Thom, We all know that George doesn't sleep at night. Coffee and cigarettes man! Nothing gets by that guy :-)
Terri Simmons Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING voice: 858.751.2930 fax: 858.751.2933 cell: 619.871.8450 -----Original Message----- From: Thom McMahon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Testing George! You sleep at night? I took a nap in 1973, and still worry I missed something that will bite me in the ass. 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: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: RE: Testing > Hmmm. More to the point brought up that inspections of improperly > installed > (or designed) systems are now null and void. > > Well, I don't know your confidence level, but from what I've seen, we are > NOT a perfect industry. Day in and day out, gray areas and fitter > mistakes, > design mistakes, fab errors, wrong heads show up and get installed, duct > changes, architectural changes- all these combine so I can about guarantee > you that virtually NO systems installed are "perfect". I don't expect any > argument from anyone on this. Therefore, the systems we install are not > compliant with NFPA #13- if you were to take a fine-tooth comb and go thru > EVERYTHING. I'm not saying, and out industry's amazingly great track > record > doesn't argue, that the systems aren't good, aren't workable, and aren't > REASONABLY compliant. > > BUT > Any of us who have been involved in lawsuits will agree that all common > sense and what is "generally accepted" can quickly go out the window in a > court of law and the most inane arguments can win. I had a competitor's > lawyer argue > a) that I wasn't competent to testify on the subject of inspections and > whether a system was compliant and > b) that NFPA #13 was NOT part of the city's fire code. > Understand the system we're talking about was installed to protect a > grocery > store, was designed to light hazard occupancy (by a Level IV) using the > largest room rule (ignoring the sales floor since the largest room was > "remote"- and wasn't even a room, it was a ceiling elevation change. The > system demand was 66 GPM plus 100 GPM hose allowance, the "backflow" was a > pair of plumber's brass swing cheks (2") between 1/4 turn ball valves, > with > a 1.5" residential FDC. Did I mention the combo ITC/main drain was a 3/4" > boiler drain stuck in a FIT tee above the "BFP" ? My dog is competent to > tell you this system is non-compliant. And this was a different one than > the > CPVC system installed by same guy, guess he's just not very good at > mercantile. Ironically, he complains how others violate the code! > > So when we go inspect a system, or deeper, perform a full gamut of ITM > (and > there's an interesting dilemma- quote ITM when your competitor quotes I > and > you will be high bidder) - and since it's noncompliant, I'm outside NFPA > #25 > when the place burns down. > > AARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH how do we owners sleep at night? > > George Church > Rowe Sprinkler > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > John, I believe what you said has merit to a point. I believe that > every inspection should entail more than just ringing the bell. > Unfortunately that's all a lot of owners want to pay for and that what a > lot of inspectors do. It's a fast easy way to make a buck. > > The inspection should point out any obvious visible deficiencies but to > what degree would or could and engineer perform any kind of absolutely > certifiable inspection beyond what he can see? > > Biggest problem I have seen in some of the sprinkler companies I've been > involved with is that most of your inspectors are ex-fitters who got > promoted. They have no real design or engineering background so they > couldn't tell an owner if something was improperly designed or > installed. Now this isn't true in 100% of the cases but in most. > > If the job is improperly managed by the sprinkler contractor, the design > and installation deficiencies are usually brought to light during fire > marshal or underwriter inspections, sometimes. > > You wouldn't believe how many industrial plants I've walked through and > just cringed at the installations. Code compliant, pfffft, yeah right > maybe the DaVinci Code or Cap'n Crunches Secret Code, but definitely not > NFPA or building codes. But the owner isn't an expert so he wouldn't > know that someone took liberties and he did select the lowest bidder you > now. > > > 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 John > Drucker > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > Rod, > > > With all due respect, Section 1.1 (Scope) of NFPA-25 reads "This > standard applies to fire protection systems that have been properly > installed in accordance with generally accepted practices". That's > rather ambiguous but lets just assume that NFPA-25 is speaking of > standards such as NFPA 13 & 13R. (PS lets hope so because FM Globals > requirements could also be interpreted as "generally accepted > practices") > > With that said is it not true that a determination by the maintenance > contractor is needed to assure that the system(s) being maintained "have > been properly installed" in order for NFPA-25 to apply ?. > > The scoping statement is very clear, systems that have not been properly > installed are outside the scope of NFPA-25 so in effect an NFPA-25 > inspection of an improperly installed system is null and void. > > My point in this discussion is that the ultimate fire protection goal is > to assure the health, welfare and safety of building occupants and > property protection where applicable. When a building owner or an AHJ > receives a certificate of inspection from a contractor they assume the > system will control a fire as designed by the applicable standard not > that an unprotected area or deficiency was ignored simply because of the > fine print of the maintenance standard. If that's the case an annual > inspection by a qualified fire protection engineer is in order. > > Sincerely in the interest of Fire Safety, > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) > Borough of Red Bank, NJ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rod > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > John, > > I agree with you that there are some real problems with the inspections, > inspectors and enforcers. I do not believe however that we can get into > a situation where even NICET trained certified inspectors are getting > into "protection deficiencies". This is a slippery slope and creates a > liability for the contractor that NFPA 25 quite frankly puts on the > owner. To transfer that liability to the contractor for $200 is not > equitable. The only people with a "false" sense of security are those > that do not read the NFPA 25. > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > Drucker > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > New Jersey has extensive certification & licensing regulations for fire > protection contractors. However coordination rarely occurs and flow and > tamper switches are still be "tested" by alarm technicians moving > actuator arms. I recently attained a flow switch improperly installed in > a copper tee to the extend the vane wasn't even in the water stream yet > the "fire alarm inspection report" noted this device as functional even > so far as listing the time delay. > > Whats need in this situation is a requirement where only alarm companies > and or sprinkler companies be permitted to perform inspection in testing > in suppressed/alarmed buildings that posess certification in BOTH > disciplines. > > The reality is that even with NFPA-13, 72 and 25 gross errors and > omissions are occuring during periodic inspections and tests. > Inspectors should know how to identify protection deficiencies not just > installation and maintenance deficiencies. NFPA-25 certifications give a > false sense of security. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official > New Jersey > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill > Minkel > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > Tennessee where I work requires licensing. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris > Brown > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Testing > > But when you look at the number of states that have a license > requirement they are few. There are many of the larger cities have > requirements but not as a state. Look at Oklahoma, They have one of the > best licensing requirements I am aware of and they enforce it well for > both the fire alarm and fire sprinkler industries. I think every state > should be looking at what the State of Oklahoma is requiring. Look at > the web site for Oklahoma Department of Health of the requirements if > interested. They are doing the right thing! Every one associated with > fire protection has to be licensed. > > > Thank you, > > Chris Brown > Fire Protection Designer, Poole Fire Protection > Office: 913.829.8650 Direct: 913.747.2056 Cell: 913.208.3600 Fax: > 913.829.8690 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Testing > > there is a fine point you are missing. The OWNER of a PRIVATE facility > is typically allowed to do as much of their own work as they want to. > It's when you hire out to do work for someone else that licensing enters > the equation. > > Roland > > On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:29 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Chris, Kansas isn't alone on that. I have a project in a nearby >> state. >> The owner wanted to do the installation himself. He has mechanics >> that know how to use a pipe wrench. (this guy wanted a detail on his >> drawings of how to install an upright head, yes we are in >> trouble.......) >> >> Anyway, when I called the state board of licensure and asked the lady >> if you had to be specifically licensed to install sprinkler systems >> her words were, "that's a good question, I don't know", so she passed > >> me off to her department manager, who obviously read from the same >> script >> because he said the same thing. Seems in their state and local >> municipality don't require permits or system inspections and so anyone > >> can install it. >> >> There is no consistency in the laws concerning licensing. >> >> 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 Chris >> Brown >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:17 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Testing >> >> In the state of Kansas all you need is transportation to the site it >> even could be by mass transit and you can work on any type of fire >> protection system. Wichita has some requirements and Kansas City >> Missouri has a sprinkler contractors license requirement but other >> than that any one can work on any fire protection system. We have >> plumbers installing sprinkler systems and electricians installing fire > >> alarm system. They don't even know what NFPA is. >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Chris Brown >> Fire Protection Designer, Poole Fire Protection >> Office: 913.829.8650 Direct: 913.747.2056 Cell: 913.208.3600 >> Fax: >> 913.829.8690 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg >> Fontes >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:56 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Testing >> >> Does a C-10 and/or electrical/alarm contractors license allow them to >> contract the testing of water base fire protection systems? (I.E. >> opening inspectors test valves, operating control valves, testing of >> Pre-action/Deluge/Dry systems, generally can they operate any >> component of a fire sprinkler system that has an alarm affiliated with > >> it?) >> >> Gregg Fontes >> Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc. >> 209-334-9119 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
