# NFPA Sales



## mtlogcabin (Jun 23, 2010)

Had a call a couple of days ago from the NFPA trying to sell me the "latest" 2010 NFPA 13, 13R and 72 standards for a package deal. When I told him I could not use the 2010 editions because they where not referenced in the 2009 building/fire codes he told me he would remove me from his list.

Do others just automatically use the latest standard when it comes to NFPA or do you stick to what is referenced by the codes?


----------



## High Desert (Jun 23, 2010)

We have to use the specific edition referenced in our codes.


----------



## cda (Jun 23, 2010)

we use the most current at time of adoption of the fire code

my boss's thinking is that if your ordince states "most current" that if say nfpa 72 goes from 2008 to 2011 when you have not adopted a new fire code, the public does not have any say over the new NFPA standard.  as in there are no public hearings every time nfpa goes to a new edition

just one thought


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 23, 2010)

One must use the referenced edition in the adopted code.  If an applicable ordinance supersedes the referenced code edition adopted (example: current edition of X, Y and Z shall be referenced) that can be permitted by the adopted code in the code’s administrative section unless ones state legislation says otherwise like a mini-maxi statute.  







*Part II*



Riddle me this……….if a designer of a specific system chooses to use a newer standard is one permitted to use that newer standard for the specific project?  



This occurs frequently in areas where sprinklers for challenging storage are being considered and designed.  The DP’s know that the current edition has more recent hazard mitigation design concepts and does not want to design the system to an older edition that is referenced by the jurisdictional adopted code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 23, 2010)

With all the trade offs for sprinkler systems in the building code I don't see how a BO could allow a newer standard to be used.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 24, 2010)

I can understand where potential tradeoffs may be affected............. However I’m hypothetically inquiring about situations in storage applications for challenging fires where it is now known that (automatic smoke removal, heat venting, draft curtains and rack sprinkler spacing for commodity array protection criteria) has been studied further and is recommended for changes based on additional testing and loss investigation data as associated to existing codes and their referenced standards. 



*FM Data Sheets 8-9 and 2.0 (Specifically 2.2) Revised 3-10*



If loss occurs does the DP have to assume potential liability for a design that may be determined to have been flawed based on revised data from a recognized listing/testing firm for a hypothetical jurisdiction using the 2003 IBC/ NFPA 13, 99 or 2006/02?



Don’t get me wrong, not trying to debate any one position but situations come up from time to time with facilities wanting to rent warehouse space and store Group A type materials and while having to modify an existing system to protect the hazard adequately legitimate questions can come up. 



In such an event can the jurisdiction accept the newer standard’s use under a modification allowance or alternative method?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 24, 2010)

We get copies of the newest documents as soon as they come out because there ARE jurisdictions that violate due process and simply say "most current edition" in their adopting ordinance.

And the way we address anything in the new standards is by code modification,  Chapter 1 allows for this but you have to be sure that all bases are covered before allowing it.  Unfortunately, there are people on the NFPA committees who simply want things to stay the way they are regardless of what science may show.  Believe it or not, some of the stuff in there was just a WAG when it went into the document in the first place.  That stuff needs to get fixed.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 24, 2010)

Yes Gene I agree and sat in on some of those whims.......... but what is one to do if the TIA or Errata is non existant during an example as referenced?

BTW...we are not violaters and hope all is well


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 29, 2010)

Sorry for the late response been on vacation. All NFPA documents have this

1.5 Equivalency. Nothing in this standard is intended to prevent the use of systems, methods, or devices of equivalent or

superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this standard. Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. The system,

method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction.

1.6 New Technology.

1.6.1 Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the

level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered.

When dealing with storage occupancies so much full scale testing has been done in the last few years. Some of the  sprinkler designs in NFPA 13, 2010 has been added as well as FM data 8-9. Always check the sprinkler mfg cut sheets they are mostly up to date. Do not forget NFPA 30 a lot of full scale testing on flammable liquids storage occupancies have been done BUT not ALL storage configurations. Remember the sprinkler design is only part of the story you have to review drainage and the movement of the liquid. AFFF foam is what you should see or very large drainage systems to get the water and product out of the building.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 30, 2010)

I received the same phone call.  They seemed surprised when I told them I couldn't use it.

We use the version adopted by reference.  While the NFPA standards may have the notes indicated by Ins Eng, I don't know that you can trump the IFC with a referenced standard and use a newer version.  This is assuming you are getting to the NFPA from the IFC instead of adopting the NFPA standard directly.

There are avenues for approving an alternative method, but I don't think it is as of right.  You would have to consider the entire picture.  For example, are there changes in the NFPA standard for fire mains than correlate to the newer version of 13 and so on.  Is there new inspection/testing/maintenance methodology in 25 that corresponds to new changes?  THe IFC also references which version of 25 to use, so it will have to be noted if in fact there is a reason to use the new standard.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 30, 2010)

*InsEng* thanks for that, since that’s what we typically use in applicable situations. Thankfully, currently and historically we have used NFPA. (Not bashing ICC but the dilemma poses hardships for those using IFC)



The intent of my asking these hypothetical questions was to hopefully get some to think about the conversation when asked while being confronted with an inspection of an existing storage or industrial facility and knowing that their protection scheme needs attention. The conformance to “new construction” where modifications or alterations may have occurred as prescribed brings the enforcing agency back to using the “as referenced” standard. Also, I’m working on some professional certification test question and formatting revision requests. 



In the example, in my opinion, one’s obligation as the inspector is to identify the deficiency and request corrective actions. Those corrective actions will or should be stated to include an engineered evaluation or design analysis to determine the adequate protection scheme for the hazard observed/encountered. 



When a recommendation or plan of action is made by the “qualified” DP or Engineer to upgrade the protection scheme to protect what the actual hazard is now……..is the inspector now obligated to say, that’s not addressed in the referenced standard we have adopted so we can only accept a design compliant with the adopted code or referenced standard? All while knowing that the adopted “as referenced” standard does not address what is now existing as the hazard or risk and necessary acceptable measures to address the hazard.



I have seen many officials without researching, solely rely on Insurance companies to mandate or set in motion necessary changes to protect what they encounter in the field as related to fire protection. When the hazard encountered and more current means for adequately protecting the hazard happens to go beyond the adopted code or standard referenced, the proposed corrective measure should not be subjected to corrective measures now known to not adequately protect the hazard.


----------



## TimNY (Jun 30, 2010)

If a FPE were to design to the standard and document the necessity/reasons why I don't see why one would not approve it as an alternate method.

As far as enforcing, an inspector can only enforce what is adopted.  There is no avenue to proactively state "you shall conform to the latest edition."  If it is proposed by the applicant, it should be considered.

When you say, "should not be subjected to corrective measures now known to not adequately protect the hazard" I am thinking of a scenario where a earlier edition might say 1 sprinkler per 200 s.ft. whereas a newer edition may say 1 sprinkler per 100 sq.ft is required to adequately protect a hazard.

Unless the State has amended or adopted the newer version, I don't see a local jurisdiction being successful at enforcing a 25% increase in cost (I'm sure it doesn't amount to 25%, but that will be the argument in the lawsuit).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 30, 2010)

Are the section numbers and wording the same in the newer standards? Whole chapters will change when newer codes and standards are adopted? I agree with TimNy submit as an alternative then the documentation is there as to why something was allowed that was different then the adopted ordinances. 

Chapter 30 and Chapter 5 of NFPA 51.

In all cases, nonmetallic piping shall be used in accordance with Section 5.3.6 of NFPA 30.

The vents shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Section 4.2.5.1 of NFPA 30 or API 2000.

The venting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Section 4.2.5.2 of NFPA 30.

coated or provided with corrosion protection in accordance with Section 4.2.6.1 of NFPA 30.

shall be located in accordance with Table 4.3.2.1.5 of NFPA 30,

 NFPA 58, Section 6.20.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 30, 2010)

Thinking along same lines!



> As far as enforcing, an inspector can only enforce what is adopted. There is no avenue to proactively state "you shall conform to the latest edition." If it is proposed by the applicant, it should be considered.


 

My point is that the inspector should enforce the need to have a serious recognized deficiency in the system evaluated for the hazard now encountered as referenced in previous posting (specifically).  





> When you say, "should not be subjected to corrective measures now known to not adequately protect the hazard" I am thinking of a scenario where a earlier edition might say 1 sprinkler per 200 s.ft. whereas a newer edition may say 1 sprinkler per 100 sq.ft is required to adequately protect a hazard.


 

Again the example was specifically pertaining to potentials for major loss regarding a specific hazard and in that, I can totally understand the rationale regarding coverage area and could agree to some extent based on the hazard.  The example posed is for the storage of extra and high hazard commodities and whereas the hypothetical inspector recognizes that the system design on a placard (lest say .24 for OH II and the commodity and storage array dictates “as an example” .60 EH2) and thus in the newer standard the figures and curves for arrays having been adjusted or revised to reflect historic loss and new empirical testing data.



Hypothetically, the inspector recognizes the problem and in accordance with the adopted code he/she then requires the design analysis as he/she can.  The analysis is completed and verifies that the array protection is not compliant (remember it was modified after C of O) the protection is now officially found in non-compliance so the DP chooses to follow a newer design standard accounting for newer information, technology and test data and designs the new protection to meet newer standards.  Do you as an inspector accept the newer design to review and inspect to?  



*This discussion was never intended to lead to discussions in enforcing all newer standards, just one for a specific potential that previous regulations are now known to be erroneous.*



This really should have been put in Code Admin. but I have not moved stuff to a new thread over there and may consider.  This is not a debate just doing some research to see what other officials believe and how they may address a similar situation.


----------



## Insurance Engineer (Jun 30, 2010)

Here is a good example to ponder.

The FPE for the new warehouse building wants to use ESFR sprinklers for a building that is 48' high for the storage of Group A Plastic in cartons to 43' on double row racks. Based on NFPA 13 , 2002, 2007 and 2010 editions this is not permitted as the maximum for ESFR sprinklers is 40' storage in a 45' high building. BUT Reliable Sprinkler Co. has an ESFR head that is UL Listed for protection of Class I to IV Commodities and cartoned unexpanded Group A or B plastics. The storage can be palletized and solid piled, open frame single row or multiple row and portable rack storage for storage heights to 43ft.  Minimum Aisle Width: 8 ft , in buildings with ceilings to 48ft. high.

Here is the link to the cut sheet http://www.reliablesprinkler.com/pdfs/products/177.pdf

So can the FPE use this ESFR sprinkler??


----------

