# TIA (NFPA 25) Anti-Freeze



## FM William Burns (Mar 15, 2011)

FYI: 

A TIA has been issued to NFPA 25 Inspection, Testing and maintenance of Water -Based Fire Protection Systems

*(See April NFPA News)*

*******************************************************************

Reference: 3.6.4.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution (New), 5.3.4, and A.5.3.4

TIA 11-1 (SC 11-3-6/TIA Log #1014)

Pursuant to Section 5 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects, the National Fire Protection Association has issued the following Tentative Interim Amendment to NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2011 edition. The TIA was processed by the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems, and was issued by the Standards Council on March 1, 2011, with an effective date of *March 21, 2011.*

A Tentative Interim Amendment is tentative because it has not been processed through the entire standards-making procedures. It is interim because it is effective only between editions of the standard. A TIA automatically becomes a proposal of the proponent for the next edition of the standard; as such, it then is subject to all of the procedures of the standards-making process.

1. Add a new definition as 3.6.4.1.1 to read as follows:

3.6.4.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution. A mixture of an antifreeze material with water that is prepared by the manufacturer at a factory with a quality control procedure in place that ensures that the antifreeze solution remains homogeneous.

2. Revise 5.3.4 to read as follows:

5.3.4* Antifreeze Systems. Annually, before the onset of freezing weather, the antifreeze solution shall be tested using the following procedure:

(1) Using installation records, maintenance records, information from the owner, chemical tests, or other reliable sources of information, the type of antifreeze in the system shall be determined.

a) If the type of antifreeze is found to be a type that is no longer permitted, the system shall be drained completely and replaced with an acceptable solution.

b) If the type of antifreeze cannot be reliably determined, then the system shall be drained completely and replaced with an acceptable solution.

(2) If the antifreeze is not replaced in accordance with step 1, test samples shall be taken at the top of each system and at the bottom of each system.

a) If the most remote portion of the system is not near the top or the bottom of the system, an additional sample shall be taken at the most remote portion.

b) If the connection to the water supply piping is not near the top or the bottom of the system, an additional sample shall be taken at the connection to the water supply.

(3) The specific gravity of each solution shall be checked using a hydrometer with a suitable scale or a refractometer having a scale calibrated for the antifreeze solution.

(4) If any of the samples exhibits a concentration in excess of what is permitted by NFPA 25, the system shall be emptied and refilled with a new acceptable solution. If a concentration greater than what is currently permitted by NFPA 25 was necessary to keep the fluid from freezing, alternate methods of preventing the pipe from freezing shall be employed.

(5) If any of the samples exhibits a concentration lower than what is necessary to keep the fluid from freezing, the system shall be emptied and refilled with a new acceptable solution.

5.3.4.1 The use of antifreeze solutions shall be in conformity with state and local health regulations.

5.3.4.1.1* Listed CPVC sprinkler pipe and fittings shall be protected from freezing with glycerin only. The use of diethylene, ethylene, or propylene glycols shall be specifically prohibited.

5.3.4.2* Antifreeze solutions shall comply with one of the following:

(1) The concentration of a glycerin solution measured in an existing system shall be limited to 50% by volume.

(2) Newly introduced solutions shall be factory premixed antifreeze solutions of glycerin (chemically pure or United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%) at a maximum concentration of 48% by volume.

(3) The concentration of a propylene glycol solution measured in an existing system shall be limited to 40% by volume.

(4) Newly introduced solutions shall be factory premixed antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol (chemically pure or United States Pharmacopoeia 96.5%) at a maximum concentration of 38% by volume.

(5) Other solutions listed specifically for use in fire protection systems.

5.3.4.3 The antifreeze solution shall be tested at its most remote portion and where it interfaces with the wet pipe system.

5.3.4.4 Where antifreeze systems have a capacity larger than 150 gal (568 L), tests at one additional point for every 100 gal (379 L) shall be made.

5.3.4.4.1 If the results indicate an incorrect freeze point at any point in the system, the system shall be drained and refilled with new premixed antifreeze.

5.3.4.4.2 For premixed solutions, the manufacturer’s instructions shall be permitted to be used with regard to the number of test points and refill procedure.

4. Remove Table 5.3.4.1(a) and 5.3.4.1(b) and add Table 5.3.4.1 as follows:

(Tables and Guide didn’t copy well) 

(See NFPA News in April)


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Mar 15, 2011)

Thanks FM for the information


----------



## permitguy (Mar 15, 2011)

The newest edition I see on their website is March.  Do you happen to have a link?


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 15, 2011)

No.......just had a correspondence and a heads up that this will be in the April Issue of the news typically out around 2nd week.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 15, 2011)

No problem!  I'll keep an eye out for it - thanks again!


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Nov 5, 2011)

For folks in the cold climates, Minnesota, North Dakota, Maine, how are you dealing with this change? The antifreeze, premix solutions can not protect the building as per NFPA 25 below the following: propylene glycol 40 Solution (% by volume) is good for -6F and   Glyceri 50 Solution (% by volume) is good to -19F. Are you requiring the systems to be changed to a dry pipe system? Ignoring NFPA 25? Have not come up with a policy to handle the change?

What we are seeing is sprinkler inspection companies are asking the building owner to sign a waiver to sign off on not complying with NFPA 25 AND not holding the inspection company liable for any claims. Weather this will hold up in court is another discussion.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 7, 2011)

Insurance Engineer said:
			
		

> For folks in the cold climates, Minnesota, North Dakota, Maine, how are you dealing with this change? The antifreeze, premix solutions can not protect the building as per NFPA 25 below the following: propylene glycol 40 Solution (% by volume) is good for -6F and Glyceri 50 Solution (% by volume) is good to -19F. Are you requiring the systems to be changed to a dry pipe system? Ignoring NFPA 25? Have not come up with a policy to handle the change?What we are seeing is sprinkler inspection companies are asking the building owner to sign a waiver to sign off on not complying with NFPA 25 AND not holding the inspection company liable for any claims. Weather this will hold up in court is another discussion.


We where discussing this on Friday and are not sure what we will do on existing systems.

On new construction I do not believe we can allow sprinkler designs to come in as a differed submittals anymore. The owner, architect and sprinkler designer need to get together at the begining of the design stage to determine how the sprinkler system will be protected against freezing. Through the building envelope, dry system or a combination of antifreeze and pipe insulation.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Nov 11, 2011)

So is everyone just living with the higher % of propylene glycol and glyceri and only enforcing unless it is new construction? This is a big can of worms that can be very costly to fix if you follow NFPA 25.

One of the requirements is for the old antifreeze be removed IF it was not a premixed solution. Are you asking for documentation to prove they have completed this requirement regardless of the % of antifreeze solution noted above? If so how has the new requirement been received? This is what the state of Mass has done, how about your state?

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/advisories/2011/20110701_antifreeze_use_in_fire_sprinkler_systems.pdf


----------



## cda (Nov 11, 2011)

Hard to understand, because of maybe two fires???  The standard changes??

And how long have anti freeze systems been around????


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Nov 11, 2011)

I did not say I agreed with it. NFPA legal dept must have twisted a lot of arms. BUT it is what it is, so unless NFPA changes we need to deal with it weather we agree with it or not.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2011)

As a representative of the insurance industry how are you going to handle claims for broken pipes with an antifreeze solution you know does not work in a paticular climate?

Are you looking at significant rate increases for sprinklered buildings? Not cover water damage from frozen pipes?

Right now the simple solution for an AHJ is ammend NFPA 25 to allow the higher percentages on existing buildings


----------



## RJJ (Nov 12, 2011)

FM: Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Nov 12, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> As a representative of the insurance industry how are you going to handle claims for broken pipes with an antifreeze solution you know does not work in a paticular climate?Are you looking at significant rate increases for sprinklered buildings? Not cover water damage from frozen pipes?
> 
> Right now the simple solution for an AHJ is ammend NFPA 25 to allow the higher percentages on existing buildings


Most likely we will pay the claim and then look to the sprinkler contractor to make us whole. I am sure as we get more loss experience we would start to look at this more closely. It is on the radar screen, BUT the insurance industry would need loss data to support a rate increase OR not write this class of business. So ask me in about 3 years...lol

If you ammend NFPA 25, and you have a loss of life fire because of the antifreeze, how would that look? What legal ground would you have to defend your actions?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2011)

> If you ammend NFPA 25, and you have a loss of life fire because of the antifreeze, how would that look? What legal ground would you have to defend your actions?


No different then ammending out the sprinkler provisions required in the IBC for R-1 & R-2 occupancies with less than 8 dwelling or sleeping units. Used to be 16 until 2009.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Nov 13, 2011)

I see the following happening regarding NFPA 25 requirements and insurance companies:

1. The insurance industry IF they start paying water damage claims as a result of low antifreeze levels is to not write the business. The Condo association would be forced into the excess insurance market and pay more $$$. Such as currently happening with  folks who live in FLA and are within 5-10 miles from the coast. Only a few companies will write this business and they charge a lot more. The less companies willing to write the business the more the individual condo association will pay for coverage.

2. If an insurance company follows NFPA 25 and recommends they remove the antifreeze system and install say a dry pipe system. The condo association will get an estimate and see how much it costs. They will then shop for another insurance company who will not make them comply with NFPA 25. They will compare the cost and continue to do this until the cost of complying with NFPA 25 is cheaper then the insurance cost. Since we always have insurance companies who are willing to write a book of business less then others, this may go on for years.

3. IF NFPA 25 is enforced by the local AHJ the entire picture will change. You will be the bad guys and the insurance companies will not pay claims. THANK-YOU.

In the long run I see this taking a long time to sort out with a little of the above happening in different parts of the country.

Disclaimer: This is MY point of view and does not represent how insurance companies will respond.


----------

