September 2015 Volume 34 Issue 2 Chapters are not authorized to speak for the Society

SEPTEMBER CHAPTER MEETING

Date: THURSDAY, September 24, 2015

Location: CMPA Training Center, 11020 Southland Road, Sharonville, OH 45036 Tel 513-742-2672

Program: CMPA Product Show

Cost: $10 at the gate

Schedule: 5 - 8 PM Product show with cook-out dinner

Reservations: Not required…bring yourself and an associate (or two)

Webinar: Not available for this event

LOOKING AHEAD…

All meetings will be held at NIBCO in Lebanon unless noted otherwise. Meeting speaker(s) and topic(s) may be subject to change. For additional details and location map, visit the Chapter website.

Sept 30-Oct 1, 2015 Green Plumbing Design Seminar, St Louis, MO

October 1-4, 2015 ASPE Technical Symposium, St Louis, MO

October 20, 2015 Propane Fuel Systems

November 18, 2015 High-Rise Plumbing Systems

December 2015 DSPE Christmas Gala (location, date and time TBD)

January 20, 2016 Jack Soma, Ohio Department of Industrial Compliance, Plumbing Unit (tentative)

February 17, 2016 Litigation

March 17, 2016 Plastic Piping/Tubing

The ASPE Newsletter is published by the Southwestern Ohio Chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society, the Chapter or the Editor.

 www.facebook.com/swoaspe

AFFILIATE SOCIETIES COUNCIL AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLUMBING ENGINEERS SOUTHWESTERN OHIO CHAPTER 5100 Springfield Street Suite 100 Riverside, OH 45431 www.southwestern-ohio.aspe.org

President/Facebook Master Ronald K Bartley, PE, CPD, CPI/CPE bartleyrk@att.net Tel 937-236-0981

Vice President, Technical Robert R McGinnis, CPD Heapy Engineering rrmcginnis@heapy.com Tel 937-224-0861

Vice President, Legislative Brian C Fraley, CPD, LEED AP Heapy Engineering bcfraley@heapy.com Tel 937-224-0861

Vice President, Membership Ronald B Cobb, PE, CPD, LEED AP SHP Leading Design rcobb@shp.com Tel 513-381-2112

Secretary/Affiliate Liaison William G Hutchinson BWA South billh@bwasouth.com Tel 513-733-4867

Treasurer Matthew T Sciarretti, PE, CPD, LEED AP Heapy Engineering sciarretti@heapy.com Tel 937-224-0861

Newsletter Editor James N Miller, PE, CPD Herndon Engineering Services jmiller@herndoneng.com Tel 513-248-1313

ASPE Young Professionals Representative Andrew M Hemmelgarn SHP Leading Design ahemmelgarn@shp.com Tel 513-381-2112

Fundraising Chair Jeffrey S Watern, CPD Helmig Lienesch jwatern@helmigl.com Tel 937-228-4007

Board of Governors Chair R Albert Fike, PE alfike38@yahoo.com

Newsletter 

Presidential prose… ● We are approaching the end of summer…which means the ushering in of autumn. It also means that the 2015-2016 Chapter Meeting season is about to begin. Kicking things off is our “traditional” September event: the Cincinnati Master Plumbers Association Product Show on Thursday, September 24, 2015, at the CMPA Training Center in Sharonville.

The latest products and services for our industry are on display, with representatives available to discuss each item. And this is also a social event, with cook-out dinner and beverages available. So clear a couple of hours from your schedule and bring a friend (or two) and make the trip to the CMPA Training Center. You’ll find it to be time well spent.

● Don’t forget that the 2015 ASPE Technical Symposium is quickly approaching…but you still have time to make your reservations if you have not done so. With tracks of programs geared to all levels of experience, all within our industry can make a substantial investment in their knowledge, skills and abilities. More info is provided in the ‘Through the pipes’ column or you can visit the Society website and make your plans to attend.

● A suggestion received by the Board form some of the membership is to select a central meeting point in both Cincinnati and Dayton where the members could gather to watch that month’s Chapter Meeting webinar. At this writing KZF in Cincinnati and Heapy Engineering in Dayton have offered their facilities for these events. They would not be able to pick up the tab

for meals. This could be done through a sales representative, smaller meals being provided by the Chapter or making these gatherings brown bag affairs. If you would, please take a moment of your time and email either myself or our Chapter Secretary, Bill Hutchinson, and let us know your thoughts on establishing such an addition to our webinars.

● An update on another Chapter program: in June, we contacted the Colleges/Schools of Engineering at the Miami University, University of Cincinnati, University of Dayton, University of Kentucky, University of Louisville and Wright State University to approach them about their participation in our ASPE Data Book Program (check out my column in the June newsletter). At this writing, we have received no response from any of the six universities. We have made one more attempt to contact them and determine their interest in such a program.

Assuming there is interest, are any of our more veteran members willing to donate any extra, rarely used sets of the ASPE Data Books? If so, please let me know by email at your convenience.

Of course, if we still do not hear from any of the universities, we will simply fold the program.

● Here’s hoping that you will make it a point to attend, whether in person or by webinar when available, the September…and all…Chapter Meetings and functions this year. Our VP, Technical Bob McGinnis has done his usual outstanding job of developing a Chapter Meeting program schedule for all levels of expertise among the membership. I hope to see you at the CMPA Training Center!

-Ronald K Bartley, PE, CPD, CPI/CPE

Through the pipes… ● The ASPE Young Professionals (AYP) special interest group is designed for industry professionals looking to meet with peers to share experiences, exchange ideas about the plumbing design industry, and network with other chapter members. The focus of AYP is to help young plumbing engineers and design professionals establish contacts and further the mission of the Society.

Young professionals’ peers have been busy organizing the AYP special-interest group, and the Society and its membership want you to get involved.

And, for those of you who may have missed it on the cover of this newsletter, Andrew Hemmelgarn, of SHP Living Design, has graciously stepped up to serve as our Chapter’s AYP Representative. Congratulations, Andrew!

● If you can believe it in less than a year many of you will need to submit your application for CPD recertification. How time flies! Now is the time to take a look at your standing and evaluate if you need to earn additional CEUs in time for your rectification period. As you know, you need to earn 24 hours of continuing education before April 30, 2016. Starting in January you'll be able to submit your application for recertification.

Here's a few ways to earn CEUs:

If you are an ASPE member you can earn 1 free hour of continuing education every month by visiting https://aspe.org/content/read-learn-earn (aspe.org under the education tab).

o Every month a new article and quiz are added and one quiz expires, so if you're diligent you can earn these 24 hours without incurring any other fees and from the convenience of your home or office. I strongly recommend this option.

Keep detailed records of what continuing education you've completed. I can't stress this enough. Many times people earn credits while they're employed at one firm, then change firms and can't access what they earned. Or they have trouble locating them within their email. Make a PDF of all certificates you earn, forward a copy of them to your personal email address, etc.

o ASPE members login to aspe.org then visit https://aspe.org/CEUCenterInfo to see a log of CEUs earned through

ASPE. If this method doesn't work for you create your own method but be diligent and accurate, and keep backups!

o Proof of attendance must be kept. I'm sure you're aware of what is acceptable, but if you're not please let me know and I'll show you a sample. Many ASPE chapters award CEU certificates after monthly meetings. If they don't, have your

chapter officer speak to me and we can show them how to award certificates to attendees.

o Here are examples of what is not acceptable in the event you are audited: calendar invites, announcements of an event, etc. These don't show proof of attendance.

Here's resources of all nationally recognized continuing education opportunities:

o Webinars: https://aspe.org/WebinarArchives Most live and archived webinars are 1 hour and offer 0.1 CEUs

o Online Education: https://aspe.org/content/online-education

o CEU Provider Program: https://aspe.org/content/aspe-ceu-provider-program

o Read, Learn, Earn: https://aspe.org/content/read-learn-earn Again, earn 0.1 CEUs every month for FREE (applies to ASPE members)

o ASPE hosted workshops: Varies throughout the year and award high amounts of CEUs.

o ASPE Conferences: Even years is the biennial Convention and Expo, odd years is the Technical Symposium. Most conferences award more than half of your required CEUs and are an excellent opportunity to meet other CPDs.

If there are every any questions please let me know. The Spring of 2016 sounds far away but it'll be here before you know it.

Pam Rosenberg Manager of Education & Certification prosenberg@aspe.org 224-217-9016

● Dann Holmes, Affiliate Liaison for Region II, has informed us of the following event: The College of Plumbing Science & Technology Basic Plumbing Design Seminar, Part 1. The event, sponsored by the ASSE International Michigan Chapter, will take place on Thursday, September 24, 2015 at the Plumbing Industry Training Center in Troy, MI. The instructor will be Ronald George, CPD and Plumbing Engineer magazine columnist.

This seminar will provide an understanding of the science & technology associated with plumbing design, code & standard review and construction inspections & commissioning information for plumbing systems. This material is not covered in most mechanical engineering classes. Attendees will learn about the plumbing codes, plumbing product standards and how plumbing systems should be designed to operate safely and efficiently.

Cost for the seminar is $449. However, there is a $250 discount for any attendee who is a member of any one of the following organizations: ASSE, ASPE, ASHRAE, ABPE, ASME, ASHE and more.

Interested in attending? Just fill out the registration form included in this edition of the newsletter. Or, for additional information, contact:

Brianne Hall, PE, CPD ASSE Michigan Chapter

FTC&H

39500 Mackenzie Drive

Suite 100

Novi, MI 48377

Phone: 248.324.2090

email: BNHall@FTCH.com

● ASPE welcomes all plumbing industry professionals interested in learning new skills to bolster their careers to the 2015

Technical Symposium being held October 1-4 in St. Louis. The technical education

program will feature sessions on water reuse systems, Revit 2016, medical gas

systems, project management, and more. Education tracks are available for entry-level, intermediate, and advanced skill

levels, offering a variety of training options for professionals at all career levels. To

learn more and register, go to aspe.org/2015-ts-home-page.

While the discounted symposium fees are no longer available, symposium fees for

ASPE members only have been established as follows:

Full Registration $595

Friday 10.2 $355

Saturday 10.3 $355

Sunday 10.4 $240

Time is growing short, so make sure you don’t

miss out!

● And when at the ASPE Technical Symposium,

join the industry’s top manufacturers at the Technical Symposium Product Show. Entrance to the Product Show on October 1, from 5-8 p.m., is FREE for 2015 Technical Symposium registrants or just $20 in advance or at the door. Dozens of product specialists will be on hand to answer your application and specification questions, so make sure you register soon at aspe.org/content/2015-registration to ensure your spot in this exciting and educational event at the Hyatt Regency at the Arch in St. Louis.

● Speaking of Symposium, a convenient chance to sit for the Green Plumbing Design (GPD) exam will be in St. Louis on

September 30-October 1, prior to the 2015 ASPE Technical Symposium. Go to aspe.org/GPD or contact prosenberg@aspe.org for more information on this certificate program sponsored by ASPE and IAPMO.

● Are you a plumbing designer interested in obtaining a Certified in Plumbing Design (CPD) designation, but you don’t have the required eight years of experience yet? ASPE’s newest certification program, Certified Plumbing Design Technician (CPDT), is intended as a precursor to the CPD and provides professional recognition of plumbing designers who are still in the early stages of their careers. The next CPDT exam will be held at testing sites around the country on October 29 and 30. To learn more and register, go to aspe.org/cpdt.

Around the water cooler…

● Summer has nearly concluded, Coolers, which means a new Chapter meeting

season is upon us. And the learning moments otherwise known as water cooler conversations continue. Before we delve into new discussions, we first have a Cooler with a “post-mortem” concerning last month’s dialogue concerning a domestic hot water circulation system:

Lessons Learned are always important. They make one look back at how thinks develop and give guidance on how to proceed on future projects. Such lessons can be important to improve design and provide a better system to the client. However, they are meaningless if they are viewed with “blinders on.” A recent project, designed by others, was thought to have design issues as it was not working as the project manager thought it should. Upon review of the design, it became obvious that there were flow and pressure issues within the installed systems. As this project was similar to another recent project, the designer had no reason to question the design.

First a little background on this project. The facility consists of: 14-stories that includes a penthouse and basement, 5-shafts, up-feed domestic cold water from a basement booster pump package to the penthouse, pressure at the penthouse is 45-psig, domestic hot water is generated and supplied from the penthouse, domestic hot water is individually returned from each floor/shaft to the basement return pump package via a collecting header. The return pump package consists of two, variable frequency drive, duplex pump packages; basement and penthouse in series. Domestic hot water return is controlled based on return water temperature.

The similar project seems to be functioning as designed. This is based on no complaints having been received to this point. However, it remains questionable if the other design truly functions as intended. There are differences between the two designs. The first design was a shorter building, by a couple of stories in height and utilized multiple return circulating systems. The current design was taller by a couple of stories in height and utilized a common return pump package.

Height equals pressure; in a “closed loop,” the two columns of fluid cancel each other, unless there is something that alters the

pressure relationship. Frictional forces are the main concern; in the “closed loop” (where fluid circulates within the piping system) with pressure relationships more important to circulation on the hot water return system. Domestic water systems are generally considered “open” systems as pressurized water flows to atmosphere at the fixture outlet. However, that is not the case on domestic hot water return or circulation; “closed” during periods of circulation. The problem on high-rise buildings, maintaining a pressure below the code mandated 80-psig point. Once control of the pressure relationship has been altered by the introduction of pressure regulators; pressure differentials and frictional losses must now both be considered. The circulating pump(s) now need to handle the differential pressures and frictional loses between the two sides of the system; supply and return.

In the case of this project the pressure at the base of the unregulated water column was approximately 125-psig. However, to make the return side work, the pressure needed to be less than 75-psig at the pump suction. In order to accomplish this, pressure regulators were introduced into the various floor systems, such that the pressure at the base of the column would not be above 75-psig. This pressure relationship provided the motive force to move water through the circulation loops ahead of the pumps. What this really means; pressure regulators were not needed on the upper floor hot water supply lines (approximately the top 5-floors), but would be needed on the other 9-floors, with no floor exceeding 70-psig at the ceiling of that floor. This situation reverses itself on the return or circulation side (this design brought individual return lines to the basement level from each floor). Pressure regulators were placed at the base of the return loops in the basement level for floors 14 through 4. This configuration allowed the pressure at the suction side of the return pump(s) to be controlled below 75-psig. A duplex, variable frequency drive pump package in the basement was provided to return approximately 120-gpm (less than 1-gpm flow per return line) return flow back to the penthouse (level 14). The facility’s staff had request that the pump horsepower be kept low, so the basement level provide

return lift to a second pump package on the penthouse level.

While this arrangement works, it seems unusual. And to further complicate the design, for some reason the penthouse pump package was selected on the basis of 60-gpm flow. This was half of the flow scheduled to be delivered by the basement pump package. This should have been brought out during the design review process, but no one seems to know why it was not addressed.

At the end of the day, the pump packages were marginal, given the dynamics of the hot water system. The Project Manager chose to replace the basement pumps with larger models and change the control to pressure. Pressure in my view should have always been the control with temperature

being secondary. Given the size and complexity of the system, water needs to be circulated for the better part of 24/7. The pumps need to work the pressure relationship. Temperature, as a secondary energy control, should only de-energize the pump package when the desired temperature is sensed at the return point to the tempering valves. Shut off of the pumps would be infrequent if at all, given the system design.

So, from the Project Manager’s perspective, the following lessons were learned:

A. Regulators need to be included, not back-pressure valves as called out on the documents.

B. Pumps in series are not a great selection and the head pressure must provide for field variations so there is sufficient residual pressure at the penthouse level to circulate the system.

C. Pumps should be selected such that there is reserve head, not at the peck head point.

D. Too many return lines that lend themselves to too many inter dependencies.

E. Full think out the control approach.

I would agree on many of these points and the person trying to rework a design within the limits set by the project manager; use what is there, do not change out the pumps (make it work) and keep changes to a minimum. At the end of the day, changes were made outside of those limitations. There are limits to what could be accomplished by adjusting and tweaking the system.

The other thing, while not mentioned by the Project Manager; the Engineer in responsible charge needs to fully understand the design. As the person “sealing” the documents, it is imperative that

due diligence has been exercised with review of the design before affixing that “seal.”

● And we find ourselves in more hot (OK…tempered) water in the following email chain between a Plumbing Designer (PD), Plumbing Engineer (PE), Engineer (E), Sales Representative (SR) and Manufacturer’s Representatives (MR) concerning an emergency shower/face wash tempered water circulation system…

Once again, due to confidentiality and spatial concerns, none of the referenced documents herein have been provided.

PD (to the E): Would you be available this Friday morning to meet at the job site and look at the tempered water system? The

contractor made adjustments to the regulators and are only getting about 30 psig at the unit in the Penthouse.

The contractor has the DHW & DHWR working and maintaining temperature on all return lines.

If you can meet, let me know the time. Thanks.

E (to the PD): In follow up to our meeting on Friday, I have a summary attached and below.

Observation: The TWR system appears to be bound by pressure from the DHW and DCW systems, and will not recirculate. Initial Penthouse observed pressures were as follows:

TWR – 30 psig DHW – 60 psig DCW – 60 psig

Recommendation: Regulate down the DHW and DCW feeds to TMVs1&2 to a pressure less than the TRW system (approx. 25 psig).

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have the TW skid manufacturer to review the units, if they have not already done so, and give their assessment before anything else is done to the system.

PE (to the MR): I have revised the sketches of the system. I am also working with the manufacturer to discuss the piping of the mixing (blending) valve.

As no mass will leave the system in the circulating mode, the tempered water leaving the valve needs to return in such a manner as to allow the mixing valve to maintain temperature. In my view, this is accomplished by returning cooled tempered water to the cold water side of the domestic water heaters (allowing domestic hot water to move to and through the mixing valve); returning tempered water to the cold side of the mixing valve (allowing cooled water to blend with the returning reheated water) and sending some of the cooled return water directly back into the tempered circulating loop. This will allow the mixing valve to operate, thermostatically and maintain a mass balance without ever removing any mass in the circulation mode.

The mixing valve unit acts as a side stream to circulate loop water through the UV unit

and supplement temperature with the circulation heater with thermostat.

The TRCP pumps, located on the lowest level are designed for 60 gpm flow. However, the pumps are temperature controlled through a VFD. As the temperature drops, the VFD will speed up the pumps towards the 60 gpm. But as the temperature increases, the pumps will slow down and reduce the gpm rate of flow.

Heat loss will be minimal through the insulated system. Most of this loss will be made up by the package side stream: a 12-gpm pump, UV and circulation heater. However, if the heat loss exceeds the side stream’s ability to offset the heat loss, the tempering valves will have the ability to function to maintain the 85-degree set point.

I have utilized two mixing valve manufacturers’ piping diagrams to develop the sketches.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or comments.

PE (to the SR): In my view there is an issue with putting a pump package (120 gpm) on an intermediate level in series with one (60 gpm) in the Penthouse. How can I make the Penthouse pump skid push 120 gpm? Yes, I will have a pipe size issue to address between the Penthouse package and the tempered water units. But that is a relatively short distance. It might take one pump to one tempered unit and the other to the other unit.

How about giving me a call in the morning to brainstorm a solution to this problem? I am still thinking we will need to divert some

to the return down comers on the intermediate level into a separate header with its own high-head pump. This will allow this skid to see a higher suction pressure. This will result in a higher pressure at the Penthouse skid.

PE (to the SR): What, if anything,

did you find out about the pumps, specifically the issue of 120 gpm going to a 60 gpm pump?

SR: We had a conference call with the manufacturer’s rep last week. We are going to provide new pumps on the lower level recirculation pump system that will add 25 psi boost for the system on the top floor. That’s the latest.

● Continuing our following an email chain, let’s consider what happens when due diligence is not given its due in a conversation between the Plumbing Engineer (PE), Plumbing Designer (PD), Construction Manager (CM) and the Owner.

PD (to the CM): The AHJ has standard details of the structures included in the site systems. These details are reflected on the construction utility documents and include details such as a poured or shaped invert for catch basin and manholes. This is obviously critical with regards to the sanitary manholes and/or sewers and helps to keep the bottoms of the structures “clean”. The AHJ does not differentiate between sewer types. The OEPA and the AHJ requires such manholes to be sealed, preventing infiltration from the surrounding substrates or exfiltration from the sewer system to the substrates.

The Inspector generally inspects for the following items when looking at manholes. These items are covered on the AHJ and ODOT details and are required to achieve proper evacuation of the manholes and prevention of infiltration.

A. Flow line/channels

B. The structure is sealed (no openings between bricks used to adjust castings or fill around pipes)

C. No excess piping within the structure (usually less than 6” inside of the manhole, less in catch basins)

D. Trash and debris has been removed including sewer lines free of sludge or soil.

These items have been added to the punch list to reflect the Inspector’s comments as well as our firm’s observations. The manholes located in (location withheld) are believed to have sloped bottoms based on previous videos. Access to the manholes,

to verify the sloped bottoms, has been unsuccessful to date.

PE (to the Inspector): Your Inspector and I viewed many structures yesterday, all of which need remedial work to complete. Generally, all of the structures lacked flow lines, needed cleaning, some need to have the pipe penetrations sealed or finish sealing where bricks were used to adjust elevations, etc.

As your Inspector had other inspections, he and I only spent about 2 hours opening and viewing structures. I continued to open and observe structures along the south end of

the sewer.

As the CM could not provide assistance in the afternoon (the laborer was done at 2 PM), I could only make general comments of the structures along the western portion of the street and parking lot.

All of this has been documented on the punch list. If you would like to see any of this documentation, please let me know.

The remedial work is in the CM’s court at this time. I’ll let you know when the work is complete.

PE (to the CM): Based on yesterday’s observations’ of the site structures, 45 items were added to the list of items needing correction. Many of these items were observed by the City Inspector.

As no one was available to open the structure in question and in the surface parking lot, only surface observations were noted. However, based on what was observed in the other structures, the same general comments would apply to these structures; provide flow lines per the documents, seal penetrations into the

structure, trim off excess pipe within the structure, clean and remove debris, etc.

In the interest of expediting completion and acceptance of the structures, please provide photographic documentation of the completed efforts. This will allow the City to accept the work along with selected spot checking. Without this documentation, each structure will need to be opened and observed/inspected. Your assistance and cooperation in complete these efforts is greatly appreciated.

Almost forgot, I did observe that the Site Contractor did locate two manhole structures on the storm and sanitary. However, one structure has still not been brought up to finished grade.

The same general comments would apply to these structures; flow line, seal, trim pipe, clean, etc.

CM: The Contractor is questioning the legitimacy of the items you entered yesterday. We have excluded some of the general spec references in our GMP. Can you tell me exactly where the information can be found on the bid documents so I can pass this on to my contractor?

PE: I provided that information to you previously, but the information you seek is contained within the Contract Documents. I cannot speak for what the CM did with the GMP, but the requirements were not deleted from the “approved” documents. The utility structures are required to have flow lines, be sealed and tested, flow the appropriate waste (storm or sanitary) and be clean when turned over to the Owner.

It is unimportant as to what the Contractor questions. It is important that the Owner receives what is within the Contract Documents and the City will require to finalize the project.

CM: I am a bit confused. As noted, we’ve received our CO for the project and there are no longer any issues indicated to be left open with the City. Are any of the issues you are logging in code-related or code-required items?

PE: Yes, as I understand it. There are two permits outstanding.

CM: What is outstanding and how could I have received a final CO with permits outstanding?

PE (to the PD): Interesting, in that you would think that the CM and/or their Subcontractors would keep track of the permits. After all, they paid for and obtained for the permits associated with the utilities and exterior systems.

The design team has no input or control over the City’s actions. Based on my conversations with the Inspector, there is an outstanding permit for the sewer work and for the foundation lift station.

Will you be in the office tomorrow?

While this is all interesting discussion, I am not sure what it has to do with completing the work covered by the Contract Documents. Regardless of the permit status, the Owner is still expecting to receive what they have contracted to receive. Deficient work is not acceptable.

PE (to the CM): I am not sure how to respond to your inquiry. The design team cannot speak on behalf of the City and their processes. What I can speak to is the Contract Documents’ requirements:

A. Your firm, as CM with Subcontractors, is required by law to obtain permits and obtain approval for the work covered by such permits.

B. Your firm should have records of all permits for which they or their Subcontractors obtained.

C. If, as I have been advised by the City Inspector, permits remain open, then your firm needs to determine what permits need final inspection and get it done.

D. There are different permits, building and engineering, for which the City’s Building Department is responsible to inspect.

E. A CO (Certificate of Occupancy) is tied to the Building Permit.

F. A “building” as defined in the OBC (Ohio Building Code) and BBS (Board of Building Standards) rules is defined as any structure within the imaginary 30-inch line surrounding the structure’s foundation line.

G. Engineering rules and standards generally apply to the exterior and site utilities. Such rules and standards are not normally referred to as “code”. However, they are still legal requirements and must be met.

H. The City utility providers contract with the City Building Department to permit and inspect utility work within the property limits.

The real issue here is what is shown on the Contract Documents and remains deficient in its current condition. This has both permit and contract implications. I say both because the City Inspector has indicated there are open permits and field observation confirms the work is not installed in accordance with the “Approved” documents. We could discuss why the work is not complete or commented on earlier. But the issue remains: the work is not in conformance with the Contract Documents and the City has not approved final inspection.

So we need to keep our eye on the ball and provide the Owner a first-class project, providing the value they have paid for and deserve to receive. Let us get past this debate and complete the contracted work.

CM (to the PE): Can you please answer if the items you have entered into the punch list are breaches in any code requirements by the City?

PE: They are breaches in the permit requirements for which the CM or their Subcontractors obtained. They are also breaches in the “Approved” Contract Documents. We should be spending more time getting the work accomplished and less time debating it.

CM: The reason I am asking is that the Owner is not interested in paying for the scope you’ve noted. Covering the cost is a

contractual issue we are dealing with directly with the Owner. If we elect not to perform this scope, I need to understand if we can meet the Inspector’s needs since you seemed to have roped them into the punch list review.

PE: I am confused as to why the Owner would be paying anything additional for work previously contracted. The work is required by permit and engineering standards. It is shown on the “Approved”

Contract Documents upon which the permits were obtained and the City inspects. The inspector was not “roped” into the punch list review; he requested to be present when the CM finally got the structures open for the design team’s observation and the City’s inspection. Based on the Inspector’s comments, the work is not acceptable.

The work is and has been part of the GMP/Contract Documents. Are you saying that a Contractor got paid for the work, but failed at actually doing it? It is clear that the work permitted and called for in the Contract Documents has yet to be completed.

CM: Don’t belabor over the cost side of things; there is history with this scope that we continue to work through with the Owner. Are these items punch list items or are they specifically stated within the code and standards of the City and, if so, where can we find this information?

PE: I am not sure how many times or how many ways I can say this: these are code minimums. Those minimums are shown on the CU drawings as part of the Contract Documents. As I previously stated, the structure details are those of the AHJ. This same information is available on the AHJ’s

website. As for the “history”, no comment can be made as the design team was not involved on this part of the design.

PE (in response to an inquiry by the Owner):

A. The items recently added to the punch list are part of the Contract Documents.

B. The work should have been and probably was contracted for by one of the CM’s Subcontractors involved in the utility work.

C. The work is required by “Engineering Standard,” a fancy way of saying utility purveyor requirements.

D. The work is shown on the Documents submitted for permit and therefore is required by that permit.

E. This work, in my judgment, the Owner has already paid for in the contract.

F. The Inspector, based on recent comments, will expect to see the corrections made before issuing a Certificate of Inspection.

Having said that, these sewers are private systems. They are expected to conform with the utility purveyor’s requirements, as they allow the Owner to connect to the public system. As long as the Owner’s operations do not negatively impact the public systems, the problems created by lack of correct installation become the Owner’s maintenance problems. Provided the City does not take any action concerning an open permit, it becomes the Owner’s problem.

As a member of your design team, I will continue to push for conformance with the Contract Documents with an eye towards protecting the Owner’s interests. If the Owner does not wish me to continue those

efforts, please let me know.

PE (In response to a follow-up email from the Owner): Thank you for your comments. Just to address your comments in the email:

A. The items on the punch list are

based on structures involved in the project. The only time an existing manhole was looked at was when the CM did work within it.

B. You are correct; these requirements have been on the documents throughout the project.

C. The requirements are based on the AHJ’s mandated standards for sewers. The Plumbing Contractor has stated they do not normally provide flow lines in storm manholes. That has never been my experience and the AHJ does not differentiate between sanitary, storm or combined sewers.

One manhole on the punch list remains buried under pavement. It is an existing manhole that was involved in the sewer separation. It is an active manhole and is shown on the documents; the CM should have had it raised it before paving over it.

Please let me know if you have further questions or comments. Hopefully, with your comments, the back-and-forth emails will now end.

Owner: Is the buried manhole the one in front? If so, they did raise it.

PE: No, they did raise two; storm and sanitary, in front of the building. This one is near (location withheld). It is an existing manhole that original was combined. It became sanitary once the storm was removed from that part of the system.

CM (to the PE): Your contract drawing (that was included in the GMP) has a Note #15 which indicates this structure “to be removed or abandoned”. That is what was done. Why would we have done otherwise and why are you requesting this manhole be brought to the surface?

PE: As the structure was and remains active, how did it get removed? This structure is part of the active sanitary sewer system, if as stated it was removed or abandoned; the sewer would be backing up. If there had been a conflict or the CM questioned something, there should have been an RFI. Our firm is not aware of any RFI related to this structure.

This is the same structure that the CM had discussions with how to keep the “combined sewer” active as it was to be changed to a

“sanitary sewer.” Engineering standards require a manhole at each change in direction. And this structure is at a change in direction for the sanitary sewer; locate the structure and bring it to the surface as required.

CM: I will write an RFI today so you can formally document the change to your GMP drawings.

PE: While I am waiting for the RFI to process through the system, I might suggest that you read Coded Note 15; “EXISTING STORM/SANITARY TO BE REMOVED/ABANDONED.” There is nothing within that note that is incorrect, but do not interject the term manhole or structure into the text. There are/were storm/sanitary lines within this structure that got removed/abandoned.

No qualified contractor would abandon a structure in which there was an active sewer. And if the contractor had any doubt or questions, an RFI would have been the appropriate means to get direction.

If memory serves, the Site Contractor was the contractor on the Enabling Works, so they should have known that part of the system. The structure has been part of the GMP for some time and remains part of the contract work.

Also, you might wish to review Coded Note 22; “CONTRACTOR TO VIDEO EXISTING SANITARY LINE AND PLUG ALL LATERALS THAT ARE NOT IN USE.” The design team has yet to receive that video or certification from the contractor that the laterals were plugged.

● Next, we have a question concerning the drain connection for a wet-pipe sprinkler system:

I have a situation involving the drain/test connection for a wet-pipe sprinkler system. The two pictures below show the existing test/drain connection in the Lower Level.

 

 

Unfortunately, there is no approved drain receptacle that exists in this area to route the discharge to. So the facility maintenance crew placed the following drain arrangement within the stairwell on the level above:

The system above the tee drains the floor above the Lower Level. The system below the tee will remain filled with water unless the Lower Level system is drained. The intent of maintenance is that system pressure, whether it be static or dynamic, would be sufficient to drain the system below. Any thoughts?

It figures that maintenance would cobble something like this together. The problem we see is that when the supply (isolation) valve is closed to start the draining procedure on the lower level, the system will still have system pressure within it. But as soon as the test/drain valve is opened, the system pressure immediately reduces to atmospheric pressure. Unless a source of pressure is provided (say, compressed air) the lower level system cannot be drained in the intended manner. The trapped water will seek its own level at the highest point of that particular part of the system. This is not what is intended by NFPA 13.

Just our two cents worth.

● The following is from a Cooler who actually knows the answer…they just doesn’t know where the answer comes from concerning sprinkler spacing…

On our Contract Documents, we have the following statement regarding wet-pipe sprinkler systems:

A. PROVIDE SPRINKLER HEADS & PIPING THROUGHOUT THIS AREA AS PER NFPA 13, LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY, WITH A DENSITY OF 0.10 GPM/SF OVER THE MOST REMOTE 1500 SF AND A MAXIMUM HEAD SPACING OF 225 SF/HEAD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STORAGE AND MECHANICAL ROOMS SHALL BE ORDINARY HAZARD, GROUP 1 OCCUPANCY, WITH A

DENSITY OF 0.16 GPM/SF OVER THE MOST REMOTE 1500 SF AND A MAXIMUM HEAD SPACING OF 130 SF/HEAD.

Where in NFPA do I find maximum head spacing?

For this information, visit Tables 8.6.2.2.1 (a thru d) in the 2013 edition of NFPA 13. The tables address the spacing/distribution requirements for various sprinkler types and occupancy hazards.

● When is a space…not accessible to the public-at-large…required to be provided with a code-compliant sprinkler system? That’s the question we have here…

A hydrotherapy pool and associated mechanical space were added in the middle of the project. It was always planned, but the Owner considered it an option, so it was originally a vacant space.

The First Floor is where the hydrotherapy pool and room is located. This floor is fully protected by a wet-pipe sprinkler system

The enclosed mechanical space is suspended below within the interstitial space to the north of the mechanical space. The only access to this space is through a floor hatch in the hydrotherapy room and a small fire rated access panel in the north wall of the mechanical space to pass tools and equipment.

The mechanical space below the hydrotherapy pool does not have sprinkler coverage. As this is a fully-suppressed

facility and this space is concealed from normal view, I would expect it to have sprinkler protection.

However, in checking the Change Order that added the hydrotherapy pool and associated mechanical space, sprinklers were not added at that time and the contractor made no comment. This space contains pumps, electrical gear and polymer piping. Should a fire event originate in this area, it could become fully developed before being discovered and addressed.

I made the following comment to the CM: “In accordance with the contract documents, this facility is a fully protected building. The 400 plus square foot mechanical space is to be protected in the same manner as anywhere else in the facility. If further direction is needed, utilize the RFI process.”

The CM provided the following response: “Based on the Fire Protection Contractor’s evaluation of the condition, the space is not required to be protected because of the nature of the space. Furthermore, the area above and area below this space are properly protected so by code, this space is not required to be protected. As this is not included in scope, any added protection to this space will be additional cost as it is not included in the GMP documents.”

Technically, the Fire Protection Contractor is correct; not every space within a fully suppressed building is required to have sprinkler coverage. However, this roughly 1800 cubic foot of confined space, does represent a hazard. Having sprinkler coverage around it is a plus, but the space itself could become a fully developed hot spot before anyone becomes aware of the problem.

Adding several sidewall heads would protect the space and elevate the potential problem. As we know, this is a potential storage space as it is concealed and out of view.

Given that this is a medical facility, it is a bad idea not to sprinkle this out-of-sight space. Well, at least in my view.

Please let me know your thoughts.

As this building is Use Group I2 (per OBC Chapter 4), it is required to be fully suppressed per OBC Chapter 9. Under NFPA 13, an exception exists so that enclosed spaces of non-combustible construction, containing non-combustible materials and not normally accessible to the

public are NOT required to be protected by a sprinkler system.

And therein lays the rub: “non-combustible materials” such as PVC, fiberglass, electric motors, etc. The PVC and fiberglass can burn and electric circuits/motors can be a source of ignition.

Further, if the Owner and CM choose to take this exception, the building is no longer considered to be fully protected, which opens up a number of other issues that the Owner and Architect would likely not want to deal with.

● It’s time to blow the dust off a relic of the past. Check out the following fire suppression question posed by a Cooler:

Interesting photograph! This is a grease duct in a commercial kitchen. The piping is believed to be sprinkler with some type of misting nozzle. Based on the limited information available, the line seems to be controlled by globe valves and the duct has a 1 1/2" drain. This kitchen was constructed around 1958. If memory serves (it get worse every day), sprinklers used to be installed within such ductwork. That is not the case today; water and grease fires do not mix well.

Based on what I know at this point, the system utilizes the wet-pipe system pressure and manual control. I would suspect the pressure to be a maximum of 120 psig. While I have not actually seen the installation, the limited information on the Contract Documents and description provided by others, there is no automatic control or “quick pull” arrangement, just the globe valves.

The original design had no sprinkler system to the area, just a limited system fed from

the floor below. Since that time the area has been protected by a wet-pipe sprinkler system, fed from the same floor as the Kitchen.

Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

Don’t worry about the ol’ memory getting worse every day; CRS set in on us some time ago.

Without knowing when the fire suppression system was installed, we’ll have to speak in generalities with a little conjecture thrown in.

In days of yore, a wet-pipe sprinkler system with manual actuation was the primitive standard-of-the-day. Unfortunately, heavy application of water onto a grease-based fire did little to help the situation. If anything, it served only to make matters worse.

In today's world of fire suppression, it is not uncommon to see water-based sprinklers (more on this in a moment) or a chemical fire suppression system provided as part of a kitchen exhaust hood assembly as well as provided separately by the FPC. The water-based sprinkler systems typically use a water-mist system to attack the fire. As very small droplets of water are produced, they usually do not interact in an adverse manner with fires of grease-origin.

If memory serves (there’s that troublesome item again), automatic actuation is a requirement of system design and installation today for both types of suppression systems.

In reviewing the picture, it is difficult to identify what type of nozzle is provided in this case. It could be the original nozzle (similar to a standard sidewall sprinkler) or it may have been retrofitted somewhere along the way with a water mist nozzle. It's hard for us to say.

We did have Tech Support from a well-known manufacturer of fire suppression components review the picture above. His take:

Wow! This ductwork could use a good cleaning! Based on the piping arrangement and close proximity of the two nozzles, this actually looks like it is a chemical system of some sorts. The piping is small diameter (less than 1”) and the nozzles look like they

have blow off caps installed. Neither are typical of a wet sprinkler system. They also look like they are piped through the open damper which would not allow the damper to operate properly.

How about it Coolers…does anyone else care to chime in on this one?

● Wrapping up the discussions this month is a familiar refrain regarding fire department pumper connections and indicator valves…

What I hope are two easy questions: when is a fire department connection required on a building? When is a WIV (Wall Indicator Valve) or a PIV (Post Indicator Valve) required?

From NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances (2013 edition):

5.9.1 Where the authority having jurisdiction requires a remote fire department connection, for systems requiring one by another standard, a fire department connection shall be provided as described in Section 5.9.

5.9.5.1 Fire department connections shall be located at the nearest point of fire department accessibility or at a location approved by the authority having jurisdiction.

5.9.5.2 Fire department connections shall be located and arranged so that hose lines can be attached to the inlets without interference.

As far as PIVs are concerned, NFPA 24 offers the following:

6.2.11 All connections to private fire service mains for fire protection systems shall be arranged in accordance with one of the following so that they can be isolated.

(1) A post indicator installed not less than 40 ft. from the building.

(a) For buildings less than 40 ft. in height, a post indicator valve shall be permitted to be installed closer than 40 ft. but at least as far from the building as the height of the wall facing the post indicator valve.

(2) A wall post indicator valve.

6.2.11 continues with control valves in pits, valve boxes and enclosures.

Other than being consistent with the requirements above, the standard does not specify when a post or wall indicator valve is to be used...it only describes how they are to be used.

Regionally affiliated…

Last month, I wrote about the State of California and their mandatory water reduction requirements, specifically showerheads and residential faucets. This executive order was to take effect on January 1, 2016.

Yes, California as well as other states, is experiencing an unprecedented drought. We all need to do our part to contribute to the misuse of potable water.

I would like to commend the California Energy Commission (CEC) Title 20 Committee and Plumbing Manufactures International (PMI) for working together as professionals to come to agreement on how best to implement changes to the order.

Without the constant communications between the CEC, PMI, environmental organizations, and yes, Certification Bodies (CB’s) like NSF, this understanding may not have been possible. This could have led to a market disruption in the availability of showerheads and faucets that met the new, lower flow requirements. It could have left the citizens of California without access to new plumbing fixtures.

To summarize the compromise, manufacturers, their supply-chain, as well as the public will see these changes take place.

Showerheads:

Maximum 2.0 gpm at 80 psig manufactured after July 1, 2016 and prior to July 1, 2018.

Maximum 1.8 gpm at 80 psig manufactured after July 1, 2018

All showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of 60% of the max flow rate at 20 psig

All showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of 75% of the max flow rate at 45 psig.

Residential Lavatory Faucets:

Maximum 2.2 gpm at 60 psig manufactured prior to September 1, 2015 (already past)

Maximum 1.5 gpm at 60 psig manufactured on or after September 1, 2015 and prior to July 1, 2016

Maximum 1.2 gpm at 60 psig manufactured on or after July 1, 2016

In addition to these changes, there will be no additional markings or labeling requirements for shower mixing valves. Manufactures will be able to sell-through existing inventory of public lavatory faucets & aerators, kitchen faucets & aerators, water closets and urinals through the end of 2015.

My hat is off to everyone involved in this agreement. It is wonderful when common

sense, along with a commitment to do the right things necessary is done in unison to address a real problem.

Congratulations. The next trick is to get the citizens of California to install these new fixtures in their homes, enjoy their engineering efficiencies, and reduce their overall potable water usage.

You can reach me at:

Dann Holmes – ASPE Region 2 Affiliate Liaison

NSF International – Business Development Manager

dholmes@nsf.org or (734) 214-6222

 

 

 

John Fox

District Sales Manager  

 

American Standard Brands 

20 Curry Ln  

Milford, OH 45150 

(m) 513‐431‐9128 

 (f) 513‐847‐8190 

        foxj@americanstandard.com 

 

 

 

 

 

Manufacturer's Representative of quality

plumbing products since 1956

Visit us at WWW.BWASOUTH.COM