Craig brings up an interesting thought. Perhaps a requirement to do a hydro before a job of this magnitude is embarked upon would shift the onus from contractor to owner, it then being HIS responsibility to correct HIS existing system before the contractor modifies it. The likelihood of a leak on the existing system after the work was done would be significantly reduced if a pre-test were done and if that test was mandated by the AHJ (per code). Any leaks during a post-work hydro would likely be in the new work which is why that requirement is in the book in the first place. John's point about being blamed for any problems even if the problem and the work were at opposite ends of the building would thereby be mitigated to perhaps a more bearable risk.
Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-) On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:38 AM Prahl, Craig/GVL via Sprinklerforum < sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > Sometimes it's not about how good of a job your fitters did but the > unknown age and condition of the existing system piping you're tying into. > There are times when a 200 psi test is all it takes to open up pinholes and > create leaks. Now the owner looks at you as being responsible and you're > on the hook for repairs and loss of their production or product if > something gets wet. > > Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME – Fire Protection | 864.676.5252 | > craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com > 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On > Behalf Of tfscolorado via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:02 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mark Phillips < > philli...@pyebarkerfire.com> > Cc: tfscolorado <tfscolor...@aol.com>; John Irwin < > jir...@quickresponsefl.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Testing of existing systems > > > 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 < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Date: 8/19/20 7:11 AM > (GMT-07:00) To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org, Mark Phillips < > philli...@pyebarkerfire.com> Cc: John Irwin <jir...@quickresponsefl.com> > 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 < > philli...@pyebarkerfire.com>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:07:24 > AMTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org < > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>Cc: John Irwin < > jir...@quickresponsefl.com>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 : PhillipsM@pyebarkerfire.comWeb : > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pyebarkerfire.com__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TRXWHQ-e_usaUH4VcdQhIOn_24PD8P61popS_t8IMDorh4B4s36QJ-LCAtqitwpgDg$ > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.pyebarkerfire.com__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TRXWHQ-e_usaUH4VcdQhIOn_24PD8P61popS_t8IMDorh4B4s36QJ-LCAtqitwpgDg$ > >-----Original Message-----From: Sprinklerforum < > sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of John Irwin > via SprinklerforumSent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:16 PMTo: > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgCc: John Irwin < > jir...@quickresponsefl.com>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: > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orgSubject: 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 listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp:// > lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org_______________________________________________Sprinklerforum > mailing listSprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.orghttp:// > lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!TRXWHQ-e_usaUH4VcdQhIOn_24PD8P61popS_t8IMDorh4B4s36QJ-LCAtoI1bpKdQ$ > > ________________________________ > > NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged > information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by > unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message > and deleting it from your computer. > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
