"I've always been under the impression NFPA standards were "consensus standards" and not "legal standards"."
I glossed over the detail they are written as a consensus Standards by NFPA but are in fact the legal standard once they are adopted by a governmental body. There's even another way to use them as a legal standard if you have a say the fire code adopted. 102.8 Matters Not Provided For in the IFC. The code official can actually make it up. Now in the UFC days I think the wording was a nationally recognized standard approved by the fire chief. With that the law (code official) can be any standard the code official chooses once it is determined to not be already covered by the code. The default by most code officials would be NFPA standards. You could propose an FM standard in these situation or any other you can come up with. But ultimately you two will agree on the legal standard. And Travis thanks, that I understand. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [email protected] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of larryshulman Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: FM rounding and other changes I've always been under the impression NFPA standards were "consensus standards" and not "legal standards". Their use is so widespread that sometimes we forget about that aspect, and this thread presents a good opportunity to remind ourselves. In fact, the NFPA disclaimer states the following..." In issuing and making NFPA Codes and Standards available, the NFPA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the NFPA undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using NFPA Codes and Standards should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances". FM Global standards raise the bar and represent best practice to minimize property risk to an acceptable level as defined by FM Global and their client owners. That is a different intent from the NFPA approach. FM Global is in an envious position, because of their decades long basic and applied research capabilities in fire protection that nobody can match. Combine this with their loss investigation expertise, and it puts them at a cutting edge and industry leading position. The downside is that it puts FM Global out of sync with the rest of the fire protection industry, and some sprinkler contractors will complain that they're being asked to do more than the norm (NFPA). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: FM rounding and other changes Except 13 is the predominant legal standard in the US. FM can do whatever they want but no where that I know of are they the legal standard. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
