Penalties for altering fire protection designs
Thread Content
I saw a construction company that privately changed the material of the designed buried fire protection pipes to hot-dip galvanized pipes, claiming that such pipes are better than carbon steel pipes and do not require anti-corrosion treatment. I kindly warned them that doing so was not acceptable: first, any change to the material must be approved by the design institute; second, galvanized pipes corrode more rapidly when buried compared to carbon steel pipes; third, it is absolutely unacceptable to bury pipes without applying any anti-corrosion measures. However, from the perspective of the Fire Protection Law, such behavior should be subject to penalties or forced rectification. I ask the experienced sailors to help analyze the risks of this approach and what kind of penalties might be imposed ? ? ?
Firstly: The material of the buried pipes used for firefighting purposes should be ordinary carbon steel. As for the hot-dip galvanized pipes, based on your description, I assume their material is also carbon steel; in other words, the material has not changed. Secondly, for the corrosion protection of buried pipelines, 3PE is generally used. In terms of corrosion resistance, 3PE or lining methods offer better protection effects compared to hot-dip galvanizing. Finally: If penalties are enforced in accordance with the rules, then punishment is inevitable, but in actual production and daily life, it might indeed be possible to avoid punishment·····