Ron, Thanks for your response, I do not believe I have any liability on this one at all, I was called in for a service call because a flow in one "building" would set off alarms in other "buildings". The lack of valves was apparent when I was led to the riser, and was, I believe the reason for the shadow alarms. I was then given a tour of the new clusters and stated my concerns to the owner. I touched nothing, adjusted nothing...as far as I know they are still having alarm problems. When the installer was contacted I thought he would return and at the least remove the fdc's from the individual structures and have a single fdc at the main building - again a condition typical in many shopping plazas and malls. It isn't what I got later from the owner. I came to the forum because the installation made no sense to me. The responses from John and Dan set me straight as to what a building may be. I appreciate all the help from all those that took the time to respond, Garth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Greenman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: Re: what makes a "building"
> Garth, > > You originally asked if this arrangement was code compliant or not. > There were some qualified yeas but mostly a lot of "it depends." I > doubt if anyone on the forum thinks it's a good arrangement but we all > have different reads on whether it's a legal arrangement. That said > I'll reiterate that the call here is by someone higher on the decision > ladder than you. But a precarious spot for you though since if all > goes well it doesn't matter but if all does not go well you then > become at least a target high on the potential liability ladder. If > this were my job I wouldn't be questioning the forum members I'd be > writing a letter to the architect describing the arrangement, stating > my concerns, proposing my alternatives, and asking for a decision, yea > or nay on the original arrangement and on the alternative, or for > another arrangement. I'd want this reply in writing. To the AHJ I'd > merely write saying I had concerns and whether or not he has accepted > the current layout. I'd also want this answer in writing. I would by > now have done my due diligence by bringing a might have been > overlooked (from MY point of view) deficiency to the attention of the > powers that be and allowed them to decide. I might later end up having > to defend myself in a liability issue but I bet I'd have a couple of > really big bullets to bring to the gunfight when I have documentation > that I thought the arrangement to be bogus but the two biggest guns in > town said it was OK. _______________________________________________ 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)
