# Demanding fire chief with no authority



## Rick18071 (May 27, 2020)

I'm an inspector in PA. PA doesn't use the IFC except when the IBC sends you there. An example would be high-piled combustible storage. A local jurisdiction can adopt the IFC and can also add stricter requirements to the codes if approved by the state.

I am currently inspecting a 1.3 million sq ft warehouse that only needs final inspections. The fire sprinkler company uses 2-1/2" hose connectors for drains where the fire main comes in the building from underground lines. There are barriers in front of these mains for protection. The fire chief of the local volunteer fire company came to look at the building and said this made these fire hose connectors inaccessible for the fire company and the barriers will need to be modified. Also The fire chief demanded  that the they need to add a 2-1/2" fire hose connections (standpipes) every 200" down the middle of the building. He demanded a few other things that are not in the IBC or any NFPA codes. I did not say anything when the fire chief was here.

The fire chief has no authority or any certifications.The township did not adopt the IFC or add anything else to the codes. Fire hose connectors (standpipes) are not required inside a one story building. None of the things the fire chief is demanding are on the approved plans or in any codes.

Just wondering if anyone else had a problem like this?

This added work will add a great expense and time to finish this building. I refuse to require these things that the fire chief wants. The owners will need to decide to fight this or just go along but they are in a hurry to open the building. I'm thinking of asking the building owners if they want to do what the fire chief wants them to, do it under a separate permit. That way I can pass the final inspections on the original permit. I am not the BCO here so I don't do the C. O.'s but the state law says the the C. O. must be issued within 5 days after the final inspection is passed.

Just wondering how other inspectors would handle this? I work for a third party inspection company and we don't want to piss off the township authorities and lose the township's code work to another company.


----------



## ADAguy (May 27, 2020)

Muddy waters you have. Check the city charter as to authority of the "volunteer" fire chief. Check with city attorney.


----------



## Enri Code (May 27, 2020)

I would try to engage the fire chief in a dialogue to understand where he is coming from as a matter of clarifying what he is requiring but that is probably something best done by the owner or owner's representative (i.e. architect, etc.).

Giving the benefit of the doubt... it may be a very localized situation or experience that shaped his thoughts on the matter.

As an example, I had done a project in a jurisdiction where fire marshal did not allow a certain type of industrial refrigerant because of a recent fatal explosion that happened. Local and national code allows for the refrigerant but he would not even if investigations found out that explosion was caused by illegal activity. He just doesn't want to deal with it anymore. 

I agree with @ADAguy on looking into the authority of the fire chief with the city. It may be that his comments are just documented to be advisement and responded to in writing by the owner or for further clarification.

The fire chief not really having authority and needing to tread lightly requires a lot of finesse. Good luck on this.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 27, 2020)

I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
IBC
[F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:

6.    Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.


----------



## Enri Code (May 27, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
> IBC
> [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
> Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:
> ...



And there's the possibility that the fire chief also knows his stuff... LOL... Really good to talk it out and just verify proper application if it is still an issue.


----------



## cda (May 27, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> I'm an inspector in PA. PA doesn't use the IFC except when the IBC sends you there. An example would be high-piled combustible storage. A local jurisdiction can adopt the IFC and can also add stricter requirements to the codes if approved by the state.
> 
> I am currently inspecting a 1.3 million sq ft warehouse that only needs final inspections. The fire sprinkler company uses 2-1/2" hose connectors for drains where the fire main comes in the building from underground lines. There are barriers in front of these mains for protection. The fire chief of the local volunteer fire company came to look at the building and said this made these fire hose connectors inaccessible for the fire company and the barriers will need to be modified. Also The fire chief demanded  that the they need to add a 2-1/2" fire hose connections (standpipes) every 200" down the middle of the building. He demanded a few other things that are not in the IBC or any NFPA codes. I did not say anything when the fire chief was here.
> 
> ...




Building dimensions?


----------



## Rick18071 (May 27, 2020)

700' x 1,900'


----------



## jar546 (May 27, 2020)

And this is why in PA I always brought the fire department to the table during plan review for larger projects and even to the planning table for very large projects.  They like to feel included and it is a good political move.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 27, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> 6. Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.



The fire chief is not a fire code official. PA does not use the term or has a certification for "Fire Code Official." I myself have the state certification for "Fire Inspector" which will be using next year in a different city. The existing plans without the standpipes were approved per 2009 I codes by the townships 3rd party 3 years ago. It's would not be fair to add this at the final inspection even if it was legal.

I don't see where a standpipe is required at all in an S-2 warehouse. Am I missing it?  In 2009 IBC I can only find:
1.where the highest story is over 30' above the fire dept. vehicle access
2. Group A non-sprinklered buildings
3. Malls
4. Stages
5.underground buildings
6. helistops and heliports
7. Marinas and boatyards


----------



## RBK (May 27, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> I think he maybe correct in asking for the additional standpipes 1.3 million sq ft warehouse
> IBC
> [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections.
> Class I standpipe hose connections shall be provided in all of the following locations:
> ...


905.4 addresses where to put them when they are required.  905.3 addresses when they are required, and it's rare for a warehouse to check any of the boxes.  4-story buildings, certain A occupancies, covered malls, stages, marinas, rooftop gardens.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 27, 2020)

It was in the code prior to 2009. The building official error-ed when the did not require the additional stand pipes them selves or contact the fire official for their input. The other option is the fire official can instruct his people to not enter the building if there is a fire.

Have you ever tried to drag 400 feet of hose? There is a reason for the code provision
It would be interesting to know if there insurance provider knows this and will still provide coverage  
2006 IBC
6.    Where the most remote portion of a nonsprinklered floor or story is more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a hose connection or the most remote portion of a sprinklered floor or story is more than 200 feet (60 960 mm) from a hose connection, the fire code official is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations.


----------



## e hilton (May 27, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> . I'm thinking of asking the building owners if they want to do what the fire chief wants them to, do it under a separate permit.


I would not “ask” the owner anything, i think that could put you in a bad position.  I would tell the owner what you can do, and finish your inspection within your scope of authority and issue the CO.  If the fire chief has the ability to prevent occupance for items outside your authority, that’s between him and the owner.


----------



## cda (May 27, 2020)

Isn't [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections in the IBC, and should be enforced, if enforcing the IBC?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 27, 2020)

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.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 27, 2020)

e hilton said:


> I would not “ask” the owner anything, i think that could put you in a bad position.  I would tell the owner what you can do, and finish your inspection within your scope of authority and issue the CO.  If the fire chief has the ability to prevent occupancy for items outside your authority, that’s between him and the owner.



I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance. It makes me look bad, like I don't know the codes. This will cost the owner hundreds of thousands, months delay and will probably lose the company that wants to use it right away. How would you like it if the local inspector said you had to put in standpipes in your new garage to get the C. O. at the final inspection?



cda said:


> Isn't [F] 905.4 Location of Class I standpipe hose connections in the IBC, and should be enforced, if enforcing the IBC?



See what RBK said and what I said right before that.  Section 905.3 tells you what
buildings require standpipes. 905.4 tells you where to put the standpipes in those
buildings that require them.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 27, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> 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.



i don't know why you don't understand that the IBC IS NOT REQUIRING STANDPIPES IN THIS BUILDING.
THERE ARE NO FIRE CODE OFFICIALS HERE, ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO, 0.

905.4 means the fire code official (if there is one) is authorized to require that additional hose connections be provided in approved locations IN THE BUILDINGS THAT REQUIRE THEM which are:
1.where the highest story is over 30' above the fire dept. vehicle access
2. Group A non-sprinklered buildings
3. Malls
4. Stages
5.underground buildings
6. helistops and heliports
7. Marinas and boatyards


----------



## cda (May 27, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance. It makes me look bad, like I don't know the codes. This will cost the owner hundreds of thousands, months delay and will probably loose the company that wants to use it right away. How would you like it if the local inspector said you had to put in standpipes in your new garage to get the C. O. at the final inspection? .
> 
> 
> 
> See what RBK said and what I said right before that. 905.3 tells you what buildings require standpipes. 905.4 tells you where to put the standpipes in those buildings that require them.




You are right 

Not required

Sign off meets plans submitted and IBC


----------



## e hilton (May 27, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> I take exception to someone with no authority to make a owner do something that is not in the code or a local ordnance..


I wholly agree.  My point was directed at your wording.  Semantics.  If you ask the owner, it might seem to be collusion to override the fire marshal, or whatever he is.  I think you need to be firm in doing your job, which seems to include issuing the CO.  Do that, and you will have demonstrated your authority.  Then let the fire dude play his cards.


----------



## FM William Burns (May 28, 2020)

I’m a bit thrown back by the remarks made in making a point. I have been a fire protection consultant for over thirty years in addition to a municipal Fire Code Official for over 35 years. I will not enter into negative banter and will just say just because a sprinkler contractor installed it and some code official approved something does not make it right or CODE compliant.

I strongly recommend doing your due diligence and verify the Chief’s authority in the township’s charter. While I agree with questioning anytime a regulatory official or code official would attempt to enforce one’s will, I always try to investigate why the belief to do so exists and to provide a factual account to all parties involved attention and let the chips fall where they may. And always admit if I’m wrong or interpreted a regulation incorrectly. This came with learning how to become a regulator.

Regarding the fire sprinkler system. I would also recommend reading Chapter 20.1(5) of NFPA 13 associated to appropriate design and 20.11.1.1 - 16.15 for hose connections in storage occupancies. The chief’s only thing he can’t hang his hat on is the stated size of the hose connections throughout, quoted in the post.

The fact is the requirement is there for the hazards and fire service assistance associated to storage protection etc. My only hope is that the water supply, duration and commodity hazards were factored in when the design work was done. I am doubtful based on the original post.

Now as a consultant, I would suggest to the owner what his/her/their exposure will be by not correcting and or making the fire protection system compliant. If I lost revenue, I’m fine with that since regulatory code officials (private/public/for hire) have an obligation and should understand code compliance and nothing else needs to be said about that.  I loved these kinds of challenges and was pretty successful.  Thank God that people agreed with my opinion.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 30, 2020)

Thank you for your input. I'm always willing to learn. I am definitely no expert on the subject. We use 2015 IBC which references the 2013 NFPA 13 here. I looked through chapter 20 of NFPA 13 and did not find anything about stand pipes and there where no sections numbered 20.22.2.2 or 16.15. As far as I know the IBC tells you what buildings require stand pipes (listed in a previous post) and NFPA tells you how they are designed.

This township was just farms till just a couple years ago and has very little experience with commercial jobs. Now there in the middle of a warehouse boom. Their laws have not kept up with the times and have not adopted the IFC or assigned any kind of fire code official. In fact I never herd of any Fire Code Official anywhere in PA. Also the authorities here seem to be conservative and are against more government authority. I believe most local governments probably would not even enforce any building codes if the state did not require them too. 

 If the township had some ordinances about this I would gladly enforce which would start at the plan review, not at the final inspection.I looked it up as you suggested and I could find nothing about fire companies or fire chiefs anywhere in their ordinances. Only a burning and lock box requirement. The volunteer fire company is probably totally independent of the local government which is most in cases in rural PA

Yesterday I passed the final inspection of the sprinkler system per the township approved plan., The owners wrote a letter that said they won't be adding any stand pipes to the building that the the fire chief wanted because the building complies to code as is . This warehouse is a empty shell but I am starting to get fit-out plans for a tenant for offices and high storage racks for class 1 commodity from a well know computer and cell phone company.

I am always willing to hear your expert advice.


----------



## jar546 (May 30, 2020)

Who says the plans examiner was correct?  Maybe they were rubber stamped....by the plans examiner.


----------



## Mark K (May 30, 2020)

If the adopted regulations assign a role to the "Fire Code Official" without defining who this individual is it seems that they did not do a very good job in adopting the code.  This could easily be resolved by adopting a local ordinance defining who this term referrers to.

Probably the bigger problem is that many jurisdictions are not prepared to deal with the complexity of issues that are inherent in the various codes that they blindly adopt.


----------



## FM William Burns (May 30, 2020)

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.


----------



## jar546 (May 31, 2020)

Mark K said:


> If the adopted regulations assign a role to the "Fire Code Official" without defining who this individual is it seems that they did not do a very good job in adopting the code.  This could easily be resolved by adopting a local ordinance defining who this term referrers to.
> 
> Probably the bigger problem is that many jurisdictions are not prepared to deal with the complexity of issues that are inherent in the various codes that they blindly adopt.



That is true and I have seen it before.  Municipalities adopt the IFC and get firefighters trained and certified then get pushback from the community when they start enforcing the codes and quickly let it go by the wayside unless it is convenient which then becomes selective enforcement.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 1, 2020)

jar546 said:


> 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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 1, 2020)

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.

I'm just inspecting.  I work for a 3rd party.  I don't sign the C. of O.'s. The BCO (building
code official) does, who by the way I never met. I move around between about 50
different jurisdictions.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 1, 2020)

So since the other posting indicates “I reviewed the plans.....”. And your getting tenant plans..... my next piece of advice would be to CYA and assure that in your review you account for notifying that “potential” tenant of the need for the sprinkler system to have a design compliant with Chap 9 and the referenced standard(s).

Since this appears to be the burden of the incoming tenant to rectify and assure compliant design based on their operations you would want that disclaimer. My motto has always been to always prevent being live at 5.

Best wishes in your endeavors in fire code enforcement for the other jurisdiction and I’ll pay forward another piece of advice a former fire chief of mine from Metro Dade taught me, “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”. The advice is a great way to remind a regulator not to be driven by power or authority in the profession.


----------



## Enri Code (Jun 1, 2020)

> "...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”.



Someone needs to make T-shirts with these quotes on them.

In all seriousness though, amazing motto and piece of advice.  I see how this is applicable to a lot of people starting with me. I don't have a badge but did have the need to get my professional license pounded out of my head by years of experience and back on the wall where it belongs. LOL.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 1, 2020)

My take away from all of these posts is that we inspect to the minimum, (see IBC, IFC, IRC Section 101.3). I'm constantly asking for colleagues to "Show me in the code" where they have the authority to require.... Some just continue to give justification and think that is as good as a code reference. If you can't show it, you don't know it.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 1, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> 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.



How are these seen by you as "additional" when they are "required"?
When did your rough plumbing inspection occur?
Where are the design professionals in all of this?


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 1, 2020)

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 ego’s.


----------



## cda (Jun 1, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> 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.




Do you still bench 250?


----------



## Mark K (Jun 1, 2020)

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 to the space?

"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".​


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 1, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> 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].
> 
> ...



Note as well, the buildings fire insurance carrier should be asked to weigh in on this issue.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 2, 2020)

By all means get the insurance loss prevention engineer involved in the review. As an insurance person I have been down this road many times. I have gotten everyone in the room and attempt to work out the problems. Education goes a long way and explaining how things work particularly for the FD.

As a firefighter this can be a big problem if this the biggest building they respond to when a few years ago it was a cornfield. The concept of sprinkler protection and how it works in a large building is something they may not understand. Believe me from someone who has trained firefighters on sprinkler systems for 36 years a lot of mis-information on the topic.

Class I commodity......Wow!  Hopefully you have an ESFR system in the building.  Even then
unless they designed for Group A plastics, you may have much bigger problems then
standpipes!


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 2, 2020)

cda said:


> 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.....


----------



## cda (Jun 2, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> 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.....




Or Contractors 

Good for you!!! Health is a priority


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 2, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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.....
> 
> ...



First, there are guidelines in the standard for distances in hose connections and in a problematic area(s) the official has to have that flexibility. It would be a hard sell in the example distances mentioned.

A big problem nationally is where large companies get lured to underdeveloped areas with limited code enforcement for many different reasons. Far too often a building owner will put in a system in a shell and contract tenants to be responsible for modifications based on their operations.

Like IE mentions in a reply, education is the key. Having all interests at the table in the pre-construction phase is important. In reality, a 1.3 million s.f. building is typically built for a specific tenant. 

I can only deduce from the information provided that the Fire Chief was asking for access to the riser valves (in the standard) and hose connections from the sprinkler system (also in the standard). He just didn’t apply the requested provisions of the code’s referenced standards correctly. 

Now in the event the system is not designed correctly for the storage commodities, water supply and duration requirements. Anyone having a applicable regulatory interest in the facility would be advised to assure the compliance is followed through before occupancy. If the system is in compliance for the hazard it is a moot issue.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 3, 2020)

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.


----------



## cda (Jun 3, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Seems like you have done your job.

You are third party, and there is a BO for the City.

So if the Chief has a Beef, he  has a direct line to the BO.

Move on have a cup of coffee and a great day of inspecting.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 3, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> . I don't give a dam about the insurance company..


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.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 3, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> Please do not confuse Standpipes with Hose Connections for a sprinkler system.  There are differences..


Please explain.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 3, 2020)

There is a difference between the adopted regulations and good practice.  While the designer can and should consider things not in the regulations the regulations must be clear and ideally unambitious so the building owner knows in advance what is required.  The purpose of a preconstruction meeting is not for the inspector to impose additional requirements.

If the regulations are inadequate or deficient the answer is not to give an individual the ability to impose new requirements.    Such a thing is equivalent to appointing an autocrat.  I believe such practices are in conflict with our right that new laws not be imposed without due process.

If the regulations are deficient then revise them.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 3, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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.



Does Factory Mutual ring any bells for you.....ie a loss prevention engineer!

The insurance company for the building owner AND occupant maybe the same carrier or 2 different insurance companies will have a SIGNIFICANT input on the building fire protection. If it does not meet NFPA or FM standards they may not be able to get coverage or pay significantly more $$. $$$ usually gets folks attention because it is not more today BUT for the life of the building....it adds up fast.

The insurance company is another resource to help you......

Good luck


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 4, 2020)

e hilton said:


> Please explain.



Here are definitions of standpipes. A hose connection could be part of a standpipe system or just something to attach a hose to to wash your car or water your lawn with.

STANDPIPE SYSTEM, CLASSES OF. Standpipe system
classes are as follows:
Class I system. A system providing 21/2-inch (64 mm)
hose connections to supply water for use by fire departments
and those trained in handling heavy fire streams.
Class II system. A system providing 11/2-inch (38 mm)
hose stations to supply water for use primarily by the
building occupants or by the fire department during initial
response.
Class III system. A system providing 11/2-inch (38 mm)
hose stations to supply water for use by building occupants
and 21/2-inch (64 mm) hose connections to supply a
larger volume of water for use by fire departments and
those trained in handling heavy fire streams.
STANDPIPE, TYPES OF. Standpipe types are as follows:
Automatic dry. A dry standpipe system, normally filled
with pressurized air, that is arranged through the use of a
device, such as a dry pipe valve, to admit water into the
system piping automatically upon the opening of a hose
valve. The water supply for an automatic dry standpipe
system shall be capable of supplying the system demand.
Automatic wet. A wet standpipe system that has a water
supply that is capable of supplying the system demand
automatically.
Manual dry. A dry standpipe system that does not have a
permanent water supply attached to the system. Manual
dry standpipe systems require water from a fire department
pumper to be pumped into the system through the
fire department connection in order to supply the system
demand.
Manual wet. A wet standpipe system connected to a water
supply for the purpose of maintaining water within the
system but which does not have a water supply capable of
delivering the system demand attached to the system.
Manual wet standpipe systems require water from a fire
department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system
in order to supply the system demand.
Semiautomatic dry. A dry standpipe system that is
arranged through the use of a device, such as a deluge
valve, to admit water into the system piping upon activation
of a remote control device located at a hose connection.
A remote control activation device shall be provided
at each hose connection. The water supply for a semiautomatic
dry standpipe system shall be capable of supplying
the system demand.
Manual dry. A dry standpipe system that does not have a
permanent water supply attached to the system. Manual
dry standpipe systems require water from a fire department
pumper to be pumped into the system through the
fire department connection in order to supply the system
demand.
Manual wet. A wet standpipe system connected to a water
supply for the purpose of maintaining water within the
system but which does not have a water supply capable of
delivering the system demand attached to the system.
Manual wet standpipe systems require water from a fire
department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system
in order to supply the system demand.
Semiautomatic dry. A dry standpipe system that is
arranged through the use of a device, such as a deluge
valve, to admit water into the system piping upon activation
of a remote control device located at a hose connection.
A remote control activation device shall be provided
at each hose connection. The water supply for a semiautomatic
dry standpipe system shall be capable of supplying
the system demand.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 4, 2020)

Insurance Engineer said:


> Does Factory Mutual ring any bells for you.....ie a loss prevention engineer!



No never herd of it.



Insurance Engineer said:


> The insurance company is another resource to help you......



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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 4, 2020)

Just saw a letter that the architect sent to the township saying that the building is to code and are not doing the things the fire cheif asked for.

I passed the fire sprinkler system final inspection for the warehouse shell and requested the township BCO (AHJ) to issue the  C. O.  on Friday . This sprinkler system is on it's own separate permit.


----------



## jeffc (Jun 4, 2020)

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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 4, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> No never herd of it.



https://www.fmglobal.com/about-us/why-fm-global


----------



## jar546 (Jun 4, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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.



Factory Mutual is big in Pennsylvania.  They typically go to buildings like this twice a year to inspect the system for the insurance company.  This has a direct reflection on the rates they pay for insurance and the building owners are under the gun to keep their FS systems AND fire-doors, fire-walls in tip top shape.  With some insurance companies they may add in another risk assessment company on top of FM.  An improperly approved and inspected system can have significant consequences and a third party agency will be in litigation much quicker than the municipal BCO employee.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 4, 2020)

Jar546

Agree 100% I was one of those insurance guys for many years, not with FM but with another insurance carrier. We were usually involved from the planning stages of a project by providing our insurance requirements for the site, review of fire protection plans, on site inspection as the systems being installed, witness fire protection acceptance testing and final review. 

As you said once the project was completed we would visit semiannual to ensure nothing had changed in the occupancy or protection. We would witness the annual testing of the fire protection and fire door drop testing. 

We worked closely with the building owner, contractors and our underwriting staff. Any problems were documented during the process with all of the above folks involvement in meetings. I wish I had a $1 for every time I was asked “what happens if we do not do what you are asking”, corporate management usually answered the question for me!!....just do what he is asking!!


----------



## Mark K (Jun 4, 2020)

While it behooves a building owner to consult with their insurance carrier this is not something that the building department should be concerned with.  The building departments job is not to protect the building from all problems but rather to enforce the adopted regulations.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 4, 2020)

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


----------



## Mark K (Jun 4, 2020)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 4, 2020)

jeffc said:


> 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.



This all comes down to capacity for future use, it is the AOR's responsibility to determine this and the inspectors duty to confirm that the building conforms to the "approved" drawings. On That I believe we all agree. If it doesn't it will come up when inspected/accepted by the insurance carrier (duh!) or not. 
Sign the CO and walk/run away.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 4, 2020)

e hilton said:


> Please explain.



Standpipe System is defined in NFPA 14 (3.3.20) designed to be a supply point for the advance of hose lines for “extinguishment” of fires. Typically found in High Rise, Low Rise (Large Single Story, Horizontal Exits, and Parking Structures where access and water supply availability is challenging. While yes a standpipe system will have hose connections of 2.5 inch and combined 2.5 and 1.5 inch. the intended function is separate and the term “hose connection” takes on a different meaning due to the intended operations. There are 3 classifications as posted original poster prior to this explanation on the differences.

Sprinkler system hose connections are specific for Storage occupancies and are “auxiliary” connections to the sprinkler piping intended to be used as or for first aid, firefighting “only” to keep a fire in check or for overhaul operations and supplied by a “hopefully” an adequate design buffer GPM included in the sprinkler’s water supply supply design.  While they appear similar they’re different due to the intended usage of the system(s).


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 4, 2020)

A few questions 
Distance from the floor to the underside of the roof.
Roof construction wood, metal, concrete.
Design of the sprinkler systems ie area density, ESFR, number of sprinklers at head pressure at K factor.
Fire pump on site if so gpm at ??psi
Any fire walls if so the rating of the wall or large open space.
 % of warehouse, office, assembly of the bld.

The above would give us an idea if the standpipe would even assist the FD ie if the sprinkler design is inadequate what help will a standpipes be would be? My guess the fire will be firefighter term surrounded and drown!!


----------



## e hilton (Jun 4, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> Here are definitions of standpipes..


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.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 5, 2020)

We ran into something slightly similar about 5 years back. The issue at the time ws that the fire marshal were on a different code cycle than the building inspection departments were in my province (we know, a serious issue). Proactive departments, like my own, were proactive with the changes. We knew what they were and were able to work proactively with owners and designers to ensure the were permitted to occupy. In some situation, we even accepted designers to the newest version of the code we had yet to adopt.

Unfortunately, one of our neighboring jurisdiction were not of the same mindset. The new code required many more smoke alarms to be installed in dwelling units. On developer of an apartment building complex was getting ready for occupancy, having everything approved by the local building inspection department, only to have the fire marshal come in and refuse occupancy over the missing smoke alarms.

The building inspectors tried to save face by telling the owner that they could only enforce the adopted code (which is true), but the damage to their reputation was done. Moreover, this cause a serious rift between the fire and building officials.

I know you said this person is not a fire "official", but we still need to work with other professionals in the industry. Failure to do so makes everyone involved look bad.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 5, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 5, 2020)

e hilton said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 5, 2020)

Once again the providing of adequate accurate information when seeking advice, interpretation or information when expressing one’s opinions is critical. Just like designing plans for review or fire protection systems (junk in = junk out) a returned comment of “lack of detail“  has been used far too often in plan review as has with on site inspections “Im sorry that this was designed improperly for the hazard I’m inspecting and seeing here today.... here are the available options to gain compliance”.  Sure would have helped in this discussion.... be safe all and please remember “Fire Suppression is a Failure in Prevention”


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2020)

We have something similar going on in our state right now between the state building codes division and the local fire department. 

The Central Valley Fire District asked a Gallatin County judge Wednesday to throw out a lawsuit that claims the fire district doesn’t have the authority to enforce state fire codes on a wedding venue in the Belgrade area.

Foster Creek Farm filed the lawsuit against the fire district in Gallatin County District Court in May.

The farm built a barn for weddings in 2016, according to court documents. The state inspected and approved the barn for occupancy, but the fire district issued a fire code violation in 2017 for not having a fire sprinkler system.

The farm is asking a judge to uphold the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Building Standards Division’s occupancy approval, which didn’t require a fire sprinkler system. It is also asking the court to order the fire district to pay any damages related to the lawsuit.

In its motion to dismiss the case, the fire district said it has the right to enforce state fire codes. It claims the state building division’s occupancy approval is not a legal certificate of occupancy, and that the farm did not have authority to build a wedding venue that violated fire codes.

Subsequently, the fire district filed a third-party complaint against the state in September, alleging that the state should have asked the fire district for input on the building plans before approving the barn.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_5e2822a2-823b-5df3-9a5d-f478e727af00.html

The fire district claims the state’s building division should be responsible for any damages awarded to the farm, not the fire district.

The Department of Labor and Industry hasn’t filed a response to the complaint. However, Judy Bovington, attorney for the department, said it would be answering and proceeding in the litigation. Bovington said the department believes it correctly applied the law.

In 2016, the building standards division required the farm to install a fire sprinkler system in the barn to comply with building and fire codes, according to court documents. However, it later removed those requirements because the barn had enough exits and it was constructed with heavy timber and steel.

The farm finished the barn without a fire sprinkler system. In September 2016, the state inspected and approved the building to hold more than 100 people.

In February 2017, the fire district sent a letter to the farm saying it had concerns about the property and compliance with fire codes, according to court documents.

The fire district performed an inspection in October 2017 and issued a notice of violation for not having a fire sprinkler system, according to court documents.

Prior to filing a lawsuit, the farm challenged the decision to the fire district’s board of appeals. In February 2018, the board upheld the fire district’s decision.


----------



## Enri Code (Jun 5, 2020)

On the matter of insurance, my experience is that it is very important for the design professionals to engage with insurance provider through the owner. In fact, we always ask client to have us engage with their insurance provider as soon as possible. Just good practice.

We don't really expect the people on the building inspection/ enforcement side to engage with insurance though.

There is the understanding that building inspection/ enforcement deals with code issues.

On the other hand, insurance - even if there is of course overlapping with the code - may in fact require other things beyond the code such as FM standards or just more advanced in general versus local codes.

In fact, we've run into issues before where we were required to design sprinklers per FM and the local jurisdiction would not allow it because the local code they were using had a different required spacing for sprinkler heads versus FM.

We did get it approved largely with the help of the insurance company who educated the local jurisdiction about the FM design as a more safer design over the code minimums. 

So yes, insurance providers and issues are important.

It is the owner and through the owner that design professionals engage with the insurance providers.

There is big benefit for Building Officials to also engage with discussions with the insurance providers but as needed through facilitation by the design professionals and/ or owner.


----------



## Enri Code (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



I've always had it in my mind that acceptance of the IBC means acceptance of all the ICC codes. All the ICC codes from my understanding tie together with each other fully and not just on particular chapters or issues. 

Of course this is the case unless expressly being stated in a local mandate or amendment as otherwise. 

Maybe that is what you are referring and that the local jurisdiction has already expressively made it known that they do not abide by IFC at all?

Based on what you just narrated though, looks like local BCO has sided with the Fire Chief regardless on this one or at least is making it so that this matter can be properly addressed by the owner.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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, 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”.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> Unfortunately with no adoption of the IFC there is no requirement to maintain the sprinkler system by the government, codes, or fire company.



Not correct the IBC references the IFC for maintenance of sprinkler systems
IBC
[A] 101.4 Referenced codes.
The other codes listed in Sections 101.4.1 through 101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall be considered to be part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.
IBC
[F] 903.5 Testing and maintenance.
Sprinkler systems shall be tested and maintained in accordance with the International Fire Code.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 5, 2020)

e hilton said:


> 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”.



Why you ask? See Major warehouse (sprinklered?) fire in Redlands this morning, a tiltup with collapsed walls (why?) and roof (what could burn so hot?). Only 2 hours old and still burning. At least 30 truck docks.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071

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” .....


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 5, 2020)

PA did not adopt chapter 1 of the IBC. It has it's own roules and nothing about maintenance of anything.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 5, 2020)

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” .....[/QUOTE]

No. My company has insurance for that.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 5, 2020)

[/QUOTE]

No. My company has insurance for that.[/QUOTE]
Insurance isn’t going to keep you from the courtroom.


----------



## classicT (Jun 5, 2020)

jar546 said:


> 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.


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.


Rick18071 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> PA did not adopt chapter 1 of the IBC.


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 (Jun 5, 2020)

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).


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 5, 2020)

Rick18071 said:


> 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” .....



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.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 5, 2020)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 5, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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 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 (Jun 5, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 5, 2020)

jar546 said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 6, 2020)

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.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 6, 2020)

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


----------



## jar546 (Jun 6, 2020)

Insurance Engineer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



AND you gave many of us a tour of your facility in New Jersey!  Thank you.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 6, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> . 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.



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 (Jun 6, 2020)

Insurance Engineer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 6, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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



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 (Jun 6, 2020)

Mark K said:


> 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




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.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 7, 2020)

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.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 7, 2020)

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.


----------



## cda (Jun 7, 2020)

The OWNER, can be the AHJ,,,

They sign the check


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 7, 2020)

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


----------



## jar546 (Jun 7, 2020)

Insurance Engineer said:


> 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



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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 8, 2020)

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 (Jun 8, 2020)

FM William Burns said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------

