NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION STANDARDS COUNCIL MEETING NFPA

Document Sample
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION STANDARDS COUNCIL MEETING NFPA Powered By Docstoc
					                                                          Page 1
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

      STANDARDS COUNCIL MEETING

          NFPA HEADQUARTERS

        QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS

        TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2008

          AFTERNOON SESSION




                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                              c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                     Page 2
 1
                         I N D E X
 2
     Agenda Item 08-7-10-f-2 - Page 6
 3
     Agenda Item 08-7-9-b - Page 13
 4
     Agenda Item 08-7-5-c - Page 31
 5
     Agenda Item 08-7-4-c - Page 50
 6
     Agenda Item 08-7-7-a-2 - Page 80
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23




               LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                         c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 3
 1                     P R O C E E D I N G S
 2               THE CHAIRMAN:   I'm going to call this session
 3   to order.    My name is Jim Pauley, Chairman of the
 4   Standards Council.    Welcome to the afternoon session on
 5   our agenda of hearings that we have related to a number
 6   of various documents.    In a moment I'm going to ask the
 7   members of the Council to introduce themselves as well as
 8   everyone else in the room.    At that time we will then
 9   move into the particular appeals hearing.
10               Just for reference, we're getting ready to
11   begin Item 08-7-10-f-2 and related Item 08-7-15-c-2.
12   Hopefully, that puts us all on the same page.      Again, I'm
13   going to ask for introductions.
14               (The following introductions were made)
15               MILOSH PUCHOVSKY, secretary to the Council,
16   NFPA staff.
17               LEONA NISBET, recording secretary of the
18   Council.
19               JIM MILKE, member of Council.
20               JOSEPH JARDIN, member of Council.
21               KERRY BELL, member of Council.
22               PETER WILLSE, member of Council.
23               RON FARR, member of Council.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 4
 1             FRED LEBER, member of Council.
 2             DANNY MCDANIEL, member of Council.
 3             JAMES CARPENTER, member of Council.
 4             ROLAND HIGGINS, member of Council.
 5             RALPH GERDES, Council member.
 6             SHANE M. CLARY, member of Council.
 7             MAUREEN BRODOFF, NFPA staff and legal counsel
 8   to the Standards Council.
 9             JIM LATHROP, Koffel Associates.
10             RON COTE, NFPA staff.
11             MARTHA CURTIS, NFPA staff.
12             FRED HARRINGTON, NFPA staff.
13             ROBERT SOLOMAN, NFPA.
14             KRISTIN COLLETTE, NFPA staff.
15             DIANE MATTHEWS, NFPA.
16             ALAN FRASIER, NFPA staff.
17             JAKE PAULS, independent consultant.
18             EDWINA WILLET, Fire and Life Safety For People
19   With Disabilities.
20             VICKIE LOVELL, InterCode, Inc., consultant
21   representing Air Movement & Control Association.
22             ROBERT VANBECELAERE, with Ruskin.
23             TOM GARDNER, Schirmer Engineering, representing


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 5
 1   the Health Care Section.
 2               STEVE FERGUSON, ASHRAE.
 3               CLAIRE RAMSPECK, ASHRAE.
 4               LARRY BROWN, National Association of Home
 5   Builders.
 6               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
 7               I would remind everyone we do have a
 8   stenotypist that is recording this session.      So it is
 9   important that if you're going to speak on these issues,
10   before you speak please state your name and affiliation
11   again, so that we can make sure we have that captured
12   appropriately on the record.
13               And I'll ask the gentlemen who just came into
14   the room to also introduce yourself for the record.
15               MR. PHANI RAJ:    My name is Phani Raj,
16   Technology & Management Systems, and also a member of the
17   NFPA 59A Committee.
18               MR. FRANK LICARI:    My name is Frank Licari.
19   I'm with the Department of Transportation Office of
20   Pipeline Safety.    I, too, am a member of the 59A
21   Committee.
22               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
23               MR. CHRIS COACHE:    Chris Coache, NFPA staff.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 6
 1               THE CHAIRMAN:   I think we have captured
 2   everybody in the room.
 3               Again, we're moving into Item 08-7-10-f-2.
 4   Particularly since we have a number of folks that weren't
 5   here this morning, basically, on each side of these
 6   issues you have a total of 15 minutes that can be used
 7   either up front or you can reserve part of that time for
 8   rebuttal.    After each side has spoken on the issue, I
 9   will go to the Council for questions.     When that is
10   completed, you'll have whatever time you have remaining
11   out of the 15 minutes to make any closing remarks that
12   you may have.
13               Again, on this first item, I believe, Mr.
14   Frable, you are the appellant.
15               Is anyone else speaking on the appellant side
16   of this issue?
17               Is anyone speaking on the opposing side?          Just
18   the Chair.
19               MS. NISBET:   Can I ask only those that did not
20   sign in this morning to sign in this afternoon.
21               THE CHAIRMAN:   Leona is going to pass that
22   sheet around.
23               Mr. Lathrop, you'll will be speaking on behalf


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                    Page 7
 1   of the committee?
 2             MR. LATHROP:    Yes.
 3             THE CHAIRMAN:    Mr. Frable, I'll turn it over to
 4   you to begin.
 5             MR. DAVID FRABLE:      Good afternoon.    My name is
 6   Dave Frable.    I am representing the U.S. General Services
 7   Administration Public Building Service.
 8             I'm here today to request that the proposed
 9   revised next in our appeal that is related to the minimum
10   hourly fire resistive rating of components of the
11   occupant evacuation shaft system and Annex B of 101 and
12   Annex F of NFPA 5000 be further revised from what was
13   approved by the NFPA membership floor action in Las
14   Vegas.
15             The Standards Council should note in the
16   amendment final balloting of the members of the NFPA 101
17   Technical Committee on Means of Egress, the NFPA 5000
18   Technical Committee on Means of Egress, the NFPA 101
19   Technical Correlating Committee, and the NFPA Technical
20   5000 Correlating Committee, there was numerous
21   affirmative and negative ballots that included comments
22   that additional revisions were still needed to avoid
23   conflicts with other NFPA 101 and NFPA 5000 requirements


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 8
 1   related to the fire resistive rating of the enclosure of
 2   the exit stairs and the elevator hoistways.
 3              It should also be noted that as the proponent
 4   of the original code change, and the floor action in Las
 5   Vegas, it was never my intent to revise the two-hour fire
 6   resistive rating of the exit stair enclosures or the
 7   two-hour fire resistive rating of the elevator hoistways.
 8   We strongly believe this appeal provides the necessary
 9   needed text to voice such noted conflicts.
10              Please also note the needed text may look like
11   a lot of additional wording, but just takes a few more
12   words to say the same thing based on the format of the
13   original section.   The new text does preserve the intent
14   of the ROP and the ROC.    Based on the proposed revised
15   text we provided in our written appeal, we believe that
16   the only prudent action of the Standards Council is to
17   support our appeal and make the necessary revisions.
18              I am up for any questions from the Standards
19   Council.
20              THE CHAIRMAN:   Let me go to Mr. Lathrop for any
21   response on that and then go to questions.
22              MR. JIM LATHROP:   Chairman of the Committee on
23   Means of Egress.


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 9
 1              It would be my opinion based on the ballots
 2   that came in that if the appeal was upheld you would meet
 3   the intent of the committee's ballots because, basically,
 4   exactly what was just said is that the committee members
 5   were adamant against dropping the rating of the elevator
 6   enclosure itself or the stair enclosure, but that if the
 7   lobby itself, two hours versus one hour, the fact that
 8   the motion on the floor carried to change that to
 9   one hour, that's fine, but the stair and the elevator
10   lobby -- I mean the stair and elevator shaft enclosure
11   need to be able to stay at the rating based on the height
12   which must always be two hours.
13              In reviewing the wording provided by the
14   appellant, I think it will accomplish what was being
15   driven out within the ballots from the, all four of the
16   ballots.
17              THE CHAIRMAN:   Opening it up to questions from
18   Council.   Mr. Gerdes.
19              MR. GERDES:   Council member.
20              Mr. Frable, could you explain how we got the
21   need for this or how we got to where we are?    I mean, the
22   floor action and, obviously, there was some floor action,
23   and how did the shaft get affected in all this?


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 10
 1              MR. FRABLE:   It's the base paragraph.     I'll be
 2   honest with you, it was an oversight on my part.        I did
 3   not note it originally that the occupant evacuation shaft
 4   system included both all three of the enclosures: the
 5   enclosure of the exit stair, the enclosure around the
 6   lobby, and the enclosure of the hoistway.    The original
 7   text basically encompassed all three as an occupant
 8   evacuation shaft system.    When I made my comments in the
 9   original ROC and also at the floor motion, I broke them
10   out separately.   My intent was to break them out
11   separately, but when I went back and it was so noted
12   during the floor discussion that, hey, there's a little
13   conflict here.
14              I was prepared to vote against the entire -- I
15   had another NITMAM on the floor to kill the whole thing,
16   but that never came to fruition because the membership,
17   even though some people said there was conflicts going to
18   occur, and even I did, they voted to accept the proposed
19   comment.   Therefore, I'm appealing to trying to correct a
20   wrong and avoid all conflicts.
21              As Mr. Lathrop stated, the negative ballots of
22   the -- the only ballot that failed was the TCC
23   Correlation Committee of NFPA 5000.    All the other


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 11
 1   technical committees, it passed ballot.   However, if you
 2   look at the negative ballots, like Jim stated, they all
 3   address the same thing that I'm trying to correct, is
 4   that new text is needed to basically separate the
 5   hoistway shaft enclosure requirements, the exit stair
 6   shaft requirements, and the enclosure itself.      And that's
 7   what the purpose of this revised text does.
 8             THE CHAIRMAN:   Further questions?   Dr. Clary.
 9             DR. CLARY:   Question to Mr. Lathrop.      In
10   looking -- It appears we had a little bit different set
11   of affirmative comment.   You did a negative, but you're
12   in agreement, it appears, as the Chair with what the firm
13   of comments were about the change in the rating.
14             MR. LATHROP:    Jim Lathrop, Chairman, Means of
15   Egress.
16             Yeah, I think some of the committee members
17   submitted affirmatives with comments, some did negative
18   with the comments, but I think if you look at most of
19   them, the comments all relay around this we don't want to
20   take away the protection from the stairs and the
21   elevators when they down, I don't want to say downgrade,
22   when they reduced elevator lobby down to one hour, we
23   didn't want to reduce the stair with the elevator.


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 12
 1              The whole thing is, if we don't use the
 2   elevator as a way out, the elevator hoistway has to be
 3   two hours, the stairs have to be two hours.      If we're
 4   going to use the elevator, obviously, we're not going to
 5   want to reduce the elevator hoistway from the stair down
 6   at all.   If anything, we would be going up rather than
 7   going down.
 8              THE CHAIRMAN:   I guess I have one.
 9              Mr. Frable, I'm looking at your affirmative
10   comment on one of the ballots.    Is it your view that at
11   the technical report session at the Annual Meeting that
12   the membership, that this point was made clear to the
13   membership that we were talking about the elevator lobby
14   and not talking about the elevator shaft?
15              MR. FRABLE:   I thought I made myself clear
16   during my testimony, yes.
17              THE CHAIRMAN:   So from the view of the
18   membership, we were, at least what they were voting on,
19   never mind based on the transcript, was dealing with the
20   elevator lobby?
21              MR. FRABLE:   I believe so, yes.
22              THE CHAIRMAN:   Additional questions?
23              Seeing none, Mr. Frable, any final closing


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 13
 1   comments?
 2               MR. FRABLE:   None whatsoever.   Thank you for
 3   your time.
 4               THE CHAIRMAN:   We appreciate your time as well,
 5   and appreciate your participation in the process.           As the
 6   group will hear me mention throughout these hearings, the
 7   Council will actually issue a written decision on this.
 8   No other information will be conveyed either by Council
 9   member or NFPA staff on this.     That is outside the
10   written decision.    That decision will only be issued by
11   the secretary of the Council, Mr. Puchovsky.
12               That being said, I would like to move directly
13   into the next item on our hearing list.      This is Item
14   08-7-9-b dealings with NFPA 90A.     Who is going to speak
15   in favor of this appeal?
16               FROM THE FLOOR:    Bob VanBecelaere and Vicky
17   Lovell.
18               THE CHAIRMAN:   Who will be speaking on the
19   opposed side of the appeal?
20               MR. TOM GARDNER:   Tom Gardner, Schirmer
21   Engineering, and representing the Health Care Section.
22               THE CHAIRMAN:   Anyone else on the other side?
23               All right, if you would like to -- You can sit


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 14
 1   at the end of table, you can stand, whatever your
 2   preference is, but basically, as I mentioned before,
 3   you'll have 15 minutes in total.    If you want to reserve
 4   part of that time until after the time of questions from
 5   Council, that's your prerogative, you will be able to do
 6   that.
 7             MR. ROBERT VANBECELAERE:   My name is Bob
 8   VanBecelaere, and I represent Ruskin.    I am an alternate
 9   member on the NFPA 90A Committee.
10             We are seeking a decision from the Standards
11   Council that would support the Technical Committee action
12   during the three previous cycles and would require fire
13   smoke dampers in shafts.
14             To give you a little history on this issue, the
15   NFPA 90A Committee has recommended fire smoke dampers in
16   locations where air enters our exit shafts.   In each of
17   the last three cycles, the majority of the committee has
18   recommended smoke dampers along with the fire dampers in
19   the shafts.   We have been working on this since 2002, and
20   at the last Annual Meeting in Las Vegas the vote was 116
21   to 81 to overturn the committee action.   The NFPA
22   committee did not support this action.
23             The scope of the NFPA committee is this


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 15
 1   standard shall cover installation, operation and
 2   maintenance of systems for air conditioning and
 3   ventilating, including filters, ducts, and related
 4   equipment to protect life and property from fire, smoke,
 5   and gases related to fire or from conditions having
 6   manifestations similar to fire.
 7             So the committee is doing its job to require
 8   smoke and smoke dampers in shafts, as they are the major
 9   conduit to transfer smoke throughout the building with or
10   without the fans running.
11             Please support the NFPA 90A Committee action.
12             And now I would like to turn it over to Vickie
13   Lovell.
14             MS. VICKIE LOVELL:   Good afternoon, members of
15   the Standards Council.   My name is Vicky Lovell, building
16   code consultant.   I'm representing the Air Movement &
17   Control Association.   We were co-authors of this appeal,
18   and we are getting ready to ask the Standards Council to
19   do something that is slightly out of the ordinary.          I
20   would like to take a minute to explain what we would like
21   to do.
22             We presented the Standards Council with some
23   testimony that we believe influenced members of the NFPA


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 16
 1   membership to vote in support of the appeal.      That
 2   information we do not believe was completely accurate.
 3   As a result of that information, we think that some votes
 4   may have been swayed that changed the outcome of the
 5   motion on the floor to remove smoke dampers from
 6   enclosures.
 7             One of the very first issues, we have it in the
 8   handout package that we sent you -- I'm not sure exactly
 9   how this handout appears in your documents, but it's Page
10   Number 2 where we have outlined some of the testimony.
11   One of the comments that was made by the proponent of the
12   motion to remove smoke dampers from shafts said there's
13   no such requirement for smoke dampers in shaft
14   enclosures.   That is an inaccurate statement.      The
15   International Building Code has had that requirement in
16   716 since the year 2000.   Although there have been some
17   modifications to that section, this section does remain
18   intact that fire and smoke dampers are required in
19   shafts, as I say, with some exceptions.
20             Then, throughout this document we have outlined
21   a number of other existing statements that were made that
22   do not accurately reflect the situation.
23             One of the things that there was also mentioned


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 17
 1   is that there's no problem with smoke through the HVAC
 2   system.   We take a strong exception to that.    In the
 3   1970s and 1980s there was a considerable amount of work
 4   that was done investigating fires, and a number of
 5   deficiencies were revealed at that time.   I don't have to
 6   explain that to this particular group because of the
 7   credentials of this group, but one of the things that
 8   consistently during those years that was identified as a
 9   problem was fire and smoke circulation through the HVAC
10   system.
11              Starting in 1975, California investigated 35
12   fires, for example, existing high-rise fires.      Number 10
13   on their list, six of those fires did identify HVAC
14   recirculation as a means for fire and smoke to migrate to
15   other parts of the building.
16              This is an article from Gus Degenkolb.        We will
17   leave that with you, if you care to look at that again.
18              Since that time, the fire and smoke damper
19   industry became very active in developing products,
20   devices, equipment that would address that problem, and
21   as a result millions of fire and smoke dampers have been
22   sold, they've been installed, they're working, they're in
23   existence.   So as a result, there's very little


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 18
 1   documentation that fire and smoke is migrating throughout
 2   the HVAC system.    It's a problem we have actually solved.
 3   The same thing we solved with through penetrations.            A
 4   number of things we have solved in terms of lighting
 5   egress paths and so forth.    So it's a problem that we
 6   have solved, and now we want to go backwards and take
 7   those protective devices out.
 8              So we feel that this is a problem that we have
 9   addressed, we have taken care of it, the fire records
10   reflect it now that there's not a lot of fire and smoke
11   migration through the HVAC system when everything is
12   working properly.    So we feel it's a backward step to
13   remove this provision.
14              As I said, it is in the Building Code, so we're
15   not asking the committee to do something or to ask the
16   Standards Council to do something that's not already in
17   force.   It's already in the International Building Code.
18   The Life Safety Code does make some exceptions for smoke
19   dampers, and we have included in the package a word
20   search in both IBC, NFPA 101, and also NFPA 5000 on the
21   requirements for smoke dampers.    That's in the package
22   that we provided you.
23              One of the other things we provided is to show


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 19
 1   the very strong position of the NFPA 90 Committee on this
 2   issue.   There's a document that looks, if you can see
 3   mine from way down there where you are, it has little
 4   boxes through it, it starts with Page C-1.   It starts in
 5   2000 with the ROP and it identifies the voting record of
 6   the committee on smoke dampers and enclosures.
 7   Overwhelmingly, the vast -- Every time the committee has
 8   voted to support this.   It goes to the 2002 cycle, 2005
 9   and also the 2008 cycle.   Even with a different
10   composition of the committee, they have overwhelmingly
11   voted to support this.   So it's very clear that the
12   intent of the committee has been to require smoke dampers
13   in shaft enclosures.
14              So the primary group that has opposed this,
15   though, relatively consistently, I would say very
16   consistently and very vocally, has been the Health Care
17   Section.   They have -- Because of the unique
18   configurations of their buildings, the trained staff,
19   many other protection features they have in place, they
20   have been extremely vocal that they do not believe that
21   smoke dampers should be required in shafts in health care
22   occupancies.   I don't know whether that's true or not,
23   but that is their very strong position.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 20
 1               So what we have is your basic, good old
 2   fashioned logjam, where the committee has consistently
 3   voted in one direction and one group in particular at
 4   NFPA has strongly opposed that.    What we would like to do
 5   today is to offer the Standards Council a resolution to
 6   that logjam.    I can promise you, even if the Standards
 7   Council moves this forward, our proposal that we are
 8   about to make, it probably won't be the end of the
 9   discussion, but at least it will move us, as I say, off
10   the dime.
11               So if it's possible, may I through the Chair,
12   is it possible for me to discuss a proposal that we would
13   offer to the Standards Council at this time?
14               THE CHAIRMAN:   You're welcome to discuss in the
15   time that you have whatever context that you want,
16   recognizing that, you know, what the Council has in front
17   of them with respect to what we are dealing with.          So if
18   the language that you have is not in the process anywhere
19   that we're looking at, as long as you recognize that,
20   you're welcome to use your time to try to explain that.
21               MS. LOVELL:   I would like to do that now.
22               THE CHAIRMAN:   I will note that you've got
23   about six minutes of your total time left.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                   Page 21
 1               MS. LOVELL:    This will be very easy.
 2               If the Standards Council can turn in the
 3   literature we have sent them, it would be Page B-2.                 At
 4   the top of the page, it says Proposed Text for NFPA 90 By
 5   Appellants.
 6               MS. BRODOFF:    In the supplemental, is that Page
 7   11-25?
 8               MS. LOVELL:    I don't know how your pages are
 9   numbered.    Did you say Page 11?
10               MS. BRODOFF:    If I have the right thing, it
11   says Proposed Text For 90A By Appellants.       It's in the
12   supplemental attachment at Page 11 of 25.
13               MS. LOVELL:    Yes.   That's correct.
14               These are excerpts from NFPA 90, the current
15   draft of NFPA 90, the current edition of NFPA 90.
16   There's two types of underlining.       One is single
17   underlining and the other is double underlining.             If I
18   may, I would like to speak to the single underlining
19   first.
20               The text that has a single underline which is
21   the word "smoke" and it appears in three sections of this
22   document is what the committee has recommended
23   overwhelmingly on three separate cycles to add the word


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                         c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 22
 1   "smoke" into the NFPA language.    If those three words are
 2   inserted into NFPA, that would satisfy the intent of the
 3   NFPA 90 Committee for the past three cycles.
 4             The double underlining is the language that we,
 5   the appellants, are providing and offering to this
 6   Standards Council that would resolve this logjam with the
 7   health care industry.
 8             Now, I just discussed this just a few minutes
 9   ago because we didn't have a chance, I didn't know who
10   was going to be here from health care, so we didn't have
11   a chance to discuss this in great detail, but I think
12   that they will support the concept that we are trying to
13   move forward here, that there should be some exceptions
14   for health care.
15             Moving this language -- And I should point out
16   there is a typographical error in here, and I deeply
17   apologize to the committee.    Our spell checker went a
18   little crazy.    This language that's double underlined
19   should read as follows: "Smoke dampers are not required
20   to be installed in shafts that constitute air ducts or in
21   clothes air ducts."    That should not be in clothes.          That
22   should be the word enclose.    If you wouldn't mind making
23   that correction on your notes, I would appreciate it, and


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 23
 1   I apologize again.   So they're not required to be
 2   installed on shafts that constitute air ducts or enclose
 3   air ducts in health care occupancies provided that the
 4   smoke dampers are not part of the engineered smoke
 5   control system."
 6              That would move us off the dime.   It would also
 7   give the opportunity for all the interested parties to
 8   come back again at 90A and look at individual health care
 9   conditions and maybe create some more language that goes
10   with it, or not.   But these two changes, the single
11   underlining and the double underlining, would get us off
12   the dime because this has been the consistent, overriding
13   problem we have had not only through the committees, but
14   also at the voting membership.    We can't move this
15   forward, and, if we don't move this forward today, we'll
16   be back here again next time.
17              We appreciate the indulgence of the Standards
18   Council.   We realize it is a little unusual, but I think
19   that most people agree this will move us forward.          Thank
20   you very much for your time.
21              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.   You have two minutes
22   left.
23              MS. LOVELL:   I'm going to, without any


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 24
 1   embarrassment, curry favor with the committee by cutting
 2   my testimony short.
 3              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
 4              On the opposing side, please.
 5              MR. TOM GARDNER:   Schirmer Engineering.        I'm
 6   the Chairman of the NFPA Health Care Section.     I was
 7   asked by our Codes and Standards Review Committee to
 8   represent the Section on this issue.
 9              First, I would like to say the suggestion for
10   additional language that I think you just mentioned, we
11   have no opposition to that.    But to the appeal in front
12   of us right now, we feel changing fire dampers to fire
13   smoke dampers, we feel there is no additional technical
14   justification provided for such a sweeping change in the
15   code.   We do agree that smoke is a killer in fires, but
16   smoke detectors have been required in HVAC systems for a
17   long time to shut down those systems and not move smoke
18   around in a building that's on fire, and also our
19   facilities are required to be sprinklered, at least
20   health care facilities are required to be sprinklered
21   which is what I feel is probably the best form of smoke
22   control that I can think of.
23              So we stand in opposition to the appeal, but,


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 25
 1   obviously, we agree with the new language just brought to
 2   you today.
 3              THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
 4              I'll open it up at this time for questions from
 5   members of Council.     Dr. Clary.
 6              DR. CLARY:    Member of Council.
 7              To the gentleman that just sat down, when you
 8   say you're opposed to the appeal but you're in support of
 9   the proposed wording, is that both the single or double
10   line?   Because in their proposed, I guess, compromise
11   verbiage here, they do have fire or smoke dampers.
12              MR. GARDNER:    I want to make sure I understand
13   your question.
14              DR. CLARY:    You say that you're not opposed to
15   what was just submitted by Miss Lovell which is the smoke
16   dampers are not required to be installed in shafts, blah,
17   blah, blah, but they also have in that insert the word
18   "fire smoke dampers."     If I understood your testimony
19   correct, the Health Care Section is still opposed to fire
20   smoke dampers.
21              MR. GARDNER:    Correct.
22              DR. CLARY:    So, in essence, while you're not
23   opposed to the new verbiage below, you still would be


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 26
 1   opposed to fire smoke dampers?
 2             MR. GARDNER:    Yes.   But I believe that new
 3   language -- I haven't had long to study it, I just saw it
 4   a few moments ago.    Yeah, our position is that fire
 5   dampers are required at this time, and the addition to
 6   make them fire.    Smoke dampers is not necessary, at least
 7   in our facilities.
 8             I'm here representing the Health Care Section
 9   and health care facilities, not as a consultant that
10   works on many different types of buildings.
11             DR. CLARY:    So you feel this verbiage would
12   take care of the concerns of the health care because it
13   basically exempts health care occupancies from
14   requirements?
15             MR. GARDNER:    Right.   We do not see in our
16   facilities that we have, we don't have fire loss history
17   that shows that smoke movement through HVAC systems is
18   causing a problem and causing deaths in fires in our
19   facilities.
20             MR. CLARY:    Thank you.
21             THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions?   Mr. Gerdes.
22             MR. GERDES:    For the proponents of the appeal.
23   In looking at the balloting results, they didn't get the


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 27
 1   two-thirds, but they did get a clear majority that
 2   supports the floor action.      Is that your understanding?
 3               MR. VANBECELAERE:   That's correct.    They did
 4   not get two-thirds majority.
 5               MR. GERDES:   But they do have a majority of the
 6   committee that voted.
 7               MR. VANDECELAERE:   A majority of the committee
 8   that voted, but it requires a two-thirds vote in order to
 9   do that.    You know, I talked to several of the members
10   and asked them, and they said, well, it really doesn't
11   make any difference, once you reach this point it's going
12   to go back to the old cycle, what was on the old cycle
13   anyway.    So that was the reason they supported the floor
14   vote.   It wasn't because they didn't want smoke dampers.
15               If you look at the history of the voting,
16   you'll see that in the last cycle, even though we have
17   reconstituted the committee, it was almost 90 percent
18   that voted for the smoke dampers in shafts.
19               Can I make one other point?   You know, there
20   was a comment made that says if you turn the fans off
21   with a smoke detector, smoke won't spread through a
22   building.    Smoke spreads through gravity, smoke spreads
23   through stack effect.     So if you turn the fans off, smoke


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                       c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 28
 1   will still spread through the building.
 2              THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions from Council?
 3              DR. CLARY:    To any one of the two appellants.
 4   Mr. Frable is not here.     Was he representing the health
 5   care industry or is he representing his employer?             Just
 6   because it doesn't say when I read his transcript exactly
 7   who he was representing.
 8              MR. VANBECELAERE:    It says himself.      I don't
 9   know who he represents at the end of the day.
10              DR. CLARY:    You don't know if it was health
11   care per se?
12              MR. VANDECELAERE:    I don't know whether I can
13   answer or not.
14              MR. GARDNER:    If I can say, Mr. Frable did not
15   come to the codes and standards committee of the Health
16   Care Section to discuss this, so we have no connection
17   with his comment.
18              THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions?
19              You do have a couple of minutes left on your
20   closing if there's anything final that you would like to
21   add.
22              MR. VANBECELAERE:    Thank you very much for your
23   time.   Wait a minute.    I'm sorry.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 29
 1             MS. LOVELL:    Can I speak?
 2             THE CHAIRMAN:    Go ahead.
 3             MS. LOVELL:    I would like to speak.      I would
 4   like to speak to the comment that was made about the
 5   votes in Las Vegas.    I was in that audience.     And when
 6   some of the proponents of the motion stood up to speak, I
 7   started writing in preparation for rebuttal to some of
 8   the testimony.    As you can see from the documents that we
 9   have supported, we excerpted this word for word out of
10   the transcript.    There were so many incorrect statements,
11   I couldn't write them fast enough.
12             So, in my opinion, I believe that some of the
13   committee members were also influenced by these things.
14   Again, the first one being there's no requirement in the
15   code for this.    That's a completely inaccurate statement.
16   So you're not moving forward a requirement that's not
17   already in practice in the field if you move this forward
18   and support the committee.    It's already being required.
19   And so not supporting the committee on this isn't really
20   going to change what is happening in the field.          What
21   will really happen is NFPA 90 takes a leadership role on
22   this, the committee will better outline what the
23   requirements should be for installation and for the


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                       c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                   Page 30
 1   appropriate locations for these dampers to be installed
 2   and how they should be install.
 3               So we encourage you to support the committee
 4   and make this opportunity go forward, so we can continue
 5   to develop the document.      Thank you.
 6               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
 7               Mr. Gardner, any final comments?
 8               MR. GARDNER:    Schirmer Engineering,
 9   representing the Health Care Section.
10               I do want to agree with Mr. VanBecelaere that
11   smoke does move through buildings even if you turn the
12   fans off.    As a fire protection engineer and, probably
13   more important, as a fire fighter, I have seen it many
14   times.    The fire forces will push smoke through a
15   building, be it through shafts and cracks and other
16   things.    But in the health care facilities, we are fully
17   sprinklered, we do shut the fans down.      So if you put the
18   fire out or at least control it, you control the amount
19   of smoke produced.    We just don't see it in our
20   facilities that we are pushing smoke around and killing
21   patients and staff in our facilities.      Thank you.
22               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
23               With that, that will bring this particular


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                         c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 31
 1   hearing to a close.   I do want to thank everyone for
 2   their participation in NFPA codes and standards making
 3   process.   We appreciate you taking the time to be here
 4   today.   A written decision will be issued by the Council.
 5   That decision will only be issued by Mr. Puchovsky, the
 6   secretary of the Council.    No Council members or NFPA
 7   staff will convey any information associated with that
 8   that is outside of the written decision.
 9              Before I move to the next hearing, I do want to
10   take a moment to mention that anyone who came into the
11   room since we last went around and introduced ourselves,
12   if I could just ask you to introduce yourself and your
13   affiliation for the record.
14              (Following introductions were made)
15              GUY COLONNA, NFPA staff member.
16              CHRISTIAN DUBAY, NFPA staff.
17              NATHAN RUDD, NFPA staff.
18              BILL BURKE, NFPA staff.
19              KEITH FLANDERS, NFPA staff.
20              DENNIS BERRY, NFPA staff.
21              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
22              With that, we will move directly into the next
23   hearing which is Agenda Item 8-7-5-c that deals with NFPA


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 32
 1   59A.
 2              And who did I have speaking in favor of the
 3   appeal?
 4              Anyone else speaking in favor of the appeal?
 5              Do I have anyone speaking opposed to the
 6   appeal?   Thank you.
 7              Anyone else?
 8              Very well.    The hearing will operate the same
 9   as the last one did.     You'll have 15 minutes total, and I
10   would ask that you, please, again state your name and
11   affiliation for the record.
12              MR. PHANI RAJ:    I'm a Technology & Management
13   Systems Consulting Company in Boston area.    Also, a
14   member of the 59A Committee.
15              Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Pauley, and
16   members of the Standards Council.    I express my thanks to
17   you all for providing me this opportunity to make a
18   presentation before the Council.    I'm here to argue in
19   support of the acceptance actions taken by the Technical
20   Committee On LNG standards, the 59A Committee, in regard
21   to Comment 59A-29.     I was the author of the Comment 59A
22   and I have been very active on the committee on this
23   issue.


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 33
 1             I have provided in my letter dated 18 June,
 2   2008 to the Council a detailed chronology of the
 3   Technical Committee actions and the general assembly
 4   member actions.   Before I get to the important scientific
 5   information that supports the Committee action and my
 6   arguments in favor of the Comment 59A, 59A-29, I wish to
 7   briefly indicate the substance of the issue on hand.
 8             Item 1.   The NFPA 59A, Section 5.2.3.4, 2006
 9   edition, requires that the average concentration of a
10   vapor cloud produced by the specified design spill of LNG
11   into an impoundment shall not be greater than 50 percent
12   of the lower flammability limit, LFL, beyond the property
13   line that can be built upon.   Further, all 59A editions
14   up to and including 2006 require that the concentration
15   be calculated using either the DEGADIS model or a model
16   approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
17             Item 2.   The requirement for calculating the
18   dispersion of a LNG vapor cloud resulting from a design
19   spill was incorporated in the 1979 edition without
20   quantitatively specifying the criterion for hazard other
21   than a very vague expression, I'm quoting partially here,
22   "flammable vapor mixture reaching a property resulting in
23   distinct hazard," without defining what the distinct


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 34
 1   hazard was.   In fact, NFPA argued with the U.S. DOT -- I
 2   give the reference here, Federal Registrar dated March 1,
 3   2000, Page 10953 -- that a 5 percent, 5 percent
 4   represents a lower flammability limit for methane vapor
 5   or LNG vapor.    5 percent LFL vapor limit concentration
 6   was a sufficient criterion for evaluating vapor
 7   dispersion hazards.    However, the Committee adopted in
 8   November of 2000, in ROP 59A-43, the wholesale revision
 9   of the 59A Standard.    In this revision, the Committee
10   seems to have adopted the 50 percent lower flammability
11   limit rule for the vapor hazard, without any scientific
12   backing, and, in my opinion, presumably to tow the DOT
13   line.   The Department of Transportation rationale in the
14   1979 rule as well as in the 2000 amendment to the 49 CFR
15   Part 193 is based on a misunderstanding of the vapor
16   dispersion models, their predictions of vapor
17   concentration and model uncertainties.
18              The substance of the requirement and the
19   substantiation provided are very arbitrary and have no
20   basis in science.    I'll discuss it later.   There is no
21   record of whether other values were even considered for
22   this criterion, discussed, and their implications on the
23   safety distances fully debated.


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 35
 1             Unfortunately, the standard does not provide
 2   any definition of what an average concentration is or how
 3   it has to be measured in a vapor cloud dispersing in a
 4   turbulent atmosphere, nor does it define where, relative
 5   to the ground, and in the dispersing cloud this
 6   concentration has to be measured.
 7             A flammable vapor-air mixture cloud in which
 8   the vapor concentration is at or below the lower
 9   flammability limit will not ignite.   That's nature.          This
10   is an absolute experimental fact that has been in
11   scientific literature for over 100 years or more.        Yet,
12   the Committee incorporated 50 percent LFL as the limit
13   below which the cloud is not ignitable without any
14   discussion as to the basis.
15             I'm now going to the scientific evidence
16   supporting LFL mean concentration as the criterion for
17   ignitability of a flammable vapor cloud.
18             During the turbulent dispersion of a vapor
19   cloud in the atmosphere, the instantaneous concentration
20   at any fixed location in the cloud varies with the time
21   due to the effects of small scale turbulence as well as
22   due to cloud meandering caused by wind direction shifts.
23   It is well known in the scientific literature that the


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 36
 1   average concentration measured by an instrument depends
 2   upon the duration over which the instantaneous values of
 3   the concentration are averaged.    The same is true for
 4   mean concentration predictions by any model which depend
 5   upon the averaging time incorporated into the model.             The
 6   longer the averaging time, the lower will be the measured
 7   or predicted concentration for a specific location in the
 8   cloud, all other parameters being the same.
 9              Item 2.   In many field tests with LNG vapor, it
10   was impossible to ignite and sustain a flash vapor fire
11   when the ignition occurred at a mean concentration of
12   less than 5 percent, or the lower flammability limit for
13   methane.   The mean concentration in all these experiments
14   was measured by the instruments with averaging times of
15   two seconds to 10 seconds.    The experiments include what
16   is called the Coyote series conducted by Lawrence
17   Livermore Laboratory on behalf of the U.S. Department of
18   Energy as well as the Shell Company tests on ignition of
19   dense flammable gas clouds, such as the LNG cloud.           I've
20   given substantiation for all this in the references in
21   the Comment 59A-29.
22              The DEGADIS model that is extensively used, and
23   that is required to be used in the 59A editions up to


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 37
 1   2006, uses a very short value, the same value as the
 2   above experiments, as the criterion for averaging time to
 3   validate and compare the experimental and model results.
 4             It is well known in scientific literature that
 5   when a very short integrating times, from two seconds to
 6   20 seconds, are used, the mean concentration predicted is
 7   such then when it is at or below LFL, no ignition of the
 8   cloud is possible since most of the vapor will have
 9   concentrations with very little deviation from the LFL.
10             Long integration times, of the order of 10
11   minutes to one hour, are used to predict the mean
12   concentration of pollutants from sources, such as
13   combustion pollutants from power plant chimneys, et
14   cetera, that emit continuously over days or months.           In
15   such cases, because of substantial meandering of the
16   plume, the maximum instantaneous concentration may be a
17   factor of two or more with respect to the measured mean.
18   This type of concentration integration times have no
19   relevance to the LNG vapor dispersion where the high rate
20   of vapor release from an accident occurs over very short
21   durations of time, on the order of minutes.
22             The above information clearly indicates that
23   the averaging time should be the parameter of importance


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 38
 1   in a model.   In fact, I hold the opinion that the
 2   averaging time used in any model to predict the time
 3   average mean concentration should be of the same order of
 4   magnitude as the time it takes for a fire traveling at
 5   the turbulent flame speed to propagate through a
 6   turbulent eddy.   For the largest eddy in the lower
 7   atmosphere of one meters to three meters in diameter, the
 8   time it takes the flame to consume everything in the eddy
 9   is at best .3 to 1 second.   If the mean of vapor
10   concentration in this eddy is less than LFL, I conclude
11   that no sustained ignition is possible.
12             It is, therefore, my contention that if one
13   considers the fact that test measurements of average
14   concentrations were made with instruments averaging over
15   durations of seconds, and the models used for calculating
16   the dispersion of LNG vapor have been benchmarked and
17   tuned with the same durations of integration times, and
18   because the tests showed that no ignition was possible
19   with measured concentrations less than LFL, then it is
20   justified to specify the LFL as the criterion for
21   calculating the hazard distance for LNG vapor dispersion.
22             A criterion for ignitability of a gas cloud
23   should not be changed from what is specifically and


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 39
 1   scientifically known as a fact just to accommodate the
 2   vagaries and errors of prediction in particular
 3   dispersion models.   Such action will tantamount to
 4   changing natural values to fit a deficiency in
 5   mathematical modeling.   NFPA standard should not change
 6   what nature tells us.
 7              I want to look at very quickly other
 8   considerations.
 9              Most of the internationally recognized
10   regulations, codes and standards have only the lower
11   flammability limit as the hazard criterion for evaluating
12   the potential hazard distance from the dispersion of
13   flammable vapors, including LNG vapors.   The lower the
14   hazard criterion, the larger the hazard distance and the
15   larger the potential exclusion zone area.   Such lower
16   threshold specifications will result in an economic
17   penalty to society without a commensurate rate of safety
18   benefit to the public.
19              NFPA 59A is striving to retain its position as
20   the international standard for LNG facility siting.           It
21   is precisely for that reason the Committee voted to
22   include the alternative risk based standards in its 2009
23   edition.   EN 1473, which is a European standard, requires


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 40
 1   the calculation of vapor dispersion distance to only LFL
 2   concentrations.   Hence, having the 50 percent LFL
 3   criterion in the NFPA standard presents a significant
 4   competitive disadvantage to the NFPA in its efforts to
 5   have 59A standard adopted in other countries.      It should
 6   be noted that EN 1473 is no less concerned with public
 7   safety than us here in the U.S.    In fact, it is as much
 8   or more a concern simply because of the higher density of
 9   population in Europe.
10             Even in the U.S., many of the U.S. federal
11   agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental
12   Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, except for
13   the U.S. DOT, use the 100 percent LFL criterion for vapor
14   dispersion hazard calculations.
15             A recent study on vapor dispersion models,
16   funded by and published by the Fire Protection Research
17   Foundation, has pointed out the various and multiplicity
18   of safety factors that are included in the current
19   generation models.   In the vapor concentration
20   calculation procedures, these factors together result in
21   very high level of conservatism.   Therefore, there is no
22   need to set in the LNG standard the value of the limit
23   concentration of the vapor cloud emission at 50 percent.


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 41
 1             The model evaluation protocol being developed
 2   by the Fire Protection Foundation will facilitate the
 3   specification of accuracy and features criteria for a
 4   vapor dispersion model for use in evaluating the
 5   dispersion phenomena.   This effort will remove any
 6   uncertainties in the model predictions.   Therefore, the
 7   criterion for vapor concentration predicted by the models
 8   that pass the MEP filter is 100 percent of LFL and not
 9   the 50 percent.
10             It is noted that the radial distance to
11   50 percent is larger by, at least, a factor of two to,
12   anywhere from 2.5 to 3, which makes the hazard area a
13   factor of 4 to 10 larger than what it should be from the
14   safety perspective.   One needs to ask the question
15   whether we need four times to 10 times more safety area.
16   Even in the design of bridges and pressure vessels, at
17   best a factor of safety of 3 is used.   It needs to be
18   kept in mind that these structures get used day in and
19   day out, but the types of accidents leading to release of
20   LNG that are postulated in the standard may occur once in
21   10,000 years, if at all.
22             In the appendix attached to my letter of appeal
23   to the Council, I have provided detailed extracts from


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 42
 1   sources, including U.S. federal agencies, foreign
 2   standards, et cetera, that indicate a vapor dispersion
 3   criteria of LFL being used.    If a hundred percent LFL
 4   criterion is good for those agencies, it should be good
 5   for NFPA also, especially in view of the overwhelming
 6   scientific evidence supporting this position.
 7              In conclusion, I request the Council to
 8   consider all of the above scientific evidence and uphold
 9   the decision made by the 59A Technical Committee in its
10   action to accept the Comment 59A-29.
11              Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a couple more
12   statements here.    First of all, historically the 59A
13   Committee accepted the comment where I provided a lot of
14   scientific background by an overwhelming majority of 24
15   to 6.   It was appealed by a NITMAM from FERC, Energy
16   Regulatory Council, and the floor perhaps did not
17   understand all of the complex scientific arguments that
18   went on in the discussions on the floor.    And maybe the
19   word safety suffocated the day and they probably voted
20   without that.
21              But I might also indicate that the committee
22   recommended to the floor not to accept the NITMAM, and
23   the committee again during the voting has only voted on a


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 43
 1   twelve to twelve which really means it did not accept the
 2   floor vote.   So I think there has been a lot of
 3   confusion.
 4              Also, the members perhaps were overwhelmed with
 5   too many ballots coming in at the same time.      There were
 6   two TIAs and one NITMAM ballot and multiplicity on the
 7   ballot simply because of reballoting and so on and so
 8   forth.   I would like to put on record that there might
 9   have been some confusion on the thing, but certainly
10   there's no confusion in the scientific literature as to
11   what is a criterion for safety.
12              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.   You have about a
13   minute and-a-half left on your time if you want to hold
14   that for rebuttal.
15              On the opposing side, please.
16              MR. FRANK LICARI:   Good afternoon.    My name is
17   Frank Licari.    I'm with the Office of Pipeline Safety
18   within the Department of Transportation.    I wish to thank
19   the Council for allowing me to speak in opposition
20   regarding this particular appeal.
21              And I want to concur with the appellant in the
22   sense that there is way too much confusion relating to
23   this decision.    I'll elaborate on that in more detail,


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 44
 1   but very briefly.   The appellant has claimed that there
 2   is no scientific basis for this rationale of 50 percent
 3   LFL.   However, there is quite a bit of study relating to
 4   the uncertainty and the statistical concerns relating to
 5   the accuracy of various vapor dispersion models.
 6              Within the vote that I cast on this particular
 7   decision, I provided information to this Council and to
 8   the committee that specifically referenced research
 9   performed by Casino, et al.   When looking at that
10   particular information, specifically referencing Table 37
11   in the appendix of the Sandio report, it is very clear
12   that this august group believed that a factor of 2 was
13   desirable in comparing experimental results to
14   theoretical results.
15              In fact, this table I'm referencing cites a
16   variety of different vapor dispersion models and the
17   percentage of those models that actually comply with that
18   factor of safety.   If you note that table, it is more
19   than clear that there is an exceptional amount of
20   uncertainty involved in making this determination.          In my
21   opinion, that is the most prevalent reason why the
22   committee decided many years ago to use the 50 percent
23   LFL parameter as opposed to a hundred percent.


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 45
 1             I am not opposed to improvement in our models.
 2   I do believe the research that is being done by the Fire
 3   Protection Foundation within NFPA will provide a much
 4   more comprehensive basis for this decision.    In the
 5   interim, I would urge this Council to retain the
 6   50 percent LFL threshold until we have a complete
 7   understanding of what the uncertainties are.
 8             In my closing I would just like to quote an
 9   excerpt from the report I mentioned.    This is with regard
10   to Casino and his research.    "More information is
11   necessary for field experiments on sensory accuracy and
12   data uncertainty in order to define acceptable agreement
13   with model predictions."
14             This information is forthcoming, it is not here
15   today for this Council to evaluate, but I think they can
16   clearly understand we are dealing with the decision that
17   is based in uncertainty and requires conservatism to
18   protect the public.
19             That concludes my remarks.
20             THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
21             At this point I would like to open it up to
22   questions from members of Council, please.
23             DR. MILKE:   To the proponent, if I could.           You


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 46
 1   mentioned in your submittal that there's an international
 2   group of regulations, standards and codes that have
 3   accepted the hundred percent LFL and you identified EN
 4   1473 as one.   You used the plural sense, though, in your
 5   statement.   I'm wondering which other --
 6             MR. RAJ:   There's some Australian regulation,
 7   there's some Austrian regulation.   The HSE in Britain
 8   uses that.   So I've put them all together in that thing.
 9             MR. MILKE:   One more item if I could.      On
10   trying to clarify some of the statements that you made in
11   your discussion or in your presentation.    In the Fire
12   Protection Research Foundation report you talk about how
13   there's a lot of building conservatism, of multiplicity
14   of safety factors that I think was a phrase you used.
15   I'm wondering if you could briefly identify what those
16   are, where the inherit conservatism is coming in.
17             MR. RAJ:   Conservatism comes in when you're
18   calculating the dispersion of a flammable cloud from the
19   release of material from a tank, let's say.   The first
20   thing is how fast is it coming out and what happens to
21   the material that comes out.   Does it spread out or is it
22   contained in a dike, and, therefore, the evaporation rate
23   which puts the vapor into the atmosphere is the most


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 47
 1   important part of it.    There are a lot of uncertainties
 2   in describing that process itself.    That can be factors
 3   of 10 off.   Forget about a factor of 2 we were talking
 4   about in the second part of it.    So when we have such a
 5   great uncertainty in what is called the source strength
 6   description in a model, and, therefore, that's one of the
 7   things that the Research Foundation study is looking at
 8   how the so-called models are taking that into account.
 9   The second part is the dispersion part.
10              Let me just mention one more thing since Mr.
11   Licari mentioned this as the report.    I'm going to read
12   one sentence in this report.    This report is from the
13   Health and Safety Executive of the British Government.
14   It's called Defining Safety Criterion for Flammable
15   Clouds.   This is the dichotomy of the whole thing, and
16   misunderstanding on the part of people who have done this
17   thing before.    For the moment let us simply note if
18   Person A says the concentration must be below LFL and
19   Person B says the concentration must be below one half
20   LFL, then they might both be right and wrong.      If A is
21   talking about 18.75 seconds average, that means
22   instrumental model average of these concentrations, and B
23   is talking about ten-minute average, this is what I


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 48
 1   talked about, and if your model is based on the
 2   ten-minute average, you know, this recipe that is in
 3   there, one half LFL makes sense.     But the models that
 4   have been enshrined in 59A uses the very fast integrating
 5   times which means LFL is a criterion.
 6               Besides, in my opinion, we are putting the
 7   horse before the cart, I mean the cart before the horse
 8   because the criterion for ignitability is decided by
 9   nature.    Says anything less than 5 percent won't ignite;
10   whereas, we are talking about the accuracy of the models.
11   Therefore, we should fix the models, not the criterion.
12               THE CHAIRMAN:   Other questions from members of
13   Council?
14               MR. LICARI:   May I rebut?
15               THE CHAIRMAN:   You'll have your remaining time.
16   I'm going to go back to ask if there are any questions,
17   and you will have your remaining time to finish up.
18               MR. RAJ:   I would like the Council to consider
19   the action by the committee which was 24 to 6 in
20   accepting the comment which is based on careful
21   deliberations, on careful evaluation of the scientific
22   background that was provided the committee.
23               Now, obviously, in the floor debate with very


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 49
 1   little time maybe the members did not understand, but
 2   perhaps it was (inaudible) by words we need more safety
 3   or safety margin, which are kind of very nebulous words
 4   without quantifying them.    I think the committee actually
 5   recommended from the floor to uphold its original action
 6   and to not go in favor of the NITMAM that was on the
 7   floor.   And it has again been affirmed by the committee
 8   not voting two-thirds to accept the floor vote.        So I
 9   would look forward to the Council really upholding the
10   committee action and comment.
11              THE CHAIRMAN:   Please.
12              MR. LICARI:   Council members, thank you again
13   for this opportunity.
14              I would like to emphasize two important points.
15   This is not an easy decision for this Council nor for the
16   committee.    There have been a number of votes that have
17   been taken.    Some in favor, some not.   Clearly, there is
18   much uncertainty in this decision as there is in the
19   science.
20              I also wish to remind the Council that NFPA 59A
21   is a voluntary standard for many countries, many
22   countries without adequate authorities of jurisdiction.
23   In these countries, they require your best practices as a


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 50
 1   Standards Council and as a standard within 59A.           It is my
 2   opinion that 50 percent LFL is an appropriate standard
 3   for those countries without adequate guidance from
 4   regulatory authorities.
 5               THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you very much.
 6               With that, I will bring this particular hearing
 7   to a close.    Again, I appreciate all of your
 8   participation in the NFPA codes and standards-making
 9   process.    I will remind you, as I said before, that the
10   Council will issue a written decision.
11               With that, I would like to move directly into
12   the next item on the hearing list.     That is Item
13   08-7-4-c.    Anyone who was not in the room when we went
14   around and introduced everyone in the room, for the
15   record I'm going to ask if you would take a moment and
16   introduce yourself and your affiliation for the record.
17               Anyone else that was not here?
18               MR. MARK ALBINO:    Mark Albino, vice president
19   of OmegaFlex Corporation.
20               MR. TIMOTHY SCANLAN:   Timothy Scanlan, general
21   counsel to OmegaFlex.
22               MR. WILLIAM RICH:   William Rich, codes and
23   standards, OmegaFlex.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 51
 1               MR. WINDELL PETERS:     Windell Peters, chair of
 2   NFPA 54.
 3               MR. ROBERT SMITH:    Robert Smith, representative
 4   of OmegaFlex.
 5               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.   I think that
 6   captures everyone.
 7               So on this particular agenda item that deals
 8   with NFPA 54 08-7-4-c, who do I have that is speaking in
 9   favor of the appeal?
10               MR. SCANLAN:    I am.
11               THE CHAIRMAN:    Is anyone else speaking in
12   addition to yourself?
13               MR. SCANLAN:    I have with me Mr. Albino who
14   will be responding to any technical questions that might
15   arise.
16               THE CHAIRMAN:    Anyone speaking on the opposing
17   side?    Mr. Brown.
18               Again, you have 15 minutes total time.         You can
19   reserve part of that time for rebuttal after the other
20   side speaks and we finish with the questions from
21   Council, and then I'll go to the opposing side and we'll
22   do the same, you'll have 15 minutes total time as well.
23               If you would like to, please, proceed as the


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                       c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 52
 1   appellant.
 2             MR. TIM SCANLAN:   Members of the Council, my
 3   name is Timothy Scanlan.   I am general counsel to
 4   OmegaFlex.   I'm here today as a spokesman for OmegaFlex
 5   regarding the appeal of the rejection of NITMAM 54.2 that
 6   was NITMAM Log 448 at the Annual Meeting.
 7             This relates to a proposal that was submitted
 8   by Mr. Rich almost two years ago relating to NFPA 54 and
 9   the requirement relating to the bonding of gas piping
10   systems within a building.   And that proposal, as it has
11   made its way through the code process, has been
12   significantly altered and watered down, in our
13   perception, in terms of reducing the level of safety to
14   the homeowners and to the buildings in not requiring the
15   bonding of all gas piping systems within the building.
16             As it's currently implemented, the NFPA 54
17   Committee have amended Section 7.13 of the NFPA 54 to
18   mandate that all CSST gas piping systems be bonded to a
19   electrical grounding electrode with a separate bonding
20   wire.
21             For the members of the Council, CSST is a
22   corrugated stainless steel tubing.   It is used for piping
23   of fuel gases within a building.   It was introduced into


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 53
 1   the United States in the middle of the 1980s from Japan,
 2   first developed as a safer product as regards to rigid
 3   gas piping due to seismic issues in Japan.   When the
 4   rigid gas piping breaks, it obviously releases gas and
 5   causes flame damage on top of the earthquake damage.            And
 6   you might remember the earthquake of 1906 in San
 7   Francisco.   Most of the damage was caused by breaking gas
 8   mains rather than the earthquake itself.   So CSST product
 9   is itself a safety improvement.
10             But as we get to the issue before the committee
11   is that the proposal to require the bonding of all gas
12   piping systems was intended to advance the safety of the
13   occupants and buildings in a building.   Because, as we
14   know from experience, there can be electrification of all
15   metal systems in a building from a number of sources.
16   Primarily the issues we're talking about would be direct
17   or indirect strikes of lightning near your premises, that
18   lightning energy can migrate into the building and
19   electrify all mechanical systems or all metal conductors
20   within the building.   As a result, there is a danger of a
21   transient arcing between systems, metal systems, in a
22   building that have different electrical potentials.           By
23   bonding all of the electrical, all of the mechanical


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 54
 1   systems together, it equalizes the potential between
 2   those systems and would reduce or eliminate that
 3   potential for transient arcing.
 4             So, as I said, in the NEC handbook it's
 5   recognized that the grounding system is intended on some
 6   respects to limit the voltages caused by lightning or
 7   accidental contact with higher voltage conductors.           That
 8   is in Page 200 of the NEC handbook.   And also that
 9   bonding provides a method of equalizing that potential.
10   And the benefits of bonding is well recognized within the
11   current NFPA codes.    Within NFPA 70, the Electrical Code,
12   it specifically states that mechanical systems, all metal
13   systems within the building, piping systems, including
14   gas piping, should be bonded to the building's main
15   grounding electrode.   And within the footnote in Section
16   250.104-B it states that bonding of all piping and metal
17   air ducts within the premises will provide additional
18   safety.
19             Now, the NEC, the current edition of the NEC,
20   the 2008, which was recently passed, also provides for a
21   bonding bus or an inter-system bonding terminal that
22   would allow bonding of other systems within the premises
23   to the building's main grounding electrode, and that is


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 55
 1   intended for ease of use for other contractors installing
 2   telecommunications systems, cable, telephone, other types
 3   of metal conductors in the system to bond to the
 4   electrical system without actually going into the panel.
 5   That's in the new 2008 National Electrical Code at
 6   Section 250.94.   It also recognizes that bonding of metal
 7   systems in buildings provides a superior means of downing
 8   the electrical energy once it enters into the building.
 9   That's most well documented in NFPA 780 relating to
10   lightning protection systems.
11             So the original proposal that was submitted by
12   Mr. Rich would require the bonding that connection of the
13   gas pipe system to the main electrical system, the
14   grounding system, to provide that level of safety to
15   avoid the potential of transient arcing damage to the gas
16   piping systems.
17             Now, the gas piping industry is now well aware
18   of the potential.   CSST systems have been known to be
19   damaged by transient arcing of electrical energy.        I have
20   with me for the benefit of the Council reports of testing
21   that we have done with a lightning laboratory in
22   Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Lightning Technologies, Inc.,
23   that well documents the work that we have done in this


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 56
 1   field beginning in 2003 and continuing up until today.
 2   It provides the summary of those findings that documents
 3   that propensity for damage.
 4             But it's not just limited, that danger is not
 5   just limited to CSST systems.    This comes to the crux of
 6   the proposal.    Rigid gas piping systems can also be
 7   electrified through the electrical energy from lightning
 8   or other higher voltage lines.    Those rigid gas piping
 9   systems can also be damaged.    There are instances where
10   fittings in rigid gas piping systems have been blown
11   apart, where the threads, where you have the pipe dope at
12   the thread of a junction of a rigid gas piping system
13   have melted as a result of the high heat and energy of
14   the electricity, allowing gas to escape.
15             Also, most tellingly, is that most
16   installations now use products called appliance flex
17   correctors.   They're a small, probably less than six feet
18   in length, flexible steel tubing that are used to connect
19   the gas appliance to the rigid gas piping system.         If you
20   have a movable gas appliance, it's beneficial to use that
21   so you don't have any detrimental tensions on the gas
22   piping system.    But those appliance flex connectors are
23   also made of corrugated stainless steel tubing.       They're


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 57
 1   made of basically the same material as the CSST piping
 2   used for long runs of gas piping within the building.
 3   And those appliance flex connectors are also susceptible
 4   to the same type of damage in terms of transient arcing
 5   as is CSST.
 6             That danger is well recognized in NFPA 921, the
 7   Manual on Fire Investigations, where on Page 90 which --
 8   if you'll bear with me one second, I'll read you a quote.
 9   In Section 8.12.8.4 relating to lightning damage,
10   Subsection D, it states that lightning can also cause
11   fires by damaging fuel gas systems.    Fuel gas appliance
12   connectors have been known to have their fled ends
13   damaged by electrical currents induced by lightning and
14   other forms of electrical discharge.
15             So within the NFPA's own documents, it's well
16   recognized that those types of products are also
17   susceptible to damage.   What we're suggesting is that
18   instituting a requirement for bonding of all gas piping
19   systems will provide a means in the building to allow any
20   electrification of the gas piping system to provide a low
21   impedence path to ground, therefore avoiding the danger
22   of transient electrical arcing to that product.
23             Now, the danger is well recognized in the


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 58
 1   industry, within the NFPA documents, and the safety
 2   measures is well recognized within the National
 3   Electrical Code.   In fact, this practice is already being
 4   done in the states of Florida, California, where it's
 5   widespread that there be, that echo potential bonding,
 6   the bonding of all of those mechanical systems to the
 7   electrical ground.   So there are a number of safety
 8   factors that we believe that would require the bonding of
 9   all gas piping systems to the electrical ground.
10             Having said that, there's also the issue that
11   with the institution of this rule the NFPA 54 requiring
12   the bonding of CSST and not requiring the direct bonding
13   of the rigid gas piping systems is that it now creates
14   tension or conflict with the Electrical Code.
15             Now, the intent of the NFPA 70.   Now, the
16   intent of this requirement is to provide safety from
17   electrical danger, and the people most likely to
18   implement and interpret this provision would be people
19   implementing the Electrical Code, the NFPA 70.       Okay?          By
20   implementing this change within the Fuel Gas Code, we are
21   now putting the requirement on a whole separate set of
22   trades people and inspectors who may not have authority
23   for reviewing and ensuring that this requirement is


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 59
 1   actually implemented in the field.    Electrical Code
 2   people are going to be implementing the NFPA 70, the
 3   Electrical Code, where that requirement is not in
 4   existence.
 5             We now have -- Within the appeal papers that we
 6   submitted, we have documented instances in Oregon,
 7   Massachusetts, Missouri, and we also have other instances
 8   in North Carolina, Nebraska, and New York where
 9   electrical inspectors are refusing to implement these
10   types of requirements because they're not within the
11   Electrical Code.   So by putting this requirement for
12   electrical bonding in the Fuel Gas Code and not having it
13   in the Electrical Code now creates that conflict between
14   the two codes.   It's just going to breed more trouble and
15   problems when people in the field are trying to implement
16   those requirements.
17             As a result of that, it's going to be
18   exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, in some
19   jurisdictions to install CSST because of the different
20   requirements regarding the bonding.
21             So, in conclusion, we respectfully request the
22   Council to adopt the proposal that was submitted by Mr.
23   Rich that all gas piping systems be bonded through a


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 60
 1   direct bonding jumper to the building grounding electrode
 2   and that a Temporary Interim Amendment be issued to NFPA
 3   70 to coordinate that change with the National Electrical
 4   Code to avoid the type of conflict that I have described.
 5   Thank you.
 6               THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.   I'll note you have
 7   about two and-a-half minutes left for rebuttal when we
 8   get to that.
 9               MR. SCANLAN:    Would the Council want copies of
10   the report that I have referenced?
11               THE CHAIRMAN:   If you have a copy to leave for
12   us, if you will please do that, our recording secretary
13   will get that, and we will make that part of the Council
14   material as well.
15               If I could, on the opposing side now, whoever
16   would like to speak first.
17               MR. LARRY BROWN:    National Association of Home
18   Builders.
19               Just a few notes.   I'm also on the HGAZ 233
20   Committee which is conjoined with the NFPA 52 Committee
21   to do the NFPA Fuel Gas Code.     I'm not a member of 52,
22   but of 233.
23               We talked about and discussed this at length at


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 61
 1   the ROP meeting and at the ROC meeting.   What it came
 2   down to is we did not find any evidence that there's a
 3   problem currently with the gas piping of black iron.            We
 4   just haven't found that problem.
 5              This all came out of, apparently, a lawsuit,
 6   and speaking from the NHB's standpoint, we have been
 7   involved very much with these lawsuits over the CSST over
 8   the past few years.   So the problem seems to be only
 9   concentrated on the CSST product itself and lightning
10   strikes.   So we took the -- They had gone to court, and
11   as part of the settlement terms they would require the
12   bonding of the CSST system back to the grounding
13   electrode system for the building.
14              We put those provisions, which they were
15   requiring in their own instructions, in through 54.           So
16   we thought this was taken care of.   We met their intent
17   of what they already agreed to do.   I do understand and I
18   will say I believe, yes, there needs to be a TIA, with
19   whatever happens going forward, to correlate these two
20   standards, 54 and 70.
21              I did check with Mark Hurley a few minutes ago,
22   and the 54 Committee does have jurisdiction over the
23   provisions for bonding gas piping.   So that's something


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 62
 1   that would have to be extracted or moved over into 70.
 2   70 has jurisdiction over all other bonding requirements.
 3   So thank you very much.
 4              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
 5              Continuing on with the opposing side.
 6              MR. WINDELL PETERS:   Yes.   Windell Peters,
 7   chair of NFPA 54, also served as chair of the Z223
 8   Committee as well.   I work for a gas utility company.
 9              To make you aware that the NFPA 54 as well as
10   the Z223 Committee had a great deal of discussion on this
11   issue.   This has been an issue of discussion for almost
12   the number of years I have been with the gas company
13   which is 17 years.   Occasionally there's a product that
14   comes along that is a good product, but there's some
15   unintended consequences that occur during the process.
16   Certainly, this is not a polybutylene piping, but it is a
17   product that is relatively new in the marketplace in the
18   U.S., and the Committee feels very strongly about the
19   position that it took requiring the bonding or CSST gas
20   piping direct bonding.
21              Bonding occurs with other gas piping when you
22   have a connection to an appliance that has an electrical
23   connection.   That is the bonding that has been acceptable


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 63
 1   for years and continues to be acceptable by the standard.
 2   Thank you very much.
 3             THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
 4             With that, we will move into questions from the
 5   members of Council, please.
 6             I do have a question for the appellant.         You
 7   mentioned in your discussion that the need for this
 8   needed to be in NFPA 70 for correlation purposes.         And,
 9   although you talked about primarily lightning being one
10   of the issues, and I think Mr. Brown also mentioned that,
11   at least what has come out on the marketplace has been
12   driven primarily by lightning out of this, can you
13   explain to me about your view that it ought to be in NFPA
14   70 since that code is, the purpose of that document is
15   safeguarding persons and property from hazards arising
16   from the use of electricity, how the particular issue
17   associated with the lightning and that part of the system
18   relates to the purpose of NFPA 70?
19             MR. SCANLAN:    I would say that it relates to
20   NFPA 70 in that as you make a connection from the gas
21   piping and connecting it to the building grounding
22   electrode, whatever that might be, whether it be cold
23   water pipe or grounding rod or whatever, or it might be,


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 64
 1   you know, the bus within the electrical panel, in some
 2   jurisdictions the code enforcement people are going to
 3   require that an electrician perform that function because
 4   you're now stepping into a situation where they are
 5   requiring licensed electricians to perform that work.               As
 6   it relates to the connection of the bonding wire to that
 7   system, you are then tying it into the electrical system
 8   if it's going into the electrical panel.
 9              Those are some of the situations where we have
10   resistance from some jurisdictions and resistance from
11   some contractors relating to who may properly do that
12   work and how is it going to be inspected.    We have
13   situations in New York where they're specifically stating
14   that the connection into that electrical panel is part of
15   the electrical system, it has to be inspected by an
16   electrical person who are only going by NFPA 70, the
17   Electrical Code, and they're not implementing the NFPA 54
18   Fuel Gas Code.
19              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
20              Additional questions?   Miss Brodoff.
21              MS. BRODOFF:    I just wanted to know if you
22   would like to comment on the role of the Council in this
23   matter.   Typically, technical decisions are made by the


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 65
 1   Technical Committees and this body doesn't substitute its
 2   discretion for those judgments.   We have heard a
 3   rationale expressed for the different treatment of CSST
 4   involving what Mr. Brown is referring to as some
 5   litigation and problems that have been identified with
 6   CSST piping.   Why should the Council not defer to the
 7   process in making the judgment that CSST merited this
 8   kind of treatment but not gas piping as a whole?
 9             MR. SCANLAN:   Right.   I'll respond to that.
10   The consensus process is integral to this whole system,
11   is that a majority consensus comes to agreement on what
12   might be appropriate in certain circumstances.      However,
13   history is replete with instances where the majority
14   consensus opinion was wrong.   All right?   We believe that
15   this situation and the number of examples that we have
16   talked about shows that insufficient regard has been
17   given to the instances that we have brought up by the
18   NFPA 54 Committee in terms of those dangers.
19             Mr. Brown, with all due respect, had said he's
20   not aware of those issues.   But you see specifically in
21   NFPA 921 it was a well recognized danger that appliance
22   flex connectors can be damaged by lightning.    We have
23   examples of other systems of the rigid gas piping systems


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 66
 1   being damaged.
 2             I appreciate that the Standards Council, you
 3   know, is reluctant to substitute its judgment for the
 4   technical judgment that has been made at the Technical
 5   Committee, but it's our position that insufficient regard
 6   has been given to these documented instances where the
 7   way rigid gas piping systems have been subject to damage
 8   as a result of the electrification due to lightning.
 9             Now, on the other side, we have provided data,
10   we have provided instances, we have provided references,
11   we have provided information, we have provided details on
12   these issues.    With respect to the opponents of this
13   proposal, they said they're not aware of those issues.
14   Well, respectfully, if they're not aware of them, they're
15   not really reading what we have provided and the data
16   that we have provided.    The report that I'll provide to
17   the recording secretary is an amalgamation of five years
18   of testing that we have done on gas piping systems
19   related to lightning where we have documented that
20   propensity for damage.    We have also found it in rigid
21   gas piping systems as well.
22             We should also make clear we're not saying CSST
23   should not be subjected to this requirement.    We have


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 67
 1   been putting this requirement into our operation manual
 2   since 1999.    What we are saying is that we believe that
 3   this should be further broadened to include all gas
 4   piping systems to provide those systems with the same
 5   level of protection that were being imposed on CSST
 6   systems.
 7               As I said, this practice is already widespread
 8   in several jurisdictions in the country, Florida and
 9   California, and along the Pacific coast.       So there's no
10   technical reason why it should not be implemented.               And
11   it's well recognized within the NFPA codes that the
12   additional bonding does provide additional safety
13   benefits.
14               THE CHAIRMAN:    Just for the record, was the
15   document that you were talking about on reporting, was
16   that provided to the Technical Committee as part of --
17               MR. SCANLAN:    This document was not, no.
18               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.
19               MR. RICH:    Can I make one comment?
20               THE CHAIRMAN:    You may in the rebuttal comments
21   that go on.    Right now I'm trying address questions from
22   members of Council.
23               DR. CLARY:    Member of Council.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 68
 1             I'm just trying to get my hands around this
 2   because it appears everyone is talking about there needs
 3   to a bond appearing, from Mr. Peters it needs to be
 4   direct bonding.   So how is what you're requesting
 5   different from what appears to be in the standard?
 6             MR. SCANLAN:   Within 54 and NFPA 70, there is a
 7   requirement all metal systems, including gas piping
 8   systems, be bonded to the building's grounding system.
 9   Now, the method of bonding can vary.   You can either have
10   what might be referred to as a direct bond where you
11   actually have a six-gauge wire or so run from the gas
12   piping system to the grounding electrode.   So you have a
13   direct bonding jumper.
14             The other recognized method of bonding under
15   those codes is that if the gas piping is attached to an
16   electrical appliance that has a neutral ground wire, that
17   will serve as the bonding means as it goes back through
18   the electrical system to the electrical grounding.
19             In our experience, we have observed that if the
20   electrical appliance is a hundred feet away from the
21   grounding electrode and you have that 14-gauge wire being
22   used as the bonding means, any high voltage energy of
23   that line will not provide sufficient capacity to carry


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 69
 1   that charge to ground, and then you might have, you will
 2   have that transient arcing damage that we mentioned.               By
 3   having the heavier gauge wire closer to the electrical
 4   grounding electrode provides a better means of diverting
 5   the electrification of that energy safely to ground
 6   versus relying on that 14-gauge wire.
 7              DR. CLARY:    The issue then is that electrical
 8   inspectors are not recognizing this?
 9              MR. SCANLAN:    Some are not.   Some are fighting
10   it.   Some are refusing to implement it.     Some of it might
11   be misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the codes.
12   But, you know, by having the two provisions, two
13   different provisions on the same topic in the two codes
14   where, you know, one, you know, the electrical people are
15   implementing NFPA 70 versus having the requirement NFPA
16   54, there's no guarantee that it's going to be required
17   because it's going to be the electrical inspector that is
18   going to be looking at that situation, not the plumbing
19   inspector.
20              DR. CLARY:    Thank you.
21              THE CHAIRMAN:    Mr. Bell, please.
22              MR. BELL:    Member of Council.
23              Just a follow-up question related to a point


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 70
 1   that Jim Pauley made.    You referenced a whole folder of
 2   data, I guess, that substantiates your proposal.        Was any
 3   of that data submitted to the Technical Committee?
 4             MR. SCANLAN:    We have provided, you know,
 5   information to the committee both at the hearings and in
 6   writing relating to our experience.    We have not -- The
 7   information that I'm going to provide the Council today
 8   was not presented to the committee at that time.        We
 9   didn't have to -- You know, again, this has been a work
10   in process.   I mean, we just received this report in June
11   of this year.    So we recently received that and might not
12   have been available during the code process.
13             THE CHAIRMAN:    I want to follow up on your
14   response to Dr. Clary's question regarding the
15   differences in this and make sure I understand correctly.
16   In referencing NFPA 70, you were mentioning that the
17   methods of bonding that could occur there, the particular
18   sections that you referenced earlier in 2514, indicate
19   that that gas piping is bonded when it's likely to become
20   energized.
21             MR. SCANLAN:    Yes.
22             THE CHAIRMAN:    Presumably, in the context of
23   54, you're talking about the bonding of the particular


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 71
 1   system outside of those provisions because lightning may
 2   become one of the methods; whereas, in the Electrical
 3   Code they're dealing with the electrical system and
 4   safety aspects itself.    So I'm just trying to understand
 5   that within the context of 54, and going back to what Mr.
 6   Brown said, it's your view that the fixed gas piping that
 7   is specified in 54 should be bonded just as CSST is?
 8             MR. SCANLAN:    Yes.
 9             THE CHAIRMAN:    It's the lightning issue that
10   drives that?
11             MR. SCANLAN:    It's primarily the lightning
12   issue that drives it.    As you see in 70, the key language
13   there is "likely to be energized."   I think the thinking
14   in the NFPA 70 was that, you know, the reason why it
15   would be energized would be the appliance that's being,
16   the gas-fired appliance that would have a short and then
17   energize the gas piping.    You know, it's not recognized
18   or was not verbally stated that lightning energy could
19   also energize that gas piping within NFPA 70.
20             THE CHAIRMAN:    You know, that being said , have
21   you also made proposals to NFPA 780 on the Lightning
22   Protection Code with respect to bonding these systems
23   associated with lightning protection?


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 72
 1              MR. SCANLAN:    We're having enough trouble with
 2   NFPA 54.
 3              THE CHAIRMAN:    As a follow-up --
 4              MR. SCANLAN:    Not to be flip, but, you know --
 5              THE CHAIRMAN:    I recognize, you know, I
 6   recognize that I am from a scoping perspective simply
 7   trying to understand as we zero in on the lightning
 8   protection aspects of this that there is a Lightning
 9   Protection Code and a committee associated with lightning
10   protection and that would certainly be another.
11              But in going back to 54, I want to get to the
12   meat.   Ultimately, your view is because the two piping
13   systems are being treated differently is the crux of the
14   aspect that you're looking at?
15              MR. SCANLAN:    Right.   On the technical side,
16   there is no technical reason to distinguish between a
17   rigid gas piping system and a flexible gas piping system
18   because both systems can be energized by lightning or a
19   higher voltage line.   Also, the rigid gas piping systems
20   in many cases use appliance flex connector that is made
21   of corrugated stainless steel tubing.     So why would you
22   put a requirement on CSST and not on a rigid gas piping
23   system that uses essentially the same or similar


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 73
 1   material?
 2               THE CHAIRMAN:   Miss Brodoff.
 3               MS. BRODOFF:    Is it part of your concern that
 4   your product is being placed in a competitive
 5   disadvantage to other kinds of pipe?
 6               MR. SCANLAN:    That is part of our concern, yes.
 7   But, also, we do believe, and just to clarify that
 8   position, we do believe that this proposal is the best
 9   thing for the industry and for the consumers and for the
10   protection of people.
11               Not to complicate matters too much, but we also
12   provide a product that has been specially designed to
13   withstand this transient arcing damage due to lightning.
14   It contains a conductive jacket that disperses the
15   electrical energy if it does become energized.        That's
16   noted in the testing report that we will provide to the
17   committee.    As a result of that, you know, it's been said
18   that CSST manufacturers required this direct bonding
19   using a bonding jumper from the gas piping to the
20   grounding electrode.
21               With this new product, because it provides such
22   an extra level of safety regarding resistance to damage
23   from transient arcing, we have not put that same


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 74
 1   requirement on this new product, what we call counter
 2   strike.    So it can use that equipment appliance bond.
 3   Doesn't need that direct bonding jumper.
 4               However, we are of the position that having
 5   that bond in the system, whether it be rigid gas piping
 6   systems or flexible systems, provides that extra measure
 7   of safety for the building and its occupants, and it's
 8   already widespread in several areas of the country, and
 9   does not impose any significant additional burdens to the
10   construction trades or other people implementing it.               So
11   we have a product that does not need it, but we still
12   think that it's best for everyone that the direct bond
13   for all gas piping systems be implemented.
14               THE CHAIRMAN:    Any final questions from members
15   of Council?
16               With that, you've got about two and-a-half
17   minutes left for any closing remarks.     I note some of
18   your colleagues --
19               MR. SCANLAN:    I'll yield the floor to my
20   colleagues.
21               THE CHAIRMAN:    You may want to utilize some of
22   that time, it's your choice, but you have two and-a-half
23   minutes.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 75
 1              MR. SCANLAN:   I'll yield to Mr. Albino.
 2              MR. MARK ALBINO:   What was not brought forth up
 3   to this point is the reason that we have required bonding
 4   since 1999 in our V & I guide was because that was the
 5   requirement in 1999 of NFPA 70.    All gas piping systems
 6   needed to be bonded immediately downstream of the main
 7   shutoff valve.   That is the exact wording out of NFPA 70.
 8   That wording was watered down in the next code revision.
 9   That wording is in exact lock step with your BSI
10   standards, your European norms, and every other developed
11   nation in the world that has standard systems all require
12   bonding of all mechanical systems in the home.
13              The bonding requirements are equipotential
14   bonding.   Direct bonding has no engineering term, you
15   can't look it up.    But equipotential bonding, if you look
16   up what they mean, they're looking to equalize potential
17   between all mechanical systems in the building.
18              For some reason, after the 1999 NFPA 70 code
19   was implemented, it was removed in the next code cycle.
20   At that point, we were in line with all codes in the
21   developed world.    At this point we are out of line.          We
22   do not, we do not require equipotential bonding or any
23   type of bonding other than touch protection in our


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 76
 1   electrical codes.
 2              And we are removing -- More mechanical systems
 3   that are being removed from the house that were metal are
 4   now plastic.   So you have less paths to ground in the
 5   house.   So you put more stresses on the systems that are
 6   remaining, and, you know, the outcome is going to be more
 7   home fires due to lightning, whether it's electrical
 8   system is involved or whether it's the plumbing system
 9   that's involved, gas piping, cable TV.   If we don't do
10   something in the codes and address equipotential bonding,
11   you're going to continue to have problems, especially
12   since you remove more and more metal mechanical systems
13   from the home.
14              You know, that is really the point we're trying
15   to make as a corporation.   Unfortunately, we had to go
16   through a bad event to do all the research and find out
17   what is actually happening, but the demographics of
18   building are changing, the mechanical systems and the
19   construction methods are changing, and you're putting
20   more stress on the remaining metal systems.   And if you
21   think that you only have a problem with gas piping
22   because you don't blow a hole in the side of a piece of
23   black iron, well, the electrical wire that it interacted


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 77
 1   with has been damaged, and eventually you're going to
 2   have a fire and it's going to be considered an electrical
 3   fire.
 4             I really think this would be the first step, if
 5   we could work with NFPA 70, to get some type of
 6   equipotential bonding codes in place for the United
 7   States, to be quite honest with you.   That is really our
 8   background as a corporation.   That's my only comment.
 9             THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
10             Mr. Brown or Mr. Peters, any final remarks?
11             MR. PETERS:    One final comment, if I may.          I
12   think it's important to understand that the original
13   intent of bonding never was considered to try to mitigate
14   current from lightning strikes.   The purpose of bonding
15   was to protect that serviceman and the occupants of the
16   home from touching two different metal components in the
17   building and being electrocuted or getting some type of
18   electrical shock.
19             Looking back at what's trying to be done here,
20   we're trying to take a perfectly good system that has
21   worked for a number of years and make it do something it
22   wasn't designed to do.    I think the introduction of the
23   CSST into the marketplace brought this issue to the


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 78
 1   forefront.   It was not an issue.   It brought it to the
 2   forefront.
 3             And to protect the CSST product from lightning
 4   current, it needs to have a direct bonding connection to
 5   the piping, fitting, or to a rigid portion of the piping.
 6   It can't be connected to the piping itself.     It has to be
 7   a rigid fitting or a rigid portion of the piping and then
 8   to the grounding electrode system.      It doesn't have to
 9   necessarily go into the panel box.      It can go to the
10   ground rod in the ground or it can go to that ground wire
11   from the electrical panel box to the ground.      That's
12   exactly the way I've got mine grounded and connected in
13   my new home.
14             So I think it is important to understand that
15   bonding was never intended to mitigate current from
16   lightning strikes.    It doesn't have to be a direct
17   lightning strike.    It can be a strike that hits a half
18   mile away or even further, depending on the makeup of the
19   underground subsurface there.    So it's a direct lightning
20   strike to a structure.    I question whether or not
21   lightning rods or a lightning-arrested system will keep
22   it from damaging components inside the building.
23             THE CHAIRMAN:    Mr. Brown.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 79
 1               MR. BROWN:   National Association of Home
 2   Builders.
 3               That's correct.   The problem has never been
 4   there.   They're trying to equate the product of CSST with
 5   black iron.    They're not.   They're two different types of
 6   material, two different types of insulation methods.              One
 7   is great, our builders love them.     But the problem really
 8   -- I was looking through all the evidence in front of you
 9   presented for this appeal.     Why are we even discussing
10   this?
11               I called up our legal people in my office today
12   and had them do a word search through Weslaw and all the
13   other resources to find out was there ever any litigation
14   or current cases involving black iron and lightning
15   strikes.    They couldn't find any.   Black iron has been
16   used for gas piping for over a hundred years or so, I
17   guess.   We have been bonding it one way for all these
18   years.   We have no lawsuits.    This only came about and
19   the problems when CSST came into the marketplace and has
20   a propensity to be defective due to lightning strikes.
21   It has nothing nothing else to do with the bonding
22   requirements for black iron.
23               I encourage you to uphold the committee's


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 80
 1   decision.
 2               THE CHAIRMAN:   That brings us to a close for
 3   this particular hearing.     I want to thank all of the
 4   participants that have participated and all of your
 5   efforts in the NFPA codes and standards-making process.
 6   As I mentioned before, Council will issue a written
 7   decision on this particular topic.     That will only come
 8   from Mr. Puchavsky, the secretary of the Council.           No
 9   member of the Council or NFPA staff is permitted to
10   convey any information associated with that decision.
11               With that, I would like to move directly into
12   the next hearing which is Agenda Item 08-7-7-a-2 dealing
13   with NFPA 75.
14               Mr. Frable, I understand you're speaking on
15   behalf of the appellant in this case?
16               MR. FRABLE:   Yes.
17               THE CHAIRMAN:   Is anyone else speaking in favor
18   of this particular appeal?
19               Do I have anyone speaking on the opposition
20   side of this appeal?
21               It seems like you have been in the same
22   situation twice today.      You have about 10 minutes to
23   explain.    We will do questions from -- Mr. Bell.


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                 Page 81
 1              MR. BELL:   Member of Council.
 2              I would like to note for the record that I am
 3   an alternate member of the TC On Computer Systems, and I
 4   have reviewed my obligations under the Guide For Conduct
 5   of Participants in the NFPA Process, particularly Section
 6   3.5-B of the Guide, to consider whether there was any
 7   reason for me to recuse myself from consideration of this
 8   appeal.   I have concluded I do not have any views that
 9   are or would appear to be fixed concerning the issues and
10   I am fully able to give open and fair consideration to
11   this appeal.   For the record, therefore, I have
12   considered the matter and believe that I have fully and
13   fairly and impartially fulfill my role as Council member
14   on this appeal.
15              THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you, Mr. Bell.
16              Seeing nothing else, Mr. Frable, if you would
17   like to proceed.
18              MR. DAVE FRABLE:   My name is Dave Frable,
19   representing the U.S. General Services Administration,
20   Public Building Service.    First, I would like to explain
21   who GSA PBS is and how NFPA 75 affects our organization.
22              We are considered the landlord of the civilian
23   federal government.    We are responsible for over 1,500


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                       c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 82
 1   federally-owned buildings.   We are responsible for over
 2   seven thousand leased buildings.   We are responsible for
 3   over 340 million square feet of space in which
 4   approximately 80 percent of our buildings are commercial
 5   office buildings.
 6             Within our building inventory we have a large
 7   number of tenant agencies that have information
 8   technology equipment that we require to meet the
 9   requirements of NFPA 75.   Typically, this equipment is
10   located in rooms with raised floors less than 18 inches
11   in height.   These under-floor spaces typically do not
12   have equipment installed and typically have fire-rated
13   cabling or wiring installed in conduit, meeting the
14   requirements of NEC.   In addition, these under-floor
15   spaces are typically protected by an   automatic smoke
16   protection system.
17             GSA's overall philosophy is to ensure all the
18   proposed code requirements do not increase construction
19   and maintenance costs of systems over the life of our
20   buildings without improving safety.    Therefore, we are
21   attempting to relax the current requirement for
22   installing a fire suppressant system in under-floor
23   spaces where the risks do not warrant such actions.            In


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 83
 1   addition, to my knowledge, we have never had a documented
 2   fire within an under-floor space for information
 3   technology equipment.
 4             Once again, like I stated earlier, we are here
 5   today to appeal the final ballot results of the NFPA 75
 6   Technical Committee and are requesting that the Standards
 7   Council support the actions of the membership at the NFPA
 8   Annual Meeting to accept Comment 75-4 for the six
 9   following reasons.
10             Reason Number 1.    The Technical Committee
11   accepted in principle our proposed language in Comment
12   75-4 during the ROC.    The Technical Committee has
13   acknowledged that our language has merit and that fire
14   suppression under the raised floor is not always needed.
15   Unfortunately, by not accepting our proposed language,
16   the default would still be to always require fire
17   suppression under the raised floor.    The membership heard
18   our testimony and held that our proposed language is
19   superior to the language proposed by the Technical
20   Committee since it provides the necessary flexibility to
21   the users and enforcers of the code.
22             Reason Number 2.    Of the 8 of the 23 Technical
23   Committee members that voted to reject Comment 75-4, 7 of


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 84
 1   the 8 members inferred that the proposed language in
 2   Comment 75-4 was too vague and unenforceable.      Note: None
 3   of the 8 Technical Committee members refute the need for
 4   this proposed change.    However, it should be noted in
 5   Paragraph 8.4.1 in NFPA 75 similar language is used to
 6   permit a risk-based approach for using gaseous agents in
 7   IT equipment areas.   For example, it states, in "where
 8   there is a critical need to protect data in the process,
 9   reduce equipment damage, and facilitate return to
10   service, consideration shall be given to use," dot, dot,
11   dot, blah, blah, blah.
12             Therefore, if this rationale has any credence,
13   one could then argue that, in lieu of our proposed
14   language in Comment 75-4, a more acceptable version could
15   be stated as follows: "Where there is a critical need to
16   protect data in the process, reduce equipment damage, and
17   facilitate return to service, consideration shall be
18   given to use either an automatic sprinkler system, carbon
19   dioxide extinguishing system, or inner agent fire
20   extinguishing system for the protection of the area below
21   the raised floor, in the information technology equipment
22   room or information technology equipment area."
23             I believe Mr. Elvove sent something to staff


                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 85
 1   Friday asking the committee for that consideration also.
 2   The point I'm trying to make is that that the Standards
 3   Council needs to conduct a detailed evaluation to
 4   determine if the current language, in quotes, "where
 5   there is a critical need," is less subjective than the
 6   language "where the risk warrants it" we have proposed.
 7             Reason Number 3.    The current mandatory
 8   language in the code that requires under-floor fire
 9   suppression was never technically justified by the
10   Technical Committee when the new language was put into
11   the code last cycle.
12             Issue Number 4.    The current language offers no
13   flexibility whatsoever for under-floor spaces that do not
14   contain equipment, or wiring or those spaces where plenum
15   rated cabling is utilized.    We strongly feel that the
16   default requirement should be to require no fire
17   suppression except when a risk assessment determines
18   there is a need, and we believe our language addresses
19   this concern.
20             Issue Number 5.    As with GSA, no fire loss data
21   was ever brought forth by the Technical Committee to
22   justify this mandatory requirement.
23             Lastly, Number 6.    I would like the Standards


                     LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                              Page 86
 1   Council to note that of the Technical Committee members
 2   that are designated as either users or enforcers of the
 3   code voted to reject Comment 75-4.     In addition, none of
 4   the users or enforcers on the Technical Committee stated
 5   that they thought the propose language in Comment NFPA
 6   75-4 was vague or unenforceable.
 7             Lastly, the Standards Council should note that
 8   5 of the Technical Committee members designated as
 9   manufacturers of fire suppression equipment voted to
10   reject our proposal.
11             Based on these reasons, we believe the only
12   prudent action for the Standards Council to take is to
13   support the action of the membership and accept Comment
14   75-4.
15             If anybody has any questions, I'll be willing
16   to answer them.
17             THE CHAIRMAN:   Thank you.
18             We'll open it up for questions from members of
19   Council at this time.
20             I guess, Mr. Frable, I want to make sure that
21   I've got an understanding of this.     That the current
22   edition of NFPA 75 basically says you need fire
23   suppression?


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                    c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 87
 1               MR. FRABLE:   Correct.
 2               THE CHAIRMAN:   And the words that were being
 3   proposed "where the risk warrants it" would have
 4   essentially said you don't need fire protection unless
 5   you have a risk that would drive it?
 6               The committee, if I understand it, just sort of
 7   ended up not necessarily disagreeing, but sort of the
 8   opposite position saying you need it unless you can show
 9   by one of the installation standards that it's not
10   required?
11               MR. FRABLE:   That's correct.   We felt that was
12   -- We felt that that position was incorrect and the
13   default position should always be that no protection is
14   needed unless the risk warrants it versus the other way
15   around.
16               THE CHAIRMAN:   Can you give me, because I'm not
17   familiar with all of those installation standards that
18   are listed in the document, but other examples where
19   those installation standards would come up and say you
20   don't need to have fire suppression under the floor?               I
21   may be putting you on the spot because there's a lot of
22   standards in that reference that's there, but I'm trying
23   to get an understanding whether the committee language --


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                               Page 88
 1              MR. FRABLE:    I believe one of the committee
 2   members stated the only one they were aware of, and I
 3   think I was, was NFPA 13 where it talks about
 4   noncombustible underneath the raised floor.    That's the
 5   only one I'm aware of.
 6              DR. MILKE:    Member of Council.
 7              The question I have is "where the risk warrants
 8   it."   Do you have any examples of risky sort of places
 9   where it can be warranted or how you would go about
10   assessing that risk?     What factors would be considered?
11              MR. FRABLE:    Many years ago, I don't even know
12   what the standards were, it could have been even prior to
13   NFPA 75, there was documents called RP 1, RP 2, and RP 3.
14   They were based out of NIST research.     There was issues
15   at that time that typically when you had raised floors --
16   And that was a time period where, if you recall, there
17   was card reach, punch cards, et cetera, all type of
18   combustibles in these computer spaces, computer room
19   spaces.   And that was cards, et cetera, that would fall
20   beneath the raised floor.     There would be trash beneath
21   the raised floor.   And these spaces were much greater
22   than 18 inches in height.     Typically, you cannot put a
23   sprinkler system within a raised floor of less than


                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                     c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                Page 89
 1   18 inches.
 2               So in certain cases do I know of any risk at
 3   this time that would basically mend, I mean, should have
 4   -- No, I don't.    Not in today's world.   Possibly back
 5   then when you had more combustibles under the spaces.
 6   You had, like I said, the punch cards, the reams of
 7   paper, et cetera, where people would store things
 8   underneath the raised floor area.
 9               THE CHAIRMAN:   Additional questions?     Miss
10   Brodoff.
11               MS. BRODOFF:    This is addressed either to Dave
12   or anyone else who knows the answer.     What is the
13   previous edition text in this matter?      Would it support
14   the floor or your position or is it something neither one
15   of you --
16               MR. FRABLE:    Like I alluded to in my testimony,
17   I think Mr. Elvove did, too, this came about last cycle.
18   And that's when the mandatory requirement for suppression
19   under the raised floor.     Prior to that there was no
20   mandatory requirement.
21               MS. BRODOFF:    So sort of the default result of
22   the standards development process is contrary to what
23   you're arguing today?


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                      c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 90
 1               MR. FRABLE:    Yes.
 2               MS. BRODOFF:    Thank you.
 3               THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions?
 4               MR. PUCHOVSKY:    Council Secretary.
 5               There was also, just for point of
 6   clarification, on Friday Josh Elvove had sent in an
 7   e-mail suggesting other language.
 8               MR. FRABLE:    Correct.
 9               MR. PUCHOVSKY:    Are you advocating for that
10   other language or what was previously in the comment?
11               MR. FRABLE:    We feel -- It's the Council's
12   decision.    The question came about that I tried to
13   explain is that we, what he sent in on Friday is
14   basically similar language.       Basically, it's identical
15   language that is currently in the code.
16               The negative ballots, 7 of the 8 negative
17   ballots stated that the reason for their voting negative
18   was it was vague and unenforceable.      What we found was in
19   Paragraph 8.4.1 that, quote, non vague and enforceable
20   language, which we think is similar to what we are
21   presenting with "where the risk warrants," that language
22   could be used in lieu of what Josh provided originally
23   and we would have no problem with that.


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                                  Page 91
 1               THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions?
 2               DR. CLARY:    Member of Council.
 3               Mr. Frable, on the, I guess, proposed verbiage
 4   from Mr. Elvove, I guess also the same is how does one
 5   enforce critical need?      Because he has "where there's a
 6   critical need to protect data."        Again, it's in the eye
 7   of the beholder.
 8               MR. FRABLE:    I'm not disagreeing that point.
 9   The issue on that one is that is current text within the
10   code now.    Chapter 2, I believe, of NFPA 75 does have
11   some risk statements within that chapter.       That was our
12   point with bringing that language forward, where there is
13   a critical need.
14               MR. CLARY:    Thank you.
15               THE CHAIRMAN:    Further questions, please.
16               Seeing none, do you have any final closing
17   remarks?
18               MR. FRABLE:    No.   The only thing is, since I
19   had no opposition, so this must be good, I know the
20   Standards Council will do what they think is best for the
21   code.   So have fun.
22               THE CHAIRMAN:    Thank you.   We certainly
23   appreciate your participation and your patience with us


                    LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                        c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 92
 1   through the day on the issues that you had kind of
 2   scattered out across the agenda.
 3             That brings us to the close of this hearing.
 4   For the Council members, there's a final hearing on your
 5   hearings list, but my understanding is that the appellant
 6   is not coming.   So we will not have a hearing on that
 7   particular issue.   The Council will deal with that item
 8   in the course of the normal agenda as they go through it,
 9   unless somebody is going to jump up and tell me that
10   they're here over that specific issue.
11             With that, I will close out then this last
12   hearing of the day.   Again, I want to thank everyone here
13   for your participation today.   I would also remind you
14   that decisions will be issued by the Council in a written
15   form by Mr. Puchovsky, the secretary of the Council.
16             We will go off the record at this point and,
17   again, thank you all for participating.
18             (At 3:03 p.m. the Afternoon Session of the
19   Standards Council Meeting was adjourned.)
20

21

22

23




                  LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c
                                                             Page 93
 1                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
 2

 3           I hereby certify that the foregoing 92 pages
 4   contain a true and correct transcript of all my
 5   stenographic notes to the best of my ability taken of the
 6   Standards Council Meeting held at the National Fire
 7   Protection Association headquarters on Tuesday, July 22,
 8   2008.
 9

10

11

12                         CSR NO. 114893
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23




                   LEAVITT REPORTING, INC.

                                                   c2fffe9f-7996-4d38-b734-a6caf3533e8c