And, of course, the other classic example is taking 13D and 13R and customizing them with chrome valve covers, lakes pipes, nerf bars, moon caps with spinners, etc., (oops, my age is showing--at least I'm not talking about jalopies and raccoon tails), trying to turn them into property protection systems. I won't even begin to list the multitude of local ordinances, amendments and just plain "'cause I like its" around here. Couple these unknowables attached, from the GC's point of view, to the individual and outrageous water hook-up fees and it's no wonder that the builders hate residential sprinklers, particularly in small (read sfd) situations where a unknown can mean the difference of profit and loss. I'll wager that any one of you out there could give a GC a square foot price for a typical sfd that he could use and be happy with and I'd bet that if he could rely on that rule-of-thumb price to be a percent or two accurate, just like he figures glazing, lumber, etc., there'd be almost no opposition to the new IRC provisos. A little off topic but I saw an opening and since I'm stumping for IRC adoption in Washington I'm going to use every venue I can to either convince, cajole or practice what I have to say. I'd suggest a topic change if anyone want s to explore this point further. Otherwise I'm done for now.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> wrote: > George, > > Your discussion reminds me very much of a couple of extremely troubling > episodes here in California. > > With the advent of the 2007 edition of NFPA-13 one local jurisdiction > adopted it immediately, and had as an effective date 01/01/08. > Unfortunately the fire marshal in one district decided that such an > adoption meant that project which were not "signed off" and issued a > c/o, even if they had been fully permitted and approved under the '02, > must now be upgraded to comply with the provisions of the '07 edition. > This manifested itself in a "ban" on the use of other than schedule 40 > or schedule 10 pipe for mains in a sprinkler system as the tables in > 9.3.5.3.2 (a) and (b) only covered those types of pipe. His > interpretation was that it was an "implied" requirement from NFPA-13 > that only those types be allowed for mains. He took the extraordinary > (in my view) action of both advising the regional distributor for > Dyna-Flow not to ship it to his jurisdiction and refusing to issue a c/o > to any project underway unless Dyna-flow mains were removed and replaced > with either schedule 40 or schedule 10. In the face of letters from > several individuals from NFPA, AFSA, and OSHPD he was unmoved. > > Another example of this was a situation that developed here in March. > The agency responsible for oversight of construction of public schools > here has four separate regional offices, and unfortunately there is a > wide range of criteria which are above and beyond those established by > NFPA-13, and very little consistency between the offices. A decision > was made at the San Diego office in March which had huge repercussions, > in the middle of a project, and quite out of the blue. When it was > learned that the individual making the requirement had the backing of > the San Diego office manager, the information was incorporated into an > email notice and sent to every local organization of contractors and > vendors who might be able to spread the word. As a courtesy, that > message was also sent to the headquarters office of that agency. > Twenty-four hours later that policy was rescinded, and another release > was emailed out, explaining that the original decision was made without > consideration of the parameters of the design criteria for sprinkler > systems, and that on this particular topic a strict adherence to NFPA-13 > requirements was acceptable by this agency. > > Both are classic examples of the same kind of thinking you're describing > with the individual you're dealing with there in PA. He couldn't find a > specific requirement in the applicable documents to support his > position, yet was willing to attempt to enforce it because he thought it > was a safety issue. > > Most of the contractors I deal with here and in other parts of the > country don't have any real problem following the requirements of the > adopted standard, and local or state modifications, provided they are > clearly indicated during the bid process. It is the "out of the blue" > criteria which costs us dearly, and delays project completion, > particularly in the vise-like economic times we're currently experiencing. > > Please keep us informed as to how this turns out. > > PARSLEY CONSULTING > Ken Wagoner, SET > 760.745.6181 voice > 760.745.0537 fax > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail > www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website > > > > George Church wrote: >> Rather than agree or disagree, I'll ask you to step away from #13 and come >> over to #13R, the venue where this is being played out. It's a 3-story apt >> building under #13R, so #13 only applies as it is brought in by #13R. >> Protection of piping from #13 is NOT brought into #13R anywhere (we're in >> #13R 2002 edition, BTW) so the #13 requirements for protection of piping are >> as applicable to a #13R installation as the #13 requirements for protecting >> an attic- they simply do not apply. >> >> If there is NO requirement for protecting our piping from mechanical injury >> (drywall screw) then we're not bound to provide them. Do I think it is >> important to protect against them? Yes. Are we taking reasonable steps to do >> so, at our own option and exceeding the code? Yes. Does this mean I have to >> invoke how to protect the piping from a non-referenced standard? No. >> >> If we decided to toss a head at the top of the trash chute on the 4th floor >> of a #13R hotel, despite the lack of a requirement to provide protection in >> building service chutes, simply because we want to do so, does this mean we >> HAVE to install one on the 2nd floor as well, since #13 would have us start >> at the top and provide them on alternate floors? I don't see how, any more >> than providing something like this head per #13 at the top level means the >> corridor protection would have to be delivered at .1 instead of per the >> residential head requirements, or providing attic protection above that 4th >> floor trash chute head. >> >> Understand the AHJ stated that "even if it isn't in the code, I'm going to >> require them because I think it is a safety issue". Sorry, the PA UCC >> doesn't have a list of safety issues AHJs can enforce and he doesn't have a >> local amendment either. So I pointed out that as a BCO he can enforce the >> adopted law and that is all he can do. >> >> Naturally this is one of two projects we have in this jurisdiction, the >> other is a new FD station. Ironically the chief was arguing with Ken about >> the need for protection of a walk-in cooler and freezer that are outside the >> building, but entered at the common wall. We're installing a 2-head AF loop >> for it, he's arguing no protection is required for a storage area. Holy role >> reversal! >> >> It will be interesting to see if I need to drive down for an appeal mtg. >> >> glc >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:39 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> Well then we agree we disagree, not a problem. Would be a better world if >> every agreed with me (mwahahahaha) but it would also be boring, lol. >> >> Right or wrong I did something similar once as an AHJ and for my life can't >> recall the specifics. I did win in that in the end the issue was resolved my >> way. Never got to a judge I'll admit. I only lost once as an AHJ on a >> standpipe issue and a man of God representing the Cathedral was on the other >> side of the table. Up against God I knew I didn't really have a chance. >> >> My full code path is from the '02 NFPA 13 3.5.5 definition of a riser to >> 8.15.4 requirement to protect risers by...other approved means. No place in >> 13 describes how to protect so I look in the Code that adopts the standard >> and find nothing. Which then invokes 102.7 and off to the IPC/FM/other NFPA >> documents/listings. >> >> I believe the reliability of the sprinkler system does fit into the overall >> scope of the IFC. But the use of those sections can be more specific. Even >> if you don't like the IFC sections the AHJ still has George by the short >> hairs with 8.15.4 other approved means. He's saying the other approved >> means is IPC/IMC. Think the judge is going to overrule. I don't. Certainly >> seems reasonable to use another reference on how to that has the exact same >> purpose - to protect pipe from damage. It would be up to George to come up >> with something within our family of codes and standards to refute going >> outside. Sorry George but if it gets to court I don't see you winning. I >> promise I'm not for hire to the AHJ or his legal team. >> >> Don't get me wrong a simple nail plate from the average home improvement >> store is sufficient for nearly all applications IMHO. Going to the >> specificity of the IPC/IMC seems a little ridiculous. >> >> Chris Cahill, P.E. >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. >> >> 763-658-4483 >> 763-658-4921 fax >> >> Email: [email protected] >> >> Mail: P.O. Box 69 >> Waverly, MN 55390 >> >> Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW >> Waverly, MN 55390 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 11:59 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> Chris, >> >> I respectfully disagree, >> >> IFC 2006 102.7 and 102.8 can only be applied within the overall SCOPE of the >> entire IFC document which is limited to Fire Suppression conditions, not >> Mechanical, and not Plumbing. The Scope is found in IFC 2006 101.2 >> >> Also, according to IFC 2006 102.6 Referenced Codes and Standards, >> >> "the codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that >> are listed in Chapter 45 and such codes and standards shall be >> considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of >> each such reference." >> >> The commentary to IFC 2206 102.6 states: >> >> "the application of referenced standards is limited to those >> portions of the standards that are specifically identified." >> >> Please note that in IFC 2006 Chapter 45, where the reference standards and >> codes are listed, IPC 2006 305.8, and IMC 2006 305.5 are NOT specifically >> listed/referenced. >> >> >> Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) >> Corporate Engineer >> Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation >> 241 Hughes Lane >> St. Charles, MO 63301 >> >> 636-946-0011 >> 636-946-5172 (fax) >> 314-574-6989 (cell) >> >> Fire Sprinklers Save lives. >> Can You Live Without Them? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:53 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> Does our family of codes go into this level of detail? If not and I don't >> think it does, the authority for the AHJ to use what Thom quoted is IFC >> 102.7 or IFC 102.8. >> >> Chris Cahill, P.E. >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. >> >> 763-658-4483 >> 763-658-4921 fax >> >> Email: [email protected] >> >> Mail: P.O. Box 69 >> Waverly, MN 55390 >> >> Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW >> Waverly, MN 55390 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hewitt >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:40 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> I think you are missing the point. >> >> You have found the references within each Code, but do the Codes apply to >> Fire Suppression piping? >> >> Read the SCOPE of each document and you will find that it does NOT include >> Fire Suppression piping. >> >> Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, SFPE (Professional Member) >> Corporate Engineer >> Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation >> 241 Hughes Lane >> St. Charles, MO 63301 >> >> 636-946-0011 >> 636-946-5172 (fax) >> 314-574-6989 (cell) >> >> Fire Sprinklers Save lives. >> Can You Live Without Them? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:28 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> >> IPC 2006 >> 305.8 Protection against physical damage. In concealed >> locations where piping, other than cast-iron or galvanized steel, >> is installed through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or >> similar members less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest >> edge of the member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. >> Protective shield plates shall be a minimum of >> 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) steel, shall cover the area of the pipe >> where the member is notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum >> of 2 inches (51 mm) above sole plates and below top >> plates. >> >> IMC 2006 >> 305.5 Protection against physical damage. In concealed >> locations where piping, other than cast-iron or steel, is installed >> through holes or notches in studs, joists, rafters or similar members >> less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) from the nearest edge of the >> member, the pipe shall be protected by shield plates. Protective >> shield plates shall be a minimum of 0.062-inch-thick (1.6 mm) >> steel, shall cover the area of the pipe where the member is >> notched or bored, and shall extend a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) above >> sole plates and below top plates. >> >> Here's how we deal with this. >> We nail plate the sole plates(one or up to 3 depending on the construction, >> houses with gypcrete floors typically have an extra plate or two depending >> upon how thick the gyp is.) and slip a steel sleeve around the riser coming >> thru the plate.(We find we have enough scrap pipe around to keep a constant >> supply of 8" sleeves. We use 8" because we have base moldings here that go >> to 10" high on occasion.) >> >> Most walls we see are double plates at the top. Only the upper plate is the >> actual "Top Plate" the second plate has a name I forget right now. Any way >> we nail plate both plates and have our "Nominal" 2" below the top plate. >> We've never had any problem with doing this from any inspector. >> >> >> Thom McMahon, SET >> Firetech, Inc. >> 2560 Copper Ridge Dr >> P.O. Box 882136 >> Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 >> Tel: 970-879-7952 >> Fax: 970-879-7926 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:59 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: IMC, IPC and nail plates >> >> Had an interesting encounter with an AHJ this week. >> He stopped by a jobsite where we're installing CPVC in walls, and found >> fault with the nail plates we're using. >> I called to follow up on why he didn't like them, and asked for a code >> reference. He replied even if it wasn't in the code, he'd enforce nailplates >> extending further than ours as a safety issue. So I reminded him that his >> authority was to enforce the PA UCC as adopted, not safety issues he took a >> personal liking to. >> >> His code reference arrived by USPS this AM. He cited the IPC and IMC as >> applicable to sprinkler piping, which I disagree with. >> >> Any thoughts or previous rulings by other AHJs? >> >> George Church >> Rowe Sprinkler >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
