Art, So if the AHJ adopted the IFC with California amendments, and did so without any local amendments specific to this question, the PIV shall be electrically monitored per the IFC? Owen
-----Original Message----- From: Art Tiroly <[email protected]> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 10:23 am Subject: RE: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch? Local code determines when and where protection is required. NFPA shows how it is to be done. Art Tiroly ATCO Fire Pro From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch? As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on occasion get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R. The property in question is a boutique hotel, two buildings. One building is a two story, fifty room hotel and the other building is two story, restaurant on the first floor and banquet facility on second floor with a roof deck. Each building has a FDC and a PIV. I am in California which is under the 2013 IFC. I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical supervision?" NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states electrical supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different answers form different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive 2013 IFC. Which is it? Thank you, Owen Evans _______________________________________________ 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
