Incorrect 13 install makes inspection moot? 2

[ContractorDave]

Attached is a pic a lot of you have probably seen variations of: obstructions that are built into the building by poor design. I understand the odd pendant light fixture obstruction infraction. But not this. I have seen this time and again, whether it's in kitchens above the cupboards, or in closets. My question is to the inspectors out there (as I know all you FPE's will be suitably aghast already), if you walk into an occupied building and come across multiple instances of this, what is the proper course of action? The system is not installed correctly. Do you A) say sorry you cannot do the inspection? B) Do the inspection and check off the appropriate box indicating obstructions exist and mention it to the owners rep? At what point during the course of an inspection where you come across multiple installation violations do you simply say a proper inspection cannot be done?

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

Have not looked at 13, but waht section are you siting for it being a problem??

http://www.reliablesprinkler.com/sprinklr/f5.php

 

[cdafd]

also if this is a r or d system or we looking for full protection???

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

This may help.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=242355&page=7

 

[ContractorDave]

In regards to 13R, in Canada where our building code requires all rooms and closets to be sprinklered on the floor immediately under the roof assembly (top floor), and where our attic spaces are generally open to the weather, sidewall sprinklers are frequently used. Running the pipe up the wall and going back to back tees of course saves the installer a lot of time. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out: If you have a hallway sprinkler and back to back you have a suites kitchen, the sprinkler can often end up obstructed by cabinets / cupboards (as in the pic presented here). I would call this an obstruction. Further, it only begs to be further obstructed when a tenant would naturally want to use this space for storage.

 

[FFP1]

NFPA 25 currently requires that inspectors verify the system is fully operational "AS INSTALLED" (SIMPLIFIED OVERALL SUMMARY OF COURSE). This might not be the ideal approach, but it is a reasonable approach and the alternative is simply not feasible.

I am a FPE and I struggle on a regular basis when I find NFPA 13 violations during the inspection routine; however, you have to look at the big picture. If you require all sprinkler contractor inspectors to ensure each system is fully compliant with NFPA 13, you will require the following:

-Application of current standards to systems which were installed using previous versions of NFPA 13. (Simply impossible for inspectors to be responsible for all of the different versions considering all of the changes. This opens Pandora's Box!!)

-Adequacy calculations for each system and all of the various occupancies (time consuming engineering related activites which most inspectors are not qualified to complete).

-Evaluation of SO MANY requirements for sprinklers (proper application, proper location, proper spacing, etc.).

-THOROUGH inspection activities in all attic areas and all concealed spaces which benefit from sprinkler protection.

-Inspectors would need to spend significant time at the ceiling level gathering detailed information which simply cannot be gathered without a scissor lift or cherry picker.

-Most companies struggle finding qualified employees to complete the current requirements; good luck finding enough employees who are capable of inspections using the entire scope of NFPA 25, NFPA 72 & NFPA 13.

In addition, any variances which were approved by a FPE or the AHJ during initial construction will create significant problems. A solid inspector identifies problem which was accepted/approved & then company changes to new sprinkler contractor only so that the new inspector goes through the same process.........results is wasted time & VERY unhappy customers for good reason).

In my personal opinion, the qualifications and requirements for the state fire inspectors completing the initial acceptance AND the installation contractors needs to be improved. Any and all problems and code voiolations SHOULD be identified and resolved prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. I support a clear and concise state requirement that all new fire protection systems be inspected, analyzed and approved by a qualified FPE or a NICET III or higher (Layout & Design) person which has absolutely no affiliation with the installing contractor prior to issuance of a CO. A proper inspection/analysis/approval process by qualified people would essentuially resolve the problem for all new systems going forward. The problems associated with the existing systems are VERY difficult to resolve without spending a significant amount of money & time.

This is a VERY interesting topic!

P.S. I found an entire warehouse (7 systems) with in-rack sprinklers earlier today during an inspection which had IRAS with no water shields. To answer the obvious question........no they are not "heat collectors" as sooooooo many in the industry use to claim. HA HA This is an obvious violation of NFPA 13 and the IRAS probably will not function properly during a fire, but based on NFPA 25 I am supposed to ignore this violation. I will NOT document this problem on my inspection forms, but I promise you my customer is FULLY aware of the problem........in essence, my customer received some FREE engineering advice today (while only paying for the inspection services). I suppose this is one of the MANY advantages customers enjoy if the company they hire provides a level of service over and above the minimum state requirements. If WE list issues on our inspection forms which are outside of the scope of NFPA 25, we MUST realize we are exposing ourselves and our comapnies to potential litigation in a court of law............think it through as a lawyer would and you will understand my point.

 

[ContractorDave]

I agree with you FPP1. The forms we use don't really allow you to address non 25 issues except in "Recommendations". The question though, what happens when you find a 25 issue that was caused by the installation in the first place? The picture shows a sidewall head with kitchen cabinets mounted directly below. Never mind the dishes on the top of the cabinets, this was an issue that never should have made it past initial acceptance, yet here it is. So, do you write one incidence up as an obstruction? What if you find 10 more? What if, as in this particular case (and many others I've seen), you find 46 instances similar to this?

Regards
Dave

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

FFP1

"This is a VERY interesting topic!"

I agree.

Thank you for your input on a subject that baffles many of us in the "what do I do now" department.

A star for you.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

lightecho said "I agree with you FPP1. The forms we use don't really allow you to address non 25 issues except in "Recommendations". The question though, what happens when you find a 25 issue that was caused by the installation in the first place?"

You don't know what happened.

As an example:

NFPA 13R Section 6.6.7.1.3 Listed quick-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be installed in dwelling units meeting the definition of a compartment, as defined in Section 4.1, where no more than four sprinklers are located in the dwelling unit.

A few years back I did a single story apartment building, in an extremely cold northern climate, and I wanted to use quick response dry pendent sprinklers on a dry pipe system. Problem was as hard as I tried I needed five sprinklers per dwelling unit which would obviously be incorrect.

The culprit was the sprrinkler required in a small (8 sq. ft.) mechanical closet containing equipment only feeding the dwelling unit that was placed along an outside wall.

The state the project was located was a mini/maxi state. The local authority could not accept less, nor could they require more, than what was exactly in the adopted standard. but they did have a "Board of Building Standards" made up of eight people appointed by the Governor who could pretty much do anything they wanted under state law but first drawings had to be submitted, rejected and then you could file an appeal.

So when dropping the plans off I told the local plan examiner I fully expected a rejection explaining the problem and that I wanted to appeal.

Plans were rejected on the spot.

Filed the appeal, explained the problem to the board, the architect explained the doors to the mechanical closets were always locked and how the occupants did not have keys.

Nobody objected, I got the varience (on official state leterhead) and the job was done in full compliance with the approved plans and state law.

I want to point out the board was made up of two engineers, one architect, two lawyers, a high school teacher and a couple moms who appeared bored with nothing else to do.

So what does an inspector say when he counts five dry pendent sprinklers in a dwelling unit?

The answer is nothing... he has to assume the original installation was installed per code, inspected and approved which it was.

I have to think there's lots and lots of jobs exactly like this one.

I am expecting an angry phone call from the owner some day but I still have the paperwork.

 

[ContractorDave]

Are you and SD2 one and the same?

I fully agree with your particular assessment, but what you are describing is not quite what I am trying to get across. There is nothing in 25 that permits me to look at a 13 installation "deficiency" (like the one you point out) and call it a 13 deficiency. But what if it IS a 25 deficiency. The picture attached in my 1st post above clearly shows an obstruction of the sidewall sprinkler by the kitchen cabinet as defined by NFPA 25 2008 (and most previous editions) 5.2.1.2.... It was installed wrong and never called through acceptance. Now it's a 25 issue. How might you approach this in your report?

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

besides the blockage issue does the install meet


8.7.5.2.2 Suspended or Floor-Mounted Vertical Obstructions. The distance from sprinklers to privacy curtains, free-standing partitions, room dividers, and similar obstructions in light hazard occupancies shall be in accordance with Table 8.7.5.2.2 and Figure 8.7.5.2.2.

sorry cannot post the table, because it turns out strange

 

[ContractorDave]

Hi cd: NFPA 25 5.2.1.2 The minimum clearance required by the installation standard shall be maintained ....

It already fails in regards to obstructions right off the git go in 13 at 8.6.5.2.1.1 I don't really have to go looking elsewhere.

But since you DID put in the effort ...
No that's not quite it. The cabinet is installed on the wall that the sidewall sprinkler is located, and immediately beneath it. I would point at 8.7.6 right next to your table as being perfectly accurate ... replacing Standard sidewall with Residential sidewall. If we want to look at 13R, 6.4.6.3.6.3: Where sidewall sprinklers are more than 3 ft above the top of cabinets, the sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed in the wall above the cabinets where the cabinets are no greater than 12" from the wall (ie no deeper than 12"). So clearly under either installation standard referred to by 5.2.1.2 -13 or 13R, this is a deficiency one should call under 25 during an inspection. But again, this was a deficiency caused by improper installation in the first place, and is not supposed to be in the scope of NFPA 25. Hence my post. How might you write this up?

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

6.4.6.3.6.3

what edition was this first in????

sorry I was quoting the 2002 edition for Table 8.7.5.2.2 and Figure 8.7.5.2.2.

and cannot tell dimensions from the picture.


in our area they would note is a problem, but one that is not enough more than likely to require a change.

 

[ContractorDave]

13 is the same in this regard for 2002 and 2007. I don't have access to anything earlier than 2007 at the moment.

 

[cdafd]

Where sidewall sprinklers are more than 3 ft above the top of cabinets, the sprinkler shall be permitted to be installed in the wall above the cabinets where the cabinets are no greater than 12" from the wall (ie no deeper than 12").

I am missing this in the 2002 edition of 13 r

 

[ContractorDave]

13R 2010 has 11 Chapters vs 6 in 2002 and is very much more involved. I was informed yesterday that Alberta had dropped 13R altogether in favor of 13. My guess is it's because 13R has become, not just that much more detailed, but more stringent as well.

 

[cdafd]

So I guess my question is when this system was installed what edition and brand of 13 was it installed under??

and was it legal on that day by that edition???

 

[ContractorDave]

Fair enough cdafd. The first edition of 13R was published in 1989 (and 13D in 1975 but that's probably not relevant here), and I don't have a copy to peruse. If your point is a valid one, and it seems it may be, there should be readily available historical documents for an inspector to reference, otherwise the amount of information one is required to know is burdensome to say the least. I'm pretty sure there is some lagaleze somewhere that specifically addresses this issue.

 

[cdafd]

Normal rule is if it was legal when installed thatn it is good to go, unless distinct hazard, change of use, storage materila and a few other things.


nfpa 13 2007


1.4 Retroactivity Clause.
The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not apply to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of this standard. Where specified, the provisions of this standard shall be retroactive. In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively any portions of this standard deemed appropriate.

 

[ContractorDave]

Yes, I was aware of that stipulation. Other than having every code year by year back to it's inception, is there a resource to determine what code was at the time regarding any given situation? I haven't had time to go browse the NFPA website. I wonder if they have codes archived somewhere's besides on the pdf downloads page?