I agree, I think...when the codes are conflicting, and not addressed by an amendment, the most conservative requirement must be used.
Note, the LSC only has an exception for bathrooms (similar to NFPA 13) for existing hotels, see 29.3.5.5. The point is that in the LSC for new hotels, the exception DOES NOT exist, see 28.3.5.5. So I am saying, the NFPA 13 exception to eliminate sprinklers in bathrooms is not applicable. The problem IS, unless you look at the existing chapters and note this, one would think the topic is not addressed in the new chapter and the NFPA 13 exceptions are applicable. My opinion. If this is not the committees intention, then something must change. This is the complete opposite in IBC. None of these exceptions are addressed in the IBC. So therefore, the exceptions in NFPA 13 are applicable because, in my opinion, the IBC is leaving it completely to NFPA 13. Duane ________________________________________ From: Roland Huggins [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bathroom/powder room/toilet room As of the First Draft version, it has been restored. Will it survive the Comment stage and the Technical session, only time will tell. Also worth briefing touching on adopted codes (when not resolved by the state, county etc). What do we do when both the IBC and LSC are in play? When a difference exists don’t we have to apply the most conservative requirement of the two? Right or wrong, I take it one step further and look at both codes to see which requires protection. When only one requires protection if it’s the IBC then 13 is applied as is and no LSC exceptions, if only the LSC requires the protection, then all its exceptions apply. If both require it, then only 13 applies and no LSC exceptions. What say yea AHJs? Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Feb 21, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Steven Scandaliato <[email protected]> wrote: > Roland, check me on this but I am almost positive that we approved a > proposal to revert the current definition back to the 2010 version...so this > bathroom thing is going to get changed again if it gets accepted.. > > Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS > 520.971.2322 Cell > Skype: steven.scandaliato _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
