Hello Matthew, I think Texas also does something like this. I know they do for Fire Alarm Systems. I wish they would do something like that out here.
Friday, May 4, 2007, 9:41:29 AM, you wrote: > John, check out Georgia's tagging system. There are some who will > get up in arms it, but I think it is very effective. Basically, you > have a green tag for all good, yellow for a 25 defeciency, and red for OOC or > impairment. > > Initially it was stated the owner had 24 hours to notify the AHJ > of a red tag, and that it was a "good" idea for the contractor to > notifiy the AHJ. Now it states the contractor will notify the AHJ as > well. Would you believe some owners didn't call it in? It also > serves as a nice visual indicator to code officials when they look at the > System Riser. > > R/ > Matt > John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Todd, > Normally we don't hear about these matters because the sprinkler contractor > finds the problem, calls the owner, gets authorization to repair, makes the > repair, end of subject. > What I'm addressing is when a contractor does not get authorization to make > repairs. Something the fire code typically requires to be done within 24 > hours. Its those situations when the repairs are not made that AHJ > notification is to occur. > PS, most property owners don't need the fire code to tell them that right > thing to do is maintain their sprinkler system in 100% operational order. > Then again there are those that do. I'm addressing the latter. > John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams > - work > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Article on Sprinkler Recall > If it were my property owner and a dangerous condition was pointed > out to me, I would want the chance to remedy it without it > necessarily becoming an enforcement issue. Enforcement should only be > for those who won't voluntarily comply. > At 07:38 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote: >>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) > 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) > > --------------------------------- > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. > _______________________________________________ > 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) -- Best regards, Charles mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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)
