One other important thing I should have mentioned is code editions. Many time the adopted edition is one or two behind the current edition. You need to keep that in mind but in my experience there are times I allowed the newer edition to be used, it just had to be done through the proper process under our state regulations.
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 29, 2012, at 10:41 PM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course that would be nice, but in fairness, many (most?) inspectors and > plans reviewers that we deal with are employed by under-capitalized and > under-staffed municipal fire departments (and other chartered entities) that > simply can't afford the ongoing costs and time away from the job that > continuing education require. We can be part of the solution by giving back > whenver we can to try and inform/educate/partner with the AHJ's. There will > always be a few badge-heavy hardasses, but that archetype occurs at the same > random rate in all sectors of the business community, no? And how many AHJ's > have become "badge-heavy", gun-shy, defensive and/or reactive because they've > had their time repeatedly wasted by idiot sprinkler people whose folly they > no longer care to indulge? Those of us who pride ourselves in the partnered > approach and maintaining high standards of care are paying the emotional > price to a great extent for the malfeasance of a few bad apples. Not unlike t he > cost of our healthcare reflecting the number of uninsured that the rest of > us are subsidizing, methinks. > > SML > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Ron Greenman > Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 7:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement > > > > Wouldn't it be nice if the reviewers and inspectors were held to the same > standards of education, continuing education, and experience that they hold > the designers to. And I guess this is the time for the this is my personal > opinion and not the official NFPA 1031 (Standard for Professional > Qualifications for Fire Inspector & Plan Examiner) Committee position. Bet > you didn't know there even was a committee for this. That's because no one > uses it. > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:32 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It would be much more fun to post his name, City of Authority, and > picture on some official "Fire Marshalls Association" website, but there > isn't anything like that, so going to all this effort because a small man > is intoxicated with power, is about the only solution. But to dream a > little, wouldn't it be nice if each state had some sort of "oversite > committee", maybe made up of a mix of industry, insurance, professional and > AHJ personnel, which could be polled online for such occasions? I think it > would help educate the masses pretty efficiently. >> >> The Dreamer >> Mark at Aero >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: George Church [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 04:14 PM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> You can lead an AHJ to water but you can't make him think. Or see what > you think is obvious. >> Might want to print out responses from the Forum and show him what your > peers say and cite (save this for when he still says No). >> >> George L. Church, Jr., CET >> Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. >> PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 >> 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:52 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> All said and done, I think it's pretty clear that the intent is to allow > the use of those sprinklers. >> >> SL >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] on behalf of > [email protected] >> Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 11:39 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> >> >> The 2002 version of 8.3.2.3 differs from 2010 only by the inclusion of > "intermediate temp" in the text. The "store" will be display in room style > settings, no "storage". The roof is at 27 feet and is a panelized wood > structure with open web wood joist on 8' centers, and I agree with you on > the benefit of the 286* F sprinklers providing better performance. >> Mark at Aero >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:14 AM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> At home this morning and don't have the 2002 NFPA 13 laying around, but > it may be that if the older standard doesn't include the conditional > application granted in 8.3.2.3 (2010 ed.) then he or she is holding you to > the letter of the 2002. You might want to point out that the intent of any > TC can generally be found in the latest edition of a standard. >> >> When you say furniture retail, is this going to be a showroom only, with > the sales floor done up as "rooms" for display only? Or will there be an > area for storage as well, and what fire load overall do you anticipate? > Seems to me that even a moderate load of furniture can still generate a > pretty high release of energy and the 286 sprinklers (as Ron mentioned, I > think) may well respond more symettrically. What is the height of the > deck above and what's it framed with? >> >> SL >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] on behalf of > [email protected] >> Sent: Sat 9/29/2012 5:56 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> >> >> What we have is High temp heads installed in an ordinary hazard > occupancy. I believe 8.3.2.3 does explicitly allow this. The inspector has > a different opinion. My position is 8.3.2.3 doesn't leave room for > opinions, and wasn't intended to! >> Mark at Aero >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Bruce Verhei [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:47 AM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> Mark >> >> My understanding of this is to ensure that ordinary temp heads are > replaced with at least intermediate heads are installed to prevent head > operation in absence of a fire. >> >> Bv >> >> Sent from my Motorola ATRIX(tm) 4G on AT&T >> >> -----Original message----- >> From: Roland Huggins <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 22:40:08 GMT+00:00 >> Subject: Re: Sprinkler head Temperature requirement >> >> as Todd already said, it is explicitly allowed by 8.3.2.3 unless the AHJ > is trying to call it a light hazard occupancy. >> >> Roland >> >> On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I have a Friday question for the forum, and maybe Roland is able to > > respond with some "intent" perspective. In a 27' high industrial > spec > building, we installed sprinkler heads rated at 286 degree. > This was > permitted, installed, inspected and approved. The owner now > has a tenant > lease which will build out the entire building as a > retail furniture > showroom, no ceiling and no storage. The local fire > inspector is siting > NFPA 2002 Edition section 8.3.2.2, "Where > maximum ceiling temperatures > exceed 100 degrees F, sprinklers with > temperature ratings in accordance > with the maximum ceiling > temperatures of Table 6.2.5.1 shall be used." , > as a requirement to > remove all the sprinklers in the building and replace > them with 212 > degree F sprinklers. My contention is that the next > section, > 8.3.2.3 "High temperature sprinklers shall be permitted to be > used > throughout ordinary and extra hazard occupancies and as allowed in > > this standard and other NFPA codes >> and standards.", allows the > existing 286 degree sprinklers to remain > and be in compliance with > NFPA 13. What say the professionals, Roland, > Steve, George, Ron, > Rod, Anyone .....? >>> Mark at Aero >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120928/c513f5a8/attachment.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bf582009/attachment.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: winmail.dat >> Type: application/ms-tnef >> Size: 7399 bytes >> Desc: not available >> URL: < > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/f87ea66e/attachment.bin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/bef3f748/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120929/4193d304/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
