ARE YOU READY FOR THIS RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE CODES?

ARE YOU READY FOR THIS RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE CODES? William E. Koffel, P.E., FSFPE President Koffel Associates, Inc. www.koffel.com wkoffel@koffel.com Expertly Engineering Safety From Fire

OVERVIEW 2007 Guidance Document For Incorporating Risk Concepts into NFPA Codes & Standards Recent developments in NFPA Codes and Standards Five questions for us to consider

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Resource for Committees considering risk assessment concepts Developing proposed changes Responding to Public Input Incorporating risk concepts into documents

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD NFPA 101-Existing Highrise Business Occ. Sprinkler throughout, OR Engineered life safety system developed by a registered professional engineer and approved by the AHJ Reasonable degree of safety from fire Guidance Document indicates the need for stated goals and objectives

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD NFPA 654 Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids The design. shall be based upon a process hazard analysis o Criteria provided such as maximum allowable layer thickness

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD NFPA 654 Management of change specifically addressed Objectives o Life Safety o Property Protection o Mission Continuity o Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions Prescriptive approach or performance approach o Prescriptive approach permits a risk evaluation to determine level of protection

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD Discontinue use of Hospital Nursing Home Other Health Care Facility Use Risk Categories instead Risk assessment is NOT optional

RISK CATEGORIES NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code, Section 4.1 states: Building systems in health care facilities shall be designed to meet system Category 1 through Category 4 requirements

RISK ASSESSMENT Categories determined by following and documenting a defined risk assessment procedure

RISK CATEGORY 1 DEFINITION Facility systems in which failure of such equipment or system is likely to cause major injury or death of patients or caregivers shall be designed to meet system Category 1 requirements as defined in this code. 4.1.1

RISK CATEGORIES In risk category definitions there is the assumption that there is no intervention from caregiver or others Different categories of systems can exist in the same occupancy Gas system in doctor s office = Category 3; gas system in ER = Category 1 HVAC (cooling tower) at Seattle hospital = Category 3 but a Category 1 gas system

Frequency of occurrence RISK MATRIX Frequent Category 1 Probable Occasional Remote Improbabl e Category 4 No Effect Discomfort Minor Injury Death Severity of occurrence

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD Inspection, testing, and maintenance NFPA 25, 72, and 80 Alternate frequency of activities o Failure rate analysis Acceptable failure rate by the owner Acceptable failure rate by the AHJ Monitoring failure rate to conformance

USING FIRE RISK ASSESSMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A CODE/STANDARD Guide to Applying Reliability Based Decision Making to ITM Frequency for Fire Protection Systems and Equipment Template/Methodology to be used Fire Pump Field Data Collection and Analysis Date collected for fire pumps What is a failure?

NFPA 25 2014 Antifreeze systems with concentrations in excess of 30% propylene glycol and 38% glycerine shall be permitted based upon an approved deterministic risk assessment prepared by a qualified person approved by the AHJ. Annex note with references to test data and factors to be considered

NFPA 25 2014 Alternative fire pump non flow test frequency when: 8.3.1.3.1 The reliability/risk analysis shows that a different test frequency is appropriate. 8.3.1.3.2The reliability/risk analysis is approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Annex note refers to the FPRF Report

NFPA 25 2014 Assessment of Internal Condition of Piping Where an assessment frequency has been established by an approved risk analysis, the assessment shall be performed at a frequency determined by the approved risk analysis.

QUESTIONS Are the developers of the codes/standards serious about allowing risk assessments as an alternative to prescriptive criteria? Or, is this merely an attempt to achieve consensus? Are the users of the codes/standards adequately prepared to perform the intended risk assessment? Or, if a quantitative risk assessment is required do we have the necessary data? SFPE Guide is a resource document for the methodology

QUESTIONS Are the AHJ s prepared to accept the use of risk assessments? Or, will the approach be that as long as it is determined to be equivalent it is okay? NFPA 531 is a resource document Is our litigious society willing to accept properly prepared risk assessments? Or, will the bar always be the prescriptive requirements?

QUESTIONS As the Standards Development Organization, what role does NFPA have in providing training and guidance on performing the risk assessments if: the Committee has defined a specific methodology? the Committee has not defined a specific methodology?

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Expertly Engineering Safety From Fire