Sprinkler O-Ring

[colfire]

Please see attached picture. Has anyone run into this before? The rubber o-ring on this head has pushed out the side. Was this head recalled? It is a Globe Model JN 1998. I could not find any info on Globe's website.

 

[cdafd]

did you find any other heads in the building with the same condition??


does not look like yours:::

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07209.html

different one:::

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01201.html

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML99/99008org.html

 

[colfire]

Unfortunately, the building had one of these heads let go a couple of months ago. They did keep that head but had all the other heads replaced. This head is the one that caused the replacement. The building owner was having the insulation in the attic re-done and the insulation guys heard this head hissing. They were smart enough to change out all of those heads, but only kept the one.

 

[ContractorDave]

colfire

See attached pdf

Regards
Dave

 

[colfire]

lightecho,

Thank you for the list of recalled heads. It will definitely come in handy.

 

[FIES]

I am having the same problem with JN 1998 sprinklers from Globe. The information that I have gained is that these dry sprinklers had water in them and froze causing the o-ring to didplace. However I find it difficult to believe that the reduddancy in draining after a trip test by the tester and the owner's maintenance staff would have been missed. Have you had any luck in determining the cause of failure?

 

[FFP1]

Most (maybe even all) of the "J" series dry-type sprinklers manufactured by Globe between 1990-1999 have been recalled and should be replaced.

Do an internet search using globe dry recall and you will find all of the pertinent information.


Regarding the Globe Model JN (wet sprinkler) mention in the original post: I have seen problems with this sprinkler as well; however, based on my research, this sprinkler has not been recalled (please let me know if I am wrong and provide the internet link of they have been recalled)........I also wonder if this sprinkler should be officially recalled and I wonder if the CPSC has considered an official recall?

 

[NJ1]

Ok I can probably help on this one. The O-Ring Sprinkler head brochure that Central published in 2001 has most of the O ring sprinkler heads styles and year, however when you call the recalled hot line you will be surprised how many other heads are recalled. I just did a major investigation about a company that missed recalled dry heads in a building. Not only they failed to recommend 10 year testing but all the heads where recalled as well. They where M1-Star 1978. Even though the heads are not on the list they where manufacture by three different companies.
1)1961-1976 by Mealane Corp.
2)1977-1982 by American Household(Formerly Sunbeam Corp.)
3)1996-1998 by Central Sprinkler

My point is that you must be careful before you make a statement on the inspection report because most likely if it was manufacture by any of these comapnies even Globe it probably employs an O-Ring.

 

[FIES]

FFP1 &/or colfire,
Can you tell us what the problems with the JN sprinkler were? We are somewhat at a loss to identify a cause of failure.

 

[inspectortx2]

my guess is that head got water in the seat and froze thus pushing the rubber out have changed a lot of heads in attics for that reason

 

[NJ1]

My information from Globe insiders and or most dry heads manufacturers was that the o-ring would cause a leak but since a dry head is a pressurized cylinder it cause the cylinder body to loose pressure itself causing the o-ring to allow sprinkler water to leak.

 

[fireguy519345]

In reference to the post by NJ1, the ME-1 Star heads were recalled by Grinnel. By 2006, the recall had ended. There are still ME-1 heads out there, but there are still Omega and GB heads also.

 

[FFP1]

The o-ring design has leak potential AND a problem which has, can and will prevent the sprinklers from operating properly in fire incidents.

I have seen sprinklers with corrosion between the plug and the sprinkler frame which did not operate during a fire due to excessive resistance caused by the corrosion. We even knocked the bulb out of one sprinkler (with 60 psi on the system) to determine whether or not the head would operate..........plug stayed in place with 60 psi on the sprinkler and the bulb gone. The plug stayed in place EVEN when we hit the head with a hammer several times!!

I personally know some sprinkler contractors that tell their customers the Central O-Ring sprinkler recall is optional.......big mistake if you ask me!

 

[NJ1]

Thanks for that comment FPP1

There is no such thing as an optional replacement. I personally put three companies out of business in the past 5 years because of that mistake.
PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME ON THIS ONE OK. THIS COULD SAVE YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS.
Most recalls are voluntarily however it comes down to the authority having jurisdiction.
In this case the CPSC got involved. For those of you that dont know what that means is the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They rule all recalled products in the country. If they put certain product on the market that is subject to recall you must identify this product. If you miss this product during an inspection people like me will eat you alive in court for many reasons:
1) You have a web site that claims your inspections are comprehensive.
2) Your website indicates that your firm is on top of their game.
3) You claim that your inspectors are certify to perform their assign task.

Does anybody has any other questions?

Feel free to contact me at any time.

 

[FFP1]

NJ1 posted the following: "Most recalls are voluntarily however it comes down to the authority having jurisdiction."

There seems to be some confusion in our industry regarding sprinklers which have been recalled by the CPSC. I would like to provide a black & white (no gray area) comment:

The only "voluntary" aspect of the sprinklers listed by CSPC is the fact that the manufacturer agreed to "Voluntarily" recall the sprinklers prior to the CSPC deciding to take action to recall the sprinklers. Sprinklers listed by the CSPC are recalled; "voluntarily" or not, these sprinklers should be identified and replaced.........it is not acceptable to leave the recalled sprinklers in service.

NFPA 25 (2008) A.4.1.4 Recalled products should be replaced or remedied. Such replacement or remedial product should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the appropriate NFPA installation standards. A recalled product is a product subject to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requiring the manufacturer, importer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of a product, or any combination of such entities, to recall the product, or a product voluntarily recalled by a combination of such entities.

NFPA 25 (2008) 5.2.1.1.6 Sprinklers that are subject to recall shall be replaced per the manufacturer’s requirements.

PLEASE let me know if I am wrong regarding this matter.

 

[NJ1]

What is so wrong about what you said and what I said.
I have being telling sprinkler companies that even thought it was voluntarily by the manufacturer it is mandatory by the CPSC.
I have being saying that for years. What did I miss?

 

[spkreng]

What gets me is even though the CPSC mandated a recall how did Tyco (the receiver of omega o ring heads from Central) get away with only providing replacement parts (heads) and not labor? A lot of companies I know of quit selling this idea as the owner (rightfully) wasn't going to pay twice for what he thought was a UL listed product. I had toyed with the idea of targeting these buildings as when I was in MD and VA the Fire Marshals had no problem with me coming to their office and utilizing their existing on file prints for tenant renovations, pump connections (such as malls) etc..and I could then scan for the offenders (bad heads), contact owners and prepare a replacement plan......NOW if it was my car brakes, Ford would pay ALL charges....who's in who's pocket

spkreng, CET

 

[NJ1]

For your information Central did provided parts and labor. The downside is that the labor was to be provided by TYCO representative such as grinnell, etc.

If you hired some one else ouside that scope it would have to fit the marging of labor TYCO provided.

 

[spkreng]

true, true that was in the early stages. 80's -then Central got bought out and Labor allowance became a conditional documented (lets say 1 yr arbitration) and most contractors rightly opted out as no pay no fix

spkreng, CET

 

[NJ1]

Yeah just like I figure. It was onlyfor that time period tht you would obtain free labor and materials. That ended on August 2007.