Hello forum members, I'm not sure the forum is the appropriate place for me to do a sales response but since I was asked..... and since I don't know Top, we should talk.
I specialize in fires/explosions/fire protection systems but MDE has several other specialists for a variety of problems. Keith Cline is a great materials engineer who has done a lot of steel and CPVC work and not just related to sprinkler systems. We can and do water testing for MIC and general corrosivity but since we don't provide water treatment chemicals or cleaning services, there are other companies that provide the testing services for less money than we can. However, we do analyze failed installations and components - pipes, sprinklers, gaskets, freezing, etc. for root cause analysis. Enough with the sales pitch. A couple of points that should be considered: 1. A nationwide reporting location would be very helpful. This helps document problems that are nationwide v. local. Local problems could be caused by one contractor, unusual weather, a bad batch of material, the local training group, local practices or a manufacturer that sells in one area. 2. A reporting location/group that crosses both AFSA and NFSA membership. There are other relevant organizations (NFPA, SFPE, FP Contractor, etc.) but my thoughts are that the people in the field doing the work need to be able to provide input into the "system". I do see different failure issues between AFSA and NFSA here in Washington, primarily because in the different projects that each group does. Insurance companies may collect some of the information we need but it probably would not be released for competitive purposes. 3. Development of the database should start with a division of types of problems. I would suggest that the database not be limited to CPVC pipe failures/problems although that seems to be one of the biggest problem areas right now. 4. A database of local experts that are qualified to analyze failures can be valuable since they could be used for training at local meetings. 5. As far as consideration of litigation cases - if the loss was big, it almost certainly is going to be involved with a claim and possible litigation. However, with permission of the insurance company or attorney, it should be reportable to the database. And now a general comment about how difficult it will be to establish a database to help find out the causes ..... because comprehensive information is needed, such as details of the installation, photographs, dates of installation, manufacturer of products, date of manufacture, brand of glue, etc.; all are important to analyze the failure. For example, we might need the date of manufacture to identify a bad batch. Installation dimensions are critical to rule out inadequate expansion provisions. How about temperature of installation or weather during delivery of pipe to rule out rough handling on a freezing day? What about getting a water sample from a filled branch to determine if there was contamination in the system? Taking a sample from the inlet will probably give you good water after a water loss and thousands of gallons of flowed water. How do you identify the brand of fire stop 3 years later? Or the brand of cutting fluid used by the contractor? Sometimes all we can find is the evidence of incompatible material but have no way to identify how it got there and who is responsible. Just to be clear (after the last pessimistic paragraph), I think it would be a great idea to set up the database. Unlike consumer products that have the CPSC to help track items, the building profession doesn't have a similar system. UL is worthless in this respect as they don't track the failures and modify standards or pull listings unless someone forces them to. I'm a member of AFSA, NFSA, NFPA and SFPE so I can present or publish some of the data through these groups but frankly, the data should be presented to the group most directly affected, the AFSA and NFSA members. My hypothesis is that the CPVC manufacturers will eventually come up with interior and exterior liners (multilayer extrusions) like was done with PEX (and steel) to eliminate some of the incompatibility issues and sensitivity to chemicals. As Top said, CPVC is too good a material not to be able to use it safely and reliably. Michael Michael M. Fitz, P.E., C.F.I. MDE Inc. 700 S. Industrial Way Seattle, WA 98108 www.MDE.com 206-321-1804 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Incompatible products with CPVC I'll hope Top can either confirm Mike's expertise in PCVC or Mike can acknowledge his willingness and competence to assist we contractors who have experienced CPVC issues. Mike, would it make sense to have one of the trade associations coordinate a program wherein you get a bunch of CPVC analysis work, and the association- and we contractors- get DATA on a series of incidents that otherwise remain isolated incidents and the industry doesn't see the true PATTERN -if there is one? We recently had a piece of pipe shatter and without thinking twice, we sent it to the mfr for analysis. Then it dawned on us that yes, we just sent the fox all of the remaining feathers for analysis after our chicken was eaten. I hear in the responses of others that it seems like deflecting claims is business as usual. An independent lab and centralized data collection makes a lot of sense to me- what do others think of the idea? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Incompatible products with CPVC When you want forensic work done best bet is Forum member Mike Fitz at MDE. I don't have the office phone and I'm not sure he'd want his mobile broadcast so here's the email: [email protected] On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Daniel Merkle <[email protected]> wrote: > I was just thinking the same thing. Does anyone know of an independent testing lab that can test CPVC pipe? > > I had a similar issue with pipe cracking a couple of months ago and > have gotten the run around from my supplier, and have had no contact from the cpvc manufacturer. (After assurances by my supplier on a number of occasions that the manufacturer would be in contact with me.) > > Daniel L. Merkle, CET > "COLONIAL" Fire Protection Systems Inc. > 937 Linden Ave. W. > E. Rochester, N.Y. 14445 > Office-(585) 381-7362 > Fax-(585) 381-8263 > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 8:41:41 AM > Subject: RE: Incompatible products with CPVC > > Maybe an independent testing lab would be better than sending it to > the manufacturer.Kind of like asking the fox to watch the hen house. > > > ---- Craig Leadbetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> I find it interesting that you state that the manufacturers have only >> found one loss due to cutting oil. >> >> We had a project where there were several piece of pipe that started >> to leak. When the faulty pipe was taken out of the system there were >> visible cracks, these cracks were not near the end of a pipe where >> cutting had taken place. >> >> We sent samples to the factory and they reported that they believe >> the fractures were caused by cutting oil weakening the product. >> >> I am sure am not the only contractor that has been given that report. >> Is it possible that because they are the manufacturer that they get >> to waive their magic wand and it is always something that the >> contractor did and never an issue with their product? >> >> We continue to install CPVC piping and have become very aware of the >> compatibility issues and the need to check the compatibility listings >> on the manufacturer's web sites. The compatibility list is an ever >> evolving document and frequent review of the site is recommended. >> >> >> >> Craig Leadbetter >> Safeguard of Marquette >> (P)906-475-9955 Ext 101 >> (F) 906-475-5474 >> (C) 906-362-5393 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Top >> Myers >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Incompatible products with CPVC >> >> Having read this string of emails it is like the story of the eight >> blind me describing an elephant. We all know what we know and feel >> but only have some of the picture and my biggest single complaint >> with CPVC is all the manufacturers have enjoyed cashing the checks of >> contractors who buy their product but have not been there to help >> with many of the problems, have not educated the general contractors, >> design professionals and AHJ's as to how to properly install CPVC and >> avoid issues. As a result we are seeing more and more contractors >> and property owners quietly using alternative products. This is >> unfortunate as CPVC is a great product which deserves better more >> realistic honest marketing. Some simple facts: >> >> - CPVC problems are not only one manufacturer >> - I have discussed with all major manufacturers and they have not >> been able to identify one job where problems came from cutting oil >> - Some of biggest losses involve fire stop listed for use with CPVC >> by UL but on Lubrizol incompatible list >> - Extra stress by hangers UL listed has contributed to losses >> - put light coating of solvent on fitting and more on pipe and you >> will not have paddling inside pipe which can cause cracks >> - Cat 5 wire can cause problems laying on CPVC. Solution is to keep >> wire off pipe and make sure everyone knows this >> >> CPVC can be installed without problems and our industry needs it. We >> need help and less marketing from the manufacturers and Lubrizol. >> >> Top Myers >> RelMark Group >> 961 Pottstown Pike >> Chester Springs, PA 19425 >> Office 610-321-2415 Cell 610-952-0965 [email protected] >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - >> FPDC >> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Incompatible products with CPVC >> >> The issue seems to be more when used with steel as opposed to on it's >> own. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 3, 2009, at 7:36 PM, "Terri Leyton" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > When will someone challenge the listing of the product? Whose >> > problem is it, if the product is properly approved and listed for >> > use by "approving agencies"? >> > >> > Just asking the question out loud. No opinion or advice being given. >> > T >> > >> > Terri Simmons Leyton >> > PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING >> > Ph: 858-751-2930 - ext. 101 >> > Fax: 858-751-2933 >> > Cell: 619-871-8450 >> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4588 (20091109) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
