Owner is Self-insured. No insurance company to deal with. They have their own emergency response teams trained for the special hazards they have on site.
The State has decided what code is acceptable within their State, not my place to tell the State they are wrong. If the site complies with the minimum State requirements I cannot demand a higher level of protection just because I think it would be better. Bean counters spending money want justification, if no code justifications or requirements for upgrades or reasonable improvements, the conversation is done. I’m not building anything, just observing and offering recommendations. There is nothing that would force them to do more than the required minimum code. I can make recommendations based on good engineering practice which is based on other more comprehensive Code sets, they have the option of accepting or rejecting those recommendations. Ya just gotta love it! ☺ Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected] From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Installing non-required systems [EXTERNAL] Craig, Look at how are you going to explain to the jury if things go sideways, when it happens then you are left holding the bag. Every other participant in the decision making process will state “I am not the expert, Craig is the expert” Also you need to look at the insurance company requirements, ISO as a minimum requires compliance with NFPA 13 for property insurance rate reduction. Regards Jim Davidson Associates Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002 Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807 (302) 994-9500 Fax (302) 994-3414 CONFIDENTIALITY This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:00 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Installing non-required systems IBC/IFC are not adopted by the state, they are not applicable or enforceable, only the LSC. This is not a unique condition across the US. For construction, it’s up to the owner and contractor to decide what code if any they intend to follow. Most will follow the IBC as a recognized standard but they are not required to adhere to every aspect of it if they determine it has no benefit since it’s not a mandatory Code. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:48 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Installing non-required systems [EXTERNAL] No building code is the kicker here. Where ICC gives you IBC, IRC & IFC as the basic building code/safety code/maintenance code grouping NFPA gives you 1, 101 & 5000. What do they use in this secret location as a building code for stuff not necessarily life safety? Does every little structure need to be fully engineered? On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:45 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Well here’s the kicker, since the LSC is the prevailing Building Code and the LSC does not require sprinklers, NFPA 13 is irrelevant as far as mandatory compliance. Also in this part of the country State law allows the owner to act as the AHJ on their property if there is no local municipal AHJ. Do you see why I’m having so much fun with this one? 13 doesn’t direct what occupancies get sprinklered, that’s the building or fire code or in this case the Life Safety Code. The LSC allows the occupancy in question to be constructed with no sprinkler requirement. My guess is that this was an internal Safety Group directive by someone who felt sprinklers would be beneficial in the warehouse part of the building only but who also had no real knowledge of installations or requirements and the contractor just did as he was asked. There is no documentation and no one on the site from when this work was done. So the best I can come up with are recommendations for their consideration but they are not constrained by any laws or codes to take any of the recommendations. Personally I do love the fact that this is an area where you are not constrained by a million laws regulating every aspect of your life but from a code study and analysis standpoint, it creates a real challenge. Thanks to all for the ideas, thoughts and recommendations, Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540<tel:864.920.7540> Fax - 864.920.7129<tel:864.920.7129> CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 7:28 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Installing non-required systems [EXTERNAL] I think your path would be where 13 specifies all areas must be sprinklers unless specifically omitted. So you have the areas you would normally exclude if they meet the specified criteria in 13 or if the jurisdiction has a specific ordinance allowing you leave an area unprotected. Seattle used to have a life safety provision for retrofit of hotels and group homes where you just sprinklered the hllls and ran a head into each unit over the door. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Parsley Consulting <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Craig, I don't know where that exists, however my concern would be that you'll still need to establish a standard for design, including coverage areas, calculations, materials, and on and on. I haven't done anything like that in more than a decade so I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Ken Wagoner, SET Parsley Consulting 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 Escondido, California 92025 Phone 760-745-6181<tel:760-745-6181> Visit our website<http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> On 07/27/2016 2:58 PM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Somewhere within NFPA 13 I recall seeing a statement which says basically that if you install a system voluntarily (not required by Code) it must still be installed per the NFPA Standard. Anyone know where that is, I’ve hunted all over and can’t find it within either the 2010 or 2013 NFPA 13 editions. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540<tel:864.920.7540> Fax - 864.920.7129<tel:864.920.7129> CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- Ron Greenman 4110 Olson Dr., NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 253.576.9700 A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958)
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
