That is what I was afraid of and now I am disturbed by things like 'can of worms', and 'swept under the rug'. It is fine if the reviewer uses logic and reason to get from one thing to another (this is America). A similar situation is the use of schedule 10/40 vs water corrosiveness-- then ~sch 40 for Dry and PA, no exceptions~, without saying except galvanized.
-----Original Message----- From: Thom [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:22 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: UFC 3-600-01 interpretation No! but I guarantee that you can get one (a different one) from every CORP, NAVFAC or Air Force gov. FPE. Thom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: UFC 3-600-01 interpretation >From UFC 3-600-01, 26 September 2006, 4-2.3.4: 'The use of quick response automatic sprinklers (QRAS) is limited to wet pipe systems'. This is following the allowance of "QR Reduction" when as per NFPA 13. I think the intent of 4-2.3.4 is '. the use of QR Reduction is limited to wet .', otherwise there could be trouble with dry, Light Haz, Corp jobs, right? Is there such a thing as UFC Formal Interpretations? _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
