# Change of Occupancy



## Kao Chen (Aug 11, 2015)

2012 International Codes. We have a building containing 4,696 sq. ft. and was converted from a Mercantile occupancy to an A2 occupancy (night club) back in 2010. The structure was required to install an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Since then the night club failed and now the structure is being converted to a Business occupancy. The lessee and owner are claiming that the sprinkler system is no longer required. While a typical Business occupancy of this size would not require a sprinkler system, I & the Fire Department can not find any thing in the codes that allow for the shut down of this system (stop monitoring, drain the system but not remove it, no more yearly inspections).

Would this be allowed? Need code references that would allow for the shut down of the sprinkler system (if they exist).

Thanks


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

If it is not required needs to be removed


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2015)

Fire departments do not like to do it but it can be done under the IFC.

901.7 Systems out of service.

Where a required fire protection system is out of service, the fire department and the fire code official shall be notified immediately and, where required by the fire code official, the building shall either be evacuated or an approved fire watch shall be provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shutdown until the fire protection system has been returned to service.

Where utilized, fire watches shall be provided with at least one approved means for notification of the fire department and their only duty shall be to perform constant patrols of the protected premises and keep watch for fires.

901.7.1 Impairment coordinator.

The building owner shall assign an impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment coordinator.

901.7.2 Tag required.

A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or portion thereof, has been removed from service.

901.7.3 Placement of tag.

The tag shall be posted at each fire department connection, system control valve, fire alarm control unit, fire alarm annunciator and fire command center, indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed from service. The fire code official shall specify where the tag is to be placed.

901.7.4 Preplanned impairment programs.

Preplanned impairments shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is given, a designated individual shall be responsible for verifying that all of the following procedures have been implemented:

1.	The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been determined.

2.	The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased risks determined.

3.	Recommendations have been submitted to management or building owner/manager.

4.	The fire department has been notified.

5.	The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified.

6.	The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified.

7.	A tag impairment system has been implemented.

8.	Necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the impairment site.


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Fire departments do not like to do it but it can be done under the IFC.901.7 Systems out of service.
> 
> Where a required fire protection system is out of service, the fire department and the fire code official shall be notified immediately and, where required by the fire code official, the building shall either be evacuated or an approved fire watch shall be provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shutdown until the fire protection system has been returned to service.
> 
> ...


I take this section to be used fortemporary out of service, not for ever and ever


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> I take this section to be used for temporary out of service, not for ever and ever


Most Fire Officials agree with you. So you make someone spend the money to remove a system in lieu of following a code procedure that makes sense.

We had a previous FO that required the drops/heads and FDC, in lieu of the entire system, be removed in one building that went from an I-4 to office.


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Most Fire Officials agree with you. So you make someone spend the money to remove a system in lieu of following a code procedure that makes sense.We had a previous FO that required the drops/heads and FDC, in lieu of the entire system, be removed in one building that went from an I-4 to office.


Code says this also::  Nonrequired fire protection systems and equipment shall be inspected, tested and maintained or removed.


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

Some people think iof they see a fire sprinkler head or smoke detector, that they work,

And have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing they are better protected.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2015)

> And have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing they are better protected.


I did not find anything in the code requiring warm fuzzy feelings or as the commentary states "avoid creating a false impression of adequate protection"

Who is the commentator concerned about having a false sense? The building owner? The fire fighters? The general public/employees who can't tell if sprinkler system is installed if concealed heads are used?

By following Section  901.7 everyone who needs to know the system is non-functional knows. If the system is brought back into service 901.7.6 specifies certain requirements.

1 or 2 years later the business moves out and an A-2 use comes back in.

901.6 Sounds like a code provision to keep the sprinkler installers employed


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

Under 901.6

I would let any hired help remove it


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 11, 2015)

What was and is no longer, need not be left to create false impressions to the unknowing.

To leave it in place allows the potential for any fire insurance carrier to deny any future claim and to question any and all work associated with the change in occupancy (assuming no permits were pulled).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> To leave it in place allows the potential for any fire insurance carrier to deny any future claim and to question any and all work associated with the change in occupancy (assuming no permits were pulled).


Disagree

_5.	__The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified._



The insurance carrier will raise the rates accordingly for a non-sprinklered building


----------



## cda (Aug 11, 2015)

My first actual position would be to tell them to keep it active and maintain it


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> My first actual position would be to tell them to keep it active and maintain it


I agree and would guess that would be the majority opinion on this board.

The maintain or remove portion in the code sound almost like intimidation tactics the mob would use.


----------



## Frank (Aug 11, 2015)

Remove the visible sprinkler heads and the FDC.  Abandon the rest in place.  Intent of code is met.


----------



## BSSTG (Aug 12, 2015)

Greetings,

I am just an old ditch digging electrician. But I do the fire thing part time and know a lot of fire dudes. Several have told me over the years that you never want to have life safety type of equipment in place and not have it maintained because you never want to give folks a false sense of security. Makes sense. Code says maintain if it's there. I say remove it completely if no longer required and maintained.

Byron


----------



## tmurray (Aug 12, 2015)

Frank said:
			
		

> Remove the visible sprinkler heads and the FDC.  Abandon the rest in place.  Intent of code is met.


Agreed. The last thing anyone wants is to assume the sprinklers are in working order when they are not.


----------



## steveray (Aug 12, 2015)

Use it or lose it....


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 12, 2015)

Goody, Goody, we all appear to be on the same page on this one.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 12, 2015)

Well.....kinda, but not really.........there are two camps, keep it, or remove all visible portions.........I'm with the remove visible portions, but would advise retaining it for possible future uses.


----------



## Marshal Chris (Aug 14, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I did not find anything in the code requiring warm fuzzy feelings or as the commentary states "avoid creating a false impression of adequate protection"Who is the commentator concerned about having a false sense? The building owner? The fire fighters? The general public/employees who can't tell if sprinkler system is installed if concealed heads are used?
> 
> By following Section  901.7 everyone who needs to know the system is non-functional knows. If the system is brought back into service 901.7.6 specifies certain requirements.
> 
> ...


I think this would apply to the "warm and fuzzy" part...

901.4.5 Appearance of equipment.

 Any device that has the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but that does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be prohibited.


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 16, 2015)

It is permitted and recognized by the referenced standard therefore since an existing system is not required by the driving code for the change of occupancy the system may be abandoned provided it is done so by the referenced installation standard.  The occupancy change does not require protection in accordance with IEBC therefore the owner may apply the following:

*[iBC 2012 901.1] Scope.* The provisions of this chapter shall specify where fire protection systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation and operation of fire protection systems.

*[iFC 2012 901.1] Scope.* The provisions of this chapter shall specify where fire protection systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance of all fire protection systems.

*NFPA 13, 2010 (As Referenced)*

*26.2* Inactive Sprinkler SystemsAbandoned in Place.*



*26.2.1*    Where all or part of an inactive sprinkler system is abandoned in place, components including sprinklers, hose valves and hoses, and alarm devices shall be removed. 

*26.2.2*    Control valves abandoned in place shall have the operating mechanisms removed. 

*26.2.3*    Sprinkler system piping and/or valves abandoned in place shall be uniquely identified to differentiate them from active system piping and valves.  

*A.26.2*   The presence of a sprinkler system and components creates a reasonable expectation by the public that these safety features are functional. When systems are inoperable or taken out of service but the devices remain, they present a false sense of safety. Also, before taking any part of a sprinkler system out of service, extreme care needs to be exercised to ensure that the system is not required, was not originally provided as an alternative or equivalent, or is no longer required due to other new requirements in the current codes and standards. It is not intended that the entire system or all components be removed. Instead, components such as sprinklers, initiating devices, notification appliances, and standpipe hose should be removed to reduce the likelihood of relying on inoperable systems or features. Control valves and other components that are allowed to be abandoned in place should have operating mechanisms removed and be painted a unique color to indicate that they are no longer in service.

Is it a good idea? (No)

Is it permitted by a building owner? (Yes)


----------



## cda (Aug 16, 2015)

Ok

KC

What are you going to do with all this valuable info??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 17, 2015)

> The presence of a sprinkler system and components creates a reasonable expectation by the public that these safety features are functional


I still contend that the vast majority of the public have no idea of when they are in a sprinklered building or not and therefore the above quote is a false assumption


----------



## Mark K (Aug 17, 2015)

The trick is to enforce what the code requires not what you would prefer.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I still contend that the vast majority of the public have no idea of when they are in a sprinklered building or not and therefore the above quote is a false assumption


When I talk to maybe 75% of people,

They want to know if the system will discharge like in the movies,,,

All at once


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 17, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The trick is to enforce what the code requires not what you would prefer.


I agree

IBC 901.6 says remove a non-required non-working system

 The standard that FM posted is just that a standard and a specific code usually trumps what a standard permits. The standard makes sense in the fact that only the sprinklers, alarms have to be removed.

Do you enforce the code or do you follow a standard


----------



## FM William Burns (Aug 18, 2015)

> IBC 901.6 says remove a non-required non-working system The standard that FM posted is just that a standard and a specific code usually trumps what a standard permits. The standard makes sense in the fact that only the sprinklers, alarms have to be removed.
> 
> Do you enforce the code or do you follow a standard


The system is considered removed if done in accordance with the referenced standard and therefore removes the “false sense of security” as noted in the commentary. One must also be reasonable in the enforcement of the code.


----------

