Mike,

  Check with the local AHJ.  In DE we require vendors to report within a given 
time frame, typically one business day.  As Roland stated we would require the 
Fire Watch immediately, depending on the severity of the deficiency.  As for 
fixing the problem, the SFMO expects that to happen ASAP.  Parts availability 
is typically the most time consuming component of the problem.  Extended 
impairments would require an action plan to be submitted to, and accepted by 
the State Fire Marshal.

Duane T. Fox, Jr., CPFS, CFI, CFPE
Asst Chief, Technical Services
DE State Fire Marshal's Office


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland 
Huggins
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 11:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Response times to system deficiencies

Obviously there's nothing in 13 since that's an installation standard.  The 
main point is that there is no definitive timeline in NFPA 25.  You may want t 
look at the ROP and ROC since this issue was proposed and rejected by the TC.  
There is a NITMAM on it but the likelihood of it being added to 25 is about 1%. 
The reason nothing is added is that 25 already addresses it and if the current 
process is ignored what good will saying fix within 48 hrs or 2 weeks etc?  

If it is a serious deficiency, then it's an impairment.  If it's an impairment, 
then chap 15 is suppose to be activated.  Notifying the fire dept and insurance 
carrier, evacuating the building or assigning a fire watch etc etc should 
minimize the duration before repairs (IF THE PROCESS IS FOLLOWED).

Roland


On May 6, 2013, at 12:39 PM, "Morey, Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I swear this was written down somewhere but I can't seem to find it at the 
> moment.  I'm looking for NFPA 13/25/72 and/or IFC guidelines that address how 
> long one has to address a deficiency based on it's severity.  We work with a 
> single client, but their operations are split up into dozens of "areas" that 
> are in effect other clients.  We have some resistance when it comes to 
> scheduling and we're trying to build clearer and backed by code (or at least 
> an authoritative source) guidelines for how long maintenance work can wait.  
> Some of the maintenance in question is piddly little stuff, but some of it is 
> pretty serious and we'd like to better qualify how we respond.  I'm not real 
> concerned about edition of the code, I have access to the last 15 years or so 
> but recent editions are preferable.
> 
> Thanks in advance, 
> Mike Morey, SET, CFPS
> Sprinkler Designer
> BMW Constructors, Inc.
> O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111
> www.bmwc.com <http://www.bmwc.com/> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to