Last thing. In the ROP of the 2012 revision cycle, the committee rejected a proposal that stated " The requirement of 6.2.1.1 shall not apply where a sprinkler located on a sprig or drop is relocated or moved and was not removed from the fitting." The committee initially was going to allow limited reuse of sprinklers, but somewhere in the ROC (I don't have handy) they overturned the decision.
Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" -----Original Message----- From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop That's it in a nutshell. One last thing, with regard to Greg's question, " Have we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the ones accidently discharging?" Unfortunately, many (most?) times in civil tort law, the concept is guilty until proven innocent and when there's no compelling or definitive evidence either way, the trend is to settle or share and nobody gets off for free. So the $10 sprinkler is a $5,000 or $10,000 deductible and as both Ron and Mike just noted, the sprinkie gets hit no matter what and only the lawyers profit. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Johnson, Duane (NIH/OD/ORS) [C] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop Hope Bob (and anyone else interested) has better luck than those of us that tried to get stronger language through the 2012 revision cycle. Why would one want to risk the historical proven success rate of the sprinkler industry (or their company) for a $10 sprinkler? Don't do it! Duane Johnson, PE Program Manager Division of the Fire Marshal (Contractor) Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 301-496-0487 "Protecting Science - One Sprinkler at a Time" -----Original Message----- From: Greg McGahan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop H ave we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the ones accidently discharging? It just seems like a waste to throw a 20 dollar head away because you have to remove and reinstall.....or even a 3 dollar head. We WILL comply with code, but I strongly disagree. Greg On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Todd - Work <[email protected]> wrote: > I would think that the vast majority of problems in mis-handling > sprinklers in this manner come from premature actuation (especially > with glass bulb) and not failure to actuate in a fire. I would also > think that only in very rare circumstances would you lose a building > due to an accidental discharge of a sprinkler. > > Todd G Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, CT > www.fpdc.com > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > "then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or sprigs" > Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, > Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that counts > in descending order of priority. > > > > I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm > > sure > not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current role. > When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. > When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > Burns & McDonnell > > 8201 Norman Center Drive > > Bloomington, MN 55437 > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > [email protected] > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is > specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, > then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line > should the head fail. > > > > If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, > > with > no c > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
