The conversation started when the architect sent a photo to us of a turned up hose valve and said that on a previous project they got hit with a change rider for can protection after an inspection failed for not meeting accessibility requirements. The architect said that on this project their accessibility consultant made sure to point out 307.2 and 307.3, since we're in NC and A117.1 is an adopted code here.
As it is, I contacted the local code enforcement and spoke to two people. First person said they had never heard of those requirements, but from reading them came up with the thought that since the hose valve is parallel to the wall, then it might not be considered protruding or overhanging, where both code sections are concerned. I was referred to a plans examiner who was aware of the sections. It turns out that the NC Department of Insurance released their periodic accessibility newsletter addressing standpipe valves and accessibility clearance. Interestingly, it focused more on the location of standpipes with regard to door maneuvering clearances in section 403.2.3.2, and included two photos of a hose valve not meeting that sections requirement, but making no mention of it violating 307.3. There were also two photos of a hose valve sticking out of a wall of a breezeway that is noted as violating 307.2. So it seems that both the NC DOI and the local building officials don't interpret a standpipe hose valve out of the required accessible clearance path in a stairwell to be in violation of 307.3. I've emailed the architect back, mentioning my conversations with the code officials, with a copy of the newsletter, and also a mention of my post and the responses here (admittedly, Steve, also highlighting your position on the 14 TC and how this is the first you've heard of this). They've sent it back to their accessibility consultant for review. For now, it seems the preferred design is to turn the valve up because that would put it in compliance with 307.3. However, I don't like the idea of a misinterpretation of the code leading to a possible precedent, so I'm going to seek out a more in depth answer from code enforcement. James On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:02 AM Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > Concur and I’m still puzzled as to how the conversation with the EOR ended > up in the context of ANSI A1171.1. We have always coordinated the > location of standpipe risers (and the attached hose valves), floor control > assemblies and collection drain risers with the available space on the > landing. There’s a minimum required path of travel clearance and (at > least in the markets we serve) NOTHING can be in that space. So you draw > a dashed line for the radius of that path and keep your stuff out of it. > > > SL > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John > Drucker > *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:48 AM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > > > > Guys, > > > > It’s pretty simple code section, the opening text of 307 sets the scope; > “Many items along the path of travel can be protruding object for persons > with visual impairments, or persons who may be momentarily distracted. > There are additional concerns during emergency events where smoke may > obscure objects and people are hurrying to escape” There’s also concerns > with visually impaired persons being able to detect protrucing objects with > a long cane. > > > > The idea is to NOT have anything sticking out, generally more than 4”, > that a person could walk into. I’ve seen this plenty of times where > risers come up a stair in the middle of the landing with the valve sticking > straight out. That puts it in the travel path and subjects pedestrians to > striking the object, injury, risk of falling etc. Keep in mind also that > a stairways primary function is means of egress and not a mechanical shaft > so technically anything that impairs that primary mission could be cited. > > > > We need to reach back to the core mission and not get caught up in the > manusha. Get the stuff out of the travel path, ours are in the corners > with the valves parallel and tight enough to the wall to allow the valve to > be hand opened and slightly canted outward to allow coupling up of the > hose. > > > > Bottom line this is something that requires a collaborative approach > between the architect and the fire protection engineer at the design stage > not at the installation phase, i.e. 10# of stuff in 5# bag. > > > > > > John Drucker, CET > > Assistant Construction Official > > Fire Protection Subcode Official > > Electrical Subcode Official > > Building Inspector > > Borough of Red Bank, NJ > > 90 Monmouth Street > > Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 > > Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Travis > Allen- Allen Engineering > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:37 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > > > > Much Ado About Nothing, indeed :-). The safe answer is always to check > with the AHJ, for sure. > > > > However, whether it’s a post or pylon has little to do with following the > bouncing ball of the code, even if it leaves us shaking our heads. The > provision doesn’t only apply to posts or pylons. A117.1.2009 has the same > requirement in 307.2 for any protrusion in a circulation path: “307.2 > Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) > and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor shall protrude 4 > inches (100 mm) maximum horizontally into the circulation path. EXCEPTION: > Handrails shall be permitted to protrude 4 1/2 inches (115 mm) maximum.” > Same language as the IBC. > > This sure smells like a circulation path as defined by the code: > “CIRCULATION PATH. An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to > another for pedestrians.” And I can’t find any exceptions for exit > enclosures or fire systems. And I hate to say it, but NFPA 14 is not the > governing code, and it is silent on protruding objects in circulation paths > anyway. Hopefully the AHJ will weigh the factors and design efforts to keep > the sprinkler system from becoming an occupant hazard, where an > accessibility consultant might not. > > > > I’ll get back to my college football playoff pool now, since it was > upended this weekend. > > > > - Travis > > > > *From:* Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:07 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > > > > James: > > I know this comes off sounding a little big-headed but … I’m the chair of > the committee and I’ve never heard of such balderdash. This isn’t a > “post” or a “pylon” – those are structures. This is a pipe and part of a > “building system” and also a part of the fire/life safety apparatus. The > applicable dimensions are the ones that define clear egress path on the > landings (as per the building code) and the elevation above fin floor as > prescribed in NFPA 14 and/or per the responding fire agency. Whether > the ports point out, down at a 45° angle or straight down at the floor is > also up to the responding fire agency. I think your idea of getting an > superseding opinion from the local AHJ (BO or FO) is sound. > > > SL > > > > *From:* Sprinklerforum [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *James > Litvak > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:09 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > > > > The standpipe is in a stairwell. Some of the stairs it'll be in the > corner, others beside the door. All of them will be outside the required > path of egress clearance. The definition of circulation path in A117.1 is > "An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for > pedestrians". It's pretty vague. Unfortunately there's no differentiation > between, say, a hallway or a stairwell. I think I'll contact the building > department and see what they think. Hopefully they'll write something for > me saying that section doesn't apply. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:40 PM Mike B Morey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Unfortunately other than the fact that the drawings in the 3## section > make it pretty obvious this isn't what they're talking about, there's no > definitions. I figured if its a stairwell it's an easier shoot down for > someone who wants to write their own interpretations since the conspicuous > absence of stairs in pretty much this entire standard should make it pretty > open and shut. You could argue its not those things and that the previous > section says leading edge, which the leading edge of the handle if you put > it parallel to the floor probably isn't more than 4" out. Basically this > code section is to keep someone tapping a cane against the edge of the > walking path from slamming into some random protruding object, if they hit > the hand wheel it may not be super pleasant but its not the kind of > protrusion, IMHO, this section addresses. Just one of those fun common > sense vs power trip things probably. Standard disclaimer, these are my > opinions only and have not been approved or reviewed by my employer. > ------------------------------ > > > *Mike Morey* > *CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677* > *Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group > * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company* > 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 > *direct *260.487.7824* / cell *260.417.0625* / fax *260.487.7991 > * email *[email protected] > > > > > > > > From: "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 11/14/2017 03:25 PM > Subject: Re: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > Sent by: "Sprinklerforum" < > [email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > > > Does the standard define the standpipe as a post or pylon? > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:10 PM Mike B Morey <[email protected]> > wrote: > Where is the standpipe located? Are we talking a typical stairwell > install or elsewhere? Section 307 starts off by stating that it governs > circulation paths, and stairs aren't part of that definition in section > 1005 based on a quick look. The standard is available several places > online if you google it, not sure if they're "legal" copies but for the > sake of answering the question I'd take a look at that angle. If its in a > hall or something I'd imagine it could be put in a box in the wall or > something. > ------------------------------ > > > * Mike Morey* > * CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677* > * Project Manager* • Fire Protection Group > * Shambaugh & Son, LP **an EMCOR Company* > 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 > * direct *260.487.7824* / cell *260.417.0625* / fax *260.487.7991 > * email *[email protected] > > > > > > > > From: James Litvak <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > Date: 11/14/2017 02:59 PM > Subject: ANSI A1171.1 Figure 307.3 > Sent by: "Sprinklerforum" < > [email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > > > I'm working on building permit plans for a job, and the architect passed > on an email from their accessibility consultant that the fire department > hose valves can't protrude beyond the standpipe riser more than 4", per > ANSI A117.1 figure 307.3. The text of that section is: > > 307.3 Post-Mounted Objects. Objects on posts or pylons shall be permitted > to overhang 4 inches (100 mm) maximum where more than 27 inches (685 mm) > and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the floor. Objects on multiple > posts or pylons where the clear distance between the posts or pylons is > greater than 12 inches (305 mm) shall have the lowest edge of such object > either 27 inches (685 mm) maximum or 80 inches (2030 mm) minimum above the > floor. > > What they're saying is that we will need to turn an elbow up from the > outlet of the standpipe and install the valve vertical. I've already told > them this won't work anyway, since the valve itself has a 5" hand wheel, > and due to takeouts, the least amount of projection physically possible is > about 8". According to the consultant, the way to mitigate this is to > install cane protection, which the architect appears to want to avoid. Is > anyone aware of this code section, and does it apply the way I'm being told > it does? In nearly 13 years as a designer, I've never been told such a > requirement exists. > > > James > Charlotte, NC_______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=wiCt1iqr5u69Txm-iBELel0Xzd3F5uGuCJUQXBz1wqg&s=xRsf5UToNzmQSkkENHTI-JrcpESCaLYKnTi-kcXYGmg&e= > > This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If > you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all > copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the > sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, > print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended > recipient. > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=5qwVwJLjSTa1NIX64A78M2wWVYYDHlGdPLp5aekf9Eg&s=hCvxa01YwdjeSk4O21JWnAfEVWaoF93WIMHJkrFr_lM&e=> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile[attachment "attcgpkb.jpg" deleted by Mike B > Morey/Shambaugh/EMCORGROUP] > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=5qwVwJLjSTa1NIX64A78M2wWVYYDHlGdPLp5aekf9Eg&s=hCvxa01YwdjeSk4O21JWnAfEVWaoF93WIMHJkrFr_lM&e= > > _______________________________________________ > 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
