274

Report of the Committee on

Portable Fire Extinguishers

David J. Burkhart, ChairCode Consultants, Inc., MO [SE]

James C. Elenbaas, Jr., Michigan Dept. of Consumer & Industry Services, MI [E]Richard J. Fairclough, Brooks Equipment Company, Inc., NC [M]Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corporation, AL [M] Rep. Compressed Gas AssociationErnest E. Horvath, Reliable Fire Equipment, IL [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, RI [I]Emil W. Misichko, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Gary A. Nadolny, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ AssociationJ. R. Nerat, Badger Fire Protection/Williams Holdings, MI [M] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionJames A. Oldham, Duke Power Company, NC [U] Rep. Edison Elecric InstituteRichard R. Osman, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [SE]Joseph E. Parkany, Nuclear Service Organization, DE [I]John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy Group, MD [U]Robert J. Ross, City of Middletown Fire Department, CT [E]George Unger, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, Canada [RT]Klaus Wahle, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, DC [E]

Alternates

Warren D. Bonisch, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, TX [SE] (Alt. to R. R. Osman)Randall Eberly, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, DC [E] (Alt. to K. Wahle)Rod Getz, Getz Fire Equipment, IL [M] (Alt. to E. E. Horvath)Michael J. Laderoute, MJL Associates, Inc., VA [M] (Alt. to G. P. Nadolny)Mike Larabel, CFPS, CFI, Alticor, Inc., MI [M] (Alt. to J. R. Nerat)Byron J. Sarago, Detroit Edison Company, MI [U] (Alt. to J. A. Oldham) Peter M. Shank, Nuclear Service Organization, DE [I] (Alt. to J. E. Parkany)David C. Smith, Factory Mutual Research Corporation, MA [I] (Alt. to R. Kasiski)James J. Urban, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to E. W. Misichko)

Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation, maintenance and use of portable fire extinguish-ers and equipment. Does not apply to permanently installed fire extinguishing systems even though portions of those systems are portable, such as hose and nozzles which may be attached to a fixed supply of extinguishing agent.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Por-table Fire Extinguishers is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 1998 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2002 May Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, which consists of 16 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

275

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #21)

10-1-(Entire Document) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Return the standard to the NFPA 10 Committee. The safety concerns resulting from the proposals accepted by the committee are significant. The changes required are extensive and need time for thorough con-sideration. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe the NFPA 10 document is not meant to be a marketing tool for the advantage of equipment sales. Its purpose of being a life safety and fire protection guide and requirement for portable fire extinguisher us-ers seems to be lost in many proposals accepted by the NFPA 10 Committee.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee acted on all of the comments received and felt that the issues were resolved through these actions. The com-mittee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #2)10-2-(1-3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-3RECOMMENDATION: Delete all definitions except the preferred definition. Also, there is a conflict in definition of class C fires (preferred) versus that in log CP#3. I believe CP3 is the correct definition. Do not agree with preferred definition of inspection - it should reference “extin-guisher” since this standard deals with extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: Only one definition should be included. Extra definitions will only confuse the end user.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the fol-lowing terms: ANSI (preferred) 1 American National Standards Institute. DOT. (preferred) 57 U.S. Department of Transportation. Dry Chemical A mixture of finely divided solid particles, usually sodium bicarbonate-, po-tassium bicarbonate-, or ammonium phosphate-based with added particulate material supplemented by special treatment to provide resistance to packing, and moisture absorption (caking), and to promote proper flow characteristics. Extinguisher Inspection A “quick check” that a fire extinguisher is available and is in operating condi-tion. It is intended to give reasonable assurance that the fire extinguisher is fully charged. This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, that it has not been actuated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent its operation. Extinguisher Service Pressure The normal operating pressure as indicated on the nameplate or cylinder of a fire extinguisher. Wet Chemical Wet chemicals include, but are not limited to, solutions of water and potassium acetate, potassium carbonate, potassium citrate, or any combinations thereof.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Deleted extra definitions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #22)10-3-(1-3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-5RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Class C Fires: Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where a very low electrical conductivity level of the extinguishing media is of importance. (When electrical equipment is de-energized, fire extinguishers for Class A or Class B fires can be used safely. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe this is another attempt to remove the traditional electrically nonconductive Class C agent (media) references and requirements from NFPA 10. That requirement should remain and proper references to it should be contained in the standard. If you users of fire extinguishers want to continue to have a Class C electrically nonconductive category of extinguishers, you had better let the NFPA 10 Committee know. See Comments on Proposals 10-17 and 10-15 for more information.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The definitions should only define the term. The proposed text provides additional criteria which would be inappropriate for a definition.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #64)10-4-(1-3) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-13RECOMMENDATION: Reject previously accepted proposal 10-13 which states: Add a definition for Water Mist Extinguishers to read as follows: Water Mist Extinguishers. A water type portable fire extinguisher containing dis-tilled water and employing a nozzle that discharges the agent in a fine spray.SUBSTANTIATION: The substantiation for the original proposal indicated: “Water mist extinguishers have been available in the marketplace for several years to meet special hazard requirements. Adding a new definition would recognize their availability. The above substantiation is in fact true; water mist extinguishers have been available in the market place for several years. However, this original pro-posal 10-13 and others are clearly a case of developing and marketing a prod-uct that is in conflict with NFPA 10 and then attempting to modify NFPA 10 to fit the product. NFPA 10 Section 1-4.3 states that portable fire extinguishers used to com-ply with this standard shall be listed and labeled and meet or exceed all the requirements of one of the fire test standards and one of the appropriate per-formance standards. It is important to reemphasize the words of NFPA 10, Section 1-4.3 ...MEET OR EXCEED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS ...AP-PROPRIATE PERFORMANCE STANDARD. The label on a water mist extinguisher indicates the extinguisher has been listed and labeled to Fire Test Standards ANSI/UL 711 and Performance Stan-dards ANSI/UL 626 and rated as Class A and Class C. However, after consultation with the manufacturer of the water mist extin-guisher, the manufacturer indicated that the water mist extinguishers were in fact tested and listed to Performance Standard UL 8 and not UL 626. This is in conflict to the placard on the water mist extinguisher, which indicates that the extinguisher is tested to ANSI/UL 626. UL 8 is the performance test standard for foam fire extinguishers. The scope of UL 8 indicates that the test standard is limited to portable foam-type fire extinguishers. Water mist extinguishers do not contain any of the features, characteristics, components, and materials necessary to be tested and labeled under this standard. UL 8 is in fact the wrong performance test standard for water mist extinguishers. Water mist extinguishers are Water Type extinguishers. The basic difference between a traditional water extinguisher and the water mist extinguisher is simply the discharge wand and nozzle. Essentially every other component is identical to a traditional water extinguisher. Therefore, to comply with NFPA 10, water type extinguishers should be tested to the Performance Standard, UL 626. This is further supported in the Scope of UL 626. In addition, Section 1.5 of UL 626 states “a product whose features, characteristics, components, materials, or systems conflict with specific requirements or provisions of this standard does not comply with this standard.” There are two basic provisions of 626 which water mist extinguishers do not comply with. First and foremost is Section 26.1 which states “...shall discharge a stream a horizontal distance of not less than 30 feet and maintain this range for at least 40 seconds.” Water mist extinguishers do not meet this criteria. Their effective discharge range is between 8-12 feet. In addition, Section 18.3 of UL 626 states “When a hose is hanging verti-cally, the tip of the nozzle shall clear any plane surface on which the extin-guisher is placed by at least 1/2 inch but not more than 2 1/2 inches. The hoses on water mist extinguishers do not meet this criteria. With respect to the Class C rating, water mist extinguishers should have not tested and granted a Class C Listing. NFPA 10, at that time, required extin-guishing agents for Class C to be nonconductive. Water, even distilled water, is highly conductive. The test criteria in UL fire test standard 711 is not an agent conductivity test, it is simply a test that assures the safety of the operator while the agent is being discharged. It does not test the conductivity of the agent. This conductivity issue is and has been addressed in numerous other proposals and comments. Water mist extinguishers were developed, inappropriately tested and mis-labeled, and marketed when they clearly do not meet the requirements of NFPA 10 or the appropriate UL test standards. The marketing of water mist extinguishers has violated the integrity of the NFPA, NFPA 10 Committee, Underwriters Laboratory, and eroded public trust. Therefore, due to the fact that water mist extinguishers were inappropriately tested to the wrong performance test standard as required by NFPA 10, Sec-tion 1-4.3 and the fact that they are mislabeled, they should not be recognized in any NFPA document.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Water mist extinguishers exist and the com-mittee feels that there is a need for a definition.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #66)

276

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA10-5-(1-3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-5RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Section 1-3 Class C Fires to revise text: Proposal to remove the “where electrical nonconductivity of the media is of importance. (When electrical equipment is de-energized, fire extinguishers for Class A or Class B fires can be used safely.)SUBSTANTIATION: One of the main hazards with an electrical fire is that the equipment is energized. Non conductivity of the media is very important to protect the operator and fire fighters in the event pooling of the agent oc-curs. While it is recognized that everything (even sand) is conductive then exposed to a great enough voltage, dry chemical, carbon dioxide, and ha-longenated agents will not create or leave behind the pooling hazard that wa-ter-based agents such as water mist. In addition to eliminating the important information that Class A and B fires can be used if the equipment is de-ener-gized, this change also provides the opportunity for technologies such as water mist to be used for Class C applications. The risk of misinformation of this type is that the person may survive the fire but be electrocuted in the process. As another concern, this change in definition will confuse and mislead the public. If this passes, anyone previously trained on extinguisher use will have the misconception that the Class C agent will not create a hazard to personnel. This misunderstand could potentially cause someone their life. Finally, this change would be inconsistent with federal law as outlined in the OSHA requirements.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-3 (Log #22).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #67)10-6-(1-3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-13RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Add new text to create a separate definition for “Water Mist “rather than include it within the definition of “Water Type Fire Extinguisher”.SUBSTANTIATION: a. There are no significant differences between the water mist technology and fire extinguishers such as the AFFF. From a hard-ware standpoint, only the nozzle design is different. For the extinguishing media, an attempt has been made to distinguish ‘distilled water’ from ‘water’. There is, however, no appreciable different in the fire fighting capability of the unit. In fact, the military allows the definition of water mist to include sea water although potable water is preferred. b. In looking at the users of the NFPA, care must be taken to understand the audience. For comprehension of the text, it is a mistake to establish a prece-dence whereby every hardware model and extinguishing media combination is defined rather than grouped into logical categories. c. This is a thinly veiled attempt to distinguish water mist from water type extinguishers in order to justify their use on energized electrical applications.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-4 (Log #64).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #68)10-7-(1-3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-14RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Add new text to create a separate defini-tion for “Wetting Agent “rather than include it within the definition of “Water Type Fire Extinguisher”.SUBSTANTIATION: There are no significant differences between a wet-ting agent and water-based extinguishing media. In looking at the users of the NFPA, care must be taken to understand the audience. For comprehension of the text, it is a mistake to establish a precedence whereby every hardware model and extinguishing media combination is defined rather than grouped into logical categories.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Wetting agent is a term used in the standard.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #56)10-8-(1-4.1 and 1-4.2) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: The revised wording and relocation to the Annex should be returned to the original wording and location.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee proposal is in appropriate and elimi-nates enforcement authority. The information in 1-4.1 and 1-4.2 is important information and germane to the end user. In addition, the deletion of the requirement in Item c “Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity” is in vio-lation of Federal law.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part Revise Item C to read as follows: (c) Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electric-ity.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text contains no requirement, therefore the committee feels that the information is more appropriate in the annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm. UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-

(Log #69)10-9-(1-4.1 and 1-4.2) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Reject and modify text. Eliminate the requirement of “Agent must be a non-conductor” in the description of Class C rating and move the explanation into the Annex section of the standard.SUBSTANTIATION: The electrocution risk of water type extinguishers which may pass the Underwriter Laboratories Class C test is very great, es-pecially with units as large as 2-1/2 gallon used on 440V transformers. In an industrial setting, given the proximity of extinguishers, more than one may be used on a fire. The requirement of the agent to be a non-conductor is impera-tive to eliminating this risk. This requirement is so critical to the standard, it cannot be moved to the An-nex whereby it is unenforceable.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PartCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-8 (Log #56).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm.UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-

(Log #91)10-10-(1-4.1 and 1-4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. R. Nerat, Badger Fire Protection/Rep. NFPA Industrial Sec-tionCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: (c) Class C Rating. No Fire Test. Special tests for nonconductivity of extin-guishing media as it is being discharged. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA-10 needs to remain consistent with other fire code class C fire extinguisher references and maintain its nonconductive agent requirement within the body of the standard. Operator life safety concerns should not be reduced or limited to test conditions that only evaluate operator electrocution potential back through the agent discharge stream. Before advo-cating novice fire extinguisher operators use water based extinguishing agents

277

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAon energized electrical class C hazards, proper testing must also address any safety hazards associated with water based agent fallout and pooling.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-8 (Log #56).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm.UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-

(Log #25)10-11-(1-4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-17RECOMMENDATION: This proposal includes renumbering paragraph 14.2.1 and the following revisions. 1-4.2.1 1.4.3(b)6 Wet chemical agents, water, water based agents, and halo-genated agents shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D1125-95, Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water. Fire extin-guishers containing any of these agents which have a conductivity higher than one microsiemen shall not be rated Class C. WARNING: Wet chemical agents...on them. (Comment; Include warning without change). SUBSTANTIATION: I agree with the proposer’s intent and substantiation; however, paragraph 1-4.2 has been moved to a non-mandatory section of NFPA 10. Adding it to paragraph 1-4.3(b)6 will make compliance mandatory. NFPA 10 has no restrictions on where portable Class C rated extinguishers are used on electrically energized equipment. Since 1926 and before, Class C listed fire extinguishers have contained agents with conductivities of less than 1 microsiemen. Wet chemical has a conductivity of 464,000 microsiemens and will bring housings, handles and tabletop puddles up to full line voltage when injected into ungrounded energized electrical equipment. Persons touch-ing such equipment can be seriously injured or killed. Standard electrical conductivity tests with 1 cubic centimeter. Samples of agent with 100 volts applied show that: 1. All previous Class C agents produce a current of less than .0001 amperes; 2. Wet chemical produces a current of 46.4 amperes. Usually fatal shock current levels for humans (.065 to .100 amperes). I be-lieve NFPA 10 has a duty to warn its users of the potential after use shock hazards of extinguishers rated Class K:C. Accept this comment and restore the safe, valuable, essentially nonconduc-tive Class C agent category to the users. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment for 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 ABSTENTION: 1EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-

(Log #70)10-12-(1-4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-17RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider rejected log and revise text. Reference a standard test ASTM D1125-95 Standard Test Method for Electrical Conduc-tivity for Resistivity of Water to establish those extinguishers which should carry a Class C Rating.SUBSTANTIATION: This is an established industry standard which can be utilized to eliminate the electrocution potential in pooling scenarios for Class C extinguishers. The current Underwriters Laboratory test method does not sufficiently address the operator safety beyond the discharge stream.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment for 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER: 1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold value, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-

(Log #71)10-13-(1-4.2) : Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-19RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. Accept in Principle elimi-nating the requirement that the ‘agent must be a nonconductor of electricity’ in the definition of Class C rating.SUBSTANTIATION: The electrocution risk of water type extinguishers which may pass the Underwriter Laboratories Class C test is very great, es-pecially with units as large as 2-1/2 gallon used on 440V transformers. In an industrial setting, given the proximity of extinguishers, more than one may be used on a fire. The requirement of the agent to be a non-conductor is impera-tive to eliminating this risk.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle in PartCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-8 (Log #56).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm.UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-(Log #65)

278

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA10-14-(1-4.2 (New) ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-17RECOMMENDATION: Accept Original proposal 10-17 (with the following changes), which states: Revise text to read as follows: (c) Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electric-ity. (For wet chemical water based agents see 1-4.2.1) 1-4.2.1 Wet chemical agents In addition to successfully meeting the requirements of UL 711, water based agents shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D1125-95, Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water. Fire extin-guishers containing wet chemical water based agents which have a conductiv-ity higher than one 1.5 microsiemen shall not be rated Class C. WARNING: Wet chemical agents are strong conductors of electricity. Turn off the power to the electrical appliances before using a wet chemical Class K rated fire ex-tinguisher on them.SUBSTANTIATION: The committee response to the original proposal indicated that the committee was not able to reach agreement on appropriate test criteria for the extinguishing agent. The above mentioned test and below mentioned criteria is a Nationally recognized standard test and is grounded in true science. The threshold of 1.5 microsiemen is referenced in ASTM D1125-95 as the maximum conductivity for reagents. The basis here is that when water is higher than 1.5 microsiemen, it’s properties are changed signifi-cantly enough to be considered conductive. In the interest of public safety, we must preserve the long-standing tradition that Class C agents are nonconductive and safe for use on energized electrical equipment not only while being discharged but also after the agent has been discharged. With the addition of wet chemical and water mist fire extinguishing agents having a Class C rating the current paragraph 1-4.2(c), NFPA 10, 1998 edi-tion, needs clarification of the existing thirty five year old, Class C rating for the agent to be nonconductive. There is no specific test in the Performance Standards cited in paragraph 1-4.3 of NFPA 10, 1998 edition which addresses this issue. Resolution: The addition of ASTM D1125-95, Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, a standardized test method, and a threshold value of 1.5 microsiemen, will clarify the require-ment for the extinguishing agent to be nonconductive, as required in para-graph 1-4.2(c) of the NFPA 10, 1998 edition. This will correct a problem that was overlooked during a regular revision cycle by providing consistency for testing of the wet chemical and water mist extinguishing agents, with the other extinguishing agents. The performance requirement is equivalent to Section 50.4, Dielectric Strength Test, in ANSI/UL 299 as cited in paragraph 1-4.3 of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will fulfill a void in the Performance Standards for wet chemical as specified in paragraph 1-4.3 of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will also return to the public a benefit that would rectify a continuing danger-ous life safety situation from a recognized hazard.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commitee Comment for 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER: 1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more

appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold value, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-

(Log #19)10-15-(1-4.2(c)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Mike Larabel, CFPS, CFI, Alticor Inc./Rep. Industrial Fire Protection SectionCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Leave current wording in effect. SUBSTANTIATION: Extinguishers rated for electrical fires should utilize an extinguishing agent that is nonconductive. Water based agents are extremely conductive and should not be allowed to be rated for class “C” extinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-8 (Log #56).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm.UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-

(Log #23)10-16-(1-4.2(c)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity as required by paragraph 1-4.3(b)6. Note: This recommended comment wording refers directly to paragraph 1-4.2(c) in NFPA 10, 1998. (Explanation; see comment by P. Huston on proposal 10-17, paragraph 1-4.2).SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change removes the traditional electri-cal nonconductivity characteristic of Class C rated agents as shown in the 1998 NFPA 10 Standard. I believe highly conductive agent wet chemical Class K; C rated extinguishers and conductive water mist are in violation of the requirements of NFPA 10, 1998. Approve the comment and the low safe conductivity Class C category of extinguishers will remain available to the users. Also, see Comment 10-17 by P. Huston on paragraph 1-4.2 for more information.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-8 (Log #56).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1-4.1 Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) permits agents to be conductive to 1.0 microsiemen/cm.UNGER: 1. Class C rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. Since UL 711 has always evaluated the Class C rating for fire extinguishers while the agent is being discharged from the extinguisher, this statement needs to be included. Furthermore, the proposal for 1.4.4 (Log #CC1) is permitting agents to be conductive.

————————————————-(Log #8)

279

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA10-17-(1-4.2(e)) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: (e) class K rating. Special tests on cooking appliances using combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats). Wet chemical extinguishers manufactured after Jan. 1, 2002 should not be listed and labeled with a class C rating. SUBSTANTIATION: First sentence was inadvertently left out of ROP pro-posal. Also, second sentence revised to acknowledge that there are many class K extinguishers in existence with class C ratings. An agreement by FEMA members will assure that after Jan. 1, 2002 that no new class K extinguishers will be manufactured with a class C rating. COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part Replace (e) with the following: (e) Class K rating. Special tests on cooking appliances using combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats).COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that it would be more appropriate to refer to the special tests in a generic way rather than in a nega-tive way.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #32)10-18-(1-4.4) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following new paragraph: 1-4.4.1 Fire extinguishers manufactured prior to January 1, 1986 shall not be required to comply with paragraph 1-4.4.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #CC1)10-19-(Para 1-4.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 1.4.4 Extinguishers listed for the Class C rating shall not contain an agent that is a conductor of electricity. In addition to successfully meeting the re-quirements of UL 711, water based agents shall be tested in accordance with

ASTM D 5391-93, Standard Test for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water Sample. Fire extinguishers containing water based agents which have a conductivity higher than 1.00 microsiemens/cm at 25C (77F) shall be considered a conductor of electricity and therefore shall not be rated Class C. This requirement applies only to water based extinguishers manufactured after August 15, 2002. SUBSTANTIATION: Recommendation For Conductivity Value For Water Based Fire Extinguishing Agent. The value for conductivity has been derived from the inverse of resistivity as determined from the voltage and current values according to Ohm’s law. [1] G = I (amps)/ E (volts) G = Conductivity I = Current E = Voltage In order to solve for conductivity the following values were chosen: E = Voltage = 5000 Vac – This voltage was chosen based upon the correlating value for dry chemical extinguishing agents as specified in ANSI/UL 299, Section 48, Extinguishing Agents, paragraph 48.1.2. I = Current =2.6 milliamps = 4 miliamps x 0.65 = Beginning of reflex action for a female adult – reference Table 1, P39 – Naval Research Laboratory report 6475, published May 25, 1989. Solving for Conductivity: G = I/ E = 0.0026 / 5000 = 0.5 x 10-6 S/cm =0.5 microsiemen /cm Based upon this analysis it is proposed a maximum of 1.00 microsiemen / cm @ 25°C (77°F). It is proposed this value to be determined based upon ASTM D 5391 - 93, Standard Test Method for Electrical Coductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water Sample. This method is proposed based upon the recom-mendation from Mr. David Gray, Thorton Inc, member of the ASTM D1125 Committee, for determining conductivity values below 10 microsiemens/cm.See ComparisonValues Table Below REFERENCES 1. Eutech Instruments Web Page, Tech Tips “Introduction to Conductivity”, October 31, 2001. 2. American Pacific Corp. E-mail, “Subject: Halon / Halotron I Conductivi-ties”, Jeff Gibson, October 31, 2001. 3. Dupont E-mail, “Subject: Resistivity”, Greg Rubin, October 9, 2001. 4. Systems Design Manual, “A.1.16 Electrical Properties”, Imperial Chemi-cal Industries Limited, Mond Division, Document GC/1158/1857/3Ed/13/374, pp 9, 10. 5. Physical Chemistry, “Some Applications of Conductance Measurements”, Gordon M. Barrow, Second Edition, p682. 6. TPS Pty Ltd. Web Page, “Conductivity Measurements”, August 3, 2000. 7. E. H. Bolander et al., “Use of Seawater for Fighting Electrical Fires”, Hughes Associates, May 25, 1989, p. 6, 32. 8. Santa Clara Valley Water District Web Page, “Drinking Water

Comparison Values

ExtinguishingAgent

Manufacturerof Agent

ConductivityMicrosiemen/cm, (µS/cm)

TestMethod

Source of Data

Halon 1211 Either ICI America or Great Lakes Chemicals

0.303 µS/cm at ñ10°C (14° F) *ASTM D1125, Method A

American Pacific [2]

ICI America 0.000111 µS/cm ¨ Unknown ICI Americas[4]

Halotron I American Pacific 0.289 µS/cm at -10° C (14° F) *ASTM D1125, Method A

American Pacific [2]

HFC-236(FE-36)

Dupont 0.0000101 µS/cm sASTM 924-92 Dupont [3]

Absolute Pure Water Theoretical 0.055 µS/cm at 25° C (77° F) N/A [5, 6, 1]

Distilled Water Unknown 1 µS/cm at 25°C (77° F) Conductivity Meter TPS Pty Ltd [6]

*ASTM D1125-95, Standard Test Method for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, Method A ñ Minor adjustments due to low boiling point, and vapor pressure of extinguishing agents.s ASTM 924-92, Standard Test Method for Dissipation Factor (or Power Factor) and Relative Permittivity (Dielectric Constant) of Electrical Insulating Liq-uids ñ The results from this test method were presented as resistivity. The results were converted by calculation to conductivity.¨ The data from this source was presented as resistivity. The results were converted by calculation to conductivity.

280

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPALaboratory/SCVWD Laboratory Water Quality Reports”, September 2001.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER: 1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold value, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-

(Log #33)10-20-(1-4.5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the two exceptions and add the following two paragraphs: 1-4.5.1 Fire extinguishers manufactured prior to January 1, 1989 shall not be required to comply with paragraph 1-4.5 1-4.5.2 Certification organizations accredited by the Standards Council of Canada shall not be required to comply with paragraph 1-4.5.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #34)10-21-(1-6.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following new paragraph: 1-6.1.1 Fire extinguishers classified for use on Class C, Class D, or Class K hazards shall not be required to have a number preceding the classification letter.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptionsNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #58)10-22-(1-6.4(g)) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-23RECOMMENDATION: Reject Proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers with metal horns are still widely used for the protection of Class B fires and should not be arbi-trarily determined by the committee as obsolete. This is simply a marketing ploy.

COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: These extinguishers, if still in service, are past their useful life. Calling for removal of these units will avoid confusion and necessary statements in the standard that refer to using carbon dioxide ex-tinguishers on Class C fires except if equipped with a metal horn.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #90)10-23-(1-6.7) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Michael Kluczynski, New Dimension IndustriesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-27RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers types shall be securely installed on the hanger or on/in a listed bracket approved for such purpose or in the bracket supplied by the extinguisher manufacturer or placed in cabinets or wall recesses. The hangar bracket shall be securely and properly anchored to the mounting surface in accordance with the manufacturer’s in-structions. Portable fire extinguishers with a gross weight of 12 pounds or less shall be installed in strap-type brackets unless they are placed in cabinets or wall recesses. Wheeled type fire extinguishers shall be located in a designated location. SUBSTANTIATION: By limiting hanger(s)/bracket(s) to the use of those supplied only by the extinguisher manufacturer it creates exclusion of other forms of “Listed” or “Classified” brackets, hangers or devices that have been tested and found to perform equal to or to a greater degree than the OEM device.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise text as follows: Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers shall be securely installed on the hanger, or in the bracket supplied by the extinguisher manu-facturer, or in a listed bracket approved for such purpose, or placed in cabinets or wall recesses. Wheeled fire extinguishers shall be located in a designated location.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agreed that a listed bracket approved for the purpose would satisfy the need.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #24)10-24-(2-2.1.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-32RECOMMENDATION: This comment deletes proposed text and returns the text to the requirement shown in the NFPA 10, 1998 Standard as follows: 2.2.1.1 Fire Extinguishers for protecting Class A hazards shall be selected from the following: (a) Water type, (b) Halogenated agent type (for halon-agent type fire extin-guishers, see 2-1-1). (c) Multipurpose dry chemical type, (d) Wet chemical type. SUBSTANTIATION: That extinguishers must be specifically listed and la-beled for use on classes of fires is required by paragraph 1-4.3. Proposal 10-32 for paragraph 2-2.1.1 has no real information value to the user. I believe it is part of an effort to eliminate the present authority of the NFPA 10 Commit-tee to review and evaluate and understand new models of extinguishers and agents and their applications before integrating them into the standard. See Proposals 10-32, 10-33, 10-34. For agreement with this comment see Propos-als 10-35, 10-36, 10-37, and if you have time, 10-39.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: More appropriate as annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

281

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #26)10-25-(2-2.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-33RECOMMENDATION: This comment deletes the proposed text and returns the text to the requirement shown in the NFPA 10 1998 standard as follows: 2.2.1.2 Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class B hazards shall be se-lected from the following: (a) Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) (b) Film-forming fluoroprotein foam (FFFP) (c) Carbon dioxide (d) Dry chemical type (e) Halogenated agent type (for halon agent-type fire extinguishers, see 2.1.1). SUBSTANTIATION: That extinguishers must be specifically listed and labeled for use on classes of fires is required by paragraph 1-4.3. Proposal 10-33 has no real information value to the user. I believe it is part of an effort to eliminate the present authority of the NFPA 10 Committee to review and evaluate and understand new models of extinguishers and agents and their ap-plications before integrating them into the standard. See proposals 10-32, 10-33, and 10-34. For agreement with this comment see proposals 10-35, 10-36, 10-37, and if you have time, 10-39.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: More appropriate as annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #28)10-26-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-34RECOMMENDATION: This comment deletes the proposed text and the 1998 Standard text and returns it generally to the text of NFPA 10, 1994 as follows: Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from the following: (a) Carbon dioxide, (b) Dry chemical type, (c) Halogenated agent type (for halon agent-type fire extinguishers see 2.1.1). SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 1-4.3 requires extinguishers must be listed and labeled. The existing and proposed paragraph 2-2.1.3 has no informa-tional value to the users of the NFPA 10 Standard. Paragraph 2-2.1.3 as shown in NFPA 10, 1998, was turned down by a majority of the committee, turned down at the Fall Convention; but, through an appeal to the NFPA Standards Council, was put into the 1998 Standard. I believe the present wording is part of an effort to require the NFPA 10 Committee to automatically accept any new agent or extinguisher design into the standard that is listed and labeled by UL. I believe the NFPA 10 Committee needs to have a check and balance authority to protect the interests of the users of extinguishers. See comment by Paul Huston on Proposal 10-17, paragraph 1-4.2 and Proposals 10-35, 10-36, 10-37, and 10-38.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee is relying on the listing pro-cess to identify extinguishers for use on Class C hazards.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #51)

10-27-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mike Larabel, CFPS, CFI, Alticor Inc./Rep. Industrial Fire Protection SectionCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-39RECOMMENDATION: Proposal 10-39 (Log #CP5) intends to delete the note attached to Section 2-2.1.3 apparently as a result of the proposed addi-tion to 1-6.4(g) which obsolete carbon dioxide extinguishers with metal horns. The current note should remain in place but the wording should be changed as follows: “NOTE: Carbon dioxide Fire extinguishers equipped with metal horns dis-charge devices are not considered safe for use on fires in energized electrical equipment and, therefore, are not classified for use on Class C hazards.”SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminating this note will open the door for use of fire extinguishers with metal wands and other metal discharge devices. Even though carbon dioxide extinguishers with metal horns have become obsolete, there are a number of other extinguishers that utilize metal discharge devices. Any type of extinguisher that uses a metal discharge device around energized electrical equipment poses a serious electrocution hazard to the operator and should not be permitted.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Cartridge operated dry chemical extinguish-ers have metal discharge devices and are appropriate for Class C hazards.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #57)10-28-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-39RECOMMENDATION: Reject Proposal.SUBSTANTIATION: Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers with metal horns are still widely used for the protection of Class B fires. This note is important for the end user of this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-27 (Log #51).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #72)10-29-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-35RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider rejected log and revise text. Only identify safe extinguishers to be used on Class C fires as halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. These extinguishers do not create a sec-ondary hazard to the operator.SUBSTANTIATION: It is imperative to eliminate the risk of electrocution due to pooling of agent after discharge in a Class C fire. The Underwriters Laboratories Class C test does not address the electrocution risk. The pro-posal specifically eliminates recommendation of using water mist and wet chemical technologies in Class C applications.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-26 (Log #28)NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #84)10-30-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-38RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider rejected log. Only identify safe extin-guishers to be used on Class C fires as halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: It is imperative to eliminate the risk of electrocution due to pooling of agent after discharge in a Class C fire. The Underwriters Laboratories Class C test does not address the electrocution risk. The proposal specifically eliminates recommendation of using water mist and wet chemical technologies in Class C applications.COMMITTEE ACTION:Reject

282

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-26 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #85)10-31-(2-2.1.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-36RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider rejected log. Only identify safe extin-guishers to be used on Class C fires as halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. These extinguishers do not create a secondary hazard to the operator. SUBSTANTIATION: It is imperative to eliminate the risk of electrocution due to pooling of agent after discharge in a Class C fire. The Underwriters Laboratories Class C test does not address the electrocution risk. The proposal specifically eliminates recommendation of using water mist and wet chemical technologies in Class C applications.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on Comment 10-26 (Log #28).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #83)10-32-(2-2.1.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-40RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Add the requirement that Class D extin-guishers be ‘listed and approved’. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA should not automatically recommend units in a given class based upon a limited testing protocol completed by a third-party test laboratory. For example, NFPA should retain the ability to review the products to which Underwriters Laboratories grants listings and determine if the products should be recommended. This modification to the standard elimi-nates the ability for NFPA to disagree with UL’s recommendations and sets a precedence. In the case of the use of water mist in Class C fires, while the UL is being consistent in their test methodology, the testing is not sufficient to insure the personnel in the area will be safe from electrocution.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that listing is appropri-ate as a minimum. The term “approved” means acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #29)10-33-(2-2.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-41RECOMMENDATION: This comment supports a return to the existing paragraph 2.2.1.5 in NFPA 10, 1998, as follows: Fire extinguishers and extinguishing agents for the protection of Class K hazards shall be selected from either a wet chemical or dry chemical type. SUBSTANTIATION: The wet chemical Class K kitchen and cooking appli-cations proposed for NFPA 10 are very badly done and in many instances are an unnecessary burden to the users. The Class K definition is not correct as Class K extinguishers should only be required for combustible cooking media in depth. A 2 1/2 gallon wet chemical Class K fire extinguisher is acceptable but not required to put out a frying pan fire or a Waffle House griddle fire. I believe the standard needs to be returned to the NFPA 10 Committee so all these interlacing unnecessary, improper requirements can be corrected. See Proposal 10-48, paragraph 2-3.2 and 2-3.2.1) for more information.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Extinguishers for Class K hazards should be listed for Class K.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #73)10-34-(2-2.1.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-41RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. Delete the requirement that Class K extinguishers be of the wet chemical type or dry chemical type. In-stead state “those specifically listed and labeled”.SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA should not automatically recommend units in a given class based upon a limited testing protocol completed by a third-party test laboratory. For example, NFPA should retain the ability to review the products to which Underwriters Laboratories grants listings and determine if the products should be recommended. This modification to the standard elim-inates the ability for NFPA to disagree with UL’s recommendations and sets a precedence. In the case of the use of water mist in Class C fires, while the UL is being consistent in their test methodology, the testing is not sufficient to insure the personnel in the area will be safe from electrocution.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment for Comment 10-33 (Log #29).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 15 NEGATIVE: 1EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: WAHLE: The selection of specific types of extinguishers for particular class of hazards provides important guidance to the public. The Committee’s proposal to replace the selection of extinguishers with a statement that ex-tinguishers must be listed for a particular hazard rather than identifying suit-able extinguisher types does not provide the needed information. It shifts the NFPA’s function to educate the public to the listing laboratories.

————————————————-

(Log #35)10-35-(2-3.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle 1. Delete the exception and add the following paragraph: 2-3.2.1 Fire extinguishers installed specifically for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media (animal, vegetable oils and fats) prior to June 30, 1998 shall not be required to comply with paragraph 2-3.2. (also see Paragraph 2-3.2.2) 2. Renumber existing paragraphs accordingly.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The manual of style recommends elimina-tion of exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOODNIGHT: The words “or animal” were inadvertently left out of the par-enthetical phrase. It should read “vegetable or animal oils and fats”. LADEROUTE: Want to be sure the words printed in the standard include “animal or vegetable oils and fats”.

————————————————-

(Log #59)10-36-(2-3.2 (New) ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-45RECOMMENDATION: Accept Original Proposal 10-45, which states: Add last sentence and note to paragraph 2-3.2 as follows: 2.3.2 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires. Class K fire extinguishers shall not be equipped with “extended wand type” discharge devices. Note: Class K fire extinguishers equipped with “extended wand type” discharge devices which can permit subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguishing agents into hot cooking media are not safe for use. Subsurface injection causes a thermody-namic reaction comparable to an explosion, which can cause serious injury or death and may contribute to the rapid spread of fire.SUBSTANTIATION: The reason for rejection was that the Committee felt

283

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAthat there is not sufficient history to support this recommendation and the safety concerns raised were not the consensus of the group. It is important to note that there has been at least one documented case of injury from the un-intentional misapplication of a wanded unit. How many injuries are enough? We, the committee and NFPA, should not ignore a known safety problem and wait for a body count to address this recognized hazard. In addition, there is no central comprehensive database to collect and provide information regarding such potentially sensitive product liability issues. It is my understanding that there have been definitive agreements between the fire extinguishers manufacturers to resolve this issue. The fire extin-guisher manufactures have agreed to remove wands from the Class K fire extinguishers. However, this wording must be included in the standard to prevent future use of wanded units.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise 2.3.2 to read as follows: 2.3.2 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires. Class K fire extinguishers manufac-tured after January 1, 2002 shall not be equipped with “extended wand type” discharge devices. Add A-2-3.2 to read as follows: Class K fire extinguishers equipped with “extended wand type” discharge devices which can permit subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguish-ing agents into hot cooking media are not safe for use. Subsurface injection causes a thermodynamic reaction comparable to an explosion, which can cause serious injury or death and may contribute to the rapid spread of fire.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that the standard could only address extinguishers manufactured after January, 2002. The Manual of Style recommends appendix material in lieu of notes.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #20)10-37-(2-3.2.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: R. T. Leicht, Delaware State Fire Marshal’s OfficeCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-49RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Where no cooking appliances utilizing combustible cooking media in excess of 1 in. in depth are present, either bicarbonate based dry chemical fire extin-guishers with a rating of 40-BC or Class K fire extinguishers may be provided for protection of cooking appliances if permitted by the authority having jurisdiction. SUBSTANTIATION: When Class K fire extinguishers were invented, they reportedly showed superior performance on fires involving deep fat fryers. It was found that over the years, the media used in these appliances had evolved from animal based fats to vegetable oils presently used. Bicarbonate based ex-tinguishers were effective on appliances where animal based fats were present since the ability to saponify was more prevailing when animal based fats were mixed with bicarbonate compounds. The authorization to use the proposed permission is dependent on two condi-tions. Firstly, when any appliance is present that could have a depth of 1 in. or more of oil, only Class K rated extinguishers would be permitted. However, if the rating of an extinguisher (40-B) has the ability to handle 100 sq ft of gasoline, it certainly can handle a smaller wok, griddle, or pan with a shallow puddle of melted butter or hamburger grease. Secondly, the permission isn’t automatic. It would require AHJ approval. The AHJ would not be allowing permission if deep fat fryers (or other circumstances that add to the overall hazard) are found. By not adding this recourse, it will create political pressure for AHJs, who in good conscious know that the 40-B extinguisher is adequate, to deviate from the standard, not adopt the Standard, or possibly even look away from NFPA for a code that isn’t as unyielding.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-38 (Log #60).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #60)10-38-(2-3.2.1 (New) ) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-49RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows: Accept original proposal which states: Add text to read as follows: Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth of 1 in. or less shall be of the sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical type, or listed for Class K. Bicarbonate dry chemical type extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 40-BC.SUBSTANTIATION: The reason for rejection was that the Committee feels that the criteria in Proposal 10-50 (Log #79), 2-3.2 and 2-3.2.2 is appropriate for this application. I disagree with the committee’s reason for rejection.

Class K extinguishers were developed to address the difficulty extinguish-ing fires in oils in depth (over one-inch). Some restaurants do not use deep fat fryers and should be given the option to select from sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical type or class K extinguishers. In this application, sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical type provide an acceptable level of protection.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Unenforceable.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: OSMAN: Committee Action on 10-37 should be “reject”.

————————————————-

(Log #30)10-39-(2-3.2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-50RECOMMENDATION: The wording for paragraph 2-3.2.2 as contained in proposal 10-48 should be accepted. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal does not take into account that many restaurants such as Waffle House do not have deep fat fryers and do not need a 2 1/2 gallon wet chemical extinguisher. Their 40 B rated dry chemical ex-tinguishers are quite successful. See Proposal 10-48 for detailed information. There is a serious public safety issue involved here.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Extinguishers listed for Class K hazards have been found to be more effective than existing dry chemical extinguishers without a Class K listing. By requiring their replacement with a Class K listed extinguisher, fire protection and safety for commercial cooking operations will be improved. Requiring replacement at the hydrostatic test interval will lessen the economic burden while not allowing older, less effective extin-guishers to remain in place indefinitely.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #5)10-40-(2-3.2.2, A-2.3.2.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-51RECOMMENDATION: Delete proposed wording. SUBSTANTIATION: Compromise by FEMA members will insure that wand type discharge devices will not be used on K type extinguishers after Jan. 1, 2002 and therefore is not needed in NFPA 10.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #31)10-41-(2-3.5) : Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-53RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires 2.3.5.1 Fire extinguishers for protection of grounded delicate electronic equipment shall be selected from either a carbon dioxide type or a halogenated agent type or a water mist distilled water agent type extinguisher. 2.3.5.2 Fire extinguishers for the protection of ungrounded delicate elec-tronic equipment shall be selected from either a Class C rated carbon dioxide type or a halogenated agent type extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist (distilled water) has a nominal low con-ductivity of 18 microsiemens. While this conductivity level exceeds the recommended conductivity level for general purpose Class C rated extinguish-ers, analysis shows it can be considered safe to use on grounded electronic equipment. The safety question is related to secondary, after-use shock ef-fects through the connection by the agent of external conductive components (handles and housings) to internal energized components. The very low conductivity level of water mist (distilled water) agent should prohibit supplying enough current to external grounded conductive compo-nents to produce a hazard to persons who touch them.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that an operator would not know whether the item is grounded or ungrounded.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

284

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA(Log #61)

10-42-(2-3.5) : Accept SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-52RECOMMENDATION: Revise text read as follows: 2-3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for the protection of electronic equipment shall be selected from types from either carbon dioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from specially listed water type (water mist) extinguishers with a specifically listed and labeled for Class C. See 2-2.1.3.SUBSTANTIATION: The above changes are necessary to agree with the changes made in proposal 10-34 Log 30 (Section 2-2.1.3).COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOODNIGHT: I believe we should return to the ROP wording for this para-graph: “Fire extinguishers for the protection of electronic equipment shall be se-lected from either a carbon dioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from specially listed water type, (water mist) extinguishers with a class C rating. See 2-2.1.3”. The wording that was approved at the ROC meeting in Tampa will allow the use of dry chemical extinguishers to protect electronic equipment. While the dry chemical chosen may extinguish the fire, there will undoubtedly be col-lateral damage. In many instances the use of a dry chemical extinguisher in a computer room will result in the entire computer being ruined. Paragraph 2-3.5 and A.2-3.5 have historically avoided the recommendation on the use of dry chemical extinguishers. While A.2.3.5 still contains the cau-tions against using dry chemicals, most people will never look beyond the wording of the standard. I urge each of you to reconsider the Committee Action in the ROC and to change the wording back to that which was in the ROP document. KASISKI: Need to add asterisk to identify Appendix material. Appendix material needs to be revised due general requirement in body of standard. Pre-vious edition had specific types of fire extinguishers referenced. LADEROUTE: Dry chemical should not be used on electronic equipment. Although dry chemical will extinguish and is approved for this class of haz-ard, the contamination left behind is unacceptable. Other products provide a better choice. OSMAN: It appears that the Committee Action on 10-42 and 10-43 needs to be coordinated. I believe the Committee’s intent was to accept the wording in 10-42 and then add in the word “delicate” in response to 10-43. If that is the final action then the Committee Statement on 10-44 should reference both 10-42 and 10-43.

————————————————-

(Log #74)10-43-(2-3.5) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-52RECOMMENDATION: Reject and add text. Delete the addition of water mist as safe for electrical fires. Also, delete the word ‘delicate’ when describ-ing electronic equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of the paragraph is to warn of damage to delicate electronic equipment in the event an extinguishing media other than carbon dioxide or halogenated agent are utilized. Water mist is not a clean agent. By leaving a residue, it will either stop the product from operating im-mediately or significantly decrease its life. All electronic equipment contain printed circuit boards with copper traces. Any water or condensation that touches the traces starts a corrosion process. Depending on the amount, the ef-fect may be instantaneous or delayed. In addition, the elimination of ‘delicate’ infers that water mist can be utilized on any electrical equipment. As previously stated, water mist is not suitable for high voltage/high amperage equipment due to the risk of electrocution from agent pooling.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part Add the word “delicate” back in. 2-3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for the protection of delicate electronic equipment shall be from either carbon dioxide type, haloge-nated agent type, or from specially listed water type (water mist) extinguishers with a Class C rating. See 2-2.1.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A-2-3.5 describes delicate electronic equip-ment.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: OSMAN: It appears that the Committee Action on 10-42 and 10-43 needs to be coordinated. I believe the Committee’s intent was to accept the wording in 10-42 and then add in the word “delicate” in response to 10-43. If that is the final action then the Committee Statement on 10-44 should reference both 10-42 and 10-43.

————————————————-

(Log #75)10-44-(2-3.5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-53RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. Add water mist as safe for electrical fires. SUBSTANTIATION: The purpose of the paragraph is to warn of damage to delicate electronic equipment in the event an extinguishing media other than carbon dioxide or halogenated agent are utilized. The addition of water into electrical equipment creates a secondary problem - it will either stop the prod-uct from operating immediately or significantly decrease its life. All electronic equipment contains printed circuit boards with copper traces. Any water or condensation that touches the traces starts a corrosion process. Depending on the amount, the effect may be instantaneous or delayed. In addition, the elimination of ‘delicate’ infers that water mist can be utilized on any electrical equipment. As previously stated, water mist is not suitable for high voltage/high amperage equipment due to the risk of electrocution from agent pooling.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-42 (Log #61).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: OSMAN: It appears that the Committee Action on 10-42 and 10-43 needs to be coordinated. I believe the Committee’s intent was to accept the wording in 10-42 and then add in the word “delicate” in response to 10-43. If that is the final action then the Committee Statement on 10-44 should reference both 10-42 and 10-43.

————————————————-

(Log #1)10-45-(3-2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jon Nisja, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-55RECOMMENDATION: Delete in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe that hose streams should be permit-ted to be used by building occupants in the event of a fire. We should be ad-vocating evacuation. Hose streams should only be used by trained industrial fire brigade members in accordance with NFPA 600.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard does not direct who uses the hoses. The standard only provides selection, placement, and servicing criteria.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #95)10-46-(3-2.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-55RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 3-2.2 When approved, up to one-half of the complement of fire extinguish-ers as specified in Table 3-2.1 shall be permitted to be replaced by uniformly spaced 3.81-cm (11/2-in.) hose stations for use by the occupants of the build-ing. Where hose stations are so provided, they shall conform to NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. The location of hose stations and the placement of fire extinguishers shall be such that the hose stations do not replace more than every other fire extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: We believe that by adding the term “When Approved” to this section better clarifies that the ahj must approve the removal of portable fire extinguishers to permit hose line. As it is currently worded this reduction can be used without any approval when portable fire extinguishers may be a better fix. Our original proposal was to delete this section but we believe that this is a better fix. This permits hose lines to be installed in place of portable fire extinguishers when approved by the AHJ.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The decision can be made by an informed architect or installer.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #36)10-47-(3-3.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following new paragraph: 3-3.1.1 Fire extinguishers of lesser rating, desired for small specific hazards

285

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAwithin the general hazard area, shall be permitted to be installed but shall not be considered as fulfilling any part of the requirements of Table 3-3.1.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #37)10-48-(3-3.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle 1. Replace 3-3.2 and the two exceptions with the following: 3-3.2 Up to three AFFF or FFFP fire extinguishers of at least 2 1/2-gal (9.46-L) capacity shall be permitted to be used to fulfill extra (high) hazard requirements. 3-3.3 Two AFFF or FFFP fire extinguishers of at least 1 1/2-gal (6-L) capacity shall be permitted to be used to fulfill ordinary (moderate) hazard requirements. 3-3.4 Two or more fire extinguishers of lower rating shall not be used to fulfill the protection requirements of Table 3-3.1 except as permitted by 3-3.2 and 3-3.3. 2. Renumber existing paragraphs accordingly.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: KASISKI: Editorial, not correct sequence, needs to be corrected to convey proper requirement.

————————————————-

(Log #27)10-49-(3-5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & AssociatesCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-57RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: Fire extinguishers with Class C ratings shall be required where energized electrical equipment can be encountered that would require a non conducting or an extremely low conducting an agent with a very low conductivity of one microsiemen or less (see paragraph 1.4.2(b)6). (The rest of the paragraph as shown in NFPA 10, 1998, does not change). SUBSTANTIATION: The statement that ALL ABC dry chemical and halons are very conductive is very misleading. Dry chemical is a dielectric. Tests show it forces electrical energy to go around it. Halons and all halogenated agents have a conductivity of less than 1 microsiemen. Wet chemical Class K:C rated extinguishers contain an agent with a conductivity of 464,000 microsiemens. See comment on Proposal 10-17, paragraph 1-4.2 for more information. Listed and labeled Class K:C rated wet chemical extinguishers have been marketed since 1996. The NFPA 10 Standard needs to maintain a safe conductivity level for Class C rated extinguishers for the safety benefits it would provide to users of extinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER:

1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold value, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-

(Log #76)10-50-(3-5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-57RECOMMENDATION: Reject and delete text. Elimination of the require-ment that Class C extinguisher media needs to be nonconductive. SUBSTANTIATION: The electrocution risk of water type extinguishers which may pass the Underwriters Laboratories Class C test is very great, espe-cially with units as large as 2 1/2 gal used on 440V transformers. In an indus-trial setting, given the proximity of extinguishers, more than one may be used on a fire. The requirement of the agent to be a non-conductor is imperative to eliminating this risk.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 14 ABSTENTION: 2EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER: 1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold

286

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAvalue, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-

(Log #38)10-51-(4-1.5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following paragraph: 4-1.6 Labels indicating fire extinguisher use or classification or both shall be permitted to be placed on the front of the fire extinguisher.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #97)10-52-(4-4.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-79RECOMMENDATION: Add a new section to read: 4.4.1.1 Internal examination during annual maintenance is not required for nonrechargeable fire extinguishers, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, or stored-pressure fire extinguishers, except for those types specified in 4-4.1.1. These fire extinguishers shall be thoroughly examined externally in accor-dance with the applicable items of 4-4.2(a). SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal 10-79 (Log #CP20) eliminates the exception with no technical substantiation for the added maintenance of these types of fire extinguishers by the elimination of the exception. The manual of style states: “2.3.5.2* Where the rewording of exceptions as requirements or removal of exceptions will not change the technical require-ments of the document, exceptions shall be reworded as requirements or removed.” This was not done. We propose that the exception be reworded as a requirement 4.4.1 and is better placed in the general requirements.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Add the following text as 4-4.2.1: Internal examination during annual maintenance shall not be required for nonrechargeable fire extinguishers, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, or stored-pressure fire extinguishers, except for those types specified in 4-4.1.1. These fire extinguishers shall be thoroughly examined externally in accor-dance with the applicable items of 4-4.2(a). Renumber accordingly.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorially edited proposed text to conform to Manual of Style.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #15)10-53-(4-4.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-79RECOMMENDATION: Revise item (c) to read as follows: Expelling means of all cartridge operated extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: The wording in the ROP for log #CP20 would require a thorough examination of the expelling means of stored pressure extinguish-ers, including non-rechargeable/disposable extinguishers, and carbon dioxide extinguishers. That was not the intent of the committee nor the previous wording of 4-4.2 from the 1998 edition.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: During annual maintenance it is important to check the expelling means of all extinguishers to ensure reliability.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #CC2)10-54-(4-4.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-79RECOMMENDATION: Item b) Add “or cylinder” after “cartridge” The text will now read as follows: b) Extinguishing agent of cartridge or cylinder operated dry chemical, stored pressure loaded stream and pump tank fire extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: Cylinder operated are similar to cartridge operated.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #96)10-55-(4-4.2.1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Jim Everitt, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-80RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 4-4.2.1 Seals or Tamper Indicators. At the time of the internal examination the tamper seal of rechargeable fire extinguishers shall be removed by operat-ing the pull pin or locking device. After the applicable maintenance proce-dures are completed, a new tamper seal shall be installed. SUBSTANTIATION: This section requires the pin to be pulled, “applicable maintenance procedures” to be completed, and then for the pin to be replaced. 4.4.2 The exception to 4.4.2 states that an internal examination is not required for stored pressure (dry-chemical) extinguishers. It does require an external examination of mechanical parts (4.4.2(a)). We submit that by pulling the pin, or simply verifying that it is free to be pulled, that all applicable maintenance procedures have been completed. This makes the only distinction between an inspection and maintenance for stored-pressure dry chemical fire extinguish-ers is the pulling of the pin. The maintenance provider does not need formal training, service manuals, proper tools, recharging materials, lubricants or replacement parts to externally examine mechanical parts. It is an unreason-able burden on the business community to require a licensed maintenance technician to pull a pin. Extinguisher manufacturers warranty stored-pressure dry chemical fire extinguishers for 5-6 years. Tear downs not indicated by inspection or maintenance needlessly void the factory warranty. Requiring a licensed service person to pull the pin essentially makes it legal to do some-thing the fire service has fought for years...rag and tag.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Since maintenance is performed on all extin-guishers annually the pin should be pulled during the annual maintenance to make sure it can be pulled. The committee felt that a 6 year interval for some extinquishers would be too long for checking the ring pin.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #62)

10-56-(4-4.2.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-81RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Thorough visual external cylinder examinations require the removal of any protective foot rings or bottom enclosure boot attachments that might hide potential corrosion, damage, or repairs to the pressure vessel.SUBSTANTIATION: CGA has similar visual external examination recom-mendations for cylinders, which incorporate attachments that can hinder proper inspection. In addition, NFPA 10 is and has become an international Standard. Recently, outside the USA, there was an explosion of a fire extin-guisher resulting in the death of the operator. The explosion was the result of moisture being trapped inside of the foot ring. The foot ring prevented the corrosion from being detected during the periodic inspections. I disagree with the committee’s response for rejecting the initial proposal stating it is extremely difficult to accomplish some of the items and unneces-sary to do others. The above mentioned death indicates that it is necessary to do.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle 4-4.2.2 All removable extinguisher boots, foot rings, and attachments shall be removed to accommodate thorough annual cylinder examinations. A-4-4.2.2 Removable extinguisher boots and foot rings are those that are not put on by the extinguisher manufacturer with glue or welded.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Those installed by manufacturer were sub-jected to a salt spray test.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #39)10-57-(4-4.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following paragraph: 4-4.3.1 Nonrechargeable fire extinguishers shall not be hydrostatically tested but shall be removed from service at a maximum interval of 12 years from the date of manufacture. Nonrechargeable halon agent fire extinguishers shall be disposed of in accordance with 4-3.3.3

287

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPACOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #40)10-58-(4-4.4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the two exceptions and add the following text: 4-4.4.2.1 Fire extinguishers undergoing maintenance before January 1, 1999, shall not be required to comply with paragraph 4-4.4.2. 4-4.4.2.2 Cartridge/cylinder-operated fire extinguishers shall not be required to comply with paragraph 4-4.4.2.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #41)10-59-(4-5.2.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following paragraph: 4-5.2.3.1 The agent in nonpressurized AFFF and FFFP fire extinguishers that is subjected to agent analysis in accordance with manufacturer’s instruc-tions shall not be required to comply with 4-5.2.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #42)10-60-(4-5.4.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Warning. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Leave in body as requirement and provide paragraph numbers as follows: 4.5.4.2.1 An unregulated source of pressure, such as a nitrogen cylinder without a pressure regulator, shall never be used because the fire extinguisher could be overpressurized and possibly rupture. 4-5.4.2.2 A fire extinguisher shall never be left connected to the regulator of a high-pressure source for an extended period of time. A defective regulator could cause the container to rupture due to excess pressure.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding notes and warnings.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: OSMAN: With editorial correction - the word “never” in 4.5.4.2.1 and 4.5.4.2.2 should be replaced with the word “no”.

————————————————- (Log #43)10-61-(4-5.4.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exceptions and add the following text: 4-5.4.3.1 Compressed air shall be permitted to be used from special com-pressor systems capable of delivering air with a dew point of - 60°F (-51.1°C) or lower. The special compressor system shall be equipped with an automatic monitoring and alarm system to ensure that the dew point remains at or below - 60°F (-51.1°C) at all times. 4-5.4.3.2 Class D fire extinguishers shall be repressurized only with the type of expellant gas referred to on the fire extinguisher label. A-4-5.4.3.2 Some Class D fire extinguishers are required to be pressurized with argon.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #44)10-62-(4-5.5) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the two exceptions and add the following text: 4-5.5.1 Liquefied gas, halogenated agent, and carbon dioxide extinguishers that have been recharged without valve removal shall not be required to have a “Verification of Service” collar installed following recharge. 4-5.5.2 Cartridge and cylinder-operated extinguishers shall not be required to have a “Verification of Service” collar installed. (See 4-4.4.2) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #45)10-63-(5-1.3) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exceptions and add the following text: 5-1.3.1 Pump tanks shall not be required to comply with 5-1.3. 5-1.3.2 Nonrechargeable fire extinguishers other than halogenated agent-types shall not be required to comply with 5-1.3 but shall be discharged and discarded where the fire extinguisher shows evidence of dents, mechanical injury or corrosion to the extent as to indicate weakness. 5-1.3.3 Nonrechargeable halon agent-type fire extinguishers shall not be required to comply with 5-1.3. (See 4-3.3.3.)COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manuel of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #3)10-64-(5-2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-96RECOMMENDATION: Revise the exception to 5-2.1 to read as follows: Cylinders (except those charged with carbon dioxide) complying with part 173.34(e)(16), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be permitted to be hydrostatically tested every 10 years. SUBSTANTIATION: To be eligible for a 10 year retest, a cylinder must meet all the requirements of paragraph 173.34(e)(16), not just 173.34(e)(16).COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #46)10-65-(5-2.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following text: 5-2.1.1 Cylinders (except those charged with carbon dioxide) complying with Part 173.34(e)16, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be permit-ted to be hydrostatically tested every 10 years in lieu of the requirement in 5-2.1.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16

288

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPAVOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOODNIGHT: The reference to Part 173.34(e) 15 is incorrect. The correct reference is Part 173.34(e)16, as found in segment 33, 10-64 Log #3. LADEROUTE: Be sure to reference to the Code of Federal Regulations is 173.34(e)(16). Current printing is incorrect.

————————————————-

(Log #47)10-66-(5-2.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the two exceptions and add the following text: 5-2.2.1 Cartridges not exceeding 2 in. (5.1 cm) outside diameter and hav-ing a length less than 2 ft (0.61 m) shall be exempt from periodic hydrostatic retest. 5-2.2.2 cartridges with DOT stamp 3E shall be exempt from periodic hydro-static retest.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #48)10-67-(5-3.1.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following text: 5-3.1.1.2 Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers having cylinder specification ICC3 shall be tested at 3000 psi (20.68 MPa).COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #4)10-68-(5-3.3.1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-97RECOMMENDATION: Revise first sentence of paragraph 5-3.3.1 to read as follows: All stored pressure fire extinguishers shall be hydrostatically tested at the factory test pressure or the pressure specified on the extinguisher nameplate not to exceed three times the normal operating pressure. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording adds clarity and removes confus-ing test. Some stored pressure extinguishers must be tested to two times the normal operating pressure, some must be tested to 2 times the cylinder service pressure, and some must be tested to 3 times the normal operating pressure. To test some cylinders to 3 times the normal operating pressure will overstress the cylinders to the point they should be rejected.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise text as follows: Stored-pressure fire extinguishers shall be hydrostatically tested to the pres-sure specified on the extinguisher nameplate. Where there is no pressure specified on the extinguisher nameplate, the extinguisher shall be tested at the factory test pressure not to exceed three times the normal operating pressure.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that the nameplate pres-sure provides the most appropriate test pressure. The second sentence assures that the cylinder will not unduly be overstressed.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #49)10-69-(5-5.1.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1

RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the exception and add the following text: 5-5.1.2.1 On some dry chemical and dry powder fire extinguishers (car-tridge-operated), where the manufacturer recommends that certain internal parts not be removed, these parts shall not be removed.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding exceptions.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #50)10-70-(5-6.2) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-1RECOMMENDATION: Delete Note. SUBSTANTIATION: Not in agreement with current Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Delete the note and add the following text: 5-6.2.1 Stamping shall be placed only on the shoulder, top head, neck, or footring (where provided) of the cylinder.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Manual of Style recommends avoiding notes.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #86)10-71-(5-6.4) : Accept SUBMITTER: Darrell K. Garton, CTC Certified Training Co.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-103RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 5.6.4...DOT Specification Cylinders (b) Cylinders tested by the modified (proof pressure) test method shall be provided with a letter “S” on the label marked marked with the letter “S” fol-lowing the test date.SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will bring the text into conformance with 49 CFR 173.34(e)(7) “Marking”. The existing text could lead to a DOT viola-tion for the cylinder not being properly stamped.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #87)10-72-(5-6.4) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Darrell K. Garton, CTC Certified Training Co.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-103RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 5.6.4 “...DOT Specification Cylinders (a) The use of a label instead of stamping must be performed in accordance with DOT Exemption # 11372. A current copy of DOT E-11372 must be maintained at each facility where alternate marking is being....” SUBSTANTIATION: This revision will bring the text into conformance with DOT E-11372, paragraph 8. The existing text indicates that anyone can perform the alternate marking. However, this is not a general allowance. Al-ternate marking is allowed only under the provision of DOT E-11372.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle 1. Leave the existing sentence (a) and change “provided” to “ marked”. 2. Add the following sentence: “(a) The use of a label instead of stamping shall be performed in accordance with DOT Exemption # 11372. A current copy of DOT E-11372 must be maintained at each facility where alternate marking is being performed.” COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that the existing sen-tence is needed with the proposed text. Editorial changes to proposed text.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #88)

10-73-(5-6.4) : Reject SUBMITTER: Darrell K. Garton, CTC Certified Training Co.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-103RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

289

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA 5.6.4 The label shall include the date of the next required retest. SUBSTANTIATION: This suggestion would help to eliminate much of the confusion regarding requalification periods. With retest dates ranging from 5 to 7 to 12 years, depending on the size, specification, and the method of retest, many fire extinguisher service personnel do not clearly understand the regula-tions.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: No deviations are permitted without the permission of the (RSPA) Research and Special Programs Administration of the D.O.T.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #94)10-74-(A-1-2) : Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Joshua W. Elvove, Rep. VA Rocky MT. NetworkCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-107RECOMMENDATION: Revise the second sentence of the 3rd paragraph as follows: “The owner/occupant should ensure...”, Add a new sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph as follows: It should be recognized that not everyone may be able to call the fire depart-ment if unfamiliar with the English language or disabled in a manner which preclude such action.” SUBSTANTIATION: I agree with the committee statement that the “fire department should be called always” My original proposal was intended to remove the statement; “everyone knows how to call the fire department”, as this can not be possibly achieved where occupants have certain disabilities, speak a different language or are small children without the owner/occupant going through great lengths (e.g., occupant education, internationally rec-ognized signage, etc.). My revised proposal softens existing language as it changes the owner/occupant “needs to ensure” to “should ensure” that every-one knows how to call the fire department, and adds the necessary disclaimer for individuals who may be unable to call the fire department for various rea-sons. I recognize that is only an appendix note, but it still should be written so to be practical.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Part Accept the first change and not the second one.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard is translated and used in areas where English is not the predominant language.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #6)10-75-(A-1-4.2) : Accept SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex Corp.COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-15RECOMMENDATION: In second line, “uses” should be “used.” In last line, delete phrase “or containing equipment.” SUBSTANTIATION: EditorialCOMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #77)10-76-(A-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-115RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. Accept in Principle to in-clude a 2A: C:K, C:K, and 2A: 1B:C:K to Table A-2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The electrocution risk of wet chemical type extin-guishers which may pass the Underwriter Laboratories Class C test is very great, especially with units as large as 3 liters used on 440V transformers. Due to the electrocution hazard, the Class K extinguishers should not be included with a Class C rating. The table should reflect safe, industrial practice and not merely UL test results. NOTE: The technical committee is inconsistent in their voting as seen in the Committee Statement of Log 82: “The committee agrees that Class K rated extinguishers should not be rated Class C.”COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: These extinguishers are in the field. The table is provided for information only.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #78)10-77-(A-2-1) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-114RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. In Table A-2.1, add water mist units of 1.75 and 2.5 gallon to 2A:C. SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist should not be distinguished from other wa-ter type extinguishers. There is no significant difference in the hardware nor in the extinguishing media. In the case of Class C fires, the same electrocution hazard due to pooling of media exists with water mist as it does with water units.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in PrincipleCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Note for Comment 10-78 (Log #18).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #18)10-78-(Table A-2-1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-117RECOMMENDATION: Table A-2-1 is not accurate! Ratings shown for wet chemical are incorrect. Ratings shown for Halocarbon are incorrect. Changes accepted on proposal 10-111 (log #65) and proposal 10-113 (log #67), 10-114 (log #69) and 10-115 (log #75) are not included. See attached table with changes. (Table shown on following pages)SUBSTANTIATION: None given.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Note: This was done by Proposal 10-110 through 10-117 (Log #CP9).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #53)10-79-(Table A-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-117RECOMMENDATION: Reject original proposal and return wording to original wording.SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in my previous Comment on Proposal 10-13, water mist extinguishers are in violation of NFPA 10 and UL Standards.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-4 (Log #64).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #54)10-80-(Table A-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-115RECOMMENDATION: Delete Class C rating for K rated extinguishers.SUBSTANTIATION: As noted in Proposal 10-15, Item (e), Wet chemical extinguishers having a Class K rating should not be listed and labeled with a Class C rating.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-76 (Log #77).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #55)10-81-(Table A-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-114

290

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA

Tab

le A

-2-1

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of E

xtin

guis

hers

Ext

ingu

ishi

ng A

gent

Met

hod

of O

pera

tion

Cap

acity

Hor

izon

tal

Ran

ge o

fSt

ream

App

roxi

mat

eT

ime

ofD

isch

arge

Prot

ectio

nR

equi

red

belo

w40

°F (

4°C

)

UL

or

UL

CC

lass

ifica

tions

*

Stor

ed p

ress

ure

6 L

30 to

40

ft40

sec

Yes

1-A

Wat

erSt

ored

-pre

ssur

e or

pum

p21 / 2 g

al30

to 4

0 ft

1 m

inY

es2-

A

Pum

p4

gal

30 to

40

ft2

min

Yes

3-A

Pum

p5

gal

30 to

40

ft2

to 3

min

Yes

4-A

Wat

er (

wet

ting

agen

t)St

ored

-pre

ssur

e11 / 2 g

al20

ft

30 s

ecY

es2-

A

Car

bon

diox

ide

cylin

der

25 g

al (

whe

eled

)35

ft

11 / 2 min

Yes

10-A

Car

bon

diox

ide

cylin

der

45 g

al (

whe

eled

)35

ft

2 m

inY

es30

-A

Car

bon

diox

ide

cylin

der

60 g

al (

whe

eled

)35

ft

21 / 2 min

Yes

40-A

Loa

ded

stre

amSt

ored

-pre

ssur

e or

car

trid

geC

arbo

n di

oxid

e cy

linde

r21 / 2 g

al30

to 4

0 ft

1 m

inN

o2

to 3

-A:1

-B2

A

33 g

al (

whe

eled

)50

ft

3 m

inN

o20

-A

AFF

F, F

FFP

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

21 / 2 gal

6 L

20 to

25

ft20

to 2

5 ft

50 s

ec50

sec

Yes

Yes

3-A

:20

to 4

0-B

2A:1

0B

Nitr

ogen

cyl

inde

r33

gal

30 f

t1

min

Yes

20-A

:160

-B

Car

bon

diox

ide

**Se

lf-e

xpel

ling

21 / 2 to 5

lb3

to 8

ft

8 to

30

sec

No

1 to

5-B

:C

Self

-exp

ellin

g10

to 1

5 lb

3 to

8 f

t8

to 3

0 se

cN

o2

to 1

0-B

:C

Self

-exp

ellin

g20

lb3

to 8

ft

10 to

30

sec

No

10-B

:C

Self

-exp

ellin

g50

to 1

00 lb

(w

heel

ed)

3 to

10

ft10

to 3

0 se

cN

o10

to 2

0-B

:C

Reg

ular

Dry

che

mic

al (

sodi

umbi

carb

onat

e)St

ored

-pre

ssur

e1

to 2

1 / 2 lb5

to 8

ft

8 to

12

sec

No

2 to

10-

B:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e23 / 4 to

5 lb

5 to

20

ft8

to 2

5 se

cN

o5

to 2

0-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e6

to 3

0 lb

5 to

20

ft10

to 2

5 se

cN

o10

to 1

60-B

:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

50 lb

(w

heel

ed)

20 f

t35

sec

No

160-

B:C

Nitr

ogen

cyl

inde

r or

stor

ed-p

ress

ure

75 to

350

lb (

whe

eled

)15

to 4

5 ft

20 to

105

sec

No

40 to

320

-B:C

Purp

le K

Dry

che

mic

al (

pota

ssiu

m b

icar

bona

te)

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e2

to 5

lb5

to 1

2 ft

8 to

10

sec

No

5 to

30-

B:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e5

to 1

0 lb

5 to

20

ft8

to 2

0 se

c N

o10

to 8

0-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e16

to 3

0 lb

10 to

20

ft8

to 2

5 se

cN

o40

to 1

20-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e48

to 5

0 lb

(w

heel

ed)

20 f

t30

to 3

5 se

cN

o12

0 to

160

-B:C

Nitr

ogen

cyl

inde

r or

stor

ed-p

ress

ure

125

to 3

15 lb

(w

heel

ed)

15 to

45

ft30

to 8

0 se

cN

o80

to 6

40-B

:C

291

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA

Tab

le A

-2-1

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of E

xtin

guis

hers

con

tinue

d

Ext

ingu

ishi

ng A

gent

Met

hod

of O

pera

tion

Cap

acity

Hor

izon

tal

Ran

ge o

fSt

ream

App

roxi

mat

eT

ime

ofD

isch

arge

Prot

ectio

nR

equi

red

belo

w40

°F (

4°C

)

UL

or

UL

CC

lass

ifica

tions

*

Supe

r K

Dry

che

mic

al (

pota

ssiu

m c

hlor

ide)

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e2

to 5

lb5

to 8

ft

8 to

10

sec

No

5 to

10-

B:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e5

to 9

lb8

to 1

2 ft

10 to

15

sec

No

20 to

40-

B:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e9

to 2

0 lb

10 to

15

ft15

to 2

0 se

cN

o40

to 6

0-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e19

to 3

0 lb

5 to

20

ft10

to 2

5 se

cN

o60

to 8

0-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e12

5 to

200

lb

(whe

eled

)15

to 4

5 ft

30 to

40

sec

No

160-

B:C

Mul

ti-Pu

rpos

e

Dry

che

mic

al (

amm

oniu

m p

hosp

hate

)St

ored

-pre

ssur

e1

to 5

lb5

to 1

2 ft

8 to

10

sec

No

1 to

53-

A †

and

2 to

10

-B:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

or c

artr

idge

2 to

9 lb

5 to

12

ft8

to 1

5 se

cN

o1

to 4

-A a

nd 1

0 to

40-

B:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

or c

artr

idge

9 to

17

lb5

to 2

0 ft

10 to

25

sec

No

2 to

20-

A a

nd 1

0 to

80

-B:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

or c

artr

idge

17 to

30

lb5

to 2

0 ft

10 to

25

sec

No

3 to

20-

A a

nd 3

0 to

12

0-B

:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

or c

artr

idge

45 to

50

lb (

whe

eled

)20

ft

25 to

35

sec

No

20 to

301

30-A

and

80

to

160-

B:C

Nitr

ogen

cyl

inde

r or

stor

ed-p

ress

ure

110

to 3

15 lb

(w

heel

ed)

15 to

45

ft30

to 6

0 se

cN

o20

to 4

0-A

and

60

to

320-

B:C

292

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA

Wat

er M

ist

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

1.75

gal

2.5

gal

10 to

15

ft10

to 1

5 ft

60 to

70

sec

70 to

80

sec

Yes

Yes

2 A

:C2

A:C

Dry

che

mic

al (

foam

com

patib

le)

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e4

to 9

lb5

to 2

0 ft

8 to

10

sec

No

10 to

20-

B:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e9

to 2

7 lb

5 to

20

ft10

to 2

5 se

cN

o20

to 3

0-B

:C

Car

trid

ge o

r st

ored

-pre

ssur

e18

to 3

0 lb

5 to

20

ft10

to 2

5 se

cN

o40

to 6

0-B

:C

Nitr

ogen

cyl

inde

r or

stor

ed-p

ress

ure

150

to 3

50 lb

(w

heel

ed)

15 to

45

ft20

to 1

50 s

ecN

o80

to 2

40-B

:C

Dry

che

mic

al (

pota

ssiu

m

bica

rbon

ate

urea

bas

ed)

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

5 to

11

lb11

to 2

2 ft

18 s

ecN

o40

to 8

0-B

:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

9 to

23

lb15

to 3

0 ft

17 to

33

sec

No

60 to

160

-B:C

175

lb (

whe

eled

)70

ft

62 s

ecN

o48

0-B

:C

3 L

8 to

12

ft30

sec

No

K

Wet

che

mic

alSt

ored

-pre

ssur

e6

L2

1/2

gal

8 to

12

ft8

to 1

2 ft

35 to

45

sec

75 to

85

sec

No

No

2A

: 1-B

:C:K

2-A

:1-B

:C:K

Hal

on 1

211

(bro

moc

hlor

odi-

fluor

omet

hane

)

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

0.9

to 2

lb6

to 1

0 ft

8 to

10

sec

No

1 to

2-B

:C

2 to

3 lb

6 to

10

ft8

to 1

0 se

cN

o5-

B:C

5 to

9 lb

9 to

15

ft8

to 1

5 se

cN

o1-

A:1

0-B

:C

13 to

22

lb14

to 1

6 ft

10 to

18

sec

No

2 to

4-A

and

20

to 8

0-B

:C

50 lb

35 f

t30

sec

No

10-A

:120

-B:C

150

lb (

whe

eled

)20

to 3

5 ft

30 to

44

sec

No

30-A

:160

to 2

40-B

:C

Hal

on 1

211/

1301

(br

omo-

chlo

rodi

fluor

om

etha

nebr

omot

riflu

oro-

met

hane

) m

ixtu

res

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

or s

elf-

expe

lling

0.9

to 5

lb3

to 1

2 ft

8 to

10

sec

No

1 to

10-

B:C

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

9 to

20

lb10

to 1

8 ft

10 to

22

sec

No

1-A

:10-

B:C

to 4

-A:8

0-B

:C

Hal

ocar

bon

type

Stor

ed-p

ress

ure

3 to

33

lb1.

4 to

150

lb6

to 1

8 ft

35

9 to

18

sec

23

No

1B:C

to12

A:1

0B: C

10A

:80B

:C

Not

e: H

alon

sho

uld

be u

sed

only

whe

re it

s un

ique

pro

pert

ies

are

deem

ed n

eces

sary

.*

UL

and

UL

C r

atin

gs c

heck

ed a

s of

Jul

y 24

, 198

7. R

eade

rs c

once

rned

with

sub

sequ

ent r

atin

gs s

houl

d re

view

the

pert

inen

t lis

ts a

nd s

uppl

emen

ts is

sued

by

thes

e la

bora

tori

es:

Und

erw

rite

rs L

abor

ator

ies

Inc.

, 333

Pfin

gste

n R

oad,

Nor

thbr

ook,

IL

600

62, o

r U

nder

wri

ters

Lab

orat

orie

s of

Can

ada,

7 C

rous

e R

oad,

Sca

rbor

ough

, Ont

ario

, Can

ada

M1R

3A

9.**

Car

bon

diox

ide

extin

guis

hers

with

met

al h

orns

do

not c

arry

a C

cla

ssifi

catio

n.†

Som

e sm

all e

xtin

guis

hers

con

tain

ing

amm

oniu

m p

hosp

hate

-bas

ed d

ry c

hem

ical

do

not c

arry

an

A c

lass

ifica

tion.

293

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPARECOMMENDATION: Reject original proposal and return wording to original wording.SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in my previous Comment on Proposal 10-13, water mist extinguishers are in violation of NFPA 10 and UL Standards.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-79 (Log #53).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #63)

10-82-(Table A-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-111RECOMMENDATION: Reject original proposal and return wording to original wording.SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in my previous Comment on proposal 10-13, water mist extinguishers are in violation of NFPA 10 and UL Standards.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-79 (Log #53).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #79)

10-83-(A-2-1(b)(4)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-118RECOMMENDATION: Reject and revise text. Delete the type of extin-guishers which should not be used on fires involving energized electrical equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: The text needs to be included for clarity and ease of understanding. It is important which a warning as important as this to provide the reader with as much information as possible regarding the hazard. Citing specific examples assist with this.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept in Principle Revise to read as follows: Fire extinguishers not rated for Class C hazards (e.g., water, antifreeze, soda acid, loaded stream, AFFF, FFFP, wetting agent, foam, and carbon dioxide with metal horns) present a shock hazard if used on fires involving energized electrical equipment.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt it was important to list the extinguishers not rated for Class C hazards in the Annex.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #80)

10-84-(A-2-1(b)(5)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-119RECOMMENDATION: Reconsider rejected log and add text. Addition of warning that a fire extinguisher with a Class C hazard may present shock hazard. SUBSTANTIATION: The electrocution risk of water type extinguishers which may pass the Underwriter Laboratories Class C test is very great, es-pecially with units as large as 2 1/2 gallon used on 440V transformers. In an industrial setting, given the proximity of extinguishers, more than one may be used on a fire. The warning to customers of the electrocution risk is impera-tive to helping communicate the risk to customers. A better solution would be to eliminate the risk by prohibiting Class C rating unless the media is noncon-ductive.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Comment 10-19 (Log #CC1).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: MISICHKO: 1. 1.4.4 The first sentence states that the agent for a Class C rating shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. The first sentence implies that the agent needs to have a conductivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm, which is contrary to the 1.0 microsiemen/cm conductivity threshold defined in the third sentence. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an acceptable conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=O.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no technical reason for doubling the calculated value for the conductivity threshold requirement, which permits a higher acceptable shock hazard. Likewise, there is no sub-

stantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. It would be more appropriate to use 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts. UNGER: 1. The definition for a Class C rating, 1-4.2, states that the agent shall not be a conductor of electricity. Then the third sentence of 1-4.4 permits the agent to be conductive to 1 microsiemen/cm. To imply that the agent has a conduc-tivity of 0.0 microsiemen/cm and then define acceptable conductivity as 1.0 microsiemen/cm using an ASTM test method for flowing water is a contradic-tion. Either the agent must not be a conductor of electricity or it has an accept-able conductivity threshold, but not both. 2. The conductivity threshold value calculation is based upon Ohm’s Law (G=I/E), with I=2.6 milliamperes (reflex action for a female adult) and E=5000 volts (UL 299 - min. dielectric voltage withstand strength for dry chemical). Based upon these values used in the calculation, G=0.5 microsiemen/cm. From this calculation, 1.00 microsiemen/cm (two-times the calculated value) was chosen as the threshold. There is no substantiation for using the 5000 volt value other than being referenced in UL 299. The 5000 volts is a dielectric breakdown voltage and is not intended for measuring the conductivity of the dry chemical. The voltage which should be used is more appropriately 240 volts, or for industrial applications, 440 volts (550 volts in Canada). Referring to published Control Unit Standards, the maximum accept-able current for shock hazard testing is 809 milliamperes. Using these num-bers, the acceptable level of conductivity would change drastically. A further inconsistency lies in the doubling of the calculated value to be the threshold requirement. If 0.5 microsiemen/cm is calculated as the maximum threshold value, twice that value is technically unsound, and would appear to condone a higher acceptable shock hazard.

————————————————-(Log #81)

10-85-(A-2-3.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde SafetyCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-122RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Delete the testing requirement and simply reference UL 711 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA should retain the ability to review the test pro-tocol defined by Underwriters Laboratories for the listing and classification of extinguishers. This modification to the standard eliminates the ability for NFPA to disagree with UL’s test protocol and establishes a precedence. Given the concerns regarding UL’s Class C listing of water-based fire extinguishers, a review and modification to the standard should be retained by NFPA. COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The standard already contains effective date of the referenced test standard. The committee feels that it would be inappro-priate to reference UL 711 without the effective date.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #17)10-86-(A-2-3.2.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Fred Goodnight, Amerex CorporationCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-123RECOMMENDATION: Add second figure with English/French translation. Size and color of figure to remain same. See Warning Diagram on following page.SUBSTANTIATION: Figure A-2.3.2.1 to include English/Spanish and French translations.COMMITTEE ACTION:Accept Also convert to metric (first).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-(Log #52)

10-87-(Figure B-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-131RECOMMENDATION: Reject original proposal and return wording to original wording.SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in my previous Comment on Proposal 10-13, water mist extinguishers are in violation of NFPA 10 and UL Standards.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-79 (Log #53).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #82)10-88-(Figure B-2-1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Pam Calderwood, Kidde Safety

294

NFPA 10 —May 2002 ROC — Copyright, NFPA

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-131RECOMMENDATION: Reject. Delete the phrase “For all water-based types”. SUBSTANTIATION: The text should remain the same to identify the elec-trocution hazard of known water based extinguishers when used on energized electrical equipment. While technologies such as water mist and AFFF can typically pass the UL Class C test, risk to the operator still exists. This risk must be clearly communicated to the users via the marking system.COMMITTEE ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement for Comment 10-79 (Log #53).NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

(Log #92)10-89-(D-4-7) : Accept SUBMITTER: Gregory W. Berry, Badger Fire ProtectionCOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:10-143RECOMMENDATION: Revise Diagram D-4.7(b) SUBSTANTIATION: The D-4.7(b) Diagram shown in the ROP does not ac-curately represent the hose nozzle hardware design. The revised drawing does not show or contain a rigid discharge device or wand.COMMITTEE ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:16VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 16

————————————————-

Pressure gauge

Discharge lever

Carrying handle

Anti-overfilltube

Nozzle

Siphon tube

Solution

.19 DIA. Holes(4 places)

IN CASE OF APPLIANCE FIRE, USETHIS EXTINGUISHER AFTER FIXEDSUPPRESSION SYSTEM HAS BEEN

ACTUATED.

EN CAS D'INCENDIE IMPLIQUANTUN ÉQUIPMENT DE CUISSON, UTILISEZCET EXTINCTEUR APRÈS AVOIR ACTIVÉ

LE SYSTÈME D'EXTINCTION FIXE.

WARNING!

! ATTENTION7⁵⁄₈

11

¹⁄₂ Typ.

¹⁄₂ Typ.

Notes:Material: .040" white styrenePrint: Reverse printing – PMS 485 red background White print⁹⁄₁₆" letters for "warning".¹⁄₄" letters for warning note.Radius corners

A15874

15906AMEREX CORP. 0070COMMUDITY CODENEXT ASSEM NO

TRUSSVILLEALABAMA

TITLE

PLACARD CAUTION WC ENG/FR

NOTED

DPW

1"=1" 7– 26 – 01

FINISHMATERIAL8–2901S

DWN BYDATEECN#

THIS DRAWING IS THE EXCLUSIVE AND CONFIDENTIALPROPERTY OF AMEREX CORP. IT SHALL NOT BEDUPLICATED. USED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERSWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OFAMEREX CORPORATION.

BYDRAWING CHANGECRITICAL INSPECTION ITEMS DENOTED BY

TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

REV

MA

SCALE

OK'D

DATEDWG. NO

REVISED FOR WC B–MODELS

FRAC ± .020 2 PL DEC ± .010 3 PL DEC ± 0.003 TIR

Diagram D-4.7(b)