Failure of Omega sprinkler heads
Steve A. Muncy
President
American Fire Sprinkler Association
Dallas, Texas
I congratulate Bill Manning for forthrightly addressing the failures in Omega sprinklers (“Silent Sentinels Under Fire,” Editor`s Opinion, September 1997). However, his portrayal of the American Fire Sprinkler Association position was incomplete and, in our opinion, not viewed from the proper perspective.
As pointed out in the editorial, Central Sprinkler and UL have traced failures in Omega heads to the presence of cutting oil or “stop-leak”-like products in the water. In our communications with members, AFSA has attempted to be very straightforward about the threat of failures with Central`s Omega heads. All AFSA contractor members have been notified of the problem and have been urged to submit to Central the names of their customers using Omegas so they can be tested. We have stressed that every installation containing the affected Omega models should be tested, and tested soon.
After the Associated Press released its story about the Omega failures, AFSA issued a statement addressing two primary concerns. First, we felt it very important to correct the inaccurate statements and perceptions that failures might be related to installation. The problems associated with the Omegas are not related to installation, and AFSA wanted to make sure this point was made.
To quote Manning`s editorial: “Cutting oils have been used in steel pipe fabrication since God made U.S. Steel,” and we completely agree with the statement that “it is difficult to imagine a party of `stop-leak bandits` conspiring from New York to Los Angeles.” This is a problem of product design, not installation.
Second, we believe the sensible solution to this problem is testing and replacement as needed. No amount of chest-beating will get this accomplished any faster. I have never known a situation in which panic solved a problem. There is no need for panic in the current scenario. A plan is in effect to test and replace Omega heads that fail. We believe that, if prudently carried out, this plan is a practical approach.
It is disturbing that despite the fact that Central and UL recognized and began addressing this problem more than a year ago, there is still a great deal of ignorance, even among those involved in the fire protection industry. While I disagree with some statements in the editorial, I applaud the efforts to educate the fire service on the seriousness of the situation. Only through education and diligence will this problem be solved.
