To all; NFPA 25 makes the distinction as to what is the requirements of NFPA 13 and other code requirements needed to obtain the building's CO. If missed by AHJ then it is the AHJ's problem not the ITM contractor. The question as to the valves being locked, sealed or supervised is determined as part of the building acceptance testing not as part of the NFPA 25 inspection.
Do not take on more liability than you need to, ITM contractors have enough. Just follow what NFPA 25 requires for what is at the facility being inspected, if you add additional wording for the Fire Marshal the ITM contractor will assume all of the liability. REMEMBER THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS NO LIABILITY WHAT EVER THE ITM CONTRACTOR HAS ALL OF THE LIABILITY, IF THE ITM CONTRACTOR CHANGES THE NFPA 25 FORMS. Regarding inspection forms, do not customize to met local AHJ request. Go to RelMark www.relmark.net and click on RelMark Group to review the Risk Management implications. A local sprinkler contractor modified an NFPA 25 inspection form to do the local AHJ a favor and ended up on the losing end of a $12,000,000.00 loss as a result of an inspection with the modified inspection form. The NFPA 25 forms developed by the AFSA and NFSA are based on limiting the contractors liability which was the basis of the development of NFPA 25, to limit the inspecting contractor's liability to the operational mode of the water based suppression system not to the original design and installation of the system. NFPA 25 is based on the original system being installed and inspected in accordance to the code at time of acceptance (NFPA 13). The inspecting sprinkler contractor should not assume any more liability than he already has. Have a fire safe day! Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: NFPA 25 and Scope Peter has a good point here: (2)*Properly sealed, locked, or supervised All of these conditions are supervised and by distinguishing the first two from the third tends to place it (#3--the word "supervised") in a category distinct from the others. Maybe just the addition to the of of "electrically," as in: (2)*Properly sealed, locked, or electrically supervised would be sufficient. I know what each of those means and (I'd have to look in what editions) I know in at least one NFPA 25 lists differing frequencies for each style of supervision, sealed requiring visual inspection daily, locked weekly and electrically supervised monthly or something like this. How many lawsuits revolve around left out words or assumed information in the words? On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Larrimer, Peter A (CEOSH) <[email protected]> wrote: > Forest, > > The owner isn't asking an engineering question, NFPA 25 is asking and > continues to ask these types of questions. The standard asks for > "proper" valve conditions and "normal" pressures on gauges, when in fact > the ITM contractor doesn't necessarily have any idea (through no fault > of his own) what the design basis is for the valve sealing or > supervision or the "normal" system pressures that are to be read on the > pressure gages. > >From the 2008 Edition: > > 13.3.2.2* The valve inspection shall verify that the valves are in the > following condition: > (1) In the normal open or closed position > (2)*Properly sealed, locked, or supervised > (3) Accessible > (4) Provided with appropriate wrenches > (5) Free from external leaks > (6) Provided with appropriate identification > > A sprinkler system can be installed in accordance with NFPA 101 > requirements and the control valve can be sealed, locked, or > electrically supervised, and depending on the occupancy, they all could > be "proper". I wouldn't expect the ITM contractor to know what is > "proper", but I can see how he may in court after the building burns > down and the valve was found not to be "properly" electrically > supervised as might be required by NFPA 101. > > Peter Larrimer > VA > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest > Wilson > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: NFPA 25 and Scope > > > Valves that are sealed with a chain and lock are "sealed" not > "supervised." > > Your example reinforces the argument for ensuring systems are in place > and required by law to send reports to AHJ's. The owner is asking you an > engineering question, when you are there to inspect and maintain. > > Maybe the AHJ approved this years ago, because the reviewer and/or > inspector was incompetent and if the AHJ was aware now of the > unsupervised valves they may require monitoring. > > I inspected a system a while back, less than a year old. Everything was > signed off by the AHJ. I observed: (1) Dry heads installed into 1" > couplings, when manufacturer literature states they should be installed > into 1" tees; (2) an expansion tank on the anti-freeze loop which was > not listed for fire protection use. The label said it was for hot water > heaters. > > The city requires the Fire Department to be present at all annual > inspections. The Fire Marshal, who approved the system install a year > ago, required the owner to correct the deficiencies and we did the work. > > The Fire Marshal called the original contractor and spoke about the > deficiencies, the contractor stated that they will not correct them > because everything was signed off on. I can guarantee that future > expansion tanks and dry heads installed in this jurisdiction will be per > manufacturer guidelines and the Fire Marshal was thankful for the > information. > > Now according to some, I should not note that the dry heads may be > damaged because they were installed into fittings without the proper > dimensions per mfr. specs, nor should I note that the installing > contractor used? a $50 expansion tank instead of a $900 listed tank. > > Another observation about scope: An acquantice who owns commercial > properties asked me to look at a sprinkler system (we do not maintain or > inspect it) the tenant was having various problems with. When I walked > in, the first thing I observed was the entire building had recalled fire > sprinklers. The system was being inspected by a "Fire Protection" > company that specializes in fire extinguishers. The sprinklers were part > of the free replacement program through Central, but no claim was ever > filed. I informed the owner that the sprinklers were all recalled, among > other deficiencies observed. He?(landlord) informed his tenant of this, > as tenant is responsible for maintaining the system per lease contract. > ?The tenant doubted by observations. Owner took pictures of the fire > sprinklers and forwarded them to the manufacturer and manufacturer > confirmed in writing that the sprinklers were recalled. Owner then > obtained copies of inspection reports for the past several years, and > the fo > rm did not ask about recalled heads but the inspector had noted in > comments section; 'no recalled heads." > > Owner forwarded this to his attorney and the attorney's opinion was that > the inspection company would be liable for replacing the heads, which I > have been told they agreed to do at no cost to owner or tenant. (On a > funny note, the sprinklers are all dry heads, the fire extinguisher > employees were apparently unfamiliar with this and went out to replace > wet heads, they tried to take the dry head apart, apparently under the > understanding that the barrel of the dry head was a regular section of > pipe or something and told the tenant they had to return after obtaining > more information about the sprinklers) > > With the amount of recalls going on, I am certain that there will be a > significant increase in litigation over the responsibility of sprinkler > inspection companies. > > The tenant now uses us for service calls and the owner is happy that we > told him of this recall when at least 3 other companies did not. So, > even if this extinguisher company did not write that there were "no > recalled heads" on the inspection form, the owner and tenant would still > be very upset to learn that they had recalled heads, regardless of what > the inspection contract or scope of 25 said. > > > > > > > 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: Matthew J. Willis <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:18 pm > Subject: NFPA 25 and Scope > > > > While we are on the subject, > > > > (2002) 12.3.2.2 covers valve inspections. (2) states "Properly sealed, > locked, or supervised." > > > > Case and point, during recent inspections of college dorms, I came > across > several systems with nothing, several with a lock, and several with > tampers. > Valves in question are the 2" ball valves that come with a 2" backflow. > If > there is a lock, I put a yes to the question of supervision. If nothing, > I > list no. When I price, I do so knowing that life safety mandates > Electrical > supervision on a required system, which comes out to be a several > hundred > more than a lock. Owner asked about providing a lock on each, I tell the > owner as long as I see it is supervised per NFPA #25, I will answer yes. > > > > Comments?? > > > > > > > > Matthew J. Willis, CET > > Automatic Fire Sprinklers > > Norred Fire Systems L.L.C. > > 318-387-1134 Voice > > 318-387-1163 Facsimile > > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (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 [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
