I've been watching this thread and had decided to stay out of it, but Jar has hit the nail on the head.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.
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.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.
Now that you mentioned it I do remember jar pointing that out in the past.PA did not adopt chapter 1 of the IBC.
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” .....
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.
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.
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.
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
. 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.
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
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
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
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
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.