Michael, I am admittedly a suspicious curmudgeon where NAHB is involved, but aren't those trade-offs, exceptions and exemptions in the footnotes on page RP29 and RP30 far more generous than IBC? Thanks for posting the link as I had not seen it yet and found it very interesting. Kurt Kingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commercial Fire Protection Inc. Mt Vernon, WA 98273
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael O'Brian Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 6:19 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: ICC Version of 13d Okay Sprinkler Guys Today at the ICC code hearings the Plumbing Committee heard RP3 and RP8. See the code change here (scroll one or two changes down to RP3) http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/ProposedChanges/V2_RP1-8.pd f This is a code change which would give installation requirements for multi-purpose piping for sprinkler systems in the body of the residential code (a modified pipe schedule like system). RP3 passed and RP8 was denied. Now this was the committee action and it may be debated on the final action hearings in September. The code change only applies to multipurpose piping in one and two family dwellings. It has many layers of built in safety. A designer would still be allowed to utilize a 13d system and this really provides an option for the user. I am just curious what you all think? I know as sprinkler designers we may feel like we should not like this, but the intent is to make sprinkler installation in homes as convenient as possible. (ps there was a floor amendment which clarified hangers and some other issues) Michael O'Brian Code Savvy Consultants 313-618-6401 fax 313-557-0294 www.codesavvyconsultants.com www.inspector911.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
