l 1 I l l l 1 l l l 1 l l

/ 1990 Annual Meeting /

/

/

l

/

/

/

Technical Committee Documentation A compilation of the documented action on comments received by the technical committees whose reports have been published prior to consideration at the NFPA Annual Meeting

/

l

/

/

m

Please bring to the 1990 Annual Meeting San Antonio Convention Center San Antonio, TX May 21-24, 1990

/

l [ ~ National Fire Protection Association N F P A ® 1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, P.O. Box 9101, QUINCY, MA 02269-9101

R Copyright ~-', 1990 All Rights Reserved

SUPPLEMENTARY

Report of Committee on Aviation

Correlating Committee

James J. Brenneman, Chairman Sunnyvale, CA

L. M. Krasner, Vice Chairman Factory Mutual Research Corp.

Gene E. Benzenberg, Alison Control Inc. John R. Flynn, American Airl ines William M. Geraghty, Burlingame, CA James F. O'Regan, Feecon Corp. Bruce R Pashley, Ogden All ied Aviation Services John F. Rooney, Tucson, AZ Donald J. Slater, Jr . , Hartford Steam Boiler Stanley J. Wolek, Port Authority of NY & NJ

Technical Committee on

Aircraft Fuel Servicing

Bruce R. Pashley, Chairman Ogden A11ied Aviation Services

Stanley 3. Wolek, Vice Chairman Port Authority of NY & NJ

(Rep. AOCI)

Gary R. Crawford, Secretary Burns & McDonnell Engr. Co. Inc.

Howard M, Gammon, Gammon Technical Products Inc. Raymond J. Georges, Consolidated Natural Gas Co.

Rep. API Peter J. Hlavac, Garsite/TSR Bert Kiesel, Frank B Hall Insurance Brokerage Co. Michael Kluttz, Robert & Co. Joseph T. Leonard, Naval Research Lab John J. O 'Sul l ivan, B r i t i sh Airways William H. Power, National Air Transportation Assoc.

Alternates

S. Goody, Bri t ish Airways (Alternate to J. 3. O'Sullivan)

Nonvoting

Jerome Lederer, Laguna Hi l ls , CA

Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

John F. Rooney, Chairman Tuczon, AZ

James F. O'Regan, Vice Chairman Feecon Corp.

Stephen C. Nimmer, Secretary Oshkosh Truck Corp.

James J. Brenneman, Sunnyvale, CA Bernard Brown, Civi l Aviation Authority B. T. Burley, Office of the Commissioner Robert L. Darwin, Dept. of Navy Paul R. Funk, Lambert-St Louis International

Rep. IAFC George B. Geyer, F~ Technical Ctr B. V. Hewes, Airport Safety Services Paul O. Huston, ~umerex Corp.

Rep. FEMA

L. M. Krasner, Factory Mutual Research Corp, Thomas 3. Lett, Albuquerque Fire Safety Associates, Inc.

Rep. NFPA/FSS C. T. Lindemann, Conifer, CO Richard E. Livingston, International Air l ine

Passengers Assoc. D. A. McPhail, B r i t i sh A i rpor ts Author i ty R. 3. Manley, Int l Federation of Air l ine Pilots James W. Morgan I I I , Sikorsky Aircraft Davis R. Parsons, Los Angeles City Fire Dept., CA Kelth R. Pollard, National Foam System, Inc. Paul R. Robinson, Marietta, GA

Rep. ALPA Robert R. Rogers, Long Island MacArthur Airport Bertrand F. Ruggles, FAA Dept, of Transportation Jose L. Santamarla, Int l Civi l Aviation Organization John M. Schuster, 3M Company John X. Stefanki, John X. Stefanki Inc. Joseph L. Walker, United States Air Force William 3. Wenzel, Walter Truck Corporation

Alternates

R. E. Didion, Simon-Duplex, Inc. (Alternate to Simon-Duplex Rep.)

Joan M. Leedy, 3M Company (Alternate to J. H. Schuster)

William E. Moore, US Federal Aviation Admin. (Alternate to B. F. Ruggles)

Gary W. Schmledel, Oshkosh Truck Corp. (Alternate to S. C. Nimmer)

Ronald T. Strong, Atlanta Fire Bureau (Rep. IAFC) (Alternate to P. Funk)

Miles R. Suchomel, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Alternate to UL Rep.)

Bruce A. Warner, ICI Americas Inc. (Alternate to P. O. Huston)

Wi111am S. Weeks, Air Line Pilots Association (Rep. ALPA) (Alternate to P. Robinson)

Nonvoting

Gary Hammack, Natl Transportation Safety Board (Alternate to NTSB Rep.)

John E. Lodge, Lodge Fire Protection Consultancy Ltd (Member Emeritus)

Edward F. Mudrowky, National Transportation Safety Board (Alternate to G. Hammack)

Technical Committee on Airport Faci l i t ies

L. M. Krasner, Chairman Factory Mutual Research Corp.

Gene E. Benzenberg, Vice Chairman A11son Control Inc.

James M. Dewey, Secretary Professional Loss Control Inc.

Nathanlel J. Addleman, Boeing M i l i t a r y Airplane Co. James R. Ba l l i nger , M&M Protect ion Consultants James J. Brenneman, Sunnyvale, CA Delbert R. Chase, J r . , Federal Express Corporation 3. Walter Coon, Black & Veath J. D. Dick, Kemper Group

Rep. AAI Frank A. Dwyer, Pan America World Airways Inc. Paul F. Helweg J r . , Johnson & Higgins of CT Inc. Donald W. Herlng, 3S Incorporated James M. Inga l l s , Indus t r ia l Risk Insurers Elwin G. Joyce, KY Div. of Bldg Code Enforcement

Rep. FMANA Dennis C. Kennedy, Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. Thomas O. Let t , Albuquerque, NM

Rep. NFPA/FSS Fred M. Linde, Natl Foam System Inc. John J. O'Sullivan, Brit ish Airways Property Services

Rep. BAPS Henry J. Perrault, Pratt & Whitney Richard J. Petrai t is, United Airl ines

Randy D. Pope, Burns & McDonnell Eng. Co. Joseph H. Priest, Grinnell Corp.

Rep. NFSA Gerald R. Schultz, Schirmer Engineering Corp. Arnold M. Sloane, Port Authority of NY & NJ

Rep. AOCI Doug loupalik, Ansul Fire Protection/Wormald US, Inc.

Rep. FEMA Fred K. Walker, HQ United States Air Force

Alternates

Robert D. Grausam, Kemper Group Alternate to 3. Dick)

Wi lard R. Ham, M&M Protection Consultants Alternate to 3. R. Ballinger)

F.M.E. ttughes, Bri t ish Airways Alternate to J. J. O'Sullivan)

Michael L. 3ones, Industrial Risk Insurers A l ternate to 3. M. Ingals)

Keith C. Kremkow, Johnson & Higgins A l ternate to P. F. Helweg)

Robert C. Mer r i t t , Factory Mutual Research Corp. A l te rnate to L. M. Krasner)

Mark Ol iszewicz, Schirmer Engineering Corp. A l te rnate to G. R. Schultz)

Jack Poole, Black & Veatch A l ternate to J, W. Coon)

V. G. Pyrpyr is , Port Au thor i t y of NY & N3 A l ternate to A. M. S1oane)

Terry L. V i c to r , Automatic Spr ink ler Corp. of Amer$ca

Rep. NFSA (A l ternate to J, Pr ies t )

Nonvoting

Jerome Lederer, Laguna H i l l s , CA (Member Emeritus)

Technical Committee on Helicopter Faci l i t ies

Donald 3. Slater, Jr. , Chairman Hartford Steam Boiler

Joseph A. Behnke, Ansul Fire Protection James C. Coco, American Bureau of Shipping O. Walter Coon, Black and Veatch Wil l iam E. Davis, He l i po r t Systems, Inc. Dana P. DeWoody, Shell Offshore Inc.

Rep. HSAC Beryl Gamse, McDowell Owens Eng. Inc. Paul O. Huston, Amerex Corp.

Rep. CGA Sung Kun Kim, Contel Federal Systems Frank P. Lambert, Cigna Corp.

Rep. AISG Ph i l l p J. Mains, Arkansas Chi ldren 's Hospital John J. McGowan, The Port Au thor i t y of NY & N3 3ohrl E. Meehan, Pan Am World Services Inc. S. Uuane Moore, IL Dept. of Transportat ion

Rep. HAl Mar jor ie Murtagh, US Coast Guard Bertrand F. Ruggles, Federal Av ia t ion Admin is t ra t ion Jose L. Santamaria, I n t l C i v i l Av ia t ion Organizat ion Stephanie V. Slav ln, Av ia t ion Business Consultants Inc. Raymond S. Syms, Raymond A. Syms & Associates John L. Thompson, Systems Control Technology Inc. Bruce A. Warner, ICI Americas Inc.

Rep. FEMA

Alternates

Ronald Bunch, Helicopter Assoc. International Rep. HAl (Alternate to S. D. Moore)

Jack H. Burke, Federal Aviation Administration (Alternate to B. F. Ruggles)

Kevin P. Frost, US Coast Guard (Alternate to M. Murtagh)

Jack Poole, Black & Veatch (Alternate to J. W. Coon)

Lanny D. Rider, The Port Authority of NY & N3 (Alternate to J. 3. McGowan) Rep. AOCI

Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy

This l i s t represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Aviation is presented for adoption in 4 parts.

Part I of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Aircraf t Fuel Servicing, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 407-1985, Standard on Aircraft Fuel Servicing, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I of this Supplementary Report has been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Technical Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing which consists of 11 voting members; of whom I0 voted aff i rmatively, and 1 ballot was not returned (Mr. Power).

Part I of this Supplementary Report has also been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of lO voting members; of whom al l lO voted aff i rmat ively.

Part I I of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 414-1984, Standard on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicles, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I I of this Supplementary Report has been submitted to l e t te r bal lot of the Technical Committee on Aircraf t Rescue and Fire Fighting which consists of 30 voting members; of whom 24 voted aff irmatively, 0 negatively, I abstained (Mr. Santamaria), and 5 ballots were not returned (Messrs, Brenneman, Brown, Livingston, MacPhail and Suchomel).

Part I I of this Supplementary Report has also been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of lO voting members; of whom al l lO voted aff i rmatively.

Part I I I of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Airport Faci l i t ies, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 409-1985, Standard on Aircraf t Hangars, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part I I I of this Supplementary Report has been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Technical Committee on Airport Fac i l i t ies which consists of 26 voting members; of whom 21 voted aff i rmatively, 0 negatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Brenneman, Chase, Dewey, Dwyer, and Petra i t is) .

Part I I I of this Supplementary Report has also been submitted to le t te r bal lot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of I0 voting members; of whom al l 10 voted aff i rmatively.

Part IV of this Supplementary Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Helicopter Faci l i t ies, and proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on NFPA 418-1979, Standard for Heliports, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1990 Annual Meeting.

Part IV of this Supplementary Report has been submitted to let ter ballot of the Technical Committee on Helicopter Facil i t ies which consists of 21 voting members; of whom 17 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively (Ms. Murtagh and Mr. Poole), l abstained (Mr. Santamarial and I ballot was not returned (Mr Slavin).

Ms. Murtagh voted negatively stating: "Change the wording in Chapter 4 to reflect U.S.

Coast Guard regulations for Helicopter Facil i t ies on Mobile Offshore Dri l l ing Units. Paragraph 4-2 should read: "Offshore helicopter fac i l i t ies require both a main and an emergency access/egress route located as far apart as practicable." A new paragraph 4-5 should read: "Projections above the landing area that interfere with f l ight operations shall be prohibited."

Personnel are limited in the ways they may escape an offshore structure. Primarily due to the structure's location and the limited number of routes for escape from the heliport or access to i t to fight fires. This seriously jeopardizes any chance for survival.

Paragraph 3-5 of this draft standard requires at least two means of egress from landing pads, that are remote from each other, to the extent practicable, and do not obstruct f l ight operations. However, paragraph 4-2 of this same draft standard minimizes the importance of maintaining the safety of those personnel f lying to offshore fac i l i t ies in comparison to those ashore.

U.S. Coast Guard regulations recognizes this added burden on personnel working offshore and 46 CFR 108.235 requires two routes for escape or access on offshore helicopter fac i l i t ies , as well as a prohibition against any projections above the landing area that interferes with f l ight operations."

Mr. Poole voted negatively stating: "Due to the same reasons that I was opposed on

many of the votes on the public comments at the Committee Meeting. To summarize: I feel the required (per 418) f i re protection is not adequate to f u l f i l l the requirements of the scope of this standard."

Part IV of this Supplementary Report has also been submitted to let ter ballot of the Correlating Committee on Aviation which consists of I0 voting members; of whom all 10 voted affirmatively.

3

PART I

(Log #4) 407- I - (I-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Definitions - revise to read:

Cargo Tank. A container used for carrying aircraft fuels, etc. SUBSTANTIATION: The present wording does not make sense. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #5) 407- 2 - (2-1.2.4): Accept in Principle ~S_UBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to add:

"Type B hose (having a static wire in the hose wall shall not he used)." SUBSTANTIATION: Type B hose has been listed in former issues of 407 but is not mentioned in this issue at a l l . By not mentioning i t , we leave a question unanswered. The reason Type B hose has lost favor is because accidents have occurred when ground power equipment shorts out. This sends electric power through the wire in the hose, causing i t to melt because i t cannot carry the load. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I. Replace 2-I.2.4 with the following: 2-I.2.4 API 1529 Type C or BS 3158 Type C

(conductive) hose shall be used to prevent electrostatic discharges but shall not be used to accomplish required bonding. API 1529 Type A, BS 3158 Type A, and hose having a static wire in the hose wall shall not be used.

2. Replace 2-2.1 with the following: 2-2.1 Performance Requirements. Hose shall comply

with the requirements of API 1529 aviation fueling hose or BS 3158 (Rubber Hoses and Hose Assemblies for Aircraft Ground Fueling and Defueling). Couplings shall comply with the requirements of API ]529. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee fe l t the need to state the types of hoses which satisfy the requirement. The Committee also revised 2-2.1 to add the equivalent British standard for hose. This British standard does not cover couplings.

(Log #2) 407- 3 - (2-1.2.4 and 3-4.6): Reject ~ : Craig Boche, Norfolk, NE COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraphs 2-I.2.4 and 3-4.6 to read:

"Conductive hose shall not be used to accomp]ish required bonding." SUBSTANTIATION: As written, i t is not clear whether all delivery hoses need to be conductive. The specification for aircraft fueling hose, API ]529, has two types; "A" which is not conductive and "C" which has a conductive cover. A conductive cover compound must be black because a special conductive carbon black is added to the rubber to make i t conductive. Specifying only conductive hose would eliminate colored nonmarking delivery hoses. There are several reasons why the fuelers have asked for colored hoses. Colored hoses are nonmarking which is especially important for over the wing fueling of private aircraft, colored hoses are more visible at night which helps prevent hazardous drive overs and colored hoses provide easy identification and verif ication that the correct hose is being used. The separate grounding cable between the aircraft and the fuel truck already provides a path for static discharge. I t is for these reasons that Goodyear is requesting that both API 1529 Type A and C hoses be allowed under NFPA 407.

I f i t is s t i l l the intent to specify only conductive hose, a section should then be included in NFPA 407 which stipulates that al l delivery hoses must meet API 1529 Type C. This would clar i fy what is required for a conductive hose.

qOMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In recognition of recent incidents of electrostatic charge accumulatlon on nonconductive hose covers, the proposed revision to NFPA 407 now requires Type C (conductive cover) hose to be used. (See Comment 407-2 (Log #5).

(Log #6) 407- 4 - (2-1.2.5 Exception No. Z (New)): Accept in P r inc ip le =~.U~_~_LT_E_B: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to add a second except ion:

"This requirement shal l not apply when fue l ing a i r c r a f t tanks."

Also rev ise Appendix A-2-1.2.5 to include the explanat ion as fo l lows:

" In f i l l i n g tank trucks or storage tanks, API B u l l e t i n RP 2003 recommends that at least 30 seconds of residence time be provided downstream of a f i l t e r in order to a l low stat ic charges generated in f lowing fuel to relax before fuel enters the tank.

The reason i t is possible to fuel aircraft safely with low conductivity fuel without providing equivalent relaxation time downstream of the f i l t e r mounted in the fueler vehicle next to the aircraft is to be found primarily in the different geometry of aircraft tanks compared with tank truck compartments. Flow into the aircraft is normally subdivided in to several tanks simultaneously and also distributed into adjoining compartments of each tank by a multihole inlet. Bachman and Dukek (*) conducted full-scale research using a simulated large aircraft Lank and concluded that none of the tanks or compartments hold sufficient fuel to allow enough charges to accumulate and create large surface voltages. Slower f i l l rates per compartment also a11ow more charge to relax.

A second safety factor is that the inlet system of most aircraft tanks directs fuel toward bottom f i l l i ng to avoid splashing that would generate more charge. Finally, while the hoses that connect the fueler to the aircraft provide only a few seconds of residence time for charge relaxation at high rates of flow through filter/separators, the actual relaxatlon volume in the system is signif icantly greater when a coated screen is used as a second stage water barrier. In this case, the vessel's volume after the f i r s t stage f i l t e r coalescer may represent an additional 15 seconds of residence time for charge relaxation. (The coated screen, unlike other water barriers, does not generate charge.)

A flammable vapor space in the tank due to the presence of Jet B or 3P-4 fuels s t i l l constitutes a potential hazard and to minimize the chance for static ignition, FAA regulations require that fueling be conducted at half of rated flow when c iv i l aircraft have used fuels.

(*) Bachman, K.C. and Dukek, W. G. (1972) Static Electr ici ty in Fueling Superjets. Exxon Research & Eng. Co. Brochure, Linden, NO. SUBSTANTIATION: By not stating that relaxation is not necessary when refueling aircraft, most operators wil l believe that i t is required. Technically, relaxation is not necessary when refueling aircraft and the appendix explains this. This revision and the appendix were agreed upon at the last 407 meeting, but somehow was omitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add the following to the existing A-2-I.2.5: "API Bulletin RP 2003 recommends a 30 second

relaxation time for loading tank trucks and refuelers. However, i t has not been a common practice to require a similar relaxation time for aircraft refueling, primarily because of the relatively few electrostatic incidents that have occurred during aircraft fueling.

In f i l l i ng tank trucks or storage tanks, API Bulletln RP 2003 recommends that at least 30 seconds of residence time be provided downstream of a f i l t e r in order to allow static charges generated in flowing fuel to relax before fuel enters the tank.

The reason i t is possible to fuel aircraft safely with low conductivity fuel without prov id ing 30 seconds relaxation time is primarily due to the different

geometry of a i rcraf t tanks compared with tank truck compartments. Flow into the a l rcraf t is nomally subdivided into several tanks simultaneously and also distributed into adjoining compartments of each tank by a multihole in le t . Bachman and Dukek (*) conducted ful l -scale research using a simulated large a i rcraf t tank and concluded that none of the tanks or compartments hold su f f i c ien t fuel to allow enough charges to accumulate and create large surface voltages. Slower f i l l rates per compartment also allow more charge to relax.

Additionally the in le t system of most a i rcraf t tanks directs fuel towards the bottom of the tank to avoid splashing that would generate mere charge. Finally, while the hoses that connect the fueler to the a i r c ra f t provide only a few seconds of residence ttme for charge relaxation at high rates of flow, the actual relaxatlon volume in the system is s igni f icant ly greater when a coated screen is used as a second stage water barrier. In thls case, the vessel's volume after the f i r s t stage f i l t e r coalescer may represent an additional 15 seconds of residence time for charge relaxation. (The coated screen, unlike other water barriers, does not generate charge.)

A flammable vapor space in the tank due to the presence of Jet B or JP-4 fuels s t i l l constitutes a potential hazard and to minimize the chance for static ignit ion, FAA regulations require that fueling be conducted at half of rated flow when c iv i l a i rcraf t have used such fuels.

(*) Bachman, K.C. and Dukek, W. G. (1972) Static Electr ic i ty in Fueling Superjets. Exxon Research & Eng. Co. Brochure, Linden, N3. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee concurs with the submltter but made the above edi tor ia l changes.

(Log #7) 407- 5 - (2-1.7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Deadman controls shall be designed, e t c . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: Self-closlng nozzles have never been a]lowed in the U.S.A. for refueling a i rcraf t for two reasons. First, the design of a i rcraf t tanks, as opposed to automobile f i l l e r necks, is such that a self-closing nozzle stops flow long before the tank is f u l l . Second, self-closin~ nozzles are not rel iable enough to satisfy the requlrement of paragraph 2-I.7.1(d) for a deadman control. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #8) 407- 6 - (2-3.8): Reject SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"All cabinets housing vehicle auxi l iary equipment shall have open floors to fac i l i t a te . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: All of the other words are redundant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed rewrite text clearly states two types of f looring that are acceptable. The phrase "open floors" is not defined. The proposed rewrite text provides c lar i ty .

nothing to discourage i t s use. Total new production w i l l be cut -of f and eventual ly we may begin ca l l lng back ex is t ing systems and extinguishers. Users should be forewarned of res t r i c t ions . See paragraph 1-5.3.1 of the Halon 1301 standard adopted May 1989. Similar wording is proposed in the next revision of NFPA 12B (Halon 1211). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 407 provides requirements for minimum ratings and minimum number of extinguishers for locations covered by i t . NFPA 10 is the lead document and is the appropriate document to cover the submitter's recommended material.

(Log #9) 407- 8 - (2-3.12.4): Accept in Principle ~ : Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-? RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence to read:

"The distance between any two adjacent baf f les, or between any tank head or bulkhead and the nearest baf f le shall be such that the contained volume is not greater than 20 percent of the tank volume." SUBSTANTIATION: The words "cross-sectional area" are not speci f ic . The area in plan view is one thing while the area in elevat ion is quite another. Neither area necessarily i den t i f i es a volume because the tank can have an i r regu lar shape. This is especial ly true in a semi-trai ler where 20 percent of the elevation area is completely dif ferent from 20 percent of a plan view area. COMMITTEE ACTI0N: Accept in Principle.

Replace 2-3.12.4 with the following: 2-3.12.4 Baffles. Every cargo tank or coeq~artment

over 90 in. (2286 mm) in length shall be provided wlth baff les, the number of which shall be such that the distance between any two adjacent baf f les, or between any tank head or bulkhead and the baf f le nearest i t , shall in no case exceed 60 in. (1524 mm). The cross-sectional area of each baf f le shall be not less than 80 percent of the cross-sectional area of the Lank and the thickness of such baf f le shall be not less than that required for heads and bulkheads of the cargo tank in which instal led. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee f e l t that the requirement from the 1985 edi t ion of NFPA 407 (Paragraph 4-4.6) c lear ly stated the requirement. The

c roposed text of the rewri te required a distance ( f t ) ased on a percentage of area ( f tL ) .

(Log #10) 407- 9 - (2-3.13.2): Accept in Princip le ~ : Howard H. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the ent i re sentence or define the phrase "aux i ] i a ry equipment enclosure." SUBSTANTIATION: Not understood. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr lnclp le.

Replace 2-3.13.2 with the fol lowing: 2-3.13.2 Drains from top flashing shall divert

spil led fuel from possible sources of ignit ion, including the engine, the engine exhaust system, electr ical equipment, or an auxi l iary equipment enclosure. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clar i f icat ion.

(Log #1) 407- 7 - (2-3.9 and 3-13): Reject SUBflITTER: Patrick E. Ph i l l i ps , Las Vegas, NV CQHHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-5, 407-6 RECOMMENDATION: Add Fine Print Note:

"The use of Halons, for f i re suppression is current ly l imi ted in the Montreal Protocol as an ozone deplet ing agent. Use of any Halon agents in hand extinguishers shall not be encouraged." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposals 5 and 6 wished to add Halon 1211 hand extinguishers spec i f i ca l l y into the standard. While the Committee did adopt wording that does not spec l f l ca l l y require the use of Halons, i t did

(Log #11) 407- 10 - (2-3.15.2): Accept ~ : Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMHENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECON4ENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read:

"The out lets of each cargo Lank or coa~partment, includlng water drawoffs, shall be equipped with a shutoff valve . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: A water drawoff valve is not to be equipped with a valve. Poor wording. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Ed i to r i a l : Comment addresses paragraph 2-3.15.1.

(Log #12) 407- 11 - (2-3.16.6): Accept S__~LBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Hose shall be connected to r ig id piping or coupled to the hose reel in a manner which wi l l prevent kinks or undue bending action . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: The term "undue bending action" is not specif ic and is vague. By adding the word "kinks" i t is very specif ic and clear what should be avoided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #13) 407- 12 - (2-3.16.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise sentence to delete the phrase "are disconnected" and replace i t with "are properly stowed." SUBSTANTIATION: I t is inadequate that nozzles and couples are only disconnected from the a i r c ra f t (or hydrant p i t ) . The vehicle system must prevent drive-away unt i l the nozzles and couplers are stowed in the i r receptacles. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #14) 407- 13 - (2-3.20. I ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Add a sentence:

"Drop tubes shall be meta l l ic . " SUBSTANTIATION: Electrostat ic charges can build up on nonconductive tubes. Also, this wi l l avoid the hazard (common) of f i l l i n g a refueler truck with an overwing nozzle that is equipped with a rubber tube on i ts spout to direct flow to the bottom of the tank. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #15) 407- 14 - (2-3.20.2): Reject ~BMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"Fixed drop tubes permanently mounted in the vehicle tanks shall be metal l ic and shall extend . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: Electrostat ic charges can build up on nonconductive tubes. Also, this wi l l avoid the hazard (common) of f i l l i n g a refueler truck with an overwlng nozzle that is equipped with a rubber tube on i ts spout to direct flow to the bottom of the tank. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comment 407-13 (Log #14) was accepted. This comment would provide a redundant requirement i f accepted.

(Log #16) 407- 15 - (2-3.21.7 and A-2-3.21.7 (New)): Accept in Principle ~BMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Add an aster isk (*) and make a new appendix paragraph A-2-3.21.7 as follows:

" I f a preset metered shutoff control is used, the operator must have means for determining how much fuel can be loaded without o v e r f i l l i n g . This may be determined from a tank level indicator, dip st ick or other appropriate means." SUBSTANTIATION: Operators are inclined to estimate how much fuel can be pumped without overflow. This has resulted in many sp i l l s .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. In paragraph 2-3.21.7 delete "A preset metered l iquid

contro l . " COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee did not intend "A preset metered l iqu id control" to be an option. A preset metered l iqu id control may be insta l led in addition to a f loat-actuated shutoff or other automatic sensing device but does not sa t is fy the minimum requirement.

(Log #17) 407- 16 - (2-4.11.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence to delete the words:

"Located below grade leve l . " SUBSTANTIATION: These words are unnecessary and make the sentence very confusing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #18) 407- 17 - (2-5): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 407-7 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise t i t l e to read:

"Fueling at Roof - Top Hel ipor ts . " SUBSTANTIATION: Rules for fuel ing at hel iports are exactly the same as at a i rpor ts . This special section of 407 is spec i f i ca l ly directed at Roof-Top refueling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #3) 407- 18 - (2-5.5.1 thru 2-5.5.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Phi l ip E. Crombie, J r . , Aetna Life & Casualty COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Sections 2-5.5.1 thru 2-5.5.4 as fol lows:

2-5.5.1 Piping within bui ld ing shall comply with 2-4.6.2

2-5.5.2 Piping above grade ex te r io r to buildings shall be steel. Piping shall be located within a steel casing of pressure rat ing equal to the carr ier pipe. The casing shall be capable of beln~ drained to a safe locat ion. An automatic leak detection system shall be provided at the casing low point (s) .

2-5.5.3 Piping shall be anchored and shall be protected against physical damage for a height of at least 8 f t (2.4 m) above the ground,

2-5.5.4 An iso la t ion valve shall be insta l led on the suction and discharge piping of each pump. In addit ion, a check valve shall be insta l led at the base of each fuel piping r iser to automatically prevent the reverse flow of fuel into the pump room in the event of a pump seal f a i l u re , pipe fa i l u re or other malfunction. SUBSTANTIATION: To assist with c l a r i t y and readabi l i ty the piping requirements should be broken out into separate paragraphs. For roof-top hel iports fuel piping may run within or outside the building. Since piping within buildings is previously covered, Section 2-4.6.2 can be referenced.

Regarding the proposed Section 2-5.5.2, casing ex ter io r pipe should not he an option l e f t to the AHJ. The standard should require casing par t icu lar ly of fuel piping run up the ex ter io r wall of buildings. Section 2-4.6.3 requires casing of piping under elevated buildings. The same requirement should prevail fo r piping alongside of buildings.

Further c l a r i f i ca t i on of pipe casing drainage is needed. As the standard is now worded, casings could be drained to the group adjacent to the building with no control of spi l led fuel . As proposed, casings would be enclosed at ground level with capabi l i ty for draining as needed and indicated by the leak detection system.

B

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2-5.5.'I thru 2-5.5.4 as recommended above and

add a last sentence to 2-4.6.2 as follows: "The casing shall be capable of being drained to a

safe location." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarif ication.

(In the last sentence of the submitter's substantiation, "Group" should be "ground."

"Electric Hand Lamps. Electric hand lamps used in the immediate proximity of the fueling operation shall be of the type approved for use in Class I Division I, Group D hazardous locations as defined by NFPA 70, National Electrical Code." SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph was accidentally omitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Covered by A-3-7.

(Log #19) 407- 19 - (3-4.3): Accept in Principle S__UBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read:

"When a funnel is used in aircraft fueling, i t shall be kept in contact with the f i l l e r neck as well as the fueling nozzle spout or the supply container to avoid the possibi l i ty of a spark at the f i l l opening." SUBSTANTIATION: Present wording does not mention the f i l l e r neck. Also, the " f i l l nozzle" is not defined. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I. Replace tile f i r s t sentence of 3-4.3 with the recommended wording above.

2. Replace the second sentence of 3-4.3 with the following:

"Only metal funnels shall be used." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Clarif ication.

(Log #30) 407- 20 - (3-5.1 Exceptions No. I and 2(New)): Hold for Further Study ~UBMITTER: Ronald Bunch, Helicopter Association International COMMENT ON P R O P O ~ : 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read:

3-5.1 Fuel servicing shall not be done on an aircraft while an onboard engine is operating.

Exception No. I: Helicopters may be fueled with JET A or kerosene grade turbine fuels while the engines are operating, provided that the operation follows written procedures approved by the authorty having jurisdiction.

Exception No. 2: In an emergency resulting from the failure . . . procedures approved by the authority having jurisdict ion. SUBSTANTIATION: Refueling of helicopters with the engine(s) operating and rotors turning (commonly referred to as "rapid refueling") is a safe and standard industry practice. Rapid refueling is essential to sustaining the type of operations to which helicopters are particularly suited. Many helicopter operations (including EMS and f i re fighting) are routinely conducted off of airports with ground support fac i l i t ies to skJpport restarts in remote areas. Requirements for sustained helicopter operations would adversely impact safety i f engines were to be shut down during all refueling, thereby increasing the possibi l i ty of engine damage through frequent restarts under often adverse conditions. The Helicopter Association International prescribes, in i ts Safety Manual to helicopter operators, procedures for rapid refueling. There are no cases of fires during rapid refueling where those procedures were followed. The Federal Aviatio,q Administration has also acknowledged rapid refueling. The International Civil Aviation Organization, in i ts Helicopter Operations Panel Fourth Meeting Report (lO June, 1988) acknowledged the practice of rapid refueling i f attended by the pi lot in command or other qualified personnel. COMMITTEE ACTIOff: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Comment proposes material that would require considerable research and discussion by the Technical Committee and cannot be properly handled within the time frame established for processing the report.

(Log #20) 407- 21 - (3-7.7 (New) and A-3-7.7 (New)): Reject ~BMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Add this paragraph with an asterisk (*):

(Log #21) 407- 22 - (3-16.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read:

"Aircraft fueling hose shall be inspected before each day of use." ~ T ~ N : Inspecting hose before each use is unreasonable and unnecessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #22) 407- 23 - (3-18): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise heading to read:

"Parking Aircraft Fuel Servicing Vehicles." Also, delete the word "tanks" from the f i rs t sentence

and from 3-18(d). SUBSTANTIATION: The rules should apply to al l fueling vehicles whether they have a tank or not. There is no special section for parking hydrant servicers, so deleting the word "tank" in both places makes the rules apply to al l vehicles used in fueling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add paragraph 3-19 as follows: 3-19 Parking aircraft fuel servicing hydrant

vehicles. Parking areas for unattended aircraft fuel servicing hydrant vehicles shall be arranged to:

(a) Facilitate dispersal of the vehicles in the event of emergency

(b) Prevent any leakage from draining to an adjacent building, or storm drain that is not suitably designed to handle fuel. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provisions of paragraphs 3-18(h) and (d) do not apply to aircraft fuel servicing hydrant vehicles, therefore the Committee developed the above section to cover them.

(Log #23) 407- 24 - (3-19.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise f i r s t sentence to read:

"Required deadman and automatic overf i l l controls shall be etc." SUBSTANTIATION: By use of the word overf i l l instead of f i l l , i t is made specific that the on-hoard overf i l l system must be in good working order. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #26) 407- 25 - (3-19.2.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Add this paragraph:

"The level in the tank must be visually monitored at al l times during top loading." SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence was somehow omitted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

7

(Log #27) 407- 26 - (A-1-2(c) ) : Accept ~UBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read:

"These methods minimize the charge generation and misting hazard . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: Changing the word "eliminate" to "minimize" makes this sentence technical ly correct. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

In paragraph A-l-2(c) e d i t o r i a l l y change "uses" to "use."

(Log #28) 407- 27 - (A-I-3 12): Accept ~ : Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise parenthetical phrase to read:

" (or is in the form of a mist) . " SUBSTANTIATION: Does not make sense without the word It i n,,

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #29) 407- 28 - (A-I-3 I I b . l ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-? RECOMMENDATION: Delete the ent i re reference and quotation:

"A report dated . . . . often encountered." SUBSTANTIATION: The paragraph states ea r l i e r that the rate of flame spread of avgas and 3et B is 700 to 800 ft/min while the rate fo r Jet A is less than 100 ft/min. This is 8 times greater - - not 30 times greater. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In paragraph A-I-3 I I b. l delete the fol lowing: " fo r instance, aviat ion gasolines and JET B turbine

fuels have been calculated to have a rate of flame spread of between 700 f t to 800 f t (213 to 244 m) per minute, whereas the rate of flame spread fo r JET A turbine fuels under the same conditions is substant ia l ly lower and is less than 100 f t (30 m) per minute."

Also add " (o f flame spread)" a f te r "rate" in the exist ing th i rd sentence. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The test data was f e l t to be more re l iab le than the calculated rate.

Edi tor ia l Corrections

The Technical Committee on A i rc ra f t Fuel Servicing notes the fol lowing ed i to r ia l corrections:

2-1.1 - Revise heading to read: "Fueling Hose Apparatus."

2-3.7.1 - Revise to add a hyphen between the words "current" and "carry ing." Also in the fourth and f i f t h l ines, change wording to: "and from contact with spi l led fuel e i ther by."

2-3.7.3 - Add an aster isk at this paragraph because there is an appendix item of the same number.

2-3.?.5 - Revise f i r s t sentence to read: " . . . shall be of the enclosed, gasketed

weatherproof type."

3-15.5 - Fourth l ine: The word "c lear ly" is missing the " l . :

3-19.3.1 - Revise to insert "and": " . . . between the cargo tank and the loading rack . . ."

A-2-3.21.4 - Revise the paragraph number in the body of NFPA 407 to add an aster isk.

(Log #24) 407- 29 - (A-2-1.2.5): Accept ~_UBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the end of the sentence to add th~ word "dissipate":

. . . thereby permitting most of the charge to dissipate before the fuel arr ives at the receiving tank." ~UBSTANTIATION: The word "dissipate" was l e f t out. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #25) 407- 30 - (A-3-7): Reject ~_UBMITTER: Howard M. Gammon, Gammon Technical Products, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 407-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise number to A-3-7.7 and delete the f i r s t sentence which was supposed to have been numbered 3-7.7. SUBSTANTIATION: Sentence was incorrect ly located in the appendix, but should have been in Chapter 3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 407-21 (Log #20).

PART I I

(Log #23) 414- 1- (2-2.1.2) : Accept S~BM~TT~Eg: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-3 RECOMMENDATION: Change the word "laden" in the f i r s t sentence to "loaded."

NOTE: The word "laden =' should be replaced with the word "loaded" everywhere that i t appears in the 414 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The term "loaded" is required to agree wlth the new def ini t ion for " fu l l y loaded vehicle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #4) 414- 2- (2-3.1.2, 3-3.1.2, 4-3.1.2) : Accept ~ : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-1 RECOMM~_ND T D_AT[ON: Paragraph 2-3.1.2: Change the word "laden" in the f i r s t sentence to "loaded" and revise the upper temperature l im i t in the second to the last sentence from "lOO°F (38°C) '' to "110°F (43°C). ''

Paragraph 3-3.1.2, 4-3.1.2: Change the word "laden" in the f i r s t sentence to "loaded." _S_UB~ANTIATIQN: Editorial correction.

Tile term "loaded" is required to agree wlth the new defini t ion for " fu l l y loaded vehlcle." The temperature change is required for consistency with paragraphs I-1.4, 3-3.1.2, and 4-3.1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #5) 414- 3- (2-4.8, 3-4.8, 4-4.8): Accept ~UBM_H]L~T_~.B: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-1 RECOMMENDATION: Insert the word "the" between the words "of" and "electr ical" in the f i r s t l ine. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The current sentence does not read correctly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #24) 414- 4- (2-13.2.1, 3-13.2.2.1): Accept ~_UB_M_~_T_[[R: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-18 RECOMMENDATION: The possib i l i ty of having multiple pumps should have been handled by putting the "s" in parenthesis:

Change "pump drive" to "pump(s) drive." Change "pump" to "pump(s)."

SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. The suggested correction provides consistency wlth

sections 2-13.1 and 3-13.2.1. Multiple pumps are not required but may be provided. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #1) 414- 5- (2-15.5.2, 3-13.4.4.2, 4-13.4.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: 3oho M. Schuster, 3M Company COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Change to read as fo l lows:

"The proportioning system shall be suff ic ient ly accurate to provide for the discharge of finished foam within the range of 2.8 percent to 3.5 percent foam concentrate in the discharged foam/water solution for a 3 percent concentrate or 5.5 percent to 7.0 percent for a 6 percent concentrate." SUBSTANTIATION: The nominal proport ioning is no longer 6 percent. In fact , 3 percent systems are more cogl~n today than 6 percent systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees that the comment was c lear ly ed i t o r i a l in nature and should be incorporated into the f ina l NFPA 414 publ icat ion to c lar i fy and improve tex t .

(Log #2) 414- 6- (2-15.5.3, 3-13.4.4.3, 4-13.4.3.3) : Accept SUBMITTER: 3ohn H. Schuster, 3H Company COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A B[_(~I~D_~T_I~.: Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: These paragraphs are not needed i f previous proposal (Log #1) is accepted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees that the comment was clearly edi tor ia l in nature and should be incorporated into the f ina l NFPA 414 publ icat ion to c l a r i f y and improve tex t .

(Lo~ #3) 414- 7- (Table 2-15.9.1): Accept in Pr inclp le SUBHITTER: John M. Schuster, 3M Company COHMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A BECOMMENDATION: Add "Ai r Asperating Nozzles" under the Protein/Fluoroprotein heading. SUBSTANTIATION: C la r i f i ca t i on . COHHITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . COHHITTEE STATEMENT: See Comment 414-8 (Log #6).

(Log #6) 414- 8- (Table 2-15.9.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-1 I ECOMMENDATION: Correct the Table headings to look l l ke the fo l lowing:

Protein and Fluoroprotein Air-aspirating

Nozzles

Table 2-15.9.1

Foam-Liquld Type AFFF

A i r -asp i ra t ing Nozzles

AFFF Nonair-aspirating

Nozzles

Turrets 8 to 12 5 Hard Lines 8 to 12 5 Ground Sweeps 8 to 12 5

5 4 3 1 5 4 3 1

5 4 3 1

Minimum M i n i m u m M i n i m u m M i n i m u m Minimum Expansion 25 percent Expansion 25 percent Expansion 25 percent Ratio Drainage Ratio Drainage Ratio Drainage

in Minutes in Minutes in Minutes

SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. Table headings are currently off-center and confusing.

C~MITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #7) 414- 9- (3-11.4.5 (f) and ( i ) ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Revise subparts i f ) and ( i ) to read as follows:

i f ) Pump control or l iquid agent pressurization control.

( i ) Auxil iary agent pressurization control. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial corrections.

The requirement for a l iquid agent pressurization control (Ref. paragraph 3-13.6.4.5) was omitted from this section. Clar i f icat ion was required relat ive to the type of auxi l iary agent control being addressed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees that the comment was clearly edi tor ia l in nature and should be incorporated into the final NFPA 414 publication to c lar i fy and improve text.

(Log #25) 414-10- (3-13, 4-13): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-30A RECOMMENDATION: The TCR 414-30A (Log #23) change should be deleted from the text of the NFPA 414 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: I. Mr. Wood's proposal was not supported with any technical data and should not have been handled as an edi tor ial change.

2. Currently the NFPA documents which set out the foam quantities and performance requirements do not recognize FFFP.

3. Chapter 3 of NFPA 414 was developed around the exclusive use of AFFF foam agent. No reference to alternate foam concentrates (including protein or fluoroprotein) exist in Chapter 3. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #9) 414-12- (4-13.2.1.2): Accept ~ . : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Replace the phrase "When operating from the water tank" with "When discharging foam solution" in the f i r s t l ine. Replace "hand l ine nozzles, and undertruck nozzles" with "and hand llne nozzles" near the end of the sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

Discharge performance should have been based on foam solution discharge for consistency with paragraph 3-13.2.1.3 and undertruck nozzles are not required on the Combined Agent Vehicles. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Comment relates to paragraph 5-3.15.

(Log #10) 414-13- (4-13.7.1.8 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I ~ A T I O N : Add the following paragraph:

4-13.7.1.8 A quick-acting control for operation by the driver to pressurize the dry chemical agent system from the cab of the vehicle shall be provided with similar control at the hand l ine. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

This paragraph is needed for consistency with paragraphs 3-13.7.1.8 and 4-11.4.5(j). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~ _ Q ~ T A T ~ M E N ! : The Committee agrees that the comment was clearly edi tor ial in nature and should be incorporated into the final NFPA 414 publ!cation to c lar i fy and improve text.

(Log #11) 414-14- (5-3.1.4(h)): Accept ~ : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Change the "step ic)" reference to "step (d)" in the f i r s t sentence of paragraph 5-3.1.4(h). SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The "step (c)" reference is incorrect as the liquid volume correlations are established in "step (d)." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #8) 414-11- (4-11.4.5 (d), ( f ) and ( j ) ) : Accept S_UBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation C~MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise subparts (d), i f ) , and ( j ) as fo l lows:

(d) Steering wheel, wi th se l f - cance l l i ng d i rec t iona l control signal and horn.

( f ) Pump control or l i qu i d agent pressur izat ion cont ro l .

( j ) Aux i l i a r y agent pressur izat ion cont ro l . NOTE: Item ( j ) above supercedes the e d i t o r i a l

correct ion for paragraph 4 -11 .4 .5 ( j ) submitted with my Technical Committee 414 ba l l o t s . SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The current wording is incorrect in subpart (d), the liquid agent pressurization control (Ref. paragraph 4-13.6.4.5) was omitted from subpart ( f ) , and the Halon system pressurization control (Ref. paragraph 4-13.8.4.6) was omitted from subpart ( j ) . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. C_OMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees that the comment was clearly edi tor ia l in nature and should be incorporated into the f inal NFPA 414 publication to c lar i fy and improve text.

(Log #12) 414-15- (5-3.2.3, 5-3.11.3, 5-3.12.3): Accept ~ : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-1 RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 5-3.2.3:

Change the word "definit ions" to "defini t ion" in the second l lne,

Paragraph 5-3.11.3/5-3.12.3: Add the phrase "(see def in i t ion)" afte the words " fu l l y loaded condition" in the second l ine of each paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The "(see def in i t ion)" insert is needed for c lar i f icat ion and consistency with the other test paragraphs that require a fu l ly loaded vehicle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #13) 414-16- (5-3.5.4(d)): Accept ~ : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Change the "step (a)" reference to "step (b)" at the end of paragraph 5-3.5.4(e). SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The "step (a)" reference is incorrect as the eye point is established in "step (b)." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

10

(Log #14) 414-17- (5-3.6.1): Accept in Part ~UBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation ~ N T NQN P R O P ~ : 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Replace the phrase "cert i f ied grade" with "measured grade" and replace the phrase "twice the vehicle's length" with "twice the vehicle's wheelbase."

NOTE: This comment supercedes the edi tor ial comment submitted with my NFPA 414 Technical Committee bal lot . SUBSTANTIATION: Use of the term "measured grade" is required for consistency with the other test paragraphs involving grades. Establishing the length of the test grade based on the vehicle's wheelbase establishes a more practical fac i l i t i es requirement without adversely affecting the test results. COMMITTEE AC~QN: Accept in Part.

The Committee accepted the f i r s t part of the comment: Change "cert i f ied grade" to "measured grade."

The Committee rejected the remainder of the comment. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed shortening of the test area does not provide an adequate test area length.

(Log #15) 414-18- (5-3.6.4(d)): Accept ~LB_MITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Replace the phrase "without reduction in discharge pressure" with "without interruption in the discharge stream" in the second paragraph of 5-3.6.4(d).

Replace the last sentence with "The vehicle speed and any variation in discharge pressure shall be recorded,"

NOTE: This comment supersedes the edi tor ial comment submitted with my NFPA 414 Technical Committee bal lot . SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The corresponding design sections and remaining portions of paragraph 5-3.6 have been structured to allow a pressure reduction, but no interruption in the discharge stream. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #16) 414-19- (5-3.11.4(b)): Accept ~UBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON P R O P ~ : 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Insert the following sentence between the f i r s t and second sentence of paragraph 5-3.11.4(b):

"The brake pedal may be modulated during the stop, as necessary, to maintain vehicle control." ~UBSTANTIATIQN_: Brake pedal modulation, during braking, is an industry accepted test procedure providing the brake modulation does not cause the resultant vehicle stopping distance to exceed the requirement. Brake pedal modulation is also a normal operational driving technique and does not require special training. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #17) 414-20- (5-3.28.2(a), 5-3.35.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON _P~)POA$AJ=_NQ~.: 414-I, 414-44 R~QM~N~ATION: Revise the sound level meter specification to:

"American National Standards Inst i tute (ANSI), SI.4 Specifications for Sound Level Meters for Type l or SIA meters."

NOTE: This comment supercedes the edi tor ial comment submitted with my NFPA 414 Technical Committee bal lot . SUBSTANTIAT!~N: Editorial correction.

The two paragraphs should have the same sound meter specification for consistency. The "year" designation should be removed from the specification number to avoid future conflicts between NFPA 414 and ANSI. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #18) 414-21- (5-3.29.3, 5-3.31.3, 5-3.33.3, 5-3.34.3): Accept ~_M_!!T_~: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: In each of the following paragraphs 5-3.29.3, 5-3.31.3, 5-3.33.3, 5-3.34.3:

Replace the phrase "removing the agent tank(s) from the vehicle" with " l i f t i n g the agent tank(s) for weighing" in the third sentence of each paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The test requires that the agent tank weight be measured. I f this can be done accurately without removing the tank from the vehicle, removal should not be a required step. The proposed wording more clearly leaves the option of removing the tank to the person conducting the test. ~ E ACTION: Accept.

(Log #19) 414-22- (5-3.30.I, 5-3.3Z.I): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: The word "halon" should be capitalized in paragraphs 5-3.30.I and 5-3.32.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

Capitalization of the work Halon provides consistency with the rest of the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #26) 414-23- (5-3.33.4(j), 5-3.33.4(k)): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation ~Q~5~_N_!__O~_PROPOSAL NQ~.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 5-3.33.4(j) revise to read:

" I f a second nozzle is provided, repeat steps (a) through (e)."

Paragraph 5-3.33.4(k) replace the phrase "two of the handline nozzles" with "the two handline nozzles" in the f i r s t sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The intent of this test is that the f i re test only be repeated for a second handline nozzle i f i t differed in configuration from the f i r s t . Subparts ( j ) and (p) of paragraph 5-3.33.4 were in direct confl ict. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #20) 414-24- (5-3.34.4(g)): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RE~3~jF~_N~A[!~: Replace the f i r s t sentence in paragraph 5-3.34.4(g) with the following (the "Note" remains):

"During discharge, markers shall be placed at the far point where significant dry chemical strikes the ground (range marker) and at either side of the widest part of the pattern (width markers)." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction.

The current text is inconsistent with the corresponding design sections. The design requirement specifies "far point" not "near point." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #21) 414-25- (5-4.6.4(a), 5-4.6.5): Accept ,S3LB_~d~!~ER: Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 5-4.6.4(a): Insert the phrase "(or dyed water)" after the word "foam" in the second l ine.

Paragraph 5-4.6.5: Insert the phrase "(or dye)" after the word "foam" in the last sentence. SUBSTAN!IATION: In that foam quality measurements are not a part of this test, i t should be acceptable to use dyed water in the foam tank as a substitute for foam concentrate. C MMITT E A TI N: Accept.

11

(Log #22) 414-26- (5-4.10.5): Accept ~ : Stephen C. Nimmer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 414-I RECOMHENDATION: End the paragraph 5-4.10.5 sentence after the word "nozzle" and delete the remainder of the sentence. B ~ A T I O N : Ed i t o r i a l co r rec t ion .

A combined simultaneous discharge tes t is not a requirement of 5-4.10.4 and therefore can not he an evaulat ion c r i t e r i a . C O I ~ I I T T E ~ : Accept.

Editor ial Corrections

The Technical Committee on AircraFt Rescue and Fire Fighting notes the following edi tor ia l corrections:

2-]2.5 - Should be included in the group of paragraphs affected by the change which were l is ted at the top of the page (Proposal 414-13).

2-15.5.2, 3-13.4.4.2 and 4-13.4.3.2 - Change to read as follows:

"The proportioning system shall be suf f ic ient ly accurate to provide for the discharge of finished foam within the range of 2.8 percent to 3.5 percent foam concentrate in the discharged foam/water so lu t ion fo r a 3 percent concentrate or 5.5 percent to 7.0 percent for a 6 percent concentrate."

2-15.5.3, 3-]3.4.4.3, 4-13.4.3.3 - delete.

3-11.4.5 - Revise subparts (f) and ( i ) to read as follows:

(f) Pump control or l iqu id agent pressurization control.

( i ) Auxi l iary agent pressurization control.

3-13.7.1.8 - The words " l iqu id agent" should be changed to "dry chemical" as the entire section only deals with a dry chemical system. Also, the words "at the unit" at the end of this paragraph should be replaced with "at the hand l ine" for c la r i f i ca t ion and consistency with paragraph 3-13.8.4.6.

4-I I .4.5 - Revise subparts (d), ( f ) , and ( j ) as Follows:

(d) Steering wheel, with self-cancell ing directional control signal and horn.

(f) Pump control or l iqu id agent pressurization control.

( j ) Auxi l iary agent p ressur i za t ion control. NOTE: Item (J) above supercedes the edi tor ia l

correction for paragraph 4-11.4.5(j) submitted with my Technical Committee 414 bal lot .

4-13.7.1.8 - Add the following paragraph: 4-13.7.1.8 A quick-acting control for operation by

the driver to pressurize the dry chemical agent system from the cab of the vehicle shall be provided with similar control at the hand l ine.

5-3.5.4(f) - The word "with" should be changed to "within" in the last sentence.

5-3.6.1 - The word " c e r t i f i e d " should be changed to "measured" fo r consistency with the other tes t paragraphs invo lv ing grades.

5-3.6.4(d) - The pump and ro l l requirements on a 40 percent grade in the design sect ion have been revised to permit up to a 50 percent reduct ion in discharge pressure dur ing t h i s tes t . Therefore, the second and l as t sentence of th i s paragraph should be replaced with the fo l low ing two sentences:

"During the ascent, the veh ic le shal l be able to be brought to a stop and resume i t s ascent at a speed of at leas t one MPH. Vehic le speeds reached and any variat ion in discharge pressure should be recorded during this tes t . "

5-3.11.2(a) - The word "acurate" should be "accurate."

5-3.14.4(a) - The "(" before the word " l e f t " should not be there and a "comma" should be added after the word "required."

5-3.21.4(b) - The words "Roof Turret" should not be capital ized.

5-3.22.4(f) - The word "nonaspirated" should be changed to "nonair-aspirated" for consistency with the rest of the text .

5-3.24.4(a) - The words "roof turret" should be changed to "ground sweep/bumper turret" for consistency with the paragraph subject .

5-3.24.4(d) - The word " t u r r e t " should be changed to "ground sweep/bumper t u r r e t " fo r consi.stency wi th in the paragraph subject .

5 -3 .24.4( f ) - The word "nonaspir ted" should be changed to "nona i r -asp i ra ted" fo r consistency with the rest of the t e x t .

5-3.28.2(a) - The "Type Z" meter designat ion should be changed to "Type l " for consistency with paragraph 5-3.35.2.

5-3.28.4 - In the f i r s t sentence, insert the word "and" between the exist ing words "forward to."

5-3.29.1 - The second to the last word of the sentence - "halon" should be capital ized.

5-3.33.1 - The word "halon" should be capitalized in the f i r s t sentence.

5-3.35.4(b) - The second to the last word in the sentence should be spelled "noise."

5-4.1.3, 5-4.2.3, 5-4.3.3, 5-4.4.3 - The phrase " fu l l y loaded condition" should be put in quotation marks followed by - (see def in i t ion) to be consistent with similar test requirements in Section 5-3.

5-4.1.5(b) - This section must be modified so as to agree with the revisions approved to the corresponding design requirements. The words at the end of the sentence "to 10 percent (. lO)" should be replaced with "to the maximum difference allowed in the specif icat ion."

5-4.1.5(c} - The words "to 5 percent (.05)" should he replaced with "to the maximum difference allowed in the specif ication" for consistency with the editor ial change described above.

12

PART I I I

(Log #6) 409- I - (3-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Poole, Black & Veatch COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 409-19 RECOMMENDATION: Revised text:

"Group I aircraft hangar storage and servicing areas shall be equipped with an approved foam-water monitor nozzle system as specified in Section 3-4 of this chapter as the primary protection system. In addition, a supplementary protection system as specified in Section 3-2 of this chapter shall be provided." SUBSTANTIATION: The monitor nozzle system wil l control/extinguish the f i re much faster than the overhead deluge system. The aircraft should be protected whenever possible. I believe i f the aircraft is protected, then the hangar wi l l also be protected. In section 4-2.10 why is 3250 to 3750 sprinklers required? Due to this temperature requirement the monitor nozzle system should control the f i re before the overhead system actuates. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends a complete reversal of the present requirements. The intent of the original proposal was simply to reformat the existing requirement for clar i f icat ion.

The comment introduces a concept that has not had public review.

(Log #4) 409- 2 - (3-4.3 (New)): Reject ~U_BJ~LLT_T_F-_~: J. Walter Coon, Overland Park, KS COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add new 3-4.3 (change 3-4.3 to 3-4.4):

3-4.3 Mil i tary aircraft may have skins of composite material requiring delivery of the foam to the shadow area within 20 seconds or less. SUBSTANTIATION: The new breed of mil l tary aircraft (Stealth Bomber) has a skin of a composite material that is highly susceptible to destruction and/or penetration by flammable l iquid f i re heat within an estimated 20 seconds. Tests are being conducted which may produce results reducing the 20 second delivery of foam.

Could be an appendix item, but because some mil i tary hangars'are being designed to 40g in lieu of AFR 88-15, the user should be alerted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment does not directly relate to the substantive content of the Committee report. This comment introduces a concept that has not had public review.

(Log #5) 409- 3 - (3-4.4.2(g) (New) and (h) (New)): Reject ~ : J. Walter Coon, Overland Park, KS COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Add:

(g) Section showing aircraft profi le, monitor nozzle center line height, impact point on floor of monitor nozzle discharge.

(h) Calculatlons to verify monitor nozzle design. Center line height, impact point, nozzle angle of elevation in degrees, nozzle "K" fator, flow and pressure. ~UBSTANTIATION: Monitor nozzle design in many instances is "seat of the pants" engineered. These devices are much too cr i t ica l to the protection of the hangar (aircraft) to be shelf items based on range and angle of elevation charts in a manufacturer's data book that are compiled for free flow discharge at a specified angle of elevation of the nozzle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces a concept that has not had public review.

(Log #2) 409- 4 - (3-4.8.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Walter Coon, Overland Park, KS COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 409-28 RECOMMENDATION: Once Committee defines "injection equipment" - hopefully not to include in line balanced proportioners - leave 3-4.8.5 "as-is," and allow deluge, flow control valves and ILBP for monitor nozzles in hangar area. SUBSTANTIATION: The scope ( I - I . I ) of 409 is very clear that 409 is protection of the hangar - (the aircraft is protected by osmosis) - but i f the aircraft is lost you are not only going to have one very upset carrier, but also one destroyed hangar. I f "control valves" and "injection equipment" are located at a distance from monitor nozzles, transit time of foam added to pumps up to speed, plus 2 detectors activated, could easily effect 30/60 sec cr i ter ia. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change 3-4.8.5 to read: "Control valves, foam concentrate liquid storage

tanks, concentrate pumps, controllers and bypass balancing equipment shall be located outside the aircraft storage and service area." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The above wording provides the requested clari f icat ion.

(Log #3) 409- 5 - (3-4.8.5, 4-3.6.5, 4-4.8,5): Reject ~ : J. Walter Coon, Overland Park, KS COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 409-28, -36, -38 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that "control valves" (as the 409 Committee defines them) be included in I-3 Definitions.

Recommend that "injection equipment" be included in I-3 Definitions. SUBSTANTIATION: Since most of the industry defines "control valves" as O.S. & Y. and P.I.V.s, 409 should define them as used in 409.

"In~ection equipment" should be defined - have experlenced some confusion with people not familiar with the 409 definition. Confusion resulting in questions: "Are high expansion foam generators injection equipment?" "Aren't high expansion foam generators equivalent to in-l ine balanced pressure proportioners for low expansion foam?" COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee's use of control valves is the same as used in NFPA 13. The term injection equipment is no longer used.

(Log #7) 409- 6 - (4-1.1(a)): Reject ~ : Jack Poole, Black & Veatch COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 409-33 RECOMMENDATION: Continue to read:

" . . . of floor area and a water supply as specified in 3-2,4.2 of this standard." SUBSTANTIATION: The duration time of discharge for a Group I I hangar should be the same as a Group I hangar, Keep in mind that the density may be reduced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The water supply as specified in 3-2.4.2 is presently required by the proposal. The submitter's recommendation does not recommend a change to proposed wording.

(Log #I) 409- 7 - (5-8.2 Note (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Patrick E. Phil l ips, Las Vegas, NV COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 409-46 RECOMMENDATION: Add fine print note:

"The use of Halons, for f i re suppression is currently limited in the Montreal protocol as an ozone depleting agent. Use of any Halon Agents, in hand extinguishers shall not be encouraged." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposals 5 and 6 wished to add Halon 1211 hand extinguishers specifically into the standard. While the Committee did adopt wording that does not specifically require the use of Halons, i t did nothing to discourage i ts use. Total new production

13

wil l be cut off and eventually we may begin call ing back ex is t ing systems and extlngu~shers. Users should be forewarned of res t r i c t ions . See paragraph ] - 5 . 3 . ] of the Halon 130] standard adopted May 1989. Similar wording is proposed in the next revision of NFPA 12B (Halon 1211). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA lO is the lead document for selection and placement of portable f i re extinguishers. The issue of selection and placement of halon extinguishers is currently being resolved by the Committee on portable f i re extinguishers.

Editorial Corrections

The Technical Committee on Airport Faci l i t ies noted the following edi tor ial corrections:

I. Paragraph 3-4.4.2(d) change "detection" to "actuation."

2. Table A-3-4.1 change the wing area for Boeing 767 to the correct area of 3050 and place in correct descending order.

14

PART IV

(Log #3) 418- l - (2-2.1 (New) and 2-2.2 (New)): Accept in Principle ~ _ U ~ : J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, MO COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph 2-2 should be expanded:

2-2.1 Ground level heliport shall be located not less than (see note) f t from an important or occupied structure.

NOTE: SepaLration distance to be dictated by 418 Committee.

Exceptions: Exposure protection distance reduced (Committee determines)

Close window openings (Committee determines) Window water curtains (Committee determines) Wall water c~trtain (Committee determines) 2-2.2 Roofte, p heliport shall be located not less

than (see note) f t from an important or occupied roof structure.

Exceptions: (Similar to ground level heliport). SUBSTANTIATION: The building code and/or f i re code user, and/or designer of heliports at grade, should have 418 requirements for separation distances for exposure protection of buildings and structures.

Building codes (UBC and BOCA) do not provide any separation distances, and the expertise of the 418 Committee must provide this cr i ter ia. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add A-2-1 as follows: A-2-1 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory

Circular 150/5390-2 entitled Heliport Design, dated January 4, 1988 contains design and construction information on heliports. This advisory circular provides for adequate clearance between operating aircraft and buildings or structures at the heliport. The FAA advisory circular should be consulted to assure that adequate safe practice and fac i l i t ies are maintained. C~OMMITTEE STATEMN~N!: Current FAA guidelines adequately cover the subject.

(Log #4) 418- 2 - (2-4.1(New) thru 2-4.3 (New)): Reject _S_UBMITTER: J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, MO COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Recommended wording for 2-4.1 and 2-4.2 and 2-4.3:

2-4.1 Takeoff and landing areas of heliports shall be designed to confine l iquid spillage to the landing area i tse l f and provision shall be made to drain spillage away from any exit or stairway serving the helicopter landing area or from a structure housing such stairway, occupied structure, or equipment structure, or exposed mechanical equipment.

2-4.2 Takeoff and landing areas shall be designed with gutters to isolate runoff of spilled liquids, and these liquids shall not discharge into the building drainage system.

2-4.3 Proposed collection system shall comply with local building codes. SUBSTANTIATION: 2-4 does not provide any drainage requirements - not even the amount of slope - and what happens to the fuel spillage after i t runs down the slope.

Justification for expanding 2-4: Examine a NFPA Standard 415, Aircraft Fueling Ramp Drainage. The body of the Standrd is detailed, and the Appendix contains helpful diagrams.

NFPA 409, Aircraft Hangars, has ample provisions for drainage in aircraft hangars - including required floor slope. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: l. 2-4.1 does not add to 2-4.

2. 2-4.2 is covered by 3-2. 3. The proposed 2-4.3 is covered by 2-I.

(Log #5) 418- 3 - (2-6): Reject SUB MITTER: J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, MO COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Section 2-6 mandates that fueling systems be designed in accordance with NFPA 407.

The 418 Committee should define fueling requirements for ground level heliports.

SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 6 in Standard 407 is t i t led "Fueling of Roof Top Heliports."

Any A/E designing a ground level heliport fueling system wil l rely on the reference to 407 in standard 418, only to find no cr i ter ia that is applicable.

The 418 Committee should work with the 407 Committee to incorporate a section on ground level fueling of heliports.

Chapter 6 in 407, and the new section on fueling for ground level heliports, should have - at least in the appendix - diagrams similar to the helpful diagrams offered by 407. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insufficient information provided.

(Log #6) 418- 4 - (2-6): Reject ~ : J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, MO F, OUMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Section 2-6 mandates that fueling systems be designed in accordance with NFPA 407.

The 418 Committee should petition NFPA Standards Council and the 407 Committee to have Chapter 6 in 407 deleted, and the 418 Committee prepare a detailed section on fueling of aircraft at heliports. SUBSTANTIATION: I f a user turns to 418 to determine al l the requirements for a heliport, or a building code or f i re code references 418 for heliport requirements, the code user or designer shoud have all the requirements in the Heliport Standard.

The 418 Committee is supposed to consist of a membership that is competent to write al l the requirements for a heliport. The 407 Committee has done an excellent job of preparing the requirements for winged aircraft fueling services - - 41B Committee should have the professional luxury of applying their expertise to fueling of helicopters in their standard.

There is no conflict of interest between 418 and 407 - two dist inct ly different types of aircraft and fueling requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insufficient information provided.

(Log #I) 418- 5 - (3-7 (New) thru 3-7.6 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Donald J. Slater, Jr., Hartford Steam Boiler COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add new Section 3-7 concerning foam protection for rooftop landing pads:

3-7 When required by the authority having jurisdict ion, AFFF foam systems shall meet the following cr i ter ia.

3-7.1 Foam shall be 3 percent AFFF with necessary additives for use in climates subject to freezing.

3-7.2 Foam discharge rate shall be 0.13 GPM/sq f t over the entire landing pad area. Duration shall be for five minutes.

3-7.3 The water supply for the foam system shall be from a reliable source, approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

3-7.3.1 Fire pumps, i f used, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 20, "Standard for the Installation of Centrifugal Fire Pumps" (1987).

3-7.3.2 Standpipes and hose stations, i f used, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (1986).

3-?.3.3 Where freezing is possible, adequate freeze protection shall be provided.

3-7.4 The foam system components shall be installed in a readily accessible area of the heliport at the edge of the landing pad and shall not interfere with normal helicopter operations.

3-7.5 At fac i l i t ies where there is more than one landing pad, the amount of foam storage needs only to contemplate an incident at one pad.

3-7.6 Where fixed foam systems ut i l iz ing fixed deck nozzles and/or oscil lating foam turrets are installed, system components shall be l isted. SUBSTANTIATION: Was part of original document and needs to be considered as a part of the new document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

15

Add the following: 3-7 A foam f i re protection system shall be designed

and installed to protect the practical cr i t ical f i re area (see Table 3-7).

Table 3-7 Category Helicopter Practical Critical

Overall Fire Area Length"

H-l Up to but not including 50 f t 375 FT 2

H-2 From 50 up to but not including 80 f t 840 FT 2

H-3 From 80 f t up to but not including 120 f t 1440 FT 2

IHelicopter length, including the ta i l boom and the rotors.

Exception: This requirement does not apply to the following:

I. Parking garages. 2. Elevated structures that are not on buildings and

are not normally occupied. 3. Other similar structures. 3-7.1" The discharge rates and minimum amounts of

water for foam production for a semifixed system shall be as specified in Table 3-7.1.

Exception No. l : A fixed foam system may be used to satisfy this requirement. The discharge rates for a fixed foam system shall be 0.I0 gpm/f~ L for aqueous film forming foam (~FFF), 0.16 GPM/ft c for protein foam or 0.16 GPM/ft ~ for fluoroprotein foam for a duration of 5 minutes.

Exception No. 2: Two portable foam f i re extinguishers having a rating of 20A 160B each may be used to satisfy this requirement for Category H-I.

3-7.2 The water supply for the foam system shall be from a reliable source, approved by the authority having jurisdict ion.

3-7.2.1 Fire pumps, i f used, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 20, "Standard for the Installation of Centrifugal Fire Pumps" (1987).

3-7.2.2 Standpipes and hose stations, i f used, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (1986).

3-7.2.3 Where freezing is possible, adequate freeze protection shall be provided.

3-7.3 The foam components shall be installed in a readily accessible area of the heliport and shall not penetrate the primary approach departure and transitional surfaces defined in paragraph 33, K and L and 13 and 21 of FAA A/C 150/5390-2.

3-7.4 At fac i l i t ies where there is more than one landing pad, the amount of foam on hand shall be sufficient for an incident on at least one pad.

3-?.5 Where fixed foam systems ut i l iz ing fixed deck nozzles and/or oscil lating foam turrets are installed, system components shall be listed or approved.

Add the following deflnltlons to Section 1-3: Fixed Foam Systems. These are complete installations

piped from a central foam station, discharging through fixed delivery outlets to the hazard to be protected. Any required pumps are permanently installed.

Semifixed Foam Systems. (a) The type in which the hazard is equipped with

fixed discharge outlets connected to piping that terminates at a safe distance. The fixed piping installation may or may not include a foam maker. Necessary foam-producing materials are transported to the scene after the f i re starts and are connected to the piping.

(b) The type in which foam solutions are piped through the area from a central foam station, the solutlon being delivered through hose lines to portable foam makers, such as monitors, foam towers, hose lines, etc.

A-3-7.I The calculations used to develop the minimum extinguishing agent quantities and discharge rates presented In Table 3-7.1 for rooftop heliports include the following factors:

(a) aircraft size--reflects the potential level of risk, e.g. passenger load; the potential f i re load, e.g. fuel capacity, and the dimensions, (fuselage length and width) which allow the identif ication of a meaningful operational objective, i .e. the area to be rendered f ire-free, (controlled or extinguished);

(b) relative effectiveness of the aaent selected--represented by the specific application rate identified for each of the common generic foam concentrate types;

(c) t ime needed to achieve control~large scale fire tests, empirical data, and f ield experience indicate that one minute is both a reasonable and a necessary operational objective, and

(d) t ime needed to maintain the controlled area ~ - - a n operational objective that provides a safety factor for the in i t i a l f i re attack for the arrival of backup support.

The calculation method is supported by research and experimental work done mainly at the U.S. FAA's Technical Center. I t was developed by the "Rescue and Firefighting Panel I I " (RFFPII)--a group of international experts in the f ield, convened by the International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal Canada, circa 1970.

Table 3-7.I

*Table 3-7.1 Minimum Extinguishing Agent Quantities and Discharge Rates

Heliport Category

H-I

H-2

H-3

AFFF FLUOROPROTEIN FOAM Water Discharge Water Discharge U.S. Gab. Rate gpm U.S. Gab. Rate gpm

98 49 135 68

220 109 302 151

374 ! 87 518 259

PROTEIN FOAM Water Discharge U.S. Gab. Rate gpm

150 75

336 168

576 288

NOTE: Discharge rate may be adjusted slighdy to reflect equipment available.

Examples: (1) 190 gpm = 2 hose lines @ 95 gpm each.

(2) 250 gpm -- 2-hose lines @ 125 gpm each.

(3) 28 gpm = 3 hose lines @ 95 gpm each.

16

The RFFP I I i n i t i a l l y focused on the "Theoretical Cr i t i ca l Fire Area" which was ident i f ied in the FAA's large-scale f i r e tests as " . . . t he area adjacent to the fuselage extending outward in a l l direct ions to a l im i t beyond which a )arge fuel f i r e would not melt an aluminum fuselage, regardless of the f i r e exposure t ime." ( l ) For this concept to be useful, speci f ic information about the size of the area was needed. Again, using the FAA Technical Center's work as a basis, the RFFP I I derived a working de f in i t i on of the Theoretical Cr i t lacal Fire Area(TC) as being "the area adjacent to an a i r c r a f t in which f i r e must be control led. : This devini t ion implies control of the f i r e within a specif ic area. To do so requires dimensions. Formulas (1) and (2), presented below, were developed from that ea r l i e r work. Using these formulas, the size of the area of in terest can be calculated. For' example:

(1) When L 65 f t TC = L x (40' + W) OR

( la) L 20 m TC = L x (12 m + W)

AND

(2) When L 65 f t TC = L x (100' + W) OR

(Za) L ZO m TC = L x (30 m + W)

Where: L = Average a i r c r a f t length and W = Average a i r c r a f t width of the a i r c r a f t served at the a i rpor t of interest .

I I

I

I I

F i I I l

FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT

Thee,e~ld CnYe.~ ~ e A ,~ {TEA)

pracl:,cal C,kical Fie Alia |PC~

Conceptually then, the TC serves as a means for perceiving the magnitude of the potential f i r e hazard of the a i r c r a f t accident environment. I t

the average, maximum, or minimum sp i l l f i r e size associated with a par t icu lar a i r c ra f t . ( 2 ) However, i t does represent a s tar t ing point for determining rea l i s t i c f i r e extinguishing agent requlrrnents. The formulas allow for calculating the TC area for d i f fe ren t sizes of a i r c ra f t . They are widely accepted throughout the a i r c r a f t f i r e service community and are applied as described below.

A 1970 study concluded that in survivable a i r c ra f t crashes a "pract ical f i r e area" should be considered which was smaller than the " theoret ical area".(3) Detailed c r i t e r i a for the practical f i r e area and the related quanti t ies of extinguishing agents were formulated during the Second Meeting of the RFFP I f . Work of the Panel in developing i ts material included a study of the quanti t ies of agents used on actual f i r es . In 99 out of I06 such f i res , the quantit ies of agents used where less than those suggested by the theoret ical c r i t i ca l f i r e area calculat ions.(4)

As a resul t , RFFP I I developed material indicating the practical area to be approximately two-thirds the theoret ical area. See Figure A-3-7.1(a) below. This pr inc ip le has been adopted by the ICAO, the NFPA, the U.S. FAA, et a l . , in the development of tables of extinguishing agent volumes for the i r respective standards and/or recommended pract ices.(5-8) The practical c r i t i ca l f i r e area (PC) for fixed-wing a i r c r a f t is commonly expressed as:

(3) (Practical Cr i t i ca l Fire Area) = (.67) x (Theoretical Cr i t i ca l Fire Area)

OR (3a) PC = (.67) (TC)

F I,

J , I I

Practical Crit ical Rre /VII (PCA)

ROTARY-WING AIRCRAFT

Figure A-3-7,1(a). Figure A-3-7.1(b).

M E T H O D T O D E T E R M I N E H E L I C O P T E R C R I T I C A L FIRE A R E A A N D R E Q U I R E D MINIMUM A M O U N T O F W A T E R F O R A SEMI-FIXED F O A M (AFFF) SYSTEM

F O R T A B L E 3-7.1

N F P A / I C A O 1/2 x O.L. Heliport of larEesZ Ca tegory Helicopter I

Fuselage Pract ical Application Q 1 Q2 Q Width Cri t ical Rate Water to Cont ro l Reserve to T O T A L W A T E R tripled 2 Fire Area (gpm/ftxJ within i minute to Extinguish T O E X T I N G U I S H

H - I 0 ' < 50' 25 ' x 15' = 375 sf x 0.13 = 49 U.S. Gals. + 100% = 98 U.S. Oats .

H - 2 50' < 80' 40' x 21' = 840 sf x 0.13 = 110 U.S. Gals. + 100% = 220 U.S. Gals.

H-3 80' < 120' 60 ° x 24' = 1440 sf x 0.13 = 187 U.S. Gals. + 100% = 374 U.S. Oals.

IO.L. = Overal l Length, measured from tip of Main R o t o r fully extended to tip of Tail R o t o r fully extended.

2Fuselage Width = Actual fuselage width (does not include landing gear) measured from outs ide of cabin.

17

In adapting the fixed-wing f i r e protection methodology to helicopters, the committee considered the fol lwoing additional factors which make the f i r e protection problem of helicopters (rotary-wing a i r c ra f t ) unique:

(a) ~ a c e - - r e l a t i v e to i ts fixed-wing counter part, a smaller portion of the a i r c r a f t overall length is occupied;

(b) ~ u a n t i t i ~ and locat ion-- fuel tanks are not located in the "wings" or rotor blades and re la t i ve ly small quantit ies of fuel are involved;

(c) i m p S - - r e l a t i v e to the fixed-wing counterpart, the hel icopter accident generally occurs at slow ground speeds; and

(d) expected a i r c r a f t s ize- - in general hel iports are designed for the largest hel icopter expected to u t i l i z e the f a c i l i t y , not the median size for the category. See Table 3-7.

After considering both the factors involved in the fixed-wing methodology and these factors unique to helicopters, the committee arr ived at a " theoret ical c r i t i ca l area" for helicopters that has a longitudinal dimension of hal f the overall length of the hel icopter and a width equal to three times the fuselage width, And, in the absence of any data that suggested any other a l ternat ive as being more appropriate, the "practical cr i tca l f i r e area" has been determined to be lO0 percent of the "theoret ical c r i t i ca l area." See Figure A-3-7. l(b) below.

Another established pr inc ip le is a d is t inct ion between control and extinguishment of a f i r e . Test data and a wide range of f i e l d experince indicate that the quantit ies of foam agent needed to control AND extinguish an a i r c ra f t f i r e should be determined separately. This pr inc ip le is expressed in the equal i t ies numbered (1) through (7) given below:

I) When Ql = Volume of agent required for one-minute control of PC,

2) and Q2 = Volume of agent required fo r continued control and/or complete extinguishment of f i r e related to PC.

3) We have: Q : Ql + Q2 = Minimum agent volume for e f fec t ive f i r e service operations.

Now, i f we examine carefu l ly the relat ionship between QI and Q2 as they were developed by those working onthe fi~ed-wing f i r e protection problem, we f ind that:

(4) Ql = (Application Rate) x (Practical Cr i t i ca l Area)

OR

(AR)(PC) (4a) Ql = Where the "Application Rate" is the unit volume of agent placed onto a unit area of f i r e in a unit time; the_exact units such as gpm/ft Z or Ipm/m z depend upon the units convention being used.

(5} AND Q2 : f(QI) And, i t has been determined that for a l l categories of hel iports, " f " = I.

(6) Therefore O = 2[(AR)(PC)]

The accepted operational application rates for three of the common generic foam types, when used in the a i r c ra f t flammable l iqu id fuel f i r e environment, are as follows:

Aqueous Film Forming Foam = 0.13 gpm/ft 2

Fluoroprotein Foam = 0.18 gpm/ft 2

Protein Foam = 0.20 gpm/ft 2

A sample calculat ion of the tota l water quantity, "Q" needed when aqueous f i lm forming foam concentrate is to be used at each of the three categories of hel ipor t is provided in Table A-3-3.1. A simi lar set of water quanti t ies can be calculated for any other foam concentrate for which an accepted application rate is known. Simply substitute that value for the AFFF application rate in column 5 of Table A-3-7.1 and do the indicated calculations to arr ive at the required value of "Q" for the foam concentrate of interest .

To f u l l y appreciate the signif icance and simplici ty of this methodology as a means of determining levels of f i r e protection, one must c lear ly understand that "Ql" is only that minimum quantity of f i r e f ight ing agent requ i red f o r one-minute f i r e cont ro l (90 percent ext inguishment) of the an t i c i pa ted p rac t i ca l c r i t i c a l f i r e area. Hence, any f i r e and rescue serv ice cannot be expected to perform an e f f e c t i v e rescue e f f o r t when equipped with anything less than the quantity of primary extinguishing agent specified by the volume of Ql for the specif ic a i rpo r t /he l i po r t category. Furthermore, a f i r e suppression/rescue mission which is i n i t i a ted at the required minimum application rate and which continues at that rate, while extinguishing f i r e or securing unburned fuel within the practical area, wi l l cease operations at the end of one minute. In other words, the agent specified by the volume Ql is depleted. There is no agent for mop-up ac t i v i t i es , foam blanket repair , or standby protection for continued rescue or salvage ac t i v i t i es . Thus, while the control volume Ql takes on an operational signif icance as being c r i t i ca l to the rescue operation, i t is at the same time l imited.

From al l of this i t should be clear that to extend an e f fec t ive f i r e suppression and rescue operation past the i n i t i a l one-minute f i r e control period, an addit ional volume of foam agent, called "Q2", must be avai lable. This volume of agent is used to repair foam blanket damage that may be caused by the evacuees and rescue workers walking through the foamed areas, or by hot surfaces created by the i n i t i a l f i r e . Furthermore, Q2.is needed to extinguish a l l f i r e in the practical c r i t i ca l f i r e area and f i res outside the practical c r i t i c a l area which were i n i t i a l l y determined to pose no threat to l i f e . Agent from Q2 also provides standby protection before total extinguishment during i n te r i o r a i r c r a f t search operations and for the removal of immobile survivors a f te r f i r e control. I t is also used for securing the f i r e area during i n i t i a l a i r c ra f t salvage operations immediately a f te r total f i r e extinguishment. Hence, an a i r c ra f t f i r e service equipped with only the one-minute f i r e control volume represented by QI is bieng asked to assume a s ign i f icant level of r isk. That r isk cannot be called a "calculated r isk" unless the manager selecting the reduced agent volume knows the nature of the f i r e area and the potential hazard involved. qOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The above material was developed using NFPA 403 as a guide. The terms semifixed and f ixed systems are the same as those defined in NFPA I I .

The application rates for a semifixed system is the same as used in NFPA 403. The formulas used in NFPA 403 Section A-2-3.1 were employed with Q1 for 1 minute and Q2 % Ql equivalent to lO0 %.

The application rates for a f ixed system were reduced to re f lec t those required by NFPA 11 and the duration was increased. Although the foam would potent ia l ly be applied quicker with a f ixed system, the direct ion of appl icat ion would not be control led as in the semifi×ed system and therefore would necessitate a longer duration of application.

(Log #7) 418- 6 - (3-5 and A-3-5) : Accept in P r i nc i p l e SUBMITTER: J. Walter Coon, Kansas C i t y , MO COMMENT ON P R ~ O ~ : 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: The wording in 3-5 should be deleted and the wording in A-3-5 used - in o ther words, the wording in A-3-5 should be in the body of the standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Believe me i t is against my bettor judgement and professional judgement to make this recommendation, but number of exi ts and ex i t locations are the jur isd ic ton of lOl.

18

I t should not be this way - the members of 418 have heliport expertise, these are unique fac i l i t i es , and in my professional opinion, the 418 Committee should write the egress requirements for heliports. Standard 409 used to have a pretty ef f ic ient section on egress from aircraf t hangars, based on the hangar expertise of the 409 Committee, but 101 claimed this jur isdict ion. I have the greatest respect for I01, but section 29-6 Special Provisions for Aircraft Hangars in lOl leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I feel that each specialized Tec{hnical Committee should write their own egress requirements - leave the generic 101 requirements to 101. COMMITTEE ACTIOn: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-5 and add 3-5.1 and 3-5.2 as follows: 3-5* Landing Pad Egress. At least two approved

means of egress from the landing pad edge shall be provided and shall be remote from each other to the extent practical.

3-5.1 For heliports occupied by 50 or more people, two approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided and shall be remote from each other to the extent practical but not less than 30 f t . For heliports occupied by less than 50 people, one approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided.

3-5.2 Means nf egress from the landing pad and roof shall not obstruct f l i gh t operations. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA I01 permits buildings with occupancies of less than 50 people to have one means of egress; buildings with more than 50 people must have two means of egress. NFPA IOl is the higher standard; i t makes sense for heliports too; and i t is understood by local offici~Lls (authority having jur isdict ion) who approve plans for heliport construction.

"Pad" and "roof" were removed because many people fa i l to distinguish the two from each other.

Means of egress stai r handrails and stair penthouses can obstruct helicopter f l i gh t operations unless designed not to penetrate the primary surface (takeoff and landing area.) which is the elevation of the landing pad i t se l f . In other words, stai r handrails and stair penthouses cannot stick up above the elevation of the landing pad.

(Log #14) 418- 7 - (3-7 (New)): Accept in Principle ~ : Chris J. Gance, The Cleveland Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: New text:

3-7 A Class I I I standpipe system shall extend to the roof level. Sufficient outlets shall be provided to permit effective hose stream coverage of the roof, landing deck and helicopter parking positions without requiring excessive lengths of hose. Such standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the Standard on Standpipe and Hose Systems, NFPA 14. SUBSTANTIATION: Inadequate f i re protection. The proposed 418 doesn't take into consideration flammable l iquid spi l l f i res, rescue and evacuation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

As follows: 3-8 I f a building with a rooftop heliport is

supplied with a standpipe system a Class I I standpipe shall be extended to the roof level, on which the rooftop heliport is located. Such standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the Standard on Standpipe and Hose Systems, NFPA 14. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee fe l t that the building codes have jur isdict ion over whether or not a building is required to have a standpipe system. I f the building is required to have a standpipe system, a Class I I standp.ipe system on the rooftop heliport would support the additional hazard of the heliport in conjunction with Section 3-8 of the proposed revision.

(Log #II) 418- 8 - (3-7 (New) thru 3-7.4 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip E. Crombie, Jr. , Aetna Life & Casualty COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new section:

3-7 Drainage and Separators. 3-7,1 The landing deck area drainage system shall be

separate from the building drainage system unless al l water, oi i or residue from the landing deck area passes through an approved, properly ventilated separator of such capacity that i t w i l l retain 100 percent of the fu l l fuel load capacity of any helicopter using the landing deck.

3-7.2 I f a fixed foam system is instal led, drainage inlets serving the landing deck shall have the capacity to handle the design rate of discharge from the system (A-3-8.1.4(b) See Appendix A).

3-7.3 Separators shall be periodically inspected and any fuel accumulations disposed of in a safe manner.

3-7.4 The drainage piping separator system shall be protected against freezing in climates where this may be a problem. ~UBSTANTIATION: The Committee has not included adequate guidance on drainage from rooftop landing fac i l i t i es . Additionally the Committee has not provided substantiation as to why these requirements, in effect since 1979, are no longer needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The possible incident of depositing fuel and foam into a waste water system was fe l t to be extremely low.

(Log #12) 418- 9 - (3-8.1 (New) thru 3-8.1.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Philip E. Crombie, Jr. , Aetna Life and Casualty COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new section:

3-8.1.1 A manual f i re alarm station connected to an approved system for notifying the f i re department shall be installed at each point of egress from the heliport. (See Standard for the Instal lat ion, Maintenance and Use of Central Station Signaling Systems, NFPA 71, Standard for Instal lat ion, Maintenance and Use of Auxil iary Protective Signaling Systems, NFPA 72B, Standard for the Instal lat ion, Maintenance and Use of Remote Station Protective Signaling Systems, NFPA 72C, and Standard for the Instal lat ion, Maintenance and Use of Proprietary Protective Signaling Systems for Watchman, Fire Alarm, and Supervisory Service, NFPA 72D).

3-8.1.2" A Class I I I standpipe system shall extend to the roof level. Sufficient outlets shall be provided to permit effective hose stream coverage of the roof, landing deck, and helicopter parking positions without requiring excessive lengths of hose. Such standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the Standard on Standpipe and Hose Systems, NFPA 14.

3-8.1,3" Table 8-1,3 indicates the quantities of water for foam production (using protection or fluoroprotein foam concentrates) and the high quantities of dry chemical that are recommended for heliports categorized as follows. The quantities of water may be reduced one-third when aqueous film-forming concentrate is used.

H-l This category includes al l heliports where the helicopters using the f ac i l i t y carry less than 6 persons and have operational fuel loads of less than lO0 gallons (380 L).

H-2 This category includes al l heliports where the helicopters using the f ac i l i t y normally carry more than 6 and less than 12 passengers and have operational fuel loads of less than 200 gallons (760 L).

H-3 This category includes al l heliports where the helicopters using the f a c i l i t y normally carry 12 or more passengers and have operational fuel loads of more than 200 gallons (760 L).

19

Heliport Category

Table 8-I.3 Heliport -- Recommended Amounts of Extinguishing Agents

or Water for Proteion Fluoroprotein Water for AFFF Production

Discharge Rates

Foam Production

Discharge Rates

Dry Chemical (Note I)

Discharge Rates

Gal Gal (U.S.) Liter GPM Liter/Min (U.S.) Liter GPM Liter/Min Lb Kg Lb /M in Kg/Min

H-I (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) lO0 45 lO0 45 H-2 200t 750t I00 380 300t 1140# 150 570 200 90 200 90 H-3 335t 1265t 200 760 500t 1900t 300 If40 300 135 300 135

NOTE I: When used with protein or fluoroprotein foam, foam compatible-type dry chemical is required. Dry chemical in containers weighing in excess of 50 lbs (2.25 kg) should be equipped with auxiliary wheeled carriers. (See also Standard on Installation of Portable Fire Extinguishers, NFPA lO).

NOTE 2: Many times a water supply meeting the recommendations for Category H-2 may be readily available. In such cases, i t should be made available assuming personnel are assigned to ut i l ize the equipment in the event of an emergency.

tNOTE 3: This amount of water should be immediately available From a hydrant (sEandpipe), pressurized tank, reservoir, cistern, or mobile vehicle so that i t can be dispensed at the discharge rate indicated and at satisfactory pressure. Additional water should be available to provide a continuing rescue and f i re fighting capability wherever feasible.

0 l'W

3-8.1.4 Where helicopters in Category H-3 are operated, the protection shall be arranged as follows:

(a)* At least two foam hose lines supplied from foam fixed outlets shall be available, each having a capacity of not less than I00 GPM (380 L) foam water solution. They shall be located remotely from each other and have the ab i l i t y to discharge effective foam streams to provide coverage of the cr i t i ca l portions of the landlng deck and adjacent roof areas. (The area to be protected shall determine the number of lines needed.)

(b)* The a i r foam l iquid concentrate provided shall be adequate in quantity to permit continuous operation of the required number of hose lines available for a minimum period of ten minutes, except where a fixed foam system is instal led. In the la t te r case, the hose lines shall be provided with a 5 minute supply of alr-foam l iquid concentrate over and above that required for the fixed system.

(c)* After use, the foam hose l ine system shall be restored to fu l l operational condition before the heliport can be turned to f l i gh t operational status.

3-B.l.5 All f i re protection equipment (including bulk supplies of extinguishing agents for fixed systems) provided on roofs and landing decks shall be protected against extremes of weather (freezing temperature, snow, icing and severe exposure to the sun) so as to be fu l l y operational at al l times.

3-8.1.6 Automatic sprinklrs shall be installed in areas communicating with the roof or landing deck. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee's revision fa i ls to provide for requirements of fixed f i re protection and alarm systems. Addit ionally, the Committee has not provided substantiation as to why these requirements, in effect since 1979, are no longer needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The alarm system, standpipe system, and foam system are adequately addressed by Comments 41B-5, 418-7 and 418-15 (Log #1, 14 and lO).

SUBSTANTIATION: Inadequate f i re protection for the areas or rooms communicating with the roof or landing deck from exposure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The wording of paragraph 6-I.6 in the 1979 edition of NFPA 418 was omitted because this subject is beyond the scope of the Committee. Sprinklering of these areas is normally covered by building codes.

(Log #2) 418- 12 - (5-2): Reject ~UBMITTER: Patrick E. Phi l l ips, Los Vegas, NV COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add Fine Print Note:

"The use of Halons, for f i re suppression is currently l imited in the Montreal Protocol as an ozone depleting agent. Use of any Halon agents, in hand extinguishers should not be encouraged." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposals 5 and 6 wished to add Halon IZl l hand extinguishers specif ical ly into the standard. While the Committee did adopt wording that does not specif ical ly require the use of Halons, i t did nothing to discourage i ts use. Total new production wi l l be cut-off and eventually we may begin call ing back existing systems and extinguishers. Users should be forewarned of restr ict ions. See paragraph I-5.3.1 of the Halon 1301 standard adopted May 1989. Similar wording is proposed in the next revision of NFPA IZB (Halon 1211). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. qOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 5-2 properly refers to NFPA 10 for selection. Table 5-I establishes minimum ratings for each heliport category. Although extinguishing agents have dif ferent characteristics, the Committee fe l t that this is under the purview of the portable f i re extin9uisher committee.

(Log #15) 418- 10 - (3-8(a), (b), (c) (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Chris 3. Gance, The Cleveland Fire Department ~O~MENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: New tex t :

3-8 (a) At least two foam hose l ines supplied from f ixed out lets shall be avai lable, each having a capacity of not less than 100 gpm (380 L) foam water solution. They shall be located remotely from each other and have the ab i l i t y to discharge effective foam streams to provide coverage of the cr i t i ca l portions of the landing deck and adjacent roof areas. (The areas to be protected shall determine the actual number of lines needed).

(b) The air-foam l iquid concentrate provided shall be adequate in quantity to permit continuous operation of the required number of hose lines available for a minimum period of 10 minutes, except where a fixed foam systems is instal led. In the la t te r case, the hose lines shall be provided with a 5 minute supply of a i r foam l iquid concentrate over and above that required for the fixed system.

(c) After use, the foam hose l ine system shall be restored to fu l l operational condition before the heliport can be turned to f l i gh t operational status. SUBSTANTIATION: Inadequate f i re protection. The proposed 418 does not take into consideration a flammable l iquid spi l l f i re . Most 3H helicopters have fuel capacity of 300 gallons or more. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee completely revised the requirements for foam. See Comment 418-5 (Log #I).

(Log #9) 418- 13 - (Table 5-I and 5-2.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: 3. Walter Coon, Kansas City, 140 COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Table 5-I.

Substitute: 5-2.1 Every heliport shall be provided with a

minimum of two extinguishers rated (Committee decision) containing agent suitable for f ighting flammable l iquid f ires and compatible with environment. (Committee should provide wordln~)

5-3 Committee wordlng to provide dry standpipe hose connections, standpipes, size, I I/2 in. hose, etc. SUBSTANTIATION: 418 is dealing with fueled aircraf t . Remove the f l e x i b i l i t y of stipulating extinguisher rating based on length of helicopter or implied passenger load by virtue of helicopter size. Pick a rating and an agent and mandate at every heliport (except for 5-I exception). 5-3 should provide requirements for standpipe (wet or dry) roof outlets for rooftop heliports. 5-3 should stipulate where al l f i r s t aid equipment located - rooftop and ground level - NFPA 10 wi l l give al l mounting requirements. Should also give ground level hydrant requirements.

A I - I /2 in. hose with combination nozzle wi l l give a great deal more l l f e safety and property conservation in a crash f i re than an extinguisher - f i re department should have hose outlets at hel iport. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. qOMMITTEE STATEMEN!: The Regulations Governing Committee Projects, Section 11-7(d) requires the comment to include the wording to be added, revised, (and how revised), or deleted.

(Log #16) 418- 11 - (3-g (New)): Reject B;~I~B~_I_T_TJF=~: Chris J. Gance, The Cleveland Fire Department COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: New text:

3-9 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in areas of rooms communicating with the roof or landing deck.

(Log #8) 418- 14 - (5-2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, 140 ~OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Delete specific reference in the body of the standard to Chapter 4 of NFPA 10 which is "Inspection, Maintenance, and Recharging."

Delete specific reference in the body of the standard to Chapter 5 of NFPA lO which is "Hydrostatic Testing."

21

Delete specific reference in the body of the standard to Chapter 6 of NFPA lO which is "Referenced Publications." SUBSTANTIATION: Referencing Chapter 4 of NFPA lO is mandating management operational and maintenance procedures. Referencing NFPA Standard lO is adequate.

Referencing Chapter 5 in NFPA lO (Hydrostatic Testing) is not applicable or appropriate in the body of Standard 418.

I f 4i8 references NFPA Standard lO i t includes all chapters. Have never seen one Standard reference another Standard's Refereqced Publications. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Comittee fe l t that Chapter 5 of NFPA 418 establishes minimum ratings which are in excess of those required by NFPA IO. Minimum travel distances as required by NFPA lO are inappropriate for heliports. The Committee feels that NFPA lO Chapters 2 and 3 were intended for general selection and placement for buildings.

(Log #1O) 418- 15 - (Chapter 7 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. Walter Coon, Kansas City, MO COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: This standard needs Fire Alarm Provisions.

Wording for this new Chapter should come from the Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: Standard 418 should have provisions for f ire alarm transmitting devices -manual pull s tat ions- location, type, etc.

Local alarm requirements and requirements for automatic transmission of an alarm signal to a constantly attended location and/or f i re alarm headquarters.

Waiting passengers, passengers in the stairtower, and personnel at or on the heliport should be notified of an emergency by visual and audible local alarm. Provision should be made for personnel to notify the building, airport, f i re department, etc. automatically by virtue of an activated manual pull station. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

J Add paragraph 3-8 to read as follows: 3-8 When buildings are provided with a f i re alarm

system, a manual pull station shall be provided for each designated means of egress from the roof. (See 3-5.1. ) COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the intent of the submitter and added the appropriate requirement.

(Log #13) 4]8- 16 - (A-3-8.1.2 (New) thru A-3-8.1.4 (New)): Reject ~_UBMITTER: Philip E. Crombie, Jr., Aetna Life & Casualty COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 418-3 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new appendix items:

A-3-8.1.2 The water standpipe hose system may be modified to be useful as foam hose line protection by the addi t ion of approved combination nozzles, air- foam l i qu id concentrate, and proport ioning equipment.

A-3-8.1.3 I t should be noted that the requirements indicated for helicopter rescue and f i re control operations, Table 6-1.3, are not limited to roof-top heliports but are applicable to any heliports. (See Recommendation Practice for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Services at Airports and Heliports, NFPA 403). Roof-top heliport protection requirements in 6-4 of this standard exceed these requirements in some cases.

Heliports designed exclusively for handling helicopter operations are generally limited in area and are separately evaluated as regards helicopter rescue and f i re fighting services. For the purposes of this text, the term "heliport" includes "helipads" and "helistops" located on the roofs of buildings. The

degree of f i r e protect ion recommended depends on the s i z e of the hel icopters, the number of occupants and the maximum operational fuel load of the hel icopters using the f a c i l i t y .

For e f fec t ive use of the f i r e protect ion recommended for he l ipor ts in th is categories H-2 and H-3, i t is important that the ext inguishing equipment be capable of discharging the agents at the rate indicated. The foam rates (using protein or fluoroprotein concentrates) are those which provide the maximum nozzle flow rate capable of being handled by one man. The amount of agents and rates should be sufficient in the hands of trained operators to provide in i t ia l f ire control, thus permitting occupants to evacuate or be rescued, assuming that they are not incapacitated or ki l led on impact. Additional water is recommended to permit complete extinguishment.

NOTE: Where a standpipe or other continuous water supply of sufficient pressure and volume is available, i t should be used to supply the foam system. I f continuous water supply of adequate volume but insufficient pressure is available, an automatic booster pump should be provided.

Fire extinguishers, foam nozzles, hose reels, etc., located on heliports, should, where necessary, be in waterproof, above grade cabinets, clearly marked as to their contents. Cabinets should be located beyond but not in the excess of 20 f t (6,1 m) of the boundary line defining the landing and takeoff area shall not protrude into the normal approach-departure paths. These cabinets should be located diametrically opposite each other.

Foam nozzles should be l ight in weight and capable of discharging foam, dispersed pattern foam, or water spray.

An automatic alarm should be provided to indicate foam system operation and to summon aid.

A-3-8.1.4(a) Hose lines should preferably be of the reel type, arranged for ful l operation with all or a portion of the hose unreeled. Operating controls should be of the quick-acting, quarter-turn type. aHOSe nozzles should be of the shutoff type should have shutoff valve at the nozzle inlet.

A-3-8.l.4(b) Fixed foam systems supplemented by foam hose lines, may be required for protection against flammable l iquid spi l l f ires. Each fixed foam system installation normally shall be engineered for each roof-top heliport to achieve the desired purposes.

The following guidelines are offered for the installation of fixed foam systems.

(a) Peripheral approved fixed foam discharge nozzles should be installed to provide protection for the entire landing deck, but not necessarily for the entire roof area of the building and the helicopter parking positions, i f the landing deck is clearly defined and marked out space with an adequate provision to prevent the flow of flammable liquids to other parts of the building roof area. The foam solution discharge rate should be at a rate of at_least 0.16 gallons per minute per s q f t [6.52 (L/min)/m Z] when using fluoroprotein foam concentrate, and a rate 9f O.lO gallon per minute per square f t [4.07 (L/min)/m L] when using AFFF foam concentrate, and an adequate quantity of the extinguishing agent should be available to continue' this discharge for at least I0 minutes, with start of discharge occurring not more than 10 seconds after system actuation.

(b) The foam discharge nozzles may be installed at deck level, or as fixed oscil lat ing taunts.

(c) The effect of air turbulence and wind conditions on the range and distribution of the foam streams should be considered in the design of such a system.

(d) Operation of the fixed foam system should be from emergency control stations located at point of egress. An additiona] control station may be provided in the heliport control room, i f such exists. Heliport personnel should be trained in operation of the system.

(el The Standard on Foam Extinguishing Systems, NFPA I I , the Standard for Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems, NFPA 16, and the Standard on Aircraft Hangars, NFPA 409, should be referred to when designing fixed foam systems for this service.

22

(f) I t is recommended that trained personnel (who may be normally assigned to other duties in the building) report to the roof-top heliport several minutes before the landing or the takeoff of a helicopter and remain there unti l completion of the landing or takeoff operation, and be ready to use the f i re protection systems. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee's revision fa i ls to provide for requirements of fixed f i re protection and alarm systems. With the proposal for inclusion of a new Section 3-8 these appendix item are needed for guidance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~QMMITTEE ~TATEMENT: See Comment 418-5 and 418-7 (Log #I and #14.)

Editorial Corrections

The Technical Committee on Helicopter Faci l i t ies notes the following edi tor ia l c lar i f icat ions:

Change 2-2 as follows: 2-2 Above ground flammable l iquid storage tanks,

compressed gas storage tanks, and l iqu i f ied gas storage tanks shall be la te ra l l y located at least 50 f t from the edge of the take off and landing area as defined in the FAA Heliport design advisory circular 150/5390-2.

3-2 Delete "roof drains" ( i t was never the intent of the Committee to provide drainage away from roof drains.)

The Committee notes the following edi tor ial corrections:

3-3 Replace "be l isted noncombustible" with "have a Class A Rating" and remove the second sentence of 3-3.

Paragraph 3-5 delete heading.

A-4-1 change "land s i tes" to " landing s i t es . "

23