Limited Area sprinkler systems
The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Limited Area sprinkler systems
I have done a few of these type systems. Usually the ones I have done involve a mechanical room with a gas furnace or an elevator equipment room. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Limited Area sprinkler systems The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Birdcage systems
Not an issue. In a birdcage the riser is not serving and area greater than 5000 sq.ft. (usually). There may be dozens or dozens of dozens of risers. And it's not exactly clear in the definitions but in a birdcage the vertical piping more closely matches the definition of a branch line. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:06 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Birdcage systems Another post got me thinking (stand back). Section 8.15.21 and its commentary seem to require a multistory building be designed so each floor can be isolated while leaving the remainder of the system operational. If that's the case, birdcage systems are doo-doo. Now I've designed a lot of these type systems, so no high horse here. Just wondering how everybody (especially AHJ's) interprets or enforces this section. Ed Kramer Littleton, CO ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Limited Area sprinkler systems
I've done a few of the partial systems according to NFPA 101, but as you say, it is just a couple of heads in a space. That tops out a 6 sprinklers. However, the IBC one appears to go to 20. The one I have been asked to look at is 18. At 08:32 AM 3/31/2009, you wrote: I have done a few of these type systems. Usually the ones I have done involve a mechanical room with a gas furnace or an elevator equipment room. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Limited Area sprinkler systems The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PODs storage again
Travis, This product commodity falls within the same parameters as boat storage - there is no prescriptive requirement to follow. In fact, NFPA has issued a statement this particular type of storage arrangement is outside the scope of NFPA-13. That being said, I have done a fair amount of research into the PODS type storage arrangements for my own education and can offer the following as a starting point (guidelines) for your consideration. (A) I spoke, at length, with Ms. Elley Klausbruckner at Klausbruckner and Assoc. regarding the general requirements for this PODS type storage and specifically about your particular type of storage arrangement. Ms. Klausbruckner is a fire protection engineer and specializes in HPR risk analysis and protection and has been involved in many warehouse storage arrangements of this PODS/Crate type storage, including the brand name PODS facilities. (B) In all cases except one, they have designed the fire sprinkler system as an Exposed, Unnexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity storage arrangement. (C) In all cases except one, they have designed utilizing ESFR sprinklers, unless the building construction prohibited the ESFR protection. In the scenario where the building construction would not allow ESFR, they designed utilizing the area/density method for the appropriate storage height. (D) In the one case where they did NOT protect as a Group-A plastic commodity the pods/crates were constructed entirely of wood. In this scenario they required a letter from the owner of the facility that the amount of Group-A plastics within the pods/crates at any time were less than 5% to 15% by weight or 5% to 25% by volume. The crate itself was treated as part of the unit load and the entire unit load was classified as a Class-IV commodity. (E) For reference, upholstered furniture is classified as a Class-IV commodity per the IFC 2303.5 (See IFC Figure 2303.7.4) (F) Tyco Fire Products, per their own internal technical document also indicates ESFR protection for PODS type storage that have plastic tops on the containers. (G) An analysis done by Rolf Jensen and Associates and written up in the 2006 Edition of Fire Protection Engineering Magazine suggests the use of ESFR sprinklers for the Group-A plastics scenario as well, but also indicates a dual design area/density as another design option. I know some of our esteemed colleagues are still not entirely comfortable with the determination of the protection schemes for this particular type of storage and there is NO prescriptive direction from NFPA on the subject. However, they have been and are being built all over the country and are being sprinklered in some fashion. We can only provide the protection scheme that is most consistant with the experts in our field, FP engineers with risk analysis experience, and provide the protection scheme as determined by them. The consensus from my personal research, at least at this point, is to protect as an Exposed, Unexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity and provide ESFR protection if the building construction allows. I implore those of you with the expertise above and beyond what Travis and I have to weigh in and provide your insights and experiences into this commodity storage. As always, have and AWESOME day! Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: 2009-03-30 5:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PODs storage again I tried to search the archives, but keep getting a file not found error. I am looking at a PODs storage warehouse. There was a lot of discussion on the forums a while back, but I can't access all of it. The facility I am looking at has 24' storage. What is the general concensus of the protection req'd for these areas? Thanks in advance for your help. Travis Mack, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Limited Area sprinkler systems
Actually, the IBC section on limited area sprinkler systems goes up to 19 heads (fewer than 20). It also requires a hydraulic calc with a simultaneous plumbing demand. Eric J. Shelton, PE Senior Fire Protection Engineer Hankins and Anderson Consulting Engineers 4880 Sadler Road Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23060 v: (804) 521.7105 f: (804) 217.8520 http://www.haengineers.com Do you really need to print this e-mail? -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Limited Area sprinkler systems I've done a few of the partial systems according to NFPA 101, but as you say, it is just a couple of heads in a space. That tops out a 6 sprinklers. However, the IBC one appears to go to 20. The one I have been asked to look at is 18. At 08:32 AM 3/31/2009, you wrote: I have done a few of these type systems. Usually the ones I have done involve a mechanical room with a gas furnace or an elevator equipment room. Karen Purvis Senior Designer Facility Systems Consultants 713 South Central Street, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37902 ph.865-246-0164 fax 865-246-1084 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:44 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Limited Area sprinkler systems The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PODs storage again
The only hole in the thinking of the experts is their opinions are based on WAG not SWAG to my knowledge. I'm not suggesting they are wrong. I'd trust their knowledge a bit more if they had some test data (which doesn't exist) or at least some examples of fires and the outcome. Sure would be nice if they point to a fire with ESFR that was successfully contained. Has that happened and I'm not aware definitely probable. Think of it like this you see a problem with system and the contractor says well I've always done it like that. Doesn't make it right does it? And ESFR scares me a bit with its tendency to either work fully or burn the place down. At least with density systems there is a little reserve in my experience. And I'm totally comfortable if Elley or Rolf sign the design as EOR. Make it LH and I'm cool with their design. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ray Vance Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:09 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: PODs storage again Travis, This product commodity falls within the same parameters as boat storage - there is no prescriptive requirement to follow. In fact, NFPA has issued a statement this particular type of storage arrangement is outside the scope of NFPA-13. That being said, I have done a fair amount of research into the PODS type storage arrangements for my own education and can offer the following as a starting point (guidelines) for your consideration. (A) I spoke, at length, with Ms. Elley Klausbruckner at Klausbruckner and Assoc. regarding the general requirements for this PODS type storage and specifically about your particular type of storage arrangement. Ms. Klausbruckner is a fire protection engineer and specializes in HPR risk analysis and protection and has been involved in many warehouse storage arrangements of this PODS/Crate type storage, including the brand name PODS facilities. (B) In all cases except one, they have designed the fire sprinkler system as an Exposed, Unnexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity storage arrangement. (C) In all cases except one, they have designed utilizing ESFR sprinklers, unless the building construction prohibited the ESFR protection. In the scenario where the building construction would not allow ESFR, they designed utilizing the area/density method for the appropriate storage height. (D) In the one case where they did NOT protect as a Group-A plastic commodity the pods/crates were constructed entirely of wood. In this scenario they required a letter from the owner of the facility that the amount of Group-A plastics within the pods/crates at any time were less than 5% to 15% by weight or 5% to 25% by volume. The crate itself was treated as part of the unit load and the entire unit load was classified as a Class-IV commodity. (E) For reference, upholstered furniture is classified as a Class-IV commodity per the IFC 2303.5 (See IFC Figure 2303.7.4) (F) Tyco Fire Products, per their own internal technical document also indicates ESFR protection for PODS type storage that have plastic tops on the containers. (G) An analysis done by Rolf Jensen and Associates and written up in the 2006 Edition of Fire Protection Engineering Magazine suggests the use of ESFR sprinklers for the Group-A plastics scenario as well, but also indicates a dual design area/density as another design option. I know some of our esteemed colleagues are still not entirely comfortable with the determination of the protection schemes for this particular type of storage and there is NO prescriptive direction from NFPA on the subject. However, they have been and are being built all over the country and are being sprinklered in some fashion. We can only provide the protection scheme that is most consistant with the experts in our field, FP engineers with risk analysis experience, and provide the protection scheme as determined by them. The consensus from my personal research, at least at this point, is to protect as an Exposed, Unexpanded, Group-A plastic commodity and provide ESFR protection if the building construction allows. I implore those of you with the expertise above and beyond what Travis and I have to weigh in and provide your insights and experiences into this commodity storage. As always, have and AWESOME day! Ray Vance - SET Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. www.waynefire.com (407) 877-5563 office (321) 436-2184 mobile -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: 2009-03-30 5:30 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: PODs storage again
Re: Limited Area sprinkler systems
As identified by Karen, the IBC allows some locations (such as furnace rooms) to be individually protected (or a higher degree of separation). This is providing protection from this room to the rest of the building. So I guess the sleeping room is such a hazard that the rest of the building needs protection from it? More backwards thinking from a very qualified source. Wear your pointed boots when you talk to them. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:43 AM, Todd Williams wrote: The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PODs storage again
While true initially the HPR then is replaced next year by Billy Bob Joe's Insurance and they sue the contractor when it fails. HPR didn't legally engineer it as they are not the EOR usually even though they often drive a design, Codes don't cover it. You are out on your own at that point. proceed very cautiously is very wise. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: PODs storage again If the HPR insurance company makes a judgement call on how to protect it and it doesn't work, they pay for the loss. IF this guidance is not in the published HPR Loss Prevention Data sheets, then the consult is making the judgement call. Guess who will likely pay for the loss? Now here's the scary part. If the contractor takes the responsibility and provides the judgement call (typically considered consulting/engineering since guidance is not in 13 or other national standards) who will likely pay the claim? The moral of the story is when NFPA 13 does not address it, proceed very cautiously. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Chris Cahill wrote: The only hole in the thinking of the experts is their opinions are based on WAG not SWAG to my knowledge. I'm not suggesting they are wrong. I'd trust their knowledge a bit more if they had some test data (which doesn't exist) or at least some examples of fires and the outcome. Sure would be nice if they point to a fire with ESFR that was successfully contained. Has that happened and I'm not aware definitely probable. Think of it like this you see a problem with system and the contractor says well I've always done it like that. Doesn't make it right does it? And ESFR scares me a bit with its tendency to either work fully or burn the place down. At least with density systems there is a little reserve in my experience. And I'm totally comfortable if Elley or Rolf sign the design as EOR. Make it LH and I'm cool with their design. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY DRY SYSTEM
This requirement for 15 Sec. delivery in residential dry systems already exists in NFPA 13 2007, Table 7.2.3.6.1 Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY DRY SYSTEM The NFPA 13 ROP and ROC both have items that should help clear up the issue. IF the proposals are accepted as written, any sprinkler protecting a dwelling unit (residential or QR) fed from a dry system will have to deliver water within 15 sec. (Reference section 7.2.3 and subsections) Ed Kramer Littleton, CO Art, Where does the 15 seconds come from? I can't find anything in 13. Is it 101? is it a local requirement? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: PODs storage again
1. If you can get the insurer to spec the design, good. 2. If the EOR spec's the design, protect yourself as best you can. Refer all questions of changes to them so they assume responsibility for every decision. 3. If you as a contractor are asked to make the design decisions, Walk, Run, take a plane to your favorite get away, but refuse the job. Sometimes the best thing for both you and the customer is to not do the job, as presented. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:59 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: PODs storage again If the HPR insurance company makes a judgement call on how to protect it and it doesn't work, they pay for the loss. IF this guidance is not in the published HPR Loss Prevention Data sheets, then the consult is making the judgement call. Guess who will likely pay for the loss? Now here's the scary part. If the contractor takes the responsibility and provides the judgement call (typically considered consulting/engineering since guidance is not in 13 or other national standards) who will likely pay the claim? The moral of the story is when NFPA 13 does not address it, proceed very cautiously. Roland ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY DRY SYSTEM
true but the text is weakly worded. The section that references the Table says based on the hazard not the type of sprinkler (as does the Table). I believe the intent was for residential sprinklers (for which a 15 sec requirement exists as part of the listing test standard) but writing what you mean can be a challenge. As pointed out by Ed, the 2010 clarifies it nicely. It was an interesting evolution. It started with the standard dry pipe rule: 60 sec for systems greater than 500 gal and said any size system protecting residential dwellings shall not exceed 60 sec. Then it was pushed down to 15 sec. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Thom McMahon wrote: This requirement for 15 Sec. delivery in residential dry systems already exists in NFPA 13 2007, Table 7.2.3.6.1 Thom McMahon, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: Limited Area sprinkler systems
This is similar to the requirement for Basements over a certain area. 903.2.10.1 Stories and basements without openings. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in every story or basement of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2) and where there is not provided at least one of the following types of exterior wall openings: 1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1009 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1010. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least one side. 2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling at least 20 square feet (1.86 m2) in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least one side. You can have a sprinkler system that protects only the basement, or non complying story. The code doesn't say to provide an automatic sprinkler system for all buildings that contain, it says the story or basement shall be protected with automatic sprinklers. (A Partial system, of at least 4 EC heads,[4 x 400 = 1600 SF] or 20 or more depending on the total area.) Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:07 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Limited Area sprinkler systems As identified by Karen, the IBC allows some locations (such as furnace rooms) to be individually protected (or a higher degree of separation). This is providing protection from this room to the rest of the building. So I guess the sleeping room is such a hazard that the rest of the building needs protection from it? More backwards thinking from a very qualified source. Wear your pointed boots when you talk to them. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:43 AM, Todd Williams wrote: The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Limited Area sprinkler systems
This is me we're talking about. I'll wear hip waiters and carry a bazooka. I got a proposal a few years back for a 58 head system fed from 10 separate risers from the 3/4 public connection (6 heads off a domestic system times 10 systems, right?). Same town; I hope not the same guy. I have no idea what the logic is behind this, but it's probably not sound. I was just wondering if there is anything in IBC that I am missing about the Limited Area systems At 12:06 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote: As identified by Karen, the IBC allows some locations (such as furnace rooms) to be individually protected (or a higher degree of separation). This is providing protection from this room to the rest of the building. So I guess the sleeping room is such a hazard that the rest of the building needs protection from it? More backwards thinking from a very qualified source. Wear your pointed boots when you talk to them. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:43 AM, Todd Williams wrote: The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: Limited Area sprinkler systems
This sounds like something as ridiculous as I saw once. A dorm above a restaurant Surely someone is trying to protect the sleeping rooms from a fire in the restaurant. And by sprinklering the rooms?? Ed Vining On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Todd Williams t...@fpdc.com wrote: The IBC mentions Limited Area sprinkler systems with a veiled reference being 20 sprinklers or less. However, there is no formal definition or description as to what they are or where they are allowed. Any thoughts or experience with this? I have a proposal on my desk for a partial system covering some sleeping rooms above a restaurant (for employees). The rest of the building is unprotected. Supposedly it is being required to renew their liquor permit. Since I doubt the Liquor Commission has jurisdiction over fire protection, I'm assuming that this is coming from the Fire Marshal. Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.orgto%3asprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) -- Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY DRY SYSTEM
I wish that existed many editions ago. One of our clients have 20+ group residences built in the 70's and 80's, more like large ranch houses, they house severely mentally retarded adults. Most have 3 or 4 DPV's and sch40 systems throughout the attics feeding uprights and dry pendents. Some of these systems we wait up to 2 minutes for a solid stream of water and they're not very large which is the strange part, maybe 2500 SF. We've done work on them, accelerators, repaired broken pipe, air compressors, etc., and even replaced some with perimeter soffitted cpvc wet systems. I just scratch my head (and get splinters) on some of these wondering about what might happen if they ever had to wait that long. I don't know if there was some sort of loophole allowing really small pipe in those days (early 13R?) but most were done by out of state contractors no longer around. It's very humbling to spend time in one of these settings, even having a retarded brother. I had to go there on a Christmas Eve a few years ago for a head that started leaking and the system tripped, they have to wheelchair them out to vans with the heaters running, all freaked out, one at a time. 15 seconds is great. I don't mean to blab on but if it was any kind of use similar to this one, I'd find a way to provide a wet system if I could. Tom true but the text is weakly worded. The section that references the Table says based on the hazard not the type of sprinkler (as does the Table). I believe the intent was for residential sprinklers (for which a 15 sec requirement exists as part of the listing test standard) but writing what you mean can be a challenge. As pointed out by Ed, the 2010 clarifies it nicely. It was an interesting evolution. It started with the standard dry pipe rule: 60 sec for systems greater than 500 gal and said any size system protecting residential dwellings shall not exceed 60 sec. Then it was pushed down to 15 sec. Roland On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Thom McMahon wrote: This requirement for 15 Sec. delivery in residential dry systems already exists in NFPA 13 2007, Table 7.2.3.6.1 Thom McMahon, SET ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
FW: [NJFireSafety] Upstate NY Group Home Fire - Sprinkler System Failure?
FYI John Drucker Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:34 PM Subject: [NJFireSafety] Upstate NY Group Home Fire - Sprinkler System Failure? An important fire that should be studied Here is he local newspaper's accounts of the fire. A 13D system? 4 die as plan 'impractical' State: Evacuation of group home not fast enough to ensure safety of residents By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau Click byline for more stories by writer. First published: Saturday, March 28, 2009 State officials knew it would be impractical to evacuate all nine residents of the Adirondack group home that caught fire a week ago. Tragically, they were correct: Four of the home's nine severely disabled residents died in a pre-dawn blaze March 21 at the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities' Riverview facility in Wells, Hamilton County. According to documents obtained by the Times Union, the Riverview residents were too frail or immobile to be quickly evacuated in the event of a fire. For that reason, the home received the slowest of three ratings ? prompt, slow or impractical ? that OMRDD uses to describe how long an evacuation should take. The difficulty of a potential evacuation was anticipated from the very beginning, said Patricia Martinelli, an OMRDD lawyer. That's the population we built it for. Only two of the residents had the ability to exit the ranch-style house under their own power. An impractical rating doesn't mean people can't be evacuated, but represents an acknowledgement that it couldn't be done quickly enough to ensure the residents' safety given the number of staff members in a building. As a result of the rating, and the fact that four of the residents had previously lived in the notorious Willowbrook center in Staten Island, Riverview was equipped with a sprinkler system, which is not required in all OMRDD facilities. Following a 1972 lawsuit over Willowbrook's conditions, former residents of the center were accorded extra oversight. State investigators are continuing to investigate the fire's cause, and it remained unclear if the building's network of sprinklers and its water supply functioned as they are supposed to. We have every reason to believe at this point that they did function, Martinelli said. There were two overnight workers at Riverview, and there have been questions about whether that was adequate given the immobility of the residents and the impractical'' rating. The real issue is what was the evacuation plan, and was it adequate, including the number of staff? asked Beth Haroules, an NYCLU lawyer who represents the former Willowbrook residents. Their evacuation plan was inadequate because it clearly failed, she said. In some OMRDD facilities, evacuation would be so difficult that residents are supposed to remain in the building behind fire doors, and wait for help. These so-called defend in place policies, which have been used in some Central New York OMRDD facilities, are controversial. It's Russian roulette, said Susan McLaughlin, a former advocate for the Willowbrook class of residents. McLaughlin said she had protested a defend in place-style policy that had been proposed for a facility in Port Leyden, Lewis County. McLaughlin is currently suing the state over what she contends is her firing for acting as a whistleblower regarding OMRDD problems. According to OMRDD documents, the Riverview facility, which was less than a year old, was inspected by the state Dormitory Authority and underwent periodic inspections by OMRDD. For the most part, OMRDD sets its own standards for evacuation protocol. For many smaller residences, fire drills call for evacuations within five or six minutes. OMRDD oversees its own periodic safety inspections, once the facility is certified by the state Dormitory Authority. The emerging details of the fire suggests a scene of horror inside the building as the two overnight workers tried desperately to get people out of a house that was supposed to be relatively fire-resistant. According to one report, two of those pulled out of the house suffered rug burns as workers literally dragged them outside. And two of the dead supposedly made it to the door of the house, but wandered back toward their rooms in a disoriented state. Eyewitness accounts suggested a fast-moving, all-consuming fire. A woman walking her dog 2 miles away said she saw a red glow in the sky. Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury, surveyed the Riverview fire scene hours after the blaze. Little said she spoke with one of the two employees on the 11 p.m.-7 a.m. shift, a woman who suffered a dislocated shoulder ? possibly from trying to pull people to safety. This is a brand-new house, and how it got so out of control so quickly is unbelievable, Little said. Bedrooms had large windows at ground level. A capable person could have lifted the window and stepped out. It was a sturdy house, added Tony Abrantes, the Lake George builder who put up the home. He didn't
FW: CPVC
Does anyone have any information regarding the request below? Thanks in advance. Carl Chappell From: Chris Brown [mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:45 PM To: Chappell, Carl Subject: CPVC Carl, Can you ask the sprinkler forum if anyone has read a case study regarding the compounds (oils for protection) used inside steal pipe not being compatible with CPVC? Thank you, Chris Brown Managing Partner Certified Life Safety, LLC 5880 West 319th Street Louisburg, Kansas 66053 Telephone: 913.636.2260 Fax: 913.837.4195 Toll Free: 877.707.FIRE (3473) Web: www.certifiedlifesafety.com Email Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: CPVC
I would contact the manufacturers and lunizol. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chappell, Carl cchapp...@rjagroup.com Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:57:55 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: CPVC Does anyone have any information regarding the request below? Thanks in advance. Carl Chappell From: Chris Brown [mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:45 PM To: Chappell, Carl Subject: CPVC Carl, Can you ask the sprinkler forum if anyone has read a case study regarding the compounds (oils for protection) used inside steal pipe not being compatible with CPVC? Thank you, Chris Brown Managing Partner Certified Life Safety, LLC 5880 West 319th Street Louisburg, Kansas 66053 Telephone: 913.636.2260 Fax: 913.837.4195 Toll Free: 877.707.FIRE (3473) Web: www.certifiedlifesafety.com Email Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: CPVC
Absolutely - some anti-MIC 1st generation coatings were identified as potentially incompatible, but I heard that has been reconciled in current products. Steve L. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Forest Wilson cherokeefire...@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:00:17 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: CPVC I would contact the manufacturers and lunizol. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chappell, Carl cchapp...@rjagroup.com Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:57:55 To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: CPVC Does anyone have any information regarding the request below? Thanks in advance. Carl Chappell From: Chris Brown [mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:45 PM To: Chappell, Carl Subject: CPVC Carl, Can you ask the sprinkler forum if anyone has read a case study regarding the compounds (oils for protection) used inside steal pipe not being compatible with CPVC? Thank you, Chris Brown Managing Partner Certified Life Safety, LLC 5880 West 319th Street Louisburg, Kansas 66053 Telephone: 913.636.2260 Fax: 913.837.4195 Toll Free: 877.707.FIRE (3473) Web: www.certifiedlifesafety.com Email Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3971 (20090328)__ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com http://www.eset.com ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
RE: CPVC
Carl, While I am not aware of any published case studies per-se, I do know you can go to manufacturers' websites for good information. For Spears, check out www.spearsmfg.com and click the link for Flameguard information. Scroll to the bottom for their document on this topic. For Blazemaster products, go to www.systemcompatible.com. Click the systems compatible link and you'll find their version of what you need. I hope this helps... Paul Johnson Bardane, Inc. Visioning a competitive workforce (407) 401-7154 - Office (407) 399-5081 - Mobile pjohn...@bardane.net www.bardane.net -Original Message- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chappell, Carl Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:58 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: CPVC Does anyone have any information regarding the request below? Thanks in advance. Carl Chappell From: Chris Brown [mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:45 PM To: Chappell, Carl Subject: CPVC Carl, Can you ask the sprinkler forum if anyone has read a case study regarding the compounds (oils for protection) used inside steal pipe not being compatible with CPVC? Thank you, Chris Brown Managing Partner Certified Life Safety, LLC 5880 West 319th Street Louisburg, Kansas 66053 Telephone: 913.636.2260 Fax: 913.837.4195 Toll Free: 877.707.FIRE (3473) Web: www.certifiedlifesafety.com Email Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: FW: CPVC
Contact Blazemaster. They have a publication that lists compatible products. I recently picked up a hand out at a trade show. At 07:57 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote: Does anyone have any information regarding the request below? Thanks in advance. Carl Chappell From: Chris Brown [mailto:cbr...@certifiedlifesafety.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:45 PM To: Chappell, Carl Subject: CPVC Carl, Can you ask the sprinkler forum if anyone has read a case study regarding the compounds (oils for protection) used inside steal pipe not being compatible with CPVC? Thank you, Chris Brown Managing Partner Certified Life Safety, LLC 5880 West 319th Street Louisburg, Kansas 66053 Telephone: 913.636.2260 Fax: 913.837.4195 Toll Free: 877.707.FIRE (3473) Web: www.certifiedlifesafety.com Email Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contains information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Re: FW: [NJFireSafety] Upstate NY Group Home Fire - Sprinkler System Failure?
John, Please keep us informed of how this develops. I have done several similar type homes; the last one being for 6 multiple handicapped children that are not self rescuing. All have been full 13 systems (wet). If there is a problem, I want to know about it. Fortunately, CT allows the locals to oversee pretty much everything and the State only gets involved for state-owned project or when asked. Never had a butt out line from the state to the locals. Very sad. At 06:53 PM 3/31/2009, you wrote: FYI John Drucker Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:34 PM Subject: [NJFireSafety] Upstate NY Group Home Fire - Sprinkler System Failure? An important fire that should be studied Here is he local newspaper's accounts of the fire. A 13D system? 4 die as plan 'impractical' State: Evacuation of group home not fast enough to ensure safety of residents By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau Click byline for more stories by writer. First published: Saturday, March 28, 2009 State officials knew it would be impractical to evacuate all nine residents of the Adirondack group home that caught fire a week ago. Tragically, they were correct: Four of the home's nine severely disabled residents died in a pre-dawn blaze March 21 at the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities' Riverview facility in Wells, Hamilton County. According to documents obtained by the Times Union, the Riverview residents were too frail or immobile to be quickly evacuated in the event of a fire. For that reason, the home received the slowest of three ratings ? prompt, slow or impractical ? that OMRDD uses to describe how long an evacuation should take. The difficulty of a potential evacuation was anticipated from the very beginning, said Patricia Martinelli, an OMRDD lawyer. That's the population we built it for. Only two of the residents had the ability to exit the ranch-style house under their own power. An impractical rating doesn't mean people can't be evacuated, but represents an acknowledgement that it couldn't be done quickly enough to ensure the residents' safety given the number of staff members in a building. As a result of the rating, and the fact that four of the residents had previously lived in the notorious Willowbrook center in Staten Island, Riverview was equipped with a sprinkler system, which is not required in all OMRDD facilities. Following a 1972 lawsuit over Willowbrook's conditions, former residents of the center were accorded extra oversight. State investigators are continuing to investigate the fire's cause, and it remained unclear if the building's network of sprinklers and its water supply functioned as they are supposed to. We have every reason to believe at this point that they did function, Martinelli said. There were two overnight workers at Riverview, and there have been questions about whether that was adequate given the immobility of the residents and the impractical'' rating. The real issue is what was the evacuation plan, and was it adequate, including the number of staff? asked Beth Haroules, an NYCLU lawyer who represents the former Willowbrook residents. Their evacuation plan was inadequate because it clearly failed, she said. In some OMRDD facilities, evacuation would be so difficult that residents are supposed to remain in the building behind fire doors, and wait for help. These so-called defend in place policies, which have been used in some Central New York OMRDD facilities, are controversial. It's Russian roulette, said Susan McLaughlin, a former advocate for the Willowbrook class of residents. McLaughlin said she had protested a defend in place-style policy that had been proposed for a facility in Port Leyden, Lewis County. McLaughlin is currently suing the state over what she contends is her firing for acting as a whistleblower regarding OMRDD problems. According to OMRDD documents, the Riverview facility, which was less than a year old, was inspected by the state Dormitory Authority and underwent periodic inspections by OMRDD. For the most part, OMRDD sets its own standards for evacuation protocol. For many smaller residences, fire drills call for evacuations within five or six minutes. OMRDD oversees its own periodic safety inspections, once the facility is certified by the state Dormitory Authority. The emerging details of the fire suggests a scene of horror inside the building as the two overnight workers tried desperately to get people out of a house that was supposed to be relatively fire-resistant. According to one report, two of those pulled out of the house suffered rug burns as workers literally dragged them outside. And two of the dead supposedly made it to the door of the house, but wandered back toward their rooms in a disoriented state. Eyewitness accounts suggested a fast-moving, all-consuming fire. A woman walking her dog 2 miles away said she saw a red glow in the sky. Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury, surveyed the Riverview fire
