I don't think anyone could ever foresee just how much discussion could be
generated from a space barely large enough to store a vacuum cleaner
in...[chuckles under breath].
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C]" <johnson...@mail.nih.gov>
To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Stupid closet question...
Based on NFPA 13, 2010 edition and NFPA 101, 2009 edition.
Annex D is not part of the enforceable section of NFPA 13, unless a
jurisdiction specifically adopts it (see section heading). In this case,
Annex D is copied from NFPA 101, so if a jurisdiction adopts NFPA 101, it is
enforceable from that perspective, but I would go do NFPA 101 directly, not
Annex D of NFPA 13.
As for the differences in requirements, per NFPA 101:1.2 the purpose of this
code is to provide safety to life from fire while NFPA 13:1.2 has a purpose
to provide a reasonable degree of protection for life and property. The two
codes have slightly different purposes, hence they may have different design
requirements for sprinklers. The committee agreed in the 2009 ROP to move
NFPA 101 requirements to the Annex (see proposal 13-444).
More importantly, the paragraphs you mention are for different occupancies.
The exception from NFPA 13:8.15.8.2 to eliminate sprinklers in closets not
exceeding 24 sq. ft. is for Hotels and Motels only. The exception from Annex
D or NFPA 101:30.3.5.4 to exclude sprinklers in closets 12 sq. ft. or less
is for New Apartments only. Interestingly, NFPA 101:31.3.5.4 permits the
exclusion of sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. for Existing
Apartments. So, in reality, the NFPA 13 and Annex D references you cited do
not contradict because they are for different occupancies. However, if you
look at NFPA 101:29.3.5.5, Existing hotels and Dorms have the exception to
exclude sprinklers in closets not exceeding 24 sq. ft. But this is for
Existing Hotels and Dorms only, there is not an exception in NFPA 101 for
New Hotels and Dorms. This is arguably a difference from NFPA 13 to NFPA
101.
Duane Johnson, PE
Program Manager
Division of the Fire Marshal (Support Contractor)
Office of Research Services
National Institutes of Health
301-496-0487
"Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time"
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Tower [mailto:cur...@centralfireprotection.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:49 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Stupid closet question...
Of course, I was only speaking of "adopted" codes. I'm not familiar with
all of the various code sets available for a jurisdiction to consider;
however, the prevalent code set in Texas is IFC. IFC references NFPA 13 and
13R specifically for its installation requirements. What I was ultimately
alluding to was that if a jurisdiction had adopted NFPA 101, then it
appeared that closets < 12s.f. could be omitted. This question came up from
a chapter contained in NFPA 2007, Special Occupancy Requirements, Section
21.20.13.2.1. At the end of the sub-section NFPA 101, 30.3.5.4 was
bracketed. It is my understanding that a fair amount within that chapter
was erroneously included in the 2007 standard. Fast forward to the 2010
Edition, and it was moved to a new Annex D. I think this was to try to
alleviate any confusion on what was required. Annex D was titled Sprinkler
System Information from the 2009 Edition of the Life Safety Code. My
understanding is that if the adopted code is anything other than NFPA 101,
then the exceptions and omissions stated withing Annex D may and probably do
not apply. Of course, I'm always open to debate.
Curtis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Greenman" <rongreen...@gmail.com>
To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Stupid closet question...
This is the conventional wisdom Curtis but I disagree. All model codes and
standards are simply books until adopted, no matter what they are called.
I'll use Washington as an example: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
stipulates there will be a building code. The Building Code itself derives
from the International Building Code (currently the 2009 edition) and all
the references and amendments as proposed by the State Building Code
Council as submitted to the governor and adopted by the legislature. In its
final form it is called the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter
51-50, although we'll refer to it as the IBC in conversation. In the end
though, before adoption it has no power of enforcement and after after
adoption a referenced standard is a part of the WAC. So when chapter 9 of
IBC references NFPA 13 and is adopted that way then NFPA 13 is a very long
part of WAC 51-50, not some child of a lesser god. Had the legislature
decided to not adopt the chapter 9 reference to NFPA 13 in IBC, but instead
had replaced it with Hop On Pop or Cat In the Hat then that would be the
sprinkler rules and criterion within 51-50. That a "code" tells you when
and a "standard" tells you how is essentially a correct statement that only
applies as separate and hierarchical as long as they are co-joined as one
thing under the Law. Once adopted chapter 9, section X (I forget the number
off-hand) is the code and, if sprinklers are required per Chapters 3 & 6,
contains the how rules for installation. NFPA 101 unadopted is merely a
very boring book and has no force of law no matter what the title may say
about code, standard, what have you.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Curtis Tower <
cur...@centralfireprotection.net> wrote:
I believe that the root of the confusion stems from semantics. NFPA 101
is referred to as a code, where NFPA 13, 13R, etc., is referred to as a
standard. Many times, I have heard those of us in the business use the
term 'code' interchangeably with the term 'standard'. This is technically
incorrect.
Gov't entities have a plethora of code sets to choose from when deciding
what to adopt. Most incorporated cities in Texas have adopted one version
or another of IFC, most with local amendments. Tarrant County, which
oversees the unincorporated sections surrounding the Fort Wort area, has
adopted NFPA 101.
To simplify things a bit...
Code says WHAT gets sprinklered.
The Standard says HOW.
Example: NFPA 13R does not require balconies to be sprinklered; however,
if the adopted code is IFC 2006, for example, then the balconies will be
sprinklered.
In summation, your honor.
If a jurisdiction has adopted NFPA 101, then it appears that the 12 s.f.
closet can be omitted. By most other codes that I'm aware of, under NFPA
13, the closets will be sprinklered regardless of size, with the exception
of hotels and motels under the stated criteria.
----- Original Message ----- From: "C&H Fire - Mike Gallello" <
mgalle...@chfireinc.com>
To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>
>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:25 PM
Subject: Stupid closet question...
It's likely been asked before, but I don't recall - so please excuse my
possible ignorance!
NFPA 13, 2010 - 8.15.8.2 Dwelling units, closets - hotels and motels
they can be deleted, conditionally regarding the 24sf and 3ft rule.
Annex D (Pulled from NFPA 101) in two separate areas (D1.1.6.1 &
D2.19.2.1) states that closets under 12sf in dwelling units shall not be
required to be sprinklered. The referenced 101 code is stated there as
well...
I'm looking at it that the paragraphs of 101 referencing closets under
12sf in dwelling units permits the omitting of sprinklers within these
closets. (Not any with equipment of course). There are some others
here that disagree, stating that since 13 addresses it, 101 isn't
applicable and that heads are required in the closets period.
Anyone else have this kind of throw down in your offices?
______________________________**_________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.**org <Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org>
http://fireball.firesprinkler.**org/mailman/listinfo/**sprinklerforum<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum>
--
Ron Greenman
Instructor
Fire Protection Engineering Technology
Bates Technical College
1101 So. Yakima Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98405
rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu
http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/
253.680.7346
253.576.9700 (cell)
Member:
ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC
They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon,
essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120927/a28e453c/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
