| Date |
Text |
| 2007-08-05 12:33:49 | ---------------DENIED------------------ |
| | |
| | 2ND REVIEW OF REVISIONS. |
| | |
| | FBC 2001 CODE FAMILY. |
| | |
| | THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NUMBERED TO CORRESPOND WITH |
| | PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF |
| | CONTINUITY. |
| | |
| | 1. OK |
| | |
| | 2. THE 4 INCH ROUND DRYER DUCT IS PENETRATING A RATED |
| | WALL INTO SUITE 210. HOW WILL THIS DUCT PENETRATION BE |
| | PROTECTED? ACCORDING TO FINISH SCHEDULE ON A-602, THE |
| | LAUNDRY ROOM HAS NO CEILING OTHER THAN THE EXPOSED |
| | CONCRETE FROM THE DECK ABOVE. IT DOES NOT MEET |
| | EXCEPTION (3)(4) UNDER FBC,M 607.1.3. SHOW HOW THE FIRE |
| | RESISTANCE RATING OF THE WALL IS TO BE MAINTAINED PER |
| | FBC,M 504.2. |
| | |
| | 3. PROTECTION OF SHAFT AT BOTTOM IS NOW SHOWN ON CSR-1, |
| | BUT NONE IS SHOWN ON SER-1. PLEASE CORRECT. |
| | |
| | 4. OK |
| | |
| | 5. OK, EXCEPT FOR THE ISSUE AS STATED IN COMMENT #3. |
| | |
| | 6. THE DISTANCE REQUIRED FOR SEPARATION OF INTAKE |
| | OPENINGS FROM SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION IS TO BE |
| | MEASURED HORIZONTALLY. NO PROVISIONS IS MADE IN THE |
| | CODE FOR INTAKE OPENINGS TO BE DIRECTLY ABOVE SOURCES |
| | OF CONTAMINATION GIVEN A CERTAIN ELEVATION DIFFERENCE. |
| | EXAMPLE: WHAT IF A LARGE TRUCK WITH VERTICAL EXHAUST |
| | PIPES WAS PARKED IN THE ALLEY UNDER THE INTAKE |
| | OPENING? |
| | |
| | 7.PROVIDE DETAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRE WRAP |
| | MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SHOWING |
| | WRAPPED DUCT PENETRATION OF THE RATED ENCLOSURE AND HOW |
| | THE FIRE WRAP IS TO TERMINATE AT THIS LOCATION. |
| | |
| | IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT: |
| | RONALD J REGUEIRO |
| | 561.805.6719 |
| | [email protected] |
