NFPA Journal - November/December 2013 - (Page 45)

those that are not caught during plan review, installation, and acceptance of the system? Does the person doing the inspection have a duty to notify the owner of any potential deficiencies with the system if they are in plain view? How does the person doing the inspection know if it is a potential deficiency if they were not involved in the design? Management of change It's the owner's responsibility to manage any changes that may impact the performance of the sprinkler system. Some owners assume that the periodic inspection of the system will address this issue, but typically this may not be the case. ITM forms used by contractors 20 years ago included a question about the adequacy of the system to protect the hazard, but modern-day ITM forms used by most contractors no longer include that question. How does an owner who may have minimal knowledge about fire sprinkler systems fulfill this responsibility if periodic inspections do not provide this service? In some instances, the regulatory process should result in the proper evaluation. For example, when a tenant fit-out occurs and walls are relocated, the registered design professional involved in the project, along with the building permit process itself, should produce the necessary changes being made to the sprinkler system. Not all changes involve a registered design professional or a building permit, however. For example, many of the containers in the cosmetics industry are now plastic instead of glass, which changes the commodity classification for the stored product. As a result, the sprinkler system would need to be evaluated based upon a higher commodity classification. Will most owners recognize that such a change in materials requires the sprinkler system to be re-evaluated? What about a hospital, where unused furniture is stored in a room previously used as a patient sleep- Some argue that a proper preventive maintenance program for a water-based fire protection system places too much responsibility on the owner. ing room-would hospital management know that the room is no longer a light hazard occupancy as defined by NFPA 13? How should these kinds of changes-changes that can impact the performance of a sprinkler system-be identified, and, more importantly, how should they be corrected? Sprinkler system failure Recent fire incident data indicate that the most common cause of sprinkler system failure is a closed or partially closed valve. The current NFPA 25 requirement for monthly inspections of these valves, along with valve supervision requirements contained in most building and fire codes, should be improving the performance of automatic sprinkler systems. The problem here is that the standard is only looking at one part of the sprinkler failure issue. In fact, there are numerous other failure modes for sprinklers under both fire and nonfire conditions, which can include pipe and fitting failures due to water trapped in a dry-pipe sprinkler system, or a wet-pipe system in an area which is no longer properly heated; and fittings or hangers that fail during an annual flow test of a fire pump. Other failure modes include fires originating in spaces that are not protected with an automatic sprinkler system, even though the building is; insufficient water supply to control the fire; and water damage due to a sprinkler operating, the result of physical damage to the sprinkler due to contact or to a unit heater being installed after the sprinkler system was installed-damage that may go unnoticed during routine ITM activity. Beyond NFPA 25 Some argue that examples like these illustrate that a proper preventive maintenance program for a water-based fire protection system places too much responsibility on the owner. One way to address these issues would be to perform re-evaluations of existing systems at some frequency to verify that the responsibilities assigned to owners by NFPA 25 are being met. If system re-evaluations are necessary, should a document such as NFPA 1, Fire Code, mandate such re-evaluations, or should owners implement them when they decide they are appropriate? The need for re-evaluations, referred to as recommissioning, is an issue currently being considered for a new standard, NFPA 4, Integrated Fire Protection and Life Safety System Testing. However, if NFPA 4 were to contain a requirement for recommissioning, it would only apply to integrated fire protection systems. Some observers argue that other parties, such as fire officials or insurance company representatives, can provide the necessary oversight by conducting more thorough inspections and surveys. The question of how much responsibility is too much will certainly be part of the discussion at the upcoming symposium, and beyond. It's just one of many questions that we need to address as part of our assessment of NFPA 25 and whether the standard is fulfilling its intended purpose. Regardless of what our evaluation produces, we are confident that the process will result in a stronger standard for ITM procedures for water-based sprinkler systems. Bill Koffel is president of Koffel Associates and chair of the NFPA 25 technical committee. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 NFPA JOURNAL 45

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

Contents

NFPA Journal - November/December 2013