"*The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a wet system:* from: a riser to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. "
Never happened. Look at the definition of riser in 13. It still just says "The VERTICAL" supply piping in a sprinkler system." (13:13-3.5.9) If you look up the definition of sprinkler system in 13 you'll find floor control valves still don't define a system. *The actual problem being that someone that someone at NFSA interpreted something to mean something when a zillion other references throughout the book dispute that interpretation.* This thread seems to have become FaceBookish wherein someone says a thing and because that someone is perceived as an authority the comment the equivalent of a Supreme Court decision. No matter how many bloggers keep telling me Obama is coming to take my pistol I still seem to have it. Maybe he hasn't gotten to the NW yet. And Brad. If you've never read 25, but only 13A, do you even get an opinion? I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mechanics and it didn't say a damned thing about repairing motorcycles. On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Joe, I appreciate you sharing your experience with NFPA 25. > > I've got my hands full trying to apply 13 right! > > Good luck- hopefully you will continue to get feedback from the heavy > lifters. > > > > here is what I was looking for: > > > > "You do not do it for cpvc." > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Brad > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]. > org] *On Behalf Of *Jody Massey > *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2016 7:24 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: 5 year fire sprinkler Obstruction Assessment - What items > in asystem define it as a separate wet pipe system? > > > > Brad, > > What I am now very clear on - is that I have stumbled into a hornets nest > - with no hard answer. > > > > *The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they > "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a > wet system:* > > from: a riser > > to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. > > > > Just because there is a "seemingly unintentionally" change, does that mean > we change how we do business - whatever the concequence? > > > > *This only effects every 5 year inspection for every large building in the > USA. No big deal. * > > > > *Implication for obstruction assessment:* > > X- story building with a three wet risers > > 1st scenario: look at 2 sprinkler heads > > 2nd scenarion: look at 3 sprinkler heads every 2 floors > > > > I am seeing people across the country "skipping" this part of the 5 year - > and the AHJ not catching it - because it is costing in the neighborhood of > $18k for a 5 year inspection because of misunderstanding. > > > > I do not have a problem with people spending money to keep the building > safe, but there is another side to the coin. > > > > The commitee on the code (or wheover it is) debates each time on how often > to open the system and look because when you do that, you introduce air. > They are really worried about this and are trying to minimize this - > because it can do more harm than good. > > > > If we look at a lot more heads just to meet the letter of the new > "seemingly unintentional consequence of a code change" we: > > 1. get a better sample > 2. charge the building alot more money > 3. put the building at more risk > 4. probably go against the intention of the people who write the code > > I dunno what to do... (insert head scratch here) > > > > > > And Brad - I am not a scholar on this stuff so I am probably wrong - but > it is my understanding that you do this for all systems - not just wet. You > look at *every* non-wet system plus *every other* wet system. The > reasoning seems to be that dry systems will have a little water in there > and lots of air which is a higher risk for growth. You do not do it for > cpvc. It just states you are looking for "The presence of sufficient > foreign organic or inorganic material", if you find enough material, then > you have a field day looking all over the building because you have entered > the NFPA 25 14.3 zone. > > > > *- Joe* > > ᐧ > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > > -- Ron Greenman 4110 Olson Dr., NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 [email protected] 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
