The requirement for compliance with the NFPA 13 1999 Edition came for Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) which has a Life Safety Division. This
is the Division that you call or send an e-mail to, in order to find out
exactly what the Federal Government is requiring when CMS states compliance
with NFPA 13, 1999 Edition. Sprinkler contractors are licking their chops to do
engineering surveys of the nursing home, in order to develop a list of
deficiencies to which the sprinkler contractor is willing to assist the nursing
home to eliminate. Check your insurance coverage this type of "engineering" is
not covered by the typical contractors insurance policy. And remember when you
are doing this type of work the excuse of "I am a contractor not an engineer, I
did not know" does not present a defense against a claim of negligence. You
need to know exactly what was CMS's intentions when the regulations were
developed.
The example given by George is an example of a sprinkler contractor not looking
out for the best interest of the client, or "caving in" to a GC for a cheaper
system, or an engineer providing fire sprinkler bidding documents which were
not correct for the type of facility ("off the shelf specs"). Over the past
thirty years we have had to modify many "older" dry pipe only nursing home
sprinkler systems into dry pipe attic and wet pipe type in patient care areas
to assist client's goal of providing a better level of life safety by using
residentially listed sprinklers in the dwelling areas of the nursing home.
Chris is correct when he states that the municipal AHJ have no skin in the game
legally, most municipal AHJ are very diligent in doing their jobs, with little
training about fire sprinkler systems as related to "our" training. However,
we expect them to catch every little mistake in our drawings and system
installation deficiencies and when the AHJ misses we claim that we have gotten
a "variance" to the code because the AHJ missed something, this logic is not
correct, because the permit that is taken out by the contractor states that the
system is installed in accordance with the legal codes of the jurisdiction.
Chris is also correct about sprinkler systems being a relative new building
infrastructure system. In the 60's, 70's and mid 80's automatic fire sprinklers
were specified by the owners property insurance carrier not by the "Building"
or "Fire" Codes and the insurance carriers loss control representatives (some
were fire protection engineers) specified the design densities for the systems
to protected the hazards of the occupancy, the insurance carrier also reviewed
the sprinkler system shop drawings and conducted site visits to review the
sprinkler contractor's installation of the system. Once sprinkler protection
was required by the "Codes" there was a dilution of the design capabilities of
the sprinkler contractor because of the explosive growth of the sprinkler
industry from the mid 80's to today.
The Owners and AHJ's are looking at the sprinkler contractor as being the
expert and we all have to realize that this elevates the sprinkler contractor
to that of an expert in the eyes of the Owner and AHJ and unfortunately to the
legal profession as a target for a negligence claim when things go wrong.
Have a fire safe day!
Jim
DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES
Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4010
Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807-0010
Medical Gas Systems Engineering (302) 994-9500
Fax (302) 234-1781
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cahill,
Christopher
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: dry grid prohibition
Statute of limitations - check around. These vary. In MN there is a component
to when it's discovered. And on manslaughter (like it fails and someone gets
killed) there probably isn't any. Is this attempted negligent homicide? There
are a lot of ways to skin the cat for leverage.
Most AHJ by law have no skin in the game, they certainly take their
responsibilities serious, but failure on their part and they are not liable as
long as they don't take a bribe. I've been now on 3 sides of the coin and I
will tell you the AHJ side was where I thought about risk to my wellbeing to
provide for myself and family. (Least - It's a relative term people) And they
give sprinkler contactors a lot of credit because sprinklers work. NFPA stats
really only talk about a couple failure modes right? Closed valve with a long
lead. How many dry gridded systems failed to control the fire? I bet many
more performed just fine. I'm not providing justification just answering
you rhetorical questions.
As far as the media and a bad light on sprinkler perhaps think this way how
many other systems are like this and with a little publicity maybe a few folks
look closer at their systems creating a net positive effect. What if the folks
that found the o-ring problem didn't want to create a bad light. The spin has
to be bad contractors not bad systems.
Keep in mind it's only been about a generation or so since sprinklers became
prevalent. We've had electricity, plumbing and HVAC in our homes for 80 or
more years? Sprinklers not their yet! Go back 30 years and it was only the
industrial sector and a little more. People in general just never had to think
about them and even today they are not something they will probably ever use.
Think about a wiring system installed in the 1930's? Can you say aluminum wire
history? For sprinklers codes and people's (even engineers) knowledge are
toddlers(?) compared to other systems in a building being adults(?).
Chris Cahill, PE*
Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell
8201 Norman Center Drive
Bloomington, MN 55437
Phone: 952.656.3652
Fax: 952.229.2923
[email protected]
www.burnsmcd.com
Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: dry grid prohibition
Well, it's a nursing home in PA so it's under the 1999 edition of 13 for the
addition we're pricing.
HOWEVER, the original system has a NICET IV signing off that it's in accordance
with the 1994 edition, despite the 4 small gridded piping configurations in the
existing dry system. Installed in 1999, and has pinholes, as a separate issue.
Obviously, with four dry grids within the system:
a) it's NOT in accordance with 1994 NFPA 13 "dry grids shall not be installed".
b) I'd suspect a long trip and water delivery time based on:
1. Presence of dry grids (90% of which have extended trip times, volume
is 778 gallons.
2. Waterflow test is 51 static, 40 at 920. Not exactly the big hammer
I'd like to see if I was trying to deliver water to the ITC in 60 seconds.
This is a nursing home, one dry system with sprigs up to SSU's and dry pendents
down to protect the patient rooms (eventually).
Of course we've got the added bonus of 1999 CSC GB sprinklers, and no
indication of they used SR or QR sprinklers. This was based on 1994, and it was
1996 that required QR in Light hazard, so I'll assume they didn't use QRs.
Hence the "eventually" editorial observation, imagine SR GB dry pendents
(there's a 1-2 punch for ya- they'll operate slowly as SR's, they may not
operate, they have less than 60 PSI static and less in air pressure trying to
push the ORing out, and they're dry pendents, with all the lack of reliability
they exhibit. Add Pinholes as an added feature, and maybe the usual scale from
black steel pipe in a dry system. Betcha the sprigs to SSU's go straight up,
not cocked to match the 5/12 roof slope, I'll give 2:1 odds. Note I also saw
pendent sprinklers in the mech room, screwed directly into the bottom of the
exposed branchlines where, at a minimum, return bends would have been required.
Does anyone else believe that AHJs like Architects and BCOs give too much
credit to sprinkler contractors in general to install systems correctly? Sure
the code is complex. Sure BCO's are trained in the IBC, not 13. So where in
that does the AHJ transfer his regulatory oversight to making sure a system is
installed per 13?
Owner is a really great guy. I really don't look forward to giving him our
findings on the existing, in which we're starting down the path of pinhole
remediation, but what can we do? Its installed, and the statute of limitations
has, I believe, run out. We will suggest he approach the original installer and
ask if they'll fix the deficiencies since its obvious on paper they were wrong.
If they want to protect their reputation, they will; if not, too late for a
suit. News publicity would only detract from the public's impression of the
reliability of sprinkler systems in general, not good for the industry, and not
good for the reputation of this home as a safe place.
Hope someone changed out the GB's under the VRP or perhaps he will have a leg
to stand on when trying to have at least some of the remediation fixed. If
they've been doing ITM work, and didn't note the VRP sprinklers, I'd call them
negligent if I was entitled to an opinion. Should be an interesting meeting,
should we and the Owner and the original installer all sit down for coffee,
doughnuts, and "what were you thinking?" and "are you going to come back and
fix this stuff?".
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 Ron Greenman
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: dry grid prohibition
And you have to determine what edition was in use by the jurisdiction at the
time of the installation.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1989 section 5.2.3.1 includes it in the last sentence. The other
> editions (at least later ones) had it as a separate section.
>
>
>
> At 11:03 AM 6/11/2012, you wrote:
> >
> http://dbase.firesprinkler.org:591/online_archives/tech_interps/FMPro?
> -db=informal-interps.fp5&-format=record_detail.htm&-lay=form&-recid=12
> 629921&-findall=
> >
> >You asked the following question "What year did NFPA ban the use of
> gridded dry pipe systems?" In response to your question, we have
> reviewed the 1989 and the 1991 Edition of NFPA 13 as the applicable
> standards. Our informal interpretation is that the 1991 Edition of
> NFPA 13 was the first edition to ban the use of a gridded dry pipe
> system. The 1989 NFPA 13, Subsection 5-2.3.1 "Volume Limitations" discusses
> gridded systems.
> Exception to 5-2.3.1 talks about the ability to exceed the maximum
> system volume of 750 gallons for non-gridded systems. I did not have a
> copy of the
> 1989 Handbook available but the 1987 Handbook had a commentary on
> Subsection 5-2.3.1 "Volume Limitations". The commentary to "Volume
> Limitations" discusses the problem of excessive delays in water
> delivery for gridded dry systems. The next NFPA 13 Edition following
> 1989 is the 1991. Under Subsection 3-2.3.1 "Volume Limitations" is
> Subsection 3-2.3.2 that states, "Gridded dry pipe systems shall not be
> install ed." This is the first occurrence in NFPA 13 for the ban on
> gridded dry pipe systems. The commentary in the 1991 Handbook state
> that in more the 90 percent of the installations of gridded dry pipe
> systems, the times for delivering water to the inspector's test
> connection were excessive. The commentary further state that in some
> cases it took as long as 10 minutes for the water to be delivered to
> the inspectors test. In conclusion, NFPA
> 13 up to the 1991 Edition allowed gridded dry pipe systems. The 1991
> Edition banned the use of gridded dry pipe systems
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church
> >Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 7:56 AM
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: dry grid prohibition
> >
> >Would anyone know when dry grids were taken out of NFPA 13? My
> recollection is mid 1980's, but don't have a copy to check.
> >
> >We've encountered a dry-pipe system installed circa 1999, purported
> >to be
> in accordance with NFPA 13- 1994 according to the signature of a NICET
> Level IV, complete with little NICET symbol that looks like a
> seal....oh well. But each of the four wings is protected by a small gridded
> system.
> >
> >Can someone say whether or not dry grids were permitted in the 1994
> edition of 13?
> >
> >
> >George L. Church, Jr., CET
> >Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
> >PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842
> >877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax
> >[email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> Todd G. Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, CT
> 860.535.2080
> www.fpdc.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405
[email protected]
http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)
Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120611/b5019145/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
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
