Document jNj5yZDKB2k34nr7XqzGw4O55

INTER OFFICE MEMO TENNECO CHEMICALS, INC. To T.T. Zuhl at Piscataway from p, Scheiner at Burlington Piscataway Sprinkler Line Modification date October 16, 1975 Copy to JL Winters File - The sprinkler line running along the north side of the Paint Colorant Plant was modified to install a plug in a dead leg running to the plant. This was necessitated by a leaky shut-off valve in the line that permitted water to seep under the Paint Colorant Plant, The sprinkler contractor, working for General Contractor L.C, Bowers, disclaimed any blame for not installing a cap as required on his approv ed drawing. The sprinkler contractor was told that a cap was installed by the demolition contractor, F. Wilhelms and Company. The foreman for Wilhelms claimed he installed the cap although his contract drawing did not require that he do so. Over one year later it is discovered that the cap was never installed. In retrospect, the true story can be pieced together as follows: 1. F, Wilhelms cuts old sprinkler line and does not cap line. This is consistent with his contract drawing since the line was to be exten ded and reused as a riser, 2. Factory Mutual requests that Colonial Sprinkler, the sprinkler con tractor, relocate the proposed new riser on the north end of the build ing. This calls for the old line to be discontinued and capped off, 3. L.C, Bowers inquires of foreman for Wilhelms whether the line has been capped off. They are informed verbally that it has. From the above, it can be stated that Wilhelms performed his work in ac cordance with his construction contract. L.C. Bowers and Colonial Sprinkler both acted in good faith but were misled by verbal information. Tenneco should assume responsibility for the above since as job supervisors, we are responsible for communication between contractors. PS/3st P. Scheiner COLORXTE 011057