and a rather accurate opinion. It's just those trying to shift the
responsibility for their mistakes that seem to have a problem with
such explicit text.
Roland
On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Jim Davidson wrote:
Steve,
What some are trying to do is to make the inspecting contractor
responsible for the items missed by the Owner's design team
engineers and the AHJ reviewing the original sprinkler system shop
drawing. If every one reads NFPA 25 2008 paragraph 1.1.2 "The types
of systems addressed by this standard include, but are not limited
to, sprinkler, standpipe and hose, fixed water spray, and foam
water. Included are the water supplies that are part of these
systems, such as private fire service mains and appurtenances, fire
pumps and water storage tanks, and valves that control system flow.
The document also addresses impairment handling and reporting. This
standard applies to fire protection systems that have been properly
installed in accordance with generally accepted practices. Where a
system has not been installed in accordance with generally accepted
practices, the corrective action is beyond the scope of this
standard. The corrective action to ensure that the system performs
in a satisfactory manner shall be in accordance with the appropriate
installation standard." This clearly defines that incorrectly
installed systems are not part of this standard, the inspecting
contractor should notify the Building Owner of the original system
deficiencies found in a separate letter to the Owner and not as part
of the NFPA 25 inspection report.
This is just my opinion.
Regards
Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20121112/581f4bb6/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
