Agreed. Book is clear. If you cannot isolate, then it is 2 hours at city pressure.
Unless they have amended locally. You will probably need to push this one back or get legal documents out the wazoo.. I wouldn't 200 pound the existing. R/ Matt -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ken Wagoner via Sprinklerforum Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:13 AM To: tfscolorado via Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> Cc: Ken Wagoner <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Testing of existing systems I respectfully disagree, Jim. While I'm confident that John's installers are competent and will do a good job, I have to observe that unless John's company did the original install, they're putting their liability at serious risk for work which they have no control over. It all comes down to how much risk is Living Water willing to accept for the work performed by some unknown entity on some unknown date, possibly uninspected or untested. We could spend hours telling war stories over disastrous experiences trusting someone else's work. That's a risk I'm not readily willing to accept. sincerely, *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting* *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *****Phone 760-745-6181* Visit the website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***** ** On 8/19/2020 10:01 AM, tfscolorado via Sprinklerforum wrote: > John, you have probably spent more time and effort fighting this issue > versus just doing a test. 200 add and relocates is a lot and I would > think you should put a test on it even if it is not code required > (which I believe it is) for your benefit and warranty. If your guys > did a good job, a 200 # test should not be a big deal. As they say > choose you battles wisely.Jim AdamsSent from my Verizon, Samsung > Galaxy smartphone > -------- Original message --------From: John Irwin via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> Date: 8/19/20 7:11 AM > (GMT-07:00) To: [email protected], Mark Phillips > <[email protected]> Cc: John Irwin > <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Testing of existing systems > I included this reference in my response. From 4 different editions of > 13. As well as a half dozen informal interpretations from AFSA and > explanatory comments from the handbook.John IrwinWest Coast Branch > ManagerQuick Response Fire Protection727-282-9243Typed on tiny keys, > just for you. Please forgive spelling errors, typographical > transgressions and grammatical > gaffs.________________________________From: Mark Phillips > <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:07:24 > AMTo: [email protected] > <[email protected]>Cc: John Irwin > <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Testing of existing systemsI > would be arguing the point of 25.2.1.4.2 of NFPA 13 2016How are you > isolating relocated drops?Mark PhillipsBranch ManagerFire Sprinkler > Design, Install, InspectionsService, Backflows, Fire Alarm > Inspections832-101 Purser DriveRaleigh NC 27603Phone: 919-779-4010Fax > : 919-779-4014Cell : 919-268-7587Email : > [email protected] : > www.pyebarkerfire.com<http://www.pyebarkerfire.com>-----Original > Message-----From: Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John > Irwin via SprinklerforumSent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:16 PMTo: > [email protected]: John Irwin > <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Testing of existing > systems[EXTERNAL]Nobody has an informal code interpretation on this? I > don't believe we're all just putting 200 psi on other people's pipe. > Anything saved from AFSA, NFSA or NFPA would be great. ThanksJohn > IrwinQuick Response Fire Protection"The bitterness of poor quality > remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten." - > Benjamin FranklinFrom: John IrwinSent: Monday, August 17, 2020 3:52 > PMTo: [email protected]: Testing of > existing systemsNFPA 13 2013 25.2.1.6 or NFPA 13 2016 25.2.1.4We're > doing a 200+ sprinkler add and relocate and the new fire marshal has > decided that 200 sprinkler relocates is a lot and that I should put > 200 psi on the existing piping. So we're playing the game of > escalation and code interpretation.Does anyone have a code > interpretation from AFSA, NFSA or NFPA on this? Her stance is that the > code says "such as relocated drops" and I may have added a few drops.I > am sure we have all come across this right?John IrwinQuick Response > Fire Protection"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the > sweetness of low price is forgotten." - Benjamin > Franklin_______________________________________________Sprinklerforum > mailing > [email protected]http://lists.firesprinkler.o > rg/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org______________________ > _________________________Sprinklerforum mailing > [email protected]http://lists.firesprinkler.o > rg/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ 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
