1 9 7 9 I='all M e e t i n g

T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e D o c u m e n t a t i o n

/" r .,p y"

// ., /9 F

A Cm~pilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published

Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting

Hyatt Regency Phoenix Phoenix, Arizona

November 12-14, 1979

I Please Bring to the Fall Meeting I

N F P A

Copyright ~ 1979 All Rights Reserved

National Fire Protection Association, Inc. ,470 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02210

11M-9-79-FP-SM Printed m U.$ A.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Report of Committee on Storage

Correlating Committee

W. Robert Powers, Chairman~ New York Board of Fire Underwriters

James L. Robertson~ Secretary Furriers' Customers Reinsurance Syndicate

(Nonvoting)

Jack S. Barr i t t , Industrial Risk Insurers Thomas E. Goonan, U.S. General Services Admlnlstration Philip M. Hamlin, Toms River, NJ

Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. W. P. Thomas Jr., Kemper Insurance Companies C. R. Thomson, Canadian Wood Council

Nonvoting

Wesley L. D. Chisholm, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Rep. NFPA Committee on Motor Vehicle & Hwy FP)

William H. Doyle, Simsbury, CT (Rep. NFPA Comm. on Storage Handllng & Trans Haz. Chem.)

R. A. Pedersen, Washlngton Surveying & Rating Bureau (Rep. NFPA Committee on Piers & Wharves)

E. C. Sommer, Exxon Research & Engineering Company (Rep. NFPA Comm. on Gen. Stor. of Flamm. Liq.)

Technical Committee on General Storage

J. S. Barr i t t , Industrial Risk Insurers

Robert E. Bean, Trail Park Fire Control Tax Distr ict 7 S, H. Bingham, Merchants Refrigerating Company

(Rep. National Association of Refrigerated Warehouses) L. M. Bolz, Improved Risk Mutuals

Martin M. Brown, White Plains, NY

J. P. Carroll, Society of the Plastics Industry

R. C. Everson, M&M Protection Consultants Norman M. France, National Furniture Warehousemens Assn. Paul D. Germond, Revolvater Company

(Rep. Industrial Truck Association) Thomas E. Goonan, U.S. General Services Admlnistratlon Philip M. Hamlln, Toms River, NJ W. R. Heitzig, Dew Chemical Company

(Rep. Manufacturing Chemists Association)

W. P. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Kemper Insurance Companies

Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. (Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Sectlon)

R. S. Johnson~ Owens-Illinois Inc. Harry W. Klasmeier, Anne Arundel County F~re Dept., MD

D. H. Lauridsen, Insurance Company of North America (Rep. American Insurance Association)

A. M. Lownsbury, Dearborn, MI (Rep. American Warehousemens Associatlon)

Raymond J. Malek, Paul J. Grun~u Company (Rep. National Auto Sprinkler & Fire Con. Association)

C. Bart Nixon, National American Wholesale Grocers Association Robert G. Planer, Johnson & Higgins W. Robert Powers, New York Board of Fire Underwriters

R. J. Praetz, Factory Mutual Research Corp. J. P. Spollen, Western Electric Company, Inc. R. W. Weltzel, Borden Inc.

(Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protectlon Section)

J. D. Crawford, Johnson & Higgins (Alternate to R. G. Planer)

Gregory L. Daum, Amerlcan Int l . Companies (Alternate to D. H. Lauridsen)

Robert C. Hawker, Owens-lllinols Inc. (Alternate to R. S. Johnson)

Allen I. Hjertstedt, Improved Risk Mutuals (Alternate to L. M. Bolz)

Stephen R. Hoover, Kemper Insurance Companies (Alternate to W. P. Thomas)

Alternates

E. E. Mil ler, Industrlal Risk Insurers (Alternate to J. S. Barri t t)

Allen D. Walters, American Warehousemen's Association (Alternate to A. M. Lownsbury)

Lewls H. Zimmermann, Adelphia Automatic Sprinkler Company (Alternate to R. J. Malek)

Kenneth A. Zuber, Kidde-Bellevnle (Alternate to Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association)

C. Howard Adams, Monsanto Company William Bradford, Olin Corp. J. P. Carroll, Society of the Plastics Industry OohD A. Davenport, Industrial R~sk Insurers

Subcommittee on Storage of Plastics

W. P. Thomas, Jr., Chairman Kemper Insurance Companies

R. S. Johnson, Owens-Illinois, Inc. Thomas A. Lenten, Libbey-Owens-Ford Company W. Robert Powers, New York Board of Fire Underwriters R. J. Praetz, Factory Mutual Research Corp.

NOTE: Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association has one votlng alternate, but no princlpal representative.

This l is t represents the membership at the tlme the Committee was balloted. Since that time, changes In the membership may have occurred.

The Committee on General Storage presents for adoption its Supplementary Report on the Standard for Indoor General Storage, NFPA 231-1974. The Supplementary Report contains the documentation of the Committee's action on those public comments and recommendations submitted in response to its report as published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1979 Fall Meeting.

This Supplementary Report has been submltted to letter ballot of the Technlcal Commlttee on General Storag@ whlch consists of 26 voting members, of whom 20 have voted affirmatively. Messrs. Barr i t t , Malek and Praetz voted negatively, and Messrs. Bingham, Germond and Nixon did not return their ballots.

80

Mr. Barrit t voted negatlvely for the followlng reason: Chapter 7. The present arrangement is too involved and generates an almost unllmlted cholce of density/area combinations; some of which may not be good protection. This entire subject warrants more review and dlscusslon and probable revlslon before adoptlon.

Mr. Malek voted negatively for the following reasons: (1) The n~thod by whlch deslgners are expected to select densities for storage of plastlcs is too detailed. (2) A number of two-polnt densltles can be generated, all of whlch are "correct." This w~ll produce confusion among reviewing authorities. (3) The two-polnt system requlres an addltlonal set of hydraulic calculations. (4) We do not feel that encapsulated and nonencapsulated storage may be treated the same, as demonstrated by the rack storage testing program.

Mr. Praetz voted negatively for the following reasons: I-2 Range of sprlnkler temperatures is too wide, partlcularly on the lower end. Only 160-165°F and 280-286°F were tested. 6-1.1 Encapsulatlon not shown to be greater hazard in palletlzed and solld piles. Chapter 7 Needs n~re study and simpllflcalton. Inferred accuracy higher than 3ustlfled. No tests to just i fy protectlon over 20 f t high storage. Insuff lc ie~ just i f icat ion for more than one point on curves. May encourage super-hlgh pressures at spr}nklers desplte A-7-1 to result in skipping and lack of drop penetratlon.

This Supplenw~ntary Report has also been submltted to letter ballot of the Storage Correlating Committee which consists of seven voting menW)ers, 6 of whom have voted affirmatlvely on the release of the Supplementary Report. Mr. Thomson dld not return a ballot.

81

231-1 - (Entire Standard): Reject SUBMITTER: Russell P. Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & ~"i'r-e'-C-6n-~rol Assoc., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend returning entire document to Committee for further study. SUBSTANTIATION: We agree with the recorded s£atements of those ~Ommitteemembers who voted negatively: i . The method by which designers are expected to select densities for storage of plastics is too detailed. 2. A number of two-point densities can be generated, al l of which are "correct." This will produce confusion among reviewing authorities. 3. The two-point system requires an additional set of hydraulic calculatons. 4. We do not feel that encapsulated and non-encapsulated storage may be treated the same, as demonstrated by the rack storage testing program. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The entire document should not be returned to Committee due to objections to the protection of plastics. The protection for commodity classes I through IV have not changed from the previous edition.

231-2 - (Entire Standard): Reject SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assoc. ~ A T I O N : None. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed revision to NFPA 231 ~s too 'Ynvolve~ and too complicated for most users or authorities having jurisdict ion to apply correctly or consistently. Although the concept appears good, we feel i t should be reworked and represented in a form more understandable and usable to users. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITT~COMMENT: Objection to new material is not adequate reason to return the entire document to the Committee. The protection for commodity classes I through IV have not changed from the previous edition.

231-3 - ( i - I ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc.

I ~'~'COI~&TE]~I~ATION: 1-1.1.1 Storage of materials representing the ~road range of combustlbles up to 30 f t (9.1 m) in height. 1-1.1.2 Storage of Plastics (Groups B and C - a l l conf4gurations; Group A - free flowing only) up to 30 f t (9.1 m) in height. 1-1.1.3 Storage of Group A plastics (except free flowing) up to 25 f t (7.6 m) in height. SUBSTANTIATION: The scope as written and revised would exclude storages under 12 f t (5 f t f~r Group A) from all requirements of the standard. It is believed that e x c l u s i ~ should apply only to sprinkler requirements and not to other provisions of this standard., COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-4 - (1-1.3.4): Reject , SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurer's Adwsory Organlzation of ~ T RECOMMENDATION: Amend 1-1.3.4 to read:

ii Commodlties presenting special f i re control problems and which are not covered - (remalnder unchanged)." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C.OMMITTEE COMMENT: The proposed wording does not change the intent. 1:he present wordlng in this paragraph is adequate.

231-5 - (1-2): Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Brownstein, City of Los Angeles, Californla ~rE~c-O~IE'N'~ATION: Open Array* A storage arrangement where air movement through the pile is enhanced because of large vertical flues. SUBSTANTIATION: T~is note should be moved to the Appendlx as I t is not a part of a requlrement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Commlttee feels that this Information ~s important to the definition and should remaln in the body of the standard rather than in the Appendix.

231-6 - (2-1.5"): Accept in principle SUBMITTER: D, B. Grant, Insurers' Advlsory Organizatlon of

RECOMMENDATION: In Group A include "cellular or shredded cellulosics (Cellulose Acetate, Cellulose Acetate Butyrate, Ethyl Cellulose & Regenerated Cellulose)."

Modify f i r s t line of Group B to read "Cellulosics (Cellulose Acetate, Cellulose Acetate Butyrate, Ethyl Cellulose & Regenerated Cellulose) other than cellular or shredded." SUBSTANTIATIdN: Burning characteristics of cellular and shredded cellulosics more properly fa l l with the G~oup A category of materlals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees that the physlcal form of the material could change the'classification, but this does

I not apply only to cellulosics. Thus, the NOTE has been revised to insert "or the physical form of the material" after "modifiers" in the second line. I

231-7 - (4-3.-i):, Reject " . SUBMITTER: T. GL Collinge, Insurer's Advisory Organization of

RECOMMENDATION: Amend 4-3.1 to read: ~'Wall aisles shall be provided and maintained at least 24"

(61 cm) wide." 'SUBSTANTIATION: Zero wall alsle clearance (for other than water absorbent material) unduly restr icts f i re fighters access. Also, in the "higher" commodity classes, obstruction to cooling water distribution from sprinklers ,by abutting piles may enhance wall or structural support collapse under #ctual f l re condltions. Perlmeter aisles should be required ~n all cases. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.' . . COMMITTEE COMMENT: Sprinkler protection is designed to protect the array and the Committee feels that wall aisles are not needed. This is adequately covered in 4-3.2.

231-8 - (4-4.1 & 4-4.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: John A. Davenport, Industrial Risk Insurers ~ A T I O N : In both instances, remove the reference tO "Nonexpanded Polyethylene Solid Deck Idle Pallets." SUBSTANTIATION: In large scale tests that were run, i t was found that solid deck polyethylene pallets had a maximum burn rate comparable to wood pallets ( i .e. " 52-56 Ib/mln.). However, polyethylene has almost 50% more BTU/Ib. Under these circumstances of a 50% greater heat load, how is i t posslble to conslder that these plastic pallets require no more protection than wood pallets? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Test data indicates that polyethylene pa'ilets b urn comparable to wood under the same conditions.

231-9 - (4-4.1.1"): Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Brownsteln, City of Los Angeles, California ~ A T I O N : Delete "Pallets shall preferably be stored outside or in a detached buildlng." SUBSTANTIATIbN: This should be moved to the Appendlx as i t is not a requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that the present wordlng is acceptable. To change this would not be consistent wlth 4-4.2.1.

231-I0 - (Table 4-4.1.2): Accept as mQdified SUBMITTER; Edward'Brownsteln, City of Los Angeles~ Californla ~ A T I O N :

Area of Sprinkler Demand ft2(m2)

286°F (141°C) 165°F (7~d) S~rinkler Temperature Temperatu[e Rating Rating

SUBSTANTIATION: For clar l ty. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept as modified. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Revise as follows:

Area of Sprinkler Demand Ft2(m 2)

Temperature Rating 286°F,(141°C) 165°F (74°C)

~. ._ ._

82

J 231-11 - (4-4.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc.

J RE---E-C-OMMENDATION: Insert "and" after (a) Stored no higher than 6 f t (1.8 m) and (b) . . . . . . . . .-TT.. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarlfles intent that both conditions must be met, otherwise (a) would seem to be in conflict with f i r s t line of Table 4-4.1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-12 - (Table 4-4.1.2 & 4-4.2.2): Accept SUBHITTER: LeRoy H. Bradley, The Viking Corp. RECOMMENDATION: The temperature is stated as an exact temperature of 286°F and 165°F. This should be stated as a nominal 286°F or 165°F. Temperature or stated as high temperature or ordinary temperature. SUBSTANTIATION: As stated in Pamphlet 13, the range of temperatures for ordinary is 135 ° to 170°F (57 ° to 77°C) and for high temperature i t Is 250 = to 300°F (121°C to 149°C). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Add a new deflnltlon in i-2 followlng "Solid Unit Load . . . . " to read as follows:

I Sprinkler Temperature Rating. A 165°F (74°C) rating includes temperature ratings between 135°F (57°C) and 175°F (OOeC), and a 286°F (141°C) ratin 9 ~ncludes temperature ratings between 250°F (121°C) and 300°F'(149°C).

231-13 - (5-1.2, 5-1.2.1 & 5-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: T. G. Colllnge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of

I RECOMMENDATION: Add new: "5-I.2.3 for all classes of commodity, minimum water supply for sprinklers shall not be less than those given in Table 2-2.1 (B) in "Installation of Sprinkler Systems," NFPA 13 as follows:

(a) Class I and I I Commodity: Ordinary Hazard Group I (b) Class I l l Commodity: Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (c) Class IV Commudlty: Ordinary Hazard Group 3.

SUBSTANTIATION: 5-1.2, 5-1.2.1 and 5-1.2.2 do not reference the minimum water supplies glven in Table 2-?.I (B). Substantiation is O.I. dated January 1977 and reissued 2/79: " I t is the subcommittee's judgment that a factor of safety is required to compensate for the many unknown conditions that are uncontrollable. These include, among others, those periods of high water demand which may not have been considered in the flow test information or an error in the selection of the area of sprlnkler operation." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-14 - (5-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert J. Madden, Fire Equipment Manufacturers

RECOMMENDATION: Modify the paragraph as follows: "Small Hese Systen~. Small hose lines 1 1/2 inch 38 mm of

not over 100 font in length shall be available to reach all portions of the storage area. Such hose systems may be supplied from A) a separate piping system for small hose stations (Class I I NFPA 14), B) valve hose connections on combined sprinkler standpipe risers where such connections are made upstream of sprinkler control valve (Class I l l NFPA 14). SUBSTANTIATION: These changes are necessary in order that the standard comply with the acceptable and recognized provlslons of NFPA 14 Standpipe and Hose Systems, in addition to being compatible with Model Building and Fire Codes related to storage occupancies. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that the submitter's interpretation is too restrictive and that the present wording is adequate.

231-15 - (5-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : Reference should be made to NFPA 24 for outside hydrants.

Reference should be made that small hose stations under (b), (c) and (d) "shall be installed according to NFPA 14 or 13. SUBSTANTIATION: No installatlon design or performance specifications are given for small hose lines in (a), (b), (c) or (d). Give some performance requirements or refer to applicable NFPA Standard(s).

(d) "See NFPA 13" is not a requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: NFPA 24 is referenced in 5-3, and NFPA 13 is referenced in 5-2.1(d). The Committee feels that there is no need to reference NFPA 14. See Con~ent 18.

231-16 - (5-2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of Can-~ RECOMMENDATION: Amend 5-2.1 to read:

J "Small hose lines (1 1/2 in. (38 mm)) shall be available to reach all portions of the storage area, giving due consideration to access aisle conflguration with maximum anticipated storage in place." SUBSTANTIATION: Small hose station locations based on an open area concept do not guarantee that all portions of the storage area wil l be reached once stock is moved in, because of interference with hose lays by stock piles themselves. Stock configuration must be considered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: This replaces only the f i r s t sentence, the rest remains.

231-17 - (5-2.1(d)): Accept in part SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of

RECOMMENDATION: ~r~end 5-2.1(d) to read: J13"Adjacent. sprinkler systems." Delete the reference to NFPA

SUBSTANTIATION: I t should not be possible to eliminate both sprinkler and small hose protection in a given area slmultaneously, in the context of high piled storage. The proposed revlslon improves re l lab i l i t y of the f l re protection system as a whole. As written, 5-2.1(d) wi l l v i r tual ly eliminate options (a) through (c), all of which are essentially independent of overhead sprinklers, for economic reasons only. COtCMITTEE ACTION: Accept in part.

I ~ T : The rewording is accepted, but the reference to NFPA 13 is retained.

231-18 - (5-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert J. Madden, Fire Equipmbnt Manufacturers' ASSOC. RECOMMENDATION: Portable Fi re Extinguishers shall be provided in accordance w~th the NFPA Standard on Po tab le Fi re Extinguishers NFPA 10. Up to 1/2 of the complement of extinguishers fo r Class A f i r es may be replaced by uniformly spaced 1 1/2 inch hose stat ions when hose stat ions are so provided that they conform to NFPA 14 Ins ta l l a t i on of Standpipe and Hose Systems. The location of hose stat ions and the placement of f i r e extinguishers shall be in such a manner that the bose stat ions do not replace more than every other ext inguisher. SUBSTANTIATION: These changes are necessary in order that the sections comply with the existing acceptable and recognized provisions of NFPA 10 on Portable Flre Extinguishers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE CON(ENT: I t is not the intent of the Committee to require standpipes. NFPA 10 references NFPA 14.

231-19 - (5-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : This requirement is too stringent from a securlty standpoint.

This statement should be removed to the Appendix or reworded. SUBSTANTIATION: From a security standpoint this is not practicable and may not be legally possible i f of a high security nature or i f cr i t ical proprietary value. Casualty insurance underwriters may not always concur with 5-4.1 to turn over the keys to everyone ( i .e. municipal f i re departments, etc.). How do you follow 5-4.1 in a rural area with no fu l l time f i re or police? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ : The submltter's interpretation of restrictiveness is more than was intended. I t is anticipated that good Judgment would be used.

231-20 - (5-4.1 & A-5-4.1): Accept in principle SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT RECOMMENDATION: The Appendix wording does not appear to correspond to this section 5-4.1. Proposed: Remove the asterisk from 5-4.1 and place * on 5-4.2. Change "A-5-4.1" to "A-5-4.?." SUBSTANTIATION: The asterisk on 5-4.1 appears to have been mislocated. I t should be placed with 5-4.2. I read nothing in A-5-4.1 that corresponds to 5-4.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in principle.

J COMMITTEE COMMENT: Delete the asterisk after 5-4.1, place an asterisk after 5-4, and renumber A-5-4.1 as A-5-4.

83

231-21 - (5-4.2(e)); Reject SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : Add some warning comments in the Appendix to cover proper precautions for firef~ghters and non firefighters. SUBSTANTIATION: Some comments should be made ~n the Appendix of the hazards involved for non firefighters and f~reflghters during the final extinguishment. There could be considerable hazards (~.e. toxic gases, electrical, etc.) to a non'fire- fighter i f not properly protected ( i .e. fu l l turnout gear and self contained breathing apparatus, etc.). A f irefighter operating material handling equipment that he/she is not trained in or used before could subject him/heTself and others to additional hazards. I t appears the standar~ is more concerned with property than lives. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that the present wordlng is adequate. F~ref~ghtlng procedures are not w~thin the scope of th~s standard.

231-22 - (5-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Adwsory Organ~zatlon of

RECOMMENDATION: Add subparagraph: ' i "(h) Proper operation of emergency smoke and heat venting |systems where these have been provided." SUBSTANTIATION: In the l~ght of A-3-2, inclusion of th~s item under 5-4.2 seems appropriate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-23 - (5-5): Accept in principle SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : Deflne or refer ,to what a "standard recorded guard service" is. NFPA 601 is not a standard so i t cannot be referenced plus i t does not define the statement e~ther.

Reword as follows: " . . . . ~s acceptable where at least b~-hourly recorded watch

clock serwce is provided." SOBSTANTIATION: I cannot f~nd a deflnition as to what a "standard recorded guard service" is. Also, why does i t have to be "guard serwce?" Is standard hourly, bi-hourly, even four (4) hours, etc. or what? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

~COMMITTEE COMMENT: Delete "standard~' in the third l~ne.

231-24 - (6-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: John A. Davenport, Industrial R~sk Insurers' ~ A T I O N : Revise paragraph to read:

"Protection specified in this chapter shall apply to nonencapsulated commodltles only." SUBSTANTIATION: Large scale rack tests demonstrated that plastic encapsulation has a pronounced affect on protection required - up to 50% greater ceiling density than with nonencapsulated. There has been no s~gn~f~cant testing of pallet~zed or bulk storage, encapsulated above 15 feet in height. Without such tests and ~ith the definite ~nd~cation from rack testing that encapsulation in the greater heights of storage has a strong influence on needed protection, i t IS unwarranted and ~llog~cal to blithely treat both encapsulated and nonencapsulated the same ~n this standard up to heights of 30 feet. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: In 1-2, add the follow~ng NOTE under the definition of "Encapsulated:"

i "NOTE: Banding, ~.e, stretch wrapplng around the sides only of pallet load is not considered to be encapsulated."

231-25 - (6-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organlzat~on of t T RECOMMENDATION: Amend the f~rst sentence to read:

"Except as modified by 5-1.2, 5-1.2.1 and 5-2.2.2, sprlnkler design criteria -- (remalnder unchanged)." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, to ensure that the c~ted sections govern. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. . COMMITTEE COMMENT: I t is understood that Chapter 5 appl~es, and i t is not necessary to restate this here.

\

231-26 - (6-1.3): Hold for further study SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Adwsory Organization of Canada RECOMMENDATION: Amend 6-1.3 to read:

"Bin box and shelf storage over 12 f t (3.7 m) and provided with walkways at not over 12 f t (3.7 m) vertical intervals shall be provided with automatic sprinklers under every level of the walkwayS as well as at the ceillng. The design density for ceillng and walkway sprinklers shall be adjusted in accordance with Figure 6-2.2 based on the height intervals from grade to lowest walkway, walkway to walkway, and highest walkway to celling, or shall conform to 5-1.2, 5-1.2.1 or 5-1.2.2, whichever is greater. Water supply requirement for walkway sprinklers shall be cumulative with those for ceihng sprlnklers. The water supply connection for walkway sprinklers shall be taken from a point immedlately above the alarm valve controlllng ceillng sprlnklers. Control valves shall be provided such that ceillng and walkway spr}nklers may be independently shut off. Areas protected by walkway sprinklers shall not overlap those protected by ceillng systems. Sprinklers under open grate or slmlar walkways shall be prov14ed wlth water shields. SUBSTANTIATION: 6-1.3 as written ralses questions both about the Committee's intent, and with respect to its actual application to designs. The ~roposed revision attempts to answer these in a manner consistent with sound f l re protection principles. The Committee is respectfully requested to respond speclflcally to this interpretation of "adjusted for height" i f i t is not in conformity with-their intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for further study. COMMITTEE CO MME'NT: The Committee feels that thls w111 require addltlonal study and discussion, and that this Comment cannot be properly handled at this time.

~31-27 - (Chapter 7): Reject SUBMITTER: John A. Davenport, 16dustrlal Risk Insurers' ~ A T I O N : Return to Committe for further study and simpllflcation. SUBSTANTIATION: In its present form, the determlnation of protectlon requlrements is too complicated, infers an accuracy of judgment that is not warranted, generates a potentially unllmited number of solutlons (all theoretically correct) and w111 requlre at least two sets of hydraulic calculations for submittal to the authorlty having jurisdlctlon. In addltion, the reflnements of evaluatlng height of storage vs. clearance from sprinklers has not been evaluated nor applied to storages conslsting of the more convention Class I - IV commodities. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: There is no sufflcient substantiatlon for returnlng the entire Chapter to the Committee.

231-28 - (7-i & 7r2): AcC~t in part SUBMITTER: T. C. Colllnge,~nsurers' Advisory Organizatlon of Canada RECOMMENDATION: Publlsh all deslgn parameters as appefidlxes. SUBSTANTIATION: I . There is no substantlal body of test evldence showing that introductlon of a "two-polnt denslty" deslgn concept Is so vltal to f i re protectlon that l i t must be a .requirement at this time. Qn the contrary: tests'9, 10, 16 and 17 of the SPI - sponsored program, in whlch density decay was dellberately controlled at zero, ~ndlcate that a properly selected slngle polnt deslgn approach conslstent with other NFPA standards is entirely acceptable. 2. There is no substantial body of test evidence to just l fy extenslon of protectlon parameters to include storage helghts in excess of 20 feet. 3. No optlons are available to deslgners or to authoritles havlng jurlsdiction in those cases where informatlon needed to complete the Decislon Tree Is elther unknown or not avallable. 4. I t is vltal that upper limlts on design pressures for in l t la l demands be established; as matters now stand, whenever pumps are requlred they may be selected solely on the basis of economlcs of pump costs vs. reductions in system pipe size, and not on sound contextual grounds. 5. There is i nsu f f l c len t rat lonal~zat ion for the mlnlmum "0.25 less than I n l t i a l Density" specif lcat~on for secondary density, for th is to become a "requirement." In any case, the specl f icat ion cannot be met: (a) in the calculated area, once hose stream allowances are added to system requlrements; (b) anywhere outslde the calculated area, regardless of hose stream allowances.

I f ra t lona l l za t ion of denslty decay is intended, th ls can only be properly contro l led by conslderatlon of the slope of the water f low vs resldual pressure graph, at the deslgn stage. C OMM!TTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

84

COMMITTEE COMMENT" Followlng are the Committee comments on each item listed under "Substantiatlon:" i . Other SPI sponsored program tests with density decays showed excellent results, the two point density concept w i l l result in many f i res being controlled very early with minimum ' damage.

J 2. The Committee feels that there is some justi f~catlon for this comment. Thus, F~gure 7-2.2.2 has been modified to res t r i c t clearances for storage helghts in excess of 20 f t . 3. The designer should know al l of the characteristics indicated in the decision tree. Therefore, no options are necessary. 4. The Committee feels that this ~s adequately covered in A-7-I. 5. The Committee feels that a mln~mum difference between i n l t l a l and secondary densltles is necessary to control the density decay. I t is intended that both denslt~es be met or exceeded.

uJ

~-z

z ) -

uJz -Jo I

f t 5 10 15 20 25

rn 1 5 3 0 4 5 6 0 7 5

STORAGE HEIGHT

Figure 7-2.2.2

In general, I mght comment that i t is a rare storage fac111ty in which the commodlty mix stays constant and a designer should be wary of using too sharp a pencll since the introduction of di f ferent materials may ~ncrease protection requlrements considerably. I therefore feel that design should be on the side of higher densities and areas of appllcatlon and the various reductions allowed applies cautiously. For evaluation of exlstlng sltuations, however, the allowances may be quite helpful. COf~ITTEE ACTION: Accept in part. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Replacing the declslon tree with a table was rejected. The Committee feels that the declslon tree is clearer and easier to fol low than a table.

The addltlon of NOTE 4 for Figure 7-1.1 is accepted. Deletlon of Figure 7-2.2(e) Is accepted. Renumber Figure

7-2.2(f) as Figure 7-2.2(e), and add the following in the block In the upper r ight hand corner:

2. NONEXPANDED STABLE EXPOSED

Place an asterisk after 7-1.2 and add a new A-7-I.2 as follows:

A-T-1.2 "There are few storage f a c i l l t l e s in whlch the commodity mix or storage arrangement remains constant, and a designer should be aware that the Introductlon of di f ferent materials may change protection requirements considerably. Design should be on the side of hlgher densities and areas of appllcatlon, and the various reductions allowed should be applied cautiously. For evaluation of existing sltuations, however, the a11owances may be quite helpful."

In the last l lne of 7-2.2, delete "7-2.2(f)" and relocate "and" to before "7-2.2(e)."

See Comment 30.

-<2 w~ zr~ <_j

uJl-

231-30 - (7-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: C. ¥. Lovett Monroe, CT. ~ A T I O N : Add a simple declslon tree:

I Class I I I This wi l l complete al l three groups in one location. Th~s

could be added to the side of the existlng Group A tree or under i t . This w~ll give what hazard class to flow in one location and at a qulck glance. SUBSTANTIATION: To slmphfy and make fast reference in the standard as to what hazard class protectlon is required. This w i l l complete the Tree for al l three Groups. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

JCOMMITTEE COMMENT: Revise Figure 7-1.1 as follows:

231-2g - (7-1.1): Accept in part SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Unlroyal, Inc. ITE~C~)~IL=NDATION: 7-1.1 Group A plastics and rubber shall be protected as indicated by Table 1-1.1.

TABLE i-1.1 1. Expanded Materlal, exposed See Figure 7-2.2(b)

Expanded Material, in cartons See Figure 7-2.2(d) 2. Non Expanded, exposed See Figure 7-2.2(d)

Non Expanded, in cartons See Figure 7-2.2(c) Non Expanded, solid unit load See Figure 7-2.2(a)

3. Free Flowlng Use cr l teMa for Class IV Commodity

(No change in notes to 7-1.1).

I Add Note 4. Applies to Group A plastics piled In excess of 5 f t high. Storages 5 f t high or less shall be protected i T accordance with NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: The decislon tree is replaced by a table which in my opinion is easier to fol low.

Also ehminated as a prlmary cr i ter ion is the unstable category. While piles may be Inherently unstable, I question that we should suggest this as a pi le design factor because of the safety aspect. I have eliminated 2 curves, but recognize that Inherently unstable materials can reduce the area requirement. Figure 7-2.2(d) is ellmlnated as i t is 60% of 7-2.2(f) based on area. 7-2.2(a) and 7-2.2(c) are malntalned because they also apply to stable materlals.

Figure 7-2.2(e) was ehmlnated because i t is not s ignl f icant ly di f ferent from 7-2.2(f).

85

t ' STABLE

Figure 7-2 2(e)

PLASTICS

I - - 1 GROUP A (See Note 3) GROUP B

Class IV

CARTONED

EXPANDED NONEXPANDED

T 1 I

EXPOSED UNSTABLE

Figure 7-2 2(a)

~ ] ' ' 1 I '" UNSTABLE S T A B L E UNSTABLE SOLID UNIT LOAD

Figure 7-2 2(d) Figure 7-2 2(b) Figure 7-2 2(c) Figure 7-2.2(a)

GROUP C

Class III

FREE-FLOWING

Class IV

1 STABLE

CARTONED

Figure 7-2 2(c)

I EXPOSED

Figure 7-2.2(e)

NOTES: , . 1. I t is recommended that 286°F (141°C) rated sprinklers be installed, slnc~ most tests upon which this standard is based used 286°F (141°C) rated sprinklers. 2. The density/area curves are the starting polnts for determining proper protection ]n a given situation. The starting point assumes 20-ft (6.1-m) high storage and 1 1/2-ft (O.5-m) to 4 1/2-ft (I.4-m) clearance. 3. Cartons that contain Group A plastic materlal may be treated as Class IV commodities under the ~ollowing conditions:

(a) There are multlple layers of corrugatlon or equivalent outer materlal that would signif lcantly delay f l re involvement of the Group A plastic.

(b) The amount and arrangement of the Group A plastic material within an ordinary carton would not be expected to signif lcantly increase the f i re hazard. 4. Applles to Group A plastics piled in excess of 5 f t high. Storages 5 f t high or less shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 13.

F]gure 7-1.1 Dec]sion Tree.

i

231-31 - (Note 7-1.1 ): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Colllnge, Insurers' Advlsory Organization of t T RECOMMENDATION: Delete Note 3. sUBSTANTIATION: Use of the adverb "slgnificantly" In (a) and ~ ) is not In keeplng wlth the precise nature of the remalnder of Chapter 7. Adequate deflnitlon is requlred. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMTNT: The Commlttee Feels that good englneering j--udgment is essent]al since there is not adequate informatlon to be more precise.

231-32 - (7-1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add 2nd sentence:

i "Storages under 12 feet in helght shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 13 for Ordlnary Hazard Group 3. SUBSTANTIATION: Edltorial to conform to recommended changes in Scope. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-33 - (7-1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Add 2nd sentence:

i "Storages under 12 feet in helght shall be protected In accordance wlth NFPA 13 for Ordinary Hazard Group 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorlal to conform to recommended changes in Tc'ope. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-34 - (7-2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assoc. RECOMMENUATION: Add an Item, (d) array, so that the last sentence reads:

i "These conditions include: (a),,pile height, (b) clearance, (c) p11e stab111ty and (d) array. ~UBSTANTIATION: Sectlon 7-2.3 indlcates that closed arrays warrant further consideratlon and the appropriate method of handl]ng closed arrays is described. We feel, therefore, that "array" should be listed among those conditions affecting water demand. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

i

231-35 - (Figures 7-2.2(a)-(f)): Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. ~ A T I O N : Omit Figures 7-2.2(d) & (e)

Change F~gures 7-2.2(f) to Figure 7-2.2(d) Change Figures 7-2.2(a) - (d} as indicated on attached.

SUBSTANTIATION: Ed}torial - to conform to comments relating to 7-1,1, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Comment 29.

86

231-36 - (Figures 7-2.2(a)-( f ) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: C. V. Lovett, Monroe, CT

I ITE'i~'O]~R~'i~-~ATION: "Group A" should be included In each of the upper rlght hand corner blocks. SUBSTANTIATION: By lonklng at the flgures themselves, you can not determine what plastlc group applles. Thls wi l l c la r i fy and make less confusing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

m 2 ~= 6000.

560

500

5 0 0 0 . 450

4OO

40(]0"

~ o

,< co 300 z

3000. ,< nr

250 O

2OO 2000.

150

100 1000 '

50

gpm/~ 2

L~ /m =

0' 02 0.3 04 0 5 0.6 07 08 09 10

015 0 2 0.250.3 0.350.4 0 4 5 0 . 5 0550 .6 0.65

DENSITY

Figure 7-2.2(a)

< =.. < (.9 z

,,=( o~

o

<

<: CO z

.,:( ==

m 2 f t :

6000 550

500

5000 450

400

4000

350

30O

3000

250

200 2000

150

100 1000

50

0 gpm/ft:

L/s/m 2

m 2 f t 2

6OOO 55O

5OO

5OOO 450

4OO

4OOO

35O

3OO

3OOO

25O

2OO 2OOO

150

100 1000,

5O

gpm/ft'

L/s/m 2

02 0 3

0 1 5 0 2

04 05 06

PA n) HIGH (0 5-1 4 m) NCE %Y ED 9

-+--i-

-+--i-

. + - -+-e-

I: -4--+-

-+-'I-- -t'-+"

"1--4"-

"1--4--

I

07 08 9 10

0 2 5 0 3 0 3 5 0 4 0 4 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 6 065

DENSITY

Figure 7-2.2(b)

JA HIGH 5-1 4 m) CE ( D

E NDED

D

E I , ! i q

: I

i i

t i

:1 I

T

I

I I

I

!

0 8 0 9 1

0"

0 2 0 3 0.4 05 06 07

0 1 5 0 2 025 03 0 3 5 0 4 0 4 5 0 . 5 0.55 06 065

DENSITY

87 Figure 7-2.2(c)

<

<

z F- < Au

rn = ft =

550

5OO

450

400

350 <

c~ / 300 Z F- < ¢ 250

0

20O

150

100

5O

gpm/ft ~ 0.2 0.3

L/s/m = 0.1502

rn 2 ft=

55O

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

gpm/ft = 0 2 0 3

L/s/m 2 0 15 0.2

0,4 0.5 06 0.7 08 09 1 0

0 2 5 0 3 0 3 5 0 4 0.45 0.5 0 5 5 0 6 0.65

DENSITY

Figure 7-2.2(d)

04 05 0.6 0,7 08 0.9 10

025 0,3 0.3504 045'05 0 5 5 0 6 065

DENSITY

Figure 7-2.2(e)

88

231-37 - (Fiqures 7-2.2(bp d, e & f) Tit le): Reject SUBMITTER: Edward Browns~eln, City of Los Angeles, Callfornia ~ A T I O N : Title (Typical):

20 FT (6.1 m) HIGH 1 1/2-4 1/2 FT (0.5-1.4 m)

CLEARANCE OPEN ARRAY

EXPANDED STABLE CARTONED

SUBSTANTIATION: Number "I" on t i t les seems unnecessary since there is no number "2." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COmMiTTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that numbering helps group parameters.

231-38 - (Figures 7-2.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Brownstein, City of Los Angeles, Californla ~ A T I O N : See Figure 7-2.2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The term "x" usually means multlplicatlon. This is confusing at f~rst reading in this case. "Storage" added to be consistent with Figure 7-2.2.3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

I COMMITTEE COMMENT: In the second and third lines of 7-2.2.2, ~ T a ~ in accordance with" with "multiplied by the factors from" for clarif ication.

See Comment 28 ~Item 2).

231-39 - (7-2.3): Accept as modifled SUBMITTER: Edward Brownstein, City of Los Angeles, Callfornia ~ A T I O N : Where there is a closed array (not including solld unit load or expanded exposed storage), the density/area shall be obtalned as directed by 7-2.1 and corrected for height and clearance as dlrected in 7-2.2.2 and 7-2.2.3. An area reduct$on of 50 percent for stable piles and 25 percent for unstable piles shall then be applied for the less hazardous maximum 6-in. (15.2-cm) flue. ~I]B-S~'A-RTIATION: To clarlfy probable intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: \Accept as modifled. / COMMITTEE CgMM~E-NT: }Revise the last sentence to read as fol lows:

i "An area reductio~ of 50 percent fo r stable pi les and 25 percent for unstabl~ p~les shall then be applied to the less hazardous closed array."

231-40 - (7-2.3) : Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Col l inge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of Canada RECOMMENDATION: Amend 7-2.3 to read:

"Where by the use of storage aids or other means acceptable to the authority havlng jurisdlction i t is determlned that there wil l be an ongoing closed array -- (remainder unchanged). SUBSTANTIATION: Closed array must be "present" not only at the design proposal stage, but throughout the l i fe of the structure, for the credlts to be applicable. Consideration of the methods of controlling this, at the design stage, Seems appropriate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~TOMMITTEE COMMENT: I t Is not within the scope of this standard to develop the mechanism by whlch storage arrays are controlled. The Committee feels that i t is adequately covered ~n the present language. Also~ see new A-7-I.2 under Comment 29.

231-41 - (7-2.5): Accept in prlnclple SUBMITTER: Edward Brownsteln, City of Los Angeles, California R ~ A T I O N : Water supply duration (sprinklers plus hose stream) shaIT-be: 2-hour duration for 5 f t (1.5 m) to 20 f t , (6.1 m) and 2 i/2-hour duration for 20 f t (6.1 m) to 25 f t (7.6 m). Duratlon shall be based on the larger demand~ betwee_e_nn the prlmar 7 or secondary demands. SUBSTANTIATION: To establlsh a deflnlte basis for determlnlng tank slzes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prlnciple. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Revlse 7-2.5 to read as follows:

I 7-2.5 "Water supply duration (secondary sprlnkler demand plus hose streams) shall be: 2-hour duratlon for 5 f t (1.5 m) to 20 f t (6.1 m) and 2 1/2-hour duration for 20 f t (6.1 m) to 25 f t (7.6 m).

231-42 - (7-2.6 & A-7-2.6): ReJect SUBMITTER: T. G. Colllnge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of

RECOMMENDATION: Amend 7-2.6* to read: "When f i re protection for Class A plastics is designed in

accordance with 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3, the use of dry-plpe sprinkler systems shall not be permitted."

Amend A-7-2.6 to read: "Wet systems are recommended for storage occupancies.

Preaction systems are acceptable where ~t is Impractlcal to provide heat." SUBSTANTIATION: The time sequence of sprinkler operations described in tests 1-17 of the SPI sponsored program indlcate clearly that no conventional dry-p~pe system can be expected to respond quickly enough to take advantage of the in l t la I density parameters. Nor is there anythlng In the cited tests to indicate that "secondary area of appllcatlon plus 30%" is in any way adequate as a single point protecton parameter. COMMITTEE ACTION: ReJect. ~ T : I t is anticipated that in the future dry-pipe systems wil l continue to be used in storage areas, and therefore the Committee feels that guidance must be provided.

231-43 - (7-2.6): ReJect SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assoc. ~ A T I O N : 7-2.6 to read:

"7-2.6* Where dry-pipe systems are used for Group A plastics, the in i t ia l and secondary design areas of operatlons, indicated in the design curves, shall be increased by 30 percent." SUBSTANTIATION: We know of no reason why only the "secondary design/areas demand" needs to be increased by 30 percent for plastics and rubber. Sectlon 6-2.4 indlcates that for Class I through IV commodities the areas of operation are to be increased; we believe plastics and rubber require the same treatment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Commlttee feels that the 30% penalty on the in l t la l deslgn density wil l not significantly affect the design area.

231-46- (7-3.4): ReJect SUBMITTER: C.V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : Proposed wording:

"Automatic f i re detection systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72E. Detectors shall be installed at the ceiling at one-half listed spacing." Also include this reference standard in Appendix C. SUBSTANTIATION: No mention is made for the design, installatlon or performance of the detection system. Also, no speclflC requlrement is made in NFPA 11A. The entire automatlc foam system is relying on the detection system so i t should be installed properly, etc. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: NFPA 11A, which in turn references NFPA 72E, is referenced in this standard, which the Committee feels Is adequate.

231-47 - (8-4): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc.

J ~ A T I O N : Omit reference to NFPA 82. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 82 Is directed to operations which generate waste on a regular basis with sections covering Incineration, Waste Chutes, Linen Chutes, Waste Compactors and Waste Rooms none of which are ordinarily assoclated with Storages where only incidental waste may be generated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

J COMMITTEE COMMENT: Also delete "NFPA 82-1977 . . . . " in Appendix C.

231-48 - (A-2-1.5 & A-7-1.1(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: D.B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization of

I RECOMMENDATION: In both Gases replace words "high density" with "non-expanded." SUBSTANTIATION: More precise wording. "High denslty" when referring to plastics has a different meaning than "non-expanded" which appears to be what is meant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

231-44 - (7-3): Accept as modified SUBMITTER: T.G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organlzation of

RECOMNENDATION: Renumber 7-3 as "5-2 High Expansion Foam" (Renumber existing 5-2 through 5-5 to suit) Renumber the f i r s t sentence of 7-3.1 as 5-2.1 Relocate the second sentence of 7-3.1 to section 4-4 (and

provide sentence 4-4.3, whatever that was.) Relocate the reference to C lass~V commodity in section

6-3, as 6-3.1 Relocate the reference to idle pallets to 4-4. Leave the

reference to plastics (and rubber?) where i t is, as 7-3.1 Renumber 7-3.3 as 5-2.2, 7-3.4 as 5-2.3, 7-3.5 as 5-2.4

SUBSTANTIATION: Edltorlal; as written, 7-3 does not belong in Chapter 7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept as modified. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Relocate and renumber all of 7-3 as follows:

I enumber 7-3 as "5-2 High Expansion Foam." Renumber 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5 and their subparagraphs as 5-3,

5-4, 5-5 and 5-6 respectively. Renumber 7-3.1 as 5-2.1 {See Comment 45 for revised wording) In the third llne of 4-4.2.2(a) (3), replace "7-3" wlth "5-2." In 6-3, replace the reference "(See Section 7-3)" with "(See

Sectlon 5-2)." Renumber 7-3.3, 7-3.4, 7-3.5 and 7-3.2 as 5-2.2, 5-2.3, 5-2.4

and 5-2.5 respectively.

231-45- (7-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Edward Jefferson, Uniroyal, Inc. ~ A T I O N : 7-3 High Expansion Foam.

I 7-3.1 High expansion foam systems installed in addition to automatic sprlnkiers, shall be installed in accordance with H~gh Expansion Foam Systems, NFPA 11A, except as modified herein.

High expansion foam used to protect the Idle pallets shall have a maximum f i l l time of 4 minutes. SUBSTANTIATION: Better sentence structure. ~ O N : Accept. COMIqITTEE CO~IENT: Renumber as indicated in Conrnent 44.

231-49 - (A-3-1.1 & A-4-2.2): ReJect SUBMITTER: C.V. Lovett, Monroe, CT ~ A T I O N : Rewrite A-3-1.1 to be more in uniformity with A-4-2.2. Delete "not" in A-3-1.1. sUBSTANTIATION: These two statements are somewhat contradictory. One statement reads "may not be necessary" and the other "may be needed." This should be cleared up so they are unlform. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COFt~ITTEE COMMENT: These address two dlfferent sltuatlons. The Committee feels that this Comment weuld change the intent.

231-50 - (Table A-4-4.1.1): Accept as modified SUBMITTER: A11en I. Hjertstedt, I~Noroved Risk Mutuals ~ A T I O N :

Table A-4-4.1.1 Recommended Clearance Between Outside Idle Pallet Storage and Building

Wall Construction

Wall Type

Masonry

3 Hours

2 Hours

Openings

None

Wired glass with auto. sprlnklers One Hour Doors.

Wired or Plain glass with auto. sprlnklers 3/4 Hour Doors

Wood or Metal with automatic sprinklers

Wood, Metal or Other

Minimum Distance, ft(m) of Wall from Storage of

Under 5Q 50 to 200 | Over 200 Pallets Pallets Pal lets

0 0 0

0 10 (3.0) 2o (6.1)

10 (3.0) 20 (6.1) 30 (9.1)

20 (6.1) 30 (9.1) 50 (15~2)

NOTE 1: Comparable f i r e res is t ive protection should also be provided for combustible eave l ines, vent openings, etc. NOTE 2: When pal lets are stored close to a bui lding, the height of storage should be rest r ic ted to prevent burning pal lets from fa l l i ng on the building. NOTE 3: Manual outside open sprinklers are generally not a re l iab le means of protection unless property is attended at al l times by plant emergency personnel.

8g

SUBSTANTIATION: Table is inadequate as i t does not deflne the or f i re rating of a masonry wall; offer or mention

credlt for automatic sprlnkler protection for wall openings; nor define noncombustible walls which could be bare metal, asbestos board and the like having l i t t l e or no f i re resistance quality. NPPA No. 13, Chapter 6, 6-1.2.2, states manually open sprlnklers shall be used only when constant supervision is present.

NFPA 80A, Chapter 3, 3-4, states manually open sprlnklers are not recommended due to excessive time necessary to actlvate.

Therefore, no credit should be allowed for open sprlnklers, and the term noncombustible deleted in favor of f l re rated masonry walls, and any other walls consldered as having no rating. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept as modified. COMMIITEE COMMENT: Revise Table A-4-4.1.I as follows:

Table A-~--4.1.1 Recommended Clearance Between Outside Idle Pallet Storage and Building

Wall Construction

Wall Type

Masonry

Openinfls ,,,

None

Wired glass with outside sprinklers One Hour Doors

Wired or Plaln glass with outside sprinklers 3/4 Hour Doors

Wood or Metal wlth outslde sprinklers

Fi ,

Wood, Me ta} ~ or Other

M1nlmum Distance, ft(m) of Wall from Storage of

Under 50 50 to 200 Over 20C Pal!ets ;Pallets Pallets

0 0 0 ...... i

O, 10 (3.0) 20 (6.1)

1o (3.o) I 20 (6.1) 30 (9.1) f

2o (6.1) 30 (g.1) 50 i15'2) NOTE i : Fire resistlve protection comparable to that of+the wall should also be provided for combustlble eave lines, vent openings, etc. NOTE 2: When pallets are stored close to a building, the height of storage should be restrlcted to.prevent burning pallets from fall lng on the building. NOTE 3: Manual outside open sprinklers are generally not a reliable means of protection unless property IS attended at all times by plant emergency personnel. NOTE 4: Open sprlnklers controlled by a deluge valve are preferred.

SUBSTANTIATION: Example I is misleadlng in that nothlng in ~ the text commits-a designer t6 re-use of earlier specifications in subsequent calculations. Designers wil l invariably Select the parameters leading to the ~ost economic use of available water, and examples should indicate that this is quite permissible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C_~MMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that this is adequately co~ered ~n Example 2.

NFPA 231 - Edltorial Changes

f in 5-1.2.1 and 5-1.2.2 change Roman numerals to Arabi'c. Thus, in ~ . ~ l ~ i r ~ t l ~ l ~ t r ~ U J ~ r ~ d 2 " G r o u p 3", and in 5-1.2.2,

R~vise t i t l e of Chapter 5 to read: .\"Chapter 5 Fire Protection . General"

231-51 ~ (Appendix B - Example I ) : Reject SUBMITTER: T.G. Colllnge, Insurers' Advisory Organization of

RECOMMENDATION: PUBLIC COMMENTS NFPA 231 Example 1, A p p ~ B

Amend the second half of the example as follows: "However, sometimes storage height is only 3 pallet loads high,

or 15 f t hlgh wlth 10 f t clearance. "Since a minimum final deslgn area of at least 2000 sq f t is

~eeded, i t is decided to plck that density whlch w111 produce thls area after adjustment, and s t i l l conform to 7-2.2.1 while creatlng a greatest water demand situatlon as required by 7-2.1. This Is selected as 0.42 gpm/ft2 over 1000 sq f t as the helght/clearance factor form table 7-2.2.2 can be determined as 2.0.

"The demand for 20 f t high storage and 1 i/2 to 4 1/2 f t clearance for this conditlon is:

In i t ia l demand 0.7 gpm/Ft2 over 400 sq f t Secondary demand 0.42 gpm/FT2 over 1000 sq f t "To adjust #or helght use flgure 7-2.2.3: In i t ia l demand 90% × 0.7 = 0.63 gpm/Ft2 Secondary demand 85% x 0.42 = 0.36 gpm/Ft2 "To adjust for clearance use figure 7-2.2.2: In i t la l demand 1.2 x 400 ft2 = 480 f t 2 Secondary demand 2.0 x 1000 ft2 = 2000 f t 2 "For 15 f t high storage and 10 f t clearance, the demand lS~ In~tlal demand 0.63 gpm/Ft2 over 480 sq f t Secondary demand 0.36 gpm/ft2 over 2000 sq f t "Conclusion' 0.7 gpm/Ft2 over 408 ft2 = 285 gpm /20 f t hlgh

storage, 0.32 gpm/Ft2 over, 2,034 Ft2 = 650 gpm/5 f t hlgh

clearance. 0.63 gpm/Ft2 over 480 Ft2 = 302 gpm /15 f t hlgh

storage, 0.36 gpm/Ft2 over 2000 Ft2 = 720 gpm /10 f t

clearance. "The greatest gpm demand would be for 15 f t high storage and 10

f t clearance. Therefore the protectlon speclfled would be: In l t la l demand 0.63 gpm/Ft2 over 500 Ft2 Secondary demand 0.36 gpm/Ft2 over 2000 Ft 2 (Areas should be rounded to the nearest 100 ft2),,, (Amend worksheet to sult.)

9(}