While your post may be informative in some manner, most of us working stiffs just don't have time to read a 600 or 700 word post at work. Say it. Keep to the point. And do it as succinctly as possible.
Thank You Thom McMahon, SET Firetech, Inc. 2560 Copper Ridge Dr P.O. Box 882136 Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 Tel: 970-879-7952 Fax: 970-879-7926 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rodney Hamm Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Concurrent Testing With regard to alarm system components, I would say it makes the most sense for the building owner to enter into an agreement with the sprinkler contractor to conduct the testing of the water flow switches, water flow pressure switches, air monitoring pressure switches, tamper switches, fire pump supervisory alarms and any actuation devices associated with deluge/preaction systems. A separate inspection agreement is warranted to ensure the fire alarm technicians are testing the audible alarm devices, visual alarm devices, smoke detectors, heat detectors, pull stations, alarm panels, alarm panel batteries, emergency lights, exit lights, and any other related devices (i.e. elevator return, HVAC interlocks, HVAC dampers, alarm system dialers, etc.). There is a significant amount of responsibility and many specifically outlined functions which each individual inspector (I mean sprinkler contractor vs. alarm technician) is required to complete to comply with NFPA. Flip through 25 & 72 and you will see what I mean. Some building owners are looking for a reasonably priced contractor which offers both services. They expect the company will send one SUPER INSPECTOR who is fully capable, certified and knowledgeable in both areas of expertise. The problem is that these companies are very hard to find and simply do not exist in many areas of the country, primarily because it is simply unrealistic to expect one employee to be knowledgeable and proficient in both areas (sprinkler system related & ALL of the fire alarm related functions). I am only aware of a few fire protection contractors in the southeast which even have competent, state certified employees in both areas of expertise. I am not so sure it is very wise approach since they are essentially accepting 100% of the potential liability, but they do charge a lot more money for the services they offer so just maybe it makes sense. Even these companies typically send two employees or more to cover the various responsibilities; assuming they are actually completing the inspection activities in accordance with NFPA. In my experience, the companies which were originally created as sprinkler contractors are very weak with regard the NFPA 72 fire alarm system testing activities and the companies which were originally created as fire alarm contractors are very weak with regard the NFPA 25 sprinkler system testing activities. On a similar note: In my personal opinion, most sprinkler contractors who offer sprinkler system inspections in conjunction with fire extinguisher inspections are typically weak in one of the two areas (if not both areas of expertise). Companies who claim they offer certified sprinkler system, fire pump, fire alarm, emergency/exit light, fire extinguisher, kitchen hood and fixed gaseous extinguishing system inspections are simply cutting corners; they might not be aware that their employees are cutting corners, but in most instances the employees are simply in way of their heads because the time, effort and knowledge required to complete all of the applicable inspection/testing activities is extensive. Inspectors for sprinkler contractors should obviously be well versed to handle the different types of water based fire protection systems at the facilities they visit. They should also have a certain comfort level and knowledge base with regard to the fire alarm panel and fire alarm components connected to the fire alarm system. If they cannot problem solve issues with the various alarm system components or if they are not prepared for incidents where the fire alarms do not silence or reset as expected, maybe they need additional training prior to being sent out to complete inspections without assistance. I also do not think NFPA should dictate or regulate who performs the testing. NFPA should stick to maintaining clear, concise, and consistent guidelines which outline the required inspection frequencies for the various system components. For the most part, NFPA 25 & NFPA 72 are fairly consistent regarding inspection frequencies. Place the responsibility on the building owner and let them decide how to meet the requirements. In other words, leave the responsibility to the building owner as it currently stands and let them decide the best arrangement for their facility. I will add one additional point...the enforcement of these requirements should improve. We have a problem in Georgia anyway, I wonder if the problem is nationwide? I have visited way too many facilities in Georgia and throughout the Southeastern United States which have expired inspection tags and there area a significant percentage of locations which have NEVER even had an inspection completed by a certified sprinkler contractor or a certified alarm company. The larger commercial facilities (likelihood of a more severe fire incident in many instances) located in the smaller towns and/or outside of city limits are more likely to have this problem than the smaller facilities. Seems like the fire department inspectors do not visit or do not ask about fire inspections at the larger facilities; based on my experience, inspections are warranted MUCH more at these facilities than most of the smaller locations. I am generally against government regulation, but maybe each state should consider a copy of the current fire inspection forms to verify inspections have been performed by a certified sprinkler contractor and a certified fire alarm company prior to issuing the annual business license or possibly some other annual renewal. If the company does not provide the required verification, send the fire department inspectors out for a quick visit to discuss the issue. The fact that it is required to obtain the annual business license would probably be enough incentive for most companies. Rodney K. Hamm, P.E. President/Owner Falcon Fire Protection Office (478) 953-1677 Cell (478) 396-6988 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.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)
