Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
I did the plan review and never rubber stamp them.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Demanding fire chief with no authority
- Thread starter Mr. Inspector
- Start date
I did the plan review and never rubber stamp them.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Regarding advice, assure your risk is protected since your involved in signing a C of O
and hope there is enough design on that system to account for tenant’s operation
and racking height.
I'm just inspecting. I work for a 3rd party. I don't sign the C. of O.'s. The BCO (building
code official) does, who by the way I never met. I move around between about 50
different jurisdictions.
and hope there is enough design on that system to account for tenant’s operation
and racking height.
I'm just inspecting. I work for a 3rd party. I don't sign the C. of O.'s. The BCO (building
code official) does, who by the way I never met. I move around between about 50
different jurisdictions.
FM William Burns
Moderator
So since the other posting indicates “I reviewed the plans.....”. And your getting tenant plans..... my next piece of advice would be to CYA and assure that in your review you account for notifying that “potential” tenant of the need for the sprinkler system to have a design compliant with Chap 9 and the referenced standard(s).
Since this appears to be the burden of the incoming tenant to rectify and assure compliant design based on their operations you would want that disclaimer. My motto has always been to always prevent being live at 5.
Best wishes in your endeavors in fire code enforcement for the other jurisdiction and I’ll pay forward another piece of advice a former fire chief of mine from Metro Dade taught me, “It takes 5 years to get the badge out of your head and back on the shirt where it belongs to be good at the position”. The advice is a great way to remind a regulator not to be driven by power or authority in the profession.
Since this appears to be the burden of the incoming tenant to rectify and assure compliant design based on their operations you would want that disclaimer. My motto has always been to always prevent being live at 5.
Best wishes in your endeavors in fire code enforcement for the other jurisdiction and I’ll pay forward another piece of advice a former fire chief of mine from Metro Dade taught me, “It takes 5 years to get the badge out of your head and back on the shirt where it belongs to be good at the position”. The advice is a great way to remind a regulator not to be driven by power or authority in the profession.
Someone needs to make T-shirts with these quotes on them.
In all seriousness though, amazing motto and piece of advice. I see how this is applicable to a lot of people starting with me. I don't have a badge but did have the need to get my professional license pounded out of my head by years of experience and back on the wall where it belongs. LOL.
Thanks for sharing.
jeffc
Bronze Member
My take away from all of these posts is that we inspect to the minimum, (see IBC, IFC, IRC Section 101.3). I'm constantly asking for colleagues to "Show me in the code" where they have the authority to require.... Some just continue to give justification and think that is as good as a code reference. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
ADAguy
Registered User
How are these seen by you as "additional" when they are "required"?
When did your rough plumbing inspection occur?
Where are the design professionals in all of this?
FM William Burns
Moderator
Enri Code, When I started in the fire service I quickly learned and developed the quote, “fire suppression is a failure in prevention”. This would help fire suppression personnel buy into prevention. When I was a Captain, I always explained to new firefighters the secret to a successful career in the service could be by following the motto, “Bench 250, cook 350 pick up your check every two weeks and contribute by being a Do’er and not a Don’t”. I have been blessed and believe in paying it forward and bridging gaps through the loss of ego’s.
Comments on statements.
My understanding is that ultimately the building owner is responsible for code compliance. Thus I suggest that notifying a tenant of need for code compliance has no effect. What if another tenant takes over the building and initially makes no changes to the space?
Provisions in the code that attempt to give the building official permission to arbitrarily require something are improperly written. Such provisions are the equivalent of giving the building official the authority to adopt new regulations, a right that they do not have.. What if the code official required a hose connection every 10 feet?
My understanding is that ultimately the building owner is responsible for code compliance. Thus I suggest that notifying a tenant of need for code compliance has no effect. What if another tenant takes over the building and initially makes no changes to the space?
"notifying that “potential” tenant of the need for the sprinkler system to have a design compliant with Chap 9 and the referenced standard(s).
Provisions in the code that attempt to give the building official permission to arbitrarily require something are improperly written. Such provisions are the equivalent of giving the building official the authority to adopt new regulations, a right that they do not have.. What if the code official required a hose connection every 10 feet?
"code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations".
ADAguy
Registered User
Note as well, the buildings fire insurance carrier should be asked to weigh in on this issue.
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
By all means get the insurance loss prevention engineer involved in the review. As an insurance person I have been down this road many times. I have gotten everyone in the room and attempt to work out the problems. Education goes a long way and explaining how things work particularly for the FD.
As a firefighter this can be a big problem if this the biggest building they respond to when a few years ago it was a cornfield. The concept of sprinkler protection and how it works in a large building is something they may not understand. Believe me from someone who has trained firefighters on sprinkler systems for 36 years a lot of mis-information on the topic.
Class I commodity......Wow! Hopefully you have an ESFR system in the building. Even then
unless they designed for Group A plastics, you may have much bigger problems then
standpipes!
As a firefighter this can be a big problem if this the biggest building they respond to when a few years ago it was a cornfield. The concept of sprinkler protection and how it works in a large building is something they may not understand. Believe me from someone who has trained firefighters on sprinkler systems for 36 years a lot of mis-information on the topic.
Class I commodity......Wow! Hopefully you have an ESFR system in the building. Even then
unless they designed for Group A plastics, you may have much bigger problems then
standpipes!
FM William Burns
Moderator
FM William Burns
Moderator
First, there are guidelines in the standard for distances in hose connections and in a problematic area(s) the official has to have that flexibility. It would be a hard sell in the example distances mentioned.
A big problem nationally is where large companies get lured to underdeveloped areas with limited code enforcement for many different reasons. Far too often a building owner will put in a system in a shell and contract tenants to be responsible for modifications based on their operations.
Like IE mentions in a reply, education is the key. Having all interests at the table in the pre-construction phase is important. In reality, a 1.3 million s.f. building is typically built for a specific tenant.
I can only deduce from the information provided that the Fire Chief was asking for access to the riser valves (in the standard) and hose connections from the sprinkler system (also in the standard). He just didn’t apply the requested provisions of the code’s referenced standards correctly.
Now in the event the system is not designed correctly for the storage commodities, water supply and duration requirements. Anyone having a applicable regulatory interest in the facility would be advised to assure the compliance is followed through before occupancy. If the system is in compliance for the hazard it is a moot issue.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
The fire chief doesn't know the IBC codes and does not do or qualify to do plan reviews.
Hose connections are not required at all in this building per IBC.
The building was not built for a special tenant but dose have fast acting sprinklers if a rack system was used.
Never herd of a insurance loss prevention engineer. I don't give a dam about the insurance company. You are asking me to do something that is not required per code. Not paid for it and don't have any contact information for owners or insurance company. If my boss found out I am doing anything about this I would get in trouble.
Hose connections are not required at all in this building per IBC.
The building was not built for a special tenant but dose have fast acting sprinklers if a rack system was used.
Never herd of a insurance loss prevention engineer. I don't give a dam about the insurance company. You are asking me to do something that is not required per code. Not paid for it and don't have any contact information for owners or insurance company. If my boss found out I am doing anything about this I would get in trouble.
Seems like you have done your job.
You are third party, and there is a BO for the City.
So if the Chief has a Beef, he has a direct line to the BO.
Move on have a cup of coffee and a great day of inspecting.
That could be a costly attitude for the owner. The insurance carrier could say “your (fire suppression system) (alarm system) (sidewalk hazards) (fume hood system) is deficient so we are going to double your monthly premium and double your deductible to protect ourself from possible claims due to your negligence.
Please explain.
There is a difference between the adopted regulations and good practice. While the designer can and should consider things not in the regulations the regulations must be clear and ideally unambitious so the building owner knows in advance what is required. The purpose of a preconstruction meeting is not for the inspector to impose additional requirements.
If the regulations are inadequate or deficient the answer is not to give an individual the ability to impose new requirements. Such a thing is equivalent to appointing an autocrat. I believe such practices are in conflict with our right that new laws not be imposed without due process.
If the regulations are deficient then revise them.
If the regulations are inadequate or deficient the answer is not to give an individual the ability to impose new requirements. Such a thing is equivalent to appointing an autocrat. I believe such practices are in conflict with our right that new laws not be imposed without due process.
If the regulations are deficient then revise them.
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
Does Factory Mutual ring any bells for you.....ie a loss prevention engineer!
The insurance company for the building owner AND occupant maybe the same carrier or 2 different insurance companies will have a SIGNIFICANT input on the building fire protection. If it does not meet NFPA or FM standards they may not be able to get coverage or pay significantly more $$. $$$ usually gets folks attention because it is not more today BUT for the life of the building....it adds up fast.
The insurance company is another resource to help you......
Good luck
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Here are definitions of standpipes. A hose connection could be part of a standpipe system or just something to attach a hose to to wash your car or water your lawn with.
STANDPIPE SYSTEM, CLASSES OF. Standpipe system
classes are as follows:
Class I system. A system providing 21/2-inch (64 mm)
hose connections to supply water for use by fire departments
and those trained in handling heavy fire streams.
Class II system. A system providing 11/2-inch (38 mm)
hose stations to supply water for use primarily by the
building occupants or by the fire department during initial
response.
Class III system. A system providing 11/2-inch (38 mm)
hose stations to supply water for use by building occupants
and 21/2-inch (64 mm) hose connections to supply a
larger volume of water for use by fire departments and
those trained in handling heavy fire streams.
STANDPIPE, TYPES OF. Standpipe types are as follows:
Automatic dry. A dry standpipe system, normally filled
with pressurized air, that is arranged through the use of a
device, such as a dry pipe valve, to admit water into the
system piping automatically upon the opening of a hose
valve. The water supply for an automatic dry standpipe
system shall be capable of supplying the system demand.
Automatic wet. A wet standpipe system that has a water
supply that is capable of supplying the system demand
automatically.
Manual dry. A dry standpipe system that does not have a
permanent water supply attached to the system. Manual
dry standpipe systems require water from a fire department
pumper to be pumped into the system through the
fire department connection in order to supply the system
demand.
Manual wet. A wet standpipe system connected to a water
supply for the purpose of maintaining water within the
system but which does not have a water supply capable of
delivering the system demand attached to the system.
Manual wet standpipe systems require water from a fire
department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system
in order to supply the system demand.
Semiautomatic dry. A dry standpipe system that is
arranged through the use of a device, such as a deluge
valve, to admit water into the system piping upon activation
of a remote control device located at a hose connection.
A remote control activation device shall be provided
at each hose connection. The water supply for a semiautomatic
dry standpipe system shall be capable of supplying
the system demand.
Manual dry. A dry standpipe system that does not have a
permanent water supply attached to the system. Manual
dry standpipe systems require water from a fire department
pumper to be pumped into the system through the
fire department connection in order to supply the system
demand.
Manual wet. A wet standpipe system connected to a water
supply for the purpose of maintaining water within the
system but which does not have a water supply capable of
delivering the system demand attached to the system.
Manual wet standpipe systems require water from a fire
department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system
in order to supply the system demand.
Semiautomatic dry. A dry standpipe system that is
arranged through the use of a device, such as a deluge
valve, to admit water into the system piping upon activation
of a remote control device located at a hose connection.
A remote control activation device shall be provided
at each hose connection. The water supply for a semiautomatic
dry standpipe system shall be capable of supplying
the system demand.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
No never herd of it.
Help me to do what? I don't know who their insurance company is, do't care, and doubt they would tell me even if I knew who to ask.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Just saw a letter that the architect sent to the township saying that the building is to code and are not doing the things the fire cheif asked for.
I passed the fire sprinkler system final inspection for the warehouse shell and requested the township BCO (AHJ) to issue the C. O. on Friday . This sprinkler system is on it's own separate permit.
I passed the fire sprinkler system final inspection for the warehouse shell and requested the township BCO (AHJ) to issue the C. O. on Friday . This sprinkler system is on it's own separate permit.
jeffc
Bronze Member
One commenter noted:
Regarding advice, assure your risk is protected since your involved in signing a C of O and hope there is enough design on that system to account for tenant’s operation and racking height. A “well-known computer and cell phone company” would be logically be expected to have an appreciable amount of plastics including pallets and containers being stored in such array that would not meet the definition for Class 1 commodities or miscellaneous criteria. Also if that tenant falls through, you document the potential need(s) for future fire protection design changes based on commodity classification and storage array. Litigation on failures is a B#$@%.
When I sign off on the final, I'm not signing off for any future uses, just the occupancy and use proposed. In another post, I spoke to the AHJ enforcing only the minimum standards and not assuming future tenants and future uses. If the AHJ assumed future uses, you would be enforcing sections of the code that do not apply to the given. I think it would be difficult to enforce rules that don't directly apply to a given site. If the use changes after the CoO is issued, then the AHJ is required to enforce the additional requirements. As a consultant, we can make recommendation on best practice. However, those recommendations that exceed minimum code are note enforceable.
Regarding advice, assure your risk is protected since your involved in signing a C of O and hope there is enough design on that system to account for tenant’s operation and racking height. A “well-known computer and cell phone company” would be logically be expected to have an appreciable amount of plastics including pallets and containers being stored in such array that would not meet the definition for Class 1 commodities or miscellaneous criteria. Also if that tenant falls through, you document the potential need(s) for future fire protection design changes based on commodity classification and storage array. Litigation on failures is a B#$@%.
When I sign off on the final, I'm not signing off for any future uses, just the occupancy and use proposed. In another post, I spoke to the AHJ enforcing only the minimum standards and not assuming future tenants and future uses. If the AHJ assumed future uses, you would be enforcing sections of the code that do not apply to the given. I think it would be difficult to enforce rules that don't directly apply to a given site. If the use changes after the CoO is issued, then the AHJ is required to enforce the additional requirements. As a consultant, we can make recommendation on best practice. However, those recommendations that exceed minimum code are note enforceable.