Technical Committee on NFPA 17/17A Dry & Wet Chemical ... · Technical Committee on NFPA 17/17A Dry & Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems (DRY-AAA) ... Standard for Dry & Wet Chemical

Technical Committee on NFPA 17/17A Dry & Wet Chemical

Extinguishing Systems (DRY-AAA)

M E M O R A N D U M DATE : June 16, 2011 TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on

NFPA 17/17A Dry & Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems (DRY-AAA) FROM: Sandra Stanek, NFPA Staff Liaison SUBJECT: AGENDA – NFPA 17/17A ROP Meeting ( Fall 2012 revision

cycle) Enclosed is the agenda for the Report on Proposals (ROP) meeting for NFPA

17/17A, Standard for Dry & Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, which will be

held at 8 am CST on Wednesday, July 13th through Friday July 15th, 2011 at UL Laboratories in Northbrook, IL. Please review the meeting notice, sent to your email address of record, for

pertinent information concerning hotels, etc. Notify me immediately if you have

any issues downloading the proposals from the committee website, etc. As your

new staff liaison, I welcome any questions you may have & look forward to

working with all of you.

Office: (617) 984-7498 Cell: (339) 368-1186 Email: [email protected]

For administrative questions, please contact Patti Mucci at (617) 984-7948.

mailto:[email protected]�



Report on Proposals Meeting (A2012) Agenda July 13th, 14th & 15th, 2011

UL Laboratories Main Bldg. #8

333 Pfingsten Rd. Northbrook, IL 60062 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

1. Call to Order – 8:00 AM CST

2. Introductions & Attendance

3. Review Agenda

4. NFPA Staff Liaison presentation & review of key dates within current

cycle.

5. Chairman Comments

6. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (see Attachment 1)

7. Act on Public Proposals for NFPA 17 & NFPA 17A (see Attachment

#2)

8. Attachment #3 U.S Experience with Non-Water-Based Automatic Fire

Extinguishing Equipment

9. Generate Committee Proposals for NFPA 17 & NFPA 17A

10. Old Business

11. New Business

12. Next Meeting

13. Adjourn Meeting

Please submit requests for additional agenda items to the chair at least seven days prior to the meeting. Please notify the chair and staff liaison as soon as possible if you plan to introduce any committee proposals at the meeting.



Key Dates for the Annual 2012 Revision Cycle

Proposal Closing Date May 23, 2011 Final Date for ROP Meeting August 26, 2011

Final Date for Mailing TC Ballots September 16, 2011

Receipt of Ballots Returned By October 21, 2011

ROP Published & Posted December 23, 2011

Comment Closing Date March 2, 2012 Final Date for ROC Meeting May 4, 2012 Final date for mailing TC ballots May 18, 2012 Ballots Returned By June 1, 2012 ROC Published & Posted August 24, 2012 Closing Date for Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) October 5, 2012

Issuance of Consent Document (No NITMAMs) November 27, 2012

NFPA Annual Meeting June 2013 Issuance of Document with NITMAM August 1, 2013

Technical Committee deadlines are in bold.



Meeting Preparation Committee members are strongly encouraged to review the published proposals prior to the meeting and to be prepared to act on each item. Handout materials should be submitted to the chair at least seven days prior to the meeting. Only one posting of the proposals will be made; it will be arranged in section/order and will be pre-numbered. This will be posted to the NFPA Document information pages are located at www.nfpa.org/17 & www.nfpa.org/17A. If you have trouble accessing the website please contact Patti Mucci at [email protected].

Materials to have at meeting: • Last edition of the standard • Meeting agenda • Public proposals & associated attachments

Regulations and Guiding Documents All committee members are expected to behave in accordance with the Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Directory (on-line). All actions during and following the committee meetings will be governed in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in challenges to the standards-making process. A successful challenge on procedural grounds could prevent or delay publication of the document. The style of the document must comply with the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents.

http://www.nfpa.org/17�

http://www.nfpa.org/17A�

mailto:[email protected]�



General Procedures for Meetings

• Use of tape recorders or other means capable of producing verbatim transcriptions of any NFPA Committee Meeting is not permitted.

• Attendance at all NFPA Committee Meetings is open. All guests must sign in and identify their affiliation.

• Participation in NFPA Committee Meetings is generally limited to committee members and NFPA staff. Participation by guests is limited to individuals, who have received prior approval from the chair to address the committee on a particular item, or who wish to speak regarding public proposals or comments that they submitted.

• The chairman reserves the right to limit the amount of time available for any presentation.

• No interviews will be allowed in the meeting room at any time, including breaks.

• All attendees are reminded that formal votes of committee members will be secured by letter ballot. Voting at this meeting is used to establish a sense of agreement, but only the results of the formal letter ballot will determine the official action of the committee.

• Note to Special Experts: Particular attention is called to Section 3.3(e) of the NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Codes and Standards Development Process in the NFPA Directory. This section requires committee members to declare any interest they may represent, other than their official designation as shown on the committee roster. This typically occurs when a special expert is retained by and represents another interest category on a particular subject. If such a situation exists on a specific issue or issues, the committee member shall declare those interests to the committee and refrain from voting on any action relating to those issues.

• Smoking is not permitted at NFPA Committee Meetings.



Committee Actions All public proposals and comments must be acted upon by the committee. The following actions are permitted by the Regulations Governing Committee Projects for disposition of comments.

Accept - The committee accepts the proposal or comment. Only editorial changes such as paragraph and section numbering, and corrections to spelling, capitalization, and hyphenation may be made. Reject - The committee rejects the proposal or comment entirely. The committee may reject any comment that is incomplete, per the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Accept in Principle - The committee accepts the proposal or comment with revision. The committee action must indicate the specific revisions to the proposed content, and the locations of each revision within the proposed wording or the document. Accept in Part - The committee accepts part of the proposal or comment and rejects the remainder. Only editorial changes such as paragraph and section numbering, and corrections to spelling, capitalization, and hyphenation may be made to the accepted portion. The committee action must indicate the specific parts that were accepted and rejected. Accept in Principle in Part - The committee accepts part of the proposal or comment with revision and rejects the remainder. The committee action must indicate the specific parts that were accepted and rejected, as well as the nature and location of each revision. Hold (Comment Stage Only) – The committee holds the comment to be considered as a proposal during the next revision cycle. One of the following conditions must be met:

(a) The comment introduces a concept that has not had public review by being included in a related proposal as published in the Report on Proposals.



(b) The comment would change the text proposed by the TC to the point that the TC would have to restudy the text of the Report on Proposals or other affected parts of the Document.

(c) The comment would propose something that could not be properly handled within the time frame for processing the report.

Committee Statements Any proposal or comment that is "Rejected", "Accepted in Principle", "Accepted in Part", "Accepted in Principle in Part", or “Held” must

include a committee statement, preferably of a technical nature, that provides the reasons for the action.

A committee statement is not required for any proposal or comment that is “Accepted”, but should

be included when the committee’s reasoning differs from the substantiation provided by the submitter.



Attachment #1:

Previous Meeting Minutes



Committee Members

Address List No PhoneDry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems DRY-AAA

Sandra Stanek6/16/2011

DRY-AAADavid A. de VriesChairFiretech Engineering Inc.2715 Harrison StreetEvanston, IL 60201

SE 1/10/2008DRY-AAA

Andrew BlumPrincipalExponent, Inc.9906 Forest Grove DriveSilver Spring, MD 20902Alternate: Richard T. Long, Jr.

SE 10/28/2008

DRY-AAAThomas C. BrownPrincipalThe RJA Group, Inc.Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.14502 Greenview Drive, Suite 500Laurel, MD 20708

SE 11/2/2006DRY-AAA

Paul E. BuchhoferPrincipalBuilding Inspection Underwriters, Inc.302 East Pennsylvania Blvd.Feasterville, PA 19053

E 10/1/1996

DRY-AAASamuel S. DannawayPrincipalS. S. Dannaway Associates, Inc.720 Iwilei Road, Suite 412Honolulu, HI 96817-5316

SE 7/1/1996DRY-AAA

Jack K. DickPrincipalHeiser Logisticss, Inc.2370 Fire Hall RoadPO Box 730Canadaigua, NY 14424Alternate: Mark T. Conroy

M 1/1/1992

DRY-AAABradley T. HowardPrincipalKoorsen Fire & Security727 Manor Park DriveColumbus, OH 43228-9522

IM 8/5/2009DRY-AAA

Bill IsemannPrincipalGuardian Fire Protection Services LLC7668 Standish PlaceRockville, MD 20855

IM 10/28/2008

DRY-AAAEdward J. KaminskiPrincipalClark County Fire Department575 East FlamingoLas Vegas, NV 89119

E 1/1/1991DRY-AAA

Thomas H. KellyPrincipalZurich Services Corporation1333 Richwood Drive, SEGrand Rapids, MI 49508

I 8/5/2009

DRY-AAAAdam A. KlemmePrincipalFire Safety Consultants, Inc.2420 Alft Lane, Suite 100Elgin, IL 60124

SE 10/28/2008DRY-AAA

Doug KlinePrincipalNowak Supply Fire Systems302 West Superior StreetFort Wayne, IN 46802Fire Suppression Systems Association

IM 1/10/2008

DRY-AAAWilliam KlingenmaierPrincipalTyco Suppression Systems & Building ProductsOne Stanton StreetMarinette, WI 54143-2542Alternate: Richard J. Biehl

M 4/4/1997DRY-AAA

Michael E. LunaPrincipalIntertek Testing Services16015 Shady Falls RoadElmendorf, TX 78112

RT 8/5/2009

1



DRY-AAAMichael P. McGrealPrincipalFiredyne Engineering, PC18222 Cork RoadTinley Park, IL 60477

SE 7/1/1996DRY-AAA

Thomas L. McVerry IIIPrincipalDunnWell, LLC4601 Creekstone Drive, Suite 200Durham, NC 27703

IM 10/28/2008

DRY-AAAMichael S. MitchellPrincipalBoulder Fire Rescue Department1805 33rd StreetBoulder, CO 80301

E 7/23/2008DRY-AAA

J. R. NeratPrincipalUTC/Badger Fire ProtectionW-6615 Number 11.5 RoadWallace, MI 49893NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionAlternate: Richard L. Lupien

M 10/1/1996

DRY-AAAErik G. OlsenPrincipalChubb Group of Insurance Companies132 Naughright RoadLong Valley, NJ 07853

I 3/2/2010DRY-AAA

Robert B. PopaPrincipalFarmington Fire DepartmentFire Marshal’s Office850 Municipal DriveFarmington, NM 87401

E 10/28/2008

DRY-AAARobert V. ScholesPrincipalFireman's Fund Insurance Company1711 Baywood DriveConcord, CA 94521Alternate: Stephen M. Micke

I 8/5/2009DRY-AAA

Blake M. ShugarmanPrincipalUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Alternate: Kevin Holly, Jr.

RT 11/2/2006

DRY-AAARaymond A. StacyPrincipalFM Approvals1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102FM GlobalAlternate: Robert Kasiski

I 8/5/2009DRY-AAA

Laurie K. SzumlaPrincipalAll State Fire Equipment of WNY4804 Transit RoadDepew, NY 14043

IM 7/23/2008

DRY-AAAWilliam VegsoPrincipalBuckeye Fire Equipment Company110 Kings RoadKings Mountain, NC 28086Fire Equipment Manufacturers' Association

M 7/23/2008DRY-AAA

J. Craig VoelkertPrincipalAmerex Corporation7595 Gadsden HighwayPO Box 81Trussville, AL 35173-0081Alternate: Kenneth A. Mier

M 4/1/1996

DRY-AAARichard W. WoodPrincipalCity of Nashua Fire Rescue Department177 Lake StreetNashua, NH 03060-4402

E 3/2/2010DRY-AAA

Thomas Steven WrightPrincipalFisher Engineering, Inc.1022 South Copper Key CourtGilbert, AZ 85233

SE 7/23/2008

2



DRY-AAANorbert W. MakowkaVoting AlternateNational Association of Fire Equipment Distributors122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1040Chicago, IL 60603-6274National Association of Fire Equipment DistributorsVoting Alt. to NAFED Rep.

IM 1/1/1992DRY-AAA

Richard J. BiehlAlternateTyco Suppression SystemsOne Stanton StreetMarinette, WI 54143-2542Principal: William Klingenmaier

M 4/16/1999

DRY-AAAMark T. ConroyAlternateBrooks Equipment Company20 Hampden Drive, Suite 2South Easton, MA 02375-1180Principal: Jack K. Dick

M 3/1/2011DRY-AAA

Kevin Holly, Jr.AlternateUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.333 Pfingsten RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062-2096Principal: Blake M. Shugarman

RT 10/20/2010

DRY-AAARobert KasiskiAlternateFM Global1151 Boston Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102Principal: Raymond A. Stacy

I 7/23/2008DRY-AAA

Richard T. Long, Jr.AlternateExponent, Inc.17000 Science Drive, Suite 200Bowie, MD 20715Principal: Andrew Blum

SE 8/5/2009

DRY-AAARichard L. LupienAlternateUTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.400 Main StreetAshland, MA 01721NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionPrincipal: J. R. Nerat

M 10/4/2001DRY-AAA

Stephen M. MickeAlternateFireman's Fund Insurance Company2744 Bonnard StreetDavis, CA 95618Principal: Robert V. Scholes

I 10/20/2010

DRY-AAAKenneth A. MierAlternateAmerex Corporation7595 Gadsden HighwayPO Box 81Trussville, AL 35173-0081Principal: J. Craig Voelkert

M 7/19/2002DRY-AAA

Edward D. LeedyMember Emeritus2033 Butterfly Lane, CC304Naperville, IL 60563

1/1/1990

DRY-AAASandra StanekStaff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471

5/6/2011

3



Attachment #2:

Report on Proposals

Report on Proposals – November 2012 NFPA 17_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #CP1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems,

Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals todo so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required.

To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #2

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Don Dawkins, DAWCO Fire & Safety Inc.

New text to read as follows:Manufacturers of Fire Equipment Shall make available to State Fire Marshal Offices Product Installation and Service

Manuals and provide timely Product Safety Bulletins for Dissemination to all Authorized and Licensed Fire EquipmentService Companies for all Fire Equipment Products Manufactured, Listed and Sold for Profit in those States. Also,Product Service Training and/or Listed Installation and service manuals Shall be offered and made available for aReasonable fee to any State Authorized and Licensed Fire Equipment Service Company.

This would greatly improve the level of professionalism, Training and Quality of Service Inspectionsconducted by Authorized, Licensed and Permitted Fire Equipment Service Personnel. Currently, there are manyoversights or mistakes routinely being made and identification of Service Companies or their Employees performing atSubstandard levels is difficult to distinguish. By adding this requirement to all Standards would ensure the availability ofproper training and flow of information. Non-Compliant issues could be readily identified and corrected. Fire EquipmentService Companies and/or their Service Employees which perform at substandard levels could be readily identified. Thepurpose for these Standards is to ensure Minimum Requirements. This amendment would accomplish the best of whatis achievable when it comes to protecting overall Public Safety and Property. It is time to reduce the politics and truly putPublic Safety where it belongs – First.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #43

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors (NAFED)

Revise text to read as follows:1.6 Only persons properly trained shall be considered competent to design or layout, install and service dry chemical

systems.Properly is not defined and subjective whereas trained is defined in this standard. Pre-engineered

systems are not designed by the installer.

1Printed on 6/8/2011

Report on Proposals – November 2012 NFPA 17_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #17

_______________________________________________________________________________________________John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Revise text as follows:2.3.4 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Commercial Cooking Equipment, 2005,

Revised 2010.ANSI/UL 1254, Pre-Engineered Dry Chemical Extinguishing System Units, 2005, Revised 2010.

Reason: Update referenced standards to most recent edition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #44


Add definition to read as follows:Deficiency. A situation, condition or failure within a system or system component that makes the system

non-complaint with this standard or the manufacturers listed maintenance and installation manual.Add definition of term Deficiency as used in other proposals.

Move all other 3.3 items down one number.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #45


Add new definition to read as follows:A plan or sketch indicating the arrangement and relationship of the parts of the pre-engineered fire

system to ensure that the system configuration is within the listed design determined by the manufacturer and outlinedin the manufacturer’s listed maintenance and installation manual.

Define the term Layout as used in several other proposals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #30

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Mark T. Conroy, Brooks Equipment Company

New text to read as follows:3.3.12 Revise the definition of “maintenance” to read as follows:

Work, including, but not limited to, repair, replacement, and service, performed to ensure that equipmentoperates properly.

Definition was taken from the NFPA Glossary of Terms which references NFPA 72 as the source. Thecurrent definition does not adequately define the term. The new definition defines the term as it is used in chapter 10 ofthe standard.




Revise text to read as follows:Revise the term and definition to read as follows:3.3.13.1* Manufacturer’s Listed Installation and Maintenance Manual. The pamphlet referenced as part of the listing for

installation and maintenance of the dry chemical extinguishing system. (The terminology should be editorially updatedthroughout the document.)

I serve on the NFPA committee on venting systems for cooking appliances which recently correctedNFPA 96, 11.2.3 by dropping the term “listed” when referencing these manuals (A11, ROP 96-102). The reason that thecommittee provided in the committee proposal was “There are no listed installation manuals.” There is a need forcorrelation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #46


Add new definition to read as follows:3.3.14 Non-Compliant. Not meeting all applicable requirements of this standard.

Add new text to define Non-Complaint as used in other proposals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #47


Revise definition to read as follows:One who has undergone the instructions necessary to safely design, install, layout or and reliably

perform the maintenance and recharge service in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual.Add the term layout to the list contained in 3.3.21.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #19

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kevin Richards, Kidde-Fenwal Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:Transport Canada (TC). The department that hHas jurisdiction over design and transportation of compressed gas

cylinders and cartridges in Canada.The definition as written is incomplete, inconsistent with similar definition of US DOT in sec 3.3.20, and

does not indicate the scope of authority. The revised text clarifies that TC is a specific department and that jurisdictionpertains to Canada only.




Revise text to read as follows:US Department of Transportation (DOT). The department that has jurisdiction over design and transportation of

compressed gas cylinders and cartridges in the US.DOT does not have jurisdiction outside the US. The revised text clarifies that jurisdiction pertains to the

US only.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #49


Add new definition to read as follows:. The regular, periodic testing and maintenance and testing of the system equipment and hardware,

according to the established schedule and the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to ensure that the system is insafe and functional operating condition.

Add this definition to note the difference between a function test and a discharge test.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #21


Revise text to read as follows:These systems have the specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number

of fittings, and number and types of nozzles prescribed verified by a testing laboratory.This statement implies that an independent lab defines the system design. An independent testing

laboratory prescribes the test protocol for system performance. It is the responsibility of the system manufacturer todefine the specifications of the system. The independent laboratory verifies whether or not the system as specified bythe manufacturer meets the test requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #48


Revise definition to read as follows:Those having designed and engineered by the manufacturer to have predetermined

flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of extinguishing agent. These systems have the specific pipe size,maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings, and number and types of nozzlesprescribed by a testing laboratory. The maximum and minimum pipe lengths and the number of fittings shall bepermitted to be expressed in equivalent feet of pipe. The hazards protected by these systems are specifically limited asto type and size by a testing laboratory, based on actual fire tests. Limitations on hazards that are permitted to beprotected by these systems and piping and nozzle configurations are determined by the manufacturer design and arecontained in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual, which is part of the listing of the system.

Reword 3.4.5 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed and engineered by systemmanufacture.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bill Vegso, Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association

Revise text to read as follows:Automatic detectors shall be listed devices, or devices included within a listed pre-engineered system, that

are capable of detecting and indicating heat, flame, smoke, combustible vapors, or an abnormal condition in the hazardthat is likely to produce fire.

Pre-engineered system listings include a specific group of components that may include detectors.Generally, these systems do not list individual components separately. This addition needs to be included forclarification for detection with pre-engineered dry chemical systems.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #62


Add new text to read as follows:Automatic detection equipment, listed or otherwise, that is intended to be used with a pre-engineered system,

shall be included within the listing of the pre-engineered system, and identified in the manufacturer’s design, installation,and maintenance manual.

Pre-engineered system listings include a specific group of components that may include detectors.Generally, these systems do not list individual components separately. This addition needs to be included forclarification for detection with pre-engineered dry chemical systems.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise section 4.3.1.54.3.1.5 Discharge nozzles shall be provided with blowoff caps or other suitable devices or materials to prevent the

entrance of moisture or other environmental foreign materials into the piping.

The word “environmental” adds nothing to the requirement and may be a source of ambiguity. Inactuality, the caps/devices are in place to prevent the entrance of any material into the piping.




Revise 4.4.1.2 and add 4.4.1.3 Operating devices shall be marked to indicate their listed minimumand maximum temperature limitations, but all devices shall operate at least from 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C).4.4.1.3 Operating devices shall be designed to operate from 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C).

The existing 4.4.1.2. currently contains two specific requirements but each requirement should displaytheir independent importance. As written, one of the requirements could be inadvertently overlooked.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #50


Revise text to read as follows:All remote manual operating devices shall be indentified to the hazard they protect.

It is important that all manual operating devices be identified.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #5


Revise section 4.5.4Other types of pipe and fittings that have been investigated and listed for this service shall be permitted to be used.

The use of such pipe and fittings shall involve careful consideration of the following factors:

4.5.4.1 The use of such pipe and fittings shall involve careful consideration of the following factors:

The existing 4.5.4 currently contains two specific requirements but each requirement should displaytheir independent importance.




Revise text to read as follows:Revise 4.6.1 to read as follows:4.6.1* The type of dry chemical used in the system shall not be changed unless proven to be changeable by a testing

laboratory, recommended by the manufacturer of the equipment, and approved by the authority having jurisdiction.The current text does not match the NFPA Manual of Style. Recommendations do not belong in the

body of the standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #22


Revise text to read as follows:4.6.3 Types of dry chemical shall not be mixed in a single container, pipe network or hazard, unless specifically listed

for such use.Existing statement is vague as to intent and does not allow for exceptions when proven through

testing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #51


Add new text to read as follows:Multipurpose dry chemical systems shall not be used in areas containing oxidizers.

The use of multipurpose dry chemical on oxidizers must be avoided.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #6


Revise section 5.5.55.5.5 All shutoff systems shall require manual resetting reset prior to restoration of the operating conditions existing

before operation of the extinguishing systems.

The extra text is superfluous. By definition, there is no other way to reset other than prior torestoration. That is, what would one be resetting if the fuel/power has already been restored?




Revise section 5.5.6.1Expellant The source of expellant gas that is used to pneumatically operate shutoff devices shall be taken prior to from

a point upstream of its entry into the dry chemical tank containers.

Proposed text more clearly states the requirement. Also, currently 4.9 refer to the tanks as“containers”.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #8


Revise Section 5.7.1.7.1When manual actuation is used for protection of hazards other than mobile equipment, the manual actuation device

shall be installed no more than 48 in. (1200 mm) and no less than 42 in. (1067 mm) above the floor and shall clearlyidentify the hazard protected

The extra text is redundant. The requirement is already included in 5.7.1.9.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #33


Revise text to read as follows:5.7.1.11 Automatic detection and system actuation shall be in accordance with this standard and the manufacturer’s

listed installation and maintenance manual.Clarification. The current text could be misinterpreted. NFPA 17 contains requirements for detection

and actuation that are not contained in the manuals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #12

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise text to read as follows:An audible or visual indicator shall be provided to show that the system has operated, that personnel response is

needed, and that the system is in need of recharge. The audible or visual indicator shall be capable of being heardand/or seen in the vicinity of the protected cooking equipment.

Many times the fire-extinguishing system is located in a remote location from the cooking equipmentbeing protected, such as an adjacent room or above a ceiling. There have been instances where, due to the “cleanagent” being utilized, it is difficult to see that the system has triggered and the audible/visual notification cannot beheard/seen due to the remote or inaccessible location of the system.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual Commercial Markets

Revise Section 5.8.2 to read as follows:

A fully charged reserve unit permanently connected to the system is desirable and can be required by theauthority having jurisdiction.

Where uninterrupted protection is required, both the main and reserve supply shall be permanently connected tothe distribution piping and arranged for changeover.Where a dry chemical system protects multiple hazards by means of selector valves, sufficient dry chemical andexpellant gas shall be kept on hand for one complete recharge of the system.

Changeover shall be accomplished by a main/reserve selector switch or valve or other approved method.For single hazard systems, a similar supply shall be kept on hand if the importance of the hazard is such that it cannotbe shut down until recharges can be procured.

According to the NFPA report "", dry chemical systems operated in 64% of cases where the fire was considered large enough

to activate the system. When the system did not operate, the reasons for lack of operation were: lack of maintenance(44%), manual intervention defeated the system (17%) and, system shut off (15%).In cases where the system operated, only 66% of the systems were effective. When systems were not effective, the

reasons for such ineffectiveness were: Not enough agent released (51%), agent did not reach the fire (40%), lack ofmaintenance (4%) and manual intervention defeated the system (3%).Many of the reasons cited above indicate that a reserve supply of agent is needed to provide better assurance of

extinguishment and control. The language in this proposal still permits the lack of a reserve supply where uninterruptedprotection is not needed however, this proposal provides stronger language for the AHJ to require a main and reservesupply. This proposal will also reduce the length of the system impairment needed for servicing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #34


Revise text to read as follows:Replace 5.8.3 with the following:5.8.3 Agent storage containers shall not be located where they can be rendered inoperable.A.5.8.3 Storage containers should be located so that they will not be exposed to a fire in a manner likely to impair

system performance.The objective should be to locate agent containers so that the system will not become impaired and

will operate as intended.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #23


Revise text to read as follows:For engineered systems, pPipe sizes and nozzles shall be selected, on the basis of calculations, to deliver the required

dry chemical flow rate at each nozzle.This section applies to engineered systems only and should be stated as such. Proposed text clarifies

this and is consistent with subsequent wording in section 5.9.2.2.




Delete text to read as follows:Delete entire section 6.2.1.

Section 6.2.2 provides all of the information, as well as further detail, show in Section 6.2.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #63


Revise text to read as follows:Unclosable openings having an area in excess of 1 percent of the total enclosure area and not exceeding 5

percent shall be compensated for by the provision of additional dry chemical in accordance with 6.2.2.6.Added the “total enclosure area” (similar to 6.2.1.3) and the “in accordance with” reference for

clarification.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #64


Revise text to read as follows:Unclosable openings having an area in excess of 5 percent of the total enclosure area and not exceeding 15

percent shall be screened by local application of additional dry chemical (See 6.2.2.6) in accordance with 6.2.2.6.1.Corrected the reference. Section 6.2.2.6 is an incorrect reference.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #25


Revise text to read as follows:6.2.32.4

This item does not fall under the category of leakage and ventilation. This is a sub-section of 6.2,Hazard Specifications and should be increased one level in the heading order.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #26


Revise text to read as follows:6.2.2.65.2

This section is a sub-section of 6.2.2.5, ‘Rate of Application’ and should be decreased one level in theheading order.





This section is not a sub-section of 6.2.2.6. Rather, this is a sub-section of 6.2.2.5, ‘Rate of Application’and should be increased one level in the heading order.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #28



This section is a sub-section of 6.2.2.6, and should be moved directly under 6.2.2.6 with appropriatesub-level numbering. The existing section 6.2.2.6.1 is not a sub-section of 6.2.2.6 and should be increased a headinglevel (submitted in a separate proposal).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #65


Revise text to read as follows:Pre-engineered systems shall be permitted to protect unclosable openings using different amounts of dry

chemicals from those specified in 6.2.2.6 and 6.2.2.6.1, only when listed for such use.Pre-engineered systems can be specifically UL tested and listed to allow different amounts of dry

chemicals other than those specified both in 6.2.2.6 and 6.2.2.6.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #9


Revise Section 7.2.6 Coated surface areas shall be treated as if they were deep-layer flammableliquid areas (because no distinction has been made in this standard).

The extra text violates the rules of Manual of Style. The parenthetical phrase does not add anything tothe requirement.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bradley Howard, Koorsen Fire & Security

Delete as follows:9.3 Commercial Kitchen Hood, Duct, and Cooking Appliance Systems.9.3.1 Each protected cooking appliance(s), individual hood(s), and branch exhaust duct(s) directly connected to the

hood shall be protected by a single system or by systems designed for simultaneous operation.9.3.1.1 At least one fusible link or heat detector shall be installed within each exhaust duct opening in accordance with

the manufacturer’s listing.9.3.1.2 A fusible link or heat detector shall be provided above each protected cooking appliance and in accordance

with the extinguishing system manufacturer’s listing.9.3.1.3 Fusible links or heat detectors located at or within 12 in. (305 mm) into the exhaust duct opening and above the

protected appliance shall be permitted to meet the requirements of 9.3.1.2.9.3.2 Fire-extinguishing systems referenced in 9.3.1 shall comply with ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing

Systems for Protection of Commercial Cooking equipment, or equivalent listing standard.9.3.2.1 Fixed automatic dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be installed in accordance with the terms of the

listing, the manufacturer’s instructions, and this standard.9.3.3 Systems protecting two or more hoods or plenums, or both, that meet the requirements of Section 5.2 shall be

installed to ensure the simultaneous operation of all systems protecting the hoods, plenums, or both, and associatedcooking appliances located below the hoods.9.3.4* Protection of Common Exhaust Duct.9.3.4.1 Common exhaust ducts shall be protected by one of the following methods:(1)*Simultaneous operation of all independent hood, duct, and appliance protection systems(2)*Simultaneous operation of any hood, duct, and appliance protection system and the system(s) protecting the entire

common exhaust duct9.3.4.1.1 Afusible link or other mechanically operated heat detection device from the common duct fire extinguishing

system shall be located at each branch duct–to–common duct connection when electrical operation of the common ductfire extinguishing system does not meet the requirements of 9.6.1.9.3.4.1.2 Where a fusible link or mechanically operated heat detector is located at a branch duct–to–common duct

connection, an access panel shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and FireProtection of Commercial Cooking Operations, to enable servicing of the detector when the detector is not accessiblefrom the branch duct connection to the exhaust hood.9.3.4.2 All sources of fuel or heat to appliances served by the common exhaust duct shall be shut down upon actuation

of any protection system in accordance with 9.3.5.9.3.4.3 The building owner(s) shall be responsible for the protection of a common exhaust duct(s) used by more than

one tenant.9.3.4.3.1 The tenant shall be responsible for the protection of a common exhaust duct(s) serving hoods located within

the tenant’s space and up to the point of connection to the building owner’s common exhaust duct.9.3.4.3.2 The tenant’s common duct shall be considered a branch duct to the building owner’s common duct.9.3.5* Shutoff Devices. Upon actuation of any cooking equipment fire-extinguishing system, all sources of fuel and

electric power that produce heat to all equipment protected by the system shall be shut down.9.3.5.1 Steam supplied from an external source shall not require shutdown.9.3.5.2* Exhaust fans and dampers shall not be required to be shut down upon system actuation.9.3.5.3 Any gas appliance not requiring protection but located under the same ventilating equipment shall be

automatically shut off upon actuation of any extinguishing system.9.3.5.4 Shutoff devices shall require manual resetting prior to fuel or power being restored.

Dry chemical does not comply with ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems forProtection of Commercial Cooking Equipment and there are no current manufacturers that supply a dry chemicalsuppression system listed for hood suppression systems.




Revise text to read as follows:Each protected cooking appliance, individual hood, and branch exhaust duct directly connected to the hood shall

be protected by a system or systems designed installed for simultaneous operation.Remove the word design and replace it with installed since “design” is a function of the equipment

manufacture. Systems falling under this section must be “installed” to operate simultaneously.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #53


Revise text to read as follows:The building owner(s) or owner’s agent shall be responsible for the protection of a common exhaust duct(s)

used by more than one tenant.Contractual obligations may transfer this responsibility to a third party agent or management firm.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #67


Revise text to read as follows:The means for manual actuator(s) actuation shall be mechanical and shall not rely on electrical power for

actuation.I believe this is a clerical error requiring correction and clarification by deleting the word “actuator(s)”.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #68


Revise text to read as follows:Electrical power shall be permitted to be used for manual actuation if electrical supervision and a reserve power

supply is provided in accordance with 9.6.1. Section 9.6.Section 9.6 has a heading entitled, “System Supervision”. But it deals with detection. There are

exemptions for electrical supervision in this section that do not apply to manual actuation.




New text to read as follows:9.6.1.1 Systems complying with 9.6.1 shall be provided with two sources of power (main and reserve) for automatic

and manual actuation.This clarification was provided by a Formal Interpretation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #69


Revise text to read as follows:Where fixed automatic fire-extinguishing systems include automatic mechanical detection and actuation as a

backup detection system, electrical power required for automatic operation shall not require monitoring or and a reservepower supply is not required.

Section 9.6.2 is an exemption to supervision and backup power for electrical detection. Having aredundant mechanical detection system is not criteria for not having circuit monitoring and/or a backup power supply forelectrical manual pull stations. The revision will be specific to automatic operation, not manual operation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #10


Revise Section 9.7.1 If required, complete drawings of the system installation shall be submitted tothe authority having jurisdiction for review and approval

The requirement of this section should not be considered as being met merely because drawings weresubmitted…they need to be approved. To submit drawings that are found to be unacceptable does not meet the intent ofthis requirement. Additional text more clearly reflects the intent.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #54


Revise text to read as follows:Design Layout and installation of systems shall be performed only by persons

properly trained and qualified to design layout and/or install the specific system being provided. The installer shallprovide certification to the authority having jurisdiction that the installation complies with the terms of the listing and themanufacturer’s instructions and/or manufacturers approved design.

Reword 9.7.2 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed by system manufacturer theinstaller performs layout to meet the manufacturers listed and approved design.




Revise text to read as follows:Revise 9.8.2.1 to read as follows:9.8.2.1 Additional coverage shall be provided where adverse wind conditions can occur.

Revised to an enforceable requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #81


New text to read as follows:Revise 9.8.4.1 to read as follows:9.8.4.1 Heat detectors of the fixed temperature-sensing type, rate-of-rise type, or rate-compensation type shall be

provided to actuate the system.9.8.4.1.1 Locations and spacing of heat detectors shall be in accordance with the system listing.

Clarification.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #29


Delete text to read as follows:9.9.1 Only pre-engineered dry chemical systems, including detection systems that have been listed for such use, shall

be installed on mobile equipment.A dry chemical standard should dictate requirements for dry chemical systems. It should not preclude

alternative types of systems, if tested and approved, from being used for a given application. Associated appendixinformation could be noted on Section heading 9.9.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #16


Revise as follows:10.4.3 Acceptance tests shall include a discharge of dry chemical in sufficient amounts to verify that the system is

properly installed and functional.

To perform the acceptance test in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines and themanufacturer's listing. This would maintain the integrity of the manufacturer's listing which is more specific forpre-engineered suppression systems.




Revise text to read as follows:10.4.3.3 Where pressure testing or purge testing is required, it shall be by means of a dry gas.

One purpose for discharging dry powder is to ensure the piping is not obstructed. By adding purgetesting as permitted in Annex A, this gives the AHJ an option beyond waiving the dry powder discharge as permitted in10.4.3.5.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual Property

New text to read as follows:The installing contractor shall complete and sign the acceptance test checklist in Figure 10.4.5

Insert new figure as follows: (See attached file)Currently there is no form for properly documenting the tests results for a dry chemical system

acceptance test. The proposed form is consistent with that required by other installation standards.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #55


Add new text to read as follows:11.1 The responsibility for inspection, testing, maintenance, and recharge of the fire protection system shall

ultimately be that of the owner of the system, provided that this responsibility has not been transferred in written form toa management company, tenant, or other party.

Add new text to section 11.1 to mirror the text found in NFPA 96 2011 4.1.5, outlining theresponsibility for the inspection, maintenance and recharge of the fire suppression system remains with the owner of thesystem.


Extinguishing Systems: Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems Form III-11

NFPA Checklists for Inspecting Detection and Suppression Systems 1 of 4

ACCEPTANCE TEST CHECKLIST

Date Documents Submitted:

Log No.:

File No.:

Plan Examiner:

Date of Approval:

Permit No.:

Property Information

Building Name:

Building Address:

Owner’s Name:

Owner’s Address:

Owner's Phone: Fax: E-mail:

System Designer/Contractor

Company Name:

Company Address:

Contact Person (Designer):

Designer Qualifications:

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

General

Building type:

New Existing Renovations

Occupancy classification:

One- or two-family dwelling

Ambulatory health care

Apartment

Assembly

Business

Day care

Detention and correctional

Educational

Health care

Hotel/dormitory

Industrial

Lodging or rooming house

Mercantile

Residential board and care

Storage

Underground

Windowless

Other

Area protected

System protects:

Cooking exhaust hoods

Cooking exhaust hood plenums



Cooking exhaust ducts

Cooking appliances

Other

System Acceptance

Installation in agreement with approved plans for the following:

Yes No Size, length, and arrangement of connected piping

Yes No Description and location of nozzles

Yes No Location of detection devices

Yes No Operating devices

Yes No Auxiliary equipment

Yes No Electrical circuitry

Yes No Discharge nozzles in place

Yes No Discharge nozzles are of brass, stainless steel, other corrosion-resistant material, or protected against corrosion

Yes No Manual actuator(s) located in path of egress and between 42 inches and 48 inches above the floor

Yes No Indicator (audible or visual) provided on the system that shows system has operated and may be in need of recharge

Yes No If two or more proximate hazards can be simultaneously involved in a fire

Yes No System protects all hazards that can be simultaneously involved, OR

Yes No Individual systems installed to operate simultaneously

Yes No With extinguishing agent tank removed, remote manual operating device activated, release mechanism above extinguishing agent tank “trips”

When using a cylinder of test gas in lieu of extinguishing agent and balloons on all nozzles, and mimicking activation of fusible link/detector:

Yes No Release mechanism above extinguishing agent tank “trips”

Yes No Balloons inflate indicating that piping is connected

Yes No Shutoff devices operate

Yes No Shutoff devices require manual reset

Yes No Fire alarm sounds

Where supervision provided, indicates trouble in:

Yes No Automatic detection system

Yes No Electrical actuation circuit

Yes No Electrical power supply



Yes No System has been subject to hydrostatic test, and appropriate documentation submitted

Total Flooding Systems

Yes No Enclosure is appropriate

Yes No Forced air ventilation shuts down or closes before or with discharge

Local Application Systems

Yes No Protected hazard isolated from other hazards

Yes No Entire hazard is protected

Yes No For flammable liquids, nozzles located tankside, overhead, or combination of both

Systems Protecting Vehicle Fueling Service Stations

Yes No Hazard protected, including the area within the arc scribed by the nozzle end of the hose on each dispenser

Yes No All vehicle fuel dispensers shut down upon system actuation

Yes No Remote manual actuator or operating device provided in a conspicuous and accessible location away from the vehicle dispensers and protected area

Systems Protecting Mobile Equipment

Yes No All areas and compartments protected

Yes No Detection devices provided in all protected areas and compartments

Yes No Agent containers and manual actuator station located appropriately, accessible, and protected against physical damage

Yes No In addition to the remote manual actuator or operating device provided in the path of egress and operable from the ground level, at least one manual actuator provided for use by the equipment operator

Yes No Audible and visual pre-discharge alarms provided where discharge delay devices are used

Approval

Inspector: Date:

Approved Yes No

If no, reason(s):



Notes:



Revise Section 11.1.3 A service technician who performs maintenance on an extinguishing systemshall be trained and shall have passed a written or online test that is in a manner acceptable to the authority havingjurisdiction.

It is not within the scope of this document to dictate how an AHJ determines how to implement hisapproval process. Although testing may be one means of this determination, and AHJ may require another means, suchas experience or oral interview, or may require criteria in addition to testing. The suggestion of a written or online testmay be valid and should therefore be located in the Annex.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #82


New text to read as follows:Replace Section 11.1.6 so that it reads as follows:11.1.6 Recharge Agents.11.1.6.1 Dry chemical provided for the system shall be listed for the system.11.1.6.1.2 Expellant gas for stored pressure cylinders shall be standard industrial-grade nitrogen with a dew point of

-60°F (-51°C) or lower (CGA nitrogen specification G10.1, grades D through P).The current requirements are unnecessarily overly restrictive for recharge agents. This allows for fair

market competition. These systems should only use dry nitrogen for the expellant gas. There are safety concerns wherelower grades of expellant gas are used with higher moisture content. The standard should state the specification for theexpellant gas.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #18


Delete text to read as follows:11.1.6.1.1 The characteristics of the system shall be dependent on the composition of the dry chemical and the type of

expellant gas, as well as other factors.It may be typical that dry chemical system performance is dependent upon the composition of the

specific agent used, but there is no way to enforce this statement, especially with the addition of ‘other factors’. Sec11.1.6.1.2 specifies that the appropriate agent and expellant gas is used. This statement adds no discernible value andshould be deleted in its entirety.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #56


Revise text to read as follows:At a minimum, this “quick check” or inspection shall include verification of the following:

The term “quick check” is undefined and downplays the importance of the owners monthly inspection.




Revise text to read as follows:At least semi-annually, and after any system activation, maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with

the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.After any system activation, it should be required to conduct a maintenance or “thorough check” of the

system to assist in determining the cause for activation and to give assurance regarding the system function/reliability.Additionally, this is a requirement in the IFC (International Fire Code) – 904.11.6.2.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #57


Delete the following text:Maintenance shall include the following:

(1) A check to see that the hazard has not changed(2) An examination of all detectors, the expellant gas container(s), the agent container(s), releasing devices, piping,hose assemblies, nozzles, signals, all auxiliary equipment, and the liquid level of all nonpressurized wet chemicalcontainers(3)*Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed

Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps toperform maintenance are outlined by each manufacturer in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directedin 17 11.3.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #35


Delete text to read as follows:Delete A.11.3.1.1(3) in its entirety, and revise 11.3.1.1(3) to read as follows:(3)* Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed by conducting a puff test or disassembling the piping

Since discharge testing is not recommended, disassembly of the pipe or a puff test seem to be theonly logical alternatives.




Add new text to read as follows:Dry chemical containers that pass the applicable 6-year requirement of Section 11.3.1.2 shall have the

maintenance information recorded on a durable weatherproof label that is a minimum size of 2 in. × 3½ in. (51 mm × 89mm).

The new label shall be affixed to the shell by a heat-less process, and any old labels shall be removed.These labels shall be of the self destructive type when their removal from a dry chemical container is

attempted.The label shall include the following information:

(1) Month and year the maintenance was performed, indicated by a perforation such as a hand punch(2) Name or initials of the person performing the maintenance and the name of the agency performing the maintenance

Each system cylinder that has undergone maintenance that includes internal examination or has beenrecharged shall have a verification-of-service collar located around the neck of the cylinder.

The collar shall not interfere with the operation of the system cylinder discharge valve.The collar shall include the following information:

(1) Month and year the service was performed, indicated by a perforation such as done by a hand punch(2) Name of the agency performing the maintenance or recharge

Cartridge or cylinder-operated dry chemical system cylinders shall not be required to comply with Sections11.3.1.2.1 through 11.3.1.2.7.Add corresponding Annex material extracted directly from A.7.3.3, A.7.3.3.2 and Figure A.7.3.3.2 in NFPA 10, 2010

Edition.A requirement exists for conducting a “6 – year examination” of stored pressure dry chemical system

cylinders, but no requirement exists for labeling the cylinders after the examination has taken place. This proposal useslanguage extracted from a similar requirement for stored pressure fire extinguishers in NFPA 10 – 2010 Edition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #36


Revise text to read as follows:Revise 11.3.1.3 to read as follows:11.3.1.3* Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions

such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage; or fire damage;or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) container shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested inaccordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency. The hydrostatic testing of dry chemicalcontainers shall follow the applicable procedures outlined in Section 11.5.

This paragraph should provide a clear, concise, and enforceable requirement for agent containers. Ifthere are criteria for other components, it should be listed separately.




Delete the following text:Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions

such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage or fire damage;or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested in accordancewith the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency.

Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps toperform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in17 11.3.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #59


Revise text to read as follows:All wet chemical systems shall be function tested, which shall include …

This section describes what is known in the industry as a function test, which is shall not to beconfused with a discharge test.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #60


Delete the following text:All wet chemical systems shall be tested, which shall include the operation of the detection system signals

and releasing devices, including manual stations and other associated equipment.Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps to

perform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in17 11.3.31.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #37


Revise text to read as follows:11.3.1.5 Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals defective parts that could cause an impairment or failure of

proper operation of the system(s), the affected parts shall be replaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer'srecommendations.

Defective parts should be replaced. Recommendations do not belong in the body of the standard.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Norbert W. Makowka, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors

Revise text to read as follows:Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals deficiencies or defective parts that could cause an

impairment or failure of proper operation of the system(s), the deficiencies shall be removed and affected parts shall bereplaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Add deficiencies to the items that can cause impairment of the fire system and the requirement toabate them

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #76


Revise text to read as follows:At a minimum, inspection maintenance and testing of restorable-type heat detectors shall include the

following”…Inspection is defined as a visual examination and maintenance is defined as work performed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #38


Revise text to read as follows:11.3.3.2 Nonrestorable heat detectors shall be functionally tested in accordance with the manufacturer's

recommendations.11.3.3.3 Heat detectors and all associated wiring that show signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the

manufacturer's recommendations and replaced if necessary.NFPA standards should only contain enforceable requirements. Recommendations do not belong in

the body of the standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #39


New text to read as follows:Replace 11.5.2.2 with the following text:The pressure in a hydrostatic test of a cylinder shall be maintained for a minimum of 30 seconds, but for no less time

than is required for complete expansion of the cylinder and to complete the visual examination of the cylinder.Establishes a minimum enforceable requirement for all hydrostatic tests of agent containers.




Revise text to read as follows:Revised A.1.6 to read as follows:A.1.6 Although training and qualification might be available elsewhere, it is recommended that such training and

qualification be performed by the manufacturer of the equipment being installed or serviced or their agent.It might be necessary for many of those charged with the purchasing, inspecting, testing, approving, operating, and

maintaining of this equipment to consult an experienced fire protection engineer competent in this field, in order todischarge their respective duties effectively.

Several manufacturers are currently working with their agents to provide this training and qualification.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #70


Move Figure A.9.3.4.1(1) directly after the Scenario for A.9.3.4.1(1).There is still confusion over these requirements. The figure should be directly after the language it is

clarifying.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #71


Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (a) No. 1. Change from “No. 1” to (a) and also move FIGURE A.9.3.4.1(2)(a) directly after Scenario (a).

There is still confusion over these requirements. The language referral and the figure should beidentified the same. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #72


Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (b) No. 2. Change from “No. 2” to (b) and also move Figure A.9.3.4.1(2)(b) directly after Scenario (b).





Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (c) No. 3. Change from “No. 3” to (c) and also move Figure A.9.3.4.1(2)(c) directly after Scenario (c).


_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #78


Revise text to read as follows:It is recommended that system design layout and installation personnel be certified in accordance with the

manufacturer’s requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates.Change the word “design” to “layout” to reflect that design is a function of the equipment manufacture

not the installer.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #41


Revise text to read as follows:Revise A.11.1.4 to read as follows:A.11.1.4 It is recommended that system maintenance personnel be certified as outlined in 11.1.3. with the

manufacturer’s requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates.New certification requirements were added to section 11.1.3 during the 2009 revision of the standard.

Annex A.11.1.4 should be updated to match the revised body text.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17- Log #42


Delete text to read as follows:Revise A.11.3.1.4 to read as follows:A.11.3.1.4 A discharge of the dry chemical normally is should not be part of this test.

Discharge the system following its installation is problematic because it could cause future systemfailure if the piping is not blown out satisfactorily. Justification has never been provided to support the need for this typeof demonstration following system installation.


Report on Proposals – November 2012 NFPA 17A_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Paul O'Shea, Economy Fire Services

New text to read as follows:All Ansul Suppressions or wet Chemical Kitchen Systems should have color coded nozzles, meaning if a nozzle is

protecting fryers, then the nozzle should or shall be a specific color. Same rule applies with each appliance, plenum, andextraction ducts.

This will benefit because it will stop chefs or persons whose job it is to move or clean kitchen areasfrom putting appliances back in wrong position if color coding is implemented. Also it will heighten awareness in thisarea and possible reduce incidents. Via Signage etc.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #CP1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Committee on Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems,

Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals todo so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required.

To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #10

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Don Dawkins, DAWCO Fire & Safety Inc.

New text to read as follows:Manufacturers of fire equipment shall make available to State Fire Marshal Offices product installation and service

manuals and provide timely product safety bulletins for dissemination to all Authorized and Licensed Fire EquipmentService companies for all Fire Equipment Products manufactured, listed and sold for profit in those states. Also, ProductService Training and/or Listed Installation and service manuals shall be offered and made available for a reasonable feeto any state authorized and licensed fire equipment service company.

This would greatly improve the level of professionalism, training and quality of service inspectionsconducted by authorized, licensed and permitted fire equipment service personnel. Currently, there are many oversightsor mistakes routinely being made and identification of service companies or their employees performing at substandardlevels is difficult to distinguish. By adding this requirement to all standards would ensure the availability of proper trainingand flow of information. Non-Compliant issues could be readily identified and corrected. Fire equipment servicecompanies and/or their service employees which perform at substandard levels could be readily identified. The purposefor these standards is to ensure minimum requirements. This amendment would accomplish the best of what isachievable when it comes to protecting overall public safety and property. It is time to reduce the politics and truly putpublic safety where it belongs – First.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #60


Revise text to read as follows:Only persons properly trained shall be considered competent to design or layout, install and service dry chemical

systems.Properly is not defined and subjective whereas trained is defined in this standard. Pre-engineered

systems are not designed by the installer.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Revise text as follows:2.3.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.ANSI/UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Commercial Cooking Equipment, 2005,

revised 2010.

Reason: Update referenced standard to most recent revision.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #61


Add definition to read as follows:A situation, condition or failure within a system or system component that makes the system

non-complaint with this standard or the manufacturers listed maintenance and installation manual.Add definition of term deficiency as used in 17A 7.3.2 and other proposals.

Move all other 3.3 items down one number.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #62


Add new definition to read as follows:A plan or sketch indicating the arrangement and relationship of the parts of the pre-engineered fire

system to ensure that the system configuration is within the listed design determined by the manufacturer and outlinedin the manufacturer’s listed maintenance and installation manual.

Define the term Layout as used in several other proposals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #34


New text to read as follows:3.3.8 Revise the definition of “maintenance” to read as follows:

. Work, including, but not limited to, repair, replacement, and service, performed to ensure that equipmentoperates properly.

Definition was taken from the NFPA Glossary of Terms which references NFPA 72 as the source. Thecurrent definition does not adequately define the term. The new definition defines the term as it is used in chapter 7 ofthe standard. This definition was also added to NFPA 96 during the last revision after significant deliberation.




Revise text to read as follows:Revise the term and definition to read as follows:3.3.9.1* Manufacturer’s Listed Installation and Maintenance Manual. The pamphlet referenced as part of the listing for

installation and maintenance of the wet chemical extinguishing system. (The terminology should be editorially updatedthroughout the document.)

I serve on the NFPA committee on venting systems for cooking appliances which recently correctedNFPA 96, 11.2.3 by dropping the term “listed” when referencing these manuals (A11, ROP 96-102). The reason that thecommittee provided in the committee proposal was “There are no listed installation manuals.” There is a need forcorrelation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #63


Add new definition to read as follows:Not meeting all applicable requirements of this standard.

Add new text to define Non-Compliant as used in 17A - 7.3.3.4.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #20


Revise text to read as follows:These systems have the specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number

of fittings, and number and types of nozzles prescribed verified by a testing laboratory.This statement implies that an independent lab defines the system design. An independent testing

laboratory prescribes the test protocol for system performance. It is the responsibility of the system manufacturer todefine the specifications of the system. The independent laboratory verifies whether or not the system as specified bythe manufacturer meets the test requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #64


Revise definition to read as follows:Those having designed and engineered by the manufacturer to have

predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of extinguishing agent. These systems have the specific pipesize, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings, and number and types ofnozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory. The maximum and minimum pipe lengths and the number of fittings shall bepermitted to be expressed in equivalent feet of pipe. The hazards protected by these systems are specifically limited asto type and size by a testing laboratory, based on actual fire tests. Limitations on hazards that are permitted to beprotected by these systems and piping and nozzle configurations are determined by the manufacturer design and arecontained in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual, which is part of the listing of the system.

Reword 3.3.13 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed and engineered by systemmanufacture




Revise definition to read as follows:One who has undergone the instructions necessary to safely design, install, layout or and reliably

perform the maintenance and recharge service in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual.Add the term layout to the list contained in 3.3.18.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #21


Revise text to read as follows:Transport Canada (TC). The department that hHas jurisdiction over design and transportation of compressed gas

cylinders and cartridges in Canada.The definition as written is incomplete, inconsistent with similar definition of US DOT in sec 3.3.20, and

does not indicate the scope of authority. The revised text clarifies that TC is a specific department and that jurisdictionpertains to Canada only.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #22


Revise text to read as follows:US Department of Transportation (DOT). The department that has jurisdiction over design and transportation of

compressed gas cylinders and cartridges in the US.DOT does not have jurisdiction outside the US. The revised text clarifies that jurisdiction pertains to the

US only.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #66


Add new definition to read as follows:The regular, periodic testing and maintenance and testing of the system equipment and hardware,

according to the established schedule and the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to ensure that the system is insafe and functional operating condition.

Add this definition to note the difference between a function test and a discharge test.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #67


Revise text to read as follows:All remote manual operating devices shall be indentified to the hazard they protect.

It is important that all manual operating devices be indentified.




Revise text to read as follows:

On activation of any cooking equipment fire extinguishing system, all sources of fuel and electric power thatproduce heat to all equipment protected by the system shall be shut down.

I have contacted various AHJ's in my area and have concluded that it is a significant electrocutionhazard for the non-protected equipment to remain electrically energized due to the fact that the wet chemical agents willconduct electricity.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #36


Revise text to read as follows:Revise 4.6.1 to read as follows:4.6.1* The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system and recommended by the

manufacturer of the wet chemical system.The current text does not match the NFPA Manual of Style. Recommendations do not belong in the

body of the standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #68


Revise text to read as follows:4.6.1 The type of wet chemical used in the system shall be listed for the particular system and recommended by the

manufacturer of the wet chemical system.This is a redundant requirement; the wet chemical agent should only be what is listed for the specific

system.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #69


Revise text to read as follows:4.7 Electrical wiring and equipment shall be installed in accordance with

or the requirements of the authority having jurisdiction.Due to the nature of the hazards involved: high temperatures, grease, high air flows, only wiring and

equipment specifically mandated by the should be used. A local authority may not be aware ofthese special conditions.




Revise text to read as follows:Wet chemical systems shall be provided with an audible or visual indicator to show that the system is in a ready

condition or is in need of recharging. The audible or visual indicator shall be capable of being heard or seen in thevicinity of the protected cooking equipment.

Many times the fire-extinguishing system is located in a remote location from the cooking equipmentbeing protected, such as an adjacent room or above a ceiling. There have been instances where, due to the “cleanagent” being utilized, it is difficult to see that the system has triggered and the audible/visual notification cannot beheard/seen due to the remote or inaccessible location of the system.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #23


Revise text to read as follows:Wet chemical fire-extinguishing systems shall comply with ANSI/UL 300 or equivalent listing standard.

This statement is too restrictive as currently written. Other standards exist which may be acceptable tothe authority having jurisdiction.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #37


New text to read as follows:5.1.3 Applications. The NFPA 96 and the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual shall be consulted

for system limitations and applications for which wet chemical extinguishing systems are considered satisfactoryprotection.

NFPA 96 is the occupancy standard that provides minimum requirements for the protection of ventingsystem and cooking appliance hazards and therefore should be part of this requirement. That committee updated thereference to the manufacturer’s manuals by proposal A10, FOP 96-102.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #101


New text to read as follows:Equipment, listed or otherwise, that provides secondary filtration or air pollution control and that is installed in

the path of travel of exhaust products shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system, installed inaccordance with the automatic fire suppression system manufacturer’s instructions in accordance with NFPA 96.

5.1.3.1 is taken from NFPA 96, 9.3.3 (2011 edition). It is included to support new proposal 5.6.3.1.1(which requires the automatic fire suppression system that is protecting a secondary filtration or air pollution control unitto be simultaneously operated with the automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) that thesecondary filtration or air pollution control unit is serving).




Revise text to read as follows:Each protected cooking appliance, individual hood, and branch exhaust duct directly connected to the hood shall

be protected by a system or systems designed installed for simultaneous operation.Remove the word design and replace it with installed since “design” is a function of the equipment

manufacture. Systems falling under this section must be “installed” to operate simultaneously.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #71


Revise text to read as follows:Where two or more hazards can be simultaneously involved in fire by reason of their proximity, the hazards shall

be protected by either of the following:(1) Individual systems installed on each hazard to operate simultaneously(2) A single system designed installed to protect all hazards that can be simultaneously involved

Remove the word design and replace it with “installed”, since “design” is a function of the equipmentmanufacture. Systems falling under this section must be “installed” to operate simultaneously.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #38


Revise text to read as follows:5.2.1.3 Automatic detection and system actuation shall be in accordance with this standard and the manufacturer’s

listed installation and maintenance manual.Clarification. The current text could be misinterpreted. NFPA 17A contains many requirements for

detection and actuation that are not contained in the manuals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Gary R. Long, Office of the State Fire Marshal

Revise text to read as follows:An Audible or and visual indicators shall be provided to show that the system has operated, that personnel response is

needed, and that the system is in need of a recharge.I believe that an audible indicator should be required to alert kitchen personnel and diners in the eating

areas. If the system activates while kitchen personnel are out of the area, a visible indicator will provide no warning.The small "flag" indicating agent discharge is visible, but usually out of sight. Agent all over the stove is visible, but doesnothing to alert personnel out of the immediate area.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Gary R. Long, Office of the State Fire Marshal

Revise text to read as follows:Audible or visual indicator shall be provided to show that the system has operated, that personnel response is

needed, and that the system is in need of a recharge.I believe that an audible indicator should be required to alert kitchen personnel and diners in the eating

areas. If the system activates while kitchen personnel are out of the area, a visible indicator will provide no warning.The small "flag" indicating agent discharge is visible, but usually out of sight. Agent all over the stove is visible, but doesnothing to alert personnel out of the immediate area.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #5


Revise to read:The extinguishing system shall be connected to the fire alarm system, if provided, in accordance with the requirements

of , so that the actuation of the extinguishing system will sound the fire alarm as well as provide the function ofthe extinguishing system.

Connecting the extinguishing system to the fire alarm system only allows actuation to sound the firealarm. It does not also provide or even help provide the function of the extinguishing system.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #6


Revise to read:A readily accessible means for manual actuation shall be located in a path of egress. When manual actuation is used

for cooking-related protection, the manual actuation device It shall be installed no more than 48 in. (1200 mm), and noless than 42 in. (1067 mm), above the floor and shall clearly identify the hazard protected.

The requirement is appropriately written without the stated condition. That is, the location of themanual actuation means is not dependant on what is being protected.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #104


New text to read as follows:Add the following and renumber accordingly –5.2.1.11 At least one manual actuation device shall be located either a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) and a maximum of 6 m

(20 ft) from the kitchen appliance(s) or as directed by the authority having jurisdiction, within the path of egress.5.2.1.12 Manual activation using a cable-operated pull station shall not require more than 178 N (40 lb.) of force with a

pull movement not to exceed 356 mm (14 in) to activate the system.Proposal duplicates, in principle, requirements in NFPA 96 – 2011 and would avoid potential conflict

between the two standards.Gives better guidance to installers and authorities.




Revise text to read as follows:The means for manual actuation mechanical actuator(s) shall be mechanical and shall not rely on electrical

power for actuation.I believe this is a clerical error requiring clarification by changing the word “mechanical” to “manual”.

NFPA 17, 9.4.2 has very similar wording.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #93


Revise text to read as follows:Electrical power shall be permitted to be used for manual actuation if electrical supervision and a reserve

power supply is provided in accordance with NFPA 72 or if supervision is provided as per Section 5.3.Section 5.3 has a heading entitled, “Supervision”. But it deals entirely with detection. There are

exemptions for electrical supervision in this section that do not apply to manual actuation.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #72


Revise text to read as follows:Where supervision of any or all of the following is provided, it shall be designed and installed to give an

indication of trouble in the following:(1) Automatic detection system(2) Electrical actuation circuit(3) Electrical power supply

Add the word “installed”, since “design” is a function of the equipment manufacture not the installer

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #94


Revise text to read as follows:Where fixed automatic fire-extinguishing systems include mechanical detection and actuation as a backup

detection system, electrical power required for automatic operation shall not require monitoring or and a reserve powersupply shall not be required

5.3.2 is an exemption to supervision and backup power for electrical detection. Having a redundantmechanical detection system is not criteria for not having circuit monitoring and/or a backup power supply for electricalmanual pull stations.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual Commercial Markets

Add new Section 5.4 to read as follows:

A fully charged reserve unit permanently connected to the system is desirable and can be required by theauthority having jurisdiction.

Where uninterrupted protection is required, both the main and reserve supply shall be permanently connected tothe distribution piping and arranged for changeover.Where a dry chemical system protects multiple hazards by means of selector valves, sufficient dry chemical andexpellant gas shall be kept on hand for one complete recharge of the system.

Changeover shall be accomplished by a main/reserve selector switch or valve or other approved method.For single hazard systems, a similar supply shall be kept on hand if the importance of the hazard is such that it cannotbe shut down until recharges can be procured.

According to the NFPA report "", dry chemical systems operated in 64% of cases where the fire was considered large enough

to activate the system. When the system did not operate, the reasons for lack of operation were: lack of maintenance(44%), manual intervention defeated the system (17%) and, system shut off (15%).In cases where the system operated, only 66% of the systems were effective. When systems were not effective, the

reasons for such ineffectiveness were: not enough agent released (51%), agent did not reach the fire (40%), lack ofmaintenance (4%) and manual intervention defeated the system (3%).According to the NFPA report " ", 54% of fires in these

occupancies are directly related to cooking equipment, resulting in 38% of property damage overall.Note: these numbers may include wet chemical systems since there is no separate category for these systems.Many of the reasons cited above indicate that a reserve supply of agent is needed to provide better assurance of

extinguishment and control. The language in this proposal still permits the lack of a reserve supply where uninterruptedprotection is not needed, however this proposal provides stronger language for the AHJ to require a main and reservesupply. This proposal will also reduce the length of the system impairment needed for servicing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #39


Revise text to read as follows:5.4.1 Wet chemical containers and expellant gas assemblies shall be located within 32°F to 120°F (0°C to 49°C ). the

temperature range specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual .5.4.2 If ambient temperatures outside the manufacturer’s operating temperature range specified in 5.4.1 are expected,

protection shall be provided to maintain the temperature within the listed that range.7.1.1.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range

outlined in 5.4.1.The temperature range should be in the standard rather than sending the user to another document.




Revise text to read as follows:Replace 5.4.6 with the following:5.4.6 Agent storage containers shall not be located where they can be rendered inoperable.A.5.4.6 Storage containers should be located so that they will not be exposed to a fire in a manner likely to impair

system performance.The objective should be to locate agent containers so that the system will not become impaired and

will operate as intended.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #73


Revise text to read as follows:The building owner(s) or owner’s agent shall be responsible for the protection of a common exhaust duct(s)

used by more than one tenant.Contractual obligations may transfer this responsibility to a third party agent or management firm.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #24


Revise text to read as follows:5.6.1.45.6.1.6.2

This paragraph logically follows 5.6.1.6.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #95


Add new text to read as follows:Either a common extinguishing system shall be provided to protect both the ignition source(s) contained within

an exhaust system as well as the exhaust system itself, or separate extinguishing systems protecting the exhaustsystem and the ignition sources shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation upon actuation of any one ofthe systems.

The entire exhaust system including any devices installed within it, must be considered a single hazardarea. Consequently, in the event of a fire, some form of simultaneous system operation must be utilized.




Revise text to read as follows:Either a common automatic fire suppression system shall be provided to protect both the ignition source(s)

contained within an exhaust system as well as the exhaust system itself, or separate automatic fire suppression systemsprotecting the exhaust system and the ignition sources shall be arranged for simultaneous automatic operation uponactuation of any one of the systems.

The entire exhaust system including any devices installed within it, must be considered a single hazardarea. Consequently, in the event of a fire, some form of simultaneous system operation must be utilized.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #103


New text to read as follows:A secondary filtration or air pollution control unit, whether including an ignition source or not, shall either be

protected with a separate automatic fire suppression system designed to operate simultaneously with the activation ofthe automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) being served, or with a single automatic firesuppression system that protects both the secondary filtration or air pollution control unit and the hood(s) being served.

The requirement, 5.6.3.1.1 is also addressed in NFPA 96, 9.3.3 (2011 edition). However, it is not asclear as it could have been. This addition to NFPA 17A will help to clarify the requirement (which requires the automaticfire suppression system that is protecting a secondary filtration or air pollution control unit to be simultaneously operatedwith the automatic fire suppression system protecting the ventilation hood(s) that the secondary filtration or air pollutioncontrol unit is serving)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #25


Revise text to read as follows:Specifications for wet chemical fire extinguishing systems shall be drawn up with care by or under the supervision of a

trained person and with the advice of the authority having jurisdiction.The phrase “with care” is too subjective and therefore difficult to enforce. Deleting this phrase and

adding “by or” allows a trained person (not just someone under the supervision of a trained person) to draw up plansand is readily enforceable.




Revise text to read as follows:Design Layout and installation of systems shall be performed only by persons properly

trained and qualified to design layout and/or install the specific system being provided. The installer shall providecertification to the authority having jurisdiction that the installation complies with the terms of the listing and themanufacturer’s instructions and/or manufacturers approved design.

Reword 6.2 to indicate that pre-engineered systems are designed by system manufacture the installerperforms layout to meet the manufacturers listed and approved design




New text to read as follows:

6.4.1.1 During assembly, the piping distribution system shall be examined internally to detect the possibility of any oilor particulate matter soiling the hazard area or affecting the extinguishing agent distribution due to a reduction in theeffective nozzle orifice area.6.4.1.2 All discharge nozzles shall be oriented in such a manner that optimum extinguishing agent dispersal can be

effected.6.4.1.3 All extinguishing agent storage containers and mounting brackets shall be fastened securely in accordance with

the approved plans (see 6.3), where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.1.4 The discharge nozzles, piping, and mounting brackets shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans,

where required, and in such a manner that they will not potentially cause injury to personnel.6.4.1.5 All extinguishing agent storage containers shall be properly located in accordance with the approved plans,

where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.1.6 The completed system shall be reviewed to verify that the installation complies with the approved plans, where

required, and the system installation and maintenance manual and meets the approval of the authority havingjurisdiction.

It shall be determined that the appliances, hoods, and ducts are properly protected with nozzlesdetermined and positioned in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation andmaintenance manual.

6.4.2.2.1 It shall be determined that the piping system layout is in compliance with the approved plans, where required,and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.2.2 It shall be determined that nozzles and pipe size are in accordance with the approved plans, where required,

and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.2.3 It shall be determined that the attitudes of tees are in conformance with the approved plans, where required,

and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.2.4 It shall be determined that piping joints, discharge nozzles, and piping supports are securely fastened to

prevent unacceptable vertical or lateral movement during discharge.6.4.2.2.5 It shall be determined that discharge nozzles are installed in such a manner that they cannot become

detached from piping during discharge.6.4.2.2.6 It shall be determined that the actual installed appliances are the same as those indicated on the approved

plans, where required,.6.4.2.2.7 It shall be determined that the installed appliances are in the locations indicated on the approved plans,

where required,.

The piping shall be pneumatically tested in a closed circuit for a period of 10 minutes at 40psi (276 kPa), and at the end of 10 minutes, the pressure drop shall not exceed 20 percent of the test pressure.6.4.2.3.2 The pressure test shall be permitted to be omitted if the total piping contains no more than one change in

direction fitting between the storage container and the discharge nozzle, and where all piping is physically checked fortightness.

A flow test using nitrogen or dry air shall be performed on the piping network to verify that flow iscontinuous and that the piping and nozzles are unobstructed.6.4.2.3.3.1 The flow test shall be performed using gaseous nitrogen or compressed air at a pressure not to exceed the

normal operating pressure of the extinguishing system.6.4.2.3.3.2 The nitrogen or dry air shall be introduced into the piping network at the extinguishing agent container

connection.6.4.2.3.3.3 The quantity of nitrogen or dry air used for this test shall be sufficient to verify that each and every nozzle is

unobstructed.6.4.2.3.3.4 It shall be determined that nitrogen or dry air has discharged out of each and every nozzle in the system.


Report on Proposals – November 2012 NFPA 17A6.4.2.3.3.5 Nozzle flow shall not be obstructed by the installation of balloons on discharge nozzles.

6.4.2.4.1 It shall be determined that all system wiring has been properly installed in compliance with local codes, theapproved plans, where required,, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.4.32 It shall be determined that system wiring that is required to be installed in conduit or raceway has been done

and in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.4.3 It shall be determined that all field connected circuits are free of ground faults and short circuits.6.4.2.4.4 Where the system is connected to the building alarm system, it shall be determined that all functions such as

alarm-sounding or displaying devices and remote annunciation devices are in accordance with the approved plans,where required, and system installation and maintenance manual.

6.4.2.5.1 The detection devices shall be checked for proper type and location as specified on the approved plans,where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.5.2 The detection system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the

system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.5.3 It shall be determined that all manual release devices (manual pull stations) are properly installed, readily

accessible, accurately identified, and properly protected to prevent damage in accordance with the approved plans,where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.5.4 It shall be determined that the control panel is properly installed, readily accessible, and in accordance with

the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.

The preliminary functional tests outlined in 6.4.2.6.1.1 through 6.4.2.6.1.5shall be performed to determine that the system activates the building alarm, where required,.6.4.2.6.1.1 If the system is connected to an alarm receiving office, notify the alarm receiving office that the fire system

test is to be conducted and that an emergency response by the fire department or alarm station personnel is notdesired.6.4.2.6.1.2 Notify all concerned personnel at the end-user’s facility that a test is to be conducted and instruct personnel

as to the sequence of operation.6.4.2.6.1.3 Disable each extinguishing agent storage container release mechanism so that activation of the release

device will not discharge extinguishing agent.6.4.2.6.1.5 Where required,, it shall be determined that all supervised circuits operate for proper trouble response.

System functional operational tests shall be performed as outlined in6.4.2.6.2.1 through 6.4.2.6.2.2.5.

6.4.2.6.2.1.1 Operate each manual release device and verify that manual release functions occur according to designspecifications.6.4.2.6.2.1.2 Confirm that the visual or audible signals or both are received at the control panel that show that the

system is in a ready condition in accordance with the design specifications.6.4.2.6.2.1.3 It shall be determined that the gas shutoff operates or the electrical power shutdown operates in

accordance with the design specifications during the functional test of the system.6.4.2.6.2.1.4 During the functional test , it shall be determined that the visual or audible signals or both are received at

the control panel that show that the system is in need of recharging of the system in accordance with the designspecifications.

6.4.2.6.2.2.1 It shall be determined that the system release operates correctly by simulating the operation by cuttingthe most remote (terminal) link, cutting the installed test link, or operating the pneumatic release as described in thesystem installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.6.2.2.2 Confirm that a visual signal, audible signal, or both that indicate that the system is in need of recharge are

received at the control panel.6.4.2.6.2.2.3 Where pneumatic equipment is installed, it shall be determined that all pneumatic equipment was

installed in accordance with the approved plans, where required, and the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.6.2.2.4 Where pneumatic equipment is installed, the integrity of the pneumatic equipment shall be verified in

accordance with the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.6.2.2.5 It shall be determined that the gas shutoff operates the electrical power shutdown operates during the

functional test of the system.

6.4.2.7.1 It shall be determined that the control panel is connected to a dedicated circuit and labeled properly.


Report on Proposals – November 2012 NFPA 17A6.4.2.7.2 It shall be determined that the control panel is readily accessible, yet restricted from unauthorized personnel.

6.4.2.8.1 When all installation acceptance work is completed, each extinguishing agent storage container shall bereconnected so that activation of the release mechanism will release the system extinguishing agent.6.4.2.8.2 It shall be determined that the system has been returned to its fully operational condition in accordance with

the approved plans, where required, and in compliance with the system installation and maintenance manual.6.4.2.8.3 The alarm-receiving office and all concerned personnel at the end-user’s facility shall be notified that the fire

system test is complete and that the system has been returned to full service operational condition.All NFPA extinguishing systems should contain minimum requirements for installation acceptance

which supports a reasonable level of safety and helps assure that the systems will work in the event of a fire emergency.The NFPA 3 committee is assigned to commissioning and integrated testing and this material will be appropriate withtheir work.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #76


Revise text to read as follows:The completed system shall be acceptance tested by trained personnel as required in a

manner prescribed by the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.Clarify that the method of acceptance testing shall be conducted as outlined in the manufacturers

listed installation and maintenance manual

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #17

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Michael J. Laderoute, Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.

Delete text to read as follows:The test shall determine that the system has been properly installed and will function as intended.Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test, in

accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed andfunctional.

Section 6.4.1 is redundant and therefore not needed. Section 6.4 already states that the test shall beconducted as per the UL listed manufacturers manual. The process outlined in the UL manual is intended to assure thesystem has been properly installed and will function as intended.Section 6.4 already calls for the approval test. Also, it states “as required by the manufacturer's listed installation and

maintenance manual”. These manuals provide detailed steps of this process. Section 6.4.2 implies that a wet testshould be conducted. NO manufacturer's listed installation manual calls for a wet test as part of the approval process.UL Listed systems are already tested by an independent third party and must be installed as per their UL Listed Manual.This assures that the system will perform as expected. A wet test is not recommended and can promote problems withthe system if it is not cleaned up properly after the test.




Revise to read:Where approval tests are required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests they shall include a discharge

test, in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that the system is properly installed andfunctional.

As currently written it could be mistakenly interpreted that the AHJ is requiring an approval test thatdoesn’t include a discharge test.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #26


Delete text to read as follows:Delete entire paragraph.

Sections 6.4 and 6.4.1 fully address the necessary test requirements. Section 6.4.2 is not needed. Ifthis proposal is accepted, the appendix information provided in A6.4.2 should be included under a new paragraphA.6.4.1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #75


Revise text to read as follows:Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test only if the

discharge test can be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation manual, to verify that thesystem is properly installed and functional.

Clarify that the method of acceptance testing shall be conducted as outlined in the manufacturerslisted installation and maintenance manual.




Delete text to read as follows:Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the approval tests shall include a discharge test, in

accordance with the manufacturer’s listed manual, to verify that the system is properly installed and functional.When a discharge test is required, contact the particular system manufacturer for detailed functional discharge

procedures. The use of substitute liquids, such as water, is not endorsed by all of the wet chemical extinguishingmanufacturers.

This section and related annex material is beyond the stated scope of the document (i.e.,) and is being misinterpreted by fire equipment distributors

and local authorities.Section 6.4 clearly states that the system shall be tested by trained personnel as required by the manufacturer’s listed

installation and maintenance manual. Each manufacturer has a specific, unique procedure for testing their system. Thisprocedure is clearly documented in their listed manual. The manufacturer’s listed manual must bethe basis for all system testing and is clearly the “essential requirement” as stated in the document’s scope.Currently, manufacturers do not require discharge testing and, in fact, advise against it. Additionally, some

manufacturers advise against the use of water as a substitute if discharge testing is required by the local authority.Both Section 6.4.2 and A.6.4.2 are being misinterpreted to mean that discharge testing and/or discharge testing using

water is a standard practice, which is clearly not the case. As such, both Section 6.4.2 and A.6.4.2 should be removedto avoid this confusion and bring the document back into alignment with its stated scope.Local authorities can require testing and documentation beyond that which is required by the manufacturer’s listed

technical manual, however, it is not the purpose of this document to offer misleading suggestions for the development ofthese procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #3

_______________________________________________________________________________________________David R. Hague, Liberty Mutual Property

New text to read as follows:Insert new Section 6.4.3 to read as follows, renumber existing Section 6.4.3 to 6.4.4.

The installing contractor shall complete and sign the acceptance test checklist in Figure 6.4.3Insert new figure as follows: (See attached file)

Currently there is no form for properly documenting the tests results for a wet chemical systemacceptance test. The proposed form is consistent with that required by other installation standards.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #79


Add text to read as follows:7.1 The responsibility for inspection, testing, maintenance, and recharge of the fire protection system shall

ultimately be that of the owner of the system, provided that this responsibility has not been transferred in written form toa management company, tenant, or other party.

Add new text to section 7.1 to mirror the text found in NFPA 96 2011 4.1.5, outlining the responsibilityfor the inspection, maintenance and recharge of the fire suppression system remains with the owner of the system




Revise text to read as follows:7.1.1 Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied

by the manufacturer.7.1.1.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged.7.1.1.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range.7.4.4 Storage. Recharging supplies of wet chemical shall be stored in the original closed shipping container supplied bythe manufacturer.7.4.4.1 These containers shall not be opened until the system is recharged.7.4.4.2 Wet chemical supplies shall be maintained within the manufacturer’s recommended storage temperature range.

Relocate existing 7.1.1, 7.1.1.1 & 7.1.1.2 text to Section 7.4 which is the recharge section of chapter7, all references to items pertaining to Recharge should be located in 7.4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #78


Revise text to read as follows:A method and instructions shall be provided for checking the amount or the pressure of expellant

gas to ensure that it is sufficient for the proper operation of the system.System access for inspection or maintenance that requires opening panels in fire chases or ducts, or

both, shall not be permitted while any appliance(s) or equipment protected by that system is in operation.A method and instructions shall be provided for checking the amount or the pressure of expellant

gas to ensure that it is sufficient for the proper operation of the system.System access for inspection or maintenance that requires opening panels in fire chases or ducts, or

both, shall not be permitted while any appliance(s) or equipment protected by that system is in operation.Relocate existing 7.1.2 & 7.1.3 text to Section 7.3 which is the Maintenance section of chapter 7, all

references to items pertaining to maintenance Recharge should be located in 7.3.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #42


Revise text to read as follows:7.1.4* Recharge. After any discharge, or if insufficient charge is noted during an inspection or maintenance procedure,

the following procedures shall be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenancemanual:(1) The system shall be properly recharged.(2) The system shall be placed in the normal operating condition.(3) The Following a discharge, the piping shall be flushed and blown out with nitrogen in accordance with the

manufacturer’s recommended instructions (only following a discharge).7.4.3 After any discharge, the system piping shall be flushed in accordance with and blown out with nitrogen. the

procedures detailed in the manufacturer's listed installation and maintenance manual.Clarification. There is no need to reference another document to flush and blow out the piping.




Revise Section 7.2.2 At a minimum, this “quick check” or inspection shall include verification of thefollowing:

The text is a colloquialism and is superfluous. The words, “quick check” is not defined nor usedelsewhere. Additionally the word “inspection” by itself is sufficient.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #80


Revise text to read as follows:At a minimum, this “quick check” or inspection shall include verification of the following:

The term “quick check” is undefined and downplays the importance of the owners monthly inspection.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #27


Revise text to read as follows:Neither the protected equipment nor tThe hazard has not been replaced, modified, or relocated changed, including

replacement, modification and relocation of protected equipment.This statement is confusing as currently written. Proposed text clearly states the requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #11


Revise Section 7.2.5 At least monthly, the date of the inspection is performed and the initials of theperson performing the inspection shall be recorded.

This is a redundancy. The phrase is not needed as 7.2.1 already states that the inspection is requiredmonthly




Revise to read:7.3.1 A service technician who performs maintenance on an extinguishing system shall be trained and shall have

passed a written or online test that is to a level and in a manner acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.7.3.1.1 Where required by the authority having jurisdiction the The service technician shall possess a certification

document acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction confirming the requirements in 7.3.1 and issued by themanufacturer or testing organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

It is not within the authority of this Standard to dictate what method the AHJ uses to determine how hedecides who is and who is not trained to his criteria. This is the AHJ’s prerogative.Not all AHJ’s require a certification document. When he does, it is not within the authority of this Standard to limit the

prerogative of the AHJ by dictating by whom the certificate is issued. For instance, an AHJ may require certification beby a government agency that may not place all the decision on just testing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #100


Revise text to read as follows:7.3.3* At least semi-annually, and after any system activation, maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with the

manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.After any system activation, it should be required to conduct a maintenance or “thorough check” of the

system to assist in determining the cause for activation and to give assurance regarding the system function/reliability.Additionally, this is a requirement in the IFC (International Fire Code) – 904.11.6.2

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #81


Delete the following text:Maintenance shall include the following:

(1) A check to see that the hazard has not changed(2) An examination of all detectors, the expellant gas container(s), the agent container(s), releasing devices, piping,hose assemblies, nozzles, signals, all auxiliary equipment, and the liquid level of all nonpressurized wet chemicalcontainers(3)*Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed

Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps toperform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in17A 7.3.3.




Delete text to read as follows:Delete A.7.3.3.1(3) in its entirety, and revise 7.3.3.1(3) to read as follows:(3)* Verification that the agent distribution piping is not obstructed by conducting a puff test or disassembling the piping

Since discharge testing is not recommended, disassembly of the pipe or a puff test seem to be theonly logical alternatives.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #44


Revise text to read as follows:Revise 7.3.3.2 to read as follows:7.3.3.2* Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions

such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage; or fire damage;or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) container shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested inaccordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency.

This paragraph should provide a clear, concise, and enforceable requirement for agent containers. Ifthere are criteria for other components, it should be listed separately.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #82


Revise text to read as follows:Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers, system components or piping reveals

conditions such as….Piping that has not been properly flushed after a discharge is a major concern that can have a

dramatic effect on the discharge o the system. Any pipe obstructions must be corrected.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #83


Delete the following text:Where semiannual maintenance of any wet chemical containers or system components reveals conditions

such as, but not limited to, corrosion or pitting in excess of the manufacturer’s limits; structural damage or fire damage;or repairs by soldering, welding, or brazing, the affected part(s) shall be replaced or hydrostatically tested in accordancewith the recommendations of the manufacturer or the listing agency.

Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps toperform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in17A 7.3.3.




Revise text to read as follows:All wet chemical systems shall be function tested, which shall include …

This section describes what is known in the industry as a function test, which shall not to be confusedwith a discharge test.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #85


Delete the following text:All wet chemical systems shall be tested, which shall include the operation of the detection system signals and

releasing devices, including manual stations and other associated equipment.Strike this sections because the current list of maintenance items is limited and the actual steps to

perform maintenance are outlined by each manufacture in their listed installation and maintenance manual as directed in17A 7.3.3.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #45


Revise text to read as follows:7.3.3.4 Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals defective parts that could cause an impairment or failure of

proper operation of the system(s), the affected parts shall be replaced or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer'srecommendations.

Defective parts should be replaced. Recommendations do not belong in the body of the standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #86


Revise text to read as follows:Where the maintenance of the system(s) reveals deficiencies or defective parts that could cause an impairment

or failure of proper operation of the system(s), the deficiencies shall be removed and affected parts shall be replaced orrepaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Add deficiencies to the items that can cause impairment of the fire system and the requirement toabate them




Revise to read:Until such repairs are accomplished, the systems shall be tagged as noncompliant, and the owner or owner’s

representative responsible for the system and the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of the impairment. theowner or owner’s representative responsible for the system shall be notified that the systems is noncompliant andimpaired. Where required by the authority having jurisdiction, the authority having jurisdiction shall be notified of theimpairment.

There is always the concern that a servicing vendor tagging equipment and notifying others wouldappear as a means of being an enforcement arm for the vendor. Different AHJs deal with this matter in different ways.This Standard should not dictate how an impairment is to be dealt with. Most AHJ’s have their own particular process inplace as to how vendors should deal with these matters.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #14


Revise text to read as follows:Fixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal alloy type shall be replaced at least semiannually from

the date of installation, or more frequently, if necessary. They shall be destroyed when removed. Destroyed fusible linksfrom the most recent inspection shall remain on site for inspection by the authority having jurisdiction.

Destroyed fusible links should be kept on site so they can be viewed by the authority havingjurisdiction. There is no way to know if the links have been removed or “recycled” between systems unless they areavailable for viewing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #87


Revise text to read as follows:At a minimum, inspection maintenance and testing of restorable-type heat detectors shall include the

following”…Inspection is defined as a visual examination and maintenance is defined as work performed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #46


Revise text to read as follows:7.3.5.2 Nonrestorable heat detectors shall be functionally tested in accordance with the manufacturer's

recommendations.7.3.5.3 Heat detectors and all associated wiring that show signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the

manufacturer's recommendations and replaced if necessary.NFPA standards should only contain enforceable requirements. Recommendations do not belong in

the body of the standard.




Revise text to read as follows:Heat detectors and associated wiring that shows signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the

manufacture’s recommendations and replaced if necessary.Any wiring or detectors that are damaged by a fire should not be tested but should be replaced.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #105


Revise text to read as follows:Heat detectors and associated wiring that shows signs of fire damage shall be tested in accordance with the

manufacture’s recommendations and replaced if necessary.Any wiring or detectors that are damaged by a fire should not be tested but should be replaced.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #47


Revise text to read as follows:7.5.2 Wet chemical containers, auxiliary pressure containers, and hose assemblies shall be subjected to a hydrostatic

test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified by in the manufacturer’sinstallation and maintenance manual.

Updated to match NFPA 17 (11.5.2).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #48


New text to read as follows:Replace 7.5.2.2 with the following text:The pressure in a hydrostatic test of a cylinder shall be maintained for a minimum of 30 seconds, but for no less time

than is required for complete expansion of the cylinder and to complete the visual examination of the cylinder.Establishes a minimum enforceable requirement for all hydrostatic tests of agent containers.




Delete text to read as follows:Delete A.1.1 in its entirety.

Regarding the first paragraph, the standard does not present design considerations. The body of thestandard should only contain minimum requirements. There is little useful information contained in the secondparagraph and appears to be mostly promotional which is inappropriate in and NFPA standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #50


Revise text to read as follows:A.1.7 Although training and qualification might be available elsewhere, it is recommended that such training and

qualification be performed by the manufacturer of the equipment being installed or serviced or their agent.It might be necessary for many of those charged with the purchasing, inspecting, testing, approving, operating, and

maintaining of this equipment to consult an experienced fire protection engineer competent in this field, in order todischarge their respective duties effectively.

Several manufacturers are currently working with their agents to provide this training and qualification.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #28


Delete text to read as follows:Delete entire section A3.3.13

The appendix is a repeat of section 3.3.13 and adds no additional information.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #51


Delete text to read as follows:Delete A.3.3.13 in its entirety.

The text in A.3.3.13 is pretty much redundant to 3.3.13.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #89


Add new sentence after existing test: Therefore it is not necessary for a professionalengineer or architect to seal the layout of these systems.

Some jurisdiction are requiring pre-engineered wet chemical system layouts be signed and sealed bya registered engineer of architect.




Revise text to read as follows:All diagrams in this section should immediately follow their respective text section.

The section as currently arranged is confusing and difficult to follow. Placing each diagram with therelated text will provide clarity.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #96


Revise text to read as follows:Move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(1) directly after the Scenario for A.5.6.2.1(1).

There is still confusion over these requirements. The figure should be directly after the language it isclarifying.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #97


Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (a) No. 1. Change from “No. 1” to (a) and also move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(2)(a) directly after

Scenario (a).There is still confusion over these requirements. The language referral and the figure should be

identified the same. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #98


Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (b) No. 2. Change from “No. 2” to (b) and also move Figure A.5.6.2.1(2)(b) directly after

Scenario (b).There is still confusion over these requirements. The language referral and the figure should be

identified the same. The figure should be directly after the language it is clarifying.




Revise text to read as follows:Scenario (c) No. 3. Change from “No.3” to (c) and also move FIGURE A.5.6.2.1(2)(c) directly after

Scenario (c).After any system activation, it should be required to conduct a maintenance or “thorough check” of the

system to assist in determining the cause for activation and to give assurance regarding the system function/reliability.Additionally, this is a requirement in the IFC (International Fire Code) – 904.11.6.2

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #90


Revise text to read as follows:One of the first steps in the design layout and installation of a fire-extinguishing system should be to maintain

complete and accurate records. Establishment of a job file will provide a means of documentation. A job file shouldcontain all drawings, sketches, checklists, notes, maintenance agreements, and correspondence related to theinstallation from start to finish. Photographs are encouraged and should include a wide shot that shows the location ofall appliances in the protected area at the time of installation. The photographs, as well as any checklists, drawings, orsketches, should be signed and dated.

Change the word “design” to “layout” to reflect that deign is a function of the equipment manufacturenot the installer.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #91


Revise text to read as follows:It is recommended that system design layout and installation personnel be certified in accordance with the

manufacturer’s requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates.Change the word “design” to “layout” to reflect that design is a function of the equipment manufacture

not the installer.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #52


Delete text to read as follows:Delete A.6.4.2 in its entirety.

Discharge the system following its installation is problematic because it could cause future systemfailure if the piping is not flushed and blown out satisfactorily. Justification has never been provided to support the needfor this type of demonstration following system installation.




Revise text to read as follows:Revise A.7.1.4 to read as follows:A.7.1.4 Wet chemical solutions are relatively harmless and normally have no lasting significant effects on the skin,

respiratory system, or clothing. They can produce mild, temporary skin irritation after prolonged skin exposure, but thesymptoms usually will disappear when contact is eliminated. Irritation of the eyes should be treated by flushing with tapwater for 15 minutes or longer. Any condition of prolonged irritation should be referred to a physician for treatment.Disposal of Treatment of skin irritation due to exposure to wet chemical is best handled by flushing with water.These systems are investigated to determine that they do not splash burning grease when installed in accordance with

the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. It is known that potassium carbonate is moderatelyirritating to the skin and eyes and that repeated skin contact can lead to dermatitis, but this is based on concentrationshigher than those used in wet chemical extinguishing system units.

Clarification.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #54


Revise text to read as follows:Revise A.7.3.2 to read as follows:A.7.3.2 It is recommended that system maintenance personnel be certified as outlined in 7.3.1. with the manufacturer’s

requirements. It is standard industry practice to provide expiration dates on training certificates.New certification requirements were added to section 7.3 during the 2009 revision of the standard.

Annex A.7.3.2 should be updated to match the revised body text.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #55


Delete text to read as follows:A.7.3.3 Regular service contracts with the equipment manufacturer or an authorized installation or maintenance

company are recommended.The generic term for a company that performs maintenance is “maintenance company”. The advisory

material is only intended to recommend that a regular service contract be developed. This helps ensure that regularservice is performed. This text appears in NFPA 17, A.11.3.1. The documents should be correlated.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________17A- Log #18

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Michael J. Laderoute, Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.

Revise text to read as follows:…replacement of fusible metal alloy-temperature-sensing elements that have been installed for up to 1 six (6) months

in environments subjecting them…7.3.4 Requires the link be replaced every six (6) months. The annex should reflect the same

information.




Attachment #3:

U.S Experience with Non-Water-Based Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment

U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH NON-WATER-BASED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT

John R. Hall, Jr.

May 2011

National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research Division

U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH NON-WATER-BASED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT

John R. Hall, Jr.

May 2011

National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and Research Division

Abstract Non-water-based automatic extinguishing systems were reported present in 2% of U.S. reported structure fires in 2005-2009. The percentage was higher in places where commercial cooking is common, including eating or drinking establishments (41%) and grocery or convenience stores (25%). Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems were the specific type of system reported for most of these fires, and other special hazard systems were the systems cited for most of the rest. Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems in the area of fire failed to operate in 36% of reported structure fires large enough to activate operating equipment, and therefore operated in 64% (100% minus 36%) of these fires. For systems that operated, performance was deemed effective in 68% of the cases. For fires large enough to activate systems, systems operated effectively 44% of the time (64% times 68%). Because the principal application of dry (and possibly wet) chemical systems is as area protection for commercial cooking operations, it may be more appropriate to limit the analysis to ranges and to include fires reported as confined fires in the analysis. If this is done, the likelihood of operating increases from 64% to 81%, the likelihood of effectiveness if equipment operates increases from 68% to 89%, and the likelihood of effective operation increases from 44% to 72%. Keywords: wet chemical systems; dry chemical systems; fire statistics; automatic extinguishing systems; automatic suppression systems; halon Acknowledgements The National Fire Protection Association thanks all the fire departments and state fire authorities who participate in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA fire experience survey. These firefighters are the original sources of the detailed data that make this analysis possible. Their contributions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem. We are also grateful to the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating, and maintaining NFIRS. For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call 617-770-3000. To learn more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa.org/osds or call 617-984-7443. You can also find us on…

Copies of this analysis are available from: National Fire Protection Association One-Stop Data Shop 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169-7471 www.nfpa.org e-mail: [email protected] phone: 617-984-7443 NFPA No. USS91 Copyright© 2011, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA

http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Fire-Protection-Association-NFPA/54932312752�

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=76233&trk=anet_ug_hm�

http://twitter.com/nfpa�

http://www.nfpa.org/

http://www.nfpa.org/osds

http://www.nfpa.org

mailto:[email protected]

Executive Summary

Non-water-based automatic extinguishing systems were reported present in 2% of U.S. reported structure fires in 2005-2009.* The percentage was higher in places where commercial cooking is common, including eating or drinking establishments (41%) and grocery or convenience stores (25%). Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems were the specific type of system specified for most of these fires, and other special hazard systems were the systems cited for most of the rest. There are some odd patterns in the Table 1-1 statistics. Fires involving carbon dioxide systems, halogen-type systems, foam systems, and to a lesser extent, other special hazard systems, are not reported primarily in the industrial locations where the first three systems are appropriate but are instead reported primarily in the properties with commercial kitchens, where most dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems are reported, or in residential properties and specifically homes. This suggests that most of these fires involve either miscoded dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems or possibly portable fire extinguishers, which are not automatic and so should not be reported at all. Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems in the area of fire failed to operate in 36% of reported structure fires large enough to activate operating equipment, therefore operated in 64% (100% minus 36%) of these fires.** For systems that operated, performance was deemed effective in 68% of the cases. For fires large enough to activate systems, systems operated effectively 44% of the time (64% times 68%). Because the principal application of dry (and possibly wet) chemical systems is as area protection for commercial cooking operations, it may be more appropriate to limit the analysis to ranges and to include fires reported as confined fires in the analysis. If this is done, the likelihood of operating increases from 64% to 81%, the likelihood of effectiveness if equipment operates increases from 68% to 89%, and the likelihood of effective operation increases from 44% to 72%. Nearly half of dry (or possibly wet) chemical system failures (44%) were due to lack of maintenance. Other reasons cited for failure were as follows:

• 25% were because manual intervention defeated the equipment, • 13% were because a component was damaged, • 12% were because the system was shut off, and • 6% were because the system was inappropriate for the type of fire.

* These estimates are projections based on the detailed information collected in Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS 5.0) and the NFPA’s annual fire department experience survey. These statistics exclude buildings under construction and cases of failure or ineffectiveness because of a lack of automatic extinguishing equipment in the fire area and after some recoding between failure and ineffectiveness based on reasons given. Some fires after 1999 are coded as confined fires, which are fires confined to cooking vessel, chimney or flue, furnace or boiler, incinerator, commercial compactor, or trash receptacle. Confined fires permit limited reporting with most data fields not required and usually left blank. Because nearly all fires reported as confined fires are reported without automatic extinguishing equipment performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. See Appendixes A and B for additional details of statistical methodology, including the distinction between confined and non-confined fires. ** Fire incident reports refers only to dry chemical systems, not wet chemical systems, but wet chemical systems are the only systems now listed for use in commercial kitchens, the most common application of chemical systems. Therefore, we refer to this equipment as dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems.

U.S. Experience with Non-Water-Based i NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, 5/11

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii List of Tables iii NFPA’s Fire Safety Resources iv Section 1: Presence and Type of Automatic Extinguishing Equipment 1 Section 2. Reliability and Effectiveness of Dry (and Possibly Wet) Chemical Systems 5 Appendix A. How National Estimates Statistics are Calculated 15 Appendix B. Data Elements in NFIRS 5.0 Related to Automatic Extinguishing Systems 19

U.S. Experience with Non-Water-Based ii NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, 5/11

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Presence of Non-Water Based Automatic Extinguishing Equipment 3 in Structure Fires Table 2-A. Selected Published Fire Incidents Involving Dry Chemical Systems 7 and Commercial Cooking with Problems in System Performance Table 2-1. Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Reliability and Effectiveness 11 Table 2-1A. Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Reliability and Effectiveness, 12 With and Without Confined Fires Table 2-2. Reasons for Failure to Operate When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and 13 Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Was Present in Area of Fire Table 2-3. Reasons for Ineffectiveness When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and 14 Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Was Present in Area of Fire

U.S. Experience with Non-Water-Based iii NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, 5/11

NFPA’s Fire Safety Resources

NFPA´s wealth of fire-related research includes investigations of technically significant fire incidents, fire data analysis, and the Charles S. Morgan Technical Library, one of the most comprehensive fire literature collections in the world. In addition, NFPA´s Fire Protection Research Foundation is a source of independent fire test data. Find out more at: www.nfpa.org/research

U.S. Experience with Non-Water-Based iv NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, 5/11

Advocacy

Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms are necessary to provide a warning of any fire to all occupants. You can find out more information about smoke alarms here: NFPA Smoke Alarm Information Home fire sprinkler systems provide even greater protection. These systems respond quickly to reduce the heat, flames, and smoke from a fire until help arrives. More information about home fire sprinklers may be found at: www.firesprinklerinitiative.org

Research

Codes & Standards

Public Education

NFPA also develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 consensus codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. Among these are:

NFPA12: Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 17: Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

NFPA 2001: Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems

For consumers: NFPA has consumer safety information regarding causes, escape planning, fire & safety equipment, and many other topics. For Kids: Sparky.org has important information for kids delivered via fun games, activities, and cartoons. For public educators: Resources on fire safety education programs, educational messaging, grants & awards, and many other topics.

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=278&URL=Safety%20Information/For%20consumers/Fire%20&%20safety%20equipment/Smoke%20alarms&order_src=C072&lid=C072

http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/?order_src=C072&lid=C072

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=244&URL=Safety%20Information/Safety%20tips%20&%20fact%20sheets&order_src=C072&lid=C072

http://www.sparky.org/#/Sparky?order_src=C072&lid=C072

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=1748&URL=Safety%20Information/For%20public%20educators&order_src=C072&lid=C072

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=12&order_srcCO72&lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=12&order_srcCO72&lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=17&order_src=CO72&lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=17&order_src=CO72&lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=2001&order_src=CO72lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=2001&order_src=CO72lid=CO72

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=15&order_src=C072&lid=C072

Section 1: Presence and Type of Automatic Extinguishing Equipment

Non-water-based automatic extinguishing systems were reported present in 2% of U.S. reported structure fires in 2005-2009. The percentage was higher in places where commercial cooking is common, including eating or drinking establishments (41%) and grocery or convenience stores (25%). The fire incident coding in Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) identifies three types of sprinklers (wet pipe, dry pipe, and other) and five types of non-water-based automatic extinguishing equipment.1 (Additional details on the methodology used may be found in Appendix A. See Appendix B for a detailed overview of data elements related to automatic extinguishing equipment.) These are the five types of non-water-based automatic extinguishing equipment as they are identified in the coding for fire incident reports.

• Dry chemical system, • Foam system, • Halogen-type system (including non-halogenated suppression systems that operate on the

same principle), • Carbon dioxide system, and • Other (unclassified) special hazard system.

The goal of any automatic extinguishing equipment is to control or extinguish fires of a certain size, type, and location, while also avoiding harm from the extinguishing agent to people, property, or the environment. Automatic extinguishing equipment can be designed for (1) coverage of a room or similar space (often called “total flooding when the agent is a gas), (2) local protection, (3) portable application, or (4) fire service application (an often larger variation of portable equipment). These goals, design options, and extinguishing agent options have interacted to produce rapid change in available technologies and common practices. Although this list of five types of non-water-based automatic extinguishing equipment was developed in the late 1990s, it has already been overtaken by events in many respects. These changes in technology and practice are not easy to incorporate into a fixed set of reporting codes. This report necessarily incorporates some estimates and assumptions of where and how much the coded data departs from the more complex reality it tries to capture.

U.S. Experience with Non-Water-Based 1 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, 5/11

1 The fire statistics in this analysis are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. These estimates are projections based on the detailed information collected in NFIRS and the NFPA’s annual fire department experience survey. Casualty and loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion of one unusually serious fire. Unless otherwise specified, property damage has not been adjusted for inflation. Fires in buildings with reported structure status of under construction are excluded from analysis. No fire protection systems or features can be expected to perform as designed in a building that is under construction.

• Dry chemical systems were designed primarily for local protection of commercial cooking equipment. Most fires reported with this type of automatic extinguishing equipment are in properties where commercial kitchens would be expected, such as eating or drinking establishments and grocery stores.

However, wet chemical systems are the only systems that have been listed to UL300, Standard for Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas. NFPA 96, Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, Chapter 10, requires that commercial cooking operations that have grease removal devices, hood exhaust plenums, and exhaust duct systems be protected by fire extinguishing equipment that complies with UL300 or other equivalent standards. This means that wet chemical systems are the primary automatic extinguishing equipment in use in commercial kitchens but cannot be reported as such; they are likely to be reported as dry chemical systems and may account for more reported fires than the fires actually involving dry chemical systems. Therefore, in this report we use the phrase “dry (and possibly wet) chemical” to reflect our working assumption that most if not all of these reported fires involve the required wet chemical systems but are coded under dry chemical because wet chemical is very similar and does not have its own code.

• Carbon dioxide was the extinguishing gas of choice for many decades, because gaseous agents are able to penetrate deep into large pieces of equipment or large burnable items to attack deep-seated fires. However, concentrations of carbon dioxide that are effective against fire can be harmful, even fatal, to people.

One or two fatal incidents involving non-fire discharges of carbon dioxide accelerated the search for an alternative less harmful to people, and some of the halogenated agents appeared to fill the bill. However, these agents were later found to cause unacceptable harm to the environment, and the search for an acceptable alternative resumed.

A number of other gases have drawn attention, as has water mist, which achieves the deep penetration of a gas while using water as an agent. However, no one agent has yet proven so dominant and so popular as to justify inclusion in the short list of NFIRS and alternatives. These other gases (excluding water mist) could be coded under halogen type system in light of the annotation of “halogenated-type system” to indicate that that code should also be used for non-halogenated agents in a system using similar design principles.

Table 1-1 indicates, for various property uses, how many reported structure fires, constituting what percentage of total reported fires for that property use, involved each of the five types of non-water-based automatic extinguishing equipment. Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems account for most of these fires, and other special hazard systems account for most of the rest.

There are some odd patterns in the Table 1-1 statistics. Fires involving carbon dioxide systems, halogen-type systems, foam systems, and to a lesser extent, other special hazard systems, are not reported primarily in the industrial locations where the first three systems are appropriate but are instead reported primarily in the properties with commercial kitchens, where most dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems are reported, or in residential properties and specifically homes (not shown in Table 1-1). This suggests that most of these fires involve either miscoded dry


http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=96&order_src=CO72&lid=CO72

(or possibly wet) chemical systems or possibly portable fire extinguishers, which are not automatic and so should not be reported at all.

Some insight into what is being coded under “other special hazard systems” comes from a check of uncoded narratives for the three restaurant fires in recent years in Minnesota where such equipment was reported. (The narratives on these fires were part of a data set provided for a special analysis of non-fire releases of water from sprinkler systems.) One fire involved a wet chemical system, and another involved an undefined hood system, which could have involved wet or dry chemical agents. The third fire involved use of a portable extinguisher and should not have been coded as automatic extinguishing equipment present.

Table 1-1. Presence of Non-Water-Based Automatic Extinguishing Equipment in Structure Fires, Annual Average of 2005-2009 Structure Fire Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

Number of Structure Fires With Equipment Present and Percentage of Total Structure Fires in Property Use Dry (or Carbon Other Any Non- Possibly Dioxide Halogen Special Water-Based Wet) (CO2) Type Foam Hazard Property Use Equipment Chemical* System System* System System*

All public assembly 4,480 (29%) 2,800 (18%) 200 (1%) 240 (2%) 360 (2%) 880 (6%) Eating or drinking 3,270 (41%) 2,060 (26%) 150 (2%) 170 (2%) 270 (3%) 620 (8%) establishment

Educational property 220 (4%) 140 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 20 (0%) 60 (1%)

Health care property** 260 (4%) 160 (3%) 10 (0%) 10 (0%) 0 (0%) 70 (1%) All residential 1,310 (0%) 570 (0%) 20 (0%) 0 (0%) 20 (0%) 690 (0%) Store or office 1,490 (8%) 950 (5%) 70 (0%) 90 (0%) 80 (0%) 300 (2%) Grocery or 1,440 (25%) 690 (16%) 50 (1%) 60 (1%) 70 (2%) 190 (5%) convenience store Manufacturing facility 290 (5%) 80 (1%) 130 (2%) 10 (0%) 10 (0%) 60 (1%) All structures*** 8,990 (2%) 5,190 (1%) 520 (0%) 400 (0%) 570 (0%) 2,310 (0%) * “Dry chemical system” may include wet chemical systems, because there is no category designated for wet chemical systems. “Halogen type system” includes non-halogenated suppression systems that operate on the same principle. “Other special hazard system” may include automatic extinguishing systems that are known not to be sprinklers but otherwise are of unknown or unreported type. ** Nursing home, hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, or development disability facility. *** Includes some property uses that are not shown separately. Note: These are based on structure fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments in NFIRS Version 5.0 and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Row totals are shown in the leftmost column of percentages, and sums may not equal totals because of rounding error. In Version 5.0 of NFIRS, if multiple systems are present, the system coded is supposed to be the one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This field is not required if the fire did not begin within the designed range of the system. Buildings under construction are excluded. Source: NFIRS and NFPA survey.


For 40 years, NFPA has been collecting reports on major fires of technical interest, principally focusing on large-loss and multiple-death fires. While those records are not representative of fires of all sizes, they are of interest. In these records, there are eight references to CO2 extinguishers for every reference to CO2 systems and nearly ten references to dry chemical extinguishers for every reference to dry chemical systems. However, in eating and drinking establishments, there are nearly three citations of dry chemical systems for every citation of dry chemical extinguishers. All of this supports the idea that many of the non-water based systems are actually extinguishers, but that citations of dry (or possibly) wet chemical systems in eating or drinking establishments are much more likely to be valid. There are few fires reported with carbon dioxide systems, halogen-type systems, or foam systems. There are serious doubts whether most of these fires and most of the fires reported with other special hazard systems are properly coded as to being automatic equipment and as to type of agent. For all these reasons, the rest of the report will address only the dry and possibly wet chemical systems.


Section 2. Reliability and Effectiveness of Dry (and Possibly Wet) Chemical Systems

Dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems in the area of fire failed to operate in 36% of reported structure fires large enough to activate operating equipment and therefore operated in 64% (100% minus 36%) of these fires.2 For systems that operated in non-confined fires, their performance was deemed effective in 68% of the cases. For fires large enough to activate systems, systems operated effectively 44% of the time (64% times 68%). (See Table 2-1.)

Editing the Database to Estimate Reliability and Effectiveness

In order to estimate reliability and effectiveness, the database must first be edited to remove fires, buildings, and systems where operation cannot be expected, such as buildings under construction. Statistics on reliability and effectiveness exclude partial systems, whether identified by coding under sprinkler presence or identified by reason for failure and ineffectiveness as equipment not in area of fire. Not all partial systems will be so identified and the codes and standards for many types of sprinklers do not require coverage in all areas. For example, concealed spaces and exterior locations may not be required to have coverage.

The coding of reasons for failure or ineffectiveness has been used in this analysis to recode system performance entries. First, fires with reason for failure or ineffectiveness coded as sprinklers not in fire area are excluded from analysis because reliability and effectiveness cannot be judged in these situations. Second, fires with reason for failure or ineffectiveness listed as “other” (unclassified), unknown, or blank are proportionally allocated over the known reasons. Finally, the coding of performance as failure or ineffective is changed if that coding is inconsistent with the coded reason, as follows:

If Performance = Not Effective And Reason = Then Change to: System shut off Performance = Failed to operate

If Performance = Failed to Operate And Reason = Then Change to: Not enough agent Performance = Not effective Agent didn’t reach fire Performance = Not effective

Fires reported as confined fires are normally not included in analysis of reliability and effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment because they are collectively presumed to be too small to activate operating equipment. However, dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems are local coverage


2 These estimates are projections based on the detailed information collected in Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS 5.0) and the NFPA’s annual fire department experience survey. These statistics exclude buildings under construction and cases of failure or ineffectiveness because of a lack of automatic extinguishing equipment in the fire area and after some recoding between failure and ineffectiveness based on reasons given. Some fires after 1999 are coded as confined fires, which are fires confined to cooking vessel, chimney or flue, furnace or boiler, incinerator, commercial compactor, or trash receptacle. Confined fires permit limited reporting with most data fields not required and usually left blank. Because nearly all fires reported as confined fires are reported without automatic extinguishing equipment performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. See Appendixes A and B for additional details of statistical methodology, including the distinction between confined and non-confined fires.

systems designed to control cooking fires while they are still in a cooking vessel. Table 2-1A shows how reliability and effectiveness estimates change if confined fires are included. Percentages of operation increase slightly when confined fires are included, and percentages of effectiveness when operating and of effective operation increase more. Either way, these systems are estimated to operate effectively in roughly half of the fires large enough to activate an operational system in the fire area. It is possible to restrict the analysis further to range fires only, which should further improve the match between fires used to assess reliability and effectiveness and fires for which the system is defined. If this is done for fires, including confined fires in all properties, the percentage where equipment operated increases from 64% to 81%, the percentage effective when operating increases from 68% to 89%, and the combined percentage of effective operation increases from 44% to 72%. The largest group of fires removed from the calculation when focusing on ranges only is fires involving deep fryers. In fact, there are more deep fryer fires than range fires with dry (or possibly wet) chemical systems present. If the calculation is limited to deep fryer fires and confined fires are included, for all properties, the percentage where equipment operated declines from 64% to 56%, the percentage effective when operating increases from 68% to 73%, and the combined percentage of effective operation declines from 44% to 41%. Nearly half of dry (or possibly wet) chemical system failures (44%) in non-confined fires were due to lack of maintenance. (See Table 2-2.) Other reasons cited for failure were as follows:

• 25% were because manual intervention defeated the equipment, • 13% were because a component was damaged, • 12% were because the system was shut off, and • 6% were because the system was inappropriate for the type of fire.

If manual intervention occurs before fire begins, one would expect that to be coded as system shut off before fire. If manual intervention occurs after extinguishing equipment operates, one would expect that to constitute ineffective performance, not failure to operate. What is left is manual intervention after fire begins but before extinguishing equipment operates, but we do not know whether that is the only condition associated with this coding. Most cases of dry (or possibly wet) chemical system ineffectiveness in non-confined fires were because not enough agent was released (46%) or agent did not reach fire (44%). (See Table 2-3.) NFPA’s Fire Incident Data Organization contains records on the past 40 years of major fires of technical interest. Table 2-A provides relevant excerpts from the published accounts of 11 of these fires that involved dry chemical systems, commercial kitchens, and some problems with the performance of the system. These incidents are provided as more detailed examples of what can go wrong when systems fail or are ineffective. The incidents should not be considered representative. Also, note that all but the most recent one of these incidents involve dry, not wet, chemical systems, with one as recent as 2005. At least half of the incidents involved fire spread into ducts and the ventilation system beyond system coverage before the system could operate or contain the fire. Some incidents cite problems


with the hood filters that promoted fire spread or delayed fire detection and system activation. Some mention a failure to interlock so that system activation would automatically shut off the cooking equipment. Some mention that not all cylinders contained agent or were discharged. Two mention specific provisions of NFPA standards that were not followed. Not included are several incidents where fire spread to the coverage area from other areas and some incidents involving dry chemical system applications other than commercial cooking.

Table 2-A. Selected Published Fire Incidents Involving

Wet or Dry Chemical Systems and Commercial Cooking with Problems in System Performance

“Sprinkler system saves restaurant after hood system fails – Colorado” A restaurant’s sprinkler system controlled a fire that started when cooking oil heating on a gas stove ignited until firefighters arrived to extinguish it. The restaurant, located in a large, single-story strip mall 250 feet (76 meters) long and 60 feet (18 meters) deep, covered 1,800 square feet (167 square meters) and included a dining room, a service counter, and a kitchen in the rear. The steel-framed mall had concrete block walls covered with a brick veneer and steel roof trusses covered with a metal deck. A monitored wet-pipe sprinkler system provided coverage throughout the mall, and a wet-chemical hood extinguishing system provided coverage in the restaurant’s kitchen. Crews found that the fire in the stove area had spread into the kitchen hood exhaust system and was being held in check by the sprinkler. Investigators learned that the fire began when a cook heating 2.5 gallons (9.5 liters) of cooking oil went out of the room to prepare another ingredient. Upon his return, he saw that the oil was smoking heavily and watched as it burst into flames. When the fire alarm sounded, he left the kitchen. Investigators examining the kitchen hood fire extinguishing system found that, although the system tripped, it did not control or extinguish the fire because the cylinders containing the agent has been disconnected from the distribution piping to the nozzles. The system was heavily damaged by the heat, which melted the exterior aluminum siding of the fan assembly, burned the fan blades off, and damaged the motor. NFPA Journal, May/June 2011, pp. 45-46. “Aerosol can falls into deep fat fryer, starts fire – Washington” Investigators searching for the cause of a fire that damaged a restaurant in a bed and breakfast facility believe an aerosol can of bug repellent fell into an operating deep-fat fryer and exploded, spewing hot oil around the first-floor kitchen. The resulting fire spread into wall voids. The two-story, wood-frame building, which had an asphalt-shingled roof, was protected by a monitored fire alarm system that alerted the occupants. The deep fat fryer was protected by a dry-chemical hood suppression system, but it failed to operate because its cylinder had no pressure. There were no sprinklers. The restaurant’s lunch crowd had dispersed 20 minutes before the fire started. NFPA Journal, May/June 2006, p.30.



Wet or Dry Chemical Systems and Commercial Cooking with Problems in System Performance (Continued)

“No filters delay activation – New Jersey” A hospital cafeteria worker discovered a fire in a deep fat fryer in the cafeteria about 45 minutes after the fryer was turned on. Fortunately, a sprinkler activated, preventing the blaze from spreading. The hospital was fully sprinklered, and a central station alarm company monitored the system’s waterflow alarm. In addition, a dry-chemical extinguishing system protected the cafeteria’s cooking area. The worker who discovered the fire used the manual pull station to activate the dry-chemical system, and the sprinkler activated shortly afterward. By the time firefighters arrived, the hospital’s security staff had extinguished the blaze with portable fire extinguishers. Investigators determined that the filters in the hood over the fryer were missing, preventing heat from building up and activating the dry-chemical extinguishing system. NFPA Journal, March/April, 2003, p.22. “Grill fire damages restaurant – Indiana” A grill fire damaged a restaurant when flames spread to duct work and concealed attic spaces, despite the activation of a dry chemical hood suppression system. The single-story building, which measured 80 by 40 feet, was of unprotected, wood-frame construction. Its only suppression equipment – a localized dry-chemical system – was located in the hood over the grill. The building had no detection system. The restaurant was open when a cook accidentally dropped a plastic container filled with an oil-based marinade on the hot grill. The plastic melted and the escaping oil caused flames to flare up toward the hood and duct work. Grease in the duct work ignited, and flames vented through the roof before the suppression system could activate. The fire spread to concealed attic spaces and combustible wood framing.

NFPA Journal, September/October 1996. P.25. “Dry chemical system controls grease fire in restaurant – Florida” Grease and food cooking on a restaurant’s grill ignited, spreading flames beyond the grill’s hood to the exhaust system, the ceiling, and the underside of the roof before a local dry chemical system activated. The single-story restaurant, which was constructed of concrete block walls and unprotected wood roof framing, measured 60 feet by 50 feet. Its built-in fire protection was limited to a dry chemical system located over the grill and in the exhaust duct work. A chef was cooking chicken on a grill when grease ignited. Flames quickly spread to the hood. An employee, probably the chef, first tried to extinguish the fire before calling the fire department at 6:39 p.m. By then, flames had spread to the ceiling tiles, to the combustible roof framing above the ceiling, past the hood filters, and into the exhaust duct work. Investigators determined that there had been an unexplained delay in the automatic activation of the dry chemical system. This allowed the fire to spread beyond the hood system. The system did not activate until fusible links located in the duct work released. Investigators also found that improper filters had been installed in the hood. NFPA Journal, March/April 1996. P.31.




“New Year’s Eve fire claims landmark – Massachusetts” A fire that started in the deep-fat fryer of this famous restaurant sent 250 patrons and staff into the winter night and destroyed the building. In the kitchen, a fixed dry chemical extinguishing system protected the gas-fired deep-fat fryer. The deep-fat fryer, which operated at 700ºF, had been in use all evening, and the cooks left it on after they had finished with it. At approximately 11:30 pm, the hot oil in the fryer flashed over and ignited. The fixed system over the fryer snuffed out the flames, however, and restaurant employees did not notify the fire department of the situation. About half an hour later, an employee looking out a window saw a bright glow reflected above the building and went outside to find the restaurant’s roof on fire. He tried to extinguish the flames with a garden hose, but to no avail. Eventually, a passerby pulled the fire alarm box outside the building, and firefighters spent the next 11 hours futilely battling the blaze. Investigators determined that the fire from the deep-fat fryer had extended into the exhaust duct of the range hood. Neither the range hood’s fixed system nor sprinklers protected this duct, so the fire was allowed to spread unchecked. It eventually burned through the duct and began consuming the roof. NFPA Journal, January 1986, p.11. “Grease spilled on broiler; building destroyed – California” A fire in this one-story restaurant of ordinary construction originated in the kitchen when an employee who was cleaning accidentally spilled a can of cooking grease onto an open-pit broiler. The fire spread into the exhaust ventilation system through the grease filters before the dry chemical extinguishing system that protected the hood and duct system could control it. The automatic extinguishing system was apparently overpowered and did not discharge the entire contents of one of the dry chemical storage containers. NFPA Journal, October 1983, p.19. “Fire in deep fat fryer; extinguishing system fails – District of Columbia” A fire in a restaurant’s deep fat fryer, coupled with failure of the dry chemical extinguishing system, resulted in damage to several fryers and the hood. The fire occurred when one of the restaurant’s engineers was lighting off the gas burners for the deep fat fryers. The first two were lit off, with the fryers full of cooking oil. When a third refused to ignite, the engineer thought the pilot line was clogged and went to the stockroom to get a spare. After he left the kitchen, a fire broke out at the second fryer. Kitchen employees responded with hand extinguishers and notified the fire department. Nine extinguishers had been used and an asbestos blanket was thrown over the fryer before smoke forced restaurant personnel to evacuate. Dry chemical was discharged from the restaurant’s automatic extinguishing system; however it was later found that only one cylinder had discharged. Fire fighters arrived shortly thereafter and completely extinguished the fire using a small hose line. The fryers and the hood were severely damaged. Food in the kitchen was smoke-contaminated and had to be discarded. Fire officials determined that the fire was caused by overheating of the cooking oil, most likely caused by a stuck gas valve. The main 30-pound dry chemical cylinder failed to activate due to misalignment between the spring-loaded firing trigger and the release handle. This was caused by people or objects hitting the cylinder and loosening the mounting bracket. The cylinders were mounted on a wall along a kitchen aisleway. Fire Journal, May 1981, p.27.




“Fire in kitchen exhaust hood – Louisiana” There was an exhaust duct over a broiler in the kitchen, plus an automatic dry chemical extinguishing system in the hood leading to the duct. The duct, made of 10-gauge steel, is 16-inches-by-42-inches in cross section. The duct crosses the kitchen ceiling, goes up a stairwell tower to the penthouse, across the ceiling of the penthouse, and out through a fan with louvers. The duct is completely enclosed with hollow tile up to the penthouse but is exposed in the penthouse. An employee was cooking on the broiler when he was distracted for a moment. He looked back to find that grease on the broiler had ignited a fire up in the exhaust hood. He discharged a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher into the hood and extinguished the visible fire. He did not activate the dry chemical system manually, and it did not go off automatically. The fire burned above the protected area. Fire Journal, March 1975, p.65. “Extinguishing system not interlocked with electric deep fat fryer – New York” A 50,000-square foot two-story golf club of ordinary construction was destroyed by a fire that originated in the kitchen. The nonsprinklered building was protected with a rate-of-rise fire detection system connected to the Fire Department through an automatic telephone-dialing system. An automatic dry chemical extinguishing system installed to protect a deep fat fryer under a range hood in the kitchen was not arranged to shut off the electric fryer when the system was activated (the system would shut off gas-fired cooking equipment). At 9:07 am a fire occurred in the deep fat fryer and the system activated, controlling the fire; but the fire apparently reignited, spreading beyond the point of origin to the ceiling above. NFPA Standard No. 96, Removal of Smoke and Grease-Laden Vapors from Commercial Cooking Equipment (1971 edition), requires that operation of any extinguishing system shall automatically shut off all sources of fuel and heat to all equipment protected or located under the ventilating equipment. This requirement at present exempts electrically heated equipment other than deep fat fryers. Investigators indicated that in this fire the extinguishing system was not arranged to shut off the electric deep fat fryer.

Fire Journal, May 1972, p.62. “Overheated deep fat fryer – North Carolina” Oil in a deep fat fryer apparently overheated, ignited, and flamed up through ductwork. An automatic dry chemical extinguishing system installed to protect the deep fat fryer and the filter system activated but did not control the fire, which communicated from the duct to combustible construction. The fire extended through the second floor and the common attic, destroying the restaurant and three other store occupancies in the wood-frame building. The loss was estimated at $326,700. Investigation by fire officials indicated that the restaurant had been unoccupied at the time of the fire. It was concluded that the deep fat fryer had been left on and the equipment overheated, leading to ignition. It was not established exactly why the automatic extinguishing system failed to extinguish the fire. However, the extinguishing system was not interlocked to shut down the cooking equipment, as is required by current standards, and the hood, filter, and duct system was not installed in accordance with current standards. Among other deficiencies, the duct joints were not welded and ductwork was too close to combustible construction. NFPA No. 96, Vapor Removal from Cooking Equipment (1971), contains standards for the ventilation of restaurant-type cooking equipment. Fire Journal, March 1971, p.49.


Table 2-1. Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Reliability and Effectiveness, by Property Use

2005-2009 Structure Fires When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and Large Enough to Activate Equipment and Equipment Was Present in Area of Fire

Property Use

Number of fires per year

where extinguishing

equipment was present

Non-confined

fires too small to activate

equipment

Fires coded

as confined fires

Number of qualifying

fires per year

Percent where

equipment operated

(A)

Percent effective of those

that operated

(B)

Percent where

equipment operated

effectively (A x B)

All public assembly 2,800 290 2,150 350 57% 63% 35% Eating or 2,060 280 1,450 330 57% 62% 35% drinking establishment Store or office 950 70 760 110 57% 66% 38% Grocery or 690 60 550 80 51% 70% 35% convenience store All structures 5,190 460 4,080 650 64% 68% 44% * Includes some properties not listed above. Note: “Dry chemical systems” may include some wet chemical systems, because there is no category designated for wet chemical systems. These are percentages of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. In Version 5.0 of NFIRS, if multiple systems are present, the system coded is supposed to be the one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This field is not required if the fire did not begin within the designed range of the system. Buildings under construction are excluded. Percentages are based on estimated total fires reported in NFIRS Version 5.0 with the indicated type of automatic extinguishing system and system performance not coded as fire too small to activate systems. Fires are excluded if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness is system not present in area of fire. Fires are recoded from operated but ineffective to fail if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was system shut off. Fires are recoded from failed to operated but ineffective if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was not enough agent or agent did not reach fire. Because fires reported as confined fires are reported without sprinkler performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. Source: NFIRS and NFPA survey.


Table 2-1A. Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Reliability and Effectiveness,

With and Without Confined Fires, by Property Use 2005-2009 Structure Fires When Fire Was Coded as Large Enough to Activate Equipment

and Equipment was Present in Area of Fire Excluding Confined Fires Including Confined Fires Percent Percent Percent Percent where Percent Percent where where effective equipment where effective equipment equipment of those that operated equipment of those that operated operated operated effectively operated operated effectively All public assembly 57% 63% 35% 60% 78% 47% Eating or drinking 57% 62% 35% 60% 76% 46% establishment Store or office 57% 66% 38% 65% 86% 57% Grocery or 51% 70% 35% 62% 90% 56% convenience store All structures* 64% 68% 44% 64% 83% 53% * Includes some properties not listed above. Note: “Dry chemical systems” may include some wet chemical systems, because there is no category designated for wet chemical systems. These are percentages of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. In Version 5.0 of NFIRS, if multiple systems are present, the system coded is supposed to be the one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This field is not required if the fire did not begin within the designed range of the system. Buildings under construction are excluded. Percentages are based on estimated total fires reported in NFIRS Version 5.0 with the indicated type of automatic extinguishing system and system performance not coded as fire too small to activate systems. Fires are excluded if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness is system not present in area of fire. Fires are recoded from operated but ineffective to fail if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was system shut off. Fires are recoded from failed to operated but ineffective if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was not enough agent or agent did not reach fire. Source: NFIRS and NFPA survey.


Table 2-2. Reasons for Failure to Operate When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and Large Enough to Activate Equipment

and Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Was Present in Area of Fire, by Property Use Based on Estimated Number of 2005-2009 Structure Fires per Year

Property Use

Lack of

maintenance

Manual intervention

defeated system

System component damaged

System shut off

Inappropriatesystem for type of fire

Total fires

per year Public assembly 46% 29% 14% 8% 4% 152 Eating or drinking 47% 28% 13% 8% 4% 143 establishment Store or office 36% 19% 10% 18% 18% 47 Grocery or 28% 29% 15% 14% 15% 39 convenience store All structures* 44% 25% 13% 12% 6% 232 * Includes some properties not listed above. Note: “Dry chemical systems” may include some wet chemical systems, because there is no category designated for wet chemical systems. These are percentages of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. In Version 5.0 of NFIRS, if multiple systems are present, the system coded is supposed to be the one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This field is not required if the fire did not begin within the designed range of the system. Buildings under construction are excluded. Percentages are based on estimated total fires reported in NFIRS Version 5.0 with the indicated type of automatic extinguishing system and system performance not coded as fire too small to activate systems. Fires are excluded if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness is system not present in area of fire. Fires are recoded from operated but ineffective to fail if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was system shut off. Fires are recoded from failed to operated but ineffective if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was not enough agent or agent did not reach fire. Property use classes are shown only if they accounted for at least 100 projected fires per year with the specific type of automatic extinguishing equipment present. Because fires reported as confined fires are reported without sprinkler performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. Source: NFIRS and NFPA survey.


Table 2-3. Reasons for Ineffectiveness When Fire Was Coded as Not Confined and Large Enough to Activate equipment

And Dry (or Possibly Wet) Chemical System Was Present in Area of Fire, by Property Use Based on Indicated Estimated Number of 2005-2009 Structure Fire Per Year

Not

enough agent

released

Agent did not

reach fire

Lack of

maintenance

Manual

intervention defeated system

Inappropriate system

for type of

fire

System component damaged

Total fires per year

Public assembly 51% 39% 5% 2% 2% 0% 74 Eating or drinking 50% 40% 5% 2% 2% 0% 71 establishment Store or office 0% 80% 0% 0% 10% 10% 22 Grocery or 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 convenience store All structures* 46% 44% 3% 3% 3% 1% 133 * Includes some properties not listed above. Note: “Dry chemical systems” may include some wet chemical systems, because there is no category designated for wet chemical systems. These are percentages of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. In Version 5.0 of NFIRS, if multiple systems are present, the system coded is supposed to be the one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This field is not required if the fire did not begin within the designed range of the system. Buildings under construction are excluded. Percentages are based on estimated total fires reported in NFIRS Version 5.0 with the indicated type of automatic extinguishing system and system performance not coded as fire too small to activate systems. Fires are excluded if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness is system not present in area of fire. Fires are recoded from operated but ineffective to fail if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was system shut off. Fires are recoded from failed to operated but ineffective if the reason for failure or ineffectiveness was not enough agent or agent did not reach fire. Property use classes are shown only if they accounted for at least 100 projected fires per year with the specific type of automatic extinguishing equipment present. Because fires reported as confined fires are reported without sprinkler performance details or as fires too small to activate operating equipment, confined fires are not included in any analysis involving reliability or effectiveness of automatic extinguishing equipment. Source: NFIRS and NFPA survey.


Appendix A. How National Estimates Statistics Are Calculated

The statistics in this analysis are estimates derived from the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) annual survey of U.S. fire departments. NFIRS is a voluntary system by which participating fire departments report detailed factors about the fires to which they respond. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. fire departments participate, although not all of these departments provide data every year. Fires reported to federal or state fire departments or industrial fire brigades are not included in these estimates. NFIRS provides the most detailed incident information of any national database not limited to large fires. NFIRS is the only database capable of addressing national patterns for fires of all sizes by specific property use and specific fire cause. NFIRS also captures information on the extent of flame spread, and automatic detection and suppression equipment. For more information about NFIRS visit http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/. Copies of the paper forms may be downloaded from http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/documentation/design/NFIRS_Paper_Forms_2008.pdf. NFIRS has a wide variety of data elements and code choices. The NFIRS database contains coded information. Many code choices describe several conditions. These cannot be broken down further. For example, area of origin code 83 captures fires starting in vehicle engine areas, running gear areas or wheel areas. It is impossible to tell the portion of each from the coded data. Methodology may change slightly from year to year. NFPA is continually examining its methodology to provide the best possible answers to specific questions, methodological and definitional changes can occur. Earlier editions of the same report may have used different methodologies to produce the same analysis, meaning that the estimates are not directly comparable from year to year. NFPA’s fire department experience survey provides estimates of the big picture. Each year, NFPA conducts an annual survey of fire departments which enables us to capture a summary of fire department experience on a larger scale. Surveys are sent to all municipal departments protecting populations of 50,000 or more and a random sample, stratified by community size, of the smaller departments. Typically, a total of roughly 3,000 surveys are returned, representing about one of every ten U.S. municipal fire departments and about one third of the U.S. population.


The survey is stratified by size of population protected to reduce the uncertainty of the final estimate. Small rural communities have fewer people protected per department and are less likely to respond to the survey. A larger number must be surveyed to obtain an adequate sample of those departments. (NFPA also makes follow-up calls to a sample of the smaller fire departments that do not respond, to confirm that those that did respond are truly representative of fire departments their size.) On the other hand, large city departments are so few in number and protect such a large proportion of the total U.S.

http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/

http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/documentation/design/NFIRS_Paper_Forms_2008.pdf

population that it makes sense to survey all of them. Most respond, resulting in excellent precision for their part of the final estimate. The survey includes the following information: (1) the total number of fire incidents, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries, and the total estimated property damage (in dollars), for each of the major property use classes defined in NFIRS; (2) the number of on-duty firefighter injuries, by type of duty and nature of illness; 3) the number and nature of non-fire incidents; and (4) information on the type of community protected (e.g., county versus township versus city) and the size of the population protected, which is used in the statistical formula for projecting national totals from sample results. The results of the survey are published in the annual report Fire Loss in the United States. To download a free copy of the report, visit http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf. Projecting NFIRS to National Estimates As noted, NFIRS is a voluntary system. Different states and jurisdictions have different reporting requirements and practices. Participation rates in NFIRS are not necessarily uniform across regions and community sizes, both factors correlated with frequency and severity of fires. This means NFIRS may be susceptible to systematic biases. No one at present can quantify the size of these deviations from the ideal, representative sample, so no one can say with confidence that they are or are not serious problems. But there is enough reason for concern so that a second database -- the NFPA survey -- is needed to project NFIRS to national estimates and to project different parts of NFIRS separately. This multiple calibration approach makes use of the annual NFPA survey where its statistical design advantages are strongest. Scaling ratios are obtained by comparing NFPA’s projected totals of residential structure fires, non-residential structure fires, vehicle fires, and outside and other fires, and associated civilian deaths, civilian injuries, and direct property damage with comparable totals in NFIRS. Estimates of specific fire problems and circumstances are obtained by multiplying the NFIRS data by the scaling ratios. Reports for incidents in which mutual aid was given are excluded NFPA’s analyses. Analysts at the NFPA, the USFA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission developed the specific basic analytical rules used for this procedure. "The National Estimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statistics," by John R. Hall, Jr. and Beatrice Harwood, provides a more detailed explanation of national estimates. A copy of the article is available online at http://www.nfpa.org/osds or through NFPA's One-Stop Data Shop. Version 5.0 of NFIRS, first introduced in 1999, used a different coding structure for many data elements, added some property use codes, and dropped others. The essentials of the approach described by Hall and Harwood are still used, but some modifications have been necessary to accommodate the changes in NFIRS 5.0. Figure 1 shows the percentage of fires originally collected in the NFIRS 5.0 system. Each year’s release version of NFIRS data also includes data collected in older versions of NFIRS that were converted to NFIRS 5.0 codes.


http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf

http://www.nfpa.org/osds

Figure 1. Fires Originally Collected in NFIRS 5.0 by Year

7%

21%

48%

65%

79%88%

94% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

For 2002 data on, analyses are based on scaling ratios using only data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0:

NFPA survey projections NFIRS totals (Version 5.0)

For 1999 to 2001, the same rules may be applied, but estimates for these years in this form will be less reliable due to the smaller amount of data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0; they should be viewed with extreme caution.

NFIRS 5.0 introduced six categories of confined structure fires, including: • cooking fires confined to the cooking vessel, • confined chimney or flue fires, • confined incinerator fire, • confined fuel burner or boiler fire or delayed ignition, • confined commercial compactor fire, and • trash or rubbish fires in a structure with no flame damage to the structure or its contents.

Although causal and other detailed information is typically not required for these incidents, it is provided in some cases (typically 10-20%). Some analyses, particularly those that examine cooking equipment, heating equipment, fires caused by smoking materials, and fires started by playing with fire, may examine the confined fires in greater detail. Because the confined fire incident types describe certain scenarios, the distribution of unknown data differs from that of all fires. Consequently, allocation of unknowns must be done separately. Some analyses of structure fires show only non-confined fires. In these tables, percentages shown are of non-confined structure fires rather than alls structure fires. This approach has the advantage of showing the frequency of specific factors in fire causes, but the disadvantage of


possibly overstating the percentage of factors that are seldom seen in the confined fire incident types. Other analyses include entries for confined fire incident types in the causal tables and show percentages based on total structure fires. In these cases, the confined fire incident type is treated as a general causal factor.

For most fields other than Property Use, NFPA allocates unknown data proportionally among known data. This approach assumes that if the missing data were known, it would be distributed in the same manner as the known data. NFPA makes additional adjustments to several fields. Casualty and loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of unusually serious fire.


Appendix B Data Elements in NFIRS 5.0 Related to

Automatic Extinguishing Systems

M1. Presence of Automatic Extinguishment System This is to be coded based on whether a system was or was not present in the area of fire and is designed to extinguish the fire that developed. (The latter condition might exclude, for example, a range hood dry chemical extinguishing system from being considered if the fire began in a toaster.) Codes:

N None Present 1 Present U Undetermined (restored to coding in 2004)

M2. Type of Automatic Extinguishment System If multiple systems are present, this is to be coded in terms of the (presumably) one system designed to protect the hazard where the fire started. This is a required field if the fire began within the designed range of the system. It is not clear whether questions might arise over a system that is not located in the area of fire origin but has the area of fire origin within its designed range; this has to do with the interpretation of the “area” of fire origin. Codes:

1 Wet pipe sprinkler 2 Dry pipe sprinkler 3 Other sprinkler system 4 Dry chemical system 5 Foam system 6 Halogen type system 7 Carbon dioxide system 0 Other special hazard system U Undetermined

M3. Automatic Extinguishment System Operation This is designed to capture the “operation and effectiveness” of the system relative to area of fire origin. It is also said to provide information on the “reliability” of the system. The instructions say that “effective” does not necessarily mean complete extinguishment but does mean containment and control until the fire department can complete extinguishment.



Codes: 1 System operated and was effective 2 System operated and was not effective 3 Fire too small to activate the system 4 System did not operate 0 Other U Undetermined

M4. Number of Sprinklers Operating The instructions say this is not an indication of the effectiveness of the sprinkler system. The instructions do not explicitly indicate whether this data element is relevant if the automatic extinguishment system is not a sprinkler system (as indicated in M2). The actual number is recorded in the blank provided; there are no codes. M5. Automatic Extinguishment System Failure Reason This is designed to capture the (one) reason why the system “failed to operate or did not operate properly.” The instructions also say that this data element provides information on the “effectiveness” of the equipment. It is not clear whether this is to be completed if the system operated properly but was not effective. Text shown in brackets is text shown in the instructions but not on the form. Note that for code 4, the phrase “wrong” is replaced by “inappropriate” in the instructions; the latter term is more precise and appropriate, although it is possible for the type of fire to be unexpected in a given occupancy. Codes:

1 System shut off 2 Not enough agent discharged [to control the fire] 3 Agent discharged but did not reach [the] fire 4 Wrong type of system [Inappropriate system for the type of fire] 5 Fire not in area protected [by the system] 6 System components damaged 7 Lack of maintenance [including corrosion or heads painted] 8 Manual intervention [defeated the system] 0 Other ____________ [Other reason system not effective] U Undetermined