Tom, Did you find an inspector's test connection?
Byron -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Duross" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:06 To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: NFPA 25 Inspections > OK, I can agree on keeping current but what do you "hang your hat on"? > The > 2002 edition of 25 doesn't say what it governs, neither does the 2008, > from > what I can tell. If we're supposed to follow a referenced design > standard, > does that mean we follow the referenced maintenance standard? EQ bracing > is > a huge one, hanging and bracing just as applicable. But what about simple > main drain tests; quarterly, semi or annually? I've asked AHJ's, the > simplest reply I've gotten is follow the standard in place when accepted. > I > can see that for hose valves for example, I'm not going to test an old 65 > building at 100. > I just tested a system installed in 1923 near Fenway Park. 3/4" and 1/2" > ends. Mostly original pipe and heads. No tags. 3 1/2" check (no ports), > 1" > gate valve. No EOL. I scratched my head until I got splinters. > > > Tom, > > Here abouts we use IBC 2006 for the next couple of months and then > move on to 2009. The edition of 25 changes with the code. Since 25 is > a maintenance standard rather than a design standard I believe it to > be a dynamic document that changes with changing data (a presumption > of the perfect world where the driving force behind a change is always > a real need to increase requirements for the sake of safety and is > never influenced by a real need to increase profit) and so makes > perfect sense to "upgrade" universally. In truth it would be better to > upgrade engineering in some old buildings just because they're old and > not up to current standards (EQ bracing comes to mind--think > Northridge) but the resultant inability to forecast future major > expenditures while pursuing business as usual would be too chaotic. > There will be unpredictability, such as tax rates from year to year, > and increased frequencies for NFPA 25 requirements might be amongst > them. The alternative could be a 1990 building maintained in > accordance with 1987 13A or a 1925 building maintained in accordance > with nothing. Whether his is a problem or not is a different > conversation. > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
