Pete, I am wondering why you said, "elect to follow the 5 year requirement"? I thought it was required.
Joe On Tue, Sep 6, 2016, 12:13 PM Larrimer, Peter A <[email protected]> wrote: > Let there be no doubt that the change was not done “seemingly > unintentional”, but was done with keen intent in NFPA 25. Take a look at > the Report on Comments (ROC) for the 2011 edition of NFPA 25 and you will > see that a “system” was purposely redefined in NFPA 25 even though the > definition as reworded would not agree with what was in NFPA 13. > http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/25/25-A2010-ROC.pdf > > > > Take a look at 25-104 and 25-187 in the link above. Note the > contentiousness of the issue based on the votes.. > > > > Jody Massey (Joe) is right on target with his comments below. The new > definition provides no (or negative) fire protection system benefits with > significant costs to the system owners who elect to follow the 5-year > requirement. > > > > *Submitter: *Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell > > *Comment on Proposal No: *25-187 > > *Recommendation: *New and revise text to read as follows: > > Incorporate the following changes as follows and renumber the entire > chapter > > as shown: > > 14.1 General. > > This chapter shall provide the minimum requirements for conducting > > investigations of fire protection system piping for possible sources of > materials > > that could cause pipe blockage. > > *14.1.1* For the purposes of this chapter a system shall consist of a > shut-off* > > *valve, a water flow alarm device, a drain, and a check valve, alarm > valve, dry* > > *pipe valve, deluge valve or preaction valve.* > > *A.14.1.1 A subdivision of a system does not necessarily require a > separate* > > *obstruction investigation. In high-rise buildings, if each individual > floor does* > > *not have a check valve in addition to the floor control valve, this > piping does* > > *not need to be considered a separate system.* > > 14.2* Obstruction Investigation and Prevention Inspection > > 14.2.1 *Except as discussed in 14.2.1.1 and 14.2.1.3 *an inspection …. > > 14.2.1.1 Alternative …. > > 14.2.1.2 Tubercules or slime…. > > *(New from ROP) 14.2.1.3 CPVC Pipe shall not be required to be* > > *inspected internally.* > > *(New from ROP) 14.2.1.4 In dry pipe systems and pre-action systems,* > > *the sprinkler removed for inspection shall be from the most remote branch* > > *line from the source of water that is not equipped with the inspectors > test* > > *valve.* > > *(New from ROP) 14.2.1.5*Inspection of a cross main is not required* > > *where:* > > *(a) system piping is not accessible* > > *(b) system does not have a means of inspection such as grooved couplings* > > *or flushing connections* > > *(New from ROP) A.14.2.1.5 The inspection of piping is not required* > > *where the pipe is not readily accessible such as above gypsum ceilings.* > > *Additionally, not all systems, such as those installed in accordance with* > > *NFPA 13R, have flushing connections.* > > 14.3 Obstruction Investigation > > 14.2.2 3.1* An obstruction investigation ….. > > 14.2.3 3.2* Systems ….. > > 14. 2.3 3.2.1 If the condition ….. > > 14. 2.3 3.2.2 Internal inspections ….. > > 14. 2.3 3.2.3 Alternative ….. > > 14.2.4 3.3* If an obstruction investigation ….. > > 14.3 4 Ice Obstruction. Dry pipe..... > > 14.3 4.1 Alternative ….. > > 14. 3 4.2 All penetrations ….. > > *Substantiation: *Several changes were made to this chapter during the ROP > > that helped clarify the intent of some of the requirements in this chapter. > > However, there is still confusion on the difference between an obstruction > > inspection and an obstruction investigation. This confusion can be > eliminated > > by separating these requirements and renumbering the chapter as shown. > There > > also needs to be clarification on the definition of a system as it applies > to this > > chapter. > > *Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part* > > *Committee Statement: *Committee Action on Comment 25-76 (Log #CC4) > > addresses this issue. > > *Number Eligible to Vote: 30* > > *Ballot Results: *Affirmative: 22 Negative: 7 > > > > Pete > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *rongreenman > . > *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2016 11:25 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: 5 year fire sprinkler Obstruction Assessment - > What items in asystem define it as a separate wet pipe system? > > > > "*The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they > "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a > wet system:* > > from: a riser > > to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. " > > > > Never happened. Look at the definition of riser in 13. It still just says > "The VERTICAL" supply piping in a sprinkler system." (13:13-3.5.9) If you > look up the definition of sprinkler system in 13 you'll find floor control > valves still don't define a system. > > > > *The actual problem being that someone that someone at NFSA interpreted > something to mean something when a zillion other references throughout the > book dispute that interpretation.* This thread seems to have become > FaceBookish wherein someone says a thing and because that someone is > perceived as an authority the comment the equivalent of a Supreme Court > decision. No matter how many bloggers keep telling me Obama is coming to > take my pistol I still seem to have it. Maybe he hasn't gotten to the NW > yet. > > > > And Brad. If you've never read 25, but only 13A, do you even get an > opinion? I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mechanics and it didn't say a > damned thing about repairing motorcycles. > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Joe, I appreciate you sharing your experience with NFPA 25. > > I've got my hands full trying to apply 13 right! > > Good luck- hopefully you will continue to get feedback from the heavy > lifters. > > > > here is what I was looking for: > > > > "You do not do it for cpvc." > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Brad > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jody Massey > *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2016 7:24 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: 5 year fire sprinkler Obstruction Assessment - What items > in asystem define it as a separate wet pipe system? > > > > Brad, > > What I am now very clear on - is that I have stumbled into a hornets nest > - with no hard answer. > > > > *The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they > "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a > wet system:* > > from: a riser > > to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. > > > > Just because there is a "seemingly unintentionally" change, does that mean > we change how we do business - whatever the concequence? > > > > *This only effects every 5 year inspection for every large building in the > USA. No big deal. * > > > > *Implication for obstruction assessment:* > > X- story building with a three wet risers > > 1st scenario: look at 2 sprinkler heads > > 2nd scenarion: look at 3 sprinkler heads every 2 floors > > > > I am seeing people across the country "skipping" this part of the 5 year - > and the AHJ not catching it - because it is costing in the neighborhood of > $18k for a 5 year inspection because of misunderstanding. > > > > I do not have a problem with people spending money to keep the building > safe, but there is another side to the coin. > > > > The commitee on the code (or wheover it is) debates each time on how often > to open the system and look because when you do that, you introduce air. > They are really worried about this and are trying to minimize this - > because it can do more harm than good. > > > > If we look at a lot more heads just to meet the letter of the new > "seemingly unintentional consequence of a code change" we: > > 1. get a better sample > 2. charge the building alot more money > 3. put the building at more risk > 4. probably go against the intention of the people who write the code > > I dunno what to do... (insert head scratch here) > > > > > > And Brad - I am not a scholar on this stuff so I am probably wrong - but > it is my understanding that you do this for all systems - not just wet. You > look at *every* non-wet system plus *every other* wet system. The > reasoning seems to be that dry systems will have a little water in there > and lots of air which is a higher risk for growth. You do not do it for > cpvc. It just states you are looking for "The presence of sufficient > foreign organic or inorganic material", if you find enough material, then > you have a field day looking all over the building because you have entered > the NFPA 25 14.3 zone. > > > > *- Joe* > > ᐧ > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > > -- > > Ron Greenman > > > 4110 Olson Dr., NW > Gig Harbor, WA 98335 > > [email protected] > > 253.576.9700 > > > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera > director (1942-) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
