Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    RClark
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default FIRE PREVENTION FORUM

    I am interested in visiting and participating in discussions relative to fire prevention issues.


    ------------------
    R. Clark



  2. #2
    Tom LaCorte
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    I find little information on the net on fire protection/prevention issues. I would love to see Firehouse have more stuff on this topic. What are departments doing with the Omega Sprinkler problem? What are departments doing with food cooking operations that have switched from animal fat oil to vegatable oil in the deep fat fryers. The old dry chemical systems will not control a fire in a vegatable oil deep fat fryer.

  3. #3
    Halon
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    Hi Tom,

    Protection/Prevention - Me too. Just found this forum. I will participate in the future.

    Omega problem - Notifing businesses and assisting with determining if they have them and advising them to contact Omega.

    Food cooking operations - Recommend changing to UL 300 type systems. We have discovered that the manufactures have discontinued making parts for the older non UL 300 compliant systems. This causes the eventual upgrade of the systems.

    Ken
    kclamer@xtalwind.net

  4. #4
    Marshalett
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    I too am interested in exchanging ideas and thoughts on Fire and Injury prevention. Our area fire marshals are in discussion right now determining what actions we'll take regarding the hood extinguishing system dilemma. Regarding the Omega sprinkler issue, our area sprinkler installers are taking this issue to task. I hope this forum catches on!!

    ------------------


  5. #5
    Tom LaCorte
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    In New Jersey the Bureau of Fire Safety passed a regulation requiring all deep fat fryers used vegetable oil to be replaced with wet chemical systems. It lasted for about 3 months when the restaurant association contacted the Governors office and had the regulation overturned, it seems it cost too much to correct the situation. So the regulation now requires a wet chemical fire extinguisher be placed next to the fryer.So we continue to loose business that have dry chemical systems in place. It looks like the manufactures of the systems will take care of the problem in time. Ansul has indicated as of 1/1/99 they will no longer service dry chemical systems. So as these systems need repair the business will have a choice, replace or take out of service! What do you think they will do???? We need to be on the look out for business that decided to forgo the protection! So gang what do you think??

    ------------------


  6. #6
    JAY FROM OHIO
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    My dept. is a small village and township based dept. Does anyone have suggestions of fire prevention and life safety activities to do for the "fun days" our dept. sponsers. We have a shoestring budget and limited manpower. Currently, we do a smokehouse, but the community, I think has lost interest in it. HELP!!!!
    Thanks, Johneen

  7. #7
    RClark
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Default

    Does anyone have any word on failure of new Gamewell local energy boxes. We can cite about 8 where the master shunt failed to operate and send a signal back to dispatch.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Tinley Park Illinois USA
    Posts
    18

    Default pub ed

    My name is Jim and I work for the Tinley Park Fire Dept in Illinois. I am currently looking to start a program for the new Hotels we have in town. And also for the nursing homes. I am looking to do fire safety for both employees and residents of the hotels and nursing homes. Does anyone out there have any kind of program in effect already? Or does anyone have any suggestions? If anyone can help,please E Mail me at JGASKILL@tinleypark.org.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    77

    Default Gamewell Boxes

    Quote Originally Posted by RClark
    Does anyone have any word on failure of new Gamewell local energy boxes. We can cite about 8 where the master shunt failed to operate and send a signal back to dispatch.
    Its been about 15 years since I worked on Gamewell boxes. Are you saying that Gamewell has come out with a new local energy box, as opposed to an old local energy box (i.e. the ones that I used to work on) or as compared to the shunt trip style box?
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of suppression! Sometimes even more!

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom LaCorte
    In New Jersey the Bureau of Fire Safety passed a regulation requiring all deep fat fryers used vegetable oil to be replaced with wet chemical systems. It lasted for about 3 months when the restaurant association contacted the Governors office and had the regulation overturned, it seems it cost too much to correct the situation. So the regulation now requires a wet chemical fire extinguisher be placed next to the fryer.So we continue to loose business that have dry chemical systems in place. It looks like the manufactures of the systems will take care of the problem in time. Ansul has indicated as of 1/1/99 they will no longer service dry chemical systems. So as these systems need repair the business will have a choice, replace or take out of service! What do you think they will do???? We need to be on the look out for business that decided to forgo the protection! So gang what do you think??

    ------------------
    Politics and safety often don't mix. Fortunately, if they've changed the oil to vegetable here, we can make them put a new wet chemical system in over the deep fat friers.
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of suppression! Sometimes even more!

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    77

    Default Slow day in Fire Prevention forum

    How old are these posts, anyway?
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of suppression! Sometimes even more!

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Jay ....

    Just a clarification please. I assume that you are looking for activities that the public can do? Adults and kids? Just kids? Just adults?

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1

    Default UL 300 vs. Wet Systems

    I am dealing with a property that has an older wet chemical fire suppression system that is not UL 300 compliant. The service vendor has been passing the semi-annual inspection for many years. I questioned the nozzle placement on the system, as it was partially obstructed by a back shelf on the stove top. I voiced my concerns to the vendor, who ignored me, and then to our State Fire Marshal's Office (SFM). The SFM then came back and said the system had to be upgraded to UL 300 compliance in addition to removing the shelf/moving the nozzle. The issue of UL 300 compliance has been questioned by the property rep. because the system is intact from the 1980's and no equipment has been moved or replaced. It is a wet chemical system, just not UL 300 compliant. To further complicate the issue, there are no deep-fat fryers, only a griddle and stove. The issue of animal fat vs. vegetable oils really doesn't come into play, and its a wet system anyway. Has anyone else ran across this situation? We are only concerned with nozzle placement, but the vendor has been told by the SFM the system must be upgraded. The property rep. wants code references why it must be upgraded, but we really haven't been able to find anything. It all appears to be the manufacturer's who are saying they won't support the older systems, but this system has been maintained. If we tell the property rep. to only move the nozzles we will be happy, but when the system is tagged non-compliant by the vendor, as told to them by the SFM who controls their license, we will have to make them upgrade. The SFM has no enforcement over this property, only over the vendor. As the local AHJ, we have found no code or specific requirement for the UL 300 upgrade, only moving the nozzles. However, when the vendor tags the system as non-compliant, as they were told by the SFM, we will have to enforce the upgrade, although we don't necessarily agree or see the code basis for it. Does anyone have any more insight into the justification for upgrading to UL 300 when it is already a wet chemical system with no equipment changes since it was installed?

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    77

    Default Pre "UL 300" Wet Chemical kitchen hood systems

    "Another fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie."

    I believe that your interpretation of the code requirements is correct, barring a specific law affecting your jurisdiction requiring the upgrade. I have a similar problem with two hood systems at my facility, however, my wet chemical systems also protect deep fat fryers.

    The route to getting concurrence from the SFM office may be a long one, requiring research on the UL listing of the existing system at the time it was installed. Since the impetus for changing the UL 300 standard from dry to wet chemical was the ability to control fires in deep fat fryers, you may have an easier time than I will, because I will need to look at the ability of the wet chemical system to control deep fat fyer fires prior to the change in the UL 300 standard. Manufacturers tried hard to meet the revised UL 300 requirements with dry chemical and couldn't do it; but the non-deep fat fryer protection using wet chemical systems should be well documented as a part of the original listing for the system. You will need to mine the archives of the system manufacturer and UL to do this successfully. Once you understand the nature of any changes to the requirements in UL 300 for non-deep fat fryers (and hopefully there are none or they were only minor changes from the listing requirements for wet chemical systems), your next task will be to convince the SFM office.

    I need to look at this too, but since I "own" the systems and the issue has already been identified as needing correction, and I am dealing with deep fat fryers, it may be easier for me to request funding for an upgrade to these older systems. I am willing to share any information that I gain in my process. I can be reached at dhavenshome@yahoo.com.

    Regards,
    Dwight H. Havens
    Last edited by dhavenshome; 07-17-2007 at 06:41 PM.
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of suppression! Sometimes even more!

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default Just wondering

    are you still asking for advice on this fire system issue? I can clarify justification but are you still looking for advice.?






    Quote Originally Posted by HILLTOPFD View Post
    I am dealing with a property that has an older wet chemical fire suppression system that is not UL 300 compliant. The service vendor has been passing the semi-annual inspection for many years. I questioned the nozzle placement on the system, as it was partially obstructed by a back shelf on the stove top. I voiced my concerns to the vendor, who ignored me, and then to our State Fire Marshal's Office (SFM). The SFM then came back and said the system had to be upgraded to UL 300 compliance in addition to removing the shelf/moving the nozzle. The issue of UL 300 compliance has been questioned by the property rep. because the system is intact from the 1980's and no equipment has been moved or replaced. It is a wet chemical system, just not UL 300 compliant. To further complicate the issue, there are no deep-fat fryers, only a griddle and stove. The issue of animal fat vs. vegetable oils really doesn't come into play, and its a wet system anyway. Has anyone else ran across this situation? We are only concerned with nozzle placement, but the vendor has been told by the SFM the system must be upgraded. The property rep. wants code references why it must be upgraded, but we really haven't been able to find anything. It all appears to be the manufacturer's who are saying they won't support the older systems, but this system has been maintained. If we tell the property rep. to only move the nozzles we will be happy, but when the system is tagged non-compliant by the vendor, as told to them by the SFM who controls their license, we will have to make them upgrade. The SFM has no enforcement over this property, only over the vendor. As the local AHJ, we have found no code or specific requirement for the UL 300 upgrade, only moving the nozzles. However, when the vendor tags the system as non-compliant, as they were told by the SFM, we will have to enforce the upgrade, although we don't necessarily agree or see the code basis for it. Does anyone have any more insight into the justification for upgrading to UL 300 when it is already a wet chemical system with no equipment changes since it was installed?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts