How about taking any reference whatsoever out of 13D/13R including the annex material and handbooks to the word "property". Yes both standards at 1.2 Purpose use the phrase "improved protection against injury, life loss, and PROPERTY DAMAGE". ah carumba !
Additionally when the 13R handbook commentary makes statements about "lesser degree of property protection" it only confusses the issue. Just what is lesser ?. The same can be said for the 15 min thermal barrier exception. Had one just the other day were the sprinkler designer took the liberty only to have the field inspector note the barrier was missing and no head in the bathroom to which the builder replied, "these guys are killing me, why didnt they just put the %$#*& sprinkler head in !." Take that exception out of the standard please its more trouble then its worth. Someone mentioned about rocket science. Unlike rocket science theres no bizzilion dollar payload, government sponsored exploration or unlimited defense budget. Sprinklers plain and simple have got to be cost effective. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 2nd request 13d attic storage Don't even kid about that. We have plenty of jurisdictions here in CA that require fully sprinklered attics and then there's the .15 density in garages. Don't get me started. 13D and 13R very specifically disclaim that they are both life-safety standards. Sure, we might all want sprinklered attics, but we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we push for that and frankly, I'm always at the ready to argue AGAINST such changes if they're proposed. Leave 13D the way it is. Why? Because it continues to feed the fire regarding costs and homebuilders continue to hold the upper hand in that argument. Let's say IRC adopts sprinkler requirements - any state can amend the model code and not adopt that provision if they so choose. Why give them more ammo? Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 2nd request 13d attic storage Rick, Require 13 systems in SFDs and you get your wish. Make it apply to buildings over X sqft and keep 13D for buildings under x sqft. Don't make 13D something it isn't. On 2/26/08, Matsuda, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was a "slight" code change between the 1996 and 1999 editions of > NFPA-13D, paragraph 4-6, exception #4. > > It changed from stating, "...not required in attics, crawl spaces, and > other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes > or storage"...to ..."not required in attics, crawl spaces, and other > concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes". > > The committee omitted the words "or storage" which makess it seem that > they accept that most attics would be used for storage and sprinklers > would not be required. They have since changed the wording again in the > 2007 edition, par 8.6.5 to state "...and do not contain fuel-fired > equipment". > > Some big homes that we have in Dallas have a standard doorway into the > attic which is decked with lighting provided, but it's not conditioned > space and no walls or ceilings are provided. It's just open to the roof > joists. Per the wording of 13D, we allow sprinklers to be omitted. > > I don't agree with this position cause I'd like to have sprinklers in > every attic, bathroom, closet and dog house, but until changes are made > again I will abide with the committee's decisions. > rick matsuda, city of dallas > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve > Leyton > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:55 PM > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: 2nd request 13d attic storage > > But does your attic have a pull-down or fixed stair? All good points > Todd, which underscores how subjective this issue really is. If it's a > storage "room", I'd consider it part of the dwelling unit. If it's dead > space above the ceiling in which the home owner chooses to put stuff, > then it quacks like an attic. > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd > Williams - FPDC > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 2nd request 13d attic storage > > 13D says that sprinklers in attics may be omitted, provided they are > not intended for "living purposes". Does storage in an attic space > constitute a living purpose? I'm not sure if it does or not. I would > think that a case could be made, considering that 13D is a Life > Safety System. (My assumption here is that the access to the space is > more on the idea of a pull-down stair as opposed to a carpeted > staircase.) > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
