OK to Leave Non-Required Sprinklers in Place?

10/5/2022

Can existing sprinkler heads that are no longer provide a code required purpose remain in place if the situation changes back in the future?

Situation #1:
A mall tenant space that is non-combustible construction with sprinklers at the deck, then a ceiling is added with pendents for new tenant.

Can the uprights remain in place for the likelihood of a future tenant that removes the drop ceiling and pendents?

Situation #2:
A nursing home dwelling unit closet with doors that had a pendent sprinkler.

Now doors are removed and a built in shelving unit was installed with just a 3-inch gap between the top of the unit and the head.

Can the head remain in place even though its not technically needed, for a time in the future when the shelfing unit may be removed and the space turned back to a closet?

Currently a customer is being cited by the state saying this situation needs to be corrected.

Would the heads all have to be removed?

Thanks in advance.

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

14 Comments

Dan Wilder

10/5/2022 08:10:33 am

As a general rule, if it does not work as intended it needs to be removed (sound like this is not the case, but as you bring up the mall issue).

IFC 901.4.5 "Appearance of Equipment" - Any device that has the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be removed. (this is geared more toward things like cameras but I have had inspectors use it for abandoned or non-functioning fire protection equipment)

NFPA 13-2022 Ed 30.2.2 - Where all or part of an inactive sprinkler system is abandoned in place, components including sprinklers, hose valves and hosed, and alarm devices shall be removed.

As to your questions:
#1 - Yes, acceptable to leave as they are still part of an active system just not a requirement.

#2 - If the space required sprinkler previously, the addition of solid shelving may need to be reviewed. Section 9.2.5.2 only allow the omission in hospital rooms, with the annex section specific to nursing homes/limited care facilities closets still requiring protection. Section 9.2.9 does allow removal of the sprinklers for "Furniture & Cabinets" as long as the sprinkler in the room covers to the wall behind the furniture (9.2.9.3 - this is new FYI).

Are you arguing for or against removing them?

On face value, I would say no protection required IF the sprinkler in the room covers the floor space of the new furniture (already have precedent in NFPA for that omission with trophy cases/wardrobes, and similar furniture). If not (I picture this closet having a pendent within and a sidewall above so the space would not be covered with the removal of the pendent sprinkler), the sprinkler needs to stay and the wardrobe modified for sprinkler clearance (the top removed).

Tough "What-If" but if you stick to NFPA and this was new (IMO), without the compliance of coverage area it's not us that needs the modification, the furniture guys need make adjustments.

David Kendrick

10/5/2022 08:11:02 am

Situation #2

From your description the 3" gap exceeds the 1" clearance required however you may find the authority deems them inaccessible for service as well as unworkable.

Speak to the customer and with permission ask the inspecting authority your question. Perhaps you can negotiate leaving the heads in place.

This is a liability business. Document, document, document.

Adam

10/5/2022 08:11:45 am

From a logic standpoint, as long as code requirements, such as minimum separation distances are met, and it can be shown that the system is still able to perform as intended hydraulically, I would think it's okay to exceed the code.

For the retirement home one, though, I would think that the shelving unit would impede the sprinkler pattern to such an extent that having this sprinkler go off would be a detriment to the system, since flow and pressure would be reduced to the other heads. Does the next closest head provide coverage to the shelving unit?

Could the sprinkler heads be removed, and the pipe outlets capped? This way it would be a simple solution to implement, and the heads may be reinstalled if a change were to take place.

franck

10/5/2022 08:21:31 am

If you keep them, you need to maintain them the same way as for required sprinklers

A possible way to remove the sprinklers with a possible quick return to service could be to remove sprinklers and replace with plugs

Still need to maintain sufficient heating for wet systems

Greg

10/5/2022 08:25:57 am

Situation 1: NFPA 25 would require visual inspection (of the sprinkler head) and that seems negated by the presence of a ceiling.

Acceptable heating (i.e. maintaining above 40F) may change when the drop ceiling is installed.

There may be more opportunity for leaks as the office space modification will likely require the system to be turned off, and when returning to service air pockets may occur in the deck-level sprinkler branch lines

False alarms may occur after the modification if the air is not vented by the sprinkler fitter.

If leaks occur on the tile and the tile becomes saturated, falls and causes injury or damage to the tenant space. Who is at fault? Is this a faulty design? And can liability be assessed against the sprinkler vendor's liability insurance for injuries and/or damage. After all, it was the sprinkler vendor who decided to leave the old piping in place, Right? (says the plaintiff's Lawer)

Repairing a leak (or cold weather break) will be complicated and require multiple trades to tear out the tiles, scaffold or lift up to the deck-level branch lines, and then re-tile, patch and paint.

Glenn Berger

10/5/2022 09:05:47 am

Good discussion items were mentioned above. If the sprinklers are active and maintained keep them in service. The sprinkles do present an additional level of fire protection that is not code required.

You do need to maintain documentation to describe the condition to any inspector or similar personnel that sees the facility.

Casey Milhorn

10/5/2022 09:23:12 am

It's a grey area (on purpose I believe) in the standards. I think it comes down to an owner's choice (that is if the AHJ doesn't have any input). The liability of leaving it in vs taking it out can go either way. What if you make the call, plug the heads, then have a leak at a plug? What if you make the call to leave it in, and it leaks? What if you take it out and there is a fire above ceiling? I always go back to car analogies. If a North Canadian bought a car from Florida with A/C on it, it's their choice whether to leave it on the car or not. They might not ever need it, but it's there if they do. Yes, they have the cost of maintaining it, but also the cost of taking it out, and then replacing it if they ever moved to a hot place. Either way it's their call and their consequences. It's not a perfect analogy, but helps us remember these buildings have owners that are responsible for their own buildings.

Tammi Worrell

10/5/2022 10:12:11 am

I'm a State Life Safety Code Surveyor. NFPA 101 says that even if a feature is not required, that feature must be maintained or removed.

4.6.12.3* Existing life safety features obvious to the public, if not required by the Code, shall be either maintained or removed.

Randy Kimbro

10/5/2022 10:23:53 am

As an AHJ, and respectfully to Dan's comments, "IFC 901.4.5 "Appearance of Equipment" - Any device that has the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be removed. (this is geared more toward things like cameras but I have had inspectors use it for abandoned or non-functioning fire protection equipment)"

This IFC section is not about cameras but more about fire alarms and sprinklers in our opinion.

Per Greg's comment, "NFPA 25 would require visual inspection (of the sprinkler head) and that seems negated by the presence of a ceiling.". .... Annual sprinkler inspections are only required from ground level. Heads above a drop ceiling (unfortunately) never get inspected after installation.

If it is place, it must be maintained per IFC 901. The explanation is that a tenant (and perhaps insurance company) may erroneously rely on the safety of that fire protection thinking that it is still operational. We require any non-operational fire protection equipment to be removed.

As for Situation #1 with the mall tenant, I would have no problem leaving the sprinkler heads and uprights in place if they are operational and tested annually. I also see no problem with removing unneeded heads and plugging the pipes. Leaks can occur at anytime, so I have no concern there. They are identified and repaired as a normal course of operation.

Jesse

10/5/2022 10:25:35 am

If the system is active, and it sounds as if it is, you can leave the uprights in place.

The visualizing requirement in 25 is not applicable for sprinklers above a ceiling or in interstitial space.

10/5/2022 11:58:22 am

Situation #1.
How would the installation of a ceiling not require the relocation of the uprights heads to pendants?

What would allow the omittance of sprinkler coverage?

Does the owner insure the building as a completely sprinklered building?

Situation #2
It is easy to determine if a sprinkler head can be omitted from a closet that is filled with millwork to create a built-in shelving system.

The code supports the omittance of sprinkler coverage in closets, but I don't see the support for situation #1.

Cliff Schulze

10/5/2022 02:16:15 pm

The one issue I don't see anyone talking about is the temperature of the heads above the ceiling of the mall tenant space. NFPA says that "sprinklers in an unventilated, concealed space, under an uninsulated roof, or in an unventilated attic shall be of the intermediate temperature classification."

Brian Cockburn

10/5/2022 04:06:42 pm

#1 - The existing sprinklers can remain. They are not required, but there's no harm in keeping them.

#2 - A shelf within 3" of an existing sprinkler might be a problem, but closets are such small spaces that if a sprinkler activates it seems impossible for them to not be flooded with water.

Aside: it's a good idea for sprinklers in closets to have wire guard cages installed. If someone puts something on the top shelf it could easily hit the sprinkler too hard and activate it.

Chris

10/6/2022 03:18:27 pm

Situation #1 Leaving them is no factor if they are still supplied with water. There are big concrete tilt panel buildings all over Houston with the heads still installed at the deck even though they built an office space inside the building with acoustic ceilings installed down below. A plug installed in the branch line outlet is just as likely to leak as the head that is already there so no factor there either.

Situation #2 I think I would demo it or install a cage on it.

OK to Leave Non-Required Sprinklers in Place?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES