Or the AHJ's. Having knowledge of a condition which may jeopardize the health safety and welfare of persons including firefighters and failing to take such action to remedy such conditions in a timely manner which ultimately results in an injury or death is a criminal offense. Tyco, likewise sprinkler contractors, should in their own interest turn over such records to the proper authorities so that enforcement action can be commenced.
John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) Borough of Red Bank, NJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall While working for TYCO it was surprising how many owners who knew about the recall would put us off and reschedule and reschedule their change outs. It wasn't convenient and they just didn't want to fool with it. Even though they knew the risk. I can totally see why TYCO would want to see an end to it. If owners hadn't scheduled their replacement by now they either don't care, can't schedule a convenient time, or have not had their systems inspected properly for years so they don't know what they have. We had plenty of people call us for inspections when the news first came out, just to make sure they didn't have the sprinklers installed. But then the concern for the matter waned. Convenience was probably the biggest reason for not getting it done. I'd hate to be the owner who knew about it and didn't get it done and then have a fire incident. I wonder what the insurance companies would say about that, let alone the lawyers. Oi Vey! 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 Rod DiBona Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Thanks George, I can sympathize with Tyco not wanting this thing to drag on indefinitly but the fact is that this could be very bad for our industry. Inevitably there will be more sprinklers with potential problems left in place because of this decision and at the end of the day a higher percentage of possible failures. In the long run I don't believe that this puts any of us in a better situation....including Tyco. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Recalling a Recall Federal Agency Ends Callback Of Faulty Fire Sprinklers In First-Ever Reversal By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY May 1, 2007; Page D1 Almost every day, the Consumer Product Safety Commission initiates a recall of a snowmobile, battery or other product seen as a safety hazard. Today, it will announce for the first time that it is doing just the opposite: ending a recall despite millions of faulty units still in use. In 2001, following reports that some fire sprinklers made by Central Sprinkler Co. failed to work during fires, the CPSC negotiated a massive recall of 35 million sprinkler heads used in apartments, schools, hospitals and other commercial buildings. New Jersey-based Tyco International, which acquired Central Sprinkler, agreed to pay for replacement parts and the labor to install them. Many of the bad sprinkler heads have since been replaced, and Tyco says it may spend $500 million on the effort, likely making it the most expensive recall in CPSC history. But there are still roughly 13 million potentially dangerous units in use, either because building managers don't know about the recall or haven't yet taken action. Now, the agency says it will end the sprinkler recall in four months, hoping that the finality of a deadline and one last wave of publicity will prod the remainder to sign up. The decision, which will relieve Tyco of having to pay for replacements and labor if building managers don't apply by the Aug. 31 deadline, is a bit of an experiment by the CPSC, and it shows how the agency is wrestling with some tough questions: How can it make recalls more effective, and will more people take advantage of recalls if the time period for doing so is shortened? Recalls, such as a recent one concerning tainted pet food, are occasionally big news, but most come and go with little notice by consumers. For some time, the CPSC, which examines the broadest spectrum of consumer products that aren't food, drugs or cars, has been struggling to find ways to change that. In 2003, the three-member commission considered a petition from safety advocates that would have required manufacturers to include contact-information cards with products, enabling them to directly notify some consumers of a recall. The proposal was similar to one long mandated for makers of child safety seats by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That requirement, a 2002 NHTSA study found, resulted in higher product-registration and recall-participation rates. Ultimately, two CPSC commissioners voted against the contact-information card proposal on the grounds that it was vague, costly and unlikely to have a major impact; another commissioner essentially voted for the petition because he felt the issue deserved more attention. At the time, CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton, who voted against the proposal, said a "comprehensive" review of recall effectiveness was under way and a major study would be concluded in 2004. Yesterday, CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said that the review cited by Mr. Stratton, who left the agency last year, is continuing and the commission is exploring ways to use technology to improve outreach to consumers. She cited a recent CPSC move to allow consumers to receive email notices when products they care about are recalled. "The agency is always trying to find new and effective ways to reach out to consumers," she says. In the sprinkler case, the agency's decision to grant Tyco's request to end the recall represents a calculated gamble that more building managers will hear about the recall and act on it sooner if a deadline is in place than if the program were to continue indefinitely. Many superintendents inspected their sprinklers and signed up for the recall in the two years after it was announced, but the pace has slowed in recent years. "Whoever hasn't participated, we want them to act now," says Howard Tarnoff, the CPSC attorney who is handling the sprinkler case. "We think there's going to be a surge." Tyco thinks this is a good way to proceed, too. "Because of the pattern of responses having dropped off ... we want to give one final push," says Anne Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Tyco Fire & Building Products. "We encourage all building and homeowners to check to see if they have these affected sprinklers and are eligible for free replacement." But the CPSC's decision also carries the risk that some building managers won't hear about the recall or take action by the deadline. It will also test the ability of fire marshals, distributors and others involved in identifying sprinkler systems that need to be replaced. Washington state's fire marshal office has been particularly aggressive in its efforts to get faulty systems changed out. The office secured money to pay for two deputy fire marshals to scour the state looking for buildings still using the problematic systems. So far, according to Anjela Foster, assistant state fire marshal, they have located 800,000 sprinkler heads in need of replacement. But that's only "pretty close to the halfway point," Ms. Foster says. She estimates there are roughly two million defective sprinklers in need of replacement and it will take five years to get them all replaced. "If the recall ended, the effect to us would obviously be people wouldn't be able to turn in claims," she says. "We would like to have enough time to get into the remaining facilities." _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
