Report of the Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers David J. Burkhart, Richard J. Fairclough, Fred B. Goodnight, Ernest E.

Transcription

1 Report of the Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers David J. Burkhart, Chair Code Consultants, Inc., MO [SE] Richard J. Fairclough, Secretary Brooks Equipment Company, Inc., NC [M] Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corporation, AL [M] Rep. Compressed Gas Association Ernest E. Horvath, Reliable Fire Equipment, IL [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc. Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I] Emil W. Misichko, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Gary A. Nadolny, Ansul Fire Protection/Tyco, WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association J. R. Nerat, Badger Fire Protection/Williams Holdings, MI [M] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Richard R. Osman, Schirmer Engineering Corp., IL [SE] John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy Group, MD [U] George Unger, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, Canada [RT] Klaus Wahle, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, DC [E] Alternates Warren D. Bonisch, Schirmer Engineering Corp., TX [SE] (Alt. to R. R. Osman) Randall Eberly, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, DC [E] (Alt. to K. Wahle) Rod Getz, Getz Fire Equipment, IL [M] (Alt. to E. E. Horvath) Michael J. Laderoute, Flag Fire Inc., VA [M] (Alt. to G. P. Nadolny) Mike Larabel, Amway Corporation, MI [M] (Alt. to J. R. Nerat) James A. Oldham, Duke Power Company, NC [U] (Voting Alt. to EEI Rep.) David C. Smith, Factory Mutual Research, MA [I] (Alt. to R. Kasiski) Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the installation, maintenance and use of portable fire extinguishers and equipment. Does not apply to permanently installed fire extinguishing systems even though portions of those systems are portable, such as hose and nozzles which may be attached to a fixed supply of extinguishing agent. This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book. The Report of the Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers is presented for adoption. This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Extinguishers, 1998 edition. NFPA is published in Volume 1 of the 2001 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, which consists of 13 voting members and is reporting in 2 Segments. Segment No. 1 consists of Proposal (Log #95). On Segment No. 1 Proposal 10-45, 10 voted affirmatively and 3 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Kasiski, Oldham, and Wahle). Mr. Kasiski voted negatively stating: It is our opinion the information presented to the Technical Committee is sufficient to be proactive in developing a requirement for the design limitations of a discharge device used with a wet chemical portable fire extinguisher having a Class K rating. This requirement will limit the probability the fire extinguisher can be easily misapplied, such that fire hazard can extend beyond the original hazard to the surrounding area and the operator. Mr. Oldham voted negatively stating: Although limited, evidence was submitted during the Jan. 28 Feb. 1 TC meeting of a safety concern with the use of Class K fire extinguishers equipped with extended wand type discharge devices. It would be prudent of the committee to further evaluate this concern before acting to permit their continued use. Mr. Wahle voted negatively stating: I believe that the safety concerns raised are sufficient to render use of the wand-type nozzle design for wet chemical extinguishers questionable. Although significant accident data has not been presented, this may be due the newness of the design and the difficulty of obtaining reliable accident information. I believe that the potential for serious injury outweighs the benefits of using a wand. Mr. Reiter voted affirmative with the following comment: This proposal was rejected by the Committee because they felt that there is not sufficient history to support this recommendation and the safety concerns raised were not the consensus of the group. A committee member, who has a strong influence, clearly stated and indicted that there were no documented cases of injury or death from use of Class K extinguishers with extended wands. This same individual, when questioned about an incident involving a Class K extinguishers with an extended wand that resulted in burns and injury to the user, suddenly then knew about the incident and talked in detail. In addition, there is no central comprehensive database to collect and provide information regarding such potentially sensitive product liability issues. We, the committee and NFPA, should not ignore a known safety problem and wait for a body count to address this recognized hazard. After casting my initial negative ballot for this segment, it is my understanding that there have been definitive agreements between the fire extinguishers manufactures to resolve this issue. The fire extinguisher manufactures have agreed to remove wands from the Class K fire extinguishers. In light of these recent agreements, and to keep this standard moving forward, I am changing my vote to affirmative on Segment 1. Segment No. 2 consists of the balance of the Propsoals (10-1 through and through ). On Segment No. 2 Proposal 10-1 through and through 10-15, 10 voted affirmatively and 3 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Kasiski, Oldham, and Wahle). Mr. Kasiski voted negatively stating: It is our opinion the action taken by the Technical Committee in Proposal (Log #CP4) is insufficient to address the electrical conductivity of extinguishing agents used with a Class C rating. Two issues exist with Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). First, the revised text for 1-4.2(e) does not limit a wet chemical extinguisher from a Class C rating. It only limits a wet chemical fire extinguisher with a Class K rating not to be labeled with a Class C rating. Secondly, while it was the intent of the Committee not to list wet chemical fire extinguishers with a Class C rating, from our review of all of the proposals, no requirement to restrict this rating could be identified. In Proposal (Log #CP4), Section and is being moved to the Annex, which are recommendations, not requirements for portable fire extinguishers. In addition, currently no listing requirements exist which evaluate the pooling effects of an extinguishing agent, in particular liquids, being discharged in the path of attack onto any live electrical fire hazard. Therefore, the proposed wording Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it is being discharged is not a completely accurate statement. There is currently only one test being used for the current Class C listing requirement, not multiple tests. The Technical Committee should also recognize the current Class C listing requirement is based upon a minimum 10 in. air gap being maintained between the discharge nozzle and the electrical target. The listing test also does not evaluate a fault condition in which the air gap may be reduced to less then 10 in. and the result of such a condition. 117

2 Mr. Oldham voted negatively stating: Many of the proposed changes are adequately substantiated and I concur with them. However, the issues involving what constitutes Class C rating and how the electrical conductivity of the extinguishing agent is measured are of most importance that have not been thoroughly considered. If a task group has been assigned the charge of reviewing the Class C issues, we should wait on our vote until their review is formalized and we have had the opportunity to study their findings. Mr. Wahle voted negatively stating: I disagree with the committee action with respect to the definitions of Class C Rating and Class C Fires. I prefer these definitions to remain as presently stated. The proposed change in definitions will confuse most people, who have been conditioned by NFPA 10 to associate a Class C rating with the use of a nonconductive agent. Few people besides extinguisher manufacturers and test laboratory personnel are familiar enough with the UL 711 conductivity test to realize that the latter is a test of the conductivity of the agent stream as discharged from the extinguisher, rather than a test of the conductivity of the agent itself. The committee recognized this by agreeing that Class K extinguishers should not be rated Class C. The same reasoning can be applied to water mist type fire extinguishers. I also believe that paragraph 2.2 should continue to state the type of extinguishers to be selected for each type of hazard, rather than just referring to the UL Listing and moving this important guidance to the appendix. Mr. Goodnight voted affirmative with the following comments: The compromise proposed at the Scottsdale meeting is a good beginning, but there are still a number of items that must be completed for a workable solution: 1. With regard to the proposal to disallow a Class C rating on wet chemical extinguishers, we left one major hole that must be closed; that is, wet chemical extinguishers must be tested to Class C requirements even though they will not be allowed to have a Class C rating! I believe we must mandate that they are to be tested for and meet the requirements of a Class C rating. Certainly, these extinguishers will be used on electrically powered appliances, and in order to assure the extinguisher operator s safety we must make sure they can pass the ANSI/UL Class C test requirements. Please note that at the present time, all wet chemical extinguishers being marketed in the USA and Canada have been tested for Class C and have passed, even though some manufacturers have chosen not to include the Class C rating on their products. Unless we add these new requirements, any new submittals will not be tested for Class C, and the possibility will exist for a wet chemical extinguisher to be approved that is not safe to use on electrically powered appliances. 2. A second problem that must be addressed is the education issue. We must find a way to inform both end users and AHJs that wet chemical extinguishers are safe to use on electrical appliances, even though they do not have a Class C rating! The Class K extinguisher (wet chemical) is still a new concept and is not fully understood; plus we are now proposing a major departure from the norm in marking (i.e., the lack of a Class C rating on extinguishers which have met the Class C test criteria). Unless wet explain what we have done in the text of the standard and on the product we will cause mass confusion. 3. With regard to Proposal (Log #CP19), I believe we need to reconsider. A warning statement on the potential misuse of an extinguisher is not a good precedent. Do we really want to add such a warning statement to any fire extinguisher? Remember there are no incidents of misuse as depicted in the Badger video there is no data to support the need for a warning or caution statement. Once we begin adding warning statements on the potential misuse of a wet chemical extinguisher, where will we draw the line? I m concerned that we will next want to add a similar statement to dry chemical extinguishers because they can splash liquid fuels if misused. A similar note might be justified on any type of extinguisher. Is that what we want to see? I don t think so. The addition of the warning statement will only distract the extinguisher operator from the proper operating instructions that are already on the extinguisher nameplate. If the operating instructions are followed, there is very little chance of misuse of the product. Further, the addition of a warning statement will not lessen the liability of any manufacturer. That is, if there is any injury for any reason, a warning or caution statement will not stop a lawsuit. 4. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the definitions shown in Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2). I do not understand why the committee proposal continues to show secondary definitions. The task group s efforts were to identify the correct definition or to modify the existing ones to meet our needs, and they did so. How are we to now separate their work and what we agreed to from the other definitions? Also, I m concerned and confused regarding other log numbers with definitions that were approved by the committee, but are in conflict with some of the definitions in Committee Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2) which are to take precedent and which will be published? 5. I m confident we can continue our discussions and resolve the issues outlined in my comments. That is the reason I am voting affirmative. Mr. Misichko voted affirmative with the following comments: Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2): The recommendation noted is to adopt the preferred definitions as shown. However, at the NFPA 10 Technical Committee meeting, we revised wording on some secondary definitions for use in NFPA 10 (i.e., Extinguisher Inspection and Wet Chemical). Also, revisions were not made to the Class C Fires (preferred) definition as per the TC s suggestions as follows: Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical nonconductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance. (When electrical equipment is de-energized, fire extinguishers rated for Class A or B fires can be are used safely. In addition, based upon Proposal (Log #CP4), it is advisable that the Class C definition and references correlate, and therefore, further discussion is necessary. Proposal (Log #CP4): The Class C Rating reference correctly includes Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media is important as it is being discharged, which correlates to the UL 711 test criteria. However, with respect to item (e), there is concern on not permitting a Class K rated extinguisher to be listed and labeled with a Class C rating. UL standards are performance based standards, and fire extinguishers that comply with specified rating requirements may be UL listed and labeled as such. Since we are not aware of any documented field reports on Class K rated extinguishers with a Class C rating, it does not seem appropriate to prohibit the marking of an achieved rating. Class K rated extinguishers are intended for use in locations where electrical cooking appliances exist, and therefore it would be desirable to have a Class K:C rated extinguisher. Further committee discussion would be appropriate. Proposal (Log #CP19): Further committee discussion is advisable on the need for a warning label not to insert the nozzle of a Class K rated extinguisher into combustible media. The operating instructions on the extinguisher label clearly indicate the method of extinguisher operation and the distance the operator shall be from the fire. Since we are not aware of any documented field reports on this type of occurrence, it may not be appropriate to require such a warning marking. If a warning marking were to be required for a Class K extinguisher, such a warning could very well be justified for all types of extinguishers. Mr. Reiter voted affirmative with the following comments: Although the proposed revised standard has a number of positive changes, the Class C issues outweigh them. My major concern is that in the body of the standard, all reference to and requirements for non-conductive agents to be used in extinguishers listed for Class C have been eliminated. These changes are inappropriate, in violation of federal law, and compromises the integrity and public trust in this standard, the NFPA and UL. Furthermore, a subcommittee has recently been convened to review the Class C issues. It is premature for us to vote on such radical changes with respect to Class C issues, which have major and far-reaching consequences, until the subcommittee has reviewed and published their findings. As in Segment 1 above, I am changing my negative vote to affirmative on Segment 2. This change is due to the recent agreements between the fire extinguishers manufacturers to resolve this issue. Part of this Class C issue has been resolved with the fire extinguisher manufacturers volunteering to remove the Class C rating from the highly conductive Class K fire extinguishers. I am trusting the standards making process and wish to proceed in good faith with the hopes that the balance of the Class C issues will be resolved. Mr. Unger voted affirmative with the following comments: 118

3 Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2): The definitions recommended for adoption are confusing. The indication is to adopt the preferred definitions as shown. However, we revised wording on some secondary definitions for use in NFPA 10, such as Extinguisher Inspection, Extinguisher Service Pressure and the preferred definition of Dry Chemical. Proposal (Log #CP4): The Class C Rating reference corresponds to the procedure currently used in UL 711, and the proposed Binantional Standard UL 711/CAN/ULC-S508. As the requirements in these documents stand, we have a concern in not permitting a Class K rated extinguisher to be listed and labeled with a Class C rating. The certification standards need to be performance based and fire extinguishers that comply with the specified rating requirements, regardless of the type of rating, must be labeled as achieving this rating. Unless there are documented field reports of problems associated with the particular rating for a particular type of fire extinguisher, it does not seem appropriate to prohibit the marking of an achieved rating. Proposal (Log #CP19): It is not appropriate to have warning labels on an extinguisher, unless specifically required by authority having jurisdiction legislation. The operating instructions on the extinguisher label must clearly indicate the method of extinguisher operation and the distance the operator shall be from the fire. Additional warning statements will most likely serve to delay use of the extinguisher in a fire situation by confusing the operator. If a warning marking were to be required for a Class K extinguisher, the proliferation of cautions and warnings for all types of extinguishers could very well be justified and recommended to the NFPA 10 technical committee. 119

4 (Log #CP1) (Entire Document): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Restructure entire document to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style as follows: 1. Chapter 1 to contain administrative text only. 2. Chapter 2 to contain only referenced publications cited in the mandatory portions of the document. 3. Chapter 3 to contain only definitions. 4. All mandatory sections of the document must be evaluated for usability, adoptability, and enforceability language. Generate necessary committee proposals. 5. All units of measure in the document are converted to SI units with inch/pound units in parentheses. 6. Appendices restructured and renamed as "Annexes." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial restructuring, to conform with the 2000 edition of the NFPA Manual of Style. (Log #112) (1-1): Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MD "The provisions of this standard apply to the selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, safe use and testing of portable extinguishing equipment. The requirements given herein are minimum. Portable fire extinguishers are intended as a first line of defense to cope with fires of limited size. They are needed even if the property is equipped with automatic sprinklers, standpipe and hose, or other fixed protection equipment (see 2-3.2, 3-1.1, 3-2.1, and 3-2.3). They do not apply to permanently installed systems for fire extinguishment, even where portions of such systems are portable (such as hose and nozzles attached to a fixed supply of extinguishing agent)." SUBSTANTIATION: The words "safe use" must be inserted to keep the standard and Committee focused. The Committee has lost objectivity and the standard has become a marketing tool. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The safe use is not covered in the body of the standard and is only covered in the appendix. Therefore the committee felt it is not appropriate to mention this in the scope. (Log #CP2) (1-3 Definitions (GOT)): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: ANSI (preferred) 1 American National Standards Institute. ANSI (secondary) The American National Standards Institute, which is the official standards making/setting organization of the United States. Class C. Fires (preferred) 1 Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical non conductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance. (When electrical equipment is de-energized, fire extinguishers for Class A or B fires can be used safely.) DOT. (preferred) 57 U.S. Department of Transportation. DOT. (secondary) The U.S. Department of Transportation, which has jurisdiction over all cylinders and cartridges containing 40 psi (276 kpa) or more internal pressure. Dry Chemical (preferred) 17 A mixture of finely divided solid particles, usually sodium bicarbonate-, potassium bicarbonate-, or ammonium phosphatebased with added particulate material supplemented by special treatment to provide resistance to packing, and moisture absorption (caking), and to promote proper flow characteristics. Dry Chemical (secondary) Various mixtures of finely divided solid particles additionally supplemented with special treatments to provide resistance to packing and moisture absorption (caking), and to promote proper flow characteristics. These agents are designed for extinguishment of Class A and Class B fires. They are nonconductors and are approved for use on energized electrical Class C fires. Inspection (preferred) 820 A visual examination of a system or portion thereof to verify that it appears to be in operating condition and is free of physical damage. Extinguisher Inspection (secondary) A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is available and is in operating condition. It is intended to give reasonable assurance that the fire extinguisher is fully charged. This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, that it has not been actuated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent its operation. Service Pressure (preferred) 52 The nominal gas pressure at a uniform gas temperature of 21 C (70 F) when the equipment is properly and completely charged with gas; the nominal design pressure for which the equipment has been constructed. Extinguisher Service Pressure (secondary) The normal operating pressure as indicated on the nameplate or cylinder of a fire extinguisher. Wet Chemical (preferred) 17A Normally a solution of water and potassium carbonate-based chemical, potassium acetate-based chemical, potassium citratebased chemical, or a combination thereof that forms an extinguishing agent. Wet Chemical (secondary) Wet chemicals include, but are not limited to, solutions of water and potassium acetate, potassium carbonate, potassium citrate, or any combinations thereof. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes. (Log #52) (1-3 Class C Fires): Reject "Class C Fires. Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical nonconductivity of the extinguishing media as it is being discharged is of importance. (When electrical...)". SUBSTANTIATION: Class C fire test in ANSI/UL 711 has always tested only the nonconductivity of extinguishing media as they are being discharged. All dry chemical agents and halons are "conductors" of electricity in the absolute sense. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). (Log #CP3) (1-3 Class C Fires): Accept Class C Fires. Fires that involve energized electrical equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: Provided a simplified definition defining the term. (Log #98) (1-3 Class K Fires): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./Rep Insurance RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Class K Fires. Fires in commercial kitchen/restaurant cooking appliances that involve combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils, and fats and solid combustible fuels). SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The recent addition of the definition for "Class K Fires" in the current paragraph 1-3 Definitions, NFPA 10, 1998 edition, needs clarification. A fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating may be used on industrial food processing appliances in excess of the fire test rating. The fire test in UL 711 of the Performance Standards uses a specific piece of test equipment that is representative of commercial kitchen/restaurant cooking appliances. Secondly, the definition does not allow usage of a fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating on solid combustible fuels by definition without a separate Class "A" rating. Resolution: 120

5 The editorial text of "commercial kitchen/restaurant" clarifies the definition to state the intended usage and application of a fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating that has been listed. The inclusion of "solid combustible fuels" is consistent with the type of cooking appliance also to be expected in a commercial/restaurant cooking kitchen. It is also consistent with the application as stated in Section 11-7, Fire-Extinguishing Equipment for Solid Fuel Cooking, paragraph of NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 1998 edition. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee decided to maintain the definition to apply to the device rather than eliminating certain applications. The Committee felt solid combustible fuels are addressed in Class A Fires. (Log #32) (1-3 Dry Chemical): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence of definition for "Dry Chemical" to read: "They are nonconductors and are usually approved for use on energized electrical Class C fires." SUBSTANTIATION: Dry chemical agents are conductors of electricity in the absolute sense. The ANSI/UL-299 Standard includes a test to determine their dielectric breakdown voltage. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that the current definition is appropriate as the UL 711 Standard provides the Class C listing criteria. (Log #CP11) (1-3 Electronic Monitoring): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read: Electronic Monitoring.* A method of electronic communication (data transmission) between an in-place fire extinguisher and an electronic monitoring device/system. *Electronic monitoring can be accomplished utilizing low-voltage wiring or a wireless communication method, and can convey information about an in-place fire extinguisher that includes: status, pressure level, presence, condition, and if there is an obstruction to the extinguisher. Electronic monitoring can satisfy many of the monthly inspection requirements currently within the standard, can monitor the extinguisher at more frequent intervals if desired or when more frequent inspections are required, and can create an electronically maintained record of the fire extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee added this definition because this new technology was added to the document. (Log #102) (1-3 Inspection): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate. It is intended to give reasonable assurance that the fire extinguisher is fully charged and operable. This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, and that it has not been actuated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious or physical damage or condition to prevent its operation. SUBSTANTIATION: Currently the standard recognizes that minimal knowledge is necessary to perform a monthly "quick check" or inspection. Most of the current checklist found in of the standard, can be accomplished utilizing continuous electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. Other items are more appropriately accomplished during yearly maintenance procedures for the fire extinguisher. (Also see proposed changes made to and other changes to 1-3). Yearly maintenance is performed by "a trained person who has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has the manufacturer s service manual..." Compliance with the proposed inspection requirements of 4-3.2, will ensure "that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate" which can be accomplished utilizing the technology of continuous, electronic monitoring of the fire extinguishers or by manual monthly inspection. Thus, the proposal will allow inspections of fire extinguishers to be accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for the electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure its operation. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Comittee felt that physical damage should be checked during inspection. (Log #CP16) (1-3 Loaded Stream Charge, Wet Chemical and A-1-3 (New) ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add appendix material for the definitions of Loaded Stream Charge* and Wet Chemical* to read as follows: A-1-3 Loaded Stream Charge.* While loaded stream and wet chemical agent charges can be comprised of similar materials their formulation could dictate different maintenance procedures. A-1-3 Wet Chemical.* While loaded stream and wet chemical agent charges can be comprised of similar materials their formulation could dictate different maintenance procedures. SUBSTANTIATION: Added explanatory information regarding similar extinguishing agent formulations. (Log #103) (1-3 Maintenance): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Maintenance. A thorough examination of the fire extinguisher. It is intended to give maximum assurance that a fire extinguisher will operate effectively and safely. It includes a thorough examination for physical damage or condition to prevent its operation and any necessary repair or replacement. It will normally reveal if hydrostatic testing or internal maintenance is required. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently found in the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria for yearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or other conditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisher are better able to be assessed by "a trained person who has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has the manufacturer s service manual..." Inspections that provide a "quick check" of the fire extinguisher, as guided by proposed changes to 4-3.2, will ensure "that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate" which then can be accomplished utilizing the technology of continuous, electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher or by manual, monthly inspection. Thus, the proposal will allow inspections of fire extinguishers to be accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for the electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure its operation. (Log #129) (1-3 Modified Hydrostatic Retest (Proof Pressure Test), Non Specification Cylinder, ReTester Identification Number (RIN#), Specification Cylinder, Volumetric Expansion Hydrostatic Retest (Water jacket Test)): Reject SUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions to read as follows: Modified Hydrostatic Retest (Proof Pressure Test). For the purpose of this standard a low pressure hydrostatic test without a water jacket and without determining total and permanent expansion on a fire extinguisher cylinder either Non Specification or DOT Specification, following the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) and Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1, Methods of Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders. Non Specification Cylinder. For the purpose of this standard, a Low Pressure cylinder as defined in this standard that contains the marking "meets DOT Requirements" that is manufactured in accordance with the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) part or Occupational Safety and 121

6 Health Administration Regulations of the Department of Labor 29 Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) ReTester Identification Number (RIN #). A number issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to a retest facility that inspects, Hydro tests and requalify Specification cylinders bearing a DOT exemption number as required in 49CFR Specification Cylinder. For the purpose of this standard, a low or high pressure cylinder as defined in this standard that have markings prescribed by the DOT under which the cylinder was made in conformance to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) (Examples: DOT 3AL, 3AA, DOT 4B, 4BA) Volumetric Expansion Hydrostatic Retest (Water jacket Test). A water jacket test for high or low pressure DOT Specification cylinders determining total and permanent expansion, following the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) and Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1, Methods of Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders. SUBSTANTIATION: Many fire equipment companies I feel do not know or are confused about hydrotesting. It is easy to see on the DOT website by the fires and penlites that NFPA 10 and 49 CFR need to be uniform in their terms and standards. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Terms not used in body of standard. (Log #73) (1-3 Water Mist Extinguishers (New) ): Accept SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition for Water Mist Extinguishers to read as follows: Water Mist Extinguishers. A water type portable fire extinguisher containing distilled water and employing a nozzle that discharges the agent in a fine spray. SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist extinguishers have been available in the marketplace for several years to meet special hazard requirements. Adding a new definition would recognize their availability. (Log #84) (1-3 Wetting Agent): Accept SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College RECOMMENDATION: Add text of a definition for "Wetting Agent" as follows: A surface-active material added to water to materially reduce the surface tension of the water and thus increase penetrating and spreading characteristics. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard refers to wetting agents and wetting agent extinguishers, but does not provide a definition. The proposed definition is taken from Section D (Log #CP4) (1-4.1 and 1-4.2): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Move and to the Annex. And revise Item C as follows: "Class C Rating. No fire test. Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it is being discharged. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity." Revise Item c to read as follows: (c) Class C Rating. No fire test. Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it is being discharged. Revise Item e to read as follows: (e) Wet chemical extinguishers having a Class K rating should not be listed and labeled with a Class C rating. Revise the 5th paragraph of A to read as follows: For fire extinguishers classified for use on Class C fires, no number is uses, since Class C fires are essentially either Class A or Class B fires involving energized electrical wiring and equipment. Other than when being discharged from an extinguisher, water based agents are conductive and agent pooling after discharge might present additional hazard concerns. The size of the different suitable fire extinguishers installed should be commensurate with the size and extent of the Class A or Class B components, or both, of the electrical hazard or containing equipment being protected. SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraphs and do not contain any requirements and the information was therefore moved to the annex. (Log #99) (1-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./Rep Insurance (c) Class K Rating. Special test s on representative commercial kitchen/restaurant cooking appliances using combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils, and fats and combustible fuels). SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The recent addition of the current paragraph 1-4.2(e), NFPA 10, 1998 edition, needs clarification of the definition. A fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating may be used on industrial food processing appliances in excess of the fire test rating. The fire test in UL 711 of the Performance Standards uses a specific piece of test equipment that is representative of commercial kitchen/restaurant cooking appliances. Secondly, the definition does not allow usage of a fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating on solid combustible fuels by definition without a separate Class "A" rating. Resolution: The editorial text of "commercial kitchen/restaurant" clarifies the definition to state the intended usage and application of a fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating that has been listed. The inclusion of "solid combustible fuels" is consistent with the type of cooking appliance also to be expected in a commercial/restaurant cooking kitchen. It is also consistent with the application as stated in Section 11-7, Fire-Extinguishing Equipment for Solid Fuel Cooking, paragraph of NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 1998 edition. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 10-6 (Log #98). (Log #100) (1-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./Rep Insurance (c) Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. (For wet chemical agents see ) Wet chemical agents shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D , Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water. Fire extinguishers containing wet chemical which have a conductivity higher than one microsiemen shall not be rated Class C. WARNING: Wet chemical agents are strong conductors of electricity. Turn off the power to the electrical appliances before using a wet chemical Class K rated fire extinguisher on them. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: With the addition of wet chemical fire extinguishing agents having a Class C rating the current paragraph 1-4.2(c), NFPA 10, 1998 edition, needs clarification of the existing thirty five year old, Class C rating for the agent to be nonconductive. There is no specific test in the Performance Standards cited in paragraph of NFPA 10, 1998 edition which addresses this issue. Resolution: The addition of ASTM D , Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, a standardized test method, and a threshold value of 1 microsiemen, will clarify the requirement for the extinguishing agent to be nonconductive, as required in paragraph 1-4.2(c) of the NFPA 10, 1998 edition. This will correct a problem that was overlooked during a regular revision cycle by providing consistency for testing of the wet chemical extinguishing agent, with the other extinguishing agents. The performance requirement is equivalent to Section 50.4, Dielectric Strength Test, in ANSI/UL 299 as cited in paragraph of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will fulfill a void in the Performance Standards for wet chemical as specified in paragraph of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will also return to the public a benefit that would rectify a continuing dangerous life safety situation from a recognized hazard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee was not able to reach agreement on appropriate test criteria for the extinguishing agent. 122

7 (Log #85) (1-4.2(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows: Remove "and excelsior" SUBSTANTIATION: The revision to UL 711 that is to be adopted as part of a harmonized standard has deleted the excelsior fire. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material has been moved to the Annex by Committe Proposal (Log #CP4). (Log #53) (1-4.2(c)): Accept in Principle "Class C Rating. No fire test. Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it is being discharged. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity." SUBSTANTIATION: More accurately reflects test criteria of ANSI/UL 711. Also, conductive agents are capable of obtaining a Class C rating. (Dry chemical agents and halons are conductors.) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). (Log #119) (1-4.2(c)): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co (c) No fire test. (The no test fire procedure only evaluates the conductivity of an agent when being discharged in a spray pattern. The residue from water based liquid agents may be a conductor of electricity after discharge.) SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification. Previous editions for over 30 years stated "Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity". U.L. Lists, according to UL 711, Conductive Liquid Agents when discharged in a fine Spray Pattern. It is important that this is included. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #100). (Log #15) (1-4.3 (New) ): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: Add " 6. Halocarbon Type ANSI/UL " SUBSTANTIATION: The statement allows inclusion of relevant new guidelines. Revise to read: "6. Halocarbon Type UL 2129." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: UL 2129 is not currently ANSI approved. It is anticipated that it will become ANSI approved and the ANSI designation will be added editorially. (Log #86) (1-5.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College Change the reference from NFPA 231 to NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 231 has been incorporated into NFPA 13. (Log #71) (1-6.4(g)): Accept SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add: "Carbon dioxide extinguishers with metal horns." SUBSTANTIATION: These extinguishers, if still in service, are past their useful life. Calling for removal of these units will avoid confusion and necessary statements in the standard that refer to using carbon dioxide extinguishers on Class C fires except if equipped with a metal horn. (Log #51) (1-6.4(g) (New) ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add: (g) Solid charge type AFFF extinguishers (paper cartridge) SUBSTANTIATION: Replacement cartridges (dry pellets of AFFF chemical) have not been manufactured in over 10 years and have exceeded their shelf life. See paragraph (Log #CP17) (1-6.5,1-6.6 and ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-6.5, and to read as follows: Revised paragraph: Cabinets housing fire extinguishers shall not be locked, except where fire extinguishers are subject to malicious use and cabinets include a means of emergency access * Revised paragraph: Fire extinguishers shall not be obstructed or obscured from view. In large rooms, and in certain locations where visual obstructions cannot be completely avoided, means shall be provided to indicate the extinguisher location Revised paragraph: Extinguishers operating instructions shall be located on the front of the extinguisher and be clearly visible. Hazardous materials identification systems (HMIS) labels, six-year maintenance labels, hydrostatic test labels, or other labels shall not be located or placed on the front of the extinguisher. These restrictions shall not apply to original manufacturer s labels, labels that specifically relate to the extinguisher s operation or fire classification, or inventory control labels specific to that extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: The Manual of Style recommends elimination of exceptions. (Log #2) (1-6.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Andy H. Pfeiffer, Newman Technology Inc. "No obstructions shall be located within 32 in. of any portable fire extinguisher." SUBSTANTIATION: Needs to be clearly defined, past experience and observations, extinguishers - means of egress are "technically" blocked - but can be argued, what one considers accessible, another may not. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is more subjective and is defficult to quantify the appropriate distance for all applications. Therefore it should be left up to the AHJ. (Log #93) (1-6.7): Accept in Principle Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers types shall be securely installed on the hanger or in the bracket supplied by the extinguisher manufacturer or placed in cabinets or wall recesses. The hanger bracket shall be securely and properly anchored to the mounting surface in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. Portable fire extinguishers with a gross weight of 12 pounds or less shall be installed in strap type brackets unless they are placed in cabinets or wall recesses. Wheeled -type fire extinguishers shall be located in a designated location. SUBSTANTIATION: Smaller fire extinguishers are easily dislodged from wall hangers if "bumped" and can result in an unnecessary hazard to people. A strap type bracket will prevent the extinguisher from falling to the floor if bumped or dislodged. Modify the first and the last sentence of as proposed. Revise text as follows: Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers shall be securely installed on the hanger or in the bracket supplied by the extinguisher manufacturer or placed in cabinets or wall recesses. Wheeled fire extinguishers shall be located in a designated location. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification 123

8 (Log #CP6) (1-6.8): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Modify to read: "...manufacturer s strap type brackets." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification. (Log #50) (1-6.14, Exception No. 4 (New) ): Accept in Principle "Water-type (e.g., water, AFFF, FFFP) and wet chemical fire extinguishers...". Add Exception No. 4 : "Some wet chemical extinguishers are capable of extended exposure to temperatures less than +40 F. Consult manufacturers for recommendations." SUBSTANTIATION: New information regarding wet chemical extinguishers Replace existing and exceptions with the following: "Fire extinguishers shall not be exposed to temperatures outside of the listed temperture range shown on the fire extinguisher label." 2. Add a new using the wording of Exception No. 2 of Renumber accordingly. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Provided clear concise minimum requirement. (Log #CP8) (2-1.1 Exception): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: Halon extinguisher should be placed responsibly. (Log #13) ( ): Accept in Principle "...shall conform to the any minimum room volume requirement limitations warnings...". SUBSTANTIATION: The additional words make the statement more clear and precise. Accept wording without "room". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The application may not always be a room therefore the committe felt the volume of the space is more appropriate. (Log #49) ( ): Accept in Principle Fire extinguishers for protecting Class A hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for use on Class A fires. (For halon agent type extinguishers, see ) SUBSTANTIATION: Consistent with wording of Paragraph and removes the need to constantly revise this paragraph as new extinguisher types and new technology is developed for protection of Class A hazards. Use proposed wording and add A as follows: Examples of extinguishers for protecting Class A hazards are as follows: a) Watertype b) Halogenated agent type (for halogenated agent type fire extinguishers, see ) c) Multipurpose dry chemical type d) Wet chemical type COMMITTEE STATEMENT: More approprate as annex material.. (Log #33) ( ): Accept in Principle Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class B hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for use on Class B fires. (For halon agent-type extinguishers, see ) SUBSTANTIATION: Consistent with wording of Paragraph and removes the need to constantly revise this paragraph as new extinguisher types and new technology is developed for protection of Class B hazards. Use proposed wording and add A as follows: Examples of extinguishers for protecting Class B hazards are as follows: a) Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) b) Film Forming Fluoroprotein Foam (FFFP) c) Carbon Dioxide d) Dry Chemical Type e) Halogenated Agent Type (for Halugenated Agent Type Fire Extinguishers, see 2-1.1) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: More appropriate as Annex material. (Log #30) ( ): Accept " Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for...". SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency. (Log #82) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Norman Thibodeau, Fire Marshal Office/Rep. Fire S New Brunswick, Canada RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows: Fire Extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Glass C hazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2-1.1) the following extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class K Wet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agents which are nonconductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use on ungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potential electrical shock situations which are hazardous for people to touch. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee is relying on the listing process which references the UL 711 test criteria for Class C hazards. The committee agrees that Class K rated extinguishers should not be rated Class C. See (Log #CP4). (Log #83) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: W.A. Davis, Metropolitan Fire Extinguisher Co. Inc./ Fire Dept.,Little Rock Fire Protection Licensing Board RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows: Fire Extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Glass C hazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2-1.1) the following extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class K Wet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agents which are nonconductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use on ungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potential electrical shock situations which are hazardous for people to touch. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #82). 124

9 (Log #94) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: James A. Burns, New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control " Fire extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class C hazards (for halon agent type fire extinguishers see 2.1.1) extinguishing agent types which are nonconductors of electricity. SUBSTANTIATION: Extinguishers that utilize conductive agents should not be rated Class C. Use on ungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potential shock situations which may pose a shock hazard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal (Log #82). (Log #97) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & Associates RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph as follows: Fire extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class C hazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see ) the following extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class K Wet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agents which are non conductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use on ungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potential electrical shock situations which are hazardous for people to touch. The traditional 77 year old Class C rated electrically nonconductive agent category of portable fire extinguishers has been lost. As of January, 1998, Underwriters Laboratories announced in committee that Class C rated extinguishers may contain nonconductive agents or highly conductive agents. They stated the Class C rating is only concerned that the extinguisher operator will not receive an electric shock while discharging the agent. The actual agent non conductivity is of no importance. ULI lists some brands of highly conductive Wet Chemical agent Class K rated fire extinguishers also as Class C rated. Note: Some manufacturers of Class K extinguishers refuse to list them as Class C. The problem: Testing shows that wet chemical, when discharged into ungrounded (two prong type) electrical appliances and devices, will connect internal electrically energized parts to exposed conductive surfaces such as housings and handles bringing them up to full line voltage. Agent runout can create exposed energized pools of agent which can also energize metal table tops or trays supporting the appliance. Such energized parts are hazardous and can deliver potentially lethal shock to people who touch them. For 77 years, before January, 1998, Class C agents have been nonconductors of electricity or have had a conductance so low they could not create a hazard to personnel in the area during discharge or after their use. The traditional Class C agents have included Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Tetrachloride, Dry Chemicals, and Halogenated agents. An analysis of U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Test Data shows Wet Chemical is: 8 times more conductive than sea water: 1254 times more conductive than water: 464,000 times more conductive than Halon It is not necessary nor in the best interest of the users of fire extinguishers to group this highly conductive wet chemical agent under the same Class C category of the truly nonconductive agents. There is a significant value to users to continue to have a category of agents which actually or essentially are non conductors of electricity. Judgment by the users as to their use need only be concerned with the effect of the agent on the equipment being protected, because there are no post-use personnel safety hazards produced. NFPA clearly requires wet chemical Class K fire extinguishers for the protection of kitchen appliances using combustible cooking media. NFPA Standards require such appliances to be grounded. Grounded kitchen appliances won t allow exposed conductive parts to become energized. A Class C rating is not needed for Class K Wet Chemical extinguishers to meet NFPA 10 requirements. If Class K Wet Chemical extinguishers have new unique, additional fire protection applications beyond kitchen cooking appliance grease fires, such applications should be defined and attributed to the new Class K category. The inappropriate degradation of the traditional, valuable, widely-used nonconductive Class C agent category should not be an expanded Class K use solution. History: The NFPA Standards Council accepted an appeal to change the wording of paragraph in NFPA 10, 1998, from a specific callout of acceptable NFPA 10 Class C rated agents to the present NFPA 10, 1998 paragraph "Fire Extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class C hazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2-1.1)." The loss of specific acceptable Class C agent callout results in highly conductive Wet Chemical Agents continuing to be labeled as Class C even though the NFPA 10 Standard tells users and the general public that the Class C rated agents are nonconductors of electricity. Note: If we don t get the nonconductive Class C agent category restored, who informs and warns the general public, initiates changes to all the portable extinguisher training programs, revises public and government extinguisher regulations such as OSHA, changes all those NFPA videos, handbook and code references, etc.? Who tells the novice users how to stay safe, etc.? These documents literally say Class C agents are nonconductors of electricity; and now, as a result of 1998 Standard revisions, Class C agents are not all non conductors. NFPA 10, 1998 paragraph (c) states "Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #82). (Log #CP5) ( ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete the note. SUBSTANTIATION: These extinguishers, if still in service, are past their useful life. (Log #48) ( ): Accept Fire extinguishers and extinguishing agents for the protection of Class D hazards shall be of the types specifically listed and labeled for use on the specific combustible metal hazard. SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency. (Log #47) ( ): Accept Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class K hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for use on Class K fires. SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency. (Log #78) ( ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Fire extinguishers and extinguishing agents for the protection of Class K hazards shall be selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class K hazards." SUBSTANTIATION: Listed Class K extinguishers and agents have been found to be more effective than other types for Class K hazards. New wording would be more consistent with Sections and COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #47). 125

10 (Log #120) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: * (Note: Water based liquid agent fire extinguishers listed for Class K hazards that are also listed for Class C hazards present a potential shock hazard after discharge if used in the proximity of energized electrical equipment.) SUBSTANTIATION: This is an important safety consideration that should be included in the section "Selection by Hazard". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #82) (Log #46) (2-3.2): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: Add heading in bold type: Class K Fire Extinguishers for Cooking Oil Fires. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. Revise to read as follows: Class K Fire Extinguishers for Cooking Media Fires. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial. (Log #95) (2-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy Group RECOMMENDATION: Add last sentence and note to paragraph as follows: Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media ( vegetable or animal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires. Class K fire extinguishers shall not be equipped with "extended wand type" discharge devices. Note: Class K fire extinguishers equipped with "extended wand type" discharge devices which can permit subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguishing agents into hot cooking media are not safe for use. Subsurface injection causes a thermodynamic reaction comparable to an explosion, which can cause serious injury or death and may contribute to the rapid spread of fire. SUBSTANTIATION: Class K wet chemical fire extinguishers which are designed with "extended wand type" discharge devices that easily allow subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguishing agents into in-depth hot cooking media are not safe for use. Tests have shown that when wet chemical extinguishing agents are subsurface injected into in-depth hot cooking media, the result is a violent thermodynamic reaction comparable to an explosion. This explosion has a high potential to cause serious injury or death and contributes to the rapid spread of fire. The potential for a novice operator to place a Class K wet chemical extinguisher nozzle below the surface of a combustible cooking media during a fire is likely when "extended wand type" discharge devices are utilized. Class K wet chemical extinguisher discharge devices which keep the operator s hand close to the nozzle do not generally present these same potential misapplication concerns. This is because an extinguisher operator is much less likely to place his hand holding the discharge device through the flames and into the hot burning cooking media. Class K fire extinguishers were added in the recent 1998 edition of NFPA 10. The potential of subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguishing agents and the resulting explosion using Class K fire extinguishers equipped with "extended wand type" discharge nozzles was not fully understood nor adequately recognized by the NFPA 10 committee. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that there is not sufficient history to support this recommendation and the safety concerns raised were not the concensus of the group. (Log #122) (2-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Revise line 4 to read as follows: Class K Fires (For Water Based Liquid Agent Fire Extinguishers see ) SUBSTANTIATION: Since some Class K rated extinguishers also contain a Class C listing, it is important to include this cross reference. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). (Log #45) (2-3.2 Exception): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception to read: Exception: Class B extinguishers installed to protect these hazards prior to June 30, 1998 shall be removed at its next 6 year tear down or hydrostatic test and replaced with a Class K rated extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: Class K extinguishers have been proven to provide better fire protection for this type hazard. See Committe Action on Proposal (Log #79). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that Proposal (Log #79) adequately covers the topic. (Log #115) (2-3.2 and ): Reject SUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & Associates RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Paragraph Add new Paragraphs and and revise old Paragraph and renumber as See changes as shown: Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth of one in. or less shall be of the sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical type, or shall be listed for Class K. Bicarbonate dry chemical types shall have a minimum rating of 40 B:C, and the travel distance to the hazard shall not exceed 30 ft. (9.15 m). Class K extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with Paragraph 3-7. See NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, Section Exception: Extinguishers installed specifically for these hazards prior to June 30, Fire extinguishers for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth of more than one in. shall be listed for Class K. Installation shall be in accordance with Paragraph 3-7, Section Exception: Extinguishers installed specifically for these hazards prior to June 30, A placard shall be placed near each extinguisher protecting a Class K hazard which states that the fire protection system shall be activated prior to using the fire extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: Some chain restaurants and food service facilities do not use deep fat fryers. Many small kitchens found in golf clubs, churches, private clubs, civic centers, etc., have numerous two-pronged ungrounded electrical appliances in the kitchen area and do not have deep fat frying appliances. They do not need wet chemical extinguishers. To date, all listed and labeled Class K extinguishers contain the highly conductive (nominally 1,254 times more conductive than water) wet chemical agent. By not mandating Class K for kitchens which do not use combustible cooking media in depth, the potential post-use electric hazard caused by wet chemical is significantly reduced. Minimizing this risk should be done as soon as possible. The particular fire protection need which a wet chemical Class K extinguisher satisfies is better fire protection for deep fat fryer appliances many of which use new high temperature vegetable cooking oils. The vegetable cooking oils do not saponify as readily as animal oils and fats when bicarbonate-based dry chemicals are used. Kitchens which do not have appliances that use combustible cooking media in depth (one in. or more) have, for many years, been satisfactorily protected with extinguishers containing bicarbonate-based dry chemical agents. The highest B rating of any Class K extinguisher is 1B. A rating of 1B is suitable protection for flammable liquids of 1 square ft in area. Testing is performed using a 2.5 square ft gasoline fire in a test pan. [dimensions 1.58 ft X 1.58 ft.] 126

11 The rating for the traditional bicarbonate-type dry chemical extinguisher for kitchen applications is 40 B:C. A rating of 40B is suitable protection for flammable liquids of 40 square ft in area. Testing is performed with a 100 square ft gasoline fire in a test pan [dimensions 10 ft X 10 ft]. By mandating a Class K wet chemical extinguisher, which is tested and works particularly well on a very confined flammable liquid fire, for all kitchen fire protection; we are discouraging the use of a very effective fast-acting dry chemical extinguisher which has worked effectively on all kitchen grease fires for many years. If some of the deep fat fryer cooking oils had not changed to low saponifying types, a mandated change to Class K wet chemical extinguishers for kitchen deep fat fryer fire protection would not have been necessary. Kitchens without deep fat fryers should have an option of which type extinguisher to use. This is particularly important in kitchens which have two-prong ungrounded appliances and devices in the cooking area. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the criteria in Proposal (Log #79), and is appropriate for this application. (Log #114) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cooking appliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth of one in. or less shall be of the sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemical type, or listed for Class K. Bicarbonate dry chemical type extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 40- BC. SUBSTANTIATION: Class K extinguishers were developed to address the difficulty extinguishing fires in oils in depth (over oneinch). Some restaurants do not use deep fat fryers and should be given the option to select from dry type extinguishers, which provide an acceptable level of protection. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the criteria in Proposal (Log #79), and is appropriate for this application. (Log #79) ( (New) ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section to read: "Existing dry chemical extinguishers without a Class K listing that were installed for the protection of Class K hazards shall be replaced with an extinguisher having Class K listing when the dry chemical extinguishers become due for either a 6 year maintenance or hydrostatic test." SUBSTANTIATION: Extinguishers listed for Class K hazards have been found to be more effective than existing dry chemical extinguishers without a Class K listing. By requiring their replacement with a Class K listed extinguisher, fire protection and safety for commercial cooking operations will be improved. Requiring replacement at the hydrostatic test interval will lessen the economic burden while not allowing older, less effective extinguishers to remain in place indefinitely. (Log #CP19) ( , A ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Each K rated wet chemical fire extinguisher shall have a tag or label securely attached as a warning not to insert the nozzle of the fire extinguisher into combustible cooking media (vegetable or animal oil and fats). A Typical warning labels should contain the following information: Warning) Do not insert nozzle into combustible liquid as they will result in a dangerous flare-up of the fire which could result in severe burns to the operator. SUBSTANTIATION: Added safety criteria for Class K extinguishers. (Log #41) (2-3.5): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for the protection of delicate electronic equipment shall be from either carbon dioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from specially listed water type (water mist) extinguishers with a Class C rating. See SUBSTANTIATION: New technology (water mist type extinguishers) are now available for protecting this type of hazard and are widely used for telephone switching gear, et cetera. Revise text to read as follows: Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for the protection of electronic equipment shall be from either carbon dioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from specially listed water type (water mist) extinguishers with a Class C rating. See COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To correlate with NFPA 75. (Log #61) (2-3.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SC Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for protection of delicate electronic equipment shall be selected from either a water mist type, a carbon dioxide type or another clean agent. SUBSTANTIATION: The wording of the current paragraph indicates that CO 2 and halogenated agents are the only suitable extinguishing agents for electronic equipment fires. CO 2 extinguishers are very cumbersome and are ineffective on Class A materials which is what normally burns in electronic equipment. The use of halogenated agents has been banned or severely restricted by the EPA. Water mist is very effective on Class A materials, visibility is not obscured by the agent, minimal training is required, and water is not toxic. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #41). (Log #29) (3-2.1 Exception (New) ): Reject SUBMITTER: Steve Leeds, Lawrence Livermore National Laborator RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception to as follows: Exception: A uniform travel distance of 75 ft to all fire extinguishers shall be permitted where: (a) A building is protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system, and (b) With the exception of designated personnel, all personnel shall be instructed to evacuate in the event of a fire alarm, and (c) Personnel designated to use portable fire extinguishers shall be properly trained in their use. SUBSTANTIATION: The timely and proper use of a portable fire extinguisher can be an important part of an overall loss prevention program. The successful use of a portable fire extinguisher depends on the operator being properly trained in its use. However, the combination of poor judgment and lack of skill on the part of an operator could lead to ineffective fire control and/or serious injury. The Department of Labor recognized this fact in their development and promulgation of the work place safety standards (OSHA). The OSHA regulations provide an employer with the option of not providing portable fire extinguishers in the work place, but rather provide the appropriate alarms and instruct employees to evacuate. In essence, when placing portable fire extinguishers, a choice is made between property conservation (i.e., place them close to the hazard so a building occupant can use it to control a fire promptly) and occupant safety (place them as far away from the hazard as possible to put distance and as many barriers between a building occupant and the fire emergency as possible). While the total evacuation approach offered by OSHA provides optimal occupant safety, it places the building and its contents at risk for increased fire damage and loss. An approach that provides for both occupant safety and property conservation is to provide selected personnel with the necessary training to use portable fire extinguishers safely and effectively while instructing all other occupants to evacuate. This proposal seeks to compensate for the 127

12 minimal increase in property risk due to increased travel distances by only permitting the proposed travel distance increases in a building protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. I believe this proposal provides the proper balance between occupant safety and property conservation. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that the proposed exception is not needed as the requirement for Class A is 75 ft travel distance. (Log #1) (3-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee RECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph SUBSTANTIATION: The use of hose lines by occupants of the building should no longer be required as an acceptable method of fire control. People should be leaving the building in the event of a fire and not be using hose stations that they are not trained to use. The maintenance record of hose stations is poor to say the least; to permit occupants to use these systems may cause injury. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that the use of extinguishers and hose lines necessitates instruction or training. They also felt that extinguishers and hose lines should be properly maintained and understands that this is an enforcement issue. (Log #CP18) (3-4.1,3-4.2, and 3-4.3): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-4.1, 3-4.2, and to eliminate the exceptions. The paragraphs will read as follows: 3-4.1* Portable fire extinguishers shall not be installed as the sole protection for flammable liquid hazards of appreciable depth where the surface area exceeds 10 ft 2 (0.93m 2 ). Where personnel who are trained in extinguishing fires in the protected hazards are available on the premises, the maximum surface area shall not exceed 20 ft 2 (1.86 m 2 ) For flammable liquid hazards of appreciable depth, a Class B fire extinguisher shall be provided on the basis of at least two numerical units of Class B extinguishing potential per ft 2 ( m 2 ) of flammable liquid surface of the largest hazard area. AFFFor FFFP-type fire extinguishers shall be permitted to be provided on the basis of 1-B of protection per ft 2 (9,9828 M 2 ) of hazard. (For fires involving cooking grease or water-soluble flammable liquids, see and ) Two or more fire extinguishers of lower ratings, other than AFFF- or FFFP -type fire extinguishers, shall not be used in lieu of the fire extinguisher required for the largest hazard area. Up to three AFFF-or FFFP-type fire extinguishers shall be permitted to fulfill the requirements, provided the sum of the Class B ratings meets or exceeds the value required for the largest hazard area. SUBSTANTIATION: The Manual of Style recommends elimination of exceptions. (Log #44) (3-5): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete last phrase of first sentence so that it reads: "Fire extinguishers with Class C ratings shall be required where energized electrical equipment can be encountered that would require a nonconducting extinguishing medium." SUBSTANTIATION: All ABC dry chemical and halons are conductive. The important element is that they are nonconductive as they are being discharged, i.e., the safety of the extinguisher operator is assured. (Log #123) (3-5): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-5 line 8 to read as follows: Class B Hazard (for Water Based Liquid Agent Fire Extinguishers see ). SUBSTANTIATION: None given. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiaton provided. (Log #43) (3-7.1): Accept "3-7.1 Class K fire extinguishers shall be...". SUBSTANTIATION: More clearly defines the requirement. (Log #124) (3-7.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: In the second line of 3-7.2, revise text as follows: "...from the hazard to the extinguishers. (see )" SUBSTANTIATION: The cross reference to the requirement for a placard should be added. This is a special requirement for Class K Extinguishers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees that the placard is important, but felt that this is an inappropriate reference. (Log #87) (4-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical Colleg RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 4-2. SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions provided in 4-2 are redundant. Identical wording is found in Section 1-3, Definitions. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP7) which deletes this section. (Log #24) (4-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate may be done electronically or manually. It is intended to give reasonable assurance that the fire extinguisher is fully charged and operable. This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, that it has not been actuated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious or physical damage or condition to prevent its operation. SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic inspection is a new technology that is now available as an alternate to manual inspection. Electronic inspection could be considered a "full time" check to assure a greater level of protection as described. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-1 (Log #CP1). (Log #104) (4-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate. It is intended to give reasonable assurances that the fire extinguisher is fully charged and operable. This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, and that is has not been actuated or tampered with and that there is no obvious or physical damage or condition to prevent its operation. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal will allow inspection of fire extinguishers to be accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for the electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure its operation. Currently "minimal knowledge is necessary to perform a monthly quick check or inspection" to comply with the standard. Most of the current checklist found in 4-3.2, can be accomplished utilizing electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. Other items are 128

13 more appropriately accomplished during yearly maintenance procedures for the fire extinguisher. (Also see proposed changes made to and other changes to 1-3). Compliance with the proposed inspection requirements of 4-3.2, will ensure "that a fire extinguisher is available and will operate" which can be accomplished utilizing the technology of continuous, electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher or by manual, monthly inspection. Thus, the proposal will allow inspections of fire extinguishers to be accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for the electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure its operation. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Proposal 10-1 (Log #CP1). (Log #CP7) ( and ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-2.1, and SUBSTANTIATION: Definitions are covered in the definitions section which will become Chapter 3 (see CP#1). Redundant material. (Log #105) (4-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates Maintenance. A thorough examination of the fire extinguisher. It is intended to give maximum assurance that a fire extinguisher will operate effectively and safely. It includes a thorough examination for physical damage or condition to prevent its operation (etc.) and necessary repair or replacement. It will normally reveal if hydrostatic testing or internal maintenance is required. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently found in the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers (Section 4-3.2) to criteria for yearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or other conditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisher are better able to be determined by "a trained person who has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has the manufacturer s service manual..." (Also see proposed changes made to and other changes to 1-3). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Proposal 10-1 (Log #CP1). (Log #25) (4-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected when initially placed in service and thereafter at approximately 30 day intervals either electronically or manually. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected at more frequent intervals when circumstances require. SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic inspection is new technology that is now available as an alternate to manual inspection. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is already permissible as the current text does not restrict the use of either manual or electronic means to accomplish this. (Log #106) (4-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates 4-3.1* Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected when initially placed in service and thereafter at approximately 30-day intervals. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected at more frequent intervals when circumstances require. Such fire extinguisher inspections done after their initial placement shall be done manually or by electronic means. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal allows for the additional option of electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher in complying with the inspection requirements of the standard (proposed Section 4-3.2). This is an alternative method for compliance to manual, 30-day inspections. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal (Log #25). (Log #CP12) (4-3.1): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "4-3.1* Frequency. Fire extinguishers day intervals. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected, manually or by electronic monitoring, at more frequent intervals when circumstances require." Add the following at the end of A-4-3.1: " Due to these conditions, more frequent inspections might be enhanced through electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. " SUBSTANTIATION: Added text to allow alternative to manual inspections. (Log #107) (4-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates 4-3.2* Procedures. Periodic inspection of fire extinguishers shall include a check of at least the following items: (a) Location in designated place (b) No obstruction to access or visibility (c) Operating instructions on nameplate legible and facing outward (d) Safety seals and tamper indicators not broken or missing (e) Fullness determined by weighing or "hefting" (f) Examination for obvious physical damage, corrosion, leakage, or clogged nozzle (g) Pressure gauge reading or indicating in the operable range or position (h) Condition of tires, wheels, carriage, hose, and nozzle checked (for wheeled units) (i) HMIS label in place SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently found in the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria for yearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or other conditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisher are better able to be assessed by "a trained person who has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has the manufacturer s service manual..." "Obvious physical damage, corrosion, leakage, clogged nozzle" can still be part of a recommended checklist for monthly, manual inspections (recommend that it be appendix material). The proposed continuous, electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher will detect if the fire extinguisher has been tampered with. When the fire extinguisher has been used or tampered with, is when physical damage etc., will likely occur and such use/abuse can be electronically monitored. Other "labeling" changes can be assured at the time the fire extinguisher is placed in service and during yearly maintenance examinations. Such "labeling" inspection requirements do not assure the extinguisher "is available and will operate," the objective of inspections. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These items need to be checked on a monthly basis to assure reliability. (Log #60) (4-3.2(e)): Reject SUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SC 4-3.2(e) Fullness determined by weighing or "hefting" Carbon dioxide extinguishers shall be weighed with a calibrated scale during annual maintenance or any time the tamper seal has been broken. SUBSTANTIATION: It is impossible for the inspector to accurately determine if the agent in a carbon dioxide extinguisher 129

14 is within 10 percent of full charge by "hefting." A 15 lb. capacity carbon dioxide extinguisher may weigh less than 40 lbs. or more than 50 lbs. Weighing with a properly calibrated scale will accurately determine the amount of agent in the extinguisher. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This inspection is intended to be a quick check and can be done by untrained persons. The current allowance of hefting provides a reasonable check of fullness. (Log #37) (4-3.3): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete "(a), (b), (h), and (i)." SUBSTANTIATION: Immediate corrective action is required when a deficiency is noted in any of the conditions listed in (Log #36) ( and ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Add (h) to list of conditions requiring applicable maintenance procedures. SUBSTANTIATION: Correct error. A deficiency in condition of wheels, carriage, dome, or nozzle requires maintenance. (Log #26) ( ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fire extinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file or in an electronic system (e.g., bar coding) or electronic database that provides a permanent record. SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic record keeping is common in today s world. Electronic information is stored in a computer database. Revise text as follows: Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fire extinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file or by an electronic method that provides a permanent record. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised text will clarify that an electronic database is permissible. (Log #108) ( ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fire extinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file, or in an electronic system (e.g., bar coding) that provides a permanent record (including an electronic database e.g.). SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal expands the electronic monitoring scope of inspection checklist and record keeping. Expanding the scope to allow for an electronic database to be utilized, enables the full use of electronic record keeping capability. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal 10-73(Log #26). (Log #28) (4-4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be subjected to maintenance at intervals of not more than 1 year, at the time of hydrostatic test, or when specifically indicated by an inspection or electronic notification. SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic notification is a new technology that is now available as an alternate to manual inspection. (Log #109) (4-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be subjected to maintenance at intervals of not more that 1 year, at the time of hydrostatic test, or when specifically indicated by an inspection through manual or electronic notification. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal recognizes that notification for maintenance can come from manual or electronic notification means. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #28). (Log #59) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SC RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: Stored-pressure types containing a loaded stream agent shall be disassembled on an annual basis and subjected to complete maintenance. Prior to disassembly, the fire extinguisher shall be fully discharged to check the operation of the discharge valve and pressure gauge. The loaded stream charge shall be permitted to be recovered and re-used, provided it is subjected to agent analysis in accordance with manufacturer s instructions. SUBSTANTIATION: The expense of discharging and recharging loaded stream extinguishers annually to check the operation and pressure gauge is an unnecessary financial burden on the owner. Operational tests for loaded stream extinguishers should only be required at six year intervals as is required in Paragraph for other types of stored pressure fire extinguishers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation is an opinion and provides no evidence that the interval is inappropriate. (Log #110) (4-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates 4-4.2* Procedures. Maintenance procedures shall include a thorough examination of the basic elements of a fire extinguisher: (a) Mechanical parts (b) Extinguishing agent (c) Expelling means Exception: During annual maintenance it is not necessary to internally examine non rechargeable fire extinguishers, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, or stored-pressure fire extinguishers, except for those types specified in However, such fire extinguishers shall be thoroughly examined externally, to ensure that there is no obvious or physical damage or condition to prevent its operation (e.g.), in accordance with the applicable items of 4-4.2(a). SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently found in the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria for yearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or other conditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisher are better able to be assessed by "a trained person who has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has the manufacturer s service manual..." "Obvious physical damage, corrosion, leakage, clogged nozzle" can still be part of a recommended checklist for monthly, manual inspections (recommend that it be appendix material). The proposed continuous, electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher will detect if the fire extinguisher has been tampered with. When the fire extinguisher has been used or tampered with, is when physical damage etc., will likely occur and such use/abuse can be electronically monitored. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The sentence intends to require external examination of mechanical parts. The Committee felt that the current wording covers the proposed text and therefore the recommended text is unnecessary. (Log #CP20) (4-4.2): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 130

15 4-4.2* Procedures. Maintenance procedures shall include a thorough examination of the basic elements of a fire extnguisher as determined below: a) Mechanical parts of all fire extinguishers. b) Extinguishing agent of cartridge operated dry chemical, stored pressure loaded stream and pump tank fire extinguishers. c) Expelling means of all fire extinguishers. SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA manual of style recommends elimination of exceptions. (Log #6) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee RECOMMENDATION: Delete in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no need to remove the pin and reseal every year. The pin can be checked adequately during a visual inspection and the additional expense of performing this maintenance task is not justified. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The pin can become frozen in place although it may appear to be easily removable. Removing the pin annually ensures that the pin can be removed. (Log #113) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MD RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Thorough visual external cylinder examinations require the removal of any protective neck rings, foot rings, or bottom enclosure boot attachments that might hide potential corrosion, damage, or repairs to the pressure vessel. SUBSTANTIATION: CGA has similar visual external examination recommendations for cylinders, which incorporate attachments that can hinder proper inspection. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is extremely difficult to accomplish some of the items and unnecessary to do others. (Log #81) (4-4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Chris Hoiland, Orange County Fire Protection Six-Year Maintenance. Every 6 years, stored pressure fire extinguishers that require a 12-year hydrostatic test shall be emptied and subjected to the applicable maintenance procedures. Storedpressure fire extinguishers shall be emptied and thoroughly examined internally at intervals of not more than six-years, at the time of periodic recharging, and at the time of hydrostatic testing. Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers shall be thoroughly examined internally at the time of hydrostatic testing. The removal of agent from halon agent fire extinguishers shall only be done using a listed halon closed recovery system. When the applicable maintenance procedures are performed during periodic recharging or hydrostatic testing, the 6-year requirement shall begin from that date. Exception: Non rechargeable fire extinguishers shall not be hydrostatically tested but shall be removed from service at a maximum interval of 12 years from the date of manufacture. Non rechargeable halon agent fire extinguishers shall be disposed of in accordance with SUBSTANTIATION: There is no requirement in the standard to empty and thoroughly examine stored pressure fire extinguishers at the time of periodic recharge or hydrostatic test. Additionally, there is no requirement in the standard to internally examine carbon dioxide fire extinguishers at any time interval. The word "when" in the last sentence of implies that there is a choice to either perform the maintenance or not perform the maintenance during periodic recharging or hydrostatic testing. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Only extinguishers that require the 12 year hydrostatic test need a 6 year teardown. Others are internally examined every 5 years in accordance with "Topping up" is permitted by (Log #111) (4-4.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and Associates 4-4.4* Fire extinguishers that pass the applicable 6-year requirement of shall have the maintenance information recorded on a suitable metallic label or equally durable material having a minimum size of 2 in. X 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm X 8.9 cm) or the information shall be electronically maintained in a permanent file. If electronic record keeping is not utilized, the new label shall be affixed to the shell by a heatless process, and any old maintenance labels shall be removed. These labels shall be of the selfdestructive type when removal from a fire extinguisher is attempted. The label or the electronic record shall include the following information: (a) Month and year the maintenance was performed, indicated by a perforation such as is done by a hand punch (b) Name or initials of persons performing the maintenance and name of agency performing the maintenance. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal recognizes that an electronic record keeping method can be utilized to create a maintenance database for the fire extinguisher. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The six year requirement necessitates a label on the extinguisher to provide a positive means to identify extinguishers that have undergone this maintenance. It is easy for authority having jurisdiction to check and is kept right on the extinguisher. In case another servicing company is called to service the extinguisher and may not have access to separate records. (Log #27) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc Fire extinguishers that pass the applicable 6-year requirement of shall have the maintenance information recorded on a suitable metallic label or equally durable material having a minimum size of 2 in. x 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm x 8.9 cm) or recorded electronically in a permanent file. If not electronically recorded and traceable the new label shall be affixed to the shell by a heatless process, and any old maintenance labels shall be removed. These labels shall be of the selfdestructive type when removal from a fire extinguisher is attempted. The label shall include the following information: (a) Month and year the maintenance was performed, indicated by a perforation such as is done by a hand punch. (b) Name or initials of person performing the maintenance and name of agency performing the maintenance. SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic record keeping is common in today s world. Electronic information is put into a database for permanent keeping. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal (Log #111). (Log #76) ( and ): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: and SUBSTANTIATION: requirements are unnecessary since the verification of service collar is now required. Requirements for an inspection tag, verification of service collar, hydrostatic test label, and a separate 6 year maintenance label are ungainly and result in almost completely covering smaller hand portable extinguishers and distracting the operator from the instruction nameplate. Some authorities are requiring verification of service collars, internal tags, 6 year maintenance labels, inspection tags, and separate hydrostatic test labels along with HMS labels on older extinguishers. Any effort to combine or delete some of these labels would lessen confusion and duplication Consistent with errata issued. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Six year maintenance label requirements are needed as the verification of service collar indicates only that the valve has been removed. 131

16 (Log #77) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: At the end of paragraph add: " Verification of service collars shall include month and year the service was performed, indicated by a perforation such as is done with a hand punch, and the name or initials of the person performing the service and the name of the agency." SUBSTANTIATION: Addition will be more consistent with previous labeling requirements and will allow for discontinued use of a redundant self adhesive label. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Redundant information that would be on the maintenance tag. (Log #38) ( Exception No. 3 (New) ): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception: Exception No. 3: New extinguishers requiring the initial charge by distributors (such as pressurized water extinguishers, AFFF, FFFP, or wet chemical) do not require a "Verification of Service" collar. SUBSTANTIATION: Add clarity. Revise recommendation to read as follows: Exception No. 3: New extinguishers requiring an initial charge in the field (such as pressurized water extinguishers, AFFF, FFFP, or wet chemical) shall not be required to have a "Verification of Service" collar installed. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification of the submitted material. NFPA 10 May 2002 ROP Copyright 2000, NFPA (Log #101) ( , A ): Reject SUBMITTER: Alva C. Good, Alva C. Good Company/Rep. Oregon Fire Equipment Distributors (an association) RECOMMENDATION: Revise * to read as follows: * Verification of Service (Maintenance, Hydrotest or Recharging). Each fire extinguisher that has undergone maintenance that includes internal examination or that has been recharged, (see 4-5.5), hydrotest, or recharge (see 4-4, 4-5, and Chapter 5) shall have a "Verification of Service" collar located around the neck of the container of pressurized units, at the outlet fitting of cartridge operated units, and the disassembled portions of wheeled units. The collar shall contain a single circular piece of uninterrupted material forming a hole of a size that will not permit the collar assembly to move over the neck of the container unless the valve is completely removed beyond the area of placement. The collar shall not interfere with operation of the fire extinguisher. The "Verification of Service" collar shall include the month and year the service was performed, indicated by a perforation such as done by a hand punch. Exception No. 1: Fire extinguishers undergoing maintenance or recharging before January 1, 1999 and hydrostatic testing before mm/dd/yy (the date of adoption of this standard s revision). Exception No. 2: Cartridge/cylinder operated fire extinguishers do not require a "Verification of Service" collar. Revise A to read as follows: A "Verification of Service" (Maintenance, Hydrotest or Recharging) Collar. A number of states and provinces have regulations requiring an internal paper marking of an extinguisher, which is used to verify if the extinguisher was depressurized, and if the valve was removed, and if a complete maintenance was performed. The "Verification of Service" collar design also requires that the valve or chemical outlet attachment/discharge hose assembly fitting be removed before the collar can be attached to the extinguisher. The collar can also be used at the chemical discharge port of the cylinder of cartridge operated units, but should be of an internal diameter to prevent sliding from the threaded area at the discharge port to the discharge hose area. The collar provides the authorities having jurisdiction with a more convenient visual proof that the extinguisher was disassembled and that maintenance was performed. All extinguishers are to have either the valve, cartridge or chemical outlet attachment/discharge hose assembly fitting removed for hydrotesting and are to be subsequently reattached 132 and recharged before they are returned to service. To be valid, the date on the "Verification of Service" collar should always be the same or more recent the the date stamped on the cylinder or on the hydrotest label. (Figure A on page of NFPA 10, 1998 provides a guide to the design of a "Verification of Service" collar. This same illustration can be added to this standard.) SUBSTANTIATION: The use of "Verification of Service" collars on portable fire extinguishers has ended the practice of application of a decal indicating periodic internal maintenance of fire extinguisher when the possibility existed of no periodic internal maintenance having been performed. The extension of use of these collars to cartridge operated portable and wheeled can also help end the same practice. When cylinders are removed from service to actually do an internal maintenance and attach a "Verification of Service" collar then maybe the time will be taken to also actually do a hydrostatic test being the valve head and/or the chemical discharge hose have to be removed to install the "Verification of Service" collar. Another substantiation for using these collars to indicate a teardown was done is the visual indication to the authority having jurisdiction. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is impractical and not substantiated. (Log #70) ( ): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "Wet chemical agent shall be discarded and replaced at the hydrostatic test interval." SUBSTANTIATION: This would provide an extra safety factor every five years, where the chemical will be replaced assuring proper agent and proper fill. If any confusion regarding proper recharge agent occurred, it would be corrected at this time. NFPA 17 requires replacement of dry chemical agent at the hydrostatic test interval in Section Add sentence at end of existing. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarity ( ): Accept "...dry chemical and halogenated halon type...". "Exception No. 2: Some Class D and halocarbon fire extinguishers...". SUBSTANTIATION: Some approved halocarbon agents use either nitrogen or argon. (Log #7) (Log #CP21) (4-5.5): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 as follows: Exception: Liquefied gas, halogenated agent, and carbon dioxide..." extinguishers that have been recharged without valve removal do not require a "Verification of Service" collar. SUBSTANTIATION: There might be new extinguishers that are introduced to the market that can be recharged without valve removal. This requirement can now be applied to them. (Log #64) (4-5.5 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Norbert W. Makowka, Nat'l Assn. of Fire Equipment Distributors RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 4-5.5, Exception No. 1, as follows: Exception No. 1: Liquefied gas, halogenated agent, and carbon dioxide extinguishers that have been recharged without valve removal do not require a "Verification of Service" collar except when recharged after a hydrostatic retest. (See A ) SUBSTANTIATION: There is some confusion in the service industry whether or not these extinguishers need a "Verification of

17 Service" collar installed when the extinguisher is recharged after a hydrostatic retest. The extinguisher valve is removed for the hydrostatic retest but must be installed for the extinguisher to be recharged. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A verification of service collar is necessary after the hydrostatic test. The clarification requested is therefore unnecessary. (See and ). (Log #130) (5-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc Hydrostatic Testing of Non Specification DOT cylinders bearing the marking "Meets DOT Requirements" low pressure cylinders used as fire extinguishers shall be performed by persons trained in pressure testing procedures and have safeguards, appropriate servicing manual(s), facilities and suitable testing equipment as stated in 5-4 of this standard. Hydrostatic Testing of DOT Specification low and high pressure cylinders used as fire extinguishers must be performed by a facility which holds a current Retesters Identification Number (R.I.N.,#), issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. The registered agent(s) listed on the retester authorization of the Hydrostatic Testing facility shall meet and be trained in the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) part , 29 Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) Chapter 17, Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1 Methods of Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders, and the requirements stated in 5-4 of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: A) To clarify who and what type of cylinders requirements are necessary. B) Close a liability on this standard. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current text provides the minimum requirement. The proposal contians information applicable in the United States. (Log #54) (5-2): Reject SUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text: " Seamless aluminum cylinders wrapped with carbon reinforced composite then wrapped in fiber glass; charged with compressed air and/or other gases that are manufactured to the Code of Federal Regulations number , having a burst pressure ten times or greater than that of the normal charge, 240 psi or lower, and have an internal coating that complies with ASTM G 31-72, "Standard Practice for Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Materials," shall be permitted to be hydrostatically tested every 15 years. " SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to the specifications will allow the acceptance of seamless aluminum cylinders with carbon reinforced composite wrapped with fiber glass to have a hydrostatic test which would coincide with the service life of the cylinder as recognized by the Code of Federal Regulations number NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No rationale provided to support the 15 year interval. The reference to the Code of Federal Regulations does not provide the technical justification to support the proposal (Table 5-2): Reject SUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: Add to Table 5.2: Type of Extinguisher Homogeneous Liquid Agent Internal Maintenance Interval (Years) Hydrostatic Testing Interval (Years) (Log #55) SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to the specifications will allow the acceptance of seamless aluminum cylinders with carbon reinforced composite wrapped with fiber glass to have a hydrostatic test which would coincide with the service life of the cylinder as recognized by the Code of Federal Regulations number NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal (Log #54). (Log #3) (5-2.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn Matthews, Master Protection Corp. (Firemaste RECOMMENDATION: Revise the exception to paragraph to read as follows: "Cylinders (except those charged with carbon dioxide) complying with Part (e)15 Part (e)(16)(f)(ii), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be permitted to be hydrostatically tested every 10 years." SUBSTANTIATION: Correct chapter to be used in current Title 49 CFR (Log #42) ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence as follows: Stored Pressure Types. All low pressure stored pressure fire extinguishers shall be hydrostatically tested at the factory test pressure as shown on the extinguisher nameplate or cylinder not to exceed three times the normal operating pressure. SUBSTANTIATION: Adds clarity and removes confusing text. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is not necessary to stress the cylinder beyond 3 times normal operating pressure. (Log #5) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Kirk Garanflo, General Fire Extinguisher Corporatio RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "...at a rate of rise not to exceed 300 psi per? (20.68 MPa per? ). SUBSTANTIATION: A rate-of-rise requires two variables, one usually being time in this case. The current text is not a rate but a limit! COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An errata was issued to correct this oversight. Also see Committee Proposal 10- (Log #CP13) which deletes this provision. (Log #35) ( ): Reject RECOMMENDATION: Change "300 psi (20.68 MPa)" to "600 psi (41.5 MPa) per minute." SUBSTANTIATION: Previously stated rate-of-rise resulted in excessively long hydrostatic test times. Proposed rate-of-rise will not adversely affect hydrostatic tests. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP13). (Log #88) ( ): Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical Colleg Add " per minute " at end of sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: The allowable rate of rise in pressure when hydrotesting must be expressed in units of pressure per unit of time. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An errata was issued to correct this oversight. Also see Committee Proposal (Log #CP13) which deletes this provision. 133

18 (Log #CP13) ( ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete SUBSTANTIATION: There are not any safety concerns with running the pressure up quickly and during the last few seconds regulating to the desired pressure. (Log #CP10) ( ): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Delete second sentence: The label shall be affixed to the shell by means of a heatless process, and all old hydrotest labels shall be removed. SUBSTANTIATION: Covered in (Log #131) (5-6.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc Low Pressure Cylinders. Fire extinguisher shells of the low pressure type that pass either a volumetric (water jacket) or modified (proof test) hydrostatic test shall have the information recorded on a suitable metallic label with a minimum size of 2 in. X 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm X 8.9 cm). The label shall be affixed by a heatless process. These labels shall be of the type that selfdestructs when removal from a fire extinguisher cylinder shell is attempted. The following information shall be included on the label: (a) Month and year the test was performed, indicated by a perforation, such as is done by a hand punch (b) Test pressure used (c) Name or initials of person performing the test, and name of agency performing the test. The following information shall also be included on the label dependent on the type of cylinder shell tested and testing method used. (I) DOT Specification fire extinguisher cylinder shell tested by volumetric water jacket method: current retesters Identification number (R.I.N.#) above stated information found in a, b, c. (II) DOT Specification fire extinguisher cylinder shell tested by modified (proof test) method: a letter "S" marked on the label. above stated information found in a, b, c. (III) Non-DOT specification fire extinguisher cylinder shell tested by modified (proof test) method; above stated information found in a, b, c. SUBSTANTIATION: To uniform NFPA and DOT requirements and avoid fires! Revise text to read as follows: Low Pressure Cylinders. Fire extinguisher cylinders of the low pressure type that pass a pressure hydrostatic test shall have the information recorded on a suitable metallic label with a minimum size of 2 in. X 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm X 8.9 cm). The label shall be affixed by a heatless process. These labels shall be of the type that self-destructs when removal from a fire extinguisher cylinder shell is attempted. The following information shall be included on the label: (a) Month and year the test was performed, indicated by a perforation, such as is done by a hand punch (b) Test pressure used (c) Name or initials of person performing the test, and name of agency performing the test. In addition the following information shall also be included for DOT specification cylinders: (a) Cylinders tested by volumetric (water jacket) test method shall be provided with a retesters Identification number (R.I.N.#) on the label. (b) Cylinders tested by modified (proof pressure) test method shall be provided with a letter "S" on the label. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee editorialized the submitted text. Sequence was not used. (Log #CP14) (Chapter 6): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Update Chapter 6 to refernce Title 49, CFR, SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. (Log #89) (6-1): Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical Colleg The current editions of the following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard as mandatory requirements and shall be considered part of the requirements of this standard. The edition indicated for each referenced mandatory document is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documents might also be referenced in this standard for specific informational purposes and, therefore, are also listed in Appendix G. (Delete edition after each standard in list.) SUBSTANTIATION: Referencing the "current editions" of each standard assures that the documents referenced will always be of the latest edition. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee must review the editions that are being referenced. Therefore, dates are necessary. (Log #96) (A-1-2): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Joshua W. Elvove, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs/Rep of Veterans Affairs RECOMMENDATION: Revise the 3rd paragraph by deleting the last sentence as follows: An owner or occupant should recognize fire hazards on his or her property and plan in advance the exact means and equipment with which a fire will be fought. The owner/ occupant needs to ensure that everyone knows how to call the fire department and stress that they do so for every fire, no matter how small. Revise the 5th paragraph by including the underlined text as follows: Portable fire extinguishers are appliances to be used principally by the occupants of a fire-endangered building or area who are familiar with the location and operation of the extinguisher through education or training. Portable fire extinquishers They are primarily of value for immediate use on small fires. They have a limited quantity of extinguishing material and, therefore, need to be used properly so this material is not wasted. SUBSTANTIATION: Though certainly a desired intention, ensuring "everyone" (e.g., children, sight-impaired individuals, or individuals who cannot understand English) knows how to call the fire department is not very practical. If this sentence is deemed necessary, then it should be revised to indicate who specifically the owner/occupant expects to be knowledgeable in calling the fire department. Though available to anyone, fire extinguishers should really only be used by personnel who have been trained to use them. Otherwise, they can do more harm than good. A building owner s responsibility should be to provide training which would also involve familiarizing users with their specific location. This would also then obviate the need for signage beyond what is already required by (e.g., signs that are perpendicular to the wall) which some authorities having jurisdiction require, provided users can demonstrate familiarity with equipment location (and use). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. 1. Leave lined out text. 2. Accept revisions to 5th paragraph. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fire department should be called always. (Log #116) (A-1-4.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. "A (multipurpose dry chemical) fire extinguisher is rated and classified 4-A:20-..." 134

19 SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification. This added wording more closely matches the "following information". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are other types of fire extinguishers other than dry chemical with this rating. (Log #118) (A ): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: In A sixth paragraph add new last sentence to read as follows: Since the 1965 Edition, the text stated, "No Fire Test. Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity". The Class C fire test procedure in ANSI/UL 711 specifies that the discharge, from an electrically energized fire extinguisher, be directed at a grounding plate or target. Due to the fact that recent tests with water based liquid agents, that are conductive can pass this test when discharged in a fine spray or mist, the requirement for the agent to be nonconductive is no longer applicable. SUBSTANTIATION: This additional text is needed to explain why the nonconductive agent requirement has changed after being advocated and excepted for 35 plus years. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). The committee made reference to the special listing tests and feels the tests should ensure the safety of the operator. (Log #16) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: For Halocarbon type change the following descriptions: Capacity (wheeled) lb Horizontal Range of Stream Approximate Time of Discharge 6 to ft 9 to sec UL or ULC Classifications 2B:C 1B:C to 2A:10B:C 10A:80B:C SUBSTANTIATION: The text will update the current range of approved halocarbon extinguishers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4). (Log #65) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text under capacity to include 6 liter and under classifications to include 2-A:10B. SUBSTANTIATION: A 6 liter AFFF extinguisher is available with a 2-A:10B rating and should be included in the table. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP9). (Log #66) (Table A-2-1): Accept SUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Under extinguishing agent column, revise as follows: "Regular Dry Chemical (sodium bicarbonate)". "Purple K Dry Chemical (potassium bicarbonate)". "Super K Dry Chemical (potassium chloride)". "Multipurpose/ABC Dry Chemical (ammonium phosphate)". SUBSTANTIATION: Adds common names used in the industry to chemical names and adds clarity. (Log #67) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle RECOMMENDATION: Under classification: "20 to 301-A should be 20 to 30-A." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP9). (Log #69) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add water mist extinguisher in 1.75 and 2.5 gallon sizes with ratings of 2A:C on each size. SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist extinguishers are available in the marketplace and should be distinguished from other water type extinguishers. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP9). (Log #75) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text under capacity to include 3 liter and under ratings to include K, 2A:C:K, C:K, and 2A:1B:C:K. SUBSTANTIATION: A 3 liter wet chemical extinguisher is available with a Class K listing and should be included in the table. Change of listings would reflect what is available in the marketplace. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP9). (Log #91) (Table A-2-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas, Northeast Wisconsin Technical Colleg RECOMMENDATION: Revise the UL or ULC Classifications to incorporate current ratings. SUBSTANTIATION: This table was last revised July 24, 1987, and many subsequent ratings changes have occurred. Any revisions should also be incorporated into the text of D-4. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP9). (Log #CP9) (Table A-2-1): Accept RECOMMENDATION: Update Table A-2-1 to the latest UL listing data as shown on the following page. SUBSTANTIATION: Updated table to reflect most recent UL listing data. (Log #72) (A-2-1(b)4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "Fire extinguishers not rated for Class C hazards should not be used on fires involving energized electrical equipment." Delete "(e.g., water, antifreeze, soda acid, loaded stream, AFFF, FFFP, wetting agent, foam, and carbon dioxide with metal horns) present a shock hazard if...". SUBSTANTIATION: Statement is simpler and more to the point. Soda acid extinguishers should be removed from service per 1-6.4(a). Delete text in parenthesis in existing text. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification. (Log #117) (A-2-1(b)5): Reject SUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co. RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: A-2-1(b) 5. (A fire extinguisher rated for Class C hazards (e.g. water based liquid agents, water mist, and wet chemical) present a potential shock hazard after discharge if used in the proximity of energized electrical equipment.) Renumber current items 5, 6, 7, and 8. SUBSTANTIATION: U.L. is now testing and rating Class C extinguishers with conductive agents. It is important to include this safety condition regarding the potential shock hazard that may occur after discharge. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal (Log #CP4) on A

20 Table A-2-1 Characteristics of Extinguishers Extinguishing Agent Method of Operation Capacity Horizontal Range of Stream Approximate Time of Discharge Protection Required below 40 F (4 C) 2 1 / 2 gal 30 to 40 ft 1 min Yes 2-A UL or ULC Classifications* Water Stored-pressure or pump Pump 4 gal 30 to 40 ft 2 min Yes 3-A Pump 5 gal 30 to 40 ft 2 to 3 min Yes 4-A Water (wetting agent) Stored-pressure 1 1 / 2 gal 20 ft 30 sec Yes 2-A Carbon dioxide cylinder 25 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 1 1 / 2 min Yes 10-A Carbon dioxide cylinder 45 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 2 min Yes 30-A Carbon dioxide cylinder 60 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 2 1 / 2 min Yes 40-A Loaded stream Stored-pressure or cartridge 2 1 / 2 gal 30 to 40 ft 1 min No 2 to 3-A:1-B Carbon dioxide cylinder 33 gal (wheeled) 50 ft 3 min No 20-A Stored-pressure 6 L 30 to 40 ft 1 min Yes 1-A Stored-pressure water mist 1.8 gal 8 to 12 ft 1 min Yes 2-A:C Stored-pressure water mist 2 1 / 2 gal 8 to 12 ft 1 1 / 2 min Yes 2-A:C AFFF, FFFP Stored-pressure 2 1 / 2 gal 20 to 25 ft 50 sec Yes 3-A:20 to 40-B Nitrogen cylinder 33 gal 30 ft 1 min Yes 20-A:160-B Carbon dioxide ** Self-expelling 2 1 / 2 to 5 lb 3 to 8 ft 8 to 30 sec No 1 to 5-B:C Self-expelling 10 to 15 lb 3 to 8 ft 8 to 30 sec No 2 to 10-B:C Self-expelling 20 lb 3 to 8 ft 10 to 30 sec No 10-B:C Self-expelling 50 to 100 lb 3 to 10 ft 10 to 30 sec No 10 to 20-B:C (wheeled) Dry chemical (sodium bicarbonate) Stored-pressure 1 to 2 1 / 2 lb 5 to 8 ft 8 to 12 sec No 2 to 10-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 2 3 / 4 to 5 lb 5 to 20 ft 8 to 25 sec No 5 to 20-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 6 to 30 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 10 to 160-B:C Stored-pressure 50 lb (wheeled) 20 ft 35 sec No 160-B:C Nitrogen cylinder 75 to 350 lb 15 to 45 ft 20 to 105 sec No 40 to 320-B:C orstored-pressure (wheeled) Dry chemical (potassium Cartridge or storedpressure 2 to 5 lb 5 to 12 ft 8 to 10 sec No 5 to 60-B:C bicarbonate) Cartridge or storedpressure 5 1 / 2 to 10 lb 5 to 20 ft 8 to 20 sec No 10 to 80-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 16 to 30 lb 10 to 20 ft 8 to 25 sec No 40 to 160-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 48 to 50 lb 20 ft 30 to 35 sec No 120 to 160-B:C (wheeled) Nitrogen cylinder or 125 to 315 lb 15 to 45 ft 30 to 80 sec No 80 to 640-B:C stored-pressure (wheeled) Dry chemical (potassium Cartridge or storedpressure 2 to 5 lb 5 to 8 ft 8 to 10 sec No 5 to 10-B:C chloride) Cartridge or storedpressure 5 to 9 lb 8 to 12 ft 10 to 15 sec No 20 to 40-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 9 1 / 2 to 20 lb 10 to 15 ft 15 to 20 sec No 40 to 60-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 19 1 / 2 to 30 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 60 to 80-B:C Cartridge or storedpressure 125 to 200 lb 15 to 45 ft 30 to 40 sec No 160-B:C (wheeled) Dry chemical (ammonium Stored-pressure 1 to 5 lb 5 to 12 ft 8 to 10 sec No 1 to 5-A and 2 to 10- phosphate) B:C Stored-pressure or cartridge 2 1 / 2 to 9 lb 5 to 12 ft 8 to 15 sec No 1 to 4-A and 10 to 40- B:C Stored-pressure or cartridge 9 to 17 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 2 to 20-A and 10 to 80-B:C Stored-pressure or cartridge 17 to 30 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 3 to 20-A and 30 to 120-B:C Stored-pressure or cartridge 45 to 50 lb (wheeled) 20 ft 25 to 35 sec No 20 to 30-A and 80 to 160-B:C Nitrogen cylinder or stored-pressure 110 to 315 lb (wheeled) 15 to 45 ft 30 to 60 sec No 20 to 40-A and 60 to 320-B:C 136