# Another Question re: USFS Fire Suppression System



## Alias (Nov 16, 2012)

Okay, here we go.

Sprinkler system has been added for the new USFS 24,684 sq. ft. building in lieu of other fire protection provisions.

Current approved plans contain drawings for a fire alarm system.  I want to be ready if the project manager wants to delete something so my questions are:

1) With the addition of sprinklers, is the alarm system required (strobes, riser, etc.) or are sprinklers sufficient?

2) Is only a riser acceptable with sprinklers?

3) Can the fire alarm system be removed with the installation of sprinklers?

And finally, how do you calculate fees?

TIA,

Sue


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 16, 2012)

Alarms and notification are two different things

Alarms are covered under 903.4

Notification for a Group B is 907.2.2


----------



## cda (Nov 16, 2012)

what code and edition is this reviewed under???  any admendments to the code??


----------



## cda (Nov 16, 2012)

if nothing in place, base it on cost of the job materials and labor, then use whatever you have in place to fiqure a cost  of a permit for a building.


----------



## Alias (Nov 16, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> what code and edition is this reviewed under???  any admendments to the code??


2010 CFC no amendments.

Thanks!


----------



## Alias (Nov 16, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Alarms and notification are two different thingsAlarms are covered under 903.4
> 
> Notification for a Group B is 907.2.2


Thanks mtlogcabin.

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 16, 2012)

Do not have access to CFC

But minimum IFC is a monitoring system

903.4 Sprinkler system monitoring and alarms.

All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems, pumps, tanks, water levels and temperatures, critical air pressures, and water-flow switches on all sprinkler systems shall be electrically supervised.

And Nfpa will require one outside device

What occupancy type is this??? That will drive whether a full blown system is required


----------



## Oldfieldguy (Nov 17, 2012)

What the hell is a USFS?

Oldfieldguy

AKA, Hazmatpoobah (yep, it's me)


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2012)

> What the hell is a USFS?


United States Forest Service


----------



## cda (Nov 17, 2012)

Oldfieldguy said:
			
		

> What the hell is a USFS?Oldfieldguy
> 
> AKA, Hazmatpoobah (yep, it's me)


Fantastic, mr. Wonderful has revealed himself!!!!   Please keep on replying


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 17, 2012)

I’m with MT on this one whereas alarms are only required if applicable in accordance with 907.2.2



OMG….it’s great to see OFG is Poobah………..I have missed his wisdom!


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

Oldfieldguy said:
			
		

> What the hell is a USFS?Oldfieldguy
> 
> AKA, Hazmatpoobah (yep, it's me)


Oops, a large (for here) office building.

Glad to see you here OFG aka Hazmatpoobah!

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

That is "" Mr. Wonderful"" to you all has upgraded from "haz"

Also did no think in this thing, your code may not require a full blown system, but the Feds may want one!!!!!


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Do not have access to CFCBut minimum IFC is a monitoring system
> 
> 903.4 Sprinkler system monitoring and alarms.
> 
> ...


Mixed Use B/A-3.  Owner/builder switched horses in mid-stream and decided to use fire suppression system with sprinklers instead of using the 2-hour fire resistance system on approved plans.

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

Alias said:
			
		

> Mixed Use B/A-3.  Owner/builder switched horses in mid-stream and decided to use fire suppression system with sprinklers instead of using the 2-hour fire resistance system on approved plans.Sue


Now need to go back to the books

What is the A-3, and occupant load


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

cda -

A-3:  Assembly uses intended for worship, recreation or amusement and other assembly uses *not classified elsewhere* in Group A including, but not limited to:  ..................  So, this is an 'other' at 110 occupancy.

B would be for the portion that will be the USDA offices.

Sue


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> That is "" Mr. Wonderful"" to you all has upgraded from "haz"Also did no think in this thing, your code may not require a full blown system, but the Feds may want one!!!!!


I am fairly sure of this as there will be a dispatch office located within the building.

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

Sorry to ask the question again

What will they be doing in the A-3. Training room, meeting, what is the other??

Not the dispatch room is it??


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Sorry to ask the question againWhat will they be doing in the A-3. Training room, meeting, what is the other??
> 
> Not the dispatch room is it??


Due to the size (over 50 occupants) it will include the entire operations for the Forest Service unit located here - admin, dispatch, info desk, offices, conference room, break room, ad nauseum.   The B portion is a similar set-up (less than 50 occupants) for USDA & RDA.

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

Are you mixing B and A together and calling it A??

Or is it B with some " A" accessory use?


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Are you mixing B and A together and calling it A??Or is it B with some " A" accessory use?


Mixed Use Building  A occupancy - USFS offices - over 50 occupants

                          B occupancy - USDA offices - under 50 occupants

          2 different agencies under the same roof with a wall between agencies.

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

I am in the state of confusion

If an office has 1000 people in the same room, size Appropriate , it is still a "B".


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 19, 2012)

Over 50 occupants in a single office setting is still a "B" occupancy use not an "A".

Think of a call center or news room where you have a bunch of little cubicles the employees work in. That is a "B" use even if you had 300 people working in the one room


----------



## Alias (Nov 19, 2012)

Well, then their designer and the plan checker are wrong.  Just another wrinkle in this convoluted project.  Thanks.......

Sue


----------



## cda (Nov 19, 2012)

Alias said:
			
		

> Well, then their designer and the plan checker are wrong.  Just another wrinkle in this convoluted project.  Thanks.......Sue


thank you I thought I was the crazy one for asking the same question over and over


----------



## north star (Nov 20, 2012)

*= =*

Sue,

From the "get go", ...this project has been designated as a "B", ...by you anyway!  

[ see the links ---->: http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/7235-building-classification-question.html ,

&

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/7430-commercial-plans-metal-building-usfs-usda.html , ]

What changed to now say it is an "A-3/B" ?

*= =*


----------



## Alias (Nov 20, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *= =*Sue,
> 
> From the "get go", ...this project has been designated as a "B", ...by you anyway!
> 
> ...


Their TI plans.  And I still don't have all the info to write the final permits............waiting on cost for the fire alarm system now.  No information on signage either other than 'we're just gonna move the old one'.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

Sue


----------



## lunatick (Nov 20, 2012)

Alias said:
			
		

> Okay, here we go.  Sprinkler system has been added for the new USFS 24,684 sq. ft. building in lieu of other fire protection provisions.
> 
> Current approved plans contain drawings for a fire alarm system.  I want to be ready if the project manager wants to delete something so my questions are:
> 
> ...


Who owns the building/property? Federal or other party?

My understanding is with Federally owned property/projects State laws do not apply. Which means codes, fees, etc. That stated the GSA or the branch will establish the standards by which the project is to be built. Typically, for political reasons, will abide by the local requirements, but technically they do not have to.


----------



## cda (Nov 20, 2012)

lunatick said:
			
		

> Who owns the building/property? Federal or other party?My understanding is with Federally owned property/projects State laws do not apply. Which means codes, fees, etc. That stated the GSA or the branch will establish the standards by which the project is to be built. Typically, for political reasons, will abide by the local requirements, but technically they do not have to.


Originally Posted by cda

usfs as in Federales?????

is this on federal property or are will they be leasing a building owned privately???????

and the answer is:::

 Lease back, privately owned.

Sue


----------

