# Did they Know this before Mini Soda Vote?



## Uncle Bob (Aug 19, 2010)

2009 IRC, Section P2904; P2904.1 "Section P2904 shall apply to stand alone and multi-purpose wet pipe sprinkler systems *that do not include the use of antifreeze.* "

The requirement for Fire Sprinkler Systems in one and two single family dwelling, exclude the use of antifreeze. 

Does this mean that they new about these dangers when they wrote and voted on the requirement for Sprinkler Systems at the Mini Soda hearings? 

And, in order to reduce resistance to the passage of "Required Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems"; is this why they waited until August 18, 2010 to announce the warning?

You can see hundreds of videos of Fire Sprinkler test all the time. Where are the videos of Fire Sprinkler Systems tests where antifreeze was in system? 

Perhaps an investigation into the lack of testing by the Residential Fire Sprinkler Advocates who bombarded us with videos and examples of the safety of using residential fire sprinkler systems; should be conducted!

Did they already know the dangers; and put off this announcement until after the passage in Mini Soda?

And is this why the use of antifreeze was excluded in the 2009 IRC requirement way back then?

Just a few questions,

Uncle Bob


----------



## pwood (Aug 19, 2010)

ub,

  you are being a little paranoid here. these fine folks that bring you plastic water piping for freezing winter climates for use in  fire protection systems meant to save lives that require an accellerant and explosive to prevent them from freezing when installed underfloor or in attics and have no testing and  meant to fatten their wallets? why how could think their was any deception involved in passing a code with a stacked deck of cards? seek counseling!:mrgreen:


----------



## ewenme (Aug 19, 2010)

Of course they knew it beofre; and were quite adept at keeping it under wraps.  I think the best offensive tactic would be to bring it to the fore during the next code cycle and get rid of sprinklers. Isn't concealing information a form of fraud?


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 19, 2010)

PWood,

"seek counseling!:mrgreen: "

Thanks for the advise. I'd take it; but, this insanity is one of things that keeps this old man alive and vibrant. 

Uncle Bob


----------



## peach (Aug 19, 2010)

sounds like ICC and NFPA need to speak...

OK.. in Florida, you probably dont' need antifreeze or a dry system..


----------



## incognito (Aug 20, 2010)

Do you really think the fire service folks would be so unethical and immoral as to slide this through without disclosing ALL the info? I mean after all these are the same people who routinely spike their wages right before retirement and screw Joe Citizen. I am sure NFPA and the sprinkler association would never put billions in profits ahead of telling the truth.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 22, 2010)

DO I hear a new vote on the removal of 13D requirements in the IRC?


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Aug 23, 2010)

The incident investigated by the California State Fire Marshal's office occured in August of 2009.  Let's see, wasn't St. Paul hearings in 2008.

P...a...r...a...n...o...i...d!


----------



## beach (Aug 23, 2010)

You guys crack me up! Funny stuff!


----------



## conarb (Aug 23, 2010)

Beach:



How many people are going to die, how many dead babies will we be carrying out of homes because of this crazy code?  Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 23, 2010)

UB: I know you are just sitting back laughing as the bomb you posted is beginning to grow a new head on the monster. And CA is about to fire up the fire guys! LOL


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 23, 2010)

I refrain from comment!


----------



## beach (Aug 23, 2010)

:razz: No problem, Conarb!!!!!


----------



## incognito (Aug 24, 2010)

So the fire people advocated introducing a chemical to fire sprinkler systems without testing what occurred when a fire set the system off?!!! My new found confidence in the fire service overwhelming---not!! They are either idiots or ---not quite honest.


----------



## beach (Aug 24, 2010)

incognito is the BEST!!!!


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Aug 24, 2010)

The scary part is that water is made up of Hydrogen (a flammable gas) and Oxygen which when combined with a flammable gas can cause an explosion or burn.  Water has been known to kill babies when the fall in a bucket of it... only 1 inch deep.

Please we need to get rid of water in all homes.... AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!

OH YEH and WOOD BURNS TOO.... NO WOOD!!!!

WHY did we ever let them put these hazards in homes.  AND SHEETROCK increases mold growth.  SHEETROCK and WATER  AHHHHHHHHHH....


----------



## beach (Aug 24, 2010)

We're living in time bombs people, it's time to WAKE UP!!!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 24, 2010)

FryBldgGuy & Beach,

I'm surprised at your reaction to NFPA's antifreeze alert.  Are you making fun of this "emergency" amendment by the NFPA and their warning conserning antifreeze in fire sprinkler systems?

Very Interesting,

Uncle Bob


----------



## beach (Aug 24, 2010)

Just making fun of the thread, UB! It's like sitting by the monkey cage at the Zoo watching the Monkeys throw poop......

Interesting? Not really. Humorous? Very.

Not planning on getting sucked into the same old debate and accusations....... thanks for playing.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2010)

UB

Read the entire section. P2904 is prescriptive and allows a multipurpose fire sprinkler system which shall supply domestic water to both fire srinklers and plumbing fixtures you do not want antifreeze in this sytem or a stand alone system that is seperate and independent from the water distribution system. A backflow preventer shall not be required to seperate a stand-alone system from the water distribution system. You do not want antifreeze in this one either without the backflow preventer. I am sure the fire guys will confirm that when using a domestic water supply a backflow preventer may make it impossible to design the sytem with a 3/4 or 1 inch supply line given the limited volume and pressure some potable water sources have.

P2904.1 Where installed, residential fire sprinkler systems, or portions therof, shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D *or* Section P2904, which shall be equvilant to NFPA 13D

Antifreeze is not allowed simply because of the multipurpose system design and a backflow is not required under the IRC for a stand alone system. Design the stand alone as a full 13D system you can install the antifreeze.


----------



## beach (Aug 24, 2010)

P2904.2.3.................


----------



## pwood (Aug 24, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> UBRead the entire section. P2904 is prescriptive and allows a multipurpose fire sprinkler system which shall supply domestic water to both fire srinklers and plumbing fixtures you do not want antifreeze in this sytem or a stand alone system that is seperate and independent from the water distribution system. A backflow preventer shall not be required to seperate a stand-alone system from the water distribution system. You do not want antifreeze in this one either without the backflow preventer. I am sure the fire guys will confirm that when using a domestic water supply a backflow preventer may make it impossible to design the sytem with a 3/4 or 1 inch supply line given the limited volume and pressure some potable water sources have.
> 
> P2904.1 Where installed, residential fire sprinkler systems, or portions therof, shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D *or* Section P2904, which shall be equvilant to NFPA 13D
> 
> Antifreeze is not allowed simply because of the multipurpose system design and a backflow is not required under the IRC for a stand alone system. Design the stand alone as a full 13D system you can install the antifreeze.


  log,

  i run the cities backflow inspection program and every year a handful of devices fail! what does this mean for spot who drinks from the porcelain pony when the device fails? worse yet ,what does it mean for the humans when these devices fail, or the citizens of the city when antifreeze could be sucked back into the water system? could the new requirements kill more people and spots than it will save? stay tuned.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 24, 2010)

Properly installed antifreeze in automatic sprinkler systems is not harmful to Spot or his owners.  The whole sprinkler system backflow hysteria is in case someone puts a different, unapproved type of antifreeze in the system.


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 24, 2010)

Mt, Beach and CD:

*"Spot On"*

I had a long drawn out message saved on my desktop just to wait and see how far the spool's line ran off.

Good retort and by all means no offense to any participants!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 24, 2010)

Beach,

"Just making fun of the thread, UB! It's like sitting by the monkey cage at the Zoo watching the Monkeys throw poop......"

LOL, I used to skip school in Frankfurt, Germany; to do the same thing at the Frankfurt Zoo.

FM,

Come on in; the waters fine; not too hot yet.

We did get a little off subject; but, hey this debate will go on for a long, long time.

I just hope that they get the antifreeze out of the systems it is already in without doing too much harm.

Uncle Bob


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2010)

> Properly installed antifreeze in automatic sprinkler systems is not harmful to Spot or his owners


Spot might be okay but Fritz the Cat may not feel to good.

Animals

Propylene glycol is an approved food additive for dog food under the category of animal feed and is generally recognized as safe (GRAS[22]) for dogs [23]. Similarly propylene glycol is an approved food additive for human food as well[24]. The exception is that it is prohibited for use in food for cats because of a species-specific reaction in the body, as noted in 21 CFR 582.1666.

Veterinary data indicate that propylene glycol is toxic to dogs with a 50% chance of being lethal at doses of 9mL/kg, although the figure is higher for most laboratory animals (LD50 at levels of 20mL/kg).[25]

However, propylene glycol may be toxic to cats in ways not seen in other animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that its presence in or on cat food has not been shown by adequate scientific data to be safe for use. Any such use is considered an adulteration of the cat food and a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[26]

*[**edit**] Allergic reaction*


----------



## conarb (Aug 25, 2010)

Of course they knew, in fact a picture has surfaced of Marshal Burns doing the testing for the Coalition.

View attachment 180

​
View attachment 180


/monthly_2010_08/beaker1.jpg.f8ad88bee24730c27b9670ea5a7d00f7.jpg


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 26, 2010)

Edit: strike "for the Coalition"................ all should know better by now!

   .................;-)


----------



## Frank (Aug 26, 2010)

I am reasonably certain that no one promoting or opposing residential sprinklers knew of this potential burn hazard from these antifreeze systems.  If this had been a known or suspected risk you can be sure that the NAHB would have been shouting it from the podium in Rochester and Minneapolis.

Note that the issue is not limited to residential but all normally occupied spaces -- one published case with burns occurred in restaraunt patio seating with gas fired heaters that set off a sprinkler on an antifreeze system and the first item ignited was the antifreeze solution from the sprinkler when it hit the heater.  These antifreeze solutions have been used in sprinkler systems for over 60 years without previous reports of these problems so new research was not indicated.  Note that until recently antifreeze system size was limited and they were typically used for small unheated areas susch as loading docks and grocery store canopies used for merchandise display that are not normally occupied when a fire starts and tend to have higher ceilings so the spray is more dispersed when it reaches the fire..

From looking at some articles based on limited research that has been done after these incidents it appears that to get ignition of the sprinkler spray of the antifreeze solution you need higher concentrations of antifreeze (over 50%) and a strong ignition source needs to be in the wrong location located relativly close to the sprinkler head.  (Likely deals with droplet size distribution and concentration in air as well as the concentration of antifreeze in solution).


----------



## Frank (Aug 26, 2010)

"How many people are going to die, how many dead babies will we be carrying out of homes because of this crazy code? Sorry, couldn't resist. "

In some ways this is like airbags in cars that save thousands of lives every year, but results in a few dozen dead babies every year.  The baby deaths from airbags are in two forms--directly when rear facing child seats are in the front seat without turning the airbag off resulting in impact forces and indirectly from children being left in hot cars when they are forgotten after being placed in the back seat to get them away from the airbags--out of sight and quiet-- out of mind.  These left in car deaths went up from almost unheard of to a regular occurance every summer in the mid 90s when airbags became popular and babies were moved from the front seat where they were in view to the back seat out of sight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022701549.html?sid=ST2009030602446


----------



## peach (Aug 26, 2010)

yet another reason to not like RFS... if it's all on the domestic system, there is not likely to be a backflow preventer (like you see in a commercial and/or multi family application).

Much as everyone likes to think the domestic water system is stable, I don't pay the water bill (ok.. tap off the sprinkler before the meter).. there's always a potential for back flow.

What if I'm on a well.. and I lose power?  Even if we start requiring a pump/generator for the sprinkler system, the water source is the same.  And if I don't pay the electric bill and use the generator to keep the fridge cold.. it just goes on an on... sorry for rambling.


----------



## beach (Aug 26, 2010)

"yet another reason to not like RFS... if it's all on the domestic system, there is not likely to be a backflow preventer (like you see in a commercial and/or multi family application)."

If you don't need a backflow preventer for domestic, you don't need one for the FS in a multi system... they are tied together and flow together..... flush the toilet, run the sink, take a shower ALL the water flows.... no stagnant water in the system. Antifreeze is a moot point, treat the sprinkler pipe the same way as the domestic plumbing in regards to freezing like it states in the code, you don't put antifreeze in the domestic when you go on vacation do you?

You don't pay your electric/water bill you technically shouldn't be living there, see the housing code. RFS are not designed to save the structure, although they usually do...... if no one is living in the home there are no life safety issues.

It's like Deja Vu all over again.....


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 26, 2010)

"Just when I thought I was out.....they keep drawing me back in" ...... MC Godfather


----------



## beach (Aug 27, 2010)

Jeez.........no kidding


----------



## cda (Aug 27, 2010)

Thank you frank good comments


----------



## RJJ (Aug 27, 2010)

FM: Sure glad you changed your hair color! The red just doesn't go with an old linemen with bad knees! Sorry for the old comment!

Now has it been determined that the system was a true 13D? Who approved the antifreeze?  Or is this just a lighting strike as far as a mistake.


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 27, 2010)

Yes very nice comments Frank!

Rjj,

What hair????????


----------



## RJJ (Aug 28, 2010)

The red hair in the picture of you testing the 13D heads!


----------



## peach (Aug 29, 2010)

You winterize a cabin when you leave (and in cold climates, it does involve somesort of antifreeze).  We can do a pretty good job on the water supply (usually), but not the sanitary.  My in laws winterize their motorhome with... antifreeze..

the water flows continually?  I don't think so.  Once the pipes are full, they are full.. how much water is going to be exchanged once it gets into the RFS "T" (or whatever fitting is used)... 40' of what usually 1-1/2 or 2" pipe for the RFS.. I don't buy it.

Until there is a call for the water to flow (like a sprinkler head going off), it's going to sit there.


----------



## beach (Aug 29, 2010)

Edited post:I removed all my comments. How can you compare motorhomes, antifreeze in cabins, sanitary drains and stagnant water in a looped system? wow


----------



## pwood (Aug 30, 2010)

beach said:
			
		

> "yet another reason to not like RFS... if it's all on the domestic system, there is not likely to be a backflow preventer (like you see in a commercial and/or multi family application)."If you don't need a backflow preventer for domestic, you don't need one for the FS in a multi system... they are tied together and flow together..... flush the toilet, run the sink, take a shower ALL the water flows.... no stagnant water in the system. Antifreeze is a moot point, treat the sprinkler pipe the same way as the domestic plumbing in regards to freezing like it states in the code,
> 
> beach,
> 
> in cold weather climates we don't usually locate water pipes in attics due to freezing, but the rfs makes you locate them in attics when necessary. anti freeze systems will be required. we have already agreed in this city to require backflow devices for rfs.taking showers, running sinks, flushing toilets is good if you do it non-stop to prevent the water pipes in the attic from freezing when the mercury dips.


----------



## beach (Aug 30, 2010)

Having lived and built homes in the local mountains for a number years, we kept the water pipes on the ceiling joists in the attic, close to the ceiling and installed the batt insulation over them (sometimes two layers), the heat in the home radiating up kept the pipes from freezing. It probably doesn't get as cold as some of the areas that some of you folks live in, but I would assume (uh oh....) that it would still work that way. If you don't have heat, I'm sure it would be a problem with both the domestic and the RFS, no matter where the pipes are located.

In regards to flushing, running sinks, etc., that was in reference to a multipurpose piping system and stagnant water, not freezing pipes. Is it the assumption (uh oh, again...) that if I had a large home without RFS, I lived alone, and I only used, for example, the one downstairs bathroom and the kitchen sink, that all the water supplying all the other plumbing fixtures in the house would become unpotable? If that's not the case, RFS wouldn't become unpotable either because it's the same system. If that IS the case, we have more problems than RFS anyway.......

Not actually being familiar with the method, how does one go about safely admitting antifreeze into a domestic water system as Peach has suggested people with cabins do to winterize them?? Even with a motorhome, I think I would just drain the water out of the system instead of filling it with antifreeze..... doesn't sound too tasty.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 30, 2010)

When I leave my home for more than 48 hours during the winter I shut the water supply and pump off and open an upstairs bathroom faucets (hot and cold) and the basement tub hot and cold and drain the potable water lines. The only thing with water in it is the water heater and about 15 ft of exposed water lines in the basement.

The big question is will the insurance company deny a claim if the system has been disabled like I do when I go away during the winter months?

BTW I just did my first High Value Dwelling Report insurance inspection in over 9 months. Guess what the new questions are?

*7**. FIRE PROTECTION*Fire Department TypePaid VolunteerCombination Subscription

Other*: Distance to Fire DepartmentUnder 1 mile 1 to 2 miles 2 to 5 miles

5 to 10 miles Over 10 miles* ISO Public Protection Class (1-10) N/A Responding Fire Dept. Difficult Access to Bldg. For FDYes*NoNearest Fire HydrantUnder 50' 50 to 100' 100 to 250' 250 to 500' 

500 to 1,000' Over 1,000'*

Adequate Water Supply? YesNo*Fire Extinguishers?YesNo* Smoke/Heat Detectors?YesNo* Type of Smoke DetectorsHard Wired Battery operated Combination N/AContinuing in next page ...

Page 5

SITE081709
​Continuing from last page ... Sprinkler System Yes No System Ready to Respond

Yes No* N/A Flammable Liquids StoredYes* No


----------



## beach (Aug 30, 2010)

Is that report the same as this? : http://www.appraisalpro.com/appraisalpro/sample_ifrs/sample_hvr.pdf  I've never worked for an insurance company, so I'm not familiar with the reports. It seems like a pretty normal question. How often would you prepare the report for the same property? Pretty comprehensive!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 30, 2010)

No it is not the same report. About 50% same questions. The High Value Dwelling Reports are requested when an individual has aquired a new policy or is raising the replacement limits. In 5 years I have never been to the same dwelling. Businesses, apartments, farms once every couple of years. Mines twice a year on average.


----------



## beach (Sep 8, 2010)

*California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin – IB0910 *Page 1 of 2 
​

*Issued: September 8, 2010 *
​

*ANTIFREEZE USED IN RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS *
​


At the August meeting of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards Council meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts a final decision was made to issue the tentative interim agreements (TIA) 1000, 995, and 994 on NFPA 13, NFPA 13R and NFPA 13D, respectively to prohibit the use of antifreeze solutions within all NFPA 13D applications and within the dwelling unit portions of NFPA13 and NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. This information is available for review on the NFPA website at http://www.nfpa.org/antifreeze. 

The nexus for the research by NFPA is based on two incidents involving antifreeze protected residential fire sprinkler systems under pressure in excess of 100 psi. The second phase report included two separate scope tests. The results of Scope A testing indicated that certain concentrations of propylene glycol- or glycerin-water solution have the potential to ignite when discharged through residential fire sprinkler systems. The potential for ignition depends on several factors including the propylene glycol- or glycerin-water solution, ignition source, sprinkler model, sprinkler elevation, and discharge pressure. The NFPA Standards Council believes the research and testimony at the recent council meeting suggests that antifreeze solutions of propylene glycol *exceeding *40% and glycerin *exceeding *50% by volume are not appropriate for use in home residential fire sprinkler systems until research and testing are completed and vetted through the appropriate technical committees. The Standards Council also recognizes the need to limit the use of on-site mixing; when antifreeze is used, whereas the product should be a factory pre-mix to obtain the correct concentration. 
​

*For existing residential fire sprinkler systems *where there is no viable alternative to antifreeze solution use, the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) concurs with the latest NFPA directive of draining the system and replacing with a solution *not to exceed *a maximum concentration of 40% of propylene glycol or a maximum concentration of 50% glycerin. Additionally, the solution should only be factory pre-mixed and used with the approval of the local authority having jurisdiction. The OSFM strongly recommends reviewing the testing report for detailed information on the results and findings. An alternative to increased antifreeze concentrations may include protecting pipes with additional insulation. *California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin – IB0910 *Page 2 of 2 
​


*For new residential fire sprinkler systems*, the OSFM recognizes the information provided in the testing report involves many factors that impact the systems’ performance during the research testing conducted by the Underwriting Laboratory. This research testing appears to indicate that alternatives to antifreeze should be used for newly installed residential fire sprinkler systems. Alternatives to antifreeze additives include dry pipe systems, additional insulation, and design considerations that do not expose pipes to freezing conditions. Should these or any other alternatives not be available for new construction the OSFM suggests the provisions as indicated in the above paragraph for existing systems may be used until such time a code modification is promulgated by the OSFM through the California Building Standards Commission rulemaking process. Again the solution should only be factory pre-mixed and used with the approval of the local authority having jurisdiction. 

As more information is released by NFPA, the Standards Council and/or the Technical Committee, the OSFM will notify all interested parties. The sustained efforts of all stakeholders must focus on sharing information; working together; and continue to support the message that fire sprinklers are one of the most effective ways to save lives and property from fire; and to that end, assure the successful implementation of the 2010 California Residential Code and the residential fire sprinkler provisions. 
​For more information please visit our website http://osfm.fire.ca.gov


----------



## RJJ (Sep 9, 2010)

Beach: Thanks some useful info!


----------

