Unfortunately the contractors in this industry have really failed to collaborate on a standard response to this question. There was a knowledgeable insurance rep who used to comment on these questions but he hasn't for some time. The legal recommendation seems to be to "see no evil hear no evil." Do you see a terrorist training camp doing the inspection? Dont document it. Recalled fire sprinklers? Dont document it. Missing fire sprinklers? Dont document it. A stupid China made pressure gauge that is 5 years old? Document that because it's in NFPA 25.
On Sep 2, 2016 9:40 AM, "John Allen, CET, CFPS" < jal...@allenfireandsecurity.com> wrote: > I have a couple questions that pertain to the roles and responsibilities > of a water-based inspector. > > 1st Question: Should an inspector inspect water-based systems outside the > requirements of NFPA 25? For example, NFPA 25 has no dialogue about 3-way > shutoff valves for gauges. However, NFPA 13 (2013) clearly defines the > requirement of such: > > NFPA 13 (2013) 8.17.3.2 Each gauge connection shall be equipped with a > shutoff valve and provisions for draining. > > Therefore, if a 3-way shutoff valve is missing from installation, does > this justify a non-compliant tag on the sprinkler riser and correction > actions items identified to the owner(s)? > > 2nd Question: If there is a gap between my sprinkler head and the ceiling > membrane, does this require a non-compliant tag on the riser. NFPA 101 > outlines this as a smoke partition/barrier issue. NFPA 101 states: > > NFPA 101 (2000) - 8.2.4 Smoke Partitions. > 8.2.4.1 Where required elsewhere in this Code, smoke partitions shall be > provided to limit the transfer of smoke. > 8.2.4.2 Smoke partitions shall extend from the floor to the underside of > the floor or roof deck above, through any concealed spaces, such as those > above suspended ceilings, and through interstitial structural and technical > spaces. > Exception:* Smoke partitions shall be permitted to terminate at the > underside of a monolithic or suspended ceiling system where the following > conditions are met: > (a) The ceiling system forms a continuous membrane. > (b) A smoketight joint is provided between the top of the smoke partition > and the bottom of the suspended ceiling. > (c) The space above the ceiling is not used as a plenum. > > Again, NFPA 25 does not identify this as a deficiency. Should this be > justified as non-compliant deficiency? > > I do understand the role and responsibility of an inspection does not > include the design of a water-based systems or of building code. However, > when faced with a deficiency from installation (from other codes), should > it not be identified and corrected under the inspection and testing of a > water-based system? > > I look forward to your feedback and thoughts. > > Best Regards, > > John Allen, CET, CFPS > President > > > > AFS: Allen Fire & Security > Your Safety is Our Success > Direct: 770.715.7261 | Office: 770.723.7280 Ext 2 | Fax: 678.894.4180 > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > This email contains proprietary and confidential material for the sole use > of the intended recipient and is the sole property of AFS. Any review, > use, distribution or disclosure by others without the permission of the > sender is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or > authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by > reply email and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
