As I have watched this thread too many stories have come to mind. At the end of the day there is only one explanation Ron, and I suppose you know this well. A cost benefit analysis done by those that you have to make the explanation to. Weighing the schedule impact, future political impact, time it would take to appeal and potential attorney fees vs the $50k. Really too bad that this even has to be considered, but I have had to do it all too often. One tack is to prepare the paperwork and make the first step with the appearance that the decision has been made to take it to the top regardless of the previously mentioned impacts. Sometimes this forces the same type of cost / benefit from the other side and is a catalyst for compromise. Ughhh. Hope you can get this one worked out.
Rod at Rapid -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground Okay you explain the $40-50k hit to the bottom line Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:32 PM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Best not to dwell on any one project too much > >> On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Can't say how much this pisses me off. >> >> Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:19 PM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just >>> makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? >>> >>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, <[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-firespr >>>>> inkler.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr >>>>> inkler.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.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
