 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:57:07 -0400 |
| Content-Disposition: |
inline |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| In-Reply-To: |
<003f01c939d4$c62b3460$52819d20$@net> |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
| From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Andy von Busse <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We are all aware of that IM fire. IM does not stack 4 high and 4 deep, and
> it is my understanding the flue requirements that the fire code required in
> fact made the situation worse.
>
are you absolutely positive that the Bow facility was not set up for 4x4?
are you absolutely positive that 4x4 stacking reduces the potential for
fire?
whether 4x4 or 3x3 a fire is a fire
and I do agree that a vendor should be allowed to run the facility they way
they want to, but to stay that 4x4 is a standard is misleading. there is a
process for developing standards, it might be a best practice or a
guideline, but if someone calls it a standard ask to see the publication or
ask what standards issuing organization published.?
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
|
|
