George, Did the contractor schedule an inspection and the AHJ refused to do it ?
I've been known to see work going on and remind a contractor of the required inspections prior to close up, but ultimately it's up to the contractor to schedule and obtain a satisfactory inspection before proceeding. Appeals boards typically ask licensed contractors if they're familiar with the regulations, it's a rhetorical question since a no answer undoubtedly lands them in deeper trouble and yes answer affirms the inspectors citation. You're a great guy trying to help the owner out of a jam but it usually has the effect of providing a way out, and thus repeat behavior on the part of the offending contractor. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? No argument, John. However, its not like their inspectors weren't onsite numerous times during the construction- it's an 833,000 SF building, this wasn't hidden behind a barn during construction. I've proposed having them dig up 90's and tees under grass since the site guy isn't smart enough to have thought out putting TBs where its exposable later, and skipping them under the pavement/concr apron. They can't see next week, let alone think thru something like that. So its probably a valid sampling to check at accessible areas. As for depth of bury, that can be done while checking TBs and drop a tape down at curb boxes and PIVs under macadam. The attempted concealment isn't defensible, their equivalent to spkr guys taping a gauge at 200 PSI. But that would be for the AHJ to pursue, I'm simply trying to get the job finalized with a reasonable validation process. In a discussion with the AHJ last eve, we made significant headway, I believe- not because I'm right on the ability of the AHJ to determine the criteria applied, but because the allowable leakage was just over what was allowed with the hydrants closed, and we had them open. That indicated the leakage was not as bad as it had been in the past since numerous leaks were detected and fixed over the past couple months. We'll know more in a day or two, after he discusses with his inspector who did witness the entire procedure. We now have a GC customer that is intimately familiar with #24's requirements, and is a believer in sprinklers that saved their office yesterday AM, too. glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? "He installed the UG system without calling for any inspection.........." Frankly you'd be digging this thing up in my jurisdiction and here's what I'd cite; N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.18 Inspections (b) Inspections during the progress of work: The construction official and appropriate subcode officials shall carry out periodic inspections during the progress of work to ensure that work inspected conforms to the requirements of the code. (c) Notice for inspection: 1. The owner or other responsible person in charge of work shall notify the enforcing agency when the work is ready for any required inspection specified herein or required by the construction official or appropriate subcode official. This notice shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the time the inspection is desired. This notice shall represent an attestation on the part of the owner, other than single-family owner-occupants performing their own work, or other responsible person in charge of work, that the work has been completed in conformance with the code and is ready for inspection. 2. Inspections shall be performed within three business days of the time for which it was requested. The work shall not proceed in a manner which will preclude the inspection until it has been made. Sorry George but this whole thing stinks. Unfortunately the AHJ is looking in NFPA-24 when he/she should be looking in the administrative provisions of the jurisdictions construction code. Lastly the "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." Constitutes concealment and deception and with that grounds for revocation or suspension of license in my state. Sincerely John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: AHJ right or wong? 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:27 PM To: [email protected] 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: [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) _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
