NFPA 20 1999 7-7 "is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction." Stay in NFPA 25 if you can. If his concern is safety, show him how he can get the water he wants through the FDC even if you have to upgrade the riser. That may be a real concern. If he is all about CYA then remind him he is the one keeping the system out of service while wanting an existing system redesigned.
Andy Master Craft Plumbing and Fire Protection -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure 30 HP max for Lim Service Controllers Just keep repeating "we're replacing a failed component with same as a maintenance item." You're under NFPA 25, Not NFPA 20 for design intent, IMHO. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure I'm on the road and not able to cite the exact section in NFPA 20, but it's in there John. It's not a special circumstance, just the lower horsepower rating that allows it. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting 321 <[email protected]> wrote: >This is really getting silly now... the AHJ has finally responded by >asking for justification for using a Limited Service controller with >understanding that this property has had a limited service >controller/30 HP pump set up for 30 years. "Is a Stadard Sevice" >controller not available?" he asks. "What is the special circumstance >that requires the use of a Limited Service controller? is another >question we must respond to. He has moved away from the PSI issue >entirely and we think this BS is his way of poking one last stick in the wheel to impede the process. > >Stay tuned... > > John W. Farabee > > > > > >________________________________ >From: Steve Leyton <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 11:47:00 AM >Subject: RE: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >Sorry I'm late to the discussion - West Coast time and all that. > >There are several issues at work here. If you've ever heard me present >on standpipes or read anything I've written (if so, pity - you need a >hobby) you've heard my rap on fire-fighter safety and the concept of >performance basis for standpipe design. So I immediately give a little >more benefit of the doubt to a fire official who wants >higher-performing standpipes. But there are obviously mitigating circumstances and the >property owner has rights too. It sounds to me like the fire official >has exceeded their authority, but it could still be possible to make a >compromise that sends everyone away slightly happy. > >Certain assumptions: The building hasn't changed use and occupancy >since the original design was approved. The Class II system was >required by code. There is no way to get more than 30hp within safety >factor off the house electrical system without expensive upgrade. > >IFC 904.1 states that FP systems shall be maintained in accordance with >the standards that applied to the original installation of that system. >The fire official is exceeding his authority to require the upgrade >unless there has been a change of use. A Class II requires 65psi >residual at up to 100gpm under current code. Sounds like making that >isn't an issue, which begs the question of whether the 500gpm pump was >simply sized for sprinklers or if there was some other intent. And the >gen set sounds like a red herring; is the power supply considered >unreliable? > >Have you calculated the system for manual water supply? What pressure >can they get at the top if they pump the FDC at 150? 175? If it >didn't work, could a portion of the system that might be 4" be retro'd with 6" >(still a pain but cheaper than the pump drama)? What kind of hose >pack and nozzle does the FD use on attack and what residual do they >actually need at the tip? Seems to me that if you are replacing the >pump, you might be able to tailor a compromise curve by going with the >narrowest impeller possible, fewest # of vanes that will still make >500gpm, steeper cut, bigger eye. Get that pump to shut off at 139% if >possible to get the highest range of residual you can at less than rated >flow. 100psi at 250 will get the fire official half way there, so to >speak. Get with the pump rep and hammer on them to get you the best >performance they can that doesn't blow the electrical panel calc's. > >Seems like there are some options that might move the FO off of their >ledge, but if not I think that due process would support your client. >There's always the route of appealing through whatever board or >department is set up for such a process: city manager, building dept. >appeals board, etc. I doubt that the FPO is supported by the code in >this ruling. > >My opinion only, >Steve Leyton > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 321 >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:40 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >That's exactly the way we see it...these municipalities and local >governments are so desperate to generate additional revenue stream in >the form of fines that they are becoming zealots on a witch hunt...with >no regard as to the economic ramifications of their actions. > >John W. Farabee > > > > > >________________________________ >From: Justin Reid <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 8:58:10 AM >Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure > >Sounds like an unfair situation. If the comments come back the same, I >would ask the owner to attend the next meeting and to elevate it past >the reviewer. Obviously their building does not have the infrastructure >to even accommodate the reviewers request which is onerous. The >reviewer is asking for a major project when all you are doing is >repairing an existing component of an existing system. > >Good luck! > >Justin Reid > >On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:52 AM, 321 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not in a rural area...Major SE Florida Metropolitan City. >> >> John W. Farabee >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Andy <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tue, November 15, 2011 8:37:54 AM >> Subject: RE: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> Are you in a rural area were the he may be concerned about his fire >truck >> providing adequate pressure to work his new hose nozzles that want a >100 >> PSI. >> >> Thank you, >> Andy >> >> Andy Johnston | Master Craft Plumbing and Fire Protection >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 321 >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:23 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> Yes...code required Class II & Sprinkler 30 years ago when building >was >> built. >> Original pump is 500 GPM (locked up...and scrap) limited service 30 >> Horsepower. >> AHJ first required controller jump to internal auto transformer then >came >> back >> with this 100 psi deal. Customers electric service and emergency gen >set >> won't >> handle the load. >> >> AHJ is saying he wants pump and standpipe now to comply with current >100 >> psi >> >> requirements...so I said ...ok...in that case he only needs a pump if >his >> sprinkler demand on the 5th floor requires it. AHJ is now delaying >approval >> of >> change out while he tries to manufacture a counter to our last >submittal >> ....he >> has had it for 15 days now and seems to be stumped. BTW...5th floor >calcs >> need >> the 500 gpm at 65 + city to work as piped. Best all around deal is to >R & R >> existing pump/controler....owner has 3: identical buildings like this >all >> built >> at the same time ...so we are trying to get the deal right the first >time >> with >> the city. >> >> John W. Farabee >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Mon, November 14, 2011 11:01:05 PM >> Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> >> So why a pump to begin with? Class II pipe? >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:29 PM, 321 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > In a related matter...anyone had an AHJ require upgrade to 100 psi >from >> 65 >> > psi >> > when replacing a bad Fire Pump ? I have one I am fighting now in an >> > existing fully sprinkled building less than 75' in Florida. The AHJ >> > says it >must >> be >> > upgraded in the change out to provide 100 psi. The Florida uniform >> > building code says that a Fully Sprinkled building under 75' need >> > have only a >> manual-wet >> > standpipe. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this? >> > >> > John W. Farabee >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Justin Reid <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Sent: Mon, November 14, 2011 3:25:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> > >> > Thanks for the quick response! >> > >> > Justin Reid >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Steve Leyton < >> [email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > 1993 >> > > >> > > >> > > Steve Leyton >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: [email protected] >> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Justin >> > > Reid >> > > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:20 PM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: NFPA 14 65 to 100 psi Pressure >> > > >> > > Does anyone recall off the top of their heads which edition of >NFPA 14 >> > > the >> > > pressure requirements for 2 1/2 inch hose outlets went from 65 >> > > psi >to >> > > 100 >> > > psi? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Justin Reid >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > > scrubbed... >> > > URL: >> > > < >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >> > > ments/20111114/c779adc5/attachment.html> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > scrubbed... >> > URL: >> > < >> > >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >m >ent >> s/20111114/00a23dc3/attachment.html >> >l >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> > scrubbed... >> > URL: < >> > >> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach >m >ent >> s/20111114/b345a3d3/attachment.html >> >l >> > > >> > ________________________ _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
