The code with commentary is about three times as thick as the code without commentary. It's reminiscent of 13 of yester year when one rule had 14 exceptions.
Ron F -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig Rauch Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Fire Marshal requirement? I would say that the code is in need of change. The code should be able to stand on its own, without the need for the commentary. To me reading the commentary should evoke the feeling of "oh yes, how could I have missed that, it's right there in the code". Craig Rauch Plans Examiner Washington Township fire Department -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sprinkler Forum Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? Ron, I can't find that figure. Is that in the commentary? I do not have the commentary. Just the code. And do not see it in the appendix. Sounds like a good word change proposal in the next cycle. Question is, what will change...the code section? Or the commentary. Justin Reid Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Justin, look at 503.1.1(1). What part of the interior of the building in the > diagram is within 150 ft. of the access road? > > Ron F > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin > Reid > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? > > "How can any building of that is 50,000 sqft. have all interior > portions within 150 ft. of where they can park a fire truck?" > > And to answer this question. > This would be handled by utilizing the exceptions to 503.1.1, where > the fire code official allows it to be further when those conditions > are met. Your fire code official basically combined the two exceptions > and required an "alternate means of fire protection" (exception 2). > > Justin Reid > > On 1/30/13, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah they mitigated $20k of tax payer money for a comfortable >> judgement not counting what they spent on the consultant. How can any >> building of that is >> 50,000 sqft. have all interior portions within 150 ft. of where they >> can park a fire truck? It's not an interpretation issue it's a mistake. >> >> Ron Fletcher >> Aero Phoenix >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin >> Reid >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:34 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? >> >> There is no requirement for standpipes in this case. It just looks >> like the design team came to a conclusion that the standpipes would >> provide an "equivalent" level of protection. I am only guessing. >> >> Keep in mind that the exception in the IFC states that the fire code >> official can extend the 150 ft requirement when the building is >> sprinklered (exception 1) or even if basically impractical (exception 2). >> >> The FM in question probably did not feel comfortable making a >> judgement call on this and required the standpipes. That way, they at least >> did "something" >> to mitigate. >> >> Justin Reid >> >> >> >> On 1/30/13, Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> If that is the case, then ask the ICC for an official code >>> interpretation about placing standpipes on mezzanines in a 1 story >>> building. >>> >>> Duane Johnson, PE >>> Program Manager >>> Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research >>> Services National Institutes of Health >>> 301-496-0487 >>> >>> "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Drucker [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:01 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Fire Marshal requirement? >>> >>> You mean to say after all the proposals, comments,hearings, adoption >>> comments the rules aren't clear ? Could that be the issue and not >>> the enforcer ? >>> John Drucker - Mobile Email >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wed Jan 30 12:54:05 2013 >>> Subject: Fire Marshal requirement? >>> >>> Jim: >>> >>> thanks for the explanation on job duties. >>> >>> that kinda explains why some AHJ's won't bend to help "interpret" a >>> grey area, but it does not justify why they wont. If we all adjust >>> in tiny bits to accomodate the larger goal of improved design, then >>> things tend to move smoother, down the line. When someone rigidly >>> follows a job title, lock-step, it is explainable, but they don't >>> get a great review from my point of view. And then there are the >>> few that make interpretations on the far side of conservative, >>> regarding the prescriptions, with no credibility, other than their >>> ability to stall construction. >>> >>> Its obvious we are all part of a team, but the incentives (in this >>> case, the FM written job description) is not helping, and obviously >>> is hurting. >>> We are not machines. We are interpreting things as they need >>> interpreting, from time to time, and that is where we need to think >>> of ourselves as part of a design team (AHJ, designer / technician, >>> EOR, owner, and even the users of the building). Yeah, I know a lot >>> of team members are greedy, egotistical full-tards, which makes it >>> hard to work cooperatively with them. >>> Maybe we should rate all the team members with >>> 360 degree reviews... Something should be done to offer better >>> incentives to work together and de-incentivise (or televise) the >>> bad actions so as to make them better actors. >>> >>> scot deal >>> Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at >>> ta chments/20130130/e1cf787c/attachment.html> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> >>> >>> CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: >>> This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or >>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is >>> privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, >>> intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the >>> individual or entity named above and no warranties or >>> representations are made or intended to persons or entities not >>> named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of >>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this communication in error, please notify us immediately by >>> telephone, return this message to the address above and delete all copies. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/at >>> ta chments/20130130/a9813815/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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
