Highlights from Fire Suppression Systems Association Meeting in Orlando

I just got back from the FSSA’s Annual Meeting in Orlando held on 2/27-3/3.  I am honored to be an alternate member on the technical committee representing the Installers Division.  There is so much to learn from the great minds that make up the committee and I am excited to be apart of the process.

The following items were discussed that could impact fire suppression system designs:

1. Class C design concentrations:  My take is that current minimum design concentrations are sufficient for the average data center/telecommunications hazards in which power is not shutdown in the event of a fire.  The committee is debating how much “power” can be present in a hazard and MECs still be sufficient.  My understanding is that a test protocol does not exist to establish a limit to power present in order for existing agent MECs to still be sufficient.  For instance, when protecting a transformer vault in a power generation facility, common sense would tell you that the MEC for an agent would be different when power is left on during a fire versus the power present in a telecom facility.  Hopefully some guidance will emerge that helps a integrator/distributor properly design for these varying levels of power that are present in protected spaces.
2. As mentioned in a previous post, NFPA 2001 will now require the maximum positive and maximum negative pressure that can be created by a clean agent discharge to be clearly stated on the submittal drawings.  In addition, an estimate of the amount of pressure relief vent area in sqaure inches is also required.  The FSSA and in particular Joe Senecal have done a great job of putting together guidance and a software package that helps the installing contractor deliver this information.  3S Incorporated has purchased the guide and we are implementing this information into our drawings.
3. In would appear that some environmental pressure is being applied to the use of HFCs for fire protection.  CARB 32 (California Air Resources Board Assembly Bill 32) focuses on reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.  This bill has proposed that a mitigation fee be assessed to the use of HFCs even when being used for fire protection.  The FSSA meeting hosted a variety of authorities and opinions of the amount of the mitigation fee.  Opinions ranged from a few dollars a pound to upwards of $16 per pound.  The idea of how the use of fire protection HFCs would be effected by Cap and Trade also was discussed.  While no one is for sure yet what impact the environmental movement will have on HFCs, one thing is for sure, by 2012 there will be pressure on our industry to use alternatives to HFCs for fire protection.  HFCs include FM200 and FE25.