D) All of the above John Drucker
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 9:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard I don't know what is worse, a sprinkler technician assigning classification of occupancies playing the EOR role, an architect assigning classification of occupancies playing the EOR role, or an underqualified EOR assigning classification of occupancies playing the EOR role. Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 8:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Understanding the hazards present is probably one of our biggest challenges. One of the biggest errors I deal with is incorrectly classified occupancies. People will look at the examples and NFPA 13 and really not expend a whole lot of time really asking pertinent questions regarding the use of areas. Case in point was a fabrication plant, HUGE machine shop producing HUGE machine parts (parts that were in the 20-60 ton range). 60 ft tall building with warehousing. The architects start their code analysis first, ask some questions and then assign the Building Code occupancy category. Fire protection then determines requirements based on their analysis. Unfortunately in this scenario FP got called in way late in the game. Architects asked what was being stored in the warehouse, owner states steel tubing. OK, no problem, non-combustible stuff, it's an S-2. Owner's happy, NO SPRINKLERS! Only problem was there was almost 60 tons of combustible crating and foam packing around these "steel tubes". So out the window with an S-2. Now FP has to break the news that this WILL be a sprinklered building. You've got to ask questions, very specific questions. Sadly I've found few designers and engineers who are capable or willing to play detective to the extent of being able to provide a substantiated occupancy classification for unusual occupancies. Don't assume anything, ask questions, lots of questions. The list of hazards in NFPA is only the tip of the iceberg. In the industrial world, the list is probably 25 years or more out of date. Every day a new industry emerges that isn't anywhere on any list. You have to do your research and your homework. The last thing you want to see is your design project on the six-o-clock news. Craig Prahl -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 7:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard BTW, there are (4) reasons why I posted this: 1) it is in the Body of 13 2) it comes with a Shall Not 3) it feels like it has 'over-all importance' 4) i am NICET certified, so I should thoroughly understand what I am responsible for applying > On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> NFPA 13, 5.1.2 (i'm looking at 2007): >> "Occupancy classifications shall not be intended to be a general classification of occupancy hazards". >> >> I have finally said "well, uh, ok" to 5.1.1, but am still saying "huh?" to 5.1.2. >> >> This is not a pressing issue, I am not trying to cause a stir, and I wish I had a real world hands on type something to share. >> >> Happy Friday, >> Brad > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, nor is it, unless specifically stated, intended to be relied upon by any person or persons other than the individual or entity named above and no warranties or representations are made or intended to persons or entities not named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, return this message to the address above and delete all copies. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
