In the risk analysis, do we factor in fire suppression efforts and firefighter safety? Also, 60 feet may not be nearly enough to prevent a fire extending to the exposure building. NFPA addresses water supply requirements of fire suppression and also exposure protection distances.
Granted, the Code is the Code - but I can actually deal with "I don't want to pay for it" easier than I can deal with the faulty logic applied by some building owners. Jim Kettler Fire Marshal -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of å... .... Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: decison not to sprinkler Got a project where the decision to sprinkler a 600 ft² storage facility (possibly plastics to 10 ft) mixed with an additional 600 ft² office area was nixed, because the Codes didn´t require it (not enough area to justify it). I can do the risk analysis, and accept letting the building burn to the ground, because no one else is around for 60 ft. But to hear the GC say he did the client a favor by saving them maintenance costs in nixing the sprinkler system is akin to leaving the second parachute out to save packing time. but yes i agree that clients of some occupancies should still have the option of not to install them. scot deal excelsior fire engineering _______________________________________________ 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)
