It might be consdidered that areas prone to unacceptably high risk to electrical failure (e.g. tsunami, earthquaqe, flood, volcano, avalanche, corrosion, lightning, even vandalism, etc.) should take these natural or 'environmental' disasters into consideration as to whether a provided electrical power is reliable or not. If we are doing life safety design, or *getting paid under the rubric of such* a title, then it is encumbant to do due diligence. If evidence of electrical interruptions is chosen to be avoided, then that decision should be documented and signed off by the responsible person(s), and preferably posted in an obvious and public space on the affected property. If our decisions put other lives in relatively increased jeapordy, and this is the nature of our business, we should 'cowboy up' on such decisions, and make the motivations transparent (i.e. cost savings, time savings, or my favorite (we didn't want to publiclly address a change in design strategy because that would create the appearance of us not know what we were doing [so we will simply leave the users of our utility at increased jeapardy]).
This comments is not directed at anyone in particular; it is more a commentary on the way life safety decisions are all too often executed, behind closed doors and then sealed from review. The more these decisions are made transparent, the faster we will find those decisions that will create statistics and not events, and the sooner the younger generation will learn what is an 'acceptable' risk (something that changes with culture and financing). scot deal excelsior fire -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120703/fc1b0767/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
