It doesn't help, the public doesn't understand codes and a smart media relations person will point out public and firefighter safety being compromised over money which in the end is what this is all about. When refuted the point will be made to the contractor that if the pump manufacturer was willing to provide the pumps for no charge and pick up the labor most would install just like they did after Tyco ponied up for o ring sprinkler replacement. Money changes everything. Like I said everyone needs to sheath their swords and work this out, apparently the GC has already conceded, so he's sitting with the FM.
John Drucker - Mobile Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cell/Text 732-904-6823 "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: Ever thought about you and a few other contractors getting together with a reporter? Nice little article about the abuses of government should help. Chris Cahill Fire Protection Engineer Burns & McDonnell 952-656-3652 [email protected] -------- Original message -------- From: [email protected] Date:07/19/2014 8:09 AM (GMT-06:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Segue to AHJ's from CPVC Underground This is where the universe starts to wobble, and then slip into a black hole. I sent them this very section to show that our design MEETS their code. They sent that section back to me to show that it DOESN'T. Then told us to do it their way, or appeal to the State Fire Marshal. 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 _______________________________________________ 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
