10-rop-2002-standard for portable fire extinguishers · gary a. nadolny, ansul fire...

117

Report of the Committee on

Portable Fire Extinguishers

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

Richard J. Fairclough, SecretaryBrooks Equipment Company, Inc., NC [M]

Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corporation, AL [M] Rep. Compressed Gas AssociationErnest E. Horvath, Reliable Fire Equipment, IL [IM] Rep. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors Inc.Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I]Emil W. Misichko, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]Gary A. Nadolny, Ansul Fire Protection/Tyco, WI [M] Rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ AssociationJ. R. Nerat, Badger Fire Protection/Williams Holdings, MI [M] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection SectionRichard 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 primaryresponsibility for documents on the installation, maintenance anduse of portable fire extinguishers and equipment. Does not applyto permanently installed fire extinguishing systems even thoughportions of those systems are portable, such as hose and nozzleswhich may be attached to a fixed supply of extinguishing agent.

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

The Report of the Technical Committee on Portable FireExtinguishers is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committeeproposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 10, Standard forPortable Extinguishers , 1998 edition. NFPA 10-1998 is publishedin Volume 1 of the 2001 National Fire Codes and in separatepamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of theTechnical Committee on Portable Fire Extinguishers, whichconsists of 13 voting members and is reporting in 2 Segments.

Segment No. 1 consists of Proposal 10-45 (Log #95).

On Segment No. 1 Proposal 10-45, 10 voted affirmatively and 3negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Kasiski, Oldham,and Wahle).

Mr. Kasiski voted negatively stating: “It is our opinion the information presented to the TechnicalCommittee is sufficient to be proactive in developing arequirement for the design limitations of a discharge device usedwith a wet chemical portable fire extinguisher having a Class Krating. This requirement will limit the probability the fire

extinguisher can be easily misapplied, such that fire hazard canextend beyond the original hazard to the surrounding area andthe 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 fireextinguishers equipped with extended wand type dischargedevices. It would be prudent of the committee to further evaluatethis concern before acting to permit their continued use.”

Mr. Wahle voted negatively stating: “I believe that the safety concerns raised are sufficient to renderuse of the wand-type nozzle design for wet chemicalextinguishers questionable. Although significant accident datahas not been presented, this may be due the newness of thedesign and the difficulty of obtaining reliable accidentinformation. I believe that the potential for serious injuryoutweighs the benefits of using a wand.”

Mr. Reiter voted affirmative with the following comment: “This proposal was rejected by the Committee because they feltthat there is not sufficient history to support thisrecommendation and the safety concerns raised were not theconsensus of the group. A committee member, who has a strong influence, clearlystated and indicted that there were no documented cases ofinjury or death from use of Class K extinguishers with extendedwands. This same individual, when questioned about an incidentinvolving a Class K extinguishers with an extended wand thatresulted in burns and injury to the user, suddenly then knewabout the incident and talked in detail. In addition, there is no central comprehensive database tocollect and provide information regarding such potentiallysensitive product liability issues. We, the committee and NFPA, should not ignore a knownsafety problem and wait for a body count to address thisrecognized hazard. After casting my initial negative ballot for this segment, it is myunderstanding that there have been definitive agreementsbetween the fire extinguishers’ manufactures to resolve this issue.The fire extinguisher manufactures have agreed to remove wandsfrom the Class K fire extinguishers. In light of these recentagreements, and to keep this standard moving forward, I amchanging my vote to affirmative on Segment 1.”

Segment No. 2 consists of the balance of the Propsoals (10-1through 10-44 and 10-46 through 10-150).

On Segment No. 2 Proposal 10-1 through 10-44 and 10-46through 10-15, 10 voted affirmatively and 3 negatively aftercirculation of negative ballots (Kasiski, Oldham, and Wahle).

Mr. Kasiski voted negatively stating: “It is our opinion the action taken by the Technical Committeein Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4) is insufficient to address theelectrical conductivity of extinguishing agents used with a Class Crating. Two issues exist with Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4).First, the revised text for 1-4.2(e) does not limit a wet chemicalextinguisher from a Class C rating. It only limits a wet chemicalfire extinguisher with a Class K rating not to be labeled with aClass C rating. Secondly, while it was the intent of the Committeenot to list wet chemical fire extinguishers with a Class C rating,from our review of all of the proposals, no requirement torestrict this rating could be identified. In Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4), Section 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 is being moved to the Annex,which are recommendations, not requirements for portable fireextinguishers. In addition, currently no listing requirements exist whichevaluate the pooling effects of an extinguishing agent, inparticular liquids, being discharged in the path of attack ontoany live electrical fire hazard. Therefore, the proposed wording“Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it isbeing discharged” is not a completely accurate statement. Thereis currently only one test being used for the current Class Clisting requirement, not multiple tests. The TechnicalCommittee should also recognize the current Class C listingrequirement is based upon a minimum 10 in. air gap beingmaintained between the discharge nozzle and the electricaltarget. The listing test also does not evaluate a fault condition inwhich the air gap may be reduced to less then 10 in. and theresult of such a condition.”

NFPA 10— May 2002 ROP — Copyright 2000, NFPA

118

Mr. Oldham voted negatively stating: “Many of the proposed changes are adequately substantiatedand I concur with them. However, the issues involving whatconstitutes Class C rating and how the electrical conductivity ofthe extinguishing agent is measured are of most importance thathave not been thoroughly considered. If a task group has been assigned the charge of reviewing theClass C issues, we should wait on our vote until their review isformalized and we have had the opportunity to study theirfindings.”

Mr. Wahle voted negatively stating: “I disagree with the committee action with respect to thedefinitions of Class C Rating and Class C Fires. I prefer thesedefinitions to remain as presently stated. The proposed changein definitions will confuse most people, who have beenconditioned by NFPA 10 to associate a Class C rating with theuse of a nonconductive agent. Few people besides extinguishermanufacturers and test laboratory personnel are familiar enoughwith the UL 711 conductivity test to realize that the latter is a testof the conductivity of the agent stream as discharged from theextinguisher, rather than a test of the conductivity of the agentitself. The committee recognized this by agreeing that Class Kextinguishers should not be rated Class C. The same reasoningcan be applied to water mist type fire extinguishers. I also believe that paragraph 2.2 should continue to state thetype of extinguishers to be selected for each type of hazard,rather than just referring to the UL Listing and moving thisimportant guidance to the appendix.”

Mr. Goodnight voted affirmative with the following comments: “The compromise proposed at the Scottsdale meeting is a goodbeginning, but there are still a number of items that must becompleted for a workable solution: 1. With regard to the proposal to disallow a Class C rating onwet chemical extinguishers, we left one major hole that must beclosed; that is, wet chemical extinguishers must be tested toClass C requirements even though they will not be allowed tohave a Class C rating! I believe we must mandate that they are tobe tested for and meet the requirements of a Class C rating.Certainly, these extinguishers will be used on electricallypowered appliances, and in order to assure the extinguisheroperator’s safety we must make sure they can pass the ANSI/ULClass C test requirements. Please note that at the present time,all wet chemical extinguishers being marketed in the USA andCanada have been tested for Class C and have “passed”, eventhough some manufacturers have chosen not to include theClass C rating on their products. Unless we add these newrequirements, any new submittals will not be tested for Class C,and the possibility will exist for a wet chemical extinguisher to beapproved that is not safe to use on electrically poweredappliances. 2. A second problem that must be addressed is the educationissue. We must find a way to inform both end users and AHJsthat wet chemical extinguishers are safe to use on electricalappliances, even though they do not have a Class C rating! The Class K extinguisher (wet chemical) is still a new conceptand is not fully understood; plus we are now proposing a majordeparture from the norm in marking (i.e., the lack of a Class Crating on extinguishers which have met the Class C test criteria).Unless wet explain what we have done in the text of the standardand on the product we will cause mass confusion. 3. With regard to Proposal 10-51 (Log #CP19), I believe weneed to reconsider. A warning statement on the potential misuseof an extinguisher is not a good precedent. Do we really want toadd such a warning statement to any fire extinguisher?Remember there are no incidents of misuse as depicted in theBadger video – there is no data to support the need for awarning or caution statement. Once we begin adding warning statements on the potentialmisuse of a wet chemical extinguisher, where will we draw theline? I’m concerned that we will next want to add a similarstatement to dry chemical extinguishers because they can splashliquid fuels if misused. A similar note might be justified on anytype of extinguisher. Is that what we want to see? I don’t think so. The addition of the warning statement will only distract theextinguisher operator from the proper operating instructionsthat are already on the extinguisher nameplate. If the operatinginstructions are followed, there is very little chance of misuse ofthe product. Further, the addition of a warning statement willnot lessen the liability of any manufacturer. That is, if there isany injury for any reason, a warning or caution statement will notstop a lawsuit.

4. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding thedefinitions shown in Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2). I do notunderstand why the committee proposal continues to show“secondary” definitions. The task group’s efforts were to identifythe correct definition or to modify the existing ones to meet ourneeds, and they did so. How are we to now separate their workand what we agreed to from the “other” definitions? Also, I’mconcerned and confused regarding other log numbers withdefinitions that were approved by the committee, but are inconflict with some of the definitions in Committee Proposal 10-3(Log #CP2) – which are to take precedent and which will bepublished? 5. I’m confident we can continue our discussions and resolvethe issues outlined in my comments. That is the reason I amvoting “affirmative”.”

Mr. Misichko voted affirmative with the following comments: “Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2): The recommendation noted is toadopt the preferred definitions as shown. However, at the NFPA10 Technical Committee meeting, we revised wording on somesecondary definitions for use in NFPA 10 (i.e., ExtinguisherInspection and Wet Chemical). Also, revisions were not made tothe Class C Fires (preferred) definition as per the TC’ssuggestions as follows: Fires that involve energized electricalequipment where the electrical nonconductivity of theextinguishing media is of importance. (When electricalequipment is de-energized, fire extinguishers rated for Class A orB fires can be are used safely. In addition, based upon Proposal10-15 (Log #CP4), it is advisable that the Class C definition andreferences correlate, and therefore, further discussion isnecessary. Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4): The Class C Rating referencecorrectly includes “Special tests for nonconductivity ofextinguishing media is important as it is being discharged,”which correlates to the UL 711 test criteria. However, withrespect to item (e), there is concern on not permitting a Class Krated extinguisher to be listed and labeled with a Class C rating.UL standards are performance based standards, and fireextinguishers that comply with specified rating requirements maybe UL listed and labeled as such. Since we are not aware of anydocumented field reports on Class K rated extinguishers with aClass C rating, it does not seem appropriate to prohibit themarking of an achieved rating. Class K rated extinguishers areintended for use in locations where electrical cooking appliancesexist, and therefore it would be desirable to have a Class K:Crated extinguisher. Further committee discussion would beappropriate. Proposal 10-51 (Log #CP19): Further committee discussion isadvisable on the need for a warning label not to insert the nozzleof a Class K rated extinguisher into combustible media. Theoperating instructions on the extinguisher label clearly indicatethe method of extinguisher operation and the distance theoperator shall be from the fire. Since we are not aware of anydocumented field reports on this type of occurrence, it may notbe appropriate to require such a warning marking. If a warningmarking were to be required for a Class K extinguisher, such awarning could very well be justified for all types ofextinguishers.”

Mr. Reiter voted affirmative with the following comments: “Although the proposed revised standard has a number ofpositive changes, the Class C issues outweigh them. My majorconcern is that in the body of the standard, all reference to andrequirements for non-conductive agents to be used inextinguishers listed for Class C have been eliminated. Thesechanges are inappropriate, in violation of federal law, andcompromises the integrity and public trust in this standard, theNFPA and UL. Furthermore, a subcommittee has recently been convened toreview the Class C issues. It is premature for us to vote on suchradical changes with respect to Class C issues, which have majorand far-reaching consequences, until the subcommittee hasreviewed and published their findings. As in Segment 1 above, I am changing my negative vote toaffirmative on Segment 2. This change is due to the recentagreements between the fire extinguishers’ manufacturers toresolve this issue. Part of this Class C issue has been resolvedwith the fire extinguisher manufacturers volunteering to removethe Class C rating from the highly conductive Class K fireextinguishers. I am trusting the standards making process andwish to proceed in good faith with the hopes that the balance ofthe Class C issues will be resolved.”

Mr. Unger voted affirmative with the following comments:


119

“Proposal 10-3 (Log #CP2): The definitions recommended foradoption are confusing. The indication is to adopt the preferreddefinitions as shown. However, we revised wording on somesecondary definitions for use in NFPA 10, such as ExtinguisherInspection, Extinguisher Service Pressure and the preferreddefinition of Dry Chemical. Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4): The Class C Rating referencecorresponds to the procedure currently used in UL 711, and theproposed Binantional Standard UL 711/CAN/ULC-S508. As therequirements in these documents stand, we have a concern innot permitting a Class K rated extinguisher to be listed andlabeled with a Class C rating. The certification standards need tobe performance based and fire extinguishers that comply withthe specified rating requirements, regardless of the type of rating,must be labeled as achieving this rating. Unless there aredocumented field reports of problems associated with theparticular rating for a particular type of fire extinguisher, it doesnot seem appropriate to prohibit the marking of an achievedrating.

Proposal 10-51 (Log #CP19): It is not appropriate to havewarning labels on an extinguisher, unless specifically required byauthority having jurisdiction legislation. The operatinginstructions on the extinguisher label must clearly indicate themethod of extinguisher operation and the distance the operatorshall be from the fire. Additional warning statements will mostlikely serve to delay use of the extinguisher in a fire situation byconfusing the operator. If a warning marking were to berequired for a Class K extinguisher, the proliferation of cautionsand warnings for all types of extinguishers could very well bejustified and recommended to the NFPA 10 technicalcommittee.”


120

(Log #CP1)10- 1 - (Entire Document): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Restructure entire document to complywith 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 themandatory portions of the document. 3. Chapter 3 to contain only definitions. 4. All mandatory sections of the document must be evaluated forusability, adoptability, and enforceability language. Generatenecessary committee proposals. 5. All units of measure in the document are converted to SI unitswith inch/pound units in parentheses. 6. Appendices restructured and renamed as "Annexes."SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial restructuring, to conform with the2000 edition of the NFPA Manual of Style.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #112)10- 2 - (1-1): RejectSUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MDRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "The provisions of this standard apply to the selection,installation, inspection, maintenance, safe use and testing ofportable extinguishing equipment. The requirements given hereinare minimum. Portable fire extinguishers are intended as a firstline of defense to cope with fires of limited size. They are neededeven 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 permanentlyinstalled systems for fire extinguishment, even where portions ofsuch systems are portable (such as hose and nozzles attached to afixed supply of extinguishing agent)."SUBSTANTIATION: The words "safe use" must be inserted tokeep the standard and Committee focused. The Committee haslost objectivity and the standard has become a marketing tool.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The safe use is not covered in thebody of the standard and is only covered in the appendix.Therefore the committee felt it is not appropriate to mention thisin the scope.

___________________

(Log #CP2)10- 3 - (1-3 Definitions (GOT)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Adopt the preferred definitions from theNFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: ANSI (preferred) 1 American National Standards Institute. ANSI (secondary) The American National Standards Institute, which is the officialstandards making/setting organization of the United States. Class C. Fires (preferred) 1 Fires that involve energized electrical equipment where theelectrical non conductivity of the extinguishing media is ofimportance. (When electrical equipment is de-energized, fireextinguishers 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 jurisdictionover all cylinders and cartridges containing 40 psi (276 kPa) ormore internal pressure. Dry Chemical (preferred) 17 A mixture of finely divided solid particles, usually sodiumbicarbonate-, potassium bicarbonate-, or ammonium phosphate-based with added particulate material supplemented by specialtreatment to provide resistance to packing, and moistureabsorption (caking), and to promote proper flow characteristics. Dry Chemical (secondary)Various mixtures of finely divided solid particles additionallysupplemented with special treatments to provide resistance topacking and moisture absorption (caking), and to promote properflow characteristics. These agents are designed for extinguishmentof Class A and Class B fires. They are nonconductors and areapproved for use on energized electrical Class C fires. Inspection (preferred) 820

A visual examination of a system or portion thereof to verify that itappears to be in operating condition and is free of physicaldamage. Extinguisher Inspection (secondary) A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is available and is inoperating condition. It is intended to give reasonable assurancethat the fire extinguisher is fully charged. This is done by verifyingthat it is in its designated place, that it has not been actuated ortampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage orcondition 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 chargedwith gas; the nominal design pressure for which the equipment hasbeen constructed. Extinguisher Service Pressure (secondary) The normal operating pressure as indicated on the nameplate orcylinder of a fire extinguisher. Wet Chemical (preferred) 17A Normally a solution of water and potassium carbonate-basedchemical, potassium acetate-based chemical, potassium citrate-based chemical, or a combination thereof that forms anextinguishing agent. Wet Chemical (secondary) Wet chemicals include, but are not limited to, solutions of waterand potassium acetate, potassium carbonate, potassium citrate, orany combinations thereof.SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of preferred definitions will assistthe user by providing consistent meaning of defined termsthroughout the National Fire Codes.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #52)10- 4 - (1-3 Class C Fires): RejectSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Class C Fires. Fires that involve energized electrical equipmentwhere the electrical nonconductivity of the extinguishing media asit is being discharged is of importance. (When electrical...)".SUBSTANTIATION: Class C fire test in ANSI/UL 711 has alwaystested only the nonconductivity of extinguishing media as they arebeing discharged. All dry chemical agents and halons are"conductors" of electricity in the absolute sense.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4).

___________________

(Log #CP3)10- 5 - (1-3 Class C Fires): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Class C Fires. Fires that involve energized electrical equipment.SUBSTANTIATION: Provided a simplified definition defining theterm.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #98)10- 6 - (1-3 Class K Fires): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./RepInsuranceRECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Class K Fires. Fires in commercial kitchen/restaurant cookingappliances that involve combustible cooking media (vegetable oranimal oils, and fats and solid combustible fuels) .SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: The recent addition of the definition for "Class K Fires" in thecurrent paragraph 1-3 Definitions, NFPA 10, 1998 edition, needsclarification. A fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating may beused on industrial food processing appliances in excess of the firetest rating. The fire test in UL 711 of the Performance Standardsuses a specific piece of test equipment that is representative ofcommercial kitchen/restaurant cooking appliances. Secondly, thedefinition does not allow usage of a fire extinguisher with a Class"K" rating on solid combustible fuels by definition without aseparate Class "A" rating. Resolution:


121

The editorial text of "commercial kitchen/restaurant" clarifies thedefinition to state the intended usage and application of a fireextinguisher with a Class "K" rating that has been listed. Theinclusion of "solid combustible fuels" is consistent with the type ofcooking appliance also to be expected in a commercial/restaurantcooking kitchen. It is also consistent with the application as statedin Section 11-7, Fire-Extinguishing Equipment for Solid FuelCooking, paragraph 11-7.5 of NFPA 96, Standard for VentilationControl and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations,1998 edition.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee decided to maintainthe definition to apply to the device rather than eliminating certainapplications. The Committee felt solid combustible fuels areaddressed in Class A Fires.

___________________

(Log #32)10- 7 - (1-3 Dry Chemical): RejectSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence of definition for "DryChemical" to read: "They are nonconductors and are usually approved for use onenergized electrical Class C fires."SUBSTANTIATION: Dry chemical agents are conductors ofelectricity in the absolute sense. The ANSI/UL-299 Standardincludes a test to determine their dielectric breakdown voltage.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee felt that the currentdefinition is appropriate as the UL 711 Standard provides the ClassC listing criteria.

___________________

(Log #CP11)10- 8 - (1-3 Electronic Monitoring): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read: Electronic Monitoring.* A method of electronic communication(data transmission) between an in-place fire extinguisher and anelectronic monitoring device/system. *Electronic monitoring can be accomplished utilizing low-voltagewiring or a wireless communication method, and can conveyinformation about an in-place fire extinguisher that includes:status, pressure level, presence, condition, and if there is anobstruction to the extinguisher. Electronic monitoring can satisfy many of the monthly inspectionrequirements currently within the standard, can monitor theextinguisher at more frequent intervals if desired or when morefrequent inspections are required, and can create an electronicallymaintained record of the fire extinguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee added this definitionbecause this new technology was added to the document.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #102)10- 9 - (1-3 Inspection): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher is availableand will operate. It is intended to give reasonable assurance thatthe fire extinguisher is fully charged and operable. This is done byverifying that it is in its designated place, and that it has not beenactuated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious or physicaldamage or condition to prevent its operation .SUBSTANTIATION: Currently the standard recognizes thatminimal knowledge is necessary to perform a monthly "quickcheck" or inspection. Most of the current checklist found in 4-3.2of the standard, can be accomplished utilizing continuouselectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. Other items aremore appropriately accomplished during yearly maintenanceprocedures for the fire extinguisher. (Also see proposed changesmade to 4-3.2 and other changes to 1-3). Yearly maintenance isperformed by "a trained person who has undergone theinstructions necessary to reliably perform maintenance and has themanufacturer’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 manualmonthly inspection. Thus, the proposal will allow inspections of fire extinguishers tobe accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for theelectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure itsoperation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Comittee felt that physicaldamage should be checked during inspection.

___________________

(Log #CP16)10- 10 - (1-3 Loaded Stream Charge, Wet Chemical and A-1-3(New) ): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Add appendix material for the definitionsof Loaded Stream Charge* and Wet Chemical* to read as follows: A-1-3 Loaded Stream Charge.* While loaded stream and wetchemical agent charges can be comprised of similar materials theirformulation could dictate different maintenance procedures. A-1-3 Wet Chemical.* While loaded stream and wet chemicalagent charges can be comprised of similar materials theirformulation could dictate different maintenance procedures.SUBSTANTIATION: Added explanatory information regardingsimilar extinguishing agent formulations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #103)10- 11 - (1-3 Maintenance): AcceptSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Maintenance. A thorough examination of the fire extinguisher. Itis intended to give maximum assurance that a fire extinguisher willoperate effectively and safely. It includes a thorough examinationfor physical damage or condition to prevent its operation and anynecessary repair or replacement. It will normally reveal ifhydrostatic testing or internal maintenance is required.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently foundin the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria foryearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or other conditions that wouldprevent the operation of the fire extinguisher are better able to beassessed by "a trained person who has undergone the instructionsnecessary to reliably perform maintenance and has themanufacturer’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 fireextinguisher is available and will operate" which then can beaccomplished utilizing the technology of continuous, electronicmonitoring of the fire extinguisher or by manual, monthlyinspection. Thus, the proposal will allow inspections of fire extinguishers tobe accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for theelectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure itsoperation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #129)

10- 12 - (1-3 Modified Hydrostatic Retest (Proof Pressure Test),Non Specification Cylinder, ReTester Identification Number(RIN#), Specification Cylinder, Volumetric Expansion HydrostaticRetest (Water jacket Test)): RejectSUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions to read as follows: Modified Hydrostatic Retest (Proof Pressure Test). For thepurpose of this standard a low pressure hydrostatic test without awater jacket and without determining total and permanentexpansion on a fire extinguisher cylinder either Non Specificationor DOT Specification, following the requirements of 49 Code ofFederal Regulations (49 CFR) and Compressed Gas Association(CGA) pamphlet C-1, Methods of Hydrostatic Testing ofCompressed Gas Cylinders. Non Specification Cylinder. For the purpose of this standard, aLow Pressure cylinder as defined in this standard that contains themarking "meets DOT Requirements" that is manufactured inaccordance with the requirements of 49 Code of FederalRegulations (49 CFR) part 173.306 or Occupational Safety and


122

Health Administration Regulations of the Department of Labor 29Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) ReTester Identification Number (RIN #). A number issued bythe Department of Transportation (DOT) to a retest facility thatinspects, Hydro tests and requalify’ Specification cylinders bearinga DOT exemption number as required in 49CFR 173.34. Specification Cylinder. For the purpose of this standard, a low orhigh pressure cylinder as defined in this standard that havemarkings prescribed by the DOT under which the cylinder wasmade in conformance to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR)(Examples: DOT 3AL, 3AA, DOT 4B, 4BA) Volumetric Expansion Hydrostatic Retest (Water jacket Test). Awater jacket test for high or low pressure DOT Specificationcylinders determining total and permanent expansion, followingthe requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) andCompressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1, Methods ofHydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders. SUBSTANTIATION: Many fire equipment companies I feel donot know or are confused about hydrotesting. It is easy to see onthe DOT website by the fires and penlites that NFPA 10 and 49CFR need to be uniform in their terms and standards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Terms not used in body of standard.

___________________

(Log #73)10- 13 - (1-3 Water Mist Extinguishers (New) ): AcceptSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition for Water MistExtinguishers to read as follows: Water Mist Extinguishers. A water type portable fire extinguishercontaining distilled water and employing a nozzle that dischargesthe agent in a fine spray.SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist extinguishers have been availablein the marketplace for several years to meet special hazardrequirements. Adding a new definition would recognize theiravailability.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #84)10- 14 - (1-3 Wetting Agent): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeRECOMMENDATION: Add text of a definition for "WettingAgent" as follows: A surface-active material added to water to materially reduce thesurface tension of the water and thus increase penetrating andspreading characteristics.SUBSTANTIATION: The standard refers to wetting agents andwetting agent extinguishers, but does not provide a definition. Theproposed definition is taken from Section D-4.1.5.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #CP4)10- 15 - (1-4.1 and 1-4.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Move 1-4.1 and 1-4.2 to the Annex. And revise Item C as follows: "Class C Rating. No fire test.Special tests for nonconductivity of extinguishing media as it isbeing 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 nonconductivityof extinguishing media as it is being discharged. Revise Item e to read as follows: (e) Wet chemical extinguishers having a Class K rating shouldnot be listed and labeled with a Class C rating. Revise the 5th paragraph of A-1-4.2 to read as follows: For fire extinguishers classified for use on Class C fires, nonumber is uses, since Class C fires are essentially either Class A orClass B fires involving energized electrical wiring and equipment.Other than when being discharged from an extinguisher, waterbased agents are conductive and agent pooling after dischargemight present additional hazard concerns. The size of the differentsuitable fire extinguishers installed should be commensurate withthe size and extent of the Class A or Class B components, or both,of the electrical hazard or containing equipment being protected.

SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraphs 1-4.1 and 1-4.2 do not containany requirements and the information was therefore moved to theannex.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #99)

10- 16 - (1-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./RepInsuranceRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: (c) Class K Rating. Special test s on representative commercialkitchen/restaurant cooking appliances using combustible cookingmedia (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 fireextinguisher with a Class "K" rating may be used on industrial foodprocessing appliances in excess of the fire test rating. The fire testin UL 711 of the Performance Standards uses a specific piece of testequipment that is representative of commercial kitchen/restaurantcooking appliances. Secondly, the definition does not allow usageof a fire extinguisher with a Class "K" rating on solid combustiblefuels by definition without a separate Class "A" rating. Resolution: The editorial text of "commercial kitchen/restaurant" clarifies thedefinition to state the intended usage and application of a fireextinguisher with a Class "K" rating that has been listed. Theinclusion of "solid combustible fuels" is consistent with the type ofcooking appliance also to be expected in a commercial/restaurantcooking kitchen. It is also consistent with the application as statedin Section 11-7, Fire-Extinguishing Equipment for Solid FuelCooking, paragraph 11-7.5 of NFPA 96, Standard for VentilationControl and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations,1998 edition.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-6 (Log #98).

___________________(Log #100)

10- 17 - (1-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Robert Kasiski, Factory Mutual Research Corp./RepInsuranceRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: (c) Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be a nonconductorof electricity. (For wet chemical agents see 1-4.2.1) 1-4.2.1 Wet chemical agents shall be tested in accordance withASTM D1125-95, Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivityand Resistivity of Water. Fire extinguishers containing wetchemical which have a conductivity higher than one microsiemenshall not be rated Class C. WARNING: Wet chemical agents are strong conductors ofelectricity. Turn off the power to the electrical appliances beforeusing a wet chemical Class K rated fire extinguisher on them. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem: With the addition of wet chemical fire extinguishing agents havinga Class C rating the current paragraph 1-4.2(c), NFPA 10, 1998edition, needs clarification of the existing thirty five year old, ClassC rating for the agent to be nonconductive. There is no specifictest in the Performance Standards cited in paragraph 1-4.3 of NFPA10, 1998 edition which addresses this issue. Resolution: The addition of ASTM D1125-95, Standard TestMethods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water, astandardized test method, and a threshold value of 1 microsiemen,will clarify the requirement for the extinguishing agent to benonconductive, as required in paragraph 1-4.2(c) of the NFPA 10,1998 edition. This will correct a problem that was overlookedduring a regular revision cycle by providing consistency for testingof the wet chemical extinguishing agent, with the otherextinguishing agents. The performance requirement is equivalentto Section 50.4, Dielectric Strength Test, in ANSI/UL 299 as citedin paragraph 1-4.3 of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will fulfill a void inthe Performance Standards for wet chemical as specified inparagraph 1-4.3 of NFPA 10, 1998 edition. It will also return to thepublic a benefit that would rectify a continuing dangerous lifesafety situation from a recognized hazard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee was not able toreach agreement on appropriate test criteria for the extinguishingagent.

___________________


123

(Log #85)10- 18 - (1-4.2(a)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeRECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows: Remove "and excelsior"SUBSTANTIATION: The revision to UL 711 that is to be adoptedas part of a harmonized standard has deleted the excelsior fire.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This material has been moved to theAnnex by Committe Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4).

___________________(Log #53)

10- 19 - (1-4.2(c)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Class C Rating. No fire test. Special tests for nonconductivity ofextinguishing media as it is being discharged. Agent must be anonconductor of electricity."SUBSTANTIATION: More accurately reflects test criteria ofANSI/UL 711. Also, conductive agents are capable of obtaining aClass C rating. (Dry chemical agents and halons are conductors.)COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4).

___________________(Log #119)

10- 20 - (1-4.2(c)): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 1-4.2(c) No fire test. (The no test fire procedure only evaluatesthe conductivity of an agent when being discharged in a spraypattern. The residue from water based liquid agents may be aconductor of electricity after discharge.)SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification. Previous editions for over 30years stated "Agent must be a nonconductor of electricity". U.L.Lists, according to UL 711, Conductive Liquid Agents whendischarged in a fine Spray Pattern. It is important that this isincluded.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-17 (Log #100).

___________________(Log #15)

10- 21 - (1-4.3 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Add " 6. Halocarbon Type ANSI/UL2129. "SUBSTANTIATION: The statement allows inclusion of relevantnew guidelines.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise to read: "6. Halocarbon Type UL 2129."COMMITTEE STATEMENT: UL 2129 is not currently ANSIapproved. It is anticipated that it will become ANSI approved andthe ANSI designation will be added editorially.

___________________(Log #86)

10- 22 - (1-5.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Change the reference from NFPA 231 to NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 231 has been incorporated into NFPA13.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #71)

10- 23 - (1-6.4(g)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add: "Carbon dioxide extinguishers withmetal horns."SUBSTANTIATION: These extinguishers, if still in service, arepast their useful life. Calling for removal of these units will avoidconfusion and necessary statements in the standard that refer tousing carbon dioxide extinguishers on Class C fires except ifequipped with a metal horn.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #51)10- 24 - (1-6.4(g) (New) ): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add: (g) Solid charge type AFFF extinguishers (paper cartridge)SUBSTANTIATION: Replacement cartridges (dry pellets of AFFFchemical) have not been manufactured in over 10 years and haveexceeded their shelf life. See paragraph 4-5.2.3.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #CP17)

10- 25 - (1-6.5,1-6.6 and 1-6.11): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-6.5, 1-6.6 and 1-6.11 to read asfollows: 1-6.5 Revised paragraph: Cabinets housing fire extinguishers shall not be locked, exceptwhere fire extinguishers are subject to malicious use and cabinetsinclude a means of emergency access. 1-6.6* Revised paragraph: Fire extinguishers shall not be obstructed or obscured from view.In large rooms, and in certain locations where visual obstructionscannot be completely avoided, means shall be provided to indicatethe extinguisher location. 1-6.11 Revised paragraph: Extinguishers operating instructions shall be located on the frontof the extinguisher and be clearly visible. Hazardous materialsidentification systems (HMIS) labels, six-year maintenance labels,hydrostatic test labels, or other labels shall not be located orplaced on the front of the extinguisher. These restrictions shall notapply to original manufacturer’s labels, labels that specificallyrelate to the extinguisher’s operation or fire classification, orinventory control labels specific to that extinguisher.SUBSTANTIATION: The Manual of Style recommendselimination of exceptions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #2)

10- 26 - (1-6.6): RejectSUBMITTER: Andy H. Pfeiffer, Newman Technology Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "No obstructions shall be located within 32 in. of any portable fireextinguisher."SUBSTANTIATION: Needs to be clearly defined, past experienceand observations, extinguishers - means of egress are "technically"blocked - but can be argued, what one considers accessible,another may not.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is more subjective and isdefficult to quantify the appropriate distance for all applications.Therefore it should be left up to the AHJ.

___________________(Log #93)

10- 27 - (1-6.7): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers typesshall be securely installed on the hanger or in the bracket suppliedby the extinguisher manufacturer or placed in cabinets or wallrecesses. The hanger bracket shall be securely and properlyanchored to the mounting surface in accordance with themanufacturer’s instructions. Portable fire extinguishers with a grossweight of 12 pounds or less shall be installed in strap type bracketsunless they are placed in cabinets or wall recesses. Wheeled -typefire extinguishers shall be located in a designated location.SUBSTANTIATION: Smaller fire extinguishers are easilydislodged from wall hangers if "bumped" and can result in anunnecessary hazard to people. A strap type bracket will prevent theextinguisher from falling to the floor if bumped or dislodged.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Modify the first and the last sentence of 1-6.7 as proposed. Revise text as follows: Portable fire extinguishers other than wheeled extinguishers shallbe securely installed on the hanger or in the bracket supplied bythe extinguisher manufacturer or placed in cabinets or wallrecesses. Wheeled fire extinguishers shall be located in adesignated location.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification

___________________


124

(Log #CP6)10- 28 - (1-6.8): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Modify 1-6.8 to read: "...manufacturer’s strap type brackets."SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #50)10- 29 - (1-6.14, Exception No. 4 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Water-type (e.g., water, AFFF, FFFP) and wet chemical fireextinguishers...". Add Exception No. 4 : "Some wet chemical extinguishers arecapable of extended exposure to temperatures less than +40°F.Consult manufacturers for recommendations."SUBSTANTIATION: New information regarding wet chemicalextinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. 1. 1-6.14 Replace existing 1-6.14 and exceptions with thefollowing: "Fire extinguishers shall not be exposed to temperaturesoutside of the listed temperture range shown on the fireextinguisher label." 2. Add a new 1-6.15 using the wording of Exception No. 2 of 1-6.14. 3. Renumber accordingly.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Provided clear concise minimumrequirement.

___________________

(Log #CP8)10- 30 - (2-1.1 Exception): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception.SUBSTANTIATION: Halon extinguisher should be placedresponsibly.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #13)10- 31 - (2-1.1.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...shall conform to the any minimum room volume requirement limitations warnings...".SUBSTANTIATION: The additional words make the statementmore clear and precise.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Accept wording without "room".COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The application may not always be aroom therefore the committe felt the volume of the space is moreappropriate.

___________________

(Log #49)10- 32 - (2-2.1.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-2.1.1 Fire extinguishers for protecting Class A hazards shall beselected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for useon Class A fires. (For halon agent type extinguishers, see 2-1.1.)SUBSTANTIATION: Consistent with wording of Paragraph 2-2.1.3 and removes the need to constantly revise this paragraph asnew extinguisher types and new technology is developed forprotection of Class A hazards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Use proposed wording and add A-2-2.1.1 as follows: Examples of extinguishers for protecting Class A hazards are asfollows: a) Watertype b) Halogenated agent type (for halogenated agent type fireextinguishers, see 2-1.1.) c) Multipurpose dry chemical type d) Wet chemical typeCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: More approprate as annex material..

___________________

(Log #33)10- 33 - (2-2.1.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-2.1.2 Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class B hazardsshall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeledfor use on Class B fires. (For halon agent-type extinguishers, see 2-1.1.)SUBSTANTIATION: Consistent with wording of Paragraph 2-2.1.3 and removes the need to constantly revise this paragraph asnew extinguisher types and new technology is developed forprotection of Class B hazards.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Use proposed wording and add A-2-2.1.1 as follows: Examples of extinguishers for protecting Class B hazards are asfollows: 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 FireExtinguishers, see 2-1.1)COMMITTEE STATEMENT: More appropriate as Annexmaterial.

___________________

(Log #30)10- 34 - (2-2.1.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "2-2.1.3 Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class C hazardsshall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeled for...".SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #82)10- 35 - (2-2.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Norman Thibodeau , Fire Marshal Office/Rep. Fire SNew Brunswick, CanadaRECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-2.1.3 as follows: 2-2.1.3 Fire Extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shallbe selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Glass Chazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2-1.1) thefollowing extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbondioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class KWet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agentswhich are nonconductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use onungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potentialelectrical shock situations which are hazardous for people totouch.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee is relying on thelisting process which references the UL 711 test criteria for Class Chazards. The committee agrees that Class K rated extinguishersshould not be rated Class C. See 10-15 (Log #CP4).

___________________(Log #83)

10- 36 - (2-2.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: W.A. Davis, Metropolitan Fire Extinguisher Co. Inc./Fire Dept.,Little Rock Fire Protection Licensing BoardRECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-2.1.3 as follows: 2-2.1.3 Fire Extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shallbe selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Glass Chazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2-1.1) thefollowing extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbondioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class KWet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agentswhich are nonconductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use onungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potentialelectrical shock situations which are hazardous for people totouch.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-35 (Log #82).

___________________


125

(Log #94)10- 37 - (2-2.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: James A. Burns, New York State Office of FirePrevention and ControlRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "2-2.1.3 Fire extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shallbe selected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class Chazards (for halon agent type fire extinguishers see 2.1.1)extinguishing agent types which are nonconductors of electricity. SUBSTANTIATION: Extinguishers that utilize conductive agentsshould not be rated Class C. Use on ungrounded electricalequipment can create post use potential shock situations whichmay pose a shock hazard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal10-35 (Log #82).

___________________

(Log #97)10- 38 - (2-2.1.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston , Paul Huston & AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph 2-2.1.3. as follows: 2-2.1.3 Fire extinguishers for protection of Class C hazards shall beselected from types that are specifically listed for use on Class Chazards (for Halon agent type fire extinguishers, see 2.-1.1) thefollowing extinguishing agent types: halogenated agent, carbondioxide, and dry chemicals. SUBSTANTIATION: Highly conductive agents such as Class KWet Chemical should not be rated Class C. Class C denotes agentswhich are non conductors of electricity in NFPA 10. Use onungrounded electrical equipment can create post use potentialelectrical shock situations which are hazardous for people totouch. The traditional 77 year old Class C rated electricallynonconductive agent category of portable fire extinguishers hasbeen lost. As of January, 1998, Underwriters Laboratories announced incommittee that Class C rated extinguishers may containnonconductive agents or highly conductive agents. They stated theClass C rating is only concerned that the extinguisher operator willnot receive an electric shock while discharging the agent. Theactual agent non conductivity is of no importance. ULI lists somebrands of highly conductive Wet Chemical agent Class K rated fireextinguishers also as Class C rated. Note: Some manufacturers ofClass K extinguishers refuse to list them as Class C. The problem: Testing shows that wet chemical, when dischargedinto ungrounded (two prong type) electrical appliances anddevices, will connect internal electrically energized parts to exposedconductive surfaces such as housings and handles bringing themup to full line voltage. Agent runout can create exposed energizedpools of agent which can also energize metal table tops or trayssupporting the appliance. Such energized parts are hazardous andcan deliver potentially lethal shock to people who touch them. For 77 years, before January, 1998, Class C agents have beennonconductors of electricity or have had a conductance so low theycould not create a hazard to personnel in the area during dischargeor 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 WetChemical is: 8 times more conductive than sea water: 1254 timesmore conductive than water: 464,000 times more conductive thanHalon 1211. It is not necessary nor in the best interest of the users of fireextinguishers to group this highly conductive wet chemical agentunder the same Class C category of the truly nonconductive agents. There is a significant value to users to continue to have a categoryof agents which actually or essentially are non conductors ofelectricity. Judgment by the users as to their use need only beconcerned with the effect of the agent on the equipment beingprotected, because there are no post-use personnel safety hazardsproduced. NFPA 10 1998 clearly requires wet chemical Class K fireextinguishers for the protection of kitchen appliances usingcombustible cooking media. NFPA Standards require suchappliances to be grounded. Grounded kitchen appliances won’tallow exposed conductive parts to become energized. A Class Crating is not needed for Class K Wet Chemical extinguishers tomeet NFPA 10 requirements. If Class K Wet Chemical extinguishers have new unique,additional fire protection applications beyond kitchen cookingappliance grease fires, such applications should be defined and

attributed to the new Class K category. The inappropriatedegradation of the traditional, valuable, widely-used nonconductiveClass C agent category should not be an expanded Class K usesolution. History: The NFPA Standards Council accepted an appeal tochange the wording of paragraph 2-2.1.3 in NFPA 10, 1998, from aspecific callout of acceptable NFPA 10 Class C rated agents to thepresent NFPA 10, 1998 paragraph 2-2.1.3 "Fire Extinguishers forprotection of Class C hazards shall be selected from types that arespecifically listed for use on Class C hazards (for Halon agent typefire extinguishers, see 2-1.1)." The loss of specific acceptable ClassC agent callout results in highly conductive Wet Chemical Agentscontinuing to be labeled as Class C even though the NFPA 10Standard tells users and the general public that the Class C ratedagents are nonconductors of electricity. Note: If we don’t get the nonconductive Class C agent categoryrestored, who informs and warns the general public, initiateschanges to all the portable extinguisher training programs, revisespublic 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.? Thesedocuments literally say Class C agents are nonconductors ofelectricity; and now, as a result of 1998 Standard revisions, Class Cagents are not all non conductors. NFPA 10, 1998 paragraph 1-4.2(c) states "Class C Rating. No fire test. Agent must be anonconductor of electricity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-35 (Log #82).

___________________

(Log #CP5)10- 39 - (2-2.1.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Delete the note.SUBSTANTIATION: These extinguishers, if still in service, arepast their useful life.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #48)10- 40 - (2-2.1.4): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-2.1.4 Fire extinguishers and extinguishing agents for theprotection of Class D hazards shall be of the types specifically listedand labeled for use on the specific combustible metal hazard.SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #47)10- 41 - (2-2.1.5): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-2.1.5 Fire extinguishers for the protection of Class K hazardsshall be selected from types that are specifically listed and labeledfor use on Class K fires.SUBSTANTIATION: Needed for consistency.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #78)10- 42 - (2-2.1.5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Fire extinguishers and extinguishing agents for the protection ofClass K hazards shall be selected from types that are specificallylisted for use on Class K hazards."SUBSTANTIATION: Listed Class K extinguishers and agents havebeen found to be more effective than other types for Class Khazards. New wording would be more consistent with Sections 2-2.1.3 and 2-2.1.4.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-41 (Log #47).

___________________


126

(Log #120)10- 43 - (2-2.1.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 2-2.1.5* (Note: Water based liquid agent fire extinguishers listedfor Class K hazards that are also listed for Class C hazards present apotential shock hazard after discharge if used in the proximity ofenergized electrical equipment.)SUBSTANTIATION: This is an important safety considerationthat should be included in the section "Selection by Hazard".COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-35 (Log #82)

___________________

(Log #46)10- 44 - (2-3.2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add heading in bold type: 2-3.2 Class K Fire Extinguishers for Cooking Oil Fires. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise to read as follows: 2-3.2 Class K Fire Extinguishers for Cooking Media Fires.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial.

___________________(Log #95)

10- 45 - (2-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, PG&E National Energy GroupRECOMMENDATION: Add last sentence and note to paragraph2-3.2 as follows: 2.3.2 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cookingappliances that use combustible cooking media ( vegetable oranimal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires. Class K fire extinguishers shall not be equipped with "extendedwand type" discharge devices. Note: Class K fire extinguishers equipped with "extended wandtype" discharge devices which can permit subsurface injection ofwet chemical extinguishing agents into hot cooking media are notsafe for use. Subsurface injection causes a thermodynamicreaction comparable to an explosion, which can cause seriousinjury or death and may contribute to the rapid spread of fire. SUBSTANTIATION: Class K wet chemical fire extinguisherswhich are designed with "extended wand type" discharge devicesthat easily allow subsurface injection of wet chemical extinguishingagents into in-depth hot cooking media are not safe for use. Testshave shown that when wet chemical extinguishing agents aresubsurface injected into in-depth hot cooking media, the result is aviolent thermodynamic reaction comparable to an explosion.This explosion has a high potential to cause serious injury or deathand contributes to the rapid spread of fire. The potential for a novice operator to place a Class K wetchemical extinguisher nozzle below the surface of a combustiblecooking media during a fire is likely when "extended wand type"discharge devices are utilized. Class K wet chemical extinguisher discharge devices which keepthe operator’s hand close to the nozzle do not generally presentthese same potential misapplication concerns. This is because anextinguisher operator is much less likely to place his hand holdingthe discharge device through the flames and into the hot burningcooking media. Class K fire extinguishers were added in the recent 1998 edition ofNFPA 10. The potential of subsurface injection of wet chemicalextinguishing agents and the resulting explosion using Class K fireextinguishers equipped with "extended wand type" dischargenozzles was not fully understood nor adequately recognized by theNFPA 10 committee.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that there is notsufficient history to support this recommendation and the safetyconcerns raised were not the concensus of the group.

___________________

(Log #122)10- 46 - (2-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.2 line 4 to read as follows: Class K Fires (For Water Based Liquid Agent Fire Extinguisherssee 2-2.1.5.)

SUBSTANTIATION: Since some Class K rated extinguishers alsocontain a Class C listing, it is important to include this crossreference.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4).

___________________

(Log #45)10- 47 - (2-3.2 Exception): RejectSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception to read: Exception: Class B extinguishers installed to protect thesehazards prior to June 30, 1998 shall be removed at its next 6 yeartear down or hydrostatic test and replaced with a Class K ratedextinguisher.SUBSTANTIATION: Class K extinguishers have been proven toprovide better fire protection for this type hazard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. See Committe Action on Proposal 10-50 (Log #79).COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that Proposal10-50 (Log #79) adequately covers the topic.

___________________

(Log #115)10- 48 - (2-3.2 and 2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Paul O. Huston , Paul Huston & AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Paragraph 2-3.2. Add new Paragraphs 2-3-2.1 and 2-3.2.2 andrevise old Paragraph 2-3.2.1 and renumber as 2-3.2.3. See changesas shown: 2-3.2 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cookingappliances that use combustible cooking media (vegetable oranimal oils and fats) shall be listed and labeled for Class K fires 2-3.2.1 Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cookingappliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth ofone in. or less shall be of the sodium bicarbonate or potassiumbicarbonate dry chemical type, or shall be listed for Class K.Bicarbonate dry chemical types shall have a minimum rating of 40B:C, and the travel distance to the hazard shall not exceed 30 ft.(9.15 m). Class K extinguishers shall be installed in accordancewith Paragraph 3-7. See NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Controland Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, Section 7- 10. Exception: Extinguishers installed specifically for these hazardsprior to June 30, 1998. 2-3.2.2 Fire extinguishers for the protection of cookingappliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth ofmore than one in. shall be listed for Class K. Installation shall bein accordance with Paragraph 3-7, Section 7-10. Exception: Extinguishers installed specifically for these hazardsprior to June 30, 1998. 2-3.2.3 A placard shall be placed near each extinguisherprotecting a Class K hazard which states that the fire protectionsystem shall be activated prior to using the fire extinguisher.SUBSTANTIATION: Some chain restaurants and food servicefacilities do not use deep fat fryers. Many small kitchens found ingolf clubs, churches, private clubs, civic centers, etc., havenumerous two-pronged ungrounded electrical appliances in thekitchen area and do not have deep fat frying appliances. They donot need wet chemical extinguishers. To date, all listed andlabeled Class K extinguishers contain the highly conductive(nominally 1,254 times more conductive than water) wet chemicalagent. By not mandating Class K for kitchens which do not usecombustible cooking media in depth, the potential post-useelectric 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 Kextinguisher satisfies is better fire protection for deep fat fryerappliances many of which use new high temperature vegetablecooking oils. The vegetable cooking oils do not saponify as readilyas animal oils and fats when bicarbonate-based dry chemicals areused. Kitchens which do not have appliances that use combustiblecooking media in depth (one in. or more) have, for many years,been satisfactorily protected with extinguishers containingbicarbonate-based dry chemical agents. The highest B rating of any Class K extinguisher is 1B. A rating of1B is suitable protection for flammable liquids of 1 square ft inarea. Testing is performed using a 2.5 square ft gasoline fire in atest pan. [dimensions 1.58 ft X 1.58 ft.]


127

The rating for the traditional bicarbonate-type dry chemicalextinguisher for kitchen applications is 40 B:C. A rating of 40B issuitable 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 testedand works particularly well on a very confined flammable liquidfire, for all kitchen fire protection; we are discouraging the use of avery effective fast-acting dry chemical extinguisher which hasworked effectively on all kitchen grease fires for many years. Ifsome of the deep fat fryer cooking oils had not changed to lowsaponifying types, a mandated change to Class K wet chemicalextinguishers for kitchen deep fat fryer fire protection would nothave been necessary. Kitchens without deep fat fryers should have an option of whichtype extinguisher to use. This is particularly important in kitchenswhich have two-prong ungrounded appliances and devices in thecooking area.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the criteriain Proposal 10-50 (Log #79), 2-3.2 and 2-3.2.2 is appropriate forthis application.

___________________

(Log #114)10- 49 - (2-3.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MDRECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Fire extinguishers provided for the protection of cookingappliances that use combustible cooking media having a depth ofone in. or less shall be of the sodium bicarbonate or potassiumbicarbonate dry chemical type, or listed for Class K. Bicarbonatedry chemical type extinguishers shall have a minimum rating of 40-BC.SUBSTANTIATION: Class K extinguishers were developed toaddress the difficulty extinguishing fires in oils in depth (over one-inch). Some restaurants do not use deep fat fryers and should begiven the option to select from dry type extinguishers, whichprovide an acceptable level of protection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the criteriain Proposal 10-50 (Log #79), 2-3.2 and 2-3.2.2 is appropriate forthis application.

___________________

(Log #79)10- 50 - (2-3.2.2 (New) ): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 2-3.2.2 to read: "Existing dry chemical extinguishers without a Class K listing thatwere installed for the protection of Class K hazards shall bereplaced with an extinguisher having Class K listing when the drychemical extinguishers become due for either a 6 year maintenanceor hydrostatic test."SUBSTANTIATION: Extinguishers listed for Class K hazards havebeen found to be more effective than existing dry chemicalextinguishers without a Class K listing. By requiring theirreplacement with a Class K listed extinguisher, fire protection andsafety for commercial cooking operations will be improved.Requiring replacement at the hydrostatic test interval will lessen theeconomic burden while not allowing older, less effectiveextinguishers to remain in place indefinitely.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #CP19)10- 51 - (2-3.2.2, A-2-3.2.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Each K rated wet chemical fire extinguisher shall have a tag orlabel securely attached as a warning not to insert the nozzle of thefire extinguisher into combustible cooking media (vegetable oranimal oil and fats). A-2-3.2.2 Typical warning labels should contain the followinginformation: Warning) Do not insert nozzle into combustible liquid as theywill result in a dangerous flare-up of the fire which could result insevere burns to the operator.SUBSTANTIATION: Added safety criteria for Class Kextinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #41)10- 52 - (2-3.5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 2-3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for theprotection of delicate electronic equipment shall be from eithercarbon dioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from speciallylisted water type (water mist) extinguishers with a Class C rating.See 2-2.1.3.SUBSTANTIATION: New technology (water mist typeextinguishers) are now available for protecting this type of hazardand are widely used for telephone switching gear, et cetera.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text to read as follows: 2-3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers for theprotection of electronic equipment shall be from either carbondioxide type, halogenated agent type, or from specially listed watertype (water mist) extinguishers with a Class C rating. See 2-2.1.3.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: To correlate with NFPA 75.

___________________

(Log #61)10- 53 - (2-3.5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SCRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2-3.5 Electronic Equipment Fires. Fire extinguishers forprotection of delicate electronic equipment shall be selected fromeither a water mist type, a carbon dioxide type or another cleanagent .SUBSTANTIATION: The wording of the current paragraphindicates that CO2 and halogenated agents are the only suitableextinguishing agents for electronic equipment fires. CO2extinguishers are very cumbersome and are ineffective on Class Amaterials which is what normally burns in electronic equipment.The use of halogenated agents has been banned or severelyrestricted by the EPA. Water mist is very effective on Class Amaterials, visibility is not obscured by the agent, minimal training isrequired, and water is not toxic.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-52 (Log #41).

___________________

(Log #29)10- 54 - (3-2.1 Exception (New) ): RejectSUBMITTER: Steve Leeds , Lawrence Livermore National LaboratorRECOMMENDATION: Add Exception to 3-2.1 as follows: Exception: A uniform travel distance of 75 ft to all fireextinguishers shall be permitted where: (a) A building is protected throughout by an automatic firesprinkler and alarm system, and (b) With the exception of designated personnel, all personnelshall be instructed to evacuate in the event of a fire alarm, and (c) Personnel designated to use portable fire extinguishers shallbe properly trained in their use.SUBSTANTIATION: The timely and proper use of a portable fireextinguisher can be an important part of an overall loss preventionprogram. The successful use of a portable fire extinguisherdepends on the operator being properly trained in its use.However, the combination of poor judgment and lack of skill onthe part of an operator could lead to ineffective fire control and/orserious injury. The Department of Labor recognized this fact intheir development and promulgation of the work place safetystandards (OSHA). The OSHA regulations provide an employerwith the option of not providing portable fire extinguishers in thework place, but rather provide the appropriate alarms and instructemployees to evacuate. In essence, when placing portable fire extinguishers, a choice ismade between property conservation (i.e., place them close to thehazard so a building occupant can use it to control a firepromptly) and occupant safety (place them as far away from thehazard as possible to put distance and as many barriers between abuilding occupant and the fire emergency as possible). While thetotal evacuation approach offered by OSHA provides optimaloccupant safety, it places the building and its contents at risk forincreased fire damage and loss. An approach that provides forboth occupant safety and property conservation is to provideselected personnel with the necessary training to use portable fireextinguishers safely and effectively while instructing all otheroccupants to evacuate. This proposal seeks to compensate for the


128

minimal increase in property risk due to increased travel distancesby only permitting the proposed travel distance increases in abuilding protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. I believe this proposal provides the proper balance betweenoccupant safety and property conservation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that theproposed exception is not needed as the requirement for Class A is75 ft travel distance.

___________________

(Log #1)10- 55 - (3-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRECOMMENDATION: Delete Paragraph 3-2.2.SUBSTANTIATION: The use of hose lines by occupants of thebuilding should no longer be required as an acceptable method offire control. People should be leaving the building in the event ofa fire and not be using hose stations that they are not trained touse. The maintenance record of hose stations is poor to say theleast; to permit occupants to use these systems may cause injury.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee felt that the use ofextinguishers and hose lines necessitates instruction or training.They also felt that extinguishers and hose lines should be properlymaintained and understands that this is an enforcement issue.

___________________

(Log #CP18)10- 56 - (3-4.1 ,3-4.2, and 3-4.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-4.1, 3-4.2, and 3-4.3 to eliminatethe exceptions. The paragraphs will read as follows: 3-4.1* Portable fire extinguishers shall not be installed as the soleprotection for flammable liquid hazards of appreciable depthwhere the surface area exceeds 10 ft2 (0.93m2). Where personnelwho are trained in extinguishing fires in the protected hazards areavailable on the premises, the maximum surface area shall notexceed 20 ft2 (1.86 m2). 3-4.2 For flammable liquid hazards of appreciable depth, a ClassB fire extinguisher shall be provided on the basis of at least twonumerical units of Class B extinguishing potential per ft2 (0.0929m2) of flammable liquid surface of the largest hazard area. AFFF-or FFFP-type fire extinguishers shall be permitted to be providedon the basis of 1-B of protection per ft2 (9,9828 M2) of hazard.(For fires involving cooking grease or water-soluble flammableliquids, see 2-3.2 and 2-3.4.) 3-4.3 Two or more fire extinguishers of lower ratings, other thanAFFF- or FFFP -type fire extinguishers, shall not be used in lieu ofthe fire extinguisher required for the largest hazard area. Up tothree AFFF-or FFFP-type fire extinguishers shall be permitted tofulfill the requirements, provided the sum of the Class B ratingsmeets or exceeds the value required for the largest hazard area.SUBSTANTIATION: The Manual of Style recommendselimination of exceptions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #44)10- 57 - (3-5): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Delete last phrase of first sentence so thatit reads: "Fire extinguishers with Class C ratings shall be required whereenergized electrical equipment can be encountered that wouldrequire a nonconducting extinguishing medium."SUBSTANTIATION: All ABC dry chemical and halons areconductive. The important element is that they are nonconductiveas they are being discharged, i.e., the safety of the extinguisheroperator is assured.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #123)

10- 58 - (3-5): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-5 line 8 to read as follows: Class B Hazard (for Water Based Liquid Agent Fire Extinguisherssee 2-2.1.5).

SUBSTANTIATION: None given.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No substantiaton provided.

___________________

(Log #43)10- 59 - (3-7.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "3-7.1 Class K fire extinguishers shall be...".SUBSTANTIATION: More clearly defines the requirement.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #124)10- 60 - (3-7.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: In the second line of 3-7.2, revise text asfollows: "...from the hazard to the extinguishers. (see 2-3.2.1)"SUBSTANTIATION: The cross reference to the requirement for aplacard should be added. This is a special requirement for Class KExtinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee agrees that theplacard is important, but felt that this is an inappropriatereference.

___________________

(Log #87)10- 61 - (4-2): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegRECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 4-2.SUBSTANTIATION: The definitions provided in 4-2 areredundant. Identical wording is found in Section 1-3, Definitions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-64 (Log#CP7) which deletes this section.

___________________

(Log #24)10- 62 - (4-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-2.1 Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher isavailable and will operate may be done electronically or manually .It is intended to give reasonable assurance that the fire extinguisheris fully charged and operable. This is done by verifying that it is inits designated place, that it has not been actuated or tamperedwith, and that there is no obvious or physical damage or conditionto prevent its operation.SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic inspection is a new technologythat is now available as an alternate to manual inspection. Electronic inspection could be considered a "full time" check toassure a greater level of protection as described.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-1 (Log#CP1).

___________________

(Log #104)10- 63 - (4-2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-2.1 Inspection. A "quick check" that a fire extinguisher isavailable and will operate. It is intended to give reasonableassurances that the fire extinguisher is fully charged and operable.This is done by verifying that it is in its designated place, and that ishas not been actuated or tampered with and that there is noobvious or physical damage or condition to prevent its operation.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal will allow inspection of fireextinguishers to be accomplished manually or by utilizingtechnology for the electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher toensure its operation. Currently "minimal knowledge is necessary to perform a monthly‘quick check’ or inspection" to comply with the standard. Most ofthe current checklist found in 4-3.2, can be accomplished utilizingelectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. Other items are


129

more appropriately accomplished during yearly maintenanceprocedures for the fire extinguisher. (Also see proposed changesmade to 4-3.2 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 tobe accomplished manually or by utilizing technology for theelectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher to ensure itsoperation.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Proposal 10-1 (Log#CP1).

___________________

(Log #CP7)10- 64 - (4-2.14-2.2 and 4-2.3.): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-2.1, 4-2.2 and 4-2.3.SUBSTANTIATION: Definitions are covered in the definitionssection which will become Chapter 3 (see CP#1). Redundantmaterial.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #105)10- 65 - (4-2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-2.2 Maintenance. A thorough examination of the fireextinguisher. It is intended to give maximum assurance that a fireextinguisher will operate effectively and safely. It includes athorough examination for physical damage or condition to preventits operation (etc.) and necessary repair or replacement. It willnormally reveal if hydrostatic testing or internal maintenance isrequired.SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently foundin the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers (Section 4-3.2)to criteria for yearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damageor other conditions that would prevent the operation of the fireextinguisher are better able to be determined by "a trained personwho has undergone the instructions necessary to reliably performmaintenance and has the manufacturer’s service manual..." (Alsosee proposed changes made to 4-3.2 and other changes to 1-3).COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Proposal 10-1 (Log#CP1).

___________________

(Log #25)10- 66 - (4-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-3.1 Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected wheninitially placed in service and thereafter at approximately 30 dayintervals either electronically or manually . Fire extinguishers shallbe inspected at more frequent intervals when circumstancesrequire.SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic inspection is new technology thatis now available as an alternate to manual inspection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is already permissible as thecurrent text does not restrict the use of either manual or electronicmeans to accomplish this.

___________________

(Log #106)10- 67 - (4-3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-3.1* Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected wheninitially placed in service and thereafter at approximately 30-dayintervals. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected at more frequentintervals when circumstances require. Such fire extinguisherinspections done after their initial placement shall be donemanually or by electronic means.

SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal allows for the additional option ofelectronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher in complying with theinspection requirements of the standard (proposed Section 4-3.2).This is an alternative method for compliance to manual, 30-dayinspections.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal10-66 (Log #25).

___________________

(Log #CP12)10- 68 - (4-3.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "4-3.1* Frequency. Fire extinguishers... 30-day intervals. Fireextinguishers shall be inspected, manually or by electronicmonitoring, at more frequent intervals when circumstancesrequire." Add the following at the end of A-4-3.1: " Due to these conditions, more frequent inspections might beenhanced through electronic monitoring of the fire extinguisher. "SUBSTANTIATION: Added text to allow alternative to manualinspections.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #107)10- 69 - (4-3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-3.2* Procedures. Periodic inspection of fire extinguishers shallinclude 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 facingoutward (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 orposition (h) Condition of tires, wheels, carriage, hose, and nozzlechecked (for wheeled units) (i) HMIS label in placeSUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently foundin the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria foryearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or otherconditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisherare better able to be assessed by "a trained person who hasundergone the instructions necessary to reliably performmaintenance and has the manufacturer’s service manual..." "Obvious physical damage, corrosion, leakage, clogged nozzle"can still be part of a recommended checklist for monthly, manualinspections (recommend that it be appendix material). Theproposed continuous, electronic monitoring of the fireextinguisher will detect if the fire extinguisher has been tamperedwith. When the fire extinguisher has been used or tampered with,is when physical damage etc., will likely occur and such use/abusecan be electronically monitored. Other "labeling" changes can be assured at the time the fireextinguisher is placed in service and during yearly maintenanceexaminations. Such "labeling" inspection requirements do notassure the extinguisher "is available and will operate," the objectiveof inspections.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These items need to be checked ona monthly basis to assure reliability.

___________________

(Log #60)10- 70 - (4-3.2(e)): RejectSUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SCRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-3.2(e) Fullness determined by weighing or "hefting" Carbondioxide extinguishers shall be weighed with a calibrated scaleduring annual maintenance or any time the tamper seal has beenbroken. SUBSTANTIATION: It is impossible for the inspector toaccurately determine if the agent in a carbon dioxide extinguisher


130

is within 10 percent of full charge by "hefting." A 15 lb. capacitycarbon dioxide extinguisher may weigh less than 40 lbs. or morethan 50 lbs. Weighing with a properly calibrated scale willaccurately determine the amount of agent in the extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This inspection is intended to be aquick check and can be done by untrained persons. The currentallowance of hefting provides a reasonable check of fullness.

___________________

(Log #37)10- 71 - (4-3.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Delete "(a), (b), (h), and (i)."SUBSTANTIATION: Immediate corrective action is requiredwhen a deficiency is noted in any of the conditions listed in 4-3.2.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #36)10- 72 - (4-3.3.1 and 4-3.3.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add (h) to list of conditions requiringapplicable maintenance procedures.SUBSTANTIATION: Correct error. A deficiency in condition ofwheels, carriage, dome, or nozzle requires maintenance.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #26)10- 73 - (4-3.4.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-3.4.3 Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fireextinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file or in anelectronic system (e.g., bar coding) or electronic database thatprovides a permanent record.SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic record keeping is common intoday’s world. Electronic information is stored in a computer database.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text as follows: 4-3.4.3 Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fireextinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file or by anelectronic method that provides a permanent record.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised text will clarify that anelectronic database is permissible.

___________________

(Log #108)10- 74 - (4-3.4.3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-3.4.3 Records shall be kept on a tag or label attached to the fireextinguisher, on an inspection checklist maintained on file, or inan electronic system (e.g., bar coding) that provides a permanentrecord (including an electronic database e.g.) .SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal expands the electronic monitoringscope of inspection checklist and record keeping. Expanding thescope to allow for an electronic database to be utilized, enables thefull use of electronic record keeping capability.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-73(Log #26).

___________________

(Log #28)10- 75 - (4-4.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 4-4.1 Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be subjected tomaintenance at intervals of not more than 1 year, at the time ofhydrostatic test, or when specifically indicated by an inspection orelectronic notification .SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic notification is a new technologythat is now available as an alternate to manual inspection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #109)10- 76 - (4-4.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-4.1 Frequency. Fire extinguishers shall be subjected tomaintenance at intervals of not more that 1 year, at the time ofhydrostatic test, or when specifically indicated by an inspectionthrough manual or electronic notification. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal recognizes that notification formaintenance can come from manual or electronic notificationmeans.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-75 (Log #28).

___________________

(Log #59)10- 77 - (4-4.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Hugh O. Dykins, Summerville, SCRECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: 4-4.1.1 Stored-pressure types containing a loaded stream agentshall be disassembled on an annual basis and subjected tocomplete maintenance. Prior to disassembly, the fire extinguishershall be fully discharged to check the operation of the dischargevalve and pressure gauge. The loaded stream charge shall bepermitted to be recovered and re-used, provided it is subjected toagent analysis in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.SUBSTANTIATION: The expense of discharging and rechargingloaded stream extinguishers annually to check the operation andpressure gauge is an unnecessary financial burden on the owner.Operational tests for loaded stream extinguishers should only berequired at six year intervals as is required in Paragraph 4-4.2 forother types of stored pressure fire extinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The substantiation is an opinionand provides no evidence that the interval is inappropriate.

___________________

(Log #110)10- 78 - (4-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-4.2* Procedures. Maintenance procedures shall include athorough 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 tointernally examine non rechargeable fire extinguishers, carbondioxide fire extinguishers, or stored-pressure fire extinguishers,except for those types specified in 4-4.1.1. However, such fireextinguishers shall be thoroughly examined externally, to ensurethat there is no obvious or physical damage or condition to preventits operation (e.g.), in accordance with the applicable items of 4-4.2(a).SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal shifts criteria currently foundin the standard for inspections of fire extinguishers to criteria foryearly maintenance. Assessment of physical damage or otherconditions that would prevent the operation of the fire extinguisherare better able to be assessed by "a trained person who hasundergone the instructions necessary to reliably performmaintenance and has the manufacturer’s service manual..." "Obvious physical damage, corrosion, leakage, clogged nozzle"can still be part of a recommended checklist for monthly, manualinspections (recommend that it be appendix material). Theproposed continuous, electronic monitoring of the fireextinguisher will detect if the fire extinguisher has been tamperedwith. When the fire extinguisher has been used or tampered with,is when physical damage etc., will likely occur and such use/abusecan be electronically monitored.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The sentence intends to requireexternal examination of mechanical parts. The Committee felt thatthe current wording covers the proposed text and therefore therecommended text is unnecessary.

___________________

(Log #CP20)10- 79 - (4-4.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:


131

4-4.2* Procedures. Maintenance procedures shall include athorough examination of the basic elements of a fire extnguisher asdetermined below: a) Mechanical parts of all fire extinguishers. b) Extinguishing agent of cartridge operated dry chemical, storedpressure loaded stream and pump tank fire extinguishers. c) Expelling means of all fire extinguishers.SUBSTANTIATION: The NFPA manual of style recommendselimination of exceptions.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #6)10- 80 - (4-4.2.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Western Regional Fire Code Dev. CommitteeRECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-4.2.1 in its entirety.SUBSTANTIATION: There is no need to remove the pin andreseal every year. The pin can be checked adequately during avisual inspection and the additional expense of performing thismaintenance task is not justified.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The pin can become frozen in placealthough it may appear to be easily removable. Removing the pinannually ensures that the pin can be removed.

___________________

(Log #113)10- 81 - (4-4.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: John E. Reiter, Laurel, MDRECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: Thorough visual external cylinder examinations require theremoval of any protective neck rings, foot rings, or bottomenclosure boot attachments that might hide potential corrosion,damage, or repairs to the pressure vessel.SUBSTANTIATION: CGA has similar visual external examinationrecommendations for cylinders, which incorporate attachmentsthat can hinder proper inspection.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is extremely difficult toaccomplish some of the items and unnecessary to do others.

___________________

(Log #81)10- 82 - (4-4.3): RejectSUBMITTER: Chris Hoiland, Orange County Fire ProtectionRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-4.3 Six-Year Maintenance. Every 6 years, stored pressure fireextinguishers that require a 12-year hydrostatic test shall be emptiedand subjected to the applicable maintenance procedures. Stored- pressure fire extinguishers shall be emptied and thoroughlyexamined internally at intervals of not more than six-years, at thetime of periodic recharging, and at the time of hydrostatic testing.Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers shall be thoroughly examinedinternally at the time of hydrostatic testing. The removal of agentfrom halon agent fire extinguishers shall only be done using alisted halon closed recovery system. When the applicablemaintenance procedures are performed during periodic rechargingor hydrostatic testing, the 6-year requirement shall begin from thatdate. Exception: Non rechargeable fire extinguishers shall not behydrostatically tested but shall be removed from service at amaximum interval of 12 years from the date of manufacture. Nonrechargeable halon agent fire extinguishers shall be disposed of inaccordance with 4-3.3.3.SUBSTANTIATION: There is no requirement in the standard toempty and thoroughly examine stored pressure fire extinguishers atthe time of periodic recharge or hydrostatic test. Additionally, thereis no requirement in the standard to internally examine carbondioxide fire extinguishers at any time interval. The word "when" inthe last sentence of 4-4.3 implies that there is a choice to eitherperform the maintenance or not perform the maintenance duringperiodic recharging or hydrostatic testing.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Only extinguishers that require the12 year hydrostatic test need a 6 year teardown. Others areinternally examined every 5 years in accordance with 5-1.2.1."Topping up" is permitted by 4-5.3.3.

___________________

(Log #111)10- 83 - (4-4.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Thomas J. Klem, T. J. Klem and AssociatesRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-4.4* Fire extinguishers that pass the applicable 6-yearrequirement of 4-4.3 shall have the maintenance informationrecorded on a suitable metallic label or equally durable materialhaving a minimum size of 2 in. X 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm X 8.9 cm) orthe information shall be electronically maintained in a permanentfile. If electronic record keeping is not utilized, the new label shall beaffixed to the shell by a heatless process, and any old maintenancelabels shall be removed. These labels shall be of the self-destructive type when removal from a fire extinguisher is attempted. The label or the electronic record shall include the followinginformation: (a) Month and year the maintenance was performed, indicatedby a perforation such as is done by a hand punch (b) Name or initials of persons performing the maintenance andname of agency performing the maintenance.SUBSTANTIATION: Proposal recognizes that an electronicrecord keeping method can be utilized to create a maintenancedatabase for the fire extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The six year requirementnecessitates a label on the extinguisher to provide a positive meansto identify extinguishers that have undergone this maintenance. Itis easy for authority having jurisdiction to check and is kept righton the extinguisher. In case another servicing company is called toservice the extinguisher and may not have access to separaterecords.

___________________(Log #27)

10- 84 - (4-4.4.1): RejectSUBMITTER: John J. McSheffrey, MIJA Industries, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-4.4.1 Fire extinguishers that pass the applicable 6-yearrequirement of 4-4.3 shall have the maintenance informationrecorded on a suitable metallic label or equally durable materialhaving a minimum size of 2 in. x 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm x 8.9 cm) orrecorded electronically in a permanent file . If not electronically recorded and traceable the new label shall beaffixed to the shell by a heatless process, and any old maintenancelabels shall be removed. These labels shall be of the self-destructive type when removal from a fire extinguisher is attempted.The label shall include the following information: (a) Month and year the maintenance was performed, indicatedby a perforation such as is done by a hand punch. (b) Name or initials of person performing the maintenance andname of agency performing the maintenance.SUBSTANTIATION: Electronic record keeping is common intoday’s world. Electronic information is put into a database for permanentkeeping.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-83 (Log #111).

___________________(Log #76)

10- 85 - (4-4.4.1 and 4-4.4.1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: 4-4.4.1 and 4-4.4.1.1.SUBSTANTIATION: 4-4.4.1 requirements are unnecessary sincethe verification of service collar is now required. Requirements foran inspection tag, verification of service collar, hydrostatic testlabel, and a separate 6 year maintenance label are ungainly andresult in almost completely covering smaller hand portableextinguishers and distracting the operator from the instructionnameplate. Some authorities are requiring verification of servicecollars, internal tags, 6 year maintenance labels, inspection tags,and separate hydrostatic test labels along with HMS labels on olderextinguishers. Any effort to combine or delete some of these labelswould lessen confusion and duplication. 4-4.4.1.1 Consistent with errata issued.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Six year maintenance labelrequirements are needed as the verification of service collarindicates only that the valve has been removed.

___________________


132

(Log #77)10- 86 - (4-4.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: At the end of paragraph add: " Verification of service collars shall include month and year theservice was performed, indicated by a perforation such as is donewith a hand punch, and the name or initials of the personperforming the service and the name of the agency ."SUBSTANTIATION: Addition will be more consistent withprevious labeling requirements and will allow for discontinued useof a redundant self adhesive label.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Redundant information that wouldbe on the maintenance tag.

___________________

(Log #38)10- 87 - (4-4.4.2 Exception No. 3 (New) ): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add the following Exception: Exception No. 3: New extinguishers requiring the initial chargeby distributors (such as pressurized water extinguishers, AFFF,FFFP, or wet chemical) do not require a "Verification of Service"collar.SUBSTANTIATION: Add clarity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise recommendation to read as follows: Exception No. 3: New extinguishers requiring an initial charge inthe field (such as pressurized water extinguishers, AFFF, FFFP, orwet chemical) shall not be required to have a "Verification ofService" collar installed.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification of thesubmitted material.

___________________

(Log #101)10- 88 - (4-4.4.2, A-4-4.4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Alva C. Good, Alva C. Good Company/Rep. Oregon FireEquipment Distributors (an association)RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-4.4.2* to read as follows: 4-4.4.2* Verification of Service (Maintenance, Hydrotest orRecharging). Each fire extinguisher that has undergonemaintenance that includes internal examination or that has beenrecharged, (see 4-5.5), hydrotest, or recharge (see 4-4, 4-5, andChapter 5) shall have a "Verification of Service" collar locatedaround the neck of the container of pressurized units, at the outletfitting of cartridge operated units, and the disassembled portions ofwheeled units. The collar shall contain a single circular piece ofuninterrupted material forming a hole of a size that will not permitthe collar assembly to move over the neck of the container unlessthe valve is completely removed beyond the area of placement.The collar shall not interfere with operation of the fireextinguisher. The "Verification of Service" collar shall include themonth and year the service was performed, indicated by aperforation such as done by a hand punch. Exception No. 1: Fire extinguishers undergoing maintenance orrecharging before January 1, 1999 and hydrostatic testing beforemm/dd/yy (the date of adoption of this standard’s revision). Exception No. 2: Cartridge/cylinder operated fire extinguishersdo not require a "Verification of Service" collar. Revise A-4.4.4.2 to read as follows: A-4-4.4.2 "Verification of Service" (Maintenance , Hydrotest orRecharging) Collar. A number of states and provinces haveregulations requiring an internal paper marking of an extinguisher,which is used to verify if the extinguisher was depressurized, and ifthe valve was removed, and if a complete maintenance wasperformed. The "Verification of Service" collar design alsorequires that the valve or chemical outlet attachment/dischargehose assembly fitting be removed before the collar can be attachedto the extinguisher. The collar can also be used at the chemicaldischarge port of the cylinder of cartridge operated units, butshould be of an internal diameter to prevent sliding from thethreaded area at the discharge port to the discharge hose area. The collar provides the authorities having jurisdiction with a moreconvenient visual proof that the extinguisher was disassembled andthat maintenance was performed. All extinguishers are to have either the valve , cartridge orchemical outlet attachment/discharge hose assembly fitting removed for hydrotesting and are to be subsequently reattached

and recharged before they are returned to service. To be valid, thedate on the "Verification of Service" collar should always be thesame or more recent the the date stamped on the cylinder or onthe hydrotest label. (Figure A-4-4.4.2 on page 10-26 of NFPA 10, 1998 provides a guideto the design of a "Verification of Service" collar. This sameillustration can be added to this standard.)SUBSTANTIATION: The use of "Verification of Service" collarson portable fire extinguishers has ended the practice of applicationof a decal indicating periodic internal maintenance of fireextinguisher when the possibility existed of no periodic internalmaintenance having been performed. The extension of use ofthese collars to cartridge operated portable and wheeled can alsohelp end the same practice. When cylinders are removed from service to actually do aninternal maintenance and attach a "Verification of Service" collarthen maybe the time will be taken to also actually do a hydrostatictest being the valve head and/or the chemical discharge hose haveto be removed to install the "Verification of Service" collar. Another substantiation for using these collars to indicate ateardown was done is the visual indication to the authority havingjurisdiction.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommendation is impracticaland not substantiated.

___________________

(Log #70)10- 89 - (4-5.3.11): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "Wet chemical agent shall be discarded and replaced at thehydrostatic test interval."SUBSTANTIATION: This would provide an extra safety factorevery five years, where the chemical will be replaced assuringproper agent and proper fill. If any confusion regarding properrecharge agent occurred, it would be corrected at this time. NFPA17 requires replacement of dry chemical agent at the hydrostatictest interval in Section 9-5.2.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add sentence at end of existing.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarity.

___________________

(Log #7)10- 90 - (4-5.4.3): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...dry chemical and halogenated halon type...". "Exception No. 2: Some Class D and halocarbon fireextinguishers...".SUBSTANTIATION: Some approved halocarbon agents useeither nitrogen or argon.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #CP21)10- 91 - (4-5.5): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-5.5 Exception No. 1 as follows: Exception: Liquefied gas, halogenated agent, and carbondioxide..." extinguishers that have been recharged without valveremoval do not require a "Verification of Service" collar.SUBSTANTIATION: There might be new extinguishers that areintroduced to the market that can be recharged without valveremoval. This requirement can now be applied to them.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #64)10- 92 - (4-5.5 Exception No. 1): RejectSUBMITTER: Norbert W. Makowka , Nat'l Assn. of Fire EquipmentDistributorsRECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 4-5.5, Exception No. 1, asfollows: Exception No. 1: Liquefied gas, halogenated agent, and carbondioxide extinguishers that have been recharged without valveremoval do not require a "Verification of Service" collar exceptwhen recharged after a hydrostatic retest. (See A-4-4.4.42.) SUBSTANTIATION: There is some confusion in the serviceindustry whether or not these extinguishers need a "Verification of


133

Service" collar installed when the extinguisher is recharged after ahydrostatic retest. The extinguisher valve is removed for thehydrostatic retest but must be installed for the extinguisher to berecharged.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: A verification of service collar isnecessary after the hydrostatic test. The clarification requested istherefore unnecessary. (See 5-1.2.1 and 4-4.4.2).

___________________

(Log #130)10- 93 - (5-1.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 5-1.2 Hydrostatic Testing of Non Specification DOT cylindersbearing the marking "Meets DOT Requirements" low pressurecylinders used as fire extinguishers shall be performed by personstrained in pressure testing procedures and have safeguards,appropriate servicing manual(s), facilities and suitable testingequipment as stated in 5-4 of this standard. Hydrostatic Testing of DOT Specification low and high pressurecylinders used as fire extinguishers must be performed by a facilitywhich holds a current Retesters Identification Number (R.I.N.,#),issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation Research andSpecial Programs Administration, Office of Hazardous MaterialsSafety. The registered agent(s) listed on the retester authorizationof the Hydrostatic Testing facility shall meet and be trained in therequirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) part173.34, 29 Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) Chapter 17,Compressed Gas Association (CGA) pamphlet C-1 Methods ofHydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders, and therequirements stated in 5-4 of this standard.SUBSTANTIATION: A) To clarify who and what type ofcylinders requirements are necessary. B) Close a liability on this standard.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current text provides theminimum requirement. The proposal contians informationapplicable in the United States.

___________________

(Log #54)10- 94 - (5-2): RejectSUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd.RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text: " Seamless aluminum cylinders wrapped with carbon reinforcedcomposite then wrapped in fiber glass; charged with compressedair and/or other gases that are manufactured to the Code ofFederal Regulations number 173.309, having a burst pressure tentimes 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 ofMaterials," shall be permitted to be hydrostatically tested every 15years. "SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to the specifications will allowthe acceptance of seamless aluminum cylinders with carbonreinforced composite wrapped with fiber glass to have a hydrostatictest which would coincide with the service life of the cylinder asrecognized by the Code of Federal Regulations number 173.309. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPAHeadquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No rationale provided to supportthe 15 year interval. The reference to the Code of FederalRegulations does not provide the technical justification to supportthe proposal.

___________________

(Log #55)10- 95 - (Table 5-2): RejectSUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd.RECOMMENDATION: Add to Table 5.2:

Type ofExtinguisher

InternalMaintenance

Interval (Years)

HydrostaticTesting Interval

(Years)HomogeneousLiquid Agent

15 15

SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to the specifications will allowthe acceptance of seamless aluminum cylinders with carbonreinforced composite wrapped with fiber glass to have a hydrostatictest which would coincide with the service life of the cylinder asrecognized by the Code of Federal Regulations number 173.309. NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPAHeadquarters.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committe Action on Proposal10-94 (Log #54).

___________________

(Log #3)10- 96 - (5-2.1 Exception): AcceptSUBMITTER: Glenn Matthews, Master Protection Corp. (FiremasteRECOMMENDATION: Revise the exception to paragraph 5-2.1 toread as follows: "Cylinders (except those charged with carbon dioxide) complyingwith Part 173.34(e)15 Part 173.34(e)(16)(f)(ii), Title 49, Code ofFederal Regulations, shall be permitted to be hydrostatically testedevery 10 years."SUBSTANTIATION: Correct chapter to be used in current Title49 CFR 1997.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #42)

10- 97 - (5-3.3.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence as follows: 5-3.3.1 Stored Pressure Types. All low pressure stored pressurefire extinguishers shall be hydrostatically tested at the factory testpressure as shown on the extinguisher nameplate or cylinder not toexceed three times the normal operating pressure.SUBSTANTIATION: Adds clarity and removes confusing text.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is not necessary to stress thecylinder beyond 3 times normal operating pressure.

___________________

(Log #5)10- 98 - (5-5.2.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Kirk Garanflo , General Fire Extinguisher CorporatioRECOMMENDATION: 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, oneusually being time in this case. The current text is not a rate but alimit!COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An errata was issued to correct thisoversight. Also see Committee Proposal 10- (Log #CP13) whichdeletes this provision.

___________________

(Log #35)10- 99 - (5-5.2.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Change "300 psi (20.68 MPa)" to "600 psi(41.5 MPa) per minute."SUBSTANTIATION: Previously stated rate-of-rise resulted inexcessively long hydrostatic test times. Proposed rate-of-rise willnot adversely affect hydrostatic tests.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-101(Log #CP13).

___________________

(Log #88)10- 100 - (5-5.2.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Add " per minute " at end of sentence.SUBSTANTIATION: The allowable rate of rise in pressure whenhydrotesting must be expressed in units of pressure per unit oftime.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: An errata was issued to correct thisoversight. Also see Committee Proposal 10-101 (Log #CP13) whichdeletes this provision.

___________________


134

(Log #CP13)10- 101 - (5-5.2.5): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-5.2.5.SUBSTANTIATION: There are not any safety concerns withrunning the pressure up quickly and during the last few secondsregulating to the desired pressure.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #CP10)

10- 102 - (5-5.4.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Delete second sentence: The label shall be affixed to the shell by means of a heatlessprocess, and all old hydrotest labels shall be removed.SUBSTANTIATION: Covered in 5-6.4COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #131)

10- 103 - (5-6.4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Carl Horst, Security Fire Equipment Company, Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 5-6.4 Low Pressure Cylinders. Fire extinguisher shells of the lowpressure type that pass either a volumetric (water jacket) ormodified (proof test) hydrostatic test shall have the informationrecorded 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 aheatless process. These labels shall be of the type that self-destructs when removal from a fire extinguisher cylinder shell isattempted. The following information shall be included on thelabel: (a) Month and year the test was performed, indicated by aperforation, such as is done by a hand punch (b) Test pressure used (c) Name or initials of person performing the test, and name ofagency performing the test. The following information shall also be included on the labeldependent on the type of cylinder shell tested and testing methodused. (I) DOT Specification fire extinguisher cylinder shell tested byvolumetric 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 bymodified (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 shelltested by modified (proof test) method; • above stated information found in a, b, c.SUBSTANTIATION: To uniform NFPA and DOT requirementsand avoid fires!COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text to read as follows: 5-6.4 Low Pressure Cylinders. Fire extinguisher cylinders of thelow pressure type that pass a pressure hydrostatic test shall have theinformation recorded on a suitable metallic label with a minimumsize of 2 in. X 3 1/2 in. (5.1 cm X 8.9 cm). The label shall beaffixed by a heatless process. These labels shall be of the type thatself-destructs when removal from a fire extinguisher cylinder shellis attempted. The following information shall be included on thelabel: (a) Month and year the test was performed, indicated by aperforation, such as is done by a hand punch (b) Test pressure used (c) Name or initials of person performing the test, and name ofagency performing the test. In addition the following information shall also be included forDOT specification cylinders: (a) Cylinders tested by volumetric (water jacket) test methodshall be provided with a retesters Identification number (R.I.N.#)on the label. (b) Cylinders tested by modified (proof pressure) test methodshall be provided with a letter "S" on the label.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee editorialized thesubmitted text.

___________________

Sequence 10-104 was not used.

(Log #CP14)10- 105 - (Chapter 6): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Update Chapter 6 to refernce Title 49,CFR, 1999.SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #89)10- 106 - (6-1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegRECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: The current editions of the following documents or portionsthereof are referenced within this standard as mandatoryrequirements and shall be considered part of the requirements ofthis standard. The edition indicated for each referenced mandatorydocument is the current edition as of the date of the NFPAissuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documentsmight also be referenced in this standard for specific informationalpurposes and, therefore, are also listed in Appendix G. (Deleteedition after each standard in list.)SUBSTANTIATION: Referencing the "current editions" of eachstandard assures that the documents referenced will always be ofthe latest edition.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee must review theeditions that are being referenced. Therefore, dates are necessary.

___________________

(Log #96)10- 107 - (A-1-2): Accept in PartSUBMITTER: Joshua W. Elvove , U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs/Repof Veterans AffairsRECOMMENDATION: Revise the 3rd paragraph by deleting thelast sentence as follows: An owner or occupant should recognizefire hazards on his or her property and plan in advance the exactmeans and equipment with which a fire will be fought. The owner/ occupant needs to ensure that everyone knows howto 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 asfollows: Portable fire extinguishers are appliances to be usedprincipally by the occupants of a fire-endangered building or areawho are familiar with the location and operation of theextinguisher through education or training. Portable fireextinquishers They are primarily of value for immediate use onsmall fires. They have a limited quantity of extinguishing materialand, therefore, need to be used properly so this material is notwasted.SUBSTANTIATION: Though certainly a desired intention,ensuring "everyone" (e.g., children, sight-impaired individuals, orindividuals who cannot understand English) knows how to call thefire department is not very practical. If this sentence is deemednecessary, then it should be revised to indicate who specifically theowner/occupant expects to be knowledgeable in calling the firedepartment. Though available to anyone, fire extinguishers should really onlybe used by personnel who have been trained to use them.Otherwise, they can do more harm than good. A building owner’sresponsibility should be to provide training which would alsoinvolve familiarizing users with their specific location. This wouldalso then obviate the need for signage beyond what is alreadyrequired by 1-6.6 (e.g., signs that are perpendicular to the wall)which some authorities having jurisdiction require, provided userscan 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 calledalways.

___________________

(Log #116)10- 108 - (A-1-4.2): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "A (multipurpose dry chemical) fire extinguisher is rated andclassified 4-A:20-..."


135

SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification. This added wording moreclosely matches the "following information".COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There are other types of fireextinguishers other than dry chemical with this rating.

___________________

(Log #118)10- 109 - (A-1-4.2 ): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen , Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: In A-1-4.2 sixth paragraph add new last sentence toread as follows: Since the 1965 Edition, the text stated, "No Fire Test. Agent must be anonconductor of electricity". The Class C fire test procedure in ANSI/UL711 specifies that the discharge, from an electrically energized fireextinguisher, be directed at a grounding plate or target. Due to the fact thatrecent tests with water based liquid agents, that are conductive can pass thistest when discharged in a fine spray or mist, the requirement for the agent tobe nonconductive is no longer applicable.SUBSTANTIATION: This additional text is needed to explain why thenonconductive agent requirement has changed after being advocated andexcepted for 35 plus years.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log #CP4).The committee made reference to the special listing tests and feels the testsshould ensure the safety of the operator.

___________________(Log #16)

10- 110 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: For Halocarbon type change the followingdescriptions:

CapacityHorizontalRange ofStream

ApproximateTime of

Discharge

UL or ULCClassifications

3 1.4 33 150(wheeled)

lb

6 to 18 35 ft 9 to 18 23 sec

2B:C 1B:C to2A:10B:C10A:80B:C

SUBSTANTIATION: The text will update the current range ofapproved halocarbon extinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4).

___________________

(Log #65)10- 111 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text under capacity to include 6 liter andunder classifications to include 2-A:10B.SUBSTANTIATION: A 6 liter AFFF extinguisher is available with a 2-A:10Brating and should be included in the table.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-117 (Log #CP9).

___________________

(Log #66)10- 112 - (Table A-2-1): AcceptSUBMITTER: 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 chemicalnames and adds clarity.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #67)10- 113 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Under classification: "20 to 301-A should be 20 to 30-A."SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-117(Log #CP9).

___________________

(Log #69)10- 114 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add water mist extinguisher in 1.75 and2.5 gallon sizes with ratings of 2A:C on each size.SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist extinguishers are available in themarketplace and should be distinguished from other water typeextinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-117(Log #CP9).

___________________

(Log #75)10- 115 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text under capacity to include 3liter and under ratings to include K, 2A:C:K, C:K, and 2A:1B:C:K.SUBSTANTIATION: A 3 liter wet chemical extinguisher isavailable with a Class K listing and should be included in the table.Change of listings would reflect what is available in themarketplace.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-117(Log #CP9).

___________________

(Log #91)10- 116 - (Table A-2-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegRECOMMENDATION: Revise the UL or ULC Classifications toincorporate current ratings.SUBSTANTIATION: This table was last revised July 24, 1987, andmany subsequent ratings changes have occurred. Any revisionsshould also be incorporated into the text of D-4.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-117(Log #CP9).

___________________

(Log #CP9)10- 117 - (Table A-2-1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Portable Fire ExtinguishersRECOMMENDATION: Update Table A-2-1 to the latest UL listingdata as shown on the following page.SUBSTANTIATION: Updated table to reflect most recent ULlisting data.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #72)10- 118 - (A-2-1(b)4): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "Fire extinguishers not rated for Class C hazards should not beused 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) presenta 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).COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete text in parenthesis in existing text.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarification.

___________________

(Log #117)10- 119 - (A-2-1(b)5): RejectSUBMITTER: 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 apotential shock hazard after discharge if used in the proximity ofenergized electrical equipment.) Renumber current items 5, 6, 7,and 8.SUBSTANTIATION: U.L. is now testing and rating Class Cextinguishers with conductive agents. It is important to includethis safety condition regarding the potential shock hazard that mayoccur after discharge.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Proposal 10-15 (Log#CP4) on A-1-4.2.

___________________


136

Table A-2-1 Characteristics of ExtinguishersExtinguishing Agent Method of Operation Capacity Horizontal

Range ofStream

ApproximateTime of

Discharge

ProtectionRequired

below40°F (4°C)

UL or ULCClassifications*

Water Stored-pressure orpump

21/2 gal 30 to 40 ft 1 min Yes 2-A

Pump 4 gal 30 to 40 ft 2 min Yes 3-APump 5 gal 30 to 40 ft 2 to 3 min Yes 4-A

Water (wetting agent) Stored-pressure 11/2 gal 20 ft 30 sec Yes 2-A

Carbon dioxide cylinder 25 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 11/2 min Yes 10-A

Carbon dioxide cylinder 45 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 2 min Yes 30-ACarbon dioxide cylinder 60 gal (wheeled) 35 ft 21/2 min Yes 40-A

Loaded stream Stored-pressure orcartridge

21/2 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-AStored-pressure 6 L 30 to 40 ft 1 min Yes 1-AStored-pressure water mist 1.8 gal 8 to 12 ft 1 min Yes 2-A:CStored-pressure water mist 21/2 gal 8 to 12 ft 11/2 min Yes 2-A:C

AFFF, FFFP Stored-pressure 21/2 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-BCarbon dioxide ** Self-expelling 21/2 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:CSelf-expelling 20 lb 3 to 8 ft 10 to 30 sec No 10-B:CSelf-expelling 50 to 100 lb

(wheeled)3 to 10 ft 10 to 30 sec No 10 to 20-B:C

Dry chemical (sodiumbicarbonate)

Stored-pressure 1 to 21/2 lb 5 to 8 ft 8 to 12 sec No 2 to 10-B:C

Cartridge or stored-pressure

23/4 to 5 lb 5 to 20 ft 8 to 25 sec No 5 to 20-B:C


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:CNitrogen cylinderorstored-pressure

75 to 350 lb(wheeled)

15 to 45 ft 20 to 105 sec No 40 to 320-B:C

Dry chemical (potassiumbicarbonate)









20 ft 30 to 35 sec No 120 to 160-B:C

Nitrogen cylinder orstored-pressure



Dry chemical (potassiumchloride)











15 to 45 ft 30 to 40 sec No 160-B:C

Dry chemical (ammoniumphosphate)

Stored-pressure 1 to 5 lb 5 to 12 ft 8 to 10 sec No 1 to 5-A † and 2 to 10-B:C

Stored-pressure orcartridge

21/2 to 9 lb 5 to 12 ft 8 to 15 sec No 1 to 4-A and 10 to 40-B:C


9 to 17 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 2 to 20-A and 10 to80-B:C


17 to 30 lb 5 to 20 ft 10 to 25 sec No 3 to 20-A and 30 to120-B:C



20 ft 25 to 35 sec No 20 to 30-A and 80 to160-B:C



15 to 45 ft 30 to 60 sec No 20 to 40-A and 60 to320-B:C


137

Table A-2-1 Characteristics of Extinguishers (continued)Extinguishing Agent Method of Operation Capacity Horizontal

Range ofStream

ApproximateTime of

Discharge

ProtectionRequired

below40°F (4°C)

UL or ULCClassifications*

Dry chemical (foamcompatible)










Dry chemical (potassiumbicarbonate urea based)

Stored-pressure 5 to 11 lb 11 to 22 ft 18 sec No 40 to 80-B:C

Stored-pressure 9 to 23 lb 15 to 30 ft 17 to 33 sec No 60 to 160-B:C175 lb (wheeled) 70 ft 62 sec No 480-B:C

Stored-pressure 6 L 8 to 25 ft 30 sec Yes 2-A:10-B:CWet chemical Stored-pressure 6 L 8 to 12 ft 35 to 45 sec Yes 1-B:C

21/2 gal 8 to 12 ft 75 to 85 sec Yes 2-A:1-B:C

Halon 1211(bromochlorodi-fluoromethane)

Stored-pressure 0.9 to 2 lb 6 to 10 ft 8 to 10 sec No 1 to 2-B:C

2 to 3 lb 6 to 10 ft 8 to 10 sec No 5-B:C51/2 to 9 lb 9 to 15 ft 8 to 15 sec No 1-A:10-B:C

13 to 22 lb 14 to 16 ft 10 to 18 sec No 2 to 4-A and 20 to 80-B:C

50 lb 35 ft 30 sec No 10-A:120-B:C150 lb (wheeled) 20 to 35 ft 30 to 44 sec No 30-A:160 to 240-B:C

Halon 1211/1301 (bromo-chlorodifluoromethanebromotrifluoro-methane) mixtures

Stored-pressure or self-expelling

0.9 to 5 lb 3 to 12 ft 8 to 10 sec No 1 to 10-B:C

Stored-pressure 9 to 20 lb 10 to 18 ft 10 to 22 sec No 1-A:10-B:C to 4-A:80-B:C

Halocarbon type Stored-pressure 1.25 to 150 lb 6 to 25 ft 9 to 30 sec No 1B:C to 10A:90B:CStored-pressure 3 L 8 to 12 ft 20 sec Yes 1-B:C:KStored-pressure 6 L 8 to 12 ft 1 min Yes 2-A:1-B:C:KStored-pressure 21/2 gal 8 to 12 ft 11/2 min Yes 2-A:1-B:C:K

Note: Halon should be used only where its unique properties are deemed necessary.* UL and ULC ratings checked as of July 24, 1987. Readers concerned with subsequent ratings should review the pertinent lists andsupplements issued by these laboratories: Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, orUnderwriters Laboratories of Canada, 7 Crouse Road, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1R 3A9.** Carbon dioxide extinguishers with metal horns do not carry a C classification.† Some small extinguishers containing ammonium phosphate-based dry chemical do not carry an A classification.

___________________(Log #14)

10- 120 - (A-2-1.1): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...halon should not cannot be used for routine training ofpersonnel."SUBSTANTIATION: Under EPA guidelines, training with Halonextinguishers is prohibited.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Present wording is appropriate forthe annex.

___________________

(Log #121)10- 121 - (A-2-2.1.5): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: A-2-2.1.5 (Wet chemical fire extinguishers contain agents whichare conductors of electricity. There is no shock hazard potentialduring the fine spray application on cooking media fires.However, if the agent is directly discharged on an electricalappliance, the liquid pool that accumulates after discharge cancreate a potential shock hazard.)

SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of this appendix materialgives additional explanation of the hazard potential.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 1-4.1 and 1-4.2 were revisedand moved to the annex. The conductivity of the wet chemicalagent was also addressed. See Proposal 10-15 Log# CP4.

___________________(Log #63)

10- 122 - (A-2-3.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Two changes required - first, deletesections (a), (b), and (c). Second, revise last sentence of firstparagraph to read: "The listing test protocol is as follows in A-2-3.2(a) through (c): found in ANSI/UL-711."SUBSTANTIATION: ANSI/UL-711 now incorporates everythingthat is in A-2-3.2(a) through (c).COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #80)

10- 123 - (A-2-3.2.1 & Figure A-2.3.2.1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add new text as follows: A-2-3.2.1 Figure A-2-3.2.1 is the recommended wording for theclass K placard. Recommended size is [blank]. Recommendedcolor is white letters on red background.


138

SUBSTANTIATION: Consistency of wording, placard size andcolor will help to reduce confusion.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add dimensions to A-2-3.2.1 so paragraph reads as follows: A-2-3.2.1 Figure A-2-3.2.1 is the recommended wording for theclass K placard. Recommended size is 7 5/8 in. x 11 in.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorially added dimensions.

___________________

(Log #17)10- 124 - (A-2-3.5): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Add the following text: "...can cause corrosion. Use of halogenated agents arounddelicate electronic equipment is appropriate. "SUBSTANTIATION: Adds valuable information for the reader.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Covered by 2-3.5.

___________________

(Log #34)10- 125 - (A-3-1.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Most buildings have Class A fire hazards. In any occupancy,there could be a predominant hazard as well as special hazardareas requiring supplemental protection. For example, a hospitalwill generally have need for Class A fire extinguishers coveringpatients’ rooms, corridors, offices, and so forth, but will need ClassB fire extinguishers in laboratories, kitchens, and where flammableanesthetics are stored or handled, and Class C fire extinguishers inelectrical switch gear or generator rooms and Class K extinguishersin kitchens ."SUBSTANTIATION: To show consistency with new Class Krequirements in 2-3.2.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #92)10- 126 - (Table A-4-4.2(a)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeRECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows: "Inner cage, chamber stopple, acid container, or tube" and sub-item 1.SUBSTANTIATION: These are components for obsolete fireextinguishers and should not be included in a maintenance checklist since obsolete extinguishers are to be discarded, notmaintained.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #10)10- 127 - (Table A-4-4.2(b)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: For the title at mid page:

"Halon 1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane Halogenated typeagents."SUBSTANTIATION: Simplifies the text and is more precise.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.Replace entire title with Halogenated type agents.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Use of defined term.

___________________

(Log #12)10- 128 - (A-4-5.3.6): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...in carbon dioxide and halon halogenated fire extinguishers...".SUBSTANTIATION: Halocarbons and Halons (that is"halogenated") agents have the same properties with water.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #19)10- 129 - (A-4-5.3.7): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...be purged with nitrogen or argon (as appropriate) or that...".SUBSTANTIATION: Some halogenated agents use an argonpropellant.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #40)10- 130 - (A-5-5.4.2 and Figure A-5-5.4.2): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Renumber to A-5-6.4 and Figure A-5-6.4and relocate as needed.SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 5-5.4.2 refers to hydrostatictesting of hose assemblies. Correct reference is Paragraph 5-6.4.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #62)10- 131 - (Figure B-2-1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Delete the phrase "For all water-basedtypes" shown under the heading for Class A types.SUBSTANTIATION: There are currently water basedextinguishers that have Class C ratings; therefore, the statement thatthe slash B and slash C symbols are for all water type extinguishersis incorrect.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #20)10- 132 - (C-3-4): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Insert the following text: "...and prevent extinguishment. CO 2 extinguishers have a limitedeffect on deep seated Class A fires. The concentration...".SUBSTANTIATION: Provides additional information on thecapability of a CO2 extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Covered by Proposal 10-133 (Log#21).

___________________

(Log #21)10- 133 - (C-3-4): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Insert the following text: "...duplicating areas. CO 2 extinguishers are listed for use on aClass B and Class C fire. Since the..."SUBSTANTIATION: Provides information on the listing of a CO2extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________


139

(Log #22)10- 134 - (C-3-5.4): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Insert the following text: "...no residue. Typically, they are environmentally acceptable. Larger models of...".SUBSTANTIATION: The statement helps to differentiateenvironmentally between Halon 1211 and a halocarbon agent.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This statement does not containcomplete information and may be misleading.

___________________(Log #9)

10- 135 - (Figure C-3-7.2(b)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Figure C-3.7.2(b) Stored pressure Halon 1211 Halogenated type." "Agent level gauge (optional) ."SUBSTANTIATION: Changing the title to "Halogenated"incorporates Halon and Halocarbons. Not all approvedhalogenated wheeled units have agent level gauges.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #57)10- 136 - (Table D-1.2.2): RejectSUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd.RECOMMENDATION: Add to Table D-1.2.2:

Stored Pressure

Homogeneous liquid agent X

SUBSTANTIATION: This material is part of the new fire fightingagents under the new specification "Water Additive Agents."COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Covered by wetting agent.

___________________

(Log #90)10- 137 - (D-2-4.2(c)): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jack Nicholas , Northeast Wisconsin Technical CollegeRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Remove reference to " inverting, bumping"SUBSTANTIATION: These actions describe the actuation ofobsolete styles of fire extinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #23)

10- 138 - (D-4-3): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Add: " Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers are not effective on deepseated fires which can occur within in electrical enclosures. "SUBSTANTIATION: Provides guidance on using a CO2extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add the following after the first sentence of last paragraph: "Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers might have a limited effect ondeep seated fires in electrical enclosures."COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Provides more accurate information.

___________________(Log #8)

10- 139 - (D-4-4): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "...by moving the discharge nozzle slowly (halon) or rapidly(some halocarbons) side to side...". "...cooking grease fires (see Figure D-4.4.1) ."SUBSTANTIATION: Provides more precise instruction to theuser.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that movingthe nozzle slowly during discharge is more effective.

___________________

(Log #18)10- 140 - (Figure D-4-4.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure D-4.4.1 as follows:

Figure D-4.4.1 Halon 1211 and Halogenated Halogenated AgentType Stored Pressure Fire Extinguisher.SUBSTANTIATION: By replacing Halon 1211 with Halogenatedagent it includes both the Halons and halocarbons.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #125)

10- 141 - (D-4-7): Accept in Principle in PartSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: D-4.7 Line 4. 1-B:C and 2-A:1-B:C respectively, and also havebeen found suitable rated for Class K hazards. Line 8 a combination of the aforementioned chemicals .(, whichare conductors of electricity.) Last line of first paragraph. The agent is (when) discharged as afine spray, (directly at cooking media appliances) which reducesthe possibility of splashing hot grease . (and does not present ashock hazard to the operator.) Last line third paragraph. (See Figure D-4.7)SUBSTANTIATION: Text revisions to include Class K rated fireextinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.Delete second sentence of first paragraph. Add "optional" under "wand" in Figure D-4.7. Line 8 a combination of the aforementioned chemicals (, whichare conductors of electricity.) Last line of first paragraph. The agent (when) discharged as afine spray, (directly at cooking appliances) reduces the possibilityof splashing hot grease (and does not present a shock hazard to theoperator.) Last line third paragraph.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Editorial clarification.

___________________(Log #126)

10- 142 - (D-4-7): RejectSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Add new paragraph 4 to read as follows: (Wet chemical fire extinguishers are available in two models.One model, Figure D-4.7a has an application wand with a spraynozzle. The other model, Figure D-4.7b has the spray nozzleattached directly on the hose. Caution: When using the modelequipped with the applicator wand a violent reaction, sprayingburning grease back toward the operator, will occur if the nozzlecomes in contact with the cooking media.)SUBSTANTIATION: Text revisions to include Class K rated fireextinguishers.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Caution is technically inaccurate.Also see Committe Action on Proposal 10- (Log #125) for figureand Committee Proposal 10-51 (Log #CP19) for warning label.

___________________

Pressuregauge

Dischargelever

Carryinghandle

Discharge hoseand nozzle

Siphon tube

Halogenatedagent


140

(Log #127)10- 143 - (Figure D-4-7): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION:

Figure D-4.7(a) Wet chemical extinguisher.

Figure D-4.7(b) Wet chemical extinguisher.

SUBSTANTIATION: Two diagrams should be included toillustrate two different models that require different applicationconsiderations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-141 (Log #125).

___________________

(Log #74)10- 144 - (D-4-8): AcceptSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Section D-4.8 on Water MistExtinguisher to read: "Fire extinguishers of this type are available in 2.5 gallon and 1.75gallon sizes. They have ratings of 2A:C. The agent is limited todistilled water which is discharged as a fine spray. In addition tobeing used as a regular water extinguisher, water mist extinguishersare used where contaminants in unregulated water sources maycause excessive damage to personnel or equipment. Typicalapplications include operating rooms, museums, and bookcollections."

SUBSTANTIATION: Water mist extinguishers carry a uniquerating and have been available for a number of years.Specifications are appearing in the marketplace for these units tomeet specific requirements or situations.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________

(Log #128)10- 145 - (D-4-8): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Marshall Petersen, Marshall Petersen & Co.RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: D-4.8 Water Mist Extinguisher. Fire extinguishers of this type areavailable in hand portable models of 2 1/2 gal (9.46L) capacitywith a listing of 2A:C. The agent used in this fire extinguisher isdistilled water, which is discharged as a fine mist through a mistingnozzle, attached to the end of a plastic or metal wand. There is noshock hazard potential during mist application on fires located inthe close proximity of energized electrical equipment. However,the liquid pool of water that forms after discharge may becomeconductive with contamination and create a potential shock hazardcondition. Since the agent used is distilled water, this fireextinguisher cannot be installed in areas subjected to temperaturesbelow 40°F (4°C). This fire extinguisher weighs about 30 lb. (14 kg) and thedischarged mist has a range of 10 to 12 ft horizontally. Thedischarge can be operated intermittently but, under continuous useit has a discharge time of about 80 seconds. (See Figure D-4.8)

Figure D-4.8 Water Mist Extinguisher

SUBSTANTIATION: New text needed for new Water MistExtinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pinciple.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Add text and Figure.

___________________(Log #39)

10- 146 - (E-5.1): AcceptSUBMITTER: Fred B. Goodnight , Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Delete last sentence.SUBSTANTIATION: Correct error.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

___________________(Log #68)

10- 147 - (E-5-1): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: Craig Voelkert, Amerex Corp.RECOMMENDATION: Revise E-5.1 to read: "To protect operators in situations where live electricalequipment could be encountered, fire extinguishers with Class Cratings are required." Delete sentence "Fire extinguishers so ratedutilize a nonconducting extinguishant."SUBSTANTIATION: Fire extinguishers with Class C ratingscurrently use agents that are, or can be, electrically conductive —

Pressure gauge

Discharge lever

Carrying handle

Anti-overfill tube

Applicator wand

Spray nozzle

Siphon tube

Wet chemical

Pressure gauge

Discharge lever

Carrying handle

Anti-overfill tube

Spray nozzle

Siphon tube

Wet chemical

Pressure gauge

Discharge lever

Carrying handle

Anti-overfill tube

Applicator wand

Misting nozzle

Siphon tube

Distilled water


141

refer to A-2-2.1.3 in the standard. Additionally, there areconductivity tests involving halon 1301, halon 1211, dry chemicals,and other agents.COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Proposal10-146 (Log #39).

___________________

(Log #58)10- 148 - (F-2.1(e) (New)): Accept in PrincipleSUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd.RECOMMENDATION: Add the following: (e) Homogeneous liquid agent .SUBSTANTIATION: This material is part of the new fire fightingagents under the new specification "Water Additive Agents."COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add "wetting agent" to (b).COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Wetting agents covers these wateradditives.

___________________

(Log #56)10- 149 - (Table F-5.3.2): RejectSUBMITTER: William J. Coviello, TLI Group Ltd.RECOMMENDATION: Add to Table F-5.3.2:

InternalMaintenance

Interval (Years)

HydrostaticTesting Interval

(Years)Homogeneousliquid agent

15 15

SUBSTANTIATION: This addition to the specifications will allowthe acceptance of seamless aluminum cylinders with carbonreinforced composite wrapped with fiber glass to have a hydrostatictest which would coincide with the service life of the cylinder asrecognized by the Code of Federal Regulations number 173.309.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No technical substantiationprovided for 15 year interval.

___________________

(Log #11)10- 150 - (Index): RejectSUBMITTER: Jeff Gibson , American Pacific CorporationRECOMMENDATION: Under "Halogenated agent fireextinguisher" index add: " Delicate Equipment.........................A-2-3.5 ." " Characteristics of Moisture............A-4-5.3.6 ." " Diagram of Extinguisher...............Figure D-4.4.1 ."SUBSTANTIATION: Provides additional indexes for points ofinterest on a Halogenated Agent Extinguisher.COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Committees don’t handle theindexes.

___________________

10-rop-2002-standard for portable fire extinguishers · gary a. nadolny, ansul fire...

Documents