Hmmm. More to the point brought up that inspections of improperly installed (or designed) systems are now null and void.
Well, I don't know your confidence level, but from what I've seen, we are NOT a perfect industry. Day in and day out, gray areas and fitter mistakes, design mistakes, fab errors, wrong heads show up and get installed, duct changes, architectural changes- all these combine so I can about guarantee you that virtually NO systems installed are "perfect". I don't expect any argument from anyone on this. Therefore, the systems we install are not compliant with NFPA #13- if you were to take a fine-tooth comb and go thru EVERYTHING. I'm not saying, and out industry's amazingly great track record doesn't argue, that the systems aren't good, aren't workable, and aren't REASONABLY compliant. BUT Any of us who have been involved in lawsuits will agree that all common sense and what is "generally accepted" can quickly go out the window in a court of law and the most inane arguments can win. I had a competitor's lawyer argue a) that I wasn't competent to testify on the subject of inspections and whether a system was compliant and b) that NFPA #13 was NOT part of the city's fire code. Understand the system we're talking about was installed to protect a grocery store, was designed to light hazard occupancy (by a Level IV) using the largest room rule (ignoring the sales floor since the largest room was "remote"- and wasn't even a room, it was a ceiling elevation change. The system demand was 66 GPM plus 100 GPM hose allowance, the "backflow" was a pair of plumber's brass swing cheks (2") between 1/4 turn ball valves, with a 1.5" residential FDC. Did I mention the combo ITC/main drain was a 3/4" boiler drain stuck in a FIT tee above the "BFP" ? My dog is competent to tell you this system is non-compliant. And this was a different one than the CPVC system installed by same guy, guess he's just not very good at mercantile. Ironically, he complains how others violate the code! So when we go inspect a system, or deeper, perform a full gamut of ITM (and there's an interesting dilemma- quote ITM when your competitor quotes I and you will be high bidder) - and since it's noncompliant, I'm outside NFPA #25 when the place burns down. AARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH how do we owners sleep at night? George Church Rowe Sprinkler -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing John, I believe what you said has merit to a point. I believe that every inspection should entail more than just ringing the bell. Unfortunately that's all a lot of owners want to pay for and that what a lot of inspectors do. It's a fast easy way to make a buck. The inspection should point out any obvious visible deficiencies but to what degree would or could and engineer perform any kind of absolutely certifiable inspection beyond what he can see? Biggest problem I have seen in some of the sprinkler companies I've been involved with is that most of your inspectors are ex-fitters who got promoted. They have no real design or engineering background so they couldn't tell an owner if something was improperly designed or installed. Now this isn't true in 100% of the cases but in most. If the job is improperly managed by the sprinkler contractor, the design and installation deficiencies are usually brought to light during fire marshal or underwriter inspections, sometimes. You wouldn't believe how many industrial plants I've walked through and just cringed at the installations. Code compliant, pfffft, yeah right maybe the DaVinci Code or Cap'n Crunches Secret Code, but definitely not NFPA or building codes. But the owner isn't an expert so he wouldn't know that someone took liberties and he did select the lowest bidder you now. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing Rod, With all due respect, Section 1.1 (Scope) of NFPA-25 reads "This standard applies to fire protection systems that have been properly installed in accordance with generally accepted practices". That's rather ambiguous but lets just assume that NFPA-25 is speaking of standards such as NFPA 13 & 13R. (PS lets hope so because FM Globals requirements could also be interpreted as "generally accepted practices") With that said is it not true that a determination by the maintenance contractor is needed to assure that the system(s) being maintained "have been properly installed" in order for NFPA-25 to apply ?. The scoping statement is very clear, systems that have not been properly installed are outside the scope of NFPA-25 so in effect an NFPA-25 inspection of an improperly installed system is null and void. My point in this discussion is that the ultimate fire protection goal is to assure the health, welfare and safety of building occupants and property protection where applicable. When a building owner or an AHJ receives a certificate of inspection from a contractor they assume the system will control a fire as designed by the applicable standard not that an unprotected area or deficiency was ignored simply because of the fine print of the maintenance standard. If that's the case an annual inspection by a qualified fire protection engineer is in order. Sincerely in the interest of Fire Safety, John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Borough of Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rod Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing John, I agree with you that there are some real problems with the inspections, inspectors and enforcers. I do not believe however that we can get into a situation where even NICET trained certified inspectors are getting into "protection deficiencies". This is a slippery slope and creates a liability for the contractor that NFPA 25 quite frankly puts on the owner. To transfer that liability to the contractor for $200 is not equitable. The only people with a "false" sense of security are those that do not read the NFPA 25. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing New Jersey has extensive certification & licensing regulations for fire protection contractors. However coordination rarely occurs and flow and tamper switches are still be "tested" by alarm technicians moving actuator arms. I recently attained a flow switch improperly installed in a copper tee to the extend the vane wasn't even in the water stream yet the "fire alarm inspection report" noted this device as functional even so far as listing the time delay. Whats need in this situation is a requirement where only alarm companies and or sprinkler companies be permitted to perform inspection in testing in suppressed/alarmed buildings that posess certification in BOTH disciplines. The reality is that even with NFPA-13, 72 and 25 gross errors and omissions are occuring during periodic inspections and tests. Inspectors should know how to identify protection deficiencies not just installation and maintenance deficiencies. NFPA-25 certifications give a false sense of security. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Minkel Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing Tennessee where I work requires licensing. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Brown Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Testing But when you look at the number of states that have a license requirement they are few. There are many of the larger cities have requirements but not as a state. Look at Oklahoma, They have one of the best licensing requirements I am aware of and they enforce it well for both the fire alarm and fire sprinkler industries. I think every state should be looking at what the State of Oklahoma is requiring. Look at the web site for Oklahoma Department of Health of the requirements if interested. They are doing the right thing! Every one associated with fire protection has to be licensed. Thank you, Chris Brown Fire Protection Designer, Poole Fire Protection Office: 913.829.8650 Direct: 913.747.2056 Cell: 913.208.3600 Fax: 913.829.8690 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Testing there is a fine point you are missing. The OWNER of a PRIVATE facility is typically allowed to do as much of their own work as they want to. It's when you hire out to do work for someone else that licensing enters the equation. Roland On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:29 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris, Kansas isn't alone on that. I have a project in a nearby > state. > The owner wanted to do the installation himself. He has mechanics > that know how to use a pipe wrench. (this guy wanted a detail on his > drawings of how to install an upright head, yes we are in > trouble.......) > > Anyway, when I called the state board of licensure and asked the lady > if you had to be specifically licensed to install sprinkler systems > her words were, "that's a good question, I don't know", so she passed > me off to her department manager, who obviously read from the same > script > because he said the same thing. Seems in their state and local > municipality don't require permits or system inspections and so anyone > can install it. > > There is no consistency in the laws concerning licensing. > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - > 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris > Brown > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > In the state of Kansas all you need is transportation to the site it > even could be by mass transit and you can work on any type of fire > protection system. Wichita has some requirements and Kansas City > Missouri has a sprinkler contractors license requirement but other > than that any one can work on any fire protection system. We have > plumbers installing sprinkler systems and electricians installing fire > alarm system. They don't even know what NFPA is. > > > Thank you, > > Chris Brown > Fire Protection Designer, Poole Fire Protection > Office: 913.829.8650 Direct: 913.747.2056 Cell: 913.208.3600 > Fax: > 913.829.8690 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg > Fontes > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:56 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Testing > > Does a C-10 and/or electrical/alarm contractors license allow them to > contract the testing of water base fire protection systems? (I.E. > opening inspectors test valves, operating control valves, testing of > Pre-action/Deluge/Dry systems, generally can they operate any > component of a fire sprinkler system that has an alarm affiliated with > it?) > > Gregg Fontes > Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. > 209-334-9119 > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
