I'm assuming a 25 inspection. In Washington we require all inspectors to have a certification which is similar to NICET II but does not require as many elements or the time. The contractor he works for must have an special testing license (and is then restricted to wet and dry systems only) or a top level sprinkler contractor's license (we have some special stuff for contractors only doing SFD work). There are some exceptions for PEs and large organizations such as school districts, universities and large companies like Boeing that have trained staff normally engaged in fire protection issues (Boeing has it's own Fire Dept., FPEs, etc. for example). So here your furniture store owner with a wet pipe (I'm just creating a scenario for this guy) could do his own work as long as he got the proper contractor's license, the proper inspection certification, and/or was engaged in this type of business at least 21 hours per week or was a large institution with professionals on staff. You can't ban him completely because even I, the amateur lawyer, knows that to do so has some grounds as an unconstitutional act--A man's home is his castle and that can be argued to apply to his business--but you can regulate him, particularly when his actions have ramifications on public safety and almost all actions do unless you're that guy in the cabin in Alaska that seems always be on PBS during the always on beg-a-thon. Back a thousand years ago during the seventies when alternative housing methods were more in demand than now California was contemplating an occupancy classification (I can't recall the letter but I want to say G--these were the days of Ken Kern for those who remember him--I'd ask the Leytons if they remember but they're probably too young) that would be for things like homes not hooked up to the power grid, rammed earth, underground, etc. There were lots and lots of restrictions particularly where these could be done, how they had to be documented, etc. Never passed but the big consideration that killed it was not how it affected the guy that built it but the guy that subsequently bought it and the liabilities involved in what would not have actually been allowed sub-standard housing but the fact that that would be how it would be presented in court when the new owner sued the county for letting this guy build a house made from concrete and recycled wine bottles.Finally, you can argue that the precedent for restricting and/or punishing an individual whose actions regarding a building that endangers public safety, health or welfare goes back as far as Hammurabi.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Matthew J. Willis <[email protected]> wrote: > Bobby, what exactly is being challenged? Does the property owner want to > certify it themselves, or have the brother-in-law do it? Or is the fact that > Georgia requires it to be done? > > R/ > Matt > > > Matthew J. Willis, CET > Automatic Fire Sprinklers > Norred Fire Systems L.L.C. > 318-387-1134 Voice > 318-387-1163 Facsimile > [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bobby > McCullough > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 8:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: FW: City of Canton/Sprinkler Inspection > Importance: High > > Merry Christmas to all! > > I received this today. Has anyone already fought this battle? > > Bobby McCullough > Atlanta Sprinkler Inspection > [email protected] > > > > > From: Ben Lohman [mailto:[email protected]] > Subject: City of Canton/Sprinkler Inspection > > If you would send this message out to the GFIA ....Like to encourage all > members to attend. > > A property owner/manager has challenged the requirements of the State of > Georgia (Georgia Fire Laws and Regulations, Title 25) which states, one must > have the experience, have worked for a definite time period for a Licensed > Sprinkler firm, and have passed a NICET level 3 test, before you can certify > a sprinkler system. This will be a landmark decision if decided in favor > of the defendant. This could result in legal challenges to every Fire > department in the Great State of Georgia. We, as Fire Inspectors do not need > any unnecessary challenges to do our job especially dealing with the > operation of a sprinkler system in a life safety situation. The Annual > inspection and re-certification of Sprinkler systems is critical, with most > businesses trying to tighten up their bottom line, its not a welcome > expense, but must be maintained if the business is to remain open. > > The court date for the Motion Hearing is slated for January 15, 2010, at the > Canton City Hall Municipal Court... > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ 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)
