ARE YOU READY FOR THISRISK

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 High-
rise 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 doctors office = Category 3;
gas system in ER = Category 1
HVAC (cooling tower) at Seattle hospital =
Category 3 but a Category 1 gas system
 RISK MATRIX

Frequent Category 1
Frequency of occurrence

Probable

Occasional

Remote

Improbabl Category 4
e
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 AHJs 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