John, No need to hide.
I often get involved post design, someone else did the design, I'm QC or 3rd party reviewer and I start asking questions about questionable practices or designs where it's obvious that the right questions were never asked. Then when I start pressing the issue I hear those very words, "The plans have already been approved by the Code official". So of course that is supposed to make it OK to ignore basic code and design requirements, the exercise of due diligence and the practice of simple common sense. The majority of the times it's not an actual error on the part of the code official. If you review a plan for a simple building with an ordinary hazard I system you wouldn't think much about it. But I'm looking at the rest of the project and see that the building houses 20 ft high racks with a combustible material handling process and dust collection equipment. NOT OH I by any stretch of the imagination. The other conversation I love, Owner:"but we didn't put sprinklers in our last building like this", Me:"when was that built?", owner:"1960". Anyway, don't want to take this thread down a rabbit trail just thought Roland's comment was kind of humorous but sadly true. And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion........................................ Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker - Home Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 1/2" and Seismic Craig wrote; "I was not surprised at the first e-mail, that's what I hear all the time... "the plan reviewer approved the plans", (even though they had significant technical errors)." Craig, here's a question for ya, just finished my sixth cup......if the plan reviewer approved the plans that had significant technical errors what does that say about the technician who designed and the professional engineer who signed em ? .....running for cover. John John Drucker, CET Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Red Bank, New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 1/2" and Seismic I was not surprised at the first e-mail, that's what I hear all the time... "the plan reviewer approved the plans", (even though they had significant technical errors). Had me goin' for a minute. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 1/2" and Seismic CORRECTION that should read - an approved set of plans does NOT mean it's ok to violate NFPA 13. I've gotta lay off the coffee. Thanks John for the rapid catch and polite direct contact. Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]> wrote: > DOn't forget that an approved set of plans means it is ok to violate > NFPA 13. All an approved set of plans means is that you have permission to proceed. So, even when approved, if you install it, you are responsible for it being right. Now if there is an existing approved variance, all is golden. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Jan 17, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Charles Thurston <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is an existing system. 1 1/2" branch with 1/2" outlet "T"s for heads, They added a L/O ceiling 6" below the top of the pipe in the parking deck. Now need to nipple over to a Dry Wax Over Lead (Local Ordnance) Dry Head. Another contractor submitted plans, calcs and got a permit for this a 1/2" Close, 1/2" x 1" 90, 1' Close nipple, 1" T with plug for the head. The other contractor's foreman smarted off to one of the owners and they got thrown off the site. Material is all there, Just need the labor to put it in. > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
