Right, but our private campus loop main doesn't directly control any sprinkler systems, but has a number of isolation valves for subdivision. If two valves were closed obviously it would be a problem, but I'm not really sure the intent of 903.4 is that every valve on any fire main of any kind must be electronically monitored when they don't directly feed a sprinkler system. As far as I can tell the campus loop should be governed under chapter 5 which defers to NFPA 24. Specifically: 507.2.1 Private fire service mains. Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24.
But several people involved are saying "but IBC just says tamper all the valves" (because chapter 5 from the IFC doesn't exist in IBC and they feel that IBC trumps IFC somehow on the subject, I believe the discrepancy arises because IBC only governs buildings and has no need to address outside fire main systems), I'm trying to see if there shouldn't be a distinction based on the "Private fire service main" and if so exactly what does or does not constitute a private fire service main, the NFPA 24 definition actually includes all the pipe to the base of the riser which is the only definition I could come up with. Mike Morey, CFPS, SET Planner Scheduler/Designer BMWC Constructors, Inc. 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 [email protected] | www.bmwc.com ________________________________________ From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> on behalf of Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PIV Tampering - IFC vs IBC vs NFPA Mike, I don't know how it will end up in your part of the world, however here in California, a new installation of more than 20 sprinklers must have electric monitoring of any valve controlling that system. Similar language was in the 2006 IFC, in section 903.4, which read: 903.4 Sprinkler system monitoring and alarms. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water-flowswitches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised. Exceptions: 1. Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings. 2. Limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers. 3. Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13R where a common supply main is used to supply both domestic water and the automatic sprinkler system, and a separate shutoff valve for the automatic sprinkler system is not provided. 4. Jockey pump control valves that are sealed or locked in the open position. 5. Control valves to commercial kitchen hoods, paint spray booths or dip tanks that are sealed or locked in the open position. 6. Valves controlling the fuel supply to fire pump engines that are sealed or locked in the open position. 7. Trim valves to pressure switches in dry, preaction and deluge sprinkler systems that are sealed or locked in the open position. This would seem pretty definite that an electronic tamper switch is required. Hope that is of some help. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *****Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 10/23/2014 5:38 AM, Morey, Mike wrote: > We've had an issue come up relating to PIV tampering. We use a state adopted > (Indiana) code that is based almost entirely on IBC/IFC 2006. We've been > asked to tamper PIVs per IBC/IFC. Our site includes a large campus fire main > loop and there is some discussion about whether or not all those valves > require tampering. My contention is that the campus fire main is a private > fire service main and is outside the scope of IBC and the chapter 9 > requirement to tamper all valves, IFC chapter 5 seems to be the correct code > to apply and refers almost exclusively to NFPA 24 for private fire service > mains. NFPA allows locking and periodic checks rather than requiring > electronic monitoring as IBC/IFC chapter 9 does. Is there any succinct way > to show the campus loop is out of the scope of IBC, or is my reasoning > incorrect? > > Mike Morey, CFPS, SET > Planner Scheduler/Designer > BMWC Constructors, Inc. > 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 > O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 > [email protected]<https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXhx81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.&URL=mailto%3amanta%40bmwc.com> > | > www.bmwc.com<https://owa.bmwc.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=hEc2LsZXLUqfB3v1fAsIUDtQSkfsw9AIUxDXhx81O08DpGEK3NHRaSbWuncnZEk-mLpe2vYiBJY.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bmwc.com%2f> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
