That's great John, the way NFPA 25 has been rewritten, the ITM folks are not obligated to tell (and evidently some teaching out there is actually discouraged them from telling) the owner that they have recalled Omegas in their building for fear of getting sued.
Won't get many replaced even with you requesting an official copy of the NFPA 25 report from the Owner. Something's broke there don't you think? Peter Larrimer, PE Dept. of VA -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:32 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: FW: Chewable topic.....Omegas While we're sharing jurisdiction info, As adopted by the NJ Uniform Fire Code, N.J.A.C. 5:70-3, 901.9 & 901.6.2 901.9 Recall of fire protection components. Any fire protection system component regulated by this code that is the subject of a voluntary or mandatory recall under federal law shall be replaced with approved, listed components in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. The fire code official shall be notified in writing by the building owner when the recalled component parts have been replaced. 901.6.2 Records. Records of all system inspections, tests and maintenance required by the referenced standards shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of three years and shall be copied to the fire code official upon request. John Drucker, CET Fire Protection Subcode Official Fire/Building/Electrical Inspector Fire Marshals Office Borough of Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Bobby McCullough Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 7:26 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas Georgia requires inspection reports to go to the AHJ. We are still under 25-2002, so including a recalled sprinkler is outside the scope of 25. The AHJ may make the owner change the sprinklers, but until the state adopts the 2008 standard I'm leaving recalls off reports. Listening to the AFSA web seminar yesterday reinforced the concept of keeping a 25 report strictly on 25 issues. We occasionally find Omegas and inform the owner outside the 25 report. The certified letter sounds like a better way to go. Sending reports to insurance companies sounds like a good plan. Enforcement would be tough. I've heard from AHJs in the metro area they receive very few inspection reports and, to my knowledge, enforcement is sparse. Bobby McCullough Atlanta Sprinkler Inspection -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:22 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas Some states, such as Illinois and Florida require copies of Inspection Reports to be sent to the AHJ. If the owner gets upset because the Fire Marshal is informed of recalled heads then the owner is not the ideal customer anyway. The AFSA had a guidline on how contractors should deal with recalled heads uncovered during an inspection and I believe it recommended sending a certified letter to the owner informing him of the presence of recalled heads. What I do is send the letter and copy the Fire Marshal. Fortunately contractors in states like Illinois and Fla have a legal obligation to copy the Fire Marshal and the owner can't legally complain when its done. The NFPA 25 Committee has considered requiring inspection reports to be ent to the Insurance Company but has not reached agreement on that proposal. Local and state requirements to send reports to the AHJ have the same effect of helping to ensure that deficiencies are repaired. Forest Wilson Project Manager Cherokee Fire Protection Co. 3195 Dayton Xenia Rd Ste 900 Dayton OH 45434 ph: 937-376-2333 fx: 614-455-4324 cell: 937-307-5647 . Visit our blog: www.cherokee-fire.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: Thom McMahon <tmcma...@firetechinc.com> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Sent: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:48:53 -0600 Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas Once more we are put in the position of "Sprinkler Police" for the fire marshal and fire inspectors by the IFC. If we report Omega installations to the fire marshal, how happy is the owner with us? If we simply tell the owner he is supposed to tell the fire marshal, and he doesn't what liability does that give us? How long are we allowed to ignore the owners failure to do what's "required"? Doesn't much matter which route you chose, if the building has a fire before the replacement is done you'll be making an appearance in court. Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: supp...@firesprinkler.org To Unsubscribe, send an email to:sprinklerforum-requ...@firesprinkler.org (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
