Funny thing here is...... If this building were to burn down at some point in the future, the owner's insurance company would argue that the contractor who replaced the sprinkler heads should have known the system wasn't adequate for the hazard classification of the building. They would argue that, at the very least, the sprinkler contractor should have notified the owner of the potential problem. That would have given the owner the ability to upgrade the system and therefore the sprinkler contractor was negligent and responsible, in part, for the building burning to the ground.
As contractors, we are damned if we do or damned if we don't. Mike Hill -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage Todd, Be careful with this. We recently finished a case where the building was constructed in the early 1950's and protected with a pipe schedule system (extra-hazard) 90 sq ft per head, for a plastic bottle regrinding process, regrind plastic in boxes to a height of 8 ft., sprinkler contractor was contracted to replace sprinklers with like type and kind since existing "old" heads were greater than 50 years old. During the head replacement process sprinkler contractor employee (fitter) notified the AHJ that the building was considered a hazard since the sprinkler system was pipe schedule and illegal and could not protect the hazard. AHJ went to site and issued a "cease operations order" under the AHJ's imminent hazard provision of AHJ's municipal codes. Building owner then hired lawyer and engineers to assist Owner in battle with AHJ and sprinkler contractor (due to employee calling AHJ) during discovery process the Building Owner produced the original "Approved" by AHJ sprinkler drawings and documents which indicated process and storage areas and storage configuration and arrangement on the sprinkler plans by original sprinkler contractor shop drawings, along with the original C of O. The brief version is: the sprinkler system at time of installation was in code compliance at time of installation, the sprinkler system was approved and the occupancy of the building has not changed since approval and is therefore a proper and code compliant sprinkler system. In the end the sprinkler contractor agreed to pay the Owners legal cost and expenses as part of a negotiated settlement. The AHJ was at risk since the building owner had all of the documentation that the sprinkler system was legally installed. If the sprinkler system was designed to the legal code at time of installation, the installation was permitted and approved by the AHJ at time of installation and the occupancy has not changed since installation, then the sprinkler system is still providing protection for the occupancy and is legal in accordance with the code. There is no requirement in NFPA 13 that requires an existing code compliant sprinkler system to be upgraded to meet the new NFPA 13 standards without a change of occupancy (not change of ownership). Again be very careful with this and be sure your scope of work as the engineer is very well defined. Have a fire safe day. Jim DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 (302) 994-9500 Fax (302) 994-3414 CONFIDENTIALITY This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Existing pipe schedule and storage I am working at a facility where there is an existing OH pipe schedule system over 12ft palletized Class IV storage. The fire department has approved it, but I question whether it will provide adequate protection. I did not see anything in NFPA 13 that requires storage occupancies to be hydraulically calculated. Am I missing something? This is outside of the project I am working on, but as an FPE, I feel obligated to notify someone if I see a potential hazard such as this. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell) Sent using CloudMagic [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2] _______________________________________________ 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
