|
No Surprise
I was surprised at
the brief and inaccurate characterization of the voting methods
utilized by the International Code of Council and the National
Fire Protection Association (ENR 7/29 p. 7). The false claim
that only building officials vote in the ICC arena has been
abandoned even by the most ardent of NFPA supporters. All
members of the model code organizations, including building
product manufacturers and fire officials, have a right to
vote on matters that come before the ICC public hearing assembly.
But my earlier surprise was exceeded
in reviewing comments in a succeeding story (ENR 8/5 p. 10).
NFPA has refused to reveal why it pulled out of the signed
agreement with ICC to produce a joint fire code. The citation
quoted that it was because "ICC would not allow sufficient
participation by interested parties, including the fire service"
is a fabrication of convenience, not based on facts or reality.
Perhaps this was an attempt to obscure the blemish on NFPA's
cooperative history. ICC has, and will continue to, provide
all interested parties with the opportunity to participate
and vote in proceedings.
Even more curious are quotes by
Martin Reiss, RJ&A's CEO, in the editorial (ENR 8/5 p.
64). Mr. Reiss' opinion on which code is superior should not
be much of a surprise since he was chairman of the NFPA board
of directors last year. Would one expect different comments
or an objective assessment from one having served in that
lofty position? Perhaps full and complete disclosure would
enable readers to better understand his thoughts and the true
basis for his opinions.


Clarifying
In the article on
Chicago Bridge & Iron's recent stock offering (ENR 7/22
p. 12), we would like to note one minor correction. CB&I
was already in the water and wastewater treatment markets
before acquiring Howe-Baker International. That acquisition
expanded our capabilities to include engineering and construction
of hydrocarbon processing plants for customers in the oil
refining, petrochemical and natural gas industries.

Panel Confusion
In your article on
the tragic wall collapse at Home Depot (ENR 8/12 p. 16), some
readers might assume the "precast concrete" panels
involved were plant-produced components delivered to the jobsite.
In this case, the wall elements that collapsed were tilt-wall
panels manufactured on the jobsite. Either way, this tragedy
might have been averted had the panels been shored until the
final connections were completed.
|