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.
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.
Please explain.
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.Here are definitions of standpipes..
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.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.
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.
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
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”.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 with no adoption of the IFC there is no requirement to maintain the sprinkler system by the government, codes, or fire company.
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”.
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.