Does NFPA 25 need a rewrite?

[cdafd]

I still do not understand why 25 does not address changes to existing buildings ??

1. Added enclosures, with no protection added.

2. Change in storage configurations.

3, etc

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...-5-alarm-home-depot-fire-in-san-jose/2859724/

Especially when corporations have FPE’s to advise them.

 

[TravisMack]

I think it's because the limits that need to be in place. Say there is a change in storage configuration? Is the field personnel supposed to know all of NFPA 13 criteria on storage to make a determination if the configuration is allowed for the system in place? Do we only allow NICET III or IV in design to do the inspections? There is not enough of us to do the design. Now inspections fall to us as well? That will be a bottleneck. Do we only allow FPE's to do it? Definitely not enough of them. Is the added enclosure one that allows sprinklers to be omitted? Again, is the field inspector required to determine that?

I agree that something should be done, but other than enforcing something such as a 3 or 5 year engineering analysis of every system, I don't think you will get NFPA 25 to write those into the criteria. Also, I don't think there are enough qualified professionals to do the 3-5 year analysis of the systems out there.

NFPA 25 is not perfect by any means, but it is currently the best we have.

Travis Mack, SET, CWBSP, RME-G, CFPS
MFP Design, a Ferguson Enterprise

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[cdafd]

That might be an idea?

Require an analysis every so often.

I don’t know. Seems like almost like doing an annual fire extinguisher inspection.

1. It’s there

2. Looks in good shape.

3. Hang the tag.

Not sure on the big box people,,, unless they got rid of their Consultants,, why they let the stores burn down.

I see Re racks every so often, and wonder if the consultants are involved. ??

 

[LCREP]

Cd NFPA 25 2014 ed as well as prior editions does.

4.1.6* Changes in Occupancy, Use, Process, or Materials.

The property owner or designated representative shall not make changes in the occupancy, the use or process, or the materials used or stored in the building without evaluation of the fire protection systems for their capability to protect the new occu- pancy, use, or materials.
4.1.6.1 The evaluation required by 4.1.6 shall not be considered part of the normal inspection, testing, and maintenance required by this standard.
4.1.6.2 The evaluation shall consider factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Occupancy changes such as converting office or produc- tion space into warehousing
(2) Process or material changes such as metal stamping to molded plastics
(3) Building revisions such as relocated walls, added mezza- nines, and ceilings added below sprinklers
(4) Removal of heating systems in spaces with piping subject to freezing
4.1.7* Addressing Changes in Hazard.
4.1.7.1 Where changes in the occupancy, hazard, water supply, storage commodity, storage arrangement, building modification, or other condition that affects the installation criteria of the system are identified, the property owner or designated representative shall promptly take steps to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system in order to protect the building or hazard in question.
4.1.7.2 Where the evaluation reveals that the installed system is inadequate to protect the building or hazard in question, the property owner or designated representative shall make the required corrections.
4.1.7.3 Corrections shall be approved.

 

[cdafd]

Lcrep

It puts it on the owner.

Who may not know he compromised the sprinkler design.

Don’t know seems like there is an out for everyone.

Till the building burns to the ground,,, Than it is “”” Wh happened “””” ???

 

[TravisMack]

That is the intent of 25 to put it on the owner. The sprinkler contractor shouldn't be required to be the on-site engineer for the owner without being compensated as such. It really is a strange situation. The problem is that most owners don't even want sprinklers in the building. So, they figure if they put them in 1 time, it should be good for anything. I mean heck, I put sprinklers in when it was an office. Shouldn't this also be good to protect my dynamite factory now?

Again, it could use some re-write, but I don't see it happening to put the engineering analysis on the fire sprinkler contractor's back.

Travis Mack, SET, RME-G,
Ferguson Fire & Fab, dba MFP Design

http://www.mfpdesign.com

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Every lawyer in the USA is pushing hard for a re-write.

Keep it just as it is... we are inspectors and we have to assume the system was approved when it was installed and we are only here to check on the mechanical operation.

We've all seen jobs where the sidewall sprinkler is 3'-0 down from the ceiling but does that make it wrong? What if a FPE did an analysis and said this was fine who am I to say otherwise?

About 20 years ago I did a project on Lake Erie where I had five dry pendent sprinklers in a single dwelling unit. At the time four heads was the limit but I didn't have much of a choice. Drew it up, told the plan examiner about it so he would reject it at which time I could take it to the Board of Standards and Appeals. The members of the board are appointed by the governor. I have a letter stating I could do the five heads in a dwelling unit thing on government letterhead so 25 years later is someone going to gig me on this?

Inspections are tricky enough now and we don't have to make it worse unless we can raise our price from $300 to $5,000. Maybe $10,000 if I have to go climbing through an attic. Matter of fact I've seen some attics where $10,000 wouldn't be enough.

 

[LCREP]

As I have said here many times. In my 36 years of doing site visits from an insurance point of view about 50% of the warehouses I visited the protection was not adequate. Meaning if we have a fire it is a total loss. Depending on what insurance market we were in soft or hard the systems either got upgraded or we lived with it. Remember ESFR obstructions when they 1st came out, like 20 years ago. I can not tell you how many man lifts I went up on measuring distance from bar joist and heads below the deck. Oh the joys of retirement..lol

 

[cdafd]

So need to reach a happy medium?

If I am a building owner.

I pay a sprinkler company to do annuals,,,, I kind of rely on them as the experts.

Maybe part of 25, is have the owner fill out a questioner or something, stating if any new construction, any storage change any….

That could be a starting point, plus documenting the conditions.

 

[LCREP]

Could it had been as simple as open top container’s in the racks, or solid shelving, or flammable or combustible liquid in the wrong place, aisles filled with stock, the list goes on. Education of what to look for is key. I used to teach a 2 day warehouse seminar for code officials. As I have said here knowledge is power, get some tips from the old guys..lol

Here is an example from our friends at FM. How many warehouses have you visited with plastic, metal, or wood open top containers with ceiling protection only ie ESFR? Great video of what can go wrong and how quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzuNVFn0U48

Tom

 

[LCREP]

CD,

You walk into the warehouse for your annual inspection. The last time you visited all stock was on wood pallets to 20’. Today you walk in and the stock is on double row racks to 20’. What do you say or do? I believe that is what NFPA 25 is stating in the section I noted. I would say can you send me the fire protection engineer report on how the changes may have on the sprinkler system controlling the fire?

Tom

 

[cdafd]

Great video

Have not seen that one.

 

[LCREP]

So Khawaja why do you keep posting this in all the threads?? The NFPA codes are available to view for free on the NFPA.org website.

 

[aaron johnson llc]

NFPA 25 is not an installation or design standard. So when a change is noted (25:4.1.6), that should be a signal to the inspector that this system may need to be referred to NFPA 13 for installation and desing updates or follow-up.