The AHJ told me "I don't care what the codes say. Do it my way or no CofO." I am appealing to the State FM while arranging to change the pumps to 2000 gpm. We have a written notice from the GC to get our plans approved. The GC has tried to reason with the badge. That's when he was told they would accept a fire watch until the pumps are changed.
Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:57 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > And A.4.8. > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: '[email protected]' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > See NFPA 20:4.8.1. > > Duane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground > > The project is a 700k sq ft type Vb construction. B105.2 calls out 8000 GPM > fire flow. The locally adopted reduction is 50%, so 8000 x50% =4000 GPM. They > are correct about the flow rate. They just don't understand that that is what > is required from the municipal water system to the site for manual fire > fighting. They believe that out sprinkler booster pumps need to produce 4000 > GPM at their 100% design point, and feel that operating a fire pump in excess > odors design point of 100% is somehow bad. > Mark at Aero > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:32 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The question still stands why 4000? >> >> Duane >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time >> To: [email protected] >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground >> >> The stance of the AHJ is that their unwritten policy is pumps can only be >> used at 100%. They also believe that 1500 gpm pumps will only produce 1500 >> gpm, and we have to use 2 2000 gpm pumps to get 4000 gpm. They don't think >> pressure is even a factor. >> >> Ron fletcher Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> There are so many things wrong here. But, you may be able to make this work >>> regardless. Did you take your 75% reduction in fire flow based on the fully >>> sprinklered exception in B105.2? If you are starting at 4000 gpm, the >>> required flow can be reduced to 1500 gpm if fully sprinklered. Doesn't that >>> work with your pumps? >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] >>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:51 AM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: '[email protected]' >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground >>> >>> Has Annex B been adopted? See 101.2.1? >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:35 AM Eastern Standard Time >>> To: [email protected] >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground >>> >>> Hi John, >>> What Ron didn't say is that the AHJ is trying to connect chapter 5 of the >>> IFC and table B105.2 fire flow requirements to our sprinkler system pumps. >>> We conceded early on to furnish a redundant pump because it was specified >>> that way, but the FM is expecting the fire pumps to provide the 4000 GPM >>> from B105.2 at the sprinkler (ESFR) demand pressure (165 PSI) and do so at >>> the 100% design point of the fire pump. We submitted our design with two >>> 1500 GPM pumps piped in parallel along with calcs for the storage >>> sprinklers flowing at around 165 PSI at the pump discharge. The city water >>> system which supplies the project flow tested at 5700 GPM at 74 PSI from >>> two 4" hydrant butts. No one at the AHJ's office understands how to read a >>> fire code, or any other code for that matter. They are "Code Alchemist", >>> taking a paragraph from chapter 5, table from the annex, and numbers from >>> our calcs, mix 'em all together in an AHJ beaker and BOOM!! "Minimum code >>> requirement". See? This stuff a i > n >> 't >>> all that hard. >>> >>> Mark at Aero >>> 602 820-7894 >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:24 AM, "John Drucker" >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Like how you wrote; " everything is per code except we have". "Except" ?, >>> Are you/they saying that having two pumps rather than one is a violation; >>> I.e. " 4000 GPM at 160 vs 4000 at 165" and you're short 5 psi ? So two >>> code violations, two pumps and short 5 psi. Now before you chop my head >>> off, consider two things wheres the one pump and 165 psi coming from ? >>> Somehow apparently this has been planted in the ahjs head, I'm certain >>> he/she didn't come up with it on there own. Now you're stuck. Frankly and >>> using common sense are you hitting demand, does everything fit and work >>> together, is the principal designer and owner ok with it ? Move forward. >>> >>> John Drucker - Mobile Email >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> >>> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 >>> >>> >>> [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Cell/Text: 732-904-6823 >>> >>> Safe Buildings Save Lives ! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >>> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:04 PM >>> To: >>> [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected]<mailto:[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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
