Report of the Committee on

General Storage

Christopher T. Lummus, Chair Insurance Services Offices, Inc., TX [I]

Michael T. Kroman, Secretary Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., CA [I]

Harold IL Bahadori, City of Orlando Fire Dept., FL [U] Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., IL [RT] Robert B. Combs, J&H/Marsh & McLennan, WA [I] Robert C. Everson, Calabash, NC [SE]

l ames G. Gallup, RolfJensen & Assoc., Inc., IL [SE] ames Colinveaux, Central Sprinkler Corp., PA [M] Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Thomas Goonan, Tom Goonan Assoc., VA [SE] Richard Greenberg, Carteret Fire Dept., NJ [E] Richard S. Johnson, Hilton Head, SC [U]

Rep. Owen-Illinois Rodney A. McPhee, Canadian Wood Council, ON, Canada [M] Jennifer L. Nelson, AT&T - EH&S, NJ [U] Michael T. Newman, Johnson &Jolmson, NJ [U]

Rep, NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Gerald W. O'Rourke, O'Rourke & Co., CA [SE] Mark Ollszewicz, Scbirmer Engr Corp., IL [SE] Albert W. Reed, Reed Fire Protection Engr, TX [SE] Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers, IL [I] { erry Shiner, Keeps,fie Systems, Inc., ON, Canada [SE]

eter A. Smith, lnt'l Paper Co., TN [U] Robert D. Spauldlng, Factory Mutual Research, MA [I] Jack Thacker, Allan Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of Southern

California, CA [IM] Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

W'dliam P. Thomas, Jr., Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., IL [I] F. A. Underwood, The Trinity Co., TX [U] Terry L. Victor, Tyco Int'l. Ltd., MD [IM] John F. Viola, HFP Sprinkler Inc., MA [IM]

Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn., lnc Susan J. Welgand, Victory Fire Protection, Inc., PA [IM]

Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc

Alternates

Donald "Don" D. Becker, Midland Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., MO [IM] (AIt. toJ . F. Viola)

William M. Carey, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to K. M. Bell)

Stephen A. Clark, Jr., Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., NC [i] (Alt. to M. T. Kroman)

J. Grayson Gilbert, Industrial Risk Insurers, GA [I] (Alt. to T. E. Schumann)

Salvatore Gitto, J&H Marsh & McLennan, NY [I] (Voting Alt. to M&M Rep.)

Joseph B. Hankins, Jr., Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I] (Alt. to IL D. Spaulding)

Stephen IL Hoover, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Co., IL [I] (AIt. to W. P. Thomas Jr.)

Roland J. Hugglns, American Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc., TX JIM] (Alt. to S. J. Weigand)

Richard E. Hughey, [SO Commercial Risk Services, NY [I] (Alt. to C. T. Lummns)

Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY [IM] (Alt. to J. Thacker)

Steven G. Krone, Schirmer Engr Corp., TX [SE] (Alt. to M. Oliszewicz)

Donald Co. Moeller, RolfJensen & Assoc., Inc., CA [SE] (Air. to J. G. GaUup)

Peter Thomas, The Viking Corp., MI [M] (Alt. to J. Golinveaux)

Nonvoting

Martin M. Brown, Laguna Hills, CA (Member Emeritus)

Sultan M. Javerl, AXA Global Risks, France

Staff Liaison: Milosh T. Puchovsky

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership ma~ have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on safeguarding general warehousing and commodities stored indoors or outdoors against fire. This committee does not cover storage specifically covered by other NFPA standards.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of tile Committee on General Storage is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on General Storage and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 231-1995, Standard for General Storage, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1998 Annual Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on General Storage which consists of 28 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

421

N F P A 2 3 1 - - A 9 8 R O C

(Log #1 ) 231- 1 - (Entire Document): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to recommendation No. 2:

For the purpose of this standard, ordinary temperature rating shall range from 155°F to 170°F. SUBSTANTIATION: In NFPA 13, ordinary temperature rating ranges from 135°F to 170°F. Allowing the use of 135°F may adversely effect the number of operating sprinklers. This fact would have to put in 1-$ definitions or in the text as needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new section 5-1.2 to read as follows (under Ordinary temperature rating in section 1-3, add a note as follows"see section 5-1.2":

5-1.2 The minimum temperature rating of ceiling sprinklers shall be 150°F. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The change was placed i n chapter 5 to cover all situations in the standard. We chose the 150°F to not allow tile use of the 135°F sprinkler but to allow some deviation in tile 155°F sprinkler. A cross reference has been added to the definition for consistency. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #33) 231- 2 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Southeast Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-36 RECOMMENDATION: Add the definition of ~Intermediate Temperature Sprinkler ~ to 1-3. SUBSTANTIATION: In 8-2.7 intermediate temperature sprinkler was added to this requirement. In 1-3 there is currently no definition for this type of sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

THACKER= Agree with Ken Isman comments in his letter dated Jan. 9, 1998 on items 231-2 and 231-14.

(Log #CC1 ) 231- 3 - (1-5 boiler plate): Accept SUBMITFER: Technical Committee on General Storage COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Add "boiler plate ~ definitions to Section 1-3 as follows:

Approved.* Acceptable to the authority havin~jurisdiction. Authority Having Jurisdiction.* The org..anizauon, office, or

individual responsible for approving eqmpment, an installation, or a procedure.

Labeled. Equipment or materials to which has been attached a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an organization that is acceptable to the authority baying jurisdiction and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment or materials, and by whose labeling file manufacturer indicates compfiance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified manner.

Listed.* Equipment, materials, or services included in a list

~ ublished by an organization that is acceptable to the authority avingjurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or

services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listinlg states that either tile equipment, material, or service meets identified standards or has been tested and found suitable for specified purpose.

Shall. Indicates a mandatory requirement. Should. Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but

not required. A-l-3 Approved. The National Fire Protection Association does

not approve, inspect, or certify any installations, procedures, equipment, or materials nor does it approve or evaluate testing

laboratories. In determining the acceptability of installations or jPurocedures, equipment, or materials, the "authority having

risdiction" may base acceptance on compliance with NFPA or other appropriate standards. In file absence of such standards, said authority may require evidence of proper installation, procedure, or use. The "authority having jurisdiction" may also refer to the listings or labeling practices o f an organization that is concerned with product evaluations and is thus in a position to determine compliance with appropriate standards for the current production of hsted items.

A-l-3 Authority Having Jurisdiction. The phrase "authority having jurisdiction" is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, because jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Wherepubl ic safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional depar tment or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector, or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.

A-1-3 Listed. The means for identifying listed equipment may vary for each organization concerned with product evaluation; some organizations do not recognize equipment as listed unless it is also labeled. The authority havin~jurisdiction should utilize the system employed by tile listing orgamzation to identify a listed product. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide consistency with other NFPA documents. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Babadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #28) 231- 4 - (Chapter 2): Reject SUBMITrER: Southeast Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Move all appendix material related to Alphabetized Listing of Commodity Classes to the body of file code in file appropriate places. SUBSTANTIATION: Assist the enforcer in using the code and will aid the user of the code. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Section A-2-1.1.1 in Report on Proposals on pp 510. NUMBER OF COMM1TrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #9) 231- 5 - (2-1.1.2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5

I RECOMMENDATION: In Exception No. 1, change "may be ~ to "shall be permitted to be ~. Also, in Exception No. 2, change "materials can be" to "materials are ". SUBSTANTIATION: Removes permissive language. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrVrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

422

NFPA 231 - - A 9 8 ROC

(Log #29) 231- 6 - (2-1.2 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Southeast Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Change the exception to 2-1.2 to read: Pallet Types. When loads are palletized, the use of wooden or metal pallets is assumed in the classification of commodities. When plastic pallets are used, the classification of the commodity uni t shall be increased one class (i.e., Class 11I will become class IV and Class IV will become Group A Plastics). No increase is required for Group A Plastic commodity.

Exception: When specific test data is available, subject to the approval of the authority having jurisdiction the results of this data will take precedence in determIning classification of commodities. SUBSTANTIATION: The wording proposed requires that any test data be accepted for changing of the classification. This is a dangerous precedence with no approval required by the authority having jurisdiction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

[ Modify the proposed exception to read as follows: [ Exception: When other than wood pallets are used and when [ specific commodity classification test data is available from a [ nationally recognized test laboratory, the authority having [jurisdiction shall be permitted to use this data in determining [ classification of a commodity.

COMMI]WEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the commenters intent tbat the Authority Having Jurisdictlon should be allowed to consider test data wl~en determining specific commodity classification for commodity stored on other than wood pallets. The exception that was written better clarifies the circumstances under which the test data is used. NUMBER OF COMMI'Iq'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITYEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #10) 231- 7 - (2-1.3.4(c)): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: In the last sentence, change ~may be" to "shall be permitted to be any of the following materials'. SUBSTANTIATION: Removes permissive language. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #8) 231- 8 - ($.2): Accept SUBMITrER= Stephen A. Clark, Jr., Fireman's Fund Insurance CO.

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the proposed exception to Section $.2 to read as follows:

$.2 Emergency Smoke and Heat Venting. Protection outlined in this standard shall apply to buildings with or without roof vents and draft curtains.

Exception: Where local codes require heat and smoke vents in buildings protected by ESFR sprinklers, the vents shall be manually operated, or have an operating mechanism with a standard response fusible e lement r a t e d n o less than ~ l z 3 6 0 ° F . Drop o u t vents shall not bepermi t ted . SUBSTANTIATION: Allowing the use of 286°F rated smoke and heat vents could have a negative impact on the performance of ESFR sprinkler systems. In fact, Committee Statement No. 1 states ~Data indicates that h t a t / smoke vents which operate prior to the activation of ESFR sprinklers can have a negative impact on the performance of the ESFR sprinklers."

Tile effectiveness of ESFR sprinkler protection depends largely on fast sprinkler response. Anydelay in operation could result in the fire not being suppressed. If the heat /smoke vents operate too early, it could prevent the build up of heat at the roof level, which could delay the operation of ESFR sprinklers. To my knowledge, no full-scale ESFR testing was ever done with any automatic smoke

and heat venting including 360°F vents, much less 286°F vents. Virtually all other ESFR installation requirements are strictly based on actual testing conditions; why should smoke and heat venting be any different?

In addition, if intermediate rated ESFR sprinklers are installed because the ambient building temperature is above 100°F, the use of 286°F rated smoke and heat vents is only 74°F higher than the 212°F rated ESFR sprinklers. In this example, the degree of uncertainty for quick sprinkler activation is even greater. Where automatic heat /smoke vents are required by local codes, the use of 360°F rated vents will greatly lessen the chance of premature vent operation compared with that of the 212°F rated ESFR sprinklers.

Furthermore, NFPA 231C, Section $.3 states "Design curves are based on the assumption that roof vents and draft curtains are not being used." which does not agree with this proposed exception in NFPA 231. Section B-$.3 of 231C explains tests were conducted with simulated heat /smoke ventin.~ and these tests opened 87.5 to 91 percent more sprinklers than did comparative tests without heat /smoke ven t ing . It does not seem appropriate for NFPA 231 to differ from 231C's section.

In order to avoid prohibition of ESFR sprinkler protection in buildings where the local codes require heat /smoke venting, the use of 360°F rated links with automatic heat / smoke vents would still allow the advantages of ESFR sprinkler protection, without jeopardizing the fast response of ESFR sprinklers.

The National Fire Protection Research Foundation has future plans to conduct full-scale fire testing with automatic heat / smoke venting to address current inconsistencies regarding interaction between automatic heat /smoke vents and sprinkler protection. Until adequate full-scale testing is performed using intermediate rated heat /smoke vents, $60°F rated heat /smoke vents should be specified and used only as an exception where automatic heat /smoke venting is required by local codes. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oiiszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #27) 231- 9 - ($.2): Reject SUBMI'I 'rEI~ Mark Chubb, Southeastern Assn. of Fire Chiefs, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-6 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section $.2 to read as follows:

3-2" Emergency Smoke and Heat Venting. Protection ouOined in this standard shall apply to buildings with or without roof vents and draft curtains. Where roof vents and draf~ curtains or mechanical smoke exhaust are installed, the effect of smoke and heat venting on automatic sprinkler operations shall be taken into account. Desimas usin~ these fire nrotection features in combination ~ t h o n e a n o t h e r shall be based on ent, lneerint~ iud~'ment and recotmized ttood nracfi~;e. -SUBSTANTIATIOigh In rejecting Proposal 231-6, the technical committee cited the absence of data upon which to evaluate the interaction of sprinklers, smoke and heat vents, and draft curtains. In actuality, a great deal of research and data exists which explores the potential interaction among these elements. However, very little consensus exists on how to interpret the information currently available in the literature. The project currently proceeding under the direction of the National F'we Protection Research Foundation to investigate possible interactions among these features continues to pursue answers to nagging questions regarding possible conflicts among these fire protection features. However, this work remains ongoing with two of five scheduled tests completed at the time this comment ~¢as prepared. The submitter anticipates that upon completion, the NFPRF project will provide additional information (beyond the substantial volume cited in the research conducted to date) which will aid designers and Authorities Having Jurisdiction in reaching informed judgments , and possibly local consensus, about the value and potential interactions of these fire protection features. Adding the proposed language now will improve the existing section by making it more than an explanation, and encourage users of the standard to avail themselves of the knowledge which emerges from the NFPRF project. Providing explicit acknowledgment that data exists which may be of value to designers and Authorities Having Jurisdiction will improve decision making in this complex and controversial area and help reduce conflicts between the standard and current model code requirements.

423

N F P A 2 3 1 ~ A 9 8 R O C

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The NFPRF project has not been completed and tile report not finalized. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #30) 251- 10 - (3-2): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Southeast Regional Fire Code Den. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-6 RECOMMENDATION: This proposal should be held for further study. SUBSTANTIATION: There is a current project in the Research Foundation dealing with this issue. No action should be taken until the final report has been released and all parties can review. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The NFPRF project has not been completed and the report not finalized. Holding for further study would have no effect on this edition of the standard. The issue is expected to be revisited in the future. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #23) 251- 11 - (5-1.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roger S. Wilkins, Grinnell Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-16 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

5-1.5" Standard response 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) orifice or 17/32 in. (13.5 ram) orifice fzP__~g sprinklers shall he used in applying file curves and tables in Chapters 6 and 7. (See Chanters 8 and 9 for large dron and ESFR sprinklers.)

Exception No. 1: Use of these curves and tables with quick response spray sprinklers shall be permitted at ~=c ~-crc 'd:= ~.f ~ c authc.r'ty l-a- 'zgju-zd~ctloa.

Exception No. 2: Tile nse of 5/8 in. (15.9 mm~ or 5/4 in. 119.0 turn) orifice spray sDrinklers shall be nermitted where listed for such use ,and in accordance with their listed minimum design

I A-5-1.5 The densities and areas nrovided in Chanters 6 and 7 are based on fire tests using standard-resnonse 1/2 in~ ¢12.7 mm~ and 17/32 i0, (15.5 mm) orifice spray sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Tile use of tile term "spray sprinkler" throughout Section 5-1.5 clarifies tile base type of sprinkler recognized by Section 5-1.5.

2. The sentence "(See Chapters 7 and 8 for large drop and ESFR sprinklers.)" is user friendly and consistent with proposed changes for NFPA 231C.

5. Without removing "at tile discretion of tile authority having jurisdiction", the implication is that permission must first be obtained from tile Authority Having Jurisdiction. This is not believed to be tile intent of the exception.

4. Exception No. 2 as presented will now, in addition to

~ ermitting the use of 5/4 in. orifice sprinklers (251-16, Log No. 2), permit the use of 5/8 in. orifice sprinklers at design pressures

less than 10 psi. Tile original 10 psi.minimum design pressure for 5/8 in. orifice

spray sprinklers was based on fire tests of the first developed 5/8 in. orifice (ELO) sprinklers, where it was found that an undesirable number of sprinklers opened with a minimum design pressure of 7 psi and a desirable number of sprinklers opened with a minimum design pressure of 11 psi.

A recent fact finding investigation performed by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (File Ex 1226, Project 97NK24727, 10/6/97) using the Grinnell Model F892 5/8 in. Orifice Upright Spray Sprinklers illustrates that 5/8 in. spray sprinklers incorporating an appropriate design can successfully pass the previously failed fire test at a minimum design pressure of 7 psi with less than file maximum desirable number of sprinkler operations.

Allowing tile 5/8 in. orifice sprinklers to be used in accordance with their listed minimum design pressure will allow the use of the recognized normal minimum design pressure of 7 psi for spray

sprinklers, where listed, while permitting the use of other special application sprinklers at their already listed minimum design pressure of 10 psi.

5. The appendix material clarifies the original basis of the densities and ~eas and is consistent with a similar comment presented to NFPA 231C.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Delete Exception No. 5 as shown in the Report on Proposals. Accept 5-1.5 and A-5-1.5 as submitted. Revise Exceptions No. 1 and No. 2 as follows:

Exception No. 1: Use of these curves and tables with quick response spray sprinklers shall be permitted when listed for such u s e .

]~xception No. 2: The use of 5/8 in. (15.9 mm) or larger orifice spray $prinklers shall be nermitted where listed for such use. COMMITrEE STATEM~qT: Editorial changes have been made to maintain consistency with actions from other standards. The listed minimum design pressure language was eliminated to defer to the NFPA 15 minimum of 7 psi. The change was made to allow tile use of QR sprinklers where appropriate for such use but not encourage inappropriate applications. NUMBER OF COMMrrTEEMEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 25 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #15) 231- 12- (5-1.6 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-17 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the new proposed Exception to 5- 1.6 to read as follows:

"When separated by a partition continuous from file floor to the roof/ceiling of tile storage area capable of preventing the passage of smoke, tile sprinkler discharge criteria is not required to be continued into the adjacent space." SUBSTANTIATION: The negative ballots in the Report on Proposals are correct on this issue. There is no substantiation for tile 1-hr fire resistance requirement. The only reason it was proposed was as a starting place for discussion since the committee had processed a Formal Interpretation identical to this some time ago. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

i Reword tile exception to read as follows: "Exception: When separated by a barrier partition capable of

preventing heat from a fire in the storage area from fusing sprinklers in the non storage area." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment was rewritten to express the requirement for a barrier in performance based terms. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #31) 231- 13 - (5-1.6 Exception): Reject SUBMrrTER: Southeast Regional Fire Code Den. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAI~ NO: 231-17 RECOMMENDATION: Change the Exception to read: Exception: When separated by at least two one-hour rated fire resistive construction which is continuous from floor to ceiling of the storage are~ SUBSTANTIATION: This is inconsistent with the model building codes and fire prevention codes on the fire resistance rating of separation requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The two hour wall requirement is too excessive. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oiiszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

424

N F P A 2 3 1 - - A 9 8 R O C

(Log #3) 231- 14- (6-1.2): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Todd E. Scbumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-19 RECOMMENDATION: Replace existing paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6- 1.2 with the following and add new 6.1.3:

6.1.1 Protection for Class I through Class IV commodities in the following configurations shall be provided in accordance with this chapter.

(a) Nonencapsulated commodities that are solid pile, palletized or bin box storage up to 30 ft (0.1 m) in height;

(b) Nonencapsulated commodities on shelf storage up to 15 ft (4.6 m) in height.

(c)* Encapsulated commodities that are solid pile, palle~tized, bin box or shelf storage up to 15 ft (4.6 m) in height.

Exception: Height restrictions for bin box and shelf storage do not apply if these storage configurations are protected in accordance with 6-1.2

6.1.2 Multilevel bin box and shelf storage configurations with intermediate level walkways, shall be provided with sprinkler protection under the walkways as wellas at the ceiling. Maximum vertical spacing of walkways shall be 12 ft (3.7 m). The design density for the ceilingps rinklers and s~!rinklers under walkways shaU be in accordance with 6-2.2.1 or b~gure 6-2.2.2 as adjusted by Figure 6.2.2.4. Density is to be based on the storage height above the highest walkway. 6-1.3 The protection specified in this chapter contemplates a

maximum of 10 ft (3 m) clearance from the top of storage to sprinkler deflectors for storage heights of 15 ft (4.6 m) and higher. (former second paragraph of A-6-1.1 (c)) SUBSTANTIATION: It is the intent of the proposed changes to:

1) Statethat the height restrictions for bin box and sbeff in 6.1.1 do not apply if intermediate level walkways with sprinklers are provided.

2) The limits on die storage heigl~ts of encapsulated commodities for bin box and shelf storage in 6-1.1 do not apply if walkways with sprinklers below areprovided.

3) Give better guidance on how the ceiling density is determined for bin box and shelf storage with walkways.

4) Give guidance in how the sprinklers below the walkways are to be designed COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. Accept Section 6-1.1 as submitted, the proposed Exception and Section 6-1.3 is rejected. Revise Section 6-1.2 to read as follows:

6-1.2 Bin box and shelf storage over 12 ft (3.6 m) but not exceeding the height limits of Section 6-1 land provided with walkways at not over 12 ft vertical intervals, shall be protected with automatic sprinklers under the walkway(s). Protecuon shall be as follows:

(a) ceiling design density shall be based on the total height of storage within the building.

(b) automatic sprinklers under walkways shall be designed to maintain a minimum discharge pressure of 15 psi for the most hydraulically demanding 6 sprinklers on each level. Walkway sprinkler demand shall not be required to be added to the ceiling sprinkler demand. Sprinklers under walkways shall not exceed 8 ft (2.4 m) horizontal spacing. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The change to 6-1.2 is to clarify the design criteria. The Committee wishes to clarify that the height limitations in 6-1.1 apply to 6-1.2.

The change gives better guidance on how the ceiling density is de te rminedfor bin box and shelf storage with walkways a n d provides guidance in how the sprinklers below the walkways are to be designed. The proposed 6-1.3 is appendix material. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

THACKER: Agree with Ken Isman comments in his letter dated Jan. 9, 1998 on items 231-2 and 231-14.

(Log #16) 231- 15 - (6-2.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER= Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-23" RECOMMENDATION: In Section 6-2.2.1 created by the committee action, clarify which of the sprinkler protection criteria comes from NFPA 13 and wlfich comes from NFPA 231. SUBSTANTIATION: As the committee acted on the proposal, it is still not clear if sprinkler system duration, hose stream requirements, spacing of sprinklers, maximum system area per floor, etc. requirements are expected to be found in NFPA 13 or 231.

The Rack Storage Committee has acted on a similar proposal and exempted sprinkler systems in warehouses with Class I - IV storage from many of these provisions. We are not saying that this approach is necessarily correct, but wish to give the committees a chance to correlate their actions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT.- The Committee does not feel that any clarification is necessary.

"NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MFaMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #32) 231- 16 - (6-2.2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Southeast Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6.2.2.6 as follows: For metal bin boxes and metal closed shelves with a face area not exceeding 16 ft2 (1.5 m2), the area of sprinkler density application shall be permitted to be reduced by 50 percent, provided the minimum requirements of Chapter 5 are met. SUBSTANTIATION: The context of the existing 6-2.2.6 would be lost. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise section 6-2.2.6 as follows:

6-2.2.6 For metal bin boxes with a face area not exceeding 16 ft2 (1.5 m2) and metal closed shelves with a face area not exceeding 16ft2 1 5 m 2 t h e a r ( . ) ea of application shall be permitted to be reduced by 50 percent, provided the minimum requirements of Chapter 5 are met. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised wording clarifies the ambiguity regarding the face area and to correct the Report on Proposals. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #20) 231- 17 - (6-2.2.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-23 RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new Section 6-2.2.6 and renumber existing 6-2.2.6 and 6-2.2.7 as new 6-2.2.7 and 6-2.2.8.

"6-.2.2.6 The system area of operation shall be increased by 30 percent, without revising file density, when the sprinklers are used under sloped roof/ceilings with a pitch exceeding 2 in. in 12 in." SUBSTANTIATION: Fire testing, modeling andexper ience has shown that additional sprinklers will open due to a highly pitched roof/ceiling. This needs to be taken into account in the sprinkler system design. NFPA 13 has addressed this issue in Section 5- 2.3.2.5 of the 1996 edition. NFPA 231 should not be less stringent than NFPA 13. COMMrFrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This requirement presently resides in NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Section 5-2.3.2.5, there is no reason to repeat it here. NUMBER OF COMMIT1"EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

425

NFPA 231 - - A 9 8 ROC

(Log #4) 231- 18- (Table 7-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-29 RECOMMENDATION: The protection for 12 ft of storage in a 20 ft building in column E seems inadequate. From an analysis of tile protection given in Table 7-2.2, it seems that stable arrays require more protection than unstable arrays. Also exposed requires more than cartoned. The "*" items below do not seem to follow that thought process.

Col B Expanded, Exposed, Stable .6/2500 Col C Expanded, Exposed, Stable .5/2500 Col D Expanded, Cartoned, Unstable .4/2500(EH 2) Col E Expanded, Cartoned, Unstable .4/2500(EH 2)* COl A Nonexpanded, Exposed or Cartoned, Unstable

.3/25OO Col C Nonexpanded, Cartoned, Stable .5/2500 Col E Nonexpanded, Exposed, Stable .4/2500(EH 2)*

SUBSTANTIATION: Possible inconsistency. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no teclmical justification to substantiate tiffs change. The table was derived from tile prior 2 point density method and there is no technical justification at tids time to vary from that extrapolation. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #17) 231- 19 - (Table 7-2.2): Accept SUBMITTER= Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-28

I RECOMMENDATION: Change tile metric units to (L /min ) /m 2. SUBSTANTIATION: To match NFPA 13 and it's Metric Units. Also note that in tile prejDrint, tile metric units are reported incorrectly; there is a " / missing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is important to note that file proper conversions be made in Table 7-2.2 also and not jnst in file tide. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bailadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #21 ) 231- 20 - (%2.2.1 Exception No. 3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'i Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-29 RECOMMENDATION: Insert a new exception to 7-2.2.1 as follows:

~Exception No. 3 Tile system area of operation shall be increased by 30 percent, without revising tile density, when tile sprinklers are used under sloped roof/ceilings with a pitch exceeding 2 in. in 12 in. SUBSTANTIATION: Fire testing, modeling and experience has shown that additional sprinklers will open due to a highly pitched roof/ceiling, this needs to be taken into account in tile sprinkler system design. NFPA 13 has addressed this issue in Section 5- 2.3.2.5 of the 1996 edition. NFPA 231 should not be less stringent than NFPA 13. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-17 (Log #20). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #5) 231- 21 - (Table 8-1 ): Accept - SUBMITTER: Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-34

I RECOMMENDATION: Commodity column should be revised to indicate if the plastic commodities are cartoned or exposed. If it does not matter, it should be so stated. SUBSTANTIATION: Comment made for clarification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

I COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In Table 8-1, add the words I "cartoned or exposed" for each plastics commodity as indicated in I Comment 231-22 (Log #25). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 22 NEGATIVE: 1 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

KROMAN: I vote negative as I am not aware of test data which suggests Large Drop design per Table 8-1 will protect both cartoned and exposed nonexpanded plastic_ I agree tile Table is ambiguous as to whether it applies to cartoned or exposed. But since exposed does pose a higher hazard for palletized plastic storage (see Chapter 7), why does the Committee feel they can be lumped together in this Table? If test data is available from the LD tests on exposedplastics, it should be shared with the Committee.

As an additional reason to vote negative on these proposal - if adopted, Table 8-1 would also apply to exposed expanded plastic, which is beyond tile intent of this Table. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

SCHUMANN: I agree that tile table should indicate cartoned or exposed for plastics. Committee action indicates to use Table 8-1 contained inProposal 231-22 (LOg #25). However, that table does not contain that information. Considering other discussions by tile 231C Technical Committee and this committee, Large Drop sprinklers can be used for cartoned unexpanded Group Aplastics, cartoned expanded Group A plastic and exposed unexpanded Group A plastic_ The inclusion of tile exposed unexpanded Group A plastic was based on a statement being made that tile Group A plastic test commodity represented exposed unexpanded plastics without any other data.

(Log #25) 231- 22 - (Table 8-1 ): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Thomas, Tile Viking Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-34 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table 8-1 as shown on page 427: SUBSTANTIATION: Represents current state of the art for large drop sprinklers. This corresponds to FM installation criteria for which it is approved. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no substantiating test data in the form of full scale fire tests to support the change. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #26) 231- 23- (8-2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter Thomas, Tile Viking Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-36 RECOMMENDATION: Delete new Section 8-2.6. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 13 addresses preaction systems as wet

tems. We have run fire tests on preactionsystems with large p sprinklers where tile water was delivered before tile sprinkler

operated. Dry systems and preaction systems are different systems. In tile worst case water will be in transit when file sprinkler operates. To penalize preaction systems 40 percent on area of

eration is not technically justified. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-24 (Log #18). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

426

Con_.~.~uration

Table 8-1

Palletized Class I, II or III

Palletized Class IV

Palletized Unexpanded plastics

".4

Palletized Expanded plastics

Palledzed Idle wood pallets

Solid piled Class I, II, III

Solid piled Class IV

Solid piled Unexpanded plastics

Large Drop Sprinkler Data Pressure and Number of Design Sprinklers Required for Various Hazards for Large Drop Sprinklers

v ~ ,, , , , . . . • - .., - , : , , • - ,., mtmum eratm ressure st ars .

gS.~ S0~ (7.6 m) ~ c ~ 5 0 ft (10.7 m)

g0-ft 25 ft (6.1 m) g04[t45 ft (9.1 m)

20 ft (6.1 m) 80-ft40 h (9.1 m)

• ~ - f t 20 ft (5.5 m) g0-ft 30 ~ (7.9 m)

20 ft (6.1 m) 30 ft (9.1 m)

~ . f t 30 ft (6.1 m) $0-ft 50 ft (9.1 m)

~-f~ 25 ft (6.1 m) ~ - f t45 ft (9.1 m)

20 ft (6.1 m) ~ t 4 0 ~ (9.1 m)

STyle of tern 25 11.7} 50 tS.4} 75 15.2)

Number of D75~n Sprinkle?5 Wet 15

Dry ~ ~

Wet 20 15 15 500 (1900)

Dry ~ 2 5 ~

Wet 25 15 15 500 (1900)

Dry NA NA NA

Wet NA 15 15 500 (1900)

Dry NA N-A25 ~ 2 5

Wet 15 15 15 500 (1900)

Wet 15 15 15 500 (1900)

Wet NA 15 15 500 (1900)

Dry ~ ~

Wet NA 15 15 500 (1900)

Dry NA NA NA

Water Hose Stream Supply

Demand Duration I~m 1dinS/rain) thr)

500 (1900) 2

2

2

2

11/2

l t / 2

P / 2

11/2

I .-- t

I

O0

(ROP 231-33, 231-34, 231-$6)

NA: Not allowed. (ROP 231-35)

N F P A 2 3 1 m A 9 8 R O C

(Log #18) 231- 24 - (8-2.7 Exception (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-36 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new exception to the new Paragraph 8-2.7 as follows:

"Exception: Where it can be demonstrated that the detection system activating the preaction system will cause water to be at the sprinklers when they operate, preaction systems shall be permitted to be treated as wet pipe systems." SUBSTANTIATION: Preaction systems that operate in this manner are identical to wet pipe systems and should be allowed to operate as such. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the Exception to read as follows:

Exception: Where it can be demonstrated that the detection

~is tem activating the preaction system will cause water to be charged from sprinklers as quickly as wet systems.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e change in the exception was made to clarify the desired performance criteria. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

KROMAN: While I vote affirmative for this, a clarification is necessary. This applies to Section 8-2.6, not 8-2.7. See Proposal 231-36 (Log #30) from the Report on Proposals.

SCHUMANN: My notes regarding Committee Action was that the proposed exception apply to Section 8-2.6 not 8-2.7.

(Log #22) 231- 25 - (8-2.8 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-36 RECOMMENDATION" Insert a new Section 8-2.8 as follows:

~8-2.8 The number of sprinklers calculated (see Table 8-1) shall be increased by 30 percent, without revising the pressure, when the sprinklers are used under sloped roof/ceUings with a pitch exceeding 2 in. in 12 in." SUBSTANTIATION: Fire testing, modeling and experience has shown that additional sprinklers will open due to a highly pitched roof/ceiling. This needs to be taken into account in the sprinkler system design. NFPA 13 has addressed this issue in Section 5- 2.3.2.5 of the 1996 edition. NFPA 231 should not be less stringent than NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-17 (Log #20). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

SUBSTANTIATION: No test date on the protection of piles of wood or plastic pallets or palletized commodities with 45 ft high roofs was submitted to the committee. Test data on the protection of rack storage under 45 ft high roofs was submitted. Test data on the protection of rack storage of plasticpallets to 35 ft high in a 40 ft building was submitted to the NFPA 231C committee. I am concerned that what works for these commodities in racks, may not work wilen they are palletized or in bulk piles to these heights. Does the ESFR work when the flues are removed or then solid deck pallets are stored? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The fundamental assumption of the ESFR project team was that protection deemed adequate for rack storage would be adequate for solid piled palletized storage. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #24) 231- 27 - (Table 9-1 ): Accept SUBMITTER: Peter Thomas, The Viking Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-38 RECOMMENDATION: Add 11 K-factor ESFR back into Table 9- 1. SUBSTANTIATION: Inadvertently omitted in Report on Proposals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This will be restored as shown in the 1995 edition of the standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oiiszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #19) 231- 28- (9-1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-38 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 9-1.3 to read as follows:

~9-1.3 Roof slope shall not exceed 2 in. per foot." SUBSTANTIATION: Modeling has shown that these roof slopes tend to operate sprinklers similar to flat roofs. Roof slopes in excess of 2 in. in 12 in. create problems for sprinklers o fall kinds. This was the basis for Sections 4-4.6.2 and 5-2.3.2.5 of NFPA 13- 1996 edition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oiiszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #6) 231- 26 - (Table 9-1 ): Reject SUBMITTER: Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-38 RECOMMENDATION: Delete references to plastic pallets, wood pallets and buildings over 40 ft high. Tbe introduction of idle wood or plastic pallets into Table 9-1 should have been underlined as a change.

(Log #11) 231- 29- (A-2-1): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: In the first sentence, fourth line, change %o the fire may be" to "so that the fire will be" SUBSTANTIATION: Better grammar. Also eliminates the permissive language with a more positive one about sprinkler protection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

428

N F P A 2 3 1 - - A 9 8 R O C

(Log #2) 231- 30 - (A-2-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTERa Todd E. Schumann, Industrial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Make die following corrections:

Under batteries, die words "dry cells ~ should be in the commodity column.

Under Barley, rice and oats should have their own entries. Under bottles/jars, all items filled with noncombustible powders

should be together. Under candies, expanded Group A plastic should be in die

commodity class column. SUBSTANTIATION: Comment made to correct typographical errors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-33 (Log #CC2). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oiiszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #12) 231- 31 - (A-2-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kennedy E. Ism,-m, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

1) In die listing of commodity classifications, make sure that the right hand column (commodity Class) is wide enough for die words "Group A Plastics ~ to fit all the way across wi01out going down to the next row.

2) In die l is t ingof commodity classifications, delete all of die items fllat say "[INCLUDED IN NFPA 231C ONLY]" SUBSTANTIATION: 1) In the Report on Proposals, the word "Plastics + often d idn ' t fit in dye correct column and was pushed to die next row under the left-hand column (Commodity). This makes reading dye llst much more confusing.

2) These items were intended for NFPA 231C only and should not have been entered here. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-33 (Log #CC2). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #13) 231- 32 - (A-2-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth F_. lsman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: In the alphabetical listing, for Bottles/Jars:

1) Move die words "Empty, cartoned down below "Bottles/Jars" 2) Under "Filled noncombustible powders" clarify that die

"plastic (other than PET) (any size) applies when die plastics are not in cartons' . Also add information for when the exposed plastic bottles are PET.

3) The "Filled noncombustible powders" information is in the list twice and contradicts itself. Delete or fix. SUBSTANTIATION: 1) The heading appears to be applicable to die entire section in its present position.

2) The items are not mutually exclusive and are confusing. 3) Contradictory information needs to be fixed or eliminated.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMI'ITEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on Comment 231-33 (Log #CC2). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke.

Underwood

(Log #CC2) 231- 33 - (Table A-2-1.3): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on General Storage COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table A-2-1.3 to conform with dye Table resulting from ation taken from the Rack Storage Committee but omitting all references to rack storage specifically. Changes to dye tables are as follows:

Revise entries in Table A-2-1 "Examples of Commodities" as follows:

Batteries Dry Coils (non-lithium or similar exotic metals) (pp 786 in

Report on Proposals) Batteries Dry Cells (nonqithium or similar exotic metals) (pp 788 in

Report on Proposals) Batterii~s Dry Cells (non-lithium or similar exotic metals ) (pp 789 in

R e p o r t on Proposals) Replace Barley, Rice, Oats with: Grains packaged in cartons class III Barley Rice Oats (pp 786 in Report on Proposals)

In Table A-2-1.3.3 on pp 790 in Report on Proposals, Replace Barley, Rice, Oats with

"Grains packaged in cartons Barley Rice Oats "(pp 786 in Report on Proposals)

In Table A-2-1.3, replace bottles/jars with: Bottles/Jars

Filled noncombustible powders glass, cartoned (I) -plastic, cartoned (<1 gallon) (IV) -plastic, uncar toned (other than PET) (any size) (A) -plastic, cartoned or uncar toned (>1 gallon) (A) -plastic, solid plastic crates (A) -plastic, open plastic crates (A) on pp 787of Report on Proposals, replace Plastic Containers

with : Plastic Containers

-Noncombustible liquids or semiliquids in plastic containers less than 5 gallon capacity Class I

- Noncombustible liquids or semiliquids (such as ketchup) in plastic containers with nominal wall thickness of 1 /4 in. or less and larger than 5 gallons Class il

- Noncombustible liquids or semiliquids (such as ketchup) in plastic containers with nominal wall thickness greater than 1 /4 in. and larger dlan 5 gallons Group A

In Table A-2-1.3.1 on pp 788 in Report on Proposals, revise Plastic Containers to read as follows: Plastic Containers

-Noncombustible liquids or semiliquids (such as ketchup) in plastic containers with nominal wall flllckness of 1 /4 in. or less and larger than 5 gallons.

In Table A-2-1.4.i on pp 792 of the Report on Proposals, revise Plastic Containers to read as follows: Plastic Containers

-Combustible or noncombustible solids in plastic containers and empty plastic containers

-Noncombustible liquids or semiliquids (such as ketchup) in plastic containers with nominal wall thickness greater t h a f i l / 4 in. and larger than 5 gallons SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial changes have been made for clarification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 NOT RETURNED: 5 Bahadori, Gitto, Oliszewicz, O'Rourke,

Underwood

(Log #14) 231- 34 - (A-3-2): Reject SUBMIq[q'ER: Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-7 RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing A-3-2 to read:

"A-3-2 Most of die fire tests performed to develop this standard were conducted without smoke and heat ven t ingor draft curtains. Limited fire tests performed with these featureshave caused greater fire damage and have opened additional sprinklers beyond the operating areas prescribed by this standard.

429

N F P A 2 3 1 m A 9 8 R O C

Since smoke removal is impor tan t to manua l fire f ight ing a n d overhaul, considerat ion shou ld be given to manua l l y opera ted vents ra ther than au tomat ic ones. Fire f ighters can best decide when to opera te file vents after control o f die fire is achieved. Such m a n u a l ven t ing can be achieved with roof -mounted vents, eavline windows, doors , or mechanica l exhaus t systems. See NFPA 204M." SUBSTANTIATION-" Tbe commi t t ee was wrong to reject similar l anguage in the Repor t on Proposals. While they were correct in saying that the pa rag raph did no t per ta in to ESFR sprinklers, they incorrectly connec t ed it with tha t Exception. T h e append ix note is no t i n t ended to apply to the except ion, it is i n t ended as responsible c o m m e n t a r y on the base pa ragraph 3-2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action and S ta tement on C o m m e n t 231-9 (Log #27). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 N O T RETURNED: 5 Bahadori , Gitto, Oliszewicz, O 'Rourke ,

U n d e r w o o d

(Log #7) 231- 35 - (A-6-2.2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Todd E. S c h u m a n n , Industr ial Risk Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 231-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6-2.2.6 For metal bin boxes and ~ closed shelves c=~: t . -u~c~

o g - m e t ~ with a face area no t exceeding 16 f t2 (1.5 m2) , file a rea of appl icat ion shall be pe rmi t t ed to be r educed by 50 percent ,

~ rovided t he m i n i m u m requ i remen t s o f Chap te r 5 are met . UBSTANTIATION: If 6-2.2.6 were revised as shown in the

Repor t on Proposals ( improper ly ident i f ied as A-6-2.2.6) the con ten t o f the exist ing6-2.2.6 would be lost. I believe 6-2.2.6 shou ld be revised as shown above.

The te rm "closed shelves" is n o t def ined in t he s tandard . Wha t is tl~e di f ference be tween a bin box a n d a closed shell? A closed she l f is a bin box who's d imens ion a long the aisle is longer t h a n a bin box. COMMI'I~I'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action a n d S ta tement on C o m m e n t 231-16 (Log #32). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 28 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 23 N O T RETURNED: 5 Bahadori , Gitto, Oliszewicz, O 'Rourke ,

U n d e r w o o d COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

SCHUMANN: My no te regard ing Commi t t ee Action was tha t the proposals apply to Section 6-2.2.6 n o t A-6-2.2.6.

4 3 0