To show how futile it is here is word for word the letter they wrote minus the names and places.
"Per our discussion on 7/14/2014 regarding the Fire Pumps at Blah Blah Parkway, Project Blah Blah, within Blah Blah industrial center, Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is exercising its right to withdraw the approval of the Fire Sprinkler Plans based on several factors.. 1. During previous discussion with Mr. So and So there was a mutual understand that Mr. So and So would provide Balh Blah Fire Protection District with contacts to a Fire Protection Engineer in which he did not do. 2. When the plans were submitted, we were led to believe that the pumps in the submittal were capable of supplying 2,250 GPM at 100% capacity, which would have exceeded our need for 4,000 GPM. Once the plans were submitted, the pump curve test, with the delivery of the pumps, we discovered they were 1,500 GPM not 2,250 GPM and that the 2,250 GPM that was supplies to us was at 150% of the capacity of the pump. 3. The building requires 8,000 GPM as a basic fire flow. Per Blah Blah Fire Protection Districts Adopted Fire Code Appendix B 105.2 Fire Flow Requirements for buildings: a reduction in fire flow of up to 50 percent. As approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. This would make the requirement 4,000 GPM or (a combination of two 2,000 GPM pumps that are capable of 4,000 GPM at 100 percent of the pumps rated capacity) 4. NFPA 20 A4.8 The performance of the pump when applied at capacities over 140 percent of rated capacity can be adversely affected by the suction conditions. Application of the pump at capacities less than 90 percent of the rate capacity is NOT recommended. The selection and application of the fire pump should not be confused with the pump operating conditions. With proper suction conditions the pump can operate at any point of is characteristic curve from shutoff to 150 percent of its rated capacity. 5. UFC-P1003.2.1.17.6 Pump Size states that Fire pumps shall be sized at their rated UL or FM capacity at 100 percent of the required flow. At this time, 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. Sincerely," The Badge To top it off UFC isn't even listed as an adopted code, they only list IFC. They did ask if I could get a registered FPE to write a letter about the pump size. I said yes and they said it won't help and that they want the pumps changed anyway. I'm not kidding. This is really how the conversation went. Ron F -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:48 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground or NCPCCI or ICC. John Drucker - Mobile Email jdruc...@redbanknj.org<mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 David Autry <da...@mfp-inc.com> wrote: Don't you have to work for a contractor to achieve NICET Level III? At a bare minimum they should be NFPA Fire Plan Examiner AND NFPA Fire Inspector certified. David Autry Meininger Fire Protection Inc. 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 Lincoln, Ne 68522 Voice (402) 466-2616 Fax (402) 466-2617 da...@mfp-inc.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:12 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground I prefer to have said it this way, government plan check inspectors should be certified to the same level or HIGHER than those they regulate. NICET III to have sprinkler license, NICET III to plan check or inspect. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 2:28 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground No. Government plan check inspectors should be state certified on all aspects of their job. A local fire inspector (who does not know what he is doing) approved at final a head pocking through a jagged hole in the stucco ceiling without an escutcheon. I brought this to the attention of the fire marshal, the fire chief, and the city council. The fire chief brought in an outside AHJ to review it. The outside AHJ advised that escutcheons are ornamental only and not even required by code. The fire chief advised the city council of what the outside AHJ had said and went on to say that it was erroneous of me to claim the escutcheon was required. I call this the Harry and Lloyed (Dumb & Dumber) syndrome . Just because Harry (the dumb outside AHJ) says it, Lloyed (the dumber fire chief and fire marshal) believes it true. The original inspector, the fire marshal, the fire chief, and the outside AHJ never bothered to check the fire code or sprinkler listing. It was a semi-recessed head listed with its escutcheon. But guess who the city council believed? The big man with the g old badge...until I provided code reference and the sprinkler manufacturers listing. But guess what that got me? Everybody is pissed off because I (really they) made them(selves) look bad. Extremely frustrated, Owen Evans -----Original Message----- From: Bob <b...@firebyknight.com> To: sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 11:49 am Subject: RE: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground What does unwritten policy have to do with anything? If it's not an adopted code amendment can they enforce it legally? Thank You, Bob Knight, CET III 208-318-3057 www.Firebyknight.com<http://www.Firebyknight.com> -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:15 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think pressure is even a factor. Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" <johnson...@mail.nih.gov> wrote: > > There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that work with your pumps? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: 'sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org' > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mphe...@aerofire.com [mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > Hi John, > What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of > the IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler > system pumps. We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because > it was specified that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to > provide the 4000 GPM from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand > pressure (165 PSI) and do so at the 100% design point of the fire > pump. We submitted our design with two 1500 GPM pumps piped in > parallel along with calcs for the storage sprinklers flowing at around > 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water system which supplies > the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from two 4" hydrant > butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a fire code, > or any other code for that matter. They are "Code Alchemist", taking a > paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from our > calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! "Minimum code > requirement". See? This stuff ain 't > all that hard. > > Mark at Aero > 602 820-7894 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, "John Drucker" <jdruc...@redbanknj.org<mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org>> wrote: > > 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 > jdruc...@redbanknj.org<mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org><mailto:jdrucker@ > redbanknj.org> > Cell/Text 732-904-6823 > > > rfletc...@aerofire.com<mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com> 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" <john.druc...@verizon.net<mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>> 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: jdruc...@redbanknj.org<mailto:jdruc...@redbanknj.org> > Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 > > Safe Buildings Save Lives ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com<mailto:rfletc...@aerofire.com> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM > To: > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir > esprinkler.org> > 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 > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@lists.fir > esprinkler.org> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o rg _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
