New NFPA 25 Req'mt to Look Behind Coverplate?

1/23/2023

In the introduction (Origin and Development) to the 2023 Ed. of NFPA 25, it mentions that several changes have been made to Chapter 5, "such as additional requirements to remove concealed sprinkler cover plates and inspect the sprinklers". I have scoured the text of Chapter 5, and cannot find this requirement anywhere.

Was this discussed but not implemented?

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

12 Comments

Dan Wilder

1/23/2023 06:51:54 am

If you go to the NFPA site and review the "Archived Revision Information" section at the bottom of any NFPA, it will go through all the revisions and their accepted/rejected status as it goes through the public input and committee meetings. You can then see the process and reasons items are proposed and even comments made by approving or rejecting voting members. It's a little overwhelming to start but the format is understandable after a bit. Just start to look/search for words "cover", "plate" in this case, then you'll see new proposed sections "5.2.1.1.1", and work into the CAM's (had to look at the final voting then to the CAM's).

Entire process is detail below:
https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Standards-Development

Looks like the Second Draft Ballot Final report indicates this was initially accepted as a new section for 5.2.1.1.1 (page 16 of the report).

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/25/25_A2022_INM_AAA_SD_ballotfinal.pdf

This was then discussed under CAM 25-16 and the following transcripts discussing the matter start on page 154 in which the voting members rejected the change.

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Codes-and-standards/atm_nitmam/Annual-2022/Tech_Session_Transcript_June_8_2022.ashx

as found in the below Voting Results PDF - Page 4

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/25/2022_Tech_Session_Voting_Results.pdf

There is probably a step or two in the middle I missed but the bulk of the info is above.

Matthew Mueller link

1/23/2023 11:35:36 am

Great stuff Dan! I did try to go through the development information as much as possible, however as you say, it was a bit overwhelming. I appreciate your insight as to how to navigate it next time. Thank you!

Anthony

1/23/2023 08:08:26 am

Dan Nailed it.

Just a comment on inspections and concealed sprinklers:
I have heard stories of cover plates being installed without a sprinkler system behind them. I'm not saying inspect every concealed plate but a hand full on those sites that just feel 'suspect' might not be the worst idea. Especially on that first inspection walk through.

Todd E Wyatt

1/23/2023 08:15:44 am

If you access NFPA documents via NFPA LiNK, the "new" portions of the NFPA documents are highlighted (see "x" below) ...

5.1.1.1
This chapter shall provide the minimum requirements for the routine inspection, testing, and maintenance of sprinkler systems "installed in accordance with NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R or other approved installation standard."

... and/or the "new" sections include "N" next to them ...

"N" 5.2.1.1.7 Sprinkler Guards.

... and/or includes a highlighted "dot" next to sections that were deleted ...

Prior Text
Please see the prior edition for these changes.

... and/or includes a "delta" ...

Prior Text
Text from previous edition:
5.3.1.2*
A representative sample of sprinklers for testing 5.3.1.1 shall consist of a minimum of four sprinklers or 1 percent of the number of sprinklers per , whichever is greater.
CHANGE SUMMARY
Collapse
Clarified the requirement for minimum number of sprinklers tested to be either four or 1% of the sample area. [FR-54]

Todd E Wyatt

1/23/2023 08:20:08 am

2023 NFPA 25 ... (4) references to "escutcheons" & (1) to "coverplates" in Chapter 5 :

5.2.1.1.5
Escutcheons and coverplates for recessed, flush, and concealed sprinklers shall be replaced with their listed escutcheon or coverplate if found missing during the inspection.

5.2.1.1.5.1
Where the listed escutcheon or coverplate from a listed assembly is missing and is no longer commercially available, the sprinkler shall be replaced.

ENHANCED CONTENT
Sprinklers with missing escutcheons and coverplates must be replaced with their listed escutcheon or coverplate, or the entire sprinkler must be replaced. Many times a generic escutcheon or coverplate is installed. This is improper and is addressed by 5.2.1.1.5. Sprinklers do not need to be replaced unless the missing and unavailable coverplate is part of a listed assembly. The focus should be on the “listed assembly” as opposed to the listed coverplate.

5.2.1.1.6
Escutcheons for pendent sprinklers that are not recessed, flush, or concealed shall not be required to be replaced if found missing during the inspection.

ENHANCED CONTENT
Paragraphs 5.2.1.1.5 through 5.2.1.1.6 generate many questions during the inspection process. Many recessed, flush, and concealed sprinklers are listed as part of an assembly with their escutcheons or coverplates. When these pieces are missing, the sprinkler may not perform as designed and must be replaced. For more information, refer to the definition of deficiency in 3.3.8. Missing standard escutcheons (sometimes called beauty rings) do not affect the performance of the sprinkler system and, therefore, do not meet the definition of a deficiency. Exhibit 5.19 shows a sprinkler with an incomplete escutcheon assembly.

EXHIBIT 5.19 Sprinkler with Missing Escutcheon.

Eric R

1/23/2023 08:24:04 am

Got to feel bad for the staff editors that have to prepare a book for print that is subject to change at the very last minute lol.

Good catch on noticing the discrepancy between the code and the origins section.

I'm not sure if NFPA has specific contact process for these sorts of things, but I'm intrigued enough to find out so, I'm going to look into it this morning and report back.

On the topic of if it should have been kept in I'm actually torn. It would have created a massive burden on inspectors and owners. At the same time I have personal experience where we needed to pull and replace concealed sprinklers in a dormitory after an antifreeze loop failed, and out of 300 sprinklers we found over 50 that were a good inch above the gypsum with coverplates held on with 3M strips!

Matthew Mueller link

1/23/2023 11:41:53 am

For sure Dan, and how many of us dig into the text of the Origin and Development to find that type of discrepancy!

And while we all have horror stories about the ridiculous ways owners will go through to save a dollar, I think removing it was the right move. How many of those same owners would forgo the inspection all together if we had to charge them the time to remove all 300 cover plates every year as in your example!

Thank you for your insight!

Matthew Mueller

1/23/2023 11:43:26 am

Erik, not Dan. Whoops!

Pete H

1/23/2023 12:34:27 pm

Given how many jobs I've shown up that where I've seen concealed plates... that don't actually have any heads behind them (think I can count it on two hands., but one hand might not be enough).... this might not be the worst thing to add if they decided to add it. I kind of hope they do later since it didn't make it in this round.

Dan Wilder

1/23/2023 04:15:43 pm

This should be an acceptance testing requirement or part of the inspection process during construction. After 5 years (without a major loss) it's gone on 5 years too long....

Jess Lutz

2/1/2023 03:58:22 am

I concur.
This responsibility should be part of initial acceptance testing!

Pete D

1/23/2023 07:42:11 pm

I've discovered many errata in NFPA standards, I stopped reporting them. I also discovered arithmetic errors in the NFPA and SFPE Handbooks. I did get a kick, as a young engineer, out of emailing them to let them know the rule on raising a power to another power. Strictly regarding the standards, they're only mistakes for 3 years... So, there's that.

New NFPA 25 Req'mt to Look Behind Coverplate?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES