Here's the difference in the PVC versus chain issue. I could defend the chaining option based on the NFPA 13 standard since it is a viable alternative recognized by the fire sprinkler industry and established by the knowledge base of the authors of the NFPA Standards. So while the Code states the valves are to be electronically supervised, this is a recognized option.
I could not defend using Shoe-Goo on PVC pipe because the AHJ said so if it wasn't documented as a viable option in any trade or industry standard or Code. I'd have nothing to use as a defense for the choice. Now per the IBC, there is language that grants permission to the code official to allow modifications to the code requirements based on unique conditions. If the code official then uses an already established and accepted guideline such as NFPA 13 as a reason or source for his alternate direction and that decision complies with the directive as noted below, there is no dereliction. IBC 2012 [A] 104.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety. Good food for thought as we often get sucked into these "the AHJ said ________________" issues where there is nothing more to stand on than that one person's opinion. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers Members, Someone's responsible. Craig I agree with part of your thinking, if the sprinkler contractor was not responsible for the actual electrically supervised side of the equation, then mount the supervisory devices and so note in the final documentation making certain that the lack of electrical supervision is so noted. Some sprinkler contractors go even further and provide a written quote to provide same and document an owners refusal therein making a reasonable attempt to fulfil the code requirements. Keep in mind that code officials are typically immune where there actions are not considered gross negligence, ie he/she made a mistake. This immunity typically doesn't extend to other parties, I,e, the code official said it was ok that's my defense. That doesn't hold up as design professionals and contractors have a duty to comply. For example if the code official said it was ok to use any kind of cement on cpvc would you ? Food for thought. As always the disclaimer.....the preceding is not a legal opinion, nor the opinion of the borough of red bank but merely an informal observation, always consult qualified legal council. Gross Negligence An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others. Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence-a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action-is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. John Drucker Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank, NJ 90 Monmouth Street Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 Email: [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers What provides the electronic supervision, the fire alarm system. Who provides the fire alarm system, the alarm or electrical contractor. So as the fire sprinkler contractor if you provided and installed the supervisory switches why sweat this issue? You provided your scope of work, it's up to another entity to connect and make it compliant. If the AHJ ruled that chains were satisfactory are you as the sprinkler contractor going to petition the State for a ruling over him? Is there a letter of acceptance? If yes, move on unless you want to make this a Judge Judy episode. Either way unless the alarm system is part of the sprinkler contractor scope, this is not a sprinkler contractor issue. Why make it one? Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers The requestor stipulated that the valves are required to be electrically supervised by applicable code, presumably the IBC. Where conflict in code / standard occurs IBC trumps so NFPA-13 irrelevant. Here's the code sections; 2009 IBC 102.4 Referenced Codes and Standards 901.6 Supervisory Service 901.6.1 Automatic Sprinkler Systems 903.4 Sprinkler System Supervision and Alarms 903.4.1 Monitoring If there's a loss these references may well be cited for the various parties to defend their actions with regards to a nationally recognized building code adopted by jurisdiction. Hope that helps, John Drucker Assistant Construction Official Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Borough of Red Bank, NJ 90 Monmouth Street Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 Email: [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers Yeah this is where the NFPA people need to be in-line with the ICC people. But the ICC also makes no exceptions for those installations where there is no alarm system to connect any signals. Keep the documentation of the AHJ approval for posterity. He signed off, he's the final say. Move on to the next great adventure. Round and round the mulberry bush..................................... Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers If the system is a Required system per IBC, then valves controlling water to sprinklers must be electrically supervised. It is an IBC violation, not NFPA if I am assuming correctly. R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc. 1805 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 6:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ Powers NFPA 13 gives clear options, chaining and locking is one of them. What's the issue here? There are building installations where there is no requirement for a fire alarm system so there is no provision for supervising valves electronically, in those cases you chain or lock them. 8.16.1.1.2* Supervision. 8.16.1.1.2.1 Valves on connections to water supplies, sectional control and isolation valves, and other valves in supply pipes to sprinklers and other fixed water-based fire suppression systems shall be supervised by one of the following methods: (1) Central station, proprietary, or remote station signaling service (2) Local signaling service that will cause the sounding of an audible signal at a constantly attended point (3) Valves locked in the correct position (4) Valves located within fenced enclosures under the control of the owner, sealed in the open position, and inspected weekly as part of an approved procedure Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: AHJ Powers What say you? An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job is complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the control valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and the chief declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approved. What say you? Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
