] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com]

Phoenix is going, going, gone to adopt the NFPA 5000 code but not without 
serious revisions.  The issue of ICBO approvals vs. NFPA approvals (which I 
understand don't currently exist) was addressed by possible acceptance of ICBO 
approvals.  No one has figured out what will happen if there is a conflict between 
NFPA and ICBO requirements on a particular item.  Also read the inspection 
requirements for NFPA very carefully.  Some of the language might not be 
insurable.  When was the last time you went to the batch plant to check the QC of a 
supplier on a small job?  Do you want to be responsible for the contractors 
quality control plan?  Some of these issues could be very serious if literally 
interpreted, especially by our friends the attorneys.  There a a bunch of land 
mines in this code some of which may be permitted by code but are not good 
practice.  Example.  Change of use of a building upper floor currently office.  
New use file storage.  Evaluate the floor, find live load capacity is 73 pounds 
per square foot but 125 is required.  Reinforce the floor?  No.  Put up a sign 
stating the live load capacity of floor is 73 pounds per square foot as 
permitted by NFPA.  Of course all building owners know exactly how many file boxes 
can be safely stored on a 73 psf floor.  Just my six bits.

Mel Slaysman

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********