Re: Every fire ext. in plant condemmed

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you are required to have such a device in your pool, NFPA72 would
require it to be constructed out of double walled stainless steel or
carbon fiber cylinder, which is clearly stated under the special
hazardous location exception.

This exception would also include an inspection tag be made out of a
material that cannot fade in direct sunlight, or exposure to harsh
chemicals. Stainless steel inspection tags are readilly available. They
are primarily used in the electric motor industry, and are required by
UL Labs.

So under NFPA72-HR676, your device would be covered. Your out of pocket
expense or co-pay will depend how long it takes the technician to hand
stamp each inspection tag. The industry average is 8 minutes per tag. In
the future, this time can be greatly reduced if service providers give
each technician a waterproof Dymo handheld stamping machine. This will
significantly increase productivity, and greatly help keep costs down.

Jim Rojas



allucan8@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Dec 14, 7:21 pm, Jim Rojas <jro...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
>
> How about the fire extinguisher in my pool? Will I be able to get
> coverage even though it tends to rust from the outside?
>>
>>
>> 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- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>