I think not since the system is only checked in TWO places which
certainly implies one is looking for something expected to occur
throughout the system.
Good question on galvanized since we know MIC is not slowed by a zinc
coating. Guess we will have to call that a coating and not corrosion
resistant pipe (fine line but what can we do?? lol)
Roland
On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Would not 5-year inspections also be intended to uncover instances of
> calcium carbonate build up or foreign obstructions? In my youth I can
> recall many instances where a pulled sprinkler would reveal solid
> blockage
> in the reducing coupling. I also recall finding everything from
> rocks and
> rags to hammers and bolts inside opened pipes. Not frequently, but
> they did
> occur.
>
> I mention this in response to the assertion that internal
> inspections are
> primarily MIC-driven.
>
> Admittedly, the 5-year process for a CPVC system would be different
> than
> that described in 13.2.1 or 13.2.3.2 ('02 Version). Since it could be
> reasonably assumed that no corrosion buildup would be evident, maybe
> intent
> of the standard could be achieved by simply pulling an end sprinkler
> (or
> two?).
>
> This really is an important point, particularly for steel systems, as
> correct procedures for internal inspections might be interpreted
> differently
> by different people.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Johnson
> Bardane, Inc. Visioning a competitive workforce
> (407) 401-7154 - Office
> (407) 399-5081 - Mobile
> pjohn...@bardane.net
> www.bardane.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
> Huggins
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:16 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: 5 Year Inspection w/ CPVC
>
> that's because it doesn't exist YET. It was added to NFPA 25 at the
> ROP meeting. Unfortunately the ROP will not be published until June.
> Until then the approach to take is that the 5 yr inspection is
> predominately looking for evidence of excessive corrosion activity
> driven by MIC concerns. As identified by NFPA 13: 23.1.5.2(1), one
> approach for addressing MIC/unusual corrosion activity is to install
> corrosion resistant pipe. Since that is defined as acceptable
> mitigation, why inspect?
>
> Roland
>
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jim Johnston wrote:
>
>> Happy Friday All:
>>
>>
>>
>> Got a question regarding 5-year internal inspection on 13R CPVC
>> systems. I
>> have a system we installed back in 2003 as an exposed retro fitted
>> system
>> using CPVC, the local AHJ wants a 5-year inspection on this.
>> Somewhere in
>> the past I was told this inspection is not required for CPVC
>> systems, I'm
>> not willing to make this same statement back to the AHJ without
>> seeing the
>> code reference myself. I can't find any verbage in 2006 IFC or NFPA
>> 25 that
>> excludes CPVC from this inspection - is it in here and I'm just not
>> seeing
>> it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Johnston, P.E.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
