• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

NFPA issues safety alert regarding antifreeze in residential sprinklers

I

Insurance Engineer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
336
Location
Northeast
http://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetails.asp?categoryid=488&itemId=48040

NFPA issues safety alert regarding antifreeze in residential sprinklers

Fatal fire raises concern about antifreeze

July 6, 2010 – The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) today issued a safety alert recommending that residential fire sprinkler systems containing antifreeze should be drained and the antifreeze replaced with water. The alert follows a research study and an initial set of fire tests conducted after a fire incident raised concerns about antifreeze solutions in residential sprinkler systems. The incident involved a grease fire in a kitchen where a sprinkler with a high concentration of antifreeze deployed. The fire resulted in a single fatality and serious injury to another person.

“Fire sprinklers are one of the most effective ways to save lives and property from fire,” said James M. Shannon, president of NFPA. “Until we can provide further information based on additional research that is currently underway, we are urging the public to continue the use of sprinklers but to follow our interim safety guidelines by removing antifreeze if it is in their sprinkler systems.

According to NFPA, the home is the place where most fire fatalities occur, and when home sprinklers are present, the risk of dying in a home fire decreases by 83%.

Shannon said based on testing conducted, 70/30% glycerin and 60/40% propylene glycol antifreeze may provide an unacceptable risk of harm to occupants in certain types of fire scenarios, in particular kitchen grease fires. There were successful tests where kitchen grease fires were extinguished or contained with a 50/50% glycerin solution but it was felt there should be additional testing to more fully understand if there is a risk associated with 50/50% glycerin solution.

NFPA offers the following interim guidance on residential sprinklers

Fire sprinklers are extremely effective fire protection devices, significantly reducing deaths, injuries and property loss from fire.

These systems should not be disconnected.

Until the results of further testing on antifreeze are available, NFPA recommends the following:

•If you have, or are responsible for, a residential occupancy with a fire sprinkler system, contact a sprinkler contractor to check and see if there is antifreeze in the system.

•If there is antifreeze in the system, as an interim measure, drain the system and replace it with water only. Problems associated with freezing of sprinkler pipes can be mitigated by alternative measures such as insulation. NFPA hopes to provide further guidance based on additional testing before the winter freezing months.

•If you are putting in a new residential sprinkler system, design and install a system that does not require antifreeze.

“We are providing this safety alert as interim guidance based on the information we have right now,” said Shannon. “As soon as more information is available, we will update the public.”

NFPA also reminded the public about basic fire safety tips for kitchen fires. All consumers should take important fire safety precautions regarding kitchen fires.

•Have and maintain smoke alarms in your home.

•Pay attention when you are cooking.

•Should you have a grease fire on your stovetop, smother the fire by sliding a lid over the pan and turn off the stovetop. Leave the pan covered until the pan cools completely.

•Never put water on a grease fire or use a fire extinguisher on a grease fire.

•Never attempt to carry a flaming pan across the kitchen.

The NFPA Safety Alert Regarding Antifreeze in Residential Sprinklers and more information on this topic can be found at www.nfpa.org/antifreeze.

Subscribe to NFPA RSS News feeds

Contact: Lorraine Carli, Public Affairs Office: +1 617 984-7275
 
so what are we going to do with existing large systems that are beyond insulatable???

do we discontinue using anti freeze systems, because of one fire??
 
What's the whole story, what happened when the antifreeze hit the grease fire that wouldn't have happened if plain water would have hit it? The NFPA says:

• Never put water on a grease fire or use a fire extinguisher on a grease fire.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what a sprinkler does?
 
con

the theroy I think is that the anti freeze got atomized, which made it more easily to ignite, just like the sawdust verses a 4 x 4 piece of wood.

http://www.sierrasun.com/assets/pdf/SS61631222.PDF

quoted from another forum::

""""""""""""The pressure buildup in this instance certainly appeared to have been slower than might be expected in a fuel-air explosion say with premixed fuel gas / air mixture near the stoichiometric ratio, the type many of us have seen blowing a building apart. Walls were not significantly displaced nor were most structural members shattered. Nonetheless, the pressure increase was enough to blow a window (originally located about 25-30 feet away from the fire) more than 80 feet out from the house."

All deflagrations with a flammable vapor are a pre-mixed fuel gas/air mixture phenomenon (the reaction rate controls the rate as opposed to mixing associated with diffusion flames), so I am not sure what you are implying except that the pressure rise was not as great as one might expect in explosions involving a pre-mixed.

The maximum pressure rise will occur when the entire volume of the confining space is filled with a pre-mixed fuel/air mixture at the stoichiometric ratio in an enclosure that can withstand the maximum pressure rise. Thus, there are a number of factors that effect the maximum pressure rise.

A significant pressure rise can occur outside of the stoichiometric ratio, but within the flammable limits. So while it may be a contributing factor in your case, it is not the only factor.

The volume of the confining space does not have to be entirely filled with a pre-mixed fuel/air mixture within its flammable limits to cause a pressure rise. Simple calculations can show that pressure rise sufficient to blow out windows and displace walls can occur with a pre-mixed vapor on the floor of common rooms on the order of inches or fraction of inches. Thus, in your case, you may have a partially filled volume of a pre-mixed fuel/air mixture within the flammable limits to cause the damage that occurred. This is a common mistake made in fire and explosion hazard analysis.

It is common practice to mitigate significant pressure rise with explosion venting. The size of the vent and the strength of the compartment play a significant role in the extent of pressure rise. With respect to the strength of the enclosure, doors and windows can act as explosion vents. Thus, a reduction in the pressure rise in this case may have been produced by the relatively early release of the pressure through the door(s) and window(s). Thus, the ultimate pressure rise is a function of more than the fuel conditions. This is also a common mistake I see from time-to-time in the analysis of explosions.

The strength of the structure must also be evaluated. Windows can be blown out with a pressure rise of about 1 psi and significant displacement of walls can occur at about 2 to 3 psi. The impulse of the energy release also plays a role. This range of pressure rises is within the range of maximum pressure rise associated with explosion venting since maximum pressure rise can be as high as 14 atmospheres or about 200 psi gauge pressure.

I have some additional thoughts (based on fundamentals) on the hypothesis of the fuel for this explosion being glycerine, but do not have time to post more. I will try and contribute more ASAP."""""""""""""""
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This makes it appear that putting antifreeze in a sprinkler system is like pouring gasoline on a fire, too bad this wasn't available at the time of the code hearings:

while attempting to extinguish the flames, the fire sprinkler directly above him activated, discharging a solution of glycerine-based antifreeze which was ignited 10 by the flames coming from the burning onions in the frying pan and the resulting explosion of the glycerine solution cause fatal burn injuries to his wife, Islesa Minutti, Age 27 -years; and burn and blast injuries to him and their three (3) children; ages 12-years, 7-years, and 10-days old.
Click to expand...
 
I will take the chance on any freeze and water over a totally burned down building. Seems like first documented case, if it is what acutely happened
 
CDA:

The actual report you linked referred to nearly an identical situation in New Jersey a few years ago.

In researching the use of antifreeze solutions in fire sprinkler systems a similar activation and explosion occurred on October 28,2001 at 5:21 p.m. at the Windandsea (Wind and Sea) Restaurant, 56 Shrewsbury Avenue. Highlands, New Jersey. According to the Fire Investigation Report, prepared by the County of Monmouth Office of the Fire Marshal, 1027 Highway 33, East, Freehold, New Jersey 07728 [Phone: 732-938-5323], the structure was a three (3) story wood frame building. The second and third floors were protected by an antifreeze type fire sprinkler system.¹
Click to expand...
Why was this information concealed at the time for the hearings? It could have been used to either exempt residences in freezing climates, or require insulated pipes in those areas, thereby increasing costs. ¹ http://www.sierrasun.com/assets/pdf/SS61631222.PDF
 
the info is public record

also, do people stop driving cars because of car wrecks???

products have problems yes, does the good out way the bad??? look at meds
 
rjj

but do they have anti freeze in them and at what level

maybe someone needs to do an open cup test of anti and water at various soultion levels??????
 
RJJ:

Now that you are notice of the NFPA directive print it out along with the Trukee case and show it to your City Attorneys or County Counsels for the AHJ's protection, now that you are on notice, he/she/they may want you to notify all affected owners to shut the systems down until the systems can be drained. If someone is injured or dies within one of your jurisdictions from this problem the first thing the plaintiffs' attorneys do now is look for deep pockets, they have paralegals who Google names to find information, everything you have written, or they can prove you have read, is evidence that you were on notice of the problem.
 
Here is what I posted yesterday, maybe I should have posted it here?

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2136-Fyi-Residential-anti-freeze-sprinkler-systems-safety-alert

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?2137-Fyi-Residential-anti-freeze-sprinkler-systems-safety-alert

As suggested, if anyone is concerned with existing installations in (residential) systems, have the sprinkler service providers test the solution to assure it’s a 50/50 maximum. Regarding historic knowledge, it was not tested or known that a potential hazard existed and any previous installations using >70% solution would have not met the listing criteria of the piping product manufacturer. Testing has been requested and is being done by UL to verify the existence of the alleged hazard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CDA & FM None of the ones I have done in the Last 18 months exceed the 50/50 max! However, in that ahj about 100 homes have wet systems with antifreeze and I don't know what was done cause I did not inspect those houses. Need to find more info. I will print and read the links. I will also have a few files to look at over the next week.
 
Sometimes I think the Building Safety Community is the blind leading the blind; or the gullible being led by the greedy.

Any idea of what it's going to cost to recycle the anti-freeze? Never mind; they're going to dump it in the gutter anyway.

You do know; that crap is leaching into the drinking water supply system; and it is POISON. Most home backflow prevention assemblys are not tested and maintained anually. Crap; they aren't even installed correctly.

You know; I've been drink water directly out of lakes, streams, and rivers , in most of the States in this county all my life; and, the Government Saftey regulators are requiring all public drinking water to be contaminated or in danger of being contaminated.

Sheesh,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UB,

Once again much truth to it and who knows where the sprinkler service providers really dispose, personally I just hope and pray. I have had many a Jack & River water (Jiver) in previous years along the Yellowstone, Fire Hole, Columbia and Bald rivers. I think ther Jack killed anything of harm but these days one can never tell and very good message for all of us to remember.

Rjj,

It would be pretty easy to have those firms who did installs re-test or provide mixture data for install dates. If they've been in for a while, the testing will be needed since the service company just may have filled to the rim with no measurements on concentrations. Remember, it's up to them to provide and analize.
 
I require them to tag the control valve to the anti freeze system with the solution level, each year We have the blame game when a system breaks
 
Until the 2002 edition came out, antifreeze loops were recommened by the Annex to be limited to 40 gallon. But most antifreeze loops are still 40 galllons or less. Based upon a 50/50 mix, and an extra cost of <$.50 per gallon, the extra cost of USP glercyine is <$10.00. You should be able to dump that down the drain. We use USP grade, not because it can go down the drain, but because in our service area most sprinkler system don't have back-flow devices.

How do you know if you have Glycerine or Propylene Antifreeze?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have discussed this fire investigation before.

If you start out with a theory with little or no evidence then you have to try to create evidence. Here UL has played a part in establishing Junk Science. Some years ago 60 Minutes created a explosion in a GM truck. They could not get the fire to happen so they added some explosive materials. Later they got caught in the scam.

IF you don't mix the anti-freeze and you let it sit in the drop to the kitchen then maybe you can get a fire. The two fires cited had different types of anti-freeze. Scientific Theory requires a reproducable effect.

If you can't find the right Science then Create a new Science. The probability of a glycerin explosion in a kitchen fire where the fire sprinkler system has been properly installed must be just about the same as a cold fusion reaction in a glass of water in the same kitchen.
 
I thought the owners maintained the 13D systems?
Click to expand...
This is indeed true. The initial installation and solutions should have been verified using hydrometer to measure specific gravity of the solution of choice.

Furthermore, this would/could pose an issue with homeowners who happen to test their systems or drain them as required in 13D to replace solutions. Solutions added by a homeowner increasing the previously “approved” maximum 70% (depending on solution, piping and potable water condition) could be too much for the novice homeowner since it would be logical to assume a homeowner would not have access to a hydrometer and therefore should have a sprinkler service provider assure the proper mixtures.

The bigger issue here is how were the previously recognized figures for the varying solution percentages derived? Were they just based on health effects and potentials for cross contamination of potable water sources as I believe? Science and Technology was available prior to 1999 to light some stuff up to see if the potentials for a flash fire, sustained fire or explosion could occur using varying test models and arrangements before introducing (concentration applicable) combustible liquids into a dwelling environment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is an active investigation on this issue proceeding with UL taking the lead in testing and a contracted FPE firm doing the investigation into prior discharges that may have had similar results.

It will be a while before all the facts are in. The history is that the NFPA, when adopting the provisions regarding antifreeze systems, did not have any scientific data on what atomization or droplet size did to the antifreeze mixture and whether it could contribute to the fire. They realized that and issued the safety alert.

The California Sate Fire Marshal's office took the initiative to send out a wide ranging notice to that effect since the NFPA alert was largely ignored or not noticed.

The best advise for existing installations is to have a sampling taken to determine the concentration of antifreeze to water and, if possible, which type of antifreeze was used.

I agree with UB on the disposal issue. However, there are systems to reclaim the discharge, albeit expensive. But they keep the discharge from entering the water table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top