Attachment 6 - E. Evaluation AF Fire Protection Features Hangers B4278.pdf

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE

17. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER

OF

PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

AFCEC-TR-14-BIX4278

Evaluation of Air Force Hangar Fire Protection Features

Hangar/Building 4278

Keesler AFB (BIX), MS

AFCEC Project # AFCE889697

FA8903-08-D-8783

Task Order 4C12

Final

Hangar Evaluation Installation Report (HEIR)

Prepared By:

URS Group, Inc.

2315 Briargate Parkway, Suite 150

Colorado Springs, CO 80920

For:

Fire Protection Engineering Engineering Branch

Operations Directorate 139 Barnes Drive – Suite 1

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319

January 2016

Keesler AFB, MS Hangar/Bldg. 4278 Evaluation Report i

Table of Contents 1 Introduction

1.1 Base Provided Documents

1.2 Key Personnel Contacted

2 Applicable Codes and Standards

3 Findings

3.1 False/Nuisance System Activations

3.2 Emergency Shutdown

3.3 Design/Construction

3.4 Procedural Issues

4 Fire Suppression Systems

4.1 Installed Fire Protection Systems

4.2 Identification of Deficiencies

4.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

4.4 Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate

4.5 Summary of Fire Suppression Systems

5 Fire Suppression System Controls

5.1 Installed Fire Suppression System Controls

5.2 Identification of Deficiencies

5.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

5.4 Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate

5.5 Summary of Fire Suppression System Controls

6 Pumping Systems

6.1 Installed Pumping Systems

6.2 Identification of Deficiencies

6.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

6.4 Summary of Pumping Systems

7 Electrical Systems

8 Life Safety / Egress

9 Maintenance Review

10 HEIR Conclusion ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A – ROM Cost Estimate for Existing Deficiencies

Appendix B – ROM Cost Estimate for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control

Appendix C – Humidity Temperature Graph

Appendix D – Data Collection Survey

Appendix E – BUILDER Data Report

Appendix F – List of Acronyms

1 Introduction

Hangar/Building 4278 is located at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB) in Mississippi. The hangar contains fueled aircraft, with the primary function of the hangar being fuel cell maintenance.

The hangar was constructed in 2006 and the fire suppression system was also installed in 2006.

The aircraft servicing (hangar bay) area is approximately 20,630 square feet (sf).

The fire suppression systems serving the hangar bay consist of two automatic wet pipe sprinkler systems and one high expansion foam system. Water is supplied from two 2,000 gallons per minute electric-driven fire pumps. The water supply for the pumps is from the base water supply distribution. The foam system is activated by manual foam discharge stations or a flow switch on a wet pipe sprinkler system serving the hangar bay. The wet pipe systems are activated by heat detectors. All systems are operational.

At the time of inspection, the installed high expansion foam system and sprinkler systems generally met the Air Force Standard Design Elements as indicated in ETL 02-15.

The fire protection systems and their associated controls are generally being maintained in accordance with the requirements of UFC 3-601-02. The base is currently utilizing both an automated and a manual maintenance record keeping system.

In compliance with the project Statement of Work (SOW), the Hangar Evaluation Installation Report (HEIR) is focused on an evaluation of the fire suppression, controls and detection, pumping, electrical and egress systems supporting the aircraft servicing areas (hangar bays) based on interviews, visual observations and review of available as-built documentation.

Additionally, the evaluation includes review of: systems installed; system deficiencies;

recommended corrective actions; and rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for the fire suppression system, controls and detection systems, and pumping systems. Costs have been developed for repairs needed to meet required standards, as well as costs to upgrade to Department of Defense (DOD) Configuration Control requirements, Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS) 21.13.12.00.30 (Draft). The ROM costs have been developed using R.S.

Means, information from various vendors and engineering judgment.

This report was prepared by URS as requested by AFCEC in order to evaluate the existing hangar’s condition at the time of inspection. This report recommends the improvements that are needed to bring the existing hangar up to current standards and the draft UFGS. URS is not incorporating any modifications that may have been made since the inspection team visited the hangar.

1.1 Base Provided Documents

The following documents were provided by base personnel for use in evaluating the various systems during inspection:

Design drawings of fire suppression systems Design drawings of fire alarm system IWIMS records Contractor inspection test reports

1.2 Key Personnel Contacted

Mr. Robert Manter, PAE/CIV, CE, 228-243-9517, Robert.mante.l.afr@usaf.mil

2 Applicable Codes and Standards

The primary technical references for the HEIR include:

UFC 3-400-02 Engineering Weather Data, 28 February 2003 UFC 3-600-01 Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities, Change 3, 1 March 2013 UFC 3-601-02 Operations and Maintenance, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems, 8 September 2010 ETL 02-15 Fire Protection Engineering Criteria – New Aircraft Facilities, 3 December 2002 AFCEC 2010, 2011, and 2012 Lessons Learned Written Guidance AFCEC Process for Locating Fire System Control Panels in Accordance with Temperature and Humidity Limits Written Guidance AFCEC Hangar Foam Fire Suppression System Manual Start Stop Control

Locations Written Guidance NFPA 11 Low-Medium- and High-Expansion Foam, 2013 edition NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 edition NFPA 16 Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water

Spray Systems, 2011 edition NFPA 20 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Fire Pumps, 2013 edition NFPA 24 Private Fire Service Mains, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire

Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2013 edition NFPA 70 National Electric Code, 2011 edition NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2013 edition NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, 2012 edition NFPA 409 Standard on Aircraft Hangars, 2011 edition TO 1-1-3 Inspection and Repair of Aircraft Integral Tanks and Fuel Cells, 21 June 2013

UFGS

21.13.12.00.30

Fire Suppression – Low-Level High Expansion Foam Fire Extinguishing for Aircraft Hangars (DRAFT)

3 Findings

3.1 False/Nuisance System Activations

Based on discussions with facility maintenance staff, the fire suppression system has not had any false activations during the approximate eight-year life of the current systems.

Additionally, the hangar has not had any previous fire events where the system failed to activate during the approximate eight-year life of the current systems.

3.2 Emergency Shutdown

Based on visual observations, the hangar currently has the capability to abort the system before a false activation, but it does not have the correct valve to stop the flow of foam after an activation.

3.3 Design/Construction

During visual inspection of the hangar fire suppression system, the following deviation was noted between the design drawings and systems installed: a 10-gallon expansion tank is shown piped upstream of the deluge valve, while the visual inspection indicated the expansion tank is piped downstream of the deluge valve.

During visual inspection of the hangar fire suppression system, the following deviations were noted between the Air Force Standard Design Elements and installed systems: there is a 10-gallon expansion tank installed instead of a 10-gallon surge suppressor; the expansion tank is piped downstream of the deluge valve instead of upstream of the deluge valve; and the water supply to the bladder tank and concentrate isolation valves were not electrically supervised.

3.4 Procedural Issues

The Fire Department conducts unannounced fire drills at each hangar on a yearly basis.

4 Fire Suppression Systems

See the below tables for a summary of the fire suppression systems present in the hangar, which were evaluated for systems installed, deficiencies, corrective actions for deficiencies with associated ROM cost estimates and requirements for upgrade to UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 (Draft) with associated ROM cost estimates. See Appendix D – Data Collection Survey, for additional information.

4.1 Installed Fire Protection Systems

Systems Basis of Review Deficiencies (Yes / No)

Wet Pipe Sprinkler System (2 Systems)

ETL 02-15 Yes

High Expansion Foam System (1 System)

ETL 02-15 Yes

4.2 Identification of Deficiencies

Def. # Systems Deficiency Description D4-1 Wet Pipe Sprinkler System

(Risers 2 & 3) No pressure relief trim device above riser valve

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.3)

D4-2 Wet Pipe Sprinkler System (Risers 2 & 3)

Expansion tank installed instead of listed or approved surge suppressor (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.3.1.2) (Photo 1)

D4-3 High Expansion Foam System Strainer not provided upstream of foam riser

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.4)

D4-4 High Expansion Foam System Not all required valves are supervised; isolation valve and water supply valve to bladder tank not supervised (NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.2)

D4-5 High Expansion Foam System Expansion tank installed instead of listed or approved surge suppressor

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.3.1.2)

The list of deficiencies identified in the table above is intended to be coordinated with the corrective action table below. These tables establish the deficiencies and corresponding corrective actions that would need to be taken to bring the current system(s) into compliance with the required ETL(s).

4.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

Corrects Def. # Corrective Action

ROM Cost Estimate

D4-1 Add pressure relief trim device above riser (2) $3,496 D4-2 Replace expansion tanks with surge suppressors installed in accordance with AFLL (2) $39,761

D4-3 Add strainer (1) $16,782 D4-4 Add lock, seal or tamper switch to all unsupervised valves (2) $450 D4-5 Replace expansion tanks with surge suppressors installed in accordance with AFLL (1) $19,881

Total $80,370

Photo 1: Expansion tank installed instead of listed or approved surge suppressor

4.4 Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate

Upgrade # Upgrade

ROM Cost Estimate

U4-1 Replace foam concentrate storage tank with minimum 500 gallon atmospheric foam storage tank with ultrasonic level sensor

$65,143

U4-2 Add concentrate fill pump (per AFCEC direction, cost not to be included with project funding)

$0

U4-3 Replace proportioner with inductor (FoamTec 8-in Model BFZ) $132,964 U4-4 Replace water control valve with pressure regulating remote resetting flow control valve (1) $85,695

Total $283,802

4.5 Summary of Fire Suppression Systems

The hangar fire suppression systems are not in compliance with the referenced criteria.

Required ETL Compliance: In order to bring the system into compliance with ETL 02-15 it will be necessary to correct the deficiencies identified in the table titled Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate, for the existing systems currently installed.

The implementation of these proposed corrective actions will improve system reliability and improve the overall efficiency of the system.

Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control: In order to upgrade the system for DOD configuration control it will be necessary to correct the deficiencies identified in the table titled Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate and upgrade the items listed in the table titled Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate, which would include the costs from both tables above.

Total costs are reflected in Section 10 HEIR Conclusion at the end of the report.

5 Fire Suppression System Controls

See the below tables for a summary of the system control panels and detection systems serving the hangar aircraft maintenance areas, which were evaluated for systems installed, deficiencies, corrective actions for deficiencies with associated ROM cost estimates and requirements for upgrade to UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 (Draft) with associated ROM cost estimates. See Appendix D – Data Collection Survey, for additional information. The engineering weather data for this location has been evaluated for control limits per NFPA 72 requirements and it has been determined humidity and temperature control are required for the fire suppression and fire alarm control panels as shown in Appendix C – Humidity Temperature Graph.

5.1 Installed Fire Suppression System Controls

Device Basis of Review Deficiencies (Yes / No)

Foam System Control Panel ETL 02-15 Yes Fire Alarm Control Panel ETL 02-15 Yes

IR3 Detectors ETL 02-15 No Manual Foam Discharge Stations ETL 02-15 Yes

Abort Stations Not required No

5.2 Identification of Deficiencies

Def. # Device Deficiency Description D5-1 Foam System Control Panel Portions of foam system connected to fire alarm control panel (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.5.1.3) D5-2 Foam System Control Panel Not located in a room with humidity control

(NFPA 72 §10.3.5)

D5-3 Foam System Control Panel Panel doesn’t have transient voltage surge suppression (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.5.1.2) D5-4 Fire Alarm Control Panel Not located in a room with humidity control

(NFPA 72 §10.3.5)

D5-5 Manual Foam Discharge Stations Stations are not mounted directly to sign

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.5.5.2)

D5-6 Manual Foam Discharge Stations Located closer than 5 feet to fire alarm pull station and not on opposite side of door from fire alarm pull station (AFLL 2010)

While the hangar has IR³ detectors, they are not connected to the foam system. The list of deficiencies identified in the table above is intended to be coordinated with the corrective action table below. These tables establish the deficiencies and corresponding corrective actions that would need to be taken to bring the current system(s) into compliance with the required ETL(s).

5.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

Corrects Def. # Corrective Action

ROM Cost Estimate

D5-1 Rewire system to connect to foam system control panel (1) $2,456 D5-2 Add humidity control to room containing foam system control panel (1) $12,280

D5-3 Add transient voltage surge suppression (1) $3,569 D5-4 Add humidity control to room containing fire alarm control panel (1) $12,279

D5-5 Remount stations directly to sign (6) (incl. below) $0 D5-6 Relocate stations (6) $12,280

Total $42,864

Photo 2: Manual foam discharge station located closer than 5 feet to fire alarm pull station and not on opposite side of door from fire alarm pull station

5.4 Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate

Upgrade # Upgrade

ROM Cost Estimate

U5-1 Replace foam system control panel with Det-Tronics Eagle Quantum Premier Fire Detection/ Releasing System panel

$74,271

U5-2 Replace manual foam discharge station signage (6) $4,298 U5-3 Replace stop foam (abort) station signage (6) $22,580 U5-4 Add IR3 detectors (Det-Tronics X3301 Multispectrum) $178,550

Total $279,699

5.5 Summary of Fire Suppression System Controls

The controls as currently configured constitute a usable, but not compliant system. The fire suppression system controls as currently installed are not within NFPA 72 humidity limits for the equipment.

Required ETL Compliance: In order to bring the system into compliance with the required ETL it will be necessary to correct the deficiencies identified in the table titled Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate, for the existing systems currently installed.

The implementation of these proposed corrective actions will improve system reliability and improve the overall efficiency of the system.

Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control: In order to upgrade the system for DOD configuration control it will be necessary to correct the deficiencies identified in the table titled Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate and upgrade the items listed in the table titled Requirements for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control (UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 Draft) and ROM Cost Estimate, which would include the costs from both tables above.

Total costs are reflected in Section 10 HEIR Conclusion at the end of the report.

6 Pumping Systems

See the below tables for a summary of the pumping systems serving the hangar aircraft maintenance areas, which were evaluated for systems installed, deficiencies and corrective actions for deficiencies with associated ROM cost estimates. See Appendix D – Data Collection Survey, for additional information.

The pump system serving the suppression system is located in the support area of this hangar and serves only this hangar. The approximate year of installation is 2006. The system consists of two 2,000 gallons per minute electric-driven pumps taking suction from the base water supply distribution.

It was noted during the field investigation the current volume of water produced by the pumping system appears to be greater than that required for the installed fire suppression systems. An engineering evaluation would need to be conducted to determine the best approach to avoid maintaining more and/or larger pumps than required.

6.1 Installed Pumping Systems

Pumping System Type Basis of Review

Deficiencies (Yes / No)

Booster (Base Supply) (2 Pumps)

ETL 02-15 Yes

6.2 Identification of Deficiencies

Def. # Component Deficiency Description D6-1 Pumps P-1, P-2 Surge suppressor not installed (ETL 02-15 §A1.4.3.10)

The list of deficiencies identified in the table above is intended to be coordinated with the corrective action table below. These tables establish the deficiencies and corresponding corrective actions that would need to be taken to bring the current system(s) into compliance with the required ETL.

6.3 Corrective Action for Deficiencies Noted Above and ROM Cost Estimate

Corrects Def. # Corrective Action

ROM Cost Estimate

D6-1 Add minimum 100 gallon surge suppressor (2) $157,302

Total $157,302

6.4 Summary of Pumping Systems

The hangar pumping system is not in compliance with the referenced criteria. The implementation of these proposed corrective actions to comply with the required ETL will improve system reliability and improve the overall efficiency of the system.

7 Electrical Systems

The hangar is used for fuel system maintenance, and all electrical receptacles/outlets were evaluated and found to comply with NFPA 70 (NEC) Article 513 and TO 1-1-3 for hazard classification. Electrical features were evaluated and found to not have the appropriate NEMA rating (4, 4X, 6, 6P) to protect them against hose down and splashing water. See Appendix D – Data Collection Survey, for additional information.

NEMA 7 or 8 enclosures observed in the hangar

8 Life Safety / Egress

Aircraft hangars are typically not designed to accommodate assembly occupancies such as ceremonies and training exercises, and this report is not intended to address requirements for assembly occupancies. The Command should conduct a fire protection/life safety evaluation of the hangar prior to its use for any assembly activity. One example of this requirement is the presence of panic hardware on exit doors. It was noted during the field investigation this hangar does not have panic hardware on all required exit doors.

Egress from the aircraft servicing area is in compliance with Life Safety Code NFPA 101, Section 40.2.6. See Appendix D – Data Collection Survey for additional information. No deficiencies have been identified.

9 Maintenance Review

The fire suppression, controls, detection and pumping systems are maintained by a combination of the Base Civil Engineering Shops and a private contractor. Along with records verification, visual observations of the hangar indicate the records are consistent with the actual facility conditions.

In addition to manual records maintained by the fire protection systems contractor, the base is currently utilizing both an automated and manual maintenance record keeping system. The automated system being used is the Interim Work Information Management System (IWIMS) with its recurring work program (RWP).

Efforts are being made to properly maintain and record the information; however, it was reported during discussions that staffing is not always sufficient to accomplish all required maintenance.

Additionally, maintenance is not always being properly entered in the IWIMS; however, performed maintenance is consistently documented in the form of inspection tags on the valves and inspection stickers on the alarm panels.

The fire suppression systems are being maintained in accordance with the requirements of UFC 3-601-02. Monthly and annual tests records were received for the wet pipe systems. Two-year foam inspections for 2011 and 2013 were received. Monthly, semi-annual and annual inspections for the high expansion foam system were also received.

The fire suppression system controls are being maintained in accordance with the requirements of UFC 3-601-02. IWIMS records were received.

The pumping systems are not fully being maintained in accordance with the requirements of UFC 3-601-02. Monthly and two year records were provided, but five year flow test records were not. However, it was indicated by the base the 5-year tests were conducted. It was also indicated a pass/fail rating for the flow tests were not given for each flow test completed.

10 HEIR Conclusion

The hangar egress system has been found to be in compliance with the referenced criteria.

However, the fire suppression, foam controls, detection, pumping and electrical systems are not in compliance with the referenced criteria.

The estimated cost to bring the systems into compliance with required standards and the cost to upgrade the systems to the requirements of UFGS 21.13.12.00.30 (Draft) is summarized below.

More detailed information on these costs can be found in Appendix A – ROM Cost Estimate for Existing Deficiencies and Appendix B – ROM Cost Estimate for Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control.

Overall Cost Summary

Systems

Cost to Bring Systems into Compliance with Required Standards

(Correct Deficiencies)

Cost to Upgrade to DOD Configuration

Control (UFGS

21.13.12.00.30 Draft)

Cost to Upgrade to DOD Configuration Control

(UFGS 21.13.12.00.30

Draft) and Correct Applicable Deficiencies

Fire Suppression $80,370 $283,802 $364,172 Fire Suppression Controls $42,864 $279,699 $322,563 Pumping $157,302 $157,302

Total $280,536 $844,037

Appendix A –

ROM Cost Estimate for Existing Deficiencies

U M

M at

'l

L ab or

E q u ip

T ot al

Fire Protection Basket strainer ea 1 3,700 400 4,100 5,535.00 $5,535 $16,782 D4-3 Riser pressure relief trim ea 2 107 320 427 576 $1,153 $3,496 D4-1 Surge tank (only) (10 gal) ea 3 3,565 1,292 4,857 6,557 $19,671 $59,642 D4-2,5 Add lock or seal to valve ea 2 1 54 55 74 $149 $450 D4-4

Electrical/Controls

Relocate manual foam discharge station ea 6 200 300 500 675.00 $4,050 $12,280 D5-5,6 Rewire to foam system control panel ea 1 100 500 600 810.00 $810 $2,456 D5-1 Humidity and temperature control ea 2 2,000 1,000 3,000 4,050.00 $8,100 $24,559 D5-2,4 TVSS ea 1 392 480 872 1,177.20 $1,177 $3,569 D5-3

ROM TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES

Keesler AFB (BIX), MS

Hangar/Bldg 4278

D ef

Unit Cost

T ot al U ni t

C os t In cl S u b

O

P

(3 5%

L in e It em C os t

B ef or e

M ar ku ps

* Line Item cost w/markups include the following factors: 30% for shop drawings, 30% for General Conditions, 15% contractor overhead and profit, 20% for Contract Documents and Construction Management, and a 30% contingency.

Total $42,864

$80,370Total

L in e It em C os t w /m ar ku ps

Item of Work

Q u an ti ty

M at

'l

L ab or

E q u ip

T ot al

Pumping Surge tank (100 Gal) ea 2 17,763 1,452 19,215 25,940.25 $51,881 $157,302 D6-1

ROM TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES

Keesler AFB (BIX), MS

Hangar/Bldg 4278

D ef

L in e It em C os t w /m ar ku ps

Total $157,302

* Line Item cost w/markups include the following factors: 30% for shop drawings, 30% for General Conditions, 15% contractor overhead and profit, 20% for Contract Documents and Construction Management, and a 30% contingency.

Q u an ti tyItem of Work

Unit Cost

T ot al U ni t

C os t In cl S u b

O

L in e It em C os t

B ef or e

M ar ku ps

Appendix B –

ROM Cost Estimate for Upgrade to

DOD Configuration Control

M at

'l

L ab or

E q u ip

T ot al

Fire Protection Flow control valve with opening speed control ea 1 19,736 1,200 20,936 28,264 $28,264 $85,695 U4-4 BFZ inductor (Only) ea 1 31,284 1,200 32,484 43,853 $43,853 $132,964 U4-3 Atmospheric tank (Only) ea 1 15,000 915 15,915 21,485 $21,485 $65,143 U4-1

Electrical/Controls Stop foam (abort) station ea 6 620 300 920 1,242 $7,452 $22,580 U5-3 Pull station sign ea 6 75 100 175 236.25 $1,418 $4,298 U5-2 Manual foam discharge station ea 1,420 1,600 3,020 4,077 $0 $0 FSCP ea 1 16,717 1,440 18,157 24,512 $24,512 $74,271 U5-1

Detection system (optical flame detectors - multi-spectrum IR) (for hangars requiring 5 detectors) LS 1 34,650 9,000 43,650 58,928 $58,928 $178,550 U5-4

ROM TO UPGRADE TO CONFIGURATION CONTROL

Keesler AFB (BIX), MS

Hangar/Bldg 4278

Item of Work

Unit Cost

T ot al U n it

C os t In cl S u b

O

L in e It em C os t

B ef or e

M ar k u p s

L in e It em C os t w /m ar k u p s*

D ef

* Line Item cost w/markups include the following factors: 30% for shop drawings, 30% for General Conditions, 15% contractor overhead and profit, 20% for Contract Documents and Construction Management, and a 30% contingency.

Q u an ti ty

Total $283,802

Total $279,699

Appendix C –

Humidity Temperature Graph

KEESLER AFB MS (Page 3 of 18)

KEESLER AFB MS WMO No. 747686

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Temperature ( o F)

H u m id it y

R at io gr /l b)

Long Term Psychrometric Summary

50% of all observations 80% of all observations 95% of all observations 97.5% of all observations 99% of all observations

Fred.Walker Line

Fred.Walker Line

Fred.Walker Polygonal Line

Fred.Walker Callout Shows readings exceed the listed maximum permitted RH exposure

Fred.Walker Callout Shows temperature readings exceed NFPA 72 and manufacturer's listed operating limits

Fred.Walker Text Box For equipment purposes the entire color balloon must fall below the 93% (blue) line.

Fred.Walker Callout Listed maximum 93% RH (relative humidity) operating limit

Fred.Walker Polygonal Line

Fred.Walker Callout NFPA 72 minimum operating 85% RH (relative humidity)

Appendix D –

Data Collection Survey

Base: Keesler AFB Team Member: Phil Delape

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Overall Information

X Wet-Pipe Preaction

Closed Head Foam Water

Water Only Deluge Foam Water Deluge

None deficiency

Other Foam Systems Installed: Monitor Nozzle X Hi-Ex

Grate Nozzle None x Other:

Is the system functional? x yes no

Is the system out of service? yes x no If yes, explain in comments

Hangar Dimensions/Total Area: 20630 SF Year Built

Hangar is not rectangular

Type of aircraft being protected: x Fueled Unfueled* yes x no

Hangar Use General Maintenance

Paint Booth X Fuel Cell Maintenance

Other

Manual Automatic X Both

Is the system in manual mode only? yes X no

If yes, is the system designed to be in manual mode only? yes X no

99.6% dry bulb temperature 30 °F yes no x n/a deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency

Base specific policies and practices that enhance fire protection (i.e.: training etc.)

Procedural deficiencies that could negatively impact hangar protection

Overhead Fire Suppression Systems (using sprinkler heads) Installed:

General

Fire department conducts unannounced fire drills on yearly basis at hangar.

none observed

Are the fire suppression systems automatic, manual or a combination of both?

*an unfueled aircraft is one that has had fuel removed from all tanks, engines and piping such that less than 0.5% of the fuel remains in the aircraft

Foam Generators

If the dry bulb temperature is less than 30°F, is there a temperature monitoring system? (ETL 02-15 §A1.5.4)

If the dry bulb temperature is less than 0° F, is there a preaction system installed? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.8)

Is the Hangar used exclusively for Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) (fueled or unfueled)? If so, no foam required (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.3)

General: Page 1 of 40

Team Member: Scott Bryant

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Do the exit doors have panic hardware? (SOW §8.4.5.4) yes x no

If no, how many are missing? 1

Do the doors have hydraulic closers? x yes no

If no, how many are missing?

Are the exit doors marked? (NFPA 101 §40.2.10) x yes no deficiency

If no, how many are not marked?

Are the exit signs illuminated? (NFPA 101 §7.10) x yes no n/a deficiency

Note: exit doors inside movable hangar doors do not require illumination

If no, how many aren't illuminated?

x yes no n/a deficiency x yes no deficiency

Locks x n/a yes no deficiency

Are the exit doors electrically locked? (NFPA 101 §7.2.5.1.6) yes no

If yes:

yes no n/a deficiency yes no n/a deficiency yes no n/a deficiency yes no n/a unknown deficiency yes no n/a unknown deficiency

Latches yes no deficiency yes no deficiency yes no deficiency

Egress from Hangar

For hangars greater than 5,000 ft², do exit door swing in the direction of egress?

Do the locks require use of a key, tool or special knowledge or effort for operation from the egress side? (NFPA 101 §7.2.1.5.3)

Are the door leaves arranged to be opened readily from the egress side whenever the building is occupied? (NFPA 101 §7.2.1.5.1)

Is the hardware for occupant release of the lock affixed to the door leaf?

Is the latch between 34 in and 48 in? (NFPA 101 §7.2.1.5.10.1)

Does the releasing mechanism open the door with only one releasing operation? (NFPA 101 §7.1.5.10.2)

Does the hardware have an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress?

Is the hardware capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress?

Does the operation of the hardware interrupt the power supply directly to the electric lock and unlock the door assembly in the direction of egress?

Does loss of power to the listed releasing hardware automatically unlock the door assembly in the direction of egress?

Do latches or other fastening devices have a releasing device that has an obvious method of operation under all lighting conditions? (knobs, levers, bars etc.) (NFPA 101 §7.2.1.5.10)

Egress: Page 2 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014 x yes no deficiency if no - actual ft.

yes no x n/a deficiency

Interior Exit Doors none x yes no deficiency if no - actual ft.

x yes no deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency if no - actual ft.

x yes no n/a deficiency if no - actual ft.

x yes no deficiency

Is there emergency lighting? (NFPA 101 §40.2.9) x yes no unknown deficiency

Egress x yes no deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency if no - actual ft.

x yes no n/a deficiency

Egress from Hangar (continued)

Is the distance between exterior doors less than 150 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.6.1.2)

If the hangar doors are fabric, are there compliant exit doors at each end of the fabric door (considered complaint by the Air Force)? (SOW §8.4.5.1)

Are interior exit doors less than 100 ft. apart? (NFPA 101 §40.6.1.3)

Note: a common path of travel is the distance traveled before a path to two different exits exists.

Is the maximum dead end corridor less than 50 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.5)

Is the travel distance from the door to the outside less than 250 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.6)

Is the common path of travel less than 100 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.5)

Is the means of egress from the interior exit door to the outside adequately marked? (NFPA 101 §40.2.10)

Are there a minimum of two means of egress from the hangar?

(NFPA 101 §40.6.1.1)

Is the maximum dead end corridor less than 50 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.6.3)

Are high hazard contents areas arranged so that there are no dead end corridors? (NFPA 101 §40.6.3)

Note: High hazard contents include areas: where flammable liquids or vapors are handled, or used, or stored under conditions involving possible release of flammable vapors; where grain dust, wood flour or plastic dust, aluminum or magnesium dust or other explosive dusts are produced; where hazardous chemicals or explosives are manufactured, stored or handled; where materials are processed or handled under conditions producing flammable flyings; and other situations of a similar hazard. (NFPA 101 §A6.2.2.4).

Egress: Page 3 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014 yes no deficiency yes no deficiency if no - actual ft.

Office/Shop structures inside the hangar bay greater than 100 ft² x n/a yes no deficiency yes no n/a deficiency if no - actual yes no n/a deficiency if no - actual

Is the common path of travel less than 100 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.5)

Note: a common path of travel is the distance traveled before a path to two different exits exists.

Is the maximum travel distance to that exit 75 ft. or less? (NFPA 101 §40.6.2)

Note: travel distance is measured from the further distance straight line across the mezzanine to top of stairs, down the stairs, then in a straight line to the exit door.

Is the travel distance from the door to the outside less than 250 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.6)

Egress from Hangar (continued)

Does the exit lead directly to a properly enclosed stair discharging directly to the exterior, to a suitable cutoff area or to outside stairs? (NFPA 101 §40.6.2)

Is the maximum dead end corridor less than 50 ft.? (NFPA 101 §40.2.5)

Egress: Page 4 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Egress Comments/Observations

2 exterior exits on hangar door signs and panic hardware

3 exterior exits in hangar bay with signs and panic hardware

1 interior exit with sign and no panic hardware

Egress: Page 5 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Sprinklers

Are the sprinklers quick response? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.5) x yes no unknown deficiency x yes no unknown deficiency

Inspectors Test Connection

Is there an inspectors test connection (NFPA 13 §8.17) x yes no deficiency x yes no n/a unknown deficiency x yes no n/a unknown deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency

Water Motor Gong/Electric Bell (NFPA 13 §8.17) yes no x n/a

Explain any deficiencies:

Fire Department Connection (NFPA 13 §8.17) x yes no n/a deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Other x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Does pipe hanger spacing appear to be adequate? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems (ETL 02-15) General

Does the water supply for the riser come in either outside above the floor or under the floor in a trench? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.6.2)

Is there at least 4 feet of exposed test pipe in a warm room beyond the valve where the pipe extends through the wall to the outside? (NFPA 13 §A.8.17.4.2)

Is the inspectors test valve located in an area protected from freezing? (NFPA 13 §A.8.17.4.2)

Do the sprinklers have either a 175°F temperature rating or a 200°F temperature rating? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.5)

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Is the inspectors test connection properly identified? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4 & AFLL 2012)

Is the inspectors test connection properly identified as to its normal position? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4 & AFLL 2012)

Wet-Pipe General: Page 6 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Wet-Pipe System Comments, Observations and Deficiencies System General sprinklers are Viking 300 series 200 F quick response.

Wet-Pipe General: Page 7 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Year Installed/Renewed 2006 System ID Hangar Bay Riser 2

Square Footage 5000 ft²

Riser Valve:

Type: x Riser Check Alarm Check Size 6 in.

Manufacturer

Model number

Operating Principle* x mechanical clapper axial diaphragm flat diaphragm yes x no x deficiency

Hydraulic Data Plate (NFPA 13 §25.5)

Is a hydraulic data plate attached to the riser? x yes no deficiency

If so: Design Area 5000 ft²

Density 0.2 gpm/ft²

Flow 1199.1 gpm

Pressure 80.19 psi

# Sprinklers 51 yes no x n/a unknown deficiency x yes no n/a unknown deficiency yes no x n/a unknown deficiency

Flow Switch x yes no n/a deficiency

Manufacturer

Model Number yes x no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Potter

VSR-F

Is it installed too close to any change of direction in pipe? (6" from change in direction and 24" from valve or drain)

For unfueled aircraft, is the design area 0.2 gpm/ft² over 3000 ft²? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.1)

For fueled aircraft, is the design area 0.2 gpm/ft² over 5000 ft²

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.2)

For NDI Hangars, is the design area 0.3 gpm/ft² over 3000 ft²

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.3)

Is there a pressure relief trim device above the riser valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.3)

Viking Easy Rider

F-1

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems (ETL 02-15) Riser 1 of 2

Wet Riser 1: Page 8 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Pressure Switch yes no x n/a deficiency

Manufacturer

Model Number

Explain any deficiencies:

System Shutoff Valve x yes no deficiency

Type Butterfly x Gate

Explain any deficiencies:

Riser Valve x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Valves yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

x yes no n/a unknown deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Are the following valves properly identified? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4, AFLL 2012, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.8)

System Shutoff Valves x yes no deficiency

Drain Valves x yes no deficiency x yes no deficiencyAre valves properly identified as to their normal position? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4, AFLL 2012, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.8)

Are supervised valves in their normal position? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4)

Valve supervision type, make/model: (AFLL 2010) Tamper/Victaullic series 705U Figure-V060351442

Are all valves, required to be supervised, supervised? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.2)

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems continued (ETL 02-15) Riser 1 of 2

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Wet Riser 1: Page 9 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Drains x yes no unknown deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Surge Suppressors yes x no x deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency

Is it rated at a pressure of 275 psi? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6) yes no x n/a deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency yes no x n/a unknown deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Is the size and length of pipe appropriate for the proper function of the surge suppressor? (AFLL 2012)

Expansion tank is installed 1" piping to expansion tank, not a surge suppressor

Is the surge suppressor located above the valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Are the surge suppressors either UL listed, FM approved or stamped per ASME code? (AFLL 2012)

Does each riser have a surge suppressor (not an expansion tank)? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Is the surge suppressor a minimum of 10 gallons? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems continued (ETL 02-15) Riser 1 of 2

Are all the drains connected to an appropriately sized sanitary system? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.7)

Wet Riser 1: Page 10 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Year Installed/Renewed 2006 System ID Hangar Bay Riser 3

Square Footage 5000 ft²

Riser Valve:

Type: x Riser Check Alarm Check Size 6 in.

Manufacturer

Model number

Operating Principle* x mechanical clapper axial diaphragm flat diaphragm yes x no x deficiency

Hydraulic Data Plate (NFPA 13 §25.5)

Is a hydraulic data plate attached to the riser? x yes no deficiency

If so: Design Area 5000 ft²

Density 0.2 gpm/ft²

Flow 1325.17 gpm

Pressure 83.36 psi

# Sprinklers 54 yes no x n/a unknown deficiency x yes no n/a unknown deficiency yes no x n/a unknown deficiency

Flow Switch x yes no n/a deficiency

Manufacturer

Model Number yes x no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems (ETL 02-15) Riser 2 of 2

Viking Easy Rider

F-1

For NDI Hangars, is the design area 0.3 gpm/ft² over 3000 ft²

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.3)

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

VSR-F

Is it installed too close to any change of direction in pipe? (6" from change in direction and 24" from valve or drain)

Is there a pressure relief trim device above the riser valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.3)

For unfueled aircraft, is the design area 0.2 gpm/ft² over 3000 ft²? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.1)

For fueled aircraft, is the design area 0.2 gpm/ft² over 5000 ft²

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.1.2)

Potter

Wet Riser 2: Page 11 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Pressure Switch yes no x n/a deficiency

Manufacturer

Model Number

Explain any deficiencies:

System Shutoff Valve x yes no deficiency

Type Butterfly x Gate

Explain any deficiencies:

Riser Valve x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Valves yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

x yes no n/a unknown deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Are the following valves properly identified? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4, AFLL 2012, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.8)

System Shutoff Valves x yes no deficiency

Drain Valves x yes no deficiency x yes no deficiency

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems continued (ETL 02-15) Riser 2 of 2

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Are supervised valves in their normal position? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4)

Tamper/Victaullic series 705U Figure-V060351442

Are valves properly identified as to their normal position? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4, AFLL 2012, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.8)

Are all valves, required to be supervised, supervised? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.2)

Valve supervision type, make/model: (AFLL 2010)

Wet Riser 2: Page 12 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Drains x yes no unknown deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Surge Suppressors yes x no x deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency

Is it rated at a pressure of 275 psi? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6) yes no x n/a deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency yes no x n/a unknown deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Are all the drains connected to an appropriately sized sanitary system? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.7)

Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems continued (ETL 02-15) Riser 2 of 2

Does each riser have a surge suppressor (not an expansion tank)? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Is the surge suppressor a minimum of 10 gallons? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Is the surge suppressor located above the valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.2.6)

Are the surge suppressors either UL listed, FM approved or stamped per ASME code? (AFLL 2012)

Is the size and length of pipe appropriate for the proper function of the surge suppressor? (AFLL 2012)

Expansion tank is installed 1" piping to expansion tank, not a surge suppressor

Wet Riser 2: Page 13 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Foam Tank(s)

Size 400 gal Type x Horizontal Bladder

Vertical Bladder

Atmospheric yes x no deficiency yes no x n/a deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency x yes no deficiency x yes no n/a deficiency

Manufacturer unknown

Is the foam concentrate system under constant pressure? yes x no deficiency

If yes - is it a stable water source? yes no x n/a

A stable water source is potable distribution without pumps.

A non stable water source is a pumped potable or non-potable water source yes x no yes x no

Is the tank atmospheric? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.1.4) yes x no

Test Header (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.5)

Is a test header provided? x yes no deficiency

Are there at least four hose fittings on the test header? x yes no n/a deficiency

Are the hose fittings on the test header 2 1/2"? x yes no n/a deficiency

Strainers (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.4)

Is a strainer provided upstream of all foam risers? yes x no x deficiency

If yes - is it basket type? yes no x n/a deficiency

Ansul/Part 419179 s/n 100001

Is there a reserve foam tank? (ETL 98-8 §A3.6.6.1 requires removal if present)

If you have bladder tanks, are they steel? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.7)

Are the foam storage tanks listed/approved for storage of foam concentrate? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.7)

If the tanks are atmospheric, are they non-metallic? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.7)

High-Expansion Foam Systems (use ETL 02-15) General

Note: Constant pressure systems have the water supply pipe connection on the valve manifold. The system is not under constant pressure if the water supply pipe connection comes after the foam releasing valve.

If you have a horizontal bladder tank, is there clear space at least the length of the tank on one end of the bladder tank to permit replacement of the bladder? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.7.2)

Does the foam tank have an ultrasonic level sensor with low level alarm? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.1.4.1)

Is the tank a minimum 500 gallons? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.1.4)

Hi-Ex General: Page 14 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Foam Pumps x n/a

Is there a redundant pump? yes no n/a deficiency

Number of pumps

Manufacturer Model

Size gpm psi

Manufacturer Model

Size gpm psi

Other x yes no deficiency

Explain deficiencies:

Is the foam concentrate pipe stainless steel? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.8x yes no unknown deficiency x yes no unknown x yes no deficiency

Explain deficiencies:

yes x no deficiency

If yes - how many?

x yes no deficiency

Explain deficiencies:

x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

High-Expansion Foam Systems (ETL 02-15) continued General

Is the equipment fully accessible for inspection, testing, maintenance and replacement of parts without removal of other equipment? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.3.1)

Does the water supply for the riser come in either outside above the floor or under the floor in a trench? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.1.6.2)

Is foam pipe Schedule 40 steel? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.6)

Does pipe hanger spacing appear to be adequate? (SOW §8.4.1.1)

Are there manual foam-water hose stations? (ETL 98-8 §A3.1.2 requires removal if present)

Are the generators located so that the foam will fall close to but not directly on the aircraft? (ETL 02-15 §A.1.3.3.1)

Hi-Ex General: Page 15 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

System Identification

Approximate year of installation: Square Footage: ft²

Riser Valve:

Type:

Manufacturer

Model Number

Size 6 in

Operating Principle Mechanical Clapper Axial Diaphragm x Flat Diaphragm

Hydraulic Data Plate (NFPA 13 §25.5)

Is a hydraulic data plate attached to the riser? x yes no deficiency

If so: Design Area 5000+entire ft²

Flow 2729.24 gpm

Pressure 101.57 psi

# Generators 6 Generators yes no x unknown deficiency

Concentrate Control Valve x yes no deficiency x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Proportioners

Is the proportioner size 6" or less? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.4.1) x yes no deficiency

If no, size:

yes no x n/a deficiency x yes no yes x no

Does the system use just one proportioner? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.1.2)

Is it operated by a connection to the alarm line of the automatic control valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.5)

H-1

Are in-line balanced proportioners used on all pumped systems?

(ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.4.2)

Is the proportioner a FoamTec 8" Model BFZ? (UFGS 21 13

20.00 30 §2.1.2)

Viking

Is a water powered ball valve used as the concentrate control valve? (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.4.5)

Rate of Discharge at least 2.6 ft³/min/ft²? (ETL 02- 15 §A1.3.3.3)

High-Expansion Foam Systems (use ETL 02-15) Riser 1 of 1

Deluge

Hangar Bay Hi-Ex System

Hi-Ex Riser: Page 16 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

System Shutoff Valve x yes no deficiency

Type x Butterfly Gate

Explain any deficiencies:

Riser Valve x yes no deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Pressure Switch x yes n/a

Manufacturer

Valves yes x no x deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Are supervised valves in their normal position? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4) x yes no unknown deficiency

Explain any deficiencies:

Valve supervision type: (AFLL 2010) yes x no yes x no n/a unknownAre the flow control valves configured so that they close slowly (10 - 15 seconds) and stop the flow in no more than 30 seconds?

(UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §2.1.3)

Is the system valve a flow control valve? (UFGS 21 13 20.00 30 §1.7.3)

Tamper/Victaulic series 705U figure 6035144

Are the following system components installed correctly by manufacturer's instructions? (SOW §8.4.1.1) isolation valves on concentrate piping, and water supply to bladder tank have no supervision.

Potter PS10-2

Are all valves, required to be supervised, supervised? (SOW

§8.4.2.2.4, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.2)

High-Expansion Foam Systems (ETL 02-15) continued Riser 1 of 1

Hi-Ex Riser: Page 17 of 40

Hangar Number: 4278 Date: 11-19-2014

Valves (continued)

Are the following valves properly identified? (SOW §8.4.2.2.4, AFLL 2012, NFPA 13 §8.16.1.1.8)

System Shutoff Valves x yes no deficiency

Drain Valves x yes no deficiency x yes no deficiency

Surge Suppressors (ETL 02-15 §A1.3.3.1.2) yes x no x deficiency

Is the surge suppressor a minimum of 10 gallons? yes no deficiency

Is it rated at a pressure of 275 psi? yes no deficiency

Is the surge suppressor located below the valve? yes no deficiency yes no n/a unknown deficiency yes no n/a deficiency

Explain any…