Emergency TIA attached (09-10-2012) | Report
This is the proposed TIA in response to the Standards Council’s Final Decision dated 8/30/12 (prior blog post). As you can see, the Committee is attempting to craft language to convince the Standards Council to allow antifreeze concentrations in excess of what is currently acceptable if a “deterministic risk assessment” is performed. The Committee added language to 220.127.116.11.1 (3) defining “who” can do these assessments as well as to the corresponding annex section outlining what factors need to be considered when performing one of these assessments. Considering that 50% glycerine gets you about -15F protection (maximum concentration allowed currently) and 38% glycerine gets you about 0F protection, it is my opinion that the Committee is erring in trying to craft language that will give an owner 15 additional degrees F of protection when in reality the money that would be spent on these risk assessments is better spent on FIXING THE SYSTEM (converting it to a dry pipe or preaction system) or adding insulation or a heat source to the protected area. Is any risk of a fireball ever considered “good fire protection”? Consider the difference in outcome from an ignition of antifreeze solution discharged by a sprinkler in an exterior dust collector versus in an attic area above a day care center. The Committee seems convinced that fires in excess of 1.4 MW just “won’t happen”….though the Standards Council’s decision directed the Committee to consider things like Xmas trees and clustered upholstered furniture…. For this reason, I will be voting negative on this ballot. My guess is that the TIA will pass ballot regardless of my vote. My guess is also that the Standards Council will reject this version of the TIA as well. Stay tuned. If you have any comments please let me know ASAP as my ballot is due 9/20/12 – I have no idea why I thought the ballot was due this Wednesday…sorry for that.
Thx – Rich