I am fully aware of the "shall" and "should" component. Thanks
Steve stated the following: "It's never too late to teach old dogs new tricks; I think we all have to rid ourselves of the notion that just because we've been doing something a certain way, that it was necessarily the right or the best way." I can assure you that I am not against change if change is warranted, justified or prudent. I believe we should change our approach or the applicable standards whenever change is warranted or even if there is simply a better approach. I just do not support changes which have a detrimental effect and I think we should not allow a change which negatively impacts the integrity and reliability of the sprinkler systems and/or alarm systems. We all should do what is best for our customers rather than what everyone else in the industry is doing. Just because someone convinced the NFPA committee to allow this approach and "everyone else" in the industry is placing the ITC at the riser does not mean there are no unintended consequences. My problem is that so many people in the industry seem completely unaware of the problems (some even seem like they are avid proponents of this approach). In this case, I would tend to think just maybe the "old dogs" placed the ITC at the highest/most remote point of the system because they were fully aware of the various problems when the ITC was not at the best location. Back to the "shall" and "should" aspect: I would venture to say anyone in the industry who consistently ignores the "should" references throughout the various NFPA documents will undoubtedly find trouble (The "should" comments might not be required by law, but the "should" references are typically very good advice). I certain that I will regret this statement: I am fully aware of the MIC problem and I agree it is a real problem; however, with regard to this subject matter, the MIC component is a smoke screen and has been blown way out off proportion. The impact of MIC is minimal compared to the impact of an alarm not activating during a true fire emergency or significant water damage due to a sprinkler system rupture due to excessive system pressures. Also, systems with very large pockets of trapped air also increase the MIC problem due to the presence of large volumes of air. I will admit a little air enters the system each time the ITC is operated due to the new water molecules and the various air bubbles in the water system; however, this is a relatively small volume of air compared to systems which have air pockets as large as 30-70% of the system volume due to the location of the ITC at the freak'n riser. Wake up people! Why do you think NFPA requires galvanized sprinkler piping for dry system piping? Oh and I will repeat that I still smile every time I hear or read that "the sole purpose of the ITC is to test the water flow alarms". So short sighted and implies a lack of experience/understanding. I sincerely think that I care way too much about this subject and the sprinkler industry as a whole. I think I am going to focus more time on coaching my 9 year old's baseball team. Over and out! Rodney K. Hamm, P.E. President/Owner Falcon Fire Protection Office (478) 953-1677 Cell (478) 396-6988 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:38:07 -0700 From: "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Test/Drain at the Riser To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <6d5a59f81dd82b448ceddaf9db6cfeb9788...@server.protectiondesign.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rodney: Welcome to Standards Land, the newest attraction in the non-reality based theme park called Sprinkler World. Note well that the language you cite conspicuously used the term, "should", which has been a long-overlooked shortcoming of this particular section of the standard. The NFPA manual of style doesn't provide for the word "should" in the body of the standard - the "shoulds" SHOULD go in the annex(es). It has taken the TC this long to address that sentence in 13. Also, if you want to discern a technical committee's "intent", look to the current edition of any standard; whether or not your state or a local AHJ is using it or not. If you look to 8.17.4.2, the language you cite from the 2002 edition has been revised and the "should" reference completely removed. If you turn to the annex - as I did, expecting the "should" to be relocated there - you will in fact see a comprehensive IMPEACHMENT of the concept that you and others have implied to be a "good practice". It's never too late to teach old dogs new tricks; I think we all have to rid ourselves of the notion that just because we've been doing something a certain way, that it was necessarily the right or the best way. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting San Diego, CA _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
