"Supervision" of sprinkler valves

[ContractorDave]

It has been pointed out to me that NFPA 101 9.7.2.1 supersedes NFPA 13 8.15.1.1.2.1 in regards to supervision, ie merely locking or sealing a valve in the open position is not acceptable (NFPA Journal December 2006 'INCOMPLIANCE' Chip Carson). What do our SpecRegs have to say about this regarding existing systems where this is a deficiency?

Thx
Dave

 

[cdafd]

1. depends on what code you are under. you can only enforce what code the city has adopted. If you have adopted both and they both apply to the situation than the stricter applies.
2. as to retro we do not normaly require retro if it ws not there to begin with.
3. we require most valves to be electronicaly supervised, not to include riser trim valves such as bell shut off.

 

[ContractorDave]

1. As an inspection firm we don't enforce codes, we report as per NFPA 25 (in this case). Sprinkler systems must be installed to NFPA 13 for example, but other codes may be referenced. Many systems are installed with variances. Letters from the AHJ permitting variances should be on the files of everyone concerned with the system and the building.
2. As for retro, a deficiency is still a deficiency and must be reported as such. How the AHJ or the owner wishes to respond to the deficiency is up to them.
3. NFPA again determines which valves require monitoring. Generally they are control valves. If the local code or AHJ has required a greater or lesser degree of system monitoring, it may be noted in our reports, but we won't write a non-compliance of such requirements as a deficiency.

I was wondering in my post if it was generally agreed upon that Mr. Carson's opinion is status quo. In the past, a control valve that was, say, in an unaccessible area,and was "locked or sealed" was deemed acceptable.

Thx
Dave