RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Matt B via Sprinklerforum]

Good afternoon –

 

First time responding or posting. 

 

I have not experienced a request from an inspector or AHJ to this degree or 
caliber. 

 

I have to ask the question though. 

 

A company was contracted to install a new fire sprinkler system ?

 

A code compliant fire sprinkler system was designed ?

 

A code compliant fire sprinkler system was submitted for review ?

 

The appropriate AHJ approved the code compliant plans ?

 

A company installed a code compliant fire sprinkler system per the approved 
plans ?

 

An inspection was performed, and the inspector is requiring protection above 
and beyond what is on the approved plans?

 

How is the sprinkler contractor responsible?

 

 

Matthew Bristoll

Big Country Fire Protection, Inc.

106 Jumper Drive N.

Bushnell, FL 33513

 

P: 352-404-5990

C: 239-398-1364

 

www.bigcountryfireprotection.com



 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of John Drucker via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 4:37 PM
To: Steve Leyton ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; BRUCE VERHEI 
Cc: John Drucker ; Travis Mack 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

 

Steve unfortunately our state construction regulations require us to issue 
partial releases where requested.   Have buildings at this very moment that 
have only a footing and foundation permit. I must say they’ve been honest when 
I asked about the deferred systems, we haven’t even awarded them yet.  Well 
have a great weekend, we just figure it out as we go, in the end the rubber 
meets the road at the final inspection.   

 

John Drucker

 

  _  

From: Steve Leyton mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com> >
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 12:55
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> ; BRUCE VERHEI
Cc: John Drucker; Travis Mack
Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping 

 

You’re alluding to the overall low standard of care in the A/E community 
regarding adequate consideration and performance specifications for deferred FP 
work and that has barely changed in the last 20 years.  At least you’re 
knowledgeable enough to look for this stuff – imagine how hard it is working in 
the hundreds of jurisdictions where these uncoordinated yet critical items are 
overlooked by the building and fire officials in plan review and the sprinkler 
sub is left hold a bag with a giant hole in the bottom.

 

What’s got to give (and the reason I started my firm 25 years ago) is the 
reliance on completely deferred submittals, especially on projects with 
complicated infrastructure (like high-rise and other pumped buildings).  Until 
developers and architects get really burned by a bad sprinkler job, whether it 
entails failure on the design team or the build team, they don’t care enough 
about fixed fire protection systems to undertake the planning and coordination 
work that is taken for granted with other disciplines.   Worse, they (mostly) 
don’t seem to want to deal with sprinklers and standpipes because our work is 
still considered a nuisance and they’d rather go without.

 

In my world, the good news is that this is changing.  We have AHJs (mostly for 
public projects) that don’t accept deferred submittals and my firm’s design 
practice has been mostly focused on work in those jurisdictions for many years 
but that has started to change.  Since 2017, we’ve been doing more and more 
“voluntary” plans and spec’s projects for developers who are tired of the 
delays and high cost-impacts that result from such failed coordination and I’d 
say that right now about 30% of our work is on private-sector projects.   Some 
of our developer clients have said that they’ll never go back to deferred 
submittals because they no longer experience the high-drama “oh sh*t!” 
scenarios that have hampered past projects.   

 

I don’t want this to sound like a pitch for my firm’s services or that I’m 
advocating that a 3rd party engineer is the only/best solution.  My intended 
point is that work on the FP systems should begin in the design phase, whether 
it’s a D/B contractor or an independent design firm.  The challenge is that FP 
design has been delivered by the construction teams for so long that unless a 
project already has a general contractor on board or is a true D/B delivery, 
most developers are loathe to bring on a sprinkler sub under direct contract.   
So that leaves either a design consultant or deferred submittal as the only 
other options and the status quo is to kick the can down the alley.

 

 

Steve Leyton

 

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Drucker via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 9:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> ; BRUCE VERHEI 
mailto:bver...@comcast.net> >; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[John Drucker via Sprinklerforum]

Steve unfortunately our state construction regulations require us to issue 
partial releases where requested.   Have buildings at this very moment that 
have only a footing and foundation permit. I must say they’ve been honest when 
I asked about the deferred systems, we haven’t even awarded them yet.  Well 
have a great weekend, we just figure it out as we go, in the end the rubber 
meets the road at the final inspection.

John Drucker


From: Steve Leyton 
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 12:55
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; BRUCE VERHEI
Cc: John Drucker; Travis Mack
Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

You’re alluding to the overall low standard of care in the A/E community 
regarding adequate consideration and performance specifications for deferred FP 
work and that has barely changed in the last 20 years.  At least you’re 
knowledgeable enough to look for this stuff – imagine how hard it is working in 
the hundreds of jurisdictions where these uncoordinated yet critical items are 
overlooked by the building and fire officials in plan review and the sprinkler 
sub is left hold a bag with a giant hole in the bottom.

What’s got to give (and the reason I started my firm 25 years ago) is the 
reliance on completely deferred submittals, especially on projects with 
complicated infrastructure (like high-rise and other pumped buildings).  Until 
developers and architects get really burned by a bad sprinkler job, whether it 
entails failure on the design team or the build team, they don’t care enough 
about fixed fire protection systems to undertake the planning and coordination 
work that is taken for granted with other disciplines.   Worse, they (mostly) 
don’t seem to want to deal with sprinklers and standpipes because our work is 
still considered a nuisance and they’d rather go without.

In my world, the good news is that this is changing.  We have AHJs (mostly for 
public projects) that don’t accept deferred submittals and my firm’s design 
practice has been mostly focused on work in those jurisdictions for many years 
but that has started to change.  Since 2017, we’ve been doing more and more 
“voluntary” plans and spec’s projects for developers who are tired of the 
delays and high cost-impacts that result from such failed coordination and I’d 
say that right now about 30% of our work is on private-sector projects.   Some 
of our developer clients have said that they’ll never go back to deferred 
submittals because they no longer experience the high-drama “oh sh*t!” 
scenarios that have hampered past projects.

I don’t want this to sound like a pitch for my firm’s services or that I’m 
advocating that a 3rd party engineer is the only/best solution.  My intended 
point is that work on the FP systems should begin in the design phase, whether 
it’s a D/B contractor or an independent design firm.  The challenge is that FP 
design has been delivered by the construction teams for so long that unless a 
project already has a general contractor on board or is a true D/B delivery, 
most developers are loathe to bring on a sprinkler sub under direct contract.   
So that leaves either a design consultant or deferred submittal as the only 
other options and the status quo is to kick the can down the alley.


Steve Leyton



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Drucker via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 9:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; BRUCE VERHEI ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Drucker ; Travis Mack 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Ahhh Nuts,  coordination, project management, collaboration, mere words 
on paper.  The design work we get is awful.  I’m working on one right now for 
permits where the sprinkler plans call for a pump, ok so back to the architect 
for a pump room,  where’s the electrical, ok so back to the engineer,   where’s 
the sprinkler supervision and fire alarm,  ok so this is 
pending.building departments should never ever be caught in this mess.  
 And that’s just me the building and plumbing guys is also going around.   Add 
in the convoluted subjective code stuff.somethings gotta give.  Your above 
ceiling construction issues most likely trace back to a similar circumstance

John Drucker
Fire and Electrical Code Official
New Jersey.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 23:46
To: BRUCE VERHEI; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Exactly.
Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpde

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

You’re alluding to the overall low standard of care in the A/E community 
regarding adequate consideration and performance specifications for deferred FP 
work and that has barely changed in the last 20 years.  At least you’re 
knowledgeable enough to look for this stuff – imagine how hard it is working in 
the hundreds of jurisdictions where these uncoordinated yet critical items are 
overlooked by the building and fire officials in plan review and the sprinkler 
sub is left hold a bag with a giant hole in the bottom.

What’s got to give (and the reason I started my firm 25 years ago) is the 
reliance on completely deferred submittals, especially on projects with 
complicated infrastructure (like high-rise and other pumped buildings).  Until 
developers and architects get really burned by a bad sprinkler job, whether it 
entails failure on the design team or the build team, they don’t care enough 
about fixed fire protection systems to undertake the planning and coordination 
work that is taken for granted with other disciplines.   Worse, they (mostly) 
don’t seem to want to deal with sprinklers and standpipes because our work is 
still considered a nuisance and they’d rather go without.

In my world, the good news is that this is changing.  We have AHJs (mostly for 
public projects) that don’t accept deferred submittals and my firm’s design 
practice has been mostly focused on work in those jurisdictions for many years 
but that has started to change.  Since 2017, we’ve been doing more and more 
“voluntary” plans and spec’s projects for developers who are tired of the 
delays and high cost-impacts that result from such failed coordination and I’d 
say that right now about 30% of our work is on private-sector projects.   Some 
of our developer clients have said that they’ll never go back to deferred 
submittals because they no longer experience the high-drama “oh sh*t!” 
scenarios that have hampered past projects.

I don’t want this to sound like a pitch for my firm’s services or that I’m 
advocating that a 3rd party engineer is the only/best solution.  My intended 
point is that work on the FP systems should begin in the design phase, whether 
it’s a D/B contractor or an independent design firm.  The challenge is that FP 
design has been delivered by the construction teams for so long that unless a 
project already has a general contractor on board or is a true D/B delivery, 
most developers are loathe to bring on a sprinkler sub under direct contract.   
So that leaves either a design consultant or deferred submittal as the only 
other options and the status quo is to kick the can down the alley.


Steve Leyton



From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of John Drucker via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 9:17 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; BRUCE VERHEI ; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: John Drucker ; Travis Mack 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Ahhh Nuts,  coordination, project management, collaboration, mere words 
on paper.  The design work we get is awful.  I’m working on one right now for 
permits where the sprinkler plans call for a pump, ok so back to the architect 
for a pump room,  where’s the electrical, ok so back to the engineer,   where’s 
the sprinkler supervision and fire alarm,  ok so this is 
pending.building departments should never ever be caught in this mess.  
 And that’s just me the building and plumbing guys is also going around.   Add 
in the convoluted subjective code stuff.somethings gotta give.  Your above 
ceiling construction issues most likely trace back to a similar circumstance

John Drucker
Fire and Electrical Code Official
New Jersey.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 23:46
To: BRUCE VERHEI; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Exactly.
Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>
travis.m...@ferguson.com<mailto:travis.m...@ferguson.com>
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>




On May 21, 2020, at 8:45 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

I can’t comment on the situation above the ceiling. Is this project,

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[John Drucker via Sprinklerforum]

Ahhh Nuts,  coordination, project management, collaboration, mere words 
on paper.  The design work we get is awful.  I’m working on one right now for 
permits where the sprinkler plans call for a pump, ok so back to the architect 
for a pump room,  where’s the electrical, ok so back to the engineer,   where’s 
the sprinkler supervision and fire alarm,  ok so this is 
pending.building departments should never ever be caught in this mess.  
 And that’s just me the building and plumbing guys is also going around.   Add 
in the convoluted subjective code stuff.somethings gotta give.  Your above 
ceiling construction issues most likely trace back to a similar circumstance

John Drucker
Fire and Electrical Code Official
New Jersey.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 23:46
To: BRUCE VERHEI; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Exactly.

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>



On May 21, 2020, at 8:45 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:


I can’t comment on the situation above the ceiling. Is this project, ‘bidder 
design’, shorthand for ‘building and systems design is by committee that never 
meets?

Best.

Bruce Verhei
On May 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

I'm going to do a stupid thing and pretend to be logical. Does the plan or spec 
anywhere call for rated cable in these spaces? Would rated cable reduce the 
amount of combustibles enough to obviate the need for the sprinklers? If either 
of these hold true then I would think the fight is with the electrical or alarm 
or data or some sparky contractor. If adding sprinklers is just the band-aid 
for a problem that shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place...


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com<mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com>

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, 
screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director  (1942-)


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum < 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any level.  
Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to present 
grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  Good luck and 
keep us updated



From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerfo...@listsfiresprinkler.org>;
 'John Drucker' mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; Mitchell, Scott 
mailto:scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov>>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping



Here is the latest on this:



Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the cables 
dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that the amount 
of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to sprinkler the 
concealed space.



A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector wanted 
plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers, it makes 
the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that fully understood 
as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems, as usual, there is a 
lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really pushing that the 
concealed space needs sprinklers.



However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I feel that 
the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all that have been 
involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost several thousands of 
$$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major pet peeves.





From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
To: John Drucker mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>>
Cc: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 
sprinklerfo...@listsfiresprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>;
 Mitchell, Scott mailto:scott.mitch...@cn

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum]

Exactly. 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign



> On May 21, 2020, at 8:45 PM, BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I can’t comment on the situation above the ceiling. Is this project, ‘bidder 
> design’, shorthand for ‘building and systems design is by committee that 
> never meets?
> 
> Best.
> 
> Bruce Verhei
>> On May 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote: 
>> 
>> I'm going to do a stupid thing and pretend to be logical. Does the plan or 
>> spec anywhere call for rated cable in these spaces? Would rated cable reduce 
>> the amount of combustibles enough to obviate the need for the sprinklers? If 
>> either of these hold true then I would think the fight is with the 
>> electrical or alarm or data or some sparky contractor. If adding sprinklers 
>> is just the band-aid for a problem that shouldn't have been allowed to exist 
>> in the first place...  
>> 
>> 
>> Ron Greenman
>> 
>> rongreen...@gmail.com 
>> 
>> 253.576.9700 
>> 
>> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
>> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director  
>> (1942-) 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum < 
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: 
>> It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any level.  
>> Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to present 
>> grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  Good luck 
>> and keep us updated.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 'John Drucker' 
>> 
>> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; Mitchell, 
>> Scott 
>> Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Here is the latest on this:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the 
>> cables dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that 
>> the amount of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to 
>> sprinkler the concealed space.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector 
>> wanted plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers, 
>> it makes the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that fully 
>> understood as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems, as 
>> usual, there is a lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really 
>> pushing that the concealed space needs sprinklers.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I feel 
>> that the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all that 
>> have been involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost several 
>> thousands of $$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major pet 
>> peeves.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
>> To: John Drucker 
>> Cc: Travis Mack ; 
>> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mitchell, Scott 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler 
>> contractor is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector 
>> won’t allow cover today in a particular area. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector 
>> states he will accept only 3 options:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the 
>> area. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum 
>> quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way 
>> to quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for 
>> the sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 3 - provide full upright 

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[BRUCE VERHEI via Sprinklerforum]

I can’t comment on the situation above the ceiling. Is this project, ‘bidder 
design’, shorthand for ‘building and systems design is by committee that never 
meets?

Best.

Bruce Verhei

> On May 21, 2020 at 3:04 PM Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm going to do a stupid thing and pretend to be logical. Does the plan 
> or spec anywhere call for rated cable in these spaces? Would rated cable 
> reduce the amount of combustibles enough to obviate the need for the 
> sprinklers? If either of these hold true then I would think the fight is with 
> the electrical or alarm or data or some sparky contractor. If adding 
> sprinklers is just the band-aid for a problem that shouldn't have been 
> allowed to exist in the first place... 
> 
> 
> Ron Greenman
> 
> rongreen...@gmail.com mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com
> 
> 253.576.9700
> 
> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner 
> Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director  (1942-)
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum < 
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any 
> > level.  Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to 
> > present grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  
> > Good luck and keep us updated.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> >  > mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > On Behalf Of Travis 
> > Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
> > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org ; 'John Drucker' 
> > mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net >
> >         Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G  > mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com >; Mitchell, Scott  > mailto:scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov >
> > Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Here is the latest on this:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of 
> > the cables dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off 
> > that the amount of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to 
> > sprinkler the concealed space.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the 
> > inspector wanted plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing 
> > sprinklers, it makes the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not 
> > have that fully understood as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, 
> > it seems, as usual, there is a lot more to the story.  The inspector is 
> > still really pushing that the concealed space needs sprinklers.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where 
> > I feel that the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For 
> > all that have been involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have 
> > cost several thousands of $$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my 
> > major pet peeves.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > From: Sprinklerforum 
> >  > mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > On Behalf Of Travis 
> > Mack via Sprinklerforum
> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
> > To: John Drucker  > mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net >
> > Cc: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com >; 
> > sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org 
> > mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org ; Mitchell, Scott 
> > mailto:scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov >
> > Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the 
> > sprinkler contractor is being threatened with liquidated damages if the 
> > inspector won’t allow cover today in a particular area. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The 
> > inspector states he will accept only 3 options:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles 
> >

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum]

I'm going to do a stupid thing and pretend to be logical. Does the plan or
spec anywhere call for rated cable in these spaces? Would rated cable
reduce the amount of combustibles enough to obviate the need for the
sprinklers? If either of these hold true then I would think the fight is
with the electrical or alarm or data or some sparky contractor. If adding
sprinklers is just the band-aid for a problem that shouldn't have been
allowed to exist in the first place...


Ron Greenman

rongreen...@gmail.com

253.576.9700

The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner
Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera
director (1942-)


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:39 AM Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote:

> It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any level.
> Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to present
> grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  Good luck
> and keep us updated.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 'John Drucker' <
> john.druc...@verizon.net>
> *Cc:* Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ;
> Mitchell, Scott 
> *Subject:* RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>
>
>
> *Here is the latest on this:*
>
>
>
> *Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the
> cables dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that
> the amount of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to
> sprinkler the concealed space.*
>
>
>
> *A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector
> wanted plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers,
> it makes the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that
> fully understood as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems,
> as usual, there is a lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really
> pushing that the concealed space needs sprinklers.*
>
>
>
> *However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I
> feel that the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all
> that have been involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost
> several thousands of $$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major
> pet peeves.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum  *On
> Behalf Of *Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
> *To:* John Drucker 
> *Cc:* Travis Mack ;
> sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; Mitchell, Scott <
> scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov>
> *Subject:* Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>
>
>
> The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler
> contractor is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector
> won’t allow cover today in a particular area.
>
>
>
> This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector
> states he will accept only 3 options:
>
>
>
> 1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the
> area.
>
>
>
> 2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum
> quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way
> to quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for
> the sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify
> them.
>
>
>
> 3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the
> ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on
> center and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq
> ft per sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying
> to state the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs.
>
>
>
> All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a
> school.
>
>
>
> I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly.
>
> Travis Mack, SET
>
> Engineering Manager
>
> MFP Design
>
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>
> 480-505-9271 x700
>
> NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471
>
>
>
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum]

It’s one of the unintended consequences of government - at any level.  
Unfortunately, the only way to possibly effect improvement is to present 
grievances to superiors, then to the city council if necessary.  Good luck and 
keep us updated.

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:46 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 'John Drucker' 

Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; Mitchell, Scott 

Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Here is the latest on this:

Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the cables 
dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that the amount 
of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to sprinkler the 
concealed space.

A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector wanted 
plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers, it makes 
the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that fully understood 
as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems, as usual, there is a 
lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really pushing that the 
concealed space needs sprinklers.

However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I feel that 
the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all that have been 
involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost several thousands of 
$$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major pet peeves.


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
To: John Drucker mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>>
Cc: Travis Mack mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>;
 Mitchell, Scott mailto:scott.mitch...@cns.doe.gov>>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler contractor 
is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector won’t allow cover 
today in a particular area.

This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector 
states he will accept only 3 options:

1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the area.

2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum 
quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way to 
quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for the 
sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them.

3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the 
ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on center 
and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq ft per 
sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying to state 
the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs.

All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a 
school.

I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly.
Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>
travis.m...@ferguson.com<mailto:travis.m...@ferguson.com>
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>



On May 21, 2020, at 6:15 AM, John Drucker 
mailto:john.druc...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 on behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

That is processing 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>
travis.m...@ferguson.com<mailto:travis.m...@ferguson.com>
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum]

if there's a Code requirement or a published local amendment that requires 
plenum rated cable in a non plenum space, that's one thing.  But the annex 
material is very clear regarding intent of the standard that a nominal amount 
of combustible material, particularly cabling, does not change the 
classification of a non combustible concealed space to a combustible one.



Steve Leyton

(Sent from my phone; please excuse typos and voice text corruptions.)




 Original message 
From: "Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum" 

Date: 5/21/20 10:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org, 'John Drucker' 

Cc: "Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G" , "'Mitchell, 
Scott'" 
Subject: RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Here is the latest on this:

Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the cables 
dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that the amount 
of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to sprinkler the 
concealed space.

A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector wanted 
plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers, it makes 
the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that fully understood 
as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems, as usual, there is a 
lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really pushing that the 
concealed space needs sprinklers.

However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I feel that 
the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all that have been 
involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost several thousands of 
$$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major pet peeves.


From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
To: John Drucker 
Cc: Travis Mack ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 
Mitchell, Scott 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler contractor 
is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector won’t allow cover 
today in a particular area.

This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector 
states he will accept only 3 options:

1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the area.

2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum 
quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way to 
quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for the 
sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them.

3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the 
ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on center 
and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq ft per 
sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying to state 
the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs.

All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a 
school.

I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly.
Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>




On May 21, 2020, at 6:15 AM, John Drucker  wrote:

Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

That is processing 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>




On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and company.  
☺

Scott Mitchell

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkle

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum]

Here is the latest on this:

 

Inspector is going to require a data cabling drawing showing all of the cables 
dispersed through the school.  He then wants an FPE to sign off that the amount 
of cabling is not an issue to trigger the requirement to sprinkler the 
concealed space.

 

A bit more was learned.  It is not plenum rated cable and the inspector wanted 
plenum rated cable, as I understand it.  So, by forcing sprinklers, it makes 
the issue of plenum rated cable go away.  I may not have that fully understood 
as it was a 4th party conversation relay.  But, it seems, as usual, there is a 
lot more to the story.  The inspector is still really pushing that the 
concealed space needs sprinklers.

 

However, if this all goes away as not being required, this is where I feel that 
the AHJ should be held for monetary damages they cause.  For all that have been 
involved and the man hours dedicated to it, they have cost several thousands of 
$$ with zero repercussions.   This is one of my major pet peeves.

 

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:26 AM
To: John Drucker 
Cc: Travis Mack ; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; 
Mitchell, Scott 
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

 

The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler contractor 
is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector won’t allow cover 
today in a particular area. 

 

This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector 
states he will accept only 3 options:

 

1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the area. 

 

2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum 
quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way to 
quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for the 
sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them. 

 

3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the 
ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on center 
and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq ft per 
sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying to state 
the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs. 

 

All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a 
school. 

 

I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly. 

Travis Mack, SET

Engineering Manager

MFP Design

tm...@mfpdesign.com

travis.m...@ferguson.com

480-505-9271 x700

NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

 

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
 

 

 





On May 21, 2020, at 6:15 AM, John Drucker  wrote:

 

Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.  

 

John Drucker

 

  _  

From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping 

 

That is processing  

 

Travis Mack, SET

Engineering Manager

MFP Design

tm...@mfpdesign.com

travis.m...@ferguson.com

480-505-9271 x700

NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

 

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>
 

 

 





On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:

 

You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and company.  
:) 

 

Scott Mitchell

 

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

 

You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an 
audience with the little princess's boss - the king

 


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
 

Virus-free.  
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>
 www.avast.com 

 

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > wrote:

Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC 
to the owner for  their decision before it goes to medi

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Fpdcdesign via Sprinklerforum]

  
  

 Is the data cable rated?
  

  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On May 21, 2020 at 11:44 AM,   (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   
>   
> Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.
>   
>   
>
>   
>   
> John Drucker
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
> From:  Sprinklerforumon 
> behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum  
> 
>   Sent:  Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
>   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>   Cc:  Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
>   Subject:  Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping   
>   
>   
>   That is processing   
>
>   
>   
> Travis Mack, SET
>   
> Engineering Manager
>   
> MFP Design
>   
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
>   
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
>   
> 480-505-9271 x700
>   
> NEW MOBILE :   (480) 272-2471
>   
>
>   
> Send large files to us via:   https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign 
> (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0)
>   
>
>   
>
> 
>
>   
> > On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum  
> >   wrote:
> >   
> 
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >
> >  You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and 
> > company. J
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> >  Scott Mitchell
> >
> >   
> >
> > 
> >
> >   
> >
> > From:   Sprinklerforum 
> > On Behalf Of  J H via Sprinklerforum
> >   Sent:  Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
> >   To:  sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> >   Cc:  J H  
> >   Subject:  [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> > You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get 
> > an audience with the little princess's boss - the king
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >  Virus-free.  www.avast.com 
> > (https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link)
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum  
> >  > (mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org)>  wrote:
> >
> >   
> >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   
> > >
> > > Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past 
> > > the GC to the owner fortheir decision before it goes to mediation 
> > > etc. Check the contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler 
> > > sub is likely tied to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of 
> > > the day the owner pays the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s 
> > > contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC plus fee? How is the contingency money 
> > > handled? Split with the GC? 100% back to owner. I would know these things 
> > > before going this route. Good luck, this clearly isn’t right.
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rod DiBona
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Chief Operating Officer
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > R.F.P.G
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rapid Fire Protection Group
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > 1530 Samco Road
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Rapid City, SD 57702
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Office-605-348-2342
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > Cell- 605-391-3553
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > > www.rapidfireinc.com (http://www.rapidfireinc.com/)
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum]

The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler contractor 
is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector won’t allow cover 
today in a particular area. 

This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector 
states he will accept only 3 options:

1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the area. 

2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum 
quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way to 
quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for the 
sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them. 

3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the 
ceiling, including redesign and calculations.  Beams are about 10’ on center 
and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq ft per 
sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying to state 
the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs. 

All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a 
school. 

I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly. 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign



> On May 21, 2020, at 6:15 AM, John Drucker  wrote:
> 
> 
> Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.  
> 
> John Drucker
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  on 
> behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
> Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>  
> That is processing 
> 
> Travis Mack, SET
> Engineering Manager
> MFP Design
> tm...@mfpdesign.com
> travis.m...@ferguson.com
> 480-505-9271 x700
> NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471
> 
> Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
> 
> 
> 
>>> On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and 
>> company.  J
>>  
>> Scott Mitchell
>>  
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: J H 
>> Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>>  
>> You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get 
>> an audience with the little princess's boss - the king
>>  
>> 
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>  
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
>>  wrote:
>> Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the 
>> GC to the owner for  their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check 
>> the contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely 
>> tied to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner 
>> pays the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm 
>> fixed? GC plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 
>> 100% back to owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good 
>> luck, this clearly isn’t right.  
>>  
>>  
>> Rod DiBona
>> Chief Operating Officer
>> R.F.P.G
>> Rapid Fire Protection Group
>> 1530 Samco Road
>> Rapid City, SD 57702
>> Office-605-348-2342
>> Cell- 605-391-3553
>> www.rapidfireinc.com
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
>> Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Matt Grise' 
>> ; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
>> Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>>  
>> Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer 
>> for the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in 
>> compliance with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are 
>> permitted above the ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible.  This 
>> is data cabling and waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line 
>> in the sand to provide protection above the ceilings of a large high school. 
>>  I have been working getting informal interpretations from various entities 
>> to support our position.

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[John Denhardt via Sprinklerforum]

As Travis stated, it is in the works!  

Thanks,
John

John August Denhardt, P.E.
Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated
4011 Penn Belt Place
Forestville, Maryland 20747-4737
301.474.1136 - Office
301.343.1457 - Mobile

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack ; Mitchell, Scott 

Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

That is processing 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com<mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>
travis.m...@ferguson.com<mailto:travis.m...@ferguson.com>
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>




On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:

You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and company.  
☺

Scott Mitchell

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: J H mailto:design.azfire...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an 
audience with the little princess's boss - the king.

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC 
to the owner for  their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check the 
contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely tied 
to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner pays 
the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC 
plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 100% back to 
owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good luck, this 
clearly isn’t right.


Rod DiBona
Chief Operating Officer
R.F.P.G
Rapid Fire Protection Group
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605-348-2342
Cell- 605-391-3553
www.rapidfireinc.com<http://www.rapidfireinc.com/>

[cid:image001.jpg@01D62F51.B620FD00][cid:image002.jpg@01D62F51.B620FD00]




From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Matt Grise' 
mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer for 
the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in compliance 
with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are permitted above the 
ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible.  This is data cabling and 
waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line in the sand to provide 
protection above the ceilings of a large high school.  I have been working 
getting informal interpretations from various entities to support our position.

GC is telling sprinkler contractor it was design build so no change order.  
But, specs say to put sprinklers above ceiling if structure is combustible or 
if steel beams are not fire proofed.  In this project, the steel beams are fire 
proofed.  The contract “intent” drawings call out to add sprinklers below 
stairs if combustible but no where else in the project.  There is nothing to 
indicate sprinklers would be required above the ceilings.  A similar school 
built the next jurisdiction over does not have sprinklers above the ceiling.  I 
have been told other projects in this jurisdiction have the same construction 
and same situation with no sprinklers above the ceiling.  One of them 
referenced is a hospital.  I’m sure the data cabling in a hospital is far 
greater than a high school.

This one is g

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[John Drucker via Sprinklerforum]

Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott
Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

That is processing 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: 
https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightail.com%2Fu%2FMFPDesign=02%7C01%7C%7C1121d49f9e6b4cf248f108d4df580e77%7C14e5497c16da42e69ffa77d19bafe511%7C0%7C0%7C636379016677342180=eGdMZGu2wXhUupGwgGTrqF3b54OP5%2BAZvlHhABSexWY%3D=0>



On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
 wrote:


You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and company.  
☺

Scott Mitchell

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an 
audience with the little princess's boss - the king

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon>
Virus-free. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link>

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC 
to the owner for  their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check the 
contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely tied 
to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner pays 
the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC 
plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 100% back to 
owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good luck, this 
clearly isn’t right.


Rod DiBona
Chief Operating Officer
R.F.P.G
Rapid Fire Protection Group
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605-348-2342
Cell- 605-391-3553
www.rapidfireinc.com<http://www.rapidfireinc.com/>

[cid:image001.jpg@01D62F4E.38AEE970][cid:image002.jpg@01D62F4E.38AEE970]




From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Matt Grise' 
mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer for 
the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in compliance 
with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are permitted above the 
ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible.  This is data cabling and 
waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line in the sand to provide 
protection above the ceilings of a large high school.  I have been working 
getting informal interpretations from various entities to support our position.

GC is telling sprinkler contractor it was design build so no change order.  
But, specs say to put sprinklers above ceiling if structure is combustible or 
if steel beams are not fire proofed.  In this project, the steel beams are fire 
proofed.  The contract “intent” drawings call out to add sprinklers below 
stairs if combustible but no where else in the project.  There is nothing to 
indicate sprinklers would be required above the ceilings.  A similar school 
built the next jurisdiction over does not have sprinklers above the ceiling.  I 
have been told other projects in this jurisdiction have the same construction 
and same situation with no sprinklers above the ceiling.  One of them 
referenced is a hospital.  I’m sure the data cabling in a hospital is far 
greater than a high school.

This one is going to get interesting.  And probably pretty ugly.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>

Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum]

That is processing 

Travis Mack, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
480-505-9271 x700
NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471

Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign



> On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and 
> company.  J
>  
> Scott Mitchell
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: J H 
> Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>  
> You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an 
> audience with the little princess's boss - the king.
>  
> 
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>  
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
>  wrote:
> Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC 
> to the owner for  their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check the 
> contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely tied 
> to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner pays 
> the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC 
> plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 100% back 
> to owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good luck, this 
> clearly isn’t right.  
>  
>  
> Rod DiBona
> Chief Operating Officer
> R.F.P.G
> Rapid Fire Protection Group
> 1530 Samco Road
> Rapid City, SD 57702
> Office-605-348-2342
> Cell- 605-391-3553
> www.rapidfireinc.com
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Matt Grise' 
> ; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
> Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>  
> Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer for 
> the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in compliance 
> with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are permitted above the 
> ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible.  This is data cabling and 
> waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line in the sand to provide 
> protection above the ceilings of a large high school.  I have been working 
> getting informal interpretations from various entities to support our 
> position.
>  
> GC is telling sprinkler contractor it was design build so no change order.  
> But, specs say to put sprinklers above ceiling if structure is combustible or 
> if steel beams are not fire proofed.  In this project, the steel beams are 
> fire proofed.  The contract “intent” drawings call out to add sprinklers 
> below stairs if combustible but no where else in the project.  There is 
> nothing to indicate sprinklers would be required above the ceilings.  A 
> similar school built the next jurisdiction over does not have sprinklers 
> above the ceiling.  I have been told other projects in this jurisdiction have 
> the same construction and same situation with no sprinklers above the 
> ceiling.  One of them referenced is a hospital.  I’m sure the data cabling in 
> a hospital is far greater than a high school.
>  
> This one is going to get interesting.  And probably pretty ugly.
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Matt Grise' 
> ; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
> Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>  
> Yeah.  That is the conundrum we are in. 
>  
> From: Sprinklerforum  On 
> Behalf Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani ; Matt Grise 
> Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping
>  
> Only problem is its vague and I think the committee did that on purpose. 
> “minor quantities”  is up for too much interpretation
>  
> Rocci Cetani III, CET
> Senior Designer
> Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III
>  
> Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
> 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
> Morgan Hill, CA 93037
> P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010
> F-(408) 776-1590
>  
>  
> roc...@norcalfire.com
> www.norcalfire.com
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
> contain confidential information
> belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of 
> individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or 
> the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended 
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of 
> any 

RE: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum]

You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and company.  
☺

Scott Mitchell

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of J H via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: J H 
Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an 
audience with the little princess's boss - the king.

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]

Virus-free. 
www.avast.com


On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 wrote:
Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC 
to the owner for  their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check the 
contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely tied 
to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner pays 
the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC 
plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 100% back to 
owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good luck, this 
clearly isn’t right.


Rod DiBona
Chief Operating Officer
R.F.P.G
Rapid Fire Protection Group
1530 Samco Road
Rapid City, SD 57702
Office-605-348-2342
Cell- 605-391-3553
www.rapidfireinc.com

[cid:image001.jpg@01D62F4E.38AEE970][cid:image002.jpg@01D62F4E.38AEE970]




From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Matt Grise' 
mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer for 
the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in compliance 
with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are permitted above the 
ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible.  This is data cabling and 
waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line in the sand to provide 
protection above the ceilings of a large high school.  I have been working 
getting informal interpretations from various entities to support our position.

GC is telling sprinkler contractor it was design build so no change order.  
But, specs say to put sprinklers above ceiling if structure is combustible or 
if steel beams are not fire proofed.  In this project, the steel beams are fire 
proofed.  The contract “intent” drawings call out to add sprinklers below 
stairs if combustible but no where else in the project.  There is nothing to 
indicate sprinklers would be required above the ceilings.  A similar school 
built the next jurisdiction over does not have sprinklers above the ceiling.  I 
have been told other projects in this jurisdiction have the same construction 
and same situation with no sprinklers above the ceiling.  One of them 
referenced is a hospital.  I’m sure the data cabling in a hospital is far 
greater than a high school.

This one is going to get interesting.  And probably pretty ugly.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>; 'Matt Grise' 
mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Yeah.  That is the conundrum we are in.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>; Matt 
Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Only problem is its vague and I think the committee did that on purpose. “minor 
quantities”  is up for too much interpretation

Rocci Cetani III, CET
Senior Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010
F-(408) 776-1590

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[John Drucker via Sprinklerforum]

Again another poorly written code section. The sooner we get the codes and 
standards to use language that’s objective rather than subjective the sooner 
science will prevail. In the meantime be prepared to put the decision making in 
the hands of enforcers who will typically make decisions conservatively.

John Drucker


From: Sprinklerforum  on behalf 
of Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum 
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 01:23
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Mark.Phelps
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Another thing to keep in mind is that having combustible material in the attic 
space of type IB construction does not change the construction type.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Matt Grise' 
; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Yeah.  That is the conundrum we are in.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>; Matt 
Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Only problem is its vague and I think the committee did that on purpose. “minor 
quantities”  is up for too much interpretation

Rocci Cetani III, CET
Senior Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com<mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>
www.norcalfire.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.norcalfire.com_=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=xKTVs8YK9AG3SA6mPFyD9GEk7AgrWw9LHZW4sMYI0eI=pwVDN-yo4gN8m5-VLVZ1j4XKAPCRSRQS2BwQvZGuuJk=>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
contain confidential information
belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the 
employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of 
any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately 
notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:52 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

The NFPA13 annex and handbook address this directly.

NFPA 13 A8.15.1.2.1 “minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not 
limited to cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping… …should not typically be 
viewed as requiring sprinklers.”

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:39 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

We have a fairly good sized school project. Plumber ran ABS drain piping.  
Electrician has some cabling not in conduit.  Inspector is stating the space is 
now combustible and requires sprinklers above all ceiling areas.  Has anyone 
run into this and how was it resolved?

Drawings and specs do not indicate sprinklers required above ceiling spaces.  
But the GC is trying to force it down the contractor’s throat if it is required 
and of course it is now holding up the job.

[MFP_logo_F]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.mfpdesign.com-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CSttrIB9CfFxeMf-2D7pVmoE0k6-5FpscjwXmxhUTVEZGWqOrfVv-5FRPWQIfQUKROuTyjZCm-2DrOVW8fmWBaZ3y-5Fz2Vqz49Ef7R7Xs-5Fg-5FpgCVhDupBL3AWdHQD4Ndlu0rU-2C-26typo-3D1=DwMFaQ=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg=xKTVs8YK9AG3SA6mPFyD9GEk7AgrWw9LHZW4sMYI0eI=ZAIjlm6HWcfAV2FSuoKbGe1jVRmghu9pouV-Os46Hgg=>
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW

RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

[Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum]

Another thing to keep in mind is that having combustible material in the attic 
space of type IB construction does not change the construction type.

Mark at Aero
602 820-7894

From: Sprinklerforum  On Behalf 
Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G ; 'Matt Grise' 
; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Yeah.  That is the conundrum we are in.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani mailto:roc...@norcalfire.com>>; Matt 
Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

Only problem is its vague and I think the committee did that on purpose. “minor 
quantities”  is up for too much interpretation

Rocci Cetani III, CET
Senior Designer
Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III

Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc.
16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A
Morgan Hill, CA 93037
P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010
F-(408) 776-1590


roc...@norcalfire.com
www.norcalfire.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may 
contain confidential information
belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the 
employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of 
any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately 
notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents.

From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:52 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise mailto:m...@afpsprink.com>>
Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

The NFPA13 annex and handbook address this directly.

NFPA 13 A8.15.1.2.1 “minor quantities of combustible materials such as but not 
limited to cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping… …should not typically be 
viewed as requiring sprinklers.”

Matt


From: Sprinklerforum 
mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
 On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:39 PM
To: 
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G 
mailto:tm...@mfpdesign.com>>
Subject: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping

We have a fairly good sized school project. Plumber ran ABS drain piping.  
Electrician has some cabling not in conduit.  Inspector is stating the space is 
now combustible and requires sprinklers above all ceiling areas.  Has anyone 
run into this and how was it resolved?

Drawings and specs do not indicate sprinklers required above ceiling spaces.  
But the GC is trying to force it down the contractor’s throat if it is required 
and of course it is now holding up the job.

[MFP_logo_F]
Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET
Engineering Manager
MFP Design
3356 E Vallejo Ct
Gilbert, AZ 85298
NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700
NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471
tm...@mfpdesign.com
travis.m...@ferguson.com
www.mfpdesign.com

Send large files to us via: