Calling as deficiency inadequate drainage?

[ContractorDave]

If a test required by NFPA 25 can't be performed due to current system conditions, do you call for the repair of the condition as a deficiency?

IE: An alarm valve installed in a basement where the floor drain will never be able to take a full flow main drain test.

Or an RP on a anti-freeze system that's installed in an in-accessible location and there is no available test cock?

Regards
Dave

Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine

 

[skdesigner]

NFPA 25 '11 3.3.4 Deficiency. For the purposes of Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of water-based fire protection systems, a condition in which a system or portion thereof is damaged, inoperable, or in need of service, but does not rise to the level of an impairment.

Given that the floor drain is not part of the "system or portion thereof" my answer (at least to our service sales reps/inspectors) would be a resounding no. If NFPA 25 doesn't specifically call for an inspection of floor drains (I have yet to find the section if it does), it doesn't go on an NFPA 25 deficiency report.

If the main drain itself (the portion thereof) works, it SHALL be tested (13.2.5). If it is not tested, this will be because the owner says no. Get his signature! 25-'11 4.1.1: The property owner or designated representative shall be responsible for properly maintaining a water-based fire protection system.

Note on your report that a main drain test was not performed, why it was not performed, and who forbade it from being performed (signature!!). Once you turn the report in to the fire dept., let them deal with enforcement.

Long story short, I do not believe that an inadequete floor drain is a sprinkler system deficiency, and therefore should not show up on a sprinkler system deficiency report.

Fair warning: I might be a bit biased on this issue. We had a system recently written up by the competition for this exact problem. We raised our collective palms and said, how is it our problem if you haven't cleaned your pea traps in years?

Re: the RPZ. Again, careful. NFPA 25 doesn't say, inspect them when it's easy or convenient, it says you SHALL inspect them. If they're 26' AFF in a grocery store, I see your point (seen enough of them installed like that too). Chances are you didn't included for a scissor lift in your annual inspection quotation. Tough call, but one that needs to be addressed nevertheless. Not an NFPA 25 to my knowledge.

Talking about test cocks, correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be), but nothing in NFPA 25 (or 13 for that matter) requires hooking something up to a 1/4" tap. NFPA 25 stipulates that the device be inspected to determine:

-the valves are open (13.6.1.1)
-The RP isn't continously dumping (13.6.1.2)
-a forward full flow test is performed (13.6.2.1.1)

Testing backflows to see if they can indeed prevent backwards flow is required by the city's cross-connection department (speaking for sask only) and is not an NFPA 25 requirement.

 

[NJ1]

In my opinion that would be consider an installation flaw. Now the question is:
Did the floor drain handle the full flow at the time of the inspection?
On regards to skdesigner comment I totally agree with him but as the company president I just need my guys or myself to note the following:
Unable to perform full flow main drain test.

You need to note something whether is NFPA 25 or 13 Deficiency.

 

[ContractorDave]

Hey SK

So. Not totally off topic, but if you were to advise someone on how they should go about forward flow testing a glycol system ... what might that procedure entail? I don't see how this test alone is anything but an expensive proposition unless the installation provides for a check valve AFTER the RP with a test connection in-between.

Regards
Dave

Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine

 

[skdesigner]

Dave and NJ1,

First, I apologize for my somewhat rambling and disjointed sentence structure. I swear I'm working on this multitasking thing...

Our (and I assume your) reports have separate sections for deficiencies and comments. When I say "should not show up on the NFPA 25 report", I mean under the deficiencies heading.

Regarding forward testing an RP...I have yet to see a system build to address this, especially when it's two heads under an o/h door. No way to do it without draining all the glycol (contamination hazard if not properly disposed of, as well). Unless it's done your way, with a check valve installed after the RP, but before the glycol fill.

We note that a forward full flow test was unable to be performed (comments section) submit the report to the city, and let the cross connection dept. take it further if they see fit.

NJ1 - curious, when you note the main drain test was not performed, what section of your report does it go on?

 

[NJ1]

SK

I have only use the NFSA reports all my life. I ma not a union shop but I like to use what is to be consider the best of the best.
Any other report is either vague or covers what is to be consider outside the scope items.

These reports indicate the following:

Part III – Comments (Any “No” answers, test failures or other problems found with the sprinkler system must be explained here. Also note here any products noticed on the system that has been the subject of a recall or replacement program.)

It indicates explained not determine whether is a pass fail scenario.

You get it