Yet another NFPA #25 question (with photo)

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Other than being the first to do an annual inspection the company I work for nor I had anything to do with this recently completed (last few years) project.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6316/octodome.jpg

Correct me if I am wrong but the only way this could be "right" would be if an FPE signed off on it using the equivalency clause in NFPA #13 but I find it hard to believe any of you FPE's would do it.

Not that it matters but I couldn't tell if the sidewalls were standard or extended coverage.

I looked for a head in the top of Cupola and didn't see one. The top of the cupola has to be at least 12' to 15' above the sidewall heads.

Per NFPA #25 do I write it up or not? How am I to know an FPE didn't sign off on it?

If I understand it correctly my job in inspecting is to assume everything was correctly installed and approved when it was new and my job is limited to inspecting what is there and what is there will operate.

Am most interested in hearing what you FPE's that do inspections, I know there are a couple, would do with this one.

And there is no fix. A clay tile roof sits on top.... I don't have a clue to a fix other than tearing the roof off or lowering the ceiling.

Thanks much.

 

[cdafd]

SprinklerDesigner2

if there is a fire you are going to be questioned anyway if you write it or not.


Being an ahj I hate when I walk in after an annual inspection has been done and I find obvious stuff that should have been written up.

DO the things I see fall under 25??? I keep hearing different opinions from different companies.


I quess my question to some of these that feel it is not there place to do it, than why are you charging so much just to walk through what ever part of the building you do, and tag the riser and go on down the road????????

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Thank you, Dave and everyone else, for your input.

AFSA 106A wet sprinkler inspection report: "Sprinklers appear properly oriented" drove me absolutely nuts when I read it.

I've been laying out sprinklers for 33 years and I've seen an number of sprinkler installations where I don't have the answer for that that yet it is being asked.

with all the hundreds of different types of heads available today how could an inspector answer that unless he mapped out alll the pipe, looked up SIN numbers, obtained a water supply test and performed in depth hydraulic calculations to be sure? To be sure that particular question specifically asks if it is or isn't.

$10,000 and three weeks of my time and I might get an answer.

If I can't answer that question with all my experience then how can we possibly expect an answer from an inspector who never had layout experience?

Missing escutcheons I write up. I used to write up missing ceiling tile but don't anmore because is the lack of tiles a sprinkler system issue?

AHJ's across the country could really help us out on this one if we could work as a team. He'll probably hate me for it but I'm writing our state fire marshal a lengthy letter requeting answers to specific questions such as the original sidewall head issue starting this thread.

The building in question has been inspected every year since new, I am guessing 4 to 6 years old, and every year someone gave them a clean bill of health yet they saw the same thing I did.

Bless his little heart but the state building plan inspector signed off on this, approved plans and the site inspector obviously approved then for three, four or five consecutive years a state licensed inspector has said everything is OK. Then along comes bad news SprinklerDesigner2.

Can't tell you the number of times I've been asked "How come no one else has ever said anything about this?"

 

[ContractorDave]

SD

I have asked NFPA of this particular concern and given them the link to this forum. Of course I don't expect a reply. Maybe we'll have to leave them be and make our own standards?

Regards
Dave

 

[stookeyfpe]

Lightecho,

The NFPA 25 Technical Committee (TC) [or any NFPA TC] can only repond to informal and formal interpretations and proposals to any code changes. From the requirements of NFPA 25, incorrect placement resulting from an incorrect design is not within the scope of the standard.

What would be interesting is to use this incident as one example of a basis for changing the standard. The committee has a fair number of installers representing its industry, as does the insurance industry. I can see installers saying that it's not our design and its ultimately up to the AHJ. The insurer, knowning the system is wrong, can recommend corrections but can also up the cost to underwrite the building (Tom will correct me if I am wrong).

IFC Section 901.6.2 requires owners maintain all records of system inspections, tests and maintenance for a minimum of three years. SD2 has hit the nail on the head - if it's not in NFPA 25, the same AHJ inspector (or another with equal training) amy continue to walk by this everytime the building is inspected. I call it looking for trees while missing the forest. Most likely the inspector reads the report and since the report excludes issues that should have been addressed in the original installation, the violation continues to be overlooked.

The AHJ inspector is off the hook if a fire occurs in this area. IFC Section 105.4.3 places the burden on proper design and installation with the construction permit applicant. IFC allows the jurisdiction to revoke any permit issue in error or in violation of the code.

Interesting how this problem has gone full circle from the owner to the designer (who should be in this mix but isn't), to the code official, to the AHJ's inspector and to the owner's inspector. In the end the owner's inspector may ask the AHJ why this was approved this way. I suspect I know the answer - we missed it. They then may say But thank you for pointing it out because the state Fire Code ultimately holds the building owner responsible.

 

[TravisMack]

"Sprinklers appear properly oriented"

To me, this statement refers to orientation of deflector. For example, do you have a roof / ceiling slope of 6:12, but the deflector is parallel to the ground.

It is my understanding that NFPA 25 always starts from the premise that the sprinkler system was properly designed, installed, tested and accepted at the initial time.

From NFPA 25, 2007 1.1.2
.....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.

I agree that it is prudent to point out that something does not seem as though it were in compliance and that it should be investigation by a licensed professional. It is really an inspection contractor's responsibility to determine if the sprinkler system was designed for Class II commodity to 16', or Class IV commodity to 25'?

Additionally in NFPA 25, you find:

A.5.2.1.2 NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, allows stock furnishings and equipment to be as close as 18 in. (457 mm) to standard spray sprinklers or as close as 36 in. (914 mm) to other types of sprinklers such as ESFR and large drop sprinklers. Objects against walls are permitted to ignore the minimum spacing rules as long as the sprinkler is not directly above the object. Other obstruction rules are impractical to enforce under this standard. However, if obstructions that might cause a concern are present, the owner is advised to have an engineering evaluation performed.

It even states that the inspector is to look for storage too close to a sprinkler (18" - 36") and that other obstruction rules are impractical to enforce. It further says to have an engineering evaluation if obstructions might cause a concern.

I agree that improper design and installation is a significant problem. I can't tell you how many big box hardware stores I have seen with ESFR sprinklers within about 3" of a piece of structural steel, or closer than 12" to a piece of ductwork. You can also go into many buildings and see improper spacing and other issues. Heck, go do a T.I. and you may see 6 or more heads fed from a 1" outlet. How on earth is that ever going to work? But, all of that, IMO, it outside the scope of NFPA 25.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a very happy Easter! Let's all celebrate the resurrection with our families!

Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC

 

[LCREP]

"The insurer, knowing the system is wrong, can recommend corrections but can also up the cost to underwrite the building (Tom will correct me if I am wrong)."


Yes we can choose who and what we underwrite. We also can decide who we issue sprinkler credit to. We write our far share of buildings that have a sprinkler system, but receive no credit for the installation because of problems with the design or installation. It is a cost of doing business, I have been in many a meeting where the cost to insure an occupancy is much less then fixing the problem, i.e. upgrade the sprinkler system in a warehouse. They pay us more $$, we buy reinsurance to cover our bottom line, everyone is happy.

The other problem is many insurance companies do not have an engineering staff, and underwriters for these companies will write a business and give sprinkler credit for a business that we would not. We are more profitable then they are so we stay in business and they may not or make less $$ for their share holders. BUT some companies with engineering staff are no longer with us, Kemper, IRI, IRM to name a few.

Bottom line if you are waiting for the insurance industry to fix this problem, you will have a very long wait.

It is your brother's and sister's that are going to fight a fire in the structure, make it safe for them and the occupants.




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

 

[stookeyfpe]

I hope I didn't upset you LCRep. It's just the same sancatamonious horse crap that I as a former AHJ was forced to deal with. And I really hope I spelled "sanctamonoious" correctly as I don't get a lot of opportunities to use the word.

Thanks for the reminder. We lost 2 FFs in Houston on Easter Sunday. We either win or lose in this business - no draws.

People forget that the Bible has plenty of fire history and it's not kind.

 

[LCREP]

Stook,

Upset ?? no been doing this way too long to get upset.

My prayers to the families of 2 FF in Houston.

Tom

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

 

[ContractorDave]

After sleeping on it a couple of nights:

We have used the AFSA reports as a template because I found them to be the more comprehensive of the many I've seen. In addition to that, some questions were modified to allow for a broader view, as in the example "Properly installed and oriented?" Not only did this question pertain then to the orientation of the deflector, but also to whether the escutcheon was in place on ssp's in suspended ceilings, or if the sprinkler installed next to the unit heater was of the correct temperature rating, etc..

There's also, in a general section: "Sprinkler coverage has been extended to all areas of the building as required by code?". This addresses everything from combustible canopies to hallways where the end sprinkler does not cover a blind corner to ceiling pockets that should be covered as per 13.

It's been a balancing act to be as comprehensive and concise (and therefore clear) as possible while trying not to make it too complicated for both the client and the reporting process. In the end I think we have a very good inspection system that does for the client and AHJ what they presume it's supposed to and what, after pondering on this thread, 25 does not wholly seem to: ensure that the system is in proper working order and meets installation requirements (code).

All that can be done is to qualify this with what we have in the body of the report at the inspectors signature; that, though we do our best, we may not catch everything. (Stated verbatim in an earlier post). That being said, we don't show up with just a clip board and leave with a tag on the riser as the only evidence we've been through. Our test gauges are calibrated annually with the certificates kept on file. The client is made aware of deficiencies and why they are deficiencies while we are on site, not just sent a report he is unlikely to understand never mind even read. The reports are turned into pdf's and uploaded to a secure on-line data base for easy retrieval by the client or whom ever they may allow to do so. An inspection service is not merely an exercise in cash flow.

Regards
Dave

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"All that can be done is to qualify this with what we have in the body of the report at the inspectors signature; that, though we do our best, we may not catch everything. (Stated verbatim in an earlier post). That being said, we don't show up with just a clip board and leave with a tag on the riser as the only evidence we've been through. Our test gauges are calibrated annually with the certificates kept on file."

We do the same thing, this is serious business and if a company ends up in court the chances are high it will involve the inspection department.

I am always amazed when a company (not ours) shows up to do a pump test and don't know what a calibrated gauge or certificate is.

As Stookey pointed out the Georgia State Fire Marshal has done a fantastic job bringing Georgia from where it was ten years ago, back in the time where anything went and to have a company all it took was two fitters banging down the road in a beat up truck, to where it is today.

In Georgia at every company location there must be a NICET III or IV layout technician as a "certificate holder" in order for the company to have a license. As I previously pointed out Georgia requires inspector's to be NICET III in water based inspections.

Georgia publishes ADOPTED amendments to NFPA #13 and IMHO I think the state needs to explore amendments to NFPA #25 in order to clarify what is expected to be included in an inspection.

I am going to write Dwayne Garrison at GSFM with a copy of this thread. So many questions can be answered if the fire marshal's office and our industry work together as a team.