We are doing work in Westerville, Ohio. A school is installing a "Limited Use/ Limited Application" elevator. We submitted plans indicating approporiate modifications to the existing sprinkler system to accomodate the new elevator shaft and mechanical room. Our plans showed no sprinkler coverage in the elevator shaft. It showed a sprinkler in the elevator mech room with a water-flow switch to act as a shunt-trip. The plans were stamped and approved. We completed the job and during the final inspection, the local building inspector and fire inspector questioned why there is no sprinkler in the shaft and demanded that we supply documentation to the city regarding this. They also questioned why we installed a nwaterflow switch for the sprinkler in the mechanical room. When I explained that it was to act as a shunt-trip and showed them my copy of the NFPA 13 handbook, they replied that they've never seen that before and we would have to supply documentation on that as well. Of course, they are not Plan Examiners. They are Inspectors there to ensure compliance with the Approved Plans. They refused to sign off on our installation.
Has anyone encountered this before? Did you fight them through a formal appeals process or just do whatever they wanted? _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
