>From NFPA-25-2002 4.1.2.1 - "By means of periodic inspections, tests and maintenance, the equipment shall be shown in good operating condition, or any defects or impairments shall be revealed."
4.14 - "The owner or occupant shall promptly correct or repair deficiencies, damaged parts, or impairements found while performing the inspection, test and maintenance requirements of this standard" >From the CPSC and Central Sprinkler; "Central initiated this action because it discovered the performance of these O-ring sprinklers can degrade over time. These sprinkler heads can corrode or minerals, salts and other contaminants in water can affect the rubber O-ring seals. These factors could cause the sprinkler heads not to activate in a fire. "The Commission and Central emphasize that for sprinkler systems to be effective, they must be regularly inspected, and maintained like a building's heating, cooling, electrical and elevator systems." John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Borough of Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Years ago when the Star Dry Pendent issue was relatively young, I recall meeting with the Owner of a private nursing home. He asked if the law required him to change them out, and I replied I knew of none. That ended the discussion. Was I legally, morally, or ethically bound to then call the local AHJ? And if this was a Vrp (accent on Voluntary) replacement (and pardon me, I don't recall if the Star DP was voluntary or not) would I have the same obligation? I'm leading back to Thom's below note, what could the AHJ then do, absent a local amendment to enforce something the CPSC didn't do? BTW, I am curious if anyone is aware of legal cases where a contractor was guilty of NOT informing an AHJ, absent a legal requirement such as GA now has? George Church Rowe Sprinkler -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Article on Sprinkler Recall Just to ADD to what George is saying here. You all do remember that this is a voluntary Recall? Voluntary by both the property owner and the Manufacturer. Unless your state has passed a specific ordinance requiring the replacement of these heads by a specific date, your state has accepted an "Unsafe" condition to exist without and specific time for correction, which makes them complacent or a Co-Defendant. The law has no requirement of notification of a voluntary compliance issue. Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Church" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > Could you also be sued by a property owner by calling in enforcement when > you're not legally obligated to? > > glc > > Drucker > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > > But lets face it a letter to the government AHJ does more then simply > "notify someone". This notification unlike any other will result in the > "responsible" party being compelled to resolve the issue, which mitigates > the hazard, which reduces the chance of litigation, which protects > property, > which saves lives ! > > Check with your attorney ask him/her if that makes sense, ask him/her if a > reasonable person would consider it prudent to notify the authority of > jurisdiction responsible for public safety whenever a condition arose that > cou ld endanger that safety. > > If uncommon sense doesn't compel someone we have the Fire Codes reporting > and notification requirements and the legal doctrines of ones duty of care > and duty to act. > > Yours in Fire Safety > > John Drucker > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd > Williams > - work > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > > George, > > I would think that any professional, be it contractor, designer or > whatever, who does not notify someone,(I opt for the owner, because > they have a certain responsibility) of a dangerous condition they are > aware of, could bear some responsibility if that condition leads to a > loss. It may be criminal or civil, but the issue remains. I tend to > equate them because they both involve something I don't like to > do....give lawyers money. A letter to a building owner, which should > take no more than 10 minutes to write, could save a lot of headaches > down the road. Well worth the investment, IMHO. > > > At 12:45 PM 5/3/2007, you wrote: >>While I'll certainly agree it's the right thing to do, I vehemently > disagree >>that the sprinkler industry- at least we dumb installing contractors- have > a >>legal or fiduciary duty to contact a fire official. >> >>I believe there is a higher standard for registered design professionals; >>but we work for the building owner in many cases, but we are in no way, >>shape or form obligated by any law I'm aware of to act as an enforcement >>entity, or snitch. >> >>That's NOT to say that a widow's lawyer wouldn't drag us in and state that >>we should have recognized a clear and present danger, and taken action- I >>just never heard of any legal requirement. >> >>Has anyone else heard of such a requirement, or case law (outside Calif) >>where a contractor was liable for not contacting an enforcement agency? >> >>Can you imagine an auto mechanic being charged with contributing to >>manslaughter if someone drove in, asked him to check their brakes, he >>discovers they are defective, the car owner refuses to allow him to fix >>them, and drives off- and the mechanic doesn't call the police and give >>licenses number, let alone follow in pursuit so as to be able to guide the >>police to the "escaping" vehicle? If this were the case, there would be >>standards requiring mechanics be located in areas with cel reception, have >>cel phones with charged batteries at the ready, and a pursuit vehicle > parked >>so as to allow ready exit to pursue. >> >>Anyone aware of a parallel in sprinkler contracting? >> >>George Church >>Rowe Sprinkler >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John >>Drucker >>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:23 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> >>Todd, >> >>Its really quite simple. Notify your local fire official (AHJ) in >>writing of any known fire sprinkler systems where the replacement of >>sprinkler heads effected by the recall has not been accomplished. The >>sprinkler industry has a duty of care and fire officials have a duty to >>act. >> >>Besides all that it's the right thing to do. The last thing the >>sprinkler industry needs is a fire loss due to defective product where >>the integrity of the industry and fire sprinkler systems in general is >>brought into question. Lets seize this opportunity before it slips away. >> >>Yours in fire safety >> >>John Drucker >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd >>Williams - work >>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:27 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> >>I think it's incumbent on everyone to notify a building owner of the >>presence of sprinklers under recall. However, the "failing to take such >>action to remedy" almost sounds like we all have to carry boxes of >>replacement sprinklers wherever we go and change any recalled heads we >>see. As an Engineer, I would think my responsibility would be to notify >>the proper entities (owners, franchisers, etc) of the condition and then >>it is up to them to remedy. I have done this in the past in a hotel I >>was staying in and the sprinklers were changed. >>The criminal offense would (or should) be an owner knowingly allowing a >>dangerous condition to exist. If, as John states, having knowledge of >>such a condition and failing to take action (beyond notification) is a >>criminal offence, then I'm turning in my PE and getting a Snapple route. >> >> >>At 06:53 PM 5/2/2007, you wrote: >> >Or the AHJ's. Having knowledge of a condition which may jeopardize the >> >> >health safety and welfare of persons including firefighters and failing >> >> >to take such action to remedy such conditions in a timely manner which >> >ultimately results in an injury or death is a criminal offense. Tyco, >> >likewise sprinkler contractors, should in their own interest turn over >> >such records to the proper authorities so that enforcement action can >> >be commenced. >> > >> >John Drucker >> >Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) >> >Borough of Red Bank, NJ >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:59 PM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> > >> >While working for TYCO it was surprising how many owners who knew about >> >> >the recall would put us off and reschedule and reschedule their change >> >outs. It wasn't convenient and they just didn't want to fool with it. >> >Even though they knew the risk. I can totally see why TYCO would want >> >to see an end to it. If owners hadn't scheduled their replacement by >> >now they either don't care, can't schedule a convenient time, or have >> >not had their systems inspected properly for years so they don't know >> >what they have. We had plenty of people call us for inspections when >> >the news first came out, just to make sure they didn't have the >> >sprinklers installed. But then the concern for the matter waned. >> >Convenience was probably the biggest reason for not getting it done. >> >I'd hate to be the owner who knew about it and didn't get it done and >> >then have a fire incident. I wonder what the insurance companies would >> >say about that, let alone the lawyers. Oi Vey! >> > >> > >> > >> >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 Rod >> >DiBona >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:02 PM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> > >> >Thanks George, >> > >> >I can sympathize with Tyco not wanting this thing to drag on >>indefinitly >> >but the fact is that this could be very bad for our industry. >>Inevitably >> >there will be more sprinklers with potential problems left in place >> >because of this decision and at the end of the day a higher percentage >> >of possible failures. In the long run I don't believe that this puts >>any >> >of us in a better situation....including Tyco. >> > >> >Rod DiBona >> >Rapid Fire >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George >> >Church >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:24 AM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> > >> >Recalling a Recall >> >Federal Agency Ends Callback >> >Of Faulty Fire Sprinklers >> >In First-Ever Reversal >> >By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY >> >May 1, 2007; Page D1 >> > >> >Almost every day, the Consumer Product Safety Commission initiates a >> >recall of a snowmobile, battery or other product seen as a safety >> >hazard. Today, it will announce for the first time that it is doing >>just >> >the opposite: ending a recall despite millions of faulty units still in >> >use. >> > >> > >> >In 2001, following reports that some fire sprinklers made by Central >> >Sprinkler Co. failed to work during fires, the CPSC negotiated a >>massive >> >recall of 35 million sprinkler heads used in apartments, schools, >> >hospitals and other commercial buildings. New Jersey-based Tyco >> >International, which acquired Central Sprinkler, agreed to pay for >> >replacement parts and the labor to install them. >> > >> >Many of the bad sprinkler heads have since been replaced, and Tyco says >> >it may spend $500 million on the effort, likely making it the most >> >expensive recall in CPSC history. But there are still roughly 13 >>million >> >potentially dangerous units in use, either because building managers >> >don't know about the recall or haven't yet taken action. Now, the >>agency >> >says it will end the sprinkler recall in four months, hoping that the >> >finality of a deadline and one last wave of publicity will prod the >> >remainder to sign up. >> > >> >The decision, which will relieve Tyco of having to pay for replacements >> >and labor if building managers don't apply by the Aug. 31 deadline, is >>a >> >bit of an experiment by the CPSC, and it shows how the agency is >> >wrestling with some tough questions: How can it make recalls more >> >effective, and will more people take advantage of recalls if the time >> >period for doing so is shortened? >> > >> >Recalls, such as a recent one concerning tainted pet food, are >> >occasionally big news, but most come and go with little notice by >> >consumers. For some time, the CPSC, which examines the broadest >>spectrum >> >of consumer products that aren't food, drugs or cars, has been >> >struggling to find ways to change that. >> > >> >In 2003, the three-member commission considered a petition from safety >> >advocates that would have required manufacturers to include >> >contact-information cards with products, enabling them to directly >> >notify some consumers of a recall. The proposal was similar to one long >> >mandated for makers of child safety seats by the National Highway >> >Traffic Safety Administration. That requirement, a 2002 NHTSA study >> >found, resulted in higher product-registration and recall-participation >> >rates. >> > >> >Ultimately, two CPSC commissioners voted against the >>contact-information >> >card proposal on the grounds that it was vague, costly and unlikely to >> >have a major impact; another commissioner essentially voted for the >> >petition because he felt the issue deserved more attention. At the >>time, >> >CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton, who voted against the proposal, said a >> >"comprehensive" review of recall effectiveness was under way and a >>major >> >study would be concluded in 2004. >> > >> >Yesterday, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said that the review cited by >> >Mr. >> >Stratton, who left the agency last year, is continuing and the >> >commission is exploring ways to use technology to improve outreach to >> >consumers. She cited a recent CPSC move to allow consumers to receive >> >email notices when products they care about are recalled. "The agency >>is >> >always trying to find new and effective ways to reach out to >>consumers," >> >she says. >> > >> >In the sprinkler case, the agency's decision to grant Tyco's request to >> >end the recall represents a calculated gamble that more building >> >managers will hear about the recall and act on it sooner if a deadline >> >is in place than if the program were to continue indefinitely. Many >> >superintendents inspected their sprinklers and signed up for the recall >> >in the two years after it was announced, but the pace has slowed in >> >recent years. >> > >> >"Whoever hasn't participated, we want them to act now," says Howard >> >Tarnoff, the CPSC attorney who is handling the sprinkler case. "We >>think >> >there's going to be a surge." >> > >> >Tyco thinks this is a good way to proceed, too. "Because of the pattern >> >of responses having dropped off ... we want to give one final push," >> >says Anne Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Tyco Fire & Building Products. >>"We >> >encourage all building and homeowners to check to see if they have >>these >> >affected sprinklers and are eligible for free replacement." >> > >> > >> >But the CPSC's decision also carries the risk that some building >> >managers won't hear about the recall or take action by the deadline. It >> >will also test the ability of fire marshals, distributors and others >> >involved in identifying sprinkler systems that need to be replaced. >> > >> >Washington state's fire marshal office has been particularly aggressive >> >in its efforts to get faulty systems changed out. The office secured >> >money to pay for two deputy fire marshals to scour the state looking >>for >> >buildings still using the problematic systems. So far, according to >> >Anjela Foster, assistant state fire marshal, they have located 800,000 >> >sprinkler heads in need of replacement. >> > >> >But that's only "pretty close to the halfway point," Ms. Foster says. >> >She estimates there are roughly two million defective sprinklers in >>need >> >of replacement and it will take five years to get them all replaced. >>"If >> >the recall ended, the effect to us would obviously be people wouldn't >>be >> >able to turn in claims," she says. "We would like to have enough time >>to >> >get into the remaining facilities." >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > >> >To Unsubscribe, send an email >> >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > >> >To Unsubscribe, send an email >> >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > >> >To Unsubscribe, send an email >>to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Sprinklerforum mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > >> >To Unsubscribe, send an email >>to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >>Todd G. Williams, PE >>Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>Stonington, Connecticut >>860-535-2080 >>www.fpdc.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>To Unsubscribe, send an email >>to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, Connecticut > 860-535-2080 > www.fpdc.com > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
