Jim,

The actual Committee Statement reads: “The proposed language is redundant. All NFPA documents are ‘intended be used in accord with the intent of the NFPA.’”

This “Committee Comment” was an explanation of why the committee rejected your proposal ROP Log #150 in which you proposed the sentence, “It is intended this document be used with the intent of the National Fire Protection Association.” be added to the Scope of the document was merely quoting from your own proposal, thus the quotation marks.

The intent of the NFPA regarding 921 is clearly stated in Scope and Purpose sections (EMPHASIS ADDED):

“1.1 Scope.
This document is designed to assist individuals who are charged with the responsibility of investigating and analyzing fire and explosion incidents and rendering opinions as to the origin, cause, responsibility, or prevention of such incidents.”

“1.2 Purpose.
1.2.1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SAFE AND SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION OR ANALYSIS OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION INCIDENTS. Fire investigation or analysis and the accurate listing of causes is fundamental to the protection of lives and property from the threat of hostile fire or explosions. It is through an efficient and accurate determination of the cause and responsibility that future fire incidents can be avoided. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A MODEL FOR THE ADVANCEMENT AND PRACTICE OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION INVESTIGATION, FIRE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND METHODOLOGY.”

When I voted affirmatively to reject your proposal, along with that Committee Statement, my intention was to let you down easy, without actually saying that your proposal simply didn’t make any sense.

Also,where in the world did you or anyone ever get the idea that Pat Kennedy, or the committee, or the NFPA ever hold that 921 was mandatory?

Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[www.kennedy-fire.com]