No. And there's a host of baggage with the site guy. That's why we ended up doing the flushing, and why we're testing. He installed the UG system without calling for any inspection so AJ cannot verify leakage at joints, thrust blocks/megalugs, depth of bury. Grapevine has it that there was a leaking 90 below a lead-in- Instead of fixing prior to hydro, they cut in a valve and shut it off. So I've acknowledged the baggage, but point to a narrow focus despite whatever else has occurred: GC hired us to test per #24. We did and passed with 14 gal allowable leakage when allowance was 72.
So the question remains Does the IFC wording Test per #24 AND AS ACCEPTED BY THE LOCAL AHJ Mean he picks criteria from #24 or does he witness and accept the procedure we choose? -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of bver...@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:27 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: AHJ right or wong? Did the U/G contractor test with the joints exposed? Bruce Verhei 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: chr...@sentryfiremn.com Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org 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 g...@rowesprinkler.com 570-837-7647 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (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: techsupp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
