Owen,
The California Fire Code is very specific, and it would seem
unambiguous for the conditions you describe.
903.4 Sprinkler system supervision and alarms. All valves
controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps,
tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures and
water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically
supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit.
_*Exceptions*_:
1. Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family
dwellings.
Doesn't apply to the buildings you've described
2. Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers.
Doesn't apply to the buildings you've described
3. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA
13R where a common supply main is used to supply both domestic
water and the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff
valve for the automatic sprinkler system is not provided.
Depending on the underground supply, might or might not apply
4. Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the
open position.
Doesn't apply to the PIV
5. Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray
booths or dip tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position.
Doesn't apply to the PIV
6. Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that
are sealed or locked in the open position.
Doesn't apply to the PIV
7. Trim valves to pressure switches in dry, preaction and deluge
sprinkler systems that are sealed or locked in the open position.
Doesn't apply to the PIV
It does appear, based entirely on the information you've provided,
that electrical supervision is required for the PIV.
And, not to split hairs or to be pedantic, California is not under
the regulations in the 2013 IFC. California, as it does with almost
everything, has made it's own modifications to that document and has
issued the 2013 California Fire Code, which has as of January 1 been
replaced with the 2016 edition of the CFC.
Chapter 80 of that document contains a list of the applicable
editions of various standards and codes, including the NFPA documents.
Further, that chapter of the CFC contains language on changes to the
NFPA documents. As an example - in California, the reduction of the
remote area size for use of quick response sprinklers in an area with a
ceiling height of 20' or less is not allowed in ordinary hazard
occupancies, even though NFPA 13 does allow that reduction.
I've had to deal with some terribly angry contractors who were
unaware of those provisions. They've said some pretty creative and
hostile things when I've pointed them out, including some I'm sure
aren't true, as I have a photo of my parents' wedding, and it was 14
years before I was born!
sincerely,
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*****Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
On 01/23/2017 9:25 AM, Owen Evans wrote:
As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on
occasion get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R. The
property in question is a boutique hotel, two buildings. One building
is a two story, fifty room hotel and the other building is two story,
restaurant on the first floor and banquet facility on second floor
with a roof deck. Each building has a FDC and a PIV. I am in
California which is under the 2013 IFC.
I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical
supervision?" NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states
electrical supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different
answers form different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive
2013 IFC. Which is it?
Thank you,
Owen Evans
_______________________________________________
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
