Demanding fire chief with no authority

[mtlogcabin]

No never herd of it.

https://www.fmglobal.com/about-us/why-fm-global

 

[jar546]

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.

Factory Mutual is big in Pennsylvania. They typically go to buildings like this twice a year to inspect the system for the insurance company. This has a direct reflection on the rates they pay for insurance and the building owners are under the gun to keep their FS systems AND fire-doors, fire-walls in tip top shape. With some insurance companies they may add in another risk assessment company on top of FM. An improperly approved and inspected system can have significant consequences and a third party agency will be in litigation much quicker than the municipal BCO employee.

 

[Insurance Engineer]

Jar546

Agree 100% I was one of those insurance guys for many years, not with FM but with another insurance carrier. We were usually involved from the planning stages of a project by providing our insurance requirements for the site, review of fire protection plans, on site inspection as the systems being installed, witness fire protection acceptance testing and final review.

As you said once the project was completed we would visit semiannual to ensure nothing had changed in the occupancy or protection. We would witness the annual testing of the fire protection and fire door drop testing.

We worked closely with the building owner, contractors and our underwriting staff. Any problems were documented during the process with all of the above folks involvement in meetings. I wish I had a $1 for every time I was asked “what happens if we do not do what you are asking”, corporate management usually answered the question for me!!....just do what he is asking!!

 

[Mark K]

While it behooves a building owner to consult with their insurance carrier this is not something that the building department should be concerned with. The building departments job is not to protect the building from all problems but rather to enforce the adopted regulations.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Unfortunately with no adoption of the IFC there is no requirement to maintain the sprinkler system by the government, codes, or fire company. As an code inspector I really don't care what the insurance company requires.

The township BCO (AHJ) sent a letter back to the owner. In it he quoted the following sections of the IFC to back up on what thet fire chief wants that I don't think applies. The state did not adopt the whole IFC but only what the IBC refers to:

IBC 413.1 General. High-piled stock or rack storage in any occupancy
group shall comply with the International Fire Code.

I don't think this means the whole IFC but only CHAPTER 32 HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE and any section in this chapter that refers to another section.

IFC 3201.1 Scope. High-piled combustible storage shall be in
accordance with this chapter. In addition to the requirements
of this chapter, the following material-specific requirements
shall apply:
1. Aerosols shall be in accordance with Chapter 51.
2. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance
with Chapter 57.
3. Hazardous materials shall be in accordance with Chapter
50.
4. Storage of combustible paper records shall be in accordance
with NFPA 13.
5. Storage of combustible fibers shall be in accordance
with Chapter 37.
6. General storage of combustible material shall be in
accordance with Chapter 3.
(There is nothing about this in chapter 3)

The BCO quoted sections out of chapter 9 which doesn't say anything about HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE and is not refered to in chapter 32. One of them is:

901.4.4 Additional fire protection systems. In occupancies
of a hazardous nature, where special hazards exist in
addition to the normal hazards of the occupancy, or where
the fire code official determines that access for fire apparatus
is unduly difficult, the fire code official shall have the
authority to require additional safeguards. Such safeguards
include, but shall not be limited to, the following: automatic
fire detection systems, fire alarm systems, automatic fire extinguishing
systems, standpipe systems, or portable or
fixed extinguishers. Fire protection equipment required
under this section shall be installed in accordance with this
code and the applicable referenced standards.

I don't think compance to this section is required because it says nothing about HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE.

comments please

 

[Mark K]

IBC Section 901.4.4 presents us with another problem in that it attempt to give the building official authority to ask for whatever he wants.
Just because the IBC has a provision it does not necessarily mean that the provision is legal. When a provision in a regulation bypasses the legislative process for adoption of a requirement it is not legal.

Building officials need to accept the fact the building regulations cannot account for all eventualities.

 

[ADAguy]

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.

This all comes down to capacity for future use, it is the AOR's responsibility to determine this and the inspectors duty to confirm that the building conforms to the "approved" drawings. On That I believe we all agree. If it doesn't it will come up when inspected/accepted by the insurance carrier (duh!) or not.
Sign the CO and walk/run away.

 

[FM William Burns]

Please explain.

Standpipe System is defined in NFPA 14 (3.3.20) designed to be a supply point for the advance of hose lines for “extinguishment” of fires. Typically found in High Rise, Low Rise (Large Single Story, Horizontal Exits, and Parking Structures where access and water supply availability is challenging. While yes a standpipe system will have hose connections of 2.5 inch and combined 2.5 and 1.5 inch. the intended function is separate and the term “hose connection” takes on a different meaning due to the intended operations. There are 3 classifications as posted original poster prior to this explanation on the differences.

Sprinkler system hose connections are specific for Storage occupancies and are “auxiliary” connections to the sprinkler piping intended to be used as or for first aid, firefighting “only” to keep a fire in check or for overhaul operations and supplied by a “hopefully” an adequate design buffer GPM included in the sprinkler’s water supply supply design. While they appear similar they’re different due to the intended usage of the system(s).

 

[Insurance Engineer]

A few questions
Distance from the floor to the underside of the roof.
Roof construction wood, metal, concrete.
Design of the sprinkler systems ie area density, ESFR, number of sprinklers at head pressure at K factor.
Fire pump on site if so gpm at ??psi
Any fire walls if so the rating of the wall or large open space.
% of warehouse, office, assembly of the bld.

The above would give us an idea if the standpipe would even assist the FD ie if the sprinkler design is inadequate what help will a standpipes be would be? My guess the fire will be firefighter term surrounded and drown!!

 

[e hilton]

Here are definitions of standpipes..

Sure wish you would have taken just a minute or two to give a working explanation like Mr Burns did, rather than cut-n-paste a textbook definition.
But then I guess I’m not surprised. I don’t know you from Adam, but you sure seem to have an attitude about this whole discussion. Your comments about not knowing about FM-type insurance folks was surprising, and then your comment about not caring how that could severely affect the owners premiums was shocking and self-centered.

 

[tmurray]

We ran into something slightly similar about 5 years back. The issue at the time ws that the fire marshal were on a different code cycle than the building inspection departments were in my province (we know, a serious issue). Proactive departments, like my own, were proactive with the changes. We knew what they were and were able to work proactively with owners and designers to ensure the were permitted to occupy. In some situation, we even accepted designers to the newest version of the code we had yet to adopt.

Unfortunately, one of our neighboring jurisdiction were not of the same mindset. The new code required many more smoke alarms to be installed in dwelling units. On developer of an apartment building complex was getting ready for occupancy, having everything approved by the local building inspection department, only to have the fire marshal come in and refuse occupancy over the missing smoke alarms.

The building inspectors tried to save face by telling the owner that they could only enforce the adopted code (which is true), but the damage to their reputation was done. Moreover, this cause a serious rift between the fire and building officials.

I know you said this person is not a fire "official", but we still need to work with other professionals in the industry. Failure to do so makes everyone involved look bad.

 

[tmurray]

IBC Section 901.4.4 presents us with another problem in that it attempt to give the building official authority to ask for whatever he wants.
Just because the IBC has a provision it does not necessarily mean that the provision is legal. When a provision in a regulation bypasses the legislative process for adoption of a requirement it is not legal.

Building officials need to accept the fact the building regulations cannot account for all eventualities.

I would disagree with this. At least as it applies here. In this situation, the elected official is recognizing that codifying all the potential conflicts and exceptions may be impossible and is delegating the regulatory approval of the acceptance to the local official. This has been widely accepted in Canada, with even the Supreme Court recognizing that local officials need to use some discretion in the review and approval. None the less, there are limits to that discretion, making it one of the much loved (sarcasm) grey areas for us.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Sure wish you would have taken just a minute or two to give a working explanation like Mr Burns did, rather than cut-n-paste a textbook definition.
But then I guess I’m not surprised. I don’t know you from Adam, but you sure seem to have an attitude about this whole discussion. Your comments about not knowing about FM-type insurance folks was surprising, and then your comment about not caring how that could severely affect the owners premiums was shocking and self-centered.

If I took time while being paid to inspect and do plan reviews to do anything about trying to reduce insurance premiums, which I don't know anything about, I would be fired. This is completely out of scope of my job responsibility. When I had my house built the local code official/inspector/plan reviewer never suggested anything to me to lower insurance premiums. Do you they they should have?

Anyway this whole argument about stand pipes is between the owner's representative and the township. The township is now asking for a meeting. I am just a third party inspector and really have not been involved with this conversation so far, I just got copy's of emails between the two parties. If they want me at this meeting I will be neutral and only answer questions strictly to the code. Today will be 5 days since I passed the final inspection of the sprinkler system for the shell which did not include any racking system. The law says the C. O. is to be issued within 5 days of the competed final inspection. It will interesting to see if the BCO (AHJ) issues the C. O. or not. This is just for the sprinkler system which has it's own permit. The rest of the building is not quite finished, mostly accessibility issues need to be finished.

As to the Insurance Engineer I really don't have time to look up all these things to answer your questions. i don't keep the plans with me.

 

[FM William Burns]

Once again the providing of adequate accurate information when seeking advice, interpretation or information when expressing one’s opinions is critical. Just like designing plans for review or fire protection systems (junk in = junk out) a returned comment of “lack of detail“ has been used far too often in plan review as has with on site inspections “Im sorry that this was designed improperly for the hazard I’m inspecting and seeing here today.... here are the available options to gain compliance”. Sure would have helped in this discussion.... be safe all and please remember “Fire Suppression is a Failure in Prevention”

 

[mtlogcabin]

We have something similar going on in our state right now between the state building codes division and the local fire department.

The Central Valley Fire District asked a Gallatin County judge Wednesday to throw out a lawsuit that claims the fire district doesn’t have the authority to enforce state fire codes on a wedding venue in the Belgrade area.

Foster Creek Farm filed the lawsuit against the fire district in Gallatin County District Court in May.

The farm built a barn for weddings in 2016, according to court documents. The state inspected and approved the barn for occupancy, but the fire district issued a fire code violation in 2017 for not having a fire sprinkler system.

The farm is asking a judge to uphold the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Building Standards Division’s occupancy approval, which didn’t require a fire sprinkler system. It is also asking the court to order the fire district to pay any damages related to the lawsuit.

In its motion to dismiss the case, the fire district said it has the right to enforce state fire codes. It claims the state building division’s occupancy approval is not a legal certificate of occupancy, and that the farm did not have authority to build a wedding venue that violated fire codes.

Subsequently, the fire district filed a third-party complaint against the state in September, alleging that the state should have asked the fire district for input on the building plans before approving the barn.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_5e2822a2-823b-5df3-9a5d-f478e727af00.html

The fire district claims the state’s building division should be responsible for any damages awarded to the farm, not the fire district.

The Department of Labor and Industry hasn’t filed a response to the complaint. However, Judy Bovington, attorney for the department, said it would be answering and proceeding in the litigation. Bovington said the department believes it correctly applied the law.

In 2016, the building standards division required the farm to install a fire sprinkler system in the barn to comply with building and fire codes, according to court documents. However, it later removed those requirements because the barn had enough exits and it was constructed with heavy timber and steel.

The farm finished the barn without a fire sprinkler system. In September 2016, the state inspected and approved the building to hold more than 100 people.

In February 2017, the fire district sent a letter to the farm saying it had concerns about the property and compliance with fire codes, according to court documents.

The fire district performed an inspection in October 2017 and issued a notice of violation for not having a fire sprinkler system, according to court documents.

Prior to filing a lawsuit, the farm challenged the decision to the fire district’s board of appeals. In February 2018, the board upheld the fire district’s decision.

 

[Enri Code]

On the matter of insurance, my experience is that it is very important for the design professionals to engage with insurance provider through the owner. In fact, we always ask client to have us engage with their insurance provider as soon as possible. Just good practice.

We don't really expect the people on the building inspection/ enforcement side to engage with insurance though.

There is the understanding that building inspection/ enforcement deals with code issues.

On the other hand, insurance - even if there is of course overlapping with the code - may in fact require other things beyond the code such as FM standards or just more advanced in general versus local codes.

In fact, we've run into issues before where we were required to design sprinklers per FM and the local jurisdiction would not allow it because the local code they were using had a different required spacing for sprinkler heads versus FM.

We did get it approved largely with the help of the insurance company who educated the local jurisdiction about the FM design as a more safer design over the code minimums.

So yes, insurance providers and issues are important.

It is the owner and through the owner that design professionals engage with the insurance providers.

There is big benefit for Building Officials to also engage with discussions with the insurance providers but as needed through facilitation by the design professionals and/ or owner.

 

[Enri Code]

Unfortunately with no adoption of the IFC there is no requirement to maintain the sprinkler system by the government, codes, or fire company. As an code inspector I really don't care what the insurance company requires.

The township BCO (AHJ) sent a letter back to the owner. In it he quoted the following sections of the IFC to back up on what thet fire chief wants that I don't think applies. The state did not adopt the whole IFC but only what the IBC refers to:

IBC 413.1 General. High-piled stock or rack storage in any occupancy
group shall comply with the International Fire Code.

I don't think this means the whole IFC but only CHAPTER 32 HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE and any section in this chapter that refers to another section.

IFC 3201.1 Scope. High-piled combustible storage shall be in
accordance with this chapter. In addition to the requirements
of this chapter, the following material-specific requirements
shall apply:
1. Aerosols shall be in accordance with Chapter 51.
2. Flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance
with Chapter 57.
3. Hazardous materials shall be in accordance with Chapter
50.
4. Storage of combustible paper records shall be in accordance
with NFPA 13.
5. Storage of combustible fibers shall be in accordance
with Chapter 37.
6. General storage of combustible material shall be in
accordance with Chapter 3.
(There is nothing about this in chapter 3)

The BCO quoted sections out of chapter 9 which doesn't say anything about HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE and is not refered to in chapter 32. One of them is:

901.4.4 Additional fire protection systems. In occupancies
of a hazardous nature, where special hazards exist in
addition to the normal hazards of the occupancy, or where
the fire code official determines that access for fire apparatus
is unduly difficult, the fire code official shall have the
authority to require additional safeguards. Such safeguards
include, but shall not be limited to, the following: automatic
fire detection systems, fire alarm systems, automatic fire extinguishing
systems, standpipe systems, or portable or
fixed extinguishers. Fire protection equipment required
under this section shall be installed in accordance with this
code and the applicable referenced standards.

I don't think compance to this section is required because it says nothing about HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE.

comments please

I've always had it in my mind that acceptance of the IBC means acceptance of all the ICC codes. All the ICC codes from my understanding tie together with each other fully and not just on particular chapters or issues.

Of course this is the case unless expressly being stated in a local mandate or amendment as otherwise.

Maybe that is what you are referring and that the local jurisdiction has already expressively made it known that they do not abide by IFC at all?

Based on what you just narrated though, looks like local BCO has sided with the Fire Chief regardless on this one or at least is making it so that this matter can be properly addressed by the owner.

 

[e hilton]

If I took time while being paid to inspect and do plan reviews to do anything about trying to reduce insurance premiums, which I don't know anything about, I would be fired. This is completely out of scope of my job responsibility..

Unfortunately, perception is important, maybe even more so in modern times with widely available social media, and people being able to find dumb things we say and use them against us. Instead of responding “I don’t care” about the potential for increased insurance premiums, you maybe should have said “I didn’t know that”.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Unfortunately with no adoption of the IFC there is no requirement to maintain the sprinkler system by the government, codes, or fire company.

Not correct the IBC references the IFC for maintenance of sprinkler systems
IBC
[A] 101.4 Referenced codes.
The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.
IBC
[F] 903.5 Testing and maintenance.
Sprinkler systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with the International Fire Code.

 

[ADAguy]

Unfortunately, perception is important, maybe even more so in modern times with widely available social media, and people being able to find dumb things we say and use them against us. Instead of responding “I don’t care” about the potential for increased insurance premiums, you maybe should have said “I didn’t know that”.

Why you ask? See Major warehouse (sprinklered?) fire in Redlands this morning, a tiltup with collapsed walls (why?) and roof (what could burn so hot?). Only 2 hours old and still burning. At least 30 truck docks.

 

[Insurance Engineer]

Rick18071

Have you ever been deposed for a lawsuit? I have several times, not fun at all. All times have been as a result of a significant loss and the lawyers suited everyone to get into as many pockets with money as they can. I hope you keep copies of everything you do to “refresh your memory” .....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

PA did not adopt chapter 1 of the IBC. It has it's own roules and nothing about maintenance of anything.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Have you ever been deposed for a lawsuit? I have several times, not fun at all. All times have been as a result of a significant loss and the lawyers suited everyone to get into as many pockets with money as they can. I hope you keep copies of everything you do to “refresh your memory” .....[/QUOTE]

No. My company has insurance for that.

 

[jar546]

If I took time while being paid to inspect and do plan reviews to do anything about trying to reduce insurance premiums, which I don't know anything about, I would be fired. This is completely out of scope of my job responsibility. When I had my house built the local code official/inspector/plan reviewer never suggested anything to me to lower insurance premiums. Do you they they should have?

Anyway this whole argument about stand pipes is between the owner's representative and the township. The township is now asking for a meeting. I am just a third party inspector and really have not been involved with this conversation so far, I just got copy's of emails between the two parties. If they want me at this meeting I will be neutral and only answer questions strictly to the code. Today will be 5 days since I passed the final inspection of the sprinkler system for the shell which did not include any racking system. The law says the C. O. is to be issued within 5 days of the competed final inspection. It will interesting to see if the BCO (AHJ) issues the C. O. or not. This is just for the sprinkler system which has it's own permit. The rest of the building is not quite finished, mostly accessibility issues need to be finished.

As to the Insurance Engineer I really don't have time to look up all these things to answer your questions. i don't keep the plans with me.

Rick, with all due respect, you are loading up with excuses for what may be an inadequate plan review. This does not have as much to do with the IFC as much as it does the NFPA 13. If you did not use your NFPA 13 manual when you did plan review for the FS system, then what exactly were you looking at when you reviewed the design of the FS system? Not all of the answers are in the IBC and you are always directed to multiple NFPA codes and standards which you are expected to know how to use. How do you do plan review for FA systems unless you have a copy of NFPA 72 in your possession? You cannot verify code compliance for a fire sprinkler system solely by what is in the IBC, which is why there is a long list of reference standards that you must be familiar with.