Top, No and there would be no need to if the maintenance inspection occurred on the same day as the acceptance but that's never the case. Reality is that the maintenance inspection pursuant to NFPA-25 typically occurs one year AFTER the acceptance, and then every year thereafter. A lot can happen in this time period. That's my point not to question the initial design or acceptance, ps although I'm sure we've all seen jobs where the the statement "how in the hell did this ever get approved" is mumbled under ones breath.
John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Borough of Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Top Myers Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA 25 Scope When a sprinkler contractor gets an inspection contract it is after a system has been installed under NFPA-13 and the local AHJ has accepted the building and a Certificate of Occupancy has been given. Are you asking the NFPA-25 inspection contractor to second guess your acceptance process, evaluate the system design, water supply etc. There has to be separation between responsibilities of the various parties. Very often inspectors for sprinkler contractors have been trained to perform the specific inspection testing and maintenance requirements of the standard. Remember the standard is not named Inspection Testing Maintenance and Design for a reason. How do all of these bad systems get approved? Top Myers Myers Risk Services 961 Pottstown Pike Chester Springs, PA 19425 [EMAIL PROTECTED] O - 610-321-2415 X-219 C - 610-952-0965 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: NFPA 25 Scope Shouldn't the intent of a sprinkler "inspection, testing and maintenance" standard be to assure the adequacy and fitness of a fire protection system ? I feel much better knowing that the mechanical condition of an improper or inadequate system has been verified. Scares me to think we traded up the passive fire protection. What we have here is yet another lowering of the bar. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Borough of Red Bank, NJ PS- Owners will maintain systems when the law requires them to do so, no different then the same law that requires them to expend the money (often grudgingly) and install the system in the first place. If it weren't for mandatory fire codes the fire protection industry would be on the back burner much like it was before construction code regulations. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 25 Scope You totally missed the intent of the Scope statement. NFPA 25 is basically verifying the mechanical condition of the system. It is appropriately expected that the installing contractor did their job and that the AHJ did theirs too. Change of conditions whereby the system needs to be changed is a job of the fire code and the AHJ to verify. There is a possible catch in 25 whereby the inspector asks if any changes to contents or layout of the building as occurred but if the owner elects to say no or ignores the recommendation to have it SEPARATELY evaluated, 25 won't fix it. As for unprotected areas they get flagged by checking the condition of the sprinkler (unless you are talking about concealed spaces). In order to make 25 catch all these things (as well as 3 times clearance etc), the cost would be so high no owners would do any inspections. Then we would miss the problems with the overwhelming majority that have NOT been violated in order to catch the small percentage that have. It's like a municipality pushing to require 13R systems to protect the attic because there are attic fires. You wind-up NOT adopting 13R so you lose the 99 buildings trying to save the 1 that would have had an attic fire. So instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, lets have NFPA 25 make sure what we have will properly function and implement the Fire Code to ensure system adequacy. Roland On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:47 AM, John Drucker wrote: > Rod, > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
