I've encountered this from the recalled sprinkler heads issue and I do believe that recalled components should be identified. If the only thing we are willing to conduct and guarantee is a main drain test then the owners may as well self perform that because a trained monkey can do that.
Sent from my Galaxy S®III -------- Original message -------- From: Roland Huggins <[email protected]> Date: 11/06/2013 10:12 AM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA25 scope ACtually this issue is much broader than NFPA 25. NFPA is asking the question, what if anything that it do to reduce the number of failures of the sprinkler system to control the fire (due to changes of contents changes in the water supply, etc where the water discharge is not enough to control the fire). One of the question is should verifying the adequacy of the sprinkler system be part of an NFPA 25 inspection or some other NFPA document? That is the starting point for this thread. What do you gals and guys think? Roland Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:09 PM, "Douglas Hicks" <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.nfpa.org/newsandpublications/nfpa-journal/2013/november-december-2013/features/closer-look?order_src=C246 > > More on 25 and the scope of 25. > _______________________________________________ > 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
