Jay, If I remember correctly, off the top of my head, the first frame of reference is that all combustible antifreeze should be removed. And in fact, this is absolutely mandated to occur by 2022. We chose ten years since we were making TIA changes in 2012.
The second potential scenario is that an existing antifreeze system my remain in service for the next 10 years, if the percentage in solution is less than 30% for Prop Glycol and less than 38% for glycerine. For systems with solutions between 30-40% for PG and 38-50% for Glycerine, they may remain in service only if an "approved deterministic risk assessment" performed. (And you know the definition of approved.) There is annex guidance about the markers that should be evaluated in the annex (MUST be done if it were me doing the work). As a committee, we discussed setting precise scenarios that could be pre-determined to be allowed. The conversation involved ceiling heights and hazards, among other things. The ideas for the pre-determined scenarios were shot down one by one. And we landed on the annex advisory language. It was highly suggested that the risk assessment should follow the SFPE guidelines for risk evaluations. However, this process was still too widely open to interpretation to be fully agreed upon. This leaves a very serious amount of exposure for the contractor that decides to proceed with the assessment concept. It is for the reasons of immense liability and the potential danger to life that I DO NOT ENDORSE the concept of leaving ANY antifreeze installed ANYWHERE. On an even more absurd note, the TIA's for the installation standards DO NOT ALLOW currently available antifreeze to be installed in new systems. (ESFR exception...) And still i get questions and hear comments about bidding work for Antifreeze Systems. MAKE THEM DRY!!!! DO NOT INSTALL OR USE COMBUSTIBLE ANTIFREEZE!!! I know and understand what truly boils down to the inconvenience of elimination fo these systems. But dude..... these are LIFE SAFETY systems. I'm done....whew. It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 25 and 13 Committees, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. Sincerely, Cecil Bilbo Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology Champaign, IL 217.607.0325 www.sprinkleracademy.com [email protected] OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!! > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:57:33 -0500 > Subject: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > I was just rereading NFPA 25 (2014) 5.3.4 and specifically 5.3.4.2.1 and if > I am reading it correctly, if the antifreeze is a type that is not > acceptable, it must be drained and replaced. But if you look at 5.3.4.2.1, > there are three criteria that you have to meet in order to use the premixed > antifreeze, including a risk assessment. Has anyone done this risk > assessment as shown in the annex? > > > -- > *Jay Stough* > SET, CFPS > _______________________________________________ > 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
