Winter Preparedness By Atlanta Sprinkler

Dry System Maintenance from NFPA 25

Click on the above text on ways you can protect your sprinkler system in winter weather.

“Is a ball drip in a FDC required if the run is only 3 ft?  I have 20 plus buildings with all the same arrangement.”

We have reviewed NFPA 13, 2010 edition as the applicable standard.  Our informal interpretation is that automatic drips are required.

Section 8.17.2.6 states, “Drainage.  The piping between the check valve and the outside hose coupling shall be equipped with an approved automatic drip in areas subject to freezing.”  In areas subject to freezing, the intent of Section 8.17.2.6 is to provide an automatic means (usually a ball drip) to drain water from the FDC if the check valve was to leak.  The requirement seems to be on the premise that the FDC has screw-on caps.  Water would be trapped and freezing weather would cause an ice plug or damage the FDC.  However, screw on brass caps are becoming less common since they are being stolen and turned in for scrap metal.  More applications are using plastic and metallic covers that will shatter when struck with a tool.  The covers are not tight enough to trap water inside the FDC thus meeting the intent of 8.17.2.6.  However, the FDC should not have built-in clappers over both inlets as that would trap water, but a FDC with dual inlets with a single clapper would not trap water. 
A single inlet FDC with a built-in clapper or check snoots would need an automatic ball drip.  Since an automatic ball drip is an explicit requirement, it is up to the AHJ to omit the installation of the ball drip device on a case-by-case basis.

“Is it mandatory during an annual inspection that every sprinkler in every room and closet be physically inspected for damage or change in use?”

 We have reviewed NFPA 25, 2011 edition as the applicable standard.  Our informal interpretation is every sprinkler must be inspected but verification of change in use is not required.

 The base requirement in 25:5.2.1.1 is that sprinklers shall be inspected from the floor.  The inspection of sprinklers is to ensure that they all are in good physical condition.  Since the potential for corrosion, painting, loading, impact damage, etc can occur in a single location and is not something that can be evaluated based on a limited inspection (as done for some things such as the 5-year check on the existence of corrosion within the pipe), every readily accessible sprinkler must be looked at.  Concealed spaces are addressed in 25:5.2.1.1.6 and areas inaccessible for safety considerations due to process operations are noted in 25:5.2.1.1.7. If a limited percentage of sprinklers was intended to be inspected, the criteria would have been written similar to the testing section in 25:5.3.1where it states a representative sample shall be taken.

 Regarding the inspection of each room to determine if a change of use has occurred, this issue is covered by 25:4.1.5 and is the owner’s responsibility.  It is appropriate for the inspection provider to ask the owner if there have been any changes and document it as done with AFSA form 103A.  Other than that, an NFPA 25 inspection does not physically review the contents of the building looking for such changes.

 It is puzzling how an inspection company can, according to the State, have only one licensed inspector yet provide sprinkler system inspection and testing for millions of square feet of buildings. State Regulations (120-3-19) require all inspectors be licensed, not just one individual on site or at the office.  These same Regulations require ALL inspectors be licensed with a State licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor.  The individual inspector can only legally inspect systems when listed on the State Fire Marshal’s web site (click here).  To Search by Company, select the designated button then under zip code click all.   Scroll to and click on the company to see the company’s licensed inspectors.

 What level of liability are you willing to accept?  Everyone involved accepts some level of liability, from the property owner or manager to the inspection contractor.  As property owners and managers I encourage you to protect yourself by verifying all inspectors are State licensed.

“What is the definition of corrosion? If a sprinkler head is chrome and has turned green but does not have any build up on the sprinkler head is this corrosion? Does this sprinkler head have to be replaced?”

We have reviewed NFPA 25, 2011 edition as the applicable standard. Our informal interpretation is that any amount of corrosion should be considered unacceptable. There is no definition in NFPA 25 for corrosion. The dictionary should be referenced when NFPA does not define a term. The online version of Webster’s Dictionary indicates that corrode is to eat away by degrees as if by gnawing; to wear away gradually usually by chemical reaction; to weaken or destroy gradually. Thus if a sprinkler head turns green, it is likely a form of corrosion.

Section 5.2.1.1.1 of NFPA 25 indicates that sprinklers shall be free of corrosion. This means that any amount of corrosion is unacceptable according to the standard. Any other literature dealing with sprinkler systems and inspections also says that corrosion of the sprinkler is unacceptable. Manufacturer’s data sheets for sprinklers require that any corroded sprinklers be replaced, and normally the warranty is voided for corroded sprinklers. If corrosion is a persistent problem, the building should be installed with listed corrosionresistant sprinklers (see NFPA 13, 6.2.6 in the 2010 edition). The annex material to further addresses corroded sprinklers in A.5.2.1.1.

If the sprinklers are lightly corroded, it could be permitted for continued use if samples are selected for testing based on worst-case conditions and the sample successfully pass the test.