 0.0368 0.0406 0.0445 0.0484 0.0525 0.0567 110 3.4233 0.0220 0.0254 0.0289 0.0325 0.0361 0.0398 0.0436 0.0476 0.0515 0.0556 304 of 371

155 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

3 b Specific Vapor Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft ) Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (˚F)c (ft3/lb)d 7 8 9 10111213141516 120 3.4859 0.0216 0.0249 0.0284 0.0319 0.0355 0.0391 0.0429 0.0467 0.0506 0.0546 130 3.5485 0.0212 0.0245 0.0279 0.0313 0.0348 0.0384 0.0421 0.0459 0.0497 0.0537 140 3.6110 0.0208 0.0241 0.0274 0.0308 0.0342 0.0378 0.0414 0.0451 0.0489 0.0527 150 3.6734 0.0205 0.0237 0.0269 0.0302 0.0336 0.0371 0.0407 0.0443 0.0480 0.0519 160 3.7357 0.0201 0.0233 0.0265 0.0297 0.0331 0.0365 0.0400 0.0436 0.0472 0.0510 170 3.7979 0.0198 0.0229 0.0260 0.0293 0.0325 0.0359 0.0393 0.0429 0.0465 0.0502 180 3.8600 0.0195 0.0225 0.0256 0.0288 0.0320 0.0353 0.0387 0.0422 0.0457 0.0493 190 3.9221 0.0192 0.0222 0.0252 0.0283 0.0315 0.0348 0.0381 0.0415 0.0450 0.0486 200 3.9841 0.0189 0.0218 0.0248 0.0279 0.0310 0.0342 0.0375 0.0409 0.0443 0.0478

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HFC-125 vapor can be approximated s = 2.7208 + 0.0064t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-125 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(h) HFC-125 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Temp(t) Vapor Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°C)c Volume(s) (m3/kg)d 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 −45 0.1496 0.5030 0.5811 0.6609 0.7425 0.8260 0.9113 0.9986 1.0879 1.1793 1.2729 −40 0.1534 0.4906 0.5668 0.6446 0.7242 0.8055 0.8888 0.9739 1.0610 1.1502 1.2415 −35 0.1572 0.4788 0.5532 0.6292 0.7069 0.7863 0.8675 0.9506 1.0356 1.1227 1.2118 −30 0.1609 0.4677 0.5404 0.6146 0.6905 0.7681 0.8474 0.9286 1.0116 1.0966 1.1837 −25 0.1646 0.4572 0.5282 0.6007 0.6749 0.7507 0.8283 0.9076 0.9888 1.0719 1.1570 −20 0.1683 0.4472 0.5166 0.5876 0.6602 0.7343 0.8102 0.8878 0.9672 1.0485 1.1317 −15 0.1720 0.4377 0.5056 0.5751 0.6461 0.7187 0.7930 0.8689 0.9466 1.0262 1.1076 −10 0.1756 0.4286 0.4952 0.5632 0.6327 0.7038 0.7765 0.8509 0.9270 1.0049 1.0847 −5 0.1792 0.4199 0.4851 0.5518 0.6199 0.6896 0.7608 0.8337 0.9082 0.9845 1.0627 0 0.1829 0.4116 0.4756 0.5409 0.6077 0.6759 0.7458 0.8172 0.8903 0.9651 1.0417 5 0.1865 0.4037 0.4664 0.5304 0.5959 0.6629 0.7314 0.8014 0.8731 0.9465 1.0216 10 0.1900 0.3961 0.4576 0.5204 0.5847 0.6504 0.7176 0.7863 0.8566 0.9286 1.0023 15 0.1936 0.3888 0.4491 0.5108 0.5739 0.6384 0.7043 0.7718 0.8408 0.9115 0.9838 20 0.1972 0.3817 0.4410 0.5016 0.5635 0.6268 0.6916 0.7578 0.8256 0.8950 0.9660 25 0.2007 0.3750 0.4332 0.4927 0.5535 0.6157 0.6793 0.7444 0.8110 0.8791 0.9489 30 0.2043 0.3685 0.4257 0.4841 0.5439 0.6050 0.6675 0.7315 0.7969 0.8639 0.9324 35 0.2078 0.3622 0.4184 0.4759 0.5347 0.5947 0.6562 0.7190 0.7833 0.8492 0.9165 40 0.2114 0.3561 0.4114 0.4679 0.5257 0.5848 0.6452 0.7070 0.7702 0.8349 0.9012 45 0.2149 0.3503 0.4047 0.4603 0.5171 0.5752 0.6346 0.6954 0.7576 0.8213 0.8864 50 0.2184 0.3446 0.3982 0.4528 0.5088 0.5659 0.6244 0.6842 0.7454 0.8080 0.8721 305 of 371

156 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Temp(t) Vapor Design Concentration (% by Volume)e (°C)c Volume(s) (m3/kg)d 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 55 0.2219 0.3392 0.3918 0.4457 0.5007 0.5569 0.6145 0.6733 0.7336 0.7952 0.8583 60 0.2254 0.3339 0.3857 0.4387 0.4929 0.5483 0.6049 0.6628 0.7221 0.7828 0.8449 65 0.2289 0.3288 0.3798 0.4320 0.4853 0.5399 0.5957 0.6527 0.7111 0.7708 0.8320 70 0.2324 0.3238 0.3741 0.4255 0.4780 0.5318 0.5867 0.6429 0.7004 0.7592 0.8195 75 0.2359 0.3190 0.3686 0.4192 0.4709 0.5239 0.5780 0.6333 0.6900 0.7480 0.8073 80 0.2394 0.3144 0.3632 0.4131 0.4641 0.5162 0.5696 0.6241 0.6799 0.7371 0.7956 85 0.2429 0.3099 0.3580 0.4072 0.4574 0.5088 0.5614 0.6151 0.6702 0.7265 0.7841 90 0.2464 0.3055 0.3529 0.4014 0.4509 0.5016 0.5534 0.6064 0.6607 0.7162 0.7730 95 0.2499 0.3012 0.3480 0.3958 0.4447 0.4946 0.5457 0.5980 0.6515 0.7062 0.7623

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HFC-125 vapor can be approximated s = 0.1826 + 0.0007t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-125 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(i) HFC-227ea Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 6789101112131415 10 1.9264 0.0331 0.0391 0.0451 0.0513 0.0570 0.0642 0.0708 0.0776 0.0845 0.0916 20 1.9736 0.0323 0.0381 0.0441 0.0501 0.0563 0.0626 0.0691 0.0757 0.0825 0.0894 30 2.0210 0.0316 0.0372 0.0430 0.0489 0.0550 0.0612 0.0675 0.0739 0.0805 0.0873 40 2.0678 0.0309 0.0364 0.0421 0.0478 0.0537 0.0598 0.0659 0.0723 0.0787 0.0853 50 2.1146 0.0302 0.0356 0.0411 0.0468 0.0525 0.0584 0.0645 0.0707 0.0770 0.0835 60 2.1612 0.0295 0.0348 0.0402 0.0458 0.0514 0.0572 0.0631 0.0691 0.0753 0.0817 70 2.2075 0.0289 0.0341 0.0394 0.0448 0.0503 0.0560 0.0618 0.0677 0.0737 0.0799 80 2.2538 0.0283 0.0334 0.0386 0.0439 0.0493 0.0548 0.0605 0.0663 0.0722 0.0783 90 2.2994 0.0278 0.0327 0.0378 0.0430 0.0483 0.0538 0.0593 0.0650 0.0708 0.0767 100 2.3452 0.0272 0.0321 0.0371 0.0422 0.0474 0.0527 0.0581 0.0637 0.0694 0.0752 110 2.3912 0.0267 0.0315 0.0364 0.0414 0.0465 0.0517 0.0570 0.0625 0.0681 0.0738 120 2.4366 0.0262 0.0309 0.0357 0.0406 0.0456 0.0507 0.0560 0.0613 0.0668 0.0724 130 2.4820 0.0257 0.0303 0.0350 0.0398 0.0448 0.0498 0.0549 0.0602 0.0656 0.0711 140 2.5272 0.0253 0.0298 0.0344 0.0391 0.0440 0.0489 0.0540 0.0591 0.0644 0.0698 150 2.5727 0.0248 0.0293 0.0338 0.0384 0.0432 0.0480 0.0530 0.0581 0.0633 0.0686 160 2.6171 0.0244 0.0288 0.0332 0.0378 0.0425 0.0472 0.0521 0.0571 0.0622 0.0674 170 2.6624 0.0240 0.0283 0.0327 0.0371 0.0417 0.0464 0.0512 0.0561 0.0611 0.0663 180 2.7071 0.0236 0.0278 0.0321 0.0365 0.0410 0.0457 0.0504 0.0552 0.0601 0.0652 190 2.7518 0.0232 0.0274 0.0316 0.0359 0.0404 0.0449 0.0496 0.0543 0.0592 0.0641

306 of 371

157 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 6789101112131415 200 2.7954 0.0228 0.0269 0.0311 0.0354 0.0397 0.0442 0.0488 0.0535 0.0582 0.0631

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HFC-227ea vapor can be approximated by s = 1.885 + 0.0046t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-227ea in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(j) HFC-227ea Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% per Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 6789101112131415 −10 0.1215 0.5254 0.6196 0.7158 0.8142 0.9147 1.0174 1.1225 1.2301 1.3401 1.4527 −5 0.1241 0.5142 0.6064 0.7005 0.7987 0.8951 0.9957 1.0985 1.2038 1.3114 1.4216 0 0.1268 0.5034 0.5936 0.6858 0.7800 0.8763 0.9748 1.0755 1.1785 1.2839 1.3918 5 0.1294 0.4932 0.5816 0.6719 0.7642 0.8586 0.9550 1.0537 1.1546 1.2579 1.3636 10 0.1320 0.4834 0.5700 0.6585 0.7490 0.8414 0.9360 1.0327 1.1316 1.2328 1.3264 15 0.1347 0.4740 0.5589 0.6457 0.7344 0.8251 0.9178 1.0126 1.1096 1.2089 1.3105 20 0.1373 0.4650 0.5483 0.6335 0.7205 0.8094 0.9004 0.9934 1.0886 1.1859 1.2856 25 0.1399 0.4564 0.5382 0.6217 0.7071 0.7944 0.8837 0.9750 1.0684 1.1640 1.2618 30 0.1425 0.4481 0.5284 0.6104 0.6943 0.7800 0.8676 0.9573 1.0490 1.1428 1.2388 35 0.1450 0.4401 0.5190 0.5996 0.6819 0.7661 0.8522 0.9402 1.0303 1.1224 1.2168 40 0.1476 0.4324 0.5099 0.5891 0.6701 0.7528 0.8374 0.9230 1.0124 1.1029 1.1956 45 0.1502 0.4250 0.5012 0.5790 0.6586 0.7399 0.8230 0.9080 0.9950 1.0840 1.1751 50 0.1527 0.4180 0.4929 0.5694 0.6476 0.7276 0.8093 0.8929 0.9784 1.0660 1.1555 55 0.1553 0.4111 0.4847 0.5600 0.6369 0.7156 0.7960 0.8782 0.9623 1.0484 1.1365 60 0.1578 0.4045 0.4770 0.5510 0.6267 0.7041 0.7832 0.8641 0.9469 1.0316 1.1183 65 0.1604 0.3980 0.4694 0.5423 0.6167 0.6929 0.7707 0.8504 0.9318 1.0152 1.1005 70 0.1629 0.3919 0.4621 0.5338 0.6072 0.6821 0.7588 0.8371 0.9173 0.9994 1.0834 75 0.1654 0.3859 0.4550 0.5257 0.5979 0.6717 0.7471 0.8243 0.9033 0.9841 1.0668 80 0.1679 0.3801 0.4482 0.5178 0.5890 0.6617 0.7360 0.8120 0.8898 0.9694 1.0509 85 0.1704 0.3745 0.4416 0.5102 0.5803 0.6519 0.7251 0.8000 0.8767 0.9551 1.0354 90 0.1730 0.3690 0.4351 0.5027 0.5717 0.6423 0.7145 0.7883 0.8638 0.9411 1.0202

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

307 of 371

158 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HFC-227ea vapor can be approximated by s = 0.1269 + 0.0005t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-227ea in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(k) HFC-23 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 −70 3.9636 0.0280 0.0344 0.0411 0.0445 0.0481 0.0517 0.0554 0.0592 0.0631 0.0712 −60 4.0752 0.0273 0.0335 0.0399 0.0433 0.0467 0.0503 0.0539 0.0576 0.0613 0.0692 −50 4.1859 0.0265 0.0326 0.0389 0.0422 0.0455 0.0489 0.0524 0.0560 0.0597 0.0674 −40 4.2959 0.0259 0.0317 0.0379 0.0411 0.0443 0.0477 0.0511 0.0546 0.0582 0.0657 −30 4.4053 0.0252 0.0310 0.0370 0.0401 0.0432 0.0465 0.0498 0.0532 0.0567 0.0640 −20 4.5151 0.0246 0.0302 0.0361 0.0391 0.0422 0.0454 0.0486 0.0520 0.0554 0.0625 −10 4.6225 0.0240 0.0295 0.0352 0.0382 0.0412 0.0443 0.0475 0.0507 0.0541 0.0610 0 4.7305 0.0235 0.0288 0.0344 0.0373 0.0403 0.0433 0.0464 0.0496 0.0528 0.0596 10 4.8383 0.0230 0.0282 0.0336 0.0365 0.0394 0.0423 0.0454 0.0485 0.0517 0.0583 20 4.9457 0.0225 0.0276 0.0329 0.0357 0.0385 0.0414 0.0444 0.0474 0.0505 0.0570 30 5.0529 0.0220 0.0270 0.0322 0.0349 0.0377 0.0405 0.0434 0.0464 0.0495 0.0558 40 5.1599 0.0215 0.0264 0.0315 0.0342 0.0369 0.0397 0.0425 0.0455 0.0485 0.0547 50 5.2666 0.0211 0.0259 0.0309 0.0335 0.0362 0.0389 0.0417 0.0445 0.0475 0.0536 60 5.3733 0.0207 0.0254 0.0303 0.0328 0.0354 0.0381 0.0409 0.0437 0.0465 0.0525 70 5.4797 0.0203 0.0249 0.0297 0.0322 0.0348 0.0374 0.0401 0.0428 0.0456 0.0515 80 5.5860 0.0199 0.0244 0.0291 0.0316 0.0341 0.0367 0.0393 0.0420 0.0448 0.0505 90 5.6922 0.0195 0.0240 0.0286 0.0310 0.0335 0.0360 0.0386 0.0412 0.0439 0.0496 100 5.7983 0.0192 0.0235 0.0281 0.0304 0.0329 0.0353 0.0379 0.0405 0.0431 0.0486 110 5.9043 0.0188 0.0231 0.0276 0.0299 0.0323 0.0347 0.0372 0.0397 0.0423 0.0478 120 6.0102 0.0185 0.0227 0.0271 0.0294 0.0317 0.0341 0.0365 0.0390 0.0416 0.0469 130 6.1160 0.0182 0.0223 0.0266 0.0289 0.0311 0.0335 0.0359 0.0384 0.0409 0.0461 140 6.2217 0.0179 0.0219 0.0262 0.0284 0.0306 0.0329 0.0353 0.0377 0.0402 0.0453 150 6.3274 0.0176 0.0216 0.0257 0.0279 0.0301 0.0324 0.0347 0.0371 0.0395 0.0446 160 6.4330 0.0173 0.0212 0.0253 0.0274 0.0296 0.0318 0.0341 0.0365 0.0389 0.0438 170 6.5385 0.0170 0.0209 0.0249 0.0270 0.0291 0.0313 0.0336 0.0359 0.0382 0.0431 180 6.6440 0.0167 0.0205 0.0245 0.0266 0.0287 0.0308 0.0330 0.0353 0.0376 0.0424 190 6.7494 0.0165 0.0202 0.0241 0.0261 0.0282 0.0303 0.0325 0.0348 0.0370 0.0418

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HFC-23 vapor can be approximated by s = 4.7264 + 0.0107t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-23 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(l) HFC-23 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a 308 of 371

159 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3)b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 −60 0.2432 0.4568 0.5606 0.6693 0.7255 0.7831 0.8421 0.9025 0.9644 1.0278 1.1596 1.2983 −55 0.2495 0.4453 0.5465 0.6524 0.7072 0.7633 0.8208 0.8797 0.9400 1.0018 1.1303 1.2655 −50 0.2558 0.4344 0.5331 0.6364 0.6899 0.7446 0.8007 0.8581 0.9170 0.9773 1.1026 1.2345 −45 0.2620 0.4241 0.5205 0.6213 0.6735 0.7270 0.7817 0.8378 0.8953 0.9542 1.0765 1.2053 −40 0.2682 0.4143 0.5085 0.6070 0.6580 0.7102 0.7637 0.8185 0.8746 0.9322 1.0517 1.1775 −35 0.2743 0.4050 0.4971 0.5934 0.6433 0.6943 0.7466 0.8002 0.8551 0.9113 1.0281 1.1511 −30 0.2805 0.3962 0.4862 0.5805 0.6292 0.6792 0.7303 0.7827 0.8364 0.8914 1.0057 1.1260 −25 0.2866 0.3878 0.4759 0.5681 0.6158 0.6647 0.7148 0.7661 0.8186 0.8724 0.9843 1.1020 −20 0.2926 0.3797 0.4660 0.5563 0.6031 0.6509 0.6999 0.7502 0.8016 0.8544 0.9639 1.0792 −15 0.2987 0.3720 0.4566 0.5450 0.5908 0.6377 0.6857 0.7349 0.7853 0.8370 0.9443 1.0573 −10 0.3047 0.3646 0.4475 0.5342 0.5791 0.6251 0.6721 0.7203 0.7698 0.8204 0.9256 1.0363 −5 0.3108 0.3575 0.4388 0.5238 0.5679 0.6129 0.6591 0.7064 0.7548 0.8045 0.9076 1.0162 0 0.3168 0.3508 0.4305 0.5139 0.5571 0.6013 0.6466 0.6929 0.7405 0.7892 0.8904 0.9969 5 0.3228 0.3442 0.4225 0.5043 0.5467 0.5901 0.6345 0.6800 0.7267 0.7745 0.8738 0.9783 10 0.3288 0.3379 0.4147 0.4951 0.5367 0.5793 0.6229 0.6676 0.7134 0.7604 0.8578 0.9605 15 0.3348 0.3319 0.4073 0.4863 0.5271 0.5690 0.6118 0.6557 0.7007 0.7468 0.8425 0.9433 20 0.3408 0.3261 0.4002 0.4777 0.5179 0.5590 0.6011 0.6442 0.6884 0.7337 0.8277 0.9267 25 0.3467 0.3204 0.3933 0.4695 0.5089 0.5493 0.5907 0.6331 0.6765 0.7210 0.8134 0.9107 30 0.3527 0.3150 0.3866 0.4616 0.5003 0.5401 0.5807 0.6224 0.6651 0.7088 0.7997 0.8953 35 0.3587 0.3098 0.3802 0.4539 0.4920 0.5311 0.5711 0.6120 0.6540 0.6970 0.7864 0.8804 40 0.3646 0.3047 0.3740 0.4465 0.4840 0.5224 0.5617 0.6020 0.6433 0.6856 0.7735 0.8661 45 0.3706 0.2998 0.3680 0.4393 0.4762 0.5140 0.5527 0.5923 0.6330 0.6746 0.7611 0.8521 50 0.3765 0.2951 0.3622 0.4323 0.4687 0.5059 0.5440 0.5830 0.6230 0.6640 0.7491 0.8387 55 0.3825 0.2905 0.3565 0.4256 0.4614 0.4980 0.5355 0.5739 0.6133 0.6536 0.7374 0.8257 60 0.3884 0.2861 0.3511 0.4191 0.4543 0.4904 0.5273 0.5652 0.6039 0.6436 0.7262 0.8130 65 0.3944 0.2818 0.3458 0.4128 0.4475 0.4830 0.5194 0.5566 0.5948 0.6340 0.7152 0.8008 70 0.4003 0.2776 0.3407 0.4067 0.4409 0.4759 0.5117 0.5484 0.5860 0.6246 0.7046 0.7889

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HFC-23 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.3164 + 0.0012t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-23 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(m) HFC-236fa Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp (t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 567891011121314 30 2.2454 0.0234 0.0284 0.0335 0.0387 0.0440 0.0495 0.0550 0.0607 0.0665 0.0725

309 of 371

160 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp (t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 567891011121314 40 2.2997 0.0229 0.0278 0.0327 0.0378 0.0430 0.0483 0.0537 0.0593 0.0650 0.0708 50 2.3533 0.0224 0.0271 0.0320 0.0370 0.0420 0.0472 0.0525 0.0579 0.0635 0.0692 60 2.4064 0.0219 0.0265 0.0313 0.0361 0.0411 0.0462 0.0514 0.0567 0.0621 0.0676 70 2.4591 0.0214 0.0260 0.0306 0.0354 0.0402 0.0452 0.0503 0.0555 0.0608 0.0662 80 2.5114 0.0210 0.0254 0.0300 0.0346 0.0394 0.0442 0.0492 0.0543 0.0595 0.0648 90 2.5633 0.0205 0.0249 0.0294 0.0339 0.0386 0.0433 0.0482 0.0532 0.0583 0.0635 100 2.6150 0.0201 0.0244 0.0288 0.0333 0.0378 0.0425 0.0473 0.0521 0.0571 0.0623 110 2.6663 0.0197 0.0239 0.0282 0.0326 0.0371 0.0417 0.0464 0.0511 0.0560 0.0611 120 2.7174 0.0194 0.0235 0.0277 0.0320 0.0364 0.0409 0.0455 0.0502 0.0550 0.0599 130 2.7683 0.0190 0.0231 0.0272 0.0314 0.0357 0.0401 0.0446 0.0493 0.0540 0.0588 140 2.8190 0.0187 0.0226 0.0267 0.0308 0.0351 0.0394 0.0438 0.0484 0.0530 0.0577 150 2.8695 0.0183 0.0222 0.0262 0.0303 0.0345 0.0387 0.0431 0.0475 0.0521 0.0567 160 2.9199 0.0180 0.0219 0.0258 0.0298 0.0339 0.0381 0.0423 0.0467 0.0512 0.0558 170 2.9701 0.0177 0.0215 0.0253 0.0293 0.0333 0.0374 0.0416 0.0459 0.0503 0.0548 180 3.0202 0.0174 0.0211 0.0249 0.0288 0.0327 0.0368 0.0409 0.0452 0.0495 0.0539 190 3.0702 0.0171 0.0208 0.0245 0.0283 0.0322 0.0362 0.0403 0.0444 0.0487 0.0530 200 3.1201 0.0169 0.0205 0.0241 0.0279 0.0317 0.0356 0.0396 0.0437 0.0479 0.0522

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HFC-236fa vapor can be approximated by s = 2.0983 + 0.0051t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-236fa in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(n) HFC-236fa Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

3 b Temp Specific Vapor Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m ) Volume (s) (t) Design Concentration (% by volume)e (°C) (m3/kg)d 567891011121314 0 0.1409 0.3736 0.4531 0.5344 0.6173 0.7021 0.7888 0.8774 0.9681 1.0608 1.1557 5 0.1439 0.3658 0.4436 0.5231 0.6043 0.6873 0.7721 0.8589 0.9476 1.0384 1.1313 10 0.1469 0.3583 0.4345 0.5123 0.5919 0.6732 0.7563 0.8413 0.9282 1.0171 1.1081 15 0.1499 0.3511 0.4258 0.5021 0.5801 0.6598 0.7412 0.8245 0.9097 0.9968 1.0860 20 0.1529 0.3443 0.4176 0.4924 0.5689 0.6470 0.7269 0.8086 0.8921 0.9775 1.0650 25 0.1558 0.3378 0.4097 0.4831 0.5581 0.6348 0.7131 0.7932 0.8752 0.9590 1.0448 30 0.1587 0.3316 0.4021 0.4742 0.5478 0.6231 0.7000 0.7787 0.8591 0.9414 1.0256 35 0.1616 0.3256 0.3949 0.4657 0.5380 0.6119 0.6874 0.7646 0.8436 0.9244 1.0071 40 0.1645 0.3199 0.3880 0.4575 0.5285 0.6011 0.6753 0.7512 0.8288 0.9082 0.9894 45 0.1674 0.3144 0.3813 0.4496 0.5194 0.5908 0.6637 0.7383 0.8145 0.8926 0.9724 50 0.1703 0.3091 0.3749 0.4420 0.5107 0.5808 0.6525 0.7258 0.8008 0.8775 0.9560 55 0.1731 0.3040 0.3687 0.4347 0.5022 0.5712 0.6417 0.7138 0.7876 0.8630 0.9402 310 of 371

161 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

3 b Temp Specific Vapor Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m ) (t) Volume (s) Design Concentration (% by volume)e (°C) (m3/kg)d 567891011121314 60 0.1760 0.2991 0.3627 0.4277 0.4941 0.5620 0.6313 0.7023 0.7748 0.8491 0.9250 65 0.1788 0.2943 0.3569 0.4209 0.4863 0.5531 0.6214 0.6912 0.7626 0.8356 0.9104 70 0.1817 0.2897 0.3514 0.4143 0.4787 0.5444 0.6116 0.6804 0.7507 0.8226 0.8961 75 0.1845 0.2853 0.3460 0.4080 0.4714 0.5361 0.6023 0.6700 0.7392 0.8100 0.8824 80 0.1873 0.2810 0.3408 0.4019 0.4643 0.5280 0.5932 0.6599 0.7280 0.7978 0.8691 85 0.1901 0.2768 0.3358 0.3959 0.4574 0.5202 0.5845 0.6501 0.7173 0.7860 0.8563 90 0.1929 0.2728 0.3309 0.3902 0.4508 0.5127 0.5760 0.6407 0.7069 0.7746 0.8439 95 0.1957 0.2689 0.3261 0.3846 0.4443 0.5053 0.5677 0.6315 0.6968 0.7635 0.8318

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HFC-236fa vapor can be approximated by s = 0.1413 + 0.0006t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC-236fa in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(o) FIC-13I1 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (lb/ft3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume (s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 345678910 0 1.6826 0.0184 0.0248 0.0313 0.0379 0.0447 0.0517 0.0588 0.0660 10 1.7264 0.0179 0.0241 0.0305 0.0370 0.0436 0.0504 0.0573 0.0644 20 1.7703 0.0175 0.0235 0.0297 0.0361 0.0425 0.0491 0.0559 0.0628 30 1.8141 0.0170 0.0230 0.0290 0.0352 0.0415 0.0479 0.0545 0.0612 40 1.8580 0.0166 0.0224 0.0283 0.0344 0.0405 0.0468 0.0532 0.0598 50 1.9019 0.0163 0.0219 0.0277 0.0336 0.0396 0.0457 0.0520 0.0584 60 1.9457 0.0159 0.0214 0.0270 0.0328 0.0387 0.0447 0.0508 0.0571 70 1.9896 0.0155 0.0209 0.0265 0.0321 0.0378 0.0437 0.0497 0.0558 80 2.0335 0.0152 0.0205 0.0259 0.0314 0.0370 0.0428 0.0486 0.0546 90 2.0773 0.0149 0.0201 0.0253 0.0307 0.0362 0.0419 0.0476 0.0535 100 2.1212 0.0146 0.0196 0.0248 0.0301 0.0355 0.0410 0.0466 0.0524 110 2.1650 0.0143 0.0192 0.0243 0.0295 0.0348 0.0402 0.0457 0.0513 120 2.2089 0.0140 0.0189 0.0238 0.0289 0.0341 0.0394 0.0448 0.0503 130 2.2528 0.0137 0.0185 0.0234 0.0283 0.0334 0.0386 0.0439 0.0493 140 2.2966 0.0135 0.0181 0.0229 0.0278 0.0328 0.0379 0.0431 0.0484 150 2.3405 0.0132 0.0178 0.0225 0.0273 0.0322 0.0372 0.0423 0.0475 160 2.3843 0.0130 0.0175 0.0221 0.0268 0.0316 0.0365 0.0415 0.0466 170 2.4282 0.0127 0.0172 0.0217 0.0263 0.0310 0.0358 0.0407 0.0458 180 2.4721 0.0125 0.0169 0.0213 0.0258 0.0304 0.0352 0.0400 0.0449 190 2.5159 0.0123 0.0166 0.0209 0.0254 0.0299 0.0346 0.0393 0.0442 200 2.5598 0.0121 0.0163 0.0206 0.0249 0.0294 0.0340 0.0386 0.0434 311 of 371

162 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of FIC-13I1 vapor can be approximated by s = 1.683 + 0.0044t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of FIC-13I1 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(p) FIC-13I1 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units)a

Specific Weight Requirements of Hazard Volume, W/V (kg/m3) b Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Design Concentration (% by Volume) (°C)c (m3/kg)d 345678910 −40 0.0938 0.3297 0.4442 0.5611 0.6805 0.8024 0.9270 1.0544 1.1846 −30 0.0988 0.3130 0.4217 0.5327 0.6461 0.7618 0.8801 1.0010 1.1246 −20 0.1038 0.2980 0.4014 0.5070 0.6149 0.7251 0.8377 0.9528 1.0704 −10 0.1088 0.2843 0.3830 0.4837 0.5867 0.6918 0.7992 0.9090 1.0212 0 0.1138 0.2718 0.3661 0.4625 0.5609 0.6614 0.7641 0.8691 0.9764 10 0.1188 0.2603 0.3507 0.4430 0.5373 0.6336 0.7320 0.8325 0.9353 20 0.1238 0.2498 0.3366 0.4251 0.5156 0.6080 0.7024 0.7989 0.8975 30 0.1288 0.2401 0.3235 0.4086 0.4956 0.5844 0.6751 0.7679 0.8627 40 0.1338 0.2311 0.3114 0.3934 0.4771 0.5625 0.6499 0.7392 0.8304 50 0.1388 0.2228 0.3002 0.3792 0.4599 0.5423 0.6265 0.7125 0.8005 60 0.1438 0.2151 0.2898 0.3660 0.4439 0.5234 0.6047 0.6878 0.7727 70 0.1488 0.2078 0.2800 0.3537 0.4290 0.5058 0.5844 0.6647 0.7467 80 0.1538 0.2011 0.2709 0.3422 0.4150 0.4894 0.5654 0.6431 0.7224 90 0.1588 0.1948 0.2624 0.3314 0.4020 0.4740 0.5476 0.6228 0.6997 100 0.1638 0.1888 0.2544 0.3213 0.3897 0.4595 0.5309 0.6038 0.6783

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilograms required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of FIC-13I1 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.1138 + 0.0005t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of FIC-13I1 in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(q) HFC Blend B Total Flooding Quantity Table (U.S. Units)a

Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (lb/ft3)b Specific Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Concentration (% by volume) (°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 312 of 371

163 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (lb/ft3)b Specific Vapor e Temp(t) Volume(s) Concentration (% by volume) (°F)c (ft3/lb)d 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 −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

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

b W/V [agent weight requirement (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°F)] = the design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of HFC Blend B vapor can be approximated by s = 3.2402 + 0.0069t, where t = temperature (°F).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC Blend B in air at the temperature indicated.

Table A.5.5.1(r) HFC Blend B Total Flooding Quantity Table (SI Units)a

3 b Temp Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (kg/m ) Specific Vapor Volume (s) (t) e (m3/kg)d Concentration (% by volume) (°C)c 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

313 of 371

164 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

3 b Temp Weight Requirement of Hazard Volume W/V (kg/m ) Specific Vapor Volume (s) (t) e (m3/kg)d Concentration (% by volume) (°C)c 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 0.3513 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

aThe manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation.

bW/V [agent weight requirement (kg/m3)] = kilograms of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

ct [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the hazard area.

ds [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of HFC Blend B vapor can be approximated by s = 0.2172 + 0.0009t, where t = temperature (°C).

eC [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of HFC Blend B in air at the temperature indicated.

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_A_5_5_1.docx Addition of flooding quantities for new agent table A 5.5.1 (s) and (t).

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition of flooding quantities for new agent table A 5.5.1 (s) and (t).

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State:

314 of 371

165 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 13:07:41 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

315 of 371

166 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. A.5.5.1 ]

Table A.5.5.1(s) Halocarbon Blend 55 Total Flooding Quantity (U.S. Units)

Specific Temperature vapour Halocarbon Blend 55 mass requirements per unit volume of protected space, m/V (lb/ft3) volume s T Design concentration (by volume)

°F ft3/lb 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 10 1.8335 0.0227 0.0287 0.0348 0.0411 0.0474 0.0539 0.0606 20 1.8708 0.0223 0.0281 0.0341 0.0402 0.0465 0.0529 0.0594 30 1.9080 0.0218 0.0276 0.0335 0.0394 0.0456 0.0518 0.0582 40 1.9453 0.0214 0.0271 0.0328 0.0387 0.0447 0.0508 0.0571 50 1.9825 0.0210 0.0265 0.0322 0.0380 0.0439 0.0499 0.0560 60 2.0198 0.0206 0.0261 0.0316 0.0373 0.0431 0.0490 0.0550 70 2.0571 0.0203 0.0256 0.0310 0.0366 0.0423 0.0481 0.0540 100 2.0943 0.0199 0.0251 0.0305 0.0359 0.0415 0.0472 0.0531 110 2.1316 0.0195 0.0247 0.0299 0.0353 0.0408 0.0464 0.0521 120 2.1688 0.0192 0.0243 0.0294 0.0347 0.0401 0.0456 0.0512 130 2.2061 0.0189 0.0239 0.0289 0.0341 0.0394 0.0448 0.0504 140 2.2433 0.0186 0.0235 0.0285 0.0336 0.0388 0.0441 0.0495 150 2.2806 0.0183 0.0231 0.0280 0.0330 0.0381 0.0434 0.0487 160 2.3178 0.0180 0.0227 0.0275 0.0325 0.0375 0.0427 0.0479 170 2.3551 0.0177 0.0223 0.0271 0.0320 0.0369 0.0420 0.0472 180 2.3924 0.0174 0.0220 0.0267 0.0315 0.0363 0.0413 0.0464 190 2.4296 0.0171 0.0217 0.0263 0.0310 0.0358 0.0407 0.0457 200 2.4669 0.0169 0.0213 0.0259 0.0305 0.0352 0.0401 0.0450

The manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation. W/V [agent weight requirements (lb/ft3)] = pounds of agent required per cubic foot of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

= 100 𝑉𝑉 𝐶𝐶 𝑊𝑊 ∗ � − 𝐶𝐶� 𝑠𝑠 t [temperature (°F)] = design temperature in the hazard area. s [specific volume (ft3/lb)] = specific volume of Blend 55 vapor can be approximated by s = 1.777639 + 0.003726 t where t = temperature in (°F).

C [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of Blend 55 in air at the temperature indicated.

316 of 371

Table A.5.5.1(t) Halocarbon Blend 55 Total Flooding Quantity (SI Units) Specific Temperature vapour Halocarbon Blend 55 mass requirements per unit volume of protected space, m/V (kg/m3) volume s T Design concentration (by volume)

°C m3/kg 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% -10 0.1122 0.3713 0.4690 0.5688 0.6707 0.7748 0.8813 0.9901 -5 0.1145 0.3640 0.4599 0.5577 0.6576 0.7598 0.8641 0.9708 0 0.1167 0.3571 0.4511 0.5470 0.6451 0.7452 0.8476 0.9523 5 0.1189 0.3504 0.4426 0.5368 0.6330 0.7313 0.8317 0.9344 10 0.1211 0.3440 0.4345 0.5269 0.6214 0.7178 0.8164 0.9172 15 0.1234 0.3378 0.4266 0.5174 0.6101 0.7049 0.8017 0.9007 20 0.1256 0.3318 0.4191 0.5082 0.5993 0.6924 0.7875 0.8847 25 0.1278 0.3260 0.4118 0.4994 0.5889 0.6803 0.7738 0.8693 30 0.1300 0.3204 0.4047 0.4908 0.5788 0.6687 0.7605 0.8544 35 0.1323 0.3150 0.3979 0.4826 0.5690 0.6574 0.7477 0.8400 40 0.1345 0.3098 0.3913 0.4746 0.5596 0.6465 0.7353 0.8261 45 0.1367 0.3047 0.3849 0.4668 0.5505 0.6360 0.7233 0.8126 50 0.1390 0.2999 0.3788 0.4594 0.5417 0.6258 0.7117 0.7996 55 0.1412 0.2951 0.3728 0.4521 0.5331 0.6159 0.7005 0.7870 60 0.1434 0.2905 0.3670 0.4451 0.5248 0.6063 0.6896 0.7748 65 0.1456 0.2861 0.3614 0.4383 0.5168 0.5971 0.6791 0.7629 70 0.1479 0.2818 0.3559 0.4317 0.5090 0.5881 0.6689 0.7514 75 0.1501 0.2776 0.3507 0.4253 0.5015 0.5793 0.6589 0.7403 80 0.1523 0.2735 0.3455 0.4190 0.4941 0.5709 0.6493 0.7295 85 0.1545 0.2696 0.3405 0.4130 0.4870 0.5626 0.6399 0.7189

The manufacturer’s listing specifies the temperature range for operation. W/V [agent weight requirements (kg/m3)] = kilogram of agent required per cubic meter of protected volume to produce indicated concentration at temperature specified.

= 100 𝑉𝑉 𝐶𝐶 𝑊𝑊 ∗ � − 𝐶𝐶� t [temperature (°C)] = design temperature in the𝑠𝑠 hazard area. s [specific volume (m3/kg)] = specific volume of Blend 55 vapor can be approximated by s = 0.11668 + 0.0004455 t where t = temperature in (°C). C [concentration (%)] = volumetric concentration of Blend 55 in air at the temperature indicated.

317 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 46-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. B.19 ]

318 of 371

167 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

B.19 Figures.

319 of 371

168 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure B.19(a) through Figure B.19(f) and Table B.19 illustrate critical components for use in fabricating a standard cup burner system. Figure B.19(a) Cup Burner Assembly (Exploded View).

Figure B.19(b) Cup Burner Assembly (Transparent View).

320 of 371

169 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Figure B.19(c) Cup Material: Quartz [Dimensions in Inches (Millimeters)].

Figure B.19(d) Base, Detail.

In Figure B.19(d) Base, Detail, "R.016 in. (4mm)" should be " R.016 in. (0.4mm) ". Unit conversion error.

3 Figure B.19(e) Base Support Plate, ⁄8 in. (10 mm) Thick.

321 of 371

170 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

In Figure B.19(e) Base Support Plate, 3 ⁄ 8 in. (10 mm) Thick, "7.00 in. (78 mm)" at the bottom should be " 7.00 in. (178 mm) ". Unit conversion error.

Figure B.19(f) Diffuser Bead Support Screen. (Material: 304 SS).

Table B.19 Cup Burner System Major Components

Component Specifications Supplier Cup-burner base Design: Per Figure B.19(d) Custom fabrication

Material: Brass Design: Per Figure Figure B.19(e) Custom fabrication Cup-burner base support plate Material: Brass Chimney 90 mm OD × 85 mm ID × 520 mm National Scientific Company, Inc.,

(nominal) 205 East Paletown Road,

Material: Quartz P.O. Box 498, Quakertown, PA 18951

Cup Design: Per Figure B.19(c) G. Finkenbeiner Inc., 33 Rumford Ave., Waltham, MA 02453, or other laboratory glass fabricator 322 of 371

171 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Component Specifications Supplier Material: Quartz Adapter, NPT to Cambridge Valve & Fitting, Inc., glass tube Swagelock p/n SS-8-UT-1-6, SS Ultra-Torr Male 1 Connector, ⁄ 2 in. female vacuum seal fitting – 50 Manning Road, Billerica, MA 3 ⁄ 8 in. MNPT 01821 Diffuser bead Design: Per Figure B.19(f) Custom fabrication support screen

Material: McMaster-Carr

p/n 9358T131. Type 304 stainless steel perforated sheet 36 in. × 40 in., 0.0625 in. hole dia, 23% open area, 22 gauge Diffuser bed beads Diameter: 3 mm Fisher Scientific p/n 11-312A

Material: Glass Gasket, chimney- Buna-N Square O-ring cord stock, McMaster-Carr p/n 9700K121 base

1 ⁄ 8 in. fractional size Support plate legs Standoff–4.38 in. (11 mm) × 0.63 in. (16 mm) Common (4) dia. 1 ⁄ 2 -13 UNC <<<<<< Should be " 4.38 in. (111 mm) ". Unit conversion error. >>>>>> Connector screws, Bolt – Hex cap, 5 ⁄ 16 -18 × 0.5 in. Common support plate-to-base (3) (M8 x 1.25, Length 12 mm) Support plate-to- p/n M37 9 mm OD × 89 mm K & S Engineering, 6917 West base spacer sleeves 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60638

Material: Brass

Custom cut to finish

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Some unit conversion errors need to be corrected in the figures for the cup burner test apparatus. There may be others, these are just the ones I see in addition to one other fixed in the 2018 version. Someone may want to check them all.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 13 15:49:54 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

323 of 371

172 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 60-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. C.2.7.1.3 ]

C.2.7.1.3 Agent-Air Mixture Density. Calculate the density of the agent-air mixture (ρmi) using the following equation:

[C.2.7.1.3]

ρe values are shown in Table C.2.7.1.3. Table C.2.7.1.3 Agent Vapor Densities at 70°F (21°C) and 14.7 psi (1.013 bar) atmospheric pressure (ρe)

Vapor Densities

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 FK-5-1-12 0.865 13.86 HCFC Blend A 0.240 3.85 HCFC 124 0.363 5.81 HFC-125 0.313 5.02 HFC-227ea 0.453 7.26 HFC-23 0.183 2.92 HFC-236fa 0.407 6.52 FIC-13I1 0.500 8.01 HFC Blend B 0.263 4.22 IG-01 0.104 1.66 IG-100 0.072 1.16 IG-541 0.088 1.41 IG-55 0.088 1.41

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved NFPA_2001_C_2_7_1_3.docx Addition vapor densities for new agent

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Addition vapor densities for new agent

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Robert Richard Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Dec 18 13:11:33 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

324 of 371

173 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM

NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. C.2.7.1.3 ]

Table C.2.7.1.3 Agent vapor density at 70 °F (21 °C) and 14.7 psi (1.013 bar) atmospheric pressure ( ρe)

Agent lb/ft3 kg/m3 Halocarbon Blend 55 0.4966 7.9115

325 of 371 National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 72-NFPA 2001-2019 [ Section No. E.1.2.8 ]

E.1.2.8 FSSA Publications. Fire Suppression Systems Association, 3601 E. Joppa Road, Baltimore, MD 21234. www.fssa.net FSSA Application Guide to Estimating Enclosure Pressure Relief Vent Area for Use with Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2nd edition, revision 1, January 2013. This Guide is now in its 3rd Edition, dated: October, 2014 FSSA Design Guide for Use with Fire Protection Systems Inspection Forms, January 2012. FSSA Pipe Design Handbook for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems, 2nd edition, 2011. The Pipe Design Handbook is currently in its final edit for its 3rd Edition and will be published during the Fall 2020 Revision Cycle. FSSA Test Guide for Use with Special Hazard Fire Suppression Systems Containers, 3rd edition, January 2012. This Guide is in its 4th Edition, with a published date of January 2017. FSSA Application Guide Detection & Control for Fire Suppression Systems, November 2010. This Guide is currently being edited and updated and will be published during the Fall 2020 Revision Cycle.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Updates the edition and published dates of the existing FSSA Publications.

At the request of the NFPA TC, the FSSA will submit the edited publications for their review.

Submitter Information Verification

326 of 371

174 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 73-NFPA 2001-2019 [ Section No. E.1.2.13 ]

E.1.2.13 SFPE Publications. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 9711 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 380, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. Hurley, Morgan (editors), SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, fifth edition, 2015 2016 .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Edit needed to indicate correct date (2016) for the SFPE Handbook.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Chris Jelenewicz Organization: Society of Fire Protection Eng Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jan 02 15:30:21 EST 2019 Committee: GFE-AAA

327 of 371

175 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 67-NFPA 2001-2018 [ Section No. E.1.2.14 ]

E.1.2.14 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062–2096. ANSI/ UL 2127,Standard for Inert Gas Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2012 (revised 2015) 2018 .ANSI/ UL 2166,Standard for Halocarbon Clean Agent Extinguishing System Units, 2012 (revised 2015) 2018 .

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 65-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 2.3.9] Public Input No. 66-NFPA 2001-2018 [Section No. 2.3.10]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: UL LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 15:15:26 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

328 of 371

176 of 176 3/15/2019, 10:45 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 12-2018 [ Global Input ]

Type your content here ... Title: Improved clarity of the terms “fire” and “extinguishment”, highlighting electrostatic explosion hazard when fighting smoldering fires with CO2. Concern: There is a problem with CO₂ batteries. When liquid CO₂ is released, static discharges are generated. It's a known source of ignition, e.g. in NFPA 77. This is not problem for fighting a fire with flames. But a smoldering fire will likely have filled the headspace with flammable gases. If ignited due to CO₂ injection, a confined explosion will result. NFPA 12 does not mention this hazard clearly. On the contrary, section 5.2.3 states that CO₂ can be used for "deep-seated fires". This is a problem. I wrote an article on an explosion caused by this phenomenon: Hedlund FH (2018) Carbon dioxide not suitable for extinguishment of smouldering silo fires: static electricity may cause silo explosion. Biomass and Bioenergy. 108:113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.biombioe.2017.11.009

Quoting from this article: NFPA 12 [21] on carbon dioxide extinguishing systems provides ambiguous advice on the electrostatic hazard. Annex A states that the discharge of liquid carbon dioxide is known to produce electrostatic charges that, under certain conditions, could create a spark and duly refers to NFPA 77. The standard also specifies, that “carbon dioxide fire extinguishing systems protecting areas where explosive atmospheres could exist shall utilize metal nozzles, and the entire system shall be grounded” [[21], Sec. 4.2.1]. The first issue of concern is if the reader realizes that an ignitable (and explosive) atmosphere can exist not only when flammable liquids give off vapours but also when pyrolysis gases have accumulated. The second issue of concern is if effective grounding is sufficient to prevent hazardous electrostatic discharges – the Bitburg accident would appear to contraindicate this. The third and perhaps most important issue of concern is the standard's ill-conceived advice on the application of CO2 to “deep-seated fires involving solids subject to smoldering” [[21], Sec 5.2.3]. This is precisely the situation where pyrolysis gases may have accumulated in the headspace to an extent where they are in the ignitable range – but the reader may not have realized this, and the standard does not identify the potential presence of flammable pyrolysis gases. The nub of the issue may well be lack of clarity in the meaning of the terms “fire” and “extinguishment”, which are not defined in the standard's terminology section. The application of CO2 is excellent for extinguishing a fire with flames, but unsuitable for quenching a deep-seated smouldering fire without flame.

I'm not a US citizen and have no means to enter a lengthy comments procedure for a US standard. Unfortunately, I cannot pursue this issue further with NFPA. Frank Huess Hedlund [email protected] Denmark

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Currently, the standard gives ill-conceived advice on the application of CO2 to “deep-seated fires involving solids subject to smoldering”, not alerting readers to explosion hazard

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Frank Hedlund Organization: COWI (a consultancy) & Technical University of Denmark

329 of 371

1 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 04 04:25:09 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

330 of 371

2 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 12-2018 [ Chapter 2 ]

Chapter 2 Referenced Publications 2.1 General. The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall be considered part of the requirements of this document. 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471. NFPA 4, Standard for Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing, 2018 edition.

NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, 2017 edition.

NFPA 72®, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®, 2016 edition. 2.3 Other Publications. 2.3.1 ANSI Publications. American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. ANSI Z535.2, Standard for Environmental and Facility Safety Signs, 2011, Reaffirmed 2017 . 2.3.2 API Publications. American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-4070. API-ASME Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels for Petroleum Liquids and Gases, Pre–July 1, 1961. 2.3.3 ASME Publications. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. ASME B31.1, Power Piping Code , 2016 201 8 . 2.3.4 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM A53/A53M, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, 2012 201 8 . ASTM A106/A106M, Standard Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service, 2015 201 8 . ASTM A120, Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Welded and Seamless for Ordinary Uses, 1984 (withdrawn 1987) Superseded by ASTM A53/A53M . ASTM A182/A182M, Standard Specification for Forged or Rolled Alloy and Stainless Steel Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings, and Valves and Parts for High-Temperature Service, 2016 201 8 . 2.3.5 CGA Publications. Compressed Gas Association, 14501 George Carter Way, Suite 103, Chantilly, VA 20151-2923. CGA G-6.2, Commodity Specification for Carbon Dioxide, 2011 201 3 . 2.3.6 CSA Group Publications. CSA Group, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON M9W 1R3, Canada. CSA C22.1, Canadian Electrical Code, 2015 201 8 . 2.3.7 IEEE Publications. IEEE, 3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016-5997. ANSI/IEEE C2, National Electrical Safety Code, 2017.

331 of 371

3 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

2.3.8 U.S. Government Publications. U.S. Government Publishing Office, 732 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401-0001. Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58.20. Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72. Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 171–190 (Department of Transportation). Coward, H. F., and G. W. Jones, Limits of Flammability of Gases and Vapors, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 503,1952. Zabetakis, Michael G., Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 627, 1965. 2.3.9 Other Publications. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 2003. 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2018 edition. NFPA 122, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Metal/Nonmetal Mining and Metal Mineral Processing Facilities, 2015 edition. NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities, 2016 edition.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Referenced updated editions.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sun Sep 09 02:15:52 EDT 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

332 of 371

4 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 12-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. 4.6.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]

The amount of the main supply of carbon dioxide in the system shall be at least sufficient for the largest single hazard protected or group of hazards that are to be protected simultaneously. The supply pipe from the tank to the hazard can contain a significant amount of CO2 at the completion of a discharge and shall be considered in sizing the supply.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The supply pipe between the low pressure CO2 tank and the hazard can contain a large volume of CO2, especially for large hazards with 4 in pipe some distance away. It is our understanding that the flow calculations only figure the mass of CO2 that leaves the nozzles and enters the hazard during discharge. When the valve at the tank closes, the CO2 in the supply pipe is left abandoned in the pipe, not reliable for extinguishing and no longer available for another discharge from the tank. When sizing systems, this volume should be included as consumed CO2.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 11:49:23 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

333 of 371

5 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 10-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. 5.4.4.2 ]

5.4.4.2 If leakage is appreciable, consideration shall be given to an extended discharge system as covered in A. 5.5. 2 or 5.5. 3. (See also 5.2.1.3.) Systems other than those covered in 5.5.3 (enclosed rotating electrical equipement) may require extended discharge systems. Annex A.5.5.2 paragraphs 2 and forward talks in depth about determining extended discharge requirements for leaky hazards. To send a user to 5.5.3 may send the wrong message to use the tables in A.5.5.3 when they should actually be considering A.5.5.2 information.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

There is confusion with regard to extended discharge requirements for leaky systems that are not "enclosed rotation electrical equipment". This change would provide clearer direction in this aspect of system designs, for ga turbine enclosures for instance.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 8-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. Same issue 5.5.3] Public Input No. 9-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. Same issue A.5.5.3] Public Input No. 6-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. Different correction in a related section of the A.5.5.2] standard.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 11:15:53 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

334 of 371

6 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 14-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. 5.5.2.1 ]

5.5.2.1 * For surface fires, the design concentration shall be achieved within 1 minute from start of discharge. Response time of the instrument shall be considered in determining pass/fail criteria for concentration testing. (Response time of the available sensors can consume significant portion of the discharge time requirement. They simply do not respond fast enough to accurately determine concentration with 1 minute. State of the art infrared detectors can take as long as 20 seconds to read 63% of full signal, and 50 seconds to read full signal from the time they are exposed to a full concentration calibrated CO2 gas sample. The older Tripoint thermal conductivity based instruments claimed a T95 of 60 seconds, so they could take 60 seconds to read 95% of the full concentration value, even longer to read the actual value. These instrument dynamics can cause a technician to interpret a discharge test as a fail because the instrument doesn't reach the design concentration with 60 seconds on the instrument used to measure on the test. These values are independent of any additional time delays due to long lengths of tubing or delays in the discharge flow, they are just inherent in the detectors. In practical terms, the concentration inside a hazard is gradually increasing during the discharge, so the driving gain in the system is even worse than in the calibration setup. Some guidance should be provided to accomodate the delays inherent in the instruments. The requirement is to achieve the design concentration within the hazard within 1 minute. If the available instrument takes 50 seconds to read full signal, a large portion of that additional time should be added to the pass/fail requirement for the test to fairly assess the actual concentration inside the enclosure.)

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved Typical CO2 analyzer response time graph CO2_Analyzer_Response_Time_Characterization.pdf during a bench test.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The response time performance of CO2 concentration analyzers is not clearly considered in the standard requirement for application rate for short duration discharges. Without additional guidance, technicians can improperly assess test results resulting in system rework and delays. Describe typical performance of the devices and give guidance on how to use them to appropriately assess the concentration inside the hazard. Attached graph is provided for background for the technical committee, not to be considered to be included in the standard.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 13:11:11 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

335 of 371

7 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. 5.5.3 ]

5.5.3 * Enclosed Rotating Electrical Equipment. For enclosed rotating electrical equipment, a minimum concentration of 30 percent shall be maintained for the deceleration period, but not less than 20 minutes. Enclosed rotating electrical equipment includes electrical machinery like electric motors and generators. Please clarifiy what this section pertains to. This section and the supporting annex A.5.5.3 are routinely mis-applied to gas turbine engines by manufacturers and integrators. Gas turbine engines are not electrical equipment in these terms Their hold time requirements should be considered under the provisions of NFPA 37. Ref 10/22/2015 NFPA Technical Question Response [ ref:_00D5077Vx._50050hY3tt:ref ].

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Clarify the definition of "enclosed rotating electrical equipment" and the applicability of this section to completely mechanical equipment like gas turbine engines.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 9-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. A.5.5.3] Public Input No. 10-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. 5.4.4.2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 10:44:54 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

336 of 371

8 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 11-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. A.5.5.2 ]

A.5.5.2 The minimum design rates of application established are considered adequate for the usual surface or deep-seated fire. However, where the spread of fire can be faster than normal for the type of fire, or where high values or vital machinery or equipment are involved, rates higher than the minimums can, and in many cases should, be used. Where a hazard contains material that will produce both surface and deep-seated fires, the rate of application should be at least the minimum required for surface fires. Having selected a rate suitable to the hazard, the tables and information that follow should be used or such special engineering as is required should be carried out to obtain the proper combination of container releases, supply piping, and orifice sizes that will produce this desired rate. The leakage rate from an enclosure in the absence of forced ventilation depends mainly on the difference in density between the atmosphere within the enclosure and the air surrounding the enclosure. The following equation can be used to calculate the rate of carbon dioxide loss, assuming that there is sufficient leakage in the upper part of the enclosure to allow free ingress of air:

[A.5.5.2]

where: R = rate of CO2 [lb/min (kg/min)] C =CO2 concentration fraction ρ= 3 3 density of CO2 vapor [lb/ft (kg/m )] A = area of opening [ft2 (m2) (flow coefficient included)]* g = gravitational constant [32.2 ft/sec2 (9.81 m/sec2)] ρ1 = density of atmosphere [lb/ft3 (kg/m3)] ρ2 = density of surrounding air [lb/ft3 (kg/m3)] h = static head between opening and top of enclosure [ft (m)] *If there are openings in the walls only, the area of the wall openings can be divided by 2 for calculations because it is presumed that fresh air can enter through one-half of the openings and that protective gas will exit through the other half. Figure E.1(b) can be used as a guide in estimating discharge rates for extended discharge systems. The curves were calculated using the preceding equation, assuming a temperature of 70°F (21°C) inside and outside the enclosure. In an actual system, the inside temperature will normally be reduced by the discharge, thus increasing the rate of loss. Because of the many variables involved, a test of the installed system could be needed to ensure proper performance. Where leakage is appreciable, the design concentration should be obtained quickly and maintained for an extended period of time. Carbon dioxide provided for leakage compensation should be applied at a reduced rate. The extended rate of discharge should be sufficient to maintain the minimum concentration. Please clarify if the hold concentration is intended to be the Design Concentration or the Minimum Extinguishing Concentration. In our experience it is commonly interpreted as the MEC by manfacturers, integrators and underwriters (ref Retrotec enclosure integrity test software, FM Global Data Sheet 7-79 2.4.3.5.1 for two instances). The standard is not clear in this respect. The 30% requirement for enclosed rotating electrical equipment may contribute to the confusion.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Clarify the hold concentration for extended discharge systems that aren't covered by the enclosed rotating electrical equipment section. (5.5.3).

Related Public Inputs for This Document

337 of 371

9 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 6-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. Correction in the same section but unrelated A.5.5.2] issue.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 11:33:41 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

338 of 371

10 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 6-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. A.5.5.2 ]

[A.5.5.2]

The gravitational constant "g" in this equation shows as a subscript, it should be a full size variable. It's a minor point but it is confusing the first time you use this equation. where:

R = rate of CO2 [lb/min (kg/min)] C =CO2 concentration fraction ρ= 3 3 density of CO2 vapor [lb/ft (kg/m )] A = area of opening [ft2 (m2) (flow coefficient included)]* g = gravitational constant [32.2 ft/sec2 (9.81 m/sec2)] ρ1 = density of atmosphere [lb/ft3 (kg/m3)] ρ2 = density of surrounding air [lb/ft3 (kg/m3)] h = static head between opening and top of enclosure [ft (m)] *If there are openings in the walls only, the area of the wall openings can be divided by 2 for calculations because it is presumed that fresh air can enter through one-half of the openings and that protective gas will exit through the other half. Figure E.1(b) can be used as a guide in estimating discharge rates for extended discharge systems. The curves were calculated using the preceding equation, assuming a temperature of 70°F (21°C) inside and outside the enclosure. In an actual system, the inside temperature will normally be reduced by the discharge, thus increasing the rate of loss. Because of the many variables involved, a test of the installed system could be needed to ensure proper performance. Where leakage is appreciable, the design concentration should be obtained quickly and maintained for an extended period of time. Carbon dioxide provided for leakage compensation should be applied at a reduced rate. The extended rate of discharge should be sufficient to maintain the minimum concentration.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Corrects equation A.5.5.2, makes it easier to understand and use.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 10-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. 5.4.4.2]

339 of 371

11 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 11-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. A.5.5.2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 10:40:30 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

340 of 371

12 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 9-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. A.5.5.3 ]

341 of 371

13 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

A.5.5.3

342 of 371

14 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

For enclosed recirculating-type electrical equipment, the initial discharge quantity should not be less than 1 lb (0.45 kg) of gas for each 10 ft3 (0.28 m3) of enclosed volume up to 2000 ft3 (56.6 m3). For larger volumes, 1 lb (0.45 kg) of gas for each 12 ft3 (0.34 m3) or a minimum of 200 lb (90.8 kg) should be used. Table A.5.5.3(a) and Table A.5.5.3(b) can be used as a guide to estimate the quantity of gas needed for the extended discharge to maintain a minimum concentration of 30 percent for the deceleration time. The quantity is based on the internal volume of the machine and the deceleration time, assuming average leakage. For dampered, non-recirculating-type machines, add 35 percent to the indicated quantities in Table A.5.5.3(a) and Table A.5.5.3(b) for extended discharge protection. Please clarify what type of equipment this applies to. This section is routinely mis-applied to fully mechanical equipment like gas turbine engines. Ref NFPA Technical Question Response 10/2/2015 [ ref:_00D5077Vx._50050hY3tt:ref ]: The term "enclosed rotating electrical equipment," as used in 5.5.3 of NFPA 12 (2015), refers to both generators and electric motors. The windings can produce a deep-seated fire, which will require a significant amount of carbon dioxide to cool and extinguish. In addition, electricity that is generated during the wind-down could provide a constant source of ignition/re-ignition to the fire.

Barry Chase

Fire Protection Engineer

NFPA Table A.5.5.3(a) Extended Discharge Protection for Enclosed Recirculating Rotating Electrical Equipment (Cubic Feet Protected for Deceleration Time)

Time (minutes) lb CO 2 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 100 1,200 1,000 800 600 500 400 300 200 150 1,800 1,500 1,200 1,000 750 600 500 400 200 2,400 1,950 1,600 1,300 1,000 850 650 500 250 3,300 2,450 2,000 1,650 1,300 1,050 800 600 300 4,600 3,100 2,400 2,000 1,650 1,300 1,000 700 350 6,100 4,100 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,650 1,200 900 400 7,700 5,400 3,800 3,150 2,500 2,000 1,600 1,200 450 9,250 6,800 4,900 4,000 3,100 2,600 2,100 1,600 500 10,800 8,100 6,100 5,000 3,900 3,300 2,800 2,200 550 12,300 9,500 7,400 6,100 4,900 4,200 3,600 3,100 600 13,900 10,900 8,600 7,200 6,000 5,200 4,500 3,900 650 15,400 12,300 9,850 8,300 7,050 6,200 5,500 4,800 700 16,900 13,600 11,100 9,400 8,100 7,200 6,400 5,600 750 18,500 15,000 12,350 10,500 9,150 8,200 7,300 6,500 800 20,000 16,400 13,600 11,600 10,200 9,200 8,200 7,300 850 21,500 17,750 14,850 12,700 11,300 10,200 9,100 8,100 900 23,000 19,100 16,100 13,800 12,350 11,200 10,050 9,000 950 24,600 20,500 17,350 14,900 13,400 12,200 11,000 9,800 1,000 26,100 21,900 18,600 16,000 14,500 13,200 11,900 10,700 1,050 27,600 23,300 19,900 17,100 15,600 14,200 12,850 11,500 1,100 29,100 24,600 21,050 18,200 16,600 15,200 13,750 12,400 1,150 30,600 26,000 22,300 19,300 17,700 16,200 14,700 13,200 1,200 32,200 27,300 23,550 20,400 18,800 17,200 15,600 14,100 1,250 33,700 28,700 24,800 21,500 19,850 18,200 16,500 14,900

343 of 371

15 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Time (minutes) lb CO 2 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 1,300 35,300 30,100 26,050 22,650 20,900 19,200 17,450 15,800 1,350 36,800 31,400 27,300 23,750 22,000 20,200 18,400 16,650 1,400 38,400 32,800 28,550 24,900 23,100 21,200 19,350 17,500 1,450 39,900 34,200 29,800 26,000 24,200 22,200 20,300 18,350 1,500 41,400 35,600 31,050 27,100 25,250 23,200 21,200 19,200 Table A.5.5.3(b) Extended Discharge for Enclosed Recirculating Rotating Electrical Equipment (Cubic Meters Protected for Deceleration Time) (SI Units)

Time (minutes)

kg CO 2 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 45.4 34.0 28.3 22.6 17.0 14.2 11.3 8.5 5.7 68.1 50.9 42.5 34.0 28.3 21.2 17.0 14.0 11.3 90.8 67.9 55.2 45.3 36.8 28.3 24.1 18.4 14.2 113.5 93.4 69.3 56.6 46.7 36.8 29.7 22.6 17.0 136.2 130.2 87.7 67.9 56.6 46.7 36.8 28.3 19.8 158.9 172.6 116.0 84.9 70.8 56.6 46.7 34.0 25.5 181.6 217.9 152.8 107.5 89.1 70.8 56.6 45.3 34.0 204.3 261.8 192.4 138.7 113.2 87.7 73.6 59.4 45.3 227.0 305.6 229.2 172.6 141.5 110.4 93.4 79.2 62.3 249.7 348.1 268.9 209.4 172.6 138.7 118.9 101.9 87.7 272.4 393.4 308.5 243.4 203.8 169.8 147.2 127.4 110.4 295.1 435.8 348.1 278.8 234.9 199.5 175.5 155.7 135.8 317.8 478.3 384.9 314.1 266.0 229.2 203.8 181.1 158.5 340.5 523.6 424.5 349.5 297.2 258.9 232.1 206.6 184.0 363.2 586.0 464.1 384.9 328.3 288.7 260.4 232.1 206.6 385.9 608.4 502.3 420.3 359.4 319.8 288.7 257.5 229.2 408.6 650.9 540.5 455.6 390.5 349.5 317.0 284.4 254.7 431.3 696.2 580.2 491.0 421.7 379.2 345.3 311.3 277.3 454.0 738.6 619.8 526.4 452.8 410.4 373.6 336.8 302.8 476.7 781.1 659.4 563.2 483.9 441.5 401.9 363.7 325.5 499.4 823.5 696.2 595.7 515.1 469.8 430.2 389.1 350.9 522.1 866.0 735.8 631.1 546.2 500.9 458.5 416.0 373.6 544.8 911.3 772.6 666.5 577.3 532.0 486.8 441.5 399.0 567.5 953.7 812.2 701.8 609.4 561.8 515.1 467.0 421.7 590.2 999.0 851.8 737.2 641.0 591.5 543.4 493.8 447.1 612.9 1041.4 888.6 772.6 672.1 622.6 571.7 520.7 471.2 635.6 1086.7 928.2 808.0 704.7 653.7 600.0 547.6 495.3 658.3 1129.2 967.9 843.3 735.8 684.9 628.3 574.5 519.3 681.0 1171.6 1007.5 878.7 766.9 713.2 656.6 600.0 543.4

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Clarify the definition of "enclosed rotating electrical equipment" and the applicability (or non-applicability) of this section to completely mechanical equipment like gas turbine engines.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship 344 of 371

16 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 8-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. 5.5.3] Same issue in the body of the standard. Public Input No. 10-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. 5.4.4.2]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 11:08:08 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

345 of 371

17 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 13-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. C.1 ]

346 of 371

18 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

C.1

347 of 371

19 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Computing pipe sizes for carbon dioxide systems is complicated by the fact that the pressure drop is nonlinear with respect to the pipeline. Carbon dioxide leaves the storage vessel as a liquid at saturation pressure. As the pressure drops due to pipeline friction, the liquid boils and produces a mixture of liquid and vapor. Consequently, the volume of the flowing mixture increases and the velocity of flow must also increase. Thus, the pressure drop per unit length of pipe is greater near the end of the pipeline than it is at the beginning. Pressure drop information for designing piping systems can best be obtained from curves of pressure versus equivalent length for various flow rates and pipe sizes. Such curves can be plotted using the theoretical equation given in 4.7.5.1. The Y and Z factors in the equation in that paragraph depend on storage pressure and line pressure. In the following equations, Z is a dimensionless ratio, and the Y factor has units of pressure times density and will therefore change the system of units. The Y and Z factors can be evaluated as follows:

[C.1a]

where: P = pressure at end of pipeline [psi (kPa)] P1 = storage pressure [psi (kPa)] ρ=density at pressure P [lb/ft3 (kg/m3)] ρ = 3 3 1 density at pressure P1 [lb/ft (kg/m )] ln = natural logarithm The storage pressure is an important factor in carbon dioxide flow. In low-pressure storage, the starting pressure in the storage vessel will recede to a lower level, depending on whether all or only part of the supply is discharged. Because of this, the average pressure during discharge will be about 285 psi (1965 kPa). The flow equation is based on absolute pressure; therefore, 300 psi (2068 kPa) is used for calculations involving low-pressure systems. The mixing of absolute and gauge pressures in the standard are confusing. Recommend using psig/psia specific designators to clarify throughout. Also, for extended discharge systems we have seen tank pressures much lower than the 285 psig (300 psia) stated. For an 8 ton tank on a 30 minute extended discharge we have seen pressure decay to under 250 psig, averaging under 270 psig. This is a significant impact on the flow rate on those nozzles, around 16% reduced flow according to T4.7.5.2.1. Recommend adding notes to caution the user to include some additional margin in the system sizing for extended discharge durations over 20 minutes. Bleeding vapor off the vapor space of a low pressure tank has a particularly large impact on tank pressure over a long duration. Pneumatic sirens are typically plumbed off the vapor space and can have a detrimental effect on driving pressure and resulting flow. The system designer should consider this issue in the course of design. A simplified equation in the annex would be helpful to assist a designer in determining how much additional flow they should add to the discharge to compensate for reduced pressure due to vapor loss. In high-pressure systems, the storage pressure depends on the ambient temperature. Normal ambient temperature is assumed to be 70°F (21°C). For this condition, the average pressure in the cylinder during discharge of the liquid portion will be about 750 psi (5171 kPa). This pressure has therefore been selected for calculations involving high-pressure systems. Using the base pressures of 300 psi (2068 kPa) and 750 psi (5171 kPa), values have been determined for the Y and Z factors in the flow equation. These values are listed in Table C.1(a) and Table C.1(b). Table C.1(a) Values of Y and Z for 300 psi Initial Storage Pressure

Pressure

(psi)

348 of 371

20 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 300 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0.135 596 540 483 426 367 308 248 187 126 63 280 0.264 1119 1070 1020 969 918 866 814 760 706 652 270 0.387 1580 1536 1492 1448 1402 1357 1310 1263 1216 1168 260 0.505 1989 1950 1911 1871 1831 1790 1749 1708 1666 1623 250 0.620 2352 2318 2283 2248 2212 2176 2139 2102 2065 2027 240 0.732 2677 2646 2615 2583 2552 2519 2487 2454 2420 2386 230 0.841 2968 2940 2912 2884 2855 2826 2797 2768 2738 2708 220 0.950 3228 3204 3179 3153 3128 3102 3075 3049 3022 2995 210 1.057 3462 3440 3418 3395 3372 3349 3325 3301 3277 3253 200 1.165 3673 3653 3632 3612 3591 3570 3549 3528 3506 3485 190 1.274 3861 3843 3825 3807 3788 3769 3750 3731 3712 3692 180 1.384 4030 4014 3998 3981 3965 3948 3931 3914 3896 3879 170 1.497 4181 4167 4152 4138 4123 4108 4093 4077 4062 4046 160 1.612 4316 4303 4291 4277 4264 4251 4237 4223 4210 4196 150 1.731 4436 4425 4413 4402 4390 4378 4366 4354 4341 4329 Table C.1(b) Values of Y and Z for 750 psi Initial Storage Pressure Pressure

(psi)

Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 750 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 740 0.038 497 448 399 350 300 251 201 151 101 51 730 0.075 975 928 881 833 786 738 690 642 594 545 720 0.110 1436 1391 1345 1299 1254 1208 1161 1115 1068 1022 710 0.143 1882 1838 1794 1750 1706 1661 1616 1572 1527 1481 700 0.174 2314 2271 2229 2186 2143 2100 2057 2013 1970 1926 690 0.205 2733 2691 2650 2608 2567 2525 2483 2441 2399 2357 680 0.235 3139 3099 3059 3018 2978 2937 2897 2856 2815 2774 670 0.265 3533 3494 3455 3416 3377 3338 3298 3259 3219 3179 660 0.296 3916 3878 3840 3802 3764 3726 3688 3649 3611 3572 650 0.327 4286 4250 4213 4176 4139 4102 4065 4028 3991 3953 640 0.360 4645 4610 4575 4539 4503 4467 4431 4395 4359 4323 630 0.393 4993 4959 4924 4890 4855 4821 4786 4751 4716 4681 620 0.427 5329 5296 5263 5229 5196 5162 5129 5095 5061 5027 610 0.462 5653 5621 5589 5557 5525 5493 5460 5427 5395 5362 600 0.498 5967 5936 5905 5874 5843 5811 5780 5749 5717 5685 590 0.535 6268 6239 6209 6179 6149 6119 6089 6058 6028 5997 580 0.572 6560 6531 6502 6473 6444 6415 6386 6357 6328 6298 570 0.609 6840 6812 6785 6757 6729 6701 6673 6645 6616 6588 560 0.646 7110 7084 7057 7030 7003 6976 6949 6922 6895 6868 550 0.683 7371 7345 7320 7294 7268 7242 7216 7190 7163 7137 540 0.719 7622 7597 7572 7548 7523 7498 7472 7447 7422 7396 530 0.756 7864 7840 7816 7792 7768 7744 7720 7696 7671 7647 520 0.792 8098 8075 8052 8028 8005 7982 7958 7935 7911 7888 349 of 371

21 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 510 0.827 8323 8301 8278 8256 8234 8211 8189 8166 8143 8120 500 0.863 8540 8519 8497 8476 8454 8433 8411 8389 8367 8345 490 0.898 8750 8730 8709 8688 8667 8646 8625 8604 8583 8562 480 0.933 8953 8933 8913 8893 8873 8852 8832 8812 8791 8771 470 0.967 9149 9129 9110 9091 9071 9052 9032 9012 8993 8973 460 1.002 9338 9319 9301 9282 9263 9244 9225 9206 9187 9168 450 1.038 9520 9502 9484 9466 9448 9430 9412 9393 9375 9356 440 1.073 9697 9680 9662 9644 9627 9609 9592 9574 9556 9538 430 1.109 9866 9850 9833 9816 9799 9782 9765 9748 9731 9714 420 1.146 10030 10014 9998 9982 9966 9949 9933 9916 9900 9883 410 1.184 10188 10173 10157 10141 10126 10110 10094 10078 10062 10046 400 1.222 10340 10325 10310 10295 10280 10265 10250 10234 10219 10204 390 1.262 10486 10472 10458 10443 10429 10414 10399 10385 10370 10355 380 1.302 10627 10613 10599 10585 10571 10557 10543 10529 10515 10501 370 1.344 10762 10749 10735 10722 10708 10695 10681 10668 10654 10641 360 1.386 10891 10878 10866 10853 10840 10827 10814 10801 10788 10775 350 1.429 11015 11003 10991 10978 10966 10954 10941 10929 10916 10904 340 1.473 11134 11122 11110 11099 11087 11075 11063 11051 11039 11027 330 1.518 11247 11236 11225 11214 11202 11191 11180 11168 11157 11145 320 1.564 11356 11345 11334 11323 11313 11302 11291 11280 11269 11258 310 1.610 11459 11449 11439 11428 11418 11408 11398 11387 11377 11366 300 1.657 11558 11548 11539 11529 11519 11509 11499 11489 11479 11469 For practical application, it is desirable to plot curves for each pipe size that can be used. However, the flow equation can be rearranged as shown in the following equation:

[C.1b]

Thus, by plotting values of L/D1.25 and Q/D2, it is possible to use one family of curves for any pipe size. Figure C.1(a) gives flow information for 0°F (−18°C) storage temperature on this basis. Figure C.1(b) gives similar information for high-pressure storage at 70°F (21°C). For an inside pipe diameter of exactly 1 in., D2 and D1.25 reduce to unity and cancel out. For other pipe sizes, it is necessary to convert the flow rate and equivalent length by dividing or multiplying by these factors. Table C.1(c) gives values for D. Figure C.1(a) Pressure Drop in Pipeline for 300 psi (2068 kPa) Storage Pressure.

Figure C.1(b) Pressure Drop in Pipeline for 750 psi (5171 kPa) Storage Pressure. 350 of 371

22 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Table C.1(c) Values of D1.25 and D2 for Various Pipe Sizes

Pipe Size Inside Diameter

and Type (in.) D 1.25 D 2

1 ⁄ 2 Std. 0.622 0.5521 0.3869 3 ⁄ 4 Std. 0.824 0.785 0.679 1 Std. 1.049 1.0615 1.100 1 XH 0.957 0.9465 0.9158 1 1 ⁄ 4 Std. 1.380 1.496 1.904 1 1 ⁄ 4 XH 1.278 1.359 1.633 1 1 ⁄ 2 Std. 1.610 1.813 2.592 1 1 ⁄ 2 XH 1.500 1.660 2.250 2 Std. 2.067 2.475 4.272 2 XH 1.939 2.288 3.760 2 1 ⁄ 2 Std. 2.469 3.09 6.096 2 1 ⁄ 2 XH 2.323 2.865 5.396 3 Std. 3.068 4.06 9.413 3 XH 2.900 3.79 8.410 4 Std. 4.026 5.71 16.21 4 XH 3.826 5.34 14.64 5 Std. 5.047 7.54 25.47 5 XH 4.813 7.14 23.16 6 Std. 6.065 9.50 36.78 6 XH 5.761 8.92 33.19

These curves can be used for designing systems or for checking possible flow rates. For example, assume the problem is to determine the terminal pressure for a low-pressure system consisting of a single 2 in. Schedule 40 pipeline with an equivalent length of 500 ft and a flow rate of 1000 lb/min. The flow rate and the equivalent length must be converted to terms of Figure C.1(a) as follows:

[C.1c]

From Figure C.1(a), the terminal pressure is found to be about 228 psi at the point where the interpolated flow rate of 234 lb/min intersects the equivalent length scale at 201 ft. 351 of 371

23 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

If this line terminates in a single nozzle, the equivalent orifice area must be matched to the terminal pressure in order to control the flow rate at the desired level of 1000 lb/min. Referring to Table 4.7.5.2.1, it will be noted that the discharge rate will be 1410 lb/minꞏin.2 of equivalent orifice area when the orifice pressure is 230 psi. The required equivalent orifice area of the nozzle is thus equal to the total flow rate divided by the rate per square inch, as shown in the following equation:

[C.1d]

From a practical viewpoint, the designer would select a standard nozzle having an equivalent area nearest to the computed area. If the orifice area happened to be a little larger, the actual flow rate would be slightly higher and the terminal pressure would be somewhat lower than the estimated 228 psi (1572 kPa). If, in the previous example, instead of terminating with one large nozzle, the pipeline branched into two smaller pipelines, it would be necessary to determine the pressure at the end of each branch line. To 1 illustrate this procedure, assume that the branch lines are equal and consist of 1 ⁄2 in. Schedule 40 pipe with equivalent lengths of 200 ft (61 m) and that the flow in each branch line is to be 500 lb/min (227 kg/min). Converting to terms used in Figure C.1(a), the following equations result:

[C.1e]

From Figure C.1(a), the starting pressure of 228 psi (1572 kPa) (terminal pressure of main line) intersects the flow rate line [193 lb/min (87.6 kg/min)] at an equivalent length of about 300 ft (91.4 m). In other words, if the branch line started at the storage vessel, the liquid carbon dioxide would have to flow through 300 ft (91.4 m) of pipeline before the pressure dropped to 228 psi (1572 kPa). This length thus becomes the starting point for the equivalent length of the branch line. The terminal pressure of the branch line is then found to be 165 psi (1138 kPa) at the point where the 193 lb/min (87.6 kg/min) flow rate line intersects the total equivalent length line of 410 ft (125 m), or 300 ft + 110 ft (91 m + 34 m). With this new terminal pressure [165 psi (1138 kPa)] and flow rate [500 lb/min (227 kg/min)], the required equivalent nozzle area at the end of each branch line will be approximately 0.567 in.2 (366 mm2). This is about the same as the single large nozzle example, except that the discharge rate is cut in half due to the reduced pressure. The design of the piping distribution system is based on the flow rate desired at each nozzle. This in turn determines the required flow rate in the branch lines and the main pipeline. From practical experience, it is possible to estimate the approximate pipe sizes required. The pressure at each nozzle can be determined from suitable flow curves. The nozzle orifice sizes are then selected on the basis of nozzle pressure from the data given in 4.7.5.2. In high-pressure systems, the main header is supplied by a number of separate cylinders. The total flow is thus divided by the number of cylinders to obtain the flow rate from each cylinder. The flow capacity of the cylinder valve and the connector to the header vary with each manufacturer, depending on design and size. For any particular valve, dip tube, and connector assembly, the equivalent length can be determined in terms of feet of standard pipe size. With this information, the flow equation can be used to prepare a curve of flow rate versus pressure drop. This curve provides a convenient method of determining header pressure for a specific valve and connector combination. Table C.1(d) and Table C.1(e) list the equivalent lengths of pipe fittings for determining the equivalent length of piping systems. Table C.1(d) is for threaded joints, and Table C.1(e) is for welded joints. Both tables were computed for Schedule 40 pipe sizes; however, for all practical purposes, the same figures can also be used for Schedule 80 pipe sizes. Table C.1(d) Equivalent Lengths in Feet of Threaded Pipe Fitting

Elbow Elbow Pipe Std. Std. Elbow Size Tee

45 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Tee Union Coupling or (in.) Degrees Degrees Thru Flow Side Gate Valve

3 ⁄ 8 0.6 1.3 0.8 2.7 0.3 1 ⁄ 2 0.8 1.7 1.0 3.4 0.4

352 of 371

24 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Elbow Elbow Pipe Std. Std. Elbow Size Tee

45 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Tee Union Coupling or (in.) Degrees Degrees Thru Flow Side Gate Valve

3 ⁄ 4 1.0 2.2 1.4 4.5 0.5 1 1.3 2.8 1.8 5.7 0.6 1 1 ⁄ 4 1.7 3.7 2.3 7.5 0.8 1 1 ⁄ 2 2.0 4.3 2.7 8.7 0.9 2 2.6 5.5 3.5 11.2 1.2 2 1 ⁄ 2 3.1 6.6 4.1 13.4 1.4 3 3.8 8.2 5.1 16.6 1.8 4 5.0 10.7 6.7 21.8 2.4 5 6.3 13.4 8.4 27.4 3.0 6 7.6 16.2 10.1 32.8 3.5 For SI units, 1 ft = 0.3048 m. Table C.1(e) Equivalent Lengths in Feet of Welded Pipe Fitting Pipe Elbow Size Tee

Elbow Std. 45 Elbow Std. 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Gate (in.) Degrees Degrees Tee Thru Flow Side Valve

3 ⁄ 8 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.3 1 ⁄ 2 0.3 0.8 0.7 2.1 0.4 3 ⁄ 4 0.4 1.1 0.9 2.8 0.5 1 0.5 1.4 1.1 3.5 0.6 1 1 ⁄ 4 0.7 1.8 1.5 4.6 0.8 1 1 ⁄ 2 0.8 2.1 1.7 5.4 0.9 2 1.0 2.8 2.2 6.9 1.2 2 1 ⁄ 2 1.2 3.3 2.7 8.2 1.4 3 1.8 4.1 3.3 10.2 1.8 4 2.0 5.4 4.4 13.4 2.4 5 2.5 6.7 5.5 16.8 3.0 6 3.0 8.1 6.6 20.2 3.5

For SI units, 1 ft = 0.3048 m. For nominal changes in elevation of piping, the change in head pressure is negligible. However, if there is a substantial change in elevation, this factor should be taken into account. The head pressure correction per foot of elevation depends on the average line pressure where the elevation takes place because the density changes with pressure. Correction factors are given in Table C.1(f) and Table C.1(g) for low-pressure and high-pressure systems, respectively. The correction is subtracted from the terminal pressure when the flow is upward and is added to the terminal pressure when the flow is downward. Table C.1(f) Elevation Correction Factors for Low-Pressure System

Average Line Pressure

Elevation Correction psi kPa

353 of 371

25 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

psi/ft kPa/m 300 2068

0.443 10.00 280 1930

0.343 7.76 260 1792

0.265 5.99 240 1655

0.207 4.68 220 1517

0.167 3.78 200 1379

0.134 3.03 180 1241

0.107 2.42 160 1103

0.085 1.92 140 965

0.067 1.52

Table C.1(g) Elevation Correction Factors for High-Pressure System

Average Line Pressure

Elevation Correction psi kPa

psi/ft kPa/m 750 5171

0.352 7.96 700 4826

0.300 6.79 650 4482

0.255 5.77 600 4137

0.215 4.86

354 of 371

26 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

550 3792

0.177 4.00 500 3447

0.150 3.39 450 3103

0.125 2.83 400 2758

0.105 2.38 350 2413

0.085 1.92 300 2068

0.070 1.58

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Long extended discharge systems require additional margin in the design to compensate for tank pressures that are lower than assumed by the standard. Pneumatic sirens venting vapor off the tank have a particularly large effect. The result is extended discharge amounts below what is designed. Revise to call this to the attention of system designers to compensate where necessary.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 15-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. C.1]

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Dec 27 11:58:53 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

355 of 371

27 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 15-NFPA 12-2018 [ Section No. C.1 ]

356 of 371

28 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

C.1

357 of 371

29 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

[C.1a]

Pressure

(psi)

Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 300 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0.135 596 540 483 426 367 308 248 187 126 63 280 0.264 1119 1070 1020 969 918 866 814 760 706 652 270 0.387 1580 1536 1492 1448 1402 1357 1310 1263 1216 1168 260 0.505 1989 1950 1911 1871 1831 1790 1749 1708 1666 1623 250 0.620 2352 2318 2283 2248 2212 2176 2139 2102 2065 2027 240 0.732 2677 2646 2615 2583 2552 2519 2487 2454 2420 2386 230 0.841 2968 2940 2912 2884 2855 2826 2797 2768 2738 2708

358 of 371

30 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 220 0.950 3228 3204 3179 3153 3128 3102 3075 3049 3022 2995 210 1.057 3462 3440 3418 3395 3372 3349 3325 3301 3277 3253 200 1.165 3673 3653 3632 3612 3591 3570 3549 3528 3506 3485 190 1.274 3861 3843 3825 3807 3788 3769 3750 3731 3712 3692 180 1.384 4030 4014 3998 3981 3965 3948 3931 3914 3896 3879 170 1.497 4181 4167 4152 4138 4123 4108 4093 4077 4062 4046 160 1.612 4316 4303 4291 4277 4264 4251 4237 4223 4210 4196 150 1.731 4436 4425 4413 4402 4390 4378 4366 4354 4341 4329 Table C.1(b) Values of Y and Z for 750 psi Initial Storage Pressure Pressure

(psi)

31 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Y Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 440 1.073 9697 9680 9662 9644 9627 9609 9592 9574 9556 9538 430 1.109 9866 9850 9833 9816 9799 9782 9765 9748 9731 9714 420 1.146 10030 10014 9998 9982 9966 9949 9933 9916 9900 9883 410 1.184 10188 10173 10157 10141 10126 10110 10094 10078 10062 10046 400 1.222 10340 10325 10310 10295 10280 10265 10250 10234 10219 10204 390 1.262 10486 10472 10458 10443 10429 10414 10399 10385 10370 10355 380 1.302 10627 10613 10599 10585 10571 10557 10543 10529 10515 10501 370 1.344 10762 10749 10735 10722 10708 10695 10681 10668 10654 10641 360 1.386 10891 10878 10866 10853 10840 10827 10814 10801 10788 10775 350 1.429 11015 11003 10991 10978 10966 10954 10941 10929 10916 10904 340 1.473 11134 11122 11110 11099 11087 11075 11063 11051 11039 11027 330 1.518 11247 11236 11225 11214 11202 11191 11180 11168 11157 11145 320 1.564 11356 11345 11334 11323 11313 11302 11291 11280 11269 11258 310 1.610 11459 11449 11439 11428 11418 11408 11398 11387 11377 11366 300 1.657 11558 11548 11539 11529 11519 11509 11499 11489 11479 11469 For practical application, it is desirable to plot curves for each pipe size that can be used. However, the flow equation can be rearranged as shown in the following equation:

[C.1b]

Units for Q/D^2 are incorrect in both Figure C.1(a) and C.1(b) along the topmost curves. Units should read lb/min/in^2 or lb/(min-in^2).

Figure C.1(b) Pressure Drop in Pipeline for 750 psi (5171 kPa) Storage Pressure.

360 of 371

32 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Table C.1(c) Values of D1.25 and D2 for Various Pipe Sizes

Pipe Size Inside Diameter

and Type (in.) D 1.25 D 2

[C.1c]

From Figure C.1(a), the terminal pressure is found to be about 228 psi at the point where the interpolated flow rate of 234 lb/min intersects the equivalent length scale at 201 ft. 361 of 371

33 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

[C.1d]

[C.1e]

From Figure C.1(a), the starting pressure of 228 psi (1572 kPa) (terminal pressure of main line) intersects the flow rate line [193 lb/min (87.6 kg/min)] at an equivalent length of about 300 ft (91.4 m). In other words, if the branch line started at the storage vessel, the liquid carbon dioxide would have to flow through 300 ft (91.4 m) of pipeline before the pressure dropped to 228 psi (1572 kPa). This length thus becomes the starting point for the equivalent length of the branch line. The terminal pressure of the branch line is then found to be 165 psi (1138 kPa) at the point where the 193 lb/min (87.6 kg/min) flow rate line intersects the total equivalent length line of 410 ft (125 m), or 300 ft + 110 ft (91 m + 34 m). With this new terminal pressure [165 psi (1138 kPa)] and flow rate [500 lb/min (227 kg/min)], the required equivalent nozzle area at the end of each branch line will be approximately 0.567 in.2 (366 mm2). This is about the same as the single large nozzle example, except that the discharge rate is cut in half due to the reduced pressure. The design of the piping distribution system is based on the flow rate desired at each nozzle. This in turn determines the required flow rate in the branch lines and the main pipeline. From practical experience, it is possible to estimate the approximate pipe sizes required. The pressure at each nozzle can be determined from suitable flow curves. The nozzle orifice sizes are then selected on the basis of nozzle pressure from the data given in 4.7.5.2. In high-pressure systems, the main header is supplied by a number of separate cylinders. The total flow is thus divided by the number of cylinders to obtain the flow rate from each cylinder. The flow capacity of the cylinder valve and the connector to the header vary with each manufacturer, depending on design and size. For any particular valve, dip tube, and connector assembly, the equivalent length can be determined in terms of feet of standard pipe size. With this information, the flow equation can be used to prepare a curve of flow rate versus pressure drop. This curve provides a convenient method of determining header pressure for a specific valve and connector combination. Table C.1(d) and Table C.1(e) list the equivalent lengths of pipe fittings for determining the equivalent length of piping systems. Table C.1(d) is for threaded joints, and Table C.1(e) is for welded joints or grooved fittings . Both tables were computed for Schedule 40 pipe sizes; however, for all practical purposes, the same figures can also be used for Schedule 80 pipe sizes. Table C.1(d) Equivalent Lengths in Feet of Threaded Pipe Fitting

Elbow Elbow Pipe Std. Std. Elbow Size Tee

45 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Tee Union Coupling or (in.) Degrees Degrees Thru Flow Side Gate Valve

3 ⁄ 8 0.6 1.3 0.8 2.7 0.3 1 ⁄ 2 0.8 1.7 1.0 3.4 0.4

362 of 371

34 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Elbow Elbow Pipe Std. Std. Elbow Size Tee

45 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Tee Union Coupling or (in.) Degrees Degrees Thru Flow Side Gate Valve

Elbow Std. 45 Elbow Std. 90 90 Degrees Long Radius and Gate (in.) Degrees Degrees Tee Thru Flow Side Valve

Average Line Pressure

Elevation Correction psi kPa

363 of 371

35 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

psi/ft kPa/m 300 2068

0.443 10.00 280 1930

0.343 7.76 260 1792

0.265 5.99 240 1655

0.207 4.68 220 1517

0.167 3.78 200 1379

0.134 3.03 180 1241

0.107 2.42 160 1103

0.085 1.92 140 965

0.067 1.52

Table C.1(g) Elevation Correction Factors for High-Pressure System

Average Line Pressure

Elevation Correction psi kPa

psi/ft kPa/m 750 5171

0.352 7.96 700 4826

0.300 6.79 650 4482

0.255 5.77 600 4137

0.215 4.86

364 of 371

36 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

550 3792

0.177 4.00 500 3447

0.150 3.39 450 3103

0.125 2.83 400 2758

0.105 2.38 350 2413

0.085 1.92 300 2068

0.070 1.58

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Two issues addressed in this submittal: 1) The units for Q/D^2 in Figures C.1(a) and C.1(b) are incomplete. 2) It is unclear which table for equivalent lengths (C.1(d) or C.1(e)) should be used when using grooved fittings, like those from Victaulic. These fittings are fairly commonly used for ease of installation and maintenance, especially for larger bore piping. We have seen different integrators use different tables for these fittings. It would help if the standard included guidance on which is appropriate. For reference, I believe at least one manufacturer's version of low pressure CO2 flow calculation software includes an option for grooved fittings and selects one of these tables for the calculations.

Related Public Inputs for This Document

Related Input Relationship Public Input No. 13-NFPA 12-2018 [Section No. C.1] Unrelated recommendation in the same section.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Matthew Taylor Organization: Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Dec 28 15:16:27 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

365 of 371

37 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 5-NFPA 12-2018 [ New Section after G.1 ]

Physical Properties of CO2 Type your content here ...Add tables and graphs excerpted from ch 45 in the SFPE Handbook

Additional Proposed Changes

File Name Description Approved image001.png Properties of CO2 image002.png Saturation Properties of CO2 image004.png Properties of superheated CO2 image005.png Solubility of CO2 in water image006.png Material compatibility of CO2

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

NFPA 12-18 currently does not include basic physical property information for CO2. This is at odds with NFPA 12A,12B and 2001 which do include that information for the subject agent(s). The proposed change seeks to add physical property information for CO2 in line with what is done for related NFPA Standards. The proposed added information are extracts from ch 45 in teh SFPE Handbook.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Steven Hodges Organization: Alion Science And Technology Affiliation: US Army TARDEC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Dec 07 08:47:48 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

366 of 371

38 of 38 3/15/2019, 10:29 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 2-NFPA 12A-2018 [ Section No. 2.3.5 ]

2.3.5 ULC Publications. Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, 7 Underwriters Road, Toronto, ON M1R 3A9, Canada ULC Publications. ULC Standards, 17 Nepean Street, Suite 400, Ottawa, Ontario K2P0B4, Canada . CAN/ULC S524-14,Standard for the Installation of Fire Alarm Systems, 2014, R 2016 . CAN/ULC S529-16,Standard for Smoke S moke Detectors for Fire Alarm Systems, 2016.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Update of standard publication date and removal of repetitive wording and publication address.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: UL LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Dec 26 10:14:01 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

367 of 371

1 of 5 3/15/2019, 10:34 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 1-NFPA 12A-2018 [ Section No. 6.2.1 ]

6.2.1 U.S. Department of Transportation ( DOT), Canadian Transport Commission ( CTC) , or similar design Halon 1301 cylinders shall not be recharged without a retest retesting if more than 5 years the requalification period specified by the regulating authority for the container have elapsed since the date of the last test and inspection. 6.2.1.1 The retest shall be permitted to consist of a complete visual inspection as described in 49 CFR. 6.2.1.2 A cylinder may be requalified at any time during or before the month and year that the requalification is due. However, a cylinder filled before the requalification becomes due may remain in service until it is emptied. A cylinder with a specified service life may not be refilled and offered for transportation after its authorized service life has expired. 6.2.1.3 In Canada, the corresponding information shall be as set forth by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

Harmonize the language with the relevant section in 2001, and for better agreement with 49CFR.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Steven Hodges Organization: Alion Science And Technology Affiliation: US Army TARDEC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Dec 17 16:50:00 EST 2018 Committee: GFE-AAA

368 of 371

2 of 5 3/15/2019, 10:34 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 3-NFPA 12A-2019 [ Section No. A.4.1.2 ]

A.4.1.2 Transfer of full Halon 1301 containers that do not change ownership does not require recycling or quality testing. All Where agent recycling is performed, i t is recommended that the guidance of the HRC Code of Practice for Halon Reclaiming Companies be followed . All other design features should comply with this standard.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The HRC Code of Practice for Halon Reclaiming Companies was developed by the members of the Halon Recycling Corporation. The member companies have agreed the voluntary measures that these companies have agreed to observe. The measures address matters relation to operations, safety, equipment, and customer service.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Joseph Senecal Organization: Firemetrics Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jan 03 17:58:26 EST 2019 Committee: GFE-AAA

369 of 371

3 of 5 3/15/2019, 10:34 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

Public Input No. 4-NFPA 12A-2019 [ Section No. M.1.2 ]

Add a new reference to NFPA 12a Annex M titled: HRC Code of Practice for Halon Reclaiming Companies , by the Halon Recycling Corporation, 1001 19th Street North, Suite 1200, Arlington, VA 22209 . www.halon.org . M. 1.2 Other Publications. M.1.2.1 ASME Publications. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5590. ASME B31.1, Power Piping Code, 2016. ASME B31.9, Building Services Piping, 2014. M.1.2.2 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM A53/A53M, Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, 2012. ASTM A106/A106M, Standard Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High Temperature Service, 2015. ASTM A120, Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Welded and Seemless for Ordinary Uses, 1984 (withdrawn 1987). ASTM B88, Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube, 2016. ASTM E779, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization, 2010. ASTM SI10, American National Standard for Metric Practice, 2016. M.1.2.3 CGA Publications. Compressed Gas Association, 14501 George Carter Way, Suite 103, Chantilly, VA 20151-2923. CGA P-1, Safe Handling of Compressed Gas in Containers, 2015. M.1.2.4 CSA Group Publications. CSA Group, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON M9W 1R3, Canada. CAN/CGSB-149.10-M86, Determination of the Airtightness of Building Envelopes by the Fan Depressurization Method, 1986. M.1.2.5 EPA Publications. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton East Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Safety Guide for Decommissioning Halon Systems, Volume 2 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Outreach Report, "Moving Towards a World Without Halon," 1999. M.1.2.6 Flame Extinguishment and Inerting References. Bajpai, S. N., July 1976, “Extinction of Diffusion Flames by Halons,” FMRC Serial No. 22545, Report No. 76-T-59. Booth, K., B. J. Melia, and R. Hirst, June 24, 1976, “A Method for Critical Concentration Measurements for the Flame Extinguishment of Liquid Surface and Gaseous Diffusion Flames Using a Laboratory ‘Cup Burner’ Apparatus and Halons 1211 and 1301 as Extinguishants.” Dalzell, W. G., October 7, 1975, “A Determination of the Flammability Envelope of Four Ternary Fuel-Air- Halon 1301 Systems,” Fenwal Inc., Report DSR-624. Riley, J. F., and K. R. Olson, July 1, 1976, “Determination of Halon 1301/1211 Threshold Extinguishment Concentrations Using the Cup Burner Method,” Ansul Report AL-530A.

370 of 371

4 of 5 3/15/2019, 10:34 AM National Fire Protection Association Report https://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPar...

M.1.2.7 Toxicology References. Clark, D. G., 1970, “The toxicity of bromotrifluoromethane (FE 1301) in animals and man,” Ind. Hyg. Res. Lab. Imperial Chemical Industries, Alderley Park, Cheshire, England. The Hine Laboratories, Inc., 1968, “Clinical toxicologic studies on Freon FE 1301,” Report No. 1, San Francisco, CA (unpublished). Paulet, G., 1962, “Etude toxicologique et physiopathologique du mono-bromo-trifluoromethane (CF3Br),” Arch. Mal. Prof. Med. Trav. Secur. Soc. 23:341-348. (Chem. Abstr. 60:738e). Stewart, Richard D., Paul E. Newton, Anthony Wu, Carl L. Hake, and Neil D. Krivanek, 1978, “Human Exposure to Halon 1301,” Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (unpublished). Trochimowicz, H. J., A. Azar, J. B. Terrill, and L.S. Mullin, 1974, “Blood Levels of Fluorocarbon Related to Cardiac Sensitization,” Part II, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 35:632-639. Trochimowicz, H. J., et al., 1978, “The effect of myocardial infarction on the cardiac sensitization potential of certain halocarbons.” J. Occup. Med. 18(1):26-30. Van Stee, E. W., and K. C. Back, 1969, “Short-term inhalation exposure to bromotrifluoromethane,” Tox. & Appl. Pharm. 15:164-174. M.1.2.8 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. UL 711, Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers, 2002. [Historical reference. See I.2.] M.1.2.9 Additional References. United Nations Environment Programme, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer — Final Act 1987, UNEP/RONA, Room DC2-0803, United Nations, New York, NY 10017.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that emissions of the halons used in fire suppression equipment contribute to the depletion of stratospheric ozone and has published regulations concerning halon use and disposal (40 CFR § 82.270). It is therefore a public responsibility of companies engaged in reclaiming halon from such equipment to ensure that it is reclaimed in a manner which minimizes halon emissions to the atmosphere. Additionally, section 4.1.2 requires that, as a quality matter, Halon 1301 shall comply with the requirements of either Table 4.1.2 or ASTM D5632 / D5631M. Thus, the COP directly supports 4.1.2. The Code of Practice for Halon Reclaiming Companies was developed by the members of the Halon Recycling Corporation. The member companies have agreed the voluntary measures that these companies have agreed to observe. The measures address matters relation to operations, safety, equipment, and customer service.

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: Joseph Senecal Organization: Firemetrics Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jan 03 18:02:47 EST 2019 Committee: GFE-AAA

371 of 371

5 of 5 3/15/2019, 10:34 AM