×
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

NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency

NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency

NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency

(OP)
We've hashed this out before but there's always something new.

Here's a fun one: I have an unlisted diesel fire pump (an 80 gpm / 80 ft head end suction Aurora on a small 4kw Yanmar). It's fed from a combination domestic / fire water tank with a float that shuts water off to domestic at a certain level. There's a Watts DCVA after the fire pump along with a Vic 708W and a flow switch. But there is no main drain. There's no test and drain. No drain whatsoever except a 1/2" outlet on a snap tee below the flow switch where a Pressure-Trol switch is mounted and tied into a neat little starter for the diesel. You lose pressure and the diesel starts. Kind of tidy really. Except with no drain you can't mechanically test the flow switch or reduce the pressure in the system to test the fire pump, or forward flow test the DCVA. Or drain down the system to do maintenance or modifications. There's no FDC either. Interestingly enough, there IS a hydraulic data plate (check THAT box!) on the riser from a well know company. I'd show you a pic but don't want to divulge the companies name. They have stickers everywhere.

So you're doing an inspection. What's on your deficiency list?

Regards
Dave

Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine
www.ykfireprevention.ca



RE: NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency

What year was it installed

Who all approved it

Not a contractor , seems like you would write what is wrong, but note what are changes since the system was installed
And if stuff was not installed originally make that note

RE: NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency

(OP)
Installed in 1999 in a remote northern Canadian hamlet with the approval of the AHJ of the time though I'm willing to bet there was no site review by the engineer who drew it up. He would have likely stamped an as-built with the qualifying statement that this stamp was based on red-lines submitted by the contractor.

My question from the original post is based on NFPA 25
1.1.3 This standard addresses the operating condition of fire protection systems as well as impairment handling and reporting and applies to fire protection systems that have been properly installed in accordance with generally accepted practice.
1.1.3.1 This standard does not require the inspector to verify the adequacy of the design of the system.

I would recommend an engineers review of the system, but what might I call a deficiency?

If there's a main drain in a building but I can't get a full flow out of it because the floor drain won't take it, is that a deficiency?

If there's no main drain to perform this rather important test, is that a deficiency to NFPA 25?

If there's no test and drain to mechanically test the flow switch? These are installation deficiencies that directly affect my being able to perform proper inspections. The rest of this system is actually as good as it gets for up here. The report as per 25 would not have any deficiencies but would note there are installation deficiencies.

That would be my interpretation....

Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine
www.ykfireprevention.ca



RE: NFPA 25 Deficiency vs Installation Deficiency


A.1.1.3.1 The requirement to evaluate the adequacy of the design of the installed system is not a part of the periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements of this standard. However, such evaluation is the responsibility of the property owner or designated representative as indicated in 4.1.5 and 4.1.6.


4.1.6.2 Where the evaluation reveals that the installed system is inadequate to protect the building or hazard in question, the property owner or designated representative shall make the required corrections.


seems like at some point if a company is looking at a system and does not bring problems, even if they were part of the intial installation, takes on some liability. To include, if you cannot even properly isnpect the system.

are there companies out there that just do the paperwork and leave yes.

maybe also set down with the ahj and try to do some education, may or may not help in this case.

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