REPORTS AND MINUTES of chapter meetings

Home  Chapter News   Meeting Reports  Job Postings   Member News  Around Town   Other Stuff  How to Submit

Minutes of Executive Committee & chapter meetings

 January 2009       February 2009      July 2009     October 2009     January 2010

May Luncheon Meeting – Factory Mutual Data Sheet 8-9 Changes

Our own Lorin Klein, P.E., Senior Loss Prevention Engineer with Whirlpool, gave an excellent presentation on the new version of FMDS 8-9.

This new data sheet (March, 2010), “Storage of Class 1,2,3, 4 and Plastic Commodities”, is one-stop data sheet that simplifies the design process, providing guidelines for most storage applications, involving rack, solid-piled, palletized, shelf, or bin-box storage arrangements. It takes advantage of the state-of-the-art knowledge in sprinkler characteristics to provide improved protection

A summary of the reasons for changes include:

• Larger K factor sprinklers perform better
• Quick response sprinklers perform better
• Pendent sprinklers generally perform better
• Data sheet 8-9 applies these sprinkler attributes to provide protection options
• Effort to reduce the normal expected loss if a fire occurs
• Residual benefits

The requirements in this data sheet are not retroactive.

There are discrepancies with NFPA 13. Several example cases are included in the PowerPoint presentation and data sheet.

Additional discussion was included of FM Data Sheet 2-0, “Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers”. Data sheets 2-2, 2-7 and 2-8n have now been consolidated in 2-0. There are now just 3 categories of sprinklers: storage, non-storage and special protection. All storage sprinklers now have the same installation requirements, including obstruction rules. Specific system area limitations have been removed; system areas are now limited by the hydraulic capabilities of the system to provide the required system design. (This last item generated the most comments by those attending).

For a more detailed summary of the presentation, download a copy of Lorin’s PowerPoint presentation, “Changes to FM Data Sheet 8-9 (March 2010), Conflicts with NFPA 13”.

This luncheon was held at an alternative location, Reza’s Restaurant in Oak Brook, Illinois. The turnout was very good and the food was a selection of fine Persian, Middle-Eastern, and Mediterranean Cuisine – a good choice of venue and alternative food.
(submitted by K. Mniszewski, 5/11/10)

10^th Annual IFPA-SFPE Combined Fire Prevention Product Show
– A Continued Success

A great event showcasing one of the largest exhibitions of products services and related industrial components of the Fire Protection industry in the Chicagoland area was held on March 8, 2010. This included exhibits from manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, insurance organizations, Engineering Companies and Fire Prevention Associations.  The venue, the White Eagle Banquets and Restaurant, was great as usual given its spacious and comfortable area and good food.  Two professional development classes were held prior to the show.

One was “High Challenge Commodity Fire Protection; Aerosol Packaging per NFPA 30B”, by Martin Pabich, with Underwriters Laboratories. This included a fascinating exploration into limited testing and research regarding new large (1000 ml) plastic aerosol containers and why NFPA 30B doesn’t currently recognize such containers. Large scale 12-pallet testing showed significant problems in providing sprinkler protection. The NFPA 30B committee is still studying options on what can be done.

The other was “Update on the 2010 edition of NFPA 13”, by Cecil Bilbo, Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology, Inc. This interesting and informative talk led us through the most important changes in the standard, in areas focusing on ceilings, residential systems, antifreeze and dry systems, corrosion, storage, and seismic.  The printouts given during this talk can be downloaded here (2.5 MB pdf file).

Carl Baldassarra speaks to Chapter about Life Safety Evaluations

The March Luncheon Meeting of the Chicago Chapter was held at Petterino’s Restaurant in Chicago on March 1, 2010.  Carl Baldassarra, Executive Vice President of The RJA Group and a Fellow of the SFPE, gave a presentation on the Life Safety Evaluation (LSE) required by the City of Chicago High Rise Retrofit ordinance passed in 2004. A synopsis of Mr. Baldassarra’s comments is shown below.

The High Rise Retrofit ordinance was adopted after the 2003 Cook County Building fire. It included a comprehensive package to improve life safety from fire in existing high rise buildings (buildings over 80 feet in height). According to city estimates, about 1,300 buildings will be affected. Of these, about 200 are commercial buildings and about 1,100 are residential buildings.  The LSE was mandated for existing buildings exceeding 80 feet in height and used for non-transient residential uses or a commercial historic building. Exceptions include non-transient buildings or historic commercial buildings that are protected throughout by automatic sprinkler systems.

The LSE is a systematic approach to evaluate the positive and negative attributes of a building. Points are awarded for positive features and points are deducted (or no points are awarded) for negative features. There are a minimum number of points required to demonstrate a level of life safety from fire that is equivalent to the level of life safety that would be provided by compliance with the Chicago Building Code (CBC) for an existing building. A LSE score that meets or exceeds the minimum required score does not guarantee against loss of life or property damage, and it does not imply that a building is in compliance with the requirements of the CBC, nor should it be construed to waive compliance with provisions of the CBC applicable to existing buildings. It demonstrates that the level of life safety is equivalent to the level of life safety required by the CBC.

If a building does not demonstrate an equivalent level of life safety to that required by the CBC, improvements to the building must be completed by January 1, 2012 to bring the level of life safety in the building up to the level required by the CBC.

According to an analysis performed on 222 buildings which were surveyed, only 7.2% of the buildings received a passing score on the initial survey. The major deficiencies were a lack of voice communication systems, lack of rated fire doors on stairway enclosures, penetrations through stairway enclosure walls, deficient corridor wall separations and inadequate or missing door hardware. The average cost of compliance to demonstrate equivalency using the LSE method was about $ 207,000 per building. The presentation on this topic can be found on the Chicago SFPE website.

According to an analysis performed on 222 buildings which were surveyed, only 7.2% of the buildings received a passing score on the initial survey. The major deficiencies were a lack of voice communication systems, lack of rated fire doors on stairway enclosures, penetrations through stairway enclosure walls, deficient corridor wall separations and inadequate or missing door hardware. The average cost of compliance to demonstrate equivalency using the LSE method was about $ 207,000 per building. Click here for a pdf version of the PowerPoint presentation (2.1Mb).
(Submitted by J. Talbert, 3/4/10)