In most cases we find end users want to keep their data processing and climate conditioning systems running at all times, even in the event of a fire suppression incident.  End users are also especially concerned with inadvertently shutting down process equipment during routine testing and inspecting.  

By recognizing and prescribing a design concentration to common fire suppression agents for energized electrical hazards, the NFPA 2001 Committee has given a tool to the fire suppression contractor to make the  right design decisions for their customer.  Granted, NFPA 75 still has a requirement for providing a power disconnecting means in the hazard however, this does not require an equipment shutdown during a suppression event.

Recently some manufacturers have decided to go straight to end users with their products, side stepping distributors, with a total solution.  In my opinion this type of action limits the manufacturers reach as distributors become aware of the issue and chose not to actively sell the product.  As contractors and integrators, we already have enough competitors, we don’t need to also worry about companies that are supposed to support us.

Your either a manufacturer or you’re a competitor, there really is no in-between.  I, for one, will be supporting the manufacturers that support their distributors.

Simply removing the actuator coil from the deluge/pre-action solenoid and ensuring it magnetizes or actuates  when the cross zoned detection is in alarm is not sufficient.  Too often we find the solenoid will become “stuck” when in service for a long time, not allowing the valve to open.  Unless this is tested the sprinkler system may not work.  We suggest “dry-tripping” the valve by closing the OS&Y or control valve prior to testing, then draining off the excess water.  Unless the technician knows how to reset the valve we suggest having the sprinkler contractor on hand for testing.

Likewise, simply testing the valve function does not guarantee the deluge/pre-action system will work properly.  The detection and control portion of the system must be thoroughly functionally tested to ensure proper sequence of operation and NFPA 72 compliance. 

Occasionally, the sprinkler piping can collect scaling and a flow test should be done to make sure each head is able to flow water and is clear from obstruction.  While many end users do not like this option it is a necessary evil every so often.  We recommend every 5 years where scaling could be an issue. 

The point is, as an end user, make sure your deluge/pre-action system is being properly tested before you need your fire suppression system and it fails for one of the above reasons.

When manufacturers deliberately divide the industry for their own commercial gain, the whole industry suffers.  To many outside, the clean agent industry is very difficult to understand and keep up with.  Legislation is fluid, agents come and go, manufacturers come and go, people come and go.  Halon was popular not only because it was the only choice but because there was consensus that it was the best choice to protect mission critical facilities.  With so many choices such as FM-200, FE-25, NOVEC 1230, Inergen, Argonite, ProInert, Water Mist, etc. it can be difficult for end-users, A&Es and contractors to make the right decision.  For this reason, it is important that this industry be united that the agents that are currently available on the market can meet the needs of the end users.

Sure, some agents are more environmentally friendly than others, but in general, we experience very few discharges.  Some agents are better than others at suppressing certain types of fires.  Some agents are more cost-effective for certain facilities, some agents are better at suppressing fires where enclosures are difficult to seal.  For these reasons, distributing companies are relied upon to be industry experts and guide our customers to the best choice.

Lets leave the “coalitions” and “special interests” to lawyers and lobbying groups.  If we cannot support clean agents as an industry then our target market may decide to choose other types of fire protection.

 -       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.

The additional space will allow us to continue our growth and improve our already great customer service. 

We will be sending address and phone updates soon.

The object of installing the learning stations is to promote early childhood learning and development along with fun activites that bring families closer.  We feel this activity will also promote teamwork within our organization as we work to get these stations installed and functional. 

Thanks to the United Way and the City of Lawrenceburg for supporting this endeavor and allowing 3S Incorporated to contribute to the community. 

The stations should be installed and ready to use after 10/16/09.

We feel this will bring extraordinary value to the people and companies that do business with us.  Now you will no longer need to file away your reports, as-built drawings or manuals……3S Incorporated will have them for you on our secure web server.   

We are offering the following to users of our Extranet:

• Inspection Reports
• Bulletins
• Proposals
• Manuals & Datasheets
• 3S Qualification, Safety and Insurance Documents
• Invoices
• Drawings

 
All of the above information will be site and system specific using subcategories for endusers and contractors with whom we have more than one project/site.  We will also be using this site to upload project bid drawings and documents for the contractors that we work with. 

All you need to do to sign up is visit our web site at www.3s-incorporated.com and click on the “sign in” button.  Once you enter your information and click “submit” your account will be quickly approved and you will be ready to use our site. 

Please sign up as soon as you are able so that you can have access to your fire suppression or alarm system’s documentation.

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. 

The VSD system uses standard CCTV cameras (back and white, color, infrared, existing or new) linked to a self contained processing system which is capable of recognizing small amounts of smoke and flame patterns within the video image and alerting the system operator both at the processor and by a variety of remote outputs. The VSD system executes highly complex algorithms to process video information from up to eight cameras simultaneously. Under normal conditions with all eight cameras connected, the system achieves a 5Hz-frame rate for each channel.

The VSD system detects smoke and flame rapidly by looking for small areas of change within the image at the digitization stage and only passing these pixel changes to the main processor for further filtering. The video information is passed through a series of filters that seek particular characteristics associated with smoke and flame behavior. Further analysis is then carried out on the relationships between the filtered characteristics to determine whether all the conditions have been met for the system to accurately predict the presence of smoke and/or flame. The video hardware is designed to allow simultaneous real time digitizing of all eight images, which means that the system does not multiplex images and therefore no information is lost or delayed. All alarm condition images are log time and date stamped, and stored within the system’s memory. The system installer has the ability to vary the amount of smoke signal, and the length of time that the smoke exists before an alarm condition is raised to allow for situations where there may be background smoke present. The installer may also divide the video image into  zones and program the system to alarm only if smoke and/or flame are present in two or more zones.

For even greater system performance, two camera images can be associated together so smoke and/or flame in one image is to be treated as a pre-alarm and smoke and/or flame in the second camera image triggers a full alarm. To compensate for areas of the image that could prove troublesome such as reflective surfaces or smoke producing processes, the installer or system user has the ability to eliminate or mask parts of the image from detection on an individual pixel-by-pixel basis. We can then take these alarms conditions into a standard industrial fire alarm panel and create the necessary outputs for shutdown and notification. 

If you would like to know more about how 3S can integrate VSD into your fire protection systems please contact our office.  812-656-8045