NFPA25 Building Modification Inspection Failure

[jclarkjjc]

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 sprinklered building above a loading dock where combustible materials are being stored and there is no sprinkler coverage under the canopy; given the creation of a new hazard can that be listed as a failure on the inspection report?

Same question regarding building modifications such as the addition of offices with no coverage in a sprinklered building or the addition of drop ceilings that block overhead coverage, can these be listed as a failure item if there is no proof of fire department approval of the building modification obstructions to coverage and creation of a hazard?

 

[Sdpaddler50]

This was covered in an article in NFPA in the past few months. If i remember correctly, the NFPA engineer essentially said 25 is an ITM document only. IE, making recommendations in regards to sprinkler system design/deficiencies is technically beyond the scope of a 25 based inspection. You may want to google it, and see if you can find it on line. Personally, i think you should note these items in your report perhaps as supplementary commentary because thesee are important things your client should know. I have a feeling others are going to dispute this, and i dont blame them, but that was my general understanding from the article that came from the horse mouth.

 

[jclarkjjc]

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 liabilities it presents to the customer (and to the inspecting firm) how can the system be certified? Both from a professional and moral standpoint...

 

[fireguy519345]

In the Jan/Feb 2013 issue of the NFPA Journal is an article dealing with that subject.

 

[Lamuppet]

http://www.nfpa.org/publicColumn.asp?categoryID=2762&itemID=59789&src=NFPAJournal&cookie_test=1

There's the link!!

 

[jclarkjjc]

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 has been created, for example the addition of walls to create office spaces without coverage or the addition of a loading dock canopy without coverage that has combustible material below it is that a failure item if it does not have approval?

Under NFPA25 4.1.6 - 4.1.6.1 if building modifications or other conditions that affects the installation criteria of the system are identified, it is the responsibility of the owner to contact a C.16 licensed contractor, (California) State Fire Marshal or California Board of Professional Engineers to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system. Where the evaluation reveals a deficiency causing a threat to life or property, the owner SHALL make appropriate corrections.

If the owner has modified the building and created a hazard, and has not obtained approval for the modification and creation of the hazard, how can an inspector pass the system if there is knowldedge that the owner is violating the requirements of NFPA 4.1.6 - 4.1.6.1?

 

[Lamuppet]

An NFPA 25 inspection is one thing, but a sprinkler system still have to be in accordance with NFPA 13.

In exemple if a duct is newly installed, and the sprinkler system isn't correct in accordance with NFPA 13 2010 - 8.5.5.3.1, (Obstruction that prevent sprinker discharge from reaching the hazard), the deficiency shall be put in the report and a new sprinkler shall be install under the duct. Or if a wall is taken down, and there's 2 sprinkler now spaced less then 6ft, then it's not in accordance with NFPA 13 2010 - 8.6.3.4.1. (Minimum distance between sprinklers) and, then, this shall be arranged, to make sure that the sprinklers are not spaced with less then 6 ft. Those are important stuff! It's up to you to judge....

In your inspection report, you can put NPFA 13 articles. That's what I do....

My two cents...

 

[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.

If the customer can provide documentation of the building modification and FDP approval of the system coverage (or lack thereof) then it is a non-issue and the inspection passes with a recommendation of coverage. If the customer is willfully violating the requirements of NFPA25 chapter 4 then I believe it would be a failure.