To carry on with 25 thread / and one more pic 1

[ContractorDave]

I had a discussion with the company president who is a wily fella and our point man on contracts. His take on the last thread regarding NFPA 25's intentions are that systems are still required to be code compliant though specific questions are not asked in the report of all possible conditions. My beef is that 25 will ask if a sprinkler is obstructed, or oriented properly - specific enough questions - but not if the sprinkler installed is of the correct temperature rating for it's location, or whether all sprinklers in a single compartment are QR or SR for example.
We are agreeing to disagree for the moment.

Attached is a pic with numerous problems. The s/w sprinkler is oriented properly is it not? Or does the question assume further: oriented in regards to spacing from the ceiling? Can it be considered a ceiling obstruction because the spray pattern would be fouled by it's proximity to the ceiling? What if it were at 26" instead of 1" (assuming the duct wasn't there)? It's still installed wrong, yet by 25 it passes? The CPVC is installed exposed in a mechanical room. Fail? By 13 yes, by 25 no. The flow switch is not installed per manufacturers requirements. Fail? In this same room is an alarm valve on top of a non-potable connection. Fail? There are other issues like the junction box for the wiring to the control valve tamper has come off the valve and is just dangling there. Ceiling penetrations are not sealed, etc..

Some of this is obviously not within the scope of 13 or a sprinkler systems inspection, and certainly not within the scope of 25 as we have been discussing. Given what / how chapter 5 appears to call violations, there is only: The pipe is not properly supported, and the duct below is an obstruction.

If NFPA 25 isn't the standard to ensure a sprinkler system is installed to code, what is it? I primarily joined this forum so I could ask code related questions and get interpretations and observations from a wide variety of professionals. There have been many posts where a question has begun by myself and others: "I did this inspection and found (this condition) to exist. What is up here?", and invariably, follow up to the post will bring many quotations of various codes and why it isn't the way it's supposed to be. For the installation, it is incorrect, and may not even work. But for 25, as long as there isn't paint on the sprinkler it seems to be ok.

I most certainly think I am missing something in the intent of NFPA 25. Further speculation and input from anyone would be appreciated

Regards
Dave

 

[TravisMack]

Dave:

I think what is evidenced here is a breakdown in the systems. This should have never been accepted in the original installation. There are things here that do not meet the requirements per NFPA 13.

I believe that NFPA 25 comes at the problem from "assuming the system is properly installed per NFPA 13, 14, 24 & 20.

This is where the problem lies in the above example. The system was installed and 'approved' as being in compliance with NFPA 13. Now, the NFPA 25 inspector comes by and says "what is this?" Now you have the problem. I don't know where to fix this. I hope some one smarter than me can come up with a solution. The NFPA 25 inspector is there to make sure things work mechanically - no closed valves, obstructed pipe, inadequate supports, etc. But, this is a design / material deficiency. I think the NFPA 25 inspector has to note that it needs further investigation as this is outside of the scope of the inspection.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[ContractorDave]

Yes... the picture is getting less fuzzy:

NFPA 25 Ch 1. "...This standard applies to fire protection systems that have been properly installed in accordance with generally accepted practices. Where a system has not been installed in accordance with generally accepted practices, the corrective action is beyond the scope of this standard. The corrective action to ensure that the system performs in a satisfactory manner shall be in accordance with the appropriate installation standard."

So. Let's take the following example: I am asked to do an inspection and part way through I discover the mess in the picture there. I guess all I can do is inform the client that an inspection to NFPA 25 cannot be done because the system isn't installed correctly. Of course I can then offer to compile a list of things that need to be corrected so he can obtain quotes to make the system compliant (for a fee of course, seeing as I can't charge him for an inspection I won't be doing) and then my service division could also offer a quote with explicit 1st hand knowledge on what is required so expensive mistakes aren't made.

Anyone see it differently?

Regards
Dave

 

[TravisMack]

I think that is a very appropriate response to take. You aren't able to do what the original scope was because the system is not in compliance with NFPA 13.

If they get the system up to NFPA 13, then you would be happy to do an inspection as NFPA 25 is able to be followed.

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[cdafd]

TravisMack

You are in texas correct, and since you are you have to answer to a higher authority. So do some of the pictures we have seen with this thread constitute a ""red tag""??

I wonder if other states of other oversight besides the city??

Also, in the very long past I have tried to get the insurance company involved, in order to get some action.

 

[TravisMack]

I am actually in AZ. StookeyFPE is in Texas.



Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[FFP1]

I have way too many obligations to take the time to respond to this thread, but I lack the self restraint since I have essentially dedicated my life to this very topic. Between work and coaching my 9 year old son's baseball team, I am really stretched these days!

Declining to inspect any and all systems that do not meet all of the NFPA 13 requirements is simply not feasible. I would estimate 40% of the systems we inspect were originally installed and accepted by the AHJ eventhough these systems do not meet all of the NFPA 13, NFPA 20 and NFPA 72 requirements.

The AHJ or maybe even the state law should require an intial acceptance inspection performed by an independent state certified sprinkler contractor prior to granting the Certificate of Occupancy. Based on my 20 years in the industry, it is fairly obvious that the state and local fire inspectors are simply not knowledgeable enough to complete this function. They try their very best, but many of the inspectors simply do not possess the experience and depth of knowledge to perform this function. The installing sprinkler contractor should not be allowed to perform these inspections due to the obvious conflict of interest. The sprinkler contractors certified to complete these initial acceptance inspections should be required to perform the NFPA 25 related activities and confirm the system meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the applicable International Fire Code, NFPA 13, NFPA 20 and the water based fire protection related sections in NFPA 72. I say "applicable" because most states have adopted and sometimes altered the requirements for some specific topics. Any deviations should be documented and the documentation should clearly state the AHJ which approved the deviation. The same approach should be taken with regard to the fire alarm system with an independent state certified fire alarm company (some of the components will be tested by both independent companies, but these are two completely different sets of NFPA requirements and should be separated in my personal opinion; too much information for one inspector to evaluate if combined).

I have completed a significant amount of research and have developed the following approach for my company (in an attempt to reduce liability and ensure we meet or exceed state law): We inspect and test systems based on NFPA 25 requirements. Before someone on this blog decides we "sell tags", I must state that we are MUCH more detailed and we complete several inspection and testing activities that most of our competitors do not even consider. NFPA 25 essentially states that we must confirm the system which was installed and accepted by the AHJ is fully functional and will operate as originally installed. Based on NFPA 25, inspectors are required to document any components which are not operating properly, any changes/alterations to the system, significant occupancy changes, significant spray pattern obstructions, system impairments, exposure to temperatures <40F and any significant reductions in the water supply.

As an FPE, I also offer engineering consulting services which include confirmation that the systems meet or exceed NFPA 13 and NFPA 20; however, this is a completely separate service from the NFPA 25 inspection services. This requires a very detailed inspection of all areas, testing of all alarm system components, detailed hydraulic calculations to confirm each system can deliver the minimum density/area based on the available water supply, evaluation of sprinkler spacing/location, pipe hangers, proper sprinkler application, building construction features, etc. Many of these visits require some significant research and time to document the findings. Most inspectors (even the NICET III and NICET IV inspectors) do not possess the knowledge or experience to conduct these "engineering related" services. Everyone in the industry already knows it takes a lot of time/effort and is VERY difficult to develop solid inspectors capable of conducting the NFPA 25 related activities in a manner which does not present an unacceptable risk to the company they represent. These inspectors also must obtain NICET III to meet the state requirements in Georgia (and many of the other states in USA based on my limited research). Important Note: The fact that someone has obtained NICET III in Inspection/Testing does not mean they possess the character, skill, knowledge and ability to perform inspections without presenting an unacceptable risk to the sprinkler company!

I must admit that I struggle with the subject matter of this thread. I have a hard time ignoring the obvious issues I see while conducting the NFPA mandated inspection services. I typically explain to my customers what the current state law requires and conduct the inspections as required by NFPA 25. If I identify a problem which has potentially severe consequences, but is outside of the scope of NFPA 25, I usually discuss the problem with the customer during the closing conference. If they decide to take action or evaluate further, we discuss the engineering consulting related activities. I have made a concerted effort to clearly define the NFPA 25 approach and limited liability in our Inspection Agreement Contract. As an inspector, I am bound by a combination of NFPA 25 and the Inspection Agreement we have with each customer. As an FPE, it is simply not reasonable to expect me to provide engineering consulting for customers which are not willing to sign our Engineering Consulting Contract and/or pay a reasonable fee for the expertice and time required to properly evaluate potential problems outside of NFPA 25.

Note to all inspectors: Be very careful what you say to your customers and especially what you put in writing to your customers. All of these documents could potentially be found in a court of law. If you identify problems outside of the scope of NFPA 25 on a regular basis, this level of service could be deemed "standard procedure" for your company; this could lead to problems in a court of law.

In summary, water based fire protection system inspectors should NOT be required to identify problems outside of the scope of NFPA 25.......there are too many potential problems, no feasible/efficient method to determine what deviations were accepted by the AHJ and the time required to evaluate and gather the information is excessive. There is also the problem of standards changing. Is it fair to expect the inspector to know all of the requirements for the year the system was originally installed? There have been many many many changes over the years. We still see systems in service which were installed in the 1950's.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Travis said "Note to all inspectors: Be very careful what you say to your customers and especially what you put in writing to your customers. All of these documents could potentially be found in a court of law. If you identify problems outside of the scope of NFPA 25 on a regular basis, this level of service could be deemed "standard procedure" for your company; this could lead to problems in a court of law."

Well said, exactly my thought and concern all along!

Seems many of the "deficiency" problems encountered aren't standard maintenance but original sloppy installation screw ups that should never have been allowed to pass in the first place.

The GSFM recognizes the problem and has put into place procedures to try to stop it.

Recently the GSFM requires company certificate holders (NICET III or IV Layout Technicians) to keep individual project logs regarding site visits. The GSFM wants to make sure I am looking at the project being built.

In addition to the log the certificate holder is required to file an 80% and 100% inspection certificate with the state basically stating I've visited the site, everything looks good and meets requirements.

The state recently started to require certificate holders sign Contractor's Material and Test Certificates. No longer will the GSFM accept the signature of a fitter, designer or even company owner.

At the completion of the project, just before the CO, there is a "first inspection" that can only be performed by the company certificate holder. We got special green tags (of course any new system gets a green tag) with my name, signature that goes on the riser and is supposed to remain forever.

Tell ya what, since they stated making me do this I've been looking at finished jobs a lot closer than I used to. Not letting event the small stuff slide anymore.

I think the GSFM is on the right path... the time to fix the problem is in the very beginning before it even starts.

 

[cdafd]

""""it is fairly obvious that the state and local fire inspectors are simply not knowledgeable enough to complete this function. They try their very best, but many of the inspectors simply do not possess the experience and depth of knowledge to perform this function.""""

i agree some do not know what nfpa 13 even is,

can we start with the designer

than go to the installer


than go to the owner of the sprinkler company that does not check the work

before we get to the ahj inspector

on a bad install

 

[ContractorDave]

"Note to all inspectors: Be very careful what you say to your customers and especially what you put in writing to your customers. All of these documents could potentially be found in a court of law. If you identify problems outside of the scope of NFPA 25 on a regular basis, this level of service could be deemed "standard procedure" for your company; this could lead to problems in a court of law."

I'll stand by what I posted earlier. I'll do the 25 to the best of my ability, noting the 25 deficiencies as required. In the comments section I will also make note of ANY other deficiency. Some may feel it's not their duty. I feel it's a moral obligation that if I see something wrong, I point it out. I can only highlight this by an earlier example, that if I just happen to be doing an inspection in a convalescence home where a family member is, and I see a deficiency - anything that is not how it should be - You can bet your sweet booty I'm going to bring it to the attention of the client. Not doing this in any other situation is morally bereft.

We are having our lawyers go over our disclaimer, and I realize that that may or may not matter on any given day in any given law suit. But the disclaimer reflects the facts of reality: that, though we do the very best we possibly can, there is a possibility we may not have uncovered everything and cannot be held responsible for this. Our business will stand on it's professional conduct and the relationships we earn with our clients by being thorough, honest, and fair.
I am proud to say this level of service IS deemed standard procedure by our company.

Regards
Dave

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

cdafd,

I don't like shared responsibility.

As the certificate holder for the company I work for the buck starts with me and ends with me.

I'll take all of the responsibility or no responsibility because there isn't anything in between. Where I work I take all the responsibility which I refuse to share with anyone including the company owner. If you would catch something wrong on one of my jobs it is my blame and noboldy elses.

A year ago Georgia started to require certificate holders, not the designers, fitters or owners, to document regular jobsite visits affirming they have watched the sprinkler system go in, that it is going in as shown on the approved plans and to certify proper corrective actions have been taken where required.

I really like this. We have a site visit log, an 80% inspection certificate, a 100% inspection certificate and a final completion certificate that only the certificate holder can sign. On top of all this there's a special green tag that passes as the first inspection tag that goes on the riser with my name and signature. This tag is supposed to stay on the riser forever.

I laminate mine.

I have to certifify all the signs are hung, the spare head cabinet is populated with a wrench, that the hydraulic calculation placard is properly filled out and hung and the system was installed per stardards and codes.

This all takes time and with a small company I would estimate I spend a couple days per month just doing site visits and inspections. All to often companies have designers that never leave the office.... we got to clean up our own mess.

The feeling from the state fire marshal is there isn't a whole lot they can do about jobs done poorly in the past but they are doing everything in their power to make sure crappy installations don't happen in the future.

This morning I had a 100% for a nursning home and enjoyed a rather lengthy conversation with the inspector who is a real good guy. We talked about the inspection and the fire marshal's stance is exactly what I put foreward here... that we are not to rededsign the system but are only there to see what is there will mechancially operate.

 

[FFP1]

I agree with Dave that we all should make a concerted effort to be professional, thorough, honest, fair and to do what is best for our customers and the general public.

I have the following statement posted in my office: "Blessed are those who seek out what is best for the people they serve!".

I do not ignore serious issues and I stress to my employees that they should not ignore serious issues regardless of the guidelines outlined in NFPA 25. I consistently discuss serious issues with our customers. I even provide unsolicited advice when I am not even at work to managers and/or owners of various public buildings I visit (i.e. restaurants, retail buildings, schools, etc.) if I notice something important or significant does not meet NFPA standards. I am not trying to obtain new customers.....I simply believe this is the honorable and correct approach.

In my previous post, I was trying to state that we all need to make a concerted effort to understand and follow the state mandated guidelines (i.e. the current state law and applicable NFPA standards). We should also strive to be somewhat consistent. In my personal opinion, I think it is smart and prudent to be very careful with our words and extremely important to be careful with what we put in writing. I am not a CYA guy, but I truly believe we are opening the infamous Pandora's box if we (as inspectors) begin to document issues on our forms which are clearly outside of the defined scope outlined in NFPA 25. I would also prefer to stay out of any courtrooms (unless I am inspecting, testing or providing some engineering consulting of course).

It seems like most (maybe even all) of the forum participants are making a concerted effort to do what is best for our customers, the general public and the sprinkler industry as a whole.

This is a very beneficial and enlightening forum. I appreciate the time and effort each participant puts into this forum.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

The big thing is water supply because without water you have nothing.

Unless sidewall sprinklers are listed otherwise deflectors are to be between 4" and 6" down from the ceiling but I seriously doubt a buildings ever suffered more damage, much less lost, from a fire because sidewalls happened to be 8" down. I'm willing to bet you could place sidewall heads 18" down and the increased time to activation would be nearly insignificant.

A pendent sprinkler 5" off a wall... has anyone ever actually done a test to see what happens or is this rule just another guess? In a 2'x6' closet if you had a head so close to the wall the deflector was nearly touching I doubt it would make one iota of difference in activation time or effectiveness.

Upright sprinklers are down 13" not the required 12". Again I would bet it doesn't make any difference at all.

I've seen a number of reports where sprinklers weren't installed exactly corrected yet they activated and still did their job.

One thing we all constantly see is stores where heads are spaced 10' along a line, lines are 12' apart but along one of the walls we find the line 7' off the wall resulting in 140 sq. ft. spacing. I,ve seen this a lot yet I've never heard of a sprinkler system failure because of it.

Five year internal check valve inspections, I got some personal information on this you might find interesting.

Recently completed inspecting 180 systems (big job) at a military base. 98% of the systems were originally constructed in 1952-1953 with the vast majority pipe schedule wet systems with an alarm check valve and 4" flanged swing check with FDC on the wall. We performed the first internal examination of the check valves since the day they were installed.

Out of the 160 FDC swing checks we could not open 4 of them. Pounding them with a rubber mallet wouldn't open them.... they were indeed stuck.

All of the alarm check valves worked well and except for the 16" piece of old 2"x4" lumber we found wedged in one (smile) they all functioned just fine. This 2"x4" piece of wood is inside one but it still operated and you could get a main drain test off it.

The big three questions are do the alarms operate? Is the water supply pressure and quantity where it has always been? Has the use of the building changed?

Use of the building, someone didn't rent out a Light Hazard assembly hall to store plastic coffee cups 18' high, did they?

Maybe some of the insurance professionals here would share some statistics on why sprinklers fail?

 

[LCREP]

Maybe some of the insurance professionals here would share some statistics on why sprinklers fail?


Number 1 reason. Closed fire protection valves!!


As per NFPA shut sprinkler control valves continue to be the leading cause for fire loss in buildings. A wet pipe system for manufacturing occupancies 60% of the valves were shut and in storage occupancies it was 91%! For a dry pipe system the valve was closed 84% of the time in manufacturing occupancies and 86% for storage occupancies.

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!