Demanding fire chief with no authority

[Mr. Inspector]

I'm an inspector in PA. PA doesn't use the IFC except when the IBC sends you there. An example would be high-piled combustible storage. A local jurisdiction can adopt the IFC and can also add stricter requirements to the codes if approved by the state.

I am currently inspecting a 1.3 million sq ft warehouse that only needs final inspections. The fire sprinkler company uses 2-1/2" hose connectors for drains where the fire main comes in the building from underground lines. There are barriers in front of these mains for protection. The fire chief of the local volunteer fire company came to look at the building and said this made these fire hose connectors inaccessible for the fire company and the barriers will need to be modified. Also The fire chief demanded that the they need to add a 2-1/2" fire hose connections (standpipes) every 200" down the middle of the building. He demanded a few other things that are not in the IBC or any NFPA codes. I did not say anything when the fire chief was here.

The fire chief has no authority or any certifications.The township did not adopt the IFC or add anything else to the codes. Fire hose connectors (standpipes) are not required inside a one story building. None of the things the fire chief is demanding are on the approved plans or in any codes.

Just wondering if anyone else had a problem like this?

This added work will add a great expense and time to finish this building. I refuse to require these things that the fire chief wants. The owners will need to decide to fight this or just go along but they are in a hurry to open the building. I'm thinking of asking the building owners if they want to do what the fire chief wants them to, do it under a separate permit. That way I can pass the final inspections on the original permit. I am not the BCO here so I don't do the C. O.'s but the state law says the the C. O. must be issued within 5 days after the final inspection is passed.

Just wondering how other inspectors would handle this? I work for a third party inspection company and we don't want to piss off the township authorities and lose the township's code work to another company.

 

[ADAguy]

Muddy waters you have. Check the city charter as to authority of the "volunteer" fire chief. Check with city attorney.

 

[Enri Code]

I would try to engage the fire chief in a dialogue to understand where he is coming from as a matter of clarifying what he is requiring but that is probably something best done by the owner or owner's representative (i.e. architect, etc.).

Giving the benefit of the doubt... it may be a very localized situation or experience that shaped his thoughts on the matter.

As an example, I had done a project in a jurisdiction where fire marshal did not allow a certain type of industrial refrigerant because of a recent fatal explosion that happened. Local and national code allows for the refrigerant but he would not even if investigations found out that explosion was caused by illegal activity. He just doesn't want to deal with it anymore.

I agree with @ADAguy on looking into the authority of the fire chief with the city. It may be that his comments are just documented to be advisement and responded to in writing by the owner or for further clarification.

The fire chief not really having authority and needing to tread lightly requires a lot of finesse. Good luck on this.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
IBC
[F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:

6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.

 

[Enri Code]

I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
IBC
[F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:

6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.

And there's the possibility that the fire chief also knows his stuff... LOL... Really good to talk it out and just verify proper application if it is still an issue.

 

[cda]

I'm an inspector in PA. PA doesn't use the IFC except when the IBC sends you there. An example would be high-piled combustible storage. A local jurisdiction can adopt the IFC and can also add stricter requirements to the codes if approved by the state.

I am currently inspecting a 1.3 million sq ft warehouse that only needs final inspections. The fire sprinkler company uses 2-1/2" hose connectors for drains where the fire main comes in the building from underground lines. There are barriers in front of these mains for protection. The fire chief of the local volunteer fire company came to look at the building and said this made these fire hose connectors inaccessible for the fire company and the barriers will need to be modified. Also The fire chief demanded that the they need to add a 2-1/2" fire hose connections (standpipes) every 200" down the middle of the building. He demanded a few other things that are not in the IBC or any NFPA codes. I did not say anything when the fire chief was here.

The fire chief has no authority or any certifications.The township did not adopt the IFC or add anything else to the codes. Fire hose connectors (standpipes) are not required inside a one story building. None of the things the fire chief is demanding are on the approved plans or in any codes.

Just wondering if anyone else had a problem like this?

This added work will add a great expense and time to finish this building. I refuse to require these things that the fire chief wants. The owners will need to decide to fight this or just go along but they are in a hurry to open the building. I'm thinking of asking the building owners if they want to do what the fire chief wants them to, do it under a separate permit. That way I can pass the final inspections on the original permit. I am not the BCO here so I don't do the C. O.'s but the state law says the the C. O. must be issued within 5 days after the final inspection is passed.

Just wondering how other inspectors would handle this? I work for a third party inspection company and we don't want to piss off the township authorities and lose the township's code work to another company.

Building dimensions?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

700' x 1,900'

 

[jar546]

And this is why in PA I always brought the fire department to the table during plan review for larger projects and even to the planning table for very large projects. They like to feel included and it is a good political move.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.

The fire chief is not a fire code official. PA does not use the term or has a certification for "Fire Code Official." I myself have the state certification for "Fire Inspector" which will be using next year in a different city. The existing plans without the standpipes were approved per 2009 I codes by the townships 3rd party 3 years ago. It's would not be fair to add this at the final inspection even if it was legal.

I don't see where a standpipe is required at all in an S-2 warehouse. Am I missing it? In 2009 IBC I can only find:
1.where the highest story is over 30' above the fire dept. vehicle access
2. Group A non-sprinklered buildings
3. Malls
4. Stages
5.underground buildings
6. helistops and heliports
7. Marinas and boatyards

 

[RBK]

I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
IBC
[F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:

6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.

905.4 addresses where to put them when they are required. 905.3 addresses when they are required, and it's rare for a warehouse to check any of the boxes. 4-story buildings, certain A occupancies, covered malls, stages, marinas, rooftop gardens.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It was in the code prior to 2009. The building official error-ed when the did not require the additional stand pipes them selves or contact the fire official for their input. The other option is the fire official can instruct his people to not enter the building if there is a fire.

Have you ever tried to drag 400 feet of hose? There is a reason for the code provision
It would be interesting to know if there insurance provider knows this and will still provide coverage
2006 IBC
6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.

 

[e hilton]

. I'm thinking of asking the building owners if they want to do what the fire chief wants them to, do it under a separate permit.

I would not “ask” the owner anything, i think that could put you in a bad position. I would tell the owner what you can do, and finish your inspection within your scope of authority and issue the CO. If the fire chief has the ability to prevent occupance for items outside your authority, that’s between him and the owner.

 

[cda]

Isn't [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections in the IBC, and should be enforced, if enforcing the IBC?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes it is and I quoted the IBC. The problem is the wording "the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations".
Who is the fire code official in that area and if there isn't does a building official or the design professional just ignore it? The designer is at fault along with the fire suppression designer.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I would not “ask” the owner anything, i think that could put you in a bad position. I would tell the owner what you can do, and finish your inspection within your scope of authority and issue the CO. If the fire chief has the ability to prevent occupancy for items outside your authority, that’s between him and the owner.

I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance. It makes me look bad, like I don't know the codes. This will cost the owner hundreds of thousands, months delay and will probably lose the company that wants to use it right away. How would you like it if the local inspector said you had to put in standpipes in your new garage to get the C. O. at the final inspection?

Isn't [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections in the IBC, and should be enforced, if enforcing the IBC?

See what RBK said and what I said right before that. Section 905.3 tells you what
buildings require standpipes. 905.4 tells you where to put the standpipes in those
buildings that require them.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Yes it is and I quoted the IBC. The problem is the wording "the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations".
Who is the fire code official in that area and if there isn't does a building official or the design professional just ignore it? The designer is at fault along with the fire suppression designer.

i don't know why you don't understand that the IBC IS NOT REQUIRING STANDPIPES IN THIS BUILDING.
THERE ARE NO FIRE CODE OFFICIALS HERE, ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO, 0.

905.4 means the fire code official (if there is one) is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations IN THE BUILDINGS THAT REQUIRE THEM which are:
1.where the highest story is over 30' above the fire dept. vehicle access
2. Group A non-sprinklered buildings
3. Malls
4. Stages
5.underground buildings
6. helistops and heliports
7. Marinas and boatyards

 

[cda]

I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance. It makes me look bad, like I don't know the codes. This will cost the owner hundreds of thousands, months delay and will probably loose the company that wants to use it right away. How would you like it if the local inspector said you had to put in standpipes in your new garage to get the C. O. at the final inspection? .



See what RBK said and what I said right before that. 905.3 tells you what buildings require standpipes. 905.4 tells you where to put the standpipes in those buildings that require them.

You are right

Not required

Sign off meets plans submitted and IBC

 

[e hilton]

I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance..

I wholly agree. My point was directed at your wording. Semantics. If you ask the owner, it might seem to be collusion to override the fire marshal, or whatever he is. I think you need to be firm in doing your job, which seems to include issuing the CO. Do that, and you will have demonstrated your authority. Then let the fire dude play his cards.

 

[FM William Burns]

I’m a bit thrown back by the remarks made in making a point. I have been a fire protection consultant for over thirty years in addition to a municipal Fire Code Official for over 35 years. I will not enter into negative banter and will just say just because a sprinkler contractor installed it and some code official approved something does not make it right or CODE compliant.

I strongly recommend doing your due diligence and verify the Chief’s authority in the township’s charter. While I agree with questioning anytime a regulatory official or code official would attempt to enforce one’s will, I always try to investigate why the belief to do so exists and to provide a factual account to all parties involved attention and let the chips fall where they may. And always admit if I’m wrong or interpreted a regulation incorrectly. This came with learning how to become a regulator.

Regarding the fire sprinkler system. I would also recommend reading Chapter 20.1(5) of NFPA 13 associated to appropriate design and 20.11.1.1 - 16.15 for hose connections in storage occupancies. The chief’s only thing he can’t hang his hat on is the stated size of the hose connections throughout, quoted in the post.

The fact is the requirement is there for the hazards and fire service assistance associated to storage protection etc. My only hope is that the water supply, duration and commodity hazards were factored in when the design work was done. I am doubtful based on the original post.

Now as a consultant, I would suggest to the owner what his/her/their exposure will be by not correcting and or making the fire protection system compliant. If I lost revenue, I’m fine with that since regulatory code officials (private/public/for hire) have an obligation and should understand code compliance and nothing else needs to be said about that. I loved these kinds of challenges and was pretty successful. Thank God that people agreed with my opinion.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Thank you for your input. I'm always willing to learn. I am definitely no expert on the subject. We use 2015 IBC which references the 2013 NFPA 13 here. I looked through chapter 20 of NFPA 13 and did not find anything about stand pipes and there where no sections numbered 20.22.2.2 or 16.15. As far as I know the IBC tells you what buildings require stand pipes (listed in a previous post) and NFPA tells you how they are designed.

This township was just farms till just a couple years ago and has very little experience with commercial jobs. Now there in the middle of a warehouse boom. Their laws have not kept up with the times and have not adopted the IFC or assigned any kind of fire code official. In fact I never herd of any Fire Code Official anywhere in PA. Also the authorities here seem to be conservative and are against more government authority. I believe most local governments probably would not even enforce any building codes if the state did not require them too.

If the township had some ordinances about this I would gladly enforce which would start at the plan review, not at the final inspection.I looked it up as you suggested and I could find nothing about fire companies or fire chiefs anywhere in their ordinances. Only a burning and lock box requirement. The volunteer fire company is probably totally independent of the local government which is most in cases in rural PA

Yesterday I passed the final inspection of the sprinkler system per the township approved plan., The owners wrote a letter that said they won't be adding any stand pipes to the building that the the fire chief wanted because the building complies to code as is . This warehouse is a empty shell but I am starting to get fit-out plans for a tenant for offices and high storage racks for class 1 commodity from a well know computer and cell phone company.

I am always willing to hear your expert advice.

 

[jar546]

Who says the plans examiner was correct? Maybe they were rubber stamped....by the plans examiner.

 

[Mark K]

If the adopted regulations assign a role to the "Fire Code Official" without defining who this individual is it seems that they did not do a very good job in adopting the code. This could easily be resolved by adopting a local ordinance defining who this term referrers to.

Probably the bigger problem is that many jurisdictions are not prepared to deal with the complexity of issues that are inherent in the various codes that they blindly adopt.

 

[FM William Burns]

15 IBC requires the fire sprinkler system for the S-1-2 def. via [903.2.9]. The sprinkler design required by the IBC is [903.3.1.1] while keeping in mind that the IFC allows anyone to be the "fire code official" [103.2] or the BO if none is appointed. Regardless the BO has the obligation since the requirement for the sprinkler system lies in the BC.

Please do not confuse Standpipes with Hose Connections for a sprinkler system. There are differences. The system required needs to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13 (let's use the 13 edition "as referenced"). The sections given previously were 2019 edition so for 2013 edition Hose Connections for the sprinkler system would be found [12.2.1].

The 2019 edition cleaned up the protection of storage but regardless the sprinkler system in a 1.3 million square foot facility would also need to be designed to comply with Chapters 13-22 of the 2013 edition as applicable.

Since the building is a shell the system should have been designed to account for the issues or sufficient to expand on to address future storage conditions and commodities found in those chapters as applicable. If not the owners will face challenges if the stored commodities and array(s) are greater than approved for.

So an improperly designed system "approved" or not corrected, increases the risk exposure to the jurisdiction and and all parties involved including the facility ownership.

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#$@%.

The designer hopefully should have covered their risk in the plans by design note(s) to account for installing a system in a 1.3 million s.f. shell.

 

[jar546]

If the adopted regulations assign a role to the "Fire Code Official" without defining who this individual is it seems that they did not do a very good job in adopting the code. This could easily be resolved by adopting a local ordinance defining who this term referrers to.

Probably the bigger problem is that many jurisdictions are not prepared to deal with the complexity of issues that are inherent in the various codes that they blindly adopt.

That is true and I have seen it before. Municipalities adopt the IFC and get firefighters trained and certified then get pushback from the community when they start enforcing the codes and quickly let it go by the wayside unless it is convenient which then becomes selective enforcement.