NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
(OP)
I have noticed many posts regarding NFPA25 inspections and the debate regarding failing a system based on original design flaws; but my question is if during the NFPA25 inspection process it is noted and confirmed by the building ownership that a new large canopy has been installed on a sprinklered building above a loading dock where combustible materials are being stored and there is no sprinkler coverage under the canopy; given the creation of a new hazard can that be listed as a failure on the inspection report?
Same question regarding building modifications such as the addition of offices with no coverage in a sprinklered building or the addition of drop ceilings that block overhead coverage, can these be listed as a failure item if there is no proof of fire department approval of the building modification obstructions to coverage and creation of a hazard?
Same question regarding building modifications such as the addition of offices with no coverage in a sprinklered building or the addition of drop ceilings that block overhead coverage, can these be listed as a failure item if there is no proof of fire department approval of the building modification obstructions to coverage and creation of a hazard?





RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
There's the link!!
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
Under NFPA25 4.1.6 - 4.1.6.1 if building modifications or other conditions that affects the installation criteria of the system are identified, it is the responsibility of the owner to contact a C.16 licensed contractor, (California) State Fire Marshal or California Board of Professional Engineers to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system. Where the evaluation reveals a deficiency causing a threat to life or property, the owner SHALL make appropriate corrections.
If the owner has modified the building and created a hazard, and has not obtained approval for the modification and creation of the hazard, how can an inspector pass the system if there is knowldedge that the owner is violating the requirements of NFPA 4.1.6 - 4.1.6.1?
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
In exemple if a duct is newly installed, and the sprinkler system isn't correct in accordance with NFPA 13 2010 - 8.5.5.3.1, (Obstruction that prevent sprinker discharge from reaching the hazard), the deficiency shall be put in the report and a new sprinkler shall be install under the duct. Or if a wall is taken down, and there's 2 sprinkler now spaced less then 6ft, then it's not in accordance with NFPA 13 2010 - 8.6.3.4.1. (Minimum distance between sprinklers) and, then, this shall be arranged, to make sure that the sprinklers are not spaced with less then 6 ft. Those are important stuff! It's up to you to judge....
In your inspection report, you can put NPFA 13 articles. That's what I do....
My two cents...
RE: NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure
If the customer can provide documentation of the building modification and FDP approval of the system coverage (or lack thereof) then it is a non-issue and the inspection passes with a recommendation of coverage. If the customer is willfully violating the requirements of NFPA25 chapter 4 then I believe it would be a failure.