Highlights from the FSSA Conference in Scottsdale, AZ

Highlights from the FSSA conference this weekend:

 -       There is a very good possibility that the NFPA 2001 committee will pass the proposal that increases the Class A and C design concentration to 1.3X the MEC (minimum extinguishment concentration).  Currently the design concentration is 1.2X the MEC.  For reference the MEC of FM200 is 5.2%, therefore the new minimum design concentration would be 6.76%.  This will probably take effect mid 2011.  This will also be in line with ISO standards for European countries.

-       Minimax had two representatives at the technical committee meeting.  They have been approved as member status, manufacturers division.

-       Class C design concentrations:  There has been much debate about whether or not Class C design concentrations (energized electrical hazards) should be equal to Class A design concentrations.  There is a current proposal up for public comment within NFPA 2001 right now that addresses the issue:

• Class C hazards would be evaluated using 3 tiers of classification:
  • Tier 1: Class C % = Class A % except for the following:
  • Tier 2:
    • Cable bundles present greater than 4” which contain power wiring of 28V or greater.
    • Cable tray filled to greater than 20% of its cross section
    • Cable tray within 10” of each other
    • Individual equipment putting off more than 5kW (40 amps at 120V) of energy.  (example: blade server uses about 5% of that amount)
    • If one of the following is met then the design concentration increases to 1.6X the MEC
    • Unknown:  This may require the shutdown of Liebert units since most are greater than 5kW in power consumption.  Shunt trips?
  • Tier 3: if greater than 480V is present.  NFPA will require additional testing to quantify design concentration

-       Please note that the FSSA technical committee voted on the log for both the 1.3 safety factor and the tiered approach to Class C design concentrations.  In both cases the FSSA voted against these measures on the basis of no technical merit and lack of substantiation.  The FSSA members on the 2001 technical committee are instructed to vote against these logs.  Unfortunately the 2001 committee is dominated by insurance companies who would like to see both made part of code.

-       NFPA 37: language added by a TIA changed the hold time of CO2 from a minimum of 20 minutes or engine cooling below the auto ignition temperature of the fuel to “whichever is greater”.

-       There is a new NFPA code that has been formed.  NFPA 3 is the standard of commissioning and integrated testing of life safety systems. 

-       NFPA 2001 (all in proposal state, not yet code but coming):

• Inergen 300 bar system is accepted
• Section 1.6 has been added explaining the environmental aspects of the agents.
• AMDC: adjusted minimum design concentration (i.e. final design concentration) is not what we need to hold 85% of for 10 minutes.  We need to hold 85% of the MDC (design concentration).  AMDC will sometimes be higher depending on the agent and hazard.
• New equipment requirement:  removal of actuator from agent storage container will result in a trouble condition.  Accepted 26-2 by the committee but has a long road to making code because of manufacturer back lash. 
• Maintenance disconnect switch, which is required, must have an added requirement:  key cannot be removed when locked out.
• Extent of coverage:  subfloors must be protected (not specifically mentioned in 2001 before) if the area above the floor is protected.  Comments will probably include a provision for subfloors over a certain height, i.e. 6”.
• Inert gas discharge time increased from 60 seconds to 120 seconds.  Passed 25-3 in committee meeting. 
• Before the above are passed as code the following needs to happen:
  • Pubic comments (due 3/5)
  • NITMAM: Notice of intent to make a motion
  • Debate NITMAM in public forum at next meeting (certified NITMAM will delay the hearing until the fall meeting)
    • Vote on the because of the NITMAN discussion
  • Acceptance in next revision cycle
• FSSA plans to fight the Class A design concentration and the EPA 1.3X safety factor thru a NITMAM and public debate in June.  Anyone can make a public comment about these issues….forms available for free on the NFPA website.  Please feel free to do so.

-       Apprenticeship program:  more and more states are requiring an apprenticeship program for our trade.  The FSSA is developing this program and it will become mandatory soon.  The goal is to have all designers and technicians NICET II at the end of the apprenticeship.  If you want to avoid this program then I suggest you start working towards NICET II now before you are forced into the apprenticeship.  Even if Ohio does not require this program for licensing immediately, they soon will and we will voluntarily enroll when it becomes chartered.  The FSSA is currently awaiting DOL approval and registration of the program, once approved, state governments will start adopting it as a pre-requisite to state licensing (much like sprinkler fitters).

-       Climate change:  recent developments in “climategate” have slowed the administrations attempts to pass “cap and trade” legislation.  This legislation would have increased the cost of producing HFCs (FM200 and Ecaro 25) and provided for a phase down of greenhouse gas production. 

-       The Copenhagen Accord:  US agreed at this meeting to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020.  Currently there are two bills that would accomplish this, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.  Neither has passed into law yet.

-       The Montreal Protocol also addresses the reduction and phase down of HFC production and it is the most likely to be the vehicle the Obama administration uses to accomplish the goals of the Copenhagen Accord.  The Montreal Protocol (a treaty we have signed), is proposing amendments to decrease the current HFC production by 10% in 2013, 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.  By 2029, a 70% phase out of HFCs will be in effect.

-       The EPA (led by democrats) fully supports this action by the Montreal Protocol and would certainly adopt the amendments into US law if passed by the treaty. 

-       Also included in the Montreal Protocol amendment is that all HFC containers must be labeled “contributing to global warming”.

-       The EPA would have special language in the legislation that would allow “special use” for medical and gov’t purposes.

• The FSSA leaders and lobbyists don’t expect cap & trade or cap & dividend legislation this year because of the November elections.  If it does not pass by this summer then both bills are dead. 
• The FSSA fully expects that HFCs are added to the Montreal Protocol and the EPA can adopt without legislation thereby forcing climate change law onto US businesses.  With the patent on FM200 and Ecaro 25 expired, Dupont is fully supporting this adoption and the two bills for cap and trade in hopes that the gov’t will police the import of HFCs used for fire protection so that there is profit protection for Dupont.
• Based on the above, most installers and manufacturers are moving toward non-HFC solutions.  Obviously, companies like Ansul and 3M are positioned well for this change.