Some of us although are following earlier versions as adopted by our States. I'd be willing to bet most of the changes, clarifications, etc., made to the current edition would have no teeth in our court of law. It would make things easier to justify but probably be disallowed.
It is tempting, very tempting, when conducting a quarterly or annual inspection to almost wear blinders when inspecting some systems so apparently in (violation?/error?/sloppy?). It gets tricky. The head is missing an escutcheon but not report due to its rough too high. I wonder if anyone has been successful in arguing the use of a more current edition. TD 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
