Thank you Steve. This is great ammo! I wrote back to the GC addressing some other glaring issues with the engineer's FP drawings, such as a note for 4" to extend to the rooftop FDC (?) which is not actually shown on any plan - and there's already a stairwell up to the rooftop that has a hose valve at the top landing - as well as two stairwells with hose valves located behind doors. I addressed both issues with NFPA 14 references. I then addressed the hose valves by basically challenging the "as required" part of their note on the contract drawings. Considering there is nothing in NFPA 14 that requires those hose valves, I have satisfied the "as required" part by not including them. The GC, who had originally asked me to include them to "keep everyone happy," replied saying my response should be enough to explain to the engineer why the valves weren't included. If the engineer is insistent after that, then I will certainly be using your points in my next reply on the topic.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:29 AM Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote: > Huh? Are they required by… a loose cannon EOR? The AHJ? Codes and > standards? > > > > James – how many stories is this building? Are these two-story apartments > within a multi-story building that’s taller than two stories? Not that it > matters, but what floor is the main entry for these units? Here’s the > thing – NFPA 14 and the IBC codes (also state codes based on IBC, such as > California) require a standpipe hose connection on each level (main or > intermediate) of every required exit stair. Interior stairs within > multi-story dwelling units (even in a multi-story building) are not exit > stairs as defined by the building code. So if the context of the question > is whether these valves are required by code, the answer is unconditionally > NO. > > > > Assuming the AHJ agrees with that take (implied by their approval), then > simply capitulating to this EOR is going to eff up the dwelling units big > time. Is this person also requiring the 44” egress pathway clearance on > those stairs? THAT’S a question that should grind their gears to a stop, > because you cannot safely (or aesthetically) locate a standpipe hose > connection in a 36-42” wide condo stairwell. Also ask this oracle of fire > protection systems how he/she would prescribe piping to these valves – are > the units stacked so that one riser could serve a valve per unit or are > they horizontally arrayed and the valves supplied by branch lines? > Keeping in mind that if two or more are supplied by a horizontal pipe then > it becomes a horizontal standpipe? No matter the configuration, how does > the EOR propose that the standpipe serving these connections be protected > by construction equal to what’s required for the exit stairway if the > stairways in question aren’t fire rated? In a midrise building the stair > shafts have to be 2-hour but dwelling unit envelopes are only 1-hour? Go > ahead and ask the GC to craft THAT RFI: “Please confirm that two-story > townhome units must be 2-hour construction to protect standpipe(s).” > > > > Just giving in because they offer to pay you is going to open a Pandora’s > Box of issues if the building and fire officials know the nuances of IBC > 905 and NFPA 14. I would write a summary of the holes in this groundless > opinion and then inform the GC and owner that the impact of this additive > change is delay, cost and potentially impeachment of the approved building > construction type. That should turn the conversation. > > > > > > The foregoing is my opinion only and does not represent NFPA or the NFPA > 14 Technical Committee, nor intended to serve as an interpretation of the > standard. It also reflects that I’m getting pretty sick and tired of the > self-annointed experts in our industry that don’t know what they’re talking > about. > > > > *Protection Design and Consulting* > > Steve Leyton, President > > T *|* 619.255.8964 x 102 *| * > *www.protectiondesign.com <http://www.protectiondesign.com/> *2851 Camino > Del Rio South *|* Suite 210 *|* San Diego, CA 92108 > Fire Protection System Design *|* Consulting *|* Planning *|* Training > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* matthew.will...@ferguson.com <matthew.will...@ferguson.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 5:58 AM > *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: Hose Valves in Townhome Apartments > > > > Yes. The EOR said so after the fact.. Price the change, add the valves. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > *Please rate our customer service > <https://survey.medallia.com/?emailsignature&fc=3539&bg=Fire%20and%20Fabrication>* > > > > *Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, CET* > > *Engineering Manager – Southwest Region* > > *FERGUSON FIRE DESIGN, LLC* > > *A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC* > > 3508 Hwy. 557 > > West Monroe, LA. 71292 > > C: 307-236-8249 > > *matthew.will...@ferguson.com <matthew.will...@ferguson.com>* > > *www.FergusonFire.com <http://www.fergusonfire.com/>* > > > > > > *From:* James Litvak <jameslit...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 7:55 AM > *To:* AFSA Sprinkler Forum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Hose Valves in Townhome Apartments > > > > *Caution: This email originated from outside of the organization. DO NOT > click links or open attachments unless you recognize and trust the sender. * > ------------------------------ > > I am designing an NFPA 13 mid-rise apartment building that includes > three townhome-style two-floor apartments. The EOR put a note on the FP > plans to locate a hose valve on each floor of those units "AS REQUIRED." I > didn't put them on my plans because I have never seen them required in > similar units in other buildings. The EOR's review comments came back > saying "Fire Protection permit review indicated hose valves required in > 2-story units." I have requested the fire protection permit review comments > and was told by the GC it is unlikely we'll receive them, and that I should > just include those valves. My plans were approved by the AHJ without those > valves. It is the EOR now refusing to accept my plans without the valves. > > > > Are those valves required? > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to sprinklerforum-le...@lists.firesprinkler.org
