For what it's worth: I believe that we can level the playing field considerably by incorporating the below-listed into our work routines:
1. A concise scope of work referenced in insp agmt or insp work order that clarifies what we are and are not doing; 2. Clear work instructions on how to complete forms when noting repair items, and separate instructions for noting installation code observations; 3. Inspection forms that limit potential for non-25 observations and reiterate that service performed is not a design evaluation (show that this can be accomplished separately from the insp svc). . 4. Work instructions that direct actions to be taken when repairs are noted, installation code observations are noted, or impairments are found. I have some samples if anyone wants to explore this further; drop me a note and I'll try to get something to you. Thanks, Mobile message from Paul Johnson Bardane, Inc. 407-399-5081 - Wireless -----Original Message----- From: Ron Greenman <rongreen...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:06:27 To: <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> Subject: Re: Chewable topic.....Omegas An issue like this came up yesterday. say a fully sprinklered building with an interior build-outs all fully sprinklered. A change is made in one space creating a ceiling below a ceiling known to be sprinklered below a shell know to be sprinklered. What to do? The inspector is only supposed to comment on sprinklers he can see from the floor and not at all on design issues. We all know if this puppy burns down not speaking up because on contract obligations when you know something is wrong isn't going to carry much weight. There's already have an extra page with places for "maybe this is wrong," "I know this is wrong but it's beyond the scope of the inspection," and "you ought to have this looked into by a design professional" clauses. This goes to the owner. The decision was to not send on a report to the AHJ but to attach an amendment to the NFPA 25 test report to the effect that: "We saw some stuff that we consider questionable but beyond the scope of an NFPA 25 inspection. We notified the owner that he should have this looked into further. We also told him he should inform your office and that you could advise him on how to proceed." I think this allows you to go beyond 25 when the AHJ requires it. To CYA if it is an issue (not my problem nor call so I turned it over to responsible parties better able to make a decision). To not be considered a quisling by the owner (presuming you add a clause to your contract letting them know that this can happen). Then you have a paper trail as follows: Did NFPA 25 inspection Noted deficiencies per NFPA-notified owner & AHJ (where required) Noted issues that may be important in broad terms (coverage deficiency & possible recalled heads) Notified owner in separate report/Notified AHJ that there may be a concern and that owner was notified Through in the insurance guy if necessary I never said there was any problem beyond my contract of level of expertise, I followed stupid rules that want me to make comments beyond my level of expertise, I kept that beyond my level of expertise vague, and I did my best to keep confidence with my customer under an unfair system--what have I missed? On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Bobby McCullough <bo...@atlantasprinkler.com> wrote: > Regarding the code or standard on which you base the inspection, I'm speaking > from my understanding of Georgia regulations and the inspection being done > from the applicable portions of NFPA 25, 2002. The Inspector (NICET Level 3 > in GA) has to be meticulous and methodical to do it right. Inferring the > inspection must comply with any portion of IFC (2006 in GA) opens a really > big can of worms. I don't believe it is the intent for ITM contractors to > inspect based on the IFC. A fire official can and should enforce replacing > recalls. > > For non-compliant and impaired systems, GA regulations require the inspection > report be sent to the local AHJ. I send it approximately 7 days after the > owner has a copy and has had a chance to reply. If I send information to the > AHJ which does not originate from the NFPA 25 inspection, I'm going beyond > what my customer paid me to do, and the intent of the 25 inspection. And, as > I've heard a dozen times in seminars, courts may use this against me in the > case of a loss. > > Georgia intended to adopt the 2008 edition before now, but with the budget > crunch the adoption date is unknown. Once 2008 (or whatever is next) is > adopted, you can bet the AHJs will see recalled sprinklers in the report. > > Bobby McCullough > Atlanta Sprinkler Inspection > >________________________________ > > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of John Drucker > Sent: Fri 9/18/2009 1:18 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas > > > > Barry, Pete, > > I'm in the process of looking up the exact statutes however it goes without > saying that a certified contractor, as is required in New Jersey, would be > remiss and perhaps fall within the Duty to Act Statute if he/she knowingly > and or should have known but failed to act, i,e, notify the building owner > and fire official. Duty to Act transgressions are considered criminal acts. > > I have one in process right now where a diligent fire sprinkler service > provider notified the property owner in writing and copied same to our > office. The end result the citation was issued to the property owner who > authorized the provider to replace some 300 sprinklers. The work starts this > coming Monday along with the requisite fire watch while the system is > impaired. > > It comes down to doing the right thing despite the shortcomings of the > reference standard. > > 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 Maag, Barry > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:07 PM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas > > I haven't been following this thread closely. I am not sure if this has > been mentioned or not. IFC 2006 reads as follows. > > 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. > > With that being said I believe that the fire code official should be > notified so that they can enforce the code (law). > > > Barry Maag > > -----Original Message----- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Forest > Wilson > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:54 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas > > The Inspection Forms from the NFSA have a section for noting recalled > components. > I note them and send a certified letter, copying the Fire Marshal. > There is a moral obligation to report recalled heads and what point is > there in doing a main drain test in a school or nursing home if all the > sprinklers are recalled? > The AHJ mentioned previously that allows recalled heads to save the > owner money should consider the night club fires. The inspectors went > to jail. > > > 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 > > > > > > > > NOTICE: The information contained in this email is intended to be > solely for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is > directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise > confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, > anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to > deliver it to the named addressee). It should not be copied or > forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you have received this > electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your > system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the > error by reply email or by calling Cherokee Fire Protection Co. at > 888-347-3079 toll free. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: George Church <for...@ptd.net> > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Sent: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:55:48 -0400 > Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas > > The liabilities we ITM contractors can inadvertently inherit are HUGE > and > especially so when you look at the minimal amount of revenue we get for > taking on this risk. > > The #25 committee has done a good job of understanding and limiting it > for > us, but contractors doing ITM MUST understand what you can and cannot > put on > an inspection form. The standard means of addressing items outside the > scope > of #25 but relevant is, as Bobby mentioned, a letter (certified makes > sense) > to the owner SEPARATE from the ITM report(s). We inspect buildings as an > agent of the OWNER and if you go outside that contractual relationship, > you > can end up paying dearly for it. > > We're putting 100,000 SF retail complex back in service after 10+ years > of > being turned off. It came to the BCO's attn when a spkr guy doing a > small > fit-out discovered the system was off, and rather than advise the > Owner, he > called in the BCO. I assume the spkr guy was working for a GC, and don't > know if the GC was working for the tenant or the Owner. But the Owner's > rep > got a certified letter with a Notice to Vacate in 10 days, called us to > handle it, and from what I heard back from my foreman on site, the > original > spkr guy not only didn't get the service work we ended up with, but he > got > booted off the fit-out, too. I'm not privy to much else and don't really > care- we're doing between 10 and 20 years of tenant improvements, > backflows > on all risers (was a tank and pump; had city run in, connected, but not > placed in service 2 yrs ago), and whatever else may come up. Plus the > chances of the original sprinkie getting additional work is slim, but > they're very happy with us. We were able to get him a 60 day > continuance on > the Vacate Notice within 3 days of the initial call, so the new FA > system > has time to get installed before the revised deadline. > > Another reason mandatory ITM by the AHJ isn't such a bad idea. 100k > retail > complex with no working AS, no FA, no smokes, pulls, nada zip. Can't > say the > Owner was right, but glad we were able to a) help him out and b) 3 or > 400 > labor hrs of work in a bad economy. > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Larrimer, > Peter A (CEOSH) > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:41 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: RE: Chewable topic.....Omegas > > 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) > >_______________________________________________ > 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) > > >_______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ 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)
