Forest- Nothing wrong with telling the Owner, just not on the Inspection Report. Separate letter. FE firm got what they deserved, I suppose- reinforced by trying to change out just the "bottoms" of the dry pendents. That'll change the cost of the changeout dramatically! Good point you make about the owner asking engrg ? when you're there for ITM. But your attaboy is wiped out by the wording in our bible, 2002 #13, wherein locking is deemed supervised in 8.15.1.1.2.1 (3).
glc -----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)
