My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Winterizing Fire
Sprinkler Systems
The Best Insurance is a Good Education



In climates that are subject to freezing temperatures, winterizing
is much more than a few checks before the weather turns
cold. Winterizing is an ongoing task that occurs throughout all
seasons of the year and affects the entire building system. Every
time a system is inspected or worked on, prevention of
upcoming freezing conditions should be a consideration. It
may be warm outside now, but at some point in the near
future, cold temperatures could create a risk of a damaged
system that will then not be ready to fight a fire, save a life,
and protect a property for our client.

Damage caused by a frozen system can create a long-lasting
situation where a system is out of service. The model building
codes and NFPA standards have done a good job of keeping
the legal responsibility of building and system maintenance
with the building owner, but we, as fire and safety consultants, have
an obligation simply as a good business practice to observe
possible dangerous conditions and assist our client in the
overall maintenance of the building. This can become an
opportunity to educate our client and assist in ensuring that
the building and fire sprinkler system are winterized properly.

One of the largest causes of frozen systems is poorly maintained
or disturbed insulation combined with a lack of
building heat. It is common for insulation to get pushed out
of place during a small building project. This can occur
during the simplest of minor projects such as an electrical
upgrade, a minor ductwork modification, or even a carpentry
change inside or outside the building. Any time that the
building insulation is changed, moved, or damaged, it is
recommended that a professional insulation contractor
become involved to observe the damage and make the
necessary repairs. Maintaining the insulation envelope and
appropriate vapor barrier is one of the most important
factors in the prevention of frozen piping. It is also critical
that we avoid accepting responsibility for the building
insulation system by trying to repair it ourselves. Remember,
the responsibility of maintaining the building and its systems
belongs to the owner. If possible damaged insulation is
observed, point out the deficiency so that it can be repaired
by the appropriate source. Documentation of this deficiency
is also important so that a paper trail is maintained, showing
that you have put the building owner on notice that a critical
situation may be present.

Periodic or annual inspections of dry-pipe systems and
antifreeze systems should be scheduled well ahead of
periods of freezing temperatures. It is critical that these
types of systems be properly maintained since they are
typically installed outside the insulation envelope in areas
where heat is not present. If possible, dry-pipe systems
should be tripped during the warm part of the season to
ensure that there is plenty of time for excess water to drain
out of the system. After a full system trip, it is not uncommon
for water to trickle out of the piping for quite some
time. Where low point drum drip type drains are present
within a dry system, it is important to continue draining
them until water is no longer present. This condition may
also occur throughout year as daily temperatures change,
creating condensation in the piping. It is important to
advise the owner’s representative on the procedure and
importance of draining low point drains so that they can be
maintained properly. As freezing temperatures approach, it
is important for the owner’s representative to perform
additional checks of low point drains to ensure that the
system is ready for the upcoming period of cold weather. As
temperatures dip below freezing and then rise above
freezing during daytime hours, it may be necessary for the
building owner to continue to monitor low point drains
until the risk of freezing temperatures has passed.
In addition to dry-pipe systems, we often find antifreeze
systems in areas subject to freezing. Proper levels of antifreeze
solution are critical to ensure that the system is protected. As
with dry-pipe systems, the level of antifreeze solution should
be checked and maintained well in advance of freezing
temperatures. The National Weather Service records should
be reviewed to determine the expected low temperatures for
the area and the level of antifreeze solution should be mixed
accordingly. Since antifreeze solutions are typically heavier
than water, it is advisable to mix the solution considerably
stronger than needed as major portions of antifreeze will
likely settle to the low points of the system. The good news is
that heat rises and the low points are likely to be the most
vulnerable portions of the systems. NFPA 13, Standard for
the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, provides guidance on
mixing and minimum levels of antifreeze solutions.
Drains that discharge to outside should be checked to ensure
that the drain valve seats properly and does not continue to
drip. In cold temperatures this can result in a dangerous
situation where drains discharge onto sidewalks or parking
areas, causing a slipping hazard. Additionally, leaking drains
can result in an ice plug, which may cause piping to rupture
and become unusable. Assuming that the valve is located
within the heated space, this is not necessarily an immediate
threat to the operation of the system, but will create a maintenance
problem later and could result in water damage caused
by the ruptured piping.

One last thing to consider is heat tape. Although not typically
considered as good freeze protection for fire protection
systems, occasionally we encounter heat tape and it is
important to ensure that it is in good working order. If
present, heat tape should only be used on bulk piping, drain
piping, or similar conditions where sprinkler heads are not
attached directly to the piping. A visual inspection of heat
tape should be performed to look for any damage that may
be present. Heat tape should also be checked electrically to
ensure that it is actually working and is ready to protect the
exposed piping. If you are unsure if the heat tape is operating
properly, advise the owner that a certified electrical contractor
should look at the situation and verify that it is operating
properly. Remember, maintaining the building systems is
ultimately the owner’s responsibility and liability. If heat tape
is used for protection of isolated piping, it is highly recommended
that monitored heat tape is used so that, in the event
of a failure, the owner is provided with notification that there
is a potential issue.

The best insurance for protection against frozen sprinklers and
piping is good education. Educating a building owner on the
importance of winterizing, maintaining a proper insulation
envelope, and providing adequate heat is one of the most
important tasks we can perform with regard to winterizing. A
well-educated building owner can provide the basis for good
maintenance which in turn provides for a system that will
continue to operate for years to come.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

The Stuff in the Hall
A closer look at objects residing in corridors

A question I often hear when teaching seminars on NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, concerns the placement of stuff in corridors. Can furniture, book shelves, trophy cases, file cabinets, and other such "stuff" be placed in corridors? The answer depends on several factors.

Section 7.1.3.2.3 of NFPA 101 does prohibit placing things in the exit enclosure, which includes enclosed exit stairs and exit passageways. The language in this section is very broad. For example, it says that "An exit enclosure shall not be used for any purpose that has the potential to interfere with its use as an exit…" (my emphasis added). So, at least as a starting point, it is clear that we cannot put "things" in an exit stairwell or exit passageway.

However, no such exclusion is found in the code for exit access. The corridor is part of the exit access and is defined in Section 3.3.76 as "that portion of the means of egress that leads to an exit." The code allows "things" in the exit access, as that is the portion of the means of egress where we live, work, and play.

Chapters 18 and 19 of the Life Safety Code, which address hospitals and nursing homes, prohibit placing "things" in the corridors of these health care occupancies.
So, in general, the code says we may put things in the corridors of buildings. But there are some restrictions. One is that the minimum clear width of the corridor be maintained. In the -2.3 section of each occupancy chapter, a minimum width for corridors is specified. For example, the minimum width of a corridor in a business occupancy serving 50 or more persons is 44 inches (112 centimeters), while the minimum corridor width in an educational occupancy is 72 inches (183 centimeters).

The above widths are minimum widths. The actual width of the corridor in a building may be wider than the minimum width to provide the required exit capacity. Obviously, "things" cannot be placed in a corridor that would reduce the width below that required for the calculated egress capacity.

There are several general requirements that would also apply to placing things in the corridor. Section 4.5.3.2 requires that egress from all parts of a building be kept free and unobstructed. Section 7.1.10.1 requires that the means of egress be continuously kept free of obstructions or impediments. Section 7.1.10.2.1 prohibits furnishings, decorations, or other objects from obstructing exits or access to the exit. Section 7.5.2.2 requires that the exit access be clearly recognizable.

Hangings and draperies are not allowed to obstruct egress in accordance with Section 7.5.2.2.1. However, none of these requirements requires that we walk in a straight line. Humans typically do not walk in straight lines, so walking around "things" is not a problem as long as there is adequate width and the path is obvious.

Except for health care occupancies, which have special provisions for corridors, "things" may be placed in corridors as long as the minimum required width is maintained, the required exit capacity is maintained, and the "things" do not present a condition that could cause an obstruction or present a greater fire hazard than is expected for that occupancy.

Q&A: Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Fire- and Life-Safety Systems

Q. Would someone who has completed your training courses be qualified to inspect his own facility to determine if it satisfies NFPA requirements?
A. Yes. We cover the NFPA requirements and how they relate to real-life situations, and we discuss how to interpret or understand what the NFPA says.

Q. What is new and what has changed over the past 5, 10 and 20 years?
A. Going back a little bit further, I would say 30 years ago, sprinkler protection was installed primarily to protect the property with no expectations or thoughts about life safety. In the ’80s with the adoption of ADA, the industry began to focus more on life safety in more applications. Ten years ago, sprinklers became important for protection of life and property. Smoke detection and fire alarms became more of a design criteria, specifically for evacuation.

Within the past five years, I think most of the building standards have been written with the assumption that fire sprinklers are in place. With fire sprinklers, you reduce the requirements for wider corridors and the number and size of exits.

A fully sprinkled building is much different than one that is not, which is good and bad alike, in my opinion.

Q. Why is that?
A. Sprinklers do not give early warning of a fire. If the sprinkler system is in operation, it’s typically too late to get people out of the building. A fire-alarm system is needed to work in tandem with a sprinkler system to give earlier notification. Then you will have quicker evacuation times to protect people, and you will have the sprinkler systems to protect the property. That seems to be the direction the industry is going and the way the standards are being written.

With the new NFPA Standard, 2007 edition, the direction has been modified again, but not many places have adopted it yet. The new standard is going in the direction of mass notification systems versus fire-alarm systems.

Mass notification is a voice system to annunciate that there is an emergency in the building. The system can override the fire alarm system to give evacuation instructions. You also have the ability to hit a tornado button or hurricane button that would give a voice instruction. I think this trend has been driven by the military because it had adopted and started moving in that direction on bases.

Q. How much influence does the military have to bring about that code change?
A. The NFPA has carried forward the military’s emphasis of mass notification to the private sector in the new NFPA 72, which was originally written to define a fire alarm system. Moving forward, when the new mass notification systems standard is adopted by a state or governmental agency, a resultant requirement in the private sector may be created, as compared to a standard fire alarm system.

What that means is that the industry is going to rely more heavily on speaker systems and voice evacuation systems.

Q. What effect will this have on a fire- and life-safety system?
A. I think future fire-alarm systems will require many more devices to achieve good voice clarity. The main issue with voice instruction is clarity and volume because you do not get the same decibel levels as you do from a horn or siren or any variation thereof. To get good clarity and to get good audible levels, you need to space the speakers closer together. Once you’ve done that, you have good clarity, but you still don’t have the same volume levels as you do with other audible devices.

Now, that’s not to say that I’m against voice evacuation systems — not at all. The reality is — and this is documented by studies — people respond better to voice evacuation systems. When people are told what to do during an emergency, they tend to follow the instructions. If it’s a voice evacuation system, people believe the threat is real.

Q. Do you think UL 864 opened up more possibilities for building owners in terms of adding to their current fire alarm systems?
A. I don’t think the UL or ANSI standards drive much in the field. Let’s face it. Design of fire alarm systems is driven primarily by enforcement of the local code. Generally speaking, a new fire alarm system is going to be coming from an engineer with a set of drawings, plans and specifications.

Retrofit projects generally use an engineer. Our goal is to bring the property up to a reasonable standard by upgrading the system to the necessary levels. Once again, this is code and authority driven. Some authorities having jurisdiction interpret the standard to mean that if you make any modifications whatsoever to the current system, you have to bring it up to the current standards. Other authorities interpret it as anything you add to the system must meet the current standard. Others just say anything is better than nothing. It’s all over the board, really.

Q. Do you recommend going to the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) first to find out their point of view?
A. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we typically try to talk to the AHJ up front. After we do some preliminary design, we’ll have them review the plans and then move forward with final drawings and the project.

Q. What other challenges do retrofit projects present?
A. If I were talking to a business owner, I would suggest that he demand a product that is distributed by multiple vendors. If he chooses a proprietary product, he will have fewer places to get service for that product.

One of the challenges that we face on a regular basis is trying to assist a potential customer who is unhappy with his current provider. However, we are unable to help because of proprietary software or the inability to get the product because of the limited sales organization that represents the product. A building owner should make sure that he has at least a couple of vendor choices locally, so that if he becomes unhappy or dissatisfied with his current vendor, he will have another option.

Q. How does the fire- and life-safety industry contribute to the green design movement?
A. It’s not specifically related to green design, but I will tell you that the number of notification appliances with low current draw on a circuit influences cost. Mass notification and voice evacuation systems are possibly impacted the most because of the need for amplification. Amplifiers are probably the most expensive piece of the puzzle. With a lower current draw, the number of notification appliances on a single loop can be increased. Anything having a lower current draw is advantageous.

Q. What should a building operator know about the importance of a life-safety system?
A. One of the reasons I think I have been successful in training is because I am so passionate about life safety. One of the things that I think the industry needs to get across to building owners is that they need to be more focused and concerned about life safety.

Most building owners are looking at fire alarms as a code driven requirement, not from a life-safety perspective for their personnel, and they need to change that concept. That’s not about sales for this company or anything thereabouts. It’s about things that I run into on a regular basis, like, “Do I have to do this?”How valuable are your employees, or associates, or the people that work for you? How much are their lives worth?

I don’t think the industry has done a good job of communicating that to the marketplace. This isn’t about somebody standing over you saying, “You have to do this.” It’s more about protecting your people and your property.

Storage Facilities
High-Bay and Automated Storage

Warehouse-type facilities with rack storage
present a complex fire protection problem.
As indicated in the fire test data included
in NFPA 13, Standard for Installation of
Sprinkler Systems, and NFPA 30, Flammable
and Combustible Liquids Code,
large-scale fire tests have demonstrated
that many of these fires can become very
large and difficult to control within two
minutes or less.

Determining the correct
automatic sprinkler system solution can be
a challenge. The increasing popularity of
large storage warehouses that have rack
storage heights from 40 ft to over 100 ft is
increasing the level of complexity for the
automatic sprinkler system design.

Currently, very little full-scale fire testing
with automatic sprinklers has been done
with rack storage in excess of 40 ft, which
limits the automatic sprinkler choices and
protection schemes that are available for
these applications.

The complexity of protecting storage
occupancies with sprinkler systems seems
to originate with the large number of
sprinklers and categories available. For
those designing this type of sprinkler
system, it is important to understand that
the science and math involved is universal
and obvious to those trained in the field.

Sprinkler hydraulics, sprinkler spacing,
response times, fire control and fire
suppression are subfields of sprinkler
technology that use the same mathematics
and science that have been applied for over
100 years. There are six significant
characteristics in the manufacture of
automatic sprinklers that can be changed
in the manufacturing process to achieve
different performance. These are:
1. Thermal sensitivity
2. Temperature rating
3. Orifice size
4. Installation orientation
5. Water distribution characteristics
6. Special service conditions

The science of thermal sensitivity is well
documented. Transfer of heat governs all
aspects of fire, from ignition through
final extinguishment. Heat is transferred
by one or more of three mechanisms:
conduction, convection, or radiation.

Convective heat transfer (heated air
from a fire rising to the ceiling) is the
primary means by which a sprinkler is
activated. The heated air rises in a
plume to the ceiling. When the plume
hits the ceiling, it produces a ceiling gas
jet. The heat responsive elements of the
sprinklers within the jet are then heated
by conduction of the heat from the air.

When the heat responsive element
reaches its operating temperature, the
sprinkler will activate.
It is necessary to measure this process in
order to determine the thermal sensitivity
of the sprinkler. Thermal sensitivity is the
measure of how fast a heat responsive
element operates when installed in a
sprinkler. Factory Mutual developed a
method to measure thermal sensitivity that
is used today which utilizes the concept of
a response time index (RTI). The device
used to conduct this measurement is
commonly referred to as a “plunge oven”;
the test is referred to as an “oven heat test”
in Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL
199.

Within the plunge oven an air stream is
moving through a metal duct at a constant
velocity and temperature. The sprinkler,
which is at room temperature, is plunged
into the heated air stream. A measurement
is made of the time, in seconds, required
to raise the temperature of the heat
responsive element, approximately 63
percent of the temperature of the heated
air stream. This measurement is called a
“tau factor.”

Multiplying this factor by
the square root of the velocity provides the
number which is the RTI of the sprinkler.
RTI = TU1/2
T = tau factor
U = air velocity

NFPA 13 section 3.6.1(a)(1) defines the
response time for fast response sprinklers
as having a thermal element with an RTI
of 50 (meter-seconds)1/2 or less, while
section 3.6.1(a)(2) defines standard
response as having a thermal element with
an RTI of 80 (meter-seconds)1/2 or more.

The standard does not have a separate
defined RTI for quick response sprinklers.
Section 3.6.2.9 defines quick response as a
type of spray sprinkler that meets the
criteria of 3.6.1(a)(1), making it a type of
fast response sprinkler.

The sprinkler’s temperature rating can
have a dramatic effect on the sprinkler’s
performance in a storage occupancy fire. A
good example of this is illustrated in the
density/area curves for rack storage of class
I through IV commodities less than 25 ft,
and rack storage of class I through IV
commodities above 25 ft. Full-scale fire
testing in rack storage up to and including
25 ft indicated a more effective performance
for high temperature-rated
sprinklers when compared to ordinary
temperature-rated sprinklers. Ordinary
temperature-rated sprinklers typically
operated outside the actual fire area, which
will essentially rob water from the
sprinklers in the fire area.

High temperature-rated sprinklers did not operate in the
same manner, which resulted in greater
discharge in the fire area. As a result, the
density/area curves for rack storage of class
I through IV commodities up to and
including 25 ft allow a reduction in
density when using high temperature-rated
sprinklers.

Taking a look at rack storage of class I
through IV commodities over 25 ft, we see
the exact opposite, as NFPA 13 recommends
the use of ordinary temperature-rated
sprinklers over high temperature-rated
sprinklers. Again, this is the result of
full-scale fire testing. In these tests, in-rack
sprinklers (which are now required) show
their effect on the ceiling sprinklers.

Essentially the sprinklers operating at the
lower levels reduce the heat release rate of
the fire dramatically. Therefore, the
sprinkler operating area did not increase
with ordinary rated sprinklers as it did
with less than 25-ft storage without
in-rack sprinklers.

Sprinkler orifice size and K-factor determine
the amount of water that can be
discharged from a sprinkler at a given
pressure. The fundamental formula for
water discharge from an orifice can be
traced back to Torricelli’s Flow Theorem,
Q=av, discovered in 1644.8 This theorem
has been used by hydraulics engineers,
physicists, and all who have ever hydraulically
calculated a sprinkler system as
documented in Harold Wass’ 1999
second-edition book Sprinkler Hydraulics
and What It’s All About. Pages 45 and 46
describe how this formula is mathematically
converted to the standard formula
used in the sprinkler systems (shown
below):
Q=29.84cd2√p
This can be simplified further to:
Q= k√p

All sprinkler K-factors, whether or not
they are currently used in the sprinkler
industry and/or storage occupancies,
are developed from the same mathematical
formula.

Installation orientation and water
distribution are also critical to a sprinkler’s
performance. Installation orientation
can have an impact on water
distribution and the ability of the
sprinkler to control or suppress the fire,
when in close proximity to building
structural members. The concepts of
suppression and control are well-known
and are linked to the actual delivered
density of water (ADD) versus the
required delivered density (RDD). The
required delivered density will increase
as the heat release rate of the expected
fire increases. In other words, a more
intense fire will require more water for
control or suppression.

Current CMDA and In-Rack
Sprinkler Design for Rack Storage
of Class I through IV Commodities
Above 25 Ft

The requirements for
rack storage protection are contained in
chapter 16 for Class I-IV commodities
and chapter 17 for plastics and rubber
commodities. These chapters are separated
into sections for rack storage below
25 ft and storage above 25 ft. When
required to use control mode density/area
sprinklers, understanding the requirements
of NFPA 13 can be simpler when
rack storage is over 25 ft than when it is
less than 25 ft. For rack storage over 25
ft, the size of the design area and the
required density are established and very
few adjustments are made; whereas, they
are not for rack storage less than 25 ft.

However, additional difficulty comes in
with the requirements for in-rack
sprinklers.

When control mode density/area sprinklers
have been selected for installations
involving rack storage over 25 ft, in-rack
sprinklers are required. While the hydraulic
calculations are not overly difficult, the
figures describing the in-rack locations
within NFPA 13 will require the designer
to dedicate some time to review the charts
for a complete understanding of proper
in-rack sprinkler locations.

Chapters 16 and 17 also allow for the use
of control mode specific application
(CMSA) and early suppression fast
response (ESFR) sprinklers in specific
situations. Using these types of sprinklers
can provide several benefits, including
elimination of in-rack sprinklers and, in
some cases, a less costly design. The
primary limitation to CMSA and ESFR
sprinklers is the limit in storage and ceiling
height. If the rack storage and building
ceiling height exceed 40-ft storage and
45-ft high ceilings as defined in Chapters
16 and 17 of NFPA 13, they cannot be
considered for use. The designer is then
limited to the selection of CMDA
sprinklers with in-rack sprinklers. The
rules for installation will be found in
several different locations of the document,
including Chapters 8, 12, 16, 17
and 22.

NFPA 13 Chapter 12 allows the following
CMDA sprinklers to be used in
storage applications. Standard response K
5.6 sprinklers are allowed where the
required density is .20 gpm/ft2 or less.
Standard response K 8.0 sprinklers are
allowed where the required density is .34
gpm/ft2 or less. Where the required
density exceeds .34 gpm/ft2, standard
response K 11.2 sprinklers that are listed
for storage must be used. Quick response
sprinklers can be used if they have been
listed for storage applications.

The lowest density for this application
described in Table 16.3.1.1 is .25 gpm/ft2
limiting the sprinkler selection to standard
response K 8.0 sprinklers, no special listing
required, or K 11.2 and larger that have
received a listing for storage. The majority
of the required densities are in the range
where K 11.2 or larger would be the most
hydraulically efficient. Chapter 8, Table
8.6.2.2.1 limits the spacing of standard
pendent and upright sprinklers to 100 ft2
where the required density is greater than
or equal to .25 gpm/ft2. Given that most
of the required densities for this type of
storage application are .3 gpm/ft2 or
greater, the K 11.2 becomes a likely
selection for the ceiling sprinklers.

100 x .3 = 30 gpm
(30 gpm / 11.2)2 = 7.17 psi end-head
pressure

Section 8.13 provides the basic installation
rules, including the maximum protection
area for any single system of sprinklers in
racks which is 40,000 ft2 The in-rack
sprinklers can be either standard or quick
response and the allowed K-factors are 5.6,
8.0 and 11.2.

This section of Chapter 8 also clarifies that
the installation rules for in-rack sprinklers
do not follow the installation rules of ceiling
sprinklers. For example, in-rack sprinklers
are allowed to be placed less than 6 ft on
center and do not have to meet the
clearance and obstruction criteria of section
8.5. Chapters 12 through 20 will define the
positioning of these sprinklers.

Another commonly overlooked section is
8.16.1.6, which requires separate control
valves and drains for the sprinklers
installed in racks. The only exception to
this requirement is for systems with 20 or
fewer in-rack sprinklers. The intent of this
requirement is to allow for the isolation of
the in-rack sprinklers from the ceiling
sprinklers. Because in-rack sprinklers are
susceptible to damage due to their
location, it is essential to allow for the
ceiling system to remain in service while
repairs are being made.

When CMDA sprinklers are used with
in-rack sprinklers the ceiling sprinklers are
intended to protect the upper level of
storage, whereas the in-racks are intended
to control the growth and spread of fire
within the rack structure at the lower
levels.10 Chapter 22, section 22.8 requires
the pipe supplying the in-racks to be
hydraulically calculated and the water
demand for the in-racks to be added to the
ceiling sprinkler water demand over the
same protected area at the point of
connection. The demand shall be balanced
to the higher pressure.

Balancing can be done with the formula
listed below:
Qadj = (Ql) (√Ph/Pl)
Where:
Qadj = the adjusted flow into the lower
pressure line.
Ql = the calculated flow in the lower
pressure line.
Ph = the higher of the two pressures
Pl = the lower of the two pressures
Example: At the point of connection the
sprinkler system demands 984 gpm at
62.4 psi. The in-rack sprinklers have been
calculated to require 322 gpm at 57 psi.

To balance the pressure and determine the
adjusted required flow:
Qadj= (322) (√62.4/57)
Qadj = 336 gpm
336 gpm will be added to 984 at the point
of connect for a total water demand of
1,320 gpm.




High-Bay and Automated Storage

Concepts for the Future Special service conditions for sprinklers used in racks will define new technology in the future. Unique applications such as automated storage will likely require special sprinklers. Automated storage systems utilize computer-controlled equipment to move and stack com¬modity, typically on racks with narrow aisle widths, or on racks that move horizontally, which are referred to as movable racks. These buildings can be designed for storage heights over 100 feet. The racks are typically connected to the walls and roof to provide support for the structure. NFPA 13 will require a substantial amount of in-rack sprinklers to be installed in applications such as this. Manufactur¬ers will surely seek alternative methods of protection in the future.

In order to develop new products that can benefit the end-user and provide the necessary fire protection for this challenging environment, manufac¬turers will look to expand upon the known math and science that is well-established within the sprinkler industry. Rack storage schemes using horizontal barriers have a history of success and have been well-docu¬mented within NFPA 13. This type of concept separates the rack storage into more manageable areas where fire control or suppression is more easily achieved. Viking worked with a European furniture manufacturer in 2005 to conduct testing of rack storage using vertical barriers as an alternative to existing fire protection schemes defined within NFPA 13. While the tests were successful, Viking sought improvement using the barrier concept. Seeking improved results leads to the concept of using horizontal barriers within the racks with improved in-rack sprinklers. The horizontal barriers would be placed at different elevations above the picking level of the forklift operators. This configuration will eliminate the flue space to the ceiling, helping toprevent the fire from spreading vertically, which will assist in con¬taining the fire growth. It also reduces the volume of commodity being protected and exposed to activated sprinklers.
The European furniture manufacturer test used K11.2 extended coverage sprinklers as the in-rack sprinklers. The flatter spray pattern helped to negate the obstructions presented by the rack structure and helped to reduce the overall amount of in-rack sprinklers required. The tests were conducted with the sprinkler flows at 60 GPM and 80 GPM. The sprinklers were positioned with the deflectors 1¼ inches below a simulated rack beam, and the framed arms were positioned both parallel and perpendicular to the simulated rack frame.
The test resulted in water spread within simulated rack structure. The discharge spray was able to discharge in rack structure and apply water to face of rack. Some dry spots were visible at 60 GPM discharge. Relative¬ly no dry spots at 80 GPM discharge. The results were relatively equal with the frame arms parallel or perpendicu¬lar to the simulated rack frame.
The results of this testing will likely result in an extended coverage in-rack sprinkler designed to provide down¬ward thrust in the flue space and spread water to the face. The use of extended coverage sprinkler technol¬ogy will continue to expand in use within the storage market. This type of technology used in storage can expand upon the same concepts and rules established in the 1980s for ceiling protection, such as the square coverage areas for pendent and upright sprin¬klers. As described in the NFPA 13 handbook, using the square coverage area will promote inter¬changeability and allow positioning on the branch lines without regard to the sprinkler frame arms. Those familiar with sprinkler design will see the natural benefit to such a concept.

Developing a concept for the sprin¬kler system installations in warehous¬es will likely require different ap¬proaches and the use of new or existing technology to achieve improved performance. It is highly likely that these new protection schemes will use horizontal or vertical barriers for compartmentation. Ideas that are being evaluated include the use of interstitial space sprinkler tech¬nology for in-rack sprinklers. These sprinklers are designed to be installed in small combustible concealed spaces where there is limited space for water distribution to develop. The flat deflector technology combined with larger K factors and fast response thermal elements may address the installation issues encountered with in-rack sprinkler.
Another concept is to combine fast response thermal elements, K factors of 11.2 or larger, varying temperature ratings with the deflector technology used for suppression and specific application technology for in-rack sprinklers. This type of technology may result in im-proved fire control or suppression with a limited amount of sprinklers. Used in conjunction with horizontal barriers, this may result in lower overall water require¬ments and localize the number of sprinklers operating to a very small area of commodity. Other sprinkler technol¬ogy being considered included the use of directional type sprinklers, such as sidewalls and flat spray nozzle within rack storage. Each one of the existing technol¬ogies has the potential to be modified based on the six characteristics we discussed earlier in order to be applied in a new application.
Based upon the full-scale fire testing for rack storage covered earlier, the benefit to larger volumes of water with fire control and suppression are obvious and docu¬mented by numerous research agencies. This, combined with fire modeling, paints a clearer picture of how dry sprinkler systems operate in fire condi¬tions. While the concept of fire modeling may sound new to some, using models to predict sprinkler performance on dry systems can be traced back to the early 1970s as discussed in an article “The Number of Sprinklers Opening and Fire Growth” by R. Baldwin and M.A. North, published in NFPA periodical Fire Technology. The models referenced in this paper predicted the number of sprinklers that would operate on a dry system as it relates to fire growth. The science used in these early models will continue to be used in research for dry systems in storage applications.
All current design criteria described within NFPA 13; actual full-scale fire testing to date; current fire modeling as indicted in the report released by the NFPA Fire Protection Research Founda¬tion in 2007, titled “Review of NFPA 13 Dry System Water Delivery Provi¬sions;” and fire modeling as described above indicate that more sprinklers will operate on dry sprinkler systems than wet sprinkler system during a fire due to the inherent water delay. With this knowledge and understanding of the science the use of concepts that address the large number of open sprinklers and larger volume of water needed for control and suppression will certainly be used in high warehouse storage applica¬tions in the future.
Conclusion As the construction of warehouses with rack storage of com¬modities over 40 feet continues to grow, the fire protection industry must develop a variety of new sprinkler system solu¬tions. We are fortunate that much of the way has been paved for us by the efforts of many professionals who have done the research. The math and the science will be consistent. What is old will be new again as manufacturers seek to apply fundamental principles discussed earlier to develop new products.

Selecting the most appropriate sprinkler to be used in storage applications can be a challenging activity. Designers should not allow themselves to become distract¬ed by the terminology and language of the installation standards. The designer should be confident that the science and math are universal and that many of the principles described above remain the same for all types of sprinklers.

Winterizing Fire
Sprinkler Systems
The Best Insurance is a Good Education



In climates that are subject to freezing temperatures, winterizing
is much more than a few checks before the weather turns
cold. Winterizing is an ongoing task that occurs throughout all
seasons of the year and affects the entire building system. Every
time a system is inspected or worked on, prevention of
upcoming freezing conditions should be a consideration. It
may be warm outside now, but at some point in the near
future, cold temperatures could create a risk of a damaged
system that will then not be ready to fight a fire, save a life,
and protect a property for our client.

Damage caused by a frozen system can create a long-lasting
situation where a system is out of service. The model building
codes and NFPA standards have done a good job of keeping
the legal responsibility of building and system maintenance
with the building owner, but we, as fire and safety consultants, have
an obligation simply as a good business practice to observe
possible dangerous conditions and assist our client in the
overall maintenance of the building. This can become an
opportunity to educate our client and assist in ensuring that
the building and fire sprinkler system are winterized properly.

One of the largest causes of frozen systems is poorly maintained
or disturbed insulation combined with a lack of
building heat. It is common for insulation to get pushed out
of place during a small building project. This can occur
during the simplest of minor projects such as an electrical
upgrade, a minor ductwork modification, or even a carpentry
change inside or outside the building. Any time that the
building insulation is changed, moved, or damaged, it is
recommended that a professional insulation contractor
become involved to observe the damage and make the
necessary repairs. Maintaining the insulation envelope and
appropriate vapor barrier is one of the most important
factors in the prevention of frozen piping. It is also critical
that we avoid accepting responsibility for the building
insulation system by trying to repair it ourselves. Remember,
the responsibility of maintaining the building and its systems
belongs to the owner. If possible damaged insulation is
observed, point out the deficiency so that it can be repaired
by the appropriate source. Documentation of this deficiency
is also important so that a paper trail is maintained, showing
that you have put the building owner on notice that a critical
situation may be present.

Periodic or annual inspections of dry-pipe systems and
antifreeze systems should be scheduled well ahead of
periods of freezing temperatures. It is critical that these
types of systems be properly maintained since they are
typically installed outside the insulation envelope in areas
where heat is not present. If possible, dry-pipe systems
should be tripped during the warm part of the season to
ensure that there is plenty of time for excess water to drain
out of the system. After a full system trip, it is not uncommon
for water to trickle out of the piping for quite some
time. Where low point drum drip type drains are present
within a dry system, it is important to continue draining
them until water is no longer present. This condition may
also occur throughout year as daily temperatures change,
creating condensation in the piping. It is important to
advise the owner’s representative on the procedure and
importance of draining low point drains so that they can be
maintained properly. As freezing temperatures approach, it
is important for the owner’s representative to perform
additional checks of low point drains to ensure that the
system is ready for the upcoming period of cold weather. As
temperatures dip below freezing and then rise above
freezing during daytime hours, it may be necessary for the
building owner to continue to monitor low point drains
until the risk of freezing temperatures has passed.
In addition to dry-pipe systems, we often find antifreeze
systems in areas subject to freezing. Proper levels of antifreeze
solution are critical to ensure that the system is protected. As
with dry-pipe systems, the level of antifreeze solution should
be checked and maintained well in advance of freezing
temperatures. The National Weather Service records should
be reviewed to determine the expected low temperatures for
the area and the level of antifreeze solution should be mixed
accordingly. Since antifreeze solutions are typically heavier
than water, it is advisable to mix the solution considerably
stronger than needed as major portions of antifreeze will
likely settle to the low points of the system. The good news is
that heat rises and the low points are likely to be the most
vulnerable portions of the systems. NFPA 13, Standard for
the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, provides guidance on
mixing and minimum levels of antifreeze solutions.
Drains that discharge to outside should be checked to ensure
that the drain valve seats properly and does not continue to
drip. In cold temperatures this can result in a dangerous
situation where drains discharge onto sidewalks or parking
areas, causing a slipping hazard. Additionally, leaking drains
can result in an ice plug, which may cause piping to rupture
and become unusable. Assuming that the valve is located
within the heated space, this is not necessarily an immediate
threat to the operation of the system, but will create a maintenance
problem later and could result in water damage caused
by the ruptured piping.

One last thing to consider is heat tape. Although not typically
considered as good freeze protection for fire protection
systems, occasionally we encounter heat tape and it is
important to ensure that it is in good working order. If
present, heat tape should only be used on bulk piping, drain
piping, or similar conditions where sprinkler heads are not
attached directly to the piping. A visual inspection of heat
tape should be performed to look for any damage that may
be present. Heat tape should also be checked electrically to
ensure that it is actually working and is ready to protect the
exposed piping. If you are unsure if the heat tape is operating
properly, advise the owner that a certified electrical contractor
should look at the situation and verify that it is operating
properly. Remember, maintaining the building systems is
ultimately the owner’s responsibility and liability. If heat tape
is used for protection of isolated piping, it is highly recommended
that monitored heat tape is used so that, in the event
of a failure, the owner is provided with notification that there
is a potential issue.

The best insurance for protection against frozen sprinklers and
piping is good education. Educating a building owner on the
importance of winterizing, maintaining a proper insulation
envelope, and providing adequate heat is one of the most
important tasks we can perform with regard to winterizing. A
well-educated building owner can provide the basis for good
maintenance which in turn provides for a system that will
continue to operate for years to come.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.

He saw the best in me when everyone else around could only you see the worst in me, he see me for who i am!

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, Gods special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Dear country men and wemen remember you can't bitch if you don't VOTE!

Remember to VOTE on November 2,2010

GET YOUR VOTE ON!!!!!

Does Lightning Strike Twice?

They say that lightning never strikes the same place twice. Having once sat in an
observation tower up in Yosemite National Park watching multiple lightning bolts during a fierce thunder storm, I would be hard pressed to completely disagree with that.

I do know that no matter where lightning strikes the point of contact is going to suffer some damage. But, it often strikes in the same vicinity as a previous strike.

One of the reasons that might occur is that there might be something there that is
attracting the lightning from the sky to the ground. Whatever that factor is, such as
tall tree, the results are frequent gathering of lightning strikes in a particular area.

Where is lightning likely to strike in your community the next time? Well, I am not referring to real lightning. I am talking about the onset of a tragic event that nobody expects to happen. What I am talking about are those types of catastrophic events that do seem to be like a bolt of lightning out of nowhere.

No one predicts them and no one is ready for them. The same thing might be said about fires. Fire seldom strikes the same place twice. When it does it is usually ground for suspicion. You can continue the correlation to the idea that fires that occur close to each other might be telling you a story that you ought to be paying attention to. This article is
based on the fact that the fire prevention division ought to be paying attention to the census information and to the neighborhood configuration of the community. If you are going to have a whole bunch of lightning strikes I have a sneaking suspicion there could be some commonality among the factors that lead to those fires occurring in the
same proximity.

My initial interest in this came from a fire department that I work with dealing
with the clustering of structure fires associated with kitchen fires. If one looks at the end-of-year annual report and it says that you have a specific number of structure fires and a specific number of those were kitchen fires, that tells you something about the nature of the problem but it also requires another level of sophistication. Merely looking at the raw numbers is an indication of how fast something is occurring but does not
measure the trend or pattern as to why it is occurring.

That level of analysis should be a function of looking at those locations as they are distributed or concentrated throughout the community. The term that is used in the GIS world for this is called “hot spotting.” Hot spotting is nothing more than linking
incidents up to other incidents within a certain distance radius and forming some conclusions about the characteristics of that area that may be causing your problem.

Part of the strategy of a fire prevention division should be to look at the specific
distribution and concentration of its incidents on an annual basis. The more uniform the distribution the more that there is a degree of randomness to the event. A good example might be looking at a map of emergency medical service calls in a community. It is not
uncommon for that type of call to be fairly wide spread. However, once you start looking at specific areas of concentration of call workload the data often identifies the fact that there is a condition of that location that needs to be examined more closely.

Once again continuing with the EMS analogy the location of residential care facilities for the elderly often results in a tremendous amount of concentration of medical aid calls. Depending upon the nature of the local contract and the relationship with the ambulance authority, that may or may not be a problem.

But nonetheless it is an indication of trends and pattern. In the case of my friend he was able to identify exactly what was causing the problem and as a result he took action to resolve it. When you look at fire problems, this kind of trend analysis may be a part of
the overall strategy to introduce mitigation practices. If there is a particular area
in which a particular type of call occurs over and over again, that should become
the focus of future consideration for specific mitigation strategies. That mitigation would include but not necessarily be limited to such things as public education programs, targeted enforcement programs even surveillance and interviewing processes.

Over time this lightning strike phenomenon can be either reduced or at least more thoroughly understood.

If it cannot be reduced, there is a possibility that the operations division in the fire department needs to be considering additional resources.

This begins to play into such things as unit utilization and the need to have secondary equipment. Or, it can be reduced if they require the department enact memorandums
of agreement for other entities to reduce reliance on the emergency services division for events that are essentially non-emergency.

In essence, what I am saying is that if you have got lightning strikes that start to concentrate you ought to be putting up a lightning rod. This metaphor applies to the fact that you are unlikely to be able to prevent lightning from being discharged but you certainly can minimize its impact on the ground.

Reinforcement for this came to mind the other day when I was reading about an incident in Russia. Over 100 people died in a Russian nightclub as a result of a fire that swept the facility. Not unlike that proverbial lightning, I doubt anybody would have predicted that event would occur until after it had already transpired. It is amazing how hindsight
can be.

In this particular case, the fire official had been placed on indefinite leave. Not withstanding the fact that there is a totally different form of government in Russia as compared to this country, the reality is that whether the fire chief knew about the problem or not is ultimately going to be the target of the public’s wrath. When
these events occur, survivors and relatives of the victims alike are looking for a scapegoat and one of the first places to start searching is the top of the pyramid in a fire
department.

Fortunately for most of us, lightning doesn’t strike in our communities all that often. But, the catastrophic event that destroyed the Russian nightclub is not much different than the Station Nightclub in West Warwick, R.I.

Where are your lightning rods for these kinds of problems? What are the indications that lightning could strike resulting in an embarrassing scenario for the department and at
worst a career-ending event for the chief fire officer. One strategy to prevent this phenomena is to conduct a periodic review of your potential for a lightning strike.

The answer is found in the various factors that seem to be derived from many of these catastrophic fires. For example, in heavily crowded public assembly occupancies, fires occur periodically in entertainment venues in which there is very little oversight during the hours of operation.

Here is a question for you. Do you have any facilities within your community that meet that criterion? If you do, then perhaps you need to attach a lightning rod to that occupancy.

Workload analysis that is based upon reviewing the frequency, distribution and concentration of levels of activity is a logical extension of understanding
the risk assessment in a community.

This particular technique does not necessarily mean that you give up the more structured approach to inspecting occupancies in accordance with other policies and procedures.

The metaphorical lightning rod I am referring to is an inspection frequency that is focused on the prevention of such an occurrence. As a fire prevention professional, you should be paying very close attention to the conditions of your public assembly
occupancies, especially after hours and during periods of their most intense usage.

Granted, it takes a little bit more time and effort to go out and inspect these kinds of buildings rather than walking through them in broad daylight. That is the very thing that
needs to be considered. These types of occupancies might pass inspection during the daytime and be a potential threat at night.

Some fire departments have established nighttime inspections of these types of occupancies, especially in metropolitan areas. But, the fact is often ignored in organizations that are not quite metro sized at this point. For example, those cities that
have a population concentration of between 85,000 to 125,000 may have those types of scenarios occurring in their nighttime establishments and the fire prevention division not be totally aware of it.

I have talked about the fact that there is a function of graceful degradation that sits in place of almost all occupancies that once you inspect the building the minute you walk out the door it begins to deteriorate. I would carry that so far as to say that once you have compliance that graceful degradation begins to occur shortly after that also. The
reason for using this particular technique in conjunction with linear planning for code enforcement is the very idea that you may have some parts of your town in which conditions have not been brought into compliance and they need to be targeted and reduced to an absolute minimum if you wish to keep the remainder of your workload totally under control.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Putting Fire Back Into Fire Prevention

Here is a horror story for you. A fire chief goes to great lengths to put a specific piece of fire protection technol­ogy into a very complicated building. In the process, the fire marshal suffers the consequences of fighting battles behind the scenes that cost him or her in terms of their working relationship with the building and development community.

Fast forward a couple of years later, when a fire actually occurs in the occupancy and the very thing that the chief fought to achieve in the way of built-in fire protection is totally overlooked by the responding crews as they attempt to cope with the problem facing them.

If you think that this is a far-fetched tale, let me assure you that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that it has actually happened in the past and is likely to continue to occur in the future. One of the reasons for this phenomena is that many fire prevention bureaus have systematically removed fire from fire prevention by not getting their operational people closely engaged with the process of fire code development.

As far away as I am from you right now, I can already hear some of you mutter­ing to yourself, “What the heck?” You might think that I have fallen over to the dark side and start to believe that fire suppression is more important than fire prevention. Or, worse yet, you think that I am getting ready to criticize fire prevention for ignoring the wishes of fire suppression. Well, stop muttering for just a few more paragraphs and continue following my line of reasoning.

One of the very real reasons that we attempt to put things into the fire code to mitigate against the risk is to benefit our suppression forces. I have referred to the fact that the fire code provisions ranging all the way from property set backs (which equal expo­sure protection) and location of exits (which deals with rescue and evacua­tion) are as much a part of concern of the operational people as they are of the individuals writing and enforcing the fire code. Fire prevention is every bit as much about firefighter safety as it is about limiting damage.

But I am actually concerned about something a little different than that. What I am talking about is the process of plan checking during which decisions are made about how to approach a building, how to maneuver around it, and how to gain access to it are influ­enced by operational implications. And where are our fire operations people during this discussion? They are over at the fire station talking tactics, strategy and safety.

Recently, I was in a conversation with a fire prevention friend of mine who is extensively involved in plan check. He expressed a concern about the fact that more and more “alternatives” are being proposed regarding how to get access to the exterior of a building and there is nobody developing the parameters from the operations division to evaluate whether or not the operations folks can cope with the solutions being offered.

As simple a thing as a turning radius of a fire truck can often bear heavily on the implications of plan check review process. And, of course, many fire agencies have dealt with the develop­ment of standards to deal with that one issue. But the list is much lengthier than that. I can recall once in my career having a rather extensive discussion with a developer for high-rise buildings over the size of an elevator. They had de­signed an elevator for the movement of people that would not allow a full-size gurney to go into place to evacuate a medical aid victim from an upper floor.

As the Fire Marshal at the time, I was involved in the discussions of what should be the minimum dimension of an elevator in this high-rise, because the building was populated entirely by people who were over the age of 65. Granted, that was a long time ago and it probably has gone into the annals of contemporary wisdom to account for things like that. But what about the things that we are not looking out for right now?

There are a few potential strategies that we in the fire community could contemplate to change this. First and foremost perhaps we should adopt the idea of requiring that individuals entering the fire service spend some time in a fire prevention bureau. Back in the ’50s and ’60s and even as late as the mid-’70s, many fire departments embraced the idea that recruit firefight­ers serving in their fire prevention bureaus learn a lot about construction and fire behavior. Unfortunately, as a practice it has faded away.

The second concept could be to contin­ue to use the fire prevention bureau as one of the stepping stones of succession planning of an organization. To be real blunt about it, that is not a very popular strategy for the simple reason that it is an eight-hour workday and most firefighters do not like it. But six months in the bureau could change a person’s perspective on what those code provi­sions really mean to the fire service.

In my conversation with my fire prevention friend, I asked him how he overcomes this gap within his own department. His comment was that he had managed to make friends with several truly reasonable fire officers over “on the floor” and whenever a new problem was posed to him he would often go over and engage them in a dialogue about their observations, concerns and recommendations. In other words, he engaged in a little participative management in prevention.

Perhaps we should move a little further down the scale of adaptability and start putting seasoned fire officers onto the subcommittees within our planning development groups to look at the long-range implications of new con­struction and creative architecture. While our fire prevention people are away attending conferences rewriting the codes, somebody needs to keep an eye on the idea of being able to use the solution under crisis.

There are a lot of potential problems with all of these strategies, and I know that. In my experience, I have seen fire prevention continue to march to a different drummer in making code changes that result in some pretty expensive code requirements that may or may not make any sense to the opera­tional fire service. I have simultaneously watched the operational side of the fire service turn a blind eye toward the development of the sophistication going into buildings almost to the point of endangering themselves when they are required to operate on emergencies.

The impact of many fire departments that are focusing most of their energy on responding to emergency medical aids may well be developing an information and competency gap that will cost our profession in the long run.

Lastly, fire departments should be doing everything they can to restore the concept of preplanning into the day-to-day activities of fire depart­ments. Prevention and preplanning are dual ways of reducing the loss of life and property. One leads to the other. And vice versa, putting preven­tion components into a building and then not sharing the expertise on how to use them is definitely not an appropriate course of action for a professional service.

The true legacy of the fire service included fire officers like John Damrell and his contemporaries of the late 1880s who focused a significant amount of their energy and effort into improving the fire safety of their communities. The modern fire chief has a different plate – make that a platter – from which to act upon. It is in the best interest of the fire profession overall for both fire prevention and fire suppression to be arm and arm as we proceed down the path of developing the fire problem in the next century.

Putting Fire Back Into Fire Prevention



Here is a horror story for you. A fire chief goes to great lengths to put a specific piece of fire protection technol­ogy into a very complicated building. In the process, the fire marshal suffers the consequences of fighting battles behind the scenes that cost him or her in terms of their working relationship with the building and development community.

Fast forward a couple of years later, when a fire actually occurs in the occupancy and the very thing that the chief fought to achieve in the way of built-in fire protection is totally overlooked by the responding crews as they attempt to cope with the problem facing them.

If you think that this is a far-fetched tale, let me assure you that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that it has actually happened in the past and is likely to continue to occur in the future. One of the reasons for this phenomena is that many fire prevention bureaus have systematically removed fire from fire prevention by not getting their operational people closely engaged with the process of fire code development.

As far away as I am from you right now, I can already hear some of you mutter­ing to yourself, “What the heck?” You might think that I have fallen over to the dark side and start to believe that fire suppression is more important than fire prevention. Or, worse yet, you think that I am getting ready to criticize fire prevention for ignoring the wishes of fire suppression. Well, stop muttering for just a few more paragraphs and continue following my line of reasoning.

One of the very real reasons that we attempt to put things into the fire code to mitigate against the risk is to benefit our suppression forces. I have referred to the fact that the fire code provisions ranging all the way from property set backs (which equal expo­sure protection) and location of exits (which deals with rescue and evacua­tion) are as much a part of concern of the operational people as they are of the individuals writing and enforcing the fire code. Fire prevention is every bit as much about firefighter safety as it is about limiting damage.

But I am actually concerned about something a little different than that. What I am talking about is the process of plan checking during which decisions are made about how to approach a building, how to maneuver around it, and how to gain access to it are influ­enced by operational implications. And where are our fire operations people during this discussion? They are over at the fire station talking tactics, strategy and safety.

Recently, I was in a conversation with a fire prevention friend of mine who is extensively involved in plan check. He expressed a concern about the fact that more and more “alternatives” are being proposed regarding how to get access to the exterior of a building and there is nobody developing the parameters from the operations division to evaluate whether or not the operations folks can cope with the solutions being offered.

As simple a thing as a turning radius of a fire truck can often bear heavily on the implications of plan check review process. And, of course, many fire agencies have dealt with the develop­ment of standards to deal with that one issue. But the list is much lengthier than that. I can recall once in my career having a rather extensive discussion with a developer for high-rise buildings over the size of an elevator. They had de­signed an elevator for the movement of people that would not allow a full-size gurney to go into place to evacuate a medical aid victim from an upper floor.

As the Fire Marshal at the time, I was involved in the discussions of what should be the minimum dimension of an elevator in this high-rise, because the building was populated entirely by people who were over the age of 65. Granted, that was a long time ago and it probably has gone into the annals of contemporary wisdom to account for things like that. But what about the things that we are not looking out for right now?

There are a few potential strategies that we in the fire community could contemplate to change this. First and foremost perhaps we should adopt the idea of requiring that individuals entering the fire service spend some time in a fire prevention bureau. Back in the ’50s and ’60s and even as late as the mid-’70s, many fire departments embraced the idea that recruit firefight­ers serving in their fire prevention bureaus learn a lot about construction and fire behavior. Unfortunately, as a practice it has faded away.

The second concept could be to contin­ue to use the fire prevention bureau as one of the stepping stones of succession planning of an organization. To be real blunt about it, that is not a very popular strategy for the simple reason that it is an eight-hour workday and most firefighters do not like it. But six months in the bureau could change a person’s perspective on what those code provi­sions really mean to the fire service.

In my conversation with my fire prevention friend, I asked him how he overcomes this gap within his own department. His comment was that he had managed to make friends with several truly reasonable fire officers over “on the floor” and whenever a new problem was posed to him he would often go over and engage them in a dialogue about their observations, concerns and recommendations. In other words, he engaged in a little participative management in prevention.

Perhaps we should move a little further down the scale of adaptability and start putting seasoned fire officers onto the subcommittees within our planning development groups to look at the long-range implications of new con­struction and creative architecture. While our fire prevention people are away attending conferences rewriting the codes, somebody needs to keep an eye on the idea of being able to use the solution under crisis.

There are a lot of potential problems with all of these strategies, and I know that. In my experience, I have seen fire prevention continue to march to a different drummer in making code changes that result in some pretty expensive code requirements that may or may not make any sense to the opera­tional fire service. I have simultaneously watched the operational side of the fire service turn a blind eye toward the development of the sophistication going into buildings almost to the point of endangering themselves when they are required to operate on emergencies.

The impact of many fire departments that are focusing most of their energy on responding to emergency medical aids may well be developing an information and competency gap that will cost our profession in the long run.

Lastly, fire departments should be doing everything they can to restore the concept of preplanning into the day-to-day activities of fire depart­ments. Prevention and preplanning are dual ways of reducing the loss of life and property. One leads to the other. And vice versa, putting preven­tion components into a building and then not sharing the expertise on how to use them is definitely not an appropriate course of action for a professional service.

The true legacy of the fire service included fire officers like John Damrell and his contemporaries of the late 1880s who focused a significant amount of their energy and effort into improving the fire safety of their communities. The modern fire chief has a different plate – make that a platter – from which to act upon. It is in the best interest of the fire profession overall for both fire prevention and fire suppression to be arm and arm as we proceed down the path of developing the fire problem in the next century.

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

The Americas Competitiveness Forum (ACF) is a business focused conference, where companies interact with one another, conduct meetings with over 30 foreign government delegations from throughout the Hemisphere, and learn about market opportunities directly from foreign governments and our own Foreign Commercial Service. We received very positive feedback from the private sector on previous forums and expect this year’s event to be even better! For further details on ACF 2010, please visit http://ping.fm/v4grW

The ACF’s main tracks are:

· Innovation and Green Technologies

· Education and Workforce Development

· Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development
· Supply Chain Connections


Why would your organization want to be involved in the Americas Competitiveness Forum?

Insight on Market Opportunities: The ACF is a unique combination of a business conference coupled with a policy brainstorming session. Governments from the Hemisphere are coming prepared to share market opportunities in their countries with the private sector. Additionally, our Senior Commercial Service Officers (SCOs) who are posted at the U.S. embassies throughout the Americas will be in Atlanta to conduct one-on-one export counseling sessions with interested U.S. businesses who register for this service. These sessions will be held on Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

Opportunity to Shape Policy: The ACF panels will be interactive discussions on pressing topics relevant to the competitiveness of the region. This is a perfect opportunity to let governments know about the kind of problems your company/organization encounters when trying to do business in the region and make a positive difference for the future economic prosperity of the Americas.

Dynamic Participants: The last three ACF events have welcomed up to 1000 high-level government and private sector participants. More than 30 countries from the Western Hemisphere brought high-level delegations, including country delegations lead by presidents and vice presidents.

Interaction with Government Delegations: The Department of Commerce will help facilitate meetings between companies and the foreign government officials who attend the ACF. This is a wonderful opportunity to meet with representatives from many different countries and only travel to Atlanta!

For more information please contact: Tom Strauss, Tel: 404-897-6080, Fax: 404-897-6085, Email: Thomas.strauss@trade.gov

Counters and Customer Service




Ernestine the phone operator. Do you remember her? She was one of Lily Tomlin’s most unforgettable and down right irritating personalities. The caricature of this person however, may have been so close to the reality of how many people had been treated during an encounter with a “counter” person. By that I mean a person who is the portal to an organization. In some cases they are on the phone such as Ernestine. Others are right out there on the stool in back of the counter. And boy, do first impressions count. This is something that every fire division should be concerned about, for customer relations start right there, with the point of first contact. And, many fire departments don’t give much thought to the training or evaluation of who they give that power to. In order to preserve our best reputations perhaps it is time to do so. Often, the plan-checking process requires that an individual bring a set of documents to the fire service. This means that the fire service must have a location to receive these documents.





Customarily this area is referred to as “the counter.” How things go at the counter can be either an asset or liability to the effectiveness of fire prevention programs. If there are complaints as it relates to customer service that are leveled against the fire service, it starts with the handling of complaints by the public and probably ends with the plan-checking process. In between are the day-to-day complaints of people trying to get in or out of difficulty with code violations. Let’s take a look at the rationale of a person who comes into or contacts a fire prevention division about one or more of these potential contacts.





First let’s look at the complaint. While these sometimes become more of a pain than prevention problem they cannot be taken for granted. The fire prevention division needs to have a very specific process for the input and processing of a complaint for several reasons. The first is that having a standardized approach encourages uniformity in the handling of the problem. There is less room for variation. So, here is a series of questions for you as an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).





Do you have a:

• Written policy on how to handle complaints?

• Specific form that you document the complaint?

• Means of identifying the complaining party?

• File where you keep the outcome of a complaint?





There, now that wasn’t that hard, was it? You should have all of those in place right now. No matter who calls in a complaint it is handled the same, it gets documented, the results go back to the complainant and the outcome is recorded. Don’t regard complaints as being trivial, because there have been numerous occasions where a complaint has resulted in a serious event that, handled improperly, could come back to haunt an organization.





Next, let’s look at customer service on plan checks. The primary reason for the fire service being involved in plan checks is to assure that our concerns are accurately documented in the building process. This should be serious business for all prevention divisions that have the right to be part of this process. It can go good or it can go bad. The first thing we should accept is that most individuals seeking plan approval want it done yesterday and are outright impatient if they perceive that their particular project does not receive rapid and personal attention. On the other hand, fire departments that are inundated with documents associated with plans often look at another set of these as being like the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The net result is that the counter is a point of contact in which customer relations are either established or destroyed. The choice as to whether the scenario is going to go well or it’s going to go badly is primarily that of the fire department rather than the customer. The reason for this is for the person bringing the plan to the fire department, it may be their one and only experience with the process. On the other hand, the fire department that is receiving these documents may process thousands, if not tens of thousands, of them over a lengthy period of time and have preferences whether they are formal or informal.





Here are the second sets of questions.

Does your department have:

• A written policy of handling plan checks?

• A log for signing the plans in and out?

• A form that documents required corrections?

• A predictable time frame for getting the documents back to the customer?





If your department lacks any one of the four items above there can be sparks at the counter.





Lastly, how about customer service to people we have had problems with in the past? I know it’s hard to call a person with a rap sheet of code violations a “customer,” but they are. Regardless of the scope of their infractions, they need to be treated as if they have the possibility of becoming just law abiding business and industrial leaders in the community. So, here are the last questions.





When someone calls in to talk about a code violation does the AHJ have:

• Specific guidelines on how to bring any violation into compliance?

• Specific officer hours for conducting phone and counter activities?

• Specific policies on how to address alternative materials and methods for use when the code does not provide a simple answer?

• Specific ways to resolve conflict before code violations have to go to an official appeals process?





There you have it. Three ways to ensure that your customers can learn to love fire prevention. All three are up to you, the fire professional, to set the ground rules. Trust me, many would much rather run over to their friend the councilman or commissioner and tell them just how unfairly your staff has been. In this case, customer service is not reactive – it is proactive. Customer relations, however, is not an unconscious act. It is something that a manager of a fire prevention division should make specific observations on and have policies and procedures in place to assure that customer relations are, at the absolute worse, cordial. These processes involve identifying the process you want used. This process involves the development of documentation and recordkeeping. The department should have a bulletin prepared that provides written requirements to those who are submitting any request to the department to remove any ambiguity. Having a standardized form on which the applicant can file plans or complaints with the division takes some of the personalization out of the process. However, documentation is not customer service. Customer service is being responsive to the verbal interchange that goes on when an individual is confronted with the staff doing its job. This involves having a clear understanding of the differences between acceptable and unacceptable behavior that establish customer relations.





For example, areas that are set aside for counter exchanges should be well designed and reasonably accommodating for those who are coming on site. This could include having an adequate location where multiple individuals can be seated and/or have access to an area where they can relax if there is a line pending at the counter.




Customer relations begin with the interchange when a person approaches the counter. Depending upon the credibility and the past experience of the person behind the counter, the first two to three minutes may make a big difference in terms of how the process goes. It is a reality that many builders, developers and business owners and managers often find this process frustrating and they allow that to create a tone in their voice or a body language scenario that transmits hostility. It is also true that many fire departments that have people receiving documents over the counter have experienced conflict and confrontation resulting in tension. The opposite is also true.





Policy and procedure for handling counter interaction should lay out the process so clearly that there should be no doubt of what is going to transpire once the problem has been submitted. This would include such things as giving the customer some reasonable expectation on whether the problem would be resolved. The planning process should also identify what the consequences are if there is a need for follow-up questions and/ or plan resubmittal due to noncompliance.





The primary consideration of the fire marshal is to keep the customer relations as cordial and as professional as possible. Continued complaints against the manner in which fire departments process counter problems has often resulted in a challenge to the authority of the fire department to be in a priority position in some aspects of code enforcement, especially plan checking. Moreover, hassles in plan checking have often lead external groups to push for a reduced level of involvement by fire departments and/or to consolidate fire and building plan checking processes at a third location.





It is neither right nor wrong to consolidate the two functions. However, if the consolidation is an attempt to merely reduce the fire service’s involvement in customer contact that is counterproductive.





There is a concept that relates to this idea. It is called the “One-Stop Shop.” The tendency over the last couple of years is to develop a concept of the one-stop shop to integrate customer service in a very positive manner. This essentially is a decision to move all of the plan-checking entities into one location so that the plans can be processed with a minimum amount of downtime between one location and another. The one-stop shop concept usually results in building and fire plan checkers operating out of a single counter. On the one hand, this significantly improves the processing time of most plans.





However, it removes the plan-checking individuals from the day-to-day operations of the fire inspectors themselves and often results in some internal disconnects. The critical part of having an effective one-stop shop program is to make sure that written polices and procedures have been established to assure standardization of how the review process is accomplished.





While I have not heard this cliché in a long time, it was once stated that “The customer is always right.” That doesn’t fly in our world. “Right” is defined by the idea that we have to build it right, maintain it right and make sure that the right things happen when an emergency occurs.





Instead, I would like to submit a substitute phrase – “The customer may not always be right when they come through the door, but they will be when they leave.”





Keep up the counter image!

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.

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.

Electrical Room Protection

Fire protection and enclosure requirements for electrical rooms.

There seems to be much confusion concerning the fire protection and enclosure requirements for electrical rooms. Do rooms containing circuit breaker panels or transformers need to be enclosed in fire-resistive enclosures? Do these rooms require sprinklers, or should sprinklers be eliminated in these rooms?

Electrical rooms are not listed as hazardous areas in Chapter 8 of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, or in Sections 3.2, “Protection from Hazards,” in each occupancy chapter. Rather, the requirements for enclosures in electrical rooms are found in NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code® (NEC®).

NEC Article 450.21 “Dry-Type Transformers Installed Indoors,” requires that dry-type transformers rated larger than 112-1/2 kVA be installed in a transformer room of fire-resistive construction. In this Article, the term “fire-resistive” means a one-hour fire resistance. The door to this room would be a 45-minute fire-protection-rated, self-closing, latching door.

Dry transformers over 35,000 volts must be enclosed in a vault. Vault construction, which is addressed in Article 450.42, requires a three-hour fire-resistance rating, although an exception permits a one-hour fire-resistive enclosure where the transformer is protected with a fixed extinguishing system, such as sprinklers, or a gaseous agent extinguishing system.

NEC Article 450.26 addresses oil-insulated transformers installed indoors. Such transformers may be installed in buildings of Type I or II construction if the transformer is rated 35,000 volts or less, no combustible materials are stored in the area, a liquid confinement area is provided, and the installation complies with all restrictions provided for in the listing of the liquid. Oil-insulated transformers can also be installed indoors if they are protected with an automatic fire extinguishing system and a liquid confinement area, provided the transformers are rated 35,000 volts or less. And oil-insulated transformers can be installed in a vault. Unless the transformer is rated at less than 112-1/2 kVA, however, the vault must be constructed of reinforced concrete at least 4 inches (10 centimeters) thick. If the transformer’s nominal voltage is less than 600, a vault is not required if arrangements have been made to prevent a transformer oil fire from igniting other materials and if the total capacity in one location does not exceed 10 kVA in a section of the building classified as combustible or 75 kVA where the surrounding structure is classified as fire-resistant construction.

Electrical equipment other than the transformers covered in Article 450 containing more than 10 gallons (38 liters) of flammable oil per unit must meet the requirements of Parts II and III of Article 450, which may require a fire-resistive enclosure. There are also special requirements for special electrical installations, such as charged-particle-accelerating equipment and surface mining equipment.

So if rooms containing typical circuit breaker panels and small dry transformers do not require any special fire-resistive enclosures, what about sprinklers in these rooms?

Section 8.15.10.1 of NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, requires sprinklers in all spaces in a building protected with sprinklers, including electrical rooms. According to Section 8.15.10.3, however, sprinklers may be eliminated in electrical rooms if the room is dedicated solely to electrical equipment; only dry-type electrical equipment is used; the equipment is installed in a two-hour fire-rated enclosure including protection for penetrations; and no combustible storage is permitted in the room.

In general, typical electrical rooms containing circuit breaker panels and dry transformers do not require a special fire-resistive enclosure, but electrical rooms in sprinklered buildings do require sprinklers. However, special high-voltage electrical equipment and oil-filled equipment may require additional protection in accordance with the NEC.

thanks everyone happy birthday wish.

I just want to thank eveyone for all the happy birthday it made my day thanks again.

Who do you think you are? That is a epithet that is often directed by someone who is angry to another person who is doing something that they should not be doing (or, at least in the opinion of the angry person). Almost every time this phrase is uttered, the person who is responding to it will come back with some sarcastic remark that only elevates the level of debate.

However, you can rephrase the question to, “Who are you?” Then the answer might be relatively easy to state without animosity.

What got me thinking about this particular phenomenon was a recent discussion on the use of authority under a very specific set of circumstances. Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is a common phrase that is used almost on a daily basis, yet in many ways it remains ambiguous and unfocused.

It answers the question we started off with. The answer is who you are with regard to making something happen. You have got authority or you don’t. As I was looking at this phrase, I was struck by the fact that we can replace Author­ity Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) with another phrase, power over place. In other words, if you have the authority to make something happen then you have to make it happen somewhere where that authority actually exists. This is not just a double-speak exercise, but rather a question that has to do with how we use the phrase Authority Having Jurisdiction to get our way in the way things happen.

For example, is authority exclusive? Can only one authority have jurisdiction over a place? Is one authority lower in priority when exercising the same kind of action? In my experience this can get pretty complicated. It is not uncom­mon, for example, in the exercise of governmental authority for multiple entities to exercise different types of jurisdic­tion over a specific place.

For instance, one time there was a real dispute between fire and law enforcement about who had authority over hazard­ous materials events. A recent donnybrook between a police officer and firefighter over traffic control resulted in serious controversy. A good example could be the layering effect of local, county, state and federal government. At any given place in the United States, there can be a minimum of four levels of government that have the right to say certain things about the way things are done in that place. More­over, within those levels there can be conflicts over author­ity depending upon mission and assignment

If you look up the phrase “Authority Having Jurisdiction” on the Internet, you will find that it is most often used in the context of codes and standards. But the use of authority or the ability to exert force to get your way is not limited strictly to codes. It is a function of whether or not you feel that you can exercise dominance over the decision making process.

Hence, when the term Authority Having Jurisdiction is used in other context, it may not mean anything aboutcodes but rather another function we are accustomed to in the fire service, and that is command and control. If you go back to my original power over place contention, the Authority Having Jurisdiction could then be interpreted as any organization, and that organization’s members having the ability to exercise control over a specific activity within the confines of a specific location.

Authority is a coercive activity. Authority implies having power that can be exercised independent of other people’s power. It is a delegated power that is exercised at a very personal level.

We don’t see too much of this in the fire service, but if you look in law enforcement, it happens all the time. A person can commit a crime that is a crime against the federal government but it occurs in a local jurisdiction. If that crime violates the law at the local jurisdiction, then that authority can be exercised to arrest the person. But, if a higher level of authority comes in such as the federal government and demands to take precedent, then they are coercing the locals to relinquish their own power to a higher authority. Our best example in the codes area is the difference between mini-maxi states and local control states. Withholding the ability to act is not uncommon in the world of Authorities Having Jurisdiction.

From the perspective of a fire marshal, it is very important that you understand exactly what authority you have within your jurisdiction. The word “within” begins to define what we are looking at here. Governments have boundaries. If you are responsible for a specific area, i.e., a state, district, county, city, or township, then your ability to exercise control may be limited to the geographical area defined by those boundaries.

In general, the only way one gets authority is to have it given to them by a higher body. If you review the list in the last paragraph, it is easy to see that there are governmental bodies at all of those levels. The flow of the authority I am referring to actually comes from the Constitution because in this country the Constitution creates powers that are reserved for the national government and all other author­ity flows from those areas that have been delegated to subsets of the national government, i.e. states, counties, district, towns, etc. It is sort of like one of those Russian dolls that are one doll encapsulated within another. As you open each layer it reveals another layer.

You will find the term AHJ sprinkled throughout many legal documents. It is a common phrase used in NFPA standards. It appears in multiple forms throughout fire and building code processes and its value is known to be incorporated into other forms of technical documents that require someone to adopt them before they are useful.

This all points to the idea that as fire marshal you need to know exactly what authority you do have. You need to understand exactly where you have it and you need to know what the limitations are. Exceeding your authority creates more problems that can be created by not using your authority at all.

This discussion of authority leads to other sub-categories such as the abuse of authority or failure to act when you have authority and a whole host of other manifestations of consequences. As you finish reading this column if you believe you are an AHJ, congratulations! However, if you are not really sure where your authority comes from, you need to check that out. Go back and do some homework. You might be surprised to find that your agency has not actually adopted the scope of authority you are exercising. If you are not sure that you have it, you need to confirm it. And when it comes to jurisdiction, you have to be really clear as to what authority you have the ability to exercise over what topic.