I don't know how they could have Bill, but I know how the can. The TYCO page www.sprinklerreplacement.com/ gives a step by step way to determine whether sprinklers are under the recall or not. Ed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 ----- Original Message ---- From: "Brooks, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2007 10:26:05 AM Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Can someone go back to the beginning and explain how individual building owners were supposed to know that the recalled heads were installed in their buildings? Bill Brooks Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Article on Sprinkler Recall The following amended statement is true of all sprinkler heads. "These sprinkler heads can corrode or minerals, salts and other contaminants in water can affect the ------------ seals. These factors could cause the sprinkler heads not to activate in a fire." Anyone here ever replaced heads in a swimming pool area? Secondly, If the CPSC has the power to absolve Central/TYCO after a specific date for making this problem. Why would that absolution not extend to the contractors that installed the product? I know Lawyers will ----blah blah blah------. But the legal system allows just about anybody to claim injury from anyone anywhere anytime, so what is the greater risk? By purchasing TYCO/Central products we supported the public service announcements and articles to notify owners. Why does our obligation continue when TYCO's doesn't? Thom McMahon Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Drucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall Whoa, I think everyones misreading that one. The whole issue is not whether the product is defective or not, it is by Centrals own admission ( "Central initiated this action because it discovered the performance of these O-ring sprinklers can degrade over time. These sprinkler heads can corrode or minerals, salts and other contaminants in water can affect the rubber O-ring seals. These factors could cause the sprinkler heads not to activate in a fire."), but rather who's footing the replacement bill. Please read the recall notice carefully. Central Sprinkler simply initiated a VRP or Voluntary Replacement Program in cooperation with the CPSC. ("I am pleased that Central is voluntarily undertaking this major program proactively to replace sprinklers nationwide and protect consumers from the risk of fire," said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown.) The latest news on this issue is that Central Sprinkler is ending the VRP; (Central Sprinkler Company and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Announce an August 31, 2007 Deadline to Submit Claims to Participate in the Voluntary Replacement Program for O-Ring Sprinklers-This Notice is to advise property owners who have not yet submitted a VRP claim that they must submit "Proof of Claim" and "Waiver and Release of Claims" forms to Central Sprinkler Company postmarked by August 31, 2007 in order to receive free replacement sprinklers and installation.) All this is doing is absolving Central Sprinkler from further claims including claims for free replacements after August 31, 2007. On August 31, 2007 the problem does not magically go away, it just becomes someone elses problem. In either case the sprinklers must be replaced and those that are not will be cited as a violation under the fire code. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Article on Sprinkler Recall Just to ADD to what George is saying here. You all do remember that this is a voluntary Recall? Voluntary by both the property owner and the Manufacturer. Unless your state has passed a specific ordinance requiring the replacement of these heads by a specific date, your state has accepted an "Unsafe" condition to exist without and specific time for correction, which makes them complacent or a Co-Defendant. The law has no requirement of notification of a voluntary compliance issue. 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: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > Could you also be sued by a property owner by calling in enforcement when > you're not legally obligated to? > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > Drucker > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > > But lets face it a letter to the government AHJ does more then simply > "notify someone". This notification unlike any other will result in the > "responsible" party being compelled to resolve the issue, which mitigates > the hazard, which reduces the chance of litigation, which protects > property, > which saves lives ! > > Check with your attorney ask him/her if that makes sense, ask him/her if a > reasonable person would consider it prudent to notify the authority of > jurisdiction responsible for public safety whenever a condition arose that > could endanger that safety. > > If uncommon sense doesn't compel someone we have the Fire Codes reporting > and notification requirements and the legal doctrines of ones duty of care > and duty to act. > > Yours in Fire Safety > > John Drucker > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd > Williams > - work > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > > George, > > I would think that any professional, be it contractor, designer or > whatever, who does not notify someone,(I opt for the owner, because > they have a certain responsibility) of a dangerous condition they are > aware of, could bear some responsibility if that condition leads to a > loss. It may be criminal or civil, but the issue remains. I tend to > equate them because they both involve something I don't like to > do....give lawyers money. A letter to a building owner, which should > take no more than 10 minutes to write, could save a lot of headaches > down the road. Well worth the investment, IMHO. > > > At 12:45 PM 5/3/2007, you wrote: >>While I'll certainly agree it's the right thing to do, I vehemently > disagree >>that the sprinkler industry- at least we dumb installing contractors- have > a >>legal or fiduciary duty to contact a fire official. >> >>I believe there is a higher standard for registered design professionals; >>but we work for the building owner in many cases, but we are in no way, >>shape or form obligated by any law I'm aware of to act as an enforcement >>entity, or snitch. >> >>That's NOT to say that a widow's lawyer wouldn't drag us in and state that >>we should have recognized a clear and present danger, and taken action- I >>just never heard of any legal requirement. >> >>Has anyone else heard of such a requirement, or case law (outside Calif) >>where a contractor was liable for not contacting an enforcement agency? >> >>Can you imagine an auto mechanic being charged with contributing to >>manslaughter if someone drove in, asked him to check their brakes, he >>discovers they are defective, the car owner refuses to allow him to fix >>them, and drives off- and the mechanic doesn't call the police and give >>licenses number, let alone follow in pursuit so as to be able to guide the >>police to the "escaping" vehicle? If this were the case, there would be >>standards requiring mechanics be located in areas with cel reception, have >>cel phones with charged batteries at the ready, and a pursuit vehicle > parked >>so as to allow ready exit to pursue. >> >>Anyone aware of a parallel in sprinkler contracting? >> >>George Church >>Rowe Sprinkler >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John >>Drucker >>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:23 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> >>Todd, >> >>Its really quite simple. Notify your local fire official (AHJ) in >>writing of any known fire sprinkler systems where the replacement of >>sprinkler heads effected by the recall has not been accomplished. The >>sprinkler industry has a duty of care and fire officials have a duty to >>act. >> >>Besides all that it's the right thing to do. The last thing the >>sprinkler industry needs is a fire loss due to defective product where >>the integrity of the industry and fire sprinkler systems in general is >>brought into question. Lets seize this opportunity before it slips away. >> >>Yours in fire safety >> >>John Drucker >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd >>Williams - work >>Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:27 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall >> >>I think it's incumbent on everyone to notify a building owner of the >>presence of sprinklers under recall. However, the "failing to take such >>action to remedy" almost sounds like we all have to carry boxes of >>replacement sprinklers wherever we go and change any recalled heads we >>see. As an Engineer, I would think my responsibility would be to notify >>the proper entities (owners, franchisers, etc) of the condition and then >>it is up to them to remedy. I have done this in the past in a hotel I >>was staying in and the sprinklers were changed. >>The criminal offense would (or should) be an owner knowingly allowing a >>dangerous condition to exist. If, as John states, having knowledge of >>such a condition and failing to take action (beyond notification) is a >>criminal offence, then I'm turning in my PE and getting a Snapple route. >> >> >>At 06:53 PM 5/2/2007, you wrote: >> >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) >> >>Todd G. Williams, PE >>Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>Stonington, Connecticut >>860-535-2080 >>www.fpdc.com >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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) > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, Connecticut > 860-535-2080 > www.fpdc.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
