Joe, It is only required if it is adopted. Some do not adopt NFPA 25 such as DOD. Some others only pick and choose specific items from NFPA 25. In my opinion, performing the obstruction inspection every 5 years without due cause (the causes are listed in NFPA 25) is a waste of resources.
Thanks Pete From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: 5 year fire sprinkler Obstruction Assessment - What items in asystem define it as a separate wet pipe system? 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:25 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jody Massey Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 7:24 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman 4110 Olson Dr., NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
