NFPA 25 2011 ed- Chapter 11 - 11.1.4.2 asks you to verify proper installation?

[ContractorDave]

"11.1.4.2 The inspection shall verify that all components,including foam concentrate discharge devices and proportioning
equipment, are installed in accordance with their listing."

I have an inspection coming up on a large foam water sprinkler system - (7) 6" deluge valves - and I thought I'd bone up on my Chapter 11.
Though this sentence has been there for a while (back until at least the 2002 edition as 11.1.3.2) I've never really noticed it. If I was asked to interpret it, I would say that they are asking you to verify that the system was properly installed. Has it not been the practice of NFPA to NOT require this of an inspection to 25? Other than to ensure sprinklers are not recalled, I don't see where else in the standard this kind of wording exists. Is this not contrary to:
"1.1.3 This standard addresses the operating condition of fire protection systems as well as impairment handling and reporting and applies to fire protection systems that have been properly installed in accordance with generally accepted practice."?

I am looking forward to your interpretations.

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

As an ahj who requires annual inspections by third party

I have heard various stories of what a sprinkler company should do during an annual inspection from just making sure the main valve is on to looking at every enclosure for problems

As ahj we try to notice changes from year to year

I think depending on the system, the sprinkler company would do a complete walk through of he system and note any problems/ changes that would affect the operation of the system including possibly not protecting the hazard

And on more complicated systems as foam maybe take a few more steps

After all when the subpoenas come out your name will be on them

 

[ContractorDave]

Hello cdafd

Our name will be on the subpoena regardless. Therefore we follow NFPA 25 as the regulating standard, and we follow it to the letter. This topic has been bandied about here quite a bit. NFPA 25 is intended to be the guide for inspection, testing, and maintenance of properly installed systems, and not to be used to determine if a system IS properly installed. Hence sentences like 5.2.1.1.6* Sprinklers installed in concealed spaces such as above suspended ceilings shall not require inspection. (A.5.2.1.1.6 Examples include some floor/ceiling or roof/ ceiling assemblies, areas under theater stages, pipe chases, and other inaccessible areas.)

Yet 11.1.4.2 seems to be saying that one must determine if the system has been properly installed in that one must verify that the equipment being used is being "properly" used according to it's listing. How is this equipment ever passed initial acceptance if it isn't?

Regards
Dave

 

[cdafd]

Yet 11.1.4.2 seems to be saying that one must determine if the system has been properly installed in that one must verify that the equipment being used is being "properly" used according to it's listing. How is this equipment ever passed initial acceptance if it isn't?


That is a good question

1. Poor design to begin with

2. Installers just following plans, and do not know what to do if they encounter something different in the field

3. Not understanding the limits on some heads

 

[ContractorDave]

But it is not the job of the inspector doing inspections to NFPA 25 to ensure a system is properly installed. NFPA has gone out of it's way to ensure that an ITM done by 25 standards is not considered an engineers review. Throughout the entire standard, there are no questions that are asked, or no action required of the inspector, to ensure a system is properly installed. As laid out in 1.1* Scope. "This document establishes the minimum requirements for the periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of water-based fire protection systems, including land-based and marine applications." To make this possible we must ensure that there are enough qualified people available to actually DO the inspections and to keep the inspections reasonably cost effective. If we expect that only FPE engineers will be inspecting systems and in doing so, also verifying installations, there will not be enough engineers to go around, and inspections will be prohibitively expensive.

This is why 11.1.4.2 disturbs me. I've done inspections for a certain client for many years and they have just installed the above mentioned system in their power house, protecting (5) very large diesel generators. 11.1.4.2 appears to put me on the hook for installation errors.

Regards
Dave

Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine

http://www.ykfireprevention.ca

 

[cdafd]

"""But it is not the job of the inspector doing inspections to NFPA 25 to ensure a system is properly installed"

So say a row of heads was originally installed ten feet off a wall, just ignore it??

 

[ContractorDave]

Hmmm. Not getting notifications.

To play the Devils advocate here cdafd, show me where in NFPA 25 this is a deficiency. Perhaps the sprinkler system was designed for 20' x 20'. How can I know without doing an engineers review? Let's get more obvious. A sidewall sprinkler is installed at 24" below the ceiling. You won't find this as a deficiency in NFPA 25 either. Perhaps this is a new type of sidewall sprinkler who's listings permit such an installation if suitable water pressure is available? Am I turning a blind eye to an obvious problem? As story in a previous thread by SD2 goes like this: an inspector doing an ITM on a large warehouse facility decided to stick his head above a ceiling space. He noticed a combustible concealed space that probably should be sprinklered. He mentioned it to the owner who promptly addressed the situation. Later that year, a fire started in a similar space in another area of the warehouse where the inspector hadn't looked and the warehouse sustained millions of dollars in damages. The inspector and his company were sued. The inspector had gone beyond what was called for in NFPA 25 and set a precedence, or rather what might be construed as a different or even higher standard. He looked there. Why didn't he check all such concealed spaces?

Now of course this leads to a moral dilemma that we as inspectors of life safety systems are hard pressed to deal with. I have been doing this for better than 23 years now and I have a very good idea of what is right and wrong when it comes to installations. I cannot turn a blind eye to an obvious problem. But neither can I call it a deficiency when I am called out to do a typical ITM (inspection, testing, and maintenance) service. The best I can do is note on the report that there seems to be some installation problems that may critically impair how a system is intended to operate, and an engineers review of the system is needed. I would tell the owner or owners rep verbally and I would have them sign the report acknowledging the recommendation.

So you are an AHJ? I have had this debate numerous times with Fire Marshalls, fire department reps, risk management people, etc.. and I understand where you and they are coming from - you see a report on a sprinkler system and there are no deficiencies so you assume that everything is fine. But that's not necessarily the case. What good are inspections then? I tried to explain that in my last post.

But I digress. Why the anomaly that is 11.1.4.2?

 

[cdafd]

good question, write a few of the committee members???

 

[DavidCR]

I agree with most of the comments. I think the intention of the paragraph is to consider that foam and foam proportioning and discharge equipment should be inspected with a more critic eye than regular only water sprinklers.

 

[ContractorDave]

NFPA has a new process: "Thank you for contacting NFPA with your Technical Interpretation Question. Our process for submitting questions has changed. At this time we are accepting technical questions from the Document Information Pages on NFPA’s website. To submit your question, please visit the “Technical Questions” tab on the document page for which you have a question at

http://www.nfpa.org/doc##

(example

http://www.nfpa.org/101

or

http://www.nfpa.org/72)."

It's all rather unwieldy. The easiest way is to enter

http://www.nfpa.org/25

and choose the tecnical questions tab.

I did this a while back but haven't received a response. It's likely the get quite a few requests for interpretations and the like.

My experience with NFPA is they are very careful with their answers (understandably). I frequently find I get much more useful information here.

Regards
Dave



Regards
D

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be
Thomas Paine

http://www.ykfireprevention.ca

 

[DavidCR]

A hint. When I make questions to the NFPA tech staff, I clarify that I don´t need a formal interpretation, I got better answers with additional valuable comments.

 

[InspGdgt]

Great catch Dave - That is pretty disturbing because as you say, NFPA 25 has gone out of it's way, and there have been LONG discussions on forums all over about that. I'll be following this one pretty close, may even put it up on some other boards.

 

[NJ1]

IMO that comment has being on the NFPA 25 for years. For example:
If you are one of those individuals that claim to be doing inspections per NFPA 25 and did not apply chapter 4 General Requirements.
2002-Handbook page 45 section 4.1.2.2

This means that if you are doing an inspection and notice a flow switch installed at the bottom of the pipe would you consider that an installation flaw or address it as a deficiency.
Make a call.

This is the most underrated chapter on the standard. Believe me. Most companies jump right into other chapters and forget that such standard starts on page 1.

 

[Duwe6]

"1. Poor design to begin with

2. Installers just following plans, and do not know what to do if they encounter something different in the field "

"Our name will be on the subpoena regardless."

These equal: pay a structural/Piping Engr or Inspector to check the installation and support design, and match the pipe material and sizing to the AHJ-approved drawing.

I ran into a properly sized system, but with an 8"NPS water-filled line hanging linearly along one very small & lightweight bar-joist, using hardware appropriate for nothing bigger than 2"NPS dry line. Supports were obviously bent, and were failing, as was the bar-joist. Since the line was connected with Victaulic clamps [they did a nice, tight job], just a little more sag, or a hanger failure, would have dropped a 10-ft piece of 8" pipe down into a heavily traveled back hallway. Probably would've put an employee in the hospital, maybe the morgue. Plus, I have seen an open 8" line pouring out water full-bore, just like this would have done -- the speed of flooding is impressivly fast! Think about a 200K ft^2 cleanup and carpet and wood floor replacement

This abortion of a system had been approved by AHJ and the Design/Build sprinkler folks, and inspected and approved annually for about 10-years by a Fire Supression Company. What a bunch of clowns. "If it does not look robust, hire a Structural & Piping Eng/Insp" It only needs a REAL Inspx once, and then let your Fire Protection [fire extinguisher tag checker] guy sign the NFPA Inspx annually to make the AHJ happy.

In my case, the Design was excellent, but the installation was pathetic to the point of being criminal. And the Owner would be listed first on all subponeas. Your building, your piping, your responsibility. And when the 3-rd Party Inspx [Fire Extinguisher] firm declares bankruptcy, the Owner bears all the costs.