Funny how this question came up two days after I had another NJ based water provider try telling a building built and occupied 1999-2001 with a validate certificate of occupancy that they have since changed their regulations and the building must now change the approved DDCV to an RPZ with a strainer. Slight problem arises with friction losses, pump sizing, pipe sizing, standpipe delivery etc and the water utility representative stated that they are in the process of inspecting all buildings and ordering RPZ's since they no longer accept DDCV's for water based wet pipe sprinklers and standpipe systems. Too funny as it was - it's a serious problem of authority and enforcement .. And here comes another NJ based water utility provider issue.
Well for my two cents I'd take the following actions (simultaneously): Obtain the terms and tariffs guide from the water provider and verify they have no requirement for a minimum safety margin on FP system designs - I'm pretty sure they don't have such a requirement. Upon verifying they are making an arbitrary rule outside of their posted regulations you make a report to the NJ Board of Public Utilities - Water Analysis Unit @ (800) 624-0241 and let them start the wheels turning at their end since they are the agency charged with oversight and approval of the agencies regulations and tariffs. In the mean time you can try to communicate to the water provider that the level of safety provided in a system is really the call of the FP design professional and if you are going to call 5psi adequate for this case then that's who has the decision on it. NFPA 13 allows designing to the water supply line although it's not a best practice since water supplies can fluctuate over time. Based on the totality of your specific project you are comfortable with the margin provided and that's your engineering opinion. The water provider is NOT charged with determining FP design adequacy - rather that's the enforcement responsibility of the fire protection subcode official and if that individual wanted to argue the safety margin you have a legal remedy to have an appeal hearing before a non-partisan board. Seems to me the water provider may lack confidence in their originally reported water supply information and are trying to get a higher safety margin to cover their assets. We all just need to stick to our respective areas of responsibility but more times than not someone gets going on a tangent where the tree limbs are not designed to support their weight. Good luck. Dave Phelan _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
