Sometimes that's what it takes, success often involves some level of negotiation.
John -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground You're alright like most of us the psychology part of sprinkler work just makes you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit , right? > On Jul 18, 2014, at 9:09 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about everything is per code except we have two pumps rather than one.and we have 4000 GM at 160 psi instead of.4000 gpm at 165 psi. Most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Just found out the chief told plan reviewer no more written correspondence. I guess because they don't want a written orecord of their stupidity. Please forgive my frustration but I just don't know where to go from here.. > > Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, "John Drucker - Home" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ron, et.al. >> >> I don't know the particulars of your situation but we have a saying; >> there's your side, their side and the truth. Perhaps there's an >> issue with the code itself, a local amendment or interpretation. >> There's got to be something driving this. >> >> Case in point about a reference standard, NFPA-72 speaks of wall >> mounted smoke detectors/alarms and calls out a distance yet the >> illustration in the annex is worded differently than the code. >> >> 29.8.3.3 Wall Mounting. Smoke alarms or smoke detectors mounted on >> walls shall be located NOT FARTHER than 12 in. (300 mm) from the >> adjoining ceiling surface. >> >> Yet the annex A.29.8.3 notes; "Measurements shown are to the closest >> edge of the detector". >> >> According to the annex this would place part or most of the alarm or >> detector FARTHER than 12 in. from the adjoining ceiling surface. >> >> It's important to note that Annex A opens with the following >> statement; >> >> "Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but >> is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains >> explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs" >> >> Yet when brought to NFPA's attention the answer from the NFPA >> representative was interpreted from the Annex material. This is >> clearly incorrect, the annex and the illustration are not part of the code. In either case fix the >> code language or the annex. The same happens in I Code Commentaries and >> various subject matter books that often interpret, amend or >> supplement the actual code language. In a nutshell our codes and >> standards have become a maze of requirements, exceptions and >> interpretations. This should be a warning flag to the code >> community. Perhaps the code official has just reached his limit and >> is instead relying on empirical experience in the face of confusion. >> >> I have situation at this very moment on two different projects that >> impose an operational issue for the fire department, one that the >> code is not considering. However my approach is to get everyone >> around the table do some brainstorming and come up with an equitable technical solution. >> Perhaps by finding the root cause of your situation the stakeholders will >> put down their swords and solve the problem. Food for thought. >> >> Best wishes, always available should the need arise. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> John >> >> John Drucker, CET >> Assistant Construction Official >> Fire Protection Subcode Official >> Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector >> Borough of Red Bank >> Red Bank, New Jersey >> Email: [email protected] >> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 >> >> Safe Buildings Save Lives ! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum >> [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground >> >> It's Friday so I figured I'd whine on the forum. To set the stage, >> prior to the letter I am referring to we had approved permitted >> drawings from the AHJ. The following is a quote from a letter we received from that same AHJ. >> >> "At this time , Blah Blah Blah Fire Protection District is denying >> said plans and is requesting a re-submittal of new plans that exceed >> IFC, UFC, and NFPA standards." Nowhere in the body of the letter does >> he say exactly how we are to "EXCEED" IFC, UFC and NFPA. In the >> letter they basically outline that what was submitted meets the all >> of the codes. I was told by the author of the letter at a meeting the >> day before that he didn't care what the code said because he is the >> AHJ and per Section 104 of the IFC he can make us do whatever he >> wants. Then he said "do it my way or there will be no Certificate of >> Occupancy." We are 4-5 weeks away from a CofO and the change >> involves increasing the size of two new diesel pumps that are being >> installed. The fire chief told us to go to the State Fire Marshal if we wanted to appeal. I'm a bit frustrated with AHJ's right now. >> >> Ron F >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
