Nope, not a game. Last night I wondered if the death you mentioned was cited in Chris Cahill's recent Death By Sprinkler thread (I could not remember). Jerry mentioned 'independent studies' in one of his posts. I hope we get more of those before 2022.
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:00 PM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'd add that if you think that you can extinguish any fire with 100% AF, > whether your shop drawings were well-executed or not, you are very > wrong. Having seen several of UL's fire test videos from the NFPARF > anti-freeze project in committee, I assure you that high concentrations > of Glycol are very flammable, and undiluted it's an accelerant. This > isn't a game; somebody died from a flameout due to +70% glycol. The > consensus reaction (some would say "overreaction") by NFPA's Codes and > Standards Council, sprinkler correlating committee and the affected 13's > was to ban the stuff, which leaves a lot of new construction hanging in > the void and many, MANY existing systems in limbo. Our state fire > marshal in CA was troubled enough by this that our OSFM NFPA 25 task > group was charged with coming up with a means of safely maintaining > anti-freeze as she (rightly, in my mind) foresaw another sprinkler issue > that could strain the credibility of our industry and could undermine > the residential sprinkler mandate. We are moving forward with proposed > language for our state ITM standard that says, essentially, that with > existing AF you are to ID what it is and if it's banned or in too heavy > a concentrate, drain and discard. Maintenance and refills are to > utilize only pre-mix and only conservative lower concentrations. It's > not required to be non-flammable or listed, just low concentrations. > I'd publish the numbers but it's all draft language so please don't ask > for it yet. It will be going public in the next few weeks. > > Yes, it's flawed and yes, there are likely some locales where it's not > enough protection for frigid temps. But this is, after all, California > <chuckle, chortle, pass the sunscreen>. > > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Roland Huggins > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: NFPA 25 & Antifreeze Comment(s) RETORT > > BE cautious when saying mix it yourself out loud. The standards (both > 13 and 25) require only factory premixed solutions to be used. You're > also suppose to drain the system then refill it. Combine that with the > cost of back flow preventers and expansion chambers and AF system are > not very appealing. > > Roland > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Andy-Johnston <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Even when you mix it your self, you mix it up real good in a seperate > barrel, check it, then pump it in. I wonder If people trying to do the > math and pumping in the antifreeze followed by the water contributed o > the problem? >> Andy >> >> -- > _______________________________________________ > 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
