NFPA 101A is tied to a particular version of NFPA 101. For example, if the facility is subject to the 2000 Ed of NFPA 101, then the 2001 Ed of NFPA 101A applies.
This may or may not be an issue for your facility but an example of where it would apply would be, in very plain language: If a complete sprinkler system (throughout) is required, then a partial sprinkler system would be a "Negative" (Bad thing). If a complete sprinkler system is NOT required for minimal regulatory compliance, then a partial sprinkler system is a "Positive" thing. How "Positive" and "Negative" are indicated in 101A forms. The definitions of "Partial" are addressed in NFPA 101A which, as you would expect, is tied to NFPA 13. The next edition of NFPA 101A comes out this year, will be labeled as the 2013 edition, and is tied to the 2012 edition of NFPA 101. Hope this helps a little. Tom Tom Scheidel cms911.com 817-456-6238 Scheidel & Associates Sent from my IPad On Mar 26, 2012, at 8:43, "Bill Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote: > NFPA 101A has a number of partial sprinkler system options for various > occupancies. I recall the original development of the point systems in the > late 1970's where partial systems were given consideration in life safety > evaluations. Perhaps the system in this case is a holdover from that time > period. It would be instructive to take a look at past and current versions > of NFPA 101A to see how some of these systems could have been introduced > especially on the fire marshal side where NFPA could have been used in lieu > of building codes in upgrading existing buildings. NFPA 101 has included a > provision for 6 heads off domestic for many years. > > Bill Brooks > > William N. Brooks, P.E. > Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. > 372 Wilett Drive > Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 > 410-544-3620 > 410-544-3032 FAX > 412-400-6528 Cell > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: FM 74 Egress Sprinklre system? > > Douglas, > > During the early eighties and maybe the seventies (I was in California until > the late eighties so I'm not sure about the when) schools K-12 were under > the jurisdiction of the State FM. There were several I've come across with > these silly partial systems "protecting" small areas deemed to be extra > dangerous for one reason or another, including the main building at Bates > Tech College (which was a vocational adult school in the Tacoma school > District until 1988), my own institution. In the entry to what is now the > financial aid office, but then was registration, are seven Omega heads over > the doorway. There are four along one wall in a counselor's office but that > wall used to be a pass through of some sort with a drop window arrangement. > There's an elementary school in Puyallup with two heads (and six spares) > covering a "stage" (platform), and a high school with four heads over the > main office counter (highly combustible paperwork no doubt). > All these "systems" are tapped off plumbing, and installed in, at best, a > pipe schedule, or to nothing cogent at all like your "system" seems to be. > I wouldn't be surprised if Washington nonsense migrated to Oregon. You may > be looking at something somebody thought was a "good idea at the time," > like that six month or so surge of a single sprinkler head over a > residential cooking surface tapped off the plumbing. Or perhaps tose guys > that decided if some anti-freeze was good 100% anti-freeze would be better, > until.... > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Douglas Hicks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am looking at 2 schools that have partial sprinkler systems, >> protecting the egress routes only. The local Fire Marshal thinks they >> may be installed to FM74 standards. The 2 that I have seen are wet >> systems, 1/2 inch drops to the heads, 1/2 garden hose fitting as an > inspector's test. >> The heads are pendant, and uprights, as far as 2 feet from the ceiling. >> Some of the heads are leaking, some of the heads look to be oriented >> improperly. No one seems to know what the year of installation was. >> Is/was there a standard for that type of sprinkler system? >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >> scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attac >> hments/20120325/0cd46534/attachment.html >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > 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/attachment > s/20120325/fb7364e8/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
