Thank you for the reply cdafd, the question was to gain clarification that if during the course of a NFPA25 sprinkler system inspection it is determined that the owner of a building has made recent modifications to a sprinklered building and created a hazard of no fire sprinkler coverage, and...
I would appreciate any input regarding the thread discussion below regarding failure of NFPA25 inspections for recent building modifications on a building with an exisiting sprinkler system resulting in a new hazard and lack of fire sprinkler coverage.
Thank you.
jclarkjjc...
I agree with you lamuppet, original design is one thing, but when a customer modifies a building and creates a hazard while ignoring the requirements of NFPA 4.1.6 - 4.1.6.1 I believe the system cannot be passed with a life/safety hazard, legal/insurance liability and code violation present...
The approach that the inspection is based on the assumption that the system was installed as designed and approved is understandable; but my question is that if the inspector has knowledge that the building has been modified since the installation of the sytem by the customer and that a hazard...
Thanks, I'll look up the article. I understand that NFPA25 is not for NFPA13 design installation interpretation but the concern is that this is a new hazard created by the customer that has altered the coverage of the system and given the obvious safety issue in addition to the legal/insurance...
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...
