I ran into this issue today with a cage installed in close proximity to an upright fire sprinkler.

Is this an obstruction to the sprinkler?

It's open wire mesh from the head to the floor; the only obstruction is the top angle near the sprinkler. The deflector is higher than the beam; it appears there would be very little obstruction to the development of the ​spray pattern overall. Facility has an open concrete ceiling.

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Our jurisdiction has received plans for an addition/remodel of two different occupancy types.

The larger I-1 Condition 2 occupancy will not be undergoing remodeling and currently has a full NFPA 13 system; however, the R-4 occupancy will undergo a complete overhaul.

The R-4 will also be added to accommodate a new activities room and additional sleeping units; it will remain an R-4 based on the number of occupants.

The design team has drawn an independent 2-hour fire barrier between the two occupancies in the corridor connecting the two buildings. My question is, does the entire building (I-1 and R-4) now have to be served by an NFPA 13 system since they are connected regardless of the fire wall, or would they be allowed to install an NFPA 13R system in the R-4 occupancy?

Also, does this now make the entire building an I-Occupancy regardless of the fire wall/barrier?

​Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Doing inspections, does looking at the dry valve inside with a camera through, say, a drain (instead of removing the faceplate) and taking pictures satisfy the requirement for the inspections?

Most dry valves nowadays have automatic resets, and the gaskets on the new faceplates are very, very thin and will not reseal even with the replacement part. FDC inspections also include check valves.

I don’t know why, but when you take the Vic off the check (FDC side), the groove coupling will not seal. So a lot of filing or replacement of the piece must be done. I'm thinking the pipe used was for threading and welding (not recommended for grooving).

Any insight here is appreciated, thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

A quick thank-you to this month’s top contributors for sharing their expertise and keeping the conversation moving!

Under NFPA 13, 2019 Edition, does Section 8.2.3.1 provide the option of using 8.2.3.2, 8.2.3.3, 8.2.3.4, 8.2.3.5 or 8.2.3.7 to size the system?

Could I size an 800-gallon EH1 dry system to deliver water to a single test connection in 60 seconds based on 8.2.3.2, or must the system be calculated for water delivery by a recognized program per 8.2.3.5 and provide a 4-outlet test manifold with a 45-second time limit?

Is the manifold just an option? I've been confused on this for awhile...thanks in advance!!

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

Are there incidents of actual water health hazards from fire sprinkler systems?

I try to avoid waste. Backflow prevention devices are costly and also make sprinkler systems more expensive by adding friction loss, which can mean larger pipes. The water in most sprinkler systems is the same water as in the domestic system. Yes, the water in a steel pipe sprinkler system will get brown over time, because it picks up iron. Not pretty, but is that iron a health hazard? People buy Iron supplements.

In California the laws are confusing. Health and Safety Code - HSC § 13114.7 states: (b) Automatic fire sprinkler systems described in subdivision (a) shall not require any backflow protection equipment at the service connection other than required by standards for those systems contained in the publication of the National Fire Protection Association entitled “Installation of Sprinkler Systems” (N.F.P.A. Pamphlet No. 13, 1980 edition). and (a) states: (a) For the purposes of this section, the following are definitions of class I and class II systems:

(1) American Water Works Association (A.W.W.A.) Manual No. M-14 class 1—Automatic fire sprinkler systems with direct connection from public water mains only; no pumps, tanks, or reservoirs; no physical connection from other water supplies; no antifreeze or additives of any kind; and all sprinkler drains discharging to the atmosphere or other safe outlets.

(2) American Water Works Association (A.W.W.A.) Manual No. M-14 class 2—Automatic fire sprinkler systems which are the same as class 1, except that booster pumps may be installed in the connections from the street mains.

This makes sense, but unfortunately another section states: 13114.5 The governing body of any city or county may enact ordinances or laws imposing restrictions greater than those imposed by Sections 13113 and 13114. (Added by Stats. 1955, Ch. 1480.) AND many water purveyors, who are not city or county officials simply ignore the law. If you want to use their water, you abide by their demands! No single user wants to take the effort to fight. This can be really expensive, especially when a backflow is imposed on an existing system. The added friction loss can mean the whole system has to be recalculated, and often piping upgraded.

I would like to see the industry help to pass laws to eliminate backflows if they are not accomplishing anything.

Please share any ideas of who and how to help, or any examples if there are actual health issues. Thanks.

​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

When Inspectors have an existing sprinkler system without a means to conduct forward flow, what is your process for addressing the test?
​
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe