-
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've been watching this thread and had decided to stay out of it, but Jar has hit the nail on the head.
I've honestly been confounded that the CO is for a fire sprinkler system, and not the building.
But as Jar pointed out, if this is for the sprinkler system, then the installation of the system is really not specified in the IBC. Think of the IBC as more of a scoping document that instructs as to when a system is required. The NFPA standards will instruct you how to properly install.
Last edited by a moderator:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Now that you mentioned it I do remember jar pointing that out in the past.
However I like to point out code sections so others that have adopted Chapter 1 realize that just because you do not adopt all the standards referenced in the code you do not have to adopt all of the I-Codes to use them when referenced in the code you have adopted.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Part of what PA has in their statutes which replaced chapter 1:
(b) The code adopted under subsection (a)(8) is part of the Uniform Construction Code to the extent that it is referenced in Chapter 35 of the ‘‘International Building Code of 2015’’ under section 302(a)(1) of the act (35 P.S. § 7210.302(a)(1)). The provisions of the Uniform Construction Code apply if there is a difference between the Uniform Construction Code and the codes or standards adopted in subsection (a). This chapter’s administrative provisions govern under § 403.27(e) (relating to applicability and use of standards) if there is a conflict with the provisions of the codes relating to administration incorporated under subsection (a).
(b) The code adopted under subsection (a)(8) is part of the Uniform Construction Code to the extent that it is referenced in Chapter 35 of the ‘‘International Building Code of 2015’’ under section 302(a)(1) of the act (35 P.S. § 7210.302(a)(1)). The provisions of the Uniform Construction Code apply if there is a difference between the Uniform Construction Code and the codes or standards adopted in subsection (a). This chapter’s administrative provisions govern under § 403.27(e) (relating to applicability and use of standards) if there is a conflict with the provisions of the codes relating to administration incorporated under subsection (a).
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
No. My company has insurance for that.[/QUOTE]
I worked for the insurance company BUT still had to go through the deposition process. I had my company lawyer next to me during the questions BUT was not fun. Even more fun was the day before the deposition was going overall the many questions they may ask and how to answer them with my corporate lawyer!!
Just an FYI so you know what to expect should it ever happen to you.
Oh yea how much liability coverage does your company provide to you should something happen??
Sorry after being in insurance for 36 years I tend to think this way....happy days for retirement no more worries....but I still have a hard drive with all those accounts I worked on in case something happens.
While it is understood that the building official can exercise discretion in interpreting building regulations there is a difference between an interpretation and imposing a new requirement.
The design professional should ask how was he to be able to know what was required. This is important since a basic legal principal is that you cannot be required to comply with a requirement that you were not able to know exists.
It is interesting that in criminal law if there is some ambiguity the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
The design professional should ask how was he to be able to know what was required. This is important since a basic legal principal is that you cannot be required to comply with a requirement that you were not able to know exists.
It is interesting that in criminal law if there is some ambiguity the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
ADAguy
Registered User
The previous example I mentioned was a 600,000 sq. ft, 2 year old highbay tiltup warehouse!
A fire of this size does not grow to its size with 100 people on site at 5:30 in the morning unless the FS system failed; fire flow obstruction would seem to be a reason for the system failure. Stored material of various types) was on pallets.
Source of ignition to spread that fast is under investigation after it cools down.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Mark, I understand and am empathetic with your position and opinion. In this case, it is possible that it could have been a poor design followed by a plan review that was done without consulting the correct code book. This is not a case of imposing standards that don't exist or were not required. This is possibly quite the opposite.
FM William Burns
Moderator
Based on what I’ve read I regretfully have to agree. Despite giving factual accurate information with factual references applicable to the information provided, sometimes it goes through deaf ears.
Having regulated over (10) multi-million s.f. structures, I can say with extreme confidence there has not been one where I did not have meetings upon meetings with all affected parties and inspected personally or alongside with others everything from thrust blocks to multiples of pre-action, double interlocked and foam systems from refrigerated DC’s to Aerospace facilities. I have worked alongside with all the major risk companies and not one of these projects was completed without the risk/insurance involvement.
The fun ones are those that have situational conditions that NFPA, ICC Risk companies and 3rd party FPE’s all say “the situation goes beyond the scope of the code”
Like IE said and I always recommend, I still have even now after retirement from municipal work the CYA files for decisions we had to make to provide a reasonable level of protection to a situation the interests and tech committees never imagined.
Last edited:
FM William Burns
Moderator
The bottom line is a sprinkler system and design standard is typically required/driven by the adopted building code. The sprinkler system is then designed and inspected to that standard as referenced by the building code as would be auxiliary components (if required) by that standard.
In this event the system shall comply with NFPA 13 for the hazard as a shell building or be renovated to comply with the hazard that exists at a time of inspection or future inspections by the authority having jurisdiction. If the hazard then is stored commodities I-V, Aerosols, Plastics or other high hazards the system shall comply with NFPA 13 and or other references for specialized systems working from the sprinkler system.
The facility in question may just have an OH II (ordinary hazard group 2) design that will be compliant for piled storage no higher than 12 ft. and racking that can be protected by overhead sprinklers if designed correctly and the water supply is sufficiently in place. If that is the actual case and should a tenant come in that wants to store products to hazards mentioned above, the system then will have to renovated to comply with those referenced standard(s) requirements.
NFPA 13 handbook mentions the critical need and the owner’s responsibility to provide adequate information to the system designer. The result of not doing so is very expensive as I have seen personally far too many times unfortunately. If I’m wrong in my interpretation I will admit it, since one of the most important qualities of a competent regulator is that ability and integrity.
Also, the use of FM approvals is a guidance tool and typically used (if approved) by a jurisdiction. They may be very similar to an NFPA standard or go beyond based of newer data and full scale testing results but they have to be approved and documented by a jurisdiction for use or reference. Let us not forget that Risk companies are also legally considered an AHJ. If you ever have to be involved with a legal process on an investigation or dispute you will soon realize this.
In this event the system shall comply with NFPA 13 for the hazard as a shell building or be renovated to comply with the hazard that exists at a time of inspection or future inspections by the authority having jurisdiction. If the hazard then is stored commodities I-V, Aerosols, Plastics or other high hazards the system shall comply with NFPA 13 and or other references for specialized systems working from the sprinkler system.
The facility in question may just have an OH II (ordinary hazard group 2) design that will be compliant for piled storage no higher than 12 ft. and racking that can be protected by overhead sprinklers if designed correctly and the water supply is sufficiently in place. If that is the actual case and should a tenant come in that wants to store products to hazards mentioned above, the system then will have to renovated to comply with those referenced standard(s) requirements.
NFPA 13 handbook mentions the critical need and the owner’s responsibility to provide adequate information to the system designer. The result of not doing so is very expensive as I have seen personally far too many times unfortunately. If I’m wrong in my interpretation I will admit it, since one of the most important qualities of a competent regulator is that ability and integrity.
Also, the use of FM approvals is a guidance tool and typically used (if approved) by a jurisdiction. They may be very similar to an NFPA standard or go beyond based of newer data and full scale testing results but they have to be approved and documented by a jurisdiction for use or reference. Let us not forget that Risk companies are also legally considered an AHJ. If you ever have to be involved with a legal process on an investigation or dispute you will soon realize this.
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
Knowledge is a powerful thing we learn from our mistakes and experience hopefully the folks reading this thread will pick up some stuff from “the old guys” here...lol. The wealth of knowledge on this forum is amazing.
From 30 plus years I presented 1and 2 days seminars to code officials in our training center with live fires and at NFPA conferences and American Fire Training Association training seminars with the goal of passing my knowledge to others. I did this because some old guy Zig took me under his wing when first starting in this business in 1979. I soon learned from him why codes exist and more importantly how they need to change based on testing and loss data. In my meetings with code officials I tried to explain the code/standard and why things are written the way they are. My inside knowledge as a member of a major NFPA committee was very valuable to help explain why stuff is in the standard.
Thanks for listening to this old guy.
Tom
From 30 plus years I presented 1and 2 days seminars to code officials in our training center with live fires and at NFPA conferences and American Fire Training Association training seminars with the goal of passing my knowledge to others. I did this because some old guy Zig took me under his wing when first starting in this business in 1979. I soon learned from him why codes exist and more importantly how they need to change based on testing and loss data. In my meetings with code officials I tried to explain the code/standard and why things are written the way they are. My inside knowledge as a member of a major NFPA committee was very valuable to help explain why stuff is in the standard.
Thanks for listening to this old guy.
Tom
jar546
Forum Coordinator
AND you gave many of us a tour of your facility in New Jersey! Thank you.
Please explain why you consider a risk company such as Factory Mutual an AHJ. Please reference law or court cases if necessary.
A building owner might have to comply with FM's requirements if they want insurance coverage but that is a contractual not a governmental obligation.
An AHJ implies that it is a governmental entity. I believe that FM is a private organization
FM William Burns
Moderator
Tom,
I have been and still am a principal TC member on the most widely used code in the Quincy folks arsenal. I’m ready to give up my seat on this one after 11 years and 10 on FP features.
Being blessed to have been chosen as an enforcer allowed me to learn how the codes and standards work together and provide my service’s perspective on being preventative in future code’s development also based in empirical data.
Thank you for sharing and paying it forward as I too share the same philosophy based on mentoring I received. PD
FM William Burns
Moderator
MK,
While usually the AHJ is a governmental representative tasked with the enforcement of adopted ordinances, rules and codes . There can be other authorities having jurisdiction and are legally evaluated as equal (here is the key) in the scopes of one’s authority.
I read a bulletin or code spotlight type document a by a contributor to this form RLGA some time ago about AHJ’s but the above was taught to me during my first NFPA technical committee orientation. NFPA’ official definition:
A3.2.2 Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The phrase “authority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.
I won’t comment on my historical involvement in testimony as an expert witness but below is a war story that was my first fond memory:
I witnessed first hand during a proceeding where a very large international company out of Arkansas flew their team in to argue a non-compliant designed travel distance concern my jurisdiction had during a pre-construction mediation.
The international loss prevention risk engineering firm (insurance) agreed with our interpretation that a 250’ TD planed for their newer prototype design of their new facilities was non-compliant. The mediators ruled that both AHJ’s were correct.
The solution agreed upon by the AHJ’s, now part of building and life safety codes was a need to provide a protected means of egress at 250’ would be needed to exceed the code’s established maximum TD.
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
From
NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler, 2013 Edition
3.2.2* Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the require- ments of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.
A.3.2.2 Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The phrase “authority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or indi- vidual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; build- ing official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority.
For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction.
In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or depart- mental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.
See below from NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler, 2013 Edition
3.2.2* Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.
A.3.2.2 Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The phrase “au- thority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where pub- lic safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or indi- vidual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire preven- tion bureau, labor department, or health department; build- ing official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection de- partment, rating bureau, or other insurance company repre- sentative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or depart- mental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.
Thank you for the insight as to where you are coming from.
This is definitely at odds with the way most design professionals understand the term.
NFPA has adopted a contorted definition of AHJ by using the term to refer to both governmental entities and private organizations thus creating a definition contrary to common understanding. But note the phrase "For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction" tries to undo some of the damage by limiting these private entities to only those questions related to insurance.
Since insurance is not mandated by the building code these private entities cannot act as an AHJ with regards to the permitting of a building.
Further these standards do not have the authority to bestow the deference given to governmental agencies by the civil courts when dealing with insurance matters.
Court rulings are clear that a private entity cannot be delegated governmental functions. While I recognize that a building owner should be aware of the position of insurance rating bureaus these entities cannot have the enforcement powers that a government entity has. Failure to comply with the recommendations of these insurance bodies can influence the availability of and cost of insurance and in some cases may constitute violation of contractual obligations but they are not relevant from a regulatory perspective.
Regulations are subservient to statutory law and court rulings and as such regulations cannot over rule the statutory law and in the process take on a role reserved for the legislature.
Just because a standards body inserts some language in a standard that an administrative agency or a local jurisdiction adopts without considering the legal implications, it does not necessarily follow that the language is legal and can be enforced.
This is definitely at odds with the way most design professionals understand the term.
NFPA has adopted a contorted definition of AHJ by using the term to refer to both governmental entities and private organizations thus creating a definition contrary to common understanding. But note the phrase "For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction" tries to undo some of the damage by limiting these private entities to only those questions related to insurance.
Since insurance is not mandated by the building code these private entities cannot act as an AHJ with regards to the permitting of a building.
Further these standards do not have the authority to bestow the deference given to governmental agencies by the civil courts when dealing with insurance matters.
Court rulings are clear that a private entity cannot be delegated governmental functions. While I recognize that a building owner should be aware of the position of insurance rating bureaus these entities cannot have the enforcement powers that a government entity has. Failure to comply with the recommendations of these insurance bodies can influence the availability of and cost of insurance and in some cases may constitute violation of contractual obligations but they are not relevant from a regulatory perspective.
Regulations are subservient to statutory law and court rulings and as such regulations cannot over rule the statutory law and in the process take on a role reserved for the legislature.
Just because a standards body inserts some language in a standard that an administrative agency or a local jurisdiction adopts without considering the legal implications, it does not necessarily follow that the language is legal and can be enforced.
FM William Burns
Moderator
MK, I totally understand your viewpoint associated to the interpretation. Personally, my viewpoint was offered and served through historical references from the AHJ in my household growing up to serving municipalities in governmental work and could relate to a study of formal semantics (probably suited for another debate).
My example suggested that one violated a legally adopted code and standards enforced by a governmental agency and regulations enforced in a contract/policy “contracted” from a loss prevention provider. Both used or referenced those same codes and standards in the duty/obligation of duties for enforcement and writing or providing insurance. They are both authorities having jurisdiction. As I mentioned, the key is the scope in authority under their jurisdictional responsibilities.
Nevertheless I have seen both recognized legally in the courts and more prevalent in fire loss due to failures in fire protection systems and arson litigations. This may be why the “official” definition NFPA uses is found in the fire protection and detection codes and standards.
My example suggested that one violated a legally adopted code and standards enforced by a governmental agency and regulations enforced in a contract/policy “contracted” from a loss prevention provider. Both used or referenced those same codes and standards in the duty/obligation of duties for enforcement and writing or providing insurance. They are both authorities having jurisdiction. As I mentioned, the key is the scope in authority under their jurisdictional responsibilities.
Nevertheless I have seen both recognized legally in the courts and more prevalent in fire loss due to failures in fire protection systems and arson litigations. This may be why the “official” definition NFPA uses is found in the fire protection and detection codes and standards.
Insurance Engineer
Registered User
In Pa we did not have a statewide Building Code until 1999. Pa does NOT have a state wide fire prevention code in 2020!!
About 50 % of the existing warehouses we reviewed the sprinkler protection was not adequate because of occupancy change or changes in operation or commodity classification as per NFPA 13. So in Pa with no statewide fire code the only folks trying to get upgrades is the insurance company. We do not only look at sprinkler systems we look at the roof to the basement and evaluate the hazards based on NFPA or our own internal requirements ie FM Data Sheets.
If I had a $1 ever time a building owner said to me the FD or local code officials did not say anything about the things I discovered I could have retired a few years earlier....lol
About 50 % of the existing warehouses we reviewed the sprinkler protection was not adequate because of occupancy change or changes in operation or commodity classification as per NFPA 13. So in Pa with no statewide fire code the only folks trying to get upgrades is the insurance company. We do not only look at sprinkler systems we look at the roof to the basement and evaluate the hazards based on NFPA or our own internal requirements ie FM Data Sheets.
If I had a $1 ever time a building owner said to me the FD or local code officials did not say anything about the things I discovered I could have retired a few years earlier....lol
jar546
Forum Coordinator
yes, PA was 1999 but not implemented until 2004 then bastardized every few months with special interests which has taken away many important needed changes. Hence, one of the reasons I left.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
I don't blame you Jar. The codes are very confusing in PA. They adopt the code and then subtract a whole list of sections from it, use different sections from 3 different ICC code years and make up some of their own. They need to make their own code book like CA, NJ and some other states.
ADAguy
Registered User
Damn! I love "old" dogs and that includes Mark but Burns is a step ahead on this issue. Institutional memory is shared, especially on our forum.