nfpa 25-13 question 6

[inspectortx2]

Found a building that has ext coverage pendents mixed in with standard spray heads in the same compartment. I wrote it up and was told to show in nfpa where this exists in nfpa can someone help me out. I have been in fire protection for 15 years in the feild and in inspections and this has always seemed to be a rule of thumb not to mix different types of heads

 

[NJ1]

I would suggest that before you write this items you should contact your supervisor as this may cause a major liability to your firm. Let me explain.
You could write as an inspector anything you want that does not coincide with NFPA however as an inspector you must separate you NFPA 25 describe task with any other NFPA Standard requirements. As an EXPERT OPINION ADVISOR in NJ I question a contractor miss other items not included in NFPA 25. The contractor loss a major case of 1.5 million dollars.
NFPA 25 does not address installation flaws as it looks on that particular scenario. You must address all NFPA 25 in the inspection reports then separate all other deficiencies outside the scope of NFPA 25 in a separate letter or separate those within the same report.

If you need any help please contact me at:

firespk25.webs.com

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I fully agree with NJ1.

We mix different types of heads constantly when using uprights and pendents or pendents and sidewalls all in the same room.

We often use residential sprinklers outside the dwelling units in corridors but as soon as the corridor opens into a lobby, may not even have a lintel much less a door, you find non-residential quick response sprinklers.

Nothing wrong with mixing extended and standard coverage heads with the same compartment.

The job of an inspector is not to review the design but to check mechanical operation and condition.

Some previous threads you might find enlightening.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=242355

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=242660

 

[inspectortx2]

my beef with the issue is that the building was built in the late 70s early 80s before ext coverage heads were around and it looks to me that a couple heads went off and some one used what they had on there truck every thing else in the building is standard spray and there is 3 ext heads mixed in for no reason that are 7ft apart from the ssp heads

 

[NJ1]

inspectortx2

What ever your beef is I could share the same with you however your job as an inspector is not to care of what anyone does after the installation. Even if the building has a Certificate of Occupancy.

However things you should be more attentive of:
Sample 1)
Technician replaces an accelerator on a Tyco using a Firelock model. Clearly that is a violation of the product listing.
NFPA 25 General Requirements.

Sample 2)
Recalled products such as dry pipe valves, sprinkler heads, etc.
Sample 3)
Obstruction to spray patterns as describe in NFPA 13

These items are certainly deficiencies and SHALL be addressed as required.
Anything else outside of NFPA 25 you should address as outside the scope of NFPA 25.

 

[Arsnman4]

In my humble opinion, as a private contracted firm hired to conduct inspections on water based fire protection systems.... you could note the deficiency as an “observation” and since the sprinklers in question are not of the same type or style as intended in the “approved design” there is a "deficiency" with the installation criteria that the owner should be aware of and should have addressed. Dating back to the 1999 editions of the applicable standards.......

NFPA 25, 1999
1-4.1 Responsibilities of the Owner or Occupant - “any defects or impairments shall be revealed.”

1-4.3 “The owner or occupant shall promptly correct or repair deficiencies......Corrections shall be performed by qualified maintenance personnel or a qualified contractor.”

1-4.4 “The owner or occupant shall give special attention to factors that might alter the requirements for a continued satisfactory or acceptable installation.”

1-4.5 “Where changes in.......or other factors that affect the installation criteria of the system are identified, the owner or occupant shall promptly take steps to evaluate the adequacy of the system to protect the building such as .......contacting a qualified contractor...... Where the evaluation reveals a deficiency the owner shall notify.....(basically those of us who regulate)”

2-4 Maintenance
2-4.1.2 “Replacement sprinklers shall have the proper characteristics for the application intended, this includes:
(a) Style

NFPA 13, 1999

3-2 Stock of Spare Sprinklers
3-2.9.1 .......These sprinklers shall correspond with types and temperatures of the sprinklers in the property.

With that being said, the replacement sprinklers should have been of the same style or type as approved in the design. As NJ1 suggests, discuss how to address this historic deficiency with your supervisor but not making the observation as the contracted service provider could expose potential liability to your firm in the event of future loss and subsequent investigation by someone like me.

As an AHJ, I would certainty require “replacements” to be of the same style or type as those previously approved in the design and acceptance if it were in my jurisdiction unless the style or type was no longer manufactured and the replacements were still within the design criteria for the protected space or property and only in that case and by a certified/qualified design professional’s documentation as to why.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[NJ1]

Arsnman4

I am also a enforcer in some sort of way. I investigate unscrupulous contractors that are just to make a dishonest buck. Based on my expert opinion I have taken 2 P.E. Licenses thus far, found contractors responsible 10-13 times thus far based on their contracts, scope of work, lack of compliance, etc.

I will disagree with you on one thing. If you think that inspectors are to find some installation flaws how you draw the line. How far is too far for any inspector.

The main problem is that there is an extensive lack of supervision when guys are working in the filed by themselves.
Most of these errors can be minimize if a senior tech/inspec verifies the work prior to walking away.
Owners allegedly can afford such things so move on hoping no claims are filed against them. That is when i come in.

 

[Arsnman4]

I believe it's not beyond the scope of 25 regarding "inspection" by a qualified contractor or firm of the water based fire protection systems to note suspected deficiencies as long as they note it as an observation with recommended follow-up. In my opinion this is good professional customer service and the follow-up to verify the deficiency is what 25 intends for correcting a "substantiated" deficiency.

There is an obligation for an inspector to verify those items covered in 25 that may affect a system's design for the specific property and hazard and making a recommendation for corrections of deficiencies discovered by visual observation of sprinklers from the floor indicating that improper system changes have occured and thus obligated to be reported to the owner. That's why he/she pays for the firm to inspect and why we require the system to be inspected in accordance with 13.

If those recommendations are reviewed after the fact or a senior inspector verifies them on site, so be it but a discovered deficiency still needs correction and if I read it in a report (sent to me), It's my obligation to make sure it gets corrected.

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[FFP1]

I will tend to agree with Arsnman4 on this topic. Very good posts listed above. The building owners have well defined responsibilities.

Back to the original question: If sprinklers are replaced, they should be replaced based on the following guidelines from NFPA 25 (2002 Version):

5.4.1.1 Replacement sprinklers shall have the proper characteristics for the application intended. These shall include the following:
(1) Style
(2) Orifice size and K-factor
(3) Temperature rating
(4) Coating, if any
(5) Deflector type (e.g., upright, pendent, sidewall)
(6) Design requirements
5.4.1.1.1* Spray sprinklers shall be permitted to replace old-style sprinklers.

Inspectors are required to inquire about significant alterations/changes, false alarms, system activations and whether or not the system has remained in service continuously since the most recent inspection. If the heads were changed as part of any of these actions, the change should be evaluated and documented by the inspector. What if an employee representing the building owner (with good intentions) used upright heads from the spare head box to replace pendent sprinklers? Would this result in a deficiency and justify a comment in the inspection report? Of course it would..........what is the difference; using the wrong sprinkler head when replacing a damaged/open sprinkler changes the design of the system which creates a problem. My scenario is not an example of an inspector attempting to enforce NFPA 13; this is an example of an inspector doing a thorough job and asking questions about the history of the system.

 

[inspectortx2]

Thank you.