Is there not any merit to the argument that it was tested, found to be safe, and then reinstated into the code by a panel of experts who felt it was safe enough to use in that capacity? It is not even that it was left as an option through a lack of action. It was taken out as a precaution - then they went through the trouble of adding it back, presumably because it was safe to do so?
Is the overall consensus that the members of the NFPA 13 committee intentionally re-wrote the 2010 edition of the standard so that it is indefensible and dangerous? It seems like the 48% pre-mixed mandate for antifreeze meets the purpose of the standard "to provide a reasonable degree of protection". This seems like every other aspect of sprinkler systems: The NFPA 13 standard prescribes a minimum level of protection and anyone who wants more safety/protection/higher standard of care is welcome to pay for it. Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II Sales Engineer Alliance Fire Protection 130 w 9th Ave. North Kansas City, MO 64116 *Licensed in KS & MO 913.888.0647 ph 913.888.0618 f 913.927.0222 cell www. AFPsprink.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Antifreeze systems I think the legal case would depend on the harm or potential harm done to humans. If you were litigating an antifreeze case involving a dwelling unit fire that was enhanced by your anti-freeze system, you'd likely be out of luck regardless of the adopted code (assuming you installed the system after the NFPA TIAs on antifreeze). If it was a fire in an attached cold storage room or generator - maybe you'd be o.k. If it did meet code, I'd be sure I had written documentation to the owner about your concerns prior to installing. I wouldn't even consider installing an antifreeze system in a residential setting regardless of how outdated the current code may be. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:12 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Antifreeze systems Legally you might get by. But when the lawyers get done with you knew (or should have) as an industry professional that installing a system with antifreeze that was against current industry standards - good luck. As someone stated earlier - people and evidence will be lined up against your position. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Antifreeze systems I agree with Chris on this one. How can you be prosecuted for a code that wasn't adopted by law in your state? That would be like saying if you design and install a system per an older legally adopted version of NFPA 13 and something happens you could be prosecuted for not following a more strict rule from the latest edition of NFPA 13. I try not to design with antifreeze anymore but my state still allows it because they have adopted the 2006 IBC and 07ed of NFPA 13. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Wellen Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Antifreeze systems I'm hearing jurisdictions saying that the antifreeze ban does not apply to them. It is my understanding that NFPA intended for the new requirements to apply regardless of what standard is in effect. DO NOT INSTALL NEW ANTIFREEZE SYSTEMS AT THIS TIME. Wait for the listed solution - but don't hold your breath. Protect yourself and protect your company. The liability is too great to accept. There are other options out there - dry pipe, preaction, wet in a heated insulated attic, construct the attic out of noncombustible, limited combustible, or fire treated wood. If you proceed with the antifreeze installation knowing or not knowing this hazard, you'll have nothing to stand on in court. Many will testify against you. I'm not an attorney, but if you proceed with that known hazard, it could be processed a criminal matter. This is not worth ending up in the clink. Tom Wellen > On Jun 3, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Cahill, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is really a legal question which will vary by jurisdiction. NFPA and various associations I believe agree with you. I've even seen some Fire Marshal's state they are retroactive. But I don't think it has been legally tested. I'm in a Hampton not a Holiday Inn Express but the way I read MN law for example I don't see any way TIA's can be legally enforced retroactively. It has to go through the proper Code adoption procedures as prescribed in law. The biggest hang up is it has to be published before notice to adopt is issued. If MN has just adopted a version of 13 (or anything else) and tomorrow a TIA comes out it's hard to argue the TIA was out and part of the debate during the code adaption cycle that would have begun 18 months ago. Now if they are in the cycle to adopt they can certainly add it rather late in the game as an amendment but then it's not a TIA and it's not effective to previous version one would be working under while the next version is in cycle. > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Associate Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > [email protected] > www.burnsmcd.com > *Registered in: MN > > > Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work > For > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Travis Mack, SET > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 6:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Antifreeze systems > > If a TIA is issued, does that become retro-active to previous standards? > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > 480-505-9271 > fax: 866-430-6107 > email:[email protected] > > http://www.mfpdesign.com > https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > > On 6/3/2015 4:41 PM, Forest Wilson wrote: >> It also depends on what edition of NFPA 13 has been adopted by your jurisdiction. >> >> >> >> >> Forest Wilson >> Fire Sprinkler Contractor >> PH: 937-736-0425 >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rongreenman . <[email protected]> >> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 2:27 pm >> Subject: Re: Antifreeze systems >> >> >> The reason I have no hair is local jurisdictions thinking they have a >> better insight into these problems than the committee because they >> have a "special" >> problem. I think they want the attic system because they're afraid of >> firefighters falling through the roof. My solution has always been, >> if this is a concern don't go on the roof. The shoe purpose of a 13R >> is to afford residents more tenable escape time. If everyone is >> standing on the sidewalk, surround and drown. Only my opinion though. >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:15 AM, >> Parsley Consulting < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Travis, >>> I >> believe you have this correct, however, there's also a hook in the >>> applicable >> sections for 13R systems. >>> That link (if you scroll down), shows you the >> page, you see the >>> revised section 5.4.2 for 13R, and it notes that ares >> needing freeze >>> protection can use anti-freeze if it is a listed solution per >> NFPA 13, and >>> the installation of that sort of system is to be per NFPA 13. >>> >> Sounds like the AHJ for you Jay is stepping way out on a limb. I >>> don't know >> if I'd do this sort of work with this sort of problem hanging >>> over the >> project, even if I did get the AHJ's instructions in writing with >>> their >> signature. For me, one of the early seminars I attended included an >>> advisory >> that "How are you going to defend installing a system with >>> anti-freeze when >> you know it has this issue?" >>> Or maybe ask the AHJ if they're going to >> defend you in court, and >>> definitely get that in writing, since they're asking >> you to install >>> something outside of the adopted standard. >>> *Ken Wagoner, >> SET >>> *Parsley Consulting*** >>> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >>> *Escondido, >> California 92025 >>> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >>> Visit our website >> <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> >>> >>> *** >>> On 06/03/2015 10:52 AM, >> Travis Mack, SET wrote: >>>> Jay: >>>> >>>> The way I read that link is that you >> can use AF listed for ESFR systems, >>>> or you can use premix solutions in >> "specific areas" of a new 13D >>>> installation. It doesn't say anywhere that it >> is permitted in a 13R or 13 >>>> system based on that link. >>>> >>>> So, if you >> are 13R, I don't see how it would comply with the >>>> requirements. But, maybe >> I am reading something wrong. >>>> Travis Mack, SET >>>> MFP Design, LLC >>>> >> 2508 E Lodgepole Drive >>>> Gilbert, AZ 85298 >>>> 480-505-9271 >>>> fax: >> 866-430-6107 >>>> email:[email protected] >>>> >>>> http://www.mfpdesign.com >>>> >> https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 >>>> Send large files >> to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >>>> On 6/3/2015 10:48 AM, >> Jay Stough wrote: >>>>> I have an AHJ that is telling me to install an >> antifreeze system in a 13R >>>>> attic. They have an ordinance requiring attics >> to be protected in 13R >>>>> and >>>>> 13D systems if deemed appropriate by the >> fire marshal. I was under the >>>>> impression that after September of 2012 you >> could not install new >>>>> antifreeze systems without listed solution, which at >> the present time is >>>>> not available. He is telling me that it just has to be >> premixed. >>>>> When I go to the NFPA website, at >>>>> >>>>> >> http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/fire-and-safety- >> e >> quipment/home-fire-sprinklers/current-requirements-for-sprinkler-syst >> e >> ms-containing-antifreeze, >>>>> >> it appears that you can use premixed, even at the higher concentrations. >>>>> >> Am I reading this correctly? >>>>> *Jay Stough* >>>>> NICET IV LAYOUT >>>>> >> NICET III ITM >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >>>>> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing >> list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing >> list >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org >> >> >> -- >> >> Ron Greenman >> Instructor >> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College >> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >> Tacoma, WA >> 98405 >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >> >> 253.680.7346 >> 253.576.9700 >> (cell) >> >> Member: >> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >> >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >> >> A problem well >> stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and >> engineer >> (1876-1958) >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum >> mailing >> list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> l >> er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
