MEMBERS PRESENT:

John Gillilan, CAFAA
Robert Evans, Stockton FD
Linda Brandelius, Roseville FD
Ben Lehr, Honeywell Bldg. Control
James P. DiGrazia, Consumer Products
David Shaw, Salinas Rural Fire
Mary Cornelison, Contra Costa Co. FPD
Jim McLaughlin, Lund-Pearson-McLaughlin
George Blind, Sunnyvale FD
Agustin Cerdan, Sunnyvale FD
David Reade, Monterey FD
Philip Constantino, Hillsborough FD
Cal Lewis, C.A. Lewis and Associates
Kirk Snodgrass, Burlingame F D
Jake Tomkin, Stanford FD
Sandy Bettencourt, Santa Clara FD
John Signorino, Santa Clara FD
Joong Yang, M.H. Chew and Associates
David Scardigli, Foster City FD
Dan Heiser, Palo Alto FD
Paul Vitali, Aptos/La Selva FPD
Tom Bendar, LPM Fire Protection
Ed Saiz, Daly City FD
Terri Leyton, Central Sprinkler
Martin Von Raesfeld, Santa Clara
Lucky Thomas, Berkeley FD

The Fire Protection Devices Committee had limited time and discussed two issues: Omega sprinklers and Title 19 inspections.

OMEGA SPRINKLERS

Terri Leyton informed us that if you do not want to be part of the settlement and agreements between Central Sprinkler Company (CSC) and the Consumer Safety Products Commission, you must file the relevant form by February 6, 1999.  If you do plan to be part of the settlement which is the case for the majority of home owners and businesses, you must file by August 1, 1999.  You can obtain the required forms by calling 1-800-896-5685 or by going to CSC's web site at www.omegarecall.com and downloading them.  (These comments apply to anyone in the United States reading these minutes on the Internet.)
Terri assisted Ed Saiz, Daly City Fire Department, at a meeting with home owners to help them fill out the forms.  There has been difficulty finding contractors willing to change out the sprinklers.  If you are aware of contractors who will assist with the replacement, or if you would like to have a meeting similar to Ed's, please contact Terri at (619) 272-5244 or at TerriCSC@aol.com.
 
OMEGA SPRINKLERS AND FIRE CLEARANCE

Several NorCal members made it clear that you cannot sign the fire clearance for day care occupancies if the sprinkler system is equipped with Omega sprinklers.  This is no different from having a problem with exiting or a fire alarm system.  The same holds true for other occupancies that may require fire department clearance or a permit.  Likewise, a sprinkler contractor cannot issue the 5-year State Fire Marshal tag for systems that are equipped with Omega sprinklers.
 
TITLE 19 AND CLASS II STANDPIPE SYSTEMS

Copies of the October 22, 1998 letter from Maurice Dong, Safety Inspector for the Daly City Fire Department, were presented to the group for discussion.  This letter discusses issues with hose and nozzles for Class II standpipe systems.  We decided it needs a response from the Office of the State Fire Marshal.  From here, the discussion went in several directions:

Cal Lewis, C.A. Lewis and Associates, asked why we really need small hose in sprinklered buildings.  Most fire departments will not use the owner's equipment since they do not know its condition.  They might be used for mop up, however.

I followed by pointing out that OSHA requires training for the employees when the building is equipped with small hose stations and that we have been allowing 3A20BC fire extinguishers under alternative means.  Most of the new warehouses in Stockton, Lathrup, and Woodland have Early Suppression Fast Response sprinkler systems where a static pressure of 150 psi to 165 psi is common.

Finally, Jim McLaughlin, Lund-Pearson-McLaughlin, recommended that the Title 19 Committee be revived with the possible goal of combining NFPA 25 with Title 19.  He mentioned that there are a number of areas where Title 19 is more comprehensive than NFPA 25 and that a former member of the Committee, Jim Feld, has a list.  For example, Title 19 requires a back flush of the fire department connection.  NFPA 25 only requires an inspection for obstructions and a verification that the valve clapper is operational.

DISCUSSION OVER LUNCH

Co-Chair Wes Arvin, who could not attend this meeting, requested information about pressure reducing valves and several of us discussed this topic during lunch.  Pressure reducing valves regulate both static pressure and discharge pressure under variable flow conditions.  Normally, you must determine the range which these valves will be used and find a product that will meet that range.

Pressure restricting valves limit the discharge by restricting the orifice.  These valves have a device around the valve stem that you can see, and it prevents the valve from being opened fully unless it is removed.  Both types can be called PRV's, so be sure you mean reducing or restricting.

The One Meridian Plaza high-rise office building was equipped with restricting valves on floors 26 through 30 but with reducing valves on floors 13 through 26.  Only a few floors were protected with sprinklers.  The Philadelphia Fire Department required 100 psi for their automatic fog nozzles, but the pressure reducing valves provided only 60 psi.  These reducing valves are considered to be one of the factors that contributed to the loss back in 1991.  Fire spread from the 22nd floor to the 30th floor where it was controlled by 10 automatic sprinklers.  Three fire fighters lost their lives during this tragic event.
 
FEBRUARY MEETING IN WOODLAND

For our meeting in Woodland on February 26, 1999, I will have a handout that includes recommendations for the Committee's goals and objectives for 1999, a position by the American Fire Sprinkler Association for protection of boats stored on racks, the correct method for installing the Tolco beam clamp retaining strap and some of the exchange of ideas from our web site.  If we have time, I would like to discuss the NFPA 13 section on welded pipe and fittings.  However, this Committee welcomes any other issues related to fire protection design, installation, application of equipment or code interpretation.

If you are reading this on the Internet and would like a copy of the Daly City Fire Department letter or the handout for February, please send your request by fax (209-937-7087) or    E-mail (reevans@hotmail.com).

Respectively submitted,
 
ROBERT EVANS, CO-CHAIR    WESTON ALVIN, CO-CHAIR
FIRE PROTECTION DEVICES COMMITTEE  FIRE PROTECTION DEVICES COMMITTEE

REE:dac
 

Results May Support Revisions to NFPA 25

 NORTHBROOK, Ill., January 22, 1999 – Recent laboratory testing by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) on dry sprinklers taken from field installations indicates that exposure of these sprinklers to harsh environmental conditions over an extended period of time may cause the sprinkler not to operate under certain fire conditions.  These sprinklers are typically installed in areas where temperatures may fall below freezing.  To conduct further research and expand the current database, UL is requesting field samples of dry sprinklers for operational testing.

To date, UL has conducted operational tests on less than 100 samples taken from 16 different installation locations.  Preliminary test results indicate that 62 percent of the samples required pressures greater than seven psi (pounds per square inch) to discharge water from the sprinkler.  Severe corrosion caused some sprinklers not to operate.  The years of manufacture for the field samples tested have ranged from 1967 to 1996.  More test samples are needed on a wider variety of sprinkler models, years of manufacture and years in service, before final conclusions can be drawn.

The results of UL's investigation to date support the need for revisions to the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 25 – Standard for Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, which currently requires that dry sprinklers be replaced or that samples be submitted to a recognized laboratory -- such as UL -- for field service testing after those sprinklers have been in service for 50 years.

UL's experience with this type of sprinkler indicates that, given the extreme environments in which these units may be installed, their functional life could be reduced to a time period less than 50 years and, in some cases, significantly less than 50 years.

 Accounting for less than three percent of all installed fire sprinklers, dry sprinklers are generally found in locations with harsh environmental conditions, characterized by wide variations in temperature, humidity and corrosive conditions, such as attics, car ports, cold storage structures, parking garages, warehouses, and unheated portions of buildings.

UL will conduct operational testing on dry sprinklers sampled from field installations at no charge to the submitter.  It is important to identify these systems and consult with the sprinkler manufacturer or their customer service representatives for information and costs regarding removal and replacement of samples.  UL will not reimburse submitters for removal, replacement or shipping costs.
Samples sent to UL for testing should be properly identified with the information described on the Sample Identification Tags, available through UL's Field Sprinkler Sample Testing Program.
 In addition to collecting samples for testing, UL is also interested in obtaining any information regarding: (1) specific field experience with dry sprinklers, and (2) the current 50-year interval for field testing, as specified in NFPA 25.  Input from the fire sprinkler industry, insurers, property owners, and authorities having jurisdiction will assist in substantiating a proposal to the NFPA 25 Committee to reduce the time interval for dry sprinklers to be tested or replaced.

 Information, data or samples for operational testing should be sent to Kerry Bell, Associate Managing Engineer, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL, 60062.  Technical questions regarding dry sprinklers can be directed to Mr. Bell at (847) 272-8800, Ext. 42629 or bellk@ul.com.

 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is the largest safety testing and conformity assessment organization in North America.  More than 14 billion UL Marks appear on products each year, and more than 17,000 types of products are tested at UL's five U.S. testing laboratories, located in Northbrook, Ill.; Melville, N.Y.; Santa Clara, Calif.; Research Triangle Park, N.C.; and Camas, Wash.