Changing Waterflows 2

[RemoteControlFF]

I'm sure others have run into this situiation before, so I'd be interested in any tips/advice/war stories.

A grocery store was built in 1994 and they are currently constructing an addition (by that I mean its already up, and they just came looking for sprinklers). The static pressure has dropped almost 40 psi between now and then. The same guy did both flow tests (we did the install on the first building), same hydrants, and both tests were overseen by the local water dept. so we would have been informed of any main breaks, etc.

We're going to go re-flow, but what do we do if the numbers don't get any better? The addition is already up, so they are going to want to use it, will we be looking at installing a fire pump?

 

[ContractorDave]

As SprinklerDesigner2 has more than inferred though, this issue should have raised red flags from the initial main drain test in 1997 where the static pressures were 29 psi off design to begin with. This type of number would have begged for an investigation into the water supplies and made the current system design suspect. Being the installer, that would have given me the willies. These are all 'should haves' of course and being an inspector myself I can say I have missed a few things during initial inspections that I was somewhat bothered to find in subsequent ones.

Regards
Dave

 

[ContractorDave]

Actually, I would suggest that the City has a huge liability issue here. It should be a necessary due diligence to ensure that if you were going to install a pressure / flow restricting device into a supply system, that you were not negatively effecting client sprinkler systems. On the face of it this seems like a no-brainer. As for you having to tell a client ANYTHING, all you can do is provide a sprinkler system that is going to work. If water supplies dictate that you require a booster / fire pump, this is hardly your fault, though I assume you know this and just want what's best for your customer.

Regards
Dave

 

[RemoteControlFF]

Dave,

You are exactly right, I want what is best for my customer, and it I don't think they should have to pay to boost pressure in a water system because the city decided to drop it on a whim. We spoke to the local Fire Marshal and he's very unhappy with the water department for messing around with his flows - they have an ISO Review coming up in the next year, so perhaps we'll get things worked out in our favor.

The liability issue is a major one, and I told the Fire Marshal directly that due to the city's tinkering with the water system, existing life safety systems will not function as they are designed, and he seemed to understand the ramifications of that.

Thanks to everyone on this thread, you've all been very helpful as a sounding board and source of information when dealing with this fiasco.

 

[RWF7437]

" We spoke to the local Fire Marshal and he's very unhappy with the water department for messing around with his flows - they have an ISO Review coming up in the next year, so perhaps we'll get things worked out in our favor."

Not incidentally, whatever flows may exist or be planned for do NOT belong to the Fire Marshall, or ISO, or the Parks Department, or the Mayor, or even the citizens. They belong to those who pay for them.

 

[FFP1]

I would like to think the citizens of the community and the local businesses/companies should have confidence that the water department officials/empoyees would do everything within thier ability to maintain a clean, safe and consistent water supply. The water system in a city or county is critical in so many ways. The water supply should be safe to drink and provide adequate flow and pressure for the specific community. There is an obligation to maintain the purity of the water and the flow rates should be maintained or increased over time. ANY changes to the public water supply should be carefully considered and investigated prior to arbitrarily making a change which could negatively effect the citizens or companies in the community.

In summary, the fire marshall, fire inspectors, ISO officials, parks department employees, mayor, individual citizens, etc. should get involved if they become aware of any unsafe or unacceptable change to a water system which negatively affects the community water supply. Each person and any business which pays taxes & a water bill each month actually pays for the public water supply. The water department officials and employees are paid by the tax base and the many customers who pay monthly water bills. The water department officials and employees are paid to manage the resource and should be committed to delivering a safe and consistent water supply.

 

[ContractorDave]

RWF7437; I think you probably took the wrong meaning from his statement, and really, you are choosing to make a post to point out the obvious. Yet I have no problem whatsoever with our fire marshal or fire department making such a statement because it shows they care. I realize that my clients sprinkler systems belong to them or to the tax payer if it is a system in a government building, but by golly, as long as this is my client, that sprinkler system is MY baby!

Regards
Dave