NFPA 25 NITMAMS posted (05-07-2013) | Report
Summary:
Here’s the NITMAMS that will be argued beginning on Thurs 6/13 at 8am at the NFPA Conference – if you are an NFPA member please show up as we will need your support. Thx, Rich
Hot News!!!!! (04-11-2013)
I was informed late last night that NFPA has received 35(!) Notices of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAMs) on the 2014 edition of NFPA 25; twenty-five of these came from technical committee members (which is not good for the Chairman, Bill Koffel, as it gives the appearance that the Committee is in disarray since the ROC passed ballot). Neither myself nor my alternate (Dave Baron) have filed any NITMAMs.
Based on the ROC balloting, my assumption is that these NITMAMs will include:
Trying to eliminate Chapter 14 (internal inspections).
Trying to eliminate the revised requirements for weekly churn testing of electric fire pumps.
Trying to force inspecting contractors to identify recalled sprinkler heads.
Trying to force inspecting contractors to identify areas without sprinkler protection.
Trying to force inspecting contractors to verify the design & adequacy of a system.
Placing responsibility for dealing with impairments on contractors.
Trying to force inspecting contractors to make judgment calls regarding painted, loaded & corroded heads.
Changing the antifreeze requirements (again).
Removing the need for flow testing & hydrostatic testing of standpipe systems.
Revising the accepted practice for full forward flow testing of backflow preventors.
There is a chance that some of these NITMAM’s will not be certified by the Standards Council and that some of these, even if certified, will be withdrawn at the last second (like the water mist guys recently did regarding NFPA 409/aircraft hangers). We will know for sure which of these are certified and what the essence of these NITMAMs is on 5/3/13.
What this means is that there WILL BE a need to have our local contractors & vendors go to the NFPA Association Technical Meetings (starts Wed 6/12 at 2pm till ??? and again Thurs 6/13 8am till ???). ANYONE can get up to a mic and speak but ONLY NFPA MEMBERS can vote. The meetings will be at McCormick Place. YOU HAVE TO SIGN UP TO ATTEND (but not for the entire conference). Go to www.nfpa.org/conference – you’ll figure it out!
I expect a strong showing of support for our industry!
Thx
Rich Ray
Here’s my ballot on the Antifreeze TIA (09-27-2012) | Report
Hello all – here’s my ballot on the antifreeze TIA. The results of the balloting so far is 26 YES, 4 NO. The TC members now have an opportunity to “change” their votes if they so choose – I do not intend to change my vote. After the TIA is “re-balloted”, the TIA has to go BACK to the NFPA Standards Council for their approval or disapproval. Once this is finalized, I will let you all know. Stay tuned & thx. Rich
NEW ANTIFREEZE TIA (09-10-2012) | Report
Hello everyone – The NFPA Standards Council took exceptions to the TIA on Anti-freeze that recently passed ballot by the NFPA 25 committee – their decision is attached. You can see that they struck the exceptions that were added to 5.3.4.2.1 (4) regarding the need for a deterministic risk assesssment if someone wants to use antifreeze in excess of the allowed concentrations (38% glycerine for example). They also struck language from the corresponding appendix section. As you can see, the Standards Council wasn’t thrilled with the substantiations that the Committee came up with for the excepted occupancies and for the notion of unoccuppied areas. The next blog will contain the ballot and my reasoning for voting negative to what is now the emergency response TIA to this Standards Council action.
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 5.3.4.2.1 (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
NFPA Comments submitted (08-28-2012)
Summary:
Heads up – I just sent in my comments to the ROP. I commented on the following proposals: 25-70, 100, 104, 168, 173, 281, 284, 289, 291, 292. If anyone has any questions, please contact me – thx.