# Your Opinion vs What the Code Reads / Intent



## jar546 (Mar 20, 2021)

I continue to see and hear of situations where inspectors and building officials have personal opinions that conflict with the codes as written and enforce their opinion vs the written code which conflicts with their opinion.  Some will point to the statement code section below:



The biggest abuse of these personal opinions is hanging their hats on the "...authority to render interpretations..." and ignore the part where it says "...not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provide for in this code."  That makes a big difference.

We are suppose to be facilitators of the code and to a degree educators.  Our work is not suppose to be a social visit and always be the good guy.  I believe that many out there just don't like being perceived as the bad guy/girl and as a result of the lax enforcement, make it harder for everyone else by confusing contractors as to what is actually required.  How many times did you hear the phrase similar to this? "I just did the same thing in another jurisdiction and it passed."  

If you haven't noticed, I bring this up every few years to discuss.  In addition to the happy go lucky, complacent enforcement officials we have the opposite which is just as bad.  I am talking about the "Do as I say, I don't care what the code says." attitude where officials make contractors do things that are not required.  This creates a lot of animosity in the industry from the RDPs to the contractors and homeowners.

Yes, we all make mistakes and none of us are perfect.  We are going to miss things but that is not what I a talking about.  I am really talking about intentional ignorance to the code by either coming up with excuses why you don't have to enforce the code or making up your own requirements that are not in the code.

Thoughts?


----------



## cda (Mar 20, 2021)

I try very hard to stick to the black and white.

If it is not in the book I do not enforce it.

I have no problem people asking me for the code section and giving it to them,,,, especially when I have worked out of U Codes, ICBO, and now ICC, plus three ahjs,   Sometimes I think it is in the current code, but it was in a prior book.

There is the real world where something was missed in design/ plan review and the building is built. So do you tear the building down, or get as close to intent as possible and document it???

There are calls in the field , yes sometimes they need to revise a sheet for review, prior to approval.

Than there is use of common sense, when making calls.

I have no problem with saying NO, it does not meet code, or stop work order.

The other problem on the ahj side is from an inspector I worked with;; He said “””If you do not know the code,, Yiu cannot enforce it!!!”


----------



## ICE (Mar 20, 2021)

I just don't know what it would be like to work in an AHJ that prioritized the accuracy of code enforcement.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 20, 2021)

Part of my interviewing and training of new inspectors...."If you can show it to me in the book, I will go to the mat for you.  If you go off course, go rogue, we are having problems!"


----------



## Keystone (Mar 21, 2021)

To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.


----------



## jar546 (Mar 21, 2021)

Keystone said:


> To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.


I do appreciate a good team effort.  It finds common ground and exposes those on the fringe in either direction.


----------



## TheCommish (Mar 21, 2021)

Enforce what is written in the code, do not make things up, and be able to back up the requirement with chapter and verse. Be willing to have a professional discussion if there is other information that the aggrieved party wants to present. Be a student of the codes so you may offer a reason for the code requirement and be able to offer alternatives compliance methods.

Chapter 1 is the most import chapter of the book, it lays the ground rules.

When presented with a dilemma consider:

*101.3 Intent. *The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, _means of egress _facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Contrary to what the contractor believes the code is not gray and only subject to interpretation if the words are not there.

Uncovered issues in the current edition of the code or forward thinking alternative such as those found in the next edition of the code are allowed under:

*104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. *The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been _approved_. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be _approved _where the _building official _finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, _fire resistance_, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not _approved_, the _building official _shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not _approved_. See 104.11.1, 11.2

The manufactures instruction in many cases have the information need to answer the how to install/do/apply question.


----------



## ICE (Mar 21, 2021)

Keystone said:


> To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.


I have brought many questions to this forum.  I have been correct and corrected and whichever is the case it is pleasant to obtain an answer.


----------



## steveray (Mar 22, 2021)

Keystone said:


> To try and stay balanced we have a group of inspectors/plan reviewers, some from third parties, AHJ’s and a state inspector in an open thread group text. As situations, brain farts and questions rise we can bounce the item off of one another.


This is what I would like to do for my State...Or to just get them all to come here.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 22, 2021)

I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
Montana Administrative rule
24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

The key IMHO, is the violation minor and is it imminent. 
imminent​ (ˈɪmɪnənt)
_adj_
*1. *liable to happen soon; impending


----------



## cda (Mar 22, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
> Montana Administrative rule
> 24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.
> 
> ...




And anyone asking for almost same situation,,,, gets the same treatment?

That is the problem I have seen with other inspectors,,, they pick and choose who they waive at!


----------



## Kearney.200 (Mar 22, 2021)

I have always tried to be flexible I will enforce the black and white of the code, but if there is a problem with it on that particular project then I am more than willing to have a conversation with them and try to work out a way to meet the intent of the code.  Also if I call something they disagree with I ask them to show me were it is that they can do it that way, I'm always willing to learn.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 22, 2021)

I default to black and white.  Always.  I provide a code reference to all my comments or inspection failures.  Many times I have written a comment only to delete it when I can't find the code reference to support it.  I encourage architects, engineers, homeowners and contractors to ask for a code reference any time somebody provides a correction without one.  When I don't understand something on a plan I ask the applicant rather than try to guess what they are doing and writing comments that aren't relevant.  When the black and white doesn't fit I will try very hard to find an alternate path to compliance within the code, something we never thought of, something I come here and ask questions about, something I read RLGA's book and website for, commentaries, code essentials, Building Code College, interpretations, other model codes and state codes, etc.  I look hard and ask them to look hard for equivalents that can be justified.  I ask experts if my understanding of something is wrong, or seek alternates to that understanding in case my assumptions are wrong.  Very seldom do I ever run up against a code that can't be complied with if people try hard enough.

On the other hand, we are not robots and I believe we need to use judgment in our understanding and administration of the code.  If we don't then BIM and software based compliance will take over someday.  Our judgment, critical thinking and desire to find alternate paths are what set us apart from any software or logarithm that can't think for itself.  And, as much as I would like to believe otherwise, there are codes that aren't always black and white.  Some are confusing, some are inconsistent with other codes, some are just baffling, and some are performance based and we are forced to make judgment calls.  I do believe it is ok to render well thought out, justifiable interpretations on occasion, but I have a hard time with make believe codes or making believe they don't exist.

I know a lot of very smart people that disagree with the code and pick and choose what they believe over the black and white, sometimes I agree with them, but still believe it is a dis-service to arbitrarily and inconsistently enforce what we believe, on any given day, in any given AHJ.  Even worse, some of them teach those inconsistencies.  When they do this they are simply asking someone to believe their version over what is legally adopted and published.  If I am going to use some alternate understanding, it needs to be my own (either by original thought or adopted), not a regurgitated opinion that I may not understand. 

The biggest knock against any building official is lack of consistency.  The absolute best way to achieve consistency is to follow what is written in black and white because if we all have the same book, how an we be telling different stories?


----------



## tmurray (Mar 22, 2021)

We actually have a supreme court ruling here that stipulates that we are expected to use our judgment based on the likelihood of harm, the gravity of harm, and the cost of repair.

I usually don't need to use my discretion. The only time I do is when I look at a violation, knowing the intent of the code, and find the correction to the code violation does not achieve the intent of the code.


----------



## Sifu (Mar 22, 2021)

When used correctly and judiciously, 104.11 is a great tool for CBO's, but IMHO it shouldn't be the primary pathway to gaining approval.  BTW, the 2021 IBC seems to have beefed that section up a little with a little more specific guidance.


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 20, 2021)

Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here.  My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:

1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC.  We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall.  This is the one we are in agreement on.

2.  A commercial kitchen, where a Type I hood is installed for whatever reason (repurposing, got it free/cheap) where a type II hood or even no hood would be sufficient, say over electric ovens or a dishwasher.  Because only a type II is required, the duct and exhaust outlet only have to meet type II requirements--light gage duct, no shaft, completely different fan requirements, etc.  If no hood is required, the IMC does not apply to the hood system at all.

His position is that I can't write up any corrections on the system with regard to Type I requirements. This in spite of the fact that IMC 507.1 states "... Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509." 

My argument is that because it is specifically addressed in the section on commercial kitchen hoods, all the components must meet the requirements of a type I hood. Also, this is a UL listed piece of equipment that has installation requirements based on that listing.  
My fear is that if a contractor that wants nothing to do with inspections/codes went that route, it could be applied to all sorts of items that aren't required by code:  Heaters in parking garages, boilers for ice melt systems, redundant heating systems,  gas or solid fuel fireplaces in any occupancy (by code they can't be the primary heat source), air conditioning systems (in spite of what some people think, they are not a requirement in the code, you can build a house with no AC).

Thoughts???


----------



## cda (Jul 20, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here.  My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:
> 
> 1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC.  We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall.  This is the one we are in agreement on.
> 
> ...



if type II hood is all that is required 

Than only needs to meet Type II requirements


----------



## cda (Jul 20, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> Reviving this thread because of a disagreement involving section 101.3 and its interpretation that seems to run right along with the conversation here.  My CBO is saying that because the intent of the code is to enforce minimum standards, we don't have the authority to require corrections on items that are not required by code. He gave a couple examples, one of which I agree with and the other I do not:
> 
> 1. A bank wants to build a room for document storage with a one-hour rating. The room is not required to be rated by the IBC.  We can advise, but not require corrections pertaining to the fire resistivity of the wall.  This is the one we are in agreement on.
> 
> ...



I disagree on #1

If say a one hour wall is shown on the plans,,, it shall be built to plans/ one hour wall….

You  are putting your name on it,,,, saying it is one hour and meets code.

Or do you list all the stuff not required, and does not meet code???


----------



## Mark K (Jul 20, 2021)

This is a problem that lawyers deal with all the time and as a result they have rules on how to interpret statutes.  The building code is a law and  thus we should follow these same rules.  Your city attorney should be able to clarify what the rules are

As I understand it they first look to what the letter of the code says and if this resolves the question you are done.  On the other hand if the code language is unclear then any interpretation needs to be consistent with the intent.  You cannot enforce the intent but you can use the intent to find an interpretation.

The intent may be clear when the code specifically states what the intent is but in other cases what you think the intent is may not be  what was the intent of  those adopting the code.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

1. Did they use a code term? Fire barrier or fire partition? If not, I could let that go or I have had the discussion of putting "built similar to U419" or something like that to document for posterity...
2. Similar, if they call it type 1 then it is.....If not, it's not......As long as it does not actually void the listing....


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

steveray said:


> 2. Similar, if they call it type 1 then it is.....If not, it's not......As long as it does not actually void the listing....


Unlike the wall that shows up on the jobsite as unassembled studs and drywall, The problem here is it is already called a type I by the manufacturer and UL before the plans were even drawn. Then 507.1 says if a type I hood is installed the entire system has to meet type I requirements. 
As far as voiding the listing, as soon as light gage duct or any other component does not meet the requirements of a Type I hood system it can't be used as a type I hood.  Does that void the listing of the hood?


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

I guess the bigger question is interpretation of 101.3.  If the intent of the codes is to provide minimum standards, is anything installed that is not required by code then considered above and beyond and therefor not subject to the code?

Fireplaces are a good example also.  They are only a supplementary heat source and in most cases just decorative and so are never required by code.  There are definitely those out there who would make that stretch.....


----------



## classicT (Jul 21, 2021)

Regarding the hood, I agree that it is all or nothing. A complete Type I or a complete Type II, not an amalgamation.

As for the first example, so long as it is just called a 1-hr wall, I do not care. Call it a 1-hr fire barrier, and I will look at it as if it were a 1-hr fire barrier.

While the code is a minimum standard, designers have the ability to do better than the minimum. Therefore, when something that is better than the minimum does not meet the code requirements, I will typically indicate how it is deficient, but will also note that it is not required. The designer can then choose to either do it 100% correct, or remove it.


----------



## cda (Jul 21, 2021)

So no one has seen. Type I hood with just enclosed ovens under it?


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

I have seen, prior to that sentence getting added to 507.1 a type I hood in a restaurant remodel repurposed as a type II.  The new duct was light gage slip and drive appropriate for a type II. I think that sentence was added in 2009 IMC.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

Big difference from required by code and governed by code.....Fireplaces are....


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> Unlike the wall that shows up on the jobsite as unassembled studs and drywall, The problem here is it is already called a type I by the manufacturer and UL before the plans were even drawn. Then 507.1 says if a type I hood is installed the entire system has to meet type I requirements.
> As far as voiding the listing, as soon as light gage duct or any other component does not meet the requirements of a Type I hood system it can't be used as a type I hood.  Does that void the listing of the hood?


So if I buy a used type 1 hood and put it over my dishwasher, It can't qualify as Type 2? The IMC does not require a hood to be listed and labelled...


301.7 Listed and labeled. Appliances regulated by this code
shall be listed and labeled for the application in which they
are installed *and used*, unless otherwise approved in accordance
with Section 105.


----------



## Sleepy (Jul 21, 2021)

cda said:


> if type II hood is all that is required
> 
> Than only needs to meet Type II requirements





steveray said:


> So if I buy a used type 1 hood and put it over my dishwasher, It can't qualify as Type 2? The IMC does not require a hood to be listed and labelled...



The code quoted above says specifically that if a Type I hood is installed then all the other components have to meet the requirements for Type I.  So, no you can't buy a used Type I and install it as a Type II.  I would imagine the reason for this code language is that many of those other Type I components are hidden and someone, a kitchen equipment sales person, a future owner, a future renovator, could interpret the presence of a Type I hood as meaning that it actually is a Type I hood installation.  I would also imagine that a BO might accept as equivalent the installation of a Type I in a Type II installation if the hood was marked as Type II or the Type I labels were removed.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

Not exactly....

Where any cooking
appliance under a single hood requires a Type I hood, a
Type I hood shall be installed. Where a Type II hood is
required, a Type I or Type II hood shall be installed. Where a
Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system,
including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air
system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506,
507, 508 and 509.

The intent is when it is required to be type 1....it is all type 1....If it is an unlisted/ unlabeled hood (as allowed), how do you know.....?


----------



## fatboy (Jul 21, 2021)

This is like the old guard argument.

Patio/deck, under 30" from grade, someone decides to be safe, or make it pretty, adds a system, that kinda looks like a guard, but doesn't meet the requirements.

Not required, stick to what is required for the application.

I have an office in my house, with no windows. For real. Without furniture, it looks like a sleeping room, has a closet (w/shelves), but no smoke detector. Should requirements for a sleeping room been applied? I think not.

JMHO


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

I can buy into an old unlisted type I hood because then there is nothing specifically calling it a type I hood.  If it is listed and labeled as a type I hood that's a different matter.  The code doesn't say where a type I hood is _required,_  it says "where a type I hood is _installed, _the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509." 

If a type I isn't required and they don't want to spend the money on a full type I system, take out the listed type I hood and put in a type II.  A good tinner can make one pretty quick, its just a big box. I've done it in under an hour, even in the days before we had a plasma table to cut everything out for you.  Probably for less cost than they could turn around and sell the type I they have on eBay.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 21, 2021)

HOOD. An air intake device used to capture by entrapment, impingement, adhesion or similar means, grease, moisture, heat and similar contaminants before they enter a duct system.

Type I. A kitchen hood for collecting and removing grease vapors and smoke.* Such hoods are equipped with a fire suppression system.*

Type II. A general kitchen hood for collecting and removing steam, vapor, heat, odors and products of combustion.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 21, 2021)

If what is provided is in excess of what the code requires the building department is not concerned.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jul 21, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> I have a little bit of latitude from the state with regards to your question
> Montana Administrative rule
> 24.301.146 (29) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.
> 
> ...


Like Mtlogcabin says about Montana, Oregon has adopted a similar provision that allows more discretionary powers and flexibility to Building officials.


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

Here's the whole section, minus the exceptions for what listed hoods do not have to meet and recirculating systems:

*507.1 General.* Commercial kitchen exhaust hoods shall
comply with the requirements of this section. Hoods shall be
Type I or II and shall be designed to capture and confine
cooking vapors and residues. A Type I or Type II hood shall
be installed at or above appliances in accordance with Sections
507.2 and 507.3. Where any cooking appliance under a
single hood requires a Type I hood, a Type I hood shall be
installed. Where a Type II hood is required, a Type I or Type
II hood shall be installed. Where a Type I hood is installed,
the installation of the entire system, including the hood,
ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

There is nothing saying that a hood over an appliance that only requires a type II hood is designated as a type II hood, it says the appliance can be under either a type I or a type II.  
I know the commentary is not code, but it is a tool to be used to help in interpreting the code. Here's what the commentary says regarding this:  "If such type I hood is connected to duct suitable for only type II hood systems, a fire hazard could result.  Building owners and tenants could think they have a type I hood system when viewing the hood, not realizing that the hood system is actually a mismatch of a type I hood with ductwork that is not compatible with a type I hood.... If the type I hood  was later used with appliances requiring type I hoods, a severe fire hazard would result, unknown to the building owner or tenants.  The code intends to prohibit the installation of a system that is misleading as to its capabilities, application , and purpose."


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> If what is provided is in excess of what the code requires the building department is not concerned.


This goes back to the main question of 101.3, the intent of the code.  A completely different example, but I want to heat my garage, which is in excess of what minimum code requires. Is my garage heater subject to code requirements?

BTW this is a great discussion, and thanks for the input from all!


----------



## cda (Jul 21, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> Here's the whole section, minus the exceptions for what listed hoods do not have to meet and recirculating systems:
> 
> *507.1 General.* Commercial kitchen exhaust hoods shall
> comply with the requirements of this section. Hoods shall be
> ...



If installed as type II and used as that 

Than a year later they decide to deep fat fry,,, the entire set up would require changes.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 21, 2021)

I fear that what is perceived as the intent of the code is being used by some to impose there personal preferences.

Asking if a garage heater is  subject to the code suggests that one is not familiar with the code.  If you install something that something must be compatible with the laws.  But that doesn't mean that the heater must be able to maintain a given temperature.

Using the proposed logic would suggest that if I used a floor joist that had a greater capacity than required that I  would have to design all of the columns and footings for this higher load.  If this is your intent then I suggest that essentially all existing buildings were not consistent with the "intent" and that they should be all condemned.

Look at how lawyers and the courts interpret the meaning of the code.  You do not enforce  the intent.  You enforce the written law.  You use the intent to help interpret the code when there is a real, not contrived, ambiguity.


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 22, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I fear that what is perceived as the intent of the code is being used by some to impose there personal preferences.
> 
> Asking if a garage heater is  subject to the code suggests that one is not familiar with the code.  If you install something that something must be compatible with the laws.  But that doesn't mean that the heater must be able to maintain a given temperature.
> 
> ...


I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with the garage heater scenario, but wasn't even considering ability to maintain a certain temperature. I was talking about the installation itself.  There are those that would try to take the interpretation of "not required" that far.  

Back to the hood scenario, it IS written law that if a type I hood is installed (not _required) _the entire system must comply with type I requirements, so are those who allow lesser duct, etc. going with their own personal preferences and not the code as written?


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with the garage heater scenario, but wasn't even considering ability to maintain a certain temperature. I was talking about the installation itself.  There are those that would try to take the interpretation of "not required" that far.
> 
> Back to the hood scenario, it IS written law that if a type I hood is installed (not _required) _the entire system must comply with type I requirements, so are those who allow lesser duct, etc. going with their own personal preferences and not the code as written?



Ok let’s play you make the call 

New building 
You do a final

Find a one hour rated door with label,,, in a non rated frame,,, in a non rated wall,,, with no closing device 

Do you make them remove the rated door

Do you make them install a rated frame

Do you make them installs closing device

Do you make them remove the UL label 

Do you


----------



## steveray (Jul 22, 2021)

I like the Mark and cda examples....If there is no ANSUL, it is not type 1, So there is no mistaking that IMO....If I had to, I would remove the label (that said TYPE 1)  and then there could be no argument...


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 22, 2021)

Not quite as familiar with the IBC as the IMC.  Is there anything in the IBC regarding the door similar to this from the IMC regarding hoods? 

_ Where a Type I hood is installed,
the installation of the entire system, including the hood,
ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509._

If there isn't, the door can stay as is. In one of my previous posts I said I did run into mismatched hood and duct before that was added to the IMC, and it passed because the above statement was not in code at the time.


----------



## klarenbeek (Jul 22, 2021)

The ANSUL system is driven by the appliances under the hood, not the hood itself (IMC 509). The hood, duct, ANSUL, fan, and makeup air are each separate components that make up a Type I system.  How the hood itself is built/listed is what determines what type of hood it is.


----------



## steveray (Jul 22, 2021)

509.1 Where required. Commercial cooking appliances required by Section 507.2 to have a Type I hood shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system complying with the International Building Code and the International Fire Code.

So are you saying you can install a Type 1 hood without suppression?...

_Where a Type I hood is installed, the installation of the entire system, including the hood, ducts, exhaust equipment and makeup air system shall comply
with the requirements of Sections 506, 507, 508 and 509.

This is probably getting to the point where it should be its own thread....._


----------



## cda (Jul 22, 2021)

steveray said:


> 509.1 Where required. Commercial cooking appliances required by Section 507.2 to have a Type I hood shall be provided with an approved automatic fire suppression system complying with the International Building Code and the International Fire Code.
> 
> So are you saying you can install a Type 1 hood without suppression?...
> 
> ...




I think it is more, you make the call.

For your ahj. 

End of thread time.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 22, 2021)

Agreed,

End of thread time.

Parting shot.

I would still call them townhouses, IRC, and walk away. No sprinkler. If the State law requires a RDP at that point, it would probably be cheaper than the sprinklers. Because I am sure you deleted P2904, so now you are in a NFPA designed system.

BTW, we exempted one and two-family dwellings from our sprinkler requirements, retaining P2904 because we require townhouses to be sprinklered.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 23, 2021)

Going back to the original discussion my state did not adopt chapter 1 and replaced it with nothing about rendering interpretations except for when it comes to a Board of Appeals. I'm not sure if this makes my job as an inspector easier or harder. But I think only an appeals board can render interpretations, legally speaking in PA.


----------



## my250r11 (Jul 28, 2021)

klarenbeek said:


> The code intends to prohibit the installation of a system that is misleading as to its capabilities, application , and purpose."


This is what I would worry about, as for the door I would ask them to remove the rating tag on the door.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 23, 2021)

To all as previously mentioned, it comes down to "intent"; that being "safe". 
In court that may be subject to an "an it depends" analysis exclusive of code specifics or lack thereof.
Conditions differ as do the experiences of individual inspectors.


----------

