Re: Every fire ext. in plant condemmed

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Those are either HMO or PPO fire extinguishers. The service provider may
have denied the request to recharge the extinguishers because of the
preexisting conditions. In addition: Recharging and inspecting these
same extinguishers year after year is considered a wasteful and
unnecessary expense. Furthermore, Recharging any old fire extinguisher
manufactured prior to 1991 as stated in NFPA72 Section 5, Paragraph 13,
subparagraph 7, line 6 may be deemed as experimental.

Now if we had a national fire extinguisher healthcare plan, all fire &
supression extinguishers of any type, regardless of chemical
composition, or container type would have been covered under the
proposed NFPA72-HR676.

This proposed plan would cover all fire & supression devices, no matter
what service provider you currently have. So whether the extinguisher is
in a high rise office building, in your car or boat, or at the local
barber shop, it will be covered under this plan.

Jim Rojas


Nick Markowitz Jr. wrote:
> One of my industrial customers had an insurance inspection this week and was
> advised to get all fire extingquishers in plant inspected after the under
> writer found most units were 1 year past there inspection.
> The local guy I refer to my customers spent 3 hrs in plant and called me
> down to show me 90% of the exstinghuishers had not been hydrotested in over
> 12 years there were 50's era exstinghuishers still being used and apparently
> the previous service the plant was using was doing nothing more than
> changing tags every year.
> in all 100% of the exstinghuishers had to be condemmed for rust and being
> obsolete and illegal to use. All the while this other service was comming in
> and passing everything
> Needless to say my customer is going to take legal action against the
> previous service company
>
>