Thanks for responding Steve. It would be the 2013 IFC with California amendments renamed the CFC, correct? O
Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 23, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen: > > Correction – you are NOT working with 2013 or 2016 IFC, but instead with the > CFC. State amendments preclude those alternate means of supervision and > require it to be electronic (903.4 and 903.4.1). > > Steve Leyton > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Owen Evans > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 9:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: PIV Supervion, lock or tamper switch? > > As most of you know, I work exclusively with 13D systems. I do on occasion > get questions on the big boy systems, 13 and 13R. The property in question > is a boutique hotel, two buildings. One building is a two story, fifty room > hotel and the other building is two story, restaurant on the first floor and > banquet facility on second floor with a roof deck. Each building has a FDC > and a PIV. I am in California which is under the 2013 IFC. > > I recently had the question asked "does the PIV require electrical > supervision?" NFPA states a lock is adequate, the 2013 IFC states electrical > supervision is required, with exceptions. I get different answers form > different people. I'm thinking it's the more restrictive 2013 IFC. Which is > it? > > Thank you, > Owen Evans > _______________________________________________ > 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
