Main contents
August 3rd, 2008
A special blog post by Michael Baker
As I travel the USA I notice that some states consider fire alarm system design to be engineering. My state of Oregon has been wrestling with this issue since at least 2004 when OSBEELS (Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying) asked the Oregon Department of Justice to opine on the role of a fire alarm system designer. The result was a declaration that the design of fire alarm systems is considered to be engineering and therefore may only be done by an Oregon licensed professional engineer:
“The design of fire protection services and systems falls within the purview of engineering. As such, it must be performed by a registered professional fire protection engineer.”
A copy of their memo may be downloaded from here: http://www.etnews.org/docs/OR_Dept_of_Justice_memo_11-30-04.pdf.
The most obvious problem with this interpretation is the lack of licensed fire protection engineers in Oregon. I count 9 that reside within the state. Look for yourself here: http://www.osbeels.org/.
When I was submitting permit applications that included fire alarm system design, many jurisdictions in and around Portland required that I be certified NICET level III in fire alarm systems. If my work included interconnection to other systems such as deluge or smoke control, the Building Official or Fire Marshal would require a supporting statement from a Fire Protection Engineer. That’s the way SFPE (Society of Fire Protection Engineers) sees it as well:
“The fire protection Technician is an individual who has achieved NICET Level III or IV certification in the appropriate subfield and who has the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to layout fire protection systems.”
You can download the SFPE position statement here: http://sfpe.org/upload/sfpe_position_statement_october_2005_001.pdf
As I see it the engineer determines the fire protection objective to be achieved while the technician lays out a system to satisfy the objective. Laying out a fire alarm system is not complex. Prescriptive design is spelled out very clearly within NFPA 72. In my opinion, a licensed electrician attending a 10-week course (40 hours) that reviews the fire alarm relevant bits of IBC, NFPA 70, and NFPA 72 can layout a fire alarm system to the satisfaction of a building official or fire marshal.
Now the Oregon Building Codes division, Electrical and Elevator Board is considering changing the Oregon Administrative Rules to allow “J” (Electrician, General Journeyman) and “LEA” (Electrician, Limited Energy Technician, Class A) license holders to submit fire alarm system shop drawings.
“… because the electrical portion of a fire protection system is a non-complex electrical installation.”
You can download their most recent memo regarding this proposed change here: http://www.etnews.org/docs/Oregon_Fire_Protection_Design_exemptions.pdf
I agree with the proposed change though I recommend adding a requirement that the designer be certified NICET Level III or IV in fire alarm systems. That would ensure that the individual has specific fire protection job knowledge and work experience. The National Fire Alarm Code encourages this as well:
“NFPA 72 4.3.2* System Designer.
A.4.3.2 Examples of qualified personnel include individuals who can demonstrate experience on similar systems and have the following qualifications:
(1) Factory trained and certified in fire alarm system design
(2) National Institute of Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) fire alarm certified - minimum level III
(3) Licensed or certified by a state or local authority
4.3.2.1 Fire alarm system plans and specifications shall be developed in accordance with this Code by persons who are experienced in the proper design, application, installation, and testing of fire alarm systems.”
Clearly NFPA 72 requires the designer to be experienced in installation and testing of fire alarm systems.
What does your community do?
View other articles by Michael Baker
Posted in Fire Alarm | 3 Comments »
July 17th, 2008
As an inspector what tools do you need to do your job in the field? I can envision us trying to carry a tool box full of tools and equipment to do our job. As inspectors we rely on contractors and business owners to provide lifts, ladders, access to equipment or even equipment to test systems. There is certain equipment that inspectors must bring with them to perform their job. The following are some items that come to mind although I am certain that members of this community will provide insight on their tools of choice (feel free to comment in our discussion forums or add to the post by submitting a comment).
Clipboard, or some means to carry notices and a place to keep your notes. An inspector doesn’t have to have the answer on hand during the inspection. It is not uncommon for us to take notes or sketch a scenario and return to the office to look up the issue at hand. I prefer a leather portfolio or a thin metal clipboard. They can hold business cards, stickers, violation notices, an extra pen, or various forms. I also have secured a business card to the clipboard because I have been known to leave it behind at times.
Flashlight: This will make you look like a pro. The flashlight should be small enough to fit in your back pocket and not pull your pants down. There are many types that have ultra bright bulbs that are extremely user friendly. The flashlight is key for looking above lay-in ceilings, around duct enclosures, or through dark areas of a building. Not to mention I am scared of the dark, so it is a security issue for me.
Tape Measure, I prefer a simple 25′ tape measure. It is a great length for measuring sprinkler spacing, door widths, floor areas, or other things that have particular requirements. One of our inspectors utilizes an electronic tape measure which has worked great for capturing information on large areas for pre-incident surveys or long rooms.
Computer, More inspectors are carrying a computer or tablet which provides inspection software, codes, standards, or other reference material. The computer is typically tied into a data base which can provide quick notices to the occupant and reduce double entry.
Hardhat and other protective equipment is critical to the safety of the inspector. These items may include hearing protection (need in warehouses or alarm testing), eye protection, safety vest, or even a harness. Inspector safety is often overlooked and is critical to make sure we go home at the end of the day.
Visit our discussion forum or feel free to post a comment to the blog by clicking the link below.
Posted in Administration, tools for enforcement | 7 Comments »
June 22nd, 2008
So I have my adopted code, gone to training, and now I am ready to start enforcing the code. Things go well for a couple weeks as I struggle through the administration and enforcement of the code. I find that I spend a lot of time looking through the code book to make sure I am prepared at time of inspection. Its 3:00 in the afternoon and I go into my last business inspection for the day, where the contractor wants to argue everything 
including the key box. I keep my cool although I really want rip this guys head off. What do I do? If I was a police officer, and I had pulled this person over for speeding, I am certain that the first time a violation is found a ticket is written (or maybe a warning if you are nice).
One key aspect for inspectors is the ability to read people and provide different techniques as it relates to enforcement. I may try to be a diplomat and sell code enforcement. I could also try to be an authoritarian and demand that our way is met. The ability to utilize different techniques to reach code compliance is critical. Regardless of the methods utilized to persuade or gain compliance is critical, although proper documentation and violation notices are just as important.
In the above scenario, this person will most likely fight you along the way. Most adopted codes require some form of violation notice be left with the permit holder. This can be accomplished through green, red, or orange stickers left at the construction site or other forms of documentation. Now a days many are utilizing electronic devices (tablets) to itemize code violations and print, fax, or email a report to the permit holder. Then many of us still use paper and multi-use forms which can easily be duplicated in the field (a copy left with the permit holder, a copy to the file, and maybe a copy to other departments).
Clear common language (to the permit holder) documentation is necessary to provide clear language once the inspector has left the site. In addition this written communication serves as a notice that the person is in violation of the code. There are times where we must make a case of when the permit holder was made aware of the violation and these complete reports are crucial.
Okay, I issue my red sticker, give a violation notice and perform a follow up inspection 2 weeks later. The issues have not been resolved and now a second notice is given. What happens after this is usually based on policies outlined by the AHJ. This could include financial penalties under your ordinance or even a written ticket. The process should be made clear to the permit holder without using terminology as to what the next steps are.
Lets go back to the example of the permit holder who wants to fight everything; what is a violation worth a ticket? Are there code requirements which deserve faster follow up, or a more severe penalty? Most of us would say yes, but isn’t a violation still a violation? The difference between a good inspector and a great one, is the ability to gain code compliance by utilizing different methods of persuasion, and utilizing the violation system to gain compliance when necessary. Make sure the penalty matches the crime, so is the issuance of a ticket, with a court appearance necessary when the open violation is improper use of an extension cord?
Posted in Administration | 3 Comments »
May 12th, 2008
May 12, 2008
Providence, Rhode Island
Today several manufactures of foam sound proofing have settled with the multiple families who have sued over the tragedy of the station night club fire. The settlements must be approved by the families and is only one step closer in awarding the families.
The foam companies that agreed to settle include Leggett & Platt Inc. based in Carthage, Mo., Wm. T. Burnett & Co. based in Baltimore and several others. The owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian bought the foam from American Foam Corp. in Johnston. It is not clear at this time who produced the foam, although it is currently under investigation.
Many of the lawsuits cited that the foam manufactures failed to prepare to make the foam with proper fire protection measures and smoke development characteristics. The foam and various materials were installed throughout the station night club and aided in the acceleration of the deadly fire and smoke development.
The settlement, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, must be approved by the judge. Other defendants are privately held U.S. foam makers Wm. T. Burnett & Co, General Foam Corp and FFNC Corp.
The club’s owners, brothers Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, have said they did not know the foam was flammable. Investigators said the foam fueled the fire.
What obligation did the owners have to follow the adopted building and fire code?
Related Stories
NIST and Historical Documents
AP
Reuters
Posted in Interior Finish, Motivation, Safety | No Comments »
April 18th, 2008
The stairway in commercial occupancies that do not meet code can lead to injuries. Over the years the dimensions for stairway tread and risers has changed. These changes have occurred due to the information gained on injuries. So do you know some of the basics for stairways?
Chapter 10 of the International Building (or Fire) Code provides the code requirements for new construction. Section 1009 provides specific direction on stairways.
Definitions
Stair: A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.
Stairway:One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another
The stairway width shall be a minimum of 44″. Section 1009.1 provides four exceptions on the width (occupant load less then 50, spiral stairways, aisle stairs, etc.) with a minimum headroom shall be 80″.
For most stairways the tread depths shall be 11 inches minimum and riser height shall be between 4 and 7 inches. Stairway treads and risers must be uniform in size and shape (variance of 0.375″ between the max and min). The structural materials shall be consistent with the materials of the building.
If there is a door associated with a stairway, there shall be a landing or floor space on both sides of the door. The height on both sides of the door shall be the same height on each side of the threshold. A variance of 1/2″ in is allowed when different materials are utilized.
There are many considerations including handrails, landing widths, and the enclosures stairs may need to be in. Have you found non-conforming stairs that do not meet the code?
Posted in Safety, Stairs | No Comments »