Like how you wrote; " everything is per code except we have". "Except" ?, Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; I.e. " 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165" and you're short 5 psi ? So two code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? Somehow apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain he/she didn't come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and using common sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work together, is the principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward.
John Drucker - Mobile Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 [email protected] wrote: How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, "John Drucker - Home" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
