Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Who says the plans examiner was correct? Maybe they were rubber stamped....by the plans examiner.
I did the plan review and never rubber stamp them.
Who says the plans examiner was correct? Maybe they were rubber stamped....by the plans examiner.
"...always prevent being live at 5"
“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”.
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.
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 eqo’s.
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.
Do you still bench 250?
Yep still can but use no more than 145 (2 plates) now in PT. I don’t need to push 350 lb. defensive linemen anymore.....
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.....
"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".
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.
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.. I don't give a dam about the insurance company..
Please explain.Please do not confuse Standpipes with Hose Connections for a sprinkler system. There are differences..
The fire chief doesn't know the IBC codes and does not do or qualify to do plan
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.
Please explain.
Does Factory Mutual ring any bells for you.....ie a loss prevention engineer!
The insurance company is another resource to help you......