If that's the case I'd ask the AG. I can see the problem when using a code such as UBC as the document that directs you to the standard in that UBC had the 25 reference in Appendix III which was not enforceable. If I recall correctly though all editions of IBC have a body reference and unless that reference has been specifically excised by legislative action (like NHBA attempts in many states to get the two residential sprinkler provisions removed from 2009 IRC prior to adoption) then the current referenced standard is the law of the land. Of course I'm not Duke and don't get to decide for Colorado.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Forest Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Toms question pertains to what edition of NFPA 25 he should use > because the AHJ has not clarified this. > His email states some AHJs say what is in effect at time of install, ie > NFPA 13A, etc. > Tom, what I would recommend is ask the State Fire Marshal what the > requiement is, in writing. > If there is a state NFSA or AFSA chapter, they should be able to help > also. > > Forest Wilson Project Manager Cherokee Fire Protection Co. 1855 > Bellbrook Ave. Ste C > Xenia OH 45385 > ph: 937-376-2333 fx: 614-455-4324 cell: 937-307-5647 . Visit our blog: > www.cherokee-fire.blogspot.com NOTICE: The information contained in > this email is intended to be solely for the use of the named individual > or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is > privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not intended for > transmission to, or receipt by, anyone other than the named addressee > (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). It > should not be copied or forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you > have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete > it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the > sender of the error by reply email or by calling Cherokee Fire > Protection Co. at 888-347-3079 toll free. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:03:37 -0800 > Subject: Re: NFPA 25 Inspections > > Tom, > > 25 only has you hang your hat on 25. All those issues you just > mentioned, though severe' are engineering prolems and beyond the scope > of 25, 25 presumes the system was installed correctly to the code in > place at the time and merely has you look at maintenance issues. Even > the lack of an IT connection is not a 25 problem. Your report should > note you were unable to perform a test because it wasn't there rather > than say it not being there was a violation or an engineering problem, > Do that and the next time something goes wrong that you didn't address > and any smart lawyer will nail you for lack of due dilligence back > when you performed that "engineering review'" Of course you do also > need to address the obvious and provide a separate document noting > "concerns" rather than violations and with disclaimers about the > limited scope of the comments and that they are representative and not > exhaustive. Back to 25 though, there's never any suggestion that it's > purpose is for engineering review and that is why there's no > references to particlar editions of any install standard. Even your > reference to standpipe pressures is irrelevant since those performance > criteria are from different editons of 14 rather than any requirement > in 25. 25 does not ask you to prove that the original design is good > or not. It does ask you to prove that PRVs on standpipes operate > propey. It doesn't tell you what to do with main drain test data apart > from comparing it to last year's and the original data and to comment > to the owner if a substantial variance is noted. If the FD wants to > know from you that's their requirement beyond the scope of 25. If the > owner wants advice on what to do that's his call. 25 does not hold you > accountable to do anything beyond it's own scope which is inspect and > test for functonaljty, perform some limited PM, and report your > findins--I.e.: does the equipment in place work, or is it impaired in > some way? Design itself is not an impairment per 25. > > Sent from my iPhone > > Ron Greenman > ...On the phone > > On Feb 21, 2010, at 9:06 AM, "Tom Duross" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK, I can agree on keeping current but what do you "hang your hat >> on"? The >> 2002 edition of 25 doesn't say what it governs, neither does the >> 2008, from >> what I can tell. If we're supposed to follow a referenced design >> standard, >> does that mean we follow the referenced maintenance standard? EQ >> bracing is >> a huge one, hanging and bracing just as applicable. But what about >> simple >> main drain tests; quarterly, semi or annually? I've asked AHJ's, the >> simplest reply I've gotten is follow the standard in place when >> accepted. I >> can see that for hose valves for example, I'm not going to test an >> old 65 >> building at 100. >> I just tested a system installed in 1923 near Fenway Park. 3/4" and >> 1/2" >> ends. Mostly original pipe and heads. No tags. 3 1/2" check (no >> ports), 1" >> gate valve. No EOL. I scratched my head until I got splinters. >> >> >> Tom, >> >> Here abouts we use IBC 2006 for the next couple of months and then >> move on to 2009. The edition of 25 changes with the code. Since 25 is >> a maintenance standard rather than a design standard I believe it to >> be a dynamic document that changes with changing data (a presumption >> of the perfect world where the driving force behind a change is always >> a real need to increase requirements for the sake of safety and is >> never influenced by a real need to increase profit) and so makes >> perfect sense to "upgrade" universally. In truth it would be better to >> upgrade engineering in some old buildings just because they're old and >> not up to current standards (EQ bracing comes to mind--think >> Northridge) but the resultant inability to forecast future major >> expenditures while pursuing business as usual would be too chaotic. >> There will be unpredictability, such as tax rates from year to year, >> and increased frequencies for NFPA 25 requirements might be amongst >> them. The alternative could be a 1990 building maintained in >> accordance with 1987 13A or a 1925 building maintained in accordance >> with nothing. Whether his is a problem or not is a different >> conversation. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
