Jerry,
I think it is great that you recognize that Mr Fleming's statements regarded
preliminary data. I am troubled that you did not refer to the final report.
The final report did not support the concept that removing one of those
variables would 'eliminate' the risk. (Even though it MAY eliminate the
explosion.)
Your statement, "This is how we do it and will continue ..." finds me very
discouraged.
What I hear when I read that is, "Look, if someone gets hurt because of a
sprinkler system that we knew had that potential, it's not our problem. The
AHJ said it was ok."
Disappointed, indeed.
Cecil
It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA,
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!!
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze Comment(s)
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:12:45 -0500
>
> Good morning to All:
>
>
> I have read much about anti-freeze and appreciate having received very
> valuable info (and advice) from this Forum. After nearly 40 years in this
> 'biz', I have come to respect the opinions and shared knowledge of my
> sprinkler colleagues. That said...
>
>
>
> We continue to design anti-freeze systems, typically with CPVC/glycerin
> applications. Why? Well, for one, some of our Clients require it, to wit: We
> have a current Client - I have mentioned him before in this Forum - who
> refuses to have dry-pipe systems installed in his buildings. This is a
> well-informed billionaire who knows what he wants, and he is going to get
> what he demands. Other Clients have similar reservations and, after much
> dialogue, we proceed with the glycerin systems.
>
>
>
> I/we fully recognize that no amount of written agreements and/or
> 'understandings' mean much once it goes in to a court of law. I do rely
> heavily on the early results Russ Fleming gave us at an NFSA/ Puget Sound
> meeting a few years back: the anti-freeze flash/explosion scenario could not
> be replicated in laboratory settings when one of three items were removed
> from the test protocol: high system pressures (100+ psi?), small orifice/2.8
> K, elevated levels of glycerin/glycol. I believe there is a reason these
> "mishaps" with anti-freeze are so rare - and I believe the aforementioned
> test results play a major part in the equation.
>
>
>
>
> Proceeding with caution is always advisable in our business/profession. I
> have been designing anti- freeze systems (primarily in homes/13'D') and have
> yet to experience problems beyond thread leaks. Call me foolish, lucky,
> naive, reckless - our Clients are fully informed before the decision is made
> to go with anti-freeze and we get it in writing and submit the forms to our
> attorneys. This is how we do it and will continue as long as the AHJ and our
> FPE's 'endorse' it.
>
>
> Okay - I'm ready for the "feedback" (blow-back??) And, yes, Cecil/Top: I have
> 50/50 "field-mixed" glycerin in my CPVC sprinkler system in the home we built
> 10+ years ago here in Santa Fe - and we do not have commercial-type cooking
> equipment in our kitchen...
>
>
> Gracias from Nuevo Mejico!!
>
>
> Jerry
> [email protected]
>
>
> Jerry D. Watts, SFPE
> President & Co-Founder
> ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.
> Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
> (800) 503.1961
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Top Myers <[email protected]>
> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]>
> Sent: Mon, Jan 27, 2014 6:52 pm
> Subject: RE: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze
>
>
> I would recommend to everyone the website www.nfpa.org/antifreeze. There is
> a
> lot of good information and a video by Matt Klaus that discusses the
> antifreeze
> story should be helpful.
>
> This leads me to the risk assessment. There were some very interesting test
> results from the various tests of sprinklers in various scenarios with
> different
> heights, pressures, orifice size etc. A risk assessment would allow you to
> take
> these results and apply them to a particular site. This of course would have
> to
> be approved by AHJ. A PE is not required but I would recommend an FPE who
> understands the tests results.
>
> Happy winter to all......
>
> Top Myers
> RelMark Group
> 961 Pottstown Pike
> Chester Springs, PA 19425
> 610-321-2415 X-219 Cell 610-952-0965
> [email protected]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Jay Stough
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 1:58 PM
> To: Sprinkler Forum
> Subject: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
