If you have the new 2010 NFPA handbook for residential occupancies and turn to page 6 to start reading the EXTENSIVE commentary to 1.1 Scope and A1.1, you will still be reading it on page 10 before it ends!
On page 8 of this commentary it states: "It should also be noted that the development of NFPA 13D did not consider the application of NFPA 13D for residential board and care facilities. However, the Technical Committee on Board and Care Facilities has reviewed NFPA 13D and determined that the protection in this standard is appropriate for some small facilities where additional protection is provided. See NFPA 101(r), Life Safety Code(r), for more details." Also, the commentary on page 6 addresses manufactured homes [i.e. "mobile homes"] and townhouses are addressed on page 9. David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFI-I, CFPE Engineering ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office of State Fire Marshal 141 Monticello Trail Columbia, SC 29203 Phone: 803.896.9833 Fax: 803.896.9806 Email: [email protected] OSFM Website: http://www.llr.state.sc.us/firemarshal.asp ---------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Assisted Living Facility Concur that is is required to be classified in the R category. I was playing from memory and thought it was more optional verses a SHALL. Back to the question on type of system. I'm starting with the premise that 903.2.8 dictating protection per 903.3 allows any type of system that complies with the scope of the standard. Since the scope of 13D is for one and two family dwellings and not residential occupancies, it does not cover assisted living facilities. The point to be made is that a large I-1 can use a 13D (due to the IBC exception) so a smaller I-1 that has been assigned a less demanding occupancy classification is quacking like the same duck regarding needed level of protection. Since it is not stated that way in the IBC, one has to discuss equivalencies with the AHJ. Roland On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:55 AM, David Blackwell wrote: > In the IBC, I-1 devolves to R-4 for 6 to 16 persons, AND further > devolves to R-3 or IRC for 5 or less. As seen in the I-1 occupancy > defined in Chapter 3. > > On a related note, the 2009 IBC in Section 419 defines a new term: > live/work units. The exception to R101.2 in the 2009 IRC Scope > makes it > clear that when the live/work units are built to the IRC, they still > must use NFPA 13D, not the new IRC Section P2904 method. > > > > David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFI-I, CFPE > Engineering _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
