Or when the jurisdiction starts requiring retrofit, did you instruct bidders (and verify, if contracted) to leave enough cushion for them to be added in the future, since you could reasonably anticipate at some point the jurisdiction would or could leave commonsense behind and initiate compliance with the Backflow Manufacturer's Full Employment Act ?
It's a very good practice to ask yourself how your defense would sound in court. If you sound like you're handing them a gun and ammo, not just ammo, maybe you want to re-think your decision. Some real smart people in this industry instructed me that if you approach each job like it will end up in court, it likely won't. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System How about if you're hired as the engineer of record. Knowing what all of you know about backflow assemblies and the arguments for and against: would you specify one where it is not required by the local code? We do work on one side of a river where they are required; on the other side they are not. Do I spec them on the one side only? If I don't specify backflows where they are not required by code, am I as an engineer exposing myself to suit if one of those "unprotected" systems should be involved with contamination of the water supply? Wouldn't the first thing the attorneys ask me be "How can you omit this important device when you already specify them for half of your projects and know the benefits of the protection?" I guess my answer would be "I thought the likelihood of actual water supply contamination was so small that that it was better to save the owner a couple grand, improve the system hydraulics and improve the system reliability by omitting the device where it was not required by code." Maybe that line would save my butt in court... (?) Mark A. Sornsin, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND 701.280.8591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System Your right George, SOME DO! And of the whole list you just gave I know that you don't, except for the bonds part. We don't, and I know that the majority certainly don't do all of those things, or may have done one of them on some occasion, but not as a general practice. In general I think our trade is growing more aware of the risk's each and every one of these actions involves. Once again time to than AFSA NFPA, and even NFSA (oh yes and this forum), for the educational opportunities they give their members and everyone else. Ever heard the saying "Live and Learn"? Maybe it should have been "Keep Learning to earn a Living"or "Learning is Life" or "Live, Learn , Survive"(substitute for survive any of the following; Prosper, Succeed, Realize, Fulfill, "Where is Steve with that West Coast vocabulary") Thom McMahon _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
