This is an example of standards writing that really confuses me. Is it a case where BOTH conditions need to be met, or a case where any ONE condition needs to be met? The way condition #2 is written, it sounds as if the intent is for any ONE condition. I have no experience with NFPA 1142, just my mind gone wild.
Ed Kramer Littleton, CO > > A question regarding NFPA 1142 - 4.1.5: It states "For the purpose of > calculating minimum water supply requirements, a structure shall be > considered an exposure hazard under the following conditions: (1) It is > 100 > sq. ft. or larger in area and is within 50 ft. of another structure. > (2) > The structure, regardless of size, is of occupancy hazard classification > 3 > or 4 as determined in Chapter 5 and is within 50 ft of another > structure." > > For the structure to be considered an EXPOSURE HAZARD it must meet both > (1) > & (2). If it meets if meets just (1) and not (2), does it then fall > under > classification of Structure WITHOUT Exposure Hazard? > > Thanks, > Gregg Fontes > Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. > (209)334-9119 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
