Moving to Chat On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM, George Church <[email protected]> wrote: > A topic change AND a change to CHAT unless we're debating the technical > merits of 13D/SFD vers the politics of it, which is where we really are, > which would force us over to CHAT. > > Jeez, what a parallel to code interpretations. Tech? Y/N N ->CHAT > Doggone decision tree. > > Steve, I think the above is technical enough to merit staying on the Forum. > > glc > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 2:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IMC, IPC and nail plates > > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
