He can only approve (or not) the test in accordance with the standard is the way I see it. If he has a policy for 1/3 the allowable that's not kosher. And if he has an ordinance then he can go 1/3 or whatever the ordinance says. But even in MN the ordinance wouldn't fly because the code by statute is the maximum that can be enforced. Might what to check into that angle.
What does the standard say about the issue on the valves. Speculating here cause I'm not sure what valves or what test. I assume you are talking about a hydrant lateral valve that is leaking under a hydro test? If so why not charge the system then close the valve like he wants. Would he know the hydrant was full and keeping leakage at bay? And isn't this a normally open valve in the first place? And if there is a leaking valve why wouldn't the owner want it replaced never mind what the AHJ wants? How did your retainage become entangled if your work is done and OK? You said the UG was another's problem you are just helping. That will teach you to be helpful.... Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Spkr Save About to get in pssing contest with local AHJ on UG test per #24. We sprinklered an 833,000 sf ESFR box, didn't do UG loop. Site guy couldn't get test to pass with hydrants closed. We were asked to help, and I suggested testing with hydrants open. We did that and it passed, only 1/3 allowable leakage allowed. However, the local AHJ is refusing to pass it, saying he wants it re-tested with hydrants closed the way it went initially. I'm about to ask him where he sees that in #24; but the following wording "and as approved by the fire code official" in the IFC (see below) might give him a leg to stand on. Can any of you agree or disagree? Would the below require a local amendment be in place? My retainage of >$100k, not to mention the GC's, is hanging in limbo. >From IFC 2006 901.5 Installation acceptance testing. Fire detection and alarm systems, fire-extinguishing systems, fire hydrant systems, fire standpipe systems, fire pump systems, private fire service mains and all other fire protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be subject to acceptance tests as contained in the installation standards and as approved by the fire code official. The fire code official shall be notified before any required acceptance testing. George Church' Rowe Sprinkler [email protected] 570-837-7647 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
