NFPA Journal - November/December 2013 - (Page 43)

that the dry pipe sprinkler system provides adequate protection against freeze conditions in the pipe. The ITM contractor who performs the trip test of the dry pipe valve will assume that the water that entered the system will be properly drained. Combined, these assumptions could result in a failure of the sprinkler system piping if water freezes in the pipe. In addition, many of the tests required by NFPA 25 involve comparing the current test results with the results of previous tests as well as the initial test results. For example, when a main drain test is performed, the results are compared to tests performed over the past two years as well as the test performed during acceptance of the system. An analysis is required if the test results have decreased by 10 percent or more. The comparison will show if there has been a recent reduction in the water supply for the system. The results are also compared with those obtained during the acceptance tests for the system. It is anticipated that during the acceptance test the main drain test results are used to confirm the adequacy of the water supply for the system. As such, the ITM contractor is not required to perform any calculations to verify that the water supply is still adequate, only that the water supply is similar to the one that existed during the acceptance test. If the evaluation was not done during acceptance of the system, the water supply for the system may have been inadequate from the beginning without anyone noticing the deficiency. Again, these scenarios raise important questions about the scope and intent of NFPA 25. Is it reasonable for an owner to assume that, once a system is installed, it has been designed and installed correctly? If not-and considering that NFPA 25 inspection activities do not address such issues-what is the mechanism to address design deficiencies with the system, especially Big Questions An upcoming NFPA 25 symposium will examine a range of issues related to the standard's effectiveness IN DECEMBER, the Fire Protection Research Foundation will sponsor a two-day symposium on sprinkler system performance and NFPA 25, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. Participants will explore the responsibilities of owners; the expectations of owners, insurance carriers, and code officials; and the services typically provided as part of an inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) contract. The event will gather stakeholders to discuss these issues and more, as part of an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of NFPA 25 and to improve the performance of automatic sprinkler systems. It is anticipated that the Technical Committee on the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems will consider the results of the event, along with ongoing public input, in the development of the next edition of NFPA 25. Even for ITM activities that are clearly within the scope of NFPA 25, there are questions about the relative effectiveness of the standard to produce the mandated ITM activities and of those activities to produce the intended sprinkler reliability conditions. Such gaps in reliability might not be addressable through changes in the standard itself, but they might be addressable through related changes in requirements or in common practice. Alternatively, it would be useful to know if there is a significant gap in sprinkler performance that we do not know how to reduce or eliminate. As a practice of good fire protection and life safety, what should be done? Some of the questions that will be presented and discussed at the workshop include: * Should the scope of NFPA 25 be reconsidered? * Should a new standard on conducting design evaluations be developed? * Should NFPA 3, Recommended Practice for Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems, address a periodic system "recommissioning activity" for some or all occupancies? * Should these recommissioning events be addressed by the occupancy chapters of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®? * Should the provisions in NFPA 1, Fire Code, be supplemented to require inspection reviews that can address the adequacy of a system? * Should the issues with NFPA 25 remain with the owners and regulatory process as they currently do, in the hope that the problems resolve themselves organically? A summary report of the symposium will be available from the Fire Protection Research Foundation at nfpa.org/foundation. Addressing the Performance of Sprinkler Systems: NFPA 25 and Other Strategies December 9-10 Renaissance Blackstone Chicago Hotel Chicago, Illinois For information on the symposium, visit nfpa.org/foundation. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 NFPA JOURNAL 43 http://www.nfpa.org/foundation http://www.nfpa.org/foundation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - November/December 2013

Contents

NFPA Journal - November/December 2013