30 HP max for Lim Service Controllers Just keep repeating "we're replacing a failed component with same as a maintenance item." You're under NFPA 25, Not NFPA 20 for design intent, IMHO.
George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure I'm on the road and not able to cite the exact section in NFPA 20, but it's in there John. It's not a special circumstance, just the lower horsepower rating that allows it. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting 321 <[email protected]> wrote: >This is really getting silly now... the AHJ has finally responded by >asking for justification for using a Limited Service controller with >understanding that this property has had a limited service >controller/30 HP pump set up for 30 years. "Is a Stadard Sevice" >controller not available?" he asks. "What is the special circumstance >that requires the use of a Limited Service controller? is another >question we must respond to. He has moved away from the PSI issue >entirely and we think this BS is his way of poking one last stick in the wheel >to impede the process. > >Stay tuned... > > John W. Farabee > > > > > >________________________________ >From: Steve Leyton <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 11:47:00 AM >Subject: RE: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >Sorry I'm late to the discussion - West Coast time and all that. > >There are several issues at work here. If you've ever heard me present >on standpipes or read anything I've written (if so, pity - you need a >hobby) you've heard my rap on fire-fighter safety and the concept of >performance basis for standpipe design. So I immediately give a little >more benefit of the doubt to a fire official who wants >higher-performing standpipes. But there are obviously mitigating >circumstances and the >property owner has rights too. It sounds to me like the fire official >has exceeded their authority, but it could still be possible to make a >compromise that sends everyone away slightly happy. > >Certain assumptions: The building hasn't changed use and occupancy >since the original design was approved. The Class II system was >required by code. There is no way to get more than 30hp within safety >factor off the house electrical system without expensive upgrade. > >IFC 904.1 states that FP systems shall be maintained in accordance with >the standards that applied to the original installation of that system. >The fire official is exceeding his authority to require the upgrade >unless there has been a change of use. A Class II requires 65psi >residual at up to 100gpm under current code. Sounds like making that >isn't an issue, which begs the question of whether the 500gpm pump was >simply sized for sprinklers or if there was some other intent. And the >gen set sounds like a red herring; is the power supply considered >unreliable? > >Have you calculated the system for manual water supply? What pressure >can they get at the top if they pump the FDC at 150? 175? If it >didn't work, could a portion of the system that might be 4" be retro'd with 6" >(still a pain but cheaper than the pump drama)? What kind of hose >pack and nozzle does the FD use on attack and what residual do they >actually need at the tip? Seems to me that if you are replacing the >pump, you might be able to tailor a compromise curve by going with the >narrowest impeller possible, fewest # of vanes that will still make >500gpm, steeper cut, bigger eye. Get that pump to shut off at 139% if >possible to get the highest range of residual you can at less than rated >flow. 100psi at 250 will get the fire official half way there, so to >speak. Get with the pump rep and hammer on them to get you the best >performance they can that doesn't blow the electrical panel calc's. > >Seems like there are some options that might move the FO off of their >ledge, but if not I think that due process would support your client. >There's always the route of appealing through whatever board or >department is set up for such a process: city manager, building dept. >appeals board, etc. I doubt that the FPO is supported by the code in >this ruling. > >My opinion only, >Steve Leyton > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 321 >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:40 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >That's exactly the way we see it...these municipalities and local >governments are so desperate to generate additional revenue stream in >the form of fines that they are becoming zealots on a witch hunt...with >no regard as to the economic ramifications of their actions. > >John W. Farabee > > > > > >________________________________ >From: Justin Reid <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 8:58:10 AM >Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >Sounds like an unfair situation. If the comments come back the same, I >would ask the owner to attend the next meeting and to elevate it past >the reviewer. Obviously their building does not have the infrastructure >to even accommodate the reviewers request which is onerous. The >reviewer is asking for a major project when all you are doing is >repairing an existing component of an existing system. > >Good luck! > >Justin Reid > >On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM, 321 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not in a rural area...Major SE Florida Metropolitan City. >> >> John W. Farabee >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Andy <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 8:37:54 AM >> Subject: RE: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> Are you in a rural area were the he may be concerned about his fire >truck >> providing adequate pressure to work his new hose nozzles that want a >100 >> PSI. >> >> Thank you, >> Andy >> >> Andy Johnston | Master Craft Plumbing and Fire Protection >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 321 >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:23 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> Yes...code required Class II & Sprinkler 30 years ago when building >was >> built. >> Original pump is 500 GPM (locked up...and scrap) limited service 30 >> Horsepower. >> AHJ first required controller jump to internal auto transformer then >came >> back >> with this 100 psi deal. Customers electric service and emergency gen >set >> won't >> handle the load. >> >> AHJ is saying he wants pump and standpipe now to comply with current >100 >> psi >> >> requirements...so I said ...ok...in that case he only needs a pump if >his >> sprinkler demand on the 5th floor requires it. AHJ is now delaying >approval >> of >> change out while he tries to manufacture a counter to our last >submittal >> ....he >> has had it for 15 days now and seems to be stumped. BTW...5th floor >calcs >> need >> the 500 gpm at 65 + city to work as piped. Best all around deal is to >R & R >> existing pump/controler....owner has 3: identical buildings like this >all >> built >> at the same time ...so we are trying to get the deal right the first >time >> with >> the city. >> >> John W. Farabee >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Mon, November 14, 2011 11:01:05 PM >> Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> So why a pump to begin with? Class II pipe? >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:29 PM, 321 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > In a related matter...anyone had an AHJ require upgrade to 100 psi >from >> 65 >> > psi >> > when replacing a bad Fire Pump ? I have one I am fighting now in an >> > existing fully sprinkled building less than 75' in Florida. The AHJ >> > says it >must >> be >> > upgraded in the change out to provide 100 psi. The Florida uniform >> > building code says that a Fully Sprinkled building under 75' need >> > have only a >> manual-wet >> > standpipe. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this? >> > >> > John W. Farabee >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Justin Reid <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Mon, November 14, 2011 3:25:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> > >> > Thanks for the quick response! >> > >> > Justin Reid >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Steve Leyton < >> [email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > 1993 >> > > >> > > >> > > Steve Leyton >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: [email protected] >> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Justin >> > > Reid >> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:20 PM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> > > >> > > Does anyone recall off the top of their heads which edition of >NFPA 14 >> > > the >> > > pressure requirements for 2 1/2 inch hose outlets went from 65 >> > > psi >to >> > > 100 >> > > psi? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Justin Reid >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > > scrubbed... >> > > URL: >> > > < >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >> > > ments/20111114/c779adc5/attachment.html> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > scrubbed... >> > URL: >> > < >> > >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >m >ent >> s/20111114/00a23dc3/attachment.html >> >l >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > scrubbed... >> > URL: < >> > >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >m >ent >> s/20111114/b345a3d3/attachment.html >> >l >> > > >> > ________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
