NJ UCC code officials do not "approve" plans, they "release" plans. Approved was a bad word!!
Here in Florida I have had to get used to approving plans. Dave Herbert Retired from State of NJ, now working in Florida Guest Sent from my iPad > On Jan 20, 2014, at 4:24 PM, "Jim Davidson" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > TO all, > > If I remember correctly the permit that the trade contractor signs and > submits to the NJ code official (building or fire) states that the system(s) > are installed in accordance with the specific code enacted by the State of > New Jersey. No where on the permit does the permit refer to the code > official's approved plans. The only way to deviate from the lawful code is by > written permission from the code official on code official's letterhead > specific to the project and specific trade shop drawings. Anything else does > not count. Old saying "If the plan reviewer missed it, it is not a variance > to the code requirements. > > Have a fire safe day! > > Regards > > Jim > > DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES > > Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4010 > Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807-0010 > Medical Gas Systems Engineering (302) 994-9500 > Fax (302) 994-3414 > > CONFIDENTIALITY > This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. > If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in > error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not > disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store > or copy them in any medium. > Thank you for your cooperation. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Drucker - Home > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:00 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
