See entry dated 1/23/07 which still requires a map for the facp

spoke to charlie@###-####/told permit was ready, permit#, project name, and fee

Called Charlie Bayne with Simplex Grinnell asked him why a second relay base was not used on the inside smoke detector used to release door holder. Charlie explained that with the addressable fire alarm system they can activate the relay from any device programmed to activate the relay. Also asked Charlie why all initiating devices release all door holders, he explained that that is the origional building fire alarm operation as indicated on the matrix.

Called Simplex and Designer to clarify intent of smoke detector on each sides of door; but only one is a releasing detector and labeled "120v relay base for releasing"; while Matrix shows all DHO's release on all fire "alarm" conditions including "pump running". Not sure if this is a fire or smoke rated door. Spoke with designer, Geof Johnson, Eidam Assoc, who indicated the plans should have been routed to them for review before they were submitted to us, and agreed we should fail them. He indicated there is no fire pump so the matrix must be generic; the two detectors are provided due to the high ceiling height on the reception side, the intent was for either detector to release the door which he thinks is only a fire door. Not sure why they are using smoke detectors instead of simple fusible link releasing mechanism. No written review comments at this point. Left vm with Charlie Bayne explaining above reasons why plans were denied.