I agree with Roland's position on the matter. [If you have problems with this interpretation issue in South Carolina, please let me know and I'll try to help resolve the problem...]
Additionally, be aware that South Carolina is about to move to the 2012 edition of ICC Codes this summer, and additional requirements in the IBC or IFC may impact you in addition to the 2010 edition of NFPA 13 referenced in those codes. Regarding the 2012 code changes, be aware of all the new sections [marked by the black bar in the margin] in IFC Sections 901 & 903 that may impact your design... just like the I-codes previously added requirements to the NFPA 13R sprinkler coverage locations for "balconies and decks" (and ground floor patios) in buildings classified as Type V construction. You can read more about SC code adoptions by the SC Building Codes Council at http://www.llr.state.sc.us/POL/BCC/PDFfiles/Building%20Codes%20in%20Effect%20for%20South%20Carolina.pdf. Respectfully, David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFPE, CFI I Chief Engineer/Interim Assistant State Fire Marshal (for Prevention and Codes) Office of State Fire Marshal SC Department of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 141 Monticello Trail, Columbia, SC 29203 Telephone: 803.896.9800 [Office] 803.896.9833 [Direct] Fax: 803.896.9806 [Office] Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ Please note that you can sign up to receive automatic information on SC Division of Fire and Life Safety current events, policies, laws and procedures by visiting our Web site at: http://www.scfiremarshal.llronline.com/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:12 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wording in NFPA 13 (2007) The problem is that different sections are written or modified at different times in response to different proposals and little consideration is given to consistency in the phrases or format used elsewhere in the document. The bottom line is that permitted means by NFPA 13. That does not mean permitted with AHJ approval or it would say that. The main example that comes to mind where AHJ makes the decision is Hose Connections in storage where 13 says shall be provided where required by the AHJ Roland On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Eric Tysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > Good morning all, > Here is a strange issue I ran into this morning. Take a look at 8.15.7.3 and > 8.15.7.4, "Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted" and then take a look > at 8.15.8.1.1 and 8.15.8.2 "Sprinkler shall not be required" and "Sprinklers > are not required". > > I have an AHJ that says since 8.15.7.4 states "shall be permitted to be > omitted" they stated we are not permitting them to be omitted. Has anyone > seen this before or know why there is different terminology used between the > sections. The way I see it is that sprinklers are either required by code or > allowed to be omitted if the criteria is met. > > > Eric Tysinger CET -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20130307/e9eb949e/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
