# Call the inspector?



## Pipedoc (Jun 14, 2009)

Okay, here is the dilemma. I was at a job recently for a minor repair where they have an in home daycare as a business. During my time in the home I noticed a new fire sprinkler head installed and the drywall freshly patched. During casual conversation with the HO the sprinkler came up and I learned that during a required visit from the fire marshall he required that it be installed and they were waiting on him to come back and look to confirm that this was in fact done.

I asked about the plumbing inspection 'cause it was already covered with drywall. They said they didn't have one. I told them the plumbing inspector would make them un cover it for inspection and they said that it was being inspected by the fire marshall only.

I know it is not to code. They tee'd off the cold supply for the vanity and ran about 15' of pipe to the sprinkler. (Dead end. Stagnant water.)

While in the village hall today to pull a permit for another job I asked the building inspector if the fire department communicated this kind of information to them on a normal basis. He said no and is asking us for the client info so he can red tag the job.

My problem is that I could share this kind of information to the old plumbing inspector and trust that he would not throw me under the bus. I don't know the new plumbing inspector and I definately don't trust the building inspector.

This is a franchise type daycare and we do a lot of work for the management company. If he throws me under the bus and tells them he heard it from me, I could lose the account but the problem needs to be corrected and I feel I have an obligation to the health of third parties.

Should I give the info anyway or tell him I can't and maybe suggest he talk to the fire marshall?

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Plumber Jim (Jun 19, 2008)

That's a tough spot. I would report it anonymously. It needs to be done right and you should report it but i understand about the worry of loosing an account. Or you can try and get ahold of the inspector personaly and explain that to him.


----------



## M5Plumb (Oct 2, 2008)

Makes no difference, anonymous or not...Look at it this way. If it comes up on the news tonight that there was a fire with multiple fatalities, that the investigation reveals incorrect installation by whom ever, then with your knowledge of it and not reporting it as a professional. You too can be implicated in it, possible license loss, fines etc...the worst part is, were this the case, it would weigh so heavily on your conscience. So two things, 1) What is the right thing to do? 2) Is it / Are you helping the situation? Just my .02.
Accounts come and go...Is it worth it?

The fire Marshall is going to look also but nothing says that a tip left on the counter of the inspector with his name on it can't hurt either. Just sayin'....Trying to help a brother out. Good Luck Doc


----------



## ILPlumber (Jun 17, 2008)

call the plumbing inspector. He will go to the job with the fire marshall.
"mr. Fire marshall and i were having lunch. He mentioned coming to look at a sprinkler install. I thought i would tag along and have a look also"
Then you are not the *******. Ghe inspectors job is to play the part of *******....


----------



## TheMaster (Jun 12, 2009)

M5Plumb said:


> Makes no difference, anonymous or not...Look at it this way. If it comes up on the news tonight that there was a fire with multiple fatalities, that the investigation reveals incorrect installation by whom ever, then with your knowledge of it and not reporting it as a professional. You too can be implicated in it, possible license loss, fines etc...the worst part is, were this the case, it would weigh so heavily on your conscience. So two things, 1) What is the right thing to do? 2) Is it / Are you helping the situation? Just my .02.
> Accounts come and go...Is it worth it?
> 
> The fire Marshall is going to look also but nothing says that a tip left on the counter of the inspector with his name on it can't hurt either. Just sayin'....Trying to help a brother out. Good Luck Doc


 Pipedoc has no liability at all by not reporting it.


----------



## SlickRick (Sep 3, 2009)

You say it is one of your reg. Let them know what the regs. are and hopefully they would let you correct the problem to avoid potential liabilities later on. If it is anything like Texas all the inspector could to is a stop work order. If the work is complete it would be too late. The fire marshall would have the final say on a daycare here...


----------



## bartnc37 (Feb 24, 2009)

just a question on why the installation is not legal. I just got done taking a class here in Wisconsin on multipurpose piping for fire protection. As far as i could tell in the class, dead headed lines were no issue here. As it was explained to me it's no different than a sillcock that never gets used or stubs for future fixtures. i can see it being a problem in respect to available water pressure on the line if the line to the lav is not sized to handle the sprinkler head but not just on the basis of being dead headed. Just a question as I've seen this deadheading issue brought up before in regards to sprinkler heads. 

i think we were running off of NFPA 13 if memory serves.


----------



## Pipedoc (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanks for all of the input. I should be seeing the inspector tomorrow for an inspection on the sewer repair I am doing. If I am finished with it early the sewer department inspects in this town 'cause the plumbing inspector is part time. If it is later in the day I will get a chance to meet the new inspector and have a talk about it and explain my concerns to him. I still would prefer he talk to the fire marshall for the HO's address but I feel an obligation to make sure it gets corrected.

I will let you know the outcome when it happens.


----------



## Pipedoc (Jun 14, 2009)

bartnc37 said:


> just a question on why the installation is not legal. ......


 In Illinois anything over two feet is a dead end and not code compliant. A sillcock or any other fixture more than likely will get some use within a reasonable amount of time. The proper way to pipe this would be to loop the service to the sprinkler and continue on to pick up another fixture. In an ideal situation the sprinkler will never pass any water through it and therefore the water would become stagnant.


----------



## bartnc37 (Feb 24, 2009)

i'm not disagreeing with it being a deadhead but the way we were shown, and the way i would assume all WI apprentices are being shown, was to run straight to the head. the only other option we were shown was the WIRSBO system that loops like 6 times thru each head. granted this was for single family applications, i don't know if this was a concession to make installing the sprinklers cost effective


----------



## Phat Cat (Apr 1, 2009)

Why not just contact the Fire Marshall with your concerns? They need to go back to inspect anyway. Ask the Fire Marshall is it standard practice to bypass the plumbing inspection and see what their response is.

Depending on their response, notify the plumbing inspector.

I would let your client know that you want to double check with the Fire Marshall. Explain that you are concerned for them since they are such a good customer. Let them know you are only concerned about the children under their care and their own safety. Nothing wrong with telling them you want to double check because it was your understanding that it required a plumbing inspection. Naturally, you would hate to see them fined later down the road.


----------



## Pipedoc (Jun 14, 2009)

Well, we finished up early enough today that the building inspector came out for the sewer inspection. He asked me about the sprinkler job and said he talked the local FM and found out it was a state FM and not the local guy so he could not get the client info. 

I explained my concerns to him and we had a nice little chat about it. I felt much more comfortable about it after the discussion. He assured me we would not get brought into the discussion with the HO. It seems he was very easy to deal with afterall and I probably mis-read him the first time we talked.

I gave him the info and now my consious is at rest.

Thanks for all of the replies. :thumbsup:


----------



## M5Plumb (Oct 2, 2008)

Good Man Doc!!


----------



## sprinklertech (Oct 24, 2010)

bartnc37 said:


> just a question on why the installation is not legal. I just got done taking a class here in Wisconsin on multipurpose piping for fire protection. As far as i could tell in the class, dead headed lines were no issue here. As it was explained to me it's no different than a sillcock that never gets used or stubs for future fixtures. i can see it being a problem in respect to available water pressure on the line if the line to the lav is not sized to handle the sprinkler head but not just on the basis of being dead headed. Just a question as I've seen this deadheading issue brought up before in regards to sprinkler heads.
> 
> i think we were running off of NFPA 13 if memory serves.


The only place I a prohibition to dead end lines is NFPA #13D.

There is no such prohibition to dead in lines in any of the other standards that control sprinkler installations.

Using 13D I can have all the dead end lines I want as long as I have a double check backflow preventor installed at the riser. With a double check backflow preventor I can even use black steel pipe where the worst thing that can happen is to have circulating water.

The problem I have with the installation is the available water supply. It isn't enough. Per NFPA #13 and 13R the minimum pipe size allowed is 3/4" for CPVC and copper and 1" for steel pipe.

Most likely it was a 1/2" pipe supply they cut in to. Woefully inadequate.

I think you would find they used a standard 1/2" quick response sprinkler. The minimum allowed operating pressure at the head is 7.0 psi which will discharge 14.8 gpm.

The prohibition of using 1/2" aside flowing 14.8 gpm a 1/2" copper tube causes a head loss of nearly 50 psi over a 20' length with 5' equivalent fitting length thrown in. By the time you factor the head loss through meters, a backflow preventor if installed, the length of pipe (probably 3/4") to the to the street you'd need better than 100 psi just to get the head to operate correctly.

The fire marshal should have flagged this.


----------



## Wafflefryer (Nov 4, 2010)

Right again Sprinklertech.


----------

