×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?
2

Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Attached is a pic a lot of you have probably seen variations of: obstructions that are built into the building by poor design. I understand the odd pendant light fixture obstruction infraction. But not this. I have seen this time and again, whether it's in kitchens above the cupboards, or in closets. My question is to the inspectors out there (as I know all you FPE's will be suitably aghast already), if you walk into an occupied building and come across multiple instances of this, what is the proper course of action? The system is not installed correctly. Do you A) say sorry you cannot do the inspection? B) Do the inspection and check off the appropriate box indicating obstructions exist and mention it to the owners rep? At what point during the course of an inspection where you come across multiple installation violations do you simply say a proper inspection cannot be done?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

also if this is a r or d system or we looking for full protection???

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
In regards to 13R, in Canada where our building code requires all rooms and closets to be sprinklered on the floor immediately under the roof assembly (top floor), and where our attic spaces are generally open to the weather, sidewall sprinklers are frequently used. Running the pipe up the wall and going back to back tees of course saves the installer a lot of time. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out: If you have a hallway sprinkler and back to back you have a suites kitchen, the sprinkler can often end up obstructed by cabinets / cupboards (as in the pic presented here). I would call this an obstruction. Further, it only begs to be further obstructed when a tenant would naturally want to use this space for storage.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

2
NFPA 25 currently requires that inspectors verify the system is fully operational "AS INSTALLED" (SIMPLIFIED OVERALL SUMMARY OF COURSE). This might not be the ideal approach, but it is a reasonable approach and the alternative is simply not feasible.

I am a FPE and I struggle on a regular basis when I find NFPA 13 violations during the inspection routine; however, you have to look at the big picture. If you require all  sprinkler contractor inspectors to ensure each system is fully compliant with NFPA 13, you will require the following:

-Application of current standards to systems which were installed using previous versions of NFPA 13. (Simply impossible for inspectors to be responsible for all of the different versions considering all of the changes. This opens Pandora's Box!!)

-Adequacy calculations for each system and all of the various occupancies (time consuming engineering related activites which most inspectors are not qualified to complete).

-Evaluation of SO MANY requirements for sprinklers (proper application, proper location, proper spacing, etc.).

-THOROUGH inspection activities in all attic areas and all concealed spaces which benefit from sprinkler protection.

-Inspectors would need to spend significant time at the ceiling level gathering detailed information which simply cannot be gathered without a scissor lift or cherry picker.

-Most companies struggle finding qualified employees to complete the current requirements; good luck finding enough employees who are capable of inspections using the entire scope of NFPA 25, NFPA 72 & NFPA 13.

In addition, any variances which were approved by a FPE or the AHJ during initial construction will create significant problems. A solid inspector identifies problem which was accepted/approved & then company changes to new sprinkler contractor only so that the new inspector goes through the same process.........results is wasted time & VERY unhappy customers for good reason).

In my personal opinion, the qualifications and requirements for the state fire inspectors completing the initial acceptance AND the installation contractors needs to be improved. Any and all problems and code voiolations SHOULD be identified and resolved prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. I support a clear and concise state requirement that all new fire protection systems be inspected, analyzed and approved by a qualified FPE or a NICET III or higher (Layout & Design) person which has absolutely no affiliation with the installing contractor prior to issuance of a CO. A proper inspection/analysis/approval process by qualified people would essentuially resolve the problem for all new systems going forward. The problems associated with the existing systems are VERY difficult to resolve without spending a significant amount of money & time.

This is a VERY interesting topic!

P.S. I found an entire warehouse (7 systems) with in-rack sprinklers earlier today during an inspection which had IRAS with no water shields. To answer the obvious question........no they are not "heat collectors" as sooooooo many in the industry use to claim. HA HA  This is an obvious violation of NFPA 13 and the IRAS probably will not function properly during a fire, but based on NFPA 25 I am supposed to ignore this violation. I will NOT document this problem on my inspection forms, but I promise you my customer is FULLY aware of the problem........in essence, my customer received some FREE engineering advice today (while only paying for the inspection services). I suppose this is one of the MANY advantages customers enjoy if the company they hire provides a level of service over and above the minimum state requirements. If WE list issues on our inspection forms which are outside of the scope of NFPA 25, we MUST realize we are exposing ourselves and our comapnies to potential litigation in a court of law............think it through as a lawyer would and you will understand my point.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
I agree with you FPP1. The forms we use don't really allow you to address non 25 issues except in "Recommendations". The question though, what happens when you find a 25 issue that was caused by the installation in the first place? The picture shows a sidewall head with kitchen cabinets mounted directly below. Never mind the dishes on the top of the cabinets, this was an issue that never should have made it past initial acceptance, yet here it is. So, do you write one incidence up as an obstruction? What if you find 10 more? What if, as in this particular case (and many others I've seen), you find 46 instances similar to this?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

FFP1

"This is a VERY interesting topic!"

I agree.

Thank you for your input on a subject that baffles many of us in the "what do I do now" department.

A star for you.

 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

lightecho said "I agree with you FPP1. The forms we use don't really allow you to address non 25 issues except in "Recommendations". The question though, what happens when you find a 25 issue that was caused by the installation in the first place?"

You don't know what happened.

As an example:

NFPA 13R Section 6.6.7.1.3  Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed in dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in Section  4.1, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling unit.

A few years back I did a single story apartment building, in an extremely cold northern climate, and I wanted to use quick response dry pendent sprinklers on a dry pipe system.  Problem was as hard as I tried I needed five sprinklers per dwelling unit which would obviously be incorrect.

The culprit was the sprrinkler required in a small (8 sq. ft.) mechanical closet containing equipment only feeding the dwelling unit that was placed along an outside wall.  

The state the project was located was a mini/maxi state.  The local authority could not accept less, nor could they require more, than what was exactly in the adopted standard. but they did have a "Board of Building Standards" made up of eight people appointed by the Governor who could pretty much do anything they wanted under state law but first drawings had to be submitted, rejected and then you could file an appeal.

So when dropping the plans off I told the local plan examiner I fully expected a rejection explaining the problem and that I wanted to appeal.

Plans were rejected on the spot.

Filed the appeal, explained the problem to the board, the architect explained the doors to the mechanical closets were always locked and how the occupants did not have keys.

Nobody objected, I got the varience (on official state leterhead) and the job was done in full compliance with the approved plans and state law.

I want to point out the board was made up of two engineers, one architect, two lawyers, a high school teacher and a couple moms who appeared bored with nothing else to do.

So what does an inspector say when he counts five dry pendent sprinklers in a dwelling unit?

The answer is nothing... he has to assume the original installation was installed per code, inspected and approved which it was.

I have to think there's lots and lots of jobs exactly like this one.

I am expecting an angry phone call from the owner some day but I still have the paperwork.



 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Are you and SD2 one and the same?

I fully agree with your particular assessment, but what you are describing is not quite what I am trying to get across. There is nothing in 25 that permits me to look at a 13 installation "deficiency" (like the one you point out) and call it a 13 deficiency. But what if it IS a 25 deficiency. The picture attached in my 1st post above clearly shows an obstruction of the sidewall sprinkler by the kitchen cabinet as defined by NFPA 25 2008 (and most previous editions) 5.2.1.2.... It was installed wrong and never called through acceptance. Now it's a 25 issue. How might you approach this in your report?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

besides the blockage issue does the install meet


8.7.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. The distance from sprinklers to privacy curtains, free-standing partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be in accordance with Table 8.7.5.2.2 and Figure 8.7.5.2.2.

sorry cannot post the table, because it turns out strange

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Hi cd: NFPA 25 5.2.1.2 The minimum clearance required by the installation standard shall be maintained ....

It already fails in regards to obstructions right off the git go in 13 at 8.6.5.2.1.1    I don't really have to go looking elsewhere.

But since you DID put in the effort ...  
No that's not quite it. The cabinet is installed on the wall that the sidewall sprinkler is located, and immediately beneath it. I would point at 8.7.6 right next to your table as being perfectly accurate ... replacing Standard sidewall with Residential sidewall. If we want to look at 13R, 6.4.6.3.6.3: Where sidewall sprinklers are more than 3 ft above the top of cabinets, the sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed in the wall above the cabinets where the cabinets are no greater than 12" from the wall (ie no deeper than 12"). So clearly under either installation standard referred to by 5.2.1.2 -13 or 13R, this is a deficiency one should call under 25 during an inspection. But again, this was a deficiency caused by improper installation in the first place, and is not supposed to be in the scope of NFPA 25. Hence my post. How might you write this up?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

6.4.6.3.6.3

what edition was this first in????

sorry I was quoting the 2002 edition for Table 8.7.5.2.2 and Figure 8.7.5.2.2.

and cannot tell dimensions from the picture.


in our area they would note is a problem, but one that is not enough more than likely to require a change.  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
13 is the same in this regard for 2002 and 2007. I don't have access to anything earlier than 2007 at the moment.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Where sidewall sprinklers are more than 3 ft above the top of cabinets, the sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed in the wall above the cabinets where the cabinets are no greater than 12" from the wall (ie no deeper than 12").

I am missing this in the 2002 edition of 13 r

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
13R 2010 has 11 Chapters vs 6 in 2002 and is very much more involved. I was informed yesterday that Alberta had dropped 13R altogether in favor of 13. My guess is it's because 13R has become, not just that much more detailed, but more stringent as well.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

So I guess my question is when this system was installed what edition and brand of 13 was it installed under??

and was it legal on that day by that edition???

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Fair enough cdafd. The first edition of 13R was published in 1989 (and 13D in 1975 but that's probably not relevant here), and I don't have a copy to peruse. If your point is a valid one, and it seems it may be, there should be readily available historical documents for an inspector to reference, otherwise the amount of information one is required to know is burdensome to say the least. I'm pretty sure there is some lagaleze somewhere that specifically addresses this issue.       

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Normal rule is if it was legal when installed thatn it is good to go, unless distinct hazard, change of use, storage materila and a few other things.


nfpa 13 2007


1.4 Retroactivity Clause.
The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not apply to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of this standard. Where specified, the provisions of this standard shall be retroactive. In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively any portions of this standard deemed appropriate.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Yes, I was aware of that stipulation. Other than having every code year by year back to it's inception, is there a resource to determine what code was at the time regarding any given situation? I haven't had time to go browse the NFPA website. I wonder if they have codes archived somewhere's besides on the pdf downloads page?
 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Hello lightecho.

Your most recent post provides a GREAT example of my overall point regarding this issue. Fire Protection Contractor Inspectors are NOT required to confirm whether or not a water-based fire protection system was installed in accordance with NFPA 13, 13R or 13D. Just imagine the time and research involved if you applied this approach at all of the facilities you inspect. This task and responsibility is placed on the local building inspectors and AHJ fire inspectors for VERY good reasons. The fact that many of these people are not fully trained, not qualified and/or not properly focused on details creates the problem you are trying to resolve.

If the issue falls under one of the criteria outlined in NFPA 25, then my advice is to include the deficiency in your report and discuss clearly with your customer. If the issue does not fall under one of the criteria outlined in NFPA 25, then my advice is to make a decision whether or not you want to help your customer outside of the scope of your contract (assuming you have a written contract for your inspection activities of course!).

I sincerely hope this helps & I support your efforts to pursue what is in the best interest of your customer in this situation.  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Sigh    "light echo" is a holdover from a music audiophile forum I used to haunt... sounds kind of corny here.

So FP, You are saying regardless of what code it was installed to, if it's a 25 deficiency now, you call it as such, discuss it with the owner and call it a day? Last week I was inclined to say it was that black and white, and I believe that NFPA 25 is trying to make it that way as they develop and modify the code through each subsequent update. Unfortunately whilst replying to cdafd I quoted " NFPA 25 5.2.1.2 The minimum clearance required by the installation standard shall be maintained ...." and (s)he through it back at me asking: "which code / edition was it then installed under?"

Where to now?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

For most instances, I would have to answer YES.

My understanding of the approach taken by NFPA (& the great State of Georgia): In a nutshell, inspections are performed in accordance with NFPA 25 to ensure the systems are fully functional (as originally installed). They have essentially decided that as long as the systems have not been signifcantly altered, the valves are in the correct position, water supplies are reliable & fire pumps are fully functional, FD connections/fire hydrants/standpipes are accessible & functional, water-filled portions are protected from freeze, all alarm components are fully functional and there are no painted/corroded or severely obstructed sprinklers, then the systems will operate as designed leading to prompt notification.........as long as these facts are confirmed by qualified people on an annual basis (do not forget about the weekly/monthly/quarterly inspections by plant/facility employees) the likelihood of minimizing the fire damage is Good.

That is my understanding anyway........the more severe fire exposures and more complicated occupancies should have formal risk management policies including engineering evaluations and other detailed evaluations (we all know this is not the case in many instances, but it is prudent).

The most significant problems arise when the initial system acceptance inspection activities which SHOULD be completed when the systems are originally installed are not compleetd at all or if they are not thoroughly completed by competent people. Significant exposures also exist when systems are not properly inspected by certified & qualified inspectors and/or not properly maintained due to several factors. Anyone who has completed inspections and/or been involved in our industry for several years is well aware of these exposures/problems.

We should all be focused on what is best for our customers, our company and the industry in general. NFPA and the various state laws provide guidance outlining the MINIMUM requirements...........I am not aware of anything that prevents us from provided more than the minimum requirements; this might be an instance where you go over and above the call of duty in the best interest of your customer, your company & the industry. Document what is required and provide solid good advice as needed even if the problem lies outside of the scope of NFPA 25.

Take care!  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Hmmm Take Care indeed!

Thx for the thoughtful response.

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Ok lets look at the big picture here. As a NICET level III Inspector I will tell you  the following. NFPA 25 does not addresses NFPA 13D to begin with. Also NFPA 25 states that specific guidance for clearance and obstruction is found in NFPA 13. With that said, your service technician/inspector must be qualified to note such items on site. In relation to that picture it will be noted on my report since it is an obstruction and or lack of clearance regardless of what modifications where done to the building. The problem is that most contractors limit their inspectors to just NFPA 25 items. That means they are not fully clear on what the NFPA requirements are.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

I am responding to the recent post submitted by NJ1 for clarity:

NFPA 25 does address NFPA 13D...........NFPA 25 states the following: "1.1.3 This standard shall not apply to sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two- Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes."

In reference to your comment regarding clearance & obstruction issues; I understand where there is room for some confusion based strictly on the 1998 & 2002 versions of NFPA 25. The excerpt you are referring to states the following: "5.2.1.2* Unacceptable obstructions to spray patterns shall be corrected." & "A.5.2.1.2 Obstructions to spray patterns include continuous or noncontinuous obstructions less than or equal to 457 mm (18 in.) below the sprinkler deflector that prevent the pattern from fully developing. Obstructions that prevent sprinkler discharge from reaching the hazard include continuous or noncontinuous obstructions that interrupt the water discharge in a horizontal plane more than 457 mm (18 in.) below the sprinkler deflector in a manner to limit the distribution from reaching the protected hazard. Specific guidance for clearance and obstructions is found in NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and specific sprinkler listings." This text has been replaced in the 2008 version to provide clarity.

NFPA 25 (2008 version) helps to clear some of the confusion with the following: "5.2.1.2* The minimum clearance required by the installation standard shall be maintained below all sprinklers. Stock, furnishings, or equipment closer to the sprinkler than the clearance rules allow shall be corrected." The 2008 Appendix provides the clarity we all need to understand the overall intent of NFPA 25: "A.5.2.1.2 NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, allows stock furnishings and equipment to be as close as 18 in. (457 mm) to standard spray sprinklers or as close as 36 in. (914 mm) to other types of sprinklers such as ESFR and large drop sprinklers. Objects against walls are permitted to ignore the minimum spacing rules as long as the sprinkler is not directly above the object. Other obstruction rules are impractical to enforce under this standard. However, if obstructions that might cause a concern are present, the owner is advised to have an engineering evaluation performed."

There are exactly zero additional references in NFPA 25 regarding "sprinkler spray pattern obstruction issues"; the remaining obstruction references in NFPA 25 refer to possible obstruction to water flow inside the water-based systems or obstrusted discharge nozzles for water mist, foam & deluge systems which are tested in a different manner than standard spray sprinklers.  

NFPA 25 clearly requires confirmation that the 18in. and 36 in. clearance requirements are inspected/addressed, but the detailed "sprinkler obstruction" requirements outlined in NFPA 13 are actually outside of the scope of NFPA 25. This does not mean we should ignore obvious problems..........as I have stated above (previous posts) we all should do what is best for our customers and the general public, but from a legal standpoint, there is no requirement for fire protection sprinkler inspectors to evaluate or document the various "sprinkler obstruction" issues outlined in NFPA 13. These issues should be identified & resolved during the initial sprinkler system acceptance testing performed and/or required by the AHJ.   

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Thank you FPP1, I enjoy your detailed posts.

All these responses though and no one has addressed what I was inquiring about in the initial post, so perhaps I'll ask again and pose the question more broadly, when a system is incorrectly installed, where do you simply say that such is the case and an inspection to NFPA would be irrelevant? I'm sure that each situation is unique as in the example I initially posed, but do you 'Red Flag' the system if you find 20 obstruction issues as opposed to 2 or simply write it up as obstructions exist? What if you look in the crawlspace of a building (like I recently did) and find a copper system, all 1" pipe with the pipe laid low and 12" x 1/2" risers / candle sticks with SSP in the upright position installed less than 6' apart and more the 22" from the floor above? Do you go running for the woods? Do you 'Red Flag' it? It sure is hard to write up in NFPA 25 isn't it?

By the way, what is this Red Flag stuff? It's not addressed in 25 either. (I've read about it in some of these posts as something that appears to be done on occasion in the states).

Regards
Dave

P.S.  Looking at the big picture, 13D wasn't an issue here.
 
 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Georgia State Law requires Green, Yellow and Red inspection tags; the color placed on the system after an inspection depends on the status or reliability of the water-based fire protection system (based on number and severity of the non-compliance issues). Many of the USA states require this approach.

In the USA impairment tags (as referenced in NFPA 25) are typically red (thus Red Tag or Red Flag).

 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

I am totaly clear with your comment FPP1. I appreciate your opinion. First of all what I meant is that NFPA 25 does not cover 13D systems.
Also obstruction to spray patters in NFPA 13 not only covers 18" and 36" clearance but also covers clearance to spray patterns as shown on NFPA 25-2002 Exibit 5.4 page 68.
Meaning 4" inches or less of any object that can cause lack of spray pattern.
As an expert opinion advisor for the NJ Fire Safety Division
these items are so neglected do to lack of cross reference between NFPA 25 and NFPA 13. Field inspectors need to understand that is not what the business owner wants to write in the report but what is required. Most people think these issues are outside the scope of NFPA 25.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
NJ1

For someone new to these posts you would do well to be less condescending. FPP1 is fully aware of what is required by the 'field' inspector (as opposed to some other?). There have been many debates and many great opinions posited here on this forum regarding the relationship between 13 and 25. I for one have learned a lot from FPP1, SD2, cdafd and the likes. This is a wonderful resource with many like minded people all interested in the codes and how they apply to the client and his buildings. I turn 50 this year. On September 11th no less. I've been in this particular trade for over 25 years, but when Travis or stookey or FPP1 show up on a particular thread I know I'm likely to learn something.

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

I guess I have nothing else to say since lightecho have better support from Travis, Stookey and FFPI. I just thought I could help since I am license in 5 States for all purpouse fire protection. Is allways good to have people like me around to learn from arguments, discussions,etc.
 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

My intentions are good and I truly want to help everyone understand this issue.

NJ1: Just so you understand my level of expertise, I have obtained NICET Level III Automatic Sprinkler System Layout & I am also a registered FPE (Professional Engineer with a specialty in Fire Protection). I own a fire protection company and we are primarily focused on inspection services and engineering consulting. I am fairly knowledgeable in my realm of the industry, however, I also realize no one person knows everything required by NFPA due to the wide scope and shear volume of the NFPA standards. I learn new tidbits of information on a regular basis and this forum is a wonderful avenue to learn about NFPA standards, the fire protection industry and the common issues we all encounter each and every day.

NJ1 made two statements with his 2/10 blog entry which are true: "obstruction to spray patterns in NFPA 13 not only covers 18" and 36" clearance but also covers clearance to spray patterns" & "Most people think these issues are outside the scope of NFPA 25"...........the "most people" he references are correct in this instance. I sincerely hope NJ1 will conduct some detailed research and eventually realize the fact that not all of the NFPA 13 requirements are included in the inspection routine required by NFPA 25. Confirmation of the 18 in. & 36 in. clearance requirements are included in NFPA 25; however, the other obstruction to spray pattern requirements outlined in NFPA 13 are NOT included in NFPA 25 for good reason (this was not an oversight by the NFPA committee).
  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

FFP1 for our information I just confirmed with Jim Lake about the clearance requirements and his answered was that all obstructions to spray patterns are to be addressed as per NFPA 13. All Obstructions to spray patterns are to be address when performing a NFPA 25 Inspection. Including but not limited to 18 " and 36" clearance. It addresses obstructions such as sprinkler near light fixtures, walls, etc.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Hmmm    Interesting NJ1. Was this an e-mail exchange and if so, with the good graces of Mr. Lake, could you share that with us?

Regards
Dave  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

I will try to copy and paste somehow. By the way I am not trying to be smarter than anyone here is just my expert side is the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance.
As an expert opinion advisor I have helped the Attorney General to win cases against contractors in NJ because of this.

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Wow..........they need to add a new chapter or a clear statement in NFPA 25 to clearly state the requirement if this is really what is expected by the NFPA committee and thus required by state law in the numerous states which have adopted NFPA 25 as the minimum state law.

I am a little skeptical. Where does this line of thinking stop? Which of the remaining NFPA 13 requirements are we responsible to evaluate even when there is no reference outlining the requirement in NFPA 25 (I am sure we all agree all of the NFPA 13 requirements are important)? Are we all required to confirm sprinkler systems are adequate for all occupancies and various storage heights during the annual inspection routine (i.e. engineering evaluations every year by NFPA 25 inspectors)? Are we required to confirm all sprinkler spacing is in accordance with NFPA 13 (remember the maximum spacing requirements are different depending on the sprinkler and the given occupancy.........so the inspectors would have to confirm the combination of sprinkler, available water pressure, sprinkler spacing and occupancy classification meets NFPA 13 for each area of the facility every year as well)? Are we required to confirm all of the hanger spacing & various types of hangers are adequate for the given loads? Are we required to confirm the proper fastners were used for the given structures? I could keep going, but you all get my point.

I absolutely must mention the fact that many of the NFPA 13 requirements differ depending on the year/version.........do we all use the version currently adopted by the given state or do we apply the version based on the year the system was installed; which version do we all use??? I conduct inspections at one facility which has 58 systems; there are probably 5 or 6 different NFPA 13 versions which were used when the various systems were installed. Either approach creates a significant problem; think about it.

OR.......does NFPA 25 essentially require these two basic concepts:

1. Confirm the system components are still fully functional and in good condition AS INSTALLED and accepted by the AHJ.

2. Document any significant changes which have taken place since the last inspection (or since the system was originally installed/accepted by the AHJ) which might justify further evaluation to ensure all of the important NFPA 13 requirements are met.

I will agree that inspectors are required to document when significant occupancy changes have taken place which might warrant a visit from the AHJ or a detailed engineering evaluation to ensure all of the NFPA 13 requirements are met, but I still have a difficult time believing (based on the actual text in NFPA 25) that inspectors are required to evaluate requirements from NFPA 13 in instances where NFPA 25 does not specifically state the function must be included in the annual inspection routine!

If you ask me whether or not the obstructions outlined in NFPA 13 should be evaluated by inspectors who are representing the AHJ (i.e. State employed Fire Inspectors & Fire Department Inspectors), then I would answer: Absolutely YES. However, I simply do not think Fire Protection Contractor Inspectors are required to evaluate sprinkler obstructions (except for the 18 in. & 36 in. clearance) when they perform the annual inspection requirements outlined by NFPA 25.

I could wrong (it would not be the first time by the way), but if NJ1 is correct, NFPA 25 needs some clearly stated revisions which outline what is actually required during the NFPA 25 inspection routine!!

Great Topic!

NJ1: It would be great if you could convince Jim Lake to post a clear and detailed statement regarding this subject. Did he mention if there are any plans to clearly state this requirement in the next version of NFPA 25?  Thanks!

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

"Are we all required to confirm sprinkler systems are adequate for all occupancies and various storage heights during the annual inspection routine (i.e. engineering evaluations every year by NFPA 25 inspectors)? Are we required to confirm all sprinkler spacing is in accordance with NFPA 13 (remember the maximum spacing requirements are different depending on the sprinkler and the given occupancy.........so the inspectors would have to confirm the combination of sprinkler, available water pressure, sprinkler spacing and occupancy classification meets NFPA 13 for each area of the facility every year as well)? Are we required to confirm all of the hanger spacing & various types of hangers are adequate for the given loads? Are we required to confirm the proper fastners were used for the given structures? I could keep going, but you all get my point."

We could all make a book out of it but unless someone can show me differently the answer has to be no.  

The oldest system I've inspected was installed in 1912 the year before the Titanic sank.  We replaced all the old sprinklers but other than that what could we do?  How could anyone say what was required 100 years ago?  It's pipe schedule, 3/4" pipe at the end of branch lines on a staggered system what was the water supply requirements back then or was any 400 head sprinkler system good to go by tying into any 8" city water main?

As I pointed out previously at one time systems were not limited by square footage covered but the number of sprinklers on a system which was 400.  That is where the 52,000 sq. ft. comes from... 400 sprinklers x 130 sq. ft. = 52,000 sq. ft..  Not sure when this disappeared but I think it was the 40's or early 50's.

I've got a federal government warehouse built in the 40's used to store rubber tires 15' high that has a Extra Hazard pipe schedule system   I was told rubber tire storage is what it was built for and it has always been used for that. Is this wrong? I don't think it is but you tell me.

As far as verifying calculations and water supplies I don't think we want to go there unless you are ready to present your customer an invoice for $20,000.

With few exceptions the great majority of 25 inspectors are not capable, don't have the equipment, experience or knowledge.

The oldest fire pump I've inspected is natural gas fired.  Is it wrong?  What did the standard say in 1924?  Was there even a standard?

"We are here to inspect the system we must assume was installed correctly for mechanical operation."  Sounds like a total cop out but what else is there?

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Great points FPP1 and SD2

I too am skeptical and I believe the intention of the NFPA with the 25 standard is to limit the need to refer to 13 for ITM purposes. But of course since one is the child of the other, as SD2 points out, there is this can of worms:

"" ..."We are here to inspect the system we must assume was installed correctly for mechanical operation."  Sounds like a total cop out but what else is there?... ""

Worse yet, there will inevitably be times when you "know" this to be false. And with that statement we come full circle back to the original intent or question that started this thread: where do you draw the line and just walk away, or do you call it a deficiency and carry on? (Remember that the pic I offered is an installation deficiency 1st, and then a likely obstruction issue after the fact).

Regards
Dave  

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Perhaps there is a better way to frame my question, or a better example to use:

You are doing an inspection on a fire pump and you notice that someone has, in a retrofit, decided to put a backflow preventer, replete with butterfly valves, directly on the suction side of the pump (replacing the now seemingly redundant OS&Y)- do you:
(a) walk away from it because the system isn't installed correctly,
(b) write it up as a deficiency,
(c) write in your report as a recommendation that this is contrary to NFPA 20 installation requirements and probably compromises the system,
(d) say nothing in your report but verbally inform the owner of the problem,
(e) do nothing and carry on with the inspection of the rest of the system which is correctly installed?

Regards
Dave

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

Lightecho has offered a superb example.

I would complete the NFPA 25 inspection components as usual. I would also have a clear and concise discussion with the customer/owner to inform him/her that the fire pump house alteration could potentially be a problem and that the specific issue or potential issues are not a direct violation outlined in NFPA 25; therefore, we will not list this potential problem as a deficiency. We are required to document this change/alteration on the NFPA 25 inspection form and we recommend a proper evaluation by the AHJ or a certfied consultant (i.e. FPE or qualified sprinkler contractor) to ensure/confirm in writing whether or not the change/alteration is acceptable or not based on all of the applicable NFPA standards and other pertinent state laws.

Excerpt from NFPA 25 (2002): "4.1.6 Where changes in the occupancy, hazard, water supply, storage commodity, storage arrangement, building modification, or other condition that affects the installation criteria of the system are identified, the owner or occupant shall promptly take steps, such as contacting a qualified contractor, consultant, or engineer, to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system in order to protect the building or hazard in question."

"5.4.3* Installation and Acceptance Testing. Where maintenance or repair requires the replacement of sprinkler system components affecting more than 20 sprinklers, those components shall be installed and tested in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems."

This is the approach which I have instructed my employees to implement in these instances.............I wonder how other companies/inspectors would handle this situation. Please provide a response for the benefit of the blog participants if you have an opinion.

By the way.............the butterfly valves within 50 ft. of the suction side (rather than OS&Y valves) of the fire pump is not the only potential issue. I have found several instances where a BFP unit was installed after the fact which created either negative suction between the 100%-150% flow rates or reduced the available water supply so much that the "new" water supply was inadequate for some of the more demanding sprinkler systems at the facility. The fixed pressure loss and the residual friction loss associated with some BFP units can be very detrimental to fire protection systems!
 

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

I would be willing to bet that 95% of the fire inspectors in America are not even aware of the OS&Y valve requirement within 50 ft. of the suction side of a fire pump; however, 100% of the fire inspectors should be capable of asking if there have been any significant changes/alterations since the most recent inspection AND they should definitely document these facts on the inspection form when identified.

The fact that many fire departments and/or the AHJ does not follow up and evaluate the alteration/changes after they recieve the inspection report in the mail (or by email) is a completely different topic for another day possibly!

RE: Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot?

(OP)
Yet another good post FPP! thx.

I have another 25 question of sorts but is OT here so I'll post a new thread.

Regards
Dave

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources