# 906.1, Removal



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2010)

A industrial building was converted to a clubhouse for mentally challenged people. All the renovations were approved but 6 years later, the state fire inspector came in and said they needed to remove the sprinkler piping since it was not longer being used. As a local inspector I agreed with him and said to take the heads off the pipe and remove the riser assembly (which had been out of service the whole time) and they would be okay. The State Inspector said "no" he wants all the piping removed. My arguement is that the piping, without heads or water supply does not constitute a fire suppression system and therefore 906.1 (2006 IFC) is no longer applicable. Any comments or views on this situation?


----------



## Mac (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

How badly do you need to get along with the state fire inspector?


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

We are normally friends and he knows that I like to argue. This comes down to a common sense application of the code. We disagree on the extent of removal required and I am looking for other thoughts regarding the piping remaining in the structure. I am sure at the end of all this we will still be able to have a cold one together.


----------



## bldginsp (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

To me what you did would be fine since the adverage Joe doesn't know the difference between sprinkler piping, iron gas piping, and galvanized water pipe.  They do however know what a riser and head looks like.  Check the commentary and you should have an appeals process you could use.


----------



## cda (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

a little extra,  but if he has to sign his name on his inspection, then what he wants goes.

Is this a clubhouse or an adult day care/ mhmr trainging place????

What do they actualy do there???

Are they licensed thorugh the state or feds????


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Remove or tag the FDC so the fire department knows not to pump into it.  Tag the riser that the system is out of service.  Anything else is kind of silly and will make it more difficult to sprinkler the building in the future if needed.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Remove the sprinklers and replace the ceiling tiles or fill the holes; cap the pipes at the entry and leave the black iron piping in place above the ceiling.  Don't use cover plates for the vacant sprinkler penetrations because those could be confused with recessed sprinklers.  The pipe above the ceiling can stay.  For all anyone knows it's left over from the gas line piping that was never installed.  It's the "appearance" of safety that is the issue.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Somebody is gonna love you guys when the economy turns around and they want to go back to producing gas pedals for Toyota, and you make them re-install the sprinklers... :lol:  :lol:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Inspector 102,

"the state fire inspector came in and said they needed to remove the sprinkler piping"

"The State Inspector said "no" he wants all the piping removed."

I believe all the piping has to be removed per the State Fire Inspector.

Whenever the Fire Marshal and/or the Fire Inspector; especially at the State level; make a decision conserning the Fire Codes; I defer to the expert Authority.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Batwood (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

It’s a hard call, technically the state fire inspector is correct and he has the ultimate say. They have the god clause in making code interpretations. Is it a safety hazard, no. will it be an unnecessary burden on the owner in these hard economic times, yes. I had a similar situation where a pool used to serve as a second source of water for a high-rise and part of an expansion they added a new underground water tank for there second source of water. I had them remove the piping from the fire pump room and the connection to the pool and they left the rest there. This was deemed compliant. I would think if they removed the FDC, OS&Y, drops and sprinkler heads it would be alright.


----------



## kilitact (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Sounds like the fire person needs some CEU's, or is just the type that because he said so. Tell him to cite a code section. 906.1 ??fire extinguishers


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

901.6, close, but not quite


----------



## kilitact (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

901.4.4,IFC, leave the piping if hidden.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Code official dyslexic is.

I not am!

 :lol:


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

The bottom line is this:

If the facility is regulated by the state’s administrative rule which is logical based on the appearance of the state inspector, he/she is the AHJ and if that person wants it out it will be out.  They may have an administrative rule that regulates the full removal of the piping regardless of what the local adopted fire code dictates or how it is interpreted.  The state inspector’s kung fu is what is applicable.

Choose your arguments wisely because regardless of the common sense angle this minor squabble may affect future brew crew networking opportunities and is it really worth that potential


----------



## kilitact (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

*The bottom line**!*

Some may choose to follow, no matter what the call is, think Hitler's germany, this fire official has no code to back them up. I think the fire official needs to be called on it and if they can’t produce a code section they need to apologize and get additional training. This sounds like a rogue code official that needs to be call out. This should be the case for any code official.  :roll:  :roll:


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Kilitact, sorry for the improper code reference. As pointed out, dyslexia must have affected my typing ability. The proper reference was 901.6. I am having a meeting with the local fire official and the state inspector in about one hour to finalize this issue. The owner indicated he does not want a battle and will take it out. An interesting twist is the owner was never informed of the violation, only the tenant. I am going to challenge the State inspector on principle but will back down if it looks like it will cause additional problems. Is there a standard for the installation of pressurized air lines? I like the reference to 901.4.4 and will suggest that a pretty label be placed on the piping that says " Air Supply Line" and see if that flies with the moron, oops, state inspector. Thanks for all the comments


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

2006 IFC (901.4.4)

“ has the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment............shall be prohibited.

According to the OP the state who I am logically assuming by his/her presence, has the authority in the event the facility is state regulated has the authority to require the removal of all system components or any components that meet their interpretational rules as “giving the appearance” in this non-required setting.  It is not a matter of “choosing to follow” it’s a matter of choosing to follow what the authority in this particular matter is requiring and if he/she is the authority; the local will have no ability to determine what he/she believes is the intent of the “removal” it’s the opinion of the authority and as stated previously, he/she may be guided by a state bulletin or interpretation as to what means removal.

The state may want the piping removed, riser tagged and FDC (if existing) tagged so in the event the building changes use again the easiest thing and least costly system renovation could be adding piping and heads based on the renovations of the space.  All the Monday morning quarterbacking will not mean anything if the state inspector has the regulatory jurisdiction in this existing facility that’s the way it is and again I would recommend choose the battle.


----------



## kilitact (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal



> it’s a matter of choosing to follow what the authority in this particular matter is requiring and if he/she is the authority


Only if they have more than, "because I said so" :!:


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

I would totally agree with that Kilitact, since personally, I would never advocate any regulatory official requiring something that they could not back up via a clear code or the AHJ's interpretation on any subject's matter.

It reminds me of the first action I took when getting authority, I got rid of the badge for the Bureau that had a fist with lightning bolds extending outward.  I told my administration that I didn't need others to see that I had it via some symbolic reference. I just needed others to know I had it through the professional way I conducted the jurisdictions business and an ability to deal with difficult situations properly.  I have been in the business for 27 years now and an AHJ for 16 and have only been taken to appeals twice.  Still batting 1000.


----------



## JBI (Mar 5, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

2006 IFC 901.6 Inspection, testing and maintenance.

Fire detection, alarm and extinguishing systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times, and shall be replaced or repaired where defective. _Nonrequired fire protection systems and equipment shall be inspected, tested and maintained or removed._

Personally, I define 'systems... shall be... removed' to be the entire system. If you want to leave the system intact, then inspect, test and maintain it. If you are decommissioning the _system_, the Fire code is pretty clear - the _system... shall be... removed_ - not selected portions of the system.

Sorry Kil, but the Code is quite clear on this one...

edit: The only possible relief I can find is in the PMC - if you enforce it - which does provide for only remiving visible elements and adding labels. Only problem is that where another Code is 'more restrictive...', and in this case the Fire Code is definitely 'more restrictive'.  :roll:


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

My opinion:

Pipes above the ceiling without sprinkler drops and heads are extremely unlikely to be mistaken for a fire protection system by any trained person in the midst of a critical incident.

Particularly if the wye is removed from the exterior of the building and standpipes removed from within it.

And if the local fire service updates their data to show that the building is unsprinklred, ceases doing inspections of the system, and inspects the site periodically then it's hard to see the hazard.

On the other hand, leaving pipe above the ceiling has a strong upside as it somewhat increases the likelihood that sprinklers will be reinstalled at a future time.


----------



## kilitact (Mar 5, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal



> Personally, I define 'systems


JD, I'm trying to figure out how you can define individual pipes in the ceilings has systems.  :lol:

Yes I would agree the code is clear, if it has the appearence then remove it. Pipes above the ceiling, that would be a long reach.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 8, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

The correct action would have been to have them remove all components of the system 6 years ago.  Because of the screw up, I'd probably let the above-ceiling piping remain in place.


----------



## JBI (Mar 8, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

kil- don't start. you know the pipes above the ceiling were components of the sprinkler system.


----------



## RJJ (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

What puzzles me about this thread is why a building that was once protected, now is without protection? What is the size of the building that was altered? What is the occupancy placed on the new use?

Seems like this is going backwards!


----------



## cda (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

RJJ

THAT is my question along time ago!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kilitact (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Hey permitguy, six years ago when you were on this side of the counter, what code section would you have used?



> kil- don't start. you know the pipes above the ceiling *were* components of the sprinkler system.


JD, key wording is were; no longer.   

RJJ and cda, good questions, the I code gives away a lot but something appears to be missing here.


----------



## cda (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

"""A industrial building"""

""a clubhouse for mentally challenged people"""

adult day care???

trainging facility????

occupancy type????

two inspectors doing annual inspection???? sounds like some regulated facility to me


----------



## Mac (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

The "system" includes all the piping, wherever it may be. It all needs to be removed like the state fire guy sez.

What's the problem?


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal



> clubhouse for mentally challenged people


Yea, lets remove the fire protection :roll:  Regardless of my personal opinion if the facility is regulated by the state inspector it's his/her call.


----------



## Mac (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

I agree totally, FMWB - I would always prefer to have a working sprinkler system.

The state inspector has spoken!


----------



## permitguy (Mar 9, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

kil - six years ago when I was on that side of the counter it would have been outside my scope of authority.  I wouldn't have been involved in the discussion except to forward the inquiry to the FD.

The proper reference has been made time and again here.  No need to repeat it.


----------



## JBI (Mar 10, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Apparently Oregon has a statute of limitations for Code violations... NYS does not.


----------



## kilitact (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal



> Apparently Oregon has a statute of limitations for Code violations... NYS does not.


No JD, no statute of limitations for code violations, but unlike NYS and other states, we do require that if you write it you cite it, keeps the incorrect rouge code enforcement way down.


----------



## Mac (Mar 11, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

"Write it & cite it" is good advice anywhere. Personally, I find it's easy - just cut & paste, point & click.


----------



## Heaven (Mar 14, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Soooo . . . what happened?


----------



## JBI (Mar 15, 2010)

Re: 906.1, Removal

Write it & cite it. Hmmmmmmmmm, that's exactly what I did.


----------

