Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP) M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 24, 2016 TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP) FROM: Chelsea Tuttle, Staff Liaison SUBJECT: AGENDA PACKAGE– NFPA 99 Second Draft Meeting (A2017) ________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed is the agenda for the NFPA 99 Second Draft meeting of the Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities, which will be held on Monday, June 20 through Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at the Crowne Plaza Dallas Downtown, in Dallas, TX. Please review the attached Public Comments in advance, and if you have alternate suggestions, please come prepared with proposed language and respective substantiation. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at: Office: (617) 984-7376 Email: [email protected]For administrative questions, please contact Elena Carroll at (617) 984-7952. I look forward to working with everyone.
29
Embed
Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric …...Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP) NFPA 99 Second Draft Meeting (Annual 2017) Monday, June 20,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities
(HEA-HYP)
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 24, 2016
TO: Principal and Alternate Members of the Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and
Hypobaric Facilities (HEA-HYP)
FROM: Chelsea Tuttle, Staff Liaison
SUBJECT: AGENDA PACKAGE– NFPA 99 Second Draft Meeting (A2017)
PrincipalHyperbaric Consulting LLC3231 Glenwood CircleHoliday, FL 34691-2545Alternate: Paul Mario Caruso
SE 7/26/2007HEA-HYP
Keith Ferrari
PrincipalPraxair, Inc.2807 Gresham Lake RoadRaleigh, NC 27615
M 1/25/2007
HEA-HYP
W. T. Gurnée
PrincipalOxyHeal Medical Systems, Inc.3224 Hoover AvenueNational City, CA 91950
M 10/10/1998HEA-HYP
Barry E. Newton
PrincipalWHA International, Inc.5605 Dona Ana RoadLas Cruces, NM 88007-5953
SE 7/24/1997
HEA-HYP
Kevin A. Scarlett
PrincipalWashington State Department of Health5801 60th Street WestUniversity Place, WA 98467-2831NFPA Health Care Section
E 10/23/2013HEA-HYP
Robert B. Sheffield
PrincipalInternational ATMO, Inc.414 Navarro, Suite 502San Antonio, TX 78205Alternate: Kevin I. Posey
U 1/17/1997
HEA-HYP
John M. Skinner
PrincipalMedical Equipment Technology, Inc.2723 Brickton North DriveBuford, GA 30518
IM 3/15/2007HEA-HYP
Deepak Talati
PrincipalSechrist Industries, Inc.4225 East LaPalma AvenueAnaheim, CA 92807
M 10/27/2009
1
Address List No PhoneHyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities HEA-HYP
Health Care Facilities
Chelsea Tuttle05/13/2016
HEA-HYP
Viky G. D. Verna
PrincipalUS Food and Drug Administration10903 New Hampshire AvenueWO 66 - 2628White Oak, MD 20993
E 08/17/2015HEA-HYP
Wilbur T. Workman
PrincipalUndersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society14607 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 270San Antonio, TX 78232
U 1/1/1984
HEA-HYP
Justin Callard
AlternateHyperbaric Technicians & Nurses Association Inc.Pow Hospital, RandwickSydney, NSW 2031 AustraliaPrincipal: Peter Atkinson
C 03/07/2013HEA-HYP
Paul Mario Caruso
AlternateHyperbaric Consulting LLC4422 Foxboro DrriveNew Port Richey, FL 34653Principal: Mario Caruso
SE 04/05/2016
HEA-HYP
Mark Chipps
AlternateLife Support Technologies Group Inc.314 West 2nd StreetWest Islip, NY 11795Principal: Michael W. Allen
U 10/29/2012HEA-HYP
Kevin I. Posey
AlternateInternational ATMO, Inc.414 Navarro Street, Suite 502San Antonio, TX 782905Principal: Robert B. Sheffield
U 10/27/2009
HEA-HYP
Chelsea Tuttle
Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection AssociationOne Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471
3/1/2016
2
Technical Committee
Distribution
Friday 5 13, Friday
Hyperbaric and Hypobaric FacilitiesHEA-HYPName Representation Class Office
Distribution by %
Company
Peter Atkinson Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital HTNA C Principal
1Voting Number Percent 6%
Kevin A. Scarlett Washington State Department ofHealth
NFPA/HCS E Principal
Viky G. D. Verna US Food and Drug Administration E Principal
2Voting Number Percent 13%
John M. Skinner Medical Equipment Technology, Inc. IM Principal
1Voting Number Percent 6%
W. Robert Bryant Perry Baromedical Corporation M Principal
Keith Ferrari Praxair, Inc. M Principal
W. T. Gurnée OxyHeal Medical Systems, Inc. M Principal
Deepak Talati Sechrist Industries, Inc. M Principal
4Voting Number Percent 25%
Richard C. Barry Healogics SE Principal
Mario Caruso Hyperbaric Consulting LLC SE Principal
Barry E. Newton WHA International, Inc. SE Principal
3Voting Number Percent 19%
James Bell Intermountain Healthcare U Chair
Michael W. Allen Life Support Technologies Group Inc. U Principal
Chad E. Beebe ASHE - AHA ASHE U Principal
Robert B. Sheffield International ATMO, Inc. U Principal
Wilbur T. Workman Undersea & Hyperbaric MedicalSociety
UHMS U Principal
5Voting Number Percent 31%
16Total Voting Number
Previous Meeting Minutes
MINUTES NFPA Technical Committee on Hyperbaric and Hypobaric Facilities
(HEA-HYP)
August 5 + 6, 2015
First Draft Meeting
Sheraton Inner Harbor Hotel – Baltimore, MD
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 am on Monday
August 5, 2015 by Committee Chair, James Bell.
2. Attendance and Introductions: Attendance was taken and those present at
the meeting introduced themselves and stated who they represent on the
committee. Those who were present at the meeting are listed below:
Name Representing Bell, James – Chair Intermountain Healthcare
Barry, Richard – Principal Healogics Beebe, Chad – Principal ASHE
Bryant, W. Robert – Principal Perry Baromedical Corporation Caruso, Mario – Principal Hyperbaric Consulting LLC
Ferrari, Keith – Principal Praxair, Inc.
Gurnée, W. – Principal OxyHeal Health Group Scarlett, Kevin – Principal NFPA Health Care Section
Sheffield, Robert – Principal International ATMO, Inc. Talati, Deepak – Principal Sechrist Industries, Inc.
Chipps, Mark – Alternate Life Support Technologies Group Inc.
Hart, Jonathan – Staff Liaison NFPA
3. Chairman Comments: Jim Bell spoke to the agenda for the meeting and
provided opening comments.
4. Minutes Approval: The minutes of the HEA-HYP May 23 and 24, 2013
Second Draft Meeting were approved as distributed in the Agenda Package
5. Staff Liaison Presentation: Jon Hart gave a staff presentation which
included general meeting procedures and a review of the Annual 2017
revision cycle.
6. Development of First Draft: The committee reviewed all public input (PI)
under their jurisdiction for NFPA 99 (77 PIs) and NFPA 99B (19 PIs) and
resolved each by either providing a committee statement or by creating a
first revision (FR) based on the PI. Other First Revisions were also created.
See the First Draft and First Draft Report for the official committee actions
on each document.
7. New Business: There was no new business.
8. Next Meeting: TBD in the June/July 2016 timeframe.
9. Meeting Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 pm on August 6,
2015.
Public Comments
Public Comment No. 79-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.5(A) ]
(A)
Upholstered furniture (fixed or portable), shall be resistant to smoldering (or cigarette) ignition in accordance with one of the following:
(1) The components of the upholstered furniture shall meet the requirements for Class 1 when tested in accordance with NFPA 260, ASTME1353, Standard Test Methods for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture ; or California Technical Bulletin133, Flammability Test Procedure for Seating Furniture for Use in Public Occupancies .
(2) Mocked-up composites of the upholstered furniture shall have a char length not exceeding 1 1�2 in. (38 mm) when tested in accordance withNFPA 261, or ASTM E1352, Standard Test Method for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Assemblies .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This proposed change addresses three issues.
First: CA TB 133 cannot be used to assess ignitability of any kind because any furniture item will ignite. Moreover it is an open flame ignition and cannot therefore be compared to smoldering ignition by cigarettes (such as in NFPA 260) and does not generate a Class 1 material. CA TB 133 is equivalent to ASTM E1537 (part B).
Second: ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 are not equivalent tests to NFPA 260 and NFPA 261 because they use as ignition source a cigarette that was designed not to cause ignition of fabrics. Therefore the results are not meaningful. NFPA 101, NFPA 1 and the IFC have already eliminated ASTM E1352 and ASTM E1353 as adequate test methods and the methods have a 2008 date because there is little interest in renewing them and they may soon be withdrawn. The test methods are not alternative means of testing for cigarette ignition but simply inadequate test methods that do not produce correct results.
Third: This section is about smoldering ignition (by cigarettes) and it is to assess whether cigarettes will cause the fabric (or the product) to ignite (and potentially burst into open flame). The open flame tests referenced here (CA TB 133 and ASTM E1537) are not ignition tests but are tests where a flaming ignition source is used to ignite (ignition always occurs) to assess the heat release of the upholstered furniture (or its components) and that is done in part B. The part A items address purely smoldering ignition.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 80-NFPA 99-2016 [Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.5(B)]
Related ItemFirst Revision No. 329-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 14.3.1.5.4.5(A)]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo HirschlerOrganization: GBH InternationalStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed May 04 18:56:44 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
114 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comment No. 80-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.5(B) ]
(B)
Upholstered furniture shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E 1537, Standard Test Method for FireTesting of Upholstered Furniture, or with California Technical Bulletin 133, Flammability Test Procedure for Seating Furniture for Use in PublicOccupancies, as follows:
(1) The peak rate of heat release for the single upholstered furniture item shall not exceed 80 kW.
(2) The total heat released by the single upholstered furniture item during the first 10 minutes of the test shall not exceed 25 MJ.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
CA TB 133 is an alternate option that is equivalent to ASTM E1537 and assesses heat release.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 79-NFPA 99-2016 [Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.5(A)]
Related ItemPublic Input No. 278-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 14.3.1.5.4.5(A)]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo HirschlerOrganization: GBH InternationalStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed May 04 21:24:41 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
115 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comment No. 81-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.6(A) ]
(A)
Mattresses and mattress components shall have a char length not exceeding 2 in. (51 mm) when tested in accordance with 16 CFR 1632,Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads (FF 4-72) ; 16 CFR Part 1633, “Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) ofMattress Sets” ; California Technical Bulletin 129, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in Public Buildings ; . or NFPA 260.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This proposed change addresses three issues.
First: CA TB 129 and 16 CFR 1633 cannot be used to assess ignitability of any kind because any mattress will ignite. Moreover they are open flame ignition tests and cannot therefore be compared to smoldering ignition by cigarettes (such as in NFPA 260 or 16CFR1632) and do not assess char. CA TB 129 is equivalent to ASTM E1590 (part B).
Second: NFPA 260 and 16CFR1632 assess mattress components while CA TB 129 and ASTM E1590 (and 16CFR1633) address full mattresses.
Third: This section is about smoldering ignition (by cigarettes) and it is to assess whether cigarettes will cause the mattress component to ignite (and potentially burst into open flame). The open flame tests referenced here (CA TB 129 and ASTM E1590) are not ignition tests but are tests where a flaming ignition source is used to ignite (ignition always occurs) to assess the heat release of the mattress and that is done in part B. The part A items address purely smoldering ignition.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 82-NFPA 99-2016 [Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.6(B)]
Related ItemFirst Revision No. 330-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 14.3.1.5.4.6]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo HirschlerOrganization: GBH InternationalStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed May 04 21:28:57 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
116 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comment No. 82-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.6(B) ]
(B)
Mattresses shall have limited rates of heat release when tested in accordance with ASTM E1590, Standard Test Method for Fire Testing ofMattresses,or California Technical Bulletin 129, Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in Public Buildings , as follows:
(1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress shall not exceed 100 kW. .
(2) The total heat released by the mattress during the first 10 minutes of the test shall not exceed 25 MJ.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
CA TB 129 and ASTM E1590 are equivalent tests, intended to assess the heat release of mattresses following flaming ignition.
16CFR1633 is not added here because it is not equivalent to CA TB 129 (or ASTM E1590) as it is intended for residential occupancies (while the other tests are scoped for public occupancies) and it is a basic requirement for all US mattresses anyway, with ASTM E1590 (or CA TB 129) an additional requirement.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment RelationshipPublic Comment No. 81-NFPA 99-2016 [Section No. 14.3.1.6.4.6(A)]
Related ItemFirst Revision No. 330-NFPA 99-2015 [Section No. 14.3.1.5.4.6]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo HirschlerOrganization: GBH InternationalStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Wed May 04 21:37:05 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
117 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comment No. 17-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. 14.3.4.1.2 ]
14.3.4.1.2
The hyperbaric safety director shall ensure that all gas outlets in the chambers are labeled or stenciled in accordance with CGA C-4, StandardMethod of Marking Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained.
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name Description ApprovedCCN_22.pdf 99_CC Note 22
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This Public Comment appeared as CC Note No. 22 in the First Draft Report.The Correlating Committee directs HEA-HYP to review the reference to CGA C-4 and determine if it is still the appropriate reference. CGA C-7 is the document that superseded it.
Submitter Full Name: Tc On Hea-AacOrganization: CC on Health Care FacilitiesStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Tue Mar 15 14:54:34 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
118 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comment No. 106-NFPA 99-2016 [ Section No. A.14.3.1.6.4.3 ]
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
133 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
A.14.3.1.6.4.3
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
134 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
The textiles definitions and risk assessment process for hyperbaric wound dressings are as follows:
Combustion. A chemical process of oxidation that occurs at a rate fast enough to produce heat in the form of either a glow or a flame.
Flammable. Refers to a combustible (solid, liquid, or gas) that is capable of easily being ignited and rapidly consumed by fire.
Flash Point. The minimum temperature of a liquid or solid at which it gives off vapor sufficient to form an ignitible mixture with oxygen underspecified environmental conditions.
Ignition Temperature. The minimum temperature required to initiate or cause self-sustaining combustion under specified environmentalconditions.
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) or Lower Flammable Limit (LFL). The minimum concentration of fuel vapor (percent by volume) over whichcombustion will occur on contact with an ignition source.
General Risk Assessment Information. This risk assessment process was designed to evaluate wound dressing products for use in a hyperbaricchamber. However, the same decision process can be applied to the evaluation of textiles for hyperbaric use. Wound dressings are commonlyused inside hyperbaric chambers. They play an important role in infection control and patient outcome. Important safety concerns includeproduction of heat, production of static electricity, production of flammable vapor, ignition temperature, and total fuel load. Many wound dressingsemploy fabrics and other materials that are gas-permeable. It is a common misconception that a gauze bandage will isolate an undesirableproduct from the chamber environment. Gauze is gas-permeable and will allow oxygen from the chamber to interact with the product and vaporsfrom the product to interact with the chamber environment. Also, gas-permeable materials exposed to hyperbaric oxygen will hold additionaloxygen for some period of time after the exposure. These materials should be kept away from open flames for at least 20 minutes after thehyperbaric treatment.
Figure A.14.3.1.6.4.3 Risk Assessment Process.
Risk Assessment Process (see Figure A.14.3.1.6.4.3).
(1) Is there a more suitable alternative to this dressing? The issue of need must first be addressed. There might be a substitute dressing thathas already been deemed acceptable for the hyperbaric environment. The wound dressing orders can be changed to the more desirablesubstitute (if there is no negative impact on patient outcome). It might be viable to remove the dressing before the hyperbaric treatment,
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
135 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
leave it off during the treatment, and replace it after the treatment. Before making this decision, it is important to remember that somedressings should not be disturbed (e.g., in the case of a new skin graft); some dressings are designed to stay in place for several days;some dressings are very expensive; and it can be detrimental for the wound to remain undressed during the treatment. If there is a suitablealternative to using this dressing, the rest of the decision process can be eliminated.
(2) Does this dressing produce heat in the chamber? Dressings are made from a large variety of materials. The concern is that materials in adressing can rapidly oxidize and produce heat (exothermic reaction) when exposed to additional oxygen. For example, air-activated heatpatches (commonly used for pain relief) have been tested in hyperbaric environments. The average operating temperature increased from48.1°C (119°F) in normobaric air to 121.8°C (251°F) in hyperbaric oxygen. In this circumstance, the patient’s skin would be burned, and theheat could ignite combustible material in the chamber. Information on oxygen compatibility can be found in a product material safety datasheet (MSDS).
(3) Does this dressing produce too much static electricity? All common textiles will contribute to static production. Wool and synthetic materialsgenerally contribute more to static production than cotton. Although static charge is constantly accumulating, it will dissipate into theenvironment when humidity is present. At less than 30 percent relative humidity, static charge can accumulate faster than it can dissipate.At greater than 60 percent relative humidity, static charge is all but completely eliminated. Use of conductive surfaces and electricalgrounding will allow static charge to dissipate. Paragraph 14.2.9.4.1 requires all hyperbaric chambers to be grounded. Paragraph 14.2.11.1requires any furniture installed inside a chamber to be grounded. Paragraph 14.3.1.6.3.2 requires all occupants of the chamber to begrounded when the oxygen percentage in the chamber is above 23.5 percent. The continuity of electrical grounds should be verifiedperiodically.
(4) Does this dressing have a low ignition temperature/flash point? ASTM G72 -Standard Test Method for Autogenous Ignition Temperatureof Liquids and Solids in a High-Pressure Oxygen-Enriched Environment can be used to determine the autogenous ignition temperatures ofproducts entering a hyperbaric chamber. In 2016 ASTM G72 added a new test for oxygen-enriched environments of less than 300 psi ofpressure. In all hyperbaric environments, the partial pressure of oxygen is higher than at normal atmospheric conditions. Increasing thepartial pressure of oxygen can change the classification of a material from non-flammable to flammable. Many materials are flammable in a100 percent oxygen environment. Any material used in a hyperbaric chamber should have an ignition temperature higher than it can beexposed to. Paragraph 14.2.9.3.12 limits electrical equipment inside a Class A (multi-place) chamber to a maximum operating surfacetemperature of 85°C (185°F). Paragraph 14.2.9.6.3 limits electrical circuits inside a Class B (monoplace) chamber to a maximum operatingtemperature of 50°C (122°F). As the oxygen percentage increases, it takes less energy to ignite materials. This leads to more conservativedecisions in a 100 percent oxygen environment. A greater margin of safety is achieved when there is a greater difference between thetemperature limit of the equipment inside a Class A and B chamber and the ignition temperature of material in question. A material willrelease vapor into the chamber environment as it approaches its flash point temperature. Once a sufficient quantity of vapor is present inthe chamber (LEL), it takes very little energy for ignition to occur. Paragraph 14.3.1.6.2.2 sets limits on flammable agents inside Class A(multi-place) chambers. Paragraph 14.3.1.6.2.3 specifically prohibits flammable liquids, gases, and vapors inside Class B (monoplace)chambers. Information on ignition temperature and flash point in air can be found in a product MSDS.
(5) Is the total fuel load too high? If a fire does occur, the energy produced is a function of the partial pressure of oxygen and the total fuelload. In a hyperbaric environment, the partial pressure of oxygen is higher and contributes to greater energy production. Any dressingproduct placed inside of a hyperbaric chamber is a combustible material and, therefore, adds to the fuel load. Therefore, total fuel loadinside the chamber should be minimized to only what is necessary.
(6) Is there an adverse effect when this product is used inside the hyperbaric chamber? It has been reported that the antibacterial agentmafenide acetate (Sulfamylon®), in combination with hyperbaric oxygen, has a poorer clinical result than either one by itself. There can beother drug interactions with hyperbaric oxygen that are undesirable. The mechanical effects of pressure change can cause a dressingmaterial to rupture. If the material is capable of venting/equalizing during pressure change, this should not occur.
(7) The hyperbaric facility should maintain a “use list” and a “do not use list” of items that have been evaluated for hyperbaric use. In additionto this list, it is important to keep documentation on file explaining the risk assessment for each item. This will prevent future duplication ofeffort. It also serves as evidence that due diligence was used.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Public Input No. 501-NFPA 99-2015 [New Section after 14.3.1.5.4.4] was sent back to this submitter (Richard Barry) for additional information. At that time, ASTM as not finalized the new G72 low pressure test standard. In early 2016 the standard was publish and made available for public purchasing/use. The UHMS Guidelines are not complete, therefore omitted. By adding this new G72 standard to Annex material the end users are provided a means to test products for autogenous ignition temperatures.
Related ItemPublic Input No. 501-NFPA 99-2015 [New Section after 14.3.1.5.4.4]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Richard BarryOrganization: HealogicsAffilliation: HealogicsStreet Address:City:State:Zip:Submittal Date: Mon May 16 15:04:31 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
136 of 145 5/17/2016 3:43 PM
Public Comments
Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 2.3.2 ]
2.3.2 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM D2863, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Minimum Oxygen Concentration to Support Candle-like Combustion of Plastics (OxygenIndex),2014.
ASTM E48 E84 , Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, 2015 2015b .
ASTM E648, Standard Test Method for Critical Radiant Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, 2014 2015 e1 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
date updates
Related Item
First Revision No. 1-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed May 04 22:19:04 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
1 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 5-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 3.3.3.5 ]
3.3.3.5 Oxygen-Enriched Atmosphere (OEA).
For the purposes of this standard, an atmosphere in which the concentration of oxygen exceeds 23.5 percent by volume, under normaloperating conditions .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
There are references in other sections that differentiate Class D and E and have NFPA 70 requirements pursuant to those class designations. This proposed change will clarify and assert that chambers remaining under 23.5% O2 (properly mitigated) are indeed Class D.
Related Item
Public Input No. 1-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Michael Quiring
Organization: ETC
Affilliation: Environmental Tectonics Corp.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon May 09 13:06:45 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
2 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 3.3.15 ]
3.3.15 Oxygen Index.
The minimum concentration of oxygen, expressed as percent by volume, in a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen that will just support combustion ofa material under conditions of ASTM D2863, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Minimum Oxygen Concentration to Support Candle-LikeCombustion of Plastics (Oxygen Index).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
I understand that the technical committee is interested in find a reference for ASTM D2863. I suggest that a good location might be as a discussion about one other small scale fire test referenced, which is NFPA 701. Thus, the committee might want to add a sentence as an annex comment to 5.1.7.5, and I will propose one.
NFPA Manual of Style states that references to codes, standards and regulations should not be included in definitions. Also, the terms that are defined in an NFPA document are supposed to be those used in the document.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment Relationship
Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 99B-2016 [Section No. 5.1.7.5]
Related Item
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 3.3.15]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed May 04 22:09:35 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
3 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 1-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 4.2.1 ]
4.2.1 *
Hypobaric chambers shall be designed, fabricated and fabricated by tested by qualified personnel in compliance with the following codes:
(1) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code , Section VIII, Unfired Pressure Vessels, Division 1 or Division 2
(2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Materials
(3) ASME PVHO-1, Safety Standard for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy
The Hypobaric chamber fabricator shall be a current A.S.M.E. "U" stamp certificate holder. All welding performed on the chamber shall be doneby welders qualified to and in accordance with ASME Section IX, Welding, Brazing and Fusing Qualifications.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Resolve problem of some suppliers not using a ASME certified stamp holder. Although the guidelines of the code book may be followed by any fabricator it does not necessarily mean the fabricator is a certified ASME certificate holder. Any weld shop can "follow" specific rules of a code but that does not mean they are ASME certified. They may lack the internal QA programs, testing means, or any other regulations required by ASME. Requiring the fabricator of the chamber to be a "U" stamp holder ensures all aspects of ASME guidelines and codes are followed.
Related Item
First Revision No. 1-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Michael Quiring
Organization: Environmental Tectonics Corporation
Affilliation: ETC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon May 02 13:23:57 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
4 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 4.5.2.1 ]
4.5.2.1
A fixed water deluge extinguishing system shall be installed in all chamber compartments that are designed for human occupancy. As analternative a fixed inert gas deluge extinguishing system may be used in all chamber compartments. The inert gas deluge system ifemployed, shall reduce residual oxygen concentration to a level that will no longer support combustion yet still provide a safe oxygen levelallowing sufficient time for egress.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
Water deluge by nature is not compatible with electronics or other equipment typically used in a hypobaric chamber. The use of a electrically non conductive gas typically found in the atmosphere does not harm major components after discharge and therefore no replacement of these components after discharge, unless effected by fire, would be necessary. The discharged gas may be removed from the chamber through ventilation only - no water clean up. The gas discharge maintains safe residual O2 levels (however not enough to maintain combustion) which allows for "normal breathing" while exiting the chamber.
Related Item
Public Input No. 6-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 4.2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Michael Quiring
Organization: ETC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 10 06:58:51 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
5 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 4.6.2.3 ]
4.6.2.3
If handheld extinguishers are provided in a single compartment chamber, at least two specially modifed water or water mist extinguishers ,minimum 6 liter capacity and capable of a 2A or 2A:C rating shall be provided.
4.6.2.3.1
If the chamber has two compartments, at least two specially modified water or water mist extinguishers, minimum 6 liter capacity and capable ofa 2A or 2A:C rating, shall be provided in the main compartment and one in the personnel transfer compartment.
4.6.2.3.2
Extinguishers shall be located to ensure easy access, and secured so as to allow rapid deployment.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This proposal modifies Public Input 17 and Public input 16. the new language addresses the committee rejection statement and further clarifies the type extinguishers to be used in a hyperbaric chamber.Any extinguisher used in a hyperbaric chamber will need to be modified so that it will function when the chamber is fully pressurized . the modifications involve increasing the operating pressure to overcome the pressure in the chamber and also providing pressure relieve devices for the protection of the extinguisher. Water type extinguishers are the best choice for this type environment and have historically been used in hyperbaric chambers. Water type extinguishers provide a clean discharge that will not obscure vision within the chamber and will not add an agent that reduces the breathable air in the chamber( as would CO2 or some of the halogenated agent extinguishers). Also the water will not introduce any additional agents that can cause cardiac sensitization or arythemias of the occupants. It is not anticipated that a class B flammable will be inside a hyperbaric chamber while it is occupied, other than alcohols which can be diluted with water to extinguish. If class B flammbles are to be present, then the extinguishers should be specially modified foam extinguishers...again a water based agent that will not pose significant additional hazard within the chamber.
Related Item
Public Input No. 17-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 4.6.2.3.1]
Public Input No. 16-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 4.6.2.3 [Excluding any Sub-Sections]]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Fred Goodnight
Organization: Amerex Corporation
Affilliation: Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon May 16 16:18:10 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
6 of 7 5/17/2016 4:39 PM
Public Comment No. 4-NFPA 99B-2016 [ Section No. 5.1.7.5 ]
5.1.7.5 *
Fabric used in Class E chambers shall meet the flame propagation requirements contained in Test Method 1 or Test Method 2, as appropriate, ofNFPA 701.
A.5.1.7.5 NFPA 701 is a small scale fire test that is widely used for assessing flame propagation requirements of fabrics or plastics. Anotherwidely used small scale fire test for fabrics and plastics is ASTM D2863, Standard Test Method for Measuring the Minimum OxygenConcentration to Support Candlelike Combustion of Plastics (Oxygen Index) , which assesses the minimum concentration of oxygen, expressedas percent by volume, in a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen that will just support combustion of a material.
(Also, add ASTM D2863 (2014) into a new annex section on Informational ASTM references)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This allows the committee to continue including a reference to ASTM D2863.
Related Public Comments for This Document
Related Comment Relationship
Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 99B-2016 [Section No. 3.3.15]
Related Item
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 99B-2015 [Section No. 3.3.15]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed May 04 22:28:09 EDT 2016
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...