Ron, et.al.

I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; there's
your side, their side and the truth.  Perhaps there's an issue with the code
itself,  a local amendment or interpretation. There's got to be something
driving this.

Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall mounted
smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the illustration in the
annex is worded differently than the code.

29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on walls
shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the adjoining ceiling
surface.

Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes;  "Measurements shown are to the closest edge
of the detector".

According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or
detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface.

It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following statement;

"Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is
included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory
material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs"

Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA representative
was interpreted from the Annex material.  This is clearly incorrect, the
annex and the illustration are not part of the code.  In either case fix the
code language or the annex.   The same happens in I Code Commentaries and
various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or supplement the
actual code language.  In a nutshell our codes and standards have become a
maze of requirements, exceptions and interpretations.  This should be a
warning flag to the code community.  Perhaps the code official has just
reached his limit and is instead relying on empirical experience in the face
of confusion. 

I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that impose
an operational issue for the fire department, one that the code is not
considering.  However my approach is to get everyone around the table do
some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution.
Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will
put down their swords and solve the problem.   Food for thought.

Best wishes, always available should the need arise.

Sincerely,

John

John Drucker, CET
Assistant Construction Official
Fire Protection Subcode Official
Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector
Borough of Red Bank
Red Bank, New Jersey
Email: [email protected]
Cell/Text: 732-904-6823

Safe Buildings Save Lives !








 



-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground

It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum.  To set the stage, prior to
the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted drawings from the
AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ.

"At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying said
plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed IFC, UFC,
and NFPA standards." Nowhere in the body of the letter does he say exactly
how we are to "EXCEED" IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the letter they basically
outline that what was submitted meets the all of the codes. I was told by
the author of the letter at a meeting the day before that he didn't care
what the code said because he is the AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he
can make us do whatever he wants. Then he said "do it my way or there will
be no Certificate of Occupancy."  We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the
change involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being
installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we
wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now.

Ron F
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to