IBC 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems. "Where the provisions of this code REQUIRE that a building OR PORTION thereof shall be equipped THROUGHOUT with an automatic fire sprinkler system, sprinklers SHALL be installed THROUGHOUT in accordance with NFPA-13 EXCEPT as provided in Sections 903.3.1.1.1, 903.3.1.2 and 903.3.1.3"
IBC 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt Locations. 5. "In rooms or AREAS that are of non combustible construction with wholly noncombustible contents". Where a building code drives the sprinkler requirement, the provisions of the building code "trump" those of the referenced standards. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT We need to ensure that we are view this issue with the correct lens. Granted we don't like intumescent paint for a number of reasons AND I think the committee was too casual in addressing this issue BUT NFPA 13 is the document that drives the decision NOT the building code. The BC requires fire retardant lumber to be the pressure treated type. That applies to applications where the BC is requiring treated lumber. IN this case, the BC allowed regular timber and since it doesn't have additional criteria about it in chap 9 on sprinkler systems, the BC is done. So we go to NFPA 13 to protect the space. It says sprinkler protection (the preferred and best option) OR you can use treated lumber as per NFPA 703. Guess what boys and girls, NFPA 703 addresses both pressure treated and COATED applications. As such, coated fire retardant treatment can be used (as much as I hated typing that but read on). Some notes to those involved with it's use. NFPA 703 has restrictions on the type of coating when used in a high humidity location. IT also says it must be MAINTAINED to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions (which would be for he life of the building). Does anyone have any experience with it to 'splain what that entails??? As an AHJ, I'd require something in writing from the owner showing they are aware of this issue and stating it will be done. Roland On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Vince Sabolik wrote: > >> Thank you forum ... > > ... for the enlightenment and code references regarding use of > intumescent paint in > lieu of attic sprinklers. Somebody 'in authority' actually made > this decision. > > I wonder if it costs more for a 'faux' finish? > > > Vince > > > > > > Vince Sabolik > Christi Fire Protection, Inc. > 11351 Pearl Road > Strongsville, Ohio 44136 > > T 440 572-7730 F 440 572-7719 Email: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
