NFPA's antifreeze ammendment

[skdesigner]

I'm wondering how other forum members are approaching this issue. I've talked to quite a few people about it, some are receptive, some aren't.

Some engineer's have changed their specs to read "install dry system" after I've forwarded them the information, and building owners have stonewalled me, despite my cries of "safety first!".

Many assume it's a cash grab...we installed a system for them, signed the warranty, and now we're coming back telling them it has to be changed.

In Canada, design temperatures fall well below the 38% mixture allowed for propylene glycol, so it seems antifreeze is, for the time being, not an option.

What have some of you proposed as a replacement? Dry systems? Dry Sprinklers?

 

[gfire]

The TIA that you are referring to affects the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 and the 2011 edition of NFPA 25. I'm not sure what the adopted edition is in your jurisdiction, but if 2010 or 11 hasn't been adopted then it dosen't affect you...yet. Our jurisdiction has not adopted the 2010/11 editions yet, so on my existing buildings I'm holding off and waiting to see what happens with the 2013 edition whether or not the TIA is adopted into the new editon. On any new buildings I've started specifying dry systems and have for the time being abandon the use of antifreeze systems.

As for the owners that are stonewalling you, forward them a copy of the TIAs which can be found on NFPA's website. The TIAs include the date which it was adopted and the date it takes affect. This will at least show them that it was a recent change in code. Forward them a copy and keep a record of it. Then it is their responsibility.

 

[skdesigner]

gfire, that's exactly what I've been doing. When owners e-mail me saying that they don't need or want the change, I always print and save it to cover myself.

2010 hasn't been adopted here, nowhere close. That being said, I am aware that there is a safety concern, and can no longer plead ignorance if something happened.

 

[NJ1]

gfire

Legally just because a standard has not being adopted in your local jurisdiction does not mean that it is to be ignored nor does not apply.
As an expert opinion advisor in the inspection, testing and maintenance or water based systems here in NJ I have attended many, many, many depositions where the contractor claimed that just because a newer version of the standard has not being adopted he/she are forbidden for ignoring more strict requirements.

Code of ethics and good practice will prevail all day. How ever it is not something that can be legally enforced unless requested by such jurisdiction or insurance carrier.

I say you tell them of the new requirements/changes by the NFPA but stating that at this point it is more ethical on the owners behalf rather than a code requirement.

 

[skdesigner]

NJ1, I agree.

The big thing I can think of is annual inspections...specifically testing concentrations. Up here in Canada, the design temp requires a 60% solution of prop glycol to water. If it's below the 60%, do the inspectors recommend that it be topped up (to prevent freezing, but contrary to the now known safety issues), or do they recommend that the concentration be diluted to 38% (to comply with the safety issue, but with the knowledge that it will no longer provide the protection against freezing that it is supposed to)?

 

[NJ1]

That is right.
skdesigner we where able to win a case two years ago during closing arguments once I approached the bench and said:
Your honor. The main reason why this codes and standards are revised every 3-4 years is because highly qualified individuals did extensive research and lab testing that proved such requirements needed immediate improvement.
You must ensure that your inspectors and designers are trained with the latest updates even if not adopted yet.
The best approached is to inform the owners of the current codes but also inform them of the latest changes on separate letters. This will ensure that they are aware of new requirements that if ignored could jeopardize life safety.