nfpa10

nfpa10

Postby redvan » Fri May 31, 2013 7:39

the bc fire code is saying that before 1984 extinguishers do not need to be replaced
any one know what the reasoning for the nfpa 10 requirement of disposing of them is ?
i could not get an answer from nfpa without joining them for about 175$
anyone?
redvan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:51

Re: nfpa10

Postby FIRETEK » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:06

I believe it has something to do with the fact that most dry chemical extinguishers manufactured prior to 1984 do not employ hoses. It was proven in independent testing that extinguishers with hoses are much easier for the average person to use. The "sweeping motion" suggested in the instructions for discharging an extinguisher at the base of a fire is more difficult to achieve with a fixed nozzle type unit. This illustrates perfectly that the "average British Columbian" has superior abilities over the "average American" because we obviously don't have this problem. :lol:
Frank Kurz
http://www.firetechs.net
1 (888) 340-3473
FIRETEK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:10
Location: Vancouver, B. C., Canada

Re: nfpa10

Postby redvan » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:00

i don't think that's it i have seen old flag 5lb that came with a hose
the one with a metal tip that looked like it has been squished in a vise
redvan
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:51

Re: nfpa10

Postby FIRETEK » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:52

Well I am a member of NFPA (paid the $175.00 to join last year), and that's the answer I got. I used "most" in my response, which doesn't mean "all". :-)

I'm familiar with the old flag units. I also seem to recall that it was in 1984 that all of the manufacturers were required to convert to hoses instead of nozzles.
Frank Kurz
http://www.firetechs.net
1 (888) 340-3473
FIRETEK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:10
Location: Vancouver, B. C., Canada

Re: nfpa10

Postby wildwest » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:35

Just to be clear, BC fire code has not officially adopted this regulation. Even though it is written in the NFPA10. It has only been considered GOOD practice to follow the newest NFPA standards(which are written in the Sates and adopted in Canada).
So just out of curiosity, according to what the last post has said, why would it not simply state: Fire extinguishers with nozzles be taken out of service? I have seen many extinguishers with and without nozzles/ hoses before this date and some being manufactured brand new to this day with both. There must be more to it than what is implied?
wildwest
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:22

Re: nfpa10

Postby FIRETEK » Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:11

Welcome to the Forum, Wild! I'll post the references in BCFC 2012:

Division B - Part 2 Sentence 2.1.5.1 (2) states: "Except as otherwise required by this Code, portable extinguishers shall be selected and installed in accordance with NFPA 10, "Portable Fire Extinguishers"."

Sentence 6.2.1.1 (1) (Division B - Part 6) states: "Portable extinguishers shall be inspected, tested and maintained in conformance with NFPA 10, "Portable Fire Extinguishers"."

BCFC 2012 references NFPA 10 (2007), specifically, in Table 1.3.1.2 in Division B - Part 1 but adds "<(except paragraph 4.4.1)>". The "<" and ">" indicate an amendment from the previous Fire Code (2006).

The newest NFPA Standard isn't referenced by BC Fire Code (2012) and any additional requirements (or new amendments) would therefore not be required under the Code (nor would they likely be enforceable). If your experience differs, then I'd be extremely interested in finding out how! :)
Frank Kurz
http://www.firetechs.net
1 (888) 340-3473
FIRETEK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:10
Location: Vancouver, B. C., Canada

Re: nfpa10

Postby wildwest » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:19

Hello FIRETEK, I apologize. I have just moved from out of province and have been learning the difference. I did not have a copy of the 2012 BCFC and was ill informed, thank you for clearing that up. This is the whole reason I decided to join your site :) I am also looking for suppression topics, and topics on company certifications if there are any?
wildwest
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:22

Re: nfpa10

Postby FIRETEK » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:24

No need to apologize. And, once again, welcome to the forum (and to B.C.). What area of the Province are you setting up in?

As to company certifications, the main Kidde/Badger distributor is in Vancouver. I can send you Ken's contact information if you're looking to renew your current certification or need information on setting up. Feel free to call or email me.
Frank Kurz
http://www.firetechs.net
1 (888) 340-3473
FIRETEK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:10
Location: Vancouver, B. C., Canada

Re: nfpa10

Postby wildwest » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:34

Thank you for any help I can possibly get. I have been looking at re-certification online with Range Guard, as well as Amerex. I would like to get on an Ansul course since there are many systems out here and no one apparently to work on them. I am most interested to know more about things like WorksafeBC which I am having difficulties, as well as ATTBC, shop and Mobile Certification.
I would like to do things properly as I have competition who are very shady. Someone is going to get hurt and sued and would like the chance to make it better out here before that happens.

I have good ethics and wish all in this industry would take the time to think about what they are doing before they do it? Anyone can sign a tag or slap a sticker on a cylinder, but people are trusting their lives with your work. Easy money is not that answer.
Sorry for being frustrated but I am struggling to get going, while others are making a mockery of a great Industry and I get a little worked up.

I would like to mention my location but as I am not up and running yet I do not want my competition to get a heads up. I don't openly name and slam people publicly, they are doing that on their own. I just wish I could figure out how they have been getting away with it for this long and how I explain to customers that the work previously done is not even close to right? I now have to build a trust relationship with my customer base and not loose them to " I am going with the cheap guys who have been doing it this way for years" type of mentality. I just hope customers will listen and learn with reason.
I have and would like to continue to work with the all local Fire Departments to make a positive change.
wildwest
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:22

Re: nfpa10

Postby FIRETEK » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:47

It doesn't matter where you're working (unless it happens to be in the Lower Mainland), in which case what I'm about to say is a fairly moot. I would urge you to try and obtain "Interim" status with ASTTBC as a Registered Fire Protection Technician (RFPT). The Code of Ethics and the Practice Guideline actually mandate that you report illegal/unethical practices by others (whether they're fellow RFPT's, or not). This doesn't limit you to filing a complaint with ASTTBC alone. You should be forwarding a copy of it to the local Fire Department as well. The ONLY WAY we can all have a direct POSITIVE influence on the industry (and improve the Standard of Practice) is to follow ASTTBC's Practice Guideline TO THE LETTER.

I, too, feel your frustration and while I'm not formally registered with ASTTBC, I have adopted the Practice Guidelines and follow them. When you file a formal complaint against an ASTTBC Registered Technician, the process that follows allows the the subject of the complaint to review what you've said about them. This is only fair in that it helps to legitimize the complaint. The technician then has the opportunity to explain why he did what he did, and re-butt (if he feels the reasons for his actions were somehow legitimate). This information is sometimes referred back to you for comment. The decision is then made as to whether the matter should be escalated to a formal hearing. In many instances I've been involved in, the Practice Review Board responds by stipulating the technician must comply with certain conditions, pay a fine (or both).

I've actually taken the process a step further. Many have speculated that the Burning Brick Awards is a way for me to "get back" at some individuals that have somehow injured or rejected me in the past. It's a great deal more than singling out the company under whose auspices the conduct of the Registered Technician has performed substandard work or blatantly violated the Standard of Practice/Code of Ethics. It serves to demonstrate exactly what NOT to do in clear, concise terms. The fact that a number of companies continue to be featured should be ringing alarm bells within the Jurisdictions in which they practice all over North America. While some of these companies have decided to pursue a more confrontational tactic in an effort to intimidate us into removing what they consider to be offensive (and inaccurate) material, others have actually taken steps to rectify their technician's behaviour. Levitt Safety stands as a shining example of the latter. Would "dumbing down" the award by removing any reference to the offending company have the same effect? I can honestly state: NO! It won't! Such generic pictures of failed inspections, etc. have been circulating in the industry for years, yet the same shoddy work continues to be a blight.

If you have any examples of shoddy work you'd like to share, please send it along. Neither your name or your new company's information (or the technician whose name appears on the bogus inspection tag/report), will ever be mentioned.

In closing, I encourage you to continue to pursue that higher standard. It is, ultimately, the goal a number of like-minded individuals here share!
Frank Kurz
http://www.firetechs.net
1 (888) 340-3473
FIRETEK
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:10
Location: Vancouver, B. C., Canada

Next

Return to Fire and Building Code Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest