Chris
If the fuel load has changed since the installation of the sprinkler system and
C of O for the building then the AHJ might have a leg to stand on, if there
were no changes to the fuel load and occupancy then the AHJ will most likely
have no recourse, almost all of the codes note that the change in the code is
not retroactively applied to existing legally installed systems, etc. You need
to have a change such as a warehouse storing toys, the toys back in the 1950's,
60's and 70's were basically metal with minor amounts of plastic such as tires,
where today the same toys manufactured by the same manufacturer are all plastic
with minor amounts of metal and are considered as Group A plastics. The AHJ
then has the ability to cite the owner and ask for protection that is adequate
for the hazard because of the fuel load increase.
Have a fire safe day!
Regards
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 Cahill, Christopher
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Existing pipe schedule and storage
I wasn't involved with the case you mention so I'm not talking about that but
to generally say "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" isn't fully correct. NFPA 13 an
installation standard may not address the issue is correct but the IFC does:
[A] 102.1 Construction and design provisions.
The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:
...
4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion of
the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.
NFPA 1 is similar:
1.3.2.4.3 In those cases where the AHJ determines that the existing situation
constitutes an imminent danger, the AHJ shall be permitted to apply
retroactively any portions of the current referenced standards deemed
appropriate.
If we know now the sprinkler density installed then is inadequate to control
the fire it is well within the rights of the AHJ to declare a distinct hazard.
This isn't easy, as the AHJ really has the burden to show inadequacy. Well
it's easy for AHJ to have an opinion, but the hard part is when the opinion is
challenged in appeal or court.
NFPA 1
Chris Cahill, PE*
Associate Fire Protection Engineer
Burns & McDonnell
Phone: 952.656.3652
Fax: 952.229.2923
[email protected]
www.burnsmcd.com
*Registered in: MN
No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike - General George S. Patton
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Jim Davidson
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:57 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
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
