An incident in a high-rise residential building revealed roughly 8 feet of trash heaped in a 32nd-floor unit (10-foot ceilings), with liquids spilling into the unit below. The building is sprinklered. The situation appears to be both a public nuisance/property maintenance issue and a fire safety/sprinkler access issue.

Question 1. Are there any code parts that may be used to create a fire-safe environment?

Ans. A massive trash accumulation in a high-rise unit—reportedly 8 feet high with liquids leaking into the floor below—creates sanitation and structural hazards, adds significant fire load, and likely prevents required sprinkler inspection and maintenance in accordance with NFPA 25.

These conditions can be addressed through both Fire Prevention and Property Maintenance/Nuisance Code provisions. The following pathways typically apply:

1.     Applicable Codes and Enforcement Pathways

•       NFPA 25 – Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems
•       Owners are required to maintain sprinkler systems and provide access and clearances for all inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) activities:
•       Fluids leaking on sprinkler piping or heads can accelerate corrosion and compromise functionality.
•       Heavy storage or debris obstructing sprinklers, valves, or system components constitutes a violation that Fire Prevention can cite and require correction.

2.     Local Property Maintenance or Nuisance Codes (modeled on the International Property Maintenance Code)

•       Most jurisdictions adopt provisions authorizing the AHJ to:
•       Investigate upon complaint, order cleanup or abatement, and, if necessary, secure or vacate a unit that presents imminent danger to life, health, or property.
•       Enforce sanitation standards prohibiting accumulation of rubbish, garbage, or other materials that create unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
•       Take emergency action and recover costs when conditions endanger public safety or the structural integrity of the building.

Section 308 of the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) reinforces these requirements by mandating that interior spaces be kept free from rubbish and garbage, and that disposal be through proper, containerized means.

Heavy hoarding in a sprinklered high-rise is both a life-safety and property-maintenance hazard. Fire Prevention officials can address sprinkler access and system impairment under NFPA 25; while Building or Code Enforcement authorities can act under property maintenance and nuisance codes to order abatement or remediation. Close coordination between these two functions provides a clear and enforceable path to restore safe conditions.

The project incorporates a roof hatch at the top landing of the stairwell. The drywalled opening is 2 feet 6 inches by 4 feet 6 inches, with a depth of 32 inches. When the depth of the hatch is included, the total dimension rises to 40 inches.

Question 2. Would this layout be deemed a skylight, allowing sprinklers to be deleted in accordance with Section 8.5.7.1? 

Ans. Based on the section number provided, 8.5.7.1, it is likely that the inquiry refers to the 2016 or older edition of NFPA 13.

While skylights and ceiling pockets have similar qualities, skylights have special requirements outlined in the standard. Because there is no definition of “skylight” in Chapter 3, the commonly accepted term, as given in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, is acceptable. The definition is as follows.

An opening in a home roof or ship’s deck that is covered in translucent or transparent material and intended to admit light.

According to this definition, a roof hatch is not a skylight. As a result, the omission of sprinklers allowed by Section 8.5.7.1 would not be relevant.

Furthermore, beginning with the 2019 edition of NFPA 13, skylights that can be opened and enable venting must be protected by sprinklers, regardless of size.

9.2.17.1 Skylights that allow venting, other than smoke and heat venting per 20.6.5, must be equipped with sprinkler protection.

Roof hatches are supposed to be opened to enable venting, so even if a roof hatch is deemed a “skylight,” sprinkler protection is still necessary unless the assembly fits the criteria of Section 20.6.5.

According to IBC 914.3.2, backup water supply must be for at least 30 minutes. NFPA 13 Section 19.3.3.1.2 specifies an ordinary hazard period of 60 to 90 minutes.

Question 3. Is it fair to state that in order to meet the demands of a parking garage system, we must have a minimum 60-minute water supply? 

Ans. Yes, if the parking garage is a “high-rise building assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F”, Section 914.3.2 of the International Fire Code mandates a secondary supply sized to match the sprinkler demand plus hose demand for at least 30 minutes.

Section 19.3.3.1.2 specifies a water supply of 60 minutes to 90 minutes, with the shorter time applicable to electrically supervised systems. Assuming that the parking garage has an electrically supervised water flow, the 60-minute time is correct.

This topic asks whether cove heaters, which are commonly hung along walls or ceilings to produce radiant heat, should be recognised as potential heat sources when using the spacing and clearance restrictions outlined in NFPA 13’s table. Essentially, it determines if sprinklers need to be erected at a specific distance from these heaters to avoid being harmed by their heat output.

Question 4. Should cove heaters be treated as heat sources in accordance with the NFPA 13 Table of Required Distances from Heat sources?

Ans. Yes. Although NFPA 13 does not particularly mention cove heaters, they are covered under the general requirements for heat-producing devices. According to Section 9.4.2 of the 2022 edition, sprinklers must be positioned so that they do not operate prematurely or inadvertently due to localised heat. Clearances should be imposed according to the tables and Figure 9.4.2.5, which provide minimum distances from heaters, light fixtures, and similar equipment.

A cove heater installed at the wall-ceiling junction acts as a radiant heat source, similar to a wall-mounted or unit heater, and manufacturer data indicating surface temperatures of up to 194°F supports the necessity for enough separation. Furthermore, if the heater extends inside the compartment, the Chapter 10 obstruction criterion must be assessed to verify that it does not interfere with sprinkler operation.

To summarise, sidewall sprinklers installed near cove heaters should follow the NFPA 13 distance criteria for heat sources to ensure compliance and reliable system performance. 

This question asks whether a combination standpipe system, which serves both sprinklers and hose outlets, can use a dry standpipe connected to a sprinkler-appropriate water supply while relying solely on the fire department connection (FDC) to meet the higher standpipe flow and pressure demands required during firefighting operations.

Question 5. Can a combination standpipe be made up of a dry standpipe that is permanently connected to a water supply capable of satisfying fire sprinkler demand but relies only on the fire department connection to meet standpipe demand?

Ans. Yes. A combination system can be an automatic dry system, but only in places prone to freezing. The bulk of integrated systems are wet. Regardless of kind, all systems must meet the applicable criteria of NFPA 14 and NFPA 13, particularly those pertaining to water delivery schedules.

The 2019 edition of NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, describes a combined system in Section 3.3.20.3 as “a standpipe system that supplies both hose connections and automatic sprinklers.”

Combined systems can be wet or dry, but they must be connected to a water source and capable of automatically supplying the sprinkler system.

Note: According to Section 5.4.1.4, Class I standpipe systems must be wet systems, unless the piping is exposed to freezing. 

This topic asks whether an open, combustible balcony on the top floor—without a roof or deck above it—requires a sprinkler head under NFPA 13 regulations, or if the balcony’s design or materials must be adjusted to accommodate sprinkler installation.

Question 6. Does a top-floor balcony of combustible construction with no roof above necessitate the installation of a sprinkler, or must the structure be modified to allow for the installation of one?

Ans. No, the standard does not intend to offer sprinkler protection for a top-floor balcony or deck that does not have a balcony, deck, or roof above that is wider than 4 feet, nor does it require one to be installed.

This has been clarified with new material in NFPA 13, 2022 edition, Section 9.3.20.1, which states that where a roof, deck, or balcony is greater than 4 feet (1.2 m) wide above, sprinklers must be installed to protect attached exterior balconies, attached exterior decks, and ground floor patios directly serving dwelling units in Type V buildings.

The essential phrase here is, “where a roof, deck, or balcony greater than 4 feet (1.2 m) wide is provided above.” The standard does not need a roof, deck, or balcony above, but rather sprinkler protection below if one is given.

This is also mentioned in IBC Section 903.3.1.2.1(1), which states, “provided that there is a roof or deck above.”

This question enquires whether it is permissible under NFPA 13 to use a combination of ESFR upright and pendant sprinklers within the same bay to work around obstructions—such as joist bridging—and whether converting only a few sprinklers to uprights is acceptable, or if all sprinklers in that bay must be the same type to maintain uniformity and code compliance.

Question 7. Is it permissible to switch between ESFR upright and pendant sprinklers inside the same bay owing to obstructions? The end bay, which has 18-inch-deep joists, features bridging just beneath one row of sprinklers. Converting those sprinklers to uprights would eliminate the obstacle, but would other sprinklers in that bay also have to be converted to uprights for consistency or compliance?

Ans. Yes, upright and pendant ESFR sprinklers can be mixed in the same area, as long as they have the same K-factor, temperature rating, and are appropriate for the product being protected. The installation guidelines in NFPA 13 for ESFR spacing and separation from other sprinklers must still be followed. However, NFPA 13 allows the use of both upright and pendant sprinklers in the same location.

It should be noted that several protection parameters in NFPA 13 are particular to sprinkler orientation. For example, Section 20.17.1.2(3) and Table 20.17.1.2(c) cover idle wood pallet protection, with standards that vary depending on the sprinkler’s K-factor and whether it is mounted upright or pendant. 

K16.8 ESFR sprinklers provide protection to a building. The roof includes manually operated vents, each measuring 10 feet 0 inches by 6 feet 6 inches and extending roughly 18 inches above the ceiling.

Question 8. Are these vents permitted in a building protected by ESFR sprinklers? If so, does each vent pocket need to be protected with an ESFR sprinkler?

Ans. Yes, they’re acceptable. Section 20.6.5 of the 2019 edition of NFPA 13 allows manually operated roof smoke and heat vents in buildings equipped with ESFR sprinklers. Furthermore, Section 910.2 of the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) does not require smoke and heat vents where ESFR protection is supplied, but they may be placed freely.

In this scenario, the 10 feet 0 inches by 6 feet 6 inches vents projecting 18 inches beyond the ceiling plane are not fundamentally incompatible with ESFR protection, as long as no part of the vent assembly reaches below the sprinkler deflectors in a way that violates ESFR obstruction standards.

NFPA 13 does not need a sprinkler to be installed in each vent pocket because the vent curb extends above the roof. Additional sprinklers are only required if the vent assembly causes an obstruction below the deflectors that meets the ESFR obstruction standards. 

A balcony of flammable construction has no roof above, and sprinklers were excluded in accordance with NFPA 13, 2022 edition, Section 9.3.20.1.

Question 9. We’ve been instructed that the deck must be non-combustible to qualify for this exemption. Is this right? 

Ans. No. There is no requirement that the deck or balcony be non-combustible. In fact, the building’s combustibility, rather than the balcony or deck’s, is what sets it off.

The IBC Section 903.3.1.2.1 item one only applies if “the building is of Type V construction.” There is no vocabulary used to describe the construction of the balcony or deck itself.

NFPA 13, 2022 edition, Section 9.3.20.1 contains the same provisions and states that where a roof, deck, or balcony is more than 4 feet (1.2 m) wide, sprinklers must be installed to protect attached exterior balconies, attached exterior decks, and ground floor patios directly serving dwelling units in Type V buildings.

This question is about which test results should be put on the main drain placard when a fire sprinkler system has both a 2-inch main drain (used for regular testing) and a 4-inch flushing connection (used for full-flow tests). It aims to define which readings, such as static, residual, and pressure drop, must be logged to provide accurate system performance records.

Question 10. What test findings should be noted on the main drain placard when a system has both a 2-inch main drain and a 4-inch full-flow flushing connection?

Ans. The forward flow test ensures that the check valves in the backflow preventor are open enough to meet system demand. In contrast to a main drain test, where results must be compared to the original acceptance testing and earlier tests to ensure there is no more than a 10% reduction in residual pressure, there is no obligation to compare forward flow findings to previous tests.

The need for a forward flow is to flow as much water as possible, therefore a main drain outlet is usually insufficient to flow system demand unless the system demand is very low, so a 2 inch outlet would be the best option for completing the forward flow test.

The five-year flow test of the private fire service main in line with Section 7.3.1 is one of the tests used to determine whether there have been any changes to the water supply.

The main drain test is designed to ensure that there is no blockage in the water supply, such as a clogged pipe or closed control valve. The quarterly main drain test is used to test the backflow preventor and any main pressure lowering valves that are installed.

This question asks how to calculate the 50-year service period for sprinklers under NFPA 25—whether it’s based on the manufacturing date stamped on the sprinkler or the actual installation date—to determine when the sprinklers need to be tested or replaced after reaching the end of their service life.

Question 11.  What is the reference date for sprinklers that have been in service for fifty years?

Is it the year on the sprinkler or the date they installed it? 

Ans. A sprinkler is considered new until it is placed into service. So, in this case, installing a sprinkler designated 2021 in 2025 does not modify the 50-year testing requirement, and these sprinklers would need to be tested in 2075. If the installation or “service” date is unknown, use the manufacture date as a reference date.

This is commentary from NFPA 25’s Section A.5.3.1.

“Where documentation of the installation date is not available, the start date for the in-service interval should be based upon the sprinkler’s manufacture date.”

This question enquires whether existing dry pendent sprinklers can be removed and reinstalled in the same location following a pipe repair, or if NFPA 13 (2010 edition) requires them to be replaced with new sprinklers instead, addressing issues of reusability, reliability, and compliance after removal.

Question 12. Can current dry pendant sprinklers be removed and reused in the same location in the same building as part of a pipe repair project owing to a faulty leaking pipe? The 2010 edition of NFPA 13 provides the applicable standards.

Ans. When strictly adopting the 2010 edition of NFPA 13, reinstalling an existing sprinkler—even a dry pendant sprinkler—is not permissible. Section 6.2.1 requires that only new sprinklers be installed, and Section 6.1.2.2 clearly forbids the use of reconditioned sprinklers on any new or existing system.

While the 2010 edition prohibits sprinkler reinstallation, this restriction was primarily motivated by concerns about sprinkler damage during removal. However, beginning with the 2016 edition, NFPA 13 allowed for restricted reinstallation under certain conditions.

Section 16.2.1.1.1 of the 2025 edition explains that dry sprinklers can be reinstated if they are removed and reinstalled according to the manufacturer’s installation and maintenance instructions.